THE BEST DAY OF THE WEEK

Good afternoon, Brothers and Sisters.  Our topic today is the Sabbath.  When I was assigned this topic, I thought, “Oh, this should be a tightly-focused, narrow topic.”  My record is still perfect; ain’t been right yet.

As always, as I prepared for this talk I have been enlightened, and my mind opened to the truth vastly more than my poor words might ever convey to you, my dear friends.  I have felt no small amount of shame and remorse as my backsliding and foolishness has been made manifest to me.

In addition to the Scriptures, the main sources for this talk are from the January, 1978 edition of “The Ensign,” which was devoted to the Sabbath.  The managing editor, Jay M. Todd, wrote a short foreword to that issue:

“Early in 1976 the subject of the Sabbath was discussed with our Brethren. They agreed that a treatment of that topic could have a powerful impact on the lives of members of the Church. Thus the articles in this issue were prepared; and they are featured together here to provide a complementary unit of themes relating to Sunday. We hope that readers will find helpful the ideas and experiences voiced by members of the Church—not as official pronouncements concerning Church Sabbath-day practices, but as good counsel to be considered by all who have seen the need for renewed efforts in making Sunday the best day of the week.”

I recommend this issue of the “Ensign” with all my heart.  As Brother Todd said, it may not be official doctrine, but it is filled with dynamic power and timeless relevance.  It is available on the church web site, lds.org.

From the Book of Exodus, chapter 20, verses 8 through 11, we know that to Moses was given the commandment,

“Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
  
Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:

But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy
cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:

For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and
 rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

In Doctrine &Covenants 59, we are told:

"But remember that on this, the Lord’s day, thou shalt offer thine oblations and thy sacraments unto the Most High, confessing thy sins unto thy brethren, and before the Lord.

And on this day thou shalt do none other thing, only let thy food be prepared with singleness of heart that thy fasting may be perfect, or, in other words, that thy joy may be full.

Verily, this is fasting and prayer, or in other words, rejoicing and prayer.

And inasmuch as ye do these things with thanksgiving, with cheerful hearts and countenances, not with much laughter, for this is sin, but with a glad heart and a cheerful countenance—

Verily I say, that inasmuch as ye do this, the fulness of the earth is yours, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and that which climbeth upon the trees and walketh upon the earth;

Yea, and the herb, and the good things which come of the earth, whether for food or for raiment, or for houses, or for barns, or for orchards, or for gardens, or for vineyards;

Yea, all things which come of the earth, in the season thereof, are made for the benefit and the use of man, both to please the eye and to gladden the heart;

Yea, for food and for raiment, for taste and for smell, to strengthen the body and to enliven the soul.”

Surely, then, the Sabbath is made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.  Think of each of the promises made in this passage as I read them again.

“The fulness of the earth is yours, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and that which climbeth upon the trees and walketh upon the earth;

Yea, and the herb, and the good things which come of the earth, whether for food or for raiment, or for houses, or for barns, or for orchards, or for gardens, or for vineyards;

Yea, all things which come of the earth, in the season thereof, are made for the benefit and the
use of man, both to please the eye and to gladden the heart;

Yea, for food and for raiment, for taste and for smell, to strengthen the body and to enliven the

soul.”

We are given all the animals to use as food when necessary, but also so that their beauty, power, and majesty might please our eyes and gladden our hearts.  We are given all good things which come from the earth – that which grows in the soil, but also the minerals and elements from the earth, itself – but it says, “…in the season thereof…” meaning as appropriate to our stewardship, not as looters.  And all of these things do, indeed nourish us physically, aesthetically, and spiritually.  And all we have to do is keep the Sabbath holy, in accordance to His commandments.

This is not the first time I have read these scriptures.  How is it, then, that I have been so easily lured into so many foolish ideas about the Sabbath?

For example, I have convinced myself that I can get as much by staying home and reading the Scriptures and reflecting prayerfully on them as I can get from going to church.  My dad used to tell me that when I was alone, I was in bad company.  The meaning of  Matthew, 18:20 was totally lost on me.  “Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.”  Here, in our midst, is He.  But more than once I have thought that I could get as much on my couch as here, with you wonderful people whom I love, and Him.

