The Constitution Is Not A Suicide Pact

Thomas Lifson - American Thinker - has an interesting article concerning Australia's brave stand on immigration. I then found an interesting post at Dinocrat.com.

This post caused the jackalope to ponder once again the misunderstandings comprising the culture war here in America caused mainly by fear and loathing for Judaism and Christianity. It is believed by many that these two religions are the enemy of freedom and liberty when rightfully these two religions are the foundation of freedom and liberty. The only enmity organized religion has is with hedonism, but even that according to proper teaching, is tempered with love. It is true that believers can range between the legalism of the noisy gong and the ditziness of a clanging cymbal but Christianity without love is meaningless.

However, the jackalope wonders why it is not the Constitution and the Bill of Rights that bond Americans together and are the beliefs to be defended against immigrants that would change our country into the country they left. And so I wrote:

I also enjoyed Mr. Lifson's piece on Australia's immigration approach. However, your post makes me ponder why belief in the Constitution and The Bill of Rights is not what binds together the American way of life. I realize the post was a flip rhetorical against living under Sharia Law, but I detect an animus toward Judaism and Christianity that resents anyone from believing anything that would snap a perpendicular moral chalk line between man and God. But freedom of religion is only one part of our Constitution and it is time to get back to the foundations of what was established September 17, 1787.

The Bill of Rights were not written to promote aimless hedonism, but rather to identify those rights pre-ordained in every man, instead of bestowed to men by a government. The purpose was to provide a check on government, but in every aspect government has crossed the established boundary and put a check on our freedoms. Organized religion in America is a red herring when it comes to loss of liberty. For that, check your local government.

My point is: If people don't believe that "all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness - that to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed...” then I would say to immigrants, don't come here just as the Australians are declaring.

To Americans such as yourself, I say, don't get so hung up on the concept of Creator - even though belief in God is what provides me with a foundational system that explains aptly this crazy world we live in and I would pray that you too would come to this knowledge - but rather zealously protect your preordained rights of man: Life, Liberty, and pursuit of Happiness, i.e. the creation of wealth and protection of private property. Most of the social bickering in this country would disappear if we concentrated on supporting the ideas of the documents that bind us together instead of trying to make them say something different from what is actually written. Like I tell those that want to change the by-laws of the Boy Scouts: "If you want to send your boys off on campouts with homosexual men, go start your own damn club!" This is not an indictment against homosexual men, but a respect for the written by-laws.

A Ticking Clockwork Orange

Yesterday, a caller to the Rush Limbaugh show, stated: "We aren't like our enemy. Our enemy is true believers that are totally committed to our destruction." And nothing exhibits that assertion better than McCain's straw dog argument concerning Bush's request that Congress codify rules of interrogation. This practical request is turned into a farce by Sen. McCain and Co. and their circular argument that has no answer except to do as the President has requested. Truly, we aren’t like our enemy because we aren’t true believers totally committed to the destruction of our enemy. Instead we are living in A Clockwork Orange, where to deprive someone of the life goal of killing infidels to obtain a heaven of virgins is considered insensitive, demeaning, and for some even criminal on our part. We have met the enemy and he is us.

Things My Daddy Told Me

In light of the previous post, the jackalope is moved to relate some words of wisdom from her Daddy. We were all sitting out on the covered patio one Sunday afternoon and Daddy opened up and told us this parable.

As the jackalope has revealed in her profile, she has a very "special" sister. As Dad related the story, Sister was in the backyard playing with the dogs. She had a hulahoop and a whistle and when she blew the whistle, the dogs would take turns jumping through the hoop. It was really an amazing thing to watch.

Well, coming into the Edenic scene was a gang of young toughs who hearing the whistle were drawn to the sound and while standing on the fence supports began their taunts and catcalling. This of course made Sister start screeching and we all know young toughs derive great pleasure in tormenting the "special".

Around the corner comes Daddy to see what the hullabaloo was all about. Seeing the young toughs, he begins by recommmending the boys get off the fence because they might hurt themselves. No response. Dad immediately rachets up the dialogue in his scary Daddy voice, "Get off the fence y'little sonsofbitches or I'm goin' to whupyourass!!"

Immediately, the boys decided they heard their Mama callin' them and disappeared.

