Are We There Yet?

19th Century Global Positioning System

With the ubiquitous nature of cellphones and global positioning satellites here on earth, we often take it for granted that it is now almost impossible to be truly lost. Short of leaving your cellphone behind and wandering off into an uncharted wilderness, one need only reach into a pocket to gain instant access to incredibly detailed maps and accurate coordinates. However, for the NASA Curiosity rover on Mars, things aren’t so simple:

Curiosity landed facing east-southeast within Gale Crater, with a heading of 112.7 degrees (plus or minus five degrees), and a few degrees of tilt. A Sol 1 overpass by Mars Odyssey will provide additional information on Curiosity's position and additional imagery. A first look at some color images taken just before landing by MSL's Mars Descent Imager also provided additonal [sic] information on the rover's precise location.

There are a handful of man-made satellites in orbit around Mars, but none has the capabilities of the GPS constellation in orbit around earth. Instead, like mariners in the age of sail, NASA scientists must measure the angles between different landmarks in a process known as triangulation to calculate the exact position of the rover.

The next time you’re looking at real-time traffic updates on your phone while searching for an alternate route, consider how lucky you are. Even after a breathtakingly complicated journey between the planets that would not have been possible without the advancements of 21st century rocket science, the incredible machines on the surface of Mars must rely on ancient principles of navigation to get around.

Share

Up In Arms

"The redcoats are coming!"

In the aftermath of the shooting spree in Aurora, Colorado, families and victims must somehow come to grips with the horror and senselessness of this tragedy. The process of healing will be long and difficult. Even as the motives and background of the killer are revealed, each bit of new information will not bring us closer to any answers. Evil is irrational. Nevertheless, liberal commentators in the media could hardly wait until the tear gas had cleared before pointing the blame squarely at the "gun lobby" and conservatives more generally.

Politicians and pundits on the left have had no shame in capitalizing on the massacre to press for stricter gun control laws and otherwise limiting freedom in the name of somehow preventing a similar crime in the future. The favorite liberal prescription is to renew the assault weapon ban that was in force from 1994-2004 even though that same ban did not prevent the two worst acts of terrorism in American history which claimed a combined 3,144 innocent lives. Indeed, neither atrocity involved any firearms at all.

Furthermore, the term "assault weapon" is not rigorously defined and often misused. Under the law in force from 1994-2004, the sale of various semi-automatic firearms was prohibited, but far more destructive fully-automatic firearms were still legal in many cases. At the same time, any law restricting gun ownership—even an outright repeal of the 2nd Amendment—would not stop the use of knives, blunt objects, strangulation, and poisons to commit murders just as gruesome as the terrible slaughter in Aurora, if not more so.

It makes no difference what type of weapon is used to commit murder. Regardless of the laws concerning gun ownership, murder itself remains as illegal as ever. Conversely, criminals are unlikely to care whether or not the weapon they use to commit a crime is illegal. Laws do not prevent crime. By definition, criminals do not abide by the law. Psychopaths will always apply the full energies of their depraved and diabolical minds to devise new and shocking ways to kill and destroy.

Rather, our system of laws is founded on the principle that a suspect is innocent until proven guilty. Even in such a heinous crime with hundreds of eyewitnesses, the government must introduce evidence to prove the guilt of the perpetrator. Once guilt has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, no punishment can be too harsh or too severe for the one who committed this crime, but to ban ownership of firearms is to presume that simply possessing a weapon is enough to imply guilt. This stands our system of laws on its head.

As for the supposed influence of the "gun lobby," it is worth pointing out that the National Rifle Association currently has a mere 4.3 million members. There are millions upon millions more law-abiding Americans who own firearms and do not consider the 2nd Amendment as a political issue at all, but rather as an expression of the innate right to defend oneself, one’s family, one’s home, and one’s country. The drafters of the 2nd Amendment did not create this right, but merely recognized a right that had already existed from ancient times.

