Monday, March 21, 2005

Killing Terri

I've tried to avoid commenting on it, but Friday's news that Terri Schiavo's feeding tube was being pulled, coupled with the depravity of a bioethics expert for MSNBC, pushed me over the edge.

The column is titled, "Killing Terri" and it is published today at Here is the actual link:

You just might be shocked by what I have to say in this column -- it's unlike any other I've written for publication.

What I didn't say in that article (the kind of things you'd expect me to talk about)... I do believe State law should've protected Terri. I do believe her husband should've accepted the various offers of assistance which have been made to him. However, I do believe that federal government involvement and a federal law on this question are un-Constitutional. In fact, I'll go one step further and say that more than likely a "Terri's Law" would cause brand new problems that would eventually hurt many families.

After all, that's the only thing the federal government seems to be good at these days -- harm.

Wednesday, March 02, 2005

Ten Commandments Goes to Court

Today, two cases are being heard by the U.S. Supreme Court regarding the public posting of the Ten Commandments. And a column, by yours truly, titled, “Making Lemonade or Eating Bitter Fruit” was published at

The principles addressed in this commentary include honesty, judicial restraint, and true federalism.

My op-ed points out that...
• Most Christian groups arguing their case and fighting the ACLU are guilty of “false swearing,” conceding the Lemon Test.
• One amicus brief is an exception -- telling the Justices they must abide by their oaths and reject both the Lemon Test and the temptation to grab more power in this matter. Wait until you see what they said!
• Christian groups shouldn't concede Constitutional principle for short-term gain or lie just to win their case.

You can discover a very simple definition of the Lemon Test, as well as learn why I suggested Christian groups are being less than honest in how they are arguing this case by reading the entire article.

Is George Bush more fiscally conservative than Democrats?

No, he's not. And Harry Browne, in his journal (located at his website, February 17th entry) demonstrates...

"The "small government' President: When George Bush ran for President in 2000, and again in 2004, he tried to make us believe in each case that his Democratic opponent was a big-spending liberal and that he — George Bush — was a proponent of small, limited government.

"He just submitted his 5th budget to Congress. Those five budgets have increased the size of the federal government by 38%. But after 8 years in the Presidency, Bill Clinton had increased the size of government by only 32%. "Small government" George is way, way ahead of "big government" Bill.

"You can't blame the recent increases on Congress, because George Bush still hasn't vetoed a single bill in over 4 years in office.

"Yes, Albert Gore and John Kerry are certainly liberals. But what is George Bush?"

Indeed, and why does he keep getting the support of people who are scared Democrats will expand the size of government?

Tuesday, March 01, 2005

I Have a Dream… About the American Presidency

In his essay, “An American Classical Liberalism,” Lew Rockwell shares his dream of an America in which,

“I don’t know or care who the president of the United States is. More importantly, I don’t need to know or care…

“In my daydream, the president is mostly a figurehead and a symbol, almost invisible to myself and my community. He has no public wealth at his disposal. He administers no regulatory departments. He cannot tax us, send our children into foreign wars, pass out welfare to the rich or the poor, appoint judges to take away our rights of self-government, control a central bank that inflates the money supply, and bring on the business cycle, or change the laws willy-nilly according to the social interests he likes or seeks to punish.

“His job is simply to oversee a tiny government with virtually no power except to arbitrate disputes among the states, which are the primary governmental units.”

As Thomas E. Woods notes about this dream, “Far from the uniformed daydreams of misanthropes and malcontents, [Rockwell’s dream] is precisely what the Constitution prescribes.”

I’m with Rockwell and Woods. This is a beautiful dream.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?