So... our country seems to have some trouble lately. With Fort Hood shootings, Sandyhook Elementary, the Boston bombings, we are under attack. There are nearly regular shootings by the mentally unstable and attacks by terrorists.
Yet, our government seems to be confused as to who the enemies of our nation are. The State Department went after our dead ambassador. The DOJ went after the media. The IRS went after conservatives. The NSA is going after everyone.
This, for some reason, is surprising. I don't know why. They've been doing it for years. We knew they were doing it. There's a movie called "Enemy of the State" staring Gene Hackman, John Voit, and Will Smith. We're living it. Political opponents are enemies, while people trying to kill us must be our victims.
That said, if you're asking me is this Snowden or whatever his name is is a hero for leaking, my answer is no. If he thought he was being brave and doing the right thing, he wouldn't have run away. He would have stood in public and taken the consequences. That's the difference between standing for a conviction and just being a turd.
In the mean time, our nation's leaders need to learn the difference between our friends and our enemies. The IRS did this political bullying because Obama has created a culture of corruption and favoritism. He's McCarthyism and Nixon all rolled in one, and no one cares. It's really sad.
Showing posts with label First Amendment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label First Amendment. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 11, 2013
Monday, January 28, 2013
Political Points
Allow me to make a few bullet points about current issues.
Why does it matter?
Hillary Clinton said during a recent congressional hearing "Four people are dead... What does it matter [who did it and why]? We need to figure out what happened to keep it from happening again."
She answered her own question. She took some unfair flack from the "What does it matter?" comment. In context, it wasn't as bad as some tried to make it seem. She wasn't saying that the four dead didn't matter, only that the false information linking it to a youtube video didn't matter. The fact that they refused requests to provide more security didn't matter. The fact that there was a CIA report and a separate military report saying that they were ordered to stand down didn't matter.
That said, she did answer her own question. Why those things matter is because if it could have been stopped but wasn't because it was politically inconvenient matters. The fact that it was deemed too dangerous to send in the FBI to investigate while the New York Times walked through the facility matters. If there was neglegence on behalf of whoever and it lead to four dead it is the same as pulling the trigger. It is murder. And even ignoring that, you can't fix a problem you don't know about. So covering up the problem doesn't help.
Debate?
President Obama said recently that we could have a reasonable debate if people would stop disagreeing with him. I hate to tell you, but a debate it where people present two opposing viewpoints and defend them to each other. In other words, you can't have a debate without people arguing with you!
Higher taxes do not mean higher revenue.
Seems simple, right. Raise the tax rate and you raise more money. Fair share, and all that. California has the highest rate of personal income and corporate taxes. To alieve their financial problem, they're raising taxes again. This means more revenue right? Wrong. Higher taxes means more people are moving their businesses to where taxes are less. In Texas, more people paying in means much more revenue than higher taxes would bring. It's exponential growth. It's even simple multiplication. Go back to high school and do some math.
Semi-automatics aren't what you think.
There is a push to ban semi-automatics. This is because people don't know what they are. Semi-automatic means that if you pull the trigger once, it sends one bullet (as opposed to revolvers, where you have to click the hammer back before you pull the trigger). People are confusing semi-automatic with sub-machine gun. A sub-machine gun is where you hold the trigger and it empties the clip.
Assault weapons aren't what you think.
Assault weapons aren't sub-machine guns. The fact is, assault weapons don't include automatic weapons. They include specialty weapons. For example, a sub-machine gun is legal, but a sub-machine gun with a scope isn't. A shotgun is legal, but a shotgun with a pistol grip isn't. This is the same thing as the illegality of switch-blade knives. Switch-blades aren't more dangerous than any other knife. They aren't easier to conceal. They just look scary. So assault weapons are scary looking guns.
Assault weapons bans don't stop Newtown.
No assault weapons were used at Sandyhook. The guy used two pistols. The proposed weapons ban doesn't stop that massacre.
The reason for the Second Amendment.
For right or wrong, whether you agree or not, our founding fathers put in the second amendment to defend the rest. Freedom and security are opposites. The point of the Bill or Rights, and that one in particular, is that government can easily take away the rights of the people. Guns allow the people to defend themselves. This is exactly what the Arab Spring was about. People were throwing rocks while being shot at. Dictators, whether solo or parlamentary, can easily arrise. The founding fathers didn't want that, so they guarenteed us the right to defend ourselves from all threats, whether personal (like a break in) or national (like a rogue government or invading enemy).
Weapons bans don't work.
I know. You've already got your mind made up about this one, but hear me out. One of the fathers of the Sandyhook victims put it well today. He said that by doing what he did, the madman was already breaking the law. Adding a new law for them to break doesn't matter nearly as much as enforcement of current laws.
