Let me start with this Disclaimer -
To be proud of ANY national heritage, is a good thing. Our roots are important. And hardly like anyplace else on earth, America is made up of people "up-rooted" from all over the world. That is one of the truly great things about America.
That said - I will say that it bothers me when people identify themselves as (anything)-American. I think it distracts from saying that they are an American...first and foremost. We, as citizens, should be Americans FIRST. In the current political climate, some might also add in Democrat-American or Republican-American! But, no matter what party affiliation, what ever religion (or none at all) one practices, what color they are, what gender they are, or where their family originated from ... if we are citizens, the we MUST be Americans FIRST!
As a nation, we can not risk a division that makes us appear fragmented and weak. Our differing views are part of what also makes us great, but to not appear as Americans first, is hurting us. Despots, like Chavez, come here and take advantage of such weaknesses and divisions and lure many into doubting who WE are... as Americans first.
Real Americans don't burn OUR own flag. Americans DO voice differing opinions and protest wrong doings and poor policies. Americans DO disagree and DO vote to make changes. But as Americans, WE need to be ONE NATION.
I liken America like a large bickering family. A family that may argue at gatherings, disagree on how to run the family farm, even fight among themselves. But let someone outside the family take a punch at any one family member.... and look out... the whole family will kick that outsider's ass! Right or wrong, that family will join in and get'r done! (The family will usually sort out the right or wrong in a later family fight!)
We need to be like that large bickering family. We need to argue, even vigorously, those things that are important to us. But when any outsider takes a shot at ANY of us, we ALL need to take the fight to them. And when we do it, we ALL need to be waving OUR Flag in unity. (Another posting about OUR Flag later!)
Be proud of where you came from. Be proud to be an American. But in any case, be an "American 1st!"
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
If you choose to live here, as a citizen, with all the benefits America and our Constitution has to offer, then that Pledge must be a commitment and should be in your heart. If anyone has ANY allegiance to another country over America, then they need not be here! To them, I will say......GO HOME!
Be an AMERICAN 1st and above ALL others, or get the hell out!
Saturday, August 27, 2011
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Don't Feed the Bears
If you know anything about wildlife, then you know that humans should not feed them. And some wildlife, such as bears, can get downright deadly when you stop feeding them, and they're still hungry! (What is Dan writing about now? Keep reading.)
There are many issues to consider with regard to feeding wildlife, and all well documented. For example -
* When young wild animals are taught to depend on a human-provided food source, they may not fully develop essential foraging skills. Animals who are raised relying on humans for food may struggle to survive in the absence of that artificial food source when they disperse from their parents' territory.
* A constant, human-provided food source may attract many more wild animals to the area than would normally be found there. Who doesn't like a free meal? When food is readily available, animals will gather in abnormally large numbers.
* Often, the wild animals can become an incredible nuisance and people want to kill or remove them. Many people do not think about the neighborhood impact when they start feeding wildlife. Wild animals do not usually discriminate between one person and another, and will often start pestering neighbors. The animals may also cause damage to homes and property because they expect to be fed and have lost their fear of people.
* The best thing you can do to care for the wild animals, is to give them habitat, not handouts.
....................................
(Here it comes.)
Well, as we can see from today's news, the "wild animals" in Great Britain, don't like having their food (and other free shit - handouts) stopped. Never mind the tax-payers can't afford it any more. It seems to me, that the welfare state of giving people stuff, has spoiled many, and now, they are demanding, by way and violence and destruction, to have their way.
The USA is in danger of the same thing. Our welfare state (and growing socialist ways), have caused far too many people to EXPECT the handouts, and they don't care who's pocket it comes from! When we can't afford it any more, what will our own citizens do?
Oh ... By the way. Those business owners and citizens in the UK, could only rely on the vastly out-numbered and over-whelmed Police, because those citizens are NOT permitted to own firearms, even to protect themselves or their property. Thank God, and our Forefathers, for OUR 2nd amendment!
