Modern liberals are an amusing bunch. I especially found this post at Nashville Is Talking and the comments that accompanied it to be rather funny. I am not sure if the title is meant to say that the ACLU does not hate Christianity, or that the ACLU doesn't discriminate, but hates all religion. The post links to a Nashville City Paper article that discusses the ACLU's opposition to a Menorah display.
What I find so hilarious is the comment thread. Brittney says "They (ACLU) are about the only group in this country fighting for your civil rights." Newton then says " if they didn't stand up for EVERYONE, who would stand up for you?". Then Chris Wage, who is doesn't hide his disdain for religion, threw in his two cents with this comment, "They are representing people and their rights against authority."
Okay, would somebody, anybody please tell me how a Menorah, or a Christmas tree infringes upon your rights? Does a Menorah display in Nashville establish Judaism as the state religion of Tennessee? Is it infringing upon your freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of press. Which is it? Please let me know.
Are you people so blind that you can't even see how intolerant you are? Please, please, please show me where in the Constitution it mentions freedom FROM religion. Please show me where it says that a court is supposed to make sure that you don't ever have to feel uncomfortable?
Is it any wonder that the ACLU is on a mission against religion? After all, they were founded by a Soviet sympathizing socialist.
12/12/2005
The Monetary Costs of The Death Penalty
The other day I stated that while I did not oppose the death penalty, I still thought we should do away with it. Of course each state is sovereign and able to make their own laws, but according to this well sourced website, the average cost per state to execute somebody is three times the cost of sending them to prison for life. Is it really worth the millions that it costs to kill somebody? Was this SOB really worth the millions that it took to execute him? Apparently majority of Californians think so.
I just don't understand the idea that death is worse than life in prison. For me, there would be nothing worse than to live a long life without being free.
I just don't understand the idea that death is worse than life in prison. For me, there would be nothing worse than to live a long life without being free.
10/18/2005
The Lottery Is For People Who Are Bad At Math
I can't tell you how many times in the last week someone asked me if I bought a lottery ticket. Yes the lottery jackpot is a big topic of discussion these days. Now I don't have a problem with somebody buying a lottery ticket. It is your money. If you want to flush it down the toilet, that's your business. I just don't understand it though. You always hear these media reports of "So and So" winning several million dollars, but you never see a headline that says several hundred thousand people lost today, and you never will. You also will never see any reports of poor people in poor neighborhoods spending what little money they have on lottery tickets, while they can't even afford transportation.
Think about this. The same people who run around talking about how much government should help the poor, are the very people who support a government lottery that preys on the poor. That alone proves that they don't give a rat's ass about poor people. What they care about is government and if government has to use a lottery to take money from its citizens, money that would have been spent in the private sector, then government has no problem taking it from poor people.
They sell poor people false hope, while people like Rebecca Paul make several hundred thousand dollars a year. They call themselves "progressive" while supporting the most regressive tax ever created. No you won't find me buying a lottery ticket and unless you are really bad at math, or just plain stupid, you shouldn't buy one either. There is a way to obtain material blessings in this country, and that way is called work. I realize that it is not a very popular concept these days, but it definitely has a higher rate of success than flushing your money down the toilet.
Think about this. The same people who run around talking about how much government should help the poor, are the very people who support a government lottery that preys on the poor. That alone proves that they don't give a rat's ass about poor people. What they care about is government and if government has to use a lottery to take money from its citizens, money that would have been spent in the private sector, then government has no problem taking it from poor people.
They sell poor people false hope, while people like Rebecca Paul make several hundred thousand dollars a year. They call themselves "progressive" while supporting the most regressive tax ever created. No you won't find me buying a lottery ticket and unless you are really bad at math, or just plain stupid, you shouldn't buy one either. There is a way to obtain material blessings in this country, and that way is called work. I realize that it is not a very popular concept these days, but it definitely has a higher rate of success than flushing your money down the toilet.
10/06/2005
Christians Should Be Libertarians
A few months ago, Channel 2 hosted a blogger meetup and I got the opportunity to meet several local bloggers in person. One of the people that I got to meet that day was the Pink Kitty. Not surprisingly, her and I got into a political discussion. When I told her that I considered myself to be a conservative, she told me that she considered herself to be a Christian Libertarian. It was a term that I had never heard before, but one that I would later use to describe myself.
For many different reasons, the so-called Christian Right does not lean toward libetarianism. I realize that conservatives and libertarians agree most of the time, but today's conservative movement, particularly the neo-conservatives, seem to have embraced big government. True conservatives (aka libertarians) though, despise big government because they realize that a large central government is a threat to individual freedom. We are also aware of the power of the federal courts.
Take education, for example. At one time, all of the schools in this country were church based. Then government began to run the school systems and guess what happened next? Government, by way of the federal court system began to exert its power over the curriculum and the subject matter taught. So by allowing government to expand and take over the schools, Christian Americans lost their freedom to decide what their children were being taught. Sure, there are still private schools. But how can a lower middle class family, who happens to be Christian, afford to send their children to a private school? The answer is that they can't. So basically, they have no choice but to send their children to government schools where they are indoctrinated into beliefs and values that they may not agree with.
That brings me to the points that I made back on May 17, in regards to the President's Faith Based Intitiative. In that post I pointed out how government uses the system of taxing, spending, and wealth redistribution to manipulate the behavior of it's citizens. Government uses money to control us and our behaviors. Uncle Sam gives tax cuts to encourage certain behaviors that he wants to encourage and then disperses or withholds federal money (our money) for that same purpose. Knowing this, why would Christians ever want a faith based group, or a church to become dependent on money from the federal government? Think about this scenario, the local church takes government money for its drug and alcohol rehabilitation program. This church is a fundamentalist congregation that believes that women should not preach and that homosexuality is sin. Suddenly a woman or a homosexual, who feels that that the church is discriminating against them, brings suit in a federal court. This person claims, perhaps rightly so, that since the church accepts government money, they should be forced to ordain women and homosexuals to preach. The judge rules in favor of this individual and since the church has become so dependent on federal money to operate this very necessary and helpful program, they abide by the court order and change their rules, thus violating their conscience.
This kind of thing almost happened yesterday. Brittney at Nashville Is Talking, linked to an article about a case brought against the Salvation Army, an organization that I am quite fond of. In that case, someone had brought suit against the hiring practices of the Salvation Army. They claimed that since the Salvation Army received federal money, they should not be allowed to discriminate by not hiring people who have different religious beliefs. That's right, this person wanted the government to make the Salvation Army alter their beliefs and force them to ordain and hire people with different religious ideas. You see, this is what happens when faith based groups take federal money. The Salvation Army won this case, but they may not be so fortunate next time.
Most people do not realize why the framers sought to separate government from religion. It wasn't because they feared that religion would harm government, as most liberals seem to think. The founders actually wanted to protect religion from government. Government is not the friend of religion.
