Merry Christmas

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth.

In times past, God spoke in partial and various ways to our ancestors through the prophets; in these last days, he spoke to us through a son, whom he made heir of all things and through whom he created the universe, who is the refulgence of his glory, the very imprint of his being, and who sustains all things by his mighty word.

Newtown Remembered

I stand with the millions of people around the world in remembering the horrific shooting in the Newton Connecticut school two years ago today. I am saddened by the tragic loss of life, and by the struggle of those who survived. It was a terrible event, but I am also saddened by this nation's reaction to that event.

 

I agree that the one injured or killed by violence is not the only victim of the crime, and that it naturally inspires in us the desire to do what is possible to prevent any kind of violence. To do that we need to understand the cause of violence, and we need to recognize that guns are not the problem.
 

The recent knife attack in China and the bombing at the marathon should suggest to the most casual observer that violence is not a gun issue. Violence comes from the heart, not the barrel of a gun; guns are just the tool.

 

Since the Newtown School shooting almost everyone is still making the same mistake, focusing their anger on the tool instead of the problem. When a deranged bomber kills people we blame the bomber, when a drunk driver kills people we blame the driver, but when a disturbed shooter kills people we blame the gun. It doesn't make sense.

 

Some go so far as to insist that a world with exactly zero guns in it would be a safer place, even though that’s never going to happen, and although it seems intuitive I seriously doubt that it’s true. Before you ask me what I’m afraid of, let me say that what I fear most are people who are willing to give up their rights and take away the rights of others, because they have been convinced by someone else that it’s for the greater good.

 

Restricting the rights of citizens will not reduce gun violence and I believe it will increase crime. How successful has the Government been at keeping drugs off the street? How successful has the Government been at stopping human trafficking? What makes anyone think that the Government can take guns out of the hands of criminals?

My Dad was my Hero

A Memorial to My Dad

I am thankful for the gentle passing of my father, on November 10, 2014 at 2:10 in the afternoon. He was my hero as I was growing up, and although I never told him that I loved him I think he always knew that.

 

There was something about my Dad that people really like in a person. He grew up on a farm, worked hard all of his life, and taught me to do the best that I could at all times. Of course his way was always best, which made life difficult at times, but I don’t think it was about being better than anyone else, he was simply doing the best that he could.

 

As I was growing up my Dad seemed almost perfect and I wanted to be “just like him” in a lot of ways. He took me hunting even before I could carry a gun, and fishing even though I often snagged my line. He taught me to ride a bike, drive a car, run a boat, and fly a plane. I’ve often said that if I could have been half the pilot that he was, I would be one of the best pilots ever.

 

He let me hang out in the garage and watch what he was doing. He taught me how things work, how to build things, and how to fix things. I grew up with the confidence that there didn’t seem to be anything that my Dad couldn’t do, and do well.

 

After I left home I realized that my Dad wasn’t perfect and he wasn’t always the best example. He often called me a knucklehead while I was growing up, which always hurt my feelings; I learned to not call people names! He sometimes spanked me with a wooden hanger; I learned to deal with problems in a gentler manner! He was narrow-minded and opinionated; I learned to tolerate the ideas of others!

 

Many of you will recall that he wasn’t afraid to ask a high price when he sold you something, and he wasn’t afraid to tell you the price was too high if he wanted to buy something from you; I learned that money was not a good measure of value!

 

As an adult we didn’t see eye to eye on a lot of things, like politics, religion, or money, but somehow that didn’t stop him from being one of my hero’s. I will always remember him as a hard-nosed kind of guy, with a good side and a less than good side, but I will always remember him with respect and honor.

What I learned from my Dad, I condensed into my own personal mission statement, which is “To leave the world a better place than I found it, by being a positive influence to others, and by doing the best that I can in all things”. I think my Dad lived up to that mission statement too. He was certainly a positive influence on my life, and I expect the lives of many of you here today.

You’re still one of my hero’s Dad, I am grateful for what you shared with me, and I will always love you. But then, I’m sure you’ve always known that.

Be Brave and Carry

The Parable of the Sheep

Not long ago in a pasture uncomfortably close to where you live, a flock of sheep lived and grazed. They were protected by a dog, who answered to the master, but despite his best efforts from time to time wolves would prey upon the flock.

