I've got two words for you!

Mr. President? Georgetown University?

You both can suck it!

Speaking at a religious university in the first place might be conceived as controversial. Promoting the religion which the university stands for right? But then demanding that the university cover up references to Jesus? And then the university complying???

There's a special place in hell for those that deny the name Jesus I'm sure. But before going there, I hope the officials of GU and Mr. Obama realize that they WILL bow and profess that Jesus Christ is Lord and God!

Other stuff

Just wanted to say another couple of things. First, I wish to recognize the great legacy of John Madden who announced his retirement today. His commentary will be missed.

As well I'll just link to Fox's coverage of the horrible way the other "news" outlets have covered yesterday's tea parties. It was unprofessional and vulgar. To be either seems appropriate enough to kick personalities of CNN and MSNBC off the air for good. I'll note again that this behavior and toilet "humor" was first instigated by left-wing blogs, especially at KOS. It's sick, it's hateful, and while it can be tolerated as free speech, it should not be allowed on cable news programs in which one has the expectation of non-vulgarity or partisanship. As much as I can barely tolerate the FCC, they do sometimes work to protect us. In this case I'd like to see them say something. That is after all their job.

Clarity for last night's post

I don't know if the reason why I made the post last night really came through within the post itself. My comments were primarily motivated because of the discussion of succession from the United States. Now one can directly point to Governor Rick Perry's statements yesterday, but I never discount the actions of South Carolina. I've always thought the Gamecocks would succeed again if you just looked at them the wrong way.

Now this is deeply personal for me, because I have always felt like the Southern cause in the Civil War was never truly understood by the North, and especially by people today. I care, so I get very emotional when people discount the South as just being immoral slave owners. Insult a person's heritage and they get defensive. (The difference is of course is that one is not allowed to be proud of white culture.) But I can notice legal cases such as Texas v. White. I can care deeply and sympathize with Governor Perry. But I cannot agree that he was right to say that a state has the right to succeed.

So I have emotional ties to this entire talk of succession, but can be restrained by the law. Surely I am no different from John Adams and other great leaders of our nation. Actually, serious studies of Abraham Lincoln show him to be the same type: opposed slavery and wanted to see its spread stopped, but wasn't going to abolish it prior to 1862. Robert E. Lee, my personal hero, felt similarly. So ultimately we can differentiate the emotional cause from the legality of the situation. In fact, we must. This is not to say that there is a great moral issue operating behind the cause of the Civil War and today's issues.

The difference is that in 1861 the moral issue was racial subservience; the moral issue today is generational theft!

One can look at the founding documents and find reason to include the XIII Amendment which abolished slavery. Let us not forget that the Constitution is a protection of rights in two ways: the first is the voluntary relinquishing of rights to form a Republic and the second is a formal statement of the rights retained by the individual (i.e., Bill of Rights). The abolition of slavery is in accordance with the principles of the other founding documents. So the XIII Amendment is appropriate. All men and women are in fact free, and cannot be involuntarily put in subservience to another.

Now we can agree that it is the government's right and responsibility to collect taxes which fund government duties, but also extra spending by way of appropriation. But one can make the very good argument that when government spending is so abundant that it becomes abusive, it is then right to limit the powers of the government of appropriation. What should happen when the government spends the nation into so much debt that the current generation has no reasonable way of repaying back that debt? That issue is what the tea party protesters were gathered for yesterday. Is this a moral issue? Of course. But should this be a legal issue? I think it should be as well.

My thoughts are thus: It is unconstitutional to appropriate money to any point of debt without also including the reasonable way of paying for the appropriations. This is different from national security or paying for services rendered by our representatives-who should be rewarded appropriately for their services (whether by monetary compensation or incarceration). What this is coming down to how to define promotion of the general Welfare (welfare not being the socialistic program of government handouts of course) in the Preamble of the Constitution. What is done under the clause of promotion of the general Welfare should be better defined to protect the liberties and rights of the individual citizens, including (I believe) not spending such appropriation money as to send the country into generational debt. Paying back that debt is not in the interest (no pun) of the individual or event he general welfare of the nation. That's a huge point, and not one the courts would probably agree with. But that is the fundamental Constitutional argument going on here. And after all it must be the Constitution which protects us, so if we feel we need to be defended we must turn to the Constitution.

Economic Stimulus Package

Looking For Group style!

Now that's shovel ready!

I love this comic... hahaha

The Tea Parties

So I've been keeping quiet for the past couple weeks on the tea parties because I really didn't want to scare myself mostly. I can say now that I am glad that my prayers were answered today and there was no violence. This was despite reports that ACORN and other far-left groups would infiltrate the tea parties and cause disturbances. This is also despite CNN (I don't need to mention MSNBC) mocking protesters on live tv and left-wing blog sites spewing their hate filled ignorance. (I may be questioned for not always providing solutions; perhaps the best solution is to denounce and call for the extermination of www.dailykos.com and www.moveon.org, both of which are nothing but sites of hatred.)

I've started a new Jeff Shaara novel, Rise To Rebellion, which characterizes the beginning of the Revolutionary War. I know some of my friends are going to roll their eyes and instinctively try to talk me out of reading something about rebellion during turbulent times. No need to worry myself or others, or some variation on all that of course. Well let me calm your fears now. I have been Jeff Shaara (and his dad Michael) for years now. I had begun to reread the books I before all this began. That being said, I wish to just mention a few things about the book in the first couple chapters.

