December 7, 1941--A Date Which Will Live in Infamy

Listen to the speech here

Mr. Vice President, and Mr. Speaker, and Members of the Senate and House of Representatives:

Yesterday, December 7, 1941--a date which will live in infamy--the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.

The United States was at peace with that Nation and, at the solicitation of Japan, was still in conversation with its Government and its Emperor looking toward the maintenance of peace in the Pacific. Indeed, one hour after Japanese air squadrons had commenced bombing in the American Island of Oahu, the Japanese Ambassador to the United States and his colleague delivered to our Secretary of State a formal reply to a recent American message. And while this reply stated that it seemed useless to continue the existing diplomatic negotiations, it contained no threat or hint of war or of armed attack.

It will be recorded that the distance of Hawaii from Japan makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks ago. During the intervening time the Japanese Government has deliberately sought to deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace.

The attack yesterday on the Hawaiian Islands has caused severe damage to American naval and military forces. I regret to tell you that very many American lives have been lost. In addition American ships have been reported torpedoed on the high seas between San Francisco and Honolulu.

Yesterday the Japanese Government also launched an attack against Malaya.
Last night Japanese forces attacked Hong Kong.
Last night Japanese forces attacked Guam.
Last night Japanese forces attacked the Philippine Islands.
Last night the Japanese attacked Wake Island. And this morning the Japanese attacked Midway Island.

Japan has, therefore, undertaken a surprise offensive extending throughout the Pacific area. The facts of yesterday and today speak for themselves. The people of the United States have already formed their opinions and well understand the implications to the very life and safety of our Nation.

As Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy I have directed that all measures be taken for our defense.

But always will our whole Nation remember the character of the onslaught against us.

No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory. I believe that I interpret the will of the Congress and of the people when I assert that we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost but will make it very certain that this form of treachery shall never again endanger us.

Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory, and our interests are in grave danger.

With confidence in our armed forces—with the unbounding determination of our people—we will gain the inevitable triumph- so help us God.

I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, December 7, 1941, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese Empire.

May we never forget the cowardice and evil mindset of such enemies, the sacrifice of our young men who died in that attack, and the heroism and sacrifice of the brave young men who ultimately secured victory against our aggressor.
 

Happy Thanksgiving!

One of my friends on Facebook said something that reminded me about how much I love Thanksgiving.  I love the "holiday season" in general--that period of time from Reformation Day (or All Saints Eve, if you wish) through New Year's Day--with all the colors, the change in the weather, the decorations, the music, and all the traditional festivities of the season.  Like most people, it's my favorite time of year.

But when I reflect on the two major holidays of this season (Thanksgiving and Christmas), if I had to rank one above the other, I think Thanksgiving would come out on top.  Why is this, you might wonder?

Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that Thanksgiving isn't completely driven by mass consumerism?  There's less pressure from the retail industry to buy "stuff" for Thanksgiving (they got started on Christmas, already, months ago).  There's no scurrying around, trying to find the perfect gift for everyone in your family.  And while some money is spent on the Thanksgiving Dinner, it pales in comparison to the amount spent on gifts for Christmas.

What's even better, though, is what Thanksgiving focuses upon.  It is intentionally a day set apart to give thanks to God for His abundant and gracious provision for all of our needs.  This is made evident to us and we experience it firsthand in a symbolic way through our partaking in a great Thanksgiving feast.

But eating such a big meal alone would be pointless.  We partake of Thanksgiving meal in the company of family and friends.  Often, people invite into their homes others who have no place to go.  Just as with a good bottle of wine, the greatest part of Thankgiving is sharing it with others.

A large and yet intimate gathering of friends and family, assembled around a table, sharing time and food and experiences, and enjoying the goodness of God--that's true koinonia or "communion."  And isn't that a big part of what life is about?

"Man's chief end is to glorify God and to enjoy Him forever" - the Westminster Shorter Catechism, Answer #1.