Here’s another good one.  I actually convinced myself many times that because of my family’s financial straits, the opportunity to earn a premium wage by working on the Sabbath was a blessing, and that by working, I was honoring the gifts of strength, a job, and overtime.   What makes this even more stupid is that when I was a teacher for the priest’s quorum in the young men’s organization, I delivered a talk on the Sabbath.  In preparation for that talk, I took a handful of quarters out to my drill press and punched a 3/8 hole through each quarter.  I gave each young man one of those quarters, saying that it was to remind them that, no matter how much they might make by working on the Sabbath, something would be missing from their lives.  Even after that, I let myself get suckered by the Adversary. 

President Kimball, in the opening essay of that issue of the “Ensign,” said,

“When men and women are willing to work on the Sabbath to increase their wealth, they are breaking the commandments; for money taken in on the Sabbath, if the work is unnecessary, is unclean money. Can you imagine a person laboring on the Sabbath in defiance of the Lord’s command, and then bringing a tithe or other portion of the ill-gained fruits of this labor to Him as an offering? Just as in Old Testament times, offerings presented to the Lord must be “without blemish,” and unnecessary Sabbath-day earnings can never be such.”

Do you see my foolishness?  Yes, we were in trouble, and I never thought of myself as working to increase my wealth.  I was working to keep food on the table and a roof over our heads.  It was a grim and stressful time, which is precisely why I should have been even more attentive to the commandments, particularly that of keeping the Sabbath.  When we most needed the blessings that come with keeping the Sabbath, I was at work, trying to do it the hard way.

One of the most cleverly-disguised abuses of the Sabbath was when I decided that, because my family and I were so busy during the week, that skipping church occasionally for a day trip was a righteous activity.  Oh, to be sure, I would occasionally make a Scriptural point as we drove along, or would praise the beauty of creation.  The kids would roll their eyes and go back to reading Harry Potter or texting or whatever they were doing.  As you can see, not only did I handicap myself by shunning the blessings promised for keeping the commandments, but I dragged my innocent little children along with me!

One of the essays in “The Ensign” was written by President Eyring, when he was deputy commissioner of Church Education.  It is in response to the question, “Should I do schoolwork on the Sabbath?”

“Suppose you were invited to the office of the president of a nation to meet him about an important government appointment. Would you concentrate easily as you read your algebra book in the minutes before you walked from your hotel to the nation’s headquarters? How comfortably would you slip into writing an essay on philosophy in the hours afterward? If you read before or after, it would almost certainly be either the president’s prior statements or information on topics relating to the office you were being considered for. If you wrote afterwards, it would be about your impressions, your insights, your recollections of your conversation.

“If a visit with a president would blot out interest in unrelated studies, what could be the effect of a visit with the Creator? The Sabbath is an invitation from the Master to commune with him, and we are striving, not for an office, but for eternal life. He arranges lessons to be taught from his own scriptural texts; he instructs his priesthood to serve you the sacrament; and then he promises his presence:

“Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.”

And here we are, back to Him, as it has been and will be from everlasting unto everlasting.

So how can we establish the Sabbath in our own lives as the best day of the week?  One of the most interesting articles I found is in “The Latter-day Saint Woman: Basic Manual for Women.”  Lesson 4 speaks of making the entire week a period of preparation for the Sabbath, and making the Sabbath the focal point, or climax of the week.

How many times have we entered the Sabbath stressed to the limit with the mundanities of life?  Even though they be very important and worthy things, such as keeping our homes clean, our children dressed in clean clothes, schoolwork done, meals prepared, gas tanks filled, and the million and ten details that seem to eat us alive?  Am I the only one who has ever thought at bedtime on Saturday, “Oh, my gosh!  Tomorrow is Sunday!”  It comes around just about every week, right after Saturday, and usually, right before Monday.  But so often it sneaks up on me.  

