The Dangers of Underestimating the Opposition

In politics, there is a temptation to apply labels to your opposition.  So strongly held are your own beliefs, and so clear to you is the infallibility of your logic and reason, that you cannot understand how anyone else could possibly see it any other way but yours.  That is, unless the other person were less intelligent than you were, or less educated, or less capable, or totally insane.  It's easier, but incredibly lazy, to apply these labels to those who oppose your political stance and dismiss them out of hand. Then, you don't have to do the work it takes to engage in real dialogue because dialogue is pointless.

However, there is a very real danger when doing this.  The danger is that you could be wrong. They could have a valid argument.  They could have spotted a flaw in your logic, one that needs to be corrected.  They could be the key that you've been missing to unlock some previously hidden truth that might very well change your life.  It's happened to me on more than one occasion that the person I was so sure was wrong proved to be right about something important, some belief that I was holding on to as absolutely true but hadn't examined nearly as closely as I'd thought.

The other danger in underestimating your opposition is that it just makes you look stubborn, unreasonable, and unwilling to listen.  It makes you look like you have a closed mind.  The reality is most people consider themselves open minded individuals, and given the right environment and the right opportunities they are willing to correct their course and change their minds - but first, they have to be given the benefit of the doubt.  They have to be allowed the room they need to make those changes, because a lot of their life's decisions have been made based on their belief and they're pretty heavily invested in it.  The older they are, the more they've invested into this idea, so it isn't easy to change.  It isn't going to happen all at once. It's going to take time.

I have seen both sides of the political spectrum make this mistake. It's damaging, and counter-productive.  Belittling the other side may have the temporary benefit of making you feel superior, but has the overall effect of preventing any real change from happening.  No one gets converted by telling them how horrible or stupid they are.  In fact, these things only serve to raise their defenses and block the possibility of any meaningful dialogue and thus destroys the hopes of ever changing the minds of anyone.

Begin with the assumption of good will.  Begin by assuming your opponent is just as intelligent, just as educated, just as capable of applying logic and reason, and just as eager to do what is right as you are. They just don't share your perspective.  That's why you're engaging in dialogue.  You want to see things from their perspective, so that you can be sure you haven't overlooked anything, and you want to help them see things from your perspective by sharing experiences, knowledge, insights, and evidence.

Democrats, Gays, Minorities, and Women

I want to start this post by letting you know I am neither a Democrat nor a Republican. I don't vote for parties, I vote for people.  I agree with George Washington who warned this country at its very inception that party politics were an evil to be avoided for it would tear the nation in two, causing people to defend their party rather than put the interests of the nation at the forefront. I have witnessed this first hand, with people throwing support behind a party even when that part is clearly and demonstrably in the wrong on an issue.  

Having said all of that, I have watched and listened to both sides and what I find is that Democrats really don't seem to hold a very high opinion of most of the groups that they claim to support.  While claiming to champion the cause of minorities, women, and those who profess to be homosexual, the underlying messages are actually very condescending and outlandishly insulting to the intelligence, integrity, and worth of those individuals.  I'm picking out three messages I hear consistently from the Democratic party and explain to you why I think these are absolutely appalling:

1. Homosexual marriage should be supported because gays can't help themselves.

This one is by far the most insulting of the arguments used because it implies that it is impossible for people with same sex attraction to exercise self-control.  It seriously reduces them to the level of animals, since this is the reason we do not hold animals accountable to the law.  Is that really the message that homosexuals want people to believe about them? That they are animals incapable of controlling their urges and impulses?

The more dangerous part of this argument is that decades ago it was arguments like these that were used to support the eugenics movement, classifying some people as unable to improve their lot in life because they were simply born that way. Human behavior is not hard wired into our genetic code, although we may have a predisposition toward certain behaviors, we are still free to choose them.  That, more than anything else, is what separates man from animals.

2. Blacks, women, and gays can't compete with white men for jobs without government intervention.

Speaking as a woman, I find this statement to be beyond the pale. I don't need government help to compete in the workplace.  I want to be hired for my qualifications, not for my skin color or my gender or my sexual preferences. If I am qualified, I can prove it. If I am not able to get hired by someone else, I am capable of starting my own business and finding clients who will purchase what I have to offer without the assistance of the government. All I ask is that the government not be an obstacle or an impediment to my efforts to prove myself.