After telling us this story, Daddy then sat there for a moment before delivering the meat of the parable:
"Sometimes you just can't talk Vacation Bible School with people." (!)

And Now For Something Completely Different

For those that think "getting along" with the rest of the world is the highest goal, an article by Tanvir Ahmad Khan, former foreign secretary and ambassador of Pakistan, reveals how difficult it is to "get along" with someone wearing a virtual reality headpiece.

He celebrates the union of Fatah and Hamas in Lebanon after "Israel's brutal invasion" and states:

colonisation of Palestine remains the principal object of this status. Ehud Olmert's convergence plan represented a vital state in this process which also needed neutralisation of Hamas and Hezbollah. The Olmert plan was designed to achieve territorial expansion and fail-safe national security in a single political manoeuvre.

As to President Abbas' failure to disarm Hamas, Ahmad Khan, believes it comes from President Abbas' "recognition of Hamas' role in crafting a more effective Arab negotiating stance in the days ahead." Ahman Khan continues in this virtual reality by declaring that Abbas "knows only too well how Israel turned the Oslo agreement into a process for unreciprocated Arab concessions in the quest for final status talks."
Ahmad Khan then breathlessly proclaims:

A new and robust partnership between Fatah and Hamas demolishes the Israeli myth that there is no credible interlocutor on the Palestinian side. It will also be a necessary hedge against pressures for unilateral Arab concessions.

and:

At the same time, this partnership (between Hamas and Fatah) offers by far the best opportunity for Hamas to separate what can be pragmatically done at this delicate juncture of history and what is better left to another time, another generation.

Ahmad Khan's conclusion (reality delusion) is:

A sovereign, viable and continuous Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital is still the best way to make the world safer than it has been for decades.

In Ahmad Khan's world, Hezbollah tunneling under the border between Lebanon and Israel to kidnap Israeli soldiers had nothing to do with the fracus. That, along with his willingness that Lebanon be represented by two known terrorist groups brings the logical conclusion: This is not a problem that can be solved by dialogue alone and it's way too early to let the Democrats back into power.

What's True About The War On Terror

When it comes to understanding all the elements of The War On Islamofascism, Amir Taheri is a voice to be listened to. Check him out here and feel great that America is doing the right thing for the Middle East!

Mewling, Puking Infants of the Left

James Lewis of The American Thinker says it best when it comes to putting the Left in charge of the War on Terror. Can we really stand by here in District 17 and help appoint Nancy Pelosi as the next Speaker of the House by electing Chet Edwards? Van Taylor will support our President. It used to be that our elected officials sought to make every vote toward the better good. Chet will only continue to devolve every issue the President puts forth because that's what he's done with the Republican leadership in the house.

Give Young People Control of Their Own Security

The jackalope is a big supporter of privatizing social security for younger generations. Van Taylor is too! It goes without saying that Chet Edwards is not. Chet uses his aforementioned scare tactics against our older generations in his effort to prevent this change for younger people. Chet is wrong and Van is right.

If this republic is to survive we must elect representatives that have a better idea.

Van Taylor is one of those men.

Veterans: Don't Let "The Man" Get You Down!!

Just a passing note: Has anyone ever heard Chet Edwards ever say anything positive and uplifting about our troops? I'm searching, but I haven't seen a thing.

I heard him on WTAW talk radio yesterday, and he had every opportunity to praise the troops and it didn't happen. He just likes to scare them with the standard manipulation of baseline budgeting Democrats have been using for years. A cut in the rate of growth is still growth. Going from 11% growth for veterans affairs to a 9% growth years from now, is still growth. And besides, the VA operates on a year by year budget. They ask, they get. No one wants to give our Vets a short straw. Be comforted and fear not! As the daughter of a disabled Vet, I just want to punch men like Chet Edwards in the eye for attacking your peace of mind. Don't be fooled by an evil worker.

A Philosophical Treatise: Why Chet Edwards Should Not Be Re-elected

It just hit me like a two-by-four in the face that God, who is omnipotent, could have made us puppets, but he gave us free will in our religious beliefs, and government shouldn't limit that free will.
Chet Edwards (D)

Contrary to Mr. Edward’s statement and his beliefs – he can believe whatever he wishes – both of these points: a) God gave us free will in our religious beliefs and b) government should not limit our free will, are false.

