About Me

Name: Mike
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

Christ and the Jews

The formation of the early Church and the spreading of the Gospel message among the Gentiles is discussed by Benedict XVI in his recent book "Jesus of Nazareth".  The Jewish community laid the groundwork and foundation for the coming of Christ.  In God's plan of salvation, Jesus as the Way is unmistakably clear as foretold by the prophets and foreshadowed in the law of the Old Testament.  The pope points out that many of the early adherents to Christianity besides those who were Jewish came from the Greek speaking intellectuals among the Gentiles who had already accepted the teachings of Judaism but who were for one reason or another not Jews themselves.  By being baptized, they could share more fully in what they believe which they knew was far superior to the polytheism and superstitious myths of the pagans.

As regards Ann Coulter's recent comments, the prevailing view in the Church is that all will be given the chance to accept or reject Christ before the moment of death and that judgment will be according to each person's knowledge and belief as acquired throughout life.  Christians must therefore accept our Jewish brothers and sisters as equals, and not act as though we are superior.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

California's PC Justice System

We are now reaping the rotten fruits of the wacky affirmative action/equal opportunity agenda of the '60's and '70's.  Justice Clarence Thomas demonstrates the deleterious effects of this agenda in his autobiographical book "My Grandfather's Son".  In California, the effects have taken the form of the citizens being forced to suffer the childish antics of feminists and (for lack of a better word) Mexamericans and Mexifornians at almost all levels of government having a day to day contact with the general public.

The culture in America is corrupt.  I have been falsely charged on two occasions within the last seven years with violation of a criminal statute.  As a matter of public record, I have pleaded "no contest" to both charges and paid fines because the charges were based upon lies and there was the possibility of a jail sentence.  The true facts did not involve any violation of the law and the actual speech involved was protected under the First Amendment. 

The first case was brought in Ventura County in 2000 and the Mexican-American, affirmative action Judge Arthur Gutierrez refused to dismiss the charges  after my request  at the arraignment even though the charge was contradicted by the evidence  presented by the State.  On the morning I later pleaded "no contest", I drank a glass of vodka beforehand even though I had been sober for some months prior to this time, because that was the only way that I could live with having to accept the consequences for something that I did not do.

The second case this year was preceded by an Order to Show Cause hearing in Ventura on a restraining order brought by a bank whose parent company is a Dutch-based financial institution.  In agreeing to the terms of the restraining order, I again avoided further litigation and did not object after it was made clear in the order that there were no threats made.  In agreeing to the order I  am barred under California law from buying any firearms during the three years duration of the order, which does not affect me personally because as a professed member of the Third Order of St. Francis (secular), I would not own or carry a weapon pursuant to the Rule of the Order of St. Francis.

Then to my surprise I received a notice in the mail to appear for a court hearing in Santa Maria, in Santa Barbara County which is about 100 miles from where I live in Oxnard, California.  The case was brought on the basis of Santa Maria police officer Mark Strykker's telephone call to me, even though it was clear that there was no prior court order in effect as required for a violation to exist under the applicable provisions of the statute, and that my intention was not to harass or annoy anyone, something which I would never do.  During our conversation, officer Stryyker misrepresented what I had said to him.  I told him that my calling the bank employees did not help me.  Later in the conversation he sarcastically implied that I had said just the opposite. 

The women with whom I spoke in both cases have a lot more to worry about from purveyors of contraception, abortion, and pornography, all of which are given protection by our misguided state and federal judicial systems.  So much for girlie men, wimps, and lackey politically correct and politically corrupt cops and DA's in California.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Faith of Our Fathers

Lately I have been tuning in Czech radio because my forefathers came from Bohemia which is now within the Czech Republic, and other places in Europe.  They all brought with them a particular faith in God, all shaped in some way by the unique histories of the various localities.

Today our Church celebrates on the calendar a Czech saint Wenceslaus, and also several Christian saints who died for their faith in the Far East.  I was listening to the story of families  and individuals coming to Czechoslovakia because they were facing persecution in Germany before WWII, in much the same way as our American colonists came to our shores long ago.  Many of the refugees had to travel to Prague where their children were in many cases saved from Nazi tyranny being taken to England before the occupation began.

