Month: June 2005

China & Unocal

Communist China has put in a bid to buy Unocal Oil for 18.5 billion dollars in cash. I am a person that believes in free markets; however, selling one of our biggest petroleum producers to a government that is bent on world domination is one of the dumber ideas that our government has contemplated during the Bush Administration.

Why should we consider selling this company to China at a time when we should be developing energy independence from the Middle East?

Unocal is the 9th largest United States oil company. The proposed sale would give China not only direct control over a portion of the American market but more control over the petroleum supply of many of China’s neighbors. This sale would allow China to expand their sphere of economic influence in Asia.

Still, it is nice to know that all that hard earned money that I spent at Wal-Mart is being pumped back into the economy.

 

Follow-up

Chevron purchased Unocal 08/11/2005

 

Supremes: Men Don’t Need God’s Law

There is a right way, a wrong way and the weasel way. This is the view of corporate America as described by Dilbert writer Scott Adams. Today is proof that it applies to judicial decisions.

The split decision handed down today is worse than a draw. It is open season and full employment for all constitutional law attorneys. There is no unifying principle that can explain both decisions.

These cases plus the case last week about private property prove that there are no limits on judicial tyranny. Our law has become completely unmoored from the Constitution.

Like Christianity in Liberal churches, the historic meaning of the words and ideas that originated the Constitution has been discarded as limiting and out of fashion. The context in which the document was written has no relevance to modern jurisprudence.

Liberals have substituted an “enlightened” view that you can redefine the words and ideas to mean whatever you wish them to say. If that doesn’t work you can ignore them or substitute your own. This is the essence of a “living document.”

Courting Next Justice

There is talk that the first vacancy in the Supreme Court will be Sandra Day O’Connor. This was reported by William Kristol and carried on Hugh Hewitt yesterday. This would be President Bush’s first opportunity to appoint anyone to the Court. Kristol also reports that Attorney General Roberto Gonzales will replace Justice O’Conner.

With all due respect to President Bush and his supporters such as the California High School Conservative, selecting Gonzales would be the worst move that Bush can make. Gonzales lacks the values that we need on the Court, especially in light of the ruling today on private property rights.

Gonzales is reportedly “moderate”. We don’t need more squishy pro-abortion judges on the Court. If he is not a principled, strict constructionist then we don’t need him. Cloning David Sutter is wasting an appointment.

If Bush appoints Gonzales as his first justice, then his next one will be further to the Left or he won’t get through the Senate. If Gonzales is nominated to replace Stevens, I might consider that an upgrade, but O’Conner and Kennedy have alternated being the swing votes on almost every decision of the Court.

Getting someone more Conservative than O’Conner is critical.

Trackback
http://cahsconservative.blogspot.com
I am not saying that the President should nominate Gonzales. That is his choice.

What I am saying is that should he nominate Gonzales I would support him 100%. O’Connor has been wobbly; I think that Gonzales would be fairly conservative compared to her.

Sure, we can disagree with him on a few social issues. However, I do not think that the President will nominate someone who he thinks will shred the Judeo-Christian legacy of this country. I trust the president in that regard.

The biggest issue right now in the world is The War on Terror. Gonzales has shown consistency in that area in letting the US Government do what it needs to get the job done.

Court Abolishes Private Property

The Supreme Court ruling handed down today in Kelo v New London declares what we have known all along. All land—publicly and privately owned—is the king’s land and we use it only at his pleasure. Now every petty local official and robber baron has the right to anything that you own.

The myth of private property has been a cherished idea for many years. But the fact is that the government has laid claim to all the land for decades. The test of this is very simply. If your house and land are fully paid, the government can still legally take it away from you. If you fail to pay property tax the government can take it away from you. The fact that you can loose it means it never really belonged to you.

The decision today just expands the ease with which the government can separate you from you land. Wealth redistribution has expanded from tax revenue to assets. Now we can rob land from the middle and lower classes and give to the rich with the same ease that the New Deal has robbed money from the rich and given to the middle and lower classes.

Government Shutdown?

I paid a visit today to the California Secretary of State’s Office and the Capitol. Both buildings were virtually empty except for security.

I needed to pick-up some documents related to a project I am working on with a friend. While I was there I also got some info related to the November Special Election. I visited offices on two different floors. Between both floors, I saw three people. Many lights were off and all the Dilbert Cubicles were empty. Many publications that should have been available were not in the offices. We were told to try their Internet site because the publications might be there.