 

One day a group of sheep, more bold than the rest, met to discuss their dilemma. “Our dog is good and vigilant, but he is only one dog and the wolves are many. The wolves he catches are not always killed, and for reasons we can’t understand, the master judges and releases many to prey upon us again.”

 

That day the boldest sheep spoke up, saying “Our dog has teeth and claws like the wolf. It is the wolf’s nature to prey upon us, but if we had teeth and claws we could fight back, and stop this savagery.” The other sheep clamored in agreement, and they went together to a corner of the pasture where the dead wolves were kept as a warning. They gathered fangs and claws and made them into weapons.

 

That night, when the wolves came the newly armed sheep sprang up with their weapons and struck at them, and cried “Be gone! We are not food!” They drove off the wolves who were astonished, saying to one another “When did sheep become so bold and so dangerous? When did they grow teeth and claws? This seems unthinkable!”

 

The next day, flush with victory, the brave sheep waved their weapons as they approached the flock to pronounce their discovery. But as they drew nigh, the flock huddled together and cried out “Baaaaaaaadddd! You have Baaaaaddd things! We are afraid! You are not sheep!”

 

The brave sheep stopped, amazed. “But we are just like you!” they cried, “We are still sheep, but we do not wish to be food. See, our new teeth and claws are just tools that can protect us. They are not bad things; they have saved all of us from slaughter. They do not make us into wolves; they protect and keep us safe from their viciousness!”

 

“Baaaaaaaddd!” cried the flock, “The things that you have are bad and will pervert you, and we fear them. You cannot bring them near us. They scare us!” So the armed sheep, which had no desire to panic the flock and wished to remain in the fold, resolved to conceal their weapons. But they were resolved never to again be subjected to those nights of terror.

 

In time, the wolves which had no stomach for fighting equals, attacked less often and sought easier prey. Not knowing which sheep had fangs and which did not, they came to leave sheep out of their diet almost completely except for the occasional raid; from which more than one wolf did not return.

All was well until one day as the flock was grazing beside the stream, one sheep’s weapon slipped from the folds of her fleece. In unison the flock reacted in horror, crying out “Baaaaaaddddd! Those things that you possess are evil and they have perverted you, we fear them and you cannot bring them near us. We must ban you from our presence!”

 

And so the fearful sheep formed a court and a council, and encouraged by the words of the dishonest leaders and misguided advisors, they placed signs and totems at the edges of the pasture forbidding the presence of hidden weapons. The brave sheep protested before the council, saying “It is our pasture, too, and we have never harmed you! Have we not protected you from the wolves that prey upon us? We are still sheep, but we are not food!” Still the flock would not listen, and drowned out their protestations with cries of “Baaaaaaddd! We will not listen to your clever words! You and your things are evil and will harm us!”

 

Somehow they had forgotten that even they possessed teeth, if used only to graze the grasses of the pasture. It was only those who preyed upon the innocent, like the wolves and jackals, who turned their teeth to evil ends. The brave sheep found it hard to talk to those who, upon hearing their words, would roll back their eyes and flee as they cried “Baaaaddd! You and your things are evil!”

 

Saddened by this rejection, the armed sheep moved off and spent their days on the edges of the flock, trying from time to time to speak with their brethren to convince them of the wisdom of having such tools, but meeting with little success.

 

It didn’t take long for the wolves to happen upon the sheep’s totems and signs. They said to one another, “They have told us they have no teeth. Brothers, we are once again safe to feed upon these fools!” They set upon the flock and horrible was the carnage in the midst of the fold. The dog fought like a demon, and often seemed to be in two places at once, but not even he could halt the slaughter.

It was only when the armed sheep arrived with their weapons that the wolves fled, vowing to each other to remain on the edge of the pasture and wait for the next time they could attack; for if the sheep were this foolish once they would be so again. This they did, and still do today.

 

The next morning, the armed sheep spoke to the flock, and said, “See? If the wolves know you have no teeth, they will fall upon you. Why be prey? To be a sheep does not mean to be food for wolves!” Some of the flock wondered aloud at this revelation but most were unconvinced and cried out in terror, although more feebly for their voices were fewer, “Baaaaaaaadddd! These things are bad! If they were banished, the wolves would not harm us! Baaaaaaaddd!”

 

The brave sheep could only hang their heads and sigh. The flock had truly forgotten that even they possessed teeth, and that it was the wolves and jackals who were evil, not their tools. If you pulled their own fangs those beasts would take another’s teeth and claws, or perhaps just the broad flat teeth of a murdered sheep, and turn them to evil purposes.

