Thursday, July 28, 2011

Atheists are Vampires?


I don't have time to write my usual commentary on the idiocy of people, however here is the winning quote of the article:

According to the lawsuit, several claimants have suffered both physical and emotional damages from the “existence of the challenged cross.”
Among the damages listed are “dyspepsia, symptoms of depression, headaches, anxiety, and mental pain and anguish.”

Reading that makes me think these atheists have more in common with vampires than humans.  Seriously, it's a symbol, seeing it isn't going to hurt you.  

However, it DOES make me think about a new career path:
"Boydy - The Vampire Atheist Slayer"
All I need to do is wear a cross, put some on my car, and mount them on every door and window of my house.

What are your thoughts?

Update:  A coworker just suggested that '...anyone who is physically hurt by seeing something needs to grow a pair."  I think she's right.  

Friday, July 22, 2011

Global Warming Explained


I found this in a comment over at IMAO.  I actually laughed out loud.  This is an excellent rundown of the arguments people have for global warming.  It's most definitely all politics.  And as the man in the video says, 'I think I'm a global warming denier.'

Thursday, July 21, 2011

Political Correctness Kills Another Group


It's a shame.  It's an absolute shame.  The entire purpose of this organization is to bring people to Christ, and they don't have the courage to keep His name in their title.  People were crucified because of their faith in Him.  People gave their lives to further the gospel.  Yet this group is unwilling to stand by His name because of fear of offending people?

Disgusting.  My heart breaks for the Brights, who founded this once-great organization.

Monday, July 18, 2011

To Build? Or not to Build?


In short, this article points to an instance where Herman Cain is being attacked by a pastor because on the surface it appears that he is taking an anti-First Amendment approach.  I would tend to agree, if I only looked at the surface, and no deeper.  

Let's look deeper, shall we?

It seems that there is quite a bit of information leaking which points to this mosque being the project of the Muslim Brotherhood.  That group is not a religious group, but rather a political one, which would like to see a 'conservative' (in this case, read strict adherence) application of Sharia law.  This is a major issue for any American.  

Sharia law is about as far removed from the concept of individual liberty, and equality that we have established in this nation, and about as anti-American as it is possible for an organization to be.  Additionally, the terror group Hamas is closely related to this group.  The last thing we need in our country is a breeding ground for terrorists.  

Beyond this, there is sufficient protesting and complaints from the residents of the area that they do not want this constructed in their neighborhood.  While I'm a firm believer in private property, there is a point where you need to understand that your neighbors don't want your business there.  And let's face it, if this is an entity related to the MB, this is no religious center, but rather a political one.  

Were this to be a purely religious facility, with absolutely no ties to politics, or any attempt to muddy the local political waters with Sharia law, I would have no ground on which to stand.  However, just look at the organization(s) backing it's construction, and pushing for it to be built.  There's an old saying that suggests that following the money will lead you to the source of any activity.  I think the same applies here.

Wednesday, July 13, 2011

Amendments in Danger


While I typically write most passionately about the importance of the Second Amendment, I would be a terrible citizen of this nation if that was the only amendment I supported.  The first 10 are all vital to our way of life as a Free people, and we must defend them all. 

The First Amendment (you know, the one that says Government can't force us to practice our religion or not practice our religion in any fashion?) is coming under attack, by a Muslim woman, who reported for the Wall Street Journal.  Apparently she hates freedom too, and would use the legal system, and the overwhelming weight of bureaucracy to crush it. 

The attitude behind this approach is disgusting in so many ways.  Speaking from an American perspective, I would say that 'There are enough other religions and sub-sects within those religions that you can find one with any set of beliefs in this land that match those which you hold.'  As someone who understands what it means to be faithful to a 'religious concept' (In my life, I would refer to this as a relationship with Christ, not a set of beliefs, or book of rules, or anything limited and man-centric such as that.) I would suggest that she either needs to understand what her faith teaches, and adhere to it, challenge it from within using any examples or scripture or teachings or any other source needed, or leave it. 

If a government attempts to force religions to practice within their set of rules, it defeats the entire purpose of any religion.  Following a set of beliefs based on faith is an understanding that a higher power than man is the source of those beliefs.  To give government authority over religion subverts the purposes of both.

This is something our founding fathers understood, and specifically wrote 1A to protect us from that very real, very evil reality.  

Our rights are under attack daily.  This is why it is vitally important that we the people make our voices heard.


For the record, swallowing Listerine is a bad idea.  Just saying.

Thursday, July 7, 2011

Another Unwasted Tragedy


Rham Emanuel said:
"Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it's an opportunity to do things you couldn't do before."

That's what it looks like is happening again.  I was not planning to comment on this case, as it has been covered so extensively by others, and it's been all over the MSM as well.  However, this result of the case is enough to get me commenting.

The jury seems to have reached their conclusion based on the evidence (or lack thereof) as presented by the prosecution.  Regardless of what people believe happened, there was not enough clear-cut evidence to convict.  At least, as far as the jury was concerned, that is the case.  Personally, I'd rather one guilty person go free, than one innocent person be convicted wrongly.  Every time. 

However, rather than be grateful for the American justice system, which is designed to protect innocent people as well as convict the guilty, there are those who would suggest a new law, or more regulations, or other requirements on the American people.  This is another example of those in the government using a tragedy to their advantage, to push legislation they would otherwise not be able to push.  To be perfectly blunt, I do not care how sad or terribly you feel about what happened to an innocent child.  I despise that evil exists, and that these things happen.  However, as a person who loves freedom, and loves having the right to choose how I live my life, I would be remiss to not extend that same freedom to everyone else.  That includes small details about my life, such as deciding when to alert authorities that my child is missing.  There is no way to legislate a time-frame which makes sense across the board.  Every family is different, every instance of a child 'getting lost' varies. 

