Thanksgiving is much more than a time to gather with family, eat more turkey in one sitting than you have all year, drink until you are stupid, and watch football. Oh, and it's more than the turkey-induced coma you will likely pass out from. The first day of thanksgiving was held in thanks to God for the great harvest a year after many pilgrims had died from too little food. It was also a big thank you to the natives that helped the pilgrims survive, teaching them how to grow their crops in the new land. It was from the heart, thankful, and grateful. It was not time to overindulge in food and shopping.
Today's Thanksgiving Day is far astray from what it used to be, having been relegated to a Hallmark holiday. It is sad really. If you suffer from delusions of another belief system or are irreligious, consider that the Christian God is the only one who gave it all so that His people could live. He is the only one that said, have your free will, live life and enjoy it, but remember that you will also have consequences from the choices you make using that free will. He is the only one that said, you only have to love me and accept me to have eternal life. No other god (note the small "g") can do that, or has done that.
Today I am thankful for the opportunity to share with you all. I hope that you will love your neighbor, help a stranger or a friend, and have a smart, safe, and fun holiday. Happy Thanksgiving.
Thursday, November 22, 2012
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Brief Post-election Thoughts
The year was 1857, when Justice Benjamin Curtis said the following regarding the case of Dred Scott v. Sandford. Insightful, and frightfully applicable today after the re-election of Obama...
"When a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we no longer have a Constitution; we are under the government of individual men, who for the time being have power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of what it ought to mean."
Even earlier, Jan 30, 1788, James Madison wrote in Federalist 47...
"...the accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."
The point is, look at those statements from so long ago, and compare them the both the big political parties, and the current administration. Regarding the latter, you will come to see that appointing czars, waging war without Congressional approval, and the multitude of other actions undertaken by Barack Obama, he is quickly taking on the mantle implied and mentioned in those two quotes.
"When a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we no longer have a Constitution; we are under the government of individual men, who for the time being have power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of what it ought to mean."
Even earlier, Jan 30, 1788, James Madison wrote in Federalist 47...
"...the accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."
The point is, look at those statements from so long ago, and compare them the both the big political parties, and the current administration. Regarding the latter, you will come to see that appointing czars, waging war without Congressional approval, and the multitude of other actions undertaken by Barack Obama, he is quickly taking on the mantle implied and mentioned in those two quotes.
Saturday, November 3, 2012
The Issues, Part I: Foreign Policy
The first question people needs to ask when discussing foreign policy is, do I really understand what it is? Though many definitions exist, the simplest is often the most accurate. Foreign policy is how one sovereign interacts with another. Thomas Jefferson once stated that foreign policy is, "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations -- entangling alliances with none." Let's start with that last part about alliances.
Anyone can attest to the benefits of a good alliance; just recall the schoolyard playground. Bt what about the pacts made with someone or a group that ensnared you into tit-for-tat promises. Sometimes you were probably asked to do things you believed we're morally wrong, illegal, or otherwise unjust. That is where we are with foreign policy in the Union today. For instance, the United Nations has become a gutless, self-serving, and down-right unhelpful organization. The Union provides funding, troops, and time to their "causes", but to what benefit to her? What good has the united (that is intentionally lower case) States gotten out of the UN? They want control over our guns, our Internet, our children. There could be no good from laws governing Americans, but that are written by other nations. Of course, some will balk here, and they will cry about how the UN's food program has fed so many (false since in most cases rebels, militia, or other unintended recipients steal the food drops the minute they hit the ground), or they will reference other areas, none of which will prove their point. The UN has done so little good; in fact, NATO has done better.
The point here, is that "honest friendship with all nations" is difficult to achieve when you keep fighting wars in far off lands that are well past their objectives and national defense. Now that bin Laden is dead, which was the original intent of ENDURING FREEDOM, bring our troops home. Maintain a friendship with the nations necessary to facilitate growth and relations that will benefit the Union, but otherwise get out. That is the beginning of foreign policy, and I realize it does not delve as deeply as many would like. I just don't have that kind of writing time on my hands.
