Common Sense

1001 Hits!

2008-10-18T22:11:00.000-07:00

Just thought I'd point it out...

Change You can Decieve in

2008-08-27T20:11:00.000-07:00

Tonight I've heard some of the dullest repetition in my life. And it has nothing to do with poetry memorization. Rather change. I think pocket change is more exiting than the kind of change Barack Obama talks about. He's supposed to be a good speaker. But now listen to the holy chant of the messiah's minions. 'That's not change- it's more of the same". Tonight after listening to VP nominee Joe Biden, I've decided to post on this idea of 'change'.

First off, what is change? Change is a verb, adjective and noun. Dictionary. com calls it:

To make the form, nature, content, future course, etc., of (something) different from what it is or from what it would be if left alone: to change one's name; to change one's opinion; to change the course of history.

Why don't people get the simple fact that change isn't necessarily good? One could change for good or for bad, it can be irrelevant. Why is change so good? I've heard too many simple minded Americans say they'll vote for Obama because change is good. That's one reason why pocket change excites me more than Obama change. You are guaranteed something good- money (which Obama evidently doesn't think people should have much of). If one supports this change policy for change's sake, you have no idea what you're getting.

So what is this change? Something I find interesting is change means whatever Obama finds it to be most convenient. Considering it's Obama's 1 consistent platform it changes a lot. Something interesting to note is that at first it was mere 'change'. Whatever that meant. Then Obama was out to change the system and bring a new kind of politics to Washington. This was used against Sen. Clinton- this was the new kind of politician. Now Barack Obama has won the primary and it's a different kind of change. The crowd at the convention were all given signs (Which they did some fancy choreographing with) that said :"McCain- more of the same". Now it is used in the general election, touting McCain as a '3rd term of President Bush'. As if that's bad. Tonight Biden proceeded to name several areas where Obama would bring change and McCain would fail. None of them were valid. (more on those issues another time.) Evidently change isn't what it used to be anymore. I wonder why?

Barack Obama on a tenet that's always changing. That's what change is.

But does this miracle cure to all of our countries problems work? Apparently the messiah isn't the miracle worker he appears to be. He follows the same democratic ideas the party has been touting for years. Raising taxes, creating more government programs and being morally despicable when it comes to issues like abortion doesn't bring anything new to democratic politics. He just does it at an unprecedented extreme level.

As to the different- than-the-current-president type of change, I don't regard it much. Of course a democratic candidate will be different that President Bush. This strategy just uses the hatred for the president from the party. It doesn't say anything. Bugs Bunny could run for president and this kind of change would be present. It doesn't mean anything. It just says 'anything is better than what we have now' and the claim that the current president has done nothing good is absurd.

Even considering the fact that Obama doesn't give anything different from other democrats beside his extremism, some could still say that Democrats are the progressive party, so change is their motto for a reason. I beg to differ even on that. Progressive implies advance, something democrats clearly can't do. But it appears that they just like change when it's changing to their ideals. Change itself isn't good, even for democrats. Take the hasty adjournment of congress by speaker Pelosi. In case you didn't hear- the vote was up that would decide whether to allow states to decide for their selves whether to drill for oil. Since democrats like their restrictions the way they are Speaker Pelosi rushed to adjournment, turned off the mics and the lights and declared a vacation. In vain republicans tried to rejoin, but Pelosi wanted things to stay the way they are. After all, change that might allow for a healthier economy isn't the kind the Democrats want. So the progressive party wants change some o the time.

All in all the party has no foundation, no one principle they can tout about. What would their principles be? Globalism? Infanticide? Communism? No, they prefer to pass it all of as the nebulous change. I say you can 'keep the change' Barack Obama. I'd like to keep mine.

Funny....

2008-01-23T20:53:00.000-08:00

Fox news just aired a report on some gangmembers/ imbeciles. Apperantly they posted a video on YouTube waving around weapons challenging the police to "Come get us". They did.

2007-06-03T21:05:00.000-07:00

Sooo... What should I post on next? I have a few dwelling thoughts and a few drafts running and
I was wondering what you wanted to hear about more, since I'm too lazy to do all of them right away and some may not be done for a while. So what do you want to hear of first?
so what do you think?

AAAAuUUUUUUUUUUGHHHHHHHJHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

2007-05-16T20:29:00.000-07:00

Phew uh AAAAAAUAUUUggggggghhhhhhhhh! YIKES .ummm.......yeah. I know this is Kind of Random, but I'm feeling a little like Mrs. Weimeyer, and I needed to scream. The long and short of it is...I Qualified......

