Showing posts with label Freedom. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Freedom. Show all posts
Sunday, September 28, 2014
Tiny Houses are Awesome
I agree with almost everything this guy is saying, except for the millions and billions of years, evolutionary crap.
In my truck driving days, I passed this guys place about 8 or more times and always wished I could have stopped to check the place out. He's right on the Interstate 10 frontage road near Luling, Texas. I would seriously consider moving there. He is building a community.
Friday, September 26, 2014
Official Statistics
I will admit, that I will use statistics just as much as the next guy. I don't have a problem using statistics. There is no evil in the statistics themselves, as data is amoral.
But there is an old saying in America: "Figures never lie, but liars can figure."
Data doesn't manipulate itself, but it does get manipulated. People who want gun-control are notorious for doing this. Politicians come up with stunning ways to spin facts and figures. Two of the easiest ways to do this are to either include way too much information, or leave out a lot of information. This little essay has to do with the latter.
Take a look at this graph:
See that dip down to zero at 1919 to 1925 area? That's because of the passage of the 18th Amendment to the Constitution and the subsequent Volstead Act. Since this graph depicts the number of permits,* I have no problem with this graph. It makes perfect sense. The graph would be idiotic if it didn't show the number of licenses for producing alcoholic beverage dropping to zero during the time of prohibition.
But let's look at another graph:
Take your time and ponder it slowly.
This second graph made the claxons go off in my head. The question is, can you see the problem with this graph? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
Well, you would have to know the rest of the story. There were a few characters who became famous during the prohibition era, and most notably two. One of them was far more honest than the other one and spent 11 years in Federal prison for it. The other guy was lucky enough to be born the son of a prominent politician in whose footsteps he would follow and use his prestige and connections to sock away millions of dollars under the cover of legitimate business. Read the passage below to figure out who.
"By 1925, New York was filled with speakeasy clubs that sold liquor illegally. Some historians say there were 30,000 to 100,000 speakeasy clubs operating in the city, several of which were well known as watering holes for government officials. Prohibition was an attempt to control and reduce the amount of liquor sold in the states, but like most laws, all it did was drive up the price of the regulated item and stimulate the growth of a well-organized underground black market.
One of the most famous names associated with bootlegging liquor at the time was Joseph P. Kennedy – the successful investor, businessman and political leader. Kennedy traveled to England with President Roosevelt's son, James, and made a deal to be the exclusive distributor of scotch, gin and bourbon from Scotland and England. Kennedy had the connections, the warehouses and the money to make the deal, which became a cash cow for him and the family.
One of the reasons the Kennedy bootlegging stories seem accurate is Joseph's association with Samuel Bronfman, the founder of Distillers Corporation based in Montreal. Bronfman specialized in cheap whiskey and took advantage of Prohibition in the United States by bootlegging his whiskey to cities like Boston, New York and Chicago.
Kennedy and Bronfman became business partners of sorts when Bronfman bought Joseph E. Seagram & Sons in 1928, but some kind of relationship developed a few years earlier when Danny Walsh and his crime syndicate bought liquor from the Bronfman-run group. Kennedy had contacts with many Irishmen in Boston at the time and Danny was on that list. Some historians say Kennedy didn't have to be a bootlegger; just about every other Irishman in Boston was."
Why didn't I use the Wikipedia entry or a dozen others? Because the conquerors are the ones who write history, not the slaves. Too much of the Kennedy dynasty is still alive and kicking. But I digress. That's not the main point of this post. The main point is in the first paragraph of the passage.
If I presented a graph showing marijuana consumption in the U.S. based on sales in retail outlets across all fifty States, I think you would fall out of your chair laughing. Why? Because everybody with an I.Q. above room temperature knows that tens or hundreds of billions of dollars worth of cannabis goes up in smoke every year in America. Are you starting to see the problem with graph number two?
The United States has the peculiar distinction of having a major, multi-billion dollar, nearly exclusively spectator sport that owes its existence to one thing: Prohibition. That sport is NASCAR.
Please don't cite Wikipedia for me. I'm from the Southeastern U.S. I know too many people who are proud as hell to regale you with stories of their fathers outrunning the Feds in cars made fast out of necessity. We still have names of roads in the deep south that reflect the prohibition era and running moonshine.
The point I'm making, if you haven't already guessed it, is how incredibly silly is that second graph. Does anyone really believe that Al Capone, and probably hundreds of others, made millions of dollars while alcohol consumption dropped to nearly zero? When you see statistics or figures presented, learn to think. Ask questions. Ponder what data might be missing. Cogitate over who's presenting the data and why. Anybody who accepts that second chart above without any qualms or questions makes me think of this:
*permits and licensing are an evil and abhorrant thing in a free society. I hope to do a post in the future that explains why there is no need for any kind of licensing in a free society and just how it actually harms society through the auspices of government.
But there is an old saying in America: "Figures never lie, but liars can figure."
Data doesn't manipulate itself, but it does get manipulated. People who want gun-control are notorious for doing this. Politicians come up with stunning ways to spin facts and figures. Two of the easiest ways to do this are to either include way too much information, or leave out a lot of information. This little essay has to do with the latter.
Take a look at this graph:
See that dip down to zero at 1919 to 1925 area? That's because of the passage of the 18th Amendment to the Constitution and the subsequent Volstead Act. Since this graph depicts the number of permits,* I have no problem with this graph. It makes perfect sense. The graph would be idiotic if it didn't show the number of licenses for producing alcoholic beverage dropping to zero during the time of prohibition.
But let's look at another graph:
Take your time and ponder it slowly.
This second graph made the claxons go off in my head. The question is, can you see the problem with this graph? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
Well, you would have to know the rest of the story. There were a few characters who became famous during the prohibition era, and most notably two. One of them was far more honest than the other one and spent 11 years in Federal prison for it. The other guy was lucky enough to be born the son of a prominent politician in whose footsteps he would follow and use his prestige and connections to sock away millions of dollars under the cover of legitimate business. Read the passage below to figure out who.
"By 1925, New York was filled with speakeasy clubs that sold liquor illegally. Some historians say there were 30,000 to 100,000 speakeasy clubs operating in the city, several of which were well known as watering holes for government officials. Prohibition was an attempt to control and reduce the amount of liquor sold in the states, but like most laws, all it did was drive up the price of the regulated item and stimulate the growth of a well-organized underground black market.
One of the most famous names associated with bootlegging liquor at the time was Joseph P. Kennedy – the successful investor, businessman and political leader. Kennedy traveled to England with President Roosevelt's son, James, and made a deal to be the exclusive distributor of scotch, gin and bourbon from Scotland and England. Kennedy had the connections, the warehouses and the money to make the deal, which became a cash cow for him and the family.
One of the reasons the Kennedy bootlegging stories seem accurate is Joseph's association with Samuel Bronfman, the founder of Distillers Corporation based in Montreal. Bronfman specialized in cheap whiskey and took advantage of Prohibition in the United States by bootlegging his whiskey to cities like Boston, New York and Chicago.