Anyone can attest to the benefits of a good alliance; just recall the schoolyard playground. Bt what about the pacts made with someone or a group that ensnared you into tit-for-tat promises. Sometimes you were probably asked to do things you believed we're morally wrong, illegal, or otherwise unjust. That is where we are with foreign policy in the Union today. For instance, the United Nations has become a gutless, self-serving, and down-right unhelpful organization. The Union provides funding, troops, and time to their "causes", but to what benefit to her? What good has the united (that is intentionally lower case) States gotten out of the UN? They want control over our guns, our Internet, our children. There could be no good from laws governing Americans, but that are written by other nations. Of course, some will balk here, and they will cry about how the UN's food program has fed so many (false since in most cases rebels, militia, or other unintended recipients steal the food drops the minute they hit the ground), or they will reference other areas, none of which will prove their point. The UN has done so little good; in fact, NATO has done better.
The point here, is that "honest friendship with all nations" is difficult to achieve when you keep fighting wars in far off lands that are well past their objectives and national defense. Now that bin Laden is dead, which was the original intent of ENDURING FREEDOM, bring our troops home. Maintain a friendship with the nations necessary to facilitate growth and relations that will benefit the Union, but otherwise get out. That is the beginning of foreign policy, and I realize it does not delve as deeply as many would like. I just don't have that kind of writing time on my hands.
Sunday, September 23, 2012
The Obama-flag...an abomination!
Who out there still recalls the meaning of each part of our Union's great symbol, the American Flag? It is called by a number of names, most of which we can all recognize if not recall, but what is the significance of those stripes, stars, the red, the white, and the blue?
There are 13 stripes representing your original 13 colonies, which later became states. Each was as sovereign and unique as England, Spain, Germany, and France. Those 13 fought hard for the rights and freedoms we enjoy today. They fought with purity and innocence (the white stripes), hardiness and valor (the red stripes), and with vigilance, perseverance, and justice (the blue field). Although each was its own State (country, nation), they banded together and formed a Union. That Union has been represented over the years by a varying number of stars on that blue field, and today it numbers 50.
The Stars and Stripes represents the longest standing representative republic the world has ever known. That's right, we're not really a democracy as you have been led to believe from your school books. It's a form of it which we practice and preach, but not pure as that would truly lead to chaos. It is, however, a really good system that has been corrupted and tainted by not very good men. But I digress.
Take another look at that Obama flag. Yes, stylish isn't it? However, place creative artistry aside for a moment. What stood out to me the most when I first saw this was that there is no longer a blue field, no more Union. Rather, there is a circle with a "path" of sorts running through it. This reminded me of the socialist nature of Mr. Obama's administration (the circle of blue), and the progressive nature that has so engulfed the Democratic Party of Mr. Obama (the striped road through the socialist circle). He's saying, we're all equal in all ways and should all share what we have.
Then it occurred to me that the purity and innocence of yore had been shredded (the "stripes" that look torn/tattered), and the hardiness and valor that our Union once represented in this world were torn apart. And in a final note, why are there only nine (9) stripes in Mr. Obama's campaign flag? What states is he ignoring?
There is simply no reason to do this. His campaign claims it's to raise money, but I doubt they've made much. The Facebook and Twitter folk have largely spoken out against this. I've yet to meet or talk with anyone who found it inspiring or classy or called-for. Nothing in our flag makes a distinction of Dem or GOP, and nothing should have been changed!
There are 13 stripes representing your original 13 colonies, which later became states. Each was as sovereign and unique as England, Spain, Germany, and France. Those 13 fought hard for the rights and freedoms we enjoy today. They fought with purity and innocence (the white stripes), hardiness and valor (the red stripes), and with vigilance, perseverance, and justice (the blue field). Although each was its own State (country, nation), they banded together and formed a Union. That Union has been represented over the years by a varying number of stars on that blue field, and today it numbers 50.
The Stars and Stripes represents the longest standing representative republic the world has ever known. That's right, we're not really a democracy as you have been led to believe from your school books. It's a form of it which we practice and preach, but not pure as that would truly lead to chaos. It is, however, a really good system that has been corrupted and tainted by not very good men. But I digress.
Take another look at that Obama flag. Yes, stylish isn't it? However, place creative artistry aside for a moment. What stood out to me the most when I first saw this was that there is no longer a blue field, no more Union. Rather, there is a circle with a "path" of sorts running through it. This reminded me of the socialist nature of Mr. Obama's administration (the circle of blue), and the progressive nature that has so engulfed the Democratic Party of Mr. Obama (the striped road through the socialist circle). He's saying, we're all equal in all ways and should all share what we have.
Then it occurred to me that the purity and innocence of yore had been shredded (the "stripes" that look torn/tattered), and the hardiness and valor that our Union once represented in this world were torn apart. And in a final note, why are there only nine (9) stripes in Mr. Obama's campaign flag? What states is he ignoring?
