Friday, September 30, 2011

Its good to see you back...

... but so little has changed.

You are right, we are all familiar with the disdain and contempt that you continually show any concern anyone might have over any environmental or conservation issue. I am also familiar with the propensity you tend to show in assuming anything associated with "Earth" equals an environmental issue.

Regarding you last, I have to assume you are speaking of the Earth Charter that Gorby supports. The Earth Charter does contain conservation topics and agendas, but it is primarily an economic model designed to counter what Gorby (and many others) have determined to be the failed Washington Consensus... which is a model designed to show what guidelines and standards the US will support in developing countries.

Understand, I'm no fan of the Earth Charter. It smacks of centralized control of national and regional resource development and utilization... and that is a bad thing. In my opinion, it is utterly unsustainable, solely because of its grand scope. A country of a billion people (China or India) has less say about the use and development of resources than a country like Costa Rica, based only on the scale of consumption. I'm sure it fits nicely into what a former Communist would feel used to and comfortable with... but it can't ever work, for the same reasons communism can't ever work.

I'm also no fan of the Washington Consensus. Having a policy (stated or unstated) that says we support this sort of reform and organization, and then picking and choosing where and when such support will be applied is worse than meaningless... its a waste of time and money. The US will hold these standards and guidelines to the domestic agendas of states like Honduras, Mexico, Uganda, Liberia, and Ceylon... but will utterly ignore the violations of the same policies by nations like Pakistan, South Korea, South Africa and Brazil.

Supporters of the Earth Charter have no more right to dictate when, where or how a nation can use its own resources (fiscal, natural, environmental or otherwise... and that includes populations and demographics) than the US does to nations held to the yardstick of the Washington Consensus.

Both are meaningless and arbitrarily applied... so both are bad. However, the fact that it is a movement embraced by "green" supporters should be the LAST indicator of what is wrong with Earth Charter.

Thursday, September 29, 2011

Comrade Greenie

This is priceless...

Throughout the Ethos of Bund lore I have clearly, from the beginning, opposed the "green movement." In brief (very brief in fact), I'll recap the 3 primary reasons why: 1.) The science didn't add up to me on a very basic level. 7 or so ice ages, millions of years of volcanoes, continent fragmentation, bodies of water drying up & reforming, & I am to believe that in the sliver of time human beings have been residents on earth that Model T's are going to effect let alone upset such a ferociously powerful force as planet wide climate, especially when 97% of Co2 occurs as water evaporation? Please (& this was well before recent scandals involving faked data). 2.) It seemed a secular religion. Beat your wife, abandon your kids, & snort cocaine but as long as you recycle, well hell, Susan Surandon will show up on " earth day" & call you a saint. 3.) and most importantly, it appeared to me to be an all too convenient movement for those predisposed to opposing capitalism. Call it socialism, communism, statism,whatever you like, the bottom line is the tenants of the green movement are nearly indistinguishable from top down state controlled economic theory. And I have always suspected these "watermelons" - green on the outside, red on the inside - were merely packaging their preferred economic theories into a presentation more palatable to the American people - "we're saving the planet, and seals, baby seals in fact!"

Well ...

Forget .org or .com, .net or even .gov - there is a new web domain available for those wanting to prove their dedication to the environment. Presenting ".eco"!

Al Gore, who owns the "Green Channel", dedicated exclusively to his propaganda, has been fighting furiously to purchase & own this new domain. Alas, it was not to be. He ultimately dropped his bid for control. He lost to the man quickly becoming known as the "Al Gore of Europe."

Who won? You ready for this?

Mikael Gorbachev.

Ha! Ya greenies around the world, nothing says "we're environmentalists not socialists" like having the former premier of the UNION of SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS (and hard core commie I might add) as your helmsman.

You can't make this stuff up.

Wednesday, September 28, 2011

Who are you again?

Just kidding...

Funny, this subject was on my mind recently too.

I'm sure we all recall the hubbub raised by Wright back in '08, and that hubbub focused a lot on his position as a pastor of a church that held a tax exempt status in IL. The unjust nature of the law in question is clear to me... but it was my understanding that a portion of the reasoning behind NOT doing away with it entirely was that it afforded the US, and specifically the Department of Homeland Security, its only foothold into investigating these sorts of pastors and religious leaders who advocate hate and/or violence against Americans.

Now, I don't know nor can I say just how much of the failure to follow up on this troublesome piece of legislation is because someone in executive authority feels it is better left alone than dealt with in the Supreme Court... but the prospect is interesting, is it not?

Radical Islamic leaders preaching hate and violence within American mosques... or rabid racists and ethnic supremacy-advocates lecturing on the evils of skin color and national origin, all are open to investigation via this law... which is a tax issue rather than a criminal investigation, and might make the process just a little easier to follow through.

My point? Is knowing that the purely "political" speech that is happening from the pulpit (be it about abortion, health care, welfare, et al) is utterly and completely ignored by the investigating agency (the IRS) time and time again enough to justify leaving it "on the books" to help combat the evils that stem from the more radical elements that also use the pulpit against American interests and policies?

