Nancy Says No G-word

More on the flag fiasco in Washington DC. Nancy Pelosi has spoken! The order is given! No "God" on the citizens' flag display in Washington!

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi today defended the Architect of the Capitol's refusal to permit use of the word "God" on official certificates enclosed with flags flown over the U.S. Capitol.

Dayton-area GOP Rep. Michael Turner and more than 100 of his Republican colleagues sent a letter to Pelosi last week after an Eagle Scout in his district asked that a flag flown over the U.S. Capitol be sent to his grandfather with a certificate inscribed with the message: "In honor of my grandfather Marcel Larochelle, and his dedication and love of God, country, and family."

The boy and his father contacted Turner's office after noticing the word "God" was left off the certificate included with the flag. Outraged upon learning that the acting Architect of the Capitol, Stephen T. Ayers, won't allow religious expressions on flag certificates, Turner sent a protest letter to Pelosi.

Asked about the issue today at a press luncheon, Pelosi said the architect's policy was adopted because "people were asking for statements that not only were religious, beyond using the word God, but political as well." She said the official policy is to send a certificate that lists nothing beyond the date the flag flew over the Capitol and the name of its recipient. She said that members of Congress who request flags on behalf of constituents can "add whatever they wish" to the certificates, "whether it is a political statement or a religious statement."

"It's not about being anti-religion," Pelosi said, noting that each day in the Capitol starts with a prayer. "It is just about what the architect thought was appropriate for him to proclaim in a certificate."

I still don't see how this Boy Scout's certificate could have been refused under such inane logic. The boy said nothing about politics. Nothing about "religion," either. He just dared to mention the G-word.

Besides, what is wrong with someone's statement being "political" or "religious"? Who determines whether someone is being too "political" or "religious"? Has Pelosi or someone else suddeny become the arbiter of citizens' expressions?

As I've said before, our form of government presupposes belief in God because it is God who has given us our inalienable rights. God is the final authority of law, justice, and freedom. To strip that away makes us a secular humanist nation, and we become open to arbitrary law and the rule of the powerful elite.

Once God is removed from our form of government and from the public sphere, we are no longer a nation of laws and rights but of popular sentiment and tyrannical dictates! We will have no recognized inalienable rights from God-- at this point our inalienable rights would come from the State. And what the State giveth, the State taketh away!

More on the North American Union

What can I say?

Our "anointed," "Christian" president is selling out our country from under us. Didn't he vow to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States? So what is this I hear, now?

Former Mexican president Vicente Fox confessed on Larry King Live that he and President Bush have been scheming to unite Mexico's and the United States' currency, among other things.

It possibly was the first time a leader of Mexico, Canada or the U.S. openly confirmed a plan for a regional currency. Fox explained the current regional trade agreement that encompasses the Western Hemisphere is intended to evolve into other previously hidden aspects of integration.

According to a transcript published by CNN, King, near the end of the broadcast, asked Fox a question e-mailed from a listener, a Ms. Gonzalez from Elizabeth, N.J.: "Mr. Fox, I would like to know how you feel about the possibility of having a Latin America united with one currency?"

Fox answered in the affirmative, indicating it was a long-term plan. He admitted he and President Bush had agreed to pursue the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas – a free-trade zone extending throughout the Western Hemisphere, suggesting part of the plan was to institute eventually a regional currency.

Treason. No other word for it. The United States is supposed to be a sovereign nation. It is the duty of Congress to:

...coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States...

President Bush's ultra-global plans are coming out of the woodwork, now. He just can't hide his globalist agenda anymore. What makes me scratch my head in puzzlement is why are there no checks and balances? Why do these plans chug along, no matter who you vote for?

Phyllis Schlafly, eminent lawyer and leader of Eagle Forum, has this to say about this traitorous scheme:

The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) has just let the cat out of the bag about what's really behind our trade agreements and security partnerships with the other North American countries. A 59-page CFR document spells out a five-year plan for the "establishment by 2010 of a North American economic and security community" with a common "outer security perimeter."

"Community" means integrating the United States with the corruption, socialism, poverty and population of Mexico and Canada. "Common perimeter" means wide-open U.S. borders between the U.S., Mexico and Canada.

This CFR document, called "Building a North American Community," asserts that George W. Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox, and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin "committed their governments" to this goal when they met at Bush's ranch and at Waco, Texas on March 23, 2005. The three adopted the "Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America" and assigned "working groups" to fill in the details. ...To ensure that the U.S. government carries out this plan so that it is "achievable" within five years, the CFR calls for supervision by a North American Advisory Council of "eminent persons from outside government . . . along the lines of the Bilderberg" conferences.

Committed their governments? Doesn't that mean that Pres. Bush committed our government? Did the Constitution get rewritten somehow and I missed it?

