The naive believes everything, but the sensible man considers his steps.

By: Dan Clements

The title of my article is taken from the book of Proverbs chapter 14 verse 15. What prompted me to title my column thus is an article I read on www.factcheck.org about why they do what they do.

In the article they discuss two different philosophies stated by 17^th century philosophers René Descartes and Baruch de Spinoza. “In 1641, French philosopher René Descartes suggested that the act of understanding an idea comes first; we accept the idea only after evaluating whether or not it rings true. Thirty-six years later, the Dutch philosopher Baruch de Spinoza offered a very different account of belief formation. Spinoza proposed that understanding and believing happen simultaneously. We might come to reject something we held to be true after considering it more carefully, but belief happens prior to the examination. On Spinoza’s model, the brain forms beliefs automatically. Rejecting a belief requires a conscious act.

Harvard psychologist Daniel T. Gilbert designed a series of experiments aimed specifically at determining whether Descartes or Spinoza got it right. Gilbert’s verdict: Spinoza is the winner. People who fail to carry through the evaluation process are likely to believe whatever statements they read. Gilbert concludes that “people do have the power to assent, to reject, and to suspend their judgment, but only after they have believed the information to which they have been exposed.”

Gilbert’s studies show that, initially at least, we do believe everything we hear. But it’s equally obvious that we reject many of those beliefs, sometimes very quickly and other times only after considerable work. We may not be skeptical by nature, but we can nonetheless learn to be skeptical. “

A wise and sensible man or woman will consider what they hear and read. Being skeptical is not a bad thing. Webster defines skeptical as “the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism characteristic of skeptics” Skeptic entomology:

Latin or Greek; Latin scepticus, from Greek skeptikos, from skeptikos thoughtful, from skeptesthai to look, consider

To be thoughtful about a particular subject, no matter what it is, is to be wise. The old saying about believing half of what you see and none of what you hear is good advice for people today. We need more skeptics when it comes to politics and religion. We need to investigate what we see and hear to see if we are getting the truth and facts about what people are telling us to believe or do.

When it comes to politicians, and televangelist, being skeptical should be standard operating procedure. You should be skeptical of this article too. You don’t know me or my history on whether I’m giving you the straight skinny on this subject either. It will not hurt my feelings if you doubt what I say, as long as you investigate and find out for yourself if what I’m saying is accurate.

As a member of the Constitution Party, I want people to be skeptical of what politicians are saying on the campaign trail. I want people to examine the candidate’s positions on different subjects and compare them to the U.S. Constitution. If you find what is being proposed by the candidates is not constitutional, then you have a choice to make. Either you continue to believe and uphold what is being said or you reject the message and the messenger and look for a true candidate you can support.

As a New Testament Christian, I want people to be skeptical of what they are being taught about God, Christ, and his word for us. We need to as Paul told Timothy in 2Tim 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Whether in politics or religion, we need to study and search for truth and facts. If we fail to do this then we are naïve and will delieve anything.

Dan Clements is a member of the Constitution Party and the host of BACK TO BASIC a Christian/political internet talk show. You can listen to Dan from 9pm-midnight EST. M-F at www.constitutionalwarrior.com

THE U.S. COULD LEARN FROM STAR TREK

By: Dan Clements

In the fiction universe of Star Trek, the Prime Directive, Starfleet’s General Order #1, is the most important guiding principle of the United Federation of Planets. The Prime Directive dictates that there can be no interference with the internal affairs of other civilizations, consistent with the real world concept of Westphalian sovereignty.

The Peace of Westphalia as having several key principles, which explain the Peace's significance and its impact on the world today:

1. The principle of the sovereignty of states and the fundamental right of political self determination

2. The principle of (legal) equality between states

3. The principle of non-intervention of one state in the internal affairs of another state

Senator John McCain advocates an interventionist point of view in regards to U.S. foreign policy. He sites the rise of Hitler and points out that Hitler needed to be stopped. And senator McCain is right, in so far as Hitler took his fascist views outside of the sovereign borders of Germany. If Hitler had been satisfied with staying in his own country and not started another world war in Europe or committing genocide on the Jewish people, would we have been justified in going in and interfering with Germany’s internal affairs?

When ever the U.S. has interfered with other nations sovereignty, it has always come back to bite us in the buttocks. Ever hear of operation Ajax? This little coup removed the elected Prime Minister of Iran (Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh) and installed Mohammad Reza Pahlavi in 1953. This little move brought about the Islamic revolution in 1979 and turned Iran into an Islamic republic, where sharia law is the law of the land today.

Because of our cold war stance in the world, and the USSR’s interventions and invasion of Afghanistan, we caused a bad situation in the country by driving out the vast majority of the elites and intellectuals. This caused a power vacuum in Afghanistan and the Taliban came to power in 1996. We all know the results of this foreign policy gem. Can anyone spell 9/11?