Kennedy and Bronfman became business partners of sorts when Bronfman bought Joseph E. Seagram & Sons in 1928, but some kind of relationship developed a few years earlier when Danny Walsh and his crime syndicate bought liquor from the Bronfman-run group. Kennedy had contacts with many Irishmen in Boston at the time and Danny was on that list. Some historians say Kennedy didn't have to be a bootlegger; just about every other Irishman in Boston was."
Why didn't I use the Wikipedia entry or a dozen others? Because the conquerors are the ones who write history, not the slaves. Too much of the Kennedy dynasty is still alive and kicking. But I digress. That's not the main point of this post. The main point is in the first paragraph of the passage.
If I presented a graph showing marijuana consumption in the U.S. based on sales in retail outlets across all fifty States, I think you would fall out of your chair laughing. Why? Because everybody with an I.Q. above room temperature knows that tens or hundreds of billions of dollars worth of cannabis goes up in smoke every year in America. Are you starting to see the problem with graph number two?
The United States has the peculiar distinction of having a major, multi-billion dollar, nearly exclusively spectator sport that owes its existence to one thing: Prohibition. That sport is NASCAR.
Please don't cite Wikipedia for me. I'm from the Southeastern U.S. I know too many people who are proud as hell to regale you with stories of their fathers outrunning the Feds in cars made fast out of necessity. We still have names of roads in the deep south that reflect the prohibition era and running moonshine.
The point I'm making, if you haven't already guessed it, is how incredibly silly is that second graph. Does anyone really believe that Al Capone, and probably hundreds of others, made millions of dollars while alcohol consumption dropped to nearly zero? When you see statistics or figures presented, learn to think. Ask questions. Ponder what data might be missing. Cogitate over who's presenting the data and why. Anybody who accepts that second chart above without any qualms or questions makes me think of this:
But then that's what the global elite have been working so hard for anyway.
Now, how long are you going to believe that this whole "War-on-drugs" is a good idea?
After the coming meltdown or TEOTWAWKI, if there are enough free people still alive to start a new society and we can write a new Constitution, the following would be two of the articles that I would fight for:
Article [#]
Since history has proven that inanimate objects are inherently amoral and can do nothing outside of the hands of man, and since it is self -evident that a person's body is his sole and inviolable property to care for as he sees fit, no branch or any other entity of government shall ever have the power to make any object or thing, whether inanimate or tangible, or even intangible to be banned or restricted or regulated. This article shall be exempt from repeal or modification by amendment so long as this entire Constitution is in effect.
Article [#]
It being obvious to people of reasonable intelligence that there can be no such thing as a crime where there is no victim, no branch or entity of government shall ever have the power to enact any legislation, statute, act, or code which makes any activity illegal or unlawful which does not harm or infringe upon the rights, person, or property of another individual.
What say you?
*permits and licensing are an evil and abhorrant thing in a free society. I hope to do a post in the future that explains why there is no need for any kind of licensing in a free society and just how it actually harms society through the auspices of government.
Thursday, September 25, 2014
Free Market Realities
Anyone who's read more than a few posts at this tiny little blog is probably pretty sure I'm a stark raving conservative. Oh hell, just run down the sidebar. You don't even have to actually read a post.
So, you might think that I would sympathize with the owner (or former owner?) of a Chinese restaurant in San Francisco, from whence the picture below comes.
Many thanks for this reference to Maggie's Farm.
Well, I have no sympathy whatsoever for James Chu. He chose to fight the free-market, and thus his customers and he lost. And that's the way it should be.
When I had my own home repair and remodeling business, I knew never to tell a customer that they were wrong for wanting anything that was a matter of aesthetics or style or taste. Outside of anything that was absolutely necessary to get the job done correctly, anything in the variable or optional range was purely at the discretion of the customer.
It's been no secret that over about the last fifteen years, people all over the world have been waking up to the fact that MSG (Monosodium Glutamate) is both an excitotoxin and neurotoxin. You may not be convinced, and James Chu might not be convinced, but there is enough research and evidence available that myself and millions of others know that we don't need the risk. As for the gluten, we aren't talking about the gluten that naturally occurs in the plain old wheat or other grains that our grandparents thrived on. Today a lot of the cheap commercial wheat flour, sold in 25 to 50 lb. bags to restaurants and bakeries, is genetically modified (probably Monsanto patented) to contain double or triple the amount of gluten, but not natural gluten. They did that to make bread have that great chewy texture with only about a third of the kneading time and resting time that is required for regular bread production, thus cutting production time and increasing profits.
No, I'm not against profits. Not at all. If you can find a way to increase your profits, good on ya, mate. But the consumer has (or should ALWAYS have) the right to decide if your resulting product is something they want to consume, and they should have all the information to make that decision. If you want to eat all the foods that are processed and genetically modified and have cellulose fillers from pine trees and laugh at me for not wanting to put that stuff in my body, . . . well, KNOCK YOURSELF OUT!
I'd never heard such a thing as a gluten allergy until about ten years ago. Today, I think about 1 in 10 people I meet has a gluten allergy that became so severe that it drove them to the endocrinologist to find out what was making them so ill.
If James Chu wanted to not only stay in business but even thrive, he should have listened to the customers and provided what they wanted.
I'm living in a rural area of Kentucky right now. In this whole city where I am, there is one little health food store. It's in a great location in the biggest shopping district. The population here is about 20,000 in the city limits, within a 6 mile radius of the shopping district, about 35,000 people. This little health food store is barely hanging on. Why? Because this is rural Kentucky. People still smoke in some of the little Mom & Pop establishments. There's an empty business space on main street that used to be a gym. There's another one on an adjacent street that used to be a yoga place.
There is not a synagogue within 100 miles of here.
How long would I survive as a businessman if I opened up a Kosher Deli here? These people have never heard of knishes or falafel or gefilte fish, let alone would they try it. How stupid would I be to blame the people who live here for not wanting to buy stuff they don't want to eat? I would be outraged if anyone blamed me for the local Waffle House closing down because I don't want to eat at a place that cooks pork and eggs and potatoes all on the same grill surface.
James Chu is like a guy who is angry because he decided to sell computers that use 3.5" floppies and only have 586 mb of RAM and he's pissed off because nobody is buying. I once lived in an area of Atlanta where a small Mom & Pop Pizza place opened up. They quickly discovered that the immediate neighborhoods were full of both Jewish and Muslim families. They made their establishment completely kosher, or halal if you will. They made sure they had no pork or shellfish products and they advertised it on their menus, takeout and delivery. The Domino's and Papa John's places within 10 blocks couldn't match the Mom & Pop's place combined. That's the beauty of competition.
Notice what the wording of the sign reveals: "We're closed because of you customers." He revealed that he didn't think of them as his customers. That's getting off on the wrong foot right from the get-go. James Chu failed the reality test of natural selection in free market economics. Phony conservatives, or what some might call "Neocons," might support James Chu, but I'm a real conservative. I believe in free choice for everyone. For James Chu and people who might have wanted to be his customers.
