For those who aren't avid hunters, sport shooters, competitors, firearms enthusiasts or such, the NRA (National Rifle Association) may seem like some ultra right-wing organization. At least that is what most of the mainstream media and those in the anti-gun camp would have you believe.
However, all anyone would need to do is pick up a copy of any of the NRA publications, like the American Rifleman or the America's 1st Freedom magazine, and check near the back of the magazines. What one would see, are listings of all the NRA is involved in. Most might never guess that the NRA is a foremost supporter of Law Enforcement, and provider of related marksmanship, instructor certifications, and police department armorer training. Many would not know that the NRA is a strong supporter of tough sentencing for those who use a firearm in the commission of a felony. The NRA was a huge sponsor of such gun laws, like in Virginia in 2007, when the Democrats with NRA support, improved background check systems for purchasers. The NRA also has safety related classes, such as the Refuse to be a Victim, or the Eddie Eagle firearms safety program for school kids. And the NRA is our strongest supporter of our 2nd amendment right, for ALL lawful citizens, not just the rich, politically connected, or whom ever the "government" wishes to grant special privileges to.
Of the 4 million strong membership, the general public would likely be surprised to find that membership is made up of citizens from all professions and economic backgrounds. Which brings me to this -
I AM a NRA member. I come from modest means and background, but am a Combat Veteran, a former Law Enforcement Officer/Detective of many years, a former Cub Scout Leader, former 4-H Shooting Sports instructor, a formerly served on the Board for a local Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) for children, have been a past President of an Optimist Club, have volunteered my time and labor for the Red Cross and community projects, donated blood, raised honest and hard working professional children, make donations to Veteran and community related non-profits, and support my community. I am not the bogey man, or an extremist, or a potential home grown terrorist. With that, I'm here to say that - I AM the NRA.
Other members, run the diverse gambit from construction worker to surgeons, lawyers to home-makers, from Cops to Active Duty Military, and every other occupation one could think of. We, all 4 MILLION members, are "law abiding" citizens, interested in maintaining our 2nd amendment rights, who "bear arms" for any and every legal reason we choose.
If you're not a NRA member, I encourage you to join. If you are, then jump in here and say, I AM the NRA! If you are not a member, then please check out the website and join the NRA - https://membership.nrahq.org/
If you choose to still bash us, and the NRA, then read the history and the purpose of the NRA first. Otherwise, you just don't know what you're talking about.
Our 2nd amendment rights depend on the strongest support possible. And those rights, are for ALL of us.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Come on Pres!
We have our soldiers in a combat zone, and most recently, some were overrun by Taliban forces and many were killed. The situation in Afghanistan is worsening. The General, hand-picked by Oshama, has asked for more troops, to keep from losing this war. And Oshama? Delaying action, not even sitting down with the General for over 70 days. WHAT IS THE PROBLEM?
Are we now running a war from the seat of the traveling president?
And what of our ROE (Rules Of Engagement)? We won't fire on a mosque?
Are we now running a war from the seat of the traveling president?
And what of our ROE (Rules Of Engagement)? We won't fire on a mosque?
mosque : a building used for public worship by Muslims
Apparently, some of those "mosques" are NOT a place of worship, but are staging areas for attacks.
Mr. Oshama, issue the following to the world - "Let it be known, that on this day forward, our ROE have changed. ANY place, building, or structure, used to launch attacks, will be leveled at the earliest possible time our Air Force can deliver the power to do so. Any such place, used for launching attacks, will no longer be looked at as places of worship, or anything else but a military target. Lastly, I am now authorizing an additional 100,00o troops, along with supporting artillery, and air and sea power, to be deployed to those areas were fighters have engaged us. This is war. This will get ugly. People will die."
This IS war and people WILL die. And as far as I am concerned, surgical strikes are nice, but winning will take a more broad approach to killing the enemy. Time to put down the scalpel and bring out the sledge hammer!
God Bless our brave men and women. They deserve a strong Commander in Chief. Someone needs to step up and be one!
Pissed off in Texas!
Dan, aka Hunter
Apparently, some of those "mosques" are NOT a place of worship, but are staging areas for attacks.
Mr. Oshama, issue the following to the world - "Let it be known, that on this day forward, our ROE have changed. ANY place, building, or structure, used to launch attacks, will be leveled at the earliest possible time our Air Force can deliver the power to do so. Any such place, used for launching attacks, will no longer be looked at as places of worship, or anything else but a military target. Lastly, I am now authorizing an additional 100,00o troops, along with supporting artillery, and air and sea power, to be deployed to those areas were fighters have engaged us. This is war. This will get ugly. People will die."