The entire Old Testament is the history of God revealing Himself to man and instruction in what constitutes correct belief in Him. Many beliefs are designated as offensive to God, such as worship of other gods and actions contrary to His commandments. Over and over the people to whom God chose to reveal Himself are punished for not believing correctly. Being a merciful God, prophets were sent to warn the people that their actions would bear consequences because correct religious belief is mandatory to God. Even more offensive to the heart of man comes the statement by Jesus:

I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.
John 14:6

This statement is not a break from the original revelation of God to man, but rather a fulfillment of promises made by God and a provision of salvation for Gentiles in His holy plan for man. Praise You, merciful Father.

Apart from anarchy, which is the absence of government, the agreement to the limitation of our free will is what creates government. Not wanting to begin in pre-history, but in direct development of our own Declaration of Independence and Constitution, Magna Carta limited the free will of kings and noblemen while securing rights of man for commoners. The Declaration of Independence was written to inform the current government that we were dissatisfied with the actions of that government and of our intent to secure a new and better government suited to our purposes.

The American rule of law was formed to defend our natural rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness i.e. personal wealth and property. Under this rule of law, we agree to check our own free will which is to take what belongs to another – life, liberty, personal wealth and property - in order that our own rights to those possessions are defended. Under the Constitution, Americans agree to accept these rules and methods of addressing grievances. The first 10 amendments to that constitution – The Bill of Rights – secured individual rights before government. Meaning that we already possess these rights, but under the Constitution, these pre-ordained rights would be recognized and defended, not bestowed and controlled by government.

These two points are important philosophical foundations that reveal the true character of Chet Edwards and his understanding of the purpose of government. In order to pursue “a more perfect union” – for I hope that our elected officials are intent upon that ideal – it is mandatory that we elect representatives that respect our Constitution, the rights it agrees to preserve and defend, and the rules under which we have agreed government to operate. In perverting that ideal, Mr. Edwards reveals that he has departed from that agreement. It is for that reason he is not an appropriate representative for the people of the 17th District.

Note: The first essay in this Philosophical Treatise

A Glimpse of Hell

Are we ready for a Democratic Party controlled House of Representatives? View this letter sent by Democrat leaders to President Bush. Scary stuff.

So That's the Reason for the Reactor

This just in: Drinking heavy water cures cancer!

For Teens - Abortion Riskier Than Pregnancy

Adolescent women experience far graver risks of mental and emotional health problems from abortion than they do by carrying their “unintended pregnancies” to term according to a new US study. The study, published in the Journal of Youth and Adolescents, proves without a doubt that abortion — not the “unintended pregnancy” — causes severe mental health problems in young women.

Why I Write

There is a great moment in the movie National Treasure when the character Ben Gates, frustrated because no one believes his warning of a threat to steal the Declaration of Independence, looks upon the revered document and reads the line:

…it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.

Not only do we have the right, we also have the DUTY — the responsibility — to do something to provide new Guards, representatives, for the future Security of our nation.

The prophets spoke the words of God, confronting the leaders whose responsibility it was to lead the people in righteousness, to care for the weak and the poor, to guard the rights of the widow, orphan, and afflicted, and to execute justice throughout the land. The leaders had a way of saying they were doing these things, but the results of their deeds were the opposite.

Snapping a chalk line on the reality to results of the deeds of our elected officials is our Right, indeed our Duty. Knowledge without action is death. Stepping forward in calling others to examine the results of the deeds, rather than blindly accepting intentions and claims as end means, is necessary if we are to remain a viable, strong republic.

He Was JUST Joking

Republicans get accused of leaking CIA information and outing the covert agents and they want to somehow turn the issue against us somehow about not being patriotic because President Bush said the other day we're asking questions about the Iraq War and the intelligence information. They always play offense and I think that that's an important lesson.Chet Edwards

It follows that one of the most sensational charges leveled against the Bush White House — that it orchestrated the leak of Ms. Plame's identity to ruin her career and thus punish Mr. Wilson — is untrue.

Nevertheless, it now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming — falsely, as it turned out — that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials. He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife. He diverted responsibility from himself and his false charges by claiming that President Bush's closest aides had engaged in an illegal conspiracy. It's unfortunate that so many people took him seriously.

