Amendment on the block

[title edited, since it appears TJIC has pulled his own blog pending legal...]

http://borepatch.blogspot.com/2011/01/i-am-tjic.html

Whatever you believe about the 2nd, I hope you seriously consider the 1st and say with me...I am TJIC...

"It was not a famous Massachusetts citizen who said We must all hang together, or surely we will all hang separately. Benjamin Franklin was more circumspect than the men from Massachusetts, such as Sam Adams, who said this:

Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say 'what should be the reward of such sacrifices?' Bid us and our posterity bow the knee, supplicate the friendship and plough, and sow, and reap, to glut the avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in our blood and hunt us from the face of the earth? If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!

"Eliminationist rhetoric right there. Clearly, the Arlington Police would have seized his firearms. What a sad, degraded state for a once proud Commonwealth. It seems that I got out just in the nick of time."

http://reason.com/blog/2011/01/25/the-saga-of-travis-corcoran

"Last week, law enforcement officials in Arlington, Massachusetts seized the (legally owned) guns of Travis Corcoran, a blogger and owner of an online comic book store. They also revoked Corcoran's gun permit. They were responding to posts on Corcoran's blog, TJICistan..."

His response, commented here: http://www.eternityroad.info/index.php/weblog/single/i_am_tjic/

"11. > Did they revoke your concealed carry permit, or did they confiscate your firearms all together?

I was told that if I voluntarilly surrendered my firearms, as a “show of good faith”, that my LTC would not be revoked. On the advice of counsel, I did so.

As soon as that transaction was completed, my LTC was yanked. Whether this was planned all along or not, I can not say. Technically, it has not been “revoked”, it has been “suspended”.

In either case, it sure feels like my RKBA has been infringed.

> if they revoked your firearms, did they have a warrant to do so, and under what authority?

MA is a “may issue” state.

As I understand it, under the law, the Chief of Police may revoke my right to store in MA, or carry in MA, firearms, but he may not confiscate them.

None the less, when my LTC was suspended, I was ORDERED to turn in all of my firearms; moving them out of state was not presented as an option.

> Do you have a legal defense fund set up somewhere where we can donate?

At this point in time my legal bills are noticeably but not crushing (my lawyer is ~$500/hr, and other experts we’ve called in have their own price tags). I own a home and a business, and would - at this point in time - feel awkward about accepting any help when there are so many more worthy folks out there. Please feel free to drop an extra $5 in the church collection plate, or give it to the local animal shelter or home for battered women to help those truly in need.

If this legal battle escalates, I reserve the right to revist this topic, of course!

> As you know from my comments on your website, I disagreed with you at the time you posted that. However, no matter how boorish or insensitive your statements, they were not an incitement to violence, that much is clear. What you said was “One down, 534 to go” which to me is no more an incitement to violence than the joke that goes something like this: “What do you call 500 lawyers on the bottom of the ocean?” ... a good start!”

Indeed, the post was meant as an homage to that exact joke.

> And no, Fran, it isn’t lock and load time.

Agreed. I had a long post up on my site, before I took it down, analyzing America’s current political situation in terms of the four point test of Catholic Just War doctrine. I also conclude that we currently only satisfy two of the four points.

> I think this will be turned around in court in very short order.

I’ve got my fingers crossed ... and a good legal strategy, which is a bit more important!

Thank you, all, for your support.

Posted by TJIC on 01/20/2011 at 02:53 PM

Gag!

The other story on this event continues...

"As KGUN9 News has reported, some critics have suggested that some statements from the Sheriff's Department -- particularly those from Sheriff Clarence Dupnik -- could serve to work against prosecutors."

http://www.kgun9.com/Global/story.asp?S=13870560

"When Sheriff Dupnik said he thought Jared Loughner is mentally unbalanced and possibly influenced by sharp, angry political talk, conservative commentators directed sharp angry political talk towards the sheriff.

"Now a legal pundit on Fox News is suggesting Dupnik's comments on Loughner's mind may help Loughner build an insanity defense."

http://www.kgun9.com/Global/story.asp?S=13841487

As they say, "We want to know What he knew, and When he knew it!"

Tucson debate

The Case for Arming Yourself - Room for Debate - NYTimes.com

www.nytimes.com

Limiting clip size won’t lower crime -- if only criminals get higher clips, they have an advantage.