There are many issues to consider with regard to feeding wildlife, and all well documented. For example -
* When young wild animals are taught to depend on a human-provided food source, they may not fully develop essential foraging skills. Animals who are raised relying on humans for food may struggle to survive in the absence of that artificial food source when they disperse from their parents' territory.
* A constant, human-provided food source may attract many more wild animals to the area than would normally be found there. Who doesn't like a free meal? When food is readily available, animals will gather in abnormally large numbers.
* Often, the wild animals can become an incredible nuisance and people want to kill or remove them. Many people do not think about the neighborhood impact when they start feeding wildlife. Wild animals do not usually discriminate between one person and another, and will often start pestering neighbors. The animals may also cause damage to homes and property because they expect to be fed and have lost their fear of people.
* The best thing you can do to care for the wild animals, is to give them habitat, not handouts.
....................................
(Here it comes.)
Well, as we can see from today's news, the "wild animals" in Great Britain, don't like having their food (and other free shit - handouts) stopped. Never mind the tax-payers can't afford it any more. It seems to me, that the welfare state of giving people stuff, has spoiled many, and now, they are demanding, by way and violence and destruction, to have their way.
The USA is in danger of the same thing. Our welfare state (and growing socialist ways), have caused far too many people to EXPECT the handouts, and they don't care who's pocket it comes from! When we can't afford it any more, what will our own citizens do?
Oh ... By the way. Those business owners and citizens in the UK, could only rely on the vastly out-numbered and over-whelmed Police, because those citizens are NOT permitted to own firearms, even to protect themselves or their property. Thank God, and our Forefathers, for OUR 2nd amendment!
Saturday, August 6, 2011
Separation of Church and State
What a topic! Today, Governor Perry (of Texas) is drawn into that fray.
Not long ago, I was listening to a radio talk show, and this was the general topic. On the air, was someone representing the Freedom From Religion Foundation. They profess to be protecting the constitutional principle of the separation of state and church.
Now, as I often will do, I offer this disclaimer: I am NOT a constitutional or historical scholar. So with that, take what you wish from my words and viewpoints.
Being the simple man that I am, I tend to look at this subject in a simplistic way, trying to imagine what our forefathers were wanting to accomplish with our most precious national document. I also think we should not stray from the principles of that document, and instead, find ways in our modern world to go back and really apply those ideas and principles to our country today.
So, just what does the Constitution say about the so-called, "separation of church and state"? Well, as it was written, it states, "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ..." Well, I do not see today, anywhere, that our Congress (or Governor Perry) has established a religion. Where is it that the "state", by way of Congress, has established a religion? Where is it, that Congress, or any state or city, has established a religion? Does a prayer, establish a religion? Do the words, In God We Trust, establish a religion? And, who has been denied ANY governmental services, or even protection, because they were not of a particular religious persuasion?
If you look at the word, establish", one can easily find as part of the definition,
1 : something established: as a : a settled arrangement; especially : a code of laws b : established church
Wouldn't a government who would "establish" a religion (like the "church of England"?), have that same religion as part of some established order and cause its people to acknowledge their religion, before receiving some part of the government's graces in services, protection, or other benefits?
It would also seem to me, that there should be some kind of "harm" that such inferences to God in a public prayer, aside from just being offended, should be shown in a measurable way, before demanding that the inference be removed. The 1st Amendment does NOT protect people from being offended. And that, my friends and readers, is what this is really all about. Some people don't want religion in any public view and it offends them that God might be somehow lurking around, watching them! The fact is, no one has been harmed. No one has been denied ANY services or protection, because God somehow is mentioned in the public arena.
Our Founders, knew that men are weak and subject to corruption. Our Founders knew that it could only be by the guidance of a higher power, of a higher power of conscience of right and wrong, that people might....MIGHT....keep that higher power in mind when conducting ourselves with out fellow citizens. And our Forefathers WERE religious men. Not perfect or flawless, but believers of a Divine guidance. Where would we have been in that day, if their crafting of this nation, were not guided by some sense of a high power?