3. Women need birth control because it helps free them to be more like men.

First, why would women need to be more like men in the first place? This implies that there is something inherently wrong with being a woman, that we need to be "fixed" somehow.  There is nothing wrong with being a woman. It's a glorious thing, and no woman should ever feel like she needs to stop being feminine in order to be able to get ahead in life. Yet this is the exact message she receives from the Democratic party.

Second of all I want to ask how, exactly, does birth control help women? By reducing us to sex objects for the pleasure of men? By messing with our hormones so that we are more likely to become depressed, less likely to seek out healthy partners, are more likely to contract diseases because it throws off our immune systems? By pitting us against our children, telling us that we must choose between them and a decent life? By decreasing our sex drives? By encouraging us to be careless in the bedroom so that we end up contracting STD's or facing a pregnancy without a partner to help us?

I just can't see how birth control helps women at all.  It seems to me like the plight of women has gotten worse, not better, since birth control was legalized in the early 1970's.  Rates of divorce are higher, rates of cheating, the numbers of single parents, incidents of domestic violence - and violence specifically targeted to pregnant women - has increased, even child abuse has gone up over the last 40 years.  How is any of this helping women?  

Furthermore, doctors used to actually try to solve women's reproductive health issues.  Now, when a woman complains about some problem with her reproductive system, the first and often only response she gets is a prescription for birth control.  This is INSANE! Birth control doesn't solve any problems. It only masks them, and the real problems get bigger and bigger.  Girls as young as 11 are being prescribed these hormone altering drugs - hormones that impact their growth and development - as a way to "help" solve their menstrual problems or keep their menstrual cycles regular.

What really helps women is to teach them to value themselves enough not to give in to the pressure to sleep with a guy in the hopes that he'll love you. What really helps women is to encourage them to develop self-control and take responsibility for their lives. What really helps women is to teach men not to treat women as objects of pleasure and to help men realize that there is no such thing as consequence-free sex.  If you really want to help women, help them to take control of their lives so they don't have to be the victim all the time.

Homeless in Elko: Andrew Hockenberry

This guy is Andrew Hockenberry.  He is homeless. He lives here in Elko, and his home is his van.  He works a full-time job as a dishwasher at Red Lion. He's 42 years old.  He was born and raised in Salt Lake City, UT.  He came to Elko because his kids needed help.  The housing market is tough here and, between his child support payments and his minimum wage job, he doesn't have enough money to be able to afford a place of his own.

When it gets below freezing, he buys a propane tank and fires up his camp stove so that there is enough heat to catch at least a few hours of sleep. When he isn't working at the Red Lion, he spends time holding a sign at one of Wal-Mart's exits, hoping for a few dollars here and there.

 This isn't his first bout with homelessness, in fact he's spent about 15 to 16 years total being homeless.  He says the hardest thing about being homeless is staying clean - mentally, physically, and with the police. It's easy to get discouraged, to feel like giving up on life.  He says what homeless people need more than anything else is love - to know that someone cares, to know that they matter to someone. His advice to other homeless people is not to give up.  Even if you have to spend a week asking for help, and you get nothing, keep trying.  It will come eventually.

To get a bath, he often slips in to a restroom.  Sometimes, if he can't do that, he buys a jug of water and finds a deserted spot in the woods.  When he gets enough change, he does his laundry at the laundry mat. Food isn't a problem.  He is on food stamps, and there are plenty of places in town that offer food to people in his situation.

He doesn't have a post office box.  He has people send his mail to the Elko post office attention: General Post. He has a cheap, pre-paid cell phone that he uses to make phone calls. Before he had one of those he was able to use the phone at the JOIN office (Job search aid office here in Elko) to make calls to and receive calls from employers. He doesn't belong to a specific church. He says he is non-denominational, although he was raised in the Mormon faith. He doesn't make it to church all that often.

This is Andrew, and this is only part of his story. Like most people, he has way more story than can fit in an hour or two long interview. Like most homeless people, he doesn't fit the stereotype.  He's not a drunkard looking for his next bottle of booze, or a junkie looking for the next score. He's a person who has made his fair share of mistakes along the way but is struggling to make up for those the best way that he knows how. The real difference between those who are homeless and those who aren't isn't the number of mistakes they have made in life, it's the size of the community they have around them who can help pull them back to their feet when they fall.