 

The brave sheep knew their tools were not evil: The fangs and claws they possessed had not changed them. They still grazed like the other sheep, and they raised their lambs in the spring, and greeted their friend the dog as he walked among them. But they could not quell the terror of the flock, which arose in them like some ancient dark smoky spirit: It could not be damped by reason, nor dispelled by the light of day.

 

So they resolved to remain armed and vigil and to retain their weapons, but conceal them from the flock; to endure their fear and loathing, and even to protect their brethren if the need arose. One day, they hoped, the flock would learn to understand that as long as there were wolves in the night, sheep would need teeth to remain safe.

Towers

In the name of security?

  

 

 

September 11, 2001

On September 11 2001, four passenger airliners were hijacked and flown into buildings in a suicide attack which resulted in almost 3,000 deaths, including the 227 civilians and 19 hijackers aboard the four planes. It also was the deadliest incident for firefighters in the history of the United States. These four coordinated terrorist attacks launched upon the United States by the Islamic terrorist group al-Qaeda changed our world forever.

 

Many countries, including the United States, strengthened their anti-terrorism legislation and expanded law enforcement powers. Congress rushed to pass legislation to strengthen security controls and the President signed the USA PATRIOT act into law. The stated purpose of the Patriot Act was "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism". Its intent was to "deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and for other purposes".

 

From the very beginning opponents of the law criticized the authorization of indefinite detentions of immigrants; the permission given law enforcement officers to search a home or business without the owner’s or the occupant’s consent or knowledge; the expanded use of National Security Letters, which allows the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to search telephone, e-mail, and financial records without a court order; and the expanded access of law enforcement agencies to business records, including library and financial records.

 

Several legal challenges have been brought against the act and the Federal courts have ruled a number of the provisions as unconstitutional. Nevertheless, the reauthorization bill, criticized by both the Republican and Democratic parties for ignoring civil liberty concerns, kept most of the act's original language intact and was signed into law on March 9 and 10, 2006.

 

As it exists today this act and others violates due process for all Americans. All the government has to do is call a citizen an "enemy combatant" and the person's due process rights disappear. The US Government says that US citizens can be detained and then tried in secret trials, even in absentia, using secret evidence that the accused cannot see or challenge. Even evidence obtained by coercion or torture is allowed as a basis for conviction.

 

The Patriot Act and the other acts that followed have turned American freedoms into a worldwide mockery with the federal governments unchecked spying on ordinary Americans. As part of a broad pattern the executive branch is using "national security" and / or "suspected terrorism” as an excuse for encroaching on the privacy and free speech rights of Americans without adequate oversight. It eliminates many protections against unlawful imprisonment and many rights in the legal system are absent.

 

By erasing 300 years of Anglo-American jurisprudence, this country continues down a dark path.

Consider

Response to a news article

An article was published in our local weekly paper written by Sally Lieber, a former state Assembly member, hoping to influence our local city decision makers. I submitted a response the next day, but it was eventually rejected by one of the editors.

 

I was told that to be considered for publication, my opinion must be more than 950 words, be in response to a recent article, and focus on a local issue. I submitted this expanded response shortly thereafter, but it wasn't published and I haven't heard anything more from the Palo Alto Weekly.

 

Understanding Violence

 

On June 27 2014, the Palo Alto Weekly published a Guest Opinion written by Sally Lieber, a former state Assembly member, titled Stemming the Tide of Gun Violence. In this article she suggests that our community should not acquiesce to the gun industry, and she encourages the City of Palo Alto to take action, suggesting that “strong, common-sense measures to deter gun violence can — and must — be advanced in every local community”.

 

She acknowledges that Palo Alto currently has regulations in place regarding the sale of guns, but she is using the fear of violence to motivate residents in Palo Alto to focus on gun violence, and she wants the City to add additional measures to further regulate gun and ammunition dealers.

 

I am a long time resident of Palo Alto, and I appreciate it as a city with both insight and foresight because of its educated and informed population. I too hope that our community can reduce gun violence and create a safe and sane future, but I would hope that we continue to carefully consider the issue of violence without allowing emotion to overwhelm our understanding.