• • 
    
  • The "opinion", which mostly cited anecdotal evidence, was in the NYT. But so were several others, on the other side of this debate. I liked the position by James Fox, "More Guns Means More Guns" at http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/01/11/more-guns-less-crime/more-guns-means-more-guns which seems more reasonable from more of an authority.

    
    
  • Thanks for mentioning that, Jim. Armed resistance may not dissuade criminals (tho overwhelming statistics say it does--Fox must be very selective to deny that), but the writer also conveniently fails to mention one of the heroes was armed when he made the tackle. Perhaps the fact he was armed gave him more confidence to stop further killings. More reprehensible is Fox's implication that there was something wrong with non-law enforcement being involved in maintaining law and order: "it wasn't clear which one was the perpetrator among those struggling for control." Sorry no uniformed cops were there, so "we the people" did the job. Obviously this kind of thinking is utilized by gun control advocates. Fox did rightly note the importance of Luby's Cafeteria and that AZ has ironically (in name) "liberal" gun laws. I frequent that store with my children, and I'm glad to have the option of defending myself and them...
    
    

    • I could relate to John Cory's comment athttp://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/4600-american-madness that "nothing protects innocent life like a mob of armed citizens shooting back and forth at one another." That image is particularly poignant right now here in Seattle where a well trained police officer has been accused of unjustly shooting and killing a street person. If a well trained police officer can't always make the right decision, I'm not sure the help of several other armed citizens would help.
    • 
      

      Jim, that's sheer "Wild West" propaganda. Please let me know where that has occurred since Florida's 2005 passing of the Castle Doctrine and consequent exponentially increasing gun sales. No, instead we see plummeting of violent crime rates. We have a saying: "When seconds count, police are only minutes away." For all the violent crime reported in the mainstream media, too bad they don't report the crimes which are stopped by armed citizens. Of course no news is good news. I encourage you to peruse "The Armed Citizen" for a few months and let me know what you think of this topic: http://www.americanrifleman.org/blogs/armed-citizen-january-2011
      /

      about an hour ago

    • I did do a little independent research to try and verify some stats prepared by the Violence Policy Center athttp://www.vpc.org/press/0905gundeath.htm What I found was that it's a supercharged topic and there is very little rational thought or reliable statistics on either side. No doubt there are some real "facts" but I haven't found any I trust yet. Meanwhile I do trust my own experiences based on my third world travels, life in inner city neighborhoods, work with delinquent youth and my left wing anti war past. I have found that guns are an attractive nuisance - more likely to be involved in suicides and accidents than helpful in protecting against assault or home invasion. And as for the Second Amendment goes, I agree with the intent but it's way out of date. With my pistol or shotgun I wouldn't stand a chance defending against an oppressive government armed with assault rifles, infrared detection and long range listening devices backed up with helicopter gun ships and drone missiles. I'd be more likely to be shot if I did have a gun.
    • about an hour ago
      
      

      Jim, it could be argued that 3rd world countries became that way at least in part via the disarming of the populace: thus the overt intent of our 2nd Amendment. However, what is not stated, but found in innumerable other accounts by the founding fathers—as well as “common sense” until late-20th Century America--is the indisputable right to defend oneself and responsibility to defend one's family. This is how I see this argument: one either believes we the people are sheep under the protection of the government-shepherd, or we are responsible for ourselves and the government is our servant. You likely see that as a false portrayal...how do you see our relationship vis a vis the gov't?

      about an hour ago
    • 
      

      Maybe like you, Clint, I see the relationship between the people and the government as adversarial. I'd go a step farther and argue that it's even worse than that - it's an adversarial relationship between the people and the combined power of the government doing the bidding of the corporations. That's by definition, fascism.
      
      So, for me owning guns or not is a matter of tactics. Americans still believe in fairness and we have a government with the trappings, if not always the reality, of rule of law. And we have a media which, while increasingly subjective and polarized, at least in theory shines the light and keeps a check on corporate greed and overreaching government.
      
      In Somalia or Afghanistan, where guns are plentiful and government corrupt and rule of law non-existent, owning a gun might be your only defense. You would still be up against armed bands out to kill you and it might, even in that situation, be more effective to work toward peace, disarmament and an effective government as is being attempted now in Sudan. By the way your premise that "3rd world countries became that way at least in part via the disarming of the populace" is just not consistent with the facts.
      
