Thanksgiving is much more than a time to gather with family, eat more turkey in one sitting than you have all year, drink until you are stupid, and watch football. Oh, and it's more than the turkey-induced coma you will likely pass out from. The first day of thanksgiving was held in thanks to God for the great harvest a year after many pilgrims had died from too little food. It was also a big thank you to the natives that helped the pilgrims survive, teaching them how to grow their crops in the new land. It was from the heart, thankful, and grateful. It was not time to overindulge in food and shopping.
Today's Thanksgiving Day is far astray from what it used to be, having been relegated to a Hallmark holiday. It is sad really. If you suffer from delusions of another belief system or are irreligious, consider that the Christian God is the only one who gave it all so that His people could live. He is the only one that said, have your free will, live life and enjoy it, but remember that you will also have consequences from the choices you make using that free will. He is the only one that said, you only have to love me and accept me to have eternal life. No other god (note the small "g") can do that, or has done that.
Today I am thankful for the opportunity to share with you all. I hope that you will love your neighbor, help a stranger or a friend, and have a smart, safe, and fun holiday. Happy Thanksgiving.
Thursday, November 22, 2012
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Brief Post-election Thoughts
The year was 1857, when Justice Benjamin Curtis said the following regarding the case of Dred Scott v. Sandford. Insightful, and frightfully applicable today after the re-election of Obama...
"When a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we no longer have a Constitution; we are under the government of individual men, who for the time being have power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of what it ought to mean."
Even earlier, Jan 30, 1788, James Madison wrote in Federalist 47...
"...the accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."
The point is, look at those statements from so long ago, and compare them the both the big political parties, and the current administration. Regarding the latter, you will come to see that appointing czars, waging war without Congressional approval, and the multitude of other actions undertaken by Barack Obama, he is quickly taking on the mantle implied and mentioned in those two quotes.
"When a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we no longer have a Constitution; we are under the government of individual men, who for the time being have power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of what it ought to mean."
Even earlier, Jan 30, 1788, James Madison wrote in Federalist 47...
"...the accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."
The point is, look at those statements from so long ago, and compare them the both the big political parties, and the current administration. Regarding the latter, you will come to see that appointing czars, waging war without Congressional approval, and the multitude of other actions undertaken by Barack Obama, he is quickly taking on the mantle implied and mentioned in those two quotes.
Saturday, November 3, 2012
The Issues, Part I: Foreign Policy
The first question people needs to ask when discussing foreign policy is, do I really understand what it is? Though many definitions exist, the simplest is often the most accurate. Foreign policy is how one sovereign interacts with another. Thomas Jefferson once stated that foreign policy is, "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations -- entangling alliances with none." Let's start with that last part about alliances.
Anyone can attest to the benefits of a good alliance; just recall the schoolyard playground. Bt what about the pacts made with someone or a group that ensnared you into tit-for-tat promises. Sometimes you were probably asked to do things you believed we're morally wrong, illegal, or otherwise unjust. That is where we are with foreign policy in the Union today. For instance, the United Nations has become a gutless, self-serving, and down-right unhelpful organization. The Union provides funding, troops, and time to their "causes", but to what benefit to her? What good has the united (that is intentionally lower case) States gotten out of the UN? They want control over our guns, our Internet, our children. There could be no good from laws governing Americans, but that are written by other nations. Of course, some will balk here, and they will cry about how the UN's food program has fed so many (false since in most cases rebels, militia, or other unintended recipients steal the food drops the minute they hit the ground), or they will reference other areas, none of which will prove their point. The UN has done so little good; in fact, NATO has done better.
The point here, is that "honest friendship with all nations" is difficult to achieve when you keep fighting wars in far off lands that are well past their objectives and national defense. Now that bin Laden is dead, which was the original intent of ENDURING FREEDOM, bring our troops home. Maintain a friendship with the nations necessary to facilitate growth and relations that will benefit the Union, but otherwise get out. That is the beginning of foreign policy, and I realize it does not delve as deeply as many would like. I just don't have that kind of writing time on my hands.
Anyone can attest to the benefits of a good alliance; just recall the schoolyard playground. Bt what about the pacts made with someone or a group that ensnared you into tit-for-tat promises. Sometimes you were probably asked to do things you believed we're morally wrong, illegal, or otherwise unjust. That is where we are with foreign policy in the Union today. For instance, the United Nations has become a gutless, self-serving, and down-right unhelpful organization. The Union provides funding, troops, and time to their "causes", but to what benefit to her? What good has the united (that is intentionally lower case) States gotten out of the UN? They want control over our guns, our Internet, our children. There could be no good from laws governing Americans, but that are written by other nations. Of course, some will balk here, and they will cry about how the UN's food program has fed so many (false since in most cases rebels, militia, or other unintended recipients steal the food drops the minute they hit the ground), or they will reference other areas, none of which will prove their point. The UN has done so little good; in fact, NATO has done better.
The point here, is that "honest friendship with all nations" is difficult to achieve when you keep fighting wars in far off lands that are well past their objectives and national defense. Now that bin Laden is dead, which was the original intent of ENDURING FREEDOM, bring our troops home. Maintain a friendship with the nations necessary to facilitate growth and relations that will benefit the Union, but otherwise get out. That is the beginning of foreign policy, and I realize it does not delve as deeply as many would like. I just don't have that kind of writing time on my hands.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)