Happy Thanksgiving!  Soli Deo Gloria! 

Van

A New Hymn of Praise

As my friends know, I am a big proponent of the classic hymns of the Christian faith.  The best ones have solid doctrinal content and singable, reverent tunes.  They are treasures to be taught and passed down to future generations.

I'm also a big fan of singing the Psalms.  What's better than singing the words of uninspired men is to sing the actual inspired Word of God itself!  In addition to the Psalms, however, there are also passages throughout other books of the Bible that contain a wealth of textual material for singing.  These are called "Canticles."  (For example, the Nunc Dimittis and the Magnificat.)

A few years ago I was reading through the book of Daniel and ran across a poem that I thought would be great to sing as a hymn.  The following are the words of the prophet Daniel, in response to the Lord having revealed to him the meaning of the king Nebuchadnezzar's dream:

(20) Blessed be the name of God forever and ever,
to whom belong wisdom and might.
(21) He changes times and seasons;
he removes kings and sets up kings;
he gives wisdom to the wise
and knowledge to those who have understanding;
(22) he reveals deep and hidden things;
he knows what is in the darkness,
and the light dwells with him.
(23) To you, O God of my fathers,
I give thanks and praise,
for you have given me wisdom and might,
and have now made known to me what we asked of you,
for you have made known to us the king's matter

(Daniel 2:20-23)

I wondered why such a great song of praise has never been put to verse. (Well, if it has, I have never seen it.)  So I made an attempt at transforming the text to meter. (I haven't yet gotten around to rhyming it, however.)  Here is what I have come up with.  It is in LM or 88 88 meter, and can be sung to just about any tune that fits those meters (for example, "Old Hundredth," aka "The Doxology").

Forever bless-ed be God's name,
To whom wis-dom and might belong.
He changes times and seasons too;
Removeth kings and sets them up.

He giveth wisdom to the wise,
Knowledge to those who grasp the truth;
Revealeth deep and hidden things;
He knows the dark, but dwells in light.

God of our fathers, unto You
We give you thanks and give you praise,
For You gave us wis-dom and might,
Revealed to us what we have asked.

What do you think?

2010 General Election - Part 3

This is Part 3 of my analysis of the 2010 General Election from Orange County, CA.  The following is a list of how I am voting on some of the Statewide and Local offices:

Governor

Chelene Nightingale (AI) -- Jerry Brown's failed policies have already been implemented and were harmful to the welfare of CA.  What's worse, by his own admission he's a big fat liar.  Meg Whitman's "hispandering" is attrocious.  Her positions on issues are as varied as the weather from day to day.  I cannot in good conscience vote for her when there's a significantly better, consistently conservative candidate on the ballot who recognizes what the problems are and has clear-headed solutions in mind.

As an aside, I am tired of playing the "vote for a third party candidate is a wasted vote" game.  That is a self-fulfilling prophecy.  It is only the case when people of conscience buy into it and don't vote their conscience.  I'm also tired of being pandered to in the primary and taken for granted once the candidate I voted for is in office.  Christians are paid lip service by Republican candidates and then ignored once they are in office because the GOP candidates know they will always get the Christian vote.  From now on, I want candidates to earn my vote.)

Lt. Gov.
Jim King (AI) -- In my opinion, there's no way any Conservative in good conscience can vote for the tax traitor Abel Maldonado.  With Mike Villines, this guy sold out the taxpayers of CA when he broke his pledge not to raise taxes by casting the deciding vote to raise taxes by $12 billion in 2009.  What sweet deal did he get in exchange for his treachery?  The position of Lt. Governor of a bankrupt state.  I cannot reward him for that!  That's why I'm voting for King.