Yeah, it is about as random a joke my mom could make, as I didn't realize it until after a minute she told me. Sorry If I'm not coherent...I can't even think straight, let alone blog. basically she thought she'd play a joke at dinner and we started thinking of movi lines from the alamo (2004). I have no idea why. It's incredably unlike her. We named some lines, when she said "I liked some of those Davy crockett lines." What????? He has some of the worst! We listed some of his, when she prodded further, asking "What was that line, 'you can go to hell...'?" If you'd heard it, it'd be near impossible not to know. We had joked about it in relation to nats, since they are in Texas. I recited "you can all go to hell, I'm going to texas" which he had actually said in tennesee, not AT the Alamo. My mom said, "wait, wasn't it something else, say it again..." My dad prodded for my repeat of the line, also...Then just the first part. My mom added "and we are..you qualified." There was a moment of stunned silence. Jonah stopped eating.....Madiline stopped struggling with her Enchilada. They all looked at Mom. Except for Jonah, who then took another bite of guacamole. After much questioning, I found out that it was no joke, someone unfortunately couldn't come, and I was next in line. I was greatly dissapointed earlier, to not be able to see those of you who qualified at nats. It'd be great if all Touche could go, but then we'd need more slots. Though If I could chose I'd say many more did much better than me, I just happened to be in the right catagory. I had put NCFCA out of my mind, but it hadn't had enough of me. I am indeed, though last to qualify, going to Texas.

Weightless

2007-05-13T20:01:00.000-07:00

No, This is Not the Newest Diet Program...

I went to the State Capital a week or so ago. Yay. Usual tour of the place kinda thing, seen one- seen them all. They treat you like you are a public schooler etc etc. But I'm not going to rant on how I hate field trips. This one was actually pretty thought provoking. State Assemblyman Bill Emerson showed us around the assembly floor (We were there with my grandfather, who was receiving a 'small businessman of the year' award from him) . We saw the voting system, the architecture, grand stairs and lastly the office of the Cal. Senate Minority leader- Mr. Dick Ackerman. On our way out we received a copy of the Constitution along with a bunch of other pamphlets like "How a Bill becomes a Law". I stood and looked at the constitution. it was actually a book that had California's constitution, which is ten times bigger than the federal, and the Magna Carta, Articles of Confederation, Mayflower Compact and Declaration of Independence. Thinking of all the little laws and why the State Constitution is ten times bigger than the Federal, I thought of the heavy book and wondered: 'What bears more weight- The book itself or the actual words of the Constitution?' And because of what I had heard in the news earlier that day, this is why I would regrettably answer- the former

You may know that our Constitution is violated regularly. There are many such instances. Latest and perhaps the worst yet is called hate crimes. The idea has been around for some time, yet it has taken an advance. First for background.

Hate crimes are, essentially, outright constitutional violation. It is basically the mindset if you hit someone over the head with a shovel while calling them a racial or ethnic oriented name, the crime is worse than if you just hit them with the shovel. It tries to root out all 'hate' in America. As Ann Coulter put it, it is as if liberals wanted a 'sad-free America'. Nowadays we see people taking offense when they are so much as called a name. Don Imus (Sports analysist) lost his job because he called someone a name. 'Kramer', from TV show 'Seinfeld' did, too. I wouldn't ever use some of the language used be people like these, but are insults really something to legislate on?

Hate crimes have gone to a state level, and are already at work violating rights. Two elderly women were arrested for passing out Bibles near a public school under these 'Hate crimes' acts, because they were 'forcing their beliefs on children. This was, of course, right as the kids were finished with the public schools teachers forcing their evolutionist, secularistic, homosexual, anti-Christan, Muslim 'beliefs' on them in their own agenda. We can see this isn't even about 'tolerance' or 'forcing beliefs'. It is about the left-wing, secular agenda continually being pushed into our lives.

I wouldn't just label this as the left wing agenda, however, if it wasn't really from them. Remember, this is the latest offense. Liberals in the House of Representatives have passed the "hate crimes" bill, H.R. 1592, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, by a margin of 237 to 180. It is now going on to the senate. It only gets worse.

One of the main reasons liberals give as a facade for their anti-constitutionalism is homosexuality. They claim everyone is picking on the poor gays and they need some defense. The bill separates us all into classes- first class victims and second class. Gays amongst others get their 'special treatment' if anything happens to them seen as 'hate'. Second class, of course, will be regular working christian conservatives. This completely ignores the constitution's 14th amendment, stating there will be "Equality under the Law". Where's that equality? Now when we think of racism, we think of Civil rights abuses, like we see in the sixties, all of the marches, for black rights, women's rights...But now we have bent over backwards. Those now labeling conservatives as racists because they don't support this are racists. They believe someone else should get more rights than someone else. That's all it is. It doesn't matter what happened, we are now ignoring the current civil Rights abuses, not against a minority, but a majority.

How will this affect you, then? Okay, it gives gay people an edge over you. But there's fr more than that. This affects our Constitution in a way it has never been changed before. Liberals have constantly tried to warp and twist the Constitution to their own agenda, even going so far as to make up the phrase 'separation between church and state', but I believe as this passes, they win. This twists the constitution near beyond repair. Think, the essence of hate crimes is 'I can say what I want but you can't' the bill of rights goes directly against this. Liberals are always waving it around when they have something to say. It's the first amendment-Freedom of speech. This is as direct a violation of number one on our bill of rights as you can get. How does this affect the constitution? It affects all rights. We have no rights. Think about it for a minute. If we are endowed by our Creator these rights, then they are rights; they can't be recalled. A right is always a right. Instead, our rights can be recalled by a simple vote on congress (which is why I'm resolved democracy is overvalued.... :D) . To Quote Anthony's O.O. :"If Society can grant rights...then Society can take them away." We no longer see rights. As Richard Mayberry, author of 'Whatever Happened to Justice', puts it, we no longer have rights, just permissions.We have permission to speak- but that permission can be revoked at any time. This ruins the basis of our country. We held rights to be from God, not the government or the people. Now rights can be revoked on a simple vote.