By the way, I can't believe I have to explain this but I do. The City of Chicago, the President's home base, has the strictest gun laws. They also have the highest gun crime. And their violent gun crime went up 18% last year, the only major city in the US to see an increase. And Mayor Immanuel needs to butt out. As soon as the massacre happened, he came out and said he was against putting armed police officers in each school. In the mean time, he sends his kids to a private school with armed guards. If he believed what he was selling, he'd send his kids to public school with yours. He should smell what he's shovelling and leave the rest of us alone. Because basically what he's saying is that he doesn't care about protecting your kids, because you are poor.
Why does it matter?
Hillary Clinton said during a recent congressional hearing "Four people are dead... What does it matter [who did it and why]? We need to figure out what happened to keep it from happening again."
She answered her own question. She took some unfair flack from the "What does it matter?" comment. In context, it wasn't as bad as some tried to make it seem. She wasn't saying that the four dead didn't matter, only that the false information linking it to a youtube video didn't matter. The fact that they refused requests to provide more security didn't matter. The fact that there was a CIA report and a separate military report saying that they were ordered to stand down didn't matter.
That said, she did answer her own question. Why those things matter is because if it could have been stopped but wasn't because it was politically inconvenient matters. The fact that it was deemed too dangerous to send in the FBI to investigate while the New York Times walked through the facility matters. If there was neglegence on behalf of whoever and it lead to four dead it is the same as pulling the trigger. It is murder. And even ignoring that, you can't fix a problem you don't know about. So covering up the problem doesn't help.
Debate?
President Obama said recently that we could have a reasonable debate if people would stop disagreeing with him. I hate to tell you, but a debate it where people present two opposing viewpoints and defend them to each other. In other words, you can't have a debate without people arguing with you!
Higher taxes do not mean higher revenue.
Seems simple, right. Raise the tax rate and you raise more money. Fair share, and all that. California has the highest rate of personal income and corporate taxes. To alieve their financial problem, they're raising taxes again. This means more revenue right? Wrong. Higher taxes means more people are moving their businesses to where taxes are less. In Texas, more people paying in means much more revenue than higher taxes would bring. It's exponential growth. It's even simple multiplication. Go back to high school and do some math.
Semi-automatics aren't what you think.
There is a push to ban semi-automatics. This is because people don't know what they are. Semi-automatic means that if you pull the trigger once, it sends one bullet (as opposed to revolvers, where you have to click the hammer back before you pull the trigger). People are confusing semi-automatic with sub-machine gun. A sub-machine gun is where you hold the trigger and it empties the clip.
Assault weapons aren't what you think.
Assault weapons aren't sub-machine guns. The fact is, assault weapons don't include automatic weapons. They include specialty weapons. For example, a sub-machine gun is legal, but a sub-machine gun with a scope isn't. A shotgun is legal, but a shotgun with a pistol grip isn't. This is the same thing as the illegality of switch-blade knives. Switch-blades aren't more dangerous than any other knife. They aren't easier to conceal. They just look scary. So assault weapons are scary looking guns.
Assault weapons bans don't stop Newtown.
No assault weapons were used at Sandyhook. The guy used two pistols. The proposed weapons ban doesn't stop that massacre.
The reason for the Second Amendment.
For right or wrong, whether you agree or not, our founding fathers put in the second amendment to defend the rest. Freedom and security are opposites. The point of the Bill or Rights, and that one in particular, is that government can easily take away the rights of the people. Guns allow the people to defend themselves. This is exactly what the Arab Spring was about. People were throwing rocks while being shot at. Dictators, whether solo or parlamentary, can easily arrise. The founding fathers didn't want that, so they guarenteed us the right to defend ourselves from all threats, whether personal (like a break in) or national (like a rogue government or invading enemy).
Weapons bans don't work.
I know. You've already got your mind made up about this one, but hear me out. One of the fathers of the Sandyhook victims put it well today. He said that by doing what he did, the madman was already breaking the law. Adding a new law for them to break doesn't matter nearly as much as enforcement of current laws.
By the way, I can't believe I have to explain this but I do. The City of Chicago, the President's home base, has the strictest gun laws. They also have the highest gun crime. And their violent gun crime went up 18% last year, the only major city in the US to see an increase. And Mayor Immanuel needs to butt out. As soon as the massacre happened, he came out and said he was against putting armed police officers in each school. In the mean time, he sends his kids to a private school with armed guards. If he believed what he was selling, he'd send his kids to public school with yours. He should smell what he's shovelling and leave the rest of us alone. Because basically what he's saying is that he doesn't care about protecting your kids, because you are poor.
Thursday, August 16, 2012
Who's the Hater?
So people keep calling Bible-believing Christians haters. They say we hate people not like us. Let me make a few clarifications.
1) Westboro Baptist Church do not count as Bible-believing. In fact, Peter warned about them in the Bible. 2 Peter 3:15-16 (NIV) "Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction." They don't speak for us, because they are "ignorant and unstable."