This IS war and people WILL die. And as far as I am concerned, surgical strikes are nice, but winning will take a more broad approach to killing the enemy. Time to put down the scalpel and bring out the sledge hammer!
God Bless our brave men and women. They deserve a strong Commander in Chief. Someone needs to step up and be one!
Pissed off in Texas!
Dan, aka Hunter
Monday, September 28, 2009
Back to the present
Try to imagine with me, an early America, and our founders were working feverishly to wove together this new nation. In their way, was the army of
The pens of those who helped craft our founding documents, were busier than their weapons. But that was soon to change. While the pens were mighty, so too were the muskets of the British, and their well documented Brown Bess rifle. In an effort to counter Britain's advance on Concord, the local militia was called upon to fight. And fight they did.
That was the "back" side of this writing to consider.
The "present", remove the 234 years or so. Let's really stretch your imagination with this.
That local militia was then armed with Brown Besses, Pennsylvania Rifles, or maybe a Club Butt Country Fowler. What ever they had to hunt and to protect their families with, that's what they brought to the fight. And just like firearms owners of today, they bought what they could get, or afford.
But what if? What if they could get and afford a better rifle? A multi-firing rifle? A lighter rifle? A more accurate rifle? An assault rifle?
Do you really think, for a Lexington minute, that any one of the colonists would not have bartered or bought an AR-15? Does anyone really think that any one of them, would not have traded most anything for a firearm that would more than meet the stronger and more professional soldiers and firepower of
I think that far too many, even some well heeled "sportsmen", tend to think a true hunter doesn't really need an "assault rifle". Well, it is my belief that the men of that revolutionary era would have grabbed onto such guns, in a heartbeat. Let's keep in mind, it wasn't just for hunting and family protection, it was for the ready protection of freedom. It was to fight well armed foes. The 2nd amendment, was written to reinforce the 1st amendment, when the words penned so well before, failed to stop the lead of the British.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
The Death Penalty
As of April 16, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the death penalty, by lethal injection. With that, states are now continuing with those on death row and are sentenced to die.
I am all for the Death Penalty. Always have been. However, my view has changed a bit, and I offer up the following for your consideration.
Not long ago, Texas, and Dallas County in particular, has released a man, falsely convicted of a serious crime. The man spent some 23 years in prison, for a crime he did not commit. DNA set him free. It was primarily a "photo line-up" that convicted him. While he was not on death row, this in part is why I have changed my position, in part anyway.
Eye witnesses are notoriously inaccurate. Same can be said for other types of "circumstantial evidence", when considered without enough collaborative evidence. Most cases ARE "circumstantial", but most good cases have an abundance of it that supports but one conclusion.
My "death penalty" view has changed, in a large part, because of DNA. Dallas County has now had 16 people set free by DNA. "16" people, wrongly convicted. How would YOU like to have been one of those!
I would like to see a change in death penalty cases, and I submit the following:
1. Death Penalty sentences should be reserved for those people who are guilty beyond ALL doubt, not just "reasonable doubt". Those, like Jeffrey Dahmer, comes to mind. As does Charles Manson, a gleeful bragger of his acts, and proud of those who followed him. Or Dennis Rader, the BTK killer. Fast-tracks for all of them.
2. All such cases where ONLY "circumstantial evidence" brings about a "reasonable doubt" conviction that could warrant a death penalty, should NOT receive the "death penalty", but instead, a mandatory LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE. This way, should new evidence come into play later on, the person would still be here for a new trial, or release.
3. ALL death penalty cases, under example #1 above, should be "fast tracked" through the system, and the penalty should be carried out within 1 year after conviction. When such a conviction was obtained with NO DOUBT, supported by the evidence and confessions, then why the wait?Once judicial checks have been reviewed, then git'r done.
The above, while still not perfect, may do several things.
a. Eliminate a wrongly convicted person from being put to death by our system.
b. Keep open the possibility of a new trial for those who may have been wrongfully convicted.
c. And lastly, fast-track, keeping the long and expensive "appeals" to a minimum, the sentencing for a swifter adjudication.
Any man, or woman, who should commit such an act that would warrant the death penalty, and does so in such a manner where NO DOUBT is left as to that person's guilt (so much so, that no other possibility could exist), then such a swift death penalty could bring about a new "deterrence" for such acts.Even if it didn't, that person could never kill again, including killings of guards and other prisoners.