This lesson offers several common-sense suggestions for planning ahead.  Common sense means things I wouldn’t have thought of on my own in a hundred years.  The week can be scheduled with Sunday specifically in mind if we but give that commandment the priority it merits.   I’m sure some of y’all have read Stephen Covey’s masterpiece, “Seven Habits of Highly Effective People.”  One of those habits is that of putting first things first.  I had an opportunity to see Covey speak on this topic in person.  He illustrated it by taking two large pickle jars and a selection of rocks and objects of various sizes, including some sand.  He explained that the biggest rocks were the most important commitments in our schedule.

He started by pouring the sand into one jar, then put in a few of the largest rocks.  The jar was full, but there were still a lot of rocks left on the table.  Then he took the other jar and placed in it the largest of the rocks.  The rocks came to the top of the jar, giving the impression that it was full.  Next, he put in the next size smaller rocks, which filled the gaps between the big rocks.  Again the jar was full, but it had lot more rocks in it.  He repeated the process, going smaller and smaller, and when he at last added the sand, the jar was really full, but everything was in it.  Hence the importance of putting first things first.

Now I am not about to stand up here and tell anyone what is most important.  We each have our own jars and our own rocks.  But this much seems clear to me:  remembering the Sabbath and keeping it holy is a commandment, and that makes is a pretty big rock.  Speaking for myself, it is my intention to put the Sabbath – the biggest of my rocks – in my weekly jar first, so that I will never again be tempted to pass on it because there’s just too much sand.

How many of the stressful circumstances that urge us to neglect the Sabbath might be solved or even removed from our lives if we obey this commandment?

That one issue of the “Ensign” has many articles on the Sabbath, and I have only superficially touched on two of them.  It’s like a General Conference issue, but devoted solely to the Sabbath.

I would like to close by reading part of an essay from the Nov., 1984 “Ensign,”  by Elder John H. Groberg, then of the 70.  He told of driving to a speaking assignment on a Sunday.  His drive took him through the Cache Valley of Utah.  He wrote at length about the indescribable peace and serenity.  No one worked in the fields, the stores were closed, the usually busy roads were almost deserted.  The beauty of the place was even greater than usual, and it struck him that it was because so many of the people were observing the Sabbath.  They were in church, gathering in the presence of the Lord.  His description of the valley is really beautiful.  The article is worth reading, if only for that.

Months later, after an especially hectic period of immersion in the world out there, he said,

“I thought about Sodom and Gomorrah. Could they have been much more wicked than this? And yet the Lord promised to spare them for fifty righteous souls—or even down to ten—but they were not found.

“I let my imagination go and seemed to see a band of destroying angels loosed from heaven—thundering across the land. And even before I had time to think about the situation, I seemed to see myself standing in front of these determined destroyers, declaring, “Hold, hold, hold”; and they held. “Go back,” I said: and their horses reared, their eyes flashing in impatience. The destroyers’ anxiousness showed, but they held.

“The leader looked me squarely in the eye and challenged, “By what right do you ask us to hold? Have you not seen the evil of the land?”

“I replied, “Yes, I know of the sordidness of the world. I see the constant mocking of God’s laws, the merchandising on his holy day, the constant breaking of his commandments. I see the evil that exists almost universally. Yes, yes, all these things are true, still …” Then I became concerned. What right had I to ask them to hold?

“My eyes began to fall from his penetrating gaze, but something inside kept searching, searching, until finally a laserlike beam locked on to a misty memory made many months ago and faithfully filed away for such a time as this. A vista of a beautiful green valley passed before me and moved to the front of my consciousness.

“I raised my eyes and met his as he again said, “What right do you have to ask us to hold?”

“Then with the confidence of sure knowledge and spiritual direction, I replied, “You must hold, for you see, I have been through the Cache Valley on a Sunday afternoon.”

“There was no hesitation, no anger, no look of surprise, no disappointment, only obedience; and he turned and rejoined his group, and they left.”

Brothers and Sisters, can we possibly leave to our children any worldly gift that could be greater than to enable one of them – or even one of us, for that matter – to stand before the destroyers and say, “You must hold, for I have been through the Paradise Hills Ward on a Sunday afternoon?”