Sec. State
Damon Dunn (R)

Controller
Tony Strickland (R)

Treasurer
Robert Lauten (R)

Atty. General
Steve Cooley (R)

Insurance Commsr.
Richard Bronstein (L) -- Mike Villines is another tax traitor.  Along with Albel Maldonado, he raped the taxpayers of CA for $12 billion and sold his soul for the Insurance Commisioner seat.  I cannot in good conscience reward him with my vote.  And I certainly can't trust him to maintain ethical oversight of the insurance agencies of CA.

More to follow...

2010 General Election - Part 2

This is Part 2 of my analysis of the 2010 General Election from Orange County, CA.

Propositions

Summary
Prop 19:  NO
Prop 20:  YES
Prop 21:  NO
Prop 22:  NO?
Prop 23:  YES!!
Prop 24:  NO!
Prop 25:  NO!!
Prop 26:  YES
Prop 27:  NO

Rationale

Prop 19:  NO -- A Yes vote would result in greater proliferation and availability of marijuana in CA.  Children will be able to much more easily acquire it without breaking the law.  It will be virtually impossible for the State to regulate or enforce any controls when marijuana is grown in private individuals' backyards.  Alcohol and marijuana are not the same:  Alcohol is intoxicating when abused and consumed in excess. The sole purpose of smoking pot is to get "stoned."  It's interesting how militantly opposed to tobacco smoking our society has become, while at the same time so strongly in favor of pot.

Prop 20:  YES -- I'm somewhat torn about this one.  On one hand I'm not convinced that this "Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission" is truly independent. How are they held accountable? How are they protected against political influence?  Theoretically, we should be able to hold our Representatives accountable by recalling or not re-electing them should they violate our trust.  However, when it comes to re-districting, this doesn't seem to work, and allowing the Fox to guard the hen-house is not a reasonable solution in the first place.  The Commission already exists for State districts; this measure just expands the juridiction of the Commission to Congressional districts.  Every Conservative I know is in favor of this one.  I lean in favor of it, but not strongly.  The NO position is endorsed by the California Teachers' Association, the Sacramento Bee, and the Sierra Club...Even more reason to vote YES.

Prop 21:  NO -- The State of CA is virtually broke.  Due to the depression, revenue is down. But CA overspent on unnecessary projects and now is scrambling for money.  Rest assured, legislators will find my a myriad of ways to squeeze more money out of the taxpayers. Let us not foist another tax increase upon ourselves!  There are other, more appropriate options for the State Parks:  1) Transfer the Parks under Private ownership and control, or 2) Fund the really important Parks from current revenues (if they're really necessary, they'll find a way to do this), or 3) Drop the rest entirely and let private parties buy up the land.  Go away you money-sucking leeches!  A No-Brainer.

Prop 22:  NO? -- Still undecided on this one.  But, based on the Ground Rules above, my default position for propositions is NO.  On the surface, this looks like a good prop--it claims to prohibit Sacramento from raiding Local sources of revenue.  But Conservatives are mixed on this, as there are reportedly other unsavory provisions hidden within.  I will continue to study this issue; If my vote changes, i'll update this post.

Prop 23:  YES!! -- Temporarily (unfortunately, not permanently) suspends implementation of AB32, the "Global Warming Final Solutions Act."  That legislation is not only unnecessary but, even worse, is an attempt by the CA government to overreach, and impose restrictive regulations in the name of "climate change."  The effects will be to drive the nail into the coffin of the CA economy. If AB32 goes into effect, jobs will be lost and, I suspect, we will witness another mass exodus of employers and taxpayers out of CA to other, more friendly states.  Too bad Prop 23 bill only temporarily suspends this insanity.

Prop 24:  NO! -- California already has about the worst business climate in the nation. Employers and employees have left CA in droves to seek greener pastures elsewhere.  While other states are trying to lure employers, CA is trying to drive them out by increasing their taxes.  Businesses do not pay these taxes--we do:  through increased prices, lower wages (or fewer jobs), and lower investment returns (i.e., 401(k) value).  Another No-Brainer.