 

We often hear that statistics are like lamp posts, they’re used more for support than for illumination. Palo Alto should be considering policy based on fact rather than fiction. To do that we must stop paying attention to reports promoting specific agenda(s) and start paying attention to un-biased reports from neutral parties. For instance: Recent reports from the Center for Decease Control, law enforcement organizations, and even Congress acknowledge that gun violence has been declining for the last 20 years.

 

I agree that the one injured or killed by violence is not the only victim of the crime, and that it naturally inspires in us the desire to do what is possible to prevent any kind of violence. To do that we need to understand the cause of violence, and we need to recognize that guns are not the problem. The recent knife attack in China and the bombing at the marathon should suggest to the most casual observer that violence is not a gun issue. Violence comes from the heart, not the barrel of a gun; guns are just the tool.

 

I also agree that the right to safety is inalienable, but like the Bill of Right’s protections for the freedoms of speech, assembly, and religion, the people have a constitutional right to Keep and Bear Arms. Unfortunately, like the First and Fourth Amendments the Second Amendment is under attack by those who would prefer control to freedom.

 

Before you ask me what I’m afraid of, let me say that what I fear most are people who are willing to give up their rights and take away the rights of others, because they have been convinced by someone else that it’s for the greater good. Unlike the suggestions promoted in the Guest Opinion by Sally Lieber, I do not believe that her solutions regarding gun violence will be affective.

 

Restricting the rights of citizens, in Palo Alto and across the nation, will not reduce gun violence and I believe it will increase crime. How successful has the Government been at keeping drugs off the street? How successful has the Government been at stopping human trafficking? What makes anyone think that the Government can take guns out of the hands of criminals?

 

Steven Pinkers and Chris Uggen write that, “A narrow focus on stopping mass shootings is less likely to produce beneficial changes than a broader-based effort to reduce homicide and other violence. These rare and terrible crimes are like rare and terrible diseases, and a strategy to address them is best considered within the context of more common and deadlier threats to population health.”

 

They continue, “We are compelled to pay attention to extreme events and we estimate risk with these vivid examples, but as much as we should try to prevent these horrific events from taking place we should not use them as the sole basis for making inferences that determine policy. The outliers are a tragic part of the overall story, but we must pay attention to the rest of the distribution.” Their conclusion is that whatever the cause of violence is, that is where the focus needs to be: Focusing on the tool is still not the answer.

 

Sally Lieber’s suggestion that Palo Alto should “build on its existing ordinances by requiring additional physical security measures for gun businesses” does not address the problem of violence. Asking the city to “make gun and ammunition dealing a conditional use”, or “requiring a zoning permit” is not going to make the city a safer place to live.

 

While I encourage the community to get involved in the public decision process, I would ask that we approach the issue with understanding and not acquiesce to the fear mongering of anti-gun groups. Like so many others who do not understand the cause of violence, Sally Lieber is focusing on the tools of violence. The focus should be on why bad people are doing bad things; not on their tool of choice.

 

When a drunk driver kills people we blame the driver. When a mad bomber kills people we blame the bomber. When a deranged shooter kills people we blame the gun. It doesn’t make sense. Like cars, bombs, and knives, guns are just a tool. Punishing law abiding citizens because of the criminal behavior of a few is not going to make our streets and neighborhoods safer.

 

In fact, if we as community in an enlightened city are so concerned about the safety of our children why don’t we focus on the biggest problem first. Thousands of children lose their lives every day through the violent act of abortion: Where’s the outrage?

Had Enough Yet?

Lock Down is not the Answer

What's the Government Afraid of: Why the Founding Fathers would be shocked. Part 5 of 5

 

A friend of mine once asked me “what I was afraid of” to which I wanted to reply, “Nothing”. Others have also asked this question, but he was suggesting that my interest in guns must be motivated by some great [unfounded] fear. My initial response to this line of questioning was there are plenty of things that scare me. I’ll admit that I’ve continued to think about this and recently came to an interesting realization.

 

What I fear the most is people who are willing to give up their own rights, and take away the rights of others, because someone has convinced them that it is “for the greater good”. Some call these people “sheeple” which admittedly is a bit derogatory, but they fit the profile of sheep that are exceptionally passive, easily controlled, and unwilling to argue with the sheepdog.