For example:

You used the abolitionist movement as an example of pulpit politics, and it is an excellent one. I agree 100% with your thoughts on the important nature of keeping the abolitionist movement alive and kicking from 1776 all the way through 1865 via this venue. I just want to point out that there was a down-side to this, too... and one example of that down-side was John Brown.

John Brown was a failed and bankrupt preacher who, due to huge debt and massive amounts of mental instability, used the pulpit to advocate and justify rebellion and murder in the cause of ending slavery. Ultimately hanging for his crimes, he was found responsible for the murder of no fewer than seven men (one of whom was a freed slave) and the destruction of several pieces of private and government property in his radical efforts. Brown, too, used the pulpit... just as the more peaceful and non-violent anti-slavery elements did that we now know as the Underground Railroad.

You also made the example of the civil rights movement of the 50s and 60s... another excellent example (probably the best), but the advocates of segregation and racism that fought MLK and the rest used the churches they frequented on Sunday mornings just as often and just as efficiently as the integrationists. KKK recruiters often used churches as their primary means of finding new members and (more importantly) finding new money... and not only in the deep South.

I recognize and agree with your thoughts about the unjust nature of this law... seriously, I do. I think it should be struck from the books immediately. It is a clear violation of free speech, no question. I just want to make sure that you understand that there are those that defend it who hold a political view very similar to yours in regards to defending American from radicals who would cause her harm.

Tuesday, September 27, 2011

Pulpit Politics

57 years ago a senator from Texas returned to Washington D.C. having narrowly escaped defeat. And he was hotter than hell ... see, two non-profit groups, and more specifically the men whom headed them, raised money, put out literature and campaigned relentlessly against this senator as being soft on communism. So the senator took action.

In 1954, with no debate, and on a US Senate voice-vote only he submitted an amendment to an IRS bill. Specifically Section 501(c) (3). It stated that entities who are exempt from federal income tax cannot, "Participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of - or in opposition to - any candidate for public office."

The effect of Lyndon B. Johnson's personal vendetta, even if unintended, was to summarily shut down all political speech from the pulpit.

Now lets put this in context. The "Black Robe Regiment" was a series of pastors in the second half of the 18th Century whom preached the necessity of Revolution from the pulpit. This was no mere "suggestion", these were fiery, multi-hour sermons demanding the Christian responsibility to break with England. In fact Paul Revere's ride included the warning of at least 2 of these pastors along his route (it was rumored the British were to target these individuals responsible for inspiring rebellion). John Adams coined the phrase "Pulpit Thunder", and repeatedly noted it was these sermons which sounded the alarm necessitating Independence. In one such case the story goes that in 1776 a Lutheran Pastor, one Peter Mulhberg, concluded his fiery pro Independence sermon by ripping off his robe to reveal a Continental Army uniform underneath, enlisting 300 men for his German regiment on the spot. And we should note, there was no "political" issue more controversial at the time than Revolution.

Lets fast forward a bit. Throughout the 19th Century the midwife, birthplace and caregiver of the Abolitionist movement in America was the Christian Church, and specifically the pastors whom headed them. Without the churches to nurse the movement along it would have never got off the ground, let alone turn into the defining issue of the century. Again, we should all bare in mind that at this time there was no "political" topic hotter than slavery ... we did end up fighting a Civil War over it after all.

Fast forward again. Without the pulpit's urging, participation, and driving engine the Civil Rights movement would have been smothered in the crib. REVEREND Martin Luther King knew this. Even those whom would later become racial demagogues, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, wrapped themselves in the cloak of church garbs to push for political change. Even Malcolm X was a man of faith, pushing for reform from the pulpit. Each defying what became known as the "Johnson Amendment."

For decade after decade pastors would preach an annual "Election Sermon" in which they would, from the pulpit, evaluate and give a pastor's take on the candidates running for office both local and national. And undoubtedly there are countless other examples of the pulpit serving as a good and just rallying point throughout American history, I simply can not include them all in a single post. But what they all - left, right, or center - had in common throughout each of these periods in American history prior to 1954 was their unconditional tax exempt status. It was intact and guarded based on the separation of church and state because the power to tax, as our founders knew all too well, was the power to control. The Johnson Amendment quietly, and with little fanfare, ended this 57 years ago.

Ask yourself. Can you note when in modern American history there is a clear demarcation line of moral decline? At least one of the founders Bund believe it to be the 1960's, the Baby Boomers. Can the Johnson Amendment explain such a decline in its entirety? Maybe not. But I find it an interesting spatial parallel.

Fast forward to today. Have you ever considered why it is that the likes of Jeremiah Wright can spout off from the pulpit about exclusively political issues and never be challenged by the IRS? The answer is simple. Johnson was quietly warned at the time that his Amendment may not hold up in court under the auspices of the First Amendment. And in those 57 years the IRS has never pursued a single case in court. NOT ONE. They don't want it to go to court, they know they'll lose. So when a case is brought before the IRS they simply issue a warning and quietly "close the file."