At once Shaara presents a stark difference between two cousins: Samuel Adams and John Adams. Sam is the instigator of the mobs, fueling the anger that led to an attack on royal troops in the Boston Massacre. But it is John that historically defends the captain of the troops, based upon his God-given right to a fair trial. I want to quote a paragraph that moved me while I read it last night.

The mob will hear no discussion; they will simply place their blame, magnify their enemy. Their anger will be focused, and they will talk of revenge. And they will not care about the rule of law. He had a sudden clarity... The law will guide us, the law will prevail. There will be no lynching in Boston.

Let me make this clear, for not only the good of the country, but to calm my friend's opinions on my sanity. I love the law and the protection it gives us. Our nation is based on the rule of law primarily, and our government exists as nothing more than to ensure that we are protected by law. We cannot tolerate the mob; we must always call for the destruction of the mob. Law is to be esteemed and debate is to respected and encouraged.

So I am enlightened to see the tea parties go smoothly with no hint of the mob. Today we didn't see the mob unruliness that accompanied certain Civil Rights or Vietnam War protests. (In all fairness, the Civil Rights protests were something totally different. After all, half the time the protesters were peacefully and intentionally breaking the law to make their point.) The people today were orderly and respectful. Today will probably go down as the most amount of people in the widest range of area in the largest peaceful protest ever in the history of the world. That's a feat to be proud of.

Today we also heard a bit about revolution, especially from Texas. (Are we really surprised though? It is Texas!) Let me direct my readers to the wikipedia article of Texas v. White. It is not legal to succeed from the Union, since the Constitution is, by its nature, binding for all time. The main citation of the Constitution cited is the Fourth Article: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government." Interesting is how the wikipedia editor summarizes:

This implies that Texas would always be a state, distinct from its government (since the Constitution refers to a state as having a government rather than being a government). This also suggested that the Constitution could work to ensure states remain intact and to regulate state governments.

Instead of talk of succession, and the needless bloodshed that it would bring, I think we have to settle all these disagreements in court under the law. This is what limited the progressives under FDR's administration. What few people realize that lived during that time is that most of the first New Deal was considered non-Constitutional by the Supreme Court. It was elements of the second New Deal that propped up the American economy until WWII (which ended the Great Depression by one massive draft).

What happens if the Texan Supreme Court determines that the Obama administration has overstepped its powers given to it by the Constitution? Well for the most part they would get ignored I guess. But I want to see the courts, especially the Supreme Court start speaking up on some of these policies. Not like the stimulus, but like Obama bowing to the Saudi king. Or to comment on the national "discussion" on capitalism v. socialism. (Much less than a discussion, more like un-debated policies pushed through Congress.) How about the Constitutionality of the current tax code in which 50% do not pay taxes (and most of the burden is put on 15%) or the idea of a flat tax? I think a vocal court system helps clarify exactly what is allowable and not under the Constitution. They are the supreme voice of the land; why are they not speaking up more?

What is concerning about the tea parties? No central leadership. Not that I actually want one personality in charge of any movement, but I want a voice to calmly explain the reasons why so many in America are unsettled about the policies of the current (and former) administration. There are many reasons, and I'm tempted to say that this is the resurgence of conservatism is America, I know that many moderates and liberals are also involved in these parties. There is disagreement with Obama's handling of the government on a popular level from people who are educated of his policies and not just his fancy speeches. People expected change and instead they got... well, another politician. I can't begin to imagine the disappointment. Considering how I've warned before on the hatred still in our nation today, the peaceful protests could very likely turn into hateful mobs. Thank God they haven't. God-willing people will remain angry but peaceful.

Drool

Yeah, so I have a birthday coming up.

Illegals freed!

I call for Napolitano's head!

Calipari

Anyone who knows me knows that I love UK basketball.

Now that being said, I do love John Calipari as well. He is a heck of a recruiter and a great behind the scenes guy. As far as fundamental basketball, well, he just relies on talent more than fundamental basketball. He is no Adolf Rupp in that respect. Basically Calipari is another Pitino, and really that is exactly what people back in KY want. Both have a great college-NBA style that combines very basic fundamentals (college) with high star talent (NBA). Both have a run-and-gun style. And both are very accomplished. And both are in the Bluegrass, which is going to step up the UK-UofL game even more than it is already (hard to imagine!).

So I'm a bit concern over the ridiculous amount he is being paid. There's something to be said about paying for talent. But I'm always wanting to funnel cash towards academics than sports. Other than that though, I'm glad that UK is getting the guy they really wanted in the first place. They wanted Rick Pitino—not Donovan, Smith, or Gillespie—and got one. I will say that I am impressed by Calipari's commitment to making sure his players graduate. Besides that, I will look forward to having the starters set before half-way into the season, which has been UK's bain for the last 5-6 seasons.

Knowing that Meeks and Patterson have said they will come back next year, I actually think that Calipari's style will fit well with them. I think Meeks at SG is a better fit for him anyways. (Gillespie's hard practices will have served them well for the run-and-gun style.) Find a good point guard and you've got the makings of a really good team. I don't know how good they will be next year, but if the right people step up, then we'll be able to make a run next year.