Our guarantee of freedom of religious expression allows for the growth of many seeds of faith throughout the generations, whether part of a particular confession or faith community, or as an individual adherence to God's will and reliance on this one infinite source of power.  It should be obvious by now that man's self-centeredness and sole reliance on his own natural abilities has led to untold destruction.  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Is California Going to the Dogs?


Last week I opined concerning the attempt to mandate sterilization of dogs and other pets in California by certain measures of the state legislature.   I did not know at the time that the bill had been held  in committee and withdrawn that very day for the time being.

The bill is flawed for a number of reasons.  The proponents claim that it will help reduce the number of stray dogs and cats which are put to death each year at taxpayer expense.  However, with regard to dogs, they point out that 70% of dog owners in the state already have spayed or neutered their animals.  This leaves only 30% of dogs left intact.  If this were true, it would seem fanciful to believe that this 30% is begetting the thousands of stray dogs picked up and eventually put to death each year.  Assuming random mating, each of the intact dogs would have to mate with approximately three other dogs before producing a litter of puppies.  It is more likely that the percentage figures represent only dogs licensed in the state, and do not include unlicensed or out of state animals which would logically account for almost the entire number of stray animals put to death each year.  Every responsible pet owner knows that when a female dog gets pregnant, the first priority is to find responsible people to take care of the puppies.  And yes, puppies are hard to come by in the state, which means that in fact, the dogs that are put to death never came from responsible homes and the parent dogs were never licensed to begin with, or else licensed in another state or country (e.g. Mexico).

Secondly, the law of supply and demand would not stop just because dogs are required to be sterilized.  As long as kids need pets, puppies will be brought in from other states or countries.  The bill would only encourage pet owners to neglect to have their dogs licensed so as not to have to subject them to unnecessary surgical procedures and trips to the vet.

Thirdly, the proposed amendments to exempt show dogs and work dogs is discriminatory against people who just want a healthy dog to love and take care of, not one that has been medically altered by bureaucratic decree.

This issue of pet owners rights will not go away, and will become bigger in the upcoming elections as more and more state legislatures attempt to usurp the prerogatives of the people.

If dogs are to be spayed or neutered, it is the prerogative of the dog owner to make that decision, not state bureaucrats.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Oppose Animal Genocide

Recently a bill was introduced in the California legislature to mandate neutering and spaying of privately owned pets.  This is another attempt at big government intrusion.  People who really care about animals do not subject them to unnecessary medical procedures and operations.  It is only the greedy pro-abortion people who are pushing this idiotic proposal.  They are so pessimistic that they hate to see anyone really enjoying their lives--including pet owners.

The result of such legislation, if enacted, is predictable.  In California, owners of dogs that have not been spayed or neutered already pay quite a bit more to license their pets.  Requiring that pets be spayed or neutered would only force these pet owners to not obtain dog licenses.  If the state tries to enforce such an unjust law, there will be relocation of pets to other states, or to other owners within the state who are compassionate and therefore unwilling to force this unnecessary surgery on healthy dogs.  Dogs only live on average about 12-14 years anyway.  What about the dogs who are not spayed or neutered and still do not beget puppies because their masters take good care of them and keep them away from other dogs?

Governor Schwartzennegger was right in calling these unethical legislators "girlie men".

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Is Rudy Serious?

Today I received a call from the Giuliani campaign office in New York.  The way I see it, Rudy will have to overcome a couple of major obstacles in order to win the Republican nomination.

The first has been discussed elsewhere below as over-zealousness.  Lawyers are supposed to be zealous, but not to go after people who are not bad guys.  Today, there are  questions being raised about some of the Wall Street indictments which I remember well as I was also a practicing lawyer at that time.

The second has to do with marriage and relationships.  Regarding this, I do not claim to be an expert having never been married myself.  However, I can make several observations with regard to Christian ethics and morality, and what bearing this may have on politics.  From the perspective of Church doctrine which applies to Mr. Giuliani, his first marriage does not count because of the degree of consanguinity in that the spouses were first cousins was a basis for an annulment of the marriage, meaning that, from the point of view of the Church, there never was a marriage.  The second marraige and divorce however pose the real obstacle because of the children and that it was probably a valid marriage as most marriages are presumed to be.  To remarry after a divorce is not the same for a Protestant like President Reagan as it is for a Catholic like Giuliani, or for an Orthodox Christian, because in the latter cases the valid marriage is done sacramentally which means that it does exist as long as both spouses are alive.  The subsequent marriage would be a reason for Catholics and Orthodox Christians to not vote for Giuliani, always being careful not to judge the person or persons involved.

