Sporting Necessity Posted by Charlie Earl

Posted 01/12/11

Firearms are not magical for me. Although I have hunted, I have no passion for it even though some members of my family do. Target shooting is not a pastime that I pursue with any vigor although I have engaged in it in the past. Truth be known, I have killed more deer with a Buick Century than I have with a Remington, a Winchester or a Savage. I do not fear guns, but my testosterone does not flow more freely when I embrace them. No, the reason that I own firearms is that I consider it a necessity to do so.

As many friends and acquaintances have informed me, since the passage of the Ohio Concealed Carry Law, criminal activity has been on the decline. The data indicate similar results wherever CCW has been implemented. So, is my sense of necessity misplaced? Am I overreacting? Am I paranoid? Not really, because I believe they really are trying to get me. Although I am more than forty-five (45) years old, I still consider myself to be a member of the regular militia. No, not in any formal or organized sense, but as a patriot who is committed to the defense of my nation, my state, my community and my home. Several years ago I concluded that if I were to take my defensive and protective responsibilities seriously, then I needed something more lethal than spitballs or sticks.

When considering options for personal defense, I briefly toyed with deploying claymore mines in strategic locations around our property. Upon reflection, I decided that the minefield solution lacked mobility, and thus, didn't satisfy my requirements. In a similar fashion I discarded the moat and crocodile remedy because the nasty beasts wouldn't survive the Wood County winters, and I wasn't too fond of spending weeks shoveling the necessary trench. One other negative factor impacted the two previous solutions: either one would have caused lawn mowing to become a high risk adventure.

So far this article may seem to be a rather flippant analysis of a serious issue, but I am attempting to illustrate that those who would restrict my right to own firearms would force people like me to explore ludicrous alternatives for self defense. If I am to fulfill my responsibilities as a husband, father and citizen, then I must have a reasonable method for doing so. Some have suggested a baseball bat as a logical alternative. Well, if one wishes to get within forty inches of an intruder and prays that he isn't armed with an illegally acquired weapon, then perhaps, maybe, possibly a baseball bat might be somewhat effective...then again, perhaps not. A knife has similar concerns. One must be close enough to feel and smell the breath of the unwelcome visitor. Too close for comfort.

Yes, I can dial 9-1-1, and hope that I can stall the interloper for the requisite seven to eleven minute response time as we wait together. Maybe we could enjoy a glass of sherry or some warm bagels while awaiting the local constabulary. The bottom line is that as someone who is committed to the defense of my family and my country, firearms offer the best and most reasonable option.

Comments:  earl4sos@gmail.com       or       www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Willful Submission Posted by Charlie Earl

Posted 12/29/10

When we examine our options for engaging our government, we have arbitrarily defined them as submission, salvation, secession and sedition. These remedies appear to be graduated ones wherein one follows the other if the previous efforts were unsuccessful. Today we'll focus on submission as a citizen's response to governmental action. Historically, submission has been the most common reaction to governmental edicts and power. Throughout recorded human history, governments have primarily been patriarchal, tyrannical or imperial. Citizens have been little more than chattel or property of the ruling monarch. It was the Judeo-Christian tradition that recognized individuals as stand-alone entities capable of reasoning and executing sound decisions. The awareness of self probably occurred before Abram (Abraham), but our first consistent and recorded chronicle of individuality is found in the Old Testament.

Despite the clear biblical acknowledgement of an individual's relationship with God, many Christians who belong to mainline denominations have succumbed to a passive stance of submission when confronted with an over-reaching government. Their justification for such a position is rooted in Matthew 22:21b: Then he said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's." The inference that is drawn by submissive Christians is that one must submit to the state in worldly matters and practice obedience to God in the spiritual realm. They fail to detect the difference between Roman governance and our constitutional republic as designed for our United States. There are three critical words that provide a stark line of demarcation between the system of Rome and our method of governance. They are "We the people"....the opening words of our foundational document. I haven't authored a systematic theology, but it seems clear to me that Christ's teaching was that the individual must conform to the practices of the system in which she/he found themselves while continuing to be a positive reflection for God. There are theological justifications for resisting an unjust government, but they aren't necessary to further this discussion. "We the people" can stand alone as a reason for individuals, Christian and non-Christian, to become actively involved in determining the role of government in their lives. To passively submit to a government that habitually violates its own rules becomes a ringing failure to follow the biblical admonition to engage with Caesar. One who allows government to run roughshod over individual rights while claiming the mantle of Christ is failing others and the Lord.