Bush is also siding with the World Court in a shocking legal case. An illegal immigrant-- in the United States illegally-- sodomized and murdered two young girls in the state of Texas. This creep was sentenced in a Texas Court to 40 years in prison.

Not so fast, says the World Court, a globalist bureaucracy.

...Mexico sued the U.S. over the consular issue in the International Court of Justice at the Hague. The so-called "World Court" is the United Nations' top court for resolving international disputes.

The court ruled in Mexico's favor in late 2004 and ordered the U.S. to reconsider the Mexican inmates' murder convictions and death sentences. In February 2005, Bush announced that while he disagreed with the World Court's decision, the U.S. would comply. He ordered courts in Texas and elsewhere to review the cases.

A few days later, however, the president withdrew the U.S. from the part of the Vienna Convention that gives the World Court final say in international disputes.

The Supreme Court, which had agreed to hear Medellin's case, dismissed it later in 2005 to allow the case to play out in Texas. Last November, the all-Republican Texas Court of Criminal Appeals balked at the president's order, saying Bush had overstepped his authority.

The Texas court said the judicial branch, not the White House, should decide how to resolve the Mexican cases. It also said Medellin wasn't entitled to a new hearing because he failed to complain at his original trial about any violation of his consular rights and had therefore waived them.

The Bush Administration, once "disagreeing" with the World Court's decision but still honoring it, has suddenly decided to "agree" with the World Court and pursue Medillin's justification. Why? The Bushies are complaining that the Texas court is interfering with "the president's efforts to conduct foreign policy."

I'm terribly sorry, Mr. President, but our sovereign laws and our courts of justice do not dole out decisions to beef up your "foreign policy" schemes.

This is terribly threatening. Who is this president? He puts on one face for "the people" then turns around and sells us out.

Speaking of selling out America, I just found out today that Fred Thompson is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Interesting. They sure know how to stack the deck, don't they?

So Help Me Me

Another hooplah in Washington today. Aw, it's just a little ole flag, right? Wrong.

Midland Republican U.S. Rep. Dave Camp is among lawmakers objecting because the U.S. Capitol's architect won't allow God to be mentioned in certificates of authenticity accompanying flags flown over the Capitol and bought by constitutents.

Camp and dozens of other lawmakers are sending a letter to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi calling for "an immediate review of the authority under which the architect is making these rules, as well as the reversal of this policy which censors our citizens' right to expressions of their faith."

A 17-year-old Eagle Scout from Ohio reportedly was denied the request to have a certificate read, "This flag was flown in honor of Marcel Larochelle, my grandfather, for his dedication and love of God, country and family."

Why would an architect want to eradicate the name of God from a flag? And why would this architect think he can do so? Most importantly, what would happen if allowed to do so-- if anyone anywhere could erase "God" from our public sphere?

We would no longer be the United States of America. We would no longer have liberty, nor our Bill of Rights. How can this be?

Our form of government presupposes belief in God because it is God who has given us our inalienable rights.

God is the final authority of law, justice, and freedom. To strip that away makes us a secular humanist nation, and we become open to arbitrary law and the rule of the powerful elite.

So, acknowledging the name of God, and His standards (for example, Ten Commandments) as the basis of our law as well as the basis of our society is extremely important. Without it, we basically outlaw ourselves and everything our country and form of government stands for.

To belittle even such a little event like this flag story reflects the secular humanist thinking that has infiltrated society. This is a tragedy, but something that has been in the planning books for about a century.

Our form of free self-government is actually based on the Ten Commandments and on the principles set forth by Christ in the New Testament. That is why the removal of the name of God and of the Ten Commandments is so threatening. This is why equating the name of God and the Ten Commandments (like Pres. Bush did, again) with the tenets of Buddha, Mohammed, etc. is a threat to our own republican form of government. Our form of government and its founding documents presuppose the existence and dependence of God Almighty. The Ten Commandments is the basis of our law and our law must presuppose the existence and dependence of God to maintain justice within freedom.

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. (1841-1935), a secular humanist, said that “The life of the law has not been logic: it has been experience.” He also had concluded that law is “the majority vote of that nation that could lick all the others.”

What arrogance! What error!

I quote from Francis Schaeffer’s A Christian Manifesto:

The problem always was, and always is, What is an adequate base for law? What is adequate so that the human aspiration for freedom can exist that will not become arbitrary tyranny?

Man is not the measure of all things. Even law is not the measure of all things. God is the measure of all things.

If you believe that man is the measure of all things, then you are a secular humanist. If you believe that we should have a form of government that stakes its foundation on that tenet that man and his experiences are the measure of all things, then you are in for some anarchy and drastic changes in our country. If our form of government changes to where man is the measure of all things, and all liberty and justice springs from the experience of man, then you will be ruled with an iron hand, without mercy.