I thank you for your kind tolerance.  I am most humbly indebted to the Bishopric for this assignment.   I leave with you my testimony of the truth of the Gospel,  most humbly, in the name of our Savior, Jesus Christ.  Amen.

ARE YOU TOO CRAZY TO BE ALLOWED TO LIVE?

Have you noticed the new emphasis on mental health in the gun control debate?  It’s usually framed as something like, “…common sense approach, such as keeping guns out of the hands of mentally unstable people.”  Sometimes, they substitute “bipartisan” in place of “common sense,” but the bottom line is the same:  anyone the government thinks is crazy can’t have guns.

Does my phrasing in that last sentence give away my position?  As much as anyone, I am against lunatics having guns, but like all other government programs, one must ask how would it be accomplished, and what difference would it really make?

I have never really trusted the government to make such decisions, and the present government is orders of magnitude less worthy of our trust.  (For the record, I lump most Republicans in with the Obama administration.  This is not a matter of party affiliation.)  We have seen directives to doctors to report any patient who has guns.  We have seen schools asking children to fill out questionnaires about their parents’ habits, including guns in the home.  We have seen “assault weapon” registration rolls in California used to put ambulances to the curb while SWAT teams went ahead and cleared the home of weapons, while an injured child lay under the tree from which he’d fallen.  We’ve seen the VA reporting veterans who have gone there for help with feelings of alienation, anger, or depression, and those same veterans being denied purchase of firearms.  We have seen parents arrested for posting photos on Facebook of themselves with their children holding guns.

 

Let us not make the mistake of selling short the impact of such rules.  There are certain circumstances under which a person’s only hope of survival is the skillful and timely deployment of a firearm, and a firearm with sufficient power and capacity to do the job.  While most citizens will never find themselves in that position, the odds of it happening to any of us are increasing, especially among those in the border states, where foreign gangs – “armies” is not too strong a term – grow increasingly bold.  To deny any citizen access to an appropriate firearm is to say, literally, “If that ever happens to you, you’re screwed.  You and everyone you might wish to protect are hereby declared nonessential.  We’ll bury whatever pieces we find.”  Liberals have chanted, “If it only saves one child…” but are willing to say, in the most flagrantly callous way, “…except for the children of people of whom we don’t approve.”

 

 

Under certain circumstances, being unarmed is a death sentence.  Period.  This is what we are talking about.  Not hunting.  Not sport shooting.  Not gun collection.  The right to live.  Period.  Yes, if an armed person chooses to commit murder, others may die unless they are armed and prepared, as well, but – BUT – are we qualified to say who lives and who dies, based on... what?  On the opinion of some graduate school hack who is up to his eyeballs in debt to the government?

 

 

Not I.


There is absolutely no way in the world I trust our government or anyone under their control to make valid, objective psychological evaluations of any citizen’s worthiness to defend himself.  Why, I’d bet you a dollar to a donut there are liberals right now thinking, “That crazy sonofabitch Rodgers needs to be at the top of our crazy list!”  Now, I may be crazy, but I’m not keen on being so judged by people with a political axe to grind.  I see horrendous potential for abuse of power and the 4^th and 5^th Amendments, at least, and it concerns me deeply.

Obamacare has established unprecedented governmental control over all aspects of the health care system.  There is no way any doctor will stay in business while refusing to comply with the rules, and the rules are so vaguely-written as to practically demand abuse.   

 

So much for the “how.”

Would such a law do any good?  I don’t think so. It's been proven beyond any doubt that it is impossible to keep known felons from getting guns.  It would be equally impossible to keep “unstable” persons from getting them.  If there are guns in America, felons and wackos will get them.  There’s no way to prevent it. This, of course, leads one to the inescapable conclusion that the ultimate Federal goal is the total disarmament of the American people, but even that won’t work.  The genie is out of the bottle.  The gun is just too useful to fade away.  Take the guns we’ve got, and by the time you bury your dead, we’ll have more.  Guns are easy to make, and I’m not talking about zip guns; I’m talking about high-powered repeating arms capable of battlefield accuracy. 