2) There is an old saying in the Christian Church: "Love the sinner; hate the sin." If I truly believe the Bible, (that all people are sinners (Romans 3:23), that God loves everyone (John 3:16) and sent his Son Jesus to take the punishment for our sin (Romans 6:23), that we are all equally guilt (James 2:10), and God wants to save everyone (2 Peter 3:9),) then I have a responsibility. If we all either have to accept God's forgiveness by changing our ways and being obedient to him, or we have to suffer the punishment for our sins. We are all the same. One person described the way we Christians should be as "One beggar telling another beggar where to find bread." Others have described it as throwing a life preserver to a drowning man. This is our job, to love our fellow sinners enough to storm the very gates of hell itself to tell them of the same chance for rescue that we have.
The reason I point these things out is because I'm sick of being falsely labled. But I also have something else to ask.
Are WE the ones that hate?
My sister was recently attacked for taking her infant daughter to get lunch and take it to "Dada." Why was she attacked? The lunch was chicken. She was called ever foul thing these people could think of. They should be embarrassed at their behavior. And all just because her baby missed her daddy.
But the reason I particularly write this today is because of the news yesterday. In our nation's capital, a man walked into a Christian organization and opened fire. Why? Because of their stance on family values.
A few in the media are defending the man, who is likely to be charged with domestic terrorism. They're calling this Christian organization a "hate group."
I'm sorry, but who had the gun? Who was the one trying to kill people? Why are THEY being accused of hate? It seems to any reasonable person that the gunman is the hater.
Here's an idea. Instead of trying to defend his actions to support a political agenda, why not just call him a madman and be done with it.
1) Westboro Baptist Church do not count as Bible-believing. In fact, Peter warned about them in the Bible. 2 Peter 3:15-16 (NIV) "Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction." They don't speak for us, because they are "ignorant and unstable."
2) There is an old saying in the Christian Church: "Love the sinner; hate the sin." If I truly believe the Bible, (that all people are sinners (Romans 3:23), that God loves everyone (John 3:16) and sent his Son Jesus to take the punishment for our sin (Romans 6:23), that we are all equally guilt (James 2:10), and God wants to save everyone (2 Peter 3:9),) then I have a responsibility. If we all either have to accept God's forgiveness by changing our ways and being obedient to him, or we have to suffer the punishment for our sins. We are all the same. One person described the way we Christians should be as "One beggar telling another beggar where to find bread." Others have described it as throwing a life preserver to a drowning man. This is our job, to love our fellow sinners enough to storm the very gates of hell itself to tell them of the same chance for rescue that we have.
The reason I point these things out is because I'm sick of being falsely labled. But I also have something else to ask.
Are WE the ones that hate?
My sister was recently attacked for taking her infant daughter to get lunch and take it to "Dada." Why was she attacked? The lunch was chicken. She was called ever foul thing these people could think of. They should be embarrassed at their behavior. And all just because her baby missed her daddy.
But the reason I particularly write this today is because of the news yesterday. In our nation's capital, a man walked into a Christian organization and opened fire. Why? Because of their stance on family values.
A few in the media are defending the man, who is likely to be charged with domestic terrorism. They're calling this Christian organization a "hate group."
I'm sorry, but who had the gun? Who was the one trying to kill people? Why are THEY being accused of hate? It seems to any reasonable person that the gunman is the hater.
Here's an idea. Instead of trying to defend his actions to support a political agenda, why not just call him a madman and be done with it.
Thursday, August 2, 2012
8-1-12 and the First Amendment. Win, lose, or draw?
Social Media has been active lately, all revolving around chicken. Well, not really chicken. About religious beliefs and whether people have a right to them. If a private citizen was asked about his religion by a religious magazine, can you hold an entire company accountable?
Some organized boycotts. I'm fine with that. I've long said that. If you don't agree with a company, don't go there. If you don't like how Wal-Mart, for example, does business, don't write your congressman. Just shop elsewhere. Because it doesn't matter what you say about a company. They are going to watch their bottom line. So I love the fact that people are boycotting.
Others, to show their support, organized a day to do so. Yesterday, people bought chicken. We have three Chick-Fil-As locally. At least one ran out of Waffle fries! I have friends across the country who reported what theirs looked like. A friend in Maryland went to one, and had to go to the Wendy's across the street, because they only give him and hour for lunch. Wendy's, he said, was also slammed because of the overflow. Someone in Louisville, KY said that local news reports were advising people to detour around every one of them in the city, because they were so packed that cars were blocking traffic in a several block radius of them.
I wanted to see for myself. I didn't want media bias or others propaganda. I drove by the least busy of the three in my city. Cars were wrapped around the block for the drive through. Those going inside took up the parking lot of the restaurant. And the McDonalds next door. And the strip mall behind it. And that end of the Target Parking lot. And that end of the parking area of a kids' play place. I know because I watched people walking to and from their cars. I know because as I drove around, I looked in the window and saw that many could not even fit inside the fast-food place. I've never seen so many people in such a small place. I myself did not go in. I couldn't have gotten inside.