That also means that no money taken from taxpayers should ever be used to subsidize any business. None, whatsoever. Not dairies. Not soybean farmers. Not peanut farmers. Not oil companies. Not chemical companies. Nobody. Ever. There should be no FDA or USDA or any of these agencies who rubber stamp toxic crap so the gullible public can say, "It must be safe, the FDA approved it."
Check out the stories on Youtube just on aspartame, (NutraSweet).
Freedom means taking responsibility for your own life and health. Do your homework. Otherwise don't bitch when you end up sick, with Alziemers, or multiple sclerosis, or Parkinson's or Fibro-myalgia or a dozen other conditions that were never heard of a 100 years ago. Sorry, went a little off topic. I'll stop here.
Shalom and Shanah Tovah
So, you might think that I would sympathize with the owner (or former owner?) of a Chinese restaurant in San Francisco, from whence the picture below comes.
Many thanks for this reference to Maggie's Farm.
Well, I have no sympathy whatsoever for James Chu. He chose to fight the free-market, and thus his customers and he lost. And that's the way it should be.
When I had my own home repair and remodeling business, I knew never to tell a customer that they were wrong for wanting anything that was a matter of aesthetics or style or taste. Outside of anything that was absolutely necessary to get the job done correctly, anything in the variable or optional range was purely at the discretion of the customer.
It's been no secret that over about the last fifteen years, people all over the world have been waking up to the fact that MSG (Monosodium Glutamate) is both an excitotoxin and neurotoxin. You may not be convinced, and James Chu might not be convinced, but there is enough research and evidence available that myself and millions of others know that we don't need the risk. As for the gluten, we aren't talking about the gluten that naturally occurs in the plain old wheat or other grains that our grandparents thrived on. Today a lot of the cheap commercial wheat flour, sold in 25 to 50 lb. bags to restaurants and bakeries, is genetically modified (probably Monsanto patented) to contain double or triple the amount of gluten, but not natural gluten. They did that to make bread have that great chewy texture with only about a third of the kneading time and resting time that is required for regular bread production, thus cutting production time and increasing profits.
No, I'm not against profits. Not at all. If you can find a way to increase your profits, good on ya, mate. But the consumer has (or should ALWAYS have) the right to decide if your resulting product is something they want to consume, and they should have all the information to make that decision. If you want to eat all the foods that are processed and genetically modified and have cellulose fillers from pine trees and laugh at me for not wanting to put that stuff in my body, . . . well, KNOCK YOURSELF OUT!
I'd never heard such a thing as a gluten allergy until about ten years ago. Today, I think about 1 in 10 people I meet has a gluten allergy that became so severe that it drove them to the endocrinologist to find out what was making them so ill.
If James Chu wanted to not only stay in business but even thrive, he should have listened to the customers and provided what they wanted.
I'm living in a rural area of Kentucky right now. In this whole city where I am, there is one little health food store. It's in a great location in the biggest shopping district. The population here is about 20,000 in the city limits, within a 6 mile radius of the shopping district, about 35,000 people. This little health food store is barely hanging on. Why? Because this is rural Kentucky. People still smoke in some of the little Mom & Pop establishments. There's an empty business space on main street that used to be a gym. There's another one on an adjacent street that used to be a yoga place.
There is not a synagogue within 100 miles of here.
How long would I survive as a businessman if I opened up a Kosher Deli here? These people have never heard of knishes or falafel or gefilte fish, let alone would they try it. How stupid would I be to blame the people who live here for not wanting to buy stuff they don't want to eat? I would be outraged if anyone blamed me for the local Waffle House closing down because I don't want to eat at a place that cooks pork and eggs and potatoes all on the same grill surface.
James Chu is like a guy who is angry because he decided to sell computers that use 3.5" floppies and only have 586 mb of RAM and he's pissed off because nobody is buying. I once lived in an area of Atlanta where a small Mom & Pop Pizza place opened up. They quickly discovered that the immediate neighborhoods were full of both Jewish and Muslim families. They made their establishment completely kosher, or halal if you will. They made sure they had no pork or shellfish products and they advertised it on their menus, takeout and delivery. The Domino's and Papa John's places within 10 blocks couldn't match the Mom & Pop's place combined. That's the beauty of competition.
Notice what the wording of the sign reveals: "We're closed because of you customers." He revealed that he didn't think of them as his customers. That's getting off on the wrong foot right from the get-go. James Chu failed the reality test of natural selection in free market economics. Phony conservatives, or what some might call "Neocons," might support James Chu, but I'm a real conservative. I believe in free choice for everyone. For James Chu and people who might have wanted to be his customers.
That also means that no money taken from taxpayers should ever be used to subsidize any business. None, whatsoever. Not dairies. Not soybean farmers. Not peanut farmers. Not oil companies. Not chemical companies. Nobody. Ever. There should be no FDA or USDA or any of these agencies who rubber stamp toxic crap so the gullible public can say, "It must be safe, the FDA approved it."
Check out the stories on Youtube just on aspartame, (NutraSweet).
Freedom means taking responsibility for your own life and health. Do your homework. Otherwise don't bitch when you end up sick, with Alziemers, or multiple sclerosis, or Parkinson's or Fibro-myalgia or a dozen other conditions that were never heard of a 100 years ago. Sorry, went a little off topic. I'll stop here.
Shalom and Shanah Tovah
Wednesday, September 24, 2014
Progress in Venezuela
Back in the late 1990s when I was still living in Florida, I went to church with a family that had fled from Venezuela after Hugo Chavez had come to power. They left a lot of extended family and friends behind and did their best to keep in touch.
They were quite willing to talk about the horrific conditions of life down there. Terrible inflation, rampant and very blatant crime, thugs doing strong arm robberies in broad daylight, murder and mayhem. A common denominator of the criminal thugs was that they not only supported Hugo Chavez, but they were his enforcers at the polling places.
The immigrants were willing to admit that the things they saw in the SEIU here in America looked frighteningly close to what they left in Venezuela. I say all that to introduce this from Joe Huffman's blog:
Quote of the Day
"We are building peace from within, and for that, you need disarmament.
Let us chase after the dream, after the utopia, the utopia of a Venezuela in peace." Nicolas Maduro [the new dictator who replaced Hugo Chavez]
September 23, 2014
Venezuela’s Maduro launches $47M plan to disarm civilians
[How’s that dream chasing working out for the Marxists?] -- Joe Huffman
Private gun ownership in Venezuela was banned in 2012. Yet the country has the second highest murder rate in the world.
Venezuela is also nearing default on its debt, the economy is a disaster, people can’t get toilet paper and many other basic goods, and now they want to spend tens of millions of dollars to “build dozens of new disarmament centers for civilians to surrender their weapons”.
So what happens when the powers that be decide to try that here in the U.S.?
They were quite willing to talk about the horrific conditions of life down there. Terrible inflation, rampant and very blatant crime, thugs doing strong arm robberies in broad daylight, murder and mayhem. A common denominator of the criminal thugs was that they not only supported Hugo Chavez, but they were his enforcers at the polling places.