But my point is this. For over 235 years, there has been NO government established religion. NO ONE, is required in any way, to follow any particular religion, and NO ONE has been denied services or protections, or any of their constitutional RIGHTS, by anyone leading in a prayer, the mention of God in a public place, or the word God on our currency and landmarks. Sorry if that offends anyone, but if it does, then you offend me. But you have a right to follow no religion, if you wish. And for that, you WILL NOT be denied any of your constitutional rights. NONE!
Before I conclude, I will say that "I" DO NOT want our government to dictate what religion (or no religion) I must follow. We sure don't need a religion or government that dictates that we cut off your head for following some other religion. Or be denied rights, because we didn't follow some government supported religious doctrine. We can see that in bombings elsewhere! Our government has not, and should never, dictate a religion to follow. THAT would be an establishment!
As it stands today, if Governor Perry wishes to "invite" people to join him in prayer, isn't that HIS right? Does his holding of a government office preclude HIS right?
God Bless You!
Dan
Not long ago, I was listening to a radio talk show, and this was the general topic. On the air, was someone representing the Freedom From Religion Foundation. They profess to be protecting the constitutional principle of the separation of state and church.
Now, as I often will do, I offer this disclaimer: I am NOT a constitutional or historical scholar. So with that, take what you wish from my words and viewpoints.
Being the simple man that I am, I tend to look at this subject in a simplistic way, trying to imagine what our forefathers were wanting to accomplish with our most precious national document. I also think we should not stray from the principles of that document, and instead, find ways in our modern world to go back and really apply those ideas and principles to our country today.
So, just what does the Constitution say about the so-called, "separation of church and state"? Well, as it was written, it states, "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ..." Well, I do not see today, anywhere, that our Congress (or Governor Perry) has established a religion. Where is it that the "state", by way of Congress, has established a religion? Where is it, that Congress, or any state or city, has established a religion? Does a prayer, establish a religion? Do the words, In God We Trust, establish a religion? And, who has been denied ANY governmental services, or even protection, because they were not of a particular religious persuasion?
If you look at the word, establish", one can easily find as part of the definition,
1 : something established: as a : a settled arrangement; especially : a code of laws b : established church
Wouldn't a government who would "establish" a religion (like the "church of England"?), have that same religion as part of some established order and cause its people to acknowledge their religion, before receiving some part of the government's graces in services, protection, or other benefits?
It would also seem to me, that there should be some kind of "harm" that such inferences to God in a public prayer, aside from just being offended, should be shown in a measurable way, before demanding that the inference be removed. The 1st Amendment does NOT protect people from being offended. And that, my friends and readers, is what this is really all about. Some people don't want religion in any public view and it offends them that God might be somehow lurking around, watching them! The fact is, no one has been harmed. No one has been denied ANY services or protection, because God somehow is mentioned in the public arena.
Our Founders, knew that men are weak and subject to corruption. Our Founders knew that it could only be by the guidance of a higher power, of a higher power of conscience of right and wrong, that people might....MIGHT....keep that higher power in mind when conducting ourselves with out fellow citizens. And our Forefathers WERE religious men. Not perfect or flawless, but believers of a Divine guidance. Where would we have been in that day, if their crafting of this nation, were not guided by some sense of a high power?
But my point is this. For over 235 years, there has been NO government established religion. NO ONE, is required in any way, to follow any particular religion, and NO ONE has been denied services or protections, or any of their constitutional RIGHTS, by anyone leading in a prayer, the mention of God in a public place, or the word God on our currency and landmarks. Sorry if that offends anyone, but if it does, then you offend me. But you have a right to follow no religion, if you wish. And for that, you WILL NOT be denied any of your constitutional rights. NONE!
Before I conclude, I will say that "I" DO NOT want our government to dictate what religion (or no religion) I must follow. We sure don't need a religion or government that dictates that we cut off your head for following some other religion. Or be denied rights, because we didn't follow some government supported religious doctrine. We can see that in bombings elsewhere! Our government has not, and should never, dictate a religion to follow. THAT would be an establishment!
As it stands today, if Governor Perry wishes to "invite" people to join him in prayer, isn't that HIS right? Does his holding of a government office preclude HIS right?
God Bless You!
Dan
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)