Jesus never spoke about government, but some people on both sides like to claim that the teachings of Jesus validate their ideas. People on the left use the name of Jesus to push big government welfare programs, while people on the right use His name to deprive individuals of certain liberties. Who is right? The answer is neither, in my opinion. Of course, I do not claim to know what Jesus would say, but I do know that Christianity is about the individual (stress the word individual) becoming a better person and helping others. It is not about government. Jesus never stood in front of the Romans and demanded that they help the poor and punish people for sin. Also, Christianity is the religion of free will. Jesus tells us what we should do and then he says "Follow Me". He never said "Follow Me or I will have the Romans lock you up." We should stop prosecuting people for victimless crimes and let people make their own decisions about what is right or wrong.
As the title states, I firmly believe that Christians would be better served to steer clear of big government and become libertarians. That is the only way that churches will ever stay safe from government control and it is the surest way for them to maintain religious freedom.
For many different reasons, the so-called Christian Right does not lean toward libetarianism. I realize that conservatives and libertarians agree most of the time, but today's conservative movement, particularly the neo-conservatives, seem to have embraced big government. True conservatives (aka libertarians) though, despise big government because they realize that a large central government is a threat to individual freedom. We are also aware of the power of the federal courts.
Take education, for example. At one time, all of the schools in this country were church based. Then government began to run the school systems and guess what happened next? Government, by way of the federal court system began to exert its power over the curriculum and the subject matter taught. So by allowing government to expand and take over the schools, Christian Americans lost their freedom to decide what their children were being taught. Sure, there are still private schools. But how can a lower middle class family, who happens to be Christian, afford to send their children to a private school? The answer is that they can't. So basically, they have no choice but to send their children to government schools where they are indoctrinated into beliefs and values that they may not agree with.
That brings me to the points that I made back on May 17, in regards to the President's Faith Based Intitiative. In that post I pointed out how government uses the system of taxing, spending, and wealth redistribution to manipulate the behavior of it's citizens. Government uses money to control us and our behaviors. Uncle Sam gives tax cuts to encourage certain behaviors that he wants to encourage and then disperses or withholds federal money (our money) for that same purpose. Knowing this, why would Christians ever want a faith based group, or a church to become dependent on money from the federal government? Think about this scenario, the local church takes government money for its drug and alcohol rehabilitation program. This church is a fundamentalist congregation that believes that women should not preach and that homosexuality is sin. Suddenly a woman or a homosexual, who feels that that the church is discriminating against them, brings suit in a federal court. This person claims, perhaps rightly so, that since the church accepts government money, they should be forced to ordain women and homosexuals to preach. The judge rules in favor of this individual and since the church has become so dependent on federal money to operate this very necessary and helpful program, they abide by the court order and change their rules, thus violating their conscience.
This kind of thing almost happened yesterday. Brittney at Nashville Is Talking, linked to an article about a case brought against the Salvation Army, an organization that I am quite fond of. In that case, someone had brought suit against the hiring practices of the Salvation Army. They claimed that since the Salvation Army received federal money, they should not be allowed to discriminate by not hiring people who have different religious beliefs. That's right, this person wanted the government to make the Salvation Army alter their beliefs and force them to ordain and hire people with different religious ideas. You see, this is what happens when faith based groups take federal money. The Salvation Army won this case, but they may not be so fortunate next time.
Most people do not realize why the framers sought to separate government from religion. It wasn't because they feared that religion would harm government, as most liberals seem to think. The founders actually wanted to protect religion from government. Government is not the friend of religion.
Jesus never spoke about government, but some people on both sides like to claim that the teachings of Jesus validate their ideas. People on the left use the name of Jesus to push big government welfare programs, while people on the right use His name to deprive individuals of certain liberties. Who is right? The answer is neither, in my opinion. Of course, I do not claim to know what Jesus would say, but I do know that Christianity is about the individual (stress the word individual) becoming a better person and helping others. It is not about government. Jesus never stood in front of the Romans and demanded that they help the poor and punish people for sin. Also, Christianity is the religion of free will. Jesus tells us what we should do and then he says "Follow Me". He never said "Follow Me or I will have the Romans lock you up." We should stop prosecuting people for victimless crimes and let people make their own decisions about what is right or wrong.
As the title states, I firmly believe that Christians would be better served to steer clear of big government and become libertarians. That is the only way that churches will ever stay safe from government control and it is the surest way for them to maintain religious freedom.
8/23/2005
Thomas Sowell Agrees With Me and Lindsey Graham Is An Idiot
Here we go again with another so-called crisis for Congress to put their dingy hands on. This country and it's economy would be so much better off if Congress was only in session for about eight weeks a year. That way those opinion poll watchers would have much less opportunity to meddle with the free market and the freedom of American citizens. For some reason though, Americans have been cultured to believe that government is the answer for everything. When the price of a commodity begins to rise due to increased demand for that commodity, what do people do? Well of course, they ask government why the price of this commodity is so high and demand that government do something to lower the price of that product. And what do idiot Senators like Lindsey Graham do? Well of course, they make idiot statements like this:
"Its probably time to do some hearings in Washington to find out why gas prices are so high"
What? Hearings! Senator Graham, who has often been spotted following Senator McCain with a roll of toilet paper, apparently does not believe in the free market. About a week and a half ago, I explained all of this to my adoring public. In that post, I made the following common sense statements:
The price of gasoline is affected by two things specifically, the price of crude oil and the ability to refine that oil into gasoline. Just like any commodity, crude oil and refined gasoline are subject to the laws of supply and demand. In a normal situation, the demand for a product or service can be manipulated by raising or lowering the price. This is often done when the demand for something exceeds the supply. In other words, if demand is higher than supply, you raise the price, which normally lowers demand. With growing economies in places like China, India, and the United States, the demand for crude oil is higher than it has ever been. Therefore the price of crude oil is higher than it has ever been. Now that brings us to the issue of gas prices. Nothing affects the price of gasoline as much as the price of crude, but there is one other factor and that is refining capacity. We have not built a new refinery in this country in 25 years and during that time we have become quite prosperous.
In other words, what the government needs to do right now is absolutely nothing. That's right, government is not going to help this situation. Government will only make things worse.
Professor Thomas Sowell agrees with me on this issue. Of course he puts it much more eloquently and he uses history (as opposed to emotion) to back up his assertions.
Why, then, are oil prices so high?
Absolutely Nothing!
I know that may be a little hard for Senator Graham to understand.