At the Capitol, I dropped by Senator John Campbell’s office. I wanted my daughter—who was accompanying me—to see one of the good guys. I opened the door and was impressed by two things. First there was only one person in the office. This person turned-out not to belong to the senator’s staff but was simply there to answer calls. Second, the office was a dinky hole-in-the-wall. Not what I expected from a man destined to serve in Congress.

The Senate employee was nice and we had a good visit. He let us see the whole office and answered all our questions. Senator Campbell’s office was about twice as big as the walk-in closet at my parent’s house.

Employer’s Perspective on Immigration

One of the hottest political issues among grassroots people is immigration. A common refrain among people I hear— on conservative talk radio and elsewhere—is that the solution to illegal immigration is to strengthen the borders and stop employers from hiring undocumented workers. This all sounds good but existing law doesn’t allow this to happen; at least not from the employer’s perspective.

The stereotype is that employers will seek-out illegals to work for them and then pay them three bucks an hour in cash and send them on their way. While this probably does happen, my experience doing payroll in the construction industry is quite different. I would like to interject my experience into the public record.

Employers are extremely hampered in dealing with job applicants. This is because both state and federal laws prohibit employers from any discretion in evaluating documents of job applicants. If you agree to hire someone and they can provide you with the necessary documents required for the I-9 form required by the INS and a social security number then the job applicant has met the requirements for being hired. It is illegal to reject an applicant that provides you with these documents. (There is no requirement to see the social security card just that the employee gives you a number.)

At the company where I work, we pay most of our employees that work in the field $20 per hour. They are covered by both worker compensation and liability insurance. They are even eligible for medical, dental and other insurances. All taxes are paid to the appropriate state and federal agencies. This is hardly the slave wages alleged in most horror stories about exploiting illegals.

There are two instances when potentially fraudulent documents are ever brought to the attention of employers. One is when an employer gets a wage garnishment for an employee that they have never heard of before. The problem is that the names don’t match but the social security numbers are identical. Conclusion, our employee is probably not legit. When notified, there are two responses that you will get. Usually the questionable employee suddenly quits.
Occasionally, the employee pays the garnishment and continues on at his present job.

The second time that an employer has an idea that an employee has questionable documentation is when once a year, they get a letter from the Social Security Administration that informs them that some of the names submitted on the previous years’ W-2s don’t match the names in their records. At my current employer this is over thirty people. I have tried verifying names and social security numbers in our records (we keep copies of all documents submitted for employment) and submitting them per the instructions provided by SSA but not one name that I submitted was accepted by the SSA.

Supposedly, the SSA has the ability to verify names and social security numbers on a pass/fail basis but this system is worthless. Some of our employees have six or seven names on their I-9 documents. In a computer system that only accepts first name, middle initial and last name how do you enter a name like JOSE DE JESUS CONTRERAS DE LA GUADALUPE?

How will the entry on my employee’s W-2 ever match a social security card with a name like that? Answer: it can’t. Ever. This renders the verification system of the Social Security Administration totally useless. Due to privacy laws and worries of identity theft, they will not help you if a name does not match. It is clear that our government is not setup to deal with Hispanic names and neither is my ten thousand dollar accounting program.

The Social Security Administration could easily give their list of questionable employees to the immigration people for verification but they don’t. In addition, the SSA instructions specifically state that it is illegal to terminate any employee whose name appears in the letter.

I have never known any employer who has been checked by any government agency to verify their I-9 forms or any other employee documents. In fact, employers are not required to keep copies of the documents used for the I-9s; they simply have to see them and sign the appropriate form verifying that they saw the necessary documents. There are two categories of documents that can be used; the usual combination of documents are a social security card and drivers license but others are also acceptable.

The bottom line is that if a prospective hire has the proper documents then they must be treated the same as any other employee. Only the government has the right to challenge their validity. Going after employers as a means of solving illegal immigration is a straw-man argument. If the employer gets the documents at time of hire, then the person is hired. Citizenship or immigration status has no effect on the hiring process. That is the law. Only Congress can change it and they are very reluctant to do their job.

Posting the Ten Commandments and Leftist Frenzy

Any day now the US Supreme Court will rule on a case that involves posting the Ten Commandments. Many are waiting nervously for the outcome. Will the Commandments be allowed publicly? If yes, the case will stand. If the Commandments are banned, this will heighten interest in the case being revisited after President Bush makes appointments to the Court.

