Monday, August 31, 2009
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Thursday, August 27, 2009
I'm with the ACLU on this one. Constitutionally, government employees (and yes, that includes public school employees) cannot promote any one religion. The rights of the minors have been violated, in my opinion. They were not Christian. Being forced to pray is wrong.
I'm currently reading a book called Piety and Politics, by Rev. Barry W. Lynn. He raises an excellent point- forced, ritualized religion, like standardized prayers in school, have no real value. They simply create resentment and trivialize religion. State-mandated religion is not true religion or faith.
The Christians in this town are throwing a fit, claiming their Christian rights have been violated. But what about the rights of those two kids? Would Christians be so keen on this idea if some other religion was being given preference in the public schools?
No, of course not.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Only problem I see with this very well-spoken veteran's logic- the Nazis were not only leftist. Actually, in some of their ideology, they were quite Conservative! They absolutely adored their military, and they were obsessively patriotic. They wanted everyone to work- their basic philosophy was "If you don't work for it, you don't have it." (Something I do agree with.)
And let us not forget that it was the Republicans (the 'right wingers') that sparked this beautiful nationalization, what with Bush's bailout. Republicans voted to bail out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
All these positions are things that were set up in the Nazi Programme of the National Socialist German Workers Party.
Let us give credit where credit is due for the mess we're in right now. Both Republicans and Democrats have contributed. Let us not forget that we have, for the past eight years, been under the jurisdiction of a Republican President and a Republican Congress. I do think this mess has been building for the past several decades, and I think that Clinton basically left a ticking time bomb on Bush's hands- but let's not ignore the Republican's part in this.
Both parties have been bad. Let's just throw them all out!
PS- other than that little thing, I thought this gentleman's 'speech' was exceptional. He shared what he wished to say very well. And I think Rep Baird could have handled it with a bit more grace. ;)
Okay. I never knew one could spend as much money as they wanted...and not go bankrupt. Where is the line here? Of course, the fact that America is already bankrupt (and has been, for quite awhile), is something to consider.
But guess what, Vice President Biden? When one is in debt up to their eyeballs, and has absolutely NO money, it isn't wise to keep spending.
I wish it were, though. I mean, just think of what I could buy...and operating on that logic, never have 'no' money left!
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Monday, August 24, 2009
‘(1) IN GENERAL- The audit of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal reserve banks under subsection (b) shall be completed before the end of 2010.
‘(A) REQUIRED- A report on the audit referred to in paragraph (1) shall be submitted by the Comptroller General to the Congress before the end of the 90-day period beginning on the date on which such audit is completed and made available to the Speaker of the House, the majority and minority leaders of the House of Representatives, the majority and minority leaders of the Senate, the Chairman and Ranking Member of the committee and each subcommittee of jurisdiction in the House of Representatives and the Senate, and any other Member of Congress who requests it.
‘(B) CONTENTS- The report under subparagraph (A) shall include a detailed description of the findings and conclusion of the Comptroller General with respect to the audit that is the subject of the report, together with such recommendations for legislative or administrative action as the Comptroller General may determine to be appropriate.’."
(I like the Senate's title though- 'The Federal Reserve Sunshine Act.' Isn't that just cute? XD)
Once we get past all the legal mumbo-jumbo of this bill, we see that the intent of this bill is to make sure the Federal Reserve is being honest- something that has been needing doing for the past several years.
I think that, if this bill were to get passed, it would be a step in the right direction. Of course, it probably won't get passed, since Bernanke has already practically threatened Congress with economic collapse if the bill gets passed.
In this video, he says- and I quote- "My concern about the legislation is that if the GAO is auditing not only the operational aspects of our programs and the details of the programs, but is making judgements about our policy decisions, that would effectively be a takeover of monetary policy by the Congress, a repudiation of the independence of the Federal Reserve, which would be highly destructive to the stability of the financial system, the dollar, and our national economic situation."
I quote from the Constitution- "[The Congress shall have Power To] borrow money on the credit of the United States; To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States; To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures; To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;"
First of all, I want to know why Congress doing their job would be 'highly destructive' to our financial system. Is there something you need to hide, Mr. Bernanke?
Secondly, I want to know why our monetary system is in the hands of a private bank, and private bankers in the first place. The passage quoted above clearly states that it is Congress' responsibility to deal with money matters- not that they delegate it to a private bank.
Friday, August 21, 2009
Tonight, I was discussing politics with a couple of the ladies who go to a discipleship program our church hosts. We talked about politics in general, then I asked one of the ladies if she paid much attention to politics. She said no, she didn't. I asked why not, and this was her answer: "Because Obama is an idiot."