Humans are not "absolute" beings-- humans can only rule arbitrarily. When the foundation of just government is stripped away, we are left with the arbitrary decisions of man, a very dangerous and fatal blow to any and every society. Chaos will ensue and society will need an elite group or a "savior" to bring order among chaos, and therein spells the end of free government and religious freedom.

Back to the newsstory. Even Congressman Dave Camp has a tepid, weak argument for keeping the name of God on the flag:

"This is as insulting as it is absurd," Camp said in a prepared statement. "The architect has gone way too far. If we can put 'in God we trust' on our money, then we can certainly put it on a flag certificate when a citizen wants it there."

"I can't believe the U.S. House of Representatives can pass a resolution recognizing the Muslim holiday of Ramadan, which we did this week, but can't send out certificates with the word 'God' on them," Camp said. "It doesn't make any sense. The policy needs to be changed."

No! This is not why we retain the acknowledgment of God in our public sphere. We do not mention God because "the people" want it so, or because we give equal time to other religions. We retain the name and knowledge of God in our public sphere and in our government because it is God who gives us our very form of government to begin with!

Shall we no longer pledge "So help me, God" when we give an oath? Shall we now pledge "So help me, me"? Ridiculous!

I am frustrated that so many people do not understand how serious an encroachment these things are. Our government is on its way to outlawing itself! Once God is removed from our form of government and from the public sphere, we are no longer a nation of laws and rights but of popular sentiment and tyrannical dictates! We will have no recognized inalienable rights from God-- at this point our inalienable rights would come from the State. And what the State giveth, the State taketh away!

To Russia With Love

There are times when you can either laugh or cry at the insanity of man...

MOSCOW (Reuters) - A Russian man accused of murdering 49 people asked a court on Tuesday to add another eleven victims to his tally, and told a jury when he first strangled a man it was like falling in love for the first time.

Supermarket worker Alexander Pichushkin, 33, has been branded the 'chessboard murderer' by Russian newspapers because he hoped to put a coin on every square of a 64-place chessboard for each murder.

"A first killing is like your first love. You never forget it," he said from a cage in the courtroom, after explaining how he started killing at age 18 with the murder of a classmate.

At least the kook is in custody now.

All I can say now is: We love you, man!

Cradle of Liberty, Tomb of Liberty

The title for this blog entry was taken from someone's comments about a newsstory at the UK's Sunday Herald. It is the perfect summary of what is happening in Britain.

[The] Orwellian vision of the future was compiled on the orders of the UK's information commissioner - the independent watchdog meant to guard against government and private companies invading the privacy of British citizens and exploiting the masses of information currently held on each and every one of us - by the Surveillance Studies Network, a group of academics.

On Friday, this study, entitled A Report on the Surveillance Society, was picked over by a select group of government mandarins, politicians, police officers and academics in Edinburgh. It is unequivocal in its findings, with its first sentence reading simply: "We live in a surveillance society." The information commissioner, Richard Thomas, endorses the report. He says: "Today, I fear that we are, in fact, waking up to a surveillance society that is already all around us."

The academics who compiled the study based their vision of the future not on wild hypotheses but on existing technology, statements made about the intentions of government and private companies and studies by other think tanks, regulators, professional bodies and academics.

The report authors say that they believe the key theme of the future will be "pervasive surveillance" aimed at tracking and controlling people and pre-empting behaviour. The authors also say that their glimpse of the future is "fairly conservative. The future spelled out in the report is nowhere near as dystopian and authoritarian as it could be."

The article continues in a description of the bleak, uber-controlled society that awaits Brits if they continue on their present course. Most of the commentors to the story--average folks who will bear the brunt (the cost) and the consequences (being "surveilled") are angry and cynical, but are also strangely acquiescent. Some are even poetic about their captivity.

It's all right! All long as you're not done anything wrong -
like refuse to have an ID Card (you must have something to hide, and we decide what you can and cannot hide);
be born some colour other than white (high risk category);
be born poor (can be ignored and civil liberties abused);
be born unhealthy (too costly to society);
vote against ruling party (May 3rd Election in Scotland required voting papers unfolded and presented face up, and each had a serial number linked to your entry in the voters role)

Have we already passed the stage where those waging the "war on terror" have themselves become the greater threat to society. Who has eroded your civil liberties more: Osama Bin Laden, or the US, UK and EU Governments.

Everyone raise your right hand,
Who doesn't think the way we do,
And everyone keep those hands raised,
While we get a good hard look at you.

England: cradle of liberty, and now its tomb.

State control and the fusion of government and big business is upon us already. Welcome to the machine where Blair can take us on an illegal and ill conceved war one day and his successor who was his number two in the decision can then play politics with reducing troop numbers. Yes we need surveilance on our every activity, health, DNA, lifstyle, tax, movement, house ownership - everything. Well done Labour.