So, in point of fact, the idea of keeping guns out of ANYone’s hands is a myth – a warm, fuzzy, incredibly dangerous delusion.  Add to that the fact that, especially in the case of “mental health,” our criteria are so pathetically vague and primitive, and you have what amounts to a scenario right out of the movie, “Minority Report.”  We are talking about prior restraint – antecedent judgment (called “prejudice” in some circles) – being found guilty, not merely before being tried, but before a crime has been committed!

Are you really prepared to live in a nation in which the government can deprive you of your right to own anything based on what you MIGHT do at some point in the future?  It doesn’t matter whether we talk about guns or bubble gum, the principle is the same.  And if you like the Obama administration, remember that you are not giving this power to Saint Barack; you are giving it to the presidency.   Would you be comfortable giving this power to George Bush?  I wouldn’t be, and I liked him up until the last two years of his second term.

When considering these questions, consider how they’d be implemented, and what it would take to make them effective.  In the case of the proposed mental health standards for firearms ownership, there is no way to make them work, at all, under any circumstances, and most certainly not without gutting the Bill of Rights like a carp.

Obama and the fascist leadership are fully aware of what I have warned you of.  The Republicans who have sold their souls and support the fascists are probably too stupid to understand it.

 

 

Rebsarge

AND FROM MY OTHER SENATORIAL VERIMIN

THIS IS MARTIN HEINRCH'S RESPONSE TO MY LETTER:

It's no secret that I have always believed that law abiding citizens should be able to own firearms for both sport and self-defense. Like many New Mexicans, I own guns for those very purposes.

 

However, as a parent, I couldn't watch the events at Sandy Hook last year and not be deeply affected. Too many of us have had friends or family touched by senseless shootings. We owe it to the American people to take real action to reduce the violence in our communities.

 

The Senate voted today to begin debate on and consideration of the Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of 2013. This bill includes pragmatic public safety measures that the vast majority of Americans-including gun owners-can embrace. I've said that I'll base my support for any legislation on whether it can realistically reduce the violence while still protecting the constitutional right to bear arms. This proposal meets that standard.

 

Keeping guns out of the hands of people legally prohibited from having them is a common-sense way to prevent violence without punishing law abiding gun owners. That's what background checks do, and having been through the background check process myself on numerous occasions, I know it is not an unreasonable burden on responsible gun owners. There is no reason that firearm sales made on the internet or at a gun show shouldn't meet that same common-sense standard.

 

I also support cracking down on illegal gun trafficking. If you buy a firearm in order to pass that firearm on to a criminal, you should face federal prosecution.

Prioritizing mental health services is another key component to keeping our families safe. I'll continue working to ensure that our schools, families, and communities have the tools they need to support the mental health of our kids.

 

 

 

AND MY RESPONSE, WHICH IS SLIGHTLY EDITED FROM THE ONE TO UDALL:

 

I asked you a very specific question:  how do you propose to make “universal background checks” work without utterly repudiating the Bill of Rights.  You responded by invoking the recent mass murders, especially of children, clearly in the belief that it gives you absolute free rein to do anything you wish, as long as it “…saves even one child.”  Then you went into the familiar litany about commercial sales at gun shows and undocumented internet sales. 

Here’s a newsflash for you, Senator:  all commercial sales, at gun shows and otherwise, have been subject to background checks for years.  I have purchased guns at shows, and I assure you, I went through the background check.  As for internet sales, they have been illegal for decades, along with mail order sales, thanks to the Democrat frenzy over Lee Harvey Oswald’s mail order purchase of a rifle he could have had at any hardware store for $30.00. That was in 1968, I believe, and we all know how effective it was in combating crime.

At every opportunity, you equate crime control to gun control, with phrases like, “common sense,” and “bipartisan” thrown in, evidently under the impression that such phrases grant absolution to your misbegotten ideas.  Well, Sir, they do not.  Common sense is getting more rare by the day, and I guarantee you the common sense of murdering gang-banger on the border is not the common sense of a homeowner who might be facing him in a gunfight.  As for bi-partisan, don’t make me puke.  Today’s Republican party is as filled with traitors and quislings as is the Democratic party.  Bipartisan just means you got a bunch of other snakes to go along with you.

