Wednesday, November 29, 2006

WorldNetDaily: How about a federal 'nice crimes' law?

Linda Harvey is founder of Mission America, which monitors and reports on the promotion of homosexuality to youth. With her tongue firmly in her cheek she asks us if a "nice crime" is better than a "hate crime".

Now that the left has ascended to power in Washington, San Fran Nan and her munchkins have declared that adding "sexual orientation" to existing federal "hate crimes" law will rise to the top of the congressional priority list.

But wait. Why not first pass a "nice crimes" law, at the federal level and also in some states?

After all, selecting some crimes for special designation as markers of "hate" is helpful, but only if we first recognize other "non-hate" crimes as the nice ones.

For instance, I would nominate all nice murders, where the offender expresses tender sentiments toward the victim before bludgeoning him/her to death...

Local police officers, based on the federal 1990 Hate Crime Statistics Act, are required to conduct interviews when a crime is committed against a homosexual to find out "why" the offender committed the crime. Victims who are window-washers, stamp collectors, vegans or blues musicians wouldn't get this courtesy even if the actual crime is the same, say, an act of theft. But a homosexual does. If the offender has a negative ("homophobic") opinion, or if he/she added a homosexual insult to the injury, that crime becomes a statistic, counted as part of a miniscule-but-predicted-to-grow "epidemic" of "hate" crimes against homosexuals...

Such crimes need to be carefully tracked, the offenders and all their allies or potential allies interrogated, with extra penalties for even daring to commit a crime while holding, or seeming to hold, the wrong beliefs. To stop at simply punishing the crime would be, well, insensitive to "hate." How much better for everyone, even the victim, if one is robbed or murdered while nice views are held by the felon...

Thanks to that 1990 statistics law, we know the correct definition of a "hate" crime, as opposed to all those "nice" crimes out there. And I'm sure the new Democrat majority, backed up by their trial lawyer friends, will help us with further categories, labels and stereotypes, so we know what "nice" beliefs to hold.

Or else.

WorldNetDaily: How about a federal 'nice crimes' law?

WorldNetDaily: Why we love government

Walter E. Williams, Ph.D., is the John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics at George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia. He writes:

Unlike today's Americans, the founders of our nation were suspicious, if not contemptuous, of government...

Today's Americans hold such liberty-oriented values in contempt, and any presidential aspirant holding them would have a zero chance of winning office.

Today's Americans hold a different vision of government. It's one that says Congress has the right to do just about anything upon which it can secure a majority vote. Most of what Congress does fits the description of forcing one American to serve the purposes of another American. That description differs only in degree, but not in kind, from slavery.

At least two-thirds of the federal budget represents forcing one American to serve the purposes of another...

In other words, once Congress establishes that one person can live at the expense of another, it pays for everyone to try to do so. You say, "Williams, don't you believe in helping your fellow man?" Yes, I do. I believe that reaching into one's own pockets to help his fellow man is both laudable and praiseworthy. Reaching into another's pockets to help his fellow man is despicable and worthy of condemnation.

The bottom line: We love government because it enables us to accomplish things that if done privately would lead to arrest and imprisonment. For example, if I saw a person in need, and I took your money to help him, I'd be arrested and convicted of theft. If I get Congress to do the same thing, I am seen as compassionate.

This vision ought to bother the Christians among us, for when God gave Moses the commandment "Thou shalt not steal," I'm sure He didn't mean thou shalt not steal unless you got a majority vote in Congress.

WorldNetDaily: Why we love government

Saturday, November 25, 2006

Should Christians Support Slavery? by Laurence M. Vance

Laurence M. Vance writes:

Should Christians support the government-enforced, involuntary slavery of human beings? ...

A greater evil, however, is that some Christians would support – right now, in the twenty-first century – not only government-enforced slavery, but government-mandated slavery.

The government-mandated slavery I am referring to is military conscription...

Now wait a minute, Mr. Vance. I thought you were talking about slavery? The draft isn’t slavery...

But I am talking about slavery. The draft is a form of slavery or involuntary servitude...

What else are you going to call the draft if it is not slavery or involuntary servitude? A young person is told that he must join the military. He is then told when to go to bed and when to get up. He is told when to eat and when to sleep. He is told to move here or move there. He is told what he is allowed to do and what he is not allowed to do. And worst of all, he is told that a certain group of people is the "enemy" and therefore must be bombed into submission or killed.

The draft is not at all about defending and protecting the country. It is about getting cannon fodder to fight in an immoral and unnecessary overseas war. How many young men who didn’t know where Vietnam was located would think of going there to kill or be killed unless they were forced to do so?

A real invasion of American soil would necessitate, not the conscription of young men to fight, but the need for Americans of all ages to wait in line in order to get a chance to shoot the invaders. Every able-bodied man (and even some women) would fight without having to be coerced or threatened.

The draft is something that all patriotic Americans should abhor because, as Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) has said: "A government that is willing to enslave some of its people can never be trusted to protect the liberties of its own citizens..."

It is too bad that more young men didn’t use whatever means they could, legal or otherwise, to avoid being sent to Vietnam. Fifty-eight thousand Americans and perhaps two million Southeast Asians are dead because millions of American soldiers obeyed the dictates of the state.

Why, then, would Christians who are opposed to slavery be in support of military conscription? The answer is because they are not opposed to the state. In fact, many Christians are in love with the state. Sure, they may complain about paying their taxes or following some regulation, get upset with Supreme Court decisions about abortion, and even get outraged about government-funded pornographic art, but when it comes to the subject of war and the military they lose their mind. Bombing, maiming, interrogating, and killing are okay as long as it is done in service for the state...