The Supreme Court affirmed this in the Heller case. The founders’ intent for the 2nd Amendment was to maintain a "well-regulated" (i.e., well-armed and well-trained) citizens’ militia for common defense. As Americans, we are blessed with the most professional, best-trained, and most technologically advanced military in the world. However, the right of every citizen to bear arms remains the last line of defense should the unthinkable happen, and as long as the liberal advocates of curtailing our freedoms do not have their way, America will always be a country worth defending.

Share

Roberts Rules

St. Thomas More practiced civil disobedience before it was cool.

It is altogether fitting that the ruling in the ObamaCare case comes during the Fortnight for Freedom, which started on the Feast of St. Thomas More and ends on Independence Day. More gave his life for his faith in the ultimate act of civil disobedience. In our own time, Chief Justice Roberts quietly points to a fatal flaw of ObamaCare which may yet render the law unenforceable and impractical through sustained and widespread civil disobedience of a less violent nature.

In his discussion of the Congress' taxing power, Roberts was careful to note that the penalty for not purchasing insurance is weak enough that it does not actually amount to compulsion. According to that test, if the tax was severe enough to amount to punishment or was enforceable by criminal penalties, it would run afoul of the Commerce Clause, but in this case the court judges that it does not fail the test. If a subsequent Congress increases the amount of the tax or attaches criminal penalties for failure to pay, ObamaCare could potentially fail that constitutional test and thus become open for re-litigation.

In particular, Roberts notes twice in his opinion that 26 U. S. C. §5000A(g)--which concerns the penalty for not complying with the individual mandate--specifically states that the IRS may not enforce the penalty through criminal prosecution, additional penalties, or any lien or levy on personal property. In the event that the law is not repealed before 2014, the last resort is to simply disobey the law and refuse to pay the penalty. The Prolix Patriot is not a lawyer, but it seems plain enough that a law which cannot be enforced does not have any power.

Thus, in a ruling which superficially appears to uphold the most onerous provisions of ObamaCare, Chief Justice Roberts actually reduces the individual mandate “tax” to a nullity while at the same time drawing a bright line limiting the power of Congress under the commerce clause and the spending power as applied to the several states. Rather than viewing this as a defeat, opponents of ObamaCare should celebrate that Roberts’ ruling has opened many new avenues for subsequent legislation and litigation to eliminate ObamaCare’s abuses and also to restrain Congress’ seemingly limitless ambitions.

Moreover, as Roberts noted in his opinion, "It is not [the court’s] job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices." Instead of blaming Roberts for some imagined betrayal, opponents of ObamaCare should place the full blame for the law’s many shortcomings squarely at the feet of the laws namesake--President Obama himself. As presidential contender Mitt Romney said today, "If we want to get rid of Obamacare, we're going to have to replace President Obama."

Share

A Midsummer Night's Dream

Birth of St. John the Baptist, by Jacopo Pontormo

This Sunday is the Feast of the Nativity of St. John the Baptist. The feast has been celebrated for millenia across the world as Midsummer--the same midsummer in Shakespeare's famous play--with festivities similar to Halloween in many ways, but emphasizing life instead of death. The media-created myth of the solstice as the first day of summer is a very recent innovation of our modern and decadent age.

Who can ignore or obscure the signs of summer all around us: the roses and tigerlillies have bloomed, lightning and lightning bugs fill the nights, the tender buds and shoots have changed to dark and thick green foliage, the wind now comes from the sea instead of the land, the winter wheat in farmers' fields is ready (or almost ready) for harvest, and of course, the pools have opened.

Do we really need the calendar or the television to tell us that summer arrived weeks and months ago?! Summer was already here long before the charlatans decreed that nature and the seasons must wait for the false precision and pseudoscience of the astronomical solstice. The profusion of life in nature waits for no man, and least of all the sham intellectuals and urbanites who are completely detached from nature, religion, history, and it seems, reality itself.

Share

The Altar of Freedom

Executive Mansion,
Washington, Nov. 21, 1864.