ABC's Charlie Gibson
Some may ask, "Why didn't Charlie Gibson know about the ACORN accusations?"
Well, in all fairness to Charlie, he had no way of knowing. When the main stream media awaits for their news from The White House, they will only know what The White House tells them. And let's be honest, The White House, in particular Obama, who was ACORN'S legal counsel, and who reaped huge benefits from the activities of ACORN, is not about to tell Charlie Gibson. And, I expect Obama is just hoping that the media will not bother with REAL journalism and discover things for themselves.
So Charlie....I understand. It isn't your fault. It's not like you are a real journalist. It's not like you owe the American people anything. After all, we can still find the truth, we just have to look outside ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, and CNN.
Good night Chet....Good night David. Good bye REAL journalism.
Dan
PS. Tea parties? What tea parties?
Well, in all fairness to Charlie, he had no way of knowing. When the main stream media awaits for their news from The White House, they will only know what The White House tells them. And let's be honest, The White House, in particular Obama, who was ACORN'S legal counsel, and who reaped huge benefits from the activities of ACORN, is not about to tell Charlie Gibson. And, I expect Obama is just hoping that the media will not bother with REAL journalism and discover things for themselves.
So Charlie....I understand. It isn't your fault. It's not like you are a real journalist. It's not like you owe the American people anything. After all, we can still find the truth, we just have to look outside ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, and CNN.
Good night Chet....Good night David. Good bye REAL journalism.
Dan
PS. Tea parties? What tea parties?
Saturday, September 12, 2009
What would TJ do?
I can't help but wonder... What would Thomas Jefferson do?
Just look at the size and power of today's government. It was NEVER intended to be this way. TJ and the boys would NEVER have let this happen. But WE did. I say WE, because as a nation, WE have let, and often demanded, that this government get this big.
All parties are guilty. This didn't happen over night. In my view, it has taken an even uglier pace in it's growth with Obama, but this has been coming for some time, and it's OUR fault.
But it isn't too late to turn the tide. It's time to get out the vote and vote OUT every person, regardless of party, who has voted for these expansive taxes, programs, and pork-barrel projects.
For the people...by the people. Professional, career, politicians are NOT "the people". They no longer are part of the working public, taking time off to represent us. Today's politician, for the most part, are too often people who want their terms to last until retirement. And when they MOVE to their Washington office, seldom to return to their beginnings, they take on that Washington mentality and become washed in the politics of the next term, NOT representing their constituents and the country's BEST interest.
Take back our country. Vote OUT everyone who has help grow the government, and not grow America!
Just look at the size and power of today's government. It was NEVER intended to be this way. TJ and the boys would NEVER have let this happen. But WE did. I say WE, because as a nation, WE have let, and often demanded, that this government get this big.
All parties are guilty. This didn't happen over night. In my view, it has taken an even uglier pace in it's growth with Obama, but this has been coming for some time, and it's OUR fault.
But it isn't too late to turn the tide. It's time to get out the vote and vote OUT every person, regardless of party, who has voted for these expansive taxes, programs, and pork-barrel projects.
For the people...by the people. Professional, career, politicians are NOT "the people". They no longer are part of the working public, taking time off to represent us. Today's politician, for the most part, are too often people who want their terms to last until retirement. And when they MOVE to their Washington office, seldom to return to their beginnings, they take on that Washington mentality and become washed in the politics of the next term, NOT representing their constituents and the country's BEST interest.
Take back our country. Vote OUT everyone who has help grow the government, and not grow America!
Monday, September 7, 2009
Drug wars
While I completely DISAGREE with Hillary Clinton on the suggestion that our gun laws are helping the drug warring bad guys, I agree with with her, when she said, in essence, that America has to share the blame for the drug war, the murders, and the corruption in Mexico.
Let me say this - and LISTEN UP (if this applies to you) - IF you are even a "social" user of cocaine, then YOU share the blame for the drug related murders on either side of the border! YES, you do. Try to justify yourself all you want, but you do!
The lust for the dust, pays big money, and that money is what is fueling the killings. Billions go south - YOUR billions. If it weren't for your lust, your partaking of it, your acceptance of it, there would be no money in it for the drug lords.
Whoa.....did I hear some say, "Well, if they would make it legal, this wouldn't be a problem"? Did someone whisper that stupid argument?