"Its probably time to do some hearings in Washington to find out why gas prices are so high"
What? Hearings! Senator Graham, who has often been spotted following Senator McCain with a roll of toilet paper, apparently does not believe in the free market. About a week and a half ago, I explained all of this to my adoring public. In that post, I made the following common sense statements:
The price of gasoline is affected by two things specifically, the price of crude oil and the ability to refine that oil into gasoline. Just like any commodity, crude oil and refined gasoline are subject to the laws of supply and demand. In a normal situation, the demand for a product or service can be manipulated by raising or lowering the price. This is often done when the demand for something exceeds the supply. In other words, if demand is higher than supply, you raise the price, which normally lowers demand. With growing economies in places like China, India, and the United States, the demand for crude oil is higher than it has ever been. Therefore the price of crude oil is higher than it has ever been. Now that brings us to the issue of gas prices. Nothing affects the price of gasoline as much as the price of crude, but there is one other factor and that is refining capacity. We have not built a new refinery in this country in 25 years and during that time we have become quite prosperous.
In other words, what the government needs to do right now is absolutely nothing. That's right, government is not going to help this situation. Government will only make things worse.
Professor Thomas Sowell agrees with me on this issue. Of course he puts it much more eloquently and he uses history (as opposed to emotion) to back up his assertions.
Why, then, are oil prices so high?
There is no esoteric reason. It is plain old supply and demand. With the economies of huge nations like China and India developing more rapidly, now that they have freed their markets from many stifling government controls, more oil is being demanded in the world market and there are few new sources of supply.
What should our government do?
We will be lucky if they do nothing. But, with Congressional elections coming up next year, that is very unlikely. Candidates for Congress next year, and politicians hoping to run for President in 2008, are virtually guaranteed to come up with all sorts of "solutions."
These "solutions" will be packaged as brilliant new ideas, courageous and far-seeing. But most will be retreads of old ideas that remain untested or which have been tested in the past and found wanting.
Price controls, arbitrary new higher gas mileage standards for cars, "alternative energy sources," and other nostrums are sure to surface once again.
The last time we had price controls on gasoline, we had long lines of cars at filling stations, these lines sometimes stretching around the block, with motorists sitting in those lines for hours.
That nonsense ended almost overnight when President Ronald Reagan, ignoring the cries of liberal politicians and the liberal media, got rid of price controls with a stroke of the pen.
What happened is what usually happens when government restrictions are ended: There was more production of oil. In fact the 1980s became known as the era of an "oil glut" and gasoline prices declined.
So according to Thomas Sowell, what should Congress do about this so-called crisis?Absolutely Nothing!
I know that may be a little hard for Senator Graham to understand.
8/07/2005
NCAA Is A Joke Made Up Of A Bunch Of Pointed Head Liberal Academics
Okay maybe that heading was a little emotional, or maybe it reveals to all of you Tennessee fans that I am a fanatical Alabama fan who believes that NCAA actually means National Conspiracy Against Alabama. Of course some of you might actually be intelligent enough to realize that it was just a clever way to get this post noticed on an aggregator.
The purpose of this post though was not to complain about Philip Fulmer and the NCAA's effort to bring down Alabama's football program. Believe it or not, I am actually over that. It took about three years and a lot of therapy but I am okay now. What I want to talk about today is the NCAA's silliness in regards to the use of American Indian mascots by member institutions. Yes, I know I am supposed to say Native American, but I will be damned if I ever give in to that politically correct BS and start calling Indians Native American. I don't think it makes anymore sense to call them Native American than it does to call Americans who happen to be black, African-Americans. This is the way I see it. If you were born in this country, are you not also a native American, and if your skin happens to be brown and you were born in this country, does that not also make you a native American, as opposed to an African-American? Before I get too far off topic, I will just direct you to this old post that addresses this very subject.
I realize that a few American tribes are offended by these mascots, but you see I don't care. Yes that is right. I don't care. I don't care if individuals who are overly sensitive get their feelings hurt. In my opinion, those types of individuals need to get over it. These schools are not trying to offend anyone with those mascots. Think about it. Would you want your University to be referred to by a derogatory term. Of course not. The political activists who litter the NCAA seem to think though that calling your team the FSU Seminoles is equal to calling your team the FSU Piles of Excrement.
I am just tired of tiptoeing around and making sure that what I say or do does not hurt someone's feelings. I mean, can people not just get over it? I can tell you that the 1/16 Cherokee in me could care less about these nicknames. But do the Indians really care? I realize that some do, but I would guess that most do not. I posted about some of them that did not on March 11. In that post I discussed how the NCAA had asked the University of North Carolina Pembroke, who used the name Braves, to undergo an institutional self evaluation because their nickname was deemed offensive. But as it turned out, the nickname dated back 50 years when the University was an all Indian school, and the Indians for whom it was named vehemently opposed a name change. But guess what. UNC Pembroke went ahead and changed the name anyway. Talk about ridiculous!
I have never understood these people who are so worried about offending certain individuals. At some point, we just have to tell folks to get over it. I refuse to walk on pins and needles around anyone. If I offend you, then maybe instead of shaming me, you should take a look at yourself. Maybe you are the one with the problem.
The purpose of this post though was not to complain about Philip Fulmer and the NCAA's effort to bring down Alabama's football program. Believe it or not, I am actually over that. It took about three years and a lot of therapy but I am okay now. What I want to talk about today is the NCAA's silliness in regards to the use of American Indian mascots by member institutions. Yes, I know I am supposed to say Native American, but I will be damned if I ever give in to that politically correct BS and start calling Indians Native American. I don't think it makes anymore sense to call them Native American than it does to call Americans who happen to be black, African-Americans. This is the way I see it. If you were born in this country, are you not also a native American, and if your skin happens to be brown and you were born in this country, does that not also make you a native American, as opposed to an African-American? Before I get too far off topic, I will just direct you to this old post that addresses this very subject.
I realize that a few American tribes are offended by these mascots, but you see I don't care. Yes that is right. I don't care. I don't care if individuals who are overly sensitive get their feelings hurt. In my opinion, those types of individuals need to get over it. These schools are not trying to offend anyone with those mascots. Think about it. Would you want your University to be referred to by a derogatory term. Of course not. The political activists who litter the NCAA seem to think though that calling your team the FSU Seminoles is equal to calling your team the FSU Piles of Excrement.
I am just tired of tiptoeing around and making sure that what I say or do does not hurt someone's feelings. I mean, can people not just get over it? I can tell you that the 1/16 Cherokee in me could care less about these nicknames. But do the Indians really care? I realize that some do, but I would guess that most do not. I posted about some of them that did not on March 11. In that post I discussed how the NCAA had asked the University of North Carolina Pembroke, who used the name Braves, to undergo an institutional self evaluation because their nickname was deemed offensive. But as it turned out, the nickname dated back 50 years when the University was an all Indian school, and the Indians for whom it was named vehemently opposed a name change. But guess what. UNC Pembroke went ahead and changed the name anyway. Talk about ridiculous!