As you know, I often report on the loss of freedoms, especially First Amendment rights. This was a day for either side to make themselves heard.
And yet, this was also a day to watch religious freedom vanish. Under ObamaCare, 8-1 was a day when religious associated charities and medical services are now forced to violate their religious freedom. Catholics in particular object to birth control in all forms as a religious belief. Now they are not just forced to distribute, but pay for something that violates their religion. But this goes beyond just the Catholic Church. According to the ObamaCare definition of birth control, this includes the so called "Morning After" or "Abortion" pill, RU486. That's right. Pro-lifers now have to pay for abortions.
My question is why? Yesterday, people were allowed to buy or boycott chicken, based on their belief. But they are forced to purchase and distribute something that destroys a human being. What's worse, this wasn't covered on the news because of chicken.
So Freedom of Speech and Freedom to Assembly were upheld yesterday. But Freedom of Religion and the Right to Life were not. Hm...
So what do you think? Win? Lose? Draw? I'm a natural pessimist, and I tend to value the unborn over waffle fries, so I'm leaning toward loss. But please leave a comment letting me know what you think. Start with any of the three options, then explain why.
Some organized boycotts. I'm fine with that. I've long said that. If you don't agree with a company, don't go there. If you don't like how Wal-Mart, for example, does business, don't write your congressman. Just shop elsewhere. Because it doesn't matter what you say about a company. They are going to watch their bottom line. So I love the fact that people are boycotting.
Others, to show their support, organized a day to do so. Yesterday, people bought chicken. We have three Chick-Fil-As locally. At least one ran out of Waffle fries! I have friends across the country who reported what theirs looked like. A friend in Maryland went to one, and had to go to the Wendy's across the street, because they only give him and hour for lunch. Wendy's, he said, was also slammed because of the overflow. Someone in Louisville, KY said that local news reports were advising people to detour around every one of them in the city, because they were so packed that cars were blocking traffic in a several block radius of them.
I wanted to see for myself. I didn't want media bias or others propaganda. I drove by the least busy of the three in my city. Cars were wrapped around the block for the drive through. Those going inside took up the parking lot of the restaurant. And the McDonalds next door. And the strip mall behind it. And that end of the Target Parking lot. And that end of the parking area of a kids' play place. I know because I watched people walking to and from their cars. I know because as I drove around, I looked in the window and saw that many could not even fit inside the fast-food place. I've never seen so many people in such a small place. I myself did not go in. I couldn't have gotten inside.
As you know, I often report on the loss of freedoms, especially First Amendment rights. This was a day for either side to make themselves heard.
And yet, this was also a day to watch religious freedom vanish. Under ObamaCare, 8-1 was a day when religious associated charities and medical services are now forced to violate their religious freedom. Catholics in particular object to birth control in all forms as a religious belief. Now they are not just forced to distribute, but pay for something that violates their religion. But this goes beyond just the Catholic Church. According to the ObamaCare definition of birth control, this includes the so called "Morning After" or "Abortion" pill, RU486. That's right. Pro-lifers now have to pay for abortions.
My question is why? Yesterday, people were allowed to buy or boycott chicken, based on their belief. But they are forced to purchase and distribute something that destroys a human being. What's worse, this wasn't covered on the news because of chicken.
So Freedom of Speech and Freedom to Assembly were upheld yesterday. But Freedom of Religion and the Right to Life were not. Hm...
So what do you think? Win? Lose? Draw? I'm a natural pessimist, and I tend to value the unborn over waffle fries, so I'm leaning toward loss. But please leave a comment letting me know what you think. Start with any of the three options, then explain why.
Wednesday, July 11, 2012
Loss of Freedom
So from time to time, I write explaining that we are losing freedom in this country. Constantly. Steadily. I got another one.
A pastor was holding a small group Bible study in his home. No biggy. This happens everyday. In fact, I coordinate these meetings for my own church, and host one at my apartment.
However, this particular Bible Study took a twist, when more than a DOZEN police officers came and arrested the man for having a Bible Study in his home.
Where did this take place? China? Nope. Pakistan? Nah. Iran? Keep guessing.
Phoenix, Arizona.
This man was arrested for having a Bible Study right here in the USA.
Whatever happened to freedom of religion? Freedom of speech? Right to assembly? They're dead, that's what happened.
The local government claims it's a zoning violation, because he had friends over, which might have been too many in case of a fire. Really? Did they arrest everyone who had a Fourth of July barbecue too? Nope.
And another thing, is a Bible study so big an offense to take more than a dozen officers to arrest ONE MAN? One man whose leader was arrested similarly, and like the pastor, offered no resistance? Why did it take more than a dozen officers for a zoning violation?