      In America we are not badly off yet. We still do, as I say, have the trappings, if not the reality, of rule of law. I think a non-violent approach modeled after Gandhi or MLK would be far more effective and successful than arming ourselves and waiting for the SS comes to get us.
      
      On a much more personal level I just can't imagine who I would shoot. As I've said, I would probably not be ready and would not be able to defend myself against an armed and awake burglar or attacker. I'd be better off with a whistle, mace and a cell phone or asking the attacker if his mother knew what he was doing. Would-be attackers are likely to be kids on drugs or people desperate about something. They might be pretty much like some members of our own families or the families of people we know. I don't want to kill them.
      
      And to defend against the government or some real but amorphous and intangible corporate enemy? Just who do I shoot? The town cop? The Exxon gas station attendant? I am not in to being a sheep but I don't think I can realistically protect myself from my government with a gun. It would be better to persuade, organize, write articles and support the people when and where they are attacked and abused.

      about an hour ago
    • 
      

      Jim, I have other friends who also think guns should not be in the hands of non-law enforcement, and they too would rather use a cell phone or mace than a firearm to defend themselves. I just can't agree in this post-modern concept. If myfamily is attacked with lethal force, it's my responsibility at least to try to save them, right now. I also don't agree with the adversarial relationship concept about the government. Call me an idealist: I still believe in positive change, through initiative, referendum, recall, elections, etc. If I didn't think it was the best on earth, believe me brother, I'd leave. I don't know about 2nd Amendment rights in Somalia and Sudan, but I sure wouldn't want to move there, and this is hard to ignore:
      
      http://jpfo.org/pdf02/genocide-chart.pdf
      
      Gandhi: "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest. If we want the Arms Act to be repealed, if we want to learn the use of arms, here is a golden opportunity. If the middle classes render voluntary help to Government in the hour of its trial, distrust will disappear, and the ban on possessing arms will be withdrawn."
      
      "As we have seen, the first public expression of disenchantment with nonviolence arose around the question of "self-defense." In a sense this is a false issue, for the right to defend one's home and one's person when attacked has been guaranteed through the ages by common law." Martin Luther King, Jr
      
      And Never Forget April 19, 2011 will be the 68th anniversary of the final battle of the Warsaw Jewish Ghetto uprising.
      
      "In early April, German soldiers began rounding up Jews for their final shipment to work camps. On April 19th, Passover eve, a group of less than 20 of them began fighting back, by killing a single German soldier, stealing his gun, and killing another, then another, and so on until perhaps 1000 men were armed and fighting back against the entire German army. An entire brigade worth of Germans were killed, along with 6,000 of the approximately 7000 Jews resident in the Ghetto. It ended on May 16th in a massacre by poison gas. The last of the fighters were trapped in a few buildings, and some sewer tunnels. They flooded the tunnels with gas, and then went in and exterminated all but a few who they saved for show trials. 6,000 died on their feet, rather than on their knees.
      "
      
      

      • Clint, Anyone can write anything on facebook or the Internet. Your information about Gandhi and MLK and others is twisted or out of context at best and seems to come from the website, "http://jpfo.org/" Jews for the Preservation of FirearmsOwnership (JPFO) which is a 4,000 member group dedicated to the preservation of gun rights and founded by former firearms dealer Aaron S. Zelman. I've read history more broadly from a variety of view points, especially the history of India and China and I don't buy the premise that disarming the population leads to genocide. Look at England.

        Sunday at 11:32am ·
      • 
        

        Jim, this is backed up by facts...According to the BBC News, handgun crime in the United Kingdom rose by 40% in the two years after it passed its draconian gun ban in 1997. "Handgun crime 'up' despite ban," BBC News Online (July 16, 2001) athttp://news.bbc.co.uk/low/english/uk/newsid_1440000/1440764.stm. England is a prime example of how crime has increased after implementing gun control. For example, the original Pistols Act of 1903 did not stop murders from increasing on the island. The number of murders in England was 68 percent higher the year after the ban's enactment (1904) as opposed to the year before (1902). (Greenwood, supra note 1.) This was not an aberration, as almost seven decades later, firearms crimes in the U.K. were still on the rise: the number of cases where firearms were used or carried in a crime skyrocketed almost 1,000 percent from 1946 through 1969. (Greenwood, supra note 1 at 158.) And by 1996, the murder rate in England was 132 percent higher than it had been before the original gun ban of 1903 was enacted. (Compare Greenwood, supra note 1, with Bureau of Justice Statistics, Crime and Justice in the United States and in England and Wales, 1981-96, Bureau of Justice Statistics, October 1998).
        "You are more likely to be mugged in England than in the United States," stated the Reuters news agency in summarizing the study. "The rate of robbery is now 1.4 times higher in England and Wales than in the United States, and the British burglary rate is nearly double America's."6 The murder rate in the United States is reportedly higher than in England, but according to the DOJ study, "the difference between the [murder rates in the] two countries has narrowed over the past 16 years."