I have never understood these people who are so worried about offending certain individuals. At some point, we just have to tell folks to get over it. I refuse to walk on pins and needles around anyone. If I offend you, then maybe instead of shaming me, you should take a look at yourself. Maybe you are the one with the problem.
8/02/2005
Religion, Politics, and the Real Purpose of a Church
Let me begin this post by saying that I do not believe that there is anything new or unusual about churches being involved in politics. Since religion is so interwoven into our culture, there is no way that you can keep religion or religious belief out of politics. Religion was used to abolish slavery and religion was used to bring about the Civil Rights Movement. Many people use religion today to justify government spending and others use it justify laws that ban same sex marriage. I have written on this subject before.
7/15/2005
Tennessee Teen Arrested For Flag Burning
Back on June 20th, I explained why a proposed amendment to ban flag burning was a bad idea. Two days the later, the House passed that amendment and I wrote a post entitled House Votes To Restrict Liberty. Surprisingly though, in spite of a Supreme Court decision stating that flag burning was free speech, Tennessee apparently still has a law against flag desecration and a Tennessee teenager was recently arrested for violating that statute. Like I have said before, I don't like the idea of someone burning a flag. In fact, the thought of someone doing that makes me downright angry. But the first amendment protects that kind of behavior and any restriction on flag burning or any other form of protest is, in my view, a restriction on liberty. By arresting this kid for flag desecration, the state of Tennessee has urinated on the most fundamental right that this nation was built on.
S-town Mike put it best, when he commented,
"It is only small people who are threatened by burning cloth. That which the American flag symbolizes is indelibly stamped already in the American heart and cannot be burned away by those who hate the symbol. And it is precisely the largeness of the American heart that accommodates dissent even if that dissent destroys cherished symbols to make its statement. Paradoxically, the freedom that makes flag-burning possible is what makes this country great. The Flag Burning Amendment only narrows the distance between us and the countries who squash dissent."
S-town Mike and I have disagreed on many things in the past and some of our exchanges have even turned a little nasty, but every time I read the above comments, I get chills.
Hat tip: Sharon Cobb.
S-town Mike put it best, when he commented,
"It is only small people who are threatened by burning cloth. That which the American flag symbolizes is indelibly stamped already in the American heart and cannot be burned away by those who hate the symbol. And it is precisely the largeness of the American heart that accommodates dissent even if that dissent destroys cherished symbols to make its statement. Paradoxically, the freedom that makes flag-burning possible is what makes this country great. The Flag Burning Amendment only narrows the distance between us and the countries who squash dissent."
S-town Mike and I have disagreed on many things in the past and some of our exchanges have even turned a little nasty, but every time I read the above comments, I get chills.
Hat tip: Sharon Cobb.
6/27/2005
Supreme Court Bars Oldest Legal Document From Being Displayed At Courthouses
While sitting in a court room that featured an engraving of Moses holding the Ten Commandments, the Supreme Court, in yet another 5-4 decision, decided that other courthouses in the United States were not allowed to display the world's oldest legal document. Why, because the Commandments are associated with religion and in this country, anything having to do with religion must be removed from sight.
They said that putting up the Ten Commandments in a courtroom establishes religion. Of course, they didn't specify which religion. Surely it isn't Catholicism or any mainline Protestant denomination, since they are all free from the Law. Maybe it is Judaism. Who knows?
Well at least they didn't bar the display in all public places.
They said that putting up the Ten Commandments in a courtroom establishes religion. Of course, they didn't specify which religion. Surely it isn't Catholicism or any mainline Protestant denomination, since they are all free from the Law. Maybe it is Judaism. Who knows?
Well at least they didn't bar the display in all public places.
6/19/2005
Flag Burning Amendment Is A Bad Idea
Any American who burns the flag is revealing themselves to be an ungrateful idiot, and I believe that person should be taken to the woodshed and given an old fashioned whipping. Regardless of how I feel about that person though, Americans have the constitutional right to act like idiots. I realize that flag burning makes some of you angry. It makes me angry too. But the right to protest and speak out against the government should never be taken away. You see, a flag burning amendment is not about flag burning as much is it is about liberty. I opposed a flag burning amendment during Bush 41's presidency. I felt that Bush demogogued the issue in order to get re-elected. The two Senators who are sponsoring this amendment are doing the same. They know that it has no chance of passing, but they need the good publicity that comes from looking patriotic. But as much as it is unpatriotic to burn a flag, it is even more unpatriotic to ban a persons right to burn a flag. We must preserve a person's right to protest, even if their protest is offensive. If we do not preserve that basic liberty, we might as well have never won our independence.
6/16/2005
Repeal the 17th Amendment
Back during the debate concerning the constitutional option to end judicial filibusters, a few Senators suggested that the constitutional option would change the Senate forever. I don't know about you, but I considered that to be a good thing. The US Senate is a toilet. Senators do not serve their constituents, they serve the special interest groups who send them on those nice vacations and donate millions to their campaign funds. At one time though, they actually represented the states. Yes before what was supposed to be a "democratic reform", Senators were actually accountable to the state legislatures that sent them to Washington. Of course the Seventeenth Amendment changed all of that. In a comment to one of his recent posts, Blake of Nashville Files stated that he supported the repeal of the 17th amendment. I agree. I would love to see power return to the states, which is where it belongs. Then maybe the Senate won't be the toilet that it currently is.
6/14/2005
Roy Moore Is An Absolute Disgrace
Luna's Tunes tipped me off to this article about former Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore and his possible political aspirations.
I am a Christian and a conservative who is also from Alabama and I do not like Roy Moore. I don't like the way he has used the Ten Commandments as a springboard to a political career. He was just a local judge in Etowah County, Alabama who had the Ten Commandments on his wall. He could have made a valid argument for keeping it there on the basis that the Commandments are historically a legal document. He didn't though. He went on this populist binge of religiosity and used his showmanship to get elected Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court. He didn't stop there. He had to go and pull another publicity stunt and put a monument of the Commandments in the supreme court building. Once again, rather than using the legal document argument, which has merit, he went on another rampage of religiosity. Ironically William Pryor, who was attorney general at the time, was the one who enforced the court order and removed the Ten Commandments monument. You all remember Pryor. He is one of the judges the Democrats recently filibustered because he supposedly put his personal beliefs above the law.
So thanks to his religiosity, Moore has risen from a small town judge to the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, to a best selling author. Speaking as a conservative, and also a Christian, Roy Moore is a disgrace and an embarrassment to both of those terms.
