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.
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Marino Introduces One Subject at a Time Act | Congressman Thomas Marino
Finally a Representative who gets it and is working for something I think has been desperately needed! If/when this gets signed into law, the next step ought to be limited the number of laws Congress can pass in a specific time period. Why do I think that's important? Because they are making our law books so huge that no one can learn it or understand it all, not to mention it creates the probability of more and greater loopholes! End the madness, I say!!
'via Blog this'
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Hooray for Thomas!
I've read the articles, both in support of and demonizing Thomas. I have this to say, should you care to listen. There was no fanfare in Thomas's address regarding why he opted not to visit the White House with his Bruins family. Nothing glitzy, no snide remarks, no disrespect for the President or the office thereof. He simply stated,
He went on to call out both big parties and their childish politics saying,
However, for me, the clincher; the part that cemented him in my heart as a real American Patriot was this statement regarding the threats to rights, liberties and the peoples' property,
See the official NHL press bit on NHL.com.
More Resources:
"Bruins MVP Tim Thomas skips..." by Greg Wyshynski (Yahoo! Sports)
"Tim Thomas: Liberty’s Most Valuable Player" by Publius (BigGovernment.com)
"Tim Thomas and the Obama snub..." by Patrik Jonsson (The Christian Science Monitor)
"...Federal government has grown out of control, threatening the Rights, Liberties, and Property of the People."
 |
| Boston Bruins goalie, Tim Thomas |
He went on to call out both big parties and their childish politics saying,
"... in my opinion both parties are responsible for the situation we are in as a country."And guess what; he's absolutely right! I is irrelevant how you feel about anyone who's held the Office of the President, sat in the Senate, or served in the House. The gripe, the argue, the banter, they bitch, they whine, but they haven't gotten anything of substance accomplished for decades!
However, for me, the clincher; the part that cemented him in my heart as a real American Patriot was this statement regarding the threats to rights, liberties and the peoples' property,
"This is in direct opposition to the Constitution and the Founding Fathers vision for the Federal government."BINGO! Take some time and learn what Mr. Thomas means here. Read "The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution" by Kevin R.C. Gutzman. But more importantly, read the Constitution and do so with an understanding that in the 1700s, a state was on the same level group as what we call a country today. That is, our state of Virginia was a State, equal on the global scale as Spain or Germany or China or Russia! We are a republic, but more so we are a federation of States!
See the official NHL press bit on NHL.com.
More Resources:
"Bruins MVP Tim Thomas skips..." by Greg Wyshynski (Yahoo! Sports)
"Tim Thomas: Liberty’s Most Valuable Player" by Publius (BigGovernment.com)
"Tim Thomas and the Obama snub..." by Patrik Jonsson (The Christian Science Monitor)
Sunday, January 22, 2012
Against religious rights? - Fox News Video - Fox News
Against religious rights? - Fox News Video - Fox News:
The First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." No one can doubt the violation by this administration on requiring religious organizations to pay for insurance covering those "services" that violate their beliefs! PERIOD!
The First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." No one can doubt the violation by this administration on requiring religious organizations to pay for insurance covering those "services" that violate their beliefs! PERIOD!
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Why not Mitt?
So, I've been studying the records and standing of our illustrious Republican candidates for President. Yet, what I found most disturbing is the flocking of people to what are potential disasters as President. Please keep in mind that it's not my intent to sway you toward any one candidate. Rather, I wish to give you things to consider as you make your choice on who gets your vote.Today, I ask why you may want to reconsider a vote for Willard "Mitt" Romney. It's simple really, on two counts. First, Mr. Romney is a politician! I don't mean that he's been a Governor, he's a politician in every sense of the word. A simple Google search of the word provides the following: A person who acts in a manipulative and devious way, typically to gain advancement. Naturally, the most accepted definition is actually someone professionally involved in politics. (Click here for reference). Like most candidates, Romney has manipulated the wording and appearance of his decisions as Governor of Massachusetts. He quickly and easily rationalizes his flip-flopping record on various issues. So the problem here is that if you are one of the many Americans screaming that politicians are through, that they should be ousted from Congress or the Oval Office and replaced with real Americans providing us with real representation, then Romney is not your man.
Second, but closely related, Romney claims he's conservative, but then moderate, but then back again; oh wait, moderate. What? Indecisive for one; lukewarm for the other. I would rather the man come out and state he's a solid left-wing liberal, than claim himself a moderate anything. Why? Because lukewarm sucks! You never really know where a lukewarm person stands. Everything about being moderate screams HELL NO to me. In the definition of that word you find things like "average" and "less" (as in the lower end of any given spectrum). To be fair, some synonyms (but not words in the definition) are sober, temperate, and reasonable. Not necessarily bad adjectives, but you have to consider the man's record along with the word. He doesn't fit those last three.
I ask you, do you want another politician representing your interests from the Oval Office? Do you really want a lukewarm, uh, whatever he is in that big chair? I don't. I want a President with some guts and gusto, who will stand boldly for this country and defend us, not apologize for us (Mr. Obama)! Pick a side of the left-right spectrum and stick to it! That said, I'll caveat with this closing, I don't want and extreme nut in office either.
What say you America?
Sunday, January 15, 2012
Pre-Constitutional Rights...huh?