News that isn't news

Recently, I read an article reported by CBS5AZ about a woman who jumped off the Hoover Dam bridge and died. This article reminded me of things that I find frustrating about our media outlets. They are constantly reporting things as news that ARE NOT NEWS!

Anything that is expected is NOT NEWS.  For example, if the KKK and the Black Panthers say hateful things about one another, or kill one another - that's NOT NEWS. It's the expected result. If someone jumps off a really tall building or structure and dies - that's NOT NEWS. It's the expected result. If a Democratic candidate or party member says something negative about a Republican candidate or party member - that is NOT NEWS.  It's the expected result.

Things that ARE NEWS:
1) KKK and Black Panthers co-host a community picnic and a good time is had by all with no bloodshed.
2) Someone jumps off an extraordinarily tall building or structure and LIVES.
3) Democrat party member of candidate says something positive about, or otherwise agrees with, Republican candidate or party member.
4) Middle Eastern country declares PEACE with Israel.
5) UN does something useful.

These things would be news. Why? Because they are things you DO NOT EVER EXPECT TO SEE!! Truthfully, I feel like I should be given a refund of my money every time I have to read some story about news that isn't news. Come on, media, you have over 7 billion people on this planet. You can find some things to talk about that are real, genuine news.

Fair taxes and balanced budgets

Taxes are necessary for the maintenance of infrastructures, our military, and for the pay of government employees. Our tax code, however, requires a virtual Ph.D. to understand and apply correctly and there is plenty of discussion about how to both simplify the tax code and ensure that everyone pays their fair share for the welfare of our nation.  There is also the matter of an ever-growing 14 trillion dollar debt we owe as a nation, primarily to China, and how to get out from underneath such a load while maintaining a balanced budget.  Here are my suggestions.

1) Implement a flat tax rate based strictly on income.

A flat tax rate of 15% for all persons of legal voting age is fair and reasonable. It ensures that no one bears too great an economic burden but that all participate to the best of their ability. 

2) Eliminate all deductions and tax credits.

Deductions and tax credits complicate the tax code unnecessarily and create special protections for special interest groups. 

3) Eliminate all welfare and entitlement programs.

Tax money should never be used to fund charity programs of any kind. Using tax money to fund charities is like forcing a man at gun point to give his money to someone else. Not only does it breed resentment, but it also lends to distrust.  People are more likely to give when they are not forced to do so, and to give more generously when they give voluntarily. Let those who are concerned about those in need roll up their sleeves and do something about it personally or get together with other like-minded individuals and  work together to do something about the problem. 

All those who have paid into Social Security should be given a lump-sum refund along with 1% interest for each year the money was kept from them, and no more than that. Retiring for reasons other than your physical or mental incapability of working is something that should be discouraged, not endorsed. For those seniors who have reached a state where they are no longer capable physically or mentally of working, let them be cared for first by their families, then by their Church or other organization they belonged to, and then by those in the community.  

4) Where possible, replace paid government employees with volunteers.

If Americans are committed to these things, if they believe they are worth keeping, let them demonstrate their care and commitment by service and not by forcible taxation.

5) Establish a national language, and only print documents in that language.

Printing costs money, and printing in multiple languages is a huge waste of time and resources. Establish a national language (I do not care if you pick Spanish, English, Latin, or some derivative thereof, but pick one) and then only print things in that language.  Catering to those who refuse to learn the national language does not help anyone and creates an atmosphere of distrust and disunity.

Executive Order: National Defense Resources Preparedness

On March 16, 2012 President Barack Obama published a new executive order with the rather benign sounding title of National Defense Resources Preparedness.  Many worried that this order was paving the road for Obama to declare martial law.  Martial law means that all voting privileges are suspended and the rule of the people is done by police or military force.  This power is usually reserved for times of war, or times of extreme emergency when normal government operations are simply not possible.

There were some in the media who assured readers that this executive order was nothing to concern the average citizen.  Several similar executive orders have been signed in the past, and at least one media outlet claimed that there were virtually no changes between those executive orders and this one.  That media outlet either jumped the gun in reporting the facts, did not clearly understand what they read, or is in league with the President.  A close reading of the contents of this particular executive order should be enough to chill the bones of any freedom loving American.