This man received two months in jail for having friends over to talk about the Bible. This is INSANE. If you can be arrested for holding a small Bible Study in your own home, and get arrested? He was sentenced to 60 days in jail, 3 years probation, and more than $12,000 in fines.
Your freedoms are going bye-bye.
And just to show that I'm not making this up, you can read the article for yourself.
http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/07/11/arizona-pastor-arrested-jailed-for-holding-bible-study-in-home-his-wife-says-it-defies-logic/
Now you have the choice. Shake your head, or do something about it.
A pastor was holding a small group Bible study in his home. No biggy. This happens everyday. In fact, I coordinate these meetings for my own church, and host one at my apartment.
However, this particular Bible Study took a twist, when more than a DOZEN police officers came and arrested the man for having a Bible Study in his home.
Where did this take place? China? Nope. Pakistan? Nah. Iran? Keep guessing.
Phoenix, Arizona.
This man was arrested for having a Bible Study right here in the USA.
Whatever happened to freedom of religion? Freedom of speech? Right to assembly? They're dead, that's what happened.
The local government claims it's a zoning violation, because he had friends over, which might have been too many in case of a fire. Really? Did they arrest everyone who had a Fourth of July barbecue too? Nope.
And another thing, is a Bible study so big an offense to take more than a dozen officers to arrest ONE MAN? One man whose leader was arrested similarly, and like the pastor, offered no resistance? Why did it take more than a dozen officers for a zoning violation?
This man received two months in jail for having friends over to talk about the Bible. This is INSANE. If you can be arrested for holding a small Bible Study in your own home, and get arrested? He was sentenced to 60 days in jail, 3 years probation, and more than $12,000 in fines.
Your freedoms are going bye-bye.
And just to show that I'm not making this up, you can read the article for yourself.
http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/07/11/arizona-pastor-arrested-jailed-for-holding-bible-study-in-home-his-wife-says-it-defies-logic/
Now you have the choice. Shake your head, or do something about it.
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Supreme Court and the Individual Mandate
The Supreme Court just ruled that the government has the right to tell us that we have to buy something. So what will the government tell us that we have to buy next?
6-28-12. Remember this day. Your grandkids will ask you about this day. This is the day when the Supreme Court ruled that the Federal government matters; individual liberty does not.
So ends the dream that was America. This may seem like an overreaction, but the bottom line is freedom and safety are on opposite ends of the spectrum. Both are good, but both are mutually exclusive. The Patriot Act. Obamacare. Next will come some "Hate Speech Act" that makes it illegal to preach from the Bible, because the Bible calls sin what it is, and says that there are consquences.
Understand this, I don't blame Obama. He's doing what he believes to be right. And this isn't a Republican-Democrat things (after all, the Patriot Act was Bush). This is a government vs. liberty issue.
Today, government won.
6-28-12. Remember this day. Your grandkids will ask you about this day. This is the day when the Supreme Court ruled that the Federal government matters; individual liberty does not.
So ends the dream that was America. This may seem like an overreaction, but the bottom line is freedom and safety are on opposite ends of the spectrum. Both are good, but both are mutually exclusive. The Patriot Act. Obamacare. Next will come some "Hate Speech Act" that makes it illegal to preach from the Bible, because the Bible calls sin what it is, and says that there are consquences.
Understand this, I don't blame Obama. He's doing what he believes to be right. And this isn't a Republican-Democrat things (after all, the Patriot Act was Bush). This is a government vs. liberty issue.
Today, government won.
Thursday, May 17, 2012
Predator Drones
Have you heard this story? Congress authorized the use of eight Predator Drones to be used for border patrol, to keep people crossing illegally from our northern and southern borders. But already they've been used in two separate instances within the United States to follow US citizens. Patriot Act? Not enough. Listen in on our phone calls? Not enough. Tracking your web searches? Not enough. GPS in your car, phone, tablet, etc. to track your movements? Not enough. Creating a watch list of people who are a part of organizations, like Caribou lodge, Boy Scouts, and churches? Not enough. Now we have unmanned aircraft designed to hunt our nations enemies like a hawk hunts a rat now being used to hunt us.
Someone once said that security and freedom were antonyms. Our founders gave up their security to chase freedom. Now we give up freedom to chase security. All the while we become less safe, especially from ourselves.
Someone once said that security and freedom were antonyms. Our founders gave up their security to chase freedom. Now we give up freedom to chase security. All the while we become less safe, especially from ourselves.
Thursday, March 15, 2012
Loss of freedom
Yesterday we lost another freedom. President Obama signed a law making it illegal to protest within a certain radius of any member of the Secret Service. The same secret service that protects the politicians.
Want to know what makes it even scarier? I've said for years that both parties are the same. My proof? This law had bipartisan support through both Houses of Congress. Too be fair, it was also opposed by people in both parties, but not by enough to stop it.