I’m not here to say that our foreign policy excuses another county, or group’s actions, but history is replete with blowback from one country not respecting another’s sovereignty. It is one thing to stop wholesale genocide of a people, (can someone help Dafar?), then you might have just cause to violate a countries sovereignty, but to interfere with the internal workings of another countries affairs is presumptive arrogance.

We say we intervene because our national security is at stake, or we don’t like another governments politics, or you fill in the blank, but I say we intervene because we have a lot of megalomaniacs in politics and predatory global corporations that can’t stand to see the world and other countries develop on their own, because it is not in there best interest. Fighting communism is not a good enough reason to intervene. Communism left alone will self-destruct, because it is not sustainable. If we don’t like what another country is doing, then don’t deal with that country on any level.

Is there really anything that China is producing today that we cannot make here or live without? Do we need to intervene in China’s affairs to get what we want? Do we need more blowback than we all ready have?

We need to rethink and implement a new foreign policy for the U.S. before our foreign policy destroys us.

George Washington said in his farewell address: “The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to domestic nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.”

Thomas Jefferson said in his inaugural address:” peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none."

As a member of the Constitution Party, I urge us all to rethink who we elect to the most powerful post in all the free world. Do we elect someone who believes like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, or Thomas Paine? Or do we elect someone who will continue the failed policies that have brought this country to the brink of destruction?

As I started out this article we could learn a lesson from a fictional TV show and make non intervention a prime directive of the United States. We can defend ourselves and the defenseless of this world without violating a country’s sovereignty. It is better to extend the hand of friendship than the backhand of tyranny.

Dan Clements is a member of the Constitution Party and the host of BACK TO BASIC a Christian/political internet talk show. You can listen to Dan from 9 pm-midnights EST. M-F at www.constitutionalwarrior.com

All references are from www.wikipedea.com

RULE OF LAW BEING AN EXAMPLE FOR OUR CHILDREN

By: Dan Clements

I was reading an article the other day by Andrew Ward of Financial times, where he referenced Norma De Lao, president of Siouxland Inidad Latina a local Hispanic community group, warns that any clampdown on illegal immigrants would result in persecution of all Latinos. She says her family, which has been in the US legally since the 1920s, has already been affected by recent tightening of immigration laws. Her brother nearly lost his job at a meat-packing company where he has worked for 25 years because of a typographical error in his Social Security records.

Ms De Lao argues that Hispanics - both legal and undocumented - have been good for Iowa. "Most of the growth in rural Iowa is coming from Hispanics," she says. "These towns were dying. We are the people filling jobs, opening businesses, creating wealth and having children."

I’m all for legal immigration, my forefathers were from Ireland and England. They came here legally through Ellis Island. They waited their turn to come here and make a life for themselves and their posterity. They just didn’t come here to take jobs other wouldn’t do, they came here and created something for themselves, a way of life in the melting pot of America. On my mother side of the family they were farmers, on my dad’s side of the family they where farmers and labor for American industry.

The one thing I learned from them was the RULE OF LAW. My mom and dad taught me to obey and respect the law, and when I broke the law there was consequences to be paid. There was no grey area with my folks. There was no ends justifies the means. You follow the law or you are punished by the law.

Ms De Lao would have us believe that the Hispanics that are coming into this country illegally, are good for the economy. I don’t care what your race is; if you are here legally you are good for this country and economy. If you are here illegally, you are not only bad for this economy; you are tearing down the moral fabric of this country.

Let me explain the last part of my statement. When we tell our children its ok the break the law, as long as you are benefiting from it and you supposedly are not hurting anyone else, it show everyone every where that it is ok to break the law as long as the ends justify the means. If a person robs a bank to pay for a medical procedure, its ok using Ms De Lao’s reasoning. If someone stole from the illegal immigrants because they needed what they had, to survive or live better, it would be ok wouldn’t it? Is this what we want to be teaching our children? Is this a life lesson we want our children to learn?

When we fail to follow the rule of law, then anarchy reins, and everyone can do what they think is right in their sight. In this society we have the rule of law and most of America wants it enforced. We don’t want to see this country slip into anarchy, we want this country to become great again, and this will not happen so long as the rule of law is not followed.

We need a border fence and a military presence on our southern border. We need politicians to follow and enforce the law. We need politicians to follow and enforce the Constitution of the United States and stop following foreign law when it comes to our sovereignty and security.

Let’s be careful about the life lessons we teach our children. I taught my children to follow the rule of law. Will you teach your children the same?

Dan Clements is the host of BACK TO BASIC, and frequent contributor to this blog and others.