The first point of concern comes in Part II - Priorities and Allocations under Sec. 201 (6) (b) where it states that "The Secretary of each agency delegated authority under subsection (a) of this section (resource departments) shall plan for and issue regulations to prioritize and allocate resources and establish standards and procedures by which the authority shall be used to promote the national defense, under both emergency and non-emergency conditions. This is a concern because, if read correctly, this seems to mean that the authorities being granted by the president to the various agencies under control of the executive branch have the president's permission to apply every rule in this executive order not only during times of emergency but also during times of peace.

In previous similar Executive Orders, there were provisions made to limit the scope of the powers that the order granted. There is no such provision in this executive order, if anything it seems to be a broadening of the reach of the powers granted.

The second major point of concern is in Sec. 201 (6) (e) Where it grants the Secretary of the resource department the authority to "control the general distribution of any material (including applicable services) in the civilian market".  This means that not only can the government come in and tell any business owner what to provide and to whom, but it isn't just limited to material goods.  It includes services, which means that this gives the government permission to dictate what labor someone must perform and for whom they must perform it.

The third major point of concern reinforces concerns raised in Sec. 201 (6) (e) and is found in Sec. 502 under the title Consultants.  The wording that is particularly troublesome is this, "The head of each agency....is delegated the authority of the President...to employ persons of outstanding experience and ability without compensation..."  In other words, the President has just signed an order that allows him to not only confiscate goods belonging to ordinary citizens but to enslave them, and there does not need to be an emergency for him to do this.

Welcome to the United Slave States of America.

Separating Church and State is Impossible

First, let me define the terms I am using.  Church is any body of people who share a common faith and practice a common religion.  Faith is any system of belief about how the universe came into being, how it operates, and the purpose of humanity within that universe.  Religion is the framework in which you live out your faith.  For example, Catholics believe that the universe was created by God, operates according to laws which are understandable and discoverable by humanity through scientific investigation and divine revelation, and that human beings were created by God for the purpose of loving and being loved by God.  We believe that human life begins at conception and has value because God values it and not because of anything we might or might not do. We believe that all human beings are endowed by their creator with free will. Our religion is that because our lives have the purpose of loving and being loved by God, we are happiest and healthiest when we live our lives in accordance with His will as handed down to us through Sacred Scripture, the Magisterium, and the Pope.  We defend life from conception through natural death. Even though we understand that genetics and environment may play a role in making it more difficult for someone to choose the right behaviors, we still hold people accountable for bad behavior because to do otherwise would be to treat them like animals, as animals cannot rise above these things but human beings can.

Every true Catholic brings our religion into the public square, and we cannot help but do so. It is our measuring stick by which we determine for whom to vote; what causes to support with our time, talent, and treasure; what subjects ought – or ought not – to be taught in a public school; and where our tax money should be spent.  A politician or judge who is truly Catholic will act and judge accordingly.  Those who do not act in accordance with the Catholic faith and religion do not belong to the Catholic Church.

Atheism is also a Church, although very different from the Catholic Church. Atheists believe that the universe came into being spontaneously, operates according to laws which are understandable and discoverable by humanity only through scientific investigation, and that human beings are a byproduct of the universe’s operations and therefore have no purpose at all. Most, though not all, atheists believe that human life begins outside of the womb and only gains value when it can prove itself valuable to others.  Their religion, as such, is that since their lives have no purpose it is up to each individual to determine what to do with their lives and that each individual is entitled to live as the individual sees fit provided that the individual does not substantially interfere in the right of everyone else to live the same way.   

Every atheist brings their religion into the public square.  They cannot help but do so.  It is the measuring stick by which they determine for whom to vote; what causes to support with their time, talent, and treasure; what subjects ought – or ought not – to be taught in a public school; and where their tax money should be spent. A politician or judge who is an atheist will act accordingly and judge accordingly. Any politician or person who says that their beliefs will not influence their judgment, the way they vote, or the laws they attempt to enact is a liar and should not be trusted.

An Open Letter to Representative Gwen Moore

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-q0EP8HjA0

Dear Ms. Moore,

How sad I was to hear your remarks about the tragedy of kids having to eat Raman noodles and mayonnaise sandwiches and going without fresh fruit as a justification for providing funding to Planned Parenthood.  While your remarks might sound compassionate to some ears, they sounded cold and hard-hearted to mine.  What you said to a woman like me is that it is better that I were never born, better that my mother should have aborted me.