 

I’ll admit that I would feel worse about killing a stupid kid who thought breaking and entering was cool than about killing someone who deserved it, but I would feel bad about either for the rest of my life. It’s also important to note that I would never shoot someone who is not a serious threat, because I don’t intend to hunt them even in my own home. I will remain in my safe zone armed and prepared, call 911 to establish a timeline, and await the police. In fact I have no intention to take any action unless they present themselves and try to harm me or anyone with me. If however, another family member is present and threatened somewhere else in the house I will have to leave my safe zone; and that’s where things get tricky.

 

So I hold the following to be evident: When an intruder psychologically prepared to kill innocent people enters my home, or my work place, or my grandchild’s school building, lock down is not going to prevent the loss of life. Relying on 911 as an affective first line of defense is not going to work because by the time help arrives it will be too late. Cowering in the corner of a bed room is not my preferred position of defense because it will not protect my family. In these situations, “The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun”. I pray that this never happens!

Is it time yet?

It's Up to You

What's the Government Afraid of: Why the Founding Fathers would be shocked. Part 4 of 5

 

In addition to being trained it’s important to be prepared, and for now I am convinced that all of the firearm regulations combined are not going to keep my family safe, on the street or at home. I know this sounds paranoid to some, but I am still convinced that "When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns". A few minutes of careful thought is all it takes to realize this isn’t as crazy as it sounds! How well has the government kept drugs off the street? How well has the government secured the boarders? What has the government been able to do about human trafficking? What has the government done to protect our water or food supplies? How safe is the power grid or the internet for that matter?

 

What makes anyone think that the government will be any more successful at keeping weapons off the street! Taking firearms away from law abiding citizens is not going to prevent gun violence. We, including those who champion gun control, will simply be more vulnerable because those who don’t follow the law will still be able to purchase guns. Especially in times of natural and manmade disasters, law abiding citizens need to be armed and prepared to give others time to change the system that created the mess. If we aren't, the outlaws will have all the power and they'll simply over run our unarmed barricades.

 

Today as a result of strongly held beliefs and partisan infighting, our government is slowly losing its grip on the ability to function, let alone govern The People. This isn't just in our nation’s capital; it's infecting our states, counties, and cities. While I would hope never to need an AR-15 I am concerned that someday the lack of a semi-automatic rifle may inhibit my ability to protect myself and my family in an extended crisis. Because there will always be a lot of firearms out there, those who cower in their bedrooms with a baseball bat and those who bring a knife to a gun fight will not be able to protect themselves, their families, or their friends; and NO they will not be able to defend their nation either.

End Times

Disaster Preparedness

What's the Government Afraid of: Why the Founding Fathers would be shocked. Part 3 of 5

 

A friend of mine happened upon a group of people sitting on the grass in a New York park discussing the nature of disasters with a writer named Rebecca Solnit. He is a fan of her work and so he stayed to listen as she talked about the mainstream media depiction of disasters: Everyone for himself; females screaming helplessly; males raping and stealing TV sets; the lone hero saving his family, and; authorities struggling to restore order.

 

In reality, Solnit said, people do not panic. They help one another and work together even putting themselves at risk to do so. People are the first to establish first aid, food, water, etc. while the authorities, as we know, step in much later. When people come together to help and support one another there is a natural sense of elation and an awareness of how things should be. She pointed out that recognizing things can be better is often the first stirrings of revolution.

 

Unlike people, authorities do panic after a disaster. They are fearful of change which they do not control, and they are fearful of the revolutionary possibilities. All of these elements were evident in the recent Occupy Movement and they are present in the current Patriot language. Solnit has written about this in her book A Paradise Built in Hell, which provides some analysis of the aftermath of the possible disasters mentioned above.

 

For example: Global weather changes are going to create social havoc as a result of shifting weather patterns, flooding, loss of food production, and loss of available drinking water. The same goes for other manmade disasters such as cyber-attacks and terrorist-attacks. Some of the people are going to spend time building armed barricades and others are going to spend time changing the system that has created the mess. Love for our children and grandchildren say that we should be doing the latter, but that shouldn’t include giving up our rights.

 

We should learn a lesson from Hurricane Sandy where the relief from people working together to help each other exceeded all the efforts of city government, FEMA, and the Red Cross. The same holds true for major earthquakes and other natural disasters. The solution is to organize locally, get to know the people in our communities and find out who needs extra help. We should hold neighborhood functions regularly to assess and strengthen collective readiness, and set aside supplies and tools for the neighborhood as well as for our own use. It’s also important to be trained and ready, such as attending Community Emergency Response Team courses.