Dear Madam,

I have been shown in the files of the War Department a statement of the Adjutant General of Massachusetts that you are the mother of five sons who have died gloriously on the field of battle. I feel how weak and fruitless must be any word of mine which should attempt to beguile you from the grief of a loss so overwhelming. But I cannot refrain from tendering you the consolation that may be found in the thanks of the Republic they died to save. I pray that our Heavenly Father may assuage the anguish of your bereavement, and leave you only the cherished memory of the loved and lost, and the solemn pride that must be yours to have laid so costly a sacrifice upon the altar of freedom.

Yours, very sincerely and respectfully,

A. Lincoln

Share

Discourse vs. Deception

Liberal role-model?

It seems like an eternity has passed since then-prospective presidential candidate Governor Mitch Daniels was calling for a “truce” on social issues so that conservatives and liberals could unite to focus on much-needed economic and entitlement reforms. Even the last faint dying glimmers of hope for such a truce are now gone. In recent weeks, the Obama Administration and its allies have launched an all-out attack on religious freedom and especially the Catholic Church. Worse still, liberals are employing shockingly dishonest tactics to advance their radical agenda.

Sandra Fluke has emerged as the standard-bearer of the Obama Administration’s push for “free” (i.e., government-mandated and employer-funded) birth control, sterilizations, and abortion-inducing drugs. Initial media reports identified her as a 23-year-old law student at Georgetown University, but a look at her online profile at LinkedIn reveals that she is actually a 30-something agitator for something called “reproductive justice” and has a lengthy résumé of feminist organizations.

Furthermore, when Ms. Fluke decided to attend Georgetown University, she did so precisely because she knew that, as a Catholic institution, they would not cover the cost of her contraceptives and thus she could use her opposition to the Church’s teachings and longstanding university policy as a means to advance her personal political agenda and her career. According to a friendly biographical piece at the Washington Post, she has been lobbying the school to sacrifice its beliefs in favor of her own from the moment of her matriculation, even before the HHS contraceptive mandate was a twinkle in Obama’s eye.

In another instance, the New York Daily News reported that Barbara Johnson was denied communion at her mother’s funeral because she happens to be a lesbian. The mainstream media did not report that she approached the priest before the Mass and introduced him to her lesbian lover which prompted the priest to tell her that he could not in good conscience give her the Eucharist. Nevertheless, she insisted on approaching the altar anyway and then later complained to the press about her supposed “ill-treatment” when the priest again refused. Predictably, the liberal response was outrage that the priest could be so insensitive.



However, a quick glance at the Facebook and Twitter pages of her art school (for children!) reveals a series of pro-abortion and pro-homosexual links which are clearly and explicitly at odds with the teachings of the Catholic Church. A small sampling is reproduced nearby. Ms. Johnson is entitled to her beliefs, but instead of also respecting the beliefs of her dead mother and the congregation at her mother’s parish, Ms. Johnson crassly used the occasion of her mother’s death to advance her personal political agenda. Just as in the case of Ms. Fluke, the timing of this incident is suspicious, as Maryland passed a gay marriage bill the same day the story broke.

The liberal narrative is that the Catholic Church is oppressing women, but the truth is that radical liberals who do not believe in the Church’s teachings are manufacturing controversy with the help of manipulative media elites. The freedom of religion is inextricably linked to the freedoms of speech, expression, and even thought itself. More importantly, for people who disagree with the Catholic Church’s teachings, the freedom of religion gives each of us the right to not believe. Nobody is compelling anyone to ascribe or adhere to the teachings of the Catholic Church—or any church.

These small deceptions are part of a bigger lie. Whenever conservatives oppose government mandates and taxpayer funding for policies which violate their consciences, it is a liberal cliché that conservatives are trying to ban those things outright. The freedom of religion gives us the right to believe or to not believe, but the freedom of religion also gives us the right to do what we believe or to not do what we do not believe. In these two cases especially, one doesn’t have to agree with the Catholic Church on contraception and homosexuality to respect faithful Catholics who do not want to engage in or support these behaviors.