This destroys the whole Idea of the America, let alone the Bill of Rights. Our rights vanish, given to select others, while the Constitution is rendered 'weightless'.

Application Denied

2007-05-04T18:07:00.000-07:00

And Not Because of Bad Grades

Hmm....I'm a homeschooled, Christian, white, conservative male. What Chance do I have of being accepted into a State college? Well, with the discrimination rate involved, probably not much, but now it is nearly impossible.

And once again, the latest outrage ( or should-be outrage) has to do with public schools. I know most of you reading (if not, all) are homeschooled, but we'll see how this directly affects you too, and is a direct constitutional violation. First, let's look at the public schools.

Public schools are going downhill. There's no doubt about it. Even now I just glanced over to see on the TV another incident of school violence at a public school. Why is this? Our morals are going away. There is no place to go to for morals anymore. Why isn't the public school a good enough place to send your child for the day? Noting the program on TV in the background, there was no teacher where this gang-like beating occurred. No one did anything. Shouldn't the schools want to maintain better discipline? Do they want to discard all of their credibility?

The fact is that sort of thing doesn't matter to them. Here's how: Taxes. Ever wondered why homeschoolers and private schools are so often condemned by the government? The fact is, for every student that appears at a publiv, the public school gets paid extra. In addition, they get to press whatever ideas they want. If you want to instill a mindset, good or bad, what better place to start than schools. But students don't pay individually, they are paid through taxes. Even if you don't go to a public school you still pay as if you did. Which is why they don't like it when they don't get good attendance rates, but it doesn't affect them all the same. It would be as if I owned a grocery store. For the sake of illustration , lets say there was a law and you had to buy ten dollars worth per week of my groceries. It doesn't matter weather you use them, you just have to buy my services and products. That's like taxes. It's government forcing the citizen to buy it's services. Not to say all taxes are bad: some will go to things like the military and police. Certain things are necessary, but others aren't. If you were forced to buy my groceries no matter what, even if you grew your own, I would be in business (well I'd need more than ten per week realistically, but for the sake of the example...). I would then not have any incentive to provide good products: my produce could wilt, my fish grow old and bread stale, and you would still have to buy it. It is the same with the schools. Their bread has gone stale, so to speak. But they don't need to worry about that, because they still get paid. This presents problems, like what I can see as I look over at the TV. So what if kids fight in school? The teacher gets paid whether she does her job and maintains order or not.

Everyone claims the teachers are underpaid, but raising that has been tried, and throwing money at the problem hasn't worked. That has only increased the tax on it. The average tax per kid is ten thousand dollars per year. What can do to solve this problem? What causes services to reach better quality and prices to go down? Competition. In our capitalistic society, competition always encourages these. The public school system only monopolizes the schools. You must pay as if you use the school, weather you actually do or not. It is forcing you to buy their service. This monopolization goes directly against the principles of Capitalism and Free market. It goes against the very values the country was planted on in a display of despotism. If competition is what it is trying to shut out, then there is some reason. They must know they can't keep up with private schools and homeschools. But if they could shut out those, well then there would be a complete monopolization of schools and all ideas will come from the schools. Essentially, the schools can brainwash students to whatever the board of education approves. How are they doing this?

Well the latest outrage is another attempt to stamp out all Christian schools whose thoughts might oppose theirs. (I've written more on this here) Essentially- California state colleges have agreed that part of their entrance requirements will include that no textbooks used in courses with a Christian world view will be accepted for admissions. Basically- You can't have studied anything with Christian perspective if you want to get into one of these colleges. As if not satisfied with making public schools secularistisc, they now prohibit Christian curriculum for counting in a State run college application. And California sets the trend. California has the largest population in the US, and therefore consumes the most textbooks. So anyone writing a textbook will get his most sold in California, and will then cater to California's textbook regulations before worrying about Nebraska. Because of this, other states then comply. This doesn't happen all the time, but usually textbooks are followed along with other such regulations.

Personally, I don't doubt anyone I know that is homeschooled could get into a college of choice and not attend a state college. I know I don't want to go to a liberal school like UC Davis or Cal State (no offense anyone, I actually know VERY smart people that have come out of there, but since I think they've gone down).