The immigrants were willing to admit that the things they saw in the SEIU here in America looked frighteningly close to what they left in Venezuela. I say all that to introduce this from Joe Huffman's blog:
Quote of the Day
"We are building peace from within, and for that, you need disarmament.
Let us chase after the dream, after the utopia, the utopia of a Venezuela in peace." Nicolas Maduro [the new dictator who replaced Hugo Chavez]
September 23, 2014
Venezuela’s Maduro launches $47M plan to disarm civilians
[How’s that dream chasing working out for the Marxists?] -- Joe Huffman
Private gun ownership in Venezuela was banned in 2012. Yet the country has the second highest murder rate in the world.
Venezuela is also nearing default on its debt, the economy is a disaster, people can’t get toilet paper and many other basic goods, and now they want to spend tens of millions of dollars to “build dozens of new disarmament centers for civilians to surrender their weapons”.
So what happens when the powers that be decide to try that here in the U.S.?
Monday, September 22, 2014
Vote Fraud in Scotland
I began telling everyone I knew over ten years ago. When we began to see all the computerized voting machines appearing all over the United States, I knew that we would never see a fair election ever again.
Don't even start with the luddite talk. I love my technology as much as the next guy. But nothing is perfect. Of course, nothing is so damn perfect for making vote fraud invisible to the public as eliminating paper ballots. The powerful elite can too easily bribe or coerce the results in electronic balloting because just one tech savvy person is all you need to insure that you get the result you want with no tangible evidence that the average person can see, let alone understand.
Check this out. Via Infowars.com
If we survive the fiscal and societal meltdown and get the chance to start over, one thing that would have to happen is the enshrinement of one basic principle of elections: paper balloting. This is so important that whatever new Constitution was created, it would have as an un-repealable law that anyone who suggests any form of electronic balloting will forfeit the privilege of voting permanently. Anyone caught tampering with paper ballots will be sentenced to having a special mark tattooed on the hand or arm so they can never be anywhere near a polling place again.
Don't even start with the luddite talk. I love my technology as much as the next guy. But nothing is perfect. Of course, nothing is so damn perfect for making vote fraud invisible to the public as eliminating paper ballots. The powerful elite can too easily bribe or coerce the results in electronic balloting because just one tech savvy person is all you need to insure that you get the result you want with no tangible evidence that the average person can see, let alone understand.
Check this out. Via Infowars.com
If we survive the fiscal and societal meltdown and get the chance to start over, one thing that would have to happen is the enshrinement of one basic principle of elections: paper balloting. This is so important that whatever new Constitution was created, it would have as an un-repealable law that anyone who suggests any form of electronic balloting will forfeit the privilege of voting permanently. Anyone caught tampering with paper ballots will be sentenced to having a special mark tattooed on the hand or arm so they can never be anywhere near a polling place again.
Sunday, September 21, 2014
The Danger of Ecumenism
Just like all other regular bloggers, I make it a point to check out a list of certain blogs every day, one of which is Liberty's Torch. Its main writer is Francis W. Porretto, the Curmudgeon Emeritus, who has no qualms discussing his religion of Roman Catholicism. I like most of Francis' stuff and I recommend his blog, so I'm not writing this to pick a fight. I'm just offering some food for thought. If you've checked out most of my blog, you probably recognize that I would be thought of as a Messianic Jew. I just make that clear in the interest of full disclosure, even though the description isn't really adequate.
It seems Francis is trying be a peacemaker in the kerfuffle over homosexuality. He is citing ecumenism as an important, if not the most important goal of the "Church." Since the word "catholic" has it's earliest etymology in what we might now call syncretism, rather than universalism, that does make a lot of sense. Of course, that is a daunting goal considering the wide range of opinion within the Church. Let me also make this point: wide range of opinion is a troubling problem in every denomination and religion. It is why Sunnis and Shi'ites are killing each other. It's why there are four or five different Baptist churches within walking distance of each other while only being a quarter full every Sunday morning. It's why there are liberal, non-religious Jews by birth, and the other extreme of Heredi Jews.
Church bodies split up. Not all the time for bad reasons, but most of the time it is over stupid disagreements that have nothing to do with what should be the core tenets of the faith.
Politics and religion have been deeply entwined together for all of history. Some will react with horror to that idea, but it is nonetheless provable by an honest study of history. Rather than do the whole history of the world to prove my point, lets just look at the protestant reformation, the Magna Carta, and the Declaration of Independence.
Martin Luther jump-started the protestant reformation with his 95 Theses (1517) at Wittenberg, sort of being like the little boy in the fable who had the courage to say that the king was naked. Everybody knew that the Roman Catholic (really the ONLY) Church was cesspool of corruption, but the laity and lower ranks of clergy were scared to death of the power of the Pope and his minions. Most kings could not afford to cross the Church. BTW - the joint power of the monarchies and the Church did not even begin to come to any real end until the 18th century. This was in spite of the fact that the Magna Carta made an attempt to establish some separation between the Church and State. Of course, it only applied to Great Britain.
I'll ask the question at this point: What if Martin Luther had opted for going along with the program for the sake of ecumenism rather than doing what was right?
Francis and I get to live here in the United States and (for the time being) enjoy all kinds of freedoms that would not even be dreamed of before the 20th century. We owe most of that, with both the good and very bad consequences to the fact that there were enough men who decided to throw off the chains of Great Britain in 1776. They had enough. They were in the minority, but they did not seek unity and peace at the cost of continued serfdom to the monarchy or even an elected parliament. The explanation is in the words of the Declaration of Independence:
" Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; . . . But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government."
Now just replace the word Government above with the word "Church." That's kind of the idea that Martin Luther was going for. As well as many in the Church for next several centuries. Mr. Gutenberg's invention and the rapid spread of literacy in the renaissance period fueled the fire. People became very aware that men were men and nothing more, and God was God and nothing less.
The central cry of the protestant reformation was the phrase: "Sola fide, Sola Scriptura, Sole Deo Gloria." Faith alone, Scripture alone, only to God be the glory. In a nutshell, the only and final authority came directly from God through His written word, and no mere mortal, regardless of vestments or ordination could supercede that.
Another way I could say that, is that man's opinion no longer mattered. There's the rub. The struggle for ecumenism is about compromising on our opinions. Problem is, God didn't establish a democracy or even a republic. He isn't really concerned with any man's opinion. He dictated the first five books to Moses (The Torah). His laws are laws. Commandments. Not suggestions. Religion is a man-made thing. There is no word in the Hebrew language for "religion." If the Bible is not the final authority for those who believe in Yeshua Hamashiach (Jesus Christ), then we have no standard. Just like if the POTUS or the SCOTUS or the Congress of the United States can enact laws or executive orders in direct contradiction to the Constitution, we are no longer a free people in a republic. We have become serfs in an oligarchy of petty tyrants.
