Hangun Ban Support Graph - 50 Years of Positive Trending

Source:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/150341/Record-Low-Favor-Handgun-Ban.aspx

This should be obvious by now, but we are clearly making significant headway in the public realm.  Especially see the first graph. 

For the past 50 years, we have been making positive headway with people understanding that they should not infringe on the right to own firearms.  It is becoming common sense, and accepted logic that freedom is the way to go. 
Let's keep the pressure on the antis, let's keep making their jobs more difficult, and let's keep working toward more freedom, and the ability to protect ourselves and our loved ones!

Learn from History

Source:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10/24/white-house-to-announce-major-home-lending-revamp/

Clearly, either our president doesn't learn from history, or he does and he hates America and wants us to fail.  I'll let you decide that on your own.  Take a look at the article.  Here are some of the winning parts of it:

The revamped Home Affordable Refinance Program, which aims to avert foreclosures, is expected "to encourage new, lower-cost loans" to more homeowners who are paying more than the value of their properties, a senior administration official said ahead of Obama's Monday announcement. 

So we learned from history that you can't force banks to give loans to people who can't pay them, it will backfire.  Today, he wants to force banks to give out loans to people who are having trouble paying for them...

The three-year-old Home Affordable Refinance Program was supposed to allow refinancing for up to 125 percent of a home's value on mortgages owned or guaranteed by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, but has been stuck on tight eligibility rules, including excluding people with high credit scores or other attractive risk offers. 

Here we go again. Same plan, different names, different wording, different packaging, but same failed ideas that sunk us already.

The changes to the loan programs are specifically intended to bypass Congress, which is stalled on agreeing to new plans to increase jobs and jump-start the economy. But it won early support from Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer of California and Republican Sen. Johnny Isakson of Georgia. 

So, dodging congress.  That is the act of a dictator.  He might as well say, "What I want is what matters, forget checks and balances."  Also, Republicans, take note of the name of a traitor to the cause.  Sen. Johnny Isakson, from Georgia, way to go failing the people who voted you into office.

If people aren't outraged by the ego, the arrogance, the Marxist ways of this man, then we have fallen very far indeed from the America which once was so great.

Zo is no Dummy

Source:
http://www.pjtv.com/s/GQZTMMY

I've enjoyed AlfonZo Rachel for a while.  He has a great sense of humor, and watching him stand for his faith, and what he knows to be true about our history, and conservative values is fantastic.  He's gone after the black community as a member of it, pointing out so many of their bad choices, mostly due to believing the lies of the left.  It is well worth watching his archives to better understand what I mean.
This particular episode is from a little over a month ago (7/19/11).  The best part is his correct interpretation of 'Render unto Caesar' which he explains shortly after 3:30.
In this particular video, he is destroying the concept of income tax, and pointing out why it's such a bad idea, why the founding fathers did NOT include it in the constitution, the questionable ratification of the 16th amendment, etc.  It's classic Zo, saying exactly what's on his mind, and pulling absolutely no punches.  My hat is off to you, sir!

Amendments in Danger

Sources:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2011-07-10-muslim-women-mosques_n.htm
http://www.christianpost.com/news/ever-hear-of-the-first-amendment-an-argument-to-watch-52222/

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.

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. 

Science and the Bible: Mutually Exclusive, or Complimentary?

Source:
http://www.christianpost.com/news/can-science-creationism-coexist-one-christian-author-says-yes-51315/
Update:
Just read this article as well:
http://townhall.com/columnists/frankturek/2009/01/14/big_bang_evidence_for_god/page/full/


If we consider the Bible, the very Word of God Himself, to be something which contradicts science, we are treading on gravely dangerous ground.  God's Word is Truth.  To attempt to say that it is limited, or misleading, or inaccurate in any sense is to undermine the entirety of Scripture.  If we do that, then we are basically saying we can't know that we can have salvation, and that we can't know about a personal relationship with a loving God.

In his new book, Seven Days that Divide the World, John Lennox presents a simple yet profound idea.  This is an idea which has been floated in various forms, and various phrasings over the centuries.  However, it is an idea we must at least consider, if not embrace.  The idea is that the Bible and science compliment one another, and do not contradict one another. 

For most of history, atheists have liked the idea of a universe which always existed.  This was because they understood that a universe which was created must have a creator.  Any being capable of creating the universe would fit nearly any human definition of deity.  To this end, atheists long held that the universe was eternal, and limitless in size.  In the last several decades things have changed.  The big bang theory came about as a result of scientific study.  This theory indicates that the universe has a beginning point.  Fundamentally, we know that everything which exists has a cause.  If nothing existed prior to the universe, what caused it to exist?  The only answer for that is one which atheists prefer to avoid.

This is one example of an instance where the Bible appeared to contradict science.  Man's limited understanding of this universe pointed toward a limitless universe, without cause.  Rather, science today has shown that there is a beginning to the universe, and as such a cause.  In actuality, despite the seeming contradiction, the Bible pointed toward the truth long before man was able to discover it for himself.

It is with that understanding, and that precedent, that we are able to confront the lies of those who would say that science is truth, and the Bible is fanciful.  Clearly, this Scripture is not a textbook or other resource for seeing scientific theory played out, or how to measure events to learn more about science.  Rather it is a book of truth, some of which is provable with science.

Science is unable, by it's very nature, to show us how the world was created.  It is a limited tool, in that regard, that it can only be used to verify testable data.  Some historical events can be examined using advanced mathematical concepts, and observable events in the universe today.  Other historical information, such as which plants grew first, or which animals first inhabited the skies, can not be determined with science.  This is something only history can teach us.  However, it is history which is unrecorded.  Therefore, today we have no way to know some of these answers.

Scripture gives us all the answers we need, and provides us with sufficient information and knowledge to live our lives.  It shows us that the universe, the galaxy, the solar system, this planet, and the life on it, including us humans, were all created by a loving God, in a fashion which was pleasing to Him,  When it was completed, He said it was good.  One day I hope to learn the methods God used during creation.  Man has a myriad of theories about it, ranging from individual, complete attention to detail, loving acts for each creation, to His creating a process which allowed life to give way to more advanced life.  While I know which I believe to be true, I am eager for the day when my Father and Creator can show me precisely how He did it.

Until then, I will study His Word, and know that it does not stand in contradiction with science, but rather compliments it, and often will give me clues which science is unable to answer today.