I believe the Ten Commandments should be hung on the wall of a courtroom just like any other legal document. But Roy Moore never made that argument. If he had made that argument, he may have won and retained the right to post the Commandments in his courtroom. But obviously having the Ten Commandments on the wall didn't mean as much to Moore as becoming a demagogue and writing a book, because rather than making that argument, he made a bunch of crazy statements that proved liberals worst fears about us Christians. I know a lot of you out there probably think that Moore is a great guy and a great Christian, but trust me on this folks. I am a Southern Baptist conservative from Alabama and I am telling you that Roy Moore is in it for Roy Moore. I studied these types of southern demagogues in college and I am telling you, this guy is not a conservative. He is nothing but a rabble rousing populist out to make himself famous.
I am a Christian and a conservative who is also from Alabama and I do not like Roy Moore. I don't like the way he has used the Ten Commandments as a springboard to a political career. He was just a local judge in Etowah County, Alabama who had the Ten Commandments on his wall. He could have made a valid argument for keeping it there on the basis that the Commandments are historically a legal document. He didn't though. He went on this populist binge of religiosity and used his showmanship to get elected Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court. He didn't stop there. He had to go and pull another publicity stunt and put a monument of the Commandments in the supreme court building. Once again, rather than using the legal document argument, which has merit, he went on another rampage of religiosity. Ironically William Pryor, who was attorney general at the time, was the one who enforced the court order and removed the Ten Commandments monument. You all remember Pryor. He is one of the judges the Democrats recently filibustered because he supposedly put his personal beliefs above the law.
So thanks to his religiosity, Moore has risen from a small town judge to the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, to a best selling author. Speaking as a conservative, and also a Christian, Roy Moore is a disgrace and an embarrassment to both of those terms.
I believe the Ten Commandments should be hung on the wall of a courtroom just like any other legal document. But Roy Moore never made that argument. If he had made that argument, he may have won and retained the right to post the Commandments in his courtroom. But obviously having the Ten Commandments on the wall didn't mean as much to Moore as becoming a demagogue and writing a book, because rather than making that argument, he made a bunch of crazy statements that proved liberals worst fears about us Christians. I know a lot of you out there probably think that Moore is a great guy and a great Christian, but trust me on this folks. I am a Southern Baptist conservative from Alabama and I am telling you that Roy Moore is in it for Roy Moore. I studied these types of southern demagogues in college and I am telling you, this guy is not a conservative. He is nothing but a rabble rousing populist out to make himself famous.
5/30/2005
Christianity And The Welfare State
I have written several posts about the traditional relationship between politics and religion in the United States here, here, and here. I have rightly pointed out that the words "separation of church and state" do not appear in the constitution and that the constitution merely prohibits Congress from establishing a state church or restricting religious freedom. It is very much impossible to keep religion out of government because religion is a part of our culture. Even Congress opens every session with a prayer, given by a chaplain paid with public money. Many in the Democratic Party often accuse conservatives like Bill Frist of violating the mythical separation of church and state by showing up in a church and appealing to religious people. But we all know those accusations are just politics, because when it comes to justifying the welfare state that the Democratic party has used to create their constituency, the Democrats seem to have no problem mixing religion and politics. Roger Banks has written an excellent commentary on the subject of the Democratic party and their use of Christianity to further their agenda, which is to create an underclass of people and keep them dependent on the government. Here are a couple of excerpts but I highly suggest you read the whole article.
Failed presidential candidate John Kerry, for example, persists in appealing to the New Testament's book of James. "Faith without works is dead," Kerry intones, suggesting that "works" here includes the works of lawmakers as they spend other people's money. n a similar fashion, Nancy Pelosi, the House minority leader, is wont to quote the Gospel of Matthew, where Jesus teaches that "[i]nasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." Pelosi says doing unto the least means raising more taxes for entitlement programs.
Even DNC Chairman Howard Dean, who kicked off Bush's second term with "I hate Republicans," recently accused the ones he hates of violating the biblical command to "love thy neighbor as thyself"
Personally, I have never understood the virtue in the idea of an extremely rich person like John Kerry telling a working person like me that he is a better man than the other candidate because he believes in taking money from one group of people and giving it to another. Would it not say more of his character if he was to convince his wife to liquidate all of her assets and give the money to the poor? Remember Jesus told the rich man that he should sell everything he owned and give it to the poor. He didn't tell the rich man to keep all of his wealth and then convince the Romans to tax the heck out of everyone else so that the supposedly poor could keep both of their vehicles, air conditioning, cable television, computer, and high speed internet access.
Also, is all of this so called "help" really doing anybody any good. Think about it. Say you have an adult son whom you love so much that you are willing to give him anything he needs. You provide him with a place to live for as long as he wants to live there. You give him all of the food he wants. Since you have so much and he has so little, you also give him a little cash to spend. Since this adult child has always had his needs provided, he never develops any skills, he never gets an education, and because of this he never develops any self respect. By keeping him dependent on your aid and taking away any incentive for him to better himself, have you really helped him. Did you really show him love of God? No you did not.
Failed presidential candidate John Kerry, for example, persists in appealing to the New Testament's book of James. "Faith without works is dead," Kerry intones, suggesting that "works" here includes the works of lawmakers as they spend other people's money. n a similar fashion, Nancy Pelosi, the House minority leader, is wont to quote the Gospel of Matthew, where Jesus teaches that "[i]nasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." Pelosi says doing unto the least means raising more taxes for entitlement programs.
Personally, I have never understood the virtue in the idea of an extremely rich person like John Kerry telling a working person like me that he is a better man than the other candidate because he believes in taking money from one group of people and giving it to another. Would it not say more of his character if he was to convince his wife to liquidate all of her assets and give the money to the poor? Remember Jesus told the rich man that he should sell everything he owned and give it to the poor. He didn't tell the rich man to keep all of his wealth and then convince the Romans to tax the heck out of everyone else so that the supposedly poor could keep both of their vehicles, air conditioning, cable television, computer, and high speed internet access.
Also, is all of this so called "help" really doing anybody any good. Think about it. Say you have an adult son whom you love so much that you are willing to give him anything he needs. You provide him with a place to live for as long as he wants to live there. You give him all of the food he wants. Since you have so much and he has so little, you also give him a little cash to spend. Since this adult child has always had his needs provided, he never develops any skills, he never gets an education, and because of this he never develops any self respect. By keeping him dependent on your aid and taking away any incentive for him to better himself, have you really helped him. Did you really show him love of God? No you did not.
5/28/2005
Is Healthcare A Right And Should Government Provide It
I was really disappointed that there was not more response to this post concerning Steve Gill's proposal to "save" TennCare. I began to think that John Brown and I were the only two people left in the United States who believed that healthcare was not a right that should be provided by the government. In hopes that we are not the only cold hearted conservatives in the world, I decided to post this poll. Please respond so that I won't have to post a bunch of fake responses in order to keep myself from looking bad.
Update: More at Nashville Files, and Nashville Is Talking.
Also, Sharon Cobb has a near carbon copy of this poll that she posted a day after I posted this poll. Check the results of her poll and you will notice quite a difference. Of course she did word the question a little differently. I guess that not only shows her slant, but also mine.