Will you answer my question, Senator?  How will you implement universal background checks without eliminating most of the Bill of Rights?

 

By the way, Sir, I noticed that you did not vote for the UN arms control treath, and for that, I most sincerely thank you!  I believe a vote for that treaty would have been an act of treason.

 

 

REBSARGE

 

EXCHANGE WITH SENATORIAL VERMIN

TOM UDALL'S RESPONSE TO MY LETTER OF LAST WEEK...

Thank you for contacting me regarding legislative efforts to reduce gun violence. I appreciate hearing from you, and your views are important to me.

The incomprehensible act of violence that ended the lives of innocent children and educators at Sandy Hook Elementary School has left our nation with a profound sense of sorrow and questions about why these tragedies are occurring with increasing frequency. Congress has an obligation to pass sensible legislation in an effort to reduce the epidemic of gun violence in our nation. We can take logical steps toward that goal without infringing on the Second Amendment rights of law abiding citizens and restricting the traditions of sportsmen in states like New Mexico.

The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, as well as New Mexico's Constitution, secure the right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms. In 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed that the Second Amendment protects an individual citizen's right to own a firearm, but said this right is subject to reasonable restrictions. For generations, many New Mexicans have exercised this right in a responsible way, and I believe they should be able to continue to do so. At the same time, our communities have an obligation to combat crime, maintain public safety and protect citizens from senseless gun violence.

Proposals for reducing gun violence have been put forth by President Obama and several of my colleagues in Congress. This week, the Senate agreed in a bipartisan vote of 68-31 to begin debate and consideration of S. 649, the Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of 2013, a bill introduced by Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada. While the bill has not yet been finalized, it does contain key provisions I support to expand criminal background checks, increase school safety and strengthen laws against gun trafficking and illegal purchases.

On April 11, Senators Joseph Manchin and Patrick Toomey introduced a bipartisan amendment to the Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act (715), which I plan to support during the consideration of this bill. It would extend background checks to all commercial sales conducted at gun shows and over the internet. However, it would not require background checks for transfers between family members or friends. The amendment also includes language that reaffirms the existing prohibition on creating a national gun registry in current law.

While making these sensible changes to federal gun laws is important, we must also give our law enforcement the resources they need to enforce these laws. As a former federal prosecutor, I understand how it can be difficult to prosecute firearm offences when resources are limited. Therefore, I also plan to introduce an amendment to S. 649 that will allow the Attorney General to hire additional Assistant U.S. Attorneys to focus on investigating and prosecuting gun crimes, including gun trafficking which contributes to violence along the U.S.-Mexico border.

Another important component is increased access to mental health services. To that end, I am a cosponsor of S. 116, the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act Reauthorization of 2013, and S. 195, the Mental Health in Schools Act. These bills will help improve accessibility to mental health services for young people. I will continue to seek additional ways to improve our country's approach to mental health during the amendment process for S. 649.

There is much more serious work ahead and many other amendments are expected to be offered and voted on as we consider S. 649 -- including those to reinstate the ban on semiautomatic assault weapons and to restrict high-capacity magazines. I will carefully evaluate each and every one of these proposals and cast my vote based on whether I believe they can effectively reduce violent crimes, meet Constitutional standards and work for New Mexico.

I remain hopeful that working together we will achieve sensible, bipartisan solutions to prevent gun violence and secure our communities. Please be assured that I will thoughtfully consider any legislation focused on preventing future tragedies, and that I will keep your thoughts in as the Senate continues to consider S. 649.

 

 

AND HERE IS MY RESPONSE TO UDALL'S BALONEY...

 

Senator, I received your letter on gun control.  It contains the same stupid, insipid, and ill-advised garbage that has been pandered by fascists for decades.