Besides the usual suspects arguing for the myth of separation of church and state, a new group on the Left has emerged with a new argument. Their argument is based on the fear of Dominionists within the “Christian Right.”

If the Supreme Court allows the Ten Commandments to be posted publicly in government facilities, many extremists will view this as a major step to accomplishing the first point of Bruce Prescott’s six point outline on how Dominionists (also called Reconstructionists) plan to take over the United States.

Stripped to its barest essentials, here is their blueprint for America. Their ultimate goal is to make the U.S. Constitution conform to a strict, literal interpretation of Biblical law. To do that involves a series of legal and social reforms that will move society toward their goal. 1) Make the ten commandments the law of the land . . .

—Dr. Bruce Prescott

There are a myriad of conspiracy theories circulating in the Left that have no basis in reality. Instead of checking their facts, they use each other as sources for what the other guys are doing. From these distortions, the Left claims that the Right is secretly working to impose a new order that will result in a Theocracy . For the Left to equate posting the Ten Commandments with abolishing democracy and setting-up a theocracy is just crazy. We will see if Howard Dean & company make the claim anyway.

The assertion—that the Right wants to establish a theocracy as part of some grand conspiracy that makes the X-Files look tame in comparison—is a conclusion that illustrates that Left makes the same error in religion that they do in Law; they fail to go to the source documents to find original intent. They cannot comprehend the outline of the subject let alone understand the subtleties of the subject matter. The denial of Truth and absolutes of Good and Evil blind them to the point of view of their opponents. Their defective reasoning results in intellectually lazy leftists that are able to equate such things as the “Christian Right” with the Taliban.

The fact that the Ten Commandments were allowed to be posted in any government building for the first 150 years of this nation’s history and are written above the heads of the judges who will sit in judgment of God’s Law, is a historical fact that the Left chooses to ignore because it doesn’t fit their construct. They ignore the fact that the Constitution recognizes that we have freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

The reaction to the Court ruling will be most instructive. Let’s see if I am correct in my assertions.

 

 

Christers, Dominionists & Lunatic Humanists

Hugh Hewitt nailed another lunatic Lefty opinion piece today from the LA Weekly. The article, “The New Blacklist: Corporate America is bowing to anti-gay Christian groups’ boycott demands” by Doug Ireland is highly entertaining to read. The author is infected with the same fever-swamp disease that afflicts Michael Moore and Howard Dean.

Hewitt spent his whole time pummeling a liberal professor from USC that is only mentioned in one paragraph. However, the rest of the article is just as distorted. The author ends the article by appealing to the actors and directors known as the “Hollywood Elite” to fund the fight against Christians before it is too late.

Today’s Christer protests are targeting a different kind of subversion. Chip Berlet, senior analyst at the labor-funded Political Research Associates, has spent over 25 years studying the far right and theocratic fundamentalism. He is co-author of Right-Wing Populism in America: Too Close for Comfort. Berlet — who was one of the speakers at a conference last month co-sponsored by the N.Y. Open Center and the City University of New York Graduate Center on “Examining the Real Agenda of the Christian Right” — says that “What’s motivating these people is two things. First, an incredible dread, completely irrational, of a hodgepodge of sexual subversion and social chaos. The response to that fear is genuinely a grassroots response, and it’s motivated by fundamentalist Christian doctrines like Triumphalism and Dominionism, which order Christians to take over the secular state and secular institutions. The Christian right frames itself as an oppressed minority battling the secular-humanist liberal homofeminist hordes.”

The fear of Christianity mentioned above is illuminating. I would describe the current state of Christianity in America with two words: reaction and revival. Reaction to the anti-religious secular humanist purging of American society of its Christian roots has reached a breaking point with the wholesale assault on marriage. The family is the basic building block of society and the liberal attempt to abolish the family, as it has been since the Garden, is unacceptable to Christians and those of many other faiths.

I have maintained that “Revival is when the church becomes culturally relevant.” My test is this, if your church locks its doors and never meets again, will your community notice? A church that cannot be “salt and light” in its community and stand for Truth is no part of the body of Christ. While parts of the “mainline” churches are self-destructing, many other denominations are experiencing growth.

