Graduating Summa Cum Stupid

June 3, 2011 17:13 by KRM

When some great benefactor donates a huge sum of money to a university, what is the response by the university?  Is it not usually to name a school or a building after that person?  And when some wealthy landowner gives an estate to a city or state for a park, isn’t the park usually named after the one who donated it?  In our culture do we not generally honor those who so generously give of themselves back to the community?

And in this great country, is not our greatest gift our freedom?  And whether the ACLU likes it or not, did our Founders not identify where our freedom comes from?  Why do we then refuse to honor the source of our most valued gifts?  Many times it’s not even an issue of the majority refusing to honor God, but a vocal annoying minority and activist judges, as was the case recently in Texas (of all places!).

Chief U.S. District Judge Fred Biery came down like a load of bricks on honoring God publicly during high school graduation in the Medina Valley School District.  This piece of work is so afraid of anything related to God that he went beyond simply banning prayer from the program. He also banned the use of the words “prayer”, “amen”, the phrase “bow your heads” and dictated that the words “invocation” and “benediction” be removed from the graduation program and be replaced with “opening remarks” and “closing remarks”.  All because he agreed that one boy (because this child is most definitely not a man yet) and his hyper-sensitive family would “suffer irreparable harm” if they were to hear any religious terms at the graduation.

This story reeks of all kinds of stupidity.  I for one, hear all kinds of offensive language at work and on TV.  At work, not much I can do about it, but just get along.  But I’m not wound so tight that I attempt to curb others’ speech.  And when I hear or see something offensive on TV, I can change the channel, cover my ears or look away.  But in this case, to allow one family to ruin graduation for the entire community by banning something that happens each time Congress  begins a new session and during presidential inaugurations shows just how anti-God this culture has become – even though we, as a culture, acknowledge God as the source of all our rights.  Why?

For the Schultz family, irreparable harm can only occur if they think there is something to prayer.  If they are truly agnostics as they claim, then they should be open to the possibility that perhaps God exists and would be honored to be a part of the ceremony.  But because they were willing to go to court to keep God out of graduation, they are beyond agnostic but actively militant against religion, to the point of atheism.  If they are atheists who do not believe in God, why do they care what anyone else says?  In their minds, it’s just empty, meaningless, powerless words and a waste of time.  And in the case where they are using agnosticism to hide some other religious persuasion, they should embrace the great liberal virtue of tolerance.

The judge in this case is a first class tool.  Rather than restrict the rights of the many for the sake of one there are many different ways he could have handled this – if he weren’t truly attempting to hide God from the public.  He could have told the family that if they were offended, they didn’t have to go (kind of like turning off the TV if it offends you).  He could have displayed the wisdom of Solomon and ordered this family to hand over all of their money, since it must certainly offend them that all of our coinage states, “In God We Trust”.  When they refused, he could then refuse to change graduation to fit their whims.  There are many things he could have done, but I believe there is a reason why he went along why this tragic miscarriage of justice for two reasons.  First, why prohibit or hinder people from speaking publicly unless there is something to what they’re doing?  We have freedom of speech – we can say (and do) just about anything that we want.  There are laws against public nudity, but if a gay rights group wants to walk naked in a gay rights parade, government won’t crack down on it because it’s protected speech. So why crackdown on a community, because one kid and his family gets offended, for a tradition that’s been in place many years, unless you know that what is being said actually is powerful?  And second, some in government hope that the more they can hide from public view the source of our rights, the more likely that people will forget where their rights come from.  Never forget – if our rights come from government or we let government dictate what rights we have, then government can take those rights away. 

Americans who understand the stakes, need to take a stand.  This judge said that those who violate his insane ruling would be incarcerated.  I bet that if a group of students decided to attend naked, he would rule that it was their right to do so.   While I’m not advocating a bunch of high school seniors attempt to graduate in the buff, I am suggesting that these students, their families and the leaders of this school district should stand up en masse, against this kind of judicial lunacy.  If the community as a whole practices civil disobedience the judge won’t be able to incarcerate everyone.  It’s time to stop both intolerant minorities as well as activist judges and stop allowing a small, annoying minority from dictating the moral direction of our communities.  It’s also time that we, as a nation, give great honor to our Creator, the source of, as a whole, our greatest gift – our freedoms.

Share |

Government Bloat

June 1, 2011 22:30 by KRM

It’s sad really, but we’ve brought it on ourselves.

Two stories this week, seemingly unrelated to the casual news reviewer, caught my attention.  Together they mirror why this once great country has become such a financial and social mess.

First, over the Memorial Day weekend, Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-OH, was hanging out in Seattle, not because he likes a coffee, airplanes, software or a morbidly wet start to summer, but because he was investigating what would be his base of support and chances of winning a possibly open House seat should he move here.  His district in Ohio has been redrawn such that his chances of winning have drastically decreased.  And here in the Seattle area, one of our illustrious representatives, and general all-around loonies, Jay Inslee, is probably going to run for governor.  Because Inslee has won re-election six times, Kucinich believes he has a chance of winning the seat should he move here.

The second story said that the Obama administration has increased the federal fleet of limousines more than any other administration.  The Bush administration had 238 limos; the Obama administration is up to 412.  I can understand a few limos for the president and vice-president, but when so many government employees and agencies have that many it shows just how far out of touch this administration is with the rest of the country.

And both of these stories indicate something far more telling than the desperateness of Kucinich or the arrogance of liberals.  Our Founders did not intend on creating a monstrous federal government full of lifelong bureaucrats sucking at the public teat.  They fully expected people in the community to go to Washington to serve, then return back to their private jobs after their stint in office.  For them, it was an honor to serve, not some sort of entitlement to power, as Kucinich seems to believe.  But early on they even betrayed this ideal when they asked George Washington to stay on after his term ended – as king.  He is perhaps our best example of a citizen statesman.  He refused and returned home to farm only coming out of his self-imposed exile when his country needed him when President Adams requested his services in the military during troubles with the French in 1798.

Unfortunately, explicit term limits was not part of the original Founders’ plan.  Even so, we the people have always had the ability to limit the terms of the people we elect.  But rather than allow anyone to become too comfortable in office, all over this great land, we’ve put the same tired old men (and women) with tired ideas, back into places of power and authority and wonder why we are in the shape that we’re in.  Every two, four or six years, depending on whether the incumbent is a representative, a president or a senator, these same clowns make the same promises to fix the very problems that they created to begin with. If someone is in power long enough to come up with ideas on how things should be done, they’ve been in power too long.  We need people who will go in, babysit the government, and then get out.  People who keep lights on and the bills paid.  People who are so busy learning the ropes, that they don’t have time to use the ropes.  We don’t need people who go in and try to raise government up to be whatever great thing they envision, because undoubtedly whatever that is, will cost tremendous amounts of OUR money.   The top five representatives, in terms of service, are John Dingell (55 years), John Conyers (46 years), Charles Rangel (40 years), Bill Young (40 years) and Pete Stark (38 years).  Together, they have served, or rather ruled, in the House for a combined 219 years.  Of those five, only one, Young, is a Republican.  The top five Senators, Daniel Inouye (48 years), Patrick Leahy (36 years), Richard Lugar (34 years), Orrin Hatch (34 years) and Carl Levin (32 years) have been in the Senate for a combined 184 years.  These guys aren’t public servants, they’re career politicians and bureaucrats.

Ask yourself during the coming campaign season if your interests and wallet are best served by someone who doesn’t know their way around Washington but will reign in spending, or someone that’s going to use their experience to get things done that we don’t want and don’t need - like Obamcare, the PATRIOT act, or any number of career politician pieces of legislation.

Share |