        Monday at 9:17am ·
      • 
        

        From the article linked above, uncanny and timely info for the US today: "A new study suggests the use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the two years after the weapons were banned.
        The research, commissioned by the Countryside Alliance's ...See More

        Monday at 9:21am ·
      • 
        

        It's more of a point of view than a fact, Cllint. The Countryside Alliance's Campaign for Shooting clearly is a pro-gun lobby and the "other side" says it's more complicated than that and the reason for the increase in crime is illegal international gun sales that criminals, but not law abiding citizens, take advantage of. So, once you regulate guns it's easier for police to identify and regulate criminals but the crime rate might take a while to drop.
        
        Crime and gun control really isn't my issue. I just don't need to have a gun because I think I'm safer without one. But I'd be interested in whether crime with a gun went up or down in Chicago and New York after their strict gun laws were overturned recently - as reported by a legitimate news source like the NYT, Wall Street Journal or the Washington Post that practices "fact verification".

        Monday at 11:08am ·
      • 
        

        Will you accept the Washington Times?http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jan/21/guns-decrease-murder-rates/
        
        "According to D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty, more guns in homes would cause more violent crime.
        
        "This has never been the case. Local politicians enthusiastically embraced the 1977 handgun ban predicting it would make Washington a safe place by dramatically reducing murder rates. But they were as wrong three decades ago as they are now.
        
        "A telling story is illustrated by the murder numbers since the handgun ban and gun-lock bans were struck down. Between 2008 and 2009, the FBI's preliminary numbers indicate that murders fell nationally by 10 percent and by about 8 percent in cities that have between 500,000 and 999,999 people. Washington's population is about 590,000. During that same period of time, murders in the District fell by an astounding 25 percent, dropping from 186 to 140. The city only started allowing its citizens to own handguns for defense again in late 2008.
        
        "Few who lived in Washington during the 1970s can forget the upswing in crime that started right after the ban was originally passed. In the five years before the 1977 ban, the murder rate fell from 37 to 27 murders per 100,000. In the five years after the gun ban went into effect, the murder rate rose back up to 35. One fact is particularly hard to ignore: D.C.'s murder rate fluctuated after 1976 but only once fell below what it was in 1976 before the ban. That aberration happened years later, in 1985.
        
        "This correlation between the D.C. gun ban and diminished safety was not a coincidence. Look at the Windy City. Immediately after Chicago banned handguns in 1982, the murder rate, which had been falling almost continually for a decade, started to rise. Chicago's murder rate rose relative to other large cities as well. The phenomenon of higher murder rates after gun bans are passed is not just limited to the United States. Every single time a country has passed a gun ban, its murder rate soared."

        Monday at 11:55am ·
      • 
        

        Chicago gun deaths are rising and Mayor Daily and the police want tighter gun control according to the Christian Science Monitor at - http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0427/Homicide-rate-jumps-in-Chicago-Daley-pushes-for-more-gun-control
        
        The solution, Daley says, is to continue pressing state and federal courts to tighten restrictions on gun ownership – and to uphold the city’s ban on handguns and assault weapons.
        “This is all about guns, and that’s why the crusade is on,”
        
        And in Baltimore "Targeting guns to reduce violent crime" athttp://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2010/0110/Targeting-guns-to-reduce-violent-crime
        
        I get the impression that the police and elected officials want gun control while the NRA doesn't.
        
        Reading through these articles, it's clear to me that it's not safe to be on the streets in Chicago and Baltimore. One gang member who shot a 20 month old girl in Chicago said he was aiming at her father, not the girl.

        Monday at 12:46pm ·
      • 
        

        I agree with your conclusion: don't live in those cities. It's clear that when guns are criminalized, only criminals have guns (and law enforcement, who can't be in all places at all times to defend you). Too bad Daley's political opinion runs counter to the facts.