But since the main issue is ecumenism in a Church that claims allegiance to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and claims that they operate under the authority of His Son, let us review His words for what our opinion ought to be so as to be in obedience to the Most Sovereign Creator of the Universe:
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 5:17-20 NIV
I don't see any wiggle room there that allows for opinion. And when it comes to our Lord and Savior's word on ecumenism:
34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn
Either Jesus needs to send the Roman Catholic Church a new memo on His revised mission statement, or the Pope needs to revise his mission statement for the RCC to conform with the Home Office.
The United States is in the deplorable condition it is, not because we haven't had enough compromise for the sake of unity. This country is FUBAR because we abandoned the principles born out of an uncompromising adherence to biblical standards, and began tolerating the idea that every individual can and should do whatever seems right in his own eyes, no matter how evil or decadent or depraved it may be.
We have sown the wind, and now we shall reap the F5 tornadoes that are bearing down upon us.
It seems Francis is trying be a peacemaker in the kerfuffle over homosexuality. He is citing ecumenism as an important, if not the most important goal of the "Church." Since the word "catholic" has it's earliest etymology in what we might now call syncretism, rather than universalism, that does make a lot of sense. Of course, that is a daunting goal considering the wide range of opinion within the Church. Let me also make this point: wide range of opinion is a troubling problem in every denomination and religion. It is why Sunnis and Shi'ites are killing each other. It's why there are four or five different Baptist churches within walking distance of each other while only being a quarter full every Sunday morning. It's why there are liberal, non-religious Jews by birth, and the other extreme of Heredi Jews.
Church bodies split up. Not all the time for bad reasons, but most of the time it is over stupid disagreements that have nothing to do with what should be the core tenets of the faith.
Politics and religion have been deeply entwined together for all of history. Some will react with horror to that idea, but it is nonetheless provable by an honest study of history. Rather than do the whole history of the world to prove my point, lets just look at the protestant reformation, the Magna Carta, and the Declaration of Independence.
Martin Luther jump-started the protestant reformation with his 95 Theses (1517) at Wittenberg, sort of being like the little boy in the fable who had the courage to say that the king was naked. Everybody knew that the Roman Catholic (really the ONLY) Church was cesspool of corruption, but the laity and lower ranks of clergy were scared to death of the power of the Pope and his minions. Most kings could not afford to cross the Church. BTW - the joint power of the monarchies and the Church did not even begin to come to any real end until the 18th century. This was in spite of the fact that the Magna Carta made an attempt to establish some separation between the Church and State. Of course, it only applied to Great Britain.
I'll ask the question at this point: What if Martin Luther had opted for going along with the program for the sake of ecumenism rather than doing what was right?
Francis and I get to live here in the United States and (for the time being) enjoy all kinds of freedoms that would not even be dreamed of before the 20th century. We owe most of that, with both the good and very bad consequences to the fact that there were enough men who decided to throw off the chains of Great Britain in 1776. They had enough. They were in the minority, but they did not seek unity and peace at the cost of continued serfdom to the monarchy or even an elected parliament. The explanation is in the words of the Declaration of Independence:
" Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; . . . But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government."
Now just replace the word Government above with the word "Church." That's kind of the idea that Martin Luther was going for. As well as many in the Church for next several centuries. Mr. Gutenberg's invention and the rapid spread of literacy in the renaissance period fueled the fire. People became very aware that men were men and nothing more, and God was God and nothing less.
The central cry of the protestant reformation was the phrase: "Sola fide, Sola Scriptura, Sole Deo Gloria." Faith alone, Scripture alone, only to God be the glory. In a nutshell, the only and final authority came directly from God through His written word, and no mere mortal, regardless of vestments or ordination could supercede that.
Another way I could say that, is that man's opinion no longer mattered. There's the rub. The struggle for ecumenism is about compromising on our opinions. Problem is, God didn't establish a democracy or even a republic. He isn't really concerned with any man's opinion. He dictated the first five books to Moses (The Torah). His laws are laws. Commandments. Not suggestions. Religion is a man-made thing. There is no word in the Hebrew language for "religion." If the Bible is not the final authority for those who believe in Yeshua Hamashiach (Jesus Christ), then we have no standard. Just like if the POTUS or the SCOTUS or the Congress of the United States can enact laws or executive orders in direct contradiction to the Constitution, we are no longer a free people in a republic. We have become serfs in an oligarchy of petty tyrants.
But since the main issue is ecumenism in a Church that claims allegiance to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and claims that they operate under the authority of His Son, let us review His words for what our opinion ought to be so as to be in obedience to the Most Sovereign Creator of the Universe:
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 5:17-20 NIV
I don't see any wiggle room there that allows for opinion. And when it comes to our Lord and Savior's word on ecumenism:
34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn
“‘a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
36 a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’[a]
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
36 a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’[a]
37 “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me." Matthew 10:34-38 NIV
Either Jesus needs to send the Roman Catholic Church a new memo on His revised mission statement, or the Pope needs to revise his mission statement for the RCC to conform with the Home Office.
The United States is in the deplorable condition it is, not because we haven't had enough compromise for the sake of unity. This country is FUBAR because we abandoned the principles born out of an uncompromising adherence to biblical standards, and began tolerating the idea that every individual can and should do whatever seems right in his own eyes, no matter how evil or decadent or depraved it may be.
We have sown the wind, and now we shall reap the F5 tornadoes that are bearing down upon us.
Thursday, September 18, 2014
The Scottish Revolt
Subtitle: Why it matters.
Never been there. So I know that my opinion is probably woefully inadequate. I can only go on what I can glean from the internet, which really isn't much.
What little I can get tells me that Scotland is pretty leftist. I don't use the word liberal, because that word has been abused beyond its classical meaning. I mean leftist or "progressive" in the sense that Hillary Clinton uses it, which is to say that "progressive" is a euphemism for socialism or communism light.
Many real conservatives in America have dreamed of an independence or secession movement. Like having Texas separate from the rest of the states and become an independent Republic. A more optimal scenario would be to let California secede and implement all the ideals that leftists want and become the socialist utopia that they believe in, but without any help from the rest of the states. Then we can all sit and watch as they crumble and starve and implode from their own stupidity in rapid order. Right now, California is just doing it in slow motion because they can use the largess of the rest of the states via the Federal government.
Scotland is a tiny country by itself. If it separates from Britain and maintains leftist policies, it will be a disaster and it will collapse, which will reinforce the cause of the global elitists. If Scotland tries to implement true conservative measures that would make a positive difference, expect the global elitists to make moves to bring Scotland to her knees. Socialism has never, and can never work. The USSR proved that in no uncertain terms. Socialism only lasts as long as it has other sources to leech from.
Never been there. So I know that my opinion is probably woefully inadequate. I can only go on what I can glean from the internet, which really isn't much.
What little I can get tells me that Scotland is pretty leftist. I don't use the word liberal, because that word has been abused beyond its classical meaning. I mean leftist or "progressive" in the sense that Hillary Clinton uses it, which is to say that "progressive" is a euphemism for socialism or communism light.