Update: More at Nashville Files, and Nashville Is Talking.
Also, Sharon Cobb has a near carbon copy of this poll that she posted a day after I posted this poll. Check the results of her poll and you will notice quite a difference. Of course she did word the question a little differently. I guess that not only shows her slant, but also mine.
5/19/2005
Congressman Sensenbrenner, You Are An Embarrassment/ Legalize It
Hat Tip: Nashville Files
What has happened to the party of Milton Friedman, and the party of William F. Buckley? The same big government Republican who gave us that awful Orwellian piece of legislation called the Real ID Act, has now decided to try and push through an even more bizarre piece of legislation that will make it a crime not to snitch on someone who is violating a drug law. Of course Congress is currently in the process of meddling into the drug testing policies of professional sports, who last time I checked were not owned by Uncle Sam. It is quite apparent that Congress is out of control.
Sensenbrenner wants to punish people who do not report a drug crime with a jail term of at least two years. Has he been to a prison lately? If so, he would have seen an overcrowded mess full of nonviolent drug offenders. So I guess he wants to make it even more overcrowded in the penitentiary? With more people in prisons, you can expect more taxes to pay for their detainment. So this is what we sent Republicans to Washington for?
If I see someone smoking crack or smoking a joint, I am not going to report it because I could care less what people do with their money. The idea of criminalizing the act of destroying oneself is idiocy in my opinion. Can someone please tell me why we are still spending federal, state, and local dollars on this so called war on drugs? Just like poverty has won the war on poverty, drugs appear to have won the war on drugs. It doesn't make any sense to incarcerate someone for getting high. Think about all of the people walking around who have used an illegal substance at some time in their life. Imagine how many convicted felons we would have in this country if everyone who had tried drugs like cocaine (including George Bush) had also been caught and arrested.
One of my conservative heroes is William F. Buckley. One of the best issues of National Review was an issue devoted to the cause of drug legalization. In that 1996 publication, Buckley cited the following statistics: 75 billion dollars worth of public money is spent on the "war on drugs", and this problem is responsible for 50 percent of the people in jail. He also pointed out how there seems to be no remedy to this plague. That was written in 1996. I don't have today's statistics, but I can promise you that nine more years of us waging the war on drugs have not improved the situation. In fact, I am quite confident that the problem is much worse.
Another one of my conservative heroes, and the man who provides the basis for my ideas on economic freedom, is Milton Friedman. In an open letter written to former Drug Czar William Bennett in 1989, Milton Friedman correctly stated, "The path you propose of more police, of more jails, use of the military in foreign countries, harsh penalties for drug users, and a whole panoply of repressive measures can only make a bad situation worse. The drug war cannot be won by those tactics without undermining the human liberty and individual freedom that you and I cherish." Friedman wrote those words in 1989. Fast forward to 2005 and you will see that he was absolutely correct. All of that restriction on freedom and incarceration of people who make bad choices has not helped the problem, it has only made it worse. Once again, it sounds like big government has had the same success in the war on drugs as it has had in the war on poverty.
We Americans need to re-think our approach to the problem of drug abuse. Do we really want our sons and daughters locked up for making bad choices? Why can we not leave people alone and let them do what they want to? The last thing we need is legislation that forces people to report a crime which is already an infringement on personal liberty. I am really disappointed with the so-called conservatives that we worked so hard to send to Washington. Call me a wacko-libertarian, but our current Congress just doesn't seem that conservative to me.
What has happened to the party of Milton Friedman, and the party of William F. Buckley? The same big government Republican who gave us that awful Orwellian piece of legislation called the Real ID Act, has now decided to try and push through an even more bizarre piece of legislation that will make it a crime not to snitch on someone who is violating a drug law. Of course Congress is currently in the process of meddling into the drug testing policies of professional sports, who last time I checked were not owned by Uncle Sam. It is quite apparent that Congress is out of control.
Sensenbrenner wants to punish people who do not report a drug crime with a jail term of at least two years. Has he been to a prison lately? If so, he would have seen an overcrowded mess full of nonviolent drug offenders. So I guess he wants to make it even more overcrowded in the penitentiary? With more people in prisons, you can expect more taxes to pay for their detainment. So this is what we sent Republicans to Washington for?
If I see someone smoking crack or smoking a joint, I am not going to report it because I could care less what people do with their money. The idea of criminalizing the act of destroying oneself is idiocy in my opinion. Can someone please tell me why we are still spending federal, state, and local dollars on this so called war on drugs? Just like poverty has won the war on poverty, drugs appear to have won the war on drugs. It doesn't make any sense to incarcerate someone for getting high. Think about all of the people walking around who have used an illegal substance at some time in their life. Imagine how many convicted felons we would have in this country if everyone who had tried drugs like cocaine (including George Bush) had also been caught and arrested.
One of my conservative heroes is William F. Buckley. One of the best issues of National Review was an issue devoted to the cause of drug legalization. In that 1996 publication, Buckley cited the following statistics: 75 billion dollars worth of public money is spent on the "war on drugs", and this problem is responsible for 50 percent of the people in jail. He also pointed out how there seems to be no remedy to this plague. That was written in 1996. I don't have today's statistics, but I can promise you that nine more years of us waging the war on drugs have not improved the situation. In fact, I am quite confident that the problem is much worse.
Another one of my conservative heroes, and the man who provides the basis for my ideas on economic freedom, is Milton Friedman. In an open letter written to former Drug Czar William Bennett in 1989, Milton Friedman correctly stated, "The path you propose of more police, of more jails, use of the military in foreign countries, harsh penalties for drug users, and a whole panoply of repressive measures can only make a bad situation worse. The drug war cannot be won by those tactics without undermining the human liberty and individual freedom that you and I cherish." Friedman wrote those words in 1989. Fast forward to 2005 and you will see that he was absolutely correct. All of that restriction on freedom and incarceration of people who make bad choices has not helped the problem, it has only made it worse. Once again, it sounds like big government has had the same success in the war on drugs as it has had in the war on poverty.
We Americans need to re-think our approach to the problem of drug abuse. Do we really want our sons and daughters locked up for making bad choices? Why can we not leave people alone and let them do what they want to? The last thing we need is legislation that forces people to report a crime which is already an infringement on personal liberty. I am really disappointed with the so-called conservatives that we worked so hard to send to Washington. Call me a wacko-libertarian, but our current Congress just doesn't seem that conservative to me.