I am most fascinated with the above quote by the words “theocratic fundamentalism”; “Triuphalism” and “Dominionism.” I know of no group on the religious right that uses these terms. The Libs might mean “Theonomy” and “Christian Reconstruction” but the particulars of the Liberal descriptions don’t coincide with these views.

I Googled “dominionism” here is the description that I found in Yurica Report

Born in Christian Reconstructionism, which was founded by the late R. J. Rushdoony, the framers of the new cult included Rushdoony, his son-in-law Gary North, Pat Robertson, Herb Titus, the former Dean of Robertson’s Regent University School of Public Policy (formerly CBN University), Charles Colson, Robertson’s political strategist, Tim LaHaye, Gary Bauer, the late Francis Schaeffer, and Paul Crouch, the founder of TBN, the world’s largest television network, plus a virtual army of likeminded television and radio evangelists and news talk show hosts.

This explains what I suspected. The Liberals view Christians as a monolithic group of like-minds folks in a “vast rightwing conspiracy”.

Let’s analyze this group

  • Cornelius Van Til can be viewed as uniting Rushdoony, Schaeffer and North. (Schaeffer and Rushdoony were among his seminary students.)
  • But Colson repudiates Christian Reconstruction. See “God and Politics: On Earth as it is in Heaven” Bill Moyers, PBS Home Video 1997.
  • Robertson, LaHaye, Bauer and Crouch have different arcs of influence but I know enough about them to say with confidence that they would not agree with North or Rushdoony. Schaeffer didn’t either, he just plagiarized North on a few occasions.

Below is a portion of the essay that I submitted to Hugh Hewitt on this subject two weeks ago:

I think that the Left has redefined the Christian Right in the last few years. The talk about “Dominionist” and the “Theocratic State” that we have heard from the Moveon.org crowd is actually a distortion of writings that can be found within Protestant Christianity.

The actual sources for the distortions used by the Left are from a Christian movement called “Christian Reconstruction”. Christian Reconstructionists also use the term “Theonomy”. The movement is Post-Millennial in their theology and believes that the civil Law given to Moses is God’s model for all nations. Of course any nation that would base its laws on the Bible would be anathema to secular humanists.

The cornerstone of this movement is the book “Institutes of Biblical Law” by RJ Rushdoony. From this book, a movement was spawned. Rushdoony build upon the teachings of Cornelius Van Til, a professor at Westminster Theological Seminary. (Van Til was also influential in the life of Francis Schaeffer.)

Rushdoony’s son-in-law is Gary North. North is by far the most prolific writer of the group. The book he wrote that would be of most interest to you is “Political Polytheism” It is a critique of the United States government in light of their views.

FYI: North and Rushdoony were at odds with each other for most of their lives.

Other contributors in the movement were David Chilton, Gary DeMar and Ray Sutton.

Reconstructionists are few in number but they believe that they are designing a “blueprint” for future generations to follow. They believe in persuasion and that the work of the Holy Spirit will bring about the day when the kingdoms of this world are the Kingdoms of Christ.

One central belief of Christian Reconstruction is that all crime has two victims; the primary victim is God, the secondary victim is the person that is victimized. The punishment of any violation is Restitution. Two examples of Restitution are given to by the following:

People who commit property crimes should be required to work to repay their victims. This is the same class of people that Charles Colson’s Prison Fellowship is targeting. However, the solution under Christian Reconstruction is much different. People with large debts or no skills that would allow them to repay their victims might be forced into a period of indentured servitude (slavery) until the debt is paid.

Restitution for murderers (including abortionists) would be to forfeit their lives.

I think you have heard rants on the left about the return of slavery and capital punishment for abortionists and homosexuals. Reconstructionists look to the Law of Moses and find these things there (because they are) and say that it should be so in our country.

North’s doctoral thesis was on the Puritans and he believes that we can learn from the Puritan efforts to build a society upon biblical law. He doesn’t view the Church becoming the State, but the State exercising its God mandated role and modeling its laws after God’s Law. To the degree that our laws look like God’s law, our nation will be blessed.

In Christian Reconstruction, Deuteronomy Chapter 28 is valid today. Obey God’s Law and be blessed, disobey and be cursed. For them, this is true not just for individuals but nations as well. Christian Reconstruction is a political theory. Like any good political theory, it proclaims what is wrong with the current system and says what should be in a more perfect world but doesn’t offer any route to get from theory to practice.