I read Downsize DC periodically as their articles are interesting if nothing else, but was dismayed today at their lack of true understanding and patriotism! In a recent editorial entitled, Our Lexicon: "Pre-Constitutional Rights", they start with a good explanation of the historical start of our Declaration of Independence and Constitution. Here they discuss that all this preceded the government we now have. They also briefly state, as those vital documents do, that certain rights, many rights, are inalienable. True enough, as God's creation, He says the same in His Word. Anyway, I'll get to the point. The article quickly shifts and states that "...this next part may bother you..."
I say, if you're a Patriot, it damn well better bother you! They go into a spiel about how those rights, being inalienable to all humans, are provided regardless of your citizenship. What? I don't think so. I agree in a small part, which I alluded to earlier. As humans, God's children, we have rights that He gave us from the start...think free will. And those rights are for all. However, when a nation uses a document as its foundation for government and thus the supreme LAW of its land, those laws in regards to protection are vital as retained for the LAWFUL citizens of that country. Those who break the laws are willfully giving up certain rights. Therefore, those who enter America illegally are forfeiting some of those protections, while at the same time having to accept that they now going to suffer the consequences of breaking the law.
I know, it's a bit dicey. I will do more research and thinking on this and get back to you as soon as I can! For those that read this blog and are not all to fond of what they think is any amount of inhumanity from me because I do not support keeping illegal immigrants in the country and providing them a fast/easy path to citizenship, let me say this. I love them as human beings and believe that they have a right to live here, once they return to their country and use the legal processes we have in place. I even support keeping some of them in the country when evidence exists that they are personally being targeted in their native land and their life and livelihood are seriously and unlawfully threatened. Aside from that, everyone in the country, legal or not, must follow the rules and obey the laws, period!
I say, if you're a Patriot, it damn well better bother you! They go into a spiel about how those rights, being inalienable to all humans, are provided regardless of your citizenship. What? I don't think so. I agree in a small part, which I alluded to earlier. As humans, God's children, we have rights that He gave us from the start...think free will. And those rights are for all. However, when a nation uses a document as its foundation for government and thus the supreme LAW of its land, those laws in regards to protection are vital as retained for the LAWFUL citizens of that country. Those who break the laws are willfully giving up certain rights. Therefore, those who enter America illegally are forfeiting some of those protections, while at the same time having to accept that they now going to suffer the consequences of breaking the law.
I know, it's a bit dicey. I will do more research and thinking on this and get back to you as soon as I can! For those that read this blog and are not all to fond of what they think is any amount of inhumanity from me because I do not support keeping illegal immigrants in the country and providing them a fast/easy path to citizenship, let me say this. I love them as human beings and believe that they have a right to live here, once they return to their country and use the legal processes we have in place. I even support keeping some of them in the country when evidence exists that they are personally being targeted in their native land and their life and livelihood are seriously and unlawfully threatened. Aside from that, everyone in the country, legal or not, must follow the rules and obey the laws, period!
Thursday, January 12, 2012
Justice Department Report Defends Obama's 'recess' Appointments As Legal | Fox News
Justice Department Report Defends Obama's 'recess' Appointments As Legal | Fox News: "Virginia Seitz"
'via Blog this'
'via Blog this'
So, once again, it comes down to two things. First, while the Constitution may be expressly define a recess, this is a pattern that Obama has developed throughout his time in office, of going against the grain and obvious desires of Congress, who are our legally elected, appointed representatives, and therefor he continues to go against our desires. After all, lest he forget that he works for the American Patriots! Second, this woman is an Obama insider, nominated to this position on Jan 5, 2011 and confirmed by the Senate on June 28 of that year.
Taliban say Marine abuse tape won't hurt Afghanistan talks | Reuters
Taliban say Marine abuse tape won't hurt Afghanistan talks | Reuters:
'via Blog this'
'via Blog this'
I have two major issues with this. First off, as a patriot of the United States of America, why are we negotiating with these terrorists? Silly me, I thought we didn't do that; but then again, this demonstrates the utter spinelessness and socialist nature of the Obama administration. Secondly, I do agree that this is beyond sad. It is disrespectful to human life, it is heartless, and it does indeed fly in the face of the values of what America has always stood for, despite the cowardly apologies of our current President. No Marine, Sailor, Airman, or Soldier should ever let the very thought of doing this cross his mind! It serves no purpose, and I as certain they feel no better about having conducted themselves in this manner. If I'm wrong on that point, then they need to reexamine their Patriotic Compass!
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
The Patriotic Compass, Part II
Today is a short one folks. Watching the caucuses, primaries, ads, and more throughout the years it occurs to me that one must be wary. First of all, don't focus on voting for who you think is simply able to beat Obama! This is blind voting in most cases. At the least, you must educate yourself about where the candidates stand on the issues and ensure they meet your standard, and represent your beliefs, values, and interests. Yet, and this is my second point, don't think you are going to get the perfect candidate either. No one candidate is going to fit into your world perfectly. Weight the pros and cons of each. Third, no matter what, don't give Obama another four years! He's run this country so far away from what America has always stood for that just one generation ago already cannot recognize the America they grew up with. Redistribution of wealth, big government, and all that Obama stands for is not the right direction. It strips you as an American of your freedoms, doing so through desensitization, slowly eroding what was our great American nationalism, exceptionalism, and power.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)