When I was growing up, in the rural mountains of Pennsylvania, it would have been very easy for me to go 'missing' any given day of the year.  In fact, I'm pretty sure that at some point along the way, I probably did.  If my parents had been required to alert authorities every time they didn't know precisely where I was, it would have been a tremendous waste of tax-payer resources, additional unneeded stress in the family, and a myriad of other negatives.  This is just one problem of having a nanny-state. 

I would suggest that any legislator who thinks it's a good idea to enact a law because of a single tragedy is a traitor to the very concept of personal liberty and responsibility.  Rather than pushing for more regulations, or more restrictive rules regarding parenting, perhaps the government should consider getting out of the way of families, and giving them the freedom to grow how they wish. 

Now, obviously that is all speaking to the missing portion of the issue.  This bill also mentions (and has a focus on) death of a child.  My one question is this:  Why do we need another law to push parents to do this?  Several reasons come to mind as to why we don't.  Firstly, give the parents a chance to mourn the loss.  In the case of accidental or unintentional death of the child, it's simple respect toward the parents.  Secondly, there's the issue of all the other legal reasons which exist for the death to be reported.  The need to have a burial, the need to notify the IRS, and SS office, and any other governmental agency involved.  Also, acquiring a death certificate for the child needs to go through the system.  However, an even more obvious reason is simple: In the case of intentional death (which is the logic behind this bill), IT......WOULD......CHANGE......NOTHING!  If the parent murdered, or intentionally allowed the death of, their child, what makes anyone with  the ability to reason think that said parent, who is now a criminal, would follow that law, which would carry a much less stiff penalty? 

The very logic behind this bill is flawed, and in a way that inhibits innocent people, rather than promoting freedom, and preventing crime.  It's the same concept as why gun-control laws fail:  Criminals are already committing crime, why would they stop a crime because of one more law?  I urge you to let your representatives know that this bill is a waste of tax-payer resources, and a drain which we do not need on our system.

Tuesday, July 5, 2011

God as a Political Concept

As most of my readers are aware, yesterday was Independence Day.  That is the day that the United States of America celebrates independence:  Not only from Great Britain and the tyrannical rule that was happening at the time, but independence from all forms of rule which would inhibit freedom.  Or so we think.
As the world progresses, we lose our freedom.  With every administration, more laws are passed which limit personal liberty ever more. As I heard on a recent Vicious Circle episode (and I have to paraphrase here, I don't recall the exact phrase, or who said it), "It doesn't matter who is driving, we're still going the same direction.  Some drivers just happen to not be accelerating toward destruction as quickly as others."  This was said in reference to republican, or conservative, vs democrat, or liberal.  Such a simple yet profoundly true statement.
One of the key reasons for this, I think, is a fundamental shift in understanding of what liberty is, and where it's origins can be found.  For the sake of this discussion, we'll focus on American Liberty, as opposed to general liberty.  
Let's look at history.  235 years and 1 day ago, a document was signed which declared our independence from another tyrannical rule.  This document is vital to our history.  This document is the official announcement of the people of the United States of America that they would not live in subjection to a power which was going to rule them in an unfair, or unjust manner.  It marked the separation of America from Britain.  The war, the constitution, and the rest were related, but this key document did more to establish freedom for the people than any other.  So let's take a look at the phrases used to establish that liberty, and where we stand today in relation.
The first paragraph:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
 From the beginning of the document we see reference to the world (Nature) and the Creator of the world (Nature's God).  As far as introductions go, this one is excellent.  It introduces the source of the freedom to be discussed in depth, as well as the purpose of the document, and what the result of it will be.  no beating around the bush, no wavering, or making excuses, just straight to the point, and effective.
The first portion of the next paragraph is what so many of us remember from school, and hear quoted so often in life:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
This reiterates the source of human rights:  The Creator.  The words 'of humanity' can easily appended to His title, as the implication is that the One who created humanity is the One who decides what rights we shall have, and how we should govern ourselves.  
This is a key point, and the focus of my thoughts today.  We live in an era which has done everything to remove God from any public forums.  If we fail to keep God in some form of public recognition, the foundation of our rights becomes diluted, and baseless.  This erosion will lead to a loss of liberty, and return us to the days of unjust, unfair, slave-like subjugation by government.
This is NOT, by any means, a demand, or even a request, for a formal, official government-pushed religion.  Quite the contrary, the concept here is that all men have the freedom to worship whomever they want, in whatever manner they want.  The bases of that freedom is also from God.  From a political perspective, God must exist to be the source of rights, as a power higher than the government.  If the people chose to worship or not, that's not the government's concern.  Maintaining their freedom to worship is.  
If we allow God to be removed from public office as we have been doing, we will certainly lose these freedoms.  Our independence from government and tyranny will be replaced.  We will again be dependent on the state for all of our needs.  We will not have the luxury of choosing how to shape the world around us.  We will no longer share the experiences of living in this great nation, which has been built on the ideas found in the Bible of Christianity.  That foundation must remain intact if we are to continue in our liberty.  
At the end of the day, it is important to remember that whether or not you believe that God does exist, you must believe that the people of this world derive their rights from Him, as a power higher than government.  This is what keeps the door opened to allow a just self-governance.  This is what gives people the freedom to live life as they see fit.  
I strongly urge you to read the rest of the Declaration of Independence at the link above.  Study it.  See what the king of England was doing at the time.  Compare each of the statements of his actions to the government today.  Replace 'he' with 'they' or 'the feds' or 'congress' or 'the president.'  It is alarming how similar our country is today to what we faced as a people in those days.  Look at where we are today as a result of the work done by those who signed the document.  And thank God for the 235 years of freedom we have enjoyed.