Sorry Chet, you took him seriously when Joe was just poking for fun.

It's Not the Money, It's the Message It Sends

What is the correct ethical response of elected representatives when juggling the act of constituent requests with the responsibilities of serving the nation? Chet Edwards (D) boasts of his efforts to protect those serving in our military. The jackalope has made it clear she is skeptical of his efforts, and his dealings with constituent insurance company American Amicable is a case in point.

According to Congressional Committee Meeting hearings, one of the products American Amicable offered was mutual funds with a 50% first-year commission — a product that has virtually disappeared from the civilian market. The reasons behind the success of marketing such a punitive product to the recruits are: their young age, their financial inexperience, and the use of retired military officers to make on-base compulsory briefings that turn out to be a sales pitch boiler room.

American Amicable approached their representative Chet Edwards for help. They were seeking a stay against a ban prohibiting them from selling insurance and financial products on military bases, stateside and overseas because of fraudulent practices and specious products. Edwards chose not to examine the dubious practices of his constituent even though they were a recognized predator of the same military he swears he champions. Edwards facillitated a meeting between his predator constituent and a Lt. General, who just happened to be the new bride of his long-time friend in partisan congressional politics, Martin Frost (D). The predator constituent company promised their days of "miscreatin'" were behind them. The Lt. General said "Okay, then." A certain amount of money was added to the Congressman's campaign war chest. And voila, the ban was stopped and on the hustle went.

The jackalope is always stunned by the paltry sum people accept in exchange for doing something sleazy to another person. But that's another issue. In the tempest of ethics, constituents, war chests, and standing firm for our military, it seems the military always gets a pounding when Chet's on the case. It was never about the money, it's just the message it sent.

A Good Shepherd is Not a Demagogue

When deciding who will represent us in government it would be useful to contrast each candidate with the character of a good shepherd. The good shepherd would risk his own life to defend his flock from thieves and predators while resisting the impulse to tell scary stories to the vulnerable lambs of what their life would be like without him. The good shepherd sings lullabies of comfort and safety while shouldering the burdens of responsibilty to the flock on himself. This is not to imply that the good shepherd does not prepare his sheep for hardships to come. Should the grazing become sparse, the good shepherd prepares his flock for the rugged journey to a new meadow. He comforts the new mothers to fear not for their young, because he is there to carry those that falter or grow weary. The rams are encouraged because of the steadfastness of their shepherd. When the shepherd calls them to follow, they step out in trust knowing that their shepherd will provide their needs to the utmost of his ability. The shepherd is prepared with food and water for the journey and travels with purpose seasoned by grace. These are the qualities of a good leader.

Here in District 17 we are currently represented by a demagogue rather than a good shepherd. The demagogue unnecessarily scares his flock of constituents in order to gain power. The specific target of Chet Edwards (D-TX) is veterans and he never misses an opportunity to scare them. His own campaign site is full of articles that detail his fear-mongering efforts disguised as the work of the good shepherd.

Consider this article by the Associated Press headlined:

Lawmakers Work To Fill $1 Billion Gap In Funding For VA
Previous efforts failed in wake of pressure by GOP to keep spending levels down

According to the opening lines, Chet speaks in the tone of a good shepherd protecting his flock. The article is definitely written in a manner that would make the reader believe so. The story ends well with the VA receiving $1.5 billion to cover the $1 billion shortfall, but that wasn't because of Chet's work but rather the work of Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX).

In the previous link it was the tiny quote by Rep. Jeb Hensarling that revealed Chet's character. Chet Edwards is one of a handful of representatives serving on both the budget and appropriations committtees. Each committee has rules concerning issues that can be addressed: appropriation issues in appropriation committees and budget issues in buget committees. Bringing up an appropriation issue for the VA in a budget committee meeting was calculated to net sound bites to scare the bejeebers out of the targeted victims. Presenting the request for the VA before the Appropriations Committe of which he is the Ranking Minority leader, would have been the appropriate forum, but would not have generated the sparks necessary for enflamed rhetoric. "I was accused of making partisan attacks."

