INTRODUCTION
“Academic Freedom” (AF) appears to be, in the USA, a special case of the constitutional protections of free speech and a free press as contained in the Bill Of Rights. Within public and most private colleges and universities it, as best applied, protects faculty (Or, at least tenured teachers) from punishment or retribution for what they say or write---Without regard to the arrogance, foolishness, “craziness” of such words or the extent to which they irritate others.
There are the academic world's own limits to AF, some of which are the products of the anti-free-speech movements, often based of “victimology”, which have appeared in recent years on some campuses. (For an excellent analysis of this issue, please see Professor Donald Alexander Downs' Restoring Free Speech and Liberty on Campus (1).
Certainly, universities and colleges accept, if not encourage, varieties of speech and writing that private and public employers in other sectors would not allow and would be likely to punish by various means up to and including termination-of-employment or even civil or criminal prosecution.
There are other limits to AF and issues as to applying that special case freedom to students AND as to the duties of university administrators and the general public or the government, especially the courts, as to AF. There are also the question as to just how much (Public) universities should be involved in actions against alleged violators of AF and other claimed “rights” to an extent which goes beyond those allowed or required of the general public.
GENERAL LIMITS TO AF FOR TEACHERS
AF for teachers does have some more limits, which include:
1.Not allowing civil or criminal punishment for accepting pay as a teacher and failing to teacher what is included in published course descriptions or other documents available
to the student, that being a form of fraud;
2.Not allowing civil or criminal punishment for accepting pay and teaching materials outside of or beyond professional competence or education (eg An art teacher instructing medical students in eye surgery, a political scientist attempting to teach forensic architecture or metallurgy, a teacher of philosophy attempting to instruct students in military science or “ag-science”), that being a form of gross fraud;
3. Not allowing the taking of overt actions, directly or through others, to limit the AF of others (Teachers, students, guest speakers a U-events);
4.Not allowing the active solicitation to or participation in actual criminal activity (eg Arson, Battery, Disorderly Conduct, Theft, “Violation Of Civil Rights” as defined by statute); And,
5.Having any expectation of avoiding “hurt feelings”, on any basis, as teachers are expected to be strong individuals free from such alleged injury (Or, “If you can not stand the heat, get out of the academic kitchen!”).
AF FOR STUDENTS (?) AND ITS LIMITS
Within public and most private academic settings, there is a general and growing acceptance of AF for students inside the class room, if not outside of it and still on campus. What are the AF “rights” of students?
1.To be free of unqualified teachers who inflict ignorance on others.
2.To be able to, respectfully, disagree with teachers and other students in or out of class as to the materials presented in class or being considered or debated otherwise at their schools---Even if such disagreement is that of a “minority of one”--Without retribution by teachers, students or others.
The limits on students AF is much like that of teachers (Noted above); But, without the expectation of competency or education beyond what is expected as a prerequisite for entry into any given class. Certainly, students' AF does NOT include any right to solicit or otherwise participate in any criminal activities or suppression of others' AF as individuals or organized/impromptu groups or mobs. It does not (Or should not?) create any expectations, in those adult students, of any “freedom from hurt feelings”. [eg A student who behaves in a discourteous manner or asks an off-subject question in a class has a reasonable expectation of being “called on that”---Without regards to that students “feelings”.]
A SHORT STEP BACK INTO HISTORY
It is worth a few words as to the “why” of AF and the greater expectations (Sometimes very unreasonable) of students and teachers for certain “rights” or privileges beyond that given to or expected by citizens outside of the academic world.
All of these date back to medieval times when universities had special charters allowing very much independence from the civil courts and having their own courts and laws and immunity from the civil or criminal actions to which non-academics were subject. As such universities were, in fact, the creation of the Catholic-Christian Church, some of hat may be due to the great privileges given any literate person to about 1800 on the assumption that most such persons were bound to be clerics.
However, civil law and literacy grew to today's level where no such special powers or rights are recognized by law in most places in the world.
Therefore, it is reasonable to ask if colleges and universities (And their students and teachers) should have in this age legal powers, protections and rights beyond what is given to the general mass of the People by democratically passed laws—As long as the right of qualified teachers and civilized students to search out truth and new knowledge is seen as a ongoing and very important societal need if both democracy and civilization.
This will be addressed below in more detail.
DUTIES/POWERS OF UNIVERSITY ADMINISTRATORS
To what extent should the administrators of (At least public) universities and colleges go beyond the normal range of the public law to protect all within their jurisdictions? There are certainly many (Perhaps, too many) laws on the books to punish, by civil or criminal actions, such acts as sexual assault, other physical assaults, robbery, theft, false imprisonment, riot, arson slander, perjury and false swearing, defamation-of-character, disorderly conduct, something called “hate crimes”, etc.
Certainly, as the administrators of a facility such administrators have a legal duty to protect those on their property as would the owner of a factory or office building or hotel. Violations of those general duties would and should leave such administrators open to civil or even criminal prosecution---Within the same laws as govern others. Of all those legal duties, the first is to insure that all violations-of-law are reported to the appropriate civil authorities---Something which school administrators, from graded schools to universities have historically been reluctant to do and therefore make themselves liable. The civil authorities have, I am sorry to say, tended to let them “get away” with such omissions.
I doubt that any school, in today's litigious society and very large jury awards, can afford to omit that particular duty. (eg If I were a student or teacher or guest speaker at a university where the authorities did not prevent individuals or a mob from attacking or limiting my exercise of my free speech rights or, at the least, actively seek out and file criminal charges against those that did so, I would bring a civil and, perhaps, criminal action against those administrators, as individuals, and the school as a corporation. This could make me and some attorneys very rich.)
What then should universities and their administrators do to protect students, teachers, other staff, guests, themselves and their schools? I suggest the following steps.
1.Make it very well known that any on campus violation of the criminal laws will be prosecuted by the very active efforts of the school and its administrators;
2.Take such “PR” efforts as will cause the local District/States/US Attorney to very
actively make public her/his intent to cooperate with such efforts and to execute such cooperation in a very public and, even, ferocious manner;
3.Ask for such changes in the law or public policy as will allow the school's security staff to be made “Special Deputy Sheriffs”--With jurisdiction limited to the property of the school; And,
4.Even, to have the local Chief Judge appoint some person as a “Special Prosecutor” for on-campus crimes (Including the making of false accusations against others).
5.Insist that the police (Or, if necessary, the National Guard) take every means necessary to immediately suppress any mob terrorism actions such as “take overs” of class rooms or other university areas. Negotiations with such terrorists is a waste of time and would be a matter of misconduct by university administrators.
Other steps which might be taken might be:
1.The video taping of the audiences at all public speeches by guest speakers or in other places where there is a reasonable expectation of disorderly or other criminal conduct (eg Overlooking newspaper distribution boxes in the event of such publications making “politically incorrect” statements);
2.The use of modern face-identification technology to ID persons who appear to have violated the law or to exclude previously banned persons from campus locations; And,
3.Use of restraining orders, where the law allows, to prevent any person who represents a clear-and-present danger to the safety or rights of others from all or selected on-campus locations
I think the above and possibly other like steps would combine the best of the ancient special case of universities with the need to comply with the laws that more democratically govern all People in the same, more public, jurisdiction---This to eliminate the need or justification for any in-house “prosecution” of offenses by universities and colleges. (Confinement in a jail or prison would make it impossible for a student or teacher to continue in the academic world and would make termination of such status automatic and self-inflicted. Personnel records and transcripts could and should record such actions.)
UNIVERSITY ADMINISTRATORS SHOULD MAKE IT VERY CLEAR THAT THEY HAVE NO LEGAL DUTY TO KEEP THE “FEELINGS” OF ADULT FACULTY AND STUDENTS FROM BEING (ALLEGDEDLY) HURT BY THE WORDS OF OTHERS AS LONG AS SUCH WORDS DO NOT VIOLATE CRIMNINAL STATUTES---AND THAT THEY WILL BRING LEGAL ACTIONS AGAINST ANYONE WHO FALSELY CLAIMS THAT THEY HAVE FAILED IN SOME DUTY THEREBY.
CONCLUSION
By all of the above and proposed steps, much of the controversy and wasted efforts (To poof up the academic world to some sort of society with laws beyond that set by the People through their democratic processes) of universities and their “people” could be eliminated and personal time and energy better expended on the seeking of rational and verifiable truths.
Perhaps, it well past the time for universities to join the larger democracy around them and not to believe or practice undemocratic and self-seeking qualities or conditions not allowed to or expected by the People.