Certainly, submission as an approach to government should not be universally rejected. That would be anarchy. There are instances, legal and spiritual, where submission is vital for the survival of the state and the protection of the citizens. The occasions are rare and should be judiciously undertaken. Theologically speaking in the context of a constitutional republic, the citizen should always trust the Lord completely while skeptically working within government to "secure the blessings of liberty." The secular aspect of a citizen's submissive role is much more clearly defined. While the Christian recognizes the supremacy of God, the secular citizen must first define the primary focus of his allegiance. "We the people," it seems, directs the citizen's fealty to liberty. Because the state is creation of the people, and the nation is a product of the states, the citizen must honor the individual. Individuality cannot flourish without liberty. Therefore, it follows that submission is a secondary element of citizenship. The preservation of liberty for every citizen must be the overriding impetus for involvement with the state. Any activity that arbitrarily undermines freedom for the citizens is contrary to good stewardship. Anytime a citizen voluntarily submits to an unconstitutional or unjust action by government, then that citizen is derelict.

Active, consistent and unyielding efforts for liberty are the defining elements of a good citizen. Unthinking submission to government's abuses of its mandate is the equivalent of treasonous activity. When the citizen passively submits to an unruly government, he tacitly encourages tyranny. He or she violates the obligation to protect and defend liberty from the grasp of illicit government action.

Discipleship and citizenship are active endeavors and should be the norm for spiritual and governmental involvement. Submission should be a conscious reasoned activity and not the default mode. God wants pro-active disciples, and the state requires our action to hold it accountable. Tomorrow we'll discuss the salvation aspect of good citizenship.

Comments: earl4sos@gmail.com  or  cearlwriting@hotmail.com

www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

U.S. Grant-Time to Retire Posted by Charlie Earl

Posted 12/29/10

Read any Sunday paper and the odds are you'll find a "help wanted" ad for a grant writer. So who awards those grants? Where does the money come from? Except for a few foundations, most of the grants are given by governments. Grant writers are needed because either the grant process is a competitive one or certain criteria must be met and/or bureaucratic hoops must be jumped before the recipient is deemed to have qualified. So, for the taxpayer it's a double whammy. Sacrifice some your labor or profits to fund the grant, and forfeit more of your sweat equity to underwrite the grant writer.

My personal view is that grant writers represent B.S. artists who are savvy in the world of bureaucratic minutiae. They appear to be experts at generalized obfuscation, "i-dotting" and "t-crossing." Although I am certain that someone at one time offered a reasonably valid justification for the entire grant process, I suspect that like every other Big Government function or process, it has morphed into a ludicrous exercise with minimal value that has scant constitutional purpose. The entire grant system is a sham. The feds or the states pretend to acknowledge the priorities set by the local government while, at the same time, the locals can boast about receiving "state" or "federal" funds. In Ohio, for example, Butler County officials could rejoice about their receiving federal money for a new updated recycling center. The County would be responsible for the 70% that the grant would not cover as well as any unanticipated costs, but the people should be happy because the 30% would be coming from the federal government. Maybe we should ask the folks in Warren County or Hamilton County if they wish to pay for some other county's recycling center. What would the folks in Indiana or Kentucky say if they had been asked? This scenario is one that I have created to illustrate the folly of the grant writing shell game.

The entire process is merely the moving of taxpayer dollars from one community or state to another while providing the illusion that the locality is getting something for nothing. A recent example is the $400 million dollar grant awarded to Ohio for startup and design of a "so-called" high speed rail system. After the November election, Governor-elect Kasich declined to accept the federal funds, and Big Brother (aka Sec'y Ray LaHood) immediately offered the funds to Florida or California. These events suggest that the need for the funds in Ohio was not a burning priority, and that the federal government will continue to irresponsibly spend borrowed money even when facing a fiscal crisis.

If you employ a competent grant writer, then you can locate the moving pea under the shell. A community can take momentary advantage of a system that takes money from others, but eventually all will pay and pay dearly. Oh yes, don't forget to include the cost of the grant writer. Remember to include salary, benefits, supplies, space, furniture and utilities, and maybe this time, local government, you can find the pea.

Comment: earl4sos@gmail.com or cearlwriting@hotmail.com

www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Ron Paul denounces "free trade" Posted by PeterGemma

Posted 12/28/10 Last updated 12/28/10

Of course, Congressman Paul is in favor of real free trade. He asserts that, "True free trade does not require treaties or agreements between governments. On the contrary, true free trade occurs in the absence of government intervention in the free flow of goods across borders." But recently he warned his congressional colleagues, "Free trade theorists such as Adam Smith and David Ricardo must be rolling in their graves to see pacts like President Obama’s Korea Agreement called 'free trade.' Like the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the pact, written by unelected trade bureaucrats, spans 1,000 pages."