You see, my mother gave birth to four little unplanned blessings.  We did grow up eating Raman noodles. We never ate mayonnaise sandwiches but we did eat a whole lot of peanut butter and jelly.  That's not a tragedy. Things were hard, it's true, and sometimes we didn't get as full as we'd like.  We wore hand-me-downs from other kids, and sometimes we got made fun of because we didn't have the money for a haircut.  What we learned growing up, though, was important.  We learned how to make the best of what we did have, and we learned that life doesn't owe you anything. We learned to be creative and innovative, to see potential in things that other people think are junk.

I was 19 years old when I found myself pregnant with my own unexpected blessing.  I wasn't sure how I was going to make it. I didn't have a college degree, or a decent job. I didn't know how the future would go.  I simply decided to put my trust in God and I gave birth to a happy, healthy baby boy two weeks before my 20th birthday.

I wasn't the perfect mother, and we didn't have the perfect life. He's eaten his fair share of Raman noodles and peanut-butter jelly sandwiches. Nothing turned out the way I planned it, but that's the truth about parenthood - there is no planned parenthood, it's not a script or a formula, and it never turns out the way you thought it would.  I have an associates degree, but not a bachelor's like I planned.  I never did climb the corporate ladder and I have never made more than $70,000 in one year.  That unplanned blessing, though, saved my life.  I am a better person because he was born. So is the world.

Don't you dare tell me my life has no meaning because I had to eat a few bowls of Raman noodles, or I had to eat a few peanut butter and jelly sandwiches.  Don't you dare tell me my son's life is worthless because he had to do the same.  If you really want to help those kids, stop giving money to Planned Parenthood.  Planned Parenthood never once did anything that helped a kid in poverty to get out of it.  You can't eradicate poverty by exterminating the poor as if they were insects, Ms. Moore, and you can't end child abuse by destroying children.  If you really want to help the poor, Ms. Moore, and give those children something better to eat, then fight the HHS mandate so that people who actually value all life can continue to do the work they already do helping poor kids eat and live better.  Stop giving to Planned Parenthood and start giving to charities who actually value life.
Sincerely,

Brandy M. Miller

P.S. Growing up in poverty isn't a real tragedy.  Never being allowed to grow up at all because you were killed before you were born is.

Civil Disobedience and Freedom

As it becomes increasingly clear that Obama's administration intends to strip American business owners of their right to refrain from providing their employees with health insurance that includes birth control, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs, I am forced to make a decision.  I am forced to decide whether I will stand with Christ, and defend the sanctity of all human life by refusing to participate even though I know what the cost will be to me personally, or whether I will seek to save my life and my comfort and thus lose my place in eternity.  You might not be surprised to hear me say this, but I've already decided.  I am choosing to disobey Obama's mandate so that I might obey the more important mandates given to me by Christ. This means that I will not only  not be providing my employees with health insurance, but I will not be purchasing it for myself or my family either.  We will trust in God's providence for our health care, and we will deal with the consequences.

Since it is still a year before Obama's administration intends to force the issue, I will take the time now to remind people of the reason that freedom is spoken of as an inalienable right in the Declaration of Independence written and published by our forefathers in the late 1700's.  Freedom cannot ever be taken from you, and guns do not change that fact.  Someone wielding a gun does have the power to limit your choices - they can reduce the choices you have to "obey and live as a slave" or "disobey and die free".

Some might say it is crazy to trade your life for a principle or belief, but I will point out to  you that it is crazy to place your faith in someone who is so morally corrupted that they view threatening your life as an appropriate motivational tool.  If you obey the person who has the gun, you are placing your faith in their willingness to honor their promises and to do as they have told you they will do, a highly questionable thing to do given their demonstrated lack of morality. The truth is, you have no reason to believe them when they say they will let you live if you do what they tell you to do.  It is better to die doing what you believe is right than to compromise your own values in the vain hope that such a person will honor their word.

I leave you with the lyrics of a song I wrote almost two years ago, entitled Freedom. I hope that you keep these words in your heart and in your mind, and remind yourself of them no matter how dark the days may grow.

Refrain

Your freedom doesn’t end

Where the barrel of a gun begins

It’s still up to you

What are you going to do?