        Monday at 2:53p
        m

Arizona: doing the work the federal government won't do.

Ummm, unfair burden on employers? What malarky. That's about as crazy as not recognizing that letting tax cuts expire is actually a tax hike. But offending employers are correct: it should be federal law.

http://www.azfamily.com/news/local/Arizona-employer-sanctions-law-once-again-before-the-US-Supreme-Court-111518549.html

azfamily.com

Posted on December 8, 2010 at 6:54 AM

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments Wednesday on Arizona's employer sanctions law.

The law allows prosecution of employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants...

Eleven U.S. and Arizona companies challenged the law.

They claim sanctions for employing illegal immigrants should be federal law and that the Arizona law puts an unfair burden on Arizona employers.

(Copyright 2010 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)

Black Tears

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119672450795312374.html

Sadly for the Arizona, after 229 bodies were recovered the Navy was forced to stop because of increasingly dangerous conditions. Not long after, a decision was made to leave the dreadnought where it lay and in the process create a lasting and powerful tribute to those who lost their lives and remain entombed in the ship. When the Arizona sank it also took well over a million gallons of fuel to the bottom. Now, at a rate of two quarts a day, tiny oil droplets, known as "black tears," rise to the surface every 20 seconds -- and will continue to do so for decades to come.

Remember the Arizona!

One of the most important days in the history of the world

Veterans Day, Nov. 11, also marks the anniversary of the signing of the Armistice that ended World War I. On Nov. 11, 1918 the Germans signed the Armistice, bringing an end to the hostilities of WW I. This year we observe Veterans Day on Thursday, Nov. 11, 2010.

In Nov. of 1919, President Woodrow Wilson issued his Armistice Day proclamation, setting the tone for future observances:

"To us in America, the reflections of Armistice Day will be filled with solemn pride in the heroism of those who died in the country's service and with gratitude for the victory, both because of the thing from which it has freed us and because of the opportunity it has given America to show her sympathy with peace and justice in the councils of the nation."

In 1938 Congress passed a bill that each Nov. 11 "shall be dedicated to the cause of world peace and ...hereafter celebrated and known as Armistice Day."

After WW II, there were many new veterans who had little or no association with WW I. The word, "armistice," means simply a truce; therefore as years passed, the significance of the name of this holiday changed. Leaders of Veterans' groups decided to try to correct this and make Nov. 11 the time to honor all who had fought in various American wars, not just in World War I.

In Emporia, Kansas, on November 11, 1953, instead of an Armistice Day program, there was a Veterans' Day observance. Ed Rees, of Emporia, was so impressed that he introduced a bill into the House to change the name to Veterans' Day. After it's passage, Rees wrote every state governor asking for their approval and cooperation in observing the changed holiday.

In 1954 Congress official changed the name of the holiday to Veterans' Day. For a brief period (1971-1977), the holiday was celebrated on the fourth Monday in October, but Congress reverted back to Nov. 11 in 1978.

The observance has since evolved as a time for honoring living veterans who have served in the military during wartime or peacetime.

source: http://woodlandsonline.com/npps/story.cfm?nppage=38690

Marine Corps Birthday

http://www.usmcpress.com/heritage/marine_corps_birthday.htm

Semper Fi.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXpUcRVzV1s

If your toe isn't tapping under your desk right now, call 9-11 'cause there's a medical problem.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0uw8jhQx5U&feature=related

Happy 235th Birthday

United States Navy Birthday

On Oct. 13, 1775, the U.S. Navy was born when the Continental Congress authorized the arming of two sailing vessels with 80 men and 10 carriage guns in order to intercept British supply and munitions transports. The Declaration of Independence came nine months later, followed by the creation of the Department of the Navy in 1798. Today, our Navy is the most powerful in the world.

