Saturday, December 18, 2010
I know many conservatives will view this last lame duck session as reasonably successful, having defeated the omnibus spending bill and the DREAM act. Those were necessary for our fiscal health as a nation and I won't deny it.
I also know that this legislation will weaken our military and cause many who were of unquestioned good character to leave to protect their spotless reputations. I know that it will cause others of somewhat weaker character, bereft of the companionship of those who would have otherwise restrained them from rash actions, to follow less than honorable impulses.
I have no doubt that the vast majority of those troops who remain will do their best to serve with honor. I would not wish to be guilty of besmirching the reputation of those who remain and serve faithfully. However, I view this action on the part of the 111th Congress not just as an appeasement of those selfish enough to demand to serve regardless of the consequences to our military and our nation.
In truth, I view it as an attempt to not only demoralize our military, but as an attempt on the part of Mr. Obama to build a military that may regard their first loyalty to be to him rather than to the nation. There is an oath that is taken upon entering the military. One that specifies that the individual taking it will defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. I highly doubt that a group of people whose perspective is so skewed as to hold their own selfish wishes above the security of our nation will be willing to defend a Constitution that they have been alternately fighting and ignoring these many years.
Perhaps I am old fashioned. Perhaps I am a prude. Or perhaps, I just understand the difference between convenience and necessity. The difference between wants and needs. The difference in the character of those who act for selfish reasons and those who act for selfless reasons.
Character counts and we have just dealt a serious blow to the character of our armed forces.
May God help us, although I have no idea why, at this point, He would. This is as clear a message to the Lord that this nation no longer respects, serves or worships Him as the continuing shameful legality of abortion for any reason other than the life of the mother.
Perhaps He will see fit to remember and preserve that irate, tireless minority who, like myself, serve Him still. I know it is His wish that all would come to salvation, but actions have consequences. He would not be just to withhold such consequences from a nation who has abandoned Him after He has blessed us so richly.
" For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
"~ Rom 1:17-32
Friday, December 17, 2010
"You can fight back with following explicit instructions. You have rights and by "fighting back" I am referring to via the Police Departments and Sexual Assault Investigators/Detectives within the police departments, FBI and the media.
Get to the airport early.
First, calmly and respectfully tell the TSA Screener that you are objecting to the invasive body search even though you are not being given a choice to either refuse it or leave the airport.
This means that you are being forced against your will to submit. If they tell you that you must submit, then it is like a man putting a knife to your throat and giving you no choice. You are forced either way."
Please read the rest of this excellent article on how to stand up for your fourth, fifth and eighth amendment rights with regard to the new TSA "enhanced pat-down" procedures/scanners.
We, as Americans have a duty to stand up for our rights, even if it is inconvenient, embarrassing and scary. It is our duty. I suggest that everyone who flies should download this article, print it off and do exactly as the article suggests.
"Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him: but I will maintain mine own ways before him.
Saturday, December 11, 2010
But when giving thanks, I don't want to neglect my thanks for the many challenges and trials of my life. Some of them have been very painful and difficult, but I have learned valuable things from all of them. Sometimes the lessons I have learned have cost me dearly, but I would not trade them. They have shaped me into the person that I am today. Countless times they have saved me from worse trials or allowed me to help others avoid bad situations. They have also allowed me to offer counsel to others who are facing challenges of their own.
I have hope that these lessons will provide me with faith and hope in the trials to come.
I am truly thankful and bless and praise God for all the He has allowed me to learn and do in this lifetime as well as for His redeeming work on the cross.
"For whom the LORD loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth."~Proverbs 3:12
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Then on Dec. 1st, I am interviewing Michael Lynch, one of the authors of American Midnight. This is a novel set in middle America. The book is realistic enough that I found myself becoming a bit paranoid towards the middle of the book. It draws you into the storyline very effectively and is a fairly quick read. For my regular listeners, please note that the Dec. 1st show will be at 6:30pm rather than 1:30. Feel free to call in if you have questions for this author.
Whom resist stedfast in the faith, knowing that the same afflictions are accomplished in your brethren that are in the world.
But the God of all grace, who hath called us unto his eternal glory by Christ Jesus, after that ye have suffered a while, make you perfect, stablish, strengthen, settle you." ~1 Peter 5:8-10
Thursday, November 18, 2010
It is our time to undergo the fatigues of supporting freedom. It is our time to insure that our soldiers do not come home to find that they are significantly less free then they were when they left.
One of the ways we support freedom is by resisting legislation that make us less free.
Legislation like S 510. The Food Modernization and Safety act which, while touting safety, may remove our ability to garden or buy food from local producers at farmer's markets and the like. The problem is not that people do not want their food to be safe, but rather that we believe ourselves able to make our own judgements regarding the safety of food from our gardens and local producers.
Legislation like the repeal of the military personnel eligibility act of 1993. This was unanimously approved by Congress less than ten years ago. Has our military or the world changed so significantly during those few years that this is a reasonable move? The bottom line is what will best serve the needs of our military, not what one special interest group, no matter how organized, wants. I rather imagine that there are groups within this nation that, were they organized, would constitute a larger segment of the population than this group, yet they are not organizing and demanding to be included in a military whose standards exempt them from service. Our military as it stands is the finest fighting force on this planet. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
One of the other ways we do our civic duty is to vote for our elected representatives. We are to vote for people who represent our values and who are of strong character. People who will not be swayed by political correctness or bribery or any thing other than what is best for our nation.(Or whatever level of government to which we are electing them.)
These examples show the ordinary actions needed to maintain our nation and it's freedoms. You call your elected representatives and let them know what you think. It's easy. It can be done with a minimum of fuss and time. Just a few minutes and you've done your duty. Voting takes a few hours out of every year to actually cast a vote and a minimum of research to decide for whom that vote should be cast. This is when it is easy to fulfill your duty as a citizen of this, most free of all nations.
This next example is about when it is not so easy. The TSA was established as a reaction to a terrible attack on our nation. The goal of the TSA is to prevent another such incident from taking place. However, the TSA has overstepped it's bounds by quite a bit. The authority of a federal agency may not exceed the Constitutional limits put upon the federal government itself and the TSA has done so.
In initiating these new screening procedures, as well as some that are probably not so new, by my count, the TSA has violated no less than three Constitutional amendments when they elect to put someone through the more stringent screening. Here is what I understand the procedure to entail.
- The TSA selects an individual to go through extra screening, for a variety of reasons, all of which involve some degree of profiling. (Everything from "the metal detector beeped" to They were wearing a competing team's football Jersey" to "she was good looking" are among the reasons I have heard and I'm sure there are others.)
- That individual is taken aside and asked to either go through a machine which will perform a virtual strip search or be subjected to an "enhanced" pat-down which includes the TSA agent touching intimate body parts, or possibly both. Possibly in full view of their fellow passengers.
- Once an individual has been moved into the special screening area, they are subject to a fine of up to $10,000 if they leave before submitting to these procedures.
Now let's look at the amendments which, in my opinion, are broken by this procedure.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
I think hijacking an airliner or attempting to do so would constitute a capital or otherwise infamous crime. If an individual is not allowed to leave the screening area without being subject to a fine, that demonstrates that the individual so selected has been presumed guilty. This is without a trial of any sort. Forcing an individual to go through this sort of invasive screening is also the equivalent to forcing the individual to testify against themselves if they cannot afford the fine for leaving.
(In addition, the definition of sexual assault in many states is something along the lines of unwanted touching under coercion or threat of force. I think the threat of a $10,000 fine qualifies as coercion in my book.)
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
$10,000 dollars for refusing to fly if you must subject yourself to these screening procedures and leave the screening area before they have been inflicted on you. You have not been tried, nor convicted of a crime, merely decided not to have your privacy invaded for the convenience of flying. This fine, in my opinion, is excessive. It demonstrates as well that the government considers you to be guilty of a crime for merely entering an airport and deciding not to fly. We are not under martial law here. There is no epidemic that would restrict people from traveling wherever they want, so there is no justification for these procedures.
Oh some may argue that we are in a time of public danger. I assert that we have never had a time when terrorists did not have the ability or inclination to attack us. Indeed, there have been many attacks before the tragedy of 9/11 against this nation both abroad and on US soil. Why are these procedures more necessary/acceptable now? Simply because that was a spectacular event? Or simply because we are more aware of a threat that has always existed? I submit that it is the second and further, that these procedures do not make us any more safe than we were before they were implemented. We the People need to demonstrate that a free people does not give up their unalienable rights over such threats. That we are willing and able to stand against terrorism of any sort. And that we can defend ourselves without resorting to a police state.
It is our duty, our civic duty, as American citizens, to stand up to the TSA and refuse to allow them to violate our Constitutional rights. You do not give them up when you purchase a ticket or walk into the airport. They are unalienable. Yes, this will be scary and inconvenient. Blood has been shed to protect these very freedoms. We owe those who shed that blood the duty of being inconvenienced to protect what they have paid so dearly to provide for us.
The choice is ours: Freedom or Security?
Bear in mind that no one is really safe if they are not free.
"And the chief captain answered, With a great sum obtained I this freedom. And Paul said, But I was free born. "~ Acts 22:28
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Now, we must not rest on our laurels, but instead remain steadfast in our opposition to the agenda laid out and relentlessly pursued by this administration. Stay in contact with those who are new to DC. Do not allow them to forget who elected them and why. Let them know that we expect the best from them and that we will be their support throughout their sojourn in the vice ridden cesspool that our nation's capital has become. Let them not regard with pleasure the honeyed utterances of those whose sole agenda has been to control the people and strip us of our God given and Constitutionally affirmed rights.
We must not underestimate the forces that oppose us, nor the damage that they may yet do. We must be vigilant in guarding our own freedoms and protecting those of our posterity. We must not leave our children and grandchildren in a state of debt slavery to other nations.
I commend Oklahoma for their vote to disallow the use of sharia in Oklahoma courts and I fervently hope the rest of the nation follows suit.
"Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens: "~Exodus 18:25
Monday, October 25, 2010
A Call to Mobilize the American Blogosphere in Support of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff
We, the undersigned — consisting of four European blogs, one Canadian blog, and one American blog — have written this post jointly as a public call for our American colleagues to take up the cause of the Austrian feminist and anti-jihad activist Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff.
Geert Wilders is well-known to most American conservative and libertarian bloggers, but Elisabeth’s case is not so prominent. Like Mr. Wilders, she faces trial for reporting factual information about Islam. Her “crime” was to conduct public seminars in which she described Islamic doctrine, quoted from the Koran, and explained to her listeners what she considers the dangers of Islam.
Like Mr. Wilders, Elisabeth has been charged with “hate speech” for her words. Unlike Mr. Wilders, however, Elisabeth is a private citizen, a wife, and the mother of a small child. She lacks the major resources necessary to defend herself against the well-funded organs of the state which seek to persecute her.
Elisabeth will go on trial in Vienna on November 23rd, in what is clearly a political action intended to silence anyone who dissents against the prevailing multicultural orthodoxy.
We, her European and North American supporters, have formed Elisabeth’s Voice to ensure that she is not silenced. By appealing for financial aid, we hope to ensure that her defense is well-funded. By appealing for publicity, we hope to ensure that her case is well-known, not just in Austria and the rest of Europe, but across the entire Western world.
Americans may think that Elisabeth’s is a uniquely European plight, and has nothing to do with them. But make no mistake about it: the same repression is on its way to the United States of America. As the recent cases of Molly Norris, Juan Williams, and Derek Fenton demonstrate, free speech may already be taken away by non-juridical means. Dissent is even now being silenced in schools and on college campuses, and politically incorrect expression is cause for dismissal from both public and private employment.
The same types of “hate speech” laws that were used against Elisabeth in Austria are being prepared for the United States through the work of the United Nations. At the initiative of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, the UN is on the verge of requiring all member states to pass laws criminalizing “the defamation of religions, including Islam.”
Your president, Barack Hussein Obama, has indicated his support for the UN’s proposed resolution. Time is running out for all of us. If we don’t stand up now for people like Geert Wilders, Ezra Levant, Mark Steyn, and Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, there will be no one to stand up for us later, when our turn comes.
Links to detailed information about Elisabeth’s case may be found at the bottom of this post, along with a link to her legal defense website where you may donate to her cause.
"And I delivered you out of the hand of the Egyptians, and out of the hand of all that oppressed you, and drave them out from before you, and gave you their land;" ~ Judges 6:9
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Over the last few decades, the public school system has become more and more oppressive and parents have allowed it. Our children have no guarantees that they will be able to exercise their Constitutional rights in school. Now, in addition to other security monitoring systems, schools in Texas have incorporated RFID tracking chips into the ID cards their students must carry.
This is purportedly being done to make the schools eligible for more federal and state funding by providing proof that a student who is not in class may, in fact, be on campus and therefore, technically, in attendance for the purposes of determining funding. The invasion of the students privacy is justifiable in the eyes of administrators because they get money out of it and besides, the students are used to the security cameras already.
What this does is take yet another right, a precious right away from our children while they are in the public school system. The right to privacy. Do you understand that? Do you understand that our children are being trained to accept this lack of personal liberty along with the previous losses as a matter of course. And, once again, the parents of the community allow this to be done to their children. Why? In the interest of an imaginary safety?
How safe are we when our children are being given neither the opportunity to experience personal liberty nor defend it? How can we expect children who have been subjected to such oppression to defend this republic from enemies the like of those we are facing now?
Do I need to add any comments about what is being taught in the public schools these days?
We need to take back our school system just as urgently as we need to take back our government. Until we do, homeschooling is the best option, even if you can't afford it. Because, if our children are not brought up to value the freedoms given to us by our creator and codified in our Constitution, they will not see the value in preserving them.
"And thou shalt teach them diligently to thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up." ~ Deut 6:7
Friday, October 8, 2010
"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." ~ John 14:6
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Saturday, October 2, 2010
No, you don't. Frankly, none of us do. We have an idea, but that's all. The bureaucracy has been growing beyond need, beyond reason, for well over 100 years. No one alive remembers what it was like to be truly free, in the way our Founders intended.
But while you imagine and desire life under such a system, we must also understand that one election is NOT going to turn this thing around. It took a long time for us to wander so far off track; it will take a long time to return. Many a Himalayan mountain of red tape would have to be untangled, and there are hundreds of thousands of employees who would lose their jobs. Such a dismantling would be ugly, and unpleasant, for a time."
This post is worth reading. I would also point out that in the revolutionary war, the Americans lost one percent of their population in battle. To put it in real terms, that would be the equivalent of losing about three million people out of our current population of approximately 300 million. The importance of having the luxury of taking our country back through the electoral process cannot be demonstrated any better than by that number.
(Thanks to Mr. Morris for the correction.)
"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's."~
Friday, September 24, 2010
For me, those ideals include the notion that we are all equal under the law.
Today, I have seen a confirmation that my fellow citizens do indeed believe, as do I, that justice should be applied equally to all American citizens, and also that our government, at it's highest levels has gone terribly astray.
Today, DOJ employee Christopher Coates has responded to a subpoena, against the orders of his employers at the DOJ, to testify before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights about the equal enforcement of the law. He invoked whistle blower protections to do so.
As proud as I am to see this fellow American stand up to the DOJ,(that's Department of Justice for those who are wondering) I am still appalled that it was necessary. PJTV has posted Mr. Coates testimony. This is something that every citizen of our nation needs to know, regardless of your political or even your ideological views.
The actions of the Department of Justice in this matter are incomprehensible to me. I remind myself that we are all just human beings and everyone makes mistakes, but I am sorely disappointed in these folks nonetheless. The spirit of America has been betrayed by the very folks trusted with upholding it and trust, once lost is not easily restored.
I plan to read Mr. Coates' testimony on Wednesday's show.
"He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust: his truth shall be thy shield and buckler." ~ Psalm 91:4
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Political Pistachio: Don't Ask, Don't Tell - Lady Gaga and the Democrats:
"In those rules created by Congress are the limitations regarding who can, and cannot, serve in the armed forces. The determinations are based on what the military, and Congress, believes to be what most benefits the discipline and battle readiness of the military. Limits on height, weight, physical abilities, family status, and a whole host of other things, are all in place to make sure that our fighting men and women are the best of the best. In response, should potential service members that are denied the opportunity to serve for being too tall, or too fat, or unable to pass the fitness tests, or are single parents sue the government because their 'Constitutional Right to serve' was denied? Should married service members who are denied nuclear submarine duty demand that the military not deny them the right to serve aboard a sub?
The answer is obvious. These people are denied for reasons that include what is best for our military. They don't have a right to serve any more than does homosexuals.
What is best for the armed forces is the issue at hand, not what is best for the individual."
Please read the entire post. It's worth your time.
For my part, I applaud those of a patriotic spirit with physical/mental disabilities or chronic illnesses, those who simply don't meet the height or weight requirements and those who may be too individualistic to pass the psych evaluation who don't attempt to put their personal agenda over the lives of their fellow Americans by insisting that they , too should be allowed to serve. They also serve who sit and wait.
"Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." ~ John 15:13
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
by Roxana Tiron
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) intends to bring the 2011 defense authorization bill to the floor next week.
The defense bill contains critical military policy as well as a provision that would repeal the ban on openly gay people serving in the military. Reid was scheduled to meet with Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) on Monday afternoon to discuss his plans.
Gay rights groups view September as a critical month in the Senate for the fate of the defense authorization bill and the provision to repeal “Don't ask, don't tell.” Any action delayed until after the Nov. 2 elections could diminish the chances of repeal for the Clinton-era law.
They applauded Reid's decision to move to the bill.
“We applaud the Senate Majority Leader's courage and his statement tonight to bring the defense bill to the floor. Now, we must deliver,” said Aubrey Sarvis, Army veteran and executive director for Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, an organization dedicated to repealing the ban. “Repeal proponents may well need 60 votes in the Senate to get to this important debate in September. We are now in the final stretch and we must prevail."
It’s unclear if Republicans will agree to consider the defense bill given the inclusion of the don't ask, don't tell repeal and other controversial provisions. Reid will need 60 votes, including at least one Republican, to move the legislation to the floor.
So far, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, has opposed bringing up the defense bill and threatened a filibuster. McCain opposes several parts of the bill, including the repeal of “Don't ask, don't tell” and a provision allowing abortions to be performed in military hospitals as long as they are not paid for with federal money. "
I generally don't post other people's work to my blog, but this is an important issue which seems to be flying under the radar. I have to ask myself, if they are so certain that it won't be approved after the elections, is it something Congress should be voting on now?
If it were truly for the good of the nation, couldn't it stand up to the results of the Dept. of Defense study regarding the implementation of such a huge change in policy? (It is ironically fitting that a bill which has the potential to do so much damage to our military and our nation includes provisions for forcing military doctors to kill unborn American citizens.) Mr. McCain, whom I view as a RINO in most other things, seems to be serving his country's best interests here.
"And he said unto them, Let the LORD be so with you, as I will let you go, and your little ones: look to it; for evil is before you. " ~Exodus 10:10
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
"And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat. "~ Gen 3:13
Friday, August 27, 2010
"Have they no decency?" was referring to the folks at Time magazine. There is no one I have spoken to, liberal or conservative who has said that Muslims should not have the right to worship as they please within Constitutional limits. There is also no one I have spoken to about this issue who is not outraged on the grounds of simple, human decency that Muslims want to put up a mosque so near to ground zero. The argument that this mosque is a way for Americans to learn more about and assimilate to Islam is almost as crude and obnoxious as putting up a giant gas chamber at Auschwitz to help Jewish people learn more about and assimilate to Nazism. The very name of the mosque, the Cordoba Initiative, sends a message of Islamic victory over America throughout the Muslim world. It is outrageous that anyone in their right mind could even suggest that this mosque is anything but indecent.
The mayor of New York should be ashamed. I wonder how much money is changing hands to get his approval for a mosque that is a grotesque mockery of the lives lost in the 9/11 attack. I must concede, however, that the very idea of this mosque has opened the eyes of many Americans to the inherent threat to our republic posed by the dictates of Islam and sharia law in particular.
That's why my second thought was"I hope so." Not because I hate Muslims, I do not. My own faith counts them equally as precious to God as any other person. Rather, "I hope so." because the religion of Islam contains within it, a financial and legal system which are diametrically opposed to our current system of government and has, as the object of it's faith, the conquest of the world for Islam.
I am not someone who will encourage Muslims to change or deny the basic tenets of their faith. I don't think that is realistic or ethical. I do, however, expect the followers of that religion to accept, without cavil, the logical consequences of holding to that faith.
Those consequences are:
- to be doubted, because your religion countenances lying;
- to have the legal and financial aspects of your faith to be inconvenient for or denied to you in this nation, because they are at odds with the fundamental principles upon which this nation was founded; and
- to be suspected of terrorism anywhere you go because the only sure way to a pleasant afterlife in your faith is through death in war or violent jihad.
I would no more expect Muslims to give up the violent aspects of jihad or the tenets of sharia than I would give up the blood of Jesus. My faith is consistent with the founding principles of this nation. The Muslim faith is not. There is no shame in opposing that which seeks to institute destruction and death in favor of that which seeks life and freedom. Perhaps this nation's MSM should take a good hard look at their Muslim brethren.
"But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?
And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
Then the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, What need we any further witnesses?" ~Mark 14:61-63
Friday, August 13, 2010
Thursday, August 5, 2010
It's all well and good for me to talk about how we should be voting on character and values rather than party affiliation, but how do you determine what kind of character a candidate has or what values they hold?
Sometimes they make it easy for you. (I am still glad I don't live in the area where this young woman is running for office. If her electorate finds such a thing acceptable, I'm prtetty sure I wouldn't fit in.)
"Unto this day they do after the former manners: they fear not the LORD, neither do they after their statutes, or after their ordinances, or after the law and commandment which the LORD commanded the children of Jacob, whom he named Israel;"~ 2 Kings 17:34
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Unfortunately for Oklahoma farmers, such a change would result in fines for doing something as simple as driving down a dirt road to check on or get to their crops. If they raise cattle? Well they'd best have a way to keep them critters still, because too much milling around on the part of a herd of animals could also result in fines from the EPA on a dry day or in a dry year.
Why? Because the EPA wants to regulate dust as a pollutant.
Apparently common sense really isn't common.
" It is good that a man should both hope and quietly wait for the salvation of the LORD.
It is good for a man that he bear the yoke in his youth.
He sitteth alone and keepeth silence, because he hath borne it upon him.
He putteth his mouth in the dust; if so be there may be hope.
He giveth his cheek to him that smiteth him: he is filled full with reproach.
For the LORD will not cast off for ever: "~Lam 3:26-31
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
said the head of campus security in response to my question about their policy on pocket knives.
Yes, I was in attendance at a parent orientation event for my son's college. "I beg to differ" was my reply. "Well, why do you think anyone should be able to carry a knife?" she asked as though I were the slow student in a class. In addition to what should have been obvious, that I am a responsible adult who hadn't attacked anyone with my knife at breakfast or even at dinner the previous evening simply because it was handy,( as is almost always the implication when discussing these types of policies) I said that I had been in the habit, when I was younger, of carrying a pocket knife everywhere I went and it had been extremely useful in a number of situations. That, in addition to the blade, my pocketknife had had a variety of screwdriver tips and other useful tools.
Her response was not to acknowledge that a pocketknife was actually a very useful tool, (since scissors are generally awkward to carry) but rather to tell the rest of the parents to send a set of screwdrivers with their child, almost jokingly forcing the assumption that only the other tools I had referenced on my pocketknife had been useful, rather than asserting that the blade itself was a useful tool.
Then she shook her head dolefully while loudly repeating "THERE IS NO REASON FOR A STUDENT TO HAVE A KNIFE ON CAMPUS" as though by saying it slowly, it would become a less ridiculous thing to say. The other parents looked at me in some revulsion, as though I had grown a second head, or maybe that's just my perception since I was so obviously being scolded by the wise head of campus security whose job it is to keep our precious children safe.(From pocketknife wielding maniacs such as myself no doubt.)
While I was being assured that the bread knives they could use for dining purposes were the only knives allowed on campus, (A pointless gesture since sharp edges are available almost anywhere if someone is so motivated.)my son was being assured by the older students who were administering his orientation that "pretty much anything is okay as long as you don't get caught."
My point here is not that the students are bad people, or that the policies are excessively nannyish(or at least not my whole point), but rather that when regulations get to a certain point of intrusiveness, people ignore them and do what they like. There is a balance that must be maintained between personal responsibility and safety. Just as the excessive protectiveness at this institution of higher learning(and nearly all others of which I am aware) has generated an attitude of "just be careful not to get caught while you are breaking the rules" in the students, so does it occur in the general population. The problem is that when a people are forced to abandon the study of and adherence to our laws because they have become overly intrusive or protective and multiplied beyond comprehension, then we are likely to gradually come to a point where we disregard all laws.
If we are not a nation of laws, then we cannot have the highest level of individual freedom that is possible in a stable society. We must either restrain the government from becoming so intrusive, through laws, regulations and ordinances, that common sense will no longer serve to keep an individual safe from the breaking of those laws or prepare for a society where the law is regarded as a tyrant from whom we must hide our activities if we wish to live a reasonably normal life.
Laws serve a purpose. What we need to decide in November, is whether the purpose of laws is to assure a stable society with the greatest amount of individual liberty possible in such a society or to subjugate the people to a tyrannical government that can enforce archaic or little known laws at any time to enforce their will on the people as a whole.
The IRS has become the master tool of behavioral modification for the nation already. Now they will be in charge of regulating our access to health care as well as our ability to keep our money and our property.
Vote on character, not party in November. It may be the last chance we have at freedom. If we are willing to claim it, it will only be the beginning of the struggle to restore our freedom.
" But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. " ~ Gal 3:23-24
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
It seemed that the free hosting site Blogtery has had their server seized by the authorities. There is a link at their site to a thread discussing, among other things, whether or not the authorities are acting within the law. The consensus on the thread seems to be that they are.
The e-mailed responses to queries of Blogtery's owner, which he/she has posted on the thread are as follows:
"Due to the history of abuse and on going abuse on this 'bn.***********' server.We have opted to terminate this server, effective immediately. This termination applies to: bn.affiliateplex.comAbuse DepartmentBurstNET Technologies, Inc "
"Hello, again.Thank you for providing your pin. It has been verified.Bn.xx*********** was terminated by request of law enforcement officials, due to material hosted on the server.We are limited as to the details we can provide to you, but note that this was a critical matter and the only available option to us was to immediately deactivate the server.The following section of our Service Agreement Contract (https://www.burst.net/policy/contract.pdf) addresses this type of issue:.......... "
"I'm sorry for the delay. I have been awaiting a response regarding this issue from one of my colleagues.Please note that this was not a typical case, in which suspension and notification would be the norm. This was a critical matter brought to our attention by law enforcement officials. We had to immediately remove the server.The pre-payment for invoice #1289289 (bn.xxxxx***********. (07/11/2010 - 08/10/2010)) has been credited back to your account."
Further Burstnet appears to have commented on the thread saying this:
"We notified him when we terminated it, and we refunded him his money to his account, becasue he has other servers with us. If he wants the refund to his card, we can easily do that. However, it should be the least of his concern.Simply put: We cannot give him his data nor can we provide any other details. By stating this, most would recognize that something serious is afoot.As far as his request to speak with the law enforcement officials, he sent it last night at 7PM, after Customer service was closed. We are looking into his request with the necessary persons.This is the last post we will make on this subject."
On the surface, this seems pretty cut and dried, the site was warned and had their service terminated according to the TOS and at the request of law enforcement. So, what's the problem?
The problem is that Blogtery provided free hosting to some 73,000 blogs. Now, I know law enforcement is tough and criminals are sneaky, but is it really necessary to shut down 73,000 blogs to curtail the criminal activities of ...how many? Surely not all 73,000 bloggers were violating the TOS or piracy laws or whatever else would have caused the authorities to take such an extreme action. Yet, neither they, nor the owner of Blogtery have been able to get their data back. I hope they had backups.
The owner of Blogtery.com professes to be ignorant of any wrongdoing and says that whenever they have received notice of violations, the violators have been removed within 24 hours. Most of the other posters seem to have assumed that the owner of Blogtery has not been cooperative with the owners of Burstnet or the authorities in policing the server.
Maybe that's true. Still, I found myself with more questions than answers.
Upon looking for more information, I found a report here on the matter which was referenced on the Dept. of Homeland Security's "Daily Open Source Infrastructure Report for 21 July 2010"'
According to the report, " “It was revealed that a link to terrorist material, including bomb-making instructions and an al-Qaeda ‘hit list', " were contained in the offending blog.
Furthermore, it appears, from the report, that it was Burstnet's decision to take down the entire site rather than just the offending blog.
"Upon review, BurstNET determined that the posted material, in addition to potentially inciting dangerous activities, specifically violated the BurstNET acceptable use policy. "This policy strictly prohibits the posting of ‘terrorist propaganda, racist material, or bomb/weapon instructions.’ Due to this violation and the fact that the site had a history of previous abuse, BurstNET elected to immediately disable the system."
I'm still wondering, why take down the entire site? It seems counterproductive to good business to make 72,999 customers upset for the actions of one. It doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense.
"Truth shall spring out of the earth; and righteousness shall look down from heaven." ~Psalm 85:11
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Don't believe it? The TEA Parties, independents, republicans,and libertarians and etc. have all weighed in on how We the People are going to "Take America back!" Really? By doing what? All I hear is that democrats are going to lose their seats in November. So What?
Let's say the democrats do lose. To whom will they be losing? That's right - by and large to republicans who may or may not have decided to behave and vote according to the values they are commonly perceived as having. I say again-so what? What's the threat if republicans don't behave themselves and vote according to those values-as they didn't in the Bush administration?
That's right, we vote the democrats in, in the next election. Beginning to see a problem here? If neither party represents our values as Americans any longer, then voting for the candidates of either party will not address our current challenges. In fact, voting for the candidates put forth by either party will very likely result in more of the same and worse.
Our republic rests on the exercise of self discipline and personal responsibility by the electorate. We need candidates who believe in us, as a people. Candidates who are willing to allow us to take risks and fail without regulating every last detail of our lives until we can no longer move or breathe for the regulations stifling us.
We need candidates who are willing to allow communities to take care of their own. Sure some folks will fall through the cracks. Does anyone think no one is falling through the huge cracks in government charity now? America is the most charitable and giving nation on the face of this Earth. I think we can be trusted to care for our own without government entitlements.
Pressing the easy button of party politics when you go into the voting booth or insisting on term limits(another form of that easy button) will not restore our republic. Not only do we need new people to run, we need the electorate to stop believing the lie that only a major party candidate can win, because by believing it, we give it power. The major parties spend a lot of money to be sure that we will believe it. They also spend a fair amount of time convincing us that one vote doesn't matter - no matter how much money they spend trying to convince us to cast that vote for their "team".
We have been granted the freedom to rule ourselves, but the responsibility that runs concurrently with that freedom is the responsibility to choose men and women of good character and sound judgement, who share our values to those posts of service. That requires making an effort beyond just accepting what the major parties and the mainstream media tell us.
It will be a shame to us, as a nation and as Christians, if we stand by and watch our nation go down the path to destruction because we believed a lie and kept voting for the lesser of two evils. Shame on us if we are unwilling to do the work to find out who is the best candidate, regardless of party. We can do better than that. We must. November is coming.
" For the leaders of this people cause them to err; and they that are led of them are destroyed.
Therefore the LORD shall have no joy in their young men, neither shall have mercy on their fatherless and widows: for every one is an hypocrite and an evildoer, and every mouth speaketh folly. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still. " ~Isaiah 9:16-17
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Not according to the man sitting in the oval office who declared today that “Being an American is not a matter of blood or birth, it’s a matter of faith,”
To be fair, this was a speech he was giving about the illegal alien situation, which doesn't really make it much better, but gives you some context. However, if this president is really proposing the idea that citizenship is a matter of faith, then why have immigration laws at all?
Either way, had a conservative said something this out of whack, this out of touch and this nonsensical, the mainstream press would have been all over him or her. (Not to mention the ACLU. Where's the outrage over this psuedo establishment of a state religion? Where are the objections over their precious Jeffersonian out-of-context "separation of church and state"?)
Truth is objective, not subjective. Something either is true or it is not and no amount of idealistic bibble-babble can change the truth. Citizenship is, in fact, a matter of blood and birth. One may become a citizen of this nation by sacrificing one's citizenship in any other nation, but faith has nothing to do with citizenship. Except, perhaps, for citizenship in the kingdom of heaven.
"Buy the truth, and sell it not; also wisdom, and instruction, and understanding."~ Prov 22:23
Monday, June 21, 2010
I keep hearing about how Americans are angry at BP over this oil spill. I look around and the only folks I see being actively angry about it are the talking heads in the MSM and ones who get their news almost exclusively from those same talking heads.
I am not angry at BP. It was an accident. How should anyone be angry about an accident? I will admit to being a bit upset about the way Mr. Obama and his administration are bungling and hampering the clean up efforts. I am also flabbergasted at how anyone thinks it is legal or Constitutional for Mr. Obama to demand that BP not pay dividends to it's shareholders or to command them to put 20 billion dollars in an independently administered fund for reparations. Where exactly are Mr. Obama and his administration finding the authority to do these things?
The message here isn't that BP shouldn't make appropriate reparations, they should. But rather that those reparations should be in accordance with the law, not whatever Mr. Obama says. Last time I checked, the president doesn't make the law, they may only approve or veto laws proposed and approved by the Congress. Has that changed since Mr. Obama was elected? What am I missing here?
In addition, I would like to know what those actions on the part of Mr. Obama and BP are saying to the business world in general. To me it appears that the message is, you are no longer working for yourselves, but rather for the government. Your profits are no longer your own, the government will tell you how that money is to be used.
"They encourage themselves in an evil matter: they commune of laying snares privily; they say, Who shall see them? "~ Psalm 64:5
Friday, June 18, 2010
As I approached the post office, I saw several very large signs saying "Impeach Obama". Many of the signs had a large photo of Mr. Obama with a little Hitler type mustache. I thought, this looks interesting, but as the post office was almost closed, I went inside to buy my stamps first.
When I came back out, I approached the booth to ask about what they were doing. I discovered this was a booth staffed by followers of Mr. Lyndon LaRouche. Now, Mr. LaRouche has been running for president since nearly before I was of voting age. He has been derided by both liberals and conservatives of my acquaintance, and upon reading some of his literature, I can see why, he has some rather unique views. But that's not the point of this post either.
While I was speaking to the gentleman at the booth, an older woman (by which I mean a woman in her 50's or early 60's , I would guess) came up to the woman at the booth and tried to remove some of the materials from the booth, while declaring that the photo of Mr. Obama was wrong and should be taken down. The woman at the booth reacted strongly and soon they were yelling at each other. When the yelling turned to swearing, I told the man to whom I was speaking -"that's it, I'm done here." At which the two women ended their confrontation, both threatening to call the police on each other.
I did stick around a bit to talk to the woman. She said she had been nearly run down by someone in a car while manning the booth in a similar situation less than a week ago and someone else had attempted to tear down her signs earlier that day. She was very passionate about her opposition to what this president and administration are doing to this nation with regard to debt and a few other things, as am I.
I have always viewed swearing as indicative of a lack of self control. It occurred to me that this woman, having had her life threatened less than a week ago for doing this same thing was very brave to continue, but also that she was not in any condition to man such a booth. Instead of asking the objector exactly what it was to which the older woman objected, she escalated into a shouting match, accusing the older woman of being a Nazi. Was this because she has now associated all dissent with her own position as a threat, or because she has always associated all dissent as a threat? She owned to having been a hippie on the 60's.
Perhaps the older woman was simply objecting to the photo on the grounds that it was disrespectful to the office of the president. In that I would agree. I would have also agreed that the folks at the booth had the right to display it, but would have asked them politely to respect the office by removing it. Perhaps not, since at one point the woman manning the booth yelled:"Yeah, well I was out here trying to impeach George Bush every week for the last 8 years, where were you then?" but the point is we'll never know. She wasn't given the chance to calm down and state her objections in a civil manner.
Here is the point of this post. There are good reasons to oppose the current administration, from their profligate spending to their openly socialistic agenda. We don't have to be conservatives or liberals to oppose either of those things because they are detrimental to either side, but we cannot become so used to seeing opposition that we cannot find those points of common interest around which to rally.
We, as Americans are better than that. We must be. If we are to regain our freedoms, and restore our Constitution, self control is an absolute requirement of the folks doing the ground work. Stern resolve and self control can accomplish what the most impassioned rhetoric cannot. We must, as a nation, reject the greed of the entitlement mentality along with the security offered by the "nanny state" mentality. We must embrace the philosophy of personal responsibility and stand for the individual freedom promised by the republic founded these 200+ years ago with all it's attendant risks.
In the words of "America the Beautiful: "Confirm thy soul in self-control, Thy liberty in law."
"Lord, who shall abide in thy tabernacle? who shall dwell in thy holy hill?
He that walketh uprightly, and worketh righteousness, and speaketh the truth in his heart.
He that backbiteth not with his tongue, nor doeth evil to his neighbour, nor taketh up a reproach against his neighbour.
In whose eyes a vile person is contemned; but he honoureth them that fear the LORD. He that sweareth to his own hurt, and changeth not.
He that putteth not out his money to usury, nor taketh reward against the innocent. He that doeth these things shall never be moved."~ Psalm 15
Thursday, June 10, 2010
I think that good manners are an indicator of character. (Not proof of good character, but an indicator) This sort of thing is yet one more clear indication of who is possessed of good character in this national debate. Another indicator, in my opinion, is who leaves the protest area clean.
" Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. "~ Matthew 7:15-17
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press and all the others in which We the People have been privileged to engage over the last 200+ years. All these freedoms, which are dependent on the character of a responsible and informed public to maintain. Freedoms, maintained by a (mostly) volunteer military force. This voluntary service is, in many ways. the essence of a free republic.
The freedom to bear arms is nothing more than a reassurance to our military and our countrymen that, should it be necessary, the citizenry can and will take up arms to defend our nation when and where the military may not be enough. It is to our credit that the armed services of this nation have proved more than adequate to meet the military needs of the United States to this point in history.
May we, as a nation, on this Memorial Day, rededicate ourselves to the maintenance of the freedoms so many have died to preserve. May we bestir ourselves to study our founding documents and light anew the brush fires of freedom in the hearts of men and women across this nation. And may we recognize that if we do not preserve our freedom here, it will not be found elsewhere.
Let us recognize that freedom includes the freedom to fail and to fail spectacularly.
Let us remember that silence is cowardice where speech is stifled.
Let us remember that responsibility is the shared duty of the people of a free republic.
And let us remember that Freedom is never free and that this day is for the remembrance of those who paid for these freedoms of ours in blood.
"They say the world has become too complex for simple answers. They are wrong. There are no easy answers, but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right. Winston Churchill said that "the destiny of man is not measured by material computation. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we are spirits -- not animals." And he said, "There is something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty."~Ronald Reagan
"Make us glad according to the days wherein thou hast afflicted us, and the years wherein we have seen evil. "~ Psalm 90:15
Thursday, May 27, 2010
The Congress is once again up to sneaky tricks. They are planning to vote on the repeal of the the military personnel eligibility act of 1993. Knowing that this legislation should be subjected to a full debate where it would be unlikely to pass, they have instead chosen to attach this legislation as an amendment to a Defense Authorization Bill in an attempt to sneak it under the noses of the American people. It is my understanding that a vote on the legislation to repeal the prohibition against allowing homosexuals to serve in the military could take place as soon as this Thursday or Friday. (Not DADT [Don't Ask, Don't Tell], although that is what it is commonly called. DADT is catchier than the military personnel eligibility act of 1993.)
In my opinion, it is unethical to require people who have volunteered to give their lives to defend this country to have be changing clothes, showering and/or sleeping in the same accommodations with someone who views them as a potential sexual partner. The stress of combat is no place to add that sort of uncertainty and pressure into an already volatile mix.
The military personnel eligibility act of 1993 was passed unanimously by the Congress in 1993 because they recognized, as did the American people, the real and ethical implications of allowing that situation to occur. (Would it be acceptable to put men and women together in showers and barracks? No. Common sense dictates that such a situation would create unacceptable levels of risk for all involved even without the added pressures of combat stressors. Then why should it be acceptable to do this?) They also recognized that many of those currently serving(by some surveys up to 40%) would refuse to continue to serve under such conditions and many would opt not to enter military service at all who otherwise would have.
The members of the population who choose that lifestyle and also wish to serve in the military are simply demonstrating that they do not understand the meaning of the word "sacrifice" by pushing this agenda through. And I don't think that the numbers that choose that lifestyle and wish to serve in the military will make up for the numbers of active duty soldiers who have said they would not re-enlist if this law is changed.
That Congress has chosen to attach this measure to a military funding bill, rather than vote on it as a separate measure is a show of cowardice. Our military personnel deserve better. Let's give them better in November. But until then, call your Congressmen in Washington and let them know what YOU think. The number is: 202-224-3121
"For the leaders of this people cause them to err; and they that are led of them are destroyed. "~ Isaiah 9:16
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Of the 6 residents who spoke, 4 were in favor and 2 were opposed. Of the 19 non-residents who signed in to speak, approximately 12 were opposed and 5 were in favor. (I say approximately because I honestly could not decipher what two of the speakers were saying. Sometimes this was because of their presentation, or a poor quality microphone(or perhaps timidity at speaking to a group) and sometimes it was due to accents. We have an increasingly diverse population and sometimes a heavy accent make it a bit difficult to understand a speaker.
The problem is that none of the speakers were addressing Town of Wilson ordinances. (Except one older gentleman whom the board corrected as his understanding of the ordinances was in error.) My own 3 minutes, was attempting to address the sovereignty issue that I have written about on this blog before. I believe that, by allowing this mosque to come into existence without giving a proper respect to the governing aspect of the religion of Islam, the board is, in effect, ceding United States sovereignty over that piece of property in perpetuity. This may seem like an absurd position to some, but I hope to explain it in another post. (I also intend to address it in my blogtalkradio show: Irate, Tireless Minority. It's 30 minutes on Wednesdays at 1:30pm.
As is so often the case, when a community becomes concerned enough about an issue to speak up and make a difference, it is too late to participate in the political processes concerning that issue. People go to a town board meeting, which is disconcerting for the board members because the meetings are usually deserted, get up and speak to an issue in a way that can have no affect on the outcome of that issue, because the board must deal with only the limited bit of the issue that they have any say over, in this case, building ordinances. The board is not allowed to take most of the speakers views into consideration, and this board commented to that effect, saying the use of this building as a mosque was approved months ago, you should have spoken then. Unfortunately, the word didn't go out into the community until long after that decision was approved.