====================

Don’t believe the words they say

Don’t let them take your freedom away

Hold your head up high

Don’t give in to the lie

===================

They can limit your choices

They can silence your voices

But in spite of all the pain

The Truth still remains

==================

If you do what they say

They might kill you anyway

Better to choose what’s right

Than to go down without a fight

====================

Freedom takes courage

And courage takes heart

Love is the fountain

Gives courage its’ start

==============

Restoring Economic Freedom

It all started with the passing of the abomination of a bill known as Obamacare.  This law was supposed to care for the poor, making sure that no one went without health care services.  In reality, all it did was take away the freedom of Americans to decide when, where, and whether to purchase health insurance.  Next, the Obama Administration approved a mandate by the Secretary for the Department of Health and Human Services which would require all employers, including religious organizations who served or employed people outside of their own faith, to purchase health insurance that would include free birth control, free abortion-inducing drugs, and free sterilizations to their employees. In response to the immediate and fervent uproar that arose from religious leaders of all faiths, the Obama Administration said that they would no longer require employers to provide the free birth control, abortion-inducing drugs, and sterilizations to their employees.  The caveat, of course, was that the Administration has now mandated that all insurance carriers provide these things to those they insure.

This is not merely an issue of religious freedom, as many are calling it, but an issue of economic freedom. Will we allow this administration to tell us what we have to buy? Are we going to stand by while business owners are forced to provide services or carry products that they have no desire to provide?  Will we let the government dictate to retailers what items they must stock on their shelves? If they can force insurance carriers to provide these things, will they then force companies that carry pharmaceuticals to carry condoms, birth control pills, and abortion-inducing drugs?  Will they force doctors to write prescriptions for birth control pills and abortion-inducing drugs? Force them to perform sterilizations?  Does the government have the right to dictate to a business what products to carry or to tell an individual what services they must purchase?

When the government can dictate to you what products you must carry and what services you must offer, it stops being your business and starts being an arm of the government.  I am a small business owner.  I am firmly against birth control, sterilization, and abortion.  I do not wish to purchase health insurance that pays for those things as I know that any money I give to such a company is contributing to the problem.  I will not give my money to those companies.  I will go to jail first. I would rather lose ever possession I own than be responsible for the death of an innocent human being.  This isn't just an issue of religious freedom.  It's an issue of economic freedom, too, the right to dictate where and when and if I spend the money that I earn - and I'm not going to stand by and allow the government to take that freedom from me.  

The Insanity of Safe Sex

In classrooms everywhere around the United States, there are talks given on the topic of "safe sex" and "sex education".  The subject is usually presented, in the beginning, as strictly anatomical and goes something like this: Boys have a penis, girls have a vagina, and when the boy inserts his penis into the vagina, his body becomes excited and releases a substance known as semen.  The semen contains sperm which, when united with the egg or eggs that a girl releases each month during ovulation, causes a pregnancy to occur.  That boys and girls will naturally want to have sex is also made clear, and that sex is good and nothing to be ashamed of is stated. All of this, of course, is true - but it isn't the whole picture.

Never covered in the sex education talk is the bio-chemistry behind attraction and human attachment.  You see, human beings are not built for multiple partners.  Bio-chemically, our brains are built to be monogamous.  Every time we have sex with someone, there are chemicals released into our brains that cause us to bond with them.   The more partners we have, the more confused the brain becomes and the weaker the bonds are that we form.   In the short of it, the more partners we have the more difficult it becomes for us to attach to one partner, and the harder time we will have in being faithful for a lifetime to a single partner. In addition, when we are rejected by someone to whom our brains have bonded, the effect is devastating.  Teenagers who are sexually active are far more likely to become depressed and even suicidal.

The safe sex part comes in next.  Here they tell the boys and girls that if they decide to have sex with someone they should take steps to prevent an unwanted pregnancy, either by using a condom or by taking birth control pills or by having some device such as an IUD implanted in them in order to prevent such a tragedy as a baby born out of wedlock or born before the sexually active are ready to be parents. They also tell the boys and girls that there are diseases which can only be passed on to someone during sexual activities when bodily fluids like blood, saliva, and semen are exchanged and so in order to prevent that outcome from happening to them they need to be sure and use some kind of barrier such as a condom when having sex.