(1)Downs, Donald Alexander
Restoring Free Speech and Liberty on Campuses
The Independent Institute (Oakland, CA) and Cambridge University Press
2005, ISBN 0-521-83987-4
[A most excellent book which I highly recommend !]
(2)Comments or reactions to this paper should be sent to me, under the topic of
“Academic Freedom”, to jamespawlak1 "at" hotmail "dot" com
Monday, July 31, 2006
Monday, July 24, 2006
The Most Needed US Supreme Court Decision
The most needed US Supreme Court decision is NOT one overturning Roe Vs. Wade OR the McCain-Feingold anti-free-speech Law OR confirming that the fact that the right to keep and bear arms belongs to the individual citizen OR declaring that "affirmative action" is unlawful racial discrimination OR any of the like and chiefly domestic issues.
What is most needed for the defense of the USA and real civilization is a final and declarative decision that Islam, as it is now and has been for 1400-years, is a terrorist movement no better than and, in fact, worse than the Nazi movement and the KKK or like operations, Islam should be limited, restricted and punished as those other terror-based organizations or movements have been. Such civil or criminal sanctions should apply to both individuals and organizations supporting the hateful practices of Islam and even those who preach its horrid teachings as such are direct calls for action and NOT covered by Free Speech protections.
The pseudo-religious veneer of Islam is no more a protection against such actions as the Neo-Paganism of the Nazi movement, the warped and false Christianity of the KKK, the ceremonies of the Chinese gangster triads and of the Mafia or Cosa Nostra.
Both the hateful teachings of Islam and its anti-human practices are written in the blood of its victims for 1400-years and to this day in far too many places to list here in full but including the massacre of the Armenians by the Muslim Turks, the events of "9/11" (Celebrated by many Muslims by their dancing in the streets), The Sudan, Killing women and children in such other places as London, Spain, the Philippines.
The eveidence for such a ruling is there. All that is needed is a case-at-law and the willingness of the Justices to be honest rather than "polically correct".
What is most needed for the defense of the USA and real civilization is a final and declarative decision that Islam, as it is now and has been for 1400-years, is a terrorist movement no better than and, in fact, worse than the Nazi movement and the KKK or like operations, Islam should be limited, restricted and punished as those other terror-based organizations or movements have been. Such civil or criminal sanctions should apply to both individuals and organizations supporting the hateful practices of Islam and even those who preach its horrid teachings as such are direct calls for action and NOT covered by Free Speech protections.
The pseudo-religious veneer of Islam is no more a protection against such actions as the Neo-Paganism of the Nazi movement, the warped and false Christianity of the KKK, the ceremonies of the Chinese gangster triads and of the Mafia or Cosa Nostra.
Both the hateful teachings of Islam and its anti-human practices are written in the blood of its victims for 1400-years and to this day in far too many places to list here in full but including the massacre of the Armenians by the Muslim Turks, the events of "9/11" (Celebrated by many Muslims by their dancing in the streets), The Sudan, Killing women and children in such other places as London, Spain, the Philippines.
The eveidence for such a ruling is there. All that is needed is a case-at-law and the willingness of the Justices to be honest rather than "polically correct".
Sunday, July 23, 2006
Senior Bureaucrats As Toxins
How many of the below described senior bureaucrats do you know in your organization or other, private or public, bureaucracies?
"There is a remarkably distinctive smell emitted by fearful bureaucrats. It is acrid, rank and seems to cling to the clothing and the hair. Acting like a pheromone, it drives senior management to form small defensive herds from which to scream homicidally at middle management that they must not tell junior staff who can fix the problem what is going on because everything, including what has just been reported on the radio, is secret." (1).
During my 34-plus years in a State bureaucracy I saw this all too often--Especially as the civil service became more-and-more political and less and less committed to "service" by public servants. This disease or toxicity appears to be specially rampant in universities and is inversely proportional to the relationship between the effective Public (NOT political) control of any bureaucracy and directly proportional to the tenure of the senior bureaucrats and the amount of discretionary money involved in their programs.
(1) Macinnis, Peter
Poisons: From Hemloc to Botox and the Killer Bean of Calabar
Arcade Publishing, New York, 2004
ISBN 1-55970-761-5
"There is a remarkably distinctive smell emitted by fearful bureaucrats. It is acrid, rank and seems to cling to the clothing and the hair. Acting like a pheromone, it drives senior management to form small defensive herds from which to scream homicidally at middle management that they must not tell junior staff who can fix the problem what is going on because everything, including what has just been reported on the radio, is secret." (1).
During my 34-plus years in a State bureaucracy I saw this all too often--Especially as the civil service became more-and-more political and less and less committed to "service" by public servants. This disease or toxicity appears to be specially rampant in universities and is inversely proportional to the relationship between the effective Public (NOT political) control of any bureaucracy and directly proportional to the tenure of the senior bureaucrats and the amount of discretionary money involved in their programs.
(1) Macinnis, Peter
Poisons: From Hemloc to Botox and the Killer Bean of Calabar
Arcade Publishing, New York, 2004
ISBN 1-55970-761-5
Saturday, July 22, 2006
Letters RE: Islam
THE TWO LETTERS BELOW WERE SENT BY ME, IN THE LAST FEW DAYS, TO EDITORS AND OTHERS.
2321 South 82 Street
West Allis, Wisconsin
USA 53219-1735
(414) 545-1884
Sir:
I found the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel's July 22nd, front-page and very large photo story as to Muslims praying for Lebanese and Palestinian civilians recently killed or in danger overseas of great interest. Strangely enough, nothing was written about their prayers for those in Israel, The Sudan, The Philippines and other places killed by Islamic terrorists.
Perhaps, their prayers were those parts of the Koran which encourage, if not require, the killing of Jews and those which declare perpetual war against all Non-Muslims.
Sincerely yours,
James Pawlak
2321 South 82 Street
West Allis, Wisconsin
USA 53219-1735
(414) 545-1884
TO THE EDITORS:
Lebanon's "right" to be an independent state is dependent on its execution of
its DUTY to control and suppress banditry and terrorism within its own borders.
As it has very grossly failed of that duty, it has no "right" to complain when the much abused State of Israel undertakes that duty as a matter of self defense.
Respectfully submitted,
James Pawlak
PS---I am NOT a Jew.
2321 South 82 Street
West Allis, Wisconsin
USA 53219-1735
(414) 545-1884
Sir:
I found the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel's July 22nd, front-page and very large photo story as to Muslims praying for Lebanese and Palestinian civilians recently killed or in danger overseas of great interest. Strangely enough, nothing was written about their prayers for those in Israel, The Sudan, The Philippines and other places killed by Islamic terrorists.
Perhaps, their prayers were those parts of the Koran which encourage, if not require, the killing of Jews and those which declare perpetual war against all Non-Muslims.
Sincerely yours,
James Pawlak
2321 South 82 Street
West Allis, Wisconsin
USA 53219-1735
(414) 545-1884
TO THE EDITORS:
Lebanon's "right" to be an independent state is dependent on its execution of
its DUTY to control and suppress banditry and terrorism within its own borders.
As it has very grossly failed of that duty, it has no "right" to complain when the much abused State of Israel undertakes that duty as a matter of self defense.
Respectfully submitted,
James Pawlak
PS---I am NOT a Jew.
Sunday, July 16, 2006
Terrrorist Prisoners--NOT
New York Post
KILL, DON'T CAPTURE
By RALPH PETERS
July 10, 2006 -- THE British military defines experience as the ability to recognize a mistake the second time you make it. By that standard, we should be very experienced in dealing with captured terrorists, since we've made the same mistake again and again.
Violent Islamist extremists must be killed on the battlefield. Only in the rarest cases should they be taken prisoner. Few have serious intelligence value. And, once captured, there's no way to dispose of them.
Killing terrorists during a conflict isn't barbaric or immoral - or even illegal. We've imposed rules upon ourselves that have no historical or judicial precedent. We haven't been stymied by others, but by ourselves.
The oft-cited, seldom-read Geneva and Hague Conventions define legal combatants as those who visibly identify themselves by wearing uniforms or distinguishing insignia (the latter provision covers honorable partisans - but no badges or armbands, no protection). Those who wear civilian clothes to ambush soldiers or collect intelligence are assassins and spies - beyond the pale of law.
Traditionally, those who masquerade as civilians in order to kill legal combatants have been executed promptly, without trial. Severity, not sloppy leftist pandering, kept warfare within some decent bounds at least part of the time. But we have reached a point at which the rules apply only to us, while our enemies are permitted unrestricted freedom.
The present situation encourages our enemies to behave wantonly, while crippling our attempts to deal with terror.