Many real conservatives in America have dreamed of an independence or secession movement. Like having Texas separate from the rest of the states and become an independent Republic. A more optimal scenario would be to let California secede and implement all the ideals that leftists want and become the socialist utopia that they believe in, but without any help from the rest of the states. Then we can all sit and watch as they crumble and starve and implode from their own stupidity in rapid order. Right now, California is just doing it in slow motion because they can use the largess of the rest of the states via the Federal government.
Scotland is a tiny country by itself. If it separates from Britain and maintains leftist policies, it will be a disaster and it will collapse, which will reinforce the cause of the global elitists. If Scotland tries to implement true conservative measures that would make a positive difference, expect the global elitists to make moves to bring Scotland to her knees. Socialism has never, and can never work. The USSR proved that in no uncertain terms. Socialism only lasts as long as it has other sources to leech from.
Monday, April 11, 2011
Rights? Not According To The FDA
If you somehow thought that you lived in a free country (meaning the United States of America), you've got another thing coming. The Federal Food and Drug Administration would like to disabuse you of the notion that you can decide what food you would like to ingest.
And doesn't it seem ironic when the "progressives" of the Democrat party tell everyone that there is a right to medical care while at the same time the FDA is saying, "there is no generalized right to bodily and physical health." Somebody got some 'splainin' to do.
Learn more:http://www.naturalnews.com/031934_FDA_food_freedom.html#ixzz1JGgweONY
That's right. The bureaucrats at the FDA think that all that stuff in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution about the purpose of government being about protecting the God-given rights of the people is really just a bunch of crap. They are your superiors and they'll tell you what you can eat.
Don't believe it? Go read this article. If you can find any evidence that it's a hoax, let me know. Make sure you read the contents of Senate bill 510 that passed earlier this year as well.
Isn't that the kind of "Hope and Change" you can believe in?
And doesn't it seem ironic when the "progressives" of the Democrat party tell everyone that there is a right to medical care while at the same time the FDA is saying, "there is no generalized right to bodily and physical health." Somebody got some 'splainin' to do.
Learn more:http://www.naturalnews.com/031934_FDA_food_freedom.html#ixzz1JGgweONY
That's right. The bureaucrats at the FDA think that all that stuff in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution about the purpose of government being about protecting the God-given rights of the people is really just a bunch of crap. They are your superiors and they'll tell you what you can eat.
Don't believe it? Go read this article. If you can find any evidence that it's a hoax, let me know. Make sure you read the contents of Senate bill 510 that passed earlier this year as well.
Isn't that the kind of "Hope and Change" you can believe in?
Saturday, February 12, 2011
Secular Prophetess
If you don't know about Ayn Rand, she escaped the Soviet Union in the 1950s or so, I think. She grew up experiencing communism in all its horror. She wrote several novels. If you want something very short and to the point, read Anthem. But her big masterpiece is Atlas Shrugged. I know most people who need to be confronted with the truth contained in that fictional setting are not likely to pick up a 1,000 page tome.
Thank goodness, some folks have finally made the movie, well, the first movie. Atlas Shrugged: Part 1. The parallels to what is going on today in real life with what Rand wrote in that novel are amazing. I don't know if real, die-hard lefties will comprehend how destructive their ideas are by watching this movie, but maybe some of the self-described moderates will get something out of it. If this movie, and those that follow are faithful to the message of the book, it should be very entertaining and educational. I'm glad to see from the trailer below that they aren't relying on any well known stars, which might detract from the message.
Rand's big drawback was her atheism. Her belief in humanism was a bit over the top. But that does not take away from her spot-on description of how the ideals of the left inevitably lead to enslavement of humanity. She basically took Orwell's Animal Farm and gave it a fully fleshed out venue in the real world. If you can, take the time to read the book. I hope the movie causes people to want to do that.
Thank goodness, some folks have finally made the movie, well, the first movie. Atlas Shrugged: Part 1. The parallels to what is going on today in real life with what Rand wrote in that novel are amazing. I don't know if real, die-hard lefties will comprehend how destructive their ideas are by watching this movie, but maybe some of the self-described moderates will get something out of it. If this movie, and those that follow are faithful to the message of the book, it should be very entertaining and educational. I'm glad to see from the trailer below that they aren't relying on any well known stars, which might detract from the message.
Rand's big drawback was her atheism. Her belief in humanism was a bit over the top. But that does not take away from her spot-on description of how the ideals of the left inevitably lead to enslavement of humanity. She basically took Orwell's Animal Farm and gave it a fully fleshed out venue in the real world. If you can, take the time to read the book. I hope the movie causes people to want to do that.
Saturday, January 8, 2011
You Took An Oath
I will try not to simply use this blog to link to other blogs and let other people do all the writing. I'd like to always have good ideas and write original stuff, but nobody is that good all the time. So, I will proudly link to and highly recommend that you go read this post, which was so good that it is a requested repost.
Assuming that you either went and read it, or that you will read it when you leave here, let me say that it gives me no joy to have to think of the people who carry guns and badges as just a smarter class of criminal because they just figured out that if they did what was necessary to get the badges, they could get away with a lot of stuff.
I'm sure that there are still some good police in various places, but I've personally seen enough up close and personal to know that more than half of the LEOs out there, especially in the big "blue" cities share the following traits:
1. They see themselves not as civilian peace officers, but as some kind of paramilitary organization and the rest of us are "civilians." They see themselves as a separate and distinct class of people.
2. The oath they took to uphold the Constitution, or the law, or whatever they take an oath to, is nothing but a formality of getting the job. You are either the predator or the prey.
3. Everything is political, and if you have to play politics to get ahead, and that means schmoozing whoever you have to, then so be it.
4. Carrying out orders and doing what it takes to get promoted is far more important than supporting and defending the Constitution and protecting the public from an overreaching and tyrannical government.
If you are one of the good cops, you know it's true as well and it grieves you as well. Maybe you stay in the profession because if all of the good guys abandon it, then only the rotten SOBs will have the badges and superior firepower. Maybe you even have to keep quiet about how you really think because it wouldn't be safe to speak your mind. If that's the case, I pray for you and your safety.
But the ones who fit the profile that I numbered above are in it for the adrenaline rush and the power trip and think that all of the rest of us should just shut up and be thankful that they are keeping the streets safe. "You don't need a gun, that's what we are here for."
Assuming that you either went and read it, or that you will read it when you leave here, let me say that it gives me no joy to have to think of the people who carry guns and badges as just a smarter class of criminal because they just figured out that if they did what was necessary to get the badges, they could get away with a lot of stuff.
I'm sure that there are still some good police in various places, but I've personally seen enough up close and personal to know that more than half of the LEOs out there, especially in the big "blue" cities share the following traits:
1. They see themselves not as civilian peace officers, but as some kind of paramilitary organization and the rest of us are "civilians." They see themselves as a separate and distinct class of people.
2. The oath they took to uphold the Constitution, or the law, or whatever they take an oath to, is nothing but a formality of getting the job. You are either the predator or the prey.