It's amazing that governments are always spouting about "democracy" and raising taxes and sending soldiers to "spread democracy" while at the same time encroaching the liberties of their own people. Makes a person think that these governments don't really intend to practice or spread "democracy," now does it?

Now THAT'S a Campaign Promise

There have been presidential hopefuls who have promised just about everything: chickens in pots, a square deal, a new deal, no new taxes, $5K for your baby, free healthcare, etc. Barack Obama takes the cake for promises and political pandering. This is classic.

During the nearly two hour service that featured a rock band and hip-hop dancers, Obama shared the floor with the church's pastor, Ron Carpenter. The senator from Illinois asked the multiracial crowd of nearly 4,000 people to keep him and his family in their prayers, and said he hoped to be "an instrument of God."

He finished his brief remarks by saying, "We're going to keep on praising together. I am confident that we can create a Kingdom right here on Earth."

So Obama wants to be the next Messiah. He'll bring "a Kingdom" right here on Earth, eh? Now that's a campaign promise!

What's amazing is that people actually have the gall to say these idiotic things in public. Lo, even in a church, where the Bibles are two feet away! Yet nary a churchgoer is cracking it open to see scriptures like:

Let no one deceive you by any means, for.. the son of perdition ... exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God... showing himself that he is God." (2 Thess. 2:3, 4)

And Jesus answered and said to them, "Take heed that no one deceives you. For many will come in My name, saying, "I am the Chosen One," and will deceive many." (Matt. 24:5)

"Then if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Chosen One!' or 'Look, He is there!' do not believe it. For false christs and false prophets will rise and show signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect." (Mark 13:21-22)

In this case, perhaps that last verse could also be changed to read, "to deceive even those who want to get elect and get elected."

And if you think that is crazy, there are plenty of crazy comments at the main story, like:

"this is amazing. thank god for barack obama."

"Obama is a very special man…I pray that you will be able to stay true to who you are also"

"Bravo Obama - don't let those right wing fascists claim that they are the only ones who own the "moral" truth."

"I'm an atheist, but I get your message: it is one of unity, and you have my vote! First Dem to really call on the GOP to stop hijacking the "values" discussion. That's a MAN for you! No wimp is he."

"I hope that the Kingdom that Obama is confident in creating here on Earth is inclusive of other faiths. Frankly I've seen much inclusiveness or tolerance from any faith. This should be a concern to everyone. Of course if he just talks this way in church, he's just saying what they wanted to hear, and if that's the case, he'll tell anyone anything."

"Sure sounds like Islam to me. Do we really want to have a president with those leanings. 'Create a Kingdom here on Earth' 'Instrument of God' where have you heard those lines before? Let's not hear more of the danger of the religious right."

That last comment ain't crazy, by the way.

And as for President Bush, w'eeelll he'll just pray to anybody!

Unjust Use of Justice

I'd wondered if Jammie Thomas was going to be the Internet's next giant killer. She wasn't.

DULUTH, Minn. — The recording industry won a key fight Thursday against illegal music downloading when a federal jury ordered a Minnesota woman to pay $222,000 for sharing copyrighted music online.

The jury ordered Jammie Thomas, 30, to pay the six record companies that sued her $9,250 for each of 24 songs they focused on in the case. They had alleged she shared 1,702 songs online in violation of their copyrights.

"She was in tears. She's devastated," Thomas' attorney, Brian Toder, told The Associated Press. "This is a girl that lives from paycheck to paycheck, and now all of a sudden she could get a quarter of her paycheck garnished for the rest of her life."

Copyright laws have morphed over the years to once meaning you couldn't copy and sell music to now you can't copy music (music that you have even obtained legally) at all. Crazy.

As for Thomas, she is left with a half-mil fee, claiming all the while that she did not download the music.

During the three-day trial, the record companies presented evidence they said showed the copyrighted songs were offered by a Kazaa user under the name "tereastarr." Their witnesses, including officials from an Internet provider and a security firm, testified that the Internet address used by "tereastarr" belonged to Thomas.

Toder said in his closing that the companies never proved "Jammie Thomas, a human being, got on her keyboard and sent out these things."

"We don't know what happened," Toder told jurors. "All we know is that Jammie Thomas didn't do this."

It looks like the real clincher was the "message" of "deterrence" that the record companies wanted to give.

Richard Gabriel, the lead attorney for the music companies, said, "This does send a message, I hope, that downloading and distributing our recordings is not OK."

He told jurors a verdict against Thomas would send a message to other illegal downloaders.

"I only ask that you consider that the need for deterrence here is great," he said.

The justice system is not supposed to function as a "message" giver. The justice system is supposed to provide justice for each individual case. It is misuse of justice to use a court case as a springboard for reform movements.