Consider today's norm: A terrorist in civilian clothes can explode an IED, killing and maiming American troops or innocent civilians, then demand humane treatment if captured - and the media will step in as his champion. A disguised insurgent can shoot his rockets, throw his grenades, empty his magazines, kill and wound our troops, then, out of ammo, raise his hands and demand three hots and a cot while he invents tales of abuse.
Conferring unprecedented legal status upon these murderous transnational outlaws is unnecessary, unwise and ultimately suicidal. It exalts monsters. And it provides the anti-American pack with living vermin to anoint as victims, if not heroes.
Isn't it time we gave our critics what they're asking for? Let's solve the "unjust" imprisonment problem, once and for all. No more Guantanamos! Every terrorist mission should be a suicide mission. With our help.
We need to clarify the rules of conflict. But integrity and courage have fled Washington. Nobody will state bluntly that we're in a fight for our lives, that war is hell, and that we must do what it takes to win.
Our enemies will remind us of what's necessary, though. When we've been punished horribly enough, we'll come to our senses and do what must be done.
This isn't an argument for a murderous rampage, but its opposite. We must kill our enemies with discrimination. But we do need to kill them. A corpse is a corpse: The media's rage dissipates with the stench. But an imprisoned terrorist is a strategic liability.
Nor should we ever mistreat captured soldiers or insurgents who adhere to standing conventions. On the contrary, we should enforce policies that encourage our enemies to identify themselves according to the laws of war. Ambiguity works to their advantage, never to ours.
Our policy toward terrorists and insurgents in civilian clothing should be straightforward and public: Surrender before firing a shot or taking hostile action toward our troops, and we'll regard you as a legal prisoner. But once you've pulled a trigger, thrown a grenade or detonated a bomb, you will be killed. On the battlefield and on the spot.
Isn't that common sense? It also happens to conform to the traditional conduct of war between civilized nations. Ignorant of history, we've talked ourselves into folly.
And by the way: How have the terrorists treated the uniformed American soldiers they've captured? According to the Geneva Convention?
Sadly, even our military has been infected by political correctness. Some of my former peers will wring their hands and babble about "winning hearts and minds." But we'll never win the hearts and minds of terrorists. And if we hope to win the minds, if not the hearts, of foreign populations, we must be willing to kill the violent, lawless fraction of a fraction of a percent of the population determined to terrorize the rest.
Ravaged societies crave and need strict order. Soft policies may appear to work in the short term, but they fail overwhelmingly in the longer term. Wherever we've tried sweetness and light in Iraq, it has only worked as long as our troops were present - after which the terrorists returned and slaughtered the beneficiaries of our good intentions. If you wish to defend the many, you must be willing to kill the few.
For now, we're stuck with a situation in which the hardcore terrorists in Guantanamo are "innocent victims" even to our fair-weather allies. In Iraq, our troops capture bomb-makers only to learn they've been dumped back on the block.
It is not humane to spare fanatical murderers. It is not humane to play into our enemy's hands. And it is not humane to endanger our troops out of political correctness.
Instead of worrying over trumped-up atrocities in Iraq (the media give credence to any claim made by terrorists), we should stop apologizing and take a stand. That means firm rules for the battlefield, not Gumby-speak intended to please critics who'll never be satisfied by anything America does.
The ultimate act of humanity in the War on Terror is to win. To do so, we must kill our enemies wherever we encounter them. He who commits an act of terror forfeits every right he once possessed.
Ralph Peters' new book, "Never Quit the Fight," hits stores today.
KILL, DON'T CAPTURE
By RALPH PETERS
July 10, 2006 -- THE British military defines experience as the ability to recognize a mistake the second time you make it. By that standard, we should be very experienced in dealing with captured terrorists, since we've made the same mistake again and again.
Violent Islamist extremists must be killed on the battlefield. Only in the rarest cases should they be taken prisoner. Few have serious intelligence value. And, once captured, there's no way to dispose of them.
Killing terrorists during a conflict isn't barbaric or immoral - or even illegal. We've imposed rules upon ourselves that have no historical or judicial precedent. We haven't been stymied by others, but by ourselves.
The oft-cited, seldom-read Geneva and Hague Conventions define legal combatants as those who visibly identify themselves by wearing uniforms or distinguishing insignia (the latter provision covers honorable partisans - but no badges or armbands, no protection). Those who wear civilian clothes to ambush soldiers or collect intelligence are assassins and spies - beyond the pale of law.
Traditionally, those who masquerade as civilians in order to kill legal combatants have been executed promptly, without trial. Severity, not sloppy leftist pandering, kept warfare within some decent bounds at least part of the time. But we have reached a point at which the rules apply only to us, while our enemies are permitted unrestricted freedom.
The present situation encourages our enemies to behave wantonly, while crippling our attempts to deal with terror.
Consider today's norm: A terrorist in civilian clothes can explode an IED, killing and maiming American troops or innocent civilians, then demand humane treatment if captured - and the media will step in as his champion. A disguised insurgent can shoot his rockets, throw his grenades, empty his magazines, kill and wound our troops, then, out of ammo, raise his hands and demand three hots and a cot while he invents tales of abuse.
Conferring unprecedented legal status upon these murderous transnational outlaws is unnecessary, unwise and ultimately suicidal. It exalts monsters. And it provides the anti-American pack with living vermin to anoint as victims, if not heroes.
Isn't it time we gave our critics what they're asking for? Let's solve the "unjust" imprisonment problem, once and for all. No more Guantanamos! Every terrorist mission should be a suicide mission. With our help.
We need to clarify the rules of conflict. But integrity and courage have fled Washington. Nobody will state bluntly that we're in a fight for our lives, that war is hell, and that we must do what it takes to win.
Our enemies will remind us of what's necessary, though. When we've been punished horribly enough, we'll come to our senses and do what must be done.
This isn't an argument for a murderous rampage, but its opposite. We must kill our enemies with discrimination. But we do need to kill them. A corpse is a corpse: The media's rage dissipates with the stench. But an imprisoned terrorist is a strategic liability.
Nor should we ever mistreat captured soldiers or insurgents who adhere to standing conventions. On the contrary, we should enforce policies that encourage our enemies to identify themselves according to the laws of war. Ambiguity works to their advantage, never to ours.
Our policy toward terrorists and insurgents in civilian clothing should be straightforward and public: Surrender before firing a shot or taking hostile action toward our troops, and we'll regard you as a legal prisoner. But once you've pulled a trigger, thrown a grenade or detonated a bomb, you will be killed. On the battlefield and on the spot.
Isn't that common sense? It also happens to conform to the traditional conduct of war between civilized nations. Ignorant of history, we've talked ourselves into folly.
And by the way: How have the terrorists treated the uniformed American soldiers they've captured? According to the Geneva Convention?
Sadly, even our military has been infected by political correctness. Some of my former peers will wring their hands and babble about "winning hearts and minds." But we'll never win the hearts and minds of terrorists. And if we hope to win the minds, if not the hearts, of foreign populations, we must be willing to kill the violent, lawless fraction of a fraction of a percent of the population determined to terrorize the rest.
Ravaged societies crave and need strict order. Soft policies may appear to work in the short term, but they fail overwhelmingly in the longer term. Wherever we've tried sweetness and light in Iraq, it has only worked as long as our troops were present - after which the terrorists returned and slaughtered the beneficiaries of our good intentions. If you wish to defend the many, you must be willing to kill the few.
For now, we're stuck with a situation in which the hardcore terrorists in Guantanamo are "innocent victims" even to our fair-weather allies. In Iraq, our troops capture bomb-makers only to learn they've been dumped back on the block.
It is not humane to spare fanatical murderers. It is not humane to play into our enemy's hands. And it is not humane to endanger our troops out of political correctness.
Instead of worrying over trumped-up atrocities in Iraq (the media give credence to any claim made by terrorists), we should stop apologizing and take a stand. That means firm rules for the battlefield, not Gumby-speak intended to please critics who'll never be satisfied by anything America does.
The ultimate act of humanity in the War on Terror is to win. To do so, we must kill our enemies wherever we encounter them. He who commits an act of terror forfeits every right he once possessed.
Ralph Peters' new book, "Never Quit the Fight," hits stores today.
Saturday, July 15, 2006
Christianity, Guns & The UN
There are altogether too many persons in the Holy See and the rest of the Catholic Church (And other Churches) who have climbed on the United Nations' bandwagon riding towards total gun control in this world. Those persons and that movement should be suppressed for the following reasons.