'What is their excuse for this?' you might ask. As usual with organizations like the ACSI, they don't have a real one, but provide a weak alibi, stating "The question the University must confront in reviewing these texts is not whether they have religious content, but whether they provide a comprehensive view of the relevant subject matter, reflecting knowledge generally accepted in the scientific and educational communities…" Apparently a Christian world view doesn't have anything to do with it, it is what provides 'a comprehensive view of the revelent subject matter' If a Christian world view doesn't present one, I don't know what does. But what do California State School system think a comprehensive view is? "Gender Roles in Literature," "Feminine Perspectives in Literature," "Literature from the 60's Movement" "Gender, Sexuality, and Identity in Literature" are all accepted while a Christian curriculum was not allowed. Darwinisim is taught as fact, it is a public school seventh grade requirement to dress up and practice Muslim ritual and 'pretend'', while so much as a Bible at lunch time is jumped upon as if it were a packaged bomb. UC officials confirmed "that if the Scripture verses that begin each chapter were removed the textbook would likely be approved…" So tell me this isn't about religion. Does Christianity distort it that much? Does a verse cause so much as to be so nit picking? the UC faculty maintained, "In establishing and implementing the 'a-g' subject area requirements, UC faculty's main interest is that students entering the University are well prepared to be successful at UC. The content of the course outlines submitted for approval is not consistent with the viewpoints and knowledge generally accepted in the scientific community. As such, students who take these courses may not be well prepared for success if/when they enter science courses/programs at UC." So the course must be generally accepted and well preparing for students. Does Darwinisim clarify? No, it raises questions and leaves holes. It confuses and contradicts. Christianity, however, clarifies. Burt Carney, who questioned ACSI about this, said"It's very discriminating. They don't rule against Muslim or Hindu or Jewish [themes} or so forth, only those with a definite Christian theme." If its just a little verse at the beginning of a chapter, then maybe it does have to do with religion. Not any religion, Christianity. No matter how they twist and turn, it all comes back to the attack on Christianity. It doesn't matter if it helps the student better understand- they allow things that muddle far more than Christianity; it doesn't matter if it is religious- others are accepted; it doesn't matter if its moral- While the Bible is the epitome of morals, those courses accepted are the absolute opposite. The only thing that matters, then, is the agenda continually pressed by the public schools. They want that agenda and want to stamp out anything not adhering to it.

Over all this will be perceived as a scare tactic, used to say basically 'either conform to this agenda or you can't go to a state college' Which will no doubt keep some from sticking to principles and just switch over to a secularist program. The topics included that must conform acordingly are: a-g basics, which include history, social science, mathamatics, lab science,
foreign language, arts, English, and college prep minimums.

So why wouldn't some be scared? As if chances of admission weren't bad enough, now, as World Net Daily stated:

"The discriminatory policy results in requirements for a student from a Christian school to be eligible for admission, he must be in "the top two percent of ACT takers or the top four percent of SAT 1 takers" the ACSI documentation noted. Students from secular schools, however, "with a 3.5 whose best SAT II scores are merely at the bottom of eight percent...for writing, the bottom one percent...for math level II, and the bottom 5 percent....For chemistry would need only about a 420 out of 1600 on the SAT I...""

Think of that. It doesn't matter about education anymore.

But what use would it be just to scare everyone with this? None. There actually is an unlikely solution. If pressed enough, however, it may in fact be likely. I would prefer to obliterate the board of education entirely, but that won't stand, because it is ingrained in society that everyone has the right to a free education. Until that myth is dispelled, a simple solution is this- Vouchers. Essentially, instead of government doling out the collected tax money to all the public schools, they should divide amongst the kids. Remember how much is spent per kid? Ten thousand. If that money was given back to the taxpayer in a form of a voucher, or coupon, to spend on whichever school he wanted. So the money still goes to schools, but not one that the government selects, whichever school the taxpayer chooses. To return to the supermarket- it would be like ten dollars for whichever grocery store you chose, so you won't have to buy stale bread. If there is a chance Public schools won't get their money, then they will compete to get better, rather than just using the opportunity to brainwash. This isn't likely because so many schools oppose it, but none the less, it is the solution we need.

As for now, I think I'll settle for the denied application- who wants those schools anyway?

Guns Were The Problem

2007-04-18T17:58:00.000-07:00

Not as you would think. In case you haven't heard, yesterday a student at VA Tech College randomly walked into rooms and shot 33 students. For apparently little reason, he claimed many of their lives, and then committed suicide. The school is in shock and many families are crushed. Because the murderer has killed himself, we can't do anything to make him pay for the lives lost or to prevent him from taking more lives. So what can we do in this time of crisis? We have only to speculate on what has happened in hopes of finding a way to prevent such further instances. Basically, the question is 'Why?'.