I then proceeded to ask her what she thought of Bush. She said she had approved of him. I asked why. "Mainly, because he's a Christian, and prayed for our country."
Those two things are just fine and dandy. Now why do you approve and/or disapprove of them?
Sorry, but the argument "He's an idiot" just doesn't hold much water for me. Anybody can be an 'idiot'- sometimes, I'm an idiot. But why am I an idiot? Why is President Obama an idiot? Do you have a specific reason for why you think that? Is that your only argument?
I generally get asked, at this point, why I disapprove of President Obama. I disapprove of him because, for starters, he does not believe in the Constitution. (Reading assignment- 'Constitution' in The Audacity of Hope.) He thinks it is outdated, and should go the way of the dinosaur. Next, much of his economic policy and thinking on various other issues is Communist or Socialist in substance or implication. Communism and Socialism are essentially totalitarian regimes- something that is not American, and never will be.
I disagree with President Obama because I think that, while he may or may not have the best interests of the American people at heart, he is for bigger government and several other issues that I won't bore you with in this post.
I disapproved of President Bush because of several pieces of legislation and actions he took during his terms. For starters, the PATRIOT act. For those of my readers who may not be informed as to what the PATRIOT act is, let me enlighten you. The PATRIOT act allows the federal government (more like the President, really) to imprison any person, American citizen or no, on the simple belief or suspicion of seditious/terrorist/traitorous acts against the federal government or any government official.
Yeah, that's real nice. Then, we have the Iraq war and the subsequent invasion of Afghanistan. I am not precisely sure why we went into either. The explanation for Iraq was changed several times (from terrorist activities to WMD's to promoting democracy), and I haven't done much research into our occupation of Afghanistan. But preemptive war is not right. Preemptive is where you take measures to prevent something before it happens. But what are we preventing in Iraq? A dictatorship becoming more of a dictatorship? I'm pretty sure those Iraqis will go right back to a dictatorship when (if) we get out of Iraq. It'll happen. Sorry if that hurts your sensitive little feelings.
This is just a tiny sample of the reasons for my disliking Bush. There are more, believe me. ;)
This is more of a rant than anything- I'm a bit steamed right now. ^.^ Tomorrow or the next day, I'm going to attempt another, clarified post on gay marriage, mostly for a friend. :)
Yes, this is one of those topics that has gotten me into trouble (numerous times) with my Republican Christian friends.
Why? Well, because I don't think it should be there. It didn't even appear on our coins until the 1800's, and wasn't mandated on both coins and paper money until the 1950's. Hence, it has little to no 'cultural' significance. Yes, yes, I know- we're a Christian nation, and all that.
But we're really not. We have Buddhists, and athiests, and Confucists, and Muslims, and all sorts of other religions here. And unless the 'god' referenced on the money is every god for each individual religion, than you can't really have it there.
There may be something in this on-going debate that I am overlooking, and if so, feel free to tell me. ;)
This post was sparked by a posting on another blog along the lines of 'vote here in favor of the motto.' So...discuss if you wish. ^.^
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Yes. No. Yes.
The Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States-
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. [Emphasis mine]
This amendment states, beyond any reasonable shadow of a doubt, that Constitutionally, the American people are granted the right to own and carry guns. Yes, this amendment also mentions a militia. But at the time this was written, every man (males 14 and older) who could tote a gun were considered the 'militia'. Women were also counted into the 'militia' if some catastrophe happened and there were no able bodied men left.
Hence, the American people can carry guns anytime they please. This right cannot be infringed. Infringed means violated, encroached. Things like gun laws are, in my opinion, infringing the right to carry a gun, as it adds unnecessary legal process and bureaucracy to the simple act of owning a gun.
"But the Constitution is outdated!"
An argument I have heard manymany times- more times than I would like to count. So, our system of government is outdated. Our Congressional election style is outdated? Our Presidential veto is outdated? Our government for the people, by the people is outdated?
"But guns are....dangerous!"
Yeah. That's what makes them so fun!
No, not really. In experienced, practiced hands that have been trained in the use of a firearm, they aren't all that dangerous. Yes, accidents can happen. Yes, some people have gotten killed by accidental discharge.
But when handled properly, guns are no more dangerous than a glass of water. I know of a family who has guns. Many guns. They had young children, and now grandchildren. Their guns stay out. The kids know not to touch the guns, because they have been trained that guns are dangerous, since before they were old enough to understand. It is no problem.
"Guns kill people!"