At the other end of the House, 110 Democratic Congressmen signed a letter to President Obama stating in part, "We oppose specific provisions of the agreement in the financial services, investment and labor chapters because they benefit multi-national corporations at the expense of small businesses and workers."

Cui bono? It's a sweetheart deal for those manufacturers seeking low wage workers under B1 and B2 visas - specially trained/skilled workers that some corporations say they cannot find here in the U.S. Yeah right. It's a sweetheart deal for a few Wall Street bankers who benefit from trade deficits. Washington already has a net negative balance trading with Seoul - 10 years running. The trade deal is filled with exemptions, regulations, favors, controls – did I mention the pact is 1000 pages long? - which means it has little to do with free or fair trade.

It’s really a sweet deal for some power elites.

The ALF-CIO opposes it … The Sierra Club is against it … American Conservative contributor and economist Robert Higgs as well as paleo-conservative Congressman Walter Jones disapprove ...  Ralph Nader is working against its passage. Even the main opposition in Korea, in a coalition with minor parties, issued a joint statement saying the proposal was an “unequal, behind-closed doors negotiation.”

Virginia State Senator and now Congressman-elect Robert Hurt (R-5th District) states he is opposed to the so-called Korea free trade deal because "NAFTA and those types of trade agreements that we've seen have devastated Southside (Virginia)."

It's a sweetheart deal for globalists - and promises to eat away at U.S. sovereignty. Ron Paul says the pact "... includes endless pages of rules and regulations enforced by foreign tribunals. This act is a sneaky form of international preemption, undermining the critical checks and balances and freedoms established by the U.S. Constitution’s reservation of many rights to the people or state governments."

The list of those who are opposed or want to examine it more closely is long, but the Obama administration has the deal on the fast track. I say drag the thing into the light of day, debate it for awhile, and we’ll watch it burn up like Dracula in the sunlight.

Repeeling the Onion Posted by Charlie Earl

Posted 12/14/10

This entry is my contribution to the new Congress. If they are serious about downsizing an unconstitutional, overgrown federal government, then this plan may provide them with the means to pare back the government in an orderly fashion. I first advanced this idea on my Earl for Ohio Facebook page, but it was a more cryptic version.  The GOP has their "Pledge to America." It's not very sweeping in nature, and certainly lacks specificity. In addition, many Republicans are poised to implement their "no earmark" policy....an insignificant but highly symbolic gesture. They should have a workable plan that is substantive and effective.

Every committee and sub-committee chair should inventory every department, agency, bureau and directorate for which they have oversight. Then, each committee should identify 100 restrictive, excessive or unconstitutional rules or regulations for every department etc. under their purview. Following the cataloging of the most offensive regulatory burdens, the committee should have roll call votes to repeal each of the offending rules or regulations, and forward those selected for removal to the House or Senate floor for a roll call vote. If some rule or reg is Constitutional and necessary, but has been misinterpreted or unlawfully expanded, the repeal process should go forward, and replacement enabling legislation that is more tightly and clearly written should be introduced.

With all the committees and subcommittees on the Hill, this process would "deep six" literally thousands of onerous bureaucratic freedom-killers. Of course, the Congress must have the courage to follow through and not allow the K-Street interests to sidetrack the reforms. This endeavor would be a real test of their willingness to reduce government, but would allow it to be done in an incremental and systematic manner.  All of this activity should be targeted for completion by the end of 2011.

The second year of the Congress (2012) should build on the first. The agency/bureau overview should continue with the repeal and elimination of all duplicative and contradictory regulations, rules, directives and laws. In addition, the various governmental entities should be eliminated if unconstitutional or consolidated if they serve some worthy purpose within the parameters of the Constitution. This task will be an especially daunting one because the politicians will be faced with an election year as they are confronted with a multitude of difficult choices. We will know who is serious about reducing the size and scope of government,...and who is not. Again, each repeal or removal should have a roll call vote in committee and on the floor.

Finally, for those who survive the election process, the Congress can in 2013 set the tone of reduction by eliminating a large number of sub-committees and committees. As long as so many Congresspersons hold the gavels of authority, their natural tendency will be to retain their power, enlarge their mandates and support the bureaucracy. Eliminating earmarks is nice, but severely paring down the number of committees and sub-committees is critical for a true shrinking of government. We will not accept the little token cosmetic diversions any more.

Comments:  earl4sos@gmail.com   or  cnpearl@woh.rr.com

.