Prop 25:  NO!! -- This Proposition is not about passing an on-time Budget.  Removing the 2/3 requirement from passing a Budget deprives us of an essential Check and Balance in our Legislature.  If this prop passes, liberal legislators will be able to pass through extravagant spending with no opposition. And to pay for this, they will be able to more easily foist upon the taxpayer all sorts of new "creative" tax schemes (described as "fees," "assessments," and what have you). The fact that all the Teachers' Unions are in support of this prop is another strong motivation to oppose it.  This is about the biggest No-Brainer on the ballot.

Prop 26:  YES -- Call a Tax a Tax.  Currently, government officials across the state have been raising taxes on us by disguising them as "fees."  This Proposition helps re-classify as taxes those revenue increases that are actually taxes, making it more difficult to enact without a public or 2/3 majority vote.  I'm voting YES to stop this insanity.


Prop 27:  NO -- A Yes vote would rescind the current re-districting scheme and restore the original, politician-led re-districting that results in gerrymandering districts for state offices in order to keep politicians in power.  While I'm not convinced about the aforementioned "Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission," I also know that the politicians can't be trusted to do this themselves.  I'm voting NO to leave it as it is.

Part 3 will be a brief analysis of my votes for State and Local offices...

2010 General Election

As everyone is fully aware from the yard signs, attack ads, and sound-bite debates, Election Season is almost over.  In fact, with only one week left to go before the General Election, now is the time to figure out how you're going to vote (if you haven't already).  I live in Orange County, in southern California--once a bastion of Conservatism in a largely Left-leaning state.  Now, it seems, I'm one of the few traditional conservatives left.  In case you're interested, here's how I'm going to vote, along with some of my rationale.

First, I'll start with the CA State Propositions and local Measures.  This first post outlines the Ground Rules for how I vote.

Propositions 

Ground Rules:  I largely follow my good friend Brant's groundrules for voting on Propositions. (His explanations are great! Read them.) These lay a groundwork for my vote and help to break ties. In summary, the rules are as follows:

1. Default position is NO.  New laws generally restrict liberty.  Therefore, the burden of proof for the necessity of a law lies with the proponents of the measure.
2. Bond measures are held with even greater suspicion.  Bonds are a way for the government to take out a loan on the backs of the tax-payers. California already over-spends and over-taxes. If our legislators haven't already budgeted for it, then we probably don't need it.  The burden of proof is especially high for the proponents. I have never voted in favor of a bond measure.
3. Measures similar to other measures already passed are held with greater suspicion.  How many times have we had new measures to "fix the schools" or "clean up the enviornment?"  If the previous measures didn't work, what's so special about this one?
4. NO on anything that attempts to raise money for vital services.  Politicians can't be allowed to pay for their pet projects with budgeted revenue and then cry to the taxpayers that there's no money left to cover vital services like fire and police. Voting yes gives in and lets the politicians have their way with the taxpayers.

The next post will provide my brief analysis of each proposition and measure. Stay tuned...

The Difference Between Men and Women

My wife and I were watching the DVD of the recent BBC version of Jane Austen's Sense and Sensibility last night.  We were highly amused by the portrayal of the differences between men and women illustrated in a specific conversation between the Dashwood women and Sir John Middleton:

"Willoughby!" cried Sir John; "what, is he in the country? That is good news however? I will ride over to-morrow, and ask him to dinner on Thursday."

"You know him, then," said Mrs. Dashwood.

"Know him? to be sure I do. Why, he is down here every year."

"And what sort of a young man is he?"

"As good a kind of fellow as ever lived, I assure you. A very decent shot, and there is not a bolder rider in England."

"And is that all you can say for him?" cried Marianne, indignantly. "But what are his manners on more intimate acquaintance? What his pursuits, his talents, and genius?"

Sir John was rather puzzled.

"Upon my soul," said he, "I do not know much about him as to all that. But he is a pleasant, good-humoured fellow, and has got the nicest little black bitch of a pointer I ever saw. Was she out with him to-day?"