To start with, the substance IS ILLEGAL. It IS A FELONY to possess. So, before we go down that road, and it's simply a road to excuse the use, IT'S A FELONY. So you are choosing to commit a felony at the get-go! You really want it? Get your legislators to pass a law legalizing it, and you can have it. But until then, IT'S A FELONY! It's illegal, like it or not, and you're choosing to commit a FELONY when you possess it, share it, consume it.
But, it's coke and you like it and you don't hurt anyone....blah blah blahhh. In case you missed it, it's a FELONY. So, from day one, you choose to commit the FELONY. NO ONE in the country doesn't know its illegal, so you are making the conscious decision to commit a FELONY. All other arguments come in after that. Want it legalized? Fine, get the law changed. Until then, STOP BEING THE CONSUMER WHO FUELS THE DRUG WARS AND MURDERS! IT'S A FELONY!
A lot of Mexican cops, justices, town leaders who oppose the drug trade, and the countless bystanders, have died because of the greed for the drug money. Of late, even those who were trying to get treatment for their addiction, in a rehab center just across the border, were executed by drug bandits. If you're a user...that means a small part of that is YOUR money to help fund those bad-guys!
By the way, that violence is here too! Arizona and Texas are seeing a huge growth in the drug related violence. Many people have been harmed and killed, because of the money involved. If you're a USER...and that means any dang socialite out there who just parties a little...then YOU contribute to the deaths. YES...YOU DO!
Now, for those who don't use, but stand while a friend uses ... then you are standing by while a felony is being committed. Don't. I'm just real enough to know you won't or can't turn in your friends or family, but put some distance between you and them. Not only to keep from being busted too, if it should come to that, but to show you do not condone it. Let them know, by your leaving their presence, that you don't like it and won't condone it.
Lastly - the mounds of money is the fuel that is burning violence in this drug war. While those in various uniforms fight that war, it is the end-user who can win it for us, by STOPPING their use. Even if all the so-called "social users" would stop, and shun those who didn't stop, could have an impact. And it would let law enforcement focus more energy on fewer people to target and prosecute.
JUST SAY NO.....shouldn't be a slogan, it should be an action!
I welcome your comments.
Let me say this - and LISTEN UP (if this applies to you) - IF you are even a "social" user of cocaine, then YOU share the blame for the drug related murders on either side of the border! YES, you do. Try to justify yourself all you want, but you do!
The lust for the dust, pays big money, and that money is what is fueling the killings. Billions go south - YOUR billions. If it weren't for your lust, your partaking of it, your acceptance of it, there would be no money in it for the drug lords.
Whoa.....did I hear some say, "Well, if they would make it legal, this wouldn't be a problem"? Did someone whisper that stupid argument?
To start with, the substance IS ILLEGAL. It IS A FELONY to possess. So, before we go down that road, and it's simply a road to excuse the use, IT'S A FELONY. So you are choosing to commit a felony at the get-go! You really want it? Get your legislators to pass a law legalizing it, and you can have it. But until then, IT'S A FELONY! It's illegal, like it or not, and you're choosing to commit a FELONY when you possess it, share it, consume it.
But, it's coke and you like it and you don't hurt anyone....blah blah blahhh. In case you missed it, it's a FELONY. So, from day one, you choose to commit the FELONY. NO ONE in the country doesn't know its illegal, so you are making the conscious decision to commit a FELONY. All other arguments come in after that. Want it legalized? Fine, get the law changed. Until then, STOP BEING THE CONSUMER WHO FUELS THE DRUG WARS AND MURDERS! IT'S A FELONY!
A lot of Mexican cops, justices, town leaders who oppose the drug trade, and the countless bystanders, have died because of the greed for the drug money. Of late, even those who were trying to get treatment for their addiction, in a rehab center just across the border, were executed by drug bandits. If you're a user...that means a small part of that is YOUR money to help fund those bad-guys!
By the way, that violence is here too! Arizona and Texas are seeing a huge growth in the drug related violence. Many people have been harmed and killed, because of the money involved. If you're a USER...and that means any dang socialite out there who just parties a little...then YOU contribute to the deaths. YES...YOU DO!
Now, for those who don't use, but stand while a friend uses ... then you are standing by while a felony is being committed. Don't. I'm just real enough to know you won't or can't turn in your friends or family, but put some distance between you and them. Not only to keep from being busted too, if it should come to that, but to show you do not condone it. Let them know, by your leaving their presence, that you don't like it and won't condone it.