“The Constitution is not a panacea for every blot upon the public welfare, nor should this Court, ordained as a judicial body, be thought of as a general haven for reform movements.” Chief Justice John Marshall

Ground to the Ground

I don't pay a whole lot of attention to recalls. I am pretty thorough with my cooking and cleaning, and don't eat raw meat or handle it improperly. So the Topps ground beef recall didn't affect me much. However, I'd heard that some people were sickened by the E-Coli in the meat, though.

Today the big news is that Topps is out of business. It's finances couldn't handle the recall, and the company tanked. That is shocking.

"This is tragic for all concerned," said Chief Operating Officer Anthony D'Urso. "In one week we have gone from the largest U.S. manufacturer of frozen hamburgers to a company that cannot overcome the economic reality of a recall this large."

Topps on Saturday expanded its recall of frozen hamburger patties because of possible E. coli bacteria contamination that sickened more than a dozen people in eight states to 21.7 million pounds from 332,000.

The closure comes a week after the U.S. Department of Agriculture said it had suspended the grinding of raw products at the Elizabeth, N.J., company after inspectors found inadequate safety measures.

I sympathize with a company that cannot overcome the economic reality of a recall this large. Yet I sympathize more with consumers, who cannot overcome the physical debilitation of another dirty Big Box, CAFO company.

Something really needs to be done about this. It is bad enough that we see mergers of banks, or credit card companies, of media outlets, and publishing companies. The merger of our food supply is not good. It is really time to break apart these "food trusts" and get back to local accountability. I wouldn't mind foregoing Chinese apples and eating only New York State apples all year...

On another note, this Topps closure is interesting in another way: the road is wide open to mischief and corruption in such cases. If a competitor really wants to destroy the other company, just plop a little E Coli in the assembly line, eh? In this specific case, the USDA knew about a possible E coli contamination, but kept silent for over two weeks. That is odd.

Where is the Friend of Liberty?

The Utica Common Council last night voted unanimously to penalize parents for illegal activities of their minor children.

UTICA - Parents whose children commit acts of vandalism and other criminal mischief could face penalties ranging from probation to fines as high as $250, the Common Council voted Wednesday.

In a 9-0 vote, the council approved a pilot program to hold parents and guardians responsible for the actions of their children who are younger than 16.

"If it means you've got to get the parents in check to get the kids in check, then do it," West Utica resident Patricia Zajac said Wednesday night in support of the legislation.

It is mind-boggling not only that the government must now be parenting parents, but that parents themselves do not parent. I was recently remembering something the Speaker of the House once said:

"All societies of men must be governed in some way or other. The less they have of stringent State Government, the more they must have of individual self-government. The less they rely on public law or physical force, the more the must rely on private moral restraint. Man, in a word, must necessarily be controlled, either by a power within them, or by a power without them; either by the word of God, or by the strong arm of man; either by the Bible, or by the bayonet. It may do for other countries and other governments to talk about the State supporting Religion. Here, under our own free institutions, it is Religion which must support the State."

By the way, the current Speaker of the House would never utter such words. It was the 1850 Speaker of the House, Robert Winthrop. Remember him from your public school history classes?

Secular humanism-- for all intents and purposes it is now our national religion and the worldview of most public-schooled children-- always leaves chaos in its wake. Francis Schaeffer said it best:

Humanism, with its lack of any final base for values or law, always leads to chaos. It then naturally leads to some form of authoritarianism to control the chaos. Having produced the sickness, humanism gives more of the same kind of medicine for a cure. With its mistaken concept of final reality, it has no intrinsic reason to be interested in the individual, the human being. Its natural interest is the two collectives: the state and society.

I was listening to "conservative" talkshow host Lars Larson on the radio last night. What he said almost make me choke on my coffee: He was in favor of, and believed other conservatives would be in favor of, forcibly sterilizing a deadbeat father. He said he didn't think that conservatives, if told that for "2- or 300 bucks" they could "keep this idiot" from having and abandoning more children and leaving them in the care of the state, that conservatives would not have a problem with that. I beg to differ! This is not "conservatism," this is tyrannical socialist humanism, on par with Oliver Wendell Holmes and the eugenics movement.

Why is there no mention of what the &@%# the government is doing, supporting scads of children? The entire problem is not that people are deadbeats. There have always been deadbeats and there always will be deadbeats. The problem is that the government is filling the void that the individual or community is supposed to fill! And the government does not fill this void without consequence or penalty. The government will take more and more control, and this control will not be over only the deadbeats-- it will be over all!

Are we really gone too far down this horrible road to government control and arbitrary law? Or will the individual and the community take responsibility? Do you have any idea what is at stake here? Hello?

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out -

because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out -

because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out -

because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak for me.

There must be a new awakening, that YOU and I are responsible for our actions. That we must be a virtuous people. That we are accountable first to God for these actions. That we are then accountable to our community for these actions. That accountability begins first within the home.