Another point has to do with the excommunication for supporting laws that allow abortion.   The Church does uphold the primacy of conscience with regard to moral decisions.  Something could be objectively scandalous and therefore sinful while being subjectively not a sin for a particular person.  Again, care must be taken in order to not judge the person.  The excommunication here would be automatic which means that the politician could not receive communion, something which would already be prohibitive on account of the marriage irreguliarities irrespective of the stand on abortion.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Francophobes Come Out of the Closet

It's incredible how some people lack common sense.

During the beginning of the Iraq War the leading pundits and talk radio buffoons who bought into each and every one of the changing justifications could not say enough about how bad the French people are.  Today these same stooges, after bemoaning Iraq as "a mistake," are lifting their boycotts and saying how dear to their hearts the French are after the election of Sarkozy. 

The French picked an excellent leader alright, but not on account of our American radio and TV crews who change their opinions at the drop of a hat.  Slaves to their own greediness they must be.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Bush's Legacy

The legacy of President George W. Bush is by far and away his Supreme Court and lower court appointments including the spectacular revitalization of Justice Priscilla Owens.  This was essentially the price of the Iraq war.   Bush could not have been nominated without the overwelming support of Evangelical Christians.  Their view of history favored war against Arab nations.  Whether there was any complicity leading  to the attacks on America is open to question.  In any case, these were acts of war, and Bush acted within his authority  to strike against the aggressor.  Perhaps had Gore been elected there would not have been attacks on September 11.  Or perhaps Gore would not have sent troops to Iraq.  In any case, it is certain that Gore would not have changed the balance on the Supreme Court and would not have allowed authentically traditional justices to be appointed to lower courts within the federal system.  This was in effect the price of war.  The American people knew before it happened what they were getting into.  The WTC buildings had already been targeted before Bush was elected in 2000.  Many Americans have died.  Many more Iraqis have died.  Not one unborn child saved from being killed.  Yet the principle of life over death is upheld thanks to President Bush.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

No Quick Fixes

Preventive measures are often necessary for protection and self-preservation.  A society in transition will always be in danger of internal upheavals beyond the control of government.  It is often left up to the citizens to fend for themselves.  I suppose that is why our Founding Fathers came up with the Second Amendment.

My Dad helped lobby the state legislature in California to keep the mental hospitals funded during the period of deinstitutionalization several decades ago.  He once spoke at a seminar at the Sportsman's Lodge explaining the legal principle called from the Latin parens patriae meaning that the state must substitute as parent for those who are unable to care for themselves.  The problem is that some people in society have become greedy and overindulgent and selfish, thereby neglecting this community obligation to take care of the weak among us.  Could this be what the mentally challenged Korean killer Cho was getting at in his creative writing play "Richard McBeef" mimicking Shakespeare, and in his diatribe against rich kids and the fast food industry aired on NBC?  Is this the perception that people of other cultures have of Americans?  If so, is there not a grain of truth?

Peer pressure and cruelty in school can be a major cause of self-hatred and emotional instability later in life.  Mix that with a possible genetic predisposition toward mental illness, prenatal conditions including possible exposure to toxic chemical substances, stress factors including growing up in an immigrant community,  difficulties in forming an emotional bond  with someone of the opposite sex, the pressure of looking forward toward graduation and an uncertain employment outlook, and having to make decisions about what next to do in life, etc., and what do you get? 

Nothing justifies the evil of multiple murders.  I believe that VTU and the City of Blackbury did all the right things with regard to Mr. Cho.  Most importantly, they acted with compassion and not with the vindictiveness displayed by certain sectors of the mass media.  In the final analysis, sadly to say there are no quick fixes.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Why Second Amendment

The states began as sovereign entities under the Constitution.  The Bill of Rights began as limitations on the power of the federal government only.  After the Civil War, the protections of the Bill of Rights were extended to limit the powers of the individual states through additional amendments.  Since originally the states were free to restrict gun ownership, the Second Amendment should now be interpreted as limiting the federal government, and limiting the states from disarming the citizenry because such disarming would only have the same result as a federal ban on firearms. 