3. Everything is political, and if you have to play politics to get ahead, and that means schmoozing whoever you have to, then so be it.
4. Carrying out orders and doing what it takes to get promoted is far more important than supporting and defending the Constitution and protecting the public from an overreaching and tyrannical government.
If you are one of the good cops, you know it's true as well and it grieves you as well. Maybe you stay in the profession because if all of the good guys abandon it, then only the rotten SOBs will have the badges and superior firepower. Maybe you even have to keep quiet about how you really think because it wouldn't be safe to speak your mind. If that's the case, I pray for you and your safety.
But the ones who fit the profile that I numbered above are in it for the adrenaline rush and the power trip and think that all of the rest of us should just shut up and be thankful that they are keeping the streets safe. "You don't need a gun, that's what we are here for."
No Reverence For Men
Leftists continue to amaze me with their penchant for projection and utter lack of self awareness. This is most evident when it comes to glorifying men. It is really disgusting when it comes to them glorifying themselves as individuals. Robert C. Byrd being a great example of this. That man makes me embarrassed to admit that my parents came from the State of West Virginia. When it comes to praising the people that they consider heroes, the sky is the limit. The reverse side of that coin is that they accuse conservatives of putting our heroes on pedestals beyond reproach. Are there people within our ranks who do that sort of thing? Of course, but they are a small minority.
I was prompted to write about this today because of the flap over the reading of the Constitution on the House floor. From Ezra Klein to Joy Behar, the left has no shortage of folks that love to shower scorn and derision on those of us who see the Constitution as one of the finest documents ever written. Of course we see it as an ironclad contract designed to protect the people by putting chains on government.
The left sees the Constitution as an archaic bit of history written by patriarchal slaveholders who couldn't possibly have anything to benefit society today were they alive now, and so that stupid old document is nothing more than a hinderance to the progressive ideas of "Hope and Change."
Because they don't actually read the Constitution, leftists like Bill Press make idiotic statements about what the document says about the right to privacy while on the Joy Behar show. I think he found it next to the part about the right to abortion. I forgot which article it appears in, so you will have to go look it up yourself. And because they don't read the document or the Federalist Papers or the Congressional records of the time, they don't comprehend the idea that we conservatives hold the ideals and principles of the document in high esteem, while understanding that the men who contributed to it all had serious flaws.
Benjamin Franklin was a brilliant man and a darn good scientist, but his hedonistic lifestyle would have made me blush. Thomas Jefferson's ownership of slaves is nothing to be proud of, but more than that I am ashamed of Jefferson championing the French Revolution as if it was on the same moral level as our own. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Thank goodness Jefferson fought valiantly against Hamilton when it came to the idea of a central bank. John Adams had much to commend about him. He held honesty and truth in high regard to the point of defending British troops on a charge of murder even though it was incredibly unpopular to do so, and he also was in favor of self rule by the colonies. But Adams was also very outspoken and not much for tact. He also fought hard for the idea that the titles of the President smack of Royalty. That hardly made any sense. George Washington's own handling of the Whiskey Rebellion tells me that he was no saint.
Were they great men? Yes. Were they perfect? No. It is in their demonstrable failings that they proved the necessity of a Constitution that denied the ability of any one man, or even a group of men from wielding too much power. We are supposed to be a nation governed by a contract of law, not by people who feel some sort of anointing to tell us how to live for our own good.
We have traveled so far from the original intent of the Constitution that it is no wonder this country is so messed up and that so few citizens really know anything about the Constitution.
Here is a list of myths that a lot of Americans believe which are directly contrary to what the Constitution says or allows:
1. If the economy suffers or improves, it is because of the policies of the president.
2. The Senate is one half of the Congress that represents the people.
3. The Supreme Court's job is to interpret the Constitution.
4. The Constitution determines what rights the people and the States have.
5. Every citizen in the United States has a right to vote in presidential elections.
6. If there are enough votes in both houses of Congress to override a presidential veto, a bill should become law.
7. Prior to the war between the States, the Constitution considered negroes or slaves to only be three-fifths of a person.
8. The fourteenth amendment to the Constitution automatically makes anyone born in the United States a citizen with all the rights and privileges thereof.
9. Anyone arrested on U.S. soil, regardless of national origin is subject to all rights guaranteed to a citizen by the Constitution.
10. The United States of America was founded as one country to free us from the British.
Anyone want to answer why the above statements are provably false?
I was prompted to write about this today because of the flap over the reading of the Constitution on the House floor. From Ezra Klein to Joy Behar, the left has no shortage of folks that love to shower scorn and derision on those of us who see the Constitution as one of the finest documents ever written. Of course we see it as an ironclad contract designed to protect the people by putting chains on government.
The left sees the Constitution as an archaic bit of history written by patriarchal slaveholders who couldn't possibly have anything to benefit society today were they alive now, and so that stupid old document is nothing more than a hinderance to the progressive ideas of "Hope and Change."
Because they don't actually read the Constitution, leftists like Bill Press make idiotic statements about what the document says about the right to privacy while on the Joy Behar show. I think he found it next to the part about the right to abortion. I forgot which article it appears in, so you will have to go look it up yourself. And because they don't read the document or the Federalist Papers or the Congressional records of the time, they don't comprehend the idea that we conservatives hold the ideals and principles of the document in high esteem, while understanding that the men who contributed to it all had serious flaws.
Benjamin Franklin was a brilliant man and a darn good scientist, but his hedonistic lifestyle would have made me blush. Thomas Jefferson's ownership of slaves is nothing to be proud of, but more than that I am ashamed of Jefferson championing the French Revolution as if it was on the same moral level as our own. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Thank goodness Jefferson fought valiantly against Hamilton when it came to the idea of a central bank. John Adams had much to commend about him. He held honesty and truth in high regard to the point of defending British troops on a charge of murder even though it was incredibly unpopular to do so, and he also was in favor of self rule by the colonies. But Adams was also very outspoken and not much for tact. He also fought hard for the idea that the titles of the President smack of Royalty. That hardly made any sense. George Washington's own handling of the Whiskey Rebellion tells me that he was no saint.
Were they great men? Yes. Were they perfect? No. It is in their demonstrable failings that they proved the necessity of a Constitution that denied the ability of any one man, or even a group of men from wielding too much power. We are supposed to be a nation governed by a contract of law, not by people who feel some sort of anointing to tell us how to live for our own good.
We have traveled so far from the original intent of the Constitution that it is no wonder this country is so messed up and that so few citizens really know anything about the Constitution.
Here is a list of myths that a lot of Americans believe which are directly contrary to what the Constitution says or allows:
1. If the economy suffers or improves, it is because of the policies of the president.
2. The Senate is one half of the Congress that represents the people.
3. The Supreme Court's job is to interpret the Constitution.
4. The Constitution determines what rights the people and the States have.
5. Every citizen in the United States has a right to vote in presidential elections.
6. If there are enough votes in both houses of Congress to override a presidential veto, a bill should become law.
7. Prior to the war between the States, the Constitution considered negroes or slaves to only be three-fifths of a person.