What would cause someone to shoot random people? When we look into it, we find he may have had a certain target in mind, but even still, this gives no reason to kill random people. It is reported he left a note in his dorm that rambled about hating all rich people, though no offense was done to him. It is assumed something has influenced his life, as fellow students always found him as distant, he wouldn't even talk to them. Many assumed he was shy, being a student from a different country(South Korea). Many guess he was on drugs. But through all of these excuses, we can find there is no excuse for such action. Where we do find our answer is in one thing. Lack of morals. Or rather, lack of good morals, lack of Christianity. We find that the source for these things is we are taught that morals are relative, that whats wrong for me could be right for you. What sort of a message do we send out when we take down the ten commandments from public buildings? We reject those morals God has given us. We reject him, saying he might be right, but lets not offend anyone and assume everyone is right. the decay of our morals is the decay of our country. As Alexis Tocqueville stated "America is great because she is moral. If America ceases to be moral, she will cease to be great." That is where we get these problems. Not just these problems, but we see murders of other kinds, like abortion. Our country is heading on a downward spiral because our lack of Christian faith. There is no moral upbringing, which is why these are seen as acceptable to kids. They adopt the same excuses as their elders, even mentioned in his letter, which states: "You force me to do this". Sickos like this will hod on to these excuses, oblivious to the damage. But how can we prevent this? What can we do?

Instilling Christian principles is primary, but there is no way to make it mandatory. That is why Christ had to die: If God had made us obey him, Christ wouldn't have died for our sins, and our love for our Creator would be artificial. And there will always be those who don't believe, or are mentally disturbed and have had no upbringing. So what do we do? Already, Political agendas are pushing into this and liberals claim this is why we should have more gun laws. They are claiming you can logically conclude that he got his gun legally, and no one bothered to check and notice he was a student who lived on a campus prohibiting guns. If we were stricter, this wouldn't have happened. However, the event is reason for less gun control. The Campus was so strict on their prohibition of fire arms that they went to the extent to disarm security guards. Where, then, is the security? Criminals will always get their hands on guns, even if it is illegal. That's why they're criminals. They have an inclination to do stuff like breaking the law. So gun laws disarm the innocent while leaving the guilty with an upper hand. Does the arming of your everyday citizen work? Yes. Not only is it a deterrent to those who are mildly sane, but there are innumerable cases in which lives are saved. Last month in Mississippi, another such case occur ed on the street where a man started firing randomly across the street. However, gun laws were lighter there, and two men with concealed handguns were nearby, and held him down until officials came. However, Japan is noted for its incredibly high gun laws and the mayor of Nagasakai was murdered with a handgun. The instances all add up to the conclusion- More guns=more safety. So guns were the problem. The only ways to keep these things from happening are for the short term- lower gun control, and for the long term- Bring back the Bible.

P.S.- In case anyone is wondering, I didn't put a 'sub-title(not subtitle) ' on this one, because of the subject matter

In Addition....

2007-04-08T20:54:00.000-07:00

In Addition to the last post ("Happy Bunny Day") I'd like to note on the subject of the schools. I read an article about another such incedent. A New Jersey school mandated a terrorist drill to simulate a take over of Christians. We all know Christians want to take over the world. They're radicals that strap bombs to themselves and raise thier children to kill the infedel....or was that Muslim.??.....But don't try saying that or you'll be politically incorrect. Here is a funny speculation on this. Oh political satire :P ....http://www.thenewcrusaders.com/

Happy Bunny Day!

2007-04-06T20:56:00.000-07:00

Or Secular Spring Celebration

Easter is coming in a couple days...But is it really Easter? You may have seen signs around your neighborhood advertising "Bunny egg hunts" ( Since when do the little things lay eggs?) Or "spring Celebrations." (Speaking of bunnies, here is a sitehttp://www.retrocomputing.net/racconti/umor/coniglio/pandora.beptuui.html I promised to show a couple of you...Funny...if your deranged) But anyway..We see a constant secular rephrasing of 'religious' phrases. What is it that makes them want to take God out of it all? It's all part of the war on Christianity. I don't want to sound like a victim of some conspiracy or anything( which is a very big problem- everyone wants to be a victim and shift the responsibility. But another post for that one) Think of it. The Bible has a lot of evidence to back it up, so we can look back and confirm it's history along with other's. Where can we see our morals come from? The Bible. The ten commandments is the earliest set of morals. People may try to claim Hammurabi's code came first, but not only is Hammurabi not there long enough for Moses to even know about him, but when do we see Thomas Jefferson referencing Hammurabi of Babylon. We see our Constitution and Declaration of Independence are framed around Christian Principles. And what don't they encompass? So why are we having the religion lesson here? Well let's just establish the fact that the Bible establishes Morals. If you don't like morals, discredit their source. Think about it, For the party that supports murder (Abortion), theft (Eminent domain), Sexual sin ( Homosexuality), Idolatry(Nature...And why believe in something that prohibits the others), Lying ( Two words: Bill Clinton)...You get the idea. So what better thing to do than rid of it. What effects do we see from this? Th General break-down as our morals. As I've said before (and will probably say more) I agree with Alexis D
Tocqueville- A democracy is only as good as the people. When our morals decline, our country's morals decline- our country declines. That's why we see things like abortion. When our morals decline, our country's morals decline and we see things like laws that allow exceptions to laws against homicide. The root of it is our morals and if our morals are based in Christianity, and that is where the 'war' on Christianity is concerned. But this isn't just some slippery-slope speculation. It is actually taking place in our country today. Lets take a look at a few area's of this...