Our current administration has defunded programs which teach children that the only kind of safe sex is no sex at all, stating that it is not "scientifically proven" to work.  I know of only one example in the entirety of human history in which a virgin was known to become pregnant, and since I seriously doubt that any of the children in that classroom are likely to be the Virgin Mary, I do not see how they can possibly say that abstinence is not scientifically proven to work.

Furthermore, this same administration which is so thoroughly unconvinced that children can be taught to say no and mean it, spends millions of dollars teaching children to "Just say no" to drugs.  I find this to be insane. If a child has the will power to say no to drugs, why can they not be expected to say no to sex?  Going even further on the insanity list are parents who, on the one hand, take their young daughters to clinics to get them birth control before they have even gotten out of a training bra because "kids are going to do what kids are going to do" but do not hesitate to tell those same children that they are to say no to cigarettes, alcohol, or drugs.

For those who support safe sex, I offer this food for thought: Imagine that a person walked into your child's classroom purporting to offer a "safe drug" talk.  This person explained that while it's best for them to "just say no", it wasn't realistic to actually EXPECT them to say no and so proceeded to teach your children how to correctly insert a needle in their veins to insure that they don't blow a vein, distributed clean needles so they wouldn't feel the need to share them, gave them a pamphlet listing all of the "reputable" drug dealers - the ones who won't cut their goods with rat poison or other guaranteed-to-kill fillers, and gave them a list of crack houses where they could be sure of finding welcome and refuge while they were tripping out of their minds.  All in the interest, of course, in a child's safety and best interest.

If you're any kind of parent at all, you would be outraged if a school allowed this kind of thing to go on, and rightly so. You understand that although there are appropriate times and circumstances in which drug use is okay and even good, every drug has side effects and should not ever be used in a recreational fashion. You also know that the consequences of recreational drug use can be life-long and devastating to the future of those who use them incorrectly.  Sex is no different.  Under the right circumstances, sex is not only okay but it is a very good thing, but it is never something that should be used in a recreational fashion.  The consequences of recreational sex can be life-long and devastating to the future of those who in engage in it irresponsibly.  Teaching about safe sex is insane.  The only truly safe sex is either no sex at all, or sex with a spouse who is monogamous.  Anything else is just dangerous.

Language Matters

This topic doesn't come up very often anymore in politics. After all, the economy and other issues that are important are taking up the stage right now.  So why do I feel that language is important enough a subject to bring up? Because, as the title says, language matters.

The greatest crisis the United States faces right now is one of identity.  We can't agree on who we are, what we believe, or even what direction we think the country should go.  We are divided, and because we are divided we are vulnerable to anyone who wants to use our divisions to pick us off.  If you want an illustration of how effective this tactic is, think of a wolf pack and how it hunts down the giant caribou.  It does not take on the entire herd at once. The wolf pack knows that to do so would end up in defeat, if not death.  No, the wolves scope out the weak ones first and then work to separate the weak from the strong.  It's worked since the dawn of time for them, and believe me when I tell you that it will work on us as well.

Language may seem like a small thing, but it's huge.  Ideas and information can only flow freely when all parties understand one another.  An illustration of the kind of damage that can be done just by blocking the flow of communication can be found in the Bible in Genesis, where it talks about the Tower of Babel.  Here we had a group of human beings working together, communicating in the same language, and doing great - if dangerous - things.  All God had to do to destroy their unity and dismantle their ability to accomplish much of anything was to change their languages.  If America is to survive, she must adopt a single language and make it law that all men, women, and children who are citizens of this country learn that language.

It doesn't have to be English. It would be easier on me if it were, but maybe English isn't the best route to go.  Maybe we need to come up with a language completely our own - representative of our people and our heritage - a conglomeration, if you will, of the best of each.  I don't know what this new language would be like, but I do know one thing: America cannot continue to stand divided, and she will not be united until all can speak together as one.

A Cure for the Economy

There is a simple cure for our world's economic problems.  It's simple, but it won't be easy.  It will take courage and sacrifice, hard work, and lots of changes.  It will mean taking a gigantic leap of faith.  However, it is a cure that has already proven to work time and time again. What, you might ask, is this simple but overlooked cure that can save the world and solve the economic crisis?

Babies. Babies are the cure for what ails the world. Throw out the contraception, cancel the abortions, and have more babies.  I can hear it already. "Won't that just cause more problems? How can people who are already broke and out of work afford to have another baby?"  I'm glad you asked. Please allow me to explain.