We just lost the First Amendment. We are no longer allowed to air our complaints before those who are SUPPOSED to represent us. "We the People" just became "We the Government." Imagine in George Washington, Ben Franklin, and John Hancock, and so many others had never sent that piece of mail to King George. Our government just made the American Revolution illegal. We are no longer allowed to protest the government. This may seem like paranoid ranting to you, but in truth we just lost the number one freedom that makes this country great.
Want to know what makes it even scarier? I've said for years that both parties are the same. My proof? This law had bipartisan support through both Houses of Congress. Too be fair, it was also opposed by people in both parties, but not by enough to stop it.
We just lost the First Amendment. We are no longer allowed to air our complaints before those who are SUPPOSED to represent us. "We the People" just became "We the Government." Imagine in George Washington, Ben Franklin, and John Hancock, and so many others had never sent that piece of mail to King George. Our government just made the American Revolution illegal. We are no longer allowed to protest the government. This may seem like paranoid ranting to you, but in truth we just lost the number one freedom that makes this country great.
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Say WHAT?!!!
I can't believe he said it. I just can't believe it. In an interview, President Obama said that the reason he hasn't done more, is because the Founding Fathers made a mistake by writing the Constitution. If they wouldn't have put in those checks and balances that causes Congress to be able to block things he wanted to do.
I'm sorry, did you just say that you want to be a dictator?
Yes, yes you did.
Wow. I can't believe he said it. I know that so called "Progressives" hate the Constitution. They don't want people to be free. Well, that's not exactly right. They think they want people to be free. But they also believe that people are stupid, so they need to do things whether the people want them or not, like a parent caring for children. "Daddy's home. Have some welfare. Here's a health care bill. While we're at it, you don't really need freedom of religion, so I'm going to take that back."
President Obama hates a representative government, because we don't know what we need. And the people we elect listen (in theory) to us, so their getting in the way of his "better" world. By the way, WE ELECTED YOU, MORON!
This is the same president who tried to get Fox News thrown out of the press core, until the other news organizations (who HATE Fox) revolted to protect freedom of the press. This is the same president who tried to force churches to hire ministers who don't believe what they practice (overturned by one of the few unanimous votes in the history of the Supreme Court), and now is trying to force Catholics to violate their own religious practices. (The press secretary tried to reassure people, saying that they would still have to comply, but they would have a year to change their religion before it was implemented.) This is the same president who bought private companies on behalf of the government, and made it illegal for private Mortgage and Student Loan businesses to operate.
You know me. I try to be politically neutral. But this president has crossed a line in my book. I just hope the damage is not permanent, but can be reversed. If not, our freedoms which have slowly been eroding are about to disappear entirely.
Here's what I propose: Vote. If you like the direction this president wants to go, vote for him, and vote for representatives that agree with him. If not, research the candidate of the other party, and vote for the one who aligns with you. That is how the primary is supposed to work.
I'm sorry, did you just say that you want to be a dictator?
Yes, yes you did.
Wow. I can't believe he said it. I know that so called "Progressives" hate the Constitution. They don't want people to be free. Well, that's not exactly right. They think they want people to be free. But they also believe that people are stupid, so they need to do things whether the people want them or not, like a parent caring for children. "Daddy's home. Have some welfare. Here's a health care bill. While we're at it, you don't really need freedom of religion, so I'm going to take that back."
President Obama hates a representative government, because we don't know what we need. And the people we elect listen (in theory) to us, so their getting in the way of his "better" world. By the way, WE ELECTED YOU, MORON!
This is the same president who tried to get Fox News thrown out of the press core, until the other news organizations (who HATE Fox) revolted to protect freedom of the press. This is the same president who tried to force churches to hire ministers who don't believe what they practice (overturned by one of the few unanimous votes in the history of the Supreme Court), and now is trying to force Catholics to violate their own religious practices. (The press secretary tried to reassure people, saying that they would still have to comply, but they would have a year to change their religion before it was implemented.) This is the same president who bought private companies on behalf of the government, and made it illegal for private Mortgage and Student Loan businesses to operate.
You know me. I try to be politically neutral. But this president has crossed a line in my book. I just hope the damage is not permanent, but can be reversed. If not, our freedoms which have slowly been eroding are about to disappear entirely.
Here's what I propose: Vote. If you like the direction this president wants to go, vote for him, and vote for representatives that agree with him. If not, research the candidate of the other party, and vote for the one who aligns with you. That is how the primary is supposed to work.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Loss of freedom
So I write from time to time about how modern law destroys freedom enforces violations of the Constitution. Here's another for you. The Indiana Supreme Court heard a case. Police were called for a domestic abuse situation. The cops confronted the man, who told them they could not enter his house. One officer went in anyway, and when the man trying to prevent entry shoved the officer, he was tased and arrested.
Here's the problem. They had no warrant. They had no probable cause. Aparently the officers had scene too many cops shows, where the good guy cop breaks the law to get the job done.