No. People kill people. If guns kill people, why don't we put the gun in jail?
If someone wants to kill another, they will do it. They don't need a gun. In your household, you have plenty of items that could potentially kill someone.
And oh yeah, what was that other one...oh yeah- Humans!!
The list of items that can be used to kill someone goes on. And on. And on and on and on. There is no end to it. If someone wants to kill someone, they will do it, regardless of if they have a gun or not.
"Without strict gun laws, the criminals will get guns."
They get guns anyway. The only thing gun laws do is deprive law abiding citizens of protection they are legally allowed to have, making them more susceptible to a homicide or a robbery in which a gun is used.
"But guns are just fundamentally bad. There isn't any real reason we should have them."
The Constitution, ladies and gentlemen. Go read it, it will do you good.
The Constitution guarantees us the right to keep and bear arms. That means that any gun laws that prohibit or hamper the keeping of firearms are unconstitutional. (Side note- that does not mean I think that every citizen should have a tank in their backyard. Those are military weapons, which I am not sure about. There may be some other hamper to that. I don't know.)
The Constitutional Bill of Rights was intended to make sure that the people's rights were not infringed. That means that the entirety of the Constitution is intended to keep the government in check.
Using this line of reasoning, we can conclude that the reason the American people are allowed to keep guns is to keep the government in check.
Governments have a history of going astray. England did it. Spain did it. Rome did it. Every single government in the history of the world has slipped up and started going the wrong way- becoming more totalitarian, etc. This kind of government is the polar opposite of a democratic republic.
So, the founders instituted some very interesting clauses in the Constitution. For starters, the representatives are, in a rather indirect way (at that time), elected by the people. If the people do not, for some reason, like the job their congressman is doing, they can recall him with various processes that are outlined in the states, and then elect another.
The next is contained in the first amendment- we the people have the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. Unfortunately, our current government has stopped listening to such petitions, as We The People and other organizations have discovered.
From there, we go on to guns. The entire idea of keeping and bearing arms was to have them in case of an emergency. An emergency would include the idea of a non-responsive government. (Note- I am not advocating going and assassinating all the members of Congress. That would be wrong. Nor am I advocating assassinating President Obama. That, too would be wrong.)
But we do have the right to keep and bear arms.
Friday, August 14, 2009
Michael Littlejohn has one such gun that he requested from a blacksmith. But now, the Bloomberg administration is trying to seize the gun...as well as Mr. Littlejohn's gun rights.
I think they missed that passage in the Constitution- y'know, the second amendment. "The people's right to bear arms shall not be infringed...' all that?
The NYPD are trying to force him to get a license- despite the fact that, under the law, he can keep a gun. Besides, who cares? He claims he doesn't have ammunition. And even if he did, his rights under the Constitution are clearly spelled out.
Unfortunately, the NYPD hasn't gotten the memo. Somebody needs to send them (and the maker of the gun laws in this country) a copy of the second amendment.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
This is probably going to be short. I am just going to present what I think of what I have heard about the healthcare plan that is currently being foisted on the American people by an overeager president and his cronies.
1) I do not think our situation is as dire as many people would like us to believe. The frantic "46,000,000 people without healthcare" isn't as bad as Mrs. Clinton likes it to sound. Because, after all, the 46,000,000 are just people without insurance. Counted in that 46,000,000 are illegal immigrants, the rich, and those that just don't need it. Just because one does not have insurance does not mean that one cannot get healthcare- you can, and you will if you need it.
2) I do not think we need coverage for everyday visits. A well visit? No coverage needed. A checkup? No coverage needed. An MRI? Coverage needed. Brain surgery? Coverage needed. It should be subjective to the case. But simple, everyday visits do not need coverage.
3) I do, however, think alternative medicines should be covered. For instance, a midwife should be covered in the same way an OB is covered. A chiropractor should be covered in the same way an intensive therapist is covered. There are many people who like alternative medicine, and they should be covered.
4) The government should have no control over my healthcare. I have no desire to have treatment denied for my foot because I smoke.
I admit that our current system is broken. I concede that the insurance companies are corrupt, and something needs to be done about it. But that something is not that the government get involved yet more. What is needed is that the American people wake up and stop being duped.
The TSA has announced its intention to tighten up airport security. If you make a reservation for a flight, don't be surprised if they ask for your sex and age. It's just 'routine.'
Pro: it will probably help them streamline the no fly list.
Con: We're still spooked about terrorist attacks that happened 8 years ago.
(And yes, this is short. I'll try again tomorrow ^.^)