You see, when a woman believes she might be pregnant, she heads to the store.  She makes a purchase of a home pregnancy test.  If she is pregnant, her next expenditure is a doctor's fee.  She begins spending money on that new life right away.  She buys some prenatal vitamins, and possibly some iron pills.  She isn't the only one who will be spending money, either. The father, grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, friends of the family, and co-workers will all be spending money on this new baby.  The purchases they make will help pay the wages of workers, support businesses both local and national, and with all of the buying going on, I guarantee the economy will begin to right itself.

Furthermore, the money that gets spent on that child doesn't end when it is born. Pregnancy is just the beginning of the boost to the economy.  A child is a gift that keeps on giving when it comes to the goods and services that will be consumed over its lifetime.  And the more children that are born, the more families that open themselves to life, the healthier the economy will become.  So, if you really want the economy to grow and stop dying off, I highly recommend babies.  They really do bring new life to the world.

Abortion: It's not just an issue. It's THE issue

Pop quiz: There is a fundamental human right that the framers of the Constitution deemed inalienable - meaning it was not something that anyone had the right to take from another - and without which, there is no other right possible.  Which human right would that be?

If you guessed that it's the right to privacy, you guessed wrong. If you guessed that it's the right to bear arms, you are equally wrong.  If you guessed that it's the right to pursue happiness, wrong again. Here's a hint: it's not mentioned in the Constitution at all, but is the first of the "inalienable" rights mentioned by the Declaration of Independence.  That inalienable right is the right to life.

If you think that Thomas Jefferson, who wrote that Declaration, just happened to place life at the forefront of the rights which all human beings have been "endowed by their Creator", I would contend you are sadly mistaken. You see, the right to life is the one right upon which all other rights hinge.

If you remove the right to life, then does it matter if the law has granted you liberty? If you remove the right to life, can a man pursue happiness? If you do not have life, does it matter if there is free health insurance? If you do not have life, can you speak up against or for going to war with this nation or that? If you do not have life, does race matter? If you do not have life, can you speak for the poor? All other issues matter ONLY if a human being has life! This is why abortion matters, and why it is so fundamental to the very underpinnings of our society and its destiny. This is what makes abortion not just AN issue, but THE defining issue of our times. When the government feels that it can strip one group of human beings of so fundamental a right as the right to life, there is no limit to the rights it will feel it can strip from all human beings.

There have been arguments given to permit abortion in cases of rape or incest. I ask you: does the nature of a human being change simply because of the method of its conception? No, of course not. Therefore, no child should have to suffer death for the crimes of its father. Is rape and incest a tragedy? Most certainly. However, you cannot fix one tragedy by causing another. Encouraging a woman to murder her own child will not bring healing to the heart of one who is suffering already from the psychological damage caused by rape and incest. She should be supported, helped, encouraged, sheltered, protected, and given every opportunity necessary to make the most of her life - but to help her in killing her unborn child will not free her from the damage done by that man's transgressions.  Furthermore, in killing the child you destroy the evidence which might secure a conviction against the one who has perpetrated this crime against her, and ensure that the rapist or the one who commits incest is left free to continue engaging in his criminal activities. The only one who is "helped" by providing an abortion to the incest or rape victim is the criminal, certainly not the woman.

And what shall we do in cases where the mother's health is endangered by her pregnancy? Work to save both lives! This is the only humane answer possible.  Although it may not be possible to get every person out of a burning building, we know it is only right that every effort is made to save all parties, and the same is true of a pregnancy. If we have made the effort to save them both, but one dies, we cannot do anything about that but at least we walk with a clear conscience. However, any nation who can support sacrificing the weak in order to save the strong is a nation who has lost the basic concepts inherent to decent civilization.

I do want to be clear.  I am pro-choice. I am for a woman's right to choose which man she marries, or if she wishes to marry at all.  I am for a woman's right to choose whether or not she wishes to pursue a career, and which career she pursues.  I am for a woman's right to choose when, where, and whether or not to have sex with someone.  I am for a woman's right to choose whether or not to keep a child she conceives, and I grieve for her when she feels that she cannot handle the job she's been entrusted with and I applaud her courage when she instead gives that child into the arms of another to raise.  However, let me be clear on this matter: no woman has the right to choose to end her child's life.  Her right to choose ends where the body of that child begins.