What the court ruled, 3-2, was that you have no right to resist an officer who is illegally entering your home. They said this will prevent violence against police officers. They claim you should just appeal to the courts if they do something illegal. With that, a uniformed officer (or someone POSING as an officer) can enter your home, rob you, beat you, and arrest you, and until you get your day in court, you rot in jail. And you'll never get your stuff back. Because you can't prove it, and who is going to trust you over a cop.
Freedom of religion, freedom of speech, protection from illegal search and siezure, these are some of the main reasons our founding father fought a revolution. Oh, how they would weep if they could see how our Constitution is used as toilet paper.
Many might think I'm nuts, or at least overreacting. But this is a pattern. Try getting a speedy trial (6th Amendment), which means if unfairly arrested, you're going to rot for a while. Going to plead the fifth? That's fine, unless a sopena is issued. Freedom of assembly? Get a permit first. Freedom of speech? Not if it ain't PC. And the government can listen in on all of it, without a warrant (thank Bush. Grrr... Stupid Patriot Act). Freedom of religion? They've talked about passing laws requiring ministers like me to have to perform gay marriages. How come I can refuse a wedding for straight people, but not homosexuals? Oh, and of course, evangelism and prayer are banned. Right to keep and bare arms? Get a permit, register the weapon, and keep it locked in a safe at home. Federal government has powers limited to what the Constitution gives them? Yeah, they do everything but.
Ever heard the old fable about putting the frog in boiling water? (Warning! This is a fable! Putting a frog in boiling water will kill it! Do not attempt!) They have turned up the heat, boiling away our rights. Safety is the opposite of freedom. Freedom is risk. In McCarthyism, they gave up all their freedom to get protected from "the communists." Now, we want protected from everyone. It is sad.
Here's the problem. They had no warrant. They had no probable cause. Aparently the officers had scene too many cops shows, where the good guy cop breaks the law to get the job done.
What the court ruled, 3-2, was that you have no right to resist an officer who is illegally entering your home. They said this will prevent violence against police officers. They claim you should just appeal to the courts if they do something illegal. With that, a uniformed officer (or someone POSING as an officer) can enter your home, rob you, beat you, and arrest you, and until you get your day in court, you rot in jail. And you'll never get your stuff back. Because you can't prove it, and who is going to trust you over a cop.
Freedom of religion, freedom of speech, protection from illegal search and siezure, these are some of the main reasons our founding father fought a revolution. Oh, how they would weep if they could see how our Constitution is used as toilet paper.
Many might think I'm nuts, or at least overreacting. But this is a pattern. Try getting a speedy trial (6th Amendment), which means if unfairly arrested, you're going to rot for a while. Going to plead the fifth? That's fine, unless a sopena is issued. Freedom of assembly? Get a permit first. Freedom of speech? Not if it ain't PC. And the government can listen in on all of it, without a warrant (thank Bush. Grrr... Stupid Patriot Act). Freedom of religion? They've talked about passing laws requiring ministers like me to have to perform gay marriages. How come I can refuse a wedding for straight people, but not homosexuals? Oh, and of course, evangelism and prayer are banned. Right to keep and bare arms? Get a permit, register the weapon, and keep it locked in a safe at home. Federal government has powers limited to what the Constitution gives them? Yeah, they do everything but.
Ever heard the old fable about putting the frog in boiling water? (Warning! This is a fable! Putting a frog in boiling water will kill it! Do not attempt!) They have turned up the heat, boiling away our rights. Safety is the opposite of freedom. Freedom is risk. In McCarthyism, they gave up all their freedom to get protected from "the communists." Now, we want protected from everyone. It is sad.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Disappearing Rights
You want more proof that both parties are the same? Both parties, even the Tea Party activists and many Libertarians are plotting to end the first Amendment of the Bill of Rights. In case you don't know, that's the one that gives us the freedom of religion, speech, and the press.
Here's the issue. They want to keep people from being able to worship as they choose. They want to eliminate freedom of religion in favor of getting out one political message or another. Now they want to eliminate freedom of religion for "popular opinion." They are playing on people's prejudices and anger to stop freedom.
They want to stop a mosque from being built near ground zero. Now whatever you think about if they mean this as an insult, a "poke in the eye," or if this is a statement of Muslim superiority, I would ask that each person think this through to the end.
If they stop this from being built, then they will start telling people where they can worship or pray. Soon they will start saying who you can pray to, or if you can. Or if you can own a Bible. Or if you can speak on certain passages (they are already trying on that). Soon we are living in the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany. Our founders believed that the freedom of religion is THE right on which all other are based. All men are "created equal." Who created us that gave us this equality?
Any time we consider any action, we should ask "What precedent does this set?" This has the potential to set a dangerous one.
Here's the issue. They want to keep people from being able to worship as they choose. They want to eliminate freedom of religion in favor of getting out one political message or another. Now they want to eliminate freedom of religion for "popular opinion." They are playing on people's prejudices and anger to stop freedom.