I asked you a very specific question:  how do you propose to make “universal background checks” work without utterly repudiating the Bill of Rights.  You responded by invoking the recent mass murders, especially of children, clearly in the belief that it gives you absolute free rein to do anything you wish, as long as it “…saves even one child.”  Then you went into the familiar litany about commercial sales at gun shows and undocumented internet sales. 

 

Here’s a newsflash for you, Senator:  all commercial sales, at gun shows and otherwise, have been subject to background checks for years.  I have purchased guns at shows, and I assure you, I went through the background check.  As for internet sales, they have been illegal for decades, along with mail order sales, thanks to the Democrat frenzy over Lee Harvey Oswald’s mail order purchase of a rifle he could have had at any hardware store for $30.00. That was in 1968, I believe, and we all know how effective it was in combating crime.

At every opportunity, you equate crime control to gun control, with phrases like, “common sense,” and “bipartisan” thrown in, evidently under the impression that such phrases grant absolution to your misbegotten ideas.  Well, Sir, they do not.  Common sense is getting more rare by the day, and I guarantee you the common sense of murdering gang-banger on the border is not the common sense of a homeowner who might be facing him in a gunfight.  As for bi-partisan, don’t make me puke.  Today’s Republican party is as filled with traitors and quislings as is the Democratic party.  Bipartisan just means you got a bunch of other snakes to go along with you.

If it only saves one child?  How about all the children who are saved by the parents  - and even themselves – who  use guns to save life and preserve virtue?  How many of them are you willing to condemn to death?  Yes, Sir.  How many death certificates are YOU personally willing to sign?

Will you answer my question, Senator?  How will you implement universal background checks without eliminating most of the Bill of Rights?

I also noticed that you voted for the UN gun control treaty. That, Sir, is an act of treason, and, if there were justice in America, you’d be in irons right now.

 

 

Rebsarge

14 April, 2013

LETTER TO MY SENATORIAL VERMIN, 8 APR., 2013

To Senator Tom Udall (F-NM) and Senator Martin Heinrich (F-NM)

Senator, I have question for you.  Just how will "universal background checks" work?  How can such a law be implemented?

I submit that you can not know if a gun has changed hands unless you know who had it originally and who has it now.  To achieve the first, you will have to register every gun in the United States.  To achieve  the second, you will have to grant government authority - presumably to the BATF or DHS - to do unannounced searches of the homes of every gunowner.

No?  Well then, how in hell do you propose to know when I have sold a gun?  And what if I don't tell you to whom I sold it?  The only way you can find that gun is to search every house in the nation.

Think about just  how laws will be enforced, and that will imply for our liberties and the lives of every man or woman you send to enforce such laws.




Sic semper,
Rebsarge

WHAT'S SO GREAT ABOUT CATCHING FLIES, ANYWAY?

16 March, 2013

My gentle friends - and I have many - consistently point out to me, as I trowel on the vituperative when speaking of liberals, that my harsh words and dire judgments will not convert anyone to my ideas.  Their favorite phrase is that old proverb, “You will catch more flies with honey than with vinegar."  (For what it's worth, when we were putting fly traps in the stables, we didn't use honey for bait.  We used poop.  There's got to be a metaphor in there, somewhere.)

Humpf.

First, when I’m going on about liberals, I’m not talking about flies – well, perhaps the larvae of flies, but not the adult creatures.

Second, in my 50-odd years of debating with liberals (my first fist fight with a pro-crime, i.e. “anti-gun” advocate was in the 4^th grade) I have just tired of pussyfooting around with ‘em.  They’re breeding faster than we can convert ‘em, anyway.  I do, honestly, make an effort to educate, convince, and convert, but I’m not going to live long enough to convert most of these dips, so I’m more concerned with strengthening the moral rectitude of those who already agree with me.