1.The United Nations is dominated by Islamic, Secular Humanist and other anti-Church nations who do all in their power to reduce Christianity to a state of impotence or seek to totally destroy it.
This is specially true for those nations with a Muslim majority as the vast part of the followers of that ideology believe that Allah has declared that there is a perpetual state-of-war between them and all others and that any means necessary to make unbelievers submit to Islam are justified and required. This includes the requirement that all Muslim males either be on military jihad or actively support those who are. The most recent sites of such conflicts are Nigeria, The Sudan, the Southern Philippines, India and, of course, the terrorist attacks against Israel, the United Kingdom, Spain and the USA.
In such places as Nigeria and The Sudan the question is not control of weapons,
but the lack of such means for self-protection by non-Muslims against unjust war acts by those already heavily armed by governments (Which support gun control).
Secular Humanist (ie Atheist) orientated nations are less overt about the
suppression of rights, preferring bureaucratic sanctions (Backed up by armed police)
to direct conflict and, therefore, may be more dangerous for that reason.
It seems very strange that the Church would ally itself with the very corrupt
UN in this and many other matters!
2.Many of the nations most in favor of stricter gun controls are those where human
rights (Including the right to worship according to personal beliefs OR to worship
in any manner OR that of other free speech) are most suppressed. I do not believe that it is consistent with Christianity's interest in the welfare of the People of God to support such governments' as so suppress those rights in this or other like matters.
3.All people have a natural law right to protect themselves, their families, their
neighbors and the products of their labors from unjust aggression. That right becomes meaningless unless they have ready access to the means to do so. As the police (If not the unjust aggressors or their allies) are seldom on-site to provide that protection, the maintenance of that natural-law right requires that the common people have ready access to modern weapons and ammunition without the control of such governments or ideologies as would violate their basic rights.
1.The United Nations is dominated by Islamic, Secular Humanist and other anti-Church nations who do all in their power to reduce Christianity to a state of impotence or seek to totally destroy it.
This is specially true for those nations with a Muslim majority as the vast part of the followers of that ideology believe that Allah has declared that there is a perpetual state-of-war between them and all others and that any means necessary to make unbelievers submit to Islam are justified and required. This includes the requirement that all Muslim males either be on military jihad or actively support those who are. The most recent sites of such conflicts are Nigeria, The Sudan, the Southern Philippines, India and, of course, the terrorist attacks against Israel, the United Kingdom, Spain and the USA.
In such places as Nigeria and The Sudan the question is not control of weapons,
but the lack of such means for self-protection by non-Muslims against unjust war acts by those already heavily armed by governments (Which support gun control).
Secular Humanist (ie Atheist) orientated nations are less overt about the
suppression of rights, preferring bureaucratic sanctions (Backed up by armed police)
to direct conflict and, therefore, may be more dangerous for that reason.
It seems very strange that the Church would ally itself with the very corrupt
UN in this and many other matters!
2.Many of the nations most in favor of stricter gun controls are those where human
rights (Including the right to worship according to personal beliefs OR to worship
in any manner OR that of other free speech) are most suppressed. I do not believe that it is consistent with Christianity's interest in the welfare of the People of God to support such governments' as so suppress those rights in this or other like matters.
3.All people have a natural law right to protect themselves, their families, their
neighbors and the products of their labors from unjust aggression. That right becomes meaningless unless they have ready access to the means to do so. As the police (If not the unjust aggressors or their allies) are seldom on-site to provide that protection, the maintenance of that natural-law right requires that the common people have ready access to modern weapons and ammunition without the control of such governments or ideologies as would violate their basic rights.
Thursday, July 13, 2006
Wrong Premise, Wrong Conclusions RE: Islam
The Governments of the USA and all Western nations AND most reporters, editors, teachers and Christian ministers-of-religion (As well as those they mislead) are placing all of us and our civilization (Or, such of it as is left) in great danger by thinking based on the false premise that the conflict in the Middle East and South Asia is a matter of various nations (eg Pakistan, Israel, India, Lebanon, Syria, Iran) contending with each other.
That is as false and dangerous a premise as basing a medical drug-administration logical argument on such a premises as “There are no medical differences between men and women, between old people and children”.
The proper premise is that: : The basis for all the conflicts in the Middle East and South Asia (And, throughout the world) is the conflict between Islam and all other ideologies. If, and only if, we accept this premise as basic, valid and true, then we will have some chance of resolving the noted problems and protecting our nation and the world from the majority view of Muslims which supports all of the teachings of the Koran and other Islamic works. [Those teachings requiring Muslims to: Either participate in active military jihad or actively support those who are so occupied; Murder any Muslim who leaves that ideology or any person who “insults” the Koran or Mohammed; Not voluntarily submit to any legal system other than Sharia or any ruler other than a Muslim; Give non-Muslims and a only limited legal, social and personal privileges and no rights; Allow (Muslim) women only a very inferior place in the world; And, all of the other horrors inflicted on the world by Islam and still with us today.]
THEREFORE, if you have some teaching/leadership/journalistic/religious position of authority, you are committing a crime or a sin against your followers or students if you argue AND act from any other premise in this 1400-year old war between Islam and the rest of the world.
That is as false and dangerous a premise as basing a medical drug-administration logical argument on such a premises as “There are no medical differences between men and women, between old people and children”.
The proper premise is that: : The basis for all the conflicts in the Middle East and South Asia (And, throughout the world) is the conflict between Islam and all other ideologies. If, and only if, we accept this premise as basic, valid and true, then we will have some chance of resolving the noted problems and protecting our nation and the world from the majority view of Muslims which supports all of the teachings of the Koran and other Islamic works. [Those teachings requiring Muslims to: Either participate in active military jihad or actively support those who are so occupied; Murder any Muslim who leaves that ideology or any person who “insults” the Koran or Mohammed; Not voluntarily submit to any legal system other than Sharia or any ruler other than a Muslim; Give non-Muslims and a only limited legal, social and personal privileges and no rights; Allow (Muslim) women only a very inferior place in the world; And, all of the other horrors inflicted on the world by Islam and still with us today.]
THEREFORE, if you have some teaching/leadership/journalistic/religious position of authority, you are committing a crime or a sin against your followers or students if you argue AND act from any other premise in this 1400-year old war between Islam and the rest of the world.
Islam---So Full Of Hate
What religion or political movement or ideology is so full of hate as is Islam? Not even the hateful Nazi movement, with its Brown Shirt VS. Black Shirt and bloody conflict, ate up itself so much with internal disputes. Even the Thirty Years War between various Christian groups or the Crusaders' errors in persecuting the Eastern Churches have lasted as many centuries of murderous hate as expressed by the many killings of Muslims by Muslims since Mohammed claimed that his pronouncements came directly from Allah---Including those conveniently abrogated by subsequent rulings.
Even the Slavic pogroms and Nazi holocaust against Jews have come to an end with the growing understanding of the Jews as the spiritual ancestors of Christianity and what is truly good in the West. Yet, Islam continues to preach destruction of the Jews, jihads against Christians and others----While still engaged in an almost sexual frenzy of Muslim murdering Muslim. Even our home-grown “skin head” and like movements are small in nature and short-lived---Even though they keep popping up like a rash or teen age pimples, disfiguring and embarrassing but not dangerous to the vast majority of people.
Even the ACLU (American Christian Loathing Union) and other secular groups, who wish to destroy Christianity “for the greater glory of atheism”, do not hate themselves so much as does one branch of Islam detest all others.
Why?
Perhaps, we should look to the teachings of the Koran and the Hadith (The purported sayings of Mohammed) AND to the various interpretations of them as contained in the Sharia (The Islamic codes of law) for some basis for that essential hate-in-Islam.
What other major ideology teaches that the response to an insult is to kill and not to “turn the other cheek”? What other current “faith” of today requires, as a matter-of-law, that those who leave it be executed? What other form of government, unlike those on a Sharia foundation, seek to suppress others on the basis of gender (By means of sexual mutilation and other horrid practices) or religion (Being a Jew or Christian or pagan or even some other form of Muslim)? What other ideology maintains that slavery is a normal, expected and divinely approved state in this world?
What other way-of-thinking always degenerates to the position that music, art, invention, democracy, and literature (Other than the Koran and derived works) are evil and condemned by our Creator? What other culture has given so little, if any, of those best of human efforts to the world as has Islam?
[I suspect that if Israel and Jews did not exist, Muslims would commit more of their energies to murdering each other as a natural result of the underlying hate-filled nature of their way-of-thinking. I suspect if Islam ruled the whole world (As is its expressed goal), its followers would degenerate into a world destroying orgy of mutual/self-destruction.]