Even if they acknowledge that a war like the one in Iraq is unconstitutional and unnecessary – and even immoral and senseless – some Christians still say that the troops are not responsible and we should support them.

What are the Christians who live by the "obey the powers that be" mantra going to do when the state conscripts their young women? ...

What are these Christians going to do when U.S. troops are directed to attack American citizens in the name of fighting terrorism? Will they still encourage their children to join the military? ...

Christians who continue to defend Bush’s war of aggression in Iraq are in a state of denial. They refuse to believe that the president lied the country into war. They refuse to believe that loving one’s country has nothing to do with loving the government. They refuse to believe that being patriotic does not mean blindly following whatever the government says...

Should Christians support slavery in the form of military conscription? Of course not. The draft, whether into the military or into some form of "national service," is about serving the state...

Should Christians Support Slavery? by Laurence M. Vance

Wednesday, November 22, 2006

The Second Amendment, North Korea and Iran by Michael Gaddy

Michael Gaddy is an Army veteran of Vietnam, Grenada, and Beirut. He has some good food for thought on the clamor against the nuclear programs of Iran and North Korea.

Serious supporters of the Second Amendment and the right to self-defense of one's person, family and personal property, fully understand the amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with hunting, skeet and trap, or Cowboy Action Shooting. It has to do with protecting ourselves from a tyrannical out-of-control government.

North Korea and Iran fear the same tyrannical government we do, and insist on being armed for the same reasons.

I know the above is going to be a hard pill to swallow for many – but the evidence is clear: a runaway government maneuvers to control the means of resistance from those it seeks to enslave...

If a criminal had threatened your family along with several other families in your neighborhood, and had then followed through with the threat; invading one of the homes and killing several in the family and then threatening others; would you not seek a deterrent to the possibility of a similar invasion and killing?

Again, I remind you: the governments both Iran and North Korea fear is the same government we fear will become tyrannical and necessitates our being armed to resist. If we fear our own government, why should other nations not fear it also?

Yes, we have been told the Theocracy in Iran and Kim Jung il of North Korea are nuts and fanatics. Have we supporters of the Second Amendment not had the same said of us by leaders in our government? Are we not often referred to as "gun nuts" and pelted with lies and distortions about who we are and what we believe?

Kim Jung il was said by one BBC report to "head a very secretive regime where no dissent is tolerated." Does the recently passed repeal of Habeas Corpus and the old "you are with us or with the terrorists" speech not speak of a similar regime here in our own country?

The last 3 years of the current administration have made it perfectly clear this government intends to become an empire and control the world’s resources – that includes its people. Those of us who support the right of self-defense and the right to be armed should fully understand why North Korea and Iran are determined to arm themselves: after all, only one nation on this planet has ever used atomic weapons on another nation. Why should that nation’s government not be feared? Would you not arm yourself against a criminal who threatens your very existence?

The Second Amendment, North Korea and Iran by Michael Gaddy

Not Yours to Take, by Carmon Friedrich

Thought-provoking article by a home school mom on expecting our neighbors to provide the books we want.

Carmon Friedrich writes:

While many would agree that the government school system is utterly corrupt and not worth keeping on life support, most homeschoolers are aghast when I suggest that government-operated libraries deserve a similar demise...

Folks, that money is not yours to take...

take a few minutes to read... Davy Crockett’s essay, Not Yours to Give. He tells about a wake-up call he had when running for re-election to Congress -- he realized that other people’s pockets were not to be pilfered, even for the best of causes. He points out that those who are so ready to avail themselves of the largesse of others become rather parsimonious if their own purse-strings are involved.

Local libraries are sacred cows for many people, especially homeschoolers...

The assumption that the tax-financed library should provide those things for one’s family is akin to saying government hand-outs are just dandy, as long as they provide for my kind of candy...

How conservative is it to promote limited government, decry pork barrel spending and welfare, criticize tax-funded education, yet avail ourselves of the so-called “free” library? Though it’s available to all regardless of race, sex, creed, sexual orientation, or income, public libraries are really just a middle-class entitlement program. They are also a handy venue for corrupting the values of the hapless children whose parents are not careful to protect them from the insidious influences lurking on their shelves. Those bad influences come in many forms, including the socialism that is inherent in the demand for government-financed libraries.

First spotted at (Reject Government Libraries by Carmon Friedrich).

Buried Treasure Books: Weblog » Not Yours to Take

Free People Are Better Drivers, by Alan Scholl

Alan Scholl writes:

Now some areas of Europe are doing away with other traffic restrictions after having the revelation that free people acting in their own self interest can be expected to behave in a rational and safe manner when on the road.

According to those who are pushing for the simplification of Europe's traffic rules, too many regulations make people irresponsible because they look to the state to tell them what to do...

The European experiment with reducing traffic laws would be nothing more than a curiosity if it did not serve as an illustration of an important fact, namely that government interference in most areas of daily life is both unnecessary and harmful. Just as the European cities that have reduced traffic regulations have seen accidents decrease, history has shown repeatedly that those societies that are most free, meaning those societies in which people are free to interact and cooperate without arbitrary regulatory interference, are the ones that experience the greatest degree of wealth production and cultural development. The real lesson of Europe's budding traffic libertarianism is that freedom works.

I have long suspected that the speed limit fetish in the United States leads to reduced personal responsibility, without a corresponding increase in public safety. It would be interesting to know more about the philosophical debates that took place when legislators first started enacting speed limit laws.

Free People Are Better Drivers | The John Birch Society - Truth, Leadership, Freedom