HT to Patriot Post

Here's to you, sailors! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhCko6qUGuc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JmqSGVRtYc&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjrVpilFwzk&feature=related

I understand better now

I don’t think I mentioned about a month ago I finished reading the Bible. I had planned to read it within a year but was about 8 months late. As the months passed I was happy to adopt a leisurely pace. I am reading a little less of the Bible now, as I breeze through a few other books. A friend loaned me “Thr3e” by Ted Dekker, a psycho-thriller which ends with this quotation by Paul:

“I do not understand what I do...It is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me...For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing...I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me...I delight in God’s law; but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin. I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.” Romans 7:15-25

I am not about to say I understand this paradox, which is like so many other unsolvable mysteries. However I am convinced we are, as Bruce Cockburn sang, “habit and skin,” and what follows is surely commonplace to contemplatives. We thoughtfully decide to do very few things per day compared to the vast number of habitual actions: putting on our pants, one leg at a time. Consider further that a significant percentage of those habits are neither neutral nor “good.” So we have taken into ourselves habitual sinful activity: over-eating, being prone to anger, tuning out one’s family...But here’s the rub: we are no longer slaves to that sinful nature. One cannot serve two masters: “one must either serve the one and hate the other, or love the other and despise the first.”

God can free us as readily as we have taken these sinful habits into our daily routine. It is not rocket science, my reader. However it does require a small step of faith. Stop doing it, one time. Pray every day. Allow yourself to be convinced it is actually sinful, and that your life will be better without it. Don’t do it the next day, either. Be thankful for and celebrate the good habits: daily prayer, being circumspect, listening to others and feeling compassion. When asked what God requires of us, I have often said, “To do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.” The Westminster Catechism is perhaps less specific however delightfully instructive: “Man's chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.” So many Christians in my life were never taught, nor did they consider the enjoyment part. Please do! “Greater is He who is in me than he who is in the world!”

A Man and A Class

We will continue to search and apply means of grace in these United States, but I certainly have been spending more time in contemplation than documentation. The early life of John Paul II as told in the movie "Karol: the man who became pope" was truly eye-opening. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karol:_A_Man_Who_Became_Pope

While his friends chose armed rebellion against the Nazis, he became a priest and prayed for freedom. The prayer option certainly appears to take longer, however God's ways are not our ways.

This essay hit me like a ton of bricks. Excellent synthesis of why so many Americans are resembling who Nixon called "The Silent Majority." Well, with the Tea Party movement, they're becoming less silent.

http://spectator.org/archives/2010/07/16/americas-ruling-class-and-the/print

Hmmm, Nixon...JFK...who is doing a better job of re-enacting Camelot, Clinton or Obama?

Tipping Point

Postnote: a friend wrote me to say thankfully the Harvard crowd are never in doubt but usually wrong...nice!

America, please stop this slide into economic Europeanism...the whole world will suffer for it.

http://www.aspendailynews.com/section/home/141349

"...the tipping point is often when the cost of servicing an empire’s debt is larger than the cost of its defense budget.

“That has not been the case I think at any point in U.S. history,” Ferguson said. “It will be the case in the next five years.”...

“Having grown up in a declining empire, I do not recommend it,” Ferguson said. “It’s not a lot of fun, actually, decline. To be more serious, a world in which the United States is no longer predominate is not likely to be a better world, actually.”

"In what he called his “light moment,” Ferguson said, “I think there is a way out for the United States. I don’t think its over. But it all hinges on whether you can re-energize the real mainsprings of American power. And those two things are technological innovation and entrepreneurship."

Listen here: http://www.aspenpublicradio.org/pod_listen.php?row=1362

The hour is fast approaching

"[T]he hour is fast approaching, on which the Honor and Success of this army, and the safety of our bleeding Country depend. Remember officers and Soldiers, that you are Freemen, fighting for the blessings of Liberty -- that slavery will be your portion, and that of your posterity, if you do not acquit yourselves like men." --George Washington, General Orders, 1776

hattip to Founder's Quote Daily

³²"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. ³³Be on guard! Be alert! You do not know when that time will come. ³⁴It's like a man going away: He leaves his house and puts his servants in charge, each with his assigned task, and tells the one at the door to keep watch.

³⁵"Therefore keep watch because you do not know when the owner of the house will come back—whether in the evening, or at midnight, or when the rooster crows, or at dawn. ³⁶If he comes suddenly, do not let him find you sleeping. ³⁷What I say to you, I say to everyone: 'Watch!' " --Gospel of Mark, Ch 13

What Rights Do You Have

At the heart of this blog is whether humans enjoy "natural rights" at all. As a human construct John Locke's exceptional philosophy underpins the American experiment and, as such, I give it what honor is due to the finest human accomplishment. I cringe at modern social movements which attack its defense of private property and freedom worldwide. And further, the most observant Christians of the founding fathers (and more specifically, the framers) would be unlikely to have issue with this, however...