They want to stop a mosque from being built near ground zero. Now whatever you think about if they mean this as an insult, a "poke in the eye," or if this is a statement of Muslim superiority, I would ask that each person think this through to the end.
If they stop this from being built, then they will start telling people where they can worship or pray. Soon they will start saying who you can pray to, or if you can. Or if you can own a Bible. Or if you can speak on certain passages (they are already trying on that). Soon we are living in the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany. Our founders believed that the freedom of religion is THE right on which all other are based. All men are "created equal." Who created us that gave us this equality?
Any time we consider any action, we should ask "What precedent does this set?" This has the potential to set a dangerous one.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
First Amendment
I have heard it said that when a tyrant wants to eliminate freedom and consolidate power, the first thing to go is the freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Look at nations like China, where they are famous for their violation of freedom. They are one of many, many nations that kill people for converting to religions they do not like. Christianity is one of the favorite worldwide. (In India, Muslims and Hindus hate each others and both are highly violent. However, they know the repercussions and retaliations that would follow, so they kill Christians, who "turn the other cheek.")
We have seen the affects, in the USSR, Nazi Germany, North Korea, Vietnam, and most every Muslim country. Actually, in many ways, only America has afforded these freedom to the degree we have them. The first Amendment of the Bill of Rights, the basis for the rest of our rights, states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Or maybe I should say had. They are trying to eliminate these. Who? Those in power. Those in power want more. From the Patriot Act, we see clear violation-freedom of speech. Even in the past, they said "You can't assemble unless you are under a flag." We have these rights in our own country regardless of props.
This week seniors were told they could not say grace before dinner. Seriously? Seniors? I guarantee there were veterans in that crowd. Vets who preserved those freedoms in places like Iwo Jima, Germany, Korea, and Vietnam now were being denied the first of our rights (the nursing home since reversed the decision).
President Obama, unfortunately also makes this list of violators. He tried repeatedly to silence his critics in unprecedented ways. He attempted to deny Fox News access to the press core, until the other networks balked. He has also been on a rampage against Glenn Beck. Yesterday, he made a speech saying that things like the iPod and Xbox were evil, because there was too much information out there. For starters, the Xbox doesn't spread information. Two, he specifically talked about conservative bloggers (me), talk radio hosts, Fox News, and virtually anything else that contradicts the all-powerful White House.
You also have the Attorney General trying to get Miranda Rights to no longer apply to US citizens. I don't care if they don't tell me I have the right to a jury trial, silence, speedy trial, to an attorney, and protected from unreasonable search and seizure or cruel and unusual punishment. They are trying to say that I don't have those rights until they tell me I do. Screw that. Those rights are given to me by the signers of the Declaration, and all those who have fought and died for this country since. I don't care what they tell me. They are trying to strip that away for any citizen "suspected of terrorist ties." Considering some (like Nancy Pelosi) consider anyone who voices a differing opinion of being a terrorist, this is not comforting.
We have seen the affects, in the USSR, Nazi Germany, North Korea, Vietnam, and most every Muslim country. Actually, in many ways, only America has afforded these freedom to the degree we have them. The first Amendment of the Bill of Rights, the basis for the rest of our rights, states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Or maybe I should say had. They are trying to eliminate these. Who? Those in power. Those in power want more. From the Patriot Act, we see clear violation-freedom of speech. Even in the past, they said "You can't assemble unless you are under a flag." We have these rights in our own country regardless of props.
This week seniors were told they could not say grace before dinner. Seriously? Seniors? I guarantee there were veterans in that crowd. Vets who preserved those freedoms in places like Iwo Jima, Germany, Korea, and Vietnam now were being denied the first of our rights (the nursing home since reversed the decision).
President Obama, unfortunately also makes this list of violators. He tried repeatedly to silence his critics in unprecedented ways. He attempted to deny Fox News access to the press core, until the other networks balked. He has also been on a rampage against Glenn Beck. Yesterday, he made a speech saying that things like the iPod and Xbox were evil, because there was too much information out there. For starters, the Xbox doesn't spread information. Two, he specifically talked about conservative bloggers (me), talk radio hosts, Fox News, and virtually anything else that contradicts the all-powerful White House.
You also have the Attorney General trying to get Miranda Rights to no longer apply to US citizens. I don't care if they don't tell me I have the right to a jury trial, silence, speedy trial, to an attorney, and protected from unreasonable search and seizure or cruel and unusual punishment. They are trying to say that I don't have those rights until they tell me I do. Screw that. Those rights are given to me by the signers of the Declaration, and all those who have fought and died for this country since. I don't care what they tell me. They are trying to strip that away for any citizen "suspected of terrorist ties." Considering some (like Nancy Pelosi) consider anyone who voices a differing opinion of being a terrorist, this is not comforting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)