1.Schools
Lenin said (and I paraphrase) that the way to take America is to control what they see, think, hear, and learn. What better way to influence America than through the public Schools. (For you who are in touche, you probably have heard Justin Willis' Speech on this that has got to nationals...) When we control that we control the next generation. The influence is almost more than that of the parents. We can see a few Examples. First off, The Bible has been disconnected with the School. It has been claimed 'unconstitutional'. We see different things taking place of it. Other morals are instilled, Evolution is taught as fact, Relativity is taught as right. Children are being influenced, and under what is called 'Tolerance', that we must tolerate other's beliefs. We must in fact embrace them. However, to do anything Christian in nature is classified as offensive in this definition of tolerance, and thus it is excluded. Basically, it is the religious specification of politically correct. We should all tolerate anything unless I disagree with it. This is basically the doctrine in which children are being taught. It is offensive to practice Christianity. This is only one of the ways our society is indoctrinated, so to speak. Where is the justification?
2. Church and state.
Where is this Constitutional provision they stand behind? I mean, its not just children falling for it. Adult are being just about as gullible as children here. They succumb to the justification that's called separation between church and state. Basically it says that this is in the constitution, that there should be separation between the church and state. This did exist, not in the constitution. James Madison and Thomas Jefferson often exchanged letters during the writing of the constitution, and in mentioned was the phrase "Separation between church and state. Not in the constitution. To the contrary of the meaning, it was a suggestion to make a provision that the state doesn't prohibit Church, not visa-versa. This provision was included, with slightly different phrasing in amendment 1: "Congress shall make no law respecting religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Meaning that there is no separation between church and state. However, the gullible will listen to this and like children, fear of offending others and refrain from Christianity. So this doesn't only take place in school, but even in the workplace. For example, Jacqueline Escobar was interning while working on her masters degree at California State University Long Beach and receiving straight A's. However, she didn't seem to do as well in her internship because she talked about her religion after hours or during lunch, and after work changed into a shirt titled ''found", she was fired. Everyone, mature as they may seem, is afraid of offending.
3 Tip-Toeing around the Offenses

So the gullible (whether child or adult) succumbs to this and is affraid of offending. What is the result? we tiproe around anything that might be seen as offensive for fear of offending someone who dosn't share the same faith. This is the opposite of what we should be doing? Mattew 28:19-20 tells us to "go and make disciples of all nations". John says to "spread the good news!" bbut we deny this and go with whatever everyone else says. Whether we are denying this because we fear of offense of we fear for the consequenses for ourselves, we are acting like Peter, when He denied Jesus, Near 2000 years ago. We can't deny our Lord and Saviour for that fear. As Patrick Henry said, "should I keep back my opinions at such a time for fear of giving offense, I should consider myself guilty of treason towards my country and an act of disloyalty towards te Majesty of Heaven, Who I revere above all earthly things." We cannot fear at the cost of our convictions. We may think that Judas was terrible for betraying Jesus for thirty gold pieces, but how often do we betray him or nothing? We tip-toe around the offenses that aren't even offenses

Which is why I urge you all to spread the good news and remember what to do when you are confronted with tolerence or anything else that has been pushed in our society. For that is why when we think Easter, whe think fluffy white rodent and baby chickens. That is why we have Bunny egg hunts.

What to write...

2007-04-05T20:49:00.000-07:00

There seems to always be a few circulating subjects, and I wanted to know if anyone is interested or wanted to hear on a certain political subject. I will post anyway, but any ideas would help great, too often I find myself about to post on something someone else already did.. So thanks!

Love thy Enemy

2007-04-03T21:01:00.000-07:00

Make him cookies, too!

Since 9/11 a lot has happened. We've fought and won the war in Iraq (another post for that one) we are now stabilizing it, we've captured Saddam Hussein. Now other threats arise. North Korea has been testing nukes and Iran has captured several prisoners. Through all of this we see the group that has labeled themselves as 'Anti War' is calling for an end to the war. I totally agree. No one is for war, except a few crazy people that enjoy strapping bombs to themselves. However they call themselves anti war, setting up the others as 'Pro-war' Now we must ask ourselves, WHO wants to be pro war? Typical liberal strategy- Give things fluffy names. Anti security? No, it's anti War. Pro-Abortion? Never, It's Pro-choice.. well actually that one is Anti life, but don't tell a Pro-choice liberal that....