Winston Churchill once said that, “In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies.” President Obama’s liberal allies in the media and elsewhere have taken that maxim and stood it on its head. The American people are not at war with their government. We deserve a basic level of honesty in public discourse. Especially when it comes to something as fundamental as the freedom of religion, the truth should be able to stand on its own. If liberals have to resort to deception to make their case before the public, it only underscores the weakness of their cause.

Share

The Contraceptive Mandate, Occupy Wall Street, and Anti-Semitism

They were the 99 percent too.

In his remarks this past Friday, President Obama repeated the bogus statistic that "99 percent of all women have relied on contraception at some point in their lives." We will examine the provenance of the 99% figure presently, but first, we must understand what is really at stake. Liberals are trying to frame the debate over the HHS contraceptive mandate as an attempt by conservatives to ban or limit access to birth control, but that is not even at issue. This is a debate about the fundamental meaning and structure of the Constitution.

Think of it this way: more than 99% of Americans will drink tap water at some point in their lives. But water is not free. Even in the bluest-of-blue states, you (or your landlord) get a bill for fresh drinking water supplied to your home. Perhaps low-income households get some help to pay this bill, but according to the President’s logic, because 99% of Americans drink water, the federal government should not only require every American to purchase public water (as opposed to say bottled water or rain water collected in a cistern) and furthermore, that employers should be required pay everyone’s water bill.

Likewise, the real debate today is about the ObamaCare individual mandate which requires every American to purchase insurance which covers birth control and the HHS employer mandate which requires every employer to provide insurance which covers birth control. Regardless of one’s opinion about birth control, this is an unprecedented exercise of government power in the private lives of every American. As the Prolix Patriot tweeted the other day, "Even if the socialist HHS mandate did not target religious freedom, it would still be socialist."

That said, perhaps it is true that most Catholics have used birth control at some point in their lives, but Lydia McGrew at the blog “What’s Wrong with the World” has examined the 98% number and basically, all you can really say is that 98% of Catholic women who have used contraception have used artificial contraception. That’s not saying much. The statistic does not include women who are either celibate or actively trying to get pregnant—which is far more than 1-2% of Catholic women. As a corollary, there are probably also many Catholics who are have used birth control in opposition to Church teaching, but who nevertheless oppose government intervention in this area.

But for argument’s sake, let’s take the 99% argument at face value. It is an actual fact (as opposed to a bogus statistic) that 98-99% of Americans are not Jewish. Of the 1-2% that are, only about half attend synagogues regularly and then only half of those are Conservative or Orthodox Jews. That leaves perhaps 0.25-0.5% of the total American population. According to the 99% argument, does that mean the First Amendment does not protect the religious expression of the very small minority of Jews who still conform to the Law of Moses and the Talmud?

Jews have historically been oppressed in their religious expression for centuries, so it is not a coincidence that Meir Soloveichik, a prominent Orthodox rabbi, joined with an the leader of an evangelical non-profit and a Catholic cardinal in a letter to the Wall Street Journal opposing the HHS contraceptive mandate. Furthermore, the 99% argument sounds suspiciously like it was borrowed from the Occupy movement which has been a well-documented hotbed of anti-Semitism. Indeed, there are liberal voices which make an explicit connection between the ObamaCare contraceptive mandate and the Occupy movement.

The First Amendment was created precisely to defend the rights of a small minority against the tyranny of the majority. Any time you hear the 99% argument as justification for Obama's policies, remember that Josef Stalin and Saddam Hussein routinely won 99% of the vote in their sham elections. Whether in the anti-Semitic ranting of Occupy Wall Street or the anti-Catholic vitriol of liberal journalists and bloggers, the 99% argument is in essence an appeal to mob rule no less disturbing than Robespierre’s reign of terror or the Bolshevik purges. It is easy to stand with the 99%. It takes real courage to stand for the rights of the weak and the oppressed—especially when the heads start to roll.

Share