5/17/2005
This Christian Says No To Funding Faith Based Groups
I can't help but laugh every time the liberal media calls George Bush the most conservative president ever. George Bush is not a conservative. He is a neo-conservative, which basically is just a bizarro world liberal. You see George Bush does not believe in the old Reagan saying "that government is not the solution, government is the problem." He actually agrees with the liberals on the role of the federal government in solving the nations problems. The only difference is he disagrees with their methods. It is like the liberals are finally getting a taste of their own big government medicine. Bush is right in discontinuing those useless Great Society programs that congress consistently threw money at for the last 40 years. He is also right to point out that the only groups who have had any success at helping people have been faith based groups. However he is wrong to try and give government money to those groups. Not only is it wrong from the perspective of where government money should be spent, but it is also bad for the potential recipients of these funds. You see a government handout is a means of government control. Uncle Sam gets you dependent on his money and then he ends up telling you some things that he would like to see you do differently. You may resist his suggestions, but if you don't go along with what he wants, you can kiss that money you have become dependent on goodbye. A prime example is federal highway money and the way the federal government has manipulated states laws with the threat of taking that money away. As a Christian, I would not want my organization taking money from the federal government. No, I still like freedom and I certainly don't want the federal government telling me that I can't teach something as simple and true as "the only way to the Father is through Jesus Christ." The Faith Based Initiative was and still is a terrible idea. Didn't we send a Republican to Washington to stop the growth of government?
5/12/2005
Walter Williams Knows How Not To Be Poor
Sometimes the answers to the problems of society are way to simple for liberals to figure out. Think about the "Great Society" or the "War on Poverty" that effectively created a class of poor people in this country and a natural constituency for the Democratic Party. Here we are, billions of dollars after we delcared war on poverty and it appears that poverty has won. Maybe some of these bleeding heart liberals who enjoy taxing people that work so that they can give that money to people who do not, should listen to Professor Walter Williams. Here are some of his suggestions about how not to be poor:
"Avoiding long-term poverty is not rocket science. First, graduate from high school. Second, get married before you have children, and stay married. Third, work at any kind of job, even one that starts out paying the minimum wage. And, finally, avoid engaging in criminal behavior. If you graduate from high school today with a B or C average, in most places in our country there's a low-cost or financially assisted post-high-school education program available to increase your skills."
He goes on to shoot down the old "I can't make it because I am black" bunch of BS with these statements:
"How much does racial discrimination explain? So far as black poverty is concerned, I'd say little or nothing, which is not to say that every vestige of racial discrimination has been eliminated. But let's pose a few questions. Is it racial discrimination that stops black students from studying and completing high school? Is it racial discrimination that's responsible for the 68 percent illegitimacy rate among blacks? The 1999 Bureau of Census report might raise another racial discrimination question. Among black households that included a married couple, over 50 percent were middle class earning above $50,000, and 26 percent earned more than $75,000. How in the world did these black families manage not to be poor? Did America's racists cut them some slack?"
America is a lovely place and while there is still racism in this country, there is much more opportunity for people of all races than there has ever been. If Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton really cared about black people, they would echo what Williams says. Sadly though, most people who consider themselves black leaders, are not leaders at all. A leader tells his audience something that they do not want to hear, but need to hear. A demagogue is quite different. That person just stirs up the crowd with a bunch of rhetoric which helps nobody but themselves. Jesse and Al are a couple of demagogues and as long as their message is being heard, the illegitimacy rate and the unemployment rate in the black community will always be high. As long as black people are convinced that society owes them something, they will never have anything. Some of you may be reading this and saying "I can't believe he went there." I realize that some of you make take offense at a white boy speaking on this issue, but it is the truth and it is about time somebody had the courage to speak it.
Hat tip: Q and O Blog
"Avoiding long-term poverty is not rocket science. First, graduate from high school. Second, get married before you have children, and stay married. Third, work at any kind of job, even one that starts out paying the minimum wage. And, finally, avoid engaging in criminal behavior. If you graduate from high school today with a B or C average, in most places in our country there's a low-cost or financially assisted post-high-school education program available to increase your skills."
He goes on to shoot down the old "I can't make it because I am black" bunch of BS with these statements:
"How much does racial discrimination explain? So far as black poverty is concerned, I'd say little or nothing, which is not to say that every vestige of racial discrimination has been eliminated. But let's pose a few questions. Is it racial discrimination that stops black students from studying and completing high school? Is it racial discrimination that's responsible for the 68 percent illegitimacy rate among blacks? The 1999 Bureau of Census report might raise another racial discrimination question. Among black households that included a married couple, over 50 percent were middle class earning above $50,000, and 26 percent earned more than $75,000. How in the world did these black families manage not to be poor? Did America's racists cut them some slack?"
America is a lovely place and while there is still racism in this country, there is much more opportunity for people of all races than there has ever been. If Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton really cared about black people, they would echo what Williams says. Sadly though, most people who consider themselves black leaders, are not leaders at all. A leader tells his audience something that they do not want to hear, but need to hear. A demagogue is quite different. That person just stirs up the crowd with a bunch of rhetoric which helps nobody but themselves. Jesse and Al are a couple of demagogues and as long as their message is being heard, the illegitimacy rate and the unemployment rate in the black community will always be high. As long as black people are convinced that society owes them something, they will never have anything. Some of you may be reading this and saying "I can't believe he went there." I realize that some of you make take offense at a white boy speaking on this issue, but it is the truth and it is about time somebody had the courage to speak it.
Hat tip: Q and O Blog
5/08/2005
Colored, Black, African-American. It's Hard To Keep Up With The PC Police These Days
While recently reading an article about the first black president, William Jefferson Clinton, I became a little bugged by his usage of the term, African-American. I thought to myself, if Bill Clinton is the first black president and we are now supposed to call black people African-American, why do we not call Clinton the first African-American president? Blacks in this country have undergone a number of name changes over the years. Most of the old photographs and video of the segregated south show signs with the words "whites only" and "colored" written on them. Now that really did not make sense. Colored could have meant anything. Of course we all know that colored meant black, but it still seemed like a stupid label. Later on, it became acceptable to use the term black to describe someone of African descent. Although it is not politically correct today to call someone black, most black people are alright with it. In fact, they are quite proud to be black. But where did the term African-American come from, and when did it become politically correct to hyphenate someone who is a natural born American citizen? I can understand why a first generation African immigrant would call himself African-American, but it just seems wrong to hyphenate a group of people who were born in this country and are as equal in it as anybody else. What is so odd, is that many black people in America are not even 50% African descent. Although I am one quarter Italian, you would not call me Italian-American would you? Yet you would call the very European looking Vanessa Williams, African American. And what about Tiger Woods? Why does he still get to be called African-American? Wouldn’t it be just as correct to label him an Asian American?
The term Native-American is another one that doesn’t make sense to me. Is not everyone who was born in the North American continent a Native American? That would also make Tiger Woods a Native American, in addition to being an African-American and an Asian-American. You say that the term Native American is reserved to those who belong to the tribes that inhabited this land before the evil Europeans came along, but are those people actually native to this continent? Did their ancestors not cross the Bering Straight a few thousand years ago?