Reference materials beside some more e-mails from me:
“God and Politics: On Earth as it is in Heaven” Bill Moyers, PBS Home Video 1997
“Institutes of Biblical Law” Rousas John Rushdoony, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing 1973
“Theonomy in Christian Ethics” Greg L Bahnsen, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing 1977, 1984
“Political Polytheism: The Myth of Pluralism” Gary North, Institute for Christian Economics 1989

 

Thoughts on Special Election

On Monday, Governor Schwarzenegger is expected to announce that he will be holding a special election on November 8th, 2005. The centerpiece of this vote is expected to be a ballot initiative to redraw the legislative districts in California. If this plan is approved, the new maps are intended to go into effect for the June 2006 primary.

Also along for the ride are three other initiatives. The first is parental notification 48 hours prior to a scheduled abortion. This initiative includes a judicial by-pass which is a necessary component to withstand judicial scrutiny. The second is a change of public school teacher tenure from two to five years. The third is commonly known as payroll protection.

Reapportionment. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.

Amends state Constitutions process for redistricting California’s Senate, Assembly, Congressional and Board of Equalization districts. Requires three-member panel of retired judges, selected by legislative leaders, to adopt new redistricting plan if measure passes and again after each national census. Panel must consider legislative, public proposals/comments and hold public hearings. Redistricting plan becomes effective immediately when adopted by judges panel and filed with Secretary of State. If voters subsequently reject redistricting plan, process repeats. Specifies time for judicial review of adopted redistricting plan; if plan fails to conform to requirements, court may order new plan. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: This measure would have the following major fiscal impact: One-time state redistricting costs, probably totaling a few million dollars. Comparable savings for each redistricting effort after 2010 (once every ten years).

Termination of Minor’s Pregnancy. Waiting Period and Parental Notification. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.

Amends California Constitution to bar abortion on unemancipated minor until 48 hours after physician notifies minor’s parent/legal guardian, except in medical emergency or with parental waiver. Permits judicial waiver of notice based on clear and convincing evidence of minor’s maturity or minor’s best interests. Physician must report abortions performed on minors and State shall compile statistics. Authorizes monetary damages for violation. Minor must consent to abortion unless mentally incapable or in medical emergency. Permits judicial relief if minor’s consent to abortion is coerced. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: The net costs of this measure to Medi-Cal and other programs are unknown, but are probably not significant in the context of the total expenditures for these programs.

Public School Teachers. Waiting Period for Permanent Status. Dismissal. Initiative Statute.

Increases length of time required before a teacher may become a permanent employee from two complete consecutive school years to five complete consecutive school years; measure applies to teachers whose probationary period commenced during or after the 2003-2004 fiscal year. Authorizes school boards to dismiss a permanent teaching employee who receives two consecutive unsatisfactory performance evaluations. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Unknown impact on school district teacher salary costs as a result of changes in teacher tenure and dismissal practices. Fiscal impacts could vary significantly district by district.

Public Employee Union Dues. Required Employee Consent for Political Contributions. Initiative Statute.

Prohibits public employee labor organizations from using dues or fees for political contributions unless the employee provides prior consent each year on a specified written form. Prohibition does not apply to dues or fees collected for charitable organizations, health care insurance, or other purposes directly benefiting the public employee. Requires labor organizations to maintain and submit to the Fair Political Practices Commission records concerning individual employees’ and organizations’ political contributions; those records are not subject to public disclosure. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Probably minor state and local government implementation costs, potentially offset in part by revenues from fines and/or fees.

There may be other initiatives that will appear on this ballot.

Analysis

Russell Crow’s line in Gladiator “Unleash Hell” is a susinct description of the labor unions in California and their plans for this special election. Eric Hogue claims that the unions are prepared to spend two hundred million dollars to stop the paycheck protection and teacher tenure initiatives from passing. The Democrats will go after reapportionment. This leaves parental notification as either political roadkill or a stealth initiative. It will be fun to watch what transpires.

One of the crucial aspects of these initiatives is the ability to withstand judicial challenges when any or all of these are passed. The Governors appointment to replace Janice Rogers-Brown on the California Supreme Court is critical in this regard. Watch this process carefully and pray that we get a strict constructionist.

If parental notification has any hope of becoming state law, then look to the US Supreme Court as vacancies are filled by President Bush. Will the Dems filibuster? Will the Republicans get a spine?