No people will tamely surrender their Liberties, nor can any be easily subdued, when knowledge is diffused and Virtue is preserved. On the Contrary, when People are universally ignorant, and debauched in their Manners, they will sink under their own weight without the Aid of foreign Invaders.

He therefore is the truest Friend to the Liberty of his country who tries most to promote its Virtue, and who, so far as his power and influence extend, will not suffer a man to be chosen into any office of power and trust who is not a wise and virtuous man... The sum of all is, if we would most truly enjoy this gift of Heaven, let us become a Virtuous People.

Samuel Adams

Good News for Ron Paul

Not the new cash for his campaign, the attention he's (finally) getting.

WASHINGTON (AP) - Long-shot Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul raised a surprising $5 million during the past three months, capitalizing on his stance as the only anti-war contender in the GOP field.

Paul, a Texas congressman who once ran for president as a Libertarian, also will report having $5.3 million cash on hand, campaign spokesman Jesse Benton said.

The amount places Paul well ahead of all but the Republican front-runners in the race. His fundraising for the quarter almost matches what Sen. John McCain is expected to report. His total is half the amount that former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is reported to have raised.

Paul barely registers in polls of Republican voters, a sign of low name recognition nationally. Since he entered the campaign, he has operated with little media attention, getting the spotlight only during debates. But that has been enough to attract an avid Internet following.

The media keep painting Paul as an "anti-war" candidate. Well, Paul is, but not because he is "anti-war." He, like so many Americans, believe that this "war on terror" is a phony war. And the only reason for "low name recognition" is that the media entirely ignores him, even though he is very popular with the American people.

But the media consistently ignore the fact that Paul is a constutitionalist. Doesn't that matter anymore? Paul is known as "Mr. Constitution" in his home state of Texas and in the Congress. He doesn't campaign offering baby-bonus tax credits, slavery reparations, a chicken in every pot, free ice cream cones, et al.

Congressman Ron Paul is the leading advocate for freedom in our nation’s capital and is seeking the 2008 Republican nomination for President of the United States. As a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Dr. Paul tirelessly works for limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and a return to sound monetary policies. He is known among his congressional colleagues and his constituents for his consistent voting record. Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution.

Isn't that what we elect president for? To defend, protect, and uphold the Constitution?

Putting on the Secession Squeeze

Here's an interesting story at YahooNews today: Secessionists Meeting in TN.

CHATTANOOGA, Tenn. - In an unlikely marriage of desire to secede from the United States, two advocacy groups from opposite political traditions — New England and the South — are sitting down to talk.

The idea of secession amongst these states-- states so completely different in their governing policies and culture-- are for reasons that, not unexpectedly, vary between them.

New England wants to be more liberal than the Federal Government will allow. The South wants to be more conservative than the Federal Government will allow.

The original intent of the Founding Fathers was not to make a heterogeneous nation. They expected each state to have its inherent differences, and gave them the freedom to do so, with few restrictions (only those enumerated in the Constitution and Bill of Rights). (For example, did you know that even after the passage of the First Amendment, nine of the thirteen states continued to have their own, state-funded and state-sponsored churches?)

However, there has been a progressive move by the Federal Government over the last 100 years to eradicate these inherent differences. The Feds have done this by shoving policy down the throats of the states, and bribing them with "grants." The more rebellious states are finally showing some unrest.

I, personally, am against secession as a policy. Secession would essentially terminate our contract (the U.S. Constitution) and open all the states up to threats of invasion and civil war (see reasons why we got rid of the Articles of Confederation for that). To make our nation into a clot of Greek nation-states would destroy us. As Hamilton put it, "We are a Republican Government. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of Democracy."

One blog has some excellent and well-researched articles about true Federalism and the intent of our nation, The Foundation Forum. I especially appreciate this:

Today, much of the Framers’ original intent over the purpose of government in general and the federal government in particular has been lost after many years of the indoctrination of American citizens in the socialist dogma. Socialism maintains, among many things, the fallacious principle that government is responsible for the material welfare of society. Socialism claims that the government is responsible for the quality of human life, that the government is responsible for protecting “minorities,” and that its purpose is to be the beneficent provider of those under its jurisdiction. This principle is certainly attractive and sounds commendable and noble, but only one who fails to take into account the self-centeredness of human nature would enforce such a doctrine with good intentions.

Yes, without question, the purpose and intent of good government has been perverted. This explains the problems we are seeing with the states and the Federal Government. The states are, by nature, fiercely independent. It is ridiculous to make them all the same, bland, banal subsidiaries of the Federal Government. Our cultures and climes are so different that there is no reconciling them. But the states must remain united, mainly for the sake of protection (common defense), taxation, paying off debt, and protecting our God-given inalienable rights.