None of the enumerated rights in the Constitution are absolute.  The states can, and do, regulate gun ownership and possession.  So does the federal government.  Recently, the federal court in D.C. did finally recognize that the Second Amendment does indeed upold the rights of citizens of the United States to own and possess firearms.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Did Dry Cleaning Chemical Lead to Killing Spree?

A recent scientific study links early exposure to tetrachloroethelyne a chemical used in clothes dry cleaning as a factor in the onset of schizophrenia.   See below:

http://www.schizophrenia.com/sznews/archives/004923.html

Cho's parents were in the dry cleaning business in northern Virginia.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Irresponsibility No Excuse

While only God can judge a person's moral acts, society should never use mental illness to excuse immoral acts.  The mass murderer typically only cares about himself with no regard for others.  People with severe mental illness typically do not commit violent acts.  If they do, they usually are not morally responible because the act is not human in the sense of being a free act of the human will.  Society should view these types of incidents as accidents of nature such as when lightning strikes someone or when a wild animal attacks someone.

A mentally ill person who is attending a university generally has ability to choose between alternative courses of action.  Just because a person is a loner and depressed does not take away this freedom to act.  At VT there were several warning signs that the killer was thinking about killing people.  However, in a free society, thoughts are not enough to take someone off the street.  It is wrong to blame the university for the acts of one of its students.  They did respond to the situation by referring the suspect to counseling.  He was on antidepressant medication which means he must have consulted a psychiatrist or other medical professional.  If there was an immediate danger at that time, the doctor would have been obligated to notify the police.  Since the killer was not taken into custody as a lunatic before the incident, he in all probability formed his intention to kill and chose to carry out his wicked plan all by himself as a free act.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Dealing with Self-Hatred

Adolf Hitler was a nut who had a tremendous impact on the history of the 20th century.  Is it any wonder that on or around the time of his birthday, other nut cases come out of the woodwork to kill and injure people?  Waco, Oklahoma City, Columbine, and now Virginia Tech?

At the core of the problem of narcissism seems to be self-hatred so deep that it becomes very difficult for a person to accept.  This may be rooted in a person's painful experiences of early childhood or adolescence sometimes even where there is no memory.  When one accepts the condition of self-hatred with all of its devastating effects on personality, then there is no longer narcissism.  Instead it becomes replaced by humility, ideally humility on the basis of trust in God, Who alone can bring anyone through the difficult times in life and Who offers real happiness for a person.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Double Standard

When Coulter got canned as a contributor for National Review Online a few years ago, did she ever make a fuss, calling the NRO editors all sorts of bad names, even going so far as to challenge their virility.  Well, pundits, take notice.  Entitlement does not extend to your jobs anymore than it does to other peoples' jobs, except for a few in protected classes of government.  You folks are expendable just like everyone else in a market economy.  The key is to keep doing a good job and hope that your boss is paying attention.  Don't offend too many people in the exercise of your freedom of speech 'cause they may just demand that you all be fired.  Listen carefully, particularly you narcissistic fat cats who take such pride in apologising for capitalism and bragging about your zip code addresses and six figure incomes.  Few people give a damn about that kind of stuff.  As they said about certain Middle Eastern nations, "Be careful, you may be next."

No one is decreeing, nor should anyone, that Nielsen ratings are the sole basis of who gets to be on a syndicated radio or television talk show.  Ratings are only an indication to commercial sponsors of how many Americans tune in, and where these people live, so that the sponsors can use this data to make rational decisions about selling more products.  They don't guarantee your jobs, pundits!  Those same sponsors may not want to support you because of all of the people you offend deeply who don't tune in to your shows and therefore don't show up in the ratings surveys.  That is called "business judgment" and is absolutely indispensible to the smooth running of a free market economy.

And government does have a legitimate role to play in all of this, folks.  Just ask the FCC.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Political Pragmatism

OK.  Buchanan is the only consistent credible commentator.  He is not for unregulated capitalism, and you know the rest. . .

Seriously, what if Rudy Giuliani is actually nominated?  Should Christians vote for him in the general election?   That depends upon where one is in life.  Trust me.  I've been there.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive