Abortion: are we ready yet?

Not only your federal tax dollars go to support abortion mills.  State, County and City dollars in many areas do, too (e.g., City of Austin, in Travis County).


If a politician lacks the moral clarity to understand that killing new, innocent life is wrong, do they have the moral clarity to represent you on any other issue? Really?


What to do about it?


Certainly, we ought to elect people with the moral clarity to courageously and unequivocally say, "hell no, your freedom does not permit you to kill an innocent life or to value one free, innocent life above another."


I can think of nothing more noble and obvious than the defence of the life of the innocent unborn.


I can think of no law more unjust and illegitimate, certainly unconstitutional, more worthy of solid and tangible resistance than one that permits the indiscriminate termination of innocent new life.


Are we ready to say, "I will not comply"?


Are we ready yet to say, "the unjust law be damned; my own freedom is undeserved if I have not done everything I can to protect the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of this innocent new life"?


It seems profound cowardice to say, "I will not stand up and protect the innocent, because I fear the consequences to my own life."


Where is the fault in the above? Tell me.

On "Mormon support for the LGBT community"

Some Mormons marched in a "gay pride" parade:  http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865556863/300-plus-LDS-Church-members-march-in-Pride-parade.html


Speaking as someone who has had my own share of challenges and struggles, though not in this particular arena:

Here's the problem: it's an important distinction between loving someone who has a real challenge, and supporting and/or promoting it (e.g., "pride").

We should not "show our support" for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community.

We should show our love for everyone, and we *support* those who are striving to overcome life's challenges in their struggle to do so.

Those who embrace sin and deviance, we should love but not support them in their fall.

Beware those who call evil good, and good evil.

On Vaccinations

To vaccinate, or not to vaccinate?

The facts are that:

1. Some vaccines are made from aborted fetal tissue.  This is well documented, and well rationalized.  However, some may by conscience say that "regardless of what benefit may be claimed from it, no matter how long in the past, I will not be a beneficiary of a great act of harm against an innocent life."
2. Some vaccines contain (or have until very recently) forms of mercury and/or other toxins.  It seems unreasonable to say that a chemical for which even very modest exposure should generally be considered harmful, the same level of exposure should generally be considered absolutely safe, or where the exposure is cumulative, that the repeated exposure to very minor degree, but over a period of time, should generally be considered absolutely safe. 
3. There are documented cases of neurological side affects from vaccines.  I am not referring to autism here.  But it seems reasonable to state (and even the CDC has allowed for the idea that) some very small percentage of the population may have genetic and/or neurological predisposition to side affects from ingredients that are contained in the vaccines, possibly in the timeframe in life in which they are administered (for example, a newborn and an infant receive many vaccinations in rapid succession, when their body may well be the least able to absorb, process, and where appropriate to eliminate the quantities of substances received.  The periods of infancy and early childhood are developmentally many times more important than later life.

And now vaccines are promoted for everything from chicken pox to an annual flu vaccine.  


While it is unfair to say that all companies are deceptive about the full health consequences of their products when profits are at stake, as it is to say that all major corporations are evil, it is also clear that we do not yet have full disclosure.


Those who have concerns are called fear-mongers, paranoid or zealots; and yet some vaccines are pushed as "critical" and with "zero side effects" even when there has not been enough time for such claims to be reasonably researched and validated by the people making them.  In particular, many have concerns about government mandates that require the intake of substances, without the individual having the full freedom to make their own health choice on the matter (which many feel is reasonably consider to be a literal physical assault).  It is the belief of some in the CDC that, should some crisis be declared, the government would have the prerogative to forcibly administer substances to the populace.


THE REAL SOLUTION, as with dental Xrays and anything else your doctor recommends, is that you need to do the best research you can, understand the pros and cons as well as you can, and make your most considered and thoughtful best choice.  All vaccines aren't bad, and all vaccines aren't free of downsides -- possibly significant ones.  And people should be free to make their own health choices, and live with the consequences.  As children cannot make their own choices, it falls to the parents as with any other situation; it is not necessarily reasonable to hold the parent at fault for harm that comes to the child from every choice vis a vis vaccination any more than it is reasonable to fault the parent for every consequence of every other choice, such as a child who is hurt in a car accident as a result of the parent choosing to take the child in the car, rather than leaving the child bubble-wrapped at home... or the child who is hurt in a house fire from being left at home (rather than taken in the car with the parent), for that matter.

Letter to Deseret News on Political Neutrality of the Church

I have thought for some time about the political neutrality of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (aka LDS Church or Mormon faith), of which I am a happy member.  I believe in the teachings of the church, because the Holy Spirit has answered my prayers and affirmed to my soul the teachings of the church.

How, then, does an organ of good and the very church of our Savior himself remain silent on matters that are actually not political at all, but are clearly moral at their root?

Here is a letter, hastily written and not as well thought out as is deserved, in response to an article about the Democratic Party reaching out the members of the LDS church in Utah.

Dear sir:

From this article: http://www.deseretnews.com/m/article/865554878 , I was disappointed to see the lack of balance and multiple perspectives, as well as documentation.  I understand that it was essentially a piece on the counter-culture under-dog, as it were; even so, one who has an understanding of the doctrines of the church and of the planks of the respective parties cannot escape the stark contrasts.

"The LDS Church continues to maintain political neutrality, telling its members that principles compatible with church teachings can be found in the platforms of both major political parties".  -- Will you please provide a source and the rest of the source text as context?  It may be true in some small part, but embracing communism (at worst, or progressive socialism at best), abortion, and violence are pretty bad red marks against one party; the problem with the other party, is how much it has become like the first, progressively.

"This extremism that has taken over the Republican Party"  This comment deserved to be challenged.  Liberal progressivism has taken over the Republican party; whereas a strong libertarian (small "el") philosophy is actually a (the?) core component of the traditional Republican party.  On "extremism": one is considered extremist if one actually believes in God, actually believes that our rights come from our creator, and that the federal government should be and was originally intended to be limited in scope, deriving certain explicitly enumerated powers, and those by the consent of the governed...or if one believes that the people are the ultimate watchmen.

How is it become extreme now to think that the government structure as it was founded and intended is the right way, to think that innocent life should be protected at all costs, and to think that one ought not spend money one hasn't got -- especially when the taking of that money is enforced at the point of a gun and threat of imprisonment?

Remember, to the atheist and agnostic, if you actually believe that there is a God in Heaven, that Jesus Christ is His son who suffered for the sins of the world, that Jesus walked on water and fed 5000 men and their families from a few fishes and loaves, if you actually believe that people today talk to God and are empowered to speak in His name... if you believe that you should actually live God's teachings and give at least 1/10th of your increase to the church, then you, too, are a radical fundamentalist Christian.

If you merely espouse such faith as a "faith tradition", then you are not fundamentalist. But if you actually believe your professed faith, then you are 'fundamentalist.'

The church remains politically neutral.  That the church remains silent on many politically (ultimately moral) issues does not mean, for example, that Hitler was justified in his platform of eugenics and national socialism.  Rather, we must conclude that the church expects good, moral people to recognize and to do the right thing.  Political neutrality should not be mistaken for consent or endorsement.

Heavenly Father, I believe, is (small "el") libertarian, having granted all men their agency, and the freedom to choose -- including the inescapable consequences of their actions; and eternal consequences attend the enslavement of, murder of, or deprivation of the rights and property of others.

Regards,

Lane Bryson

(Originally published 1 May 2012; Edited 9 May 2012 for clarity.)

The Problem with Rick Santorum

Based on a letter I sent to his campaign... a letter that I know will probably never get anywhere:


I believe in most of what Rick stands for.  But there is a critical problem:


http://www.ricksantorum.com/appointing-constitutionalist-justices-and-judges-who-refuse-legislate-bench


...says, 

Rick is committed to nominating to federal judgeships only very qualified and ethical individuals who, at a minimum, possess a clear record in support of the following key constitutional principles:

1. That the Constitution provides federal judges with authority to decide cases but that all legislative power is reserved exclusively for the legislative branch and, accordingly, judges have no authority to legislate from the bench and must never do so.
2. That the Constitution provides that the U.S. Constitution and U.S. laws are the supreme law of the land, and that federal judicial power extends to cases arising under the United States constitution and federal laws and, accordingly, judges should not in any way rely upon any form of foreign law or international law for the purpose of interpreting the United States Constitution and laws.

(emphasis added)


But this is wrong, or at least not explicit enough to prevent the kind of misinterpretation that has brought us to our current state.  


The constitution clearly states that:
1. The Supreme Court only has authority on issues of constitutional or federal law, which in turn require explicit constitutional authority in order to be valid (according to the 10th amendment and/or articles III and VI); and
2. The Constitution (and Federal law) is only "supreme" on constitutional matters.  The law of each state is actually supreme in that state, taking precedence *over* the Federal Constitution, on matters that are not explicitly reserved to the federal government (as stated in the 10th ammendment); this is again according to the 10th amendment and/or article VI.


In other words, on matters of Education, Energy, Health, Drug Enforcement, Transporation Safety, Environmental Protection and Wildlife Lands, Criminal Justice, or any other area of responsibility that is not explicitly granted in the constitution to the national government... the law of the state of Texas (or any other state) is actually the supreme law of the land, for that state and the U.S. citizens in it.


While the quoted section from Santorum actually does say "federal judicial power extends to cases arising under the United States constitution", to me it does not go far enough, and is not explicit enough in excluding state and local issues from the mix.


I think that Rick sort of gets it, but if he really got it, he would be much more careful, as the founders were, to specify that federal judicial power extends only to matters of constitutional law, just as power of the federal congress and the federal executive branch lawfully extend only to matters that are explicitly defined as enumerated powers in the constitution.


See these passages of the Constitution:

"The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority..." (Article III) (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution)

Again, the federal judicial power extends to cases "arising from the constitution"; and "the laws of the United States" are supposed to be only those laws authorized by the constitution -- any federal law that surrounds a power not authorized by the constitution, is UNconstitutional and thus void.

"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land;" (Article VI) (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution)

Ditto here, speaking about the power and scope of the U.S. Constitution, and the national government that it establishes and limits.


Rick, please study it and revise your position. You'd actually get support from more strict libertarians, probably even erode a fair bit of the non-extreme Ron Paul support; and I don't think that such a traditional constitutional position would scare off more moderate conservatives.


Oh, and the other problem with Rick Santorum? He's just too nice looking.