 

Whether we like it or not, we are all part of a complex interdependent system of human beings. We need to find well-being in each other; and recognize that there can be no peace in our communities or around the world unless there is social and economic justice. That can't happen until multi-national corporations and big money are driven out of the government and democracy is returned to We the People.

Christ Our Light

Dying He destroyed our death
For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who
believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life.
John 3:16

 

 

Rising He restored our life
"I am the resurrection and the life; whoever believes in me, even if he dies, will live, and everyone who lives and believes in me will never die.”
John 11:25

A More Perfect Union

What's the Government Afraid of: Why the Founding Fathers would be shocked. Part 2 of 5

 

It wasn’t by accident that those who wrote “We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union”, included the right of free speech and the right to bear arms. During the debates on the adoption of the Constitution, its opponents repeatedly charged that the Constitution as drafted would open the way to tyranny by the new central government. The various state conventions demanded a "bill of rights" that would spell out the immunities of individual citizens. As a result The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution “in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers”.

 

The Second Amendment says “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”. It doesn’t say it’s okay to own a single shot black powder rifle but not a semi-automatic rifle: It doesn’t say it’s okay to own a revolver but not a pistol: It doesn’t say it’s okay to own a hunting rifle but not a self-defense rifle. It clearly states the right of The People to keep and bear arms “shall not be infringed”. Remember too that whereas the word militia has been repeatedly invoked to challenge firearm rights, it has been upheld as referring to the people.

 

I realize that the constitution can be amended or updated to reflect the needs of current society, and in this same way the Bill of Rights can be amended or updated to reflect the needs of current society. However, it is a very slippery slope, and the government will have a tough time selling a change to the Second Amendment while “promising” not to mess with any of the others. I don’t think it’s a good idea, and I especially don’t think it’s necessary.

 

Nevertheless, many people still refuse to accept that the 2nd amendment has anything to do with private firearm ownership, pointing out that “None of the gun owners they know are part of a well-regulated militia”. They go on to say that “Even if the 2nd amendment is interpreted to apply to private ownership, that doesn't mean there shouldn't be restrictions on behalf of public safety”. They argue that the 1st amendment rights of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly are far more precious, and yet we can't yell "fire" in a crowded auditorium, or slander others, and even assemble with others and wave signs near anyone protected by the secret service.

 

I would suggest that similar to the regulations on free speech and free assembly there are already plenty of laws restricting and regulating firearm ownership and use. Applying more gun controls to law abiding citizens is not going to reduce crime.

 

I will however, agree and admit that the Bill of Rights argument is weaker today than ever. The country we live in is different from the country our Founding Fathers formed and it may no longer make sense to protect the right to own firearms on that ground alone. Our firearms are not going to protect us from a government that is trying to take our freedoms. If it comes down to that, no matter how many guns we have we will be bringing small arms to a very big gunfight. They will have tanks, armored vehicles, bombers, missiles, and drones, and they will simply confiscate our guns from our cold dead hands.

 

That doesn't change the fact that the loss of freedom has happened many times in other countries and it almost always followed the confiscation of guns: It can happen (again) in the United States. If you don't think so remember the plight of the American Indian, and more recently the internment camps full of Japanese American citizens who lost everything. The fact is our government panicked and the citizens of the US were separated into us and them categories which resulted in the loss of freedom for Americans on their own soil. I understand that the internment camps were a reaction to an outside threat and that today we can say we learned our lesson, but don't tell me it can't happen again or that later reparation makes it all right.

 

I understand why some people think firearms are woefully under-regulated. The AR-15 is a fascinating weapon, and frankly a lot of fun to shoot, but so is a tank and I don’t own a tank. My point is that once we start down the path of registration and confiscation of “scary looking” firearms we are at risk of losing our freedom; either from the inside or the outside. For that reason, acknowledging that I've resisted organizations like the National Rifle Association for years, I now feel compelled to support the NRA, The National Association of Gun Rights, The Liberal Gun Club, and other organizations like them.

It's Not OK

Meta Data Madness

What's the Government Afraid of: Why the Founding Fathers would be shocked. Part 1 of 5

 

Any time we react in fear instead of relying on our core beliefs and principles, bad things happen. We live in a time of relentless fear mongering by the government and the mainstream media, and it's only natural to react to those fears. We all need to make, as best we each can, dispassionate decisions in the face of uncertainty. As example, many unprepared people live happily with the small risk of encountering an intruder; after all nothing in life is risk free.