Forgive me for all of this foolishness, but it just seems silly that we have to label people like we do. Why don’t we just end all of this nonsense and stop using all of these labels? America is most definitely a melting pot. Regardless of what skin color you are, or where your parents came from, we are all equally American. I love the story of how Bear Bryant used USC running back Sam Cunningham to integrate Southeastern football. After Cunningham had run all over Bama’s “skinny white boys”, the Bear brought Cunningham into the Alabama locker room and said, “this is a football player”. He didn’t say, “This is a really good black football player”. He said, “This is a football player”. Later in the 70’s, when Bryant's team was fully integrated, a sportswriter asked him how many black players he had on the team. The Bear said, “ We don’t have any black players, we only have football players”. Why can’t we just call people American? I still think everyone should be proud of their culture and try to preserve it to a certain extent, but in the end, we are all American, regardless of race or culture. I am sorry, but you will never hear me identify an American with a hyphen. I will just stick to terms like black, white, and American. I guess that makes me politically incorrect. Oh well.
The term Native-American is another one that doesn’t make sense to me. Is not everyone who was born in the North American continent a Native American? That would also make Tiger Woods a Native American, in addition to being an African-American and an Asian-American. You say that the term Native American is reserved to those who belong to the tribes that inhabited this land before the evil Europeans came along, but are those people actually native to this continent? Did their ancestors not cross the Bering Straight a few thousand years ago?
Forgive me for all of this foolishness, but it just seems silly that we have to label people like we do. Why don’t we just end all of this nonsense and stop using all of these labels? America is most definitely a melting pot. Regardless of what skin color you are, or where your parents came from, we are all equally American. I love the story of how Bear Bryant used USC running back Sam Cunningham to integrate Southeastern football. After Cunningham had run all over Bama’s “skinny white boys”, the Bear brought Cunningham into the Alabama locker room and said, “this is a football player”. He didn’t say, “This is a really good black football player”. He said, “This is a football player”. Later in the 70’s, when Bryant's team was fully integrated, a sportswriter asked him how many black players he had on the team. The Bear said, “ We don’t have any black players, we only have football players”. Why can’t we just call people American? I still think everyone should be proud of their culture and try to preserve it to a certain extent, but in the end, we are all American, regardless of race or culture. I am sorry, but you will never hear me identify an American with a hyphen. I will just stick to terms like black, white, and American. I guess that makes me politically incorrect. Oh well.
5/07/2005
This Weeks Quote - Happy Mothers Day, Mama
"A mother is the truest friend we have, when trials, heavy and sudden, fall upon us; when adversity takes the place of prosperity; when friends who rejoice with us in our sunshine, desert us when troubles thicken around us, still will she cling to us, and endeavor by her kind precepts and counsels to dissipate the clouds of darkness, and cause peace to return to our hearts." - Washington Irving (1783-1859)
That quote really sums up the kind of mother I have. Regardless of what I have done or the mistakes I have made, my mother has always been there for me. My father died when I was ten and my mother did the very best she could to raise me, but to quote Merle Haggard, "in spite of all my Sunday learning, toward the bad I kept on turning".
She loved me through it all though and she spent many nights on her knees crying out to God, not knowing if I was ever going to come home or not. My wife just became a mother about three months ago and I have told her many times that there is no title on earth more esteemed than the title of Mother. I believe that too. That is because I had such a good mother. I love you, Mama. Thank you.
5/06/2005
4/04/2005
What Did the Founders Say About Religion? They Have Their Quotes, I Have Mine
For all of you who read this post yesterday and disagreed, please read this and this. Here are a few excerpts.
Signer of the Constitution, James Wilson: Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other. The divine law, as discovered by reason and the moral sense, forms an essential part of both.
Original Chief-Justice U. S. Supreme Court, An Author of the Federalist Papers, John Jay. [It is] the duty of all wise, free, and virtuous governments to countenance and encourage virtue and religion.
President Thomas Jefferson: No nation has ever existed or been governed without religion. Nor can be. The Christian religion is the best religion that has been given to man and I, as Chief Magistrate of this nation, am bound to give it the sanction of my example.
Signer of the Constitution, Abraham Baldwin: free government. . . . can only be happy when the public principle and opinions are properly directed. . . . by religion and education. It should therefore be among the first objects of those who wish well to the national prosperity to encourage and support the principles of religion and morality.
Founder of Pennsylvania, William Penn: [I]t is impossible that any people of government should ever prosper, where men render not unto God, that which is God's, as well as to Caesar, that which is Caesar's.
Signer of the Declaration of Independence and President of the United States, Thomas Jefferson: I concur with the author in considering the moral precepts of Jesus as more pure, correct, and sublime than those of ancient philosophers.
John Adams: [I]t is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue.
Signer of Declaration of Independence, Governor of Massachusetts, John Hancock: Sensible of the importance of Christian piety and virtue to the order and happiness of a state, I cannot but earnestly commend to you every measure for their support and encouragement. . . . [T]he very existence of the republics . . . depend much upon the public institutions of religion.
Here are a couple more for your reading pleasure.
• The first Supreme Court Justice, John Jay, declared: "Americans should select, and prefer, Christians as their rulers."
• Patrick Henry, one of the Founding Fathers, said: "It cannot be emphasized too strongly, or too often, that this great nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians, not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ."
• James Madison, the fourth president, made the following statement: We have staked the whole of our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."
2/10/2005
Churchill Is A Nut But...............
Lately, the blogs have really been piling it on about the nutty professor in
2/08/2005
Abortion Is Black Genocide
Over the past few weeks I have used my blog to rant about the "unholy alliance" between black religious and political leaders and the pro-abortion, pro-ACLU (anti-Christian-liberal-union), poverty pimping Democratic Party. Of course, any discussion of these self-serving charlatans who care nothing about improving the lives of black Americans must always include the Reverend Jesse "Shakedown" Jackson. What is most "unholy" is
2/06/2005
Now Their Even Playing The Race Card In Social Security Fight.
Democrats love to go on television and speak about Republican fear tactics while the very survival of their party is dependent on scaring people. They scare old people, they scare black people, and they scare all lower income people with class warfare. Although they have already had enormous success scaring old people in regards to the Bush Social Security reform plan, they have still found it necessary to now scare black people. Yes, they have somehow figured out a way to play the race card on this issue. I know it seems ridiculous but private accounts are a racist idea. At least that is what the Congressional Black caucus says. What will they come up with next? I am sure that reforming the tax system is also racist. Also the war on terror, it has got to be racist. Is tort reform racist? Probably so according to the liberals in Congress who call themselves the Congressional Black caucus. When is somebody in a position of authority going to stand up to these "poverty pimps", whose very existence depends on fear?
1/01/2005
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)