There is simply no reason to do this. His campaign claims it's to raise money, but I doubt they've made much. The Facebook and Twitter folk have largely spoken out against this. I've yet to meet or talk with anyone who found it inspiring or classy or called-for. Nothing in our flag makes a distinction of Dem or GOP, and nothing should have been changed!
Saturday, September 22, 2012
Hiatus over
Well, been a busy summer. While I've been watching the political scene during my hiatus I've noticed that the candidates are simply bickering. Pointing fingers, making poor statements, and contradicting themselves. Nothing really new there. What is new then? Well, the world scene is forcing the current administration to take another look at foreign policy. Maybe BO will finally realize that he actually needs one.
On the other hand, it has demonstrated the Mitt lacks the foresight and knowledge, and experience for that matter, to effectively react to world situations and make sensible statements. In all, we probably can all agree that neither is a great choice. All I will say in that regard, is get informed and get out and vote. If you don't vote, don't excuse it by claiming you didn't like anyone. Don't BS people with "a write-in vote is vote for [whomever]". Exercise your right to vote. Yes, you have a right not to vote, but then don't whine about the winner.
On the other hand, it has demonstrated the Mitt lacks the foresight and knowledge, and experience for that matter, to effectively react to world situations and make sensible statements. In all, we probably can all agree that neither is a great choice. All I will say in that regard, is get informed and get out and vote. If you don't vote, don't excuse it by claiming you didn't like anyone. Don't BS people with "a write-in vote is vote for [whomever]". Exercise your right to vote. Yes, you have a right not to vote, but then don't whine about the winner.
Friday, February 17, 2012
Rachel Maddow: Republican Hypocrisy on Contraception Issue
Rachel Maddow: Hypocrisy be damned, Republicans milk contraception issue:
Maddow is right, there's hypocrisy in the air on this. However, she does miscommunicate some of the sound bytes, surveys. For instance, she mentions a survey made about the pre-change and current bill for contraceptives and who supported it and by how much. That survey was only conducted in NYC, one of the more liberal cities out there. I think that's important to note. I support the availability of contraceptives, but not for grade school children. One area that was heinously bent by Ms. Maddow was Santorum's comment in his web interview in 2006. He said, and I paraphrase, that contraceptives lead to doing what ever one wants sexually. Yes his overall context does lead one to see that he is only about natural prevention (i.e. abstaining, early pull-out, etc). But he's not wrong either, regarding the reduction of inhibition in sexual activity when one is using contraceptives. Ugh, bottom line, I think it should be left up to the employer, company, etc if they cover contraceptives in their insurance policy. They would have to be very upfront with the people about what they will or won't cover. But this will not cause insurance coverage to begin denying every vaccine or any service at whim. Simply put, government should back out of it. It should be a non-issue and not discussed among presidential candidates.
Maddow is right, there's hypocrisy in the air on this. However, she does miscommunicate some of the sound bytes, surveys. For instance, she mentions a survey made about the pre-change and current bill for contraceptives and who supported it and by how much. That survey was only conducted in NYC, one of the more liberal cities out there. I think that's important to note. I support the availability of contraceptives, but not for grade school children. One area that was heinously bent by Ms. Maddow was Santorum's comment in his web interview in 2006. He said, and I paraphrase, that contraceptives lead to doing what ever one wants sexually. Yes his overall context does lead one to see that he is only about natural prevention (i.e. abstaining, early pull-out, etc). But he's not wrong either, regarding the reduction of inhibition in sexual activity when one is using contraceptives. Ugh, bottom line, I think it should be left up to the employer, company, etc if they cover contraceptives in their insurance policy. They would have to be very upfront with the people about what they will or won't cover. But this will not cause insurance coverage to begin denying every vaccine or any service at whim. Simply put, government should back out of it. It should be a non-issue and not discussed among presidential candidates.
Saturday, February 4, 2012
SOTU 2012 - An Patriot's Analysis
Per Article II, Section 3, of the Constitution of the United States, the President,
If you've not had a chance to watch or read Mr. Obama's 2012 State of the Union (SOTU) address, I urge you to do so prior to reading further.
“...shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient...„From Thomas Jefferson until Woodrow Wilson these addresses were written; but during and after Wilson the President has addressed Congress in person each January after they have convened for a joint session.
If you've not had a chance to watch or read Mr. Obama's 2012 State of the Union (SOTU) address, I urge you to do so prior to reading further.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)