Because we have lost the concept of the true purpose of government, we have lost the concept of the purpose of our Constitution. The Constitution is not the right-giver of the American people; it is the outline of our form of government, and keeps the government within its proper bounds – therefore, the Constitution is in effect the right-protector.

It is true that the Federal Government has become a socialist/fascist-type of government and has been and is imposing its will on the states. The states have tolerated these unconstitutional impositions for decades. The states' now-increasing intolerance is deserved.

But perhaps before people go bonkers over secession as the solution, they ought to consult the Constitution and the Fathers' writings about the nation and return to applying them. I believe that this --returning to the Constitution's original intent-- will cure our ills. Secession will only create a basketful of new ills.

And if the states determine that they do not desire to return to the Constitution and original intent, well then, the states will get the upheaval and chaos they deserve.

Dept of Energy Woes

Is it just because I don't read enough blogs, or is there a silence among all about the Department of Energy's latest shenanigans? Almost all of New York State will be swallowed up under federal control. Here's part of a statement by NY Governor Eliot Spitzer:

"This designation will allow the federal government to preempt New York's legitimate oversight and process for reviewing and siting transmission projects within our state borders. Article VII of the New York Public Service Law, which establishes an efficient one-stop process for reviewing applications to build transmission facilities, includes a mechanism for studying the environmental impact of a proposed facility on localities, and provides a forum for stakeholders to express support for or opposition to proposed projects."

This is affecting the entire nation (well, except Texas and Nevada, for some strange reasons), not just New York State. Why is there nothing but the sound of crickets chirping? Where is our messiah-- that lovable furball-- El Rushbo? Where is the guy who's looking out for you-- Bill O'Reilly? I know that the Iraq "war" and the latest celebrity escapade are important, but can't ya squeeze in something about the little fact that our country is being sold out under us?

Even so many of the bloggers are silent about it. How can this be?

Passe For Today

I came across an old entrance exam from the Massachussetts Institute of Technology. It dates back to the late 1800s. There detail and the requirements for knowledge of literature and history are awe inspiring. Although the English and Arithmetic section don't look to hard, the Algebra and Geometry sections had me wowed. But then again, math is not my strong point.

Take a look for yourself. They just don't make tests like they used to. I suppose that is because they don't make schools like they used too.

P.S. There are six grammatical errors in my entry above. Can you find all of them?

Yikes

Yikes.

Death and Taxes and Taxes

The RomeSentinel has another one of their good stories. This one is an eye-opener about a little-know state law.

A little known state law requires a county’s chief fiscal officer step in when someone dies without a will or when an executor cannot be found. In Oneida County, the task falls to the county comptroller.

A percentage of the estate — the amount is determined by the state — goes to the comptroller in recognition of performing a job that is outside of the normal duties. For example, a 5 percent commission is paid on the first $100,000.

County Comptroller Joseph J. Timpano of New Hartford estimates he’s handled between 100 and 150 estates since he became comptroller in late 1996.

"It’s state law," he said. "It’s been that way for years."

That's a nice chunk of change, 5% for the first $100,000. Of course, the comptroller has to do paperwork and retain a lawyer. But for the overwhelming numbers of poor people of Oneida County, most of whom, I assume, do not have wills (for financial reasons), a percentage of everything you own going to the state is like a gouging in the eye.

Timpano explains that it becomes his responsibility "to divvy up the assets and settle the estate," just like the designated executor when there’s a will. He notes that occasionally the county receives money from an estate as reimbursement for Medicaid payments, plus the county is reimbursed for any direct costs related to settling an estate.

Reimbursement for Medicaid payments? To the county? Shouldn't it go back to the taxpayers, who have been paying nearly 10% sales tax and extraordinarily high property taxes to fund this Medicaid system? For the state government, it's a win-win situation. Just seems awry. And the comptroller does have the option to refuse commission, and the money would go back to the estate. Not that that happens much.

A committee has been formed to change the system a little.

On Thursday, a campaign platform released by five Democrats candidates seeking election as legislators urged an end to the practice of the county comptroller receiving commissions.

"We seek state action to change this policy. And allow this money to go the county treasury," states the "Contract With Oneida County Residents."

Timpano said the situation has never been a political issue in the past.

Currently, the county cannot receive any of the commissions.

"It has nothing to do with the county," said Dillon, adding that even if the comptroller refuses estate commissions, the money cannot go to the county.

"It goes back to the estate," she said.

So the moral of the story? Either don't die, or don't die without a will, or die and put your loving trust into the hands of the state who only has your descendants' best interests in mind.

Spirit of '76

The time has finally come. I read with eager anticipation and teary eyes the latest post by Bob Paquette at Hamilton College Alumni for Governance Reform.