Finally, I submit that the whole honey vs. vinegar tactic is precisely what got us where we are, in the first place.  For example, “You have no right to the property of other people,” is sort of a vinegary statement to a measure of our countrymen, while, “Vote for me and we’ll smash the rich and take their stuff,” is taken as a honey-sort of statement.  When the people in Jamestown said if you don’t work, you don’t eat, it was the definitive vinegar idea, whereas Louis Blanc’s socialist mantra, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need,”  [from Wikipedia.  I’d always thought it was Marx.]  has always been the honeysong of the looter’s soul.  When Saint Barack said he’d tax the rich into extinction and give free phones, free Bubble Up, and rainbow stew to everyone who voted for him, he was spreadin’ around that honey.

And look at the all the flies it attracted.

(Ironically, the value of introducing maggots to an open wound for the prevention of gangrene has been known for centuries.  You see, maggots only eat dead tissue, which prevents the buildup of the bacteria that cause gangrene.  We revile maggots, but they are actually useful, and are probably the only reason for the existence of their parents.  America, in 2013, has a number of ghastly, open wounds, but the maggots that have been drawn to the smell of blood are of a species that eat live tissue.  In a very real sense, our nation is indulging in a frenzy of autocannibalism.  [or, in the case of Pelosi, Feinstein, Schumer, et all, semi-autocannibalism].)

Rebsarge

NOBODY IS REALLY THIS STUPID - UDALL ON MORSI

In February, 2013, I wrote to my congressvermin and told them I'd much rather the US not give a bunch of F-16's to the Islamic Brotherhood because they are not nice people and are not our friends.  This is the reply I received from Senator Tom Udall, D-NM.  It is one of the  most infuriatingly patronizing and disingenuous things I've read lately.

Dear Mr. Rodgers,

Thank you for contacting me regarding recent events in Egypt. I appreciate hearing from you on this very important issue.

In January of 2011 hundreds of thousands of Egyptians frustrated with corrupt governance and a stagnant economy took to the streets to demand political change. On February 11, 2011, after nearly a month of popular and largely peaceful protests, President Hosni Mubarak announced that he would leave office. After a year and a half of political transition in the wake of the revolution, Egyptians elected a new president, Muhammad Morsi. After his election this past June, President Morsi resigned from the Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt's dominant Islamist organization, and pledged to form a government in which all major factions in Egyptian politics would be represented.

As you may know, prior to Mr. Morsi's election in June, the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) ruled Egypt by decree, angering many Egyptians who supported a faster transition to civilian government. After taking office, President Morsi dismissed Egypt's long-time defense minister, Mohammed Hussein Tantawi, as well as other military officers. Mr. Morsi also reversed a SCAF decree that weakened the executive authorities of the president, giving him interim legislative powers until the election of a new parliament following the ratification of a new constitution. After being approved by public referendum, President Morsi signed the constitution into law on December 26, 2012. Protests again flared in opposition to his administration in the month following ratification, resulting in President Morsi declaring a new state of emergency on January 27, 2013.

Egypt has been an important U.S. ally in the Middle East for more than 30 years since signing a peace treaty with Israel. As such, it also has been a significant recipient of U.S. foreign assistance. In fiscal year (FY) 2011 Egypt received $1.5 billion in military and economic assistance from the U.S. This assistance was conditioned on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's certification that the Egyptian government supported the transition to a civilian government, including implementation of policies to protect freedom of expression, religion, association, and due process of law. However, Secretary Clinton waived this requirement on March 23, 2012. A State Department spokesperson said that "the secretary's decision to waive is also designed to demonstrate our strong support for Egypt's enduring role as a security partner and a leader in promoting regional stability and peace."

Related to this issue, on January 31, 2013, Senator Rand Paul (KY) introduced Senate Amendment 9, which would prohibit the sale or delivery of certain types of military equipment to Egypt including F-16 aircraft and M1 tanks. The restrictions in the amendment would have undermined our existing peace treaty with Egypt, weakened our counterterrorism efforts in the region and endangered U.S. commitments to the security of Israel. The amendment was defeated 79-19 with my vote against the measure.

A peaceful and prosperous Egypt is in the best interests of the United States and the region. Please be assured that I will continue to monitor Egypt's transition process, and will keep your thoughts in mind should I have the opportunity to vote on any legislation regarding Egypt in the Senate.