To paraphrase others, “There may be tolerant, peaceful and loving Muslims; But, Islam is intolerant, war-like and hate-filled”.
Even the Slavic pogroms and Nazi holocaust against Jews have come to an end with the growing understanding of the Jews as the spiritual ancestors of Christianity and what is truly good in the West. Yet, Islam continues to preach destruction of the Jews, jihads against Christians and others----While still engaged in an almost sexual frenzy of Muslim murdering Muslim. Even our home-grown “skin head” and like movements are small in nature and short-lived---Even though they keep popping up like a rash or teen age pimples, disfiguring and embarrassing but not dangerous to the vast majority of people.
Even the ACLU (American Christian Loathing Union) and other secular groups, who wish to destroy Christianity “for the greater glory of atheism”, do not hate themselves so much as does one branch of Islam detest all others.
Why?
Perhaps, we should look to the teachings of the Koran and the Hadith (The purported sayings of Mohammed) AND to the various interpretations of them as contained in the Sharia (The Islamic codes of law) for some basis for that essential hate-in-Islam.
What other major ideology teaches that the response to an insult is to kill and not to “turn the other cheek”? What other current “faith” of today requires, as a matter-of-law, that those who leave it be executed? What other form of government, unlike those on a Sharia foundation, seek to suppress others on the basis of gender (By means of sexual mutilation and other horrid practices) or religion (Being a Jew or Christian or pagan or even some other form of Muslim)? What other ideology maintains that slavery is a normal, expected and divinely approved state in this world?
What other way-of-thinking always degenerates to the position that music, art, invention, democracy, and literature (Other than the Koran and derived works) are evil and condemned by our Creator? What other culture has given so little, if any, of those best of human efforts to the world as has Islam?
[I suspect that if Israel and Jews did not exist, Muslims would commit more of their energies to murdering each other as a natural result of the underlying hate-filled nature of their way-of-thinking. I suspect if Islam ruled the whole world (As is its expressed goal), its followers would degenerate into a world destroying orgy of mutual/self-destruction.]
To paraphrase others, “There may be tolerant, peaceful and loving Muslims; But, Islam is intolerant, war-like and hate-filled”.
Sunday, July 09, 2006
Anti-Christian Operations In British Prisons
PLEASE CAREFULLY NOTE THE PRACTICE OF "FAIRNESS" DOES NOT EXTEND TO ISLAM !
Saturday, July 08, 2006
Christian Prison Ministry Runs Afoul of Politically Correct Types in Britain
From the Telegraph:
Everyone agrees that there is a problem about prison. For some - the “. . . and throw away the key” school - there should be more prisoners, locked up for longer, to keep the rest of us safe. Others think there should be fewer people in prison, since prison only degrades its inmates.
But both sides accept that the aspect of prison that works badly is reoffending. Recidivism is very high. Prison may protect the public, but at present it does not succeed in getting criminals to go straight.
In the United States in the 1990s, Chuck Colson, who had been in prison for his part in the Watergate scandal in the Nixon White House, invented a programme called InnerChange. The idea was “the transformation of lives through the love of God”. In several states, including Texas, then under the governorship of George W Bush, prisoners went on a course that introduced them to role models from the Bible, learning from parables such as that of the Prodigal Son or the Lost Sheep. The programmes also provided what is so often lacking - follow-up after release.
Reoffending fell dramatically. In Texas, it is claimed that recidivism dropped from 55 per cent to eight per cent for those who took part in InnerChange.
More recently, InnerChange came to Britain. In early 2005, it began a pilot project in Dartmoor Prison, supported by the then governor, Claudia Sturt. The programme was modest (only 10 prisoners were permanently on it) and voluntary. It, too, offered aftercare, and it did so to all participants, including those who refused to embrace Christianity.
Sturt was promoted to Belmarsh last year, however, and from then on, life became harder for InnerChange at Dartmoor. It was decided that the programme should be accredited under what is called PSO 4350 (Effective Prison Interventions), even though this is normally used for “commissioned” schemes in which public money is involved, and InnerChange raised its own funds and did not seek this accreditation.
Someone called the Area Psychologist of the Prison Service was told to have a look at InnerChange, and she did not like much of what she saw. She reported that the leader of the programme believed “the root of offending is in individual sin”, and she opined that this “lacks basis in specific scientific research”.
Warming to her theme, the Area Psychologist wrote: “The place of anti-social behaviour in the concept of good and evil, god [she kept God lower case] and the devil may not encourage self-responsibility in a manner which enables the individual to make sophisticated choices when faced with complex situations in their lives.” She worried that the programme might proselytise and that the people who ran it believed that their version of Christianity was “right”.
She also noted that the programme promoted the unique virtue of heterosexual marriage. This meant, she concluded, that it was “discriminatory” against homosexuality: “This issue will prevent the Validation Panel approving the programme.”
The Chaplain-General to the Prison Service, the Ven William Noblett, has refused to comment publicly, but he was scarcely more friendly to InnerChange and agreed that it should be refused accreditation. He has ordered all prison chaplains to sign a declaration that: “We will not as chaplains knowingly say or do anything which insults or in any way denigrates the faith of any other person . . . We will not knowingly display any literature which offends another faith tradition.”
The supporters of InnerChange say they have no desire to cause offence to other faiths, but they point out that, for example, many Muslims regard the idea that Jesus Christ is the Son of God as intrinsically offensive. Does that mean that no Christian may say it? Can one of Archdeacon Noblett’s chaplains only do his (or her) job if he promises never to say the Creed or display a Bible?
Archdeacon Noblett’s Faith Council report on InnerChange said the programme did not “sit well with multi-faith chaplaincy”. It also worried that there were “issues about whether what works in the religious and social context of the United States would necessarily work in the prison context here”.
The public doctrine of “multi-faith” seems now to have been pushed way beyond its origin - the admirable desire to respect different faiths. It has become a concept in which the word “multi” trumps the word “faith”. Trying in any way to convert others is considered wrong.
Since Christianity and Islam are both, by their nature, religions of conversion, this would seem to disable them, though those who have contact with the Prison Service tell me that in practice none of these restrictions is applied to Islam, and all are imposed on Christianity.
As for the doctrine of “diversity”, it appears, in a manner that George Orwell could have satirised beautifully, to mean the opposite. “Diversity” means that you may say nothing, even by implication (InnerChange has nothing in its programme on the subject), against homosexuality.
And ideas that come from a nasty foreign place such as the United States must be rejected here. Yet imagine the fuss if Archdeacon Noblett’s team had questioned Muslim programmes because of “issues” about whether the “religious and social context” of seventh-century Arabia would work in British prisons today.
One reason that this matters so much is that, without the religious element, there is so little success in helping prisoners lead new lives. The Christian insight, contained in the title InnerChange, is that people at rock bottom can escape their condition only if their hearts alter.
Even for those who do not accept this idea in theological terms, it is a fact that many who find faith do, in the process, recover dignity, and start to lead lives that benefit themselves, their family and their neighbours. The need for such recovery is as desperate as it has ever been.
Britain, of course, doesn’t have any First Amendment prohibiting the establishment of religion, and indeed the Anglican Church is still the established religion of the realm.
But the worldview of secular leftist anti-Christian types is the same there as on this side of the Atlantic.
posted by John McAdams at 9:43 PM
Saturday, July 08, 2006
Christian Prison Ministry Runs Afoul of Politically Correct Types in Britain
From the Telegraph:
Everyone agrees that there is a problem about prison. For some - the “. . . and throw away the key” school - there should be more prisoners, locked up for longer, to keep the rest of us safe. Others think there should be fewer people in prison, since prison only degrades its inmates.
But both sides accept that the aspect of prison that works badly is reoffending. Recidivism is very high. Prison may protect the public, but at present it does not succeed in getting criminals to go straight.
In the United States in the 1990s, Chuck Colson, who had been in prison for his part in the Watergate scandal in the Nixon White House, invented a programme called InnerChange. The idea was “the transformation of lives through the love of God”. In several states, including Texas, then under the governorship of George W Bush, prisoners went on a course that introduced them to role models from the Bible, learning from parables such as that of the Prodigal Son or the Lost Sheep. The programmes also provided what is so often lacking - follow-up after release.
Reoffending fell dramatically. In Texas, it is claimed that recidivism dropped from 55 per cent to eight per cent for those who took part in InnerChange.
More recently, InnerChange came to Britain. In early 2005, it began a pilot project in Dartmoor Prison, supported by the then governor, Claudia Sturt. The programme was modest (only 10 prisoners were permanently on it) and voluntary. It, too, offered aftercare, and it did so to all participants, including those who refused to embrace Christianity.
