Archive for February, 2010

Dear Senator Harkin …

February 13, 2010

It seems like you proposed the idea of reducing the votes required to pass a bill to a simple majority back in 1995.  Now here you are — trotting it out again.  I can almost hear the Harkin gears turning:  “If it wasn’t a good idea, I wouldn’t have thought of it!”

Here is my opinion, one I hope is shared by every tea party and 9-12 group member (and even some Republicans and Independents).  I don’t want you, or anyone else, passing any legislation that isn’t such an obviously good idea, or so undeniably necessary, that it is virtually uncontested.  In my opinion, the vote threshold should be raised to 75, not lowered to 51.

Anyone else?

Advertisements

The way I lean

February 9, 2010

Icicles

At my house, even the icicles incline to the right.

Free Speech for Christians?

February 6, 2010

In late October of 2009, the Congress passed “hate crimes” legislation that President Obama signed into law.  I wrote those of my representatives who were supporting this legislation to express my dismay, before they sent it to the White House.  (Representatives who, by the way, don’t even pretend to represent me.)   How can any compassionate person oppose such a measure, you ask?  Let me explain my reasoning.  We already had plenty of perfectly serviceable laws to punish persons who commit crimes against other persons.  Those laws work, and according to our Constitution, they protect every one of us equally.   Remember when Justice was blind?  So-called hate-crimes legislation doesn’t work under the Constitutional or moral premise of equal protection.  Instead, it creates “protected classes” of people.  These persons are specifically named named in the legislation.   The “liberal” thinking behind such laws is that these persons, so classified, have been inadequately protected by laws based on equal protection.  Therefore, they require special protection.

Therein lies my problem.  I am opposed on philosophical grounds.  If we find that there are persons who are inadequately protected in the enforcement of the laws.  Then we need to fix enforcement until the existing law is protecting us all equally.  If we elevate some as more deserving of the protection of  law, then by inference we lower our relative emphasis on protecting others.  Those like me, who aren’t named for special protection.

Do you like your freedom of speech?  I like mine.  But we are on a very slippery slope.  I want to refer you to an article from the OneNewsNow blog about some rather benign (in my opinion) comments by city officials in Lancaster California that are being investigated as “hate speech”.  Did these people voice a negative opinion of even a single individual?  No, they made positive statements about their own religious faith (which is not on the state protected list).

Here is a newspaper article from the area that should further back up what I am saying.  This article got me to wondering who comprised this “Task Force” who were apparently going after these city officials for making statements about their own faith on the grounds that doing so was expressing hate for those not of the same faith.

If you think I am overstating the case, I invite you to peruse the organization web site for the Antelope Valley Human Relations Task Force.  Is this organization comprised of people who honestly believe they are doing good? Probably.  So does every organization whose stated purpose is “cleansing” society of the class that is out of favor.  According to the standards posted on the Task Force’s own web site, no rational person would assume any “investigation” was even needed.  But that won’t keep these keepers of the agenda from harassing these officials to the fullest extent possible.

If, based on the sketchy information in the first article in the Antelope Valley news, you think the council woman in question was out of line, check out this one to see who is “working the system” against these folks.  This is part of a widely recognized strategy.  We just can’t recognize it on account of political correctness.

So, I’ve made my case and referred you to my evidence.  Let me get back to my point.  Our Congress and President are ultra busy creating a legal environment where anti-Christian groups can have open season on us.  They can’t understand serving Holy God, especially if we insist that He be allowed to have an impact on the fabric of our lives.  Further, if we insist on clinging to notion that man is sinful and needs to be redeemed, we just might be engaging in hate speech.  Doesn’t  matter if we are doing our best to help them escape the deadly consequence of sin that has all mankind under condemnation.  Saying they have sin is “hateful”.  And apparently, illegal.