Thursday, September 24, 2009

Questtions Regarding Natural Law

As to "Natural Law", I have read a little on this subject; But, do not get clear answers from the Church or others as to most of those listed below.
1. Does Natural Law (NL) provide a full right for the innocent to defend themselves against criminal attacks, including the use of deadly force to prevent death or great bodily harm?
2. Does NL require or encourage the protection of other innocents against such attacks?
3. Does NL require such defending persons to have ready access to the means (In this time modern and effective firearms) when the civil authorities are unable (Or, unwilling) to immediately (ie "When criminal attacks are in progress or only seconds away, the police are minutes, or hours, away") protect the innocent against criminal attackers?
4. Does NL allow the use of deadly force to protect the means of life (eg Crops, or any product of honest labor) when no authority will do so in a timely manner?

On a larger scale the Church and others provide food, medications and other like aid to the Christian and Pagan peoples of the Darfur region of the Sudan. Yet, those people cannot use these gifts in peace as the Islamic irregulars, very strongly supported by the Islamic government of the Sudan, kills, maims, rapes and steals from these non-Muslim victims.
Neither the Sudanese government nor inter-national bodies will protect these peoples.

Does NL suggest that these charities should make their gifts meaningful by supplying them with the means (AK-47s; light anti-armor and anti-aircraft rockets) and military cadres to train them to defend themselves as no one else seems to be willing and able to do so?

I doubt that the Christ meant his People to have the "Peace Of Desolation".


Book Of Note: Webster, Alexander PhD. & Cole, Darell, PhD.; The Virtue Of War.

Blog: Crusader Knight
Post: The Church, Guns & Self-Defense

Blog: Crusader Knight
Post: When Talk Fails

Blog: Crusader Knight
Post: A Human Life Concern Ignored

Blog: Crusader Knight
Post: Property = Life & May Be Defended

Thursday, September 17, 2009

Is B. H. Obama Really "Black"???

Is Mr. B. H. Obama really "Black"? I doubt that on a variety of grounds.

First, from the point-of-view of genetics he appears to be as sure of being 50% White as any person-of-color in the USA can be. Unless his White mother had a "touch of the tar-brush" somewhere in her background, her producing Mr. Obama with a real Black African make it so. Unless we wish to regress to the old, Southern, "one drop of Black blood makes you Black" rule, Mr. Obama could be considered White as much as Black. (By that old and fortunately defunct rule, I could be considered "Asian" as it appears that I have a few drops of Tartar blood.)

Mr. Obama's education was certainly very different from most American Blacks. His early years were, in part, marked-or-marred by enrollment in an Indonesian school with a very Islamic theme. He then went to one of Hawaii's most elite private high schools. Thereafter, he attended Occidental College and the Yale Law School. I do not know who paid for this elite education; But, it was certainly far distant from that of most (Even collage graduates) Blacks in the USA.

Mr. Obama and his publicists have certainly NOT made public any "sweat of his brow" work performed by him to "earn his way" through college or to support himself. Certainly Mr. Obama has no small business experience or being part of a larger and free-enterprise company or, even, in the truly private practice of the Law.

I have no doubts that Mr. Obama was the target of some "racism"; But HE moved in circles which protected him from much of such and where "racist" is the worst term which can be applied to others. (As I have been the target of "hate speach" I know of hurt.)

What, then, does Mr. B. H. Obama have in common with this nation's Blacks???

For myself, I do not care if Mr. B. H. Obama is Black or Pink or Saffron or Brown or "Green With Big Purple & Orange Stripes". What I do know is that I would NOT buy a used car from him or lend him money or support most of his "destruction for USA" policies.

Wednesday, September 16, 2009

Three Strikes & Out For Obama's Health Plans

There are three issues which can and should kill any Administration supported health care plan(s).

1. Any plan which does NOT provide verification of US citizenship (Or, legal residency here)
before granting health-care benefits AND severe punishments and instant deportation for illegal aliens who attempt to get any tax-based health care will NOT meet the approval of the voters (And of legal immigrants, many/most of whom have applied for citizenship as will allow them to vote in the very near future).