8. The fourteenth amendment to the Constitution automatically makes anyone born in the United States a citizen with all the rights and privileges thereof.
9. Anyone arrested on U.S. soil, regardless of national origin is subject to all rights guaranteed to a citizen by the Constitution.
10. The United States of America was founded as one country to free us from the British.
Anyone want to answer why the above statements are provably false?
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Quoted Again
Whaddya know! I was quoted again by Kevin Baker over at Smallest Minority
Here it is:
Unfortunately it is true. We have gotten this way through the indoctrination of the government schools and universities. People tend toward laziness and politicians love taking advantage of that. But let me give you another quote from the great Samuel Adams, a founding father who spoke eloquently to persuade his fellow colonists of the necessity of breaking away from the English tyranny. This is just part of what he said in Congress while arguing for the independence of these United States.
Here it is:
It's one thing to live among a populace that sees someone across an ocean as your enemy, it's another thing entirely to know that there's a 50% chance that every person you see day to day would be more than happy to use the government to crush you and take your stuff and give it to them, and are too damned stupid to realize that such action will eventually crush them as well.
Unfortunately it is true. We have gotten this way through the indoctrination of the government schools and universities. People tend toward laziness and politicians love taking advantage of that. But let me give you another quote from the great Samuel Adams, a founding father who spoke eloquently to persuade his fellow colonists of the necessity of breaking away from the English tyranny. This is just part of what he said in Congress while arguing for the independence of these United States.
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Quote of the Day: Freedom
Men fight for liberty and win it with hard knocks. Their children, brought up easy, let it slip away again, poor fools. And their grandchildren are once more slaves.
D.H. Lawrence
[Some say we are quickly approaching the slave state. Others say we have already arrived.—Joe]
Joe Huffman is a blogger in Idaho. Click on his name above to read some other interesting stuff.
D.H. Lawrence
[Some say we are quickly approaching the slave state. Others say we have already arrived.—Joe]
Joe Huffman is a blogger in Idaho. Click on his name above to read some other interesting stuff.
Friday, September 17, 2010
Why Didn't I Write That?
Trying to seem like a fair guy, I almost took the wrong side in this issue. I even started to sympathize with David Petraeus. My own wife had immediately come down on the side of the preacher wanting to burn the copies of the Koran. She was right, and on more reflection, understanding that Islam is not, and never has been a "religion of peace," I agree that we should remember who we are as Americans and that Islam is not and can never be compatible with this constitutional republic. In case you are still under some illusion, let me help you out. "Islam" doesn't mean peace, it means "submission." The word for peace in Arabic is "salaam." And NO, we are not a democracy and if the founding fathers were alive to hear someone say it they would condemn the idea. The founders understood and stated quite plainly in their writings that this republic could only work for a people who were devoutly Christian. They used the word religious, but at the time, they only knew ONE religion. I've thoroughly done my research, so don't waste your time with the "deist" stuff.
I came across the letter below at Eternity Road, and being encouraged to pass it on, I re-post it here with only one bad adjective deleted even though the expletive really does seem fitting. If you do go there, read the post about sh'riah law as well. It's titled "Life In The Crosshairs." The original post of this letter by Chuck Prime is here.
I came across the letter below at Eternity Road, and being encouraged to pass it on, I re-post it here with only one bad adjective deleted even though the expletive really does seem fitting. If you do go there, read the post about sh'riah law as well. It's titled "Life In The Crosshairs." The original post of this letter by Chuck Prime is here.
OPEN LETTER TO GEN. PETRAEUS (Please re-post to anti-jihad sites)
“Were the actual burning to take place, the safety of our soldiers and civilians would be put in jeopardy and accomplishment of the mission would be made more difficult.”
– Gen. David Petraeus
General, I ask you this: what in hell is your “mission” if We The People jeopardize it by exercising our First Amendment rights in our own homeland? Is your “mission” to defend our rights against foreign enemies, or to defend foreign enemies against our rights?
You made your choice, and you justified by claiming that you and those under your command have been taken hostage by our 7th Century terrorist enemy, and that the ransom demand you deliver to us is that we submit to your captor’s restrictions on our natural and constitutional rights – or they’ll kill you.
I remind you and your captors that we do not negotiate with terrorists.
And I remind you that you are the most revered general in the present day, commanding in the most powerful military in all of history, during the most justifiable war in the last seventy years. So please either remember your priorities and slaughter your captors, or resign in disgrace so that we may replace you with a warrior. And if you resign, you should do so right along with President Obama, Gen. Caldwell, Pentagon Spokesman Lapan, Sec. of State Clinton, Atty. Gen. Holder, NATO Sec. Rasmussen and all others in all branches of government and in all alliances who echoed your request, whether they did so mindlessly or with surrender aforethought.
To have our own military leaders beg us to refrain from exercising our Constitutional rights on our own soil is completely un-American. And to have you make that request of us in the name of cowardice is a shocking and unthinkable perversion I still don’t have the words for.
But I do have the plan for it. We The People will force the issue right here and now. We don’t want harm to come to our military, but if peacefully exercising our rightful freedom on our own property here in our own homeland endangers you, then we will endanger you!
We will burn the Koran for freedom and post the videos for all the world to see. We can be overt or covert, named or anonymous, sparse or numerous – but ultimately we will be unstoppable, and eventually we will be effective.
We will do this because you have no $%&$ right to sell our freedom down the river for the sake of our enemy’s sensitivity. We will do it because you more than have the power to defend yourselves against that enemy if only you would use it. We will do it because facing danger to defend our rightful freedom is why we pay you, train you, equip you, promote you, appoint you, deploy you, and – formerly! – revere you.
You work for us, General, not for our enemy. Therefore we will regain control over you and over this war from the command center of our own backyards. We will force you to end any of your appeasement and nation-building which would restrict our Constitutional rights. We will force you to defend yourselves and us, and to do the job you were appointed to do: destroy the enemy in defense of our freedom.
Our military has the power. We hired you to use it. Now we’ll make sure you do.
When Americans can burn our own copies of the Koran on our own soil without credible threats from jihadists or appeasement of those threats from our President and our Generals, then we will gladly stop burning them.
We are a free people, and although we clearly live in occupied territory psychologically, we do not yet live in occupied territory legally or physically. We will do as we please, and we will continue to expect all branches of our government to secure our right to do it.
I remind you that securing our rights is the only legitimate reason that governments are instituted among men in the first place, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
And not everybody among the governed consents to surrendering our rights to terrorists.
Freedom for all,
Monday, September 6, 2010
Let's Hope So
I second the comment of The Curmudgeon Emeritus. If the people do what those in Arizona did with John McCain, we are doomed. But if Nancy is forced to give up the gavel we might have a chance.
Share this link. Go get it and embed it on your own blog. I don't need to comment any more than that.
Share this link. Go get it and embed it on your own blog. I don't need to comment any more than that.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)