Sturt was promoted to Belmarsh last year, however, and from then on, life became harder for InnerChange at Dartmoor. It was decided that the programme should be accredited under what is called PSO 4350 (Effective Prison Interventions), even though this is normally used for “commissioned” schemes in which public money is involved, and InnerChange raised its own funds and did not seek this accreditation.
Someone called the Area Psychologist of the Prison Service was told to have a look at InnerChange, and she did not like much of what she saw. She reported that the leader of the programme believed “the root of offending is in individual sin”, and she opined that this “lacks basis in specific scientific research”.
Warming to her theme, the Area Psychologist wrote: “The place of anti-social behaviour in the concept of good and evil, god [she kept God lower case] and the devil may not encourage self-responsibility in a manner which enables the individual to make sophisticated choices when faced with complex situations in their lives.” She worried that the programme might proselytise and that the people who ran it believed that their version of Christianity was “right”.
She also noted that the programme promoted the unique virtue of heterosexual marriage. This meant, she concluded, that it was “discriminatory” against homosexuality: “This issue will prevent the Validation Panel approving the programme.”
The Chaplain-General to the Prison Service, the Ven William Noblett, has refused to comment publicly, but he was scarcely more friendly to InnerChange and agreed that it should be refused accreditation. He has ordered all prison chaplains to sign a declaration that: “We will not as chaplains knowingly say or do anything which insults or in any way denigrates the faith of any other person . . . We will not knowingly display any literature which offends another faith tradition.”
The supporters of InnerChange say they have no desire to cause offence to other faiths, but they point out that, for example, many Muslims regard the idea that Jesus Christ is the Son of God as intrinsically offensive. Does that mean that no Christian may say it? Can one of Archdeacon Noblett’s chaplains only do his (or her) job if he promises never to say the Creed or display a Bible?
Archdeacon Noblett’s Faith Council report on InnerChange said the programme did not “sit well with multi-faith chaplaincy”. It also worried that there were “issues about whether what works in the religious and social context of the United States would necessarily work in the prison context here”.
The public doctrine of “multi-faith” seems now to have been pushed way beyond its origin - the admirable desire to respect different faiths. It has become a concept in which the word “multi” trumps the word “faith”. Trying in any way to convert others is considered wrong.
Since Christianity and Islam are both, by their nature, religions of conversion, this would seem to disable them, though those who have contact with the Prison Service tell me that in practice none of these restrictions is applied to Islam, and all are imposed on Christianity.
As for the doctrine of “diversity”, it appears, in a manner that George Orwell could have satirised beautifully, to mean the opposite. “Diversity” means that you may say nothing, even by implication (InnerChange has nothing in its programme on the subject), against homosexuality.
And ideas that come from a nasty foreign place such as the United States must be rejected here. Yet imagine the fuss if Archdeacon Noblett’s team had questioned Muslim programmes because of “issues” about whether the “religious and social context” of seventh-century Arabia would work in British prisons today.
One reason that this matters so much is that, without the religious element, there is so little success in helping prisoners lead new lives. The Christian insight, contained in the title InnerChange, is that people at rock bottom can escape their condition only if their hearts alter.
Even for those who do not accept this idea in theological terms, it is a fact that many who find faith do, in the process, recover dignity, and start to lead lives that benefit themselves, their family and their neighbours. The need for such recovery is as desperate as it has ever been.
Britain, of course, doesn’t have any First Amendment prohibiting the establishment of religion, and indeed the Anglican Church is still the established religion of the realm.
But the worldview of secular leftist anti-Christian types is the same there as on this side of the Atlantic.
posted by John McAdams at 9:43 PM
Tuesday, July 04, 2006
An Experiment In Elections
INTRODUCTION�CAMPAIGN FOR LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR
STATE OF WISCONSIN----FALL, 2006
On this 230th birthday of the United States Of America I am announcing my write-in candidacy for the position of Wisconsin's Lieutenant Governor in the September 12, 2006 election as an experiment to see how many votes can be obtained: Without asking for or using funds from my fellow citizens OR, any various special interest groups ; On the basis of my life history and positions on matters of public interest; And, by using only Internet, word-of-mouth and other like, non-costly, forms of communication.
Therefore, if you vote in the September 12, 2006 Republican primary, I ask you to write in my name and date-of-birth as given here:
JAMES PAWLAK
9-1-1938
As a Republican I believe that Ms. Jean Hundermark (The �official� Republican candidate for Lieutenant Governor) will be a most excellent incumbent in the office. Yet, I think this experiment will be worth the while AND to the benefit of the People..
Even if you choose to vote in another Party's primary OR disagree with my positions, I ask you to join (Out of a sense of fairness and ADVENTURE) in this experiment by forwarding this note (CUT AND PASTE IF YOU CAN) to as many Wisconsin voters as you can. Even if you live outside of Wisconsin, please forward this to as many Wisconsin residents as you know with the challenge to do the above and route this to as many other like voters as they can, and so on, and so on....
Also, please mention this experimental adventure to your friends who do not receive
e-mail. THANK YOU!
BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION
BORN: September 1, 1938 at Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
RESIDENCE: Life time resident of Milwaukee County, Wisconsin.
FAMILY: Married (Once and still) for the last 38-years; Two (Step) daughters
and one son; Four grandchildren AND one "on the way" !
MILITARY: United States Navy; Active duty from 1956 into 1959; Honorable
Discharge; Highest grade (E-4) Fire Control Technician, Third Class.
EDUCATION: West Allis public schools, Graduated, 1956, West Allis Central
High School; BS (Psychology), UW-Milwaukee, June, 1964;
Some graduate Social Work credits at the same University;
Military training in electronics and gun fire control systems;
Milwaukee Area Technical College classes in Electrical systems,
Police Science and (Current) Jewelry Construction; Many hours of
professional in-service training within Wisconsin's Department of
Corrections.
EMPLOYMENT: Wisconsin Department of Corrections; Full time from 7-1-64 to
9-1-98 as Probation & Parole Agent, Social Worker, Social
Service Specialist and Social Services Supervisor; One year, half
time, thereafter as a �Limited Term Employee Social Worker�; And, prior employment as a Hospital Attendant, warehouse worker and cafeteria server and dishwasher.
HOBBIES: Reading; Making jewelry; Working out at a gym; Walking; Talking about what interests me and listening to people who know �things�
I do not know or understand; Writing e-mail letters to editors,
politicians, friends and �not-friends�.
MY STANDS ON POSITIONS OF PUBLIC INTEREST
The person holding the position of Lieutenant Governor has very little power over the actions of State Government for lack of the veto and budget planning powers held by the Governor and, except in very unusual cases, any vote in the Legislature. However, I think it fitting and proper to let you know my positions on some matters of general and public interest as given below.
BUDGET: If the members of the Legislature and other public officials can not
execute their duties to present to-and-for the People a balanced
budget, then there should be some provision in law to facilitate
that action. Rather than TABOR, or anything like it, I favor the
following plan: If a balanced budget is not passed into law by
some certain date (eg 90-days after the start of each biannual
session, then the pay of the legislators, the Governor and the
Secretary of the Department of Administration would be reduced
by 50%; And, if that is not done within another 90-days, that
reduction would be another 25%. This would apply to both the
General Fund and ALL other funds and would not allow further
borrowing to produce such a balanced budget.
VOUCHERS: ALL State aid for students or pupils, at the high school or lower
levels, should be directly connected to each such child/youth by
vouchers filtered through their parents/guardians (Thus insulating
the State from any church-state conflicts), to be applied to the
school of those adults' choice---If the payee school is accredited by
the Wisconsin Department of Education OR some other and
recognized accreditation organization (eg Northwestern) OR
has completed-in-full an accreditation application for such
recognition.
This is, after all, the real basis for the �Irish Economic Miracle
Model� so touted by UW Administrators, industrial leaders and
the editors of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
Consideration for truly new schools and home schoolers would
be implemented after the initial program is in place.
U-WISCONSIN: The University of Wisconsin non-system has decayed into a
disorganization run for the benefit of its senior administrators and
` professors with the People and Legislature removed from effective
control of its income-sources, expenditures and programs. I suggest
that we elect the President of the University (As we elect a State
Superintendent of Schools) and its Regents (As we elect School
Board members---Perhaps two for each Congressional District).
Some sort of truly reforming action is needed to return the
UW to its basic purpose: The education of our youth.