So, having brought along his lawyers to assure the board that the building either was, or soon would be, in compliance with all Town of Wilson ordinances concerning a public building, the good doctor (who will, as a matter of course, be donating the land this mosque occupies to Allah in perpetuity to be used as a mosque,) was to have his permit granted. The board voted unanimously to approve the conditional use permit. The people who came to speak, one way or another all went home dissatisfied with the government process and feeling like they had been made fools of(even those who spoke in favor, because it was clear that their speeches were not to the issue at hand either) and that their government officials are corrupt or hold the people in disdain or are simply ignoring them.
I don't think they are/do. I think they are doing a job by the rules laid out for them, but that those rules are so alien to most people that the ordinary citizen becomes disenfranchised by their use. Surely there must be a better way to get some citizen input on issues like this which become volatile after it is too late to address the core issue. I don't know what that would be. Perhaps the media needs to get better at doing their jobs and actually inform people before it's too late for the community to have an informed debate on controversial issues. The media was present in droves. I counted 8 cameras. Most of them stayed only long enough to get the sound bites they needed for their story and then left before the vote. Why would they stay? They know what is going to happen, they've been to enough of these types of meetings before.
There must be a better way to bring controversial issues like this before the people without making everyone involved look like fools. What could have been a respectful dialogue resulting in a productive solution, now ends with resentment and bitterness all around. The doctor who purchased the land to be used as a mosque was upset. He said "why is it that when you want me to be your doctor, I am a good guy, but when I want to put up a mosque, I am a terrorist?" Those who support the mosque will feel out of sorts with their neighbors who do not. Those who opposed the mosque will feel that their government has turned against them by allowing such a threat into the community. Those who attend the mosque will feel threatened, leading, no doubt to the very behaviors that concern those who opposed the mosque. The United States loses theological (Theological de jure and possibly real sovereignty de facto)sovereignty over yet another parcel of real estate to Allah in perpetuity and everybody goes home unhappy. It's a sad day in America, when the community cannot come together and put off or re-visit the vote on such a divisive issue until an understanding is reached that allows everyone to be able to live with the results of such a vote.
For those who would tell me that a mosque is not a threat to any community, I will say that you need to study more. I will not say that there aren't things which could be agreed to by the Islamic community to mitigate that threat in a way that would satisfy most communities, as I believe that there are. I will not say that Islam is not a threat to it's neighbors, by it's very nature, because there are simply too many examples world wide that it is. I will not condemn individuals, but there is enough evidence to make the claim that "Islam is a religion of peace" ridiculous on it's face. Unless, of course, you are using the Islamic definition of "peace" which is "submission to Allah". For those who assured the group, particularly the members of Christian clergy, that "we are all worshipping the same God". No. We are not, and if you think we are, then I suggest that you have not done your homework.
This could have been handled differently and it should have been. I think there is a way to move forward that would both meet the community's need to feel safe and the Muslim community's wish for a place of worship. Although, I must concede that I doubt the Muslim community would even consider my suggestion, since they don't have to and the United States is pleased to continue in it's ignorance regarding the dictates of the theological government of the "citizens of Islam".
" Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly.
Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.
But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.
My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.
I and my Father are one.
Friday, April 30, 2010
The lack of enforcement on the federal level seems like just one more indicator that the federal government of this nation has broken the contract with the people. The people elect legislators who are to govern "by the consent of the governed". These legislators all take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. I don't see a whole lot of protection or defense out of the Obama administration or the 111th Congress for that venerable document, nor much respect for the governed either. Breach of contract is a serious thing in business, how much more grave is it when the breach is between We the People and those who have been elected to do our will.
I also can't help but wonder how many of those protesting this "racist" and "inhumane" law have really thought through the issue of illegal immigration. I have stated my opinion in previous posts to this blog and others. My opinion is basically that illegals are an overall detriment to this country. They drag down the character of her citizens and provide fodder for gangs and other groups that engage in illegal activities. Their children cannot expect legal employment or education, as they lack a social security number. The adults cannot perform the duties of citizenship for fear of being discovered and deported. Those who employ them are tempted to treat them as slaves, knowing that these people have made victims/slaves of themselves by coming here illegally.
I have to wonder, too, how these protesters can square their "humanitarian arguments against the pleas of those families left behind in Mexico? I am also very tired of everyone denigrating Christians for what they perceive as unchristian behavior, when, by my observations, most of those who claim the title of Christian today have no idea what they believe or why aside from some lovey dovey, goody-goody, "a Christian must be nice to everyone and never say anything mean" requirement.
True Christianity confronts evil and does not remain silent when people are behaving in a way that harms themselves or others.
"This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein." ~ John 12:6
Saturday, April 17, 2010
That's it for my photos. There was one young woman carrying a sign that said "Help me Mr. Obama, They want to make me work and stuff!" on one side and "I am not your ATM!" on the other.
As with my other TEA Party experiences, this one was well attended by a very polite and congenial group of people who picked up after themselves when they left.
I was pleased to note that Pastor King refrained from using the vulgar terms to describe our elected officials and our predicament that he has used in the past. Indeed, aside from a few references to hades by a couple of the speakers, the only vulgarity I heard all day was from one of the Feingold supporters who was making a nuisance of herself.
She and her fellow youth(My guess would be university students) barged through the crowd shouting cheerfully "We're all neighbors , people!" When they were a little ahead of me, they stopped and were greeted with smiles and questions about whether or not they are even old enough to pay taxes. Then someone near me had a sign saying "Democrats" with an arrow pointing down that he held over their heads. The leader of this little group kept trying to grab it, but wasn't tall enough. Another attendee told some of the folks with larger signs to stop blocking their signs from view of the podium (and cameras) remarking that they have the freedom of speech too. As these young people tired of trying to provoke a response and were leaving, the young woman(I won't say lady) turned to someone and, in an entirely different tone than she had used to push through the crowd towards the podium, snarled "go f*** yourself"to the man behind me. This man, to the best of my knowledge, had said nothing more provoking to her than "come back when you've grown up and pay taxes". It was not said in a nasty way either, but rather as a kindly adult to an erring youth. This is a perfect illustration of the difference in character between TEA Partiers and those who oppose them.
Enjoy the photos.
"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. "~ Ephesians 6:12