Still Not Yours to Give

It’s Still Not Yours to Give

“Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it.” --- Col. David Crockett commenting on his fellow Congressmen.

Chris Riggs is a stalwart conservative challenging Rep. Calvert in the Republican Primary for the 44^th Congressional District seat. The challenger has, in stark contrast to the incumbent, taken an unequivocal stand against congressional earmarks. One recurring objection Riggs told me he has encountered on multiple occasions from members of the local Republican establishment is that they believe there is absolutely nothing wrong with bringing taxpayer money back to the district.

Although having an appropriator for a representative may be desirable to the few that actually benefit from the wasteful spending, there is, in fact, one very serious thing wrong with it. That is the fact that the money is quite simply not their money to take or spend. Col. Davy Crocket, an American legend and former U.S. Congressman (1827-1834), in "Its Not Yours to Give." recalls a speech he delivered in opposition to appropriating public funds to the widow of a distinguished naval officer. His speech ultimately defeated the appropriation.

When asked why he took such a stand, he told the story of a fire that he and several other Congressmen witnessed in nearby Georgetown. In compassion for the victims of the fire, the House appropriated $20,000 of the public funds to ease their discomfort. Later, while campaigning back in his home district, Crockett was confronted by a very wise constituent of his. He challenged Col. Crocket by informing him that although his intentions may have been honorable, he was not acting in concert with the Constitution. This shrewd citizen, Horatio Bunce said:

If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are not at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose.

Mr. Bunce is correct. Congress has no business giving charitably, for the financial gain of one district, or one group, is robbery to the rest. The robbery we see today is not even in the name of charity, but purely of greed. Worse still, this sets the stage for the remarkably anti-Constitutional practice of District competition. This competition to secure and spend taxpayer dollars under the guise of “compassion”, or “job creation” or “bringing home the bacon” is precisely what occurs every day in Congress. It is so commonplace that Congressmen subscribe to it as a way to keep their large political donors, who are often times the developers that have the opportunity to build these wasteful projects, at bay. (See Rep. Calvert’s donor base for a plethora of examples)

It is utter madness that Americans haven’t identified these thieves and voted them out of office. Are we a people of morals and values, or greed and self promotion? It would be easy to throw up our hands and say that we are hopelessly greedy. But I think the right response is to identify the Congressmen who are doing this, and vote the bums out regardless of their party affiliation.

This is exactly why I am supporting Chris Riggs in his run against Ken Calvert. Rep. Calvert has spent the last 18 years spending billions of our taxpayer dollars through earmarks he has requested, and stimulus packages he has voted for, including both the $170 Billion and $700 Billion packages last year.

Aristotle defined character as “that which reveals moral purpose, exposing the class of things a man chooses and avoids” The vast majority of Congress, Republican and Democrat alike, have chosen to steal taxpayer dollars under the disguise of Congressional earmarking and have avoided the right path of fiscal responsibility . Let’s clean this house by voting out those who have proven they lack character by being unfaithful with the public coffers. A very good start will be to send Ken Calvert packing on June 8^th of next year.

X-men Origins: Wolverine

X-Men Origins-Wolverine rated PG13. Action, Adventure, Sci-Fi, Fantasy.

I’m going to do this review on three levels. Level 1 will be a general entertainment review. Level 2 will be a review of material in the movie that might be offensive to some viewers. Level 3 will be the most controversial. It will be to relay what I believe to be some of the inferred messages that are laid down in the movie. I think you’ll catch on as you read. If some of my scene descriptions seem vague it is to avoid plot spoilers.

Level 1: Wolverine is an action adventure movie telling the origin of some of the X-Men characters that are portrayed in the Marvel Comics series by the same name. This episode obviously, is about probably the most popular of all of the X-men, Wolverine, played by actor Hugh Jackman. All in all it was a thorough going action packed typical superhero movie. Most X-men sticklers I know had no great complaints about deviations from the canonical Wolverine of the comics. If you’re looking for a fairly fun, not to serious, entertaining movie, it’s a good movie. I believe, comparable with other movies of its genre. Maybe even a bit grittier than previous X-men movies. Grade: B+.

Level 2: There is at least two uses of the “b.s.” word as well as one each of the “g.d.” and the “a.h.” word. There were no sex scenes, nor nudity. There were many physical fight scenes displaying the super human powers of the characters. Thus, there is always a great deal of property damage. As a guy, I like seeing property damage, but as a law abiding citizen I can’t endorse it. There was, compared to many contemporary movies of similar genres, not a lot of gore or blood. There was one decapitation. Considering that two of the main characters had very sharp claws only one decapitation shows a great deal of self restraint on someone’s part. Grade: B.

Level 3: C.S. Lewis once said that he wasn’t concerned about a book defending Buddhism impacting negatively his contemporary culture. He was concerned about 100 books with Buddhism assumed dismantling the culture. With that in mind, I observed assumptions made by the makers of this movie that I want to bring to the fore. I’m just pointing them out so that you know what’s there. In this particular case three assumptions stood out.