TECH SCHOOLS: I think it past the time to really evaluate our State's Technical
Colleges to see if they are meeting the needs of their students and
the People OR if they have fallen into the same disease as the UW
non-system. Of special interest will be to see if the administrators and (Full time) teachers at those schools are being paid at, below or above those persons, with like qualifications, in public high schools or in the private (Not university) sectors. ALSO, I call for the direct election, by the People, of technical college board members.
CCW LAWS: At this time Wisconsin is only one of twp States in the USA
which does not trust its law abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons after meeting the standards of each such State. The People of our State have already voted to approve a Constitutional Amendment as to the right to keep and bear arms and, by repeated majority and democratic votes of the Legislature, approved CCW for Wisconsin. Only the veto of Governor Doyle has prevented the will of the People from being enacted in full. Those States which have adopted CCW have either had no increases in crime or noted some reduction in crime rates. At least one such State is eliminating some of the public places where
concealed weapons were not previously allowed. I support the expressed will of the People in this matter.
IMMIGRATION: As the son of an immigrant, who came here in accordance with
the laws then in effect and as an amateur student of history, I understand that this nation was built on the sweat of like, lawful, immigrants.
I am totally opposed to granting illegal immigrants any rights or
privileges due to citizens and legal immigrants who are fully under the jurisdiction of the USA as illegal immigrants or visa violators are not..
I would work towards having Wisconsin's Department of
Corrections and County Sheriffs exactly determine which persons under their control are �illegals� (Doubly in violation of our laws) and take such measures to assure their deportation asap or secure, Federal, detention until they are deported.
RELIGION: I, very strongly, support the �free exercise of religion� and free
speech, as protected by our Constitution, in all public places. I
maintain that Atheism and �Secular Humanism� are religions,
based on the premise that there is no God or gods AND, therefore,
they are not entitled to any more-or-less protection than any other religions. Secular Humanists and Atheists are NOT entitled to monopolize our schools and other public places.
MARRIAGE: As you can probably tell from the above statements, I am very
much in favor of democratic resolutions of issues. As to the
proposed, Wisconsin, �Marriage Amendment�, I maintain �LET
THE PEOPLE VOTE AND CHOSE�.
VOTE FRAUD: It is very apparent the the overly localized �system� of registering
voters and poll control requires much thought and will likely
need attention to insure that our most precious votes are not
diluted by fraud.
I suggest interconnected voting registration systems for all
counties and all voting places to insure real-time checks on any
questionable or challenged voters. This would include connections
with criminal justice computer systems.
I suggest punitive actions be taken against registrars or deputies
or poll workers who are careless or who condone fraud.
I would work towards having Wisconsin's Department of
Corrections insure that �revocation� actions are initiated against
all felons under its control who vote in our elections.
DANE COUNTY: The people of Dane County elect the Circuit Court Judges
there. Those judges preside over the Courts which have
original jurisdiction as to most cases involving State agencies and,
as the Legislature sits in Madison, over criminal cases where
members of the Legislature are alleged to have misused their
positions. This situation gives the citizens of Dane County an
power which is greater and unequal than that given to the citizens
of other counties.
Therefore, I support changing our laws to: Give every citizen,
having a court case involving a State agency, the option of having
that case tried in his/her home county; And, providing for the trial
of Members of the Legislature, accused of official wrong doing, to
be tried in her/his home county by those fellow citizens who were
responsible for electing that Member.
CONTRIBUTIONS: I will NOT accept any political contributions for myself. If you
wish to do yourself and the People of Wisconsin (And the USA)
some real good, contribute to the Mark Green For Governor fund
by going to and clicking on
�CONTRIBUTE�; Then completing that section. If you do not wish to use a credit card, send your check to:
Green For Governor
PO Box 22366
Green Bay, WI 54305
OTHER ISSUES: My positions on other issues may be added in response to your
questions (Please see below) or upon my own reflections!
QUESTIONS FOR ME
If you have any serious questions or comments for me, please send them by e-mail to the address noted below; BUT, please be sure to use the subject heading: Questions For Candidate.
cc State Of Wisconsin Elections Board
NOTICE: AUTHORIZED AND PAID FOR BY JAMES PAWLAK, THE CANDIDATE.
GOD SAVE THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ITS PEOPLE !
STATE OF WISCONSIN----FALL, 2006
On this 230th birthday of the United States Of America I am announcing my write-in candidacy for the position of Wisconsin's Lieutenant Governor in the September 12, 2006 election as an experiment to see how many votes can be obtained: Without asking for or using funds from my fellow citizens OR, any various special interest groups ; On the basis of my life history and positions on matters of public interest; And, by using only Internet, word-of-mouth and other like, non-costly, forms of communication.
Therefore, if you vote in the September 12, 2006 Republican primary, I ask you to write in my name and date-of-birth as given here:
JAMES PAWLAK
9-1-1938
As a Republican I believe that Ms. Jean Hundermark (The �official� Republican candidate for Lieutenant Governor) will be a most excellent incumbent in the office. Yet, I think this experiment will be worth the while AND to the benefit of the People..
Even if you choose to vote in another Party's primary OR disagree with my positions, I ask you to join (Out of a sense of fairness and ADVENTURE) in this experiment by forwarding this note (CUT AND PASTE IF YOU CAN) to as many Wisconsin voters as you can. Even if you live outside of Wisconsin, please forward this to as many Wisconsin residents as you know with the challenge to do the above and route this to as many other like voters as they can, and so on, and so on....
Also, please mention this experimental adventure to your friends who do not receive
e-mail. THANK YOU!
BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION
BORN: September 1, 1938 at Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
RESIDENCE: Life time resident of Milwaukee County, Wisconsin.
FAMILY: Married (Once and still) for the last 38-years; Two (Step) daughters
and one son; Four grandchildren AND one "on the way" !
MILITARY: United States Navy; Active duty from 1956 into 1959; Honorable
Discharge; Highest grade (E-4) Fire Control Technician, Third Class.
EDUCATION: West Allis public schools, Graduated, 1956, West Allis Central
High School; BS (Psychology), UW-Milwaukee, June, 1964;
Some graduate Social Work credits at the same University;
Military training in electronics and gun fire control systems;
Milwaukee Area Technical College classes in Electrical systems,
Police Science and (Current) Jewelry Construction; Many hours of
professional in-service training within Wisconsin's Department of
Corrections.
EMPLOYMENT: Wisconsin Department of Corrections; Full time from 7-1-64 to
9-1-98 as Probation & Parole Agent, Social Worker, Social
Service Specialist and Social Services Supervisor; One year, half
time, thereafter as a �Limited Term Employee Social Worker�; And, prior employment as a Hospital Attendant, warehouse worker and cafeteria server and dishwasher.
HOBBIES: Reading; Making jewelry; Working out at a gym; Walking; Talking about what interests me and listening to people who know �things�
I do not know or understand; Writing e-mail letters to editors,
politicians, friends and �not-friends�.
MY STANDS ON POSITIONS OF PUBLIC INTEREST
The person holding the position of Lieutenant Governor has very little power over the actions of State Government for lack of the veto and budget planning powers held by the Governor and, except in very unusual cases, any vote in the Legislature. However, I think it fitting and proper to let you know my positions on some matters of general and public interest as given below.
BUDGET: If the members of the Legislature and other public officials can not
execute their duties to present to-and-for the People a balanced
budget, then there should be some provision in law to facilitate
that action. Rather than TABOR, or anything like it, I favor the
following plan: If a balanced budget is not passed into law by
some certain date (eg 90-days after the start of each biannual
session, then the pay of the legislators, the Governor and the
Secretary of the Department of Administration would be reduced
by 50%; And, if that is not done within another 90-days, that
reduction would be another 25%. This would apply to both the
General Fund and ALL other funds and would not allow further
borrowing to produce such a balanced budget.
VOUCHERS: ALL State aid for students or pupils, at the high school or lower
levels, should be directly connected to each such child/youth by
vouchers filtered through their parents/guardians (Thus insulating
the State from any church-state conflicts), to be applied to the
school of those adults' choice---If the payee school is accredited by
the Wisconsin Department of Education OR some other and
recognized accreditation organization (eg Northwestern) OR
has completed-in-full an accreditation application for such
recognition.
This is, after all, the real basis for the �Irish Economic Miracle
Model� so touted by UW Administrators, industrial leaders and
the editors of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
Consideration for truly new schools and home schoolers would
be implemented after the initial program is in place.
U-WISCONSIN: The University of Wisconsin non-system has decayed into a
disorganization run for the benefit of its senior administrators and
` professors with the People and Legislature removed from effective
control of its income-sources, expenditures and programs. I suggest
that we elect the President of the University (As we elect a State
Superintendent of Schools) and its Regents (As we elect School
Board members---Perhaps two for each Congressional District).