But the partisan stunt was executed not only to scare our veterans, but also to create a political embarrassment for the administration. Chet's plan involved raising taxes and increasing the budget deficit and would be totally unacceptable to Republicans who are cutting taxes to grow the economy and bring down the budget deficit. Viewed logically, Chet's actions were: a) politically oriented rather than a pragmatic service to the nation and b) a self-serving and malicious attack on the peace of mind of our veterans and those now in service.

I'm grateful to know the Good Shepherd and I hope He is your Shepherd, too. By His Grace, the Good Shepherd is a friend of mine. You, Chet Edwards, are no good shepherd.

The B/CS Eagle Has Decided

The Jackalope has learned from reliable sources that a favorable article on Van Taylor was spiked by The Eagle. The reporter is no longer available for comment. We wish her well in her journalistic career.

The Jackalope is not surprised by this information as her voice was also silenced by The Eagle.

Trick Rider

Chet Edwards (D) finally requested removal of a Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee internet ad showing flag draped coffins of American soldiers killed in Iraq. The furor over the ad, along with Chet’s request, finally caused the ad to be pulled after 2 1/2 weeks of collecting campaign donations for congressional Democrats. Concerning the effectiveness of the ad: “It was more successful than we’d ever dreamed,” said DCCC spokesman Bill Burton.

Are we to believe that Chet, after eight terms in Congress, was totally unaware of the production of the offensive ad?

Or did he know, but was unable to stop Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) from producing and running it?

Or did the ad run its full intended course, with Chet, feigning outrage, continuing his charade as a Democratic Party maverick by finally demanding its removal?

Or maybe he's just a trick rider on two ponies fixin' to rip his pants.

The Truth Should Hit Everybody

Although heralded as a hawk on the War on Terror, the Jackalope has searched the web extensively for Chet Edwards' (D) quotes to substantiate this claim. When fellow congressman Jack Murtha (D-PA) was attacking our troops, Chet Edwards made this ambiguious statement:

It sends a message that the American people are increasingly unsure about the operations of the Iraq war and that it is no longer a debate over whether one is a hawk or a dove, but should we be or should we not be in Iraq. People would make a mistake if they attack (Murtha) personally.

Hardly a resounding defense of our troops and overlooks the obvious message Murtha's comments sent to our enemies — the guys shooting at our military. Chet always seems ready for a quick partisan dig. Here he neither defended the troops nor condemned Murtha. The truth should hit everybody...it's time Chet was smacked.

Who's Your Daddy?

TX Congressional Dist. 17 Election 2006
Van Taylor vs. Chet Edwards

We all know the classic western script where the larger than life cattleman solves the problem of settlers moving in, or the widow owning the land with the spring fed lake, by hiring a dark, nasty man to take care of the problem. The big cattleman never wants to actually know the methods of his man because knowing ignites complicity, which could land even a cattle baron in front of the judge.

The dark, nasty hired man wants power and prestige and he doesn’t care what he has to do to get it. He’s a ham-fisted brawler able to knock a man standing in his way down to the dirt quick. He enjoys eliciting fear when he walks down the street or into a room.

Here in the Brazos Valley that man is Chet Edwards (D) of the spread called District 17. Chet maintains an iron grip on his territory by sinking his big hands into the Federal Trough and bringing home the bacon. Edwards swaggers into town bragging about how he not only pushed aside any lesser beings standing in line at the House Bank but makes it sound like he forced all the other congressmen to toss their own wallets into his hat so he could bring back even more. Like our cattle baron, the recipients of this mammon may not like his methods, but acknowledge he does get the job done. Some may even quietly grin at Chet’s strong-arm tactics; giving a wink and a nod to his devilish nature and marveling at how he seems to get away with it.

But just because Chet brings home the bacon don’t confuse him with Daddy. Chet’s the kind of man that would drive your underage daughter across state lines so she can get an abortion without parental consent. Having a 100% NARAL rating gets big campaign dollars along with the added bonus of striking fear into those suckers in Congress with moral convictions.

As recipients of Chet's money we should be aware of the blood attached. Are we willing as a society to build great monuments at the expense of innocents? Can we maintain an advancing society by undermining the moral foundations? Should we accept the money without asking how it was obtained? Does blood money really spend just like cash?

This election will tell if the Brazos Valley is still a safe place for the settlers or if an immoral thug has outgunned us.

No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.
Matthew 6:24