 

It seems to me that hate-mongering and scapegoating are tools used by the 1% (to use recent Occupy terminology) to keep the rest of us fighting amongst ourselves rather than uniting against the forces that are impoverishing so many people. The government and mainstream media continually distract us with issues that don't impact the bottom line of the 1%. Firearm ownership is one of these issues and frankly I don't think that those in power care; they just want us distracted so that far more important matters can be settled unreported and behind closed doors.

 

For example: The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) passed in the House despite a campaign against the bill from civil rights groups who say the sharing of such information threatens online privacy. CISPA would provide sweeping liability protection to private companies that share information about cyber threats with the Federal Government, including the internet activity of private citizens.

 

Congress is using the recent events in Boston to push the CISPA legislation which it considers to be urgent. “In the case of Boston, they were real bombs. In this case they’re digital bombs. These bombs are on their way. That’s why this legislation is so urgent. For if we don’t and those digital bombs land and attack the United States, and Congress failed to act, then Congress has that on his hands”. It sounds too much like CYA instead of good policy, and luckily (this time) the Senate has given little indication that the bill will come up for consideration.

 

But don’t relax, the federal government is already using a program to monitor online internet traffic and enforce CISPA-like data sharing between Internet Service providers and the Department of Defense. Although it’s often quoted that “Senior Obama administration officials have secretly authorized the interception of communications that might otherwise be illegal under federal wiretapping laws”, it’s actually a secret Federal Justice Court that renews this access. Every three months they also re-authorize the collection, storage, and analysis of telephone “meta data” for almost all phones. Evidently this has been going on for the last seven years, without our knowledge.

 

The Pentagon has explained to internet service providers (ISPs) and other system administrators how to let their customers know that their traffic is being fed to the government. The Defense Department’s Defense Industrial Base cyber pilot program has been renamed to Enhanced Cybersecurity Services. It “expressly covers monitoring of data and communications in transit rather than just accessing data at rest”, and it goes on to say, “That information may be disclosed for any purpose, including to the government”.

 

In the meantime the Justice Department is under investigation for secretly collecting the phone records of Associated Press (AP) reporters; including their work, home, and cell numbers. The AP is protesting what it calls a massive and unprecedented intrusion into the process of gathering news. It says the Justice Department is flouting 1st Amendment rights in its attempt to prosecute what it calls a criminal leak investigation. The Justice Department’s response is, “We’ve been doing this for the last seven years, what’s the big deal”.

 

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is also currently under investigation for applying extra scrutiny to applicants with statements that "criticize how the country is run" or that sought to educate the public on how to "make America a better place to live". An IRS official admitted that the agency made "mistakes" in the past few years with tax-exempt status applications submitted by groups with the words "tea party" or "patriot" in their names. In New York all public cameras are networked into a central location, where software can keep track of suspicious behavior, and Oakland California is beginning a similar project. Civil defense camps, phone monitoring, and drones over American citizens are only the things we know about.

Liberty Lost

Lady Liberty

As everyone in the world knows, Lady Liberty stands on Liberty Island in the middle of New York Harbor. It is a robed female figure representing Libertas, the Roman goddess of freedom, who bears a torch and a tabula ansata (a tablet evoking the law) upon which is inscribed the date of the American Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776. A broken chain lies at her feet.

This statue is not only an icon of the United States it is an icon of freedom. Lady Liberty still personifies freedom from despotism: She still stands for political independence, autonomy, self-determination, self-government, and self-rule; but the freedoms she respresents are being threatened.

Freedom from arbitrary, unjust, or despotic government or control.
Freedom from external or foreign rule.
Freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, etc.
Freedom from captivity, confinement, or physical restraint.
Freedom or right to frequent or use a place.
Freedom of choice; such as liberty of opinion and liberty of worship.
Freedom to deliberately deviate from normally applicable rules or practices.
Freedom to act or judge on one's own.
Freedom to act, believe, or express oneself without externally imposed restraints.
Freedom from servitude, confinement, or oppression.
Freedom to engage in certain actions without control or interference: Specifically the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights.