2. Any health care plan which approved funds for tax supported abortions will meet the most severe disapproval of most Catholics and Orthodox Christians, many other Christians and others who hold to high ethical standards. (Do NOT measure this reaction against the Pseudo-Christians found in many places, especially in the Congress!)

3. Any health care plan which is biased against the old-and-infirm (As to limiting or withholding health care) by means of bureaucratic rules (As in Oregon) or other means will be a political death sentence to any Member of the Congress who votes for it.

Could Obama Do More Harm To USA?

I cannot but wonder at the harm that Mr. B. H. Obama has done to the USA! He has attacked and severely damages the free-enterprise core of our economy (Especially as to small businesses) and his various "health" and other proposals will do more of the same.

He has "dumbed-down" the level of political debate and discourse by flooding the media, airways and minds of our citizens with lies, half-truths (Which are worse than lies) and the double-talk more usually expected of a low-class used care salesman OR the Chicago machine politician (Of the most radical variety) he is.

As to national defense he has injured it by his coldness and,perhaps destructive hostility, to Israel (The only democracy and educated society in the Middle East) and to our most staunch allies in Europe, especially the UK, Poland and other like still democratic societies.

His "warmness" towards Islamic dictatorships and towards that hate-filled ideology, Islam, is a matter of great concern to those who study history and learn from it!

Wednesday, September 09, 2009

Learn From ACLU & "The Adams Project"

The "Adams Project" of the ACLU has been showing photos of CIA operatives to terrorists at Guantanamo (And other places?). Rather that rant-and-rave about this we should learn from them and follow their example by posting on the internet the following data.

1. The (Public record available) names, photos, home addresses and auto license plate numbers of the leaders of the the ACLU and the noted project; And,
2. Advertisements for those companies which provide the following goods and services to the public: Auto alarms; Remote auto starting devices; Life insurance companies specializing in high-risk persons; Private security companies (Especially those who specialize in terrorism cases); And, other like companies.

After all, this is personal and commercial free speech as so loved by the ACLU.

Saturday, September 05, 2009

First Amendment, Churches & The IRS

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances". That is the first part of the USA's Bill Of Rights and should be clear enough even for congress-critters and law-making judges.

Yet, the Congress has made such laws as allow-and-command the IRS to limit the content and timing of "political statements and publications" by pastors, rabbis, immans, "elders" and, I suspect, even avowed atheists (As Atheism is a religion per the US Seventh Circuit Court Of Appeals; Please see citation below).. The same restrictions apply to the publications of "religious" organizations.

Now, I am not an attorney and am unskilled in the 1984-like "Hate is love; War is peace" reasoning of our courts; But, it certainly appears to me that the noted IRS power (To punish such persons and churches) is well beyond the limits set in the First Amendment.

It should be clearly remembered that the Churches of New England and New York were (By sermons, publications and provision of the most modern firearms) basic to the Abolitionist movement before the Civil War (OK---War Between The States) Is there any doubt that the election periods sermons and publications of the USA's Black Churches (And others who supported them) were basic to energizing the "Civil Rights Movement"?

If Elder Jones of the local Church wishes to sermonize and publish in the Church Bulletin that elected Dog Catcher Smith should not be reelected due to his corruption or bad moral character or opposition to the teachings of Mr. Jones' church, I see no reason that he should be penalized for doing so. I also see no reason why the same should limit him as to any House Representative, Senator or other partisan candidate or Party. All those statements are "free speech" and the "free exercise of religion"!

The government has NO overriding interest in limiting statements and publications by churches---Especially just before elections. In fact, the public interest should require that as many voices and points-of-view be widely known before such basic acts of democracy.

Most certainly, there is no "clear and present danger" (As in falsely crying FIRE! in a crowded theater) in allowing such wider freedom.

Of course, a cynic might claim that such restrictions are all part of the hidden "Congressional Full-Employment Act For Members Of Congress".

Blog: Crusader Knight
Post: Atheism As Religon--PER Federal Courts