First, the obviously deceptive and evil bad guy of the film, in one scene, had a cross on his lapel. Now anyone who has been involved in movie making knows that very little gets by editing or happens by accident. Someone at some point in making this movie said, “Hey, let’s put a cross on his lapel in this scene.” Then many other people like directors and producers and editors must have thought it was a good idea. Movie makers know that images can convey meanings. That’s the point. It seemed odd to me that this bad guy should have a cross on his lapel when there was no specific reason to put it there. Unless they wanted to imply that the bad guy was some sort of Christian believer. Thus, suggesting that Christian believers are actually evil people. They could have put a swastika, or a Star of David, or a Hammer and Sickle, or nothing, but instead they put a cross. Why, do you think? Do you think it was a cheap shot at Christians? Do you think it is deserved? Is it a fair way to communicate their accusation?

Second, the same bad guy at one point argues his case for doing his obviously evil behavior as “pre-emptive” protection of the American way of life. “The days of America sitting on the side lines are over,” he proclaims. My first thought is, “What a strange statement.” Is there anyone anywhere who considers America as the sort of entity that sees itself as sitting on the side lines on any issue? Are the makers of the film suggesting that those who think preemptive strike are a good idea are suffering from a sense of “sitting on the side lines? Sounds like a straw man to me. My question would be are all preemptive strikes morally wrong, as this particular bad guy’s clearly were?

Lastly, at the climax of the movie the bad guy, as usually happens in these movies, has the tables turned on him and finds himself at the mercy of one of the good guys. In that moment the good guy pronounces a more “merciful” (my quotation for emphasis, not an actual word used in the scene) sentence and punishment on the bad guy thus implying “justice” (same as quote above) has been served without stooping to the moral equivalency of the bad guy. Let me suggest that this final “sentence” is so morally confusing that it actually refutes the earlier actions of Wolverine. Trying to avoid plot spoilers this final scene involves issues of gun control, capital punishment, vigilante justice, and cruel and unusual punishment. Grade: C.

There are my observations. I hope you find them informative or at least fodder for discussion. All in all, a good entertaining movie, but as with much that comes out of Hollyweird, I’d take their attempts at moral indoctrination with a grain of salt. Overall grade: B.

Green with Insanity

Here's what I want to hear when ever the Left (which of coarse includes the media and the universities) brings up environmentalism. Actually, let me begin with what I don't want to hear.

1. I don't want to hear an apology that somehow or other the Republican Party is responsible for anything. We've taken blame for more than we've done and it's gotten us nowhere. It does not endear us to the Left nor does it win us one point with the American people.

2. I don't want to hear any sort of curtsy towards an acceptance that global climate change is the motivational issue for our actions. Not because it isn't, but because it isn't to many of us Conservatives. It's trumped up fodder to many people. Granted, probably not the majority of people, but plenty of us. Moreover, by not denouncing the hysterical motivation of the Left's environmental agenda we legitimize their position by acknowledging that they get anything right. Trust me, in case you haven't noticed by now, they are not extending to us the same courtesy. If we're serious about ever winning anything again it's way past time to take our ideological opponents seriously and make our stand clearly delineating ourselves from them.

3. I do not want to hear any Conservative or honest thinking Liberal say the words "clean energy" without, in the same breathe mentioning the virtues of nuclear energy which this country should be exporting by now. The technology, that is, to our allies. The Japanese aren't afraid of it and if any country should be it's them. The French aren't afraid of it. I'm restraining myself from making a comment using "French" and "not afraid" in the same sentence. The Left wants to be more like Europe, well here's one area that I agree with them.

What I do want to hear would go something like this:

1. We on the Right are motivated to having sensible environmental legislation not due to hysteria, but due to virtue. The Left by admission is trying to legislate environmentally hysterical laws based on supposed man-made global climate disaster. We Conservatives want to propose that if the Left ends up being wrong about their inconvenient lies concerning why we ought to pass their laws we as Republicans would carry on sensible environmentalism anyway. Because we are Americans and Americans are very responsible and conscientious people. Good people ought to do these things whether or not the planet is headed for ruin.

2. We on the Right are committed to not lying to the American people by pushing the obvious propaganda of the Left to scare them into action. We clearly see the agenda of the Left as frightening the American people into more government control. It is the Left that wants to take away rights on this issue not the Right.

I remember growing up in the 70's and 80's in a strong conservative home. We were rural people. Not well to do. Our family of 6 recycled long before it was cool or convenient. Why? because we knew it to be the right thing to do. Plastics were reused as much as possible. Card boards and paper were incinerated and the ashes scattered in our vegetable garden. Food waste was conscientiously dispersed for the wildlife which took quite naturally and gratefully to it. Our family of 6 only produced one and half 30 gallon trash barrels full of trash per week. My parents received an award for being life long conservationists.

The agenda of the Left regarding their environmentalism is predicated on several assumptions.
1. That the climate is changing.
2 That the change will be catastrophic.
3. That whether or not it is man made (almost all postulate that it is) we can do something about it through larger government legislation.

I'm suspicious of the 1st one and out right reject the last two.

We conservatives should well articulate our position and be at least as aggressive as the Left in making our claims. As an aside, I believe that we have lost so much ground to the Left because they have understood that the American people want reasons. They have argued their points and we have not really fought back in any way I believe that could be considered robust. That being said, I think the Right's agenda for responsible environmental concerns should be based on these assumptions.

1. Americans are good, conscientious and responsible people.
2. Good, conscientious and responsible people are not wasteful and tend towards conservation of our great land.
3. Therefore, Americans will support only environmental legislation that speak to the virtues of anti-waste and sound reason, not hysteria, fear mongering, or spurious science.

Happy Earth Day.