"When liberty becomes license dictatorship is near." [Will Durant]

"I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!" [Patrick Henry]

"Liberty is liberty, not equality or fairness or justice or human happiness or a quiet conscience." [Isaiah Berlin]

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." [Thomas Jefferson]

"Liberty is precious; so precious that it must be rationed." [Lenin]

Outraged

Red Fish, Blue Fish

About 6 in 10 Americans accept the idea that “humans and other living things have evolved over time”; but as with so many other issues the answers to even this question have taken on partisan colors. According to a survey released by the Pew Research Center in the spring of 2013, 3 in 10 Americans say that “humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time”.

 

This division of American views was staying fairly constant until recently, but over the last few years the gap between Democrats and Republicans has widened. In 2009, a majority of Americans accepted the evolution side of the argument, with 64% of Democrats and 54% of Republicans agreeing that humans have evolved over time. However in this recent survey Democratic belief in evolution rose to about 67% while Republican support fell to about 43%. The previous 10-point gap between the parties has grown to a 24-point gulf.

 

What’s most interesting is that the growing partisan gap seems to reflect politics itself, rather than other factors. Although Republicans include a high percentage of evangelical Christians and Democrats attract many secular voters, religious differences don’t explain the gap between the two parties. Even when the Pew researchers factored out race, ethnicity, and a person’s level of religious commitment, partisan differences on evolution remained.

 

The differing views of Democrats and Republicans, even on this question about evolution, are part of a consistent pattern. People who identify themselves as Republican have become significantly more conservative on a range of issues in recent years, while people who identify themselves as Democrat have become somewhat more liberal.

 

As you’ve no doubt noticed, this trend of the two parties moving away from each other is negatively impacting the proper role of government and solving national problems is becoming an impossible task. The major obstacle to progress in America is that we're losing our ability to cooperate with one another. Republicans are saying, “We will never raise taxes”, while Democrats are saying, “We will never reduce benefits”. Actually they are not just saying it, both sides are now yelling it across the aisle and waving their arms at each other.

 

When it comes to American politics the pace of the gap is widening as well, like our universe both sides seem to be accelerating away from each other. According to the Pew Research Center poll, the ideological gap between the right and left is a chasm that separates most American voters (no surprise there). However, over the last 25 years common ground has eroded even on issues that once had strong support in both parties. It seems like everything, including the role of government, is becoming deeply partisan.

 

In this great divide I see old ghosts. In the town squares and cemeteries found in the Eastern part of this country, memorials to Union and Confederate soldiers are ubiquitous. In Boston Massachusetts, a towering column stands topped by a goddess of democracy. This memorial gives tribute to the soldiers who, as the inscription declares, “kept the Union whole, destroyed slavery, and maintained the Constitution.” In Charleston South Carolina, a similar goddess stands behind a muscular male figure carrying a sword and shield. This memorial is dedicated to, “the Confederate defenders of Charleston.”

 

These two statues, with their 180-degree difference in perspective, currently symbolize the state of our nation. One side is fighting for change and the authority of federal government, while the other side is fighting for liberty and limits on federal government. Once again, a century and a half after Americans slaughtered each other by the tens of thousands; a similar philosophical divide defines the American people.

 

No matter who wins in the next election, nearly half the electorate will feel the country has been stolen from them. It's no longer blue versus gray, or North versus South, it is blue states versus red states. Now it is Vermont and Massachusetts versus South Carolina and Kansas, San Francisco versus Birmingham, and Seattle versus Dallas. Regional differences are tolerable and charming and rivalries between sports teams are fun, but political differences are running so deep today that the people on the other side are beginning to look less like countrymen and more like the enemy.

 

Our politicians continue to behave like a bunch of arguing children on a runaway train, so focused on supporting their side and converting the other side that they don't see the danger outside their private railcars. They are unaware that the bridge ahead of them is gone. Unfortunately, We the People, trapped in the boxcars, are so distracted by our own red and blue ideologies that we can’t cooperate long enough to stop the train either.

 

This country is in deep trouble! As long as we allow reckless political behavior to be rewarded with re-election, politicians will always vote to protect their own jobs; regardless of what it will cost you and me. The time has come for us to insist that politicians never say “never”, and learn to cooperate again. We the People can't allow our politicians, or ourselves, to continue accelerating away from each other; because if we don't get our act together and behave as countrymen, this train accident and the blood shed it causes will be inevitable.