As Christians we are slaves to Christ. As one concerned commenter wrote, isn't God the ultimate sovereign from which we must flee to attain liberty? The answer is yes, and no. God is sovereign, and that relationship makes the free and rich Western person have more difficulty fathoming that relationship. Here is a recent example of the dilemma, if there be one:

I love the practical consequences of the First Amendment as much as the next person, but I worry that it is built on a faulty foundation, that it derives from ideas about the human person and human dignity that do not cut the anthropological mustard, and like everything built on a faulty foundation, it may not be as sturdy as it seems. We can keep the issues fuzzy, but at the end of the day, the fact of the Incarnation calls into question the very idea of autonomy. I submit this is the central issue in our Western culture today and the point at which the Church remains the most counter-cultural influence in the West: How do we rescue human freedom and all the manifest good that flows from a politics in which human freedom is valued, from the nasty Enlightenment influences that require the privatization of religion?

The author responds:

It is possible (indeed, it is common) to think about, interpret, and apply the First Amendment as if it were a philosophical statement about the nature of truth (e.g., "it can only be found through the operation of an unregulated marketplace of ideas") or human flourishing (e.g., "no one is any position to judge whether or which ideas and statements are damaging or harmful"). But, it can also be understood, in a more pedestrian way: "Generally speaking, the government is an unreliable, or even untrustworthy, regulator of the search for, and debates about, truth. So, we disable the government from regulating speech not because there is no truth, or because ideas never cause harm, but only because the government-speech-regulation cure will too often be worse than the disease."

http://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2010/05/christianity-and-libertarianism.html

There is great value in keeping our eyes on the true prize, what Paul called "winning the race." We do this through self-discipline, so let's not get so caught up in political parrying that we forget the Source of our blessings, Who loves us and is active in the world today.

Land of the Free

I'll bet most people who spend a any portion of their lives contemplating the Bible not only inform their lives with its principles, but also analogize some of its passages in a completely different context. Here's one:

The Epistle of Paul to the Galatians is a powerful, short letter in which he fleshes out to what extent Christians are "under the Law" and how that compares with faith in Christ. It struck me that this argument bears much similarity to the current state of politics in the USA. Why would we want to return to a state of tyranny, whether under the guise of socialism or otherwise? This is the land to which other people flee...and we wish to model ourselves on those rejected models? Isn't this very issue why our country was founded in the first place?

"For freedom Christ set us free; so stand firm and do not submit again to the yoke of slavery." Galatians 5:1

I challenge you to take 15 minutes to read this book of the Bible and consider this analogy. If you can only spare 10 minutes, read 2:11-5:23.

Now I certainly don't mean to diminish the Word of God by making an analogy to human politics. However, I'll bet the founding fathers wouldn't see anything wrong with it, and might even chime in: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." 2 Timothy 3:16

Arizona struggles on life support

ETA: it passed. I truly hope it does everything as promised, and that the economy doesn't suffer as a result. However taxes rarely perform that way.

Food for thought… re: Proposition 100, the “temporary” 1% (one percent) sales tax increase.

"The debate over Prop 100—the plan to raise the state’s sales tax by 18 percent—is in full swing and Goldwater is working hard to explain why this tax increase is unnecessary. Goldwater Institute President Darcy Olsen will be debating the issue on Channel 3 this Sunday, May 2, at 5:30 p.m. We hope you’ll have the time to tune in.

"You may remember that 10 years ago we raised the state sales tax with the promise that the new money would go to classrooms. Earlier this year, the state’s Auditor General looked into how that money is being spent and found that just over half makes it to the classroom. The rest gets spent on administration. In fact, less of each dollar spent on education in Arizona makes it to the classroom than before we raised the sales tax ten years ago. About an hour ago we posted a 30 second video on You Tube to explain this little know aspect of the sales tax debate."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zG5pc3QtBog&feature=player_embedded

emailed to me From: "Starlee Rhoades" of the Goldwater Institute
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 3:47:49 PM GMT -07:00 U.S. Mountain Time (Arizona)

Make it stick

I've played around with JB Weld a few times but never before done a large project with epoxy. My most recent endeavor was fixing a “modern” auto key: they have tiny computer chips embedded within the plastic, so if the plastic ring part breaks (has happened to us 3 times now), you can’t just drill a new hole into the steel key and have it start your car. Maybe it’s due to the dry air…I just call it bad design. At $100 a pop, I wasn’t about to buy extra car keys. So after sanding the broken area, I drilled a tiny hole on each side of the key, and inserted a short length of twisted wire bicycle cable, anchored with a drop of JB Weld in each hole. Bingo: the key stays on the ring, and it looks kinda cool, too. Take that, you modern key selling pirates.