In 2008 the Alliance Defense Fund, a group 2,500 Christian attorney's, hand sleeted a group of 33 pastors willing to engage in political discourse from the pulpit, video record it, and mail it in to the IRS. They wanted to purposely cause the courtroom confrontation and finally end the authority of the Johnson Amendment. I should note here that the intent of these pastors was to evaluate the candidates, the issues, and the parties and give their take on which was most in line with Christian teachings, as the individual pastor saw it. Their "opinion" was precisely the point of the exercise. They did just that, and dutifully mailed it in.

The IRS did nothing.

In 2009 the Alliance Defense Fund acted again and this time put together 84 pastors. These pastors did the same thing - recorded their sermons on politics and sent it in to the IRS.

The IRS did nothing.

Last year 100 pastors participated, all recording their sermons, all sending them in with the 2,500 attorneys of the Alliance Defense Fund ready and willing, standing by to defend.

The IRS did nothing.

This year Pastor Jim Garlow of Skyline Church in La Mesa, CA allied with the ADF and has thus far signed up 500 pastors. They are looking to reach the 1000 mark by October 2nd. They have declared that Sunday in October to be "Pulpit Freedom Sunday." You can access his site and cause at pulpitfreedom.org. They hope to get the number of pastors large enough that the IRS is forced to engage, confident that such a showdown will see the Johnson Amendment struck down as an unconstitutional abridgement of free speech.

Now the point here isn't that I want pastors telling their congregation whom to vote for. The point is that if one truly believes in the separation of church and state, then you must conclude that the government has no business intruding into the pulpit, censoring speech based on the tax code. A pastor has every right to tell his congregates who to vote for and those congregates in turn have every right to listen, ignore, attend, or not attend that church. The tax exempt status that existed for 162 years prior to Johnson's efforts was specifically designed to keep the government out of religion - removing the power to tax. And the Johnson Amendment revoked that protection in one fell swoop.

And as a political matter, let's face it - pastors with a leftist bent aren't the ones scared into silent submission. They flaunt their rejection of the Johnson Amendment, routinely. We've all seen the footage of Wright, of priests in California screaming about illegal immigration. They are unafraid. And Left, Right or center, it is time that every preacher have his First Amendment Rights officially restored.

I trust the American people. Let's just see where issues like abortion end up after a generation of pastors, preachers, deacons and bishops are allowed to do what the rest of us take for granted - speak.

Tuesday, September 20, 2011

Hmmm...

I hope you guys are proud of yourselves. Two posts for the whole month so far... nice.

Monday, September 12, 2011

I'm Spartacus

Andy Whitfield died yesterday of cancer.

Any casual follower of this Bund knows we're all huge Spartacus fans... And this is sad no matter what Andy did. The kid (yes, KID) was 39.

Rest in Peace, Andy.

Saturday, September 10, 2011

An indelible mark...

That's what September 11 is... an indelible mark on our history.

There really aren't many, you know. July 4, 1776, and the signing of the Declaration of Independence. November 19, 1863, and the delivery of the Gettysburg Address by then President Abraham Lincoln. December 7, 1941, and the attack on Pearl Harbor, HI. November 22, 1963 and the assassination of JFK.

September 11, 2001, is recent enough to still resound in many of our memories... but distant enough to no longer dominate our thoughts, worries and daily routines. We all recall where we were, and what we were thinking on that tragic morning, yet our lives go on much as they did prior to that day.

I know that if anything good has ever come from that terrible morning, it was the lesson to all of humanity that EVIL exists in this world... it is a real, tangible, measurable threat to us all. It should also have shown us... in the first hours of footage, in fact... that real GOOD exists as well.

The evil I speak of isn't Islam, it is the sort of evil that convinces anyone that murder, terror and destruction can ever produce good results. It is the sort of evil that convinced Nazis that the "final solution" was an acceptable national policy. It is the sort of evil that convinces honest, hardworking men and women that they are fundamentally "better" than another person based only on their skin color, creed or ethnicity. It makes faith-filled people firmly believe that God (by any name) is on their side ONLY... and that He hates everyone else.

In a world dominated by relativism, 9/11 showed us that evil is real... it isn't "relative" and you can't deal with it "objectively" because it is never, EVER objective.

The good I speak of is evident in the manner in which our society (as a vast whole) has responded to the attacks and the evil that inspired them. Solidarity, unity and common purpose were evident as soon as the first plane crashed, and have been recognized and applauded each and every day since. We recognize the real heroes of 9/11... the real "martyrs" of the day, and not one of them were fighting against America.

I'm a bit torn by the prospect of seeing it all again tomorrow just as we all saw it ten years ago. It was an upsetting thing to watch then... but it can only be harder now, ten years later or not. Still, I recognize the necessity of remembering the day and the evil that caused as well as the good that has helped see us through it.

I'll watch. Gladly.