Some sort of truly reforming action is needed to return the
UW to its basic purpose: The education of our youth.
TECH SCHOOLS: I think it past the time to really evaluate our State's Technical
Colleges to see if they are meeting the needs of their students and
the People OR if they have fallen into the same disease as the UW
non-system. Of special interest will be to see if the administrators and (Full time) teachers at those schools are being paid at, below or above those persons, with like qualifications, in public high schools or in the private (Not university) sectors. ALSO, I call for the direct election, by the People, of technical college board members.
CCW LAWS: At this time Wisconsin is only one of twp States in the USA
which does not trust its law abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons after meeting the standards of each such State. The People of our State have already voted to approve a Constitutional Amendment as to the right to keep and bear arms and, by repeated majority and democratic votes of the Legislature, approved CCW for Wisconsin. Only the veto of Governor Doyle has prevented the will of the People from being enacted in full. Those States which have adopted CCW have either had no increases in crime or noted some reduction in crime rates. At least one such State is eliminating some of the public places where
concealed weapons were not previously allowed. I support the expressed will of the People in this matter.
IMMIGRATION: As the son of an immigrant, who came here in accordance with
the laws then in effect and as an amateur student of history, I understand that this nation was built on the sweat of like, lawful, immigrants.
I am totally opposed to granting illegal immigrants any rights or
privileges due to citizens and legal immigrants who are fully under the jurisdiction of the USA as illegal immigrants or visa violators are not..
I would work towards having Wisconsin's Department of
Corrections and County Sheriffs exactly determine which persons under their control are �illegals� (Doubly in violation of our laws) and take such measures to assure their deportation asap or secure, Federal, detention until they are deported.
RELIGION: I, very strongly, support the �free exercise of religion� and free
speech, as protected by our Constitution, in all public places. I
maintain that Atheism and �Secular Humanism� are religions,
based on the premise that there is no God or gods AND, therefore,
they are not entitled to any more-or-less protection than any other religions. Secular Humanists and Atheists are NOT entitled to monopolize our schools and other public places.
MARRIAGE: As you can probably tell from the above statements, I am very
much in favor of democratic resolutions of issues. As to the
proposed, Wisconsin, �Marriage Amendment�, I maintain �LET
THE PEOPLE VOTE AND CHOSE�.
VOTE FRAUD: It is very apparent the the overly localized �system� of registering
voters and poll control requires much thought and will likely
need attention to insure that our most precious votes are not
diluted by fraud.
I suggest interconnected voting registration systems for all
counties and all voting places to insure real-time checks on any
questionable or challenged voters. This would include connections
with criminal justice computer systems.
I suggest punitive actions be taken against registrars or deputies
or poll workers who are careless or who condone fraud.
I would work towards having Wisconsin's Department of
Corrections insure that �revocation� actions are initiated against
all felons under its control who vote in our elections.
DANE COUNTY: The people of Dane County elect the Circuit Court Judges
there. Those judges preside over the Courts which have
original jurisdiction as to most cases involving State agencies and,
as the Legislature sits in Madison, over criminal cases where
members of the Legislature are alleged to have misused their
positions. This situation gives the citizens of Dane County an
power which is greater and unequal than that given to the citizens
of other counties.
Therefore, I support changing our laws to: Give every citizen,
having a court case involving a State agency, the option of having
that case tried in his/her home county; And, providing for the trial
of Members of the Legislature, accused of official wrong doing, to
be tried in her/his home county by those fellow citizens who were
responsible for electing that Member.
CONTRIBUTIONS: I will NOT accept any political contributions for myself. If you
wish to do yourself and the People of Wisconsin (And the USA)
some real good, contribute to the Mark Green For Governor fund
by going to
�CONTRIBUTE�; Then completing that section. If you do not wish to use a credit card, send your check to:
Green For Governor
PO Box 22366
Green Bay, WI 54305
OTHER ISSUES: My positions on other issues may be added in response to your
questions (Please see below) or upon my own reflections!
QUESTIONS FOR ME
If you have any serious questions or comments for me, please send them by e-mail to the address noted below; BUT, please be sure to use the subject heading: Questions For Candidate.
cc State Of Wisconsin Elections Board
NOTICE: AUTHORIZED AND PAID FOR BY JAMES PAWLAK, THE CANDIDATE.
GOD SAVE THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ITS PEOPLE !
Learning From Mexico
I am NOT so much a “super patriot”, or chauvinist, that I believe that the other nations in the world have nothing to offer us as to ideas and their applications. Even our neighbor to the South, Mexico, has positive and negative lessons for us. First the positive lessons.
Certainly, the goal of family loyalty, patriotism and adherence to Christianity (Or, some other religious faith or morality-teachings associations) are positive and very Mexican lessons which we should review so as to better evaluate the essential goodness of the USA.
More specially, we should look to the Mexican election system for ideas which we very much need to adapt to and insist upon for our won elective processes, of which some of the examples are given below.
1.All citizens are given a verified voter ID card having a holograph and the
voter's photograph and thumb print.
2.Those cards must be presented at the polling places where they are VERY
carefully examined before voting is allowed—Usually by poll watchers from
the several Mexican political parties.
3.A paper ballot is used which, unlike some of the electronic and other voting
non-systems used in the USA or proposed for such use, allows for a ready
recount if needed.
4.The elections are run by a non-partisan governmental organization to which all parties (Including the most minor ones) have access to and some part in its administration.
Also, I believe, that Mexico is like many other nations (eg Germany) where the accident of birth in that nation does NOT make you a citizen if it---Which helps protect the culture and self-identity of such lands.
The primary negative lesson is that corruption flows from the highest level(s) of government to the lowest as demonstrated by the strange and great wealth of most of Mexico's ex-presidents and the every present fact of the mordida (“Little bite”) of expectation of bribes at every level of Mexican government down to the lowest and very petty functionary. We might consider the practices of some of our State's governors and the downward flow of corruption to those in power in our Legislatures and the higher levels of the Civil Service. (I name no names!)
Of course, some of the judicial or quasi-judicial rulings of other nations are in strict oppositions to the letter and intent of the USA's Constitution, laws and traditions. Although we may wish to consider adapting some foreign practices (eg Mexican voting rules, Irish school practices, including government payments to the schools chosen by scholars' parents or guardians, restricting citizenship to those children born to citizens, universal military training as in Switzerland or Israel) we must protect our heritage by limiting our judges to purely American laws, constitutions and legal case lest we end up with the worst of foreign government without any of the freedoms and protections we now have.
Certainly, the goal of family loyalty, patriotism and adherence to Christianity (Or, some other religious faith or morality-teachings associations) are positive and very Mexican lessons which we should review so as to better evaluate the essential goodness of the USA.
More specially, we should look to the Mexican election system for ideas which we very much need to adapt to and insist upon for our won elective processes, of which some of the examples are given below.
1.All citizens are given a verified voter ID card having a holograph and the
voter's photograph and thumb print.
2.Those cards must be presented at the polling places where they are VERY
carefully examined before voting is allowed—Usually by poll watchers from
the several Mexican political parties.
3.A paper ballot is used which, unlike some of the electronic and other voting
non-systems used in the USA or proposed for such use, allows for a ready
recount if needed.
4.The elections are run by a non-partisan governmental organization to which all parties (Including the most minor ones) have access to and some part in its administration.
Also, I believe, that Mexico is like many other nations (eg Germany) where the accident of birth in that nation does NOT make you a citizen if it---Which helps protect the culture and self-identity of such lands.
The primary negative lesson is that corruption flows from the highest level(s) of government to the lowest as demonstrated by the strange and great wealth of most of Mexico's ex-presidents and the every present fact of the mordida (“Little bite”) of expectation of bribes at every level of Mexican government down to the lowest and very petty functionary. We might consider the practices of some of our State's governors and the downward flow of corruption to those in power in our Legislatures and the higher levels of the Civil Service. (I name no names!)
Of course, some of the judicial or quasi-judicial rulings of other nations are in strict oppositions to the letter and intent of the USA's Constitution, laws and traditions. Although we may wish to consider adapting some foreign practices (eg Mexican voting rules, Irish school practices, including government payments to the schools chosen by scholars' parents or guardians, restricting citizenship to those children born to citizens, universal military training as in Switzerland or Israel) we must protect our heritage by limiting our judges to purely American laws, constitutions and legal case lest we end up with the worst of foreign government without any of the freedoms and protections we now have.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