On 17 September, Constitution Day, my two co-founders (professors Douglas Ambrose and James Bradfield) and I unveiled the Alexander Hamilton Institute in a historic mansion about a mile from the Hamilton College campus. Our goal is to promote the study of American ideals and institutions. This was not our first try. A little over a year ago , we were celebrating its founding at the college, as the Alexander Hamilton Center for the Study of Western Civilization. We intended to offer a rich menu of extras - conferences, colloquia, internships, fellowships, and awards - to Hamilton College undergraduates. In August 2006 we were toasting a signed agreement with the President and Dean of the Faculty; several weeks later, the initiative collapsed, only now reborn outside of the college. What happened?

What happened was the best thing that has ever happened since Rev. Samuel Kirkland asked George Washington and Alexander Hamilton for the charter to the school. A revolt! But it is always darkest just before dawn.

Opposition to the initiative from the faculty mushroomed within weeks. On 10 October, it passed, 77 to 17, a resolution against the proposed center. Tenured signatories to the resolution expressed concern about the center’s “programming and research” and how both would “influence the reputation of Hamilton College” and “reflect upon the college as a whole.” Leaders of this movement had brought or attempted to bring to campus Susan Rosenberg, former member of the Weather Underground and a convicted felon, to teach writing; and Ward Churchill, the academic charlatan, to speak about prison reform.

Even more bizarrely, Brigette Boisselier was brought to the campus. She is in charge of cloning for the Raelian sex cult, which believes humans are descended from aliens. She claimed to have produced a baby through cloning, though no non-Raelian has reported seeing the child. Boisselier was installed at Hamilton as a visiting assistant professor of chemistry.

What on earth-- on earth-- was happening to this college? It was like someone flipped a switch, from mid-level insanity to ultra-insanity.

Bad tenure decisions, misallocation of resources, institutionalization of politicized programs, cronyism, and the abuse of democratic process, I argued, were “hustling Hamilton down the road of political correctness.” One example still sticks in my craw. In 2002, the Kirkland Project hired two self-described lesbian activists to teach a course on “radical writing/historical context in the Americas.” Aside from the fact that neither “professor” had a Ph.D. or, for that matter, any demonstrated accomplishment in the field of history, the flyer sent out to advertise the course insisted that for admission into it, each student must first profess to be a “committed … activist.”

Oh, the details get juicier. I recommend reading Paquette's entire post for a good dose of enlightenment. But after the College went over the top, and reneged on their deal to host the Alexander Hamilton Center, Paquette, Menges, and others decided to start their own group, the Alexander Hamilton Institute.

More than ever I am persuaded that the most promising course for meaningful academic change is to create a string of carefully constructed independent centers across the country. Form alliances with each other; draw resources away from “compassless colleges”; develop cooperative programming; and offer a variety of high-quality educational goods and services free of charge to the public as well as to allies on campus, however few they may initially be. That is our hope at the new Alexander Hamilton Institute.

How I pray this will be the "shot heard 'round the world" for other centers of learning. It's about time we got back to the tenets that made our country the greatest in the world in all of history. Our centers of education have abandoned-- even attacked-- the values of the Founding Fathers upon which they staked their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.

"These ceremonies...will teach the youth of the land in succeeding generations as they come and go that the chief end of human effort in a sublunary view should be usefulness to mankind, and that all true fame which should be perpetuated by public pictures, statues, and monuments, is to be acquired only by noble deeds and high achievements and the establishment of a character founded upon the principles of truth, uprightness, and inflexible integrity." Alexander Hamilton

Tuition Two-Step

Here's an interesting article in Syracuse Online today. The headline is very provoking: "Supreme Court Hears Fight Over Tuition For Rich Man's Child." OK....

WASHINGTON (AP) — Taxpayers shouldn't be asked to pick up the cost of private schooling for special education children who don't first give public schools a chance, New York City's top appeals lawyer told the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday.

The issue is that parent Tom Freston (and former Viacom CEO) has a child with "special needs." He wanted New York City to fund his son's education at a private school.

Freston sued the city after he asked it to pay his son's tuition and the city refused.

Federal law demands such payments when a public school system is unable to properly deal with a student's disability, but in this case New York said it could do the job. It recommended that the boy attend the city-run Lower Laboratory School for Gifted Education. Freston won in lower courts and the city appealed to the Supreme Court.

I suppose the unasked question at this point is: Who determines whether the child is getting an adequate education?

It should be, of course, the parents. But parents seem to be giving up more of their parental rights and responsibilities to the state (and the state-run public school system). And the state is not going to defer to the parents, especially when there is money to be made. What is it, $13,000 a head for every public school student, now? There is a great incentive to force children into the public school system, and property owners are forced to pay into the system whether they have children or not, or whether the system does its job or not.

I also think that making this a "class war" by pitting rich people against poor people will not help. Besides, the rich people pay property taxes, too, so they deserve equal treatment. It will be interesting to see how the Supreme Court decides, in the spring.