After purchasing a box of Marine Tex, I realized I was in a different ballpark. You don’t want to mess around with this stuff…without being thoughtful. All the lessons my Dad taught me 20+ years ago came flooding back: (1) don’t use the same tools for scooping out resin and catalyst, (2) read the instructions, (3) have all your tools and clean-up stuff ready to go, (4) make plenty of extra…and be ready with extra projects to fix with the left-over. And so forth. You don’t want to be a doofus by blowing the job, which could get much more expensive than the cost of the epoxy.

Once the job was complete, I pondered the art of epoxy. Like welding, it’s a true art and one which is coming to a close in this post-modern world. Like hunting and farming. I encourage you to learn another skill and teach it to your kids. Like sharing the Gospel, it won’t be a fruitless endeavor for both you and the recipient.

235 years ago

While at school out East, I took a winter's field day to Concord, crossed the North Bridge, and tested the ice on the creek. Yeah, I got my toes wet. I recall thinking it isn't much of a creek, across which a shot was heard 'round the world. But numerous times since, I've wondered how quickly I'd have scrambled up and down its banks with a musket on my shoulder...

"The battles of Lexington and Concord were the first military engagements of the American Revolutionary War.[8][9] They were fought on April 19, 1775, in Middlesex County, Province of Massachusetts Bay, within the towns of Lexington, Concord, Lincoln, Menotomy (present-day Arlington), and Cambridge, near Boston. The battles marked the outbreak of open armed conflict between the Kingdom of Great Britain and its thirteen colonies in the mainland of British North America.

About 700 British Army regulars, under Lieutenant Colonel Francis Smith, were given secret orders to capture and destroy military supplies that were reportedly stored by the Massachusetts militia at Concord. Through effective intelligence gathering, Patriot colonials had received word weeks before the expedition that their supplies might be at risk, and had moved most of them to other locations. They also received details about British plans on the night before the battle, and were able to rapidly notify the area militias of the military movement.

The first shots were fired just as the sun was rising at Lexington. The militia were outnumbered and fell back, and the regulars proceeded on to Concord, where they searched for the supplies. At the North Bridge in Concord, several hundred militiamen fought and defeated three companies of the King's troops. The outnumbered regulars fell back from the Minutemen after a pitched battle in open territory.

More militiamen arrived soon thereafter and inflicted heavy damage on the regulars as they marched back towards Boston. Upon returning to Lexington, Smith's expedition was rescued by reinforcements under Lieutenant-General Hugh Percy. The combined force, now of about 1,700 men, marched back to Boston under heavy fire in a tactical withdrawal and eventually reached the safety of Charlestown. The accumulated militias blockaded the narrow land accesses to Charlestown and Boston, starting the Siege of Boston.

Ralph Waldo Emerson, in his "Concord Hymn", described the first shot fired by the Patriots at the North Bridge as the "shot heard 'round the world," even though it was not the first shot of the war.[10]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Lexington_and_Concord

God, please bless these United States of America!

Our state of health

Here is the best summary I've seen about the practical impacts of the new Health Care law. We are free to think either, "It's the right thing to do," or, "It's socialist," but it is worth knowing specifics...

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2010/mar/28/health-laws-heavy-impact/

Here's are two samples:

"Tax on Home Sales. Imposes a 3.8 percent tax on home sales and other real estate transactions. Middle-income people must pay the full tax even if they are “rich” for only one day – the day they sell their house and buy a new one."

"Tax on investment income. ObamaCare imposes a 3.8 percent annual tax on investment income of individuals making $200,000 or more and on families making $250,000 or more. The new tax is not indexed to inflation, so more people will fall under it each year. Seniors on fixed incomes and people with IRAs and 401(k) plans will be hit particularly hard."

How do you think that's going to affect homeownership, the real estate market, individual investing, the economy? Just remember, a government discourages activities by taxing them. Hmmm.