But I digress. Anyway, I'm also for an end to the war. I am pro peace, but like President Ronald Reagan, I support Peace through strength. To quote President Ulysses s. Grant: "I have never advocated war except as a means of peace." We have to defend our country- defend all that our founding fathers have worked for. Like Samuel Adams said "The liberties of our country, the freedoms of our civil constitution are worth defending at all hazards; it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors. They purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood. It will bring a mark or everlasting infamy on the present generation-enlightened as it is- if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of designing men.” we must have peace through strength. But these Pacifists go on, kicking and screaming every inch of the way. We have no propaganda anymore. No one wants to support this, but go with the flow with the Pro peace party. However, If not supporting this necessary war is bad enough, how about supporting the enemy ( also known as treason)? Lets take a look at exhibit A) The Flying Imams

-Terror of The Skies-

The only thing scarier would be if these guys had fangs and wings. (or the words "I'm from the government and I'm here to help") But just in case you haven't heard, this is the story: A bunch of Islamic guys appear at the airport. They all have first class seats. While they wait, they decide to make the airport into a mosque and start doing all their jumping up and down worshiping Allah and all that. They make a pretty big scene of it. But service is over and its time to board. They are supposed to go on first, but wait, even though they are already there. They go on last ( except for one lady who arrives late and notices this) and they distribute themselves amongst the plane, much like the hijackers of 9/11. Suspicious... Then the plane takes off, and the ones sitting near each other start jabbering in their own language. Someone on the plane hears, and it's all about how wrong America is for toppling the statue of Saddam, kill America, jihad and all that. Then one of them asks for a seat belt extension, though he could clearly use a few more pounds. Several passengers start getting worried at all this so they bring it to the attention of the stewardess on the plane. It couldn't be more obvious they wanted attention than if they had hired a group of five year-olds that (as about 99.9% of them are) just can't keep the surprise a secret. For that matter, five year olds could've kept a better secret. "Oh, Osama, what do I do if my bomb-err-cell phone doesn't work?" You get the picture. So anyway, after the liberal's spiel after 9/11 that we should have known and been prepared, the airline takes their advice and implements security. No, no the security where the guy searching you over asks if you packed your own bags, they went for real security, and landed in Minneapolis telling them to beat it. Surprisingly, they call the airlines back a few minutes later and announce they'll sue the airlines for racial profiling and discrimination. Whoa whoa whoa!! Hold on a second, Mohamed! Since when is that grounds for a lawsuit? Well, in this country, where people sue because someone called him a name, it figures. But anyway. What's wrong with racial profiling? It seems to be more effective than the liberal alternatives, ( maybe we could try searching them over and asking questions until it's just late enough to miss their flight?) We find out that your average plane hijacker is Muslim, a Jihadist and tends to , then why not? No, instead we must do random searches. Search the harmless grandmother but pass by that guy who looks as if he'd just as soon run a plane into a building as walk into a building (actually , I've seen it happen). But we can't be politically incorrect( another thing I hope to post on soon...) So now they are in the middle of several lawsuits, and the majority of liberals say they have every right. 121 members of the house voted that it should be allowed. They support this. In addition, they support every manner of law that can ban racial profiling or anything that would actually help find these terrorists before they blow something up. And hey- Is this racial profiling a government policy? NO it is the airline- a private owned business. They're policy could do whatever they want. Blue t-shirts could be banned! The government should have no say in this. Liberals could really become popular if they promoted these with aspiring terrorists. Imagine their promotional slogans- We make hijacking easier....Our Hijacking guarantee: if your Hijacking doesn't work, Sue the airlines and we'll support you. We should accommodate their jihadist needs. So the moral of the story is- They can come hear and threaten us, and if they don't succeed in blowing something up they have a right to sue on no valid premises. Now let's move on to Exhibit B)

-What's The Meaning of Provocation?-

Another big issue, a little more recent, ( which I hope isn't outdated) has taken the stage. Also involving blatant messages a child could convey. In fact, most terrorist schemes are childish, if a child could be that deranged. Which really shows how inept we are trying to diplomatically solve these problems. But to the point, This time there is a little more nationality. Mahmoud Amadenijad, (however his name is spelt) the Iranian Dictator decided he wants to get in on the terrorist stuff. Since, apparently, his vast weapons testings and demonstrations haven't provoked us to action, he decided to go a little more drastic, and captured 15 British sailors of the royal navy. They were in Iraqi waters and disembarked in rafts to transfer to another ship. But they met an Iranian ship along the way, which seized them for "invading" Iran. They claimed that they were in Iranian waters, and would freeze all diplomacy, except for negotiations to release the captives. And the thing is, He's done this before, taking an embassy with 54 captives. Only the day that President Ronald Reagan was sworn into office did he release them ( yeah, he was that scared of him...) Much depended on weather or not they were trespassing. One of the captives finally conceded, saying they had intruded, whereas Britain had produced evidence saying they were 1.7 nautical miles in Iraqi waters. So it's one word against the other. Iran claimed Britain had intruded and they could do what they want with them. But when we step back from all of these technicalities, was this a British task force, of someone who strayed too close to Iran? Ajmadenijad was looking for an opportunity. An opportunity to provoke the west and bring more attention to Iran. He has seen how we respond to provocation- Saddam Hussein tried provocation when he kicked out inspectors. How have we responded to this war? Our liberal congress is trying to insure we lose the war. It is as if we like taking this stuff lying down. We are so ensconced in our own political correctness that we won't cut to the fact of the matter and see that they captured British sailors for no reason whatsoever and expect us not to declare war. They only grow bolder from this. There is no meaning of provocation, Because Iran is provoking the west to do nothing. They know we won't declare war so they have nothing to fear- They're liberal friends in America and England will help them. Why are we being pushed around? As Patrick Henry said "I have one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is by the lamp of experience. I know no way of judging the future but by the past." And when we look to the past we can see that this is not the way to solve such problems. Let's step back a moment and take a look at President Ronald Reagan. Ajmadenijad ( however the name is..) didn't seem to be a problem then. Why? Because everyone knew provocation isn't tolerated. President Reagan's Policy of 'Peace through Strength' ensured this. You may be one of the many that believes strength and aggression only brings on more war, but is there any such example? During President Reagan's term, An airplane was shot down over Libya. Instead of giving in to all of those who didn't want war, President Reagan immediately ordered an air strike. Mumar Qaddafi (Libyan Dictator) gave up any thoughts of poking at America. The same should have happened here. instead, Ajmadenijad knew that in our day and age, this sort of thing is tolerated, in hopes of peace through diplomacy. Let me quote a few passages from Patrick Henry's "liberty or death" speech:

"Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, though fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason toward my country and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly things.."

We can't be afraid of being "politically incorrect" or be afraid of giving offense to our enemies. that is why they are enemies!

Mr. President, It is natural for man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth and listen to the song of that siren, till she turns us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not and having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation?"

We hope for peace and that all would go over well. It has been promised, in fact, that the captives will be returned. but have they been? first they are free to go...they don't show up. it turns out the next day will be it...then some say thursday. Ajmadenijad wants to look benevolent, giving them as "An Easter holiday gift" but he has not lived up to his word. Yet even now masses fawn over him as being benevolent. We disregard the fact that since he has captured "prisoners of war" that he has then declared war! Britain take grounds for war lying down and don't even declare war! Might I make a note at this point that Britain reflects on the US. We can see if something happens to Britain, it will occur in the US. Which is a primary reason for world war 2. Stalin v. Hitler wouldhave been the main focus, in fact Stalin was worse than Hitler, but Hitler attacked Britain, and so we were obligated to defend our ally....continuing... So anyway, at a time like this, we are in fact, praising Ajmadenijad, for his kindness in solving the conflict. "The poison is the cure" so to speak. Continuing with Patrick Henry-

"Shall we acquire effectual resistance by lying suplinly on our backs and hugging the ground until our enimy binds us, hand and foot?...Let us no decieve ourselves any longer, I beseech you sir, we have done all we could do....If we wish to be free...We must Fight!"

Inaction only strenghtens the enemy's will. We cannot let a school bully keep beating us up. Punch him in the nose and let him know no on messes with America or her allies. But no, we lie on our backs, helpless, trying to appease the enemy in hopes of peace. Patrick henry had an answer for this one, too- "Gentelmen may cry- Peace, Peace! But there is no peace!" But we don't take his advice, on the contrary, we get pushed around, because we are too worried.

Worried about what? We have no cause to worry. Do we? We worry about one thing- Apppeasing. As winston Churchill said " an appeaser is one who feeds the crocidile, hoping it will eat him last" We don't win with appeasing. We see in both cases we are trying to appease the enemy-We try to accommodate the flying Imams when they broke the rules. Now we try to accommodate Ajmadenijad's demands and assertions the the British broke the rules, and lie supinely on our backs letting him tie us, hand and foot. This inaction doesn't work. President Reagan dealt with such in the cold war. We would not give in when Gorbachev wanted America to give up research in the missile defense system. On the contrary, we used it as an upper hand and would not giving. Later, the Berlin wall was torn down and Gorbachev gave in. We cannot appease our enemies, we must hold firm, and they will know we mean business. We cannot back down, our only option is to hold firm, for it was the foundation that we were built on.

" If we wish to be free....If we wish to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending.....If we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged- We must fight! I repeat it sir- We must Fight! An appeal to arms and the God of Hosts is all that is left us!!"

-Patrick Henry

Upcoming

2007-04-03T20:58:00.000-07:00

Ok, I know some of my next post will be outdated, but as that the emperor uses the computer most of the time I usually have trouble finding time to post. So finally ( well I might not finish it tonight) my first actual post...

HI!

2007-04-01T11:29:00.000-07:00

Well, I might as well give an intro, so Here: I joined this site because the last blog I had I was basically always "preaching to the choir", so to speak. WAIT WAIT!!!! Come back! I hope not to bore you with long sermonizing of Political happenings, And I assure you, I'm not preachy....Well...Just tell me if I am, or long winded, etc....So Anyway, this blog will be about politics; My view on the world and what's wrong ( sometimes right) with it. Oh yeah, and the name- I don't intend to say I'm te only one here with common sense or anything, but as you have probably gathered by the template, url, etc, it's refering to Thomas Paine. I chose this because of his pamflets which were the equivilent to(or more sophisticated form of) blogging, at the time, when America needed change. Like so many other times, America again needs a change, And like so many other colonists, I'd like to contribute. Well.....That's just about it.