Lastly - the mounds of money is the fuel that is burning violence in this drug war. While those in various uniforms fight that war, it is the end-user who can win it for us, by STOPPING their use. Even if all the so-called "social users" would stop, and shun those who didn't stop, could have an impact. And it would let law enforcement focus more energy on fewer people to target and prosecute.
JUST SAY NO.....shouldn't be a slogan, it should be an action!
I welcome your comments.
Obama and the CIA
Obama has seen fit to let those in his administration pursue an investigation into the conduct of some CIA field agents in war-time interrogations of those who would plot to kill Americans in mass. It would appear to me, that they WANT to prosecute any of those from the prior administration. And this, after it was already looked into and waved off as no prosecutable wrong-doings.
On the other hand, Obama served along side of Bill Ayers, in community committees and political activities. They may not have been "friends", but Obama had no problem having a political dinner with Ayers. And Ayers, along with others in a 70's radical group who plotted and bombed government buildings.
So... Investigate those charged with doing all they can to help protect America from another attack? Or... Associate oneself with the likes of Bill Ayers, who helped bomb OUR buildings, for political expedience?
Add to this, the blatantly obvious example of a person in a higher position than his experience can support. A person with NO past experience to be prepared for such a monumental task, and who is exposing himself every day, as an example of the blind leading the blind!
To the 53% of the voters who turned out to vote for Obama in 2008 - WHAT THE HELL WERE YOU THINKING?
On the other hand, Obama served along side of Bill Ayers, in community committees and political activities. They may not have been "friends", but Obama had no problem having a political dinner with Ayers. And Ayers, along with others in a 70's radical group who plotted and bombed government buildings.
So... Investigate those charged with doing all they can to help protect America from another attack? Or... Associate oneself with the likes of Bill Ayers, who helped bomb OUR buildings, for political expedience?
Add to this, the blatantly obvious example of a person in a higher position than his experience can support. A person with NO past experience to be prepared for such a monumental task, and who is exposing himself every day, as an example of the blind leading the blind!
To the 53% of the voters who turned out to vote for Obama in 2008 - WHAT THE HELL WERE YOU THINKING?
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Church and State
What a topic! On the way home today, 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 is 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 spirit of that document, and instead, find ways in our modern world to go back and really apply those ideas and principles, and spirit, to our country today. I believe it can be, and should be, done.
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 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, 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 and of right and wrong, that people might....MIGHT....keep that higher power in mind when conducting ourselves with out fellow citizens.
Let's face it, while there are those who hate the mention of God, where DO we get our foundation of right and wrong? Where are the writings of how to treat our fellow man, if not in the writings of someone referring to some higher power. Man, is weak. Man, is corruptible. Man, without someone higher to answer to, will drift towards self above others. It is God, in what ever religion you may find him, that sits on our shoulders and whispers to us when we might stray from what is right or wrong.
God, is mankind's "father". And like a loving father, God guides us and is our conscience. But we are free to choose and free to disobey. Man surely has, and surely will. But that is not to say we should strive to follow the teachings of His word.
What would be our right and wrong foundation, otherwise? What else is it seated? By what other measure, do we know right and wrong? Without God, or that higher power of justice, would we even have laws?
I'm sorry. I've strayed. My point is this. For about 235 years, there has been NO government established religion. NO ONE, has to follow any particular religion, and NO ONE has been denied services or protections, or any of their RIGHTS, by a prayer, the mention of God in a public place, or the word God on our currency and landmarks. Sorry if that offends you, but if it does, then you offend me. But you have a right to follow no religion, if you wish.
Before I conclude, I will say that I DO NOT want our government to dictate what religion I must follow. We sure don't need a religion that dictates that we cut off your head for following some other religion. Or be denied rights, because we didn't follow some 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!
God Bless You!
Dan
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 is 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 spirit of that document, and instead, find ways in our modern world to go back and really apply those ideas and principles, and spirit, to our country today. I believe it can be, and should be, done.
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 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, 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 and of right and wrong, that people might....MIGHT....keep that higher power in mind when conducting ourselves with out fellow citizens.
Let's face it, while there are those who hate the mention of God, where DO we get our foundation of right and wrong? Where are the writings of how to treat our fellow man, if not in the writings of someone referring to some higher power. Man, is weak. Man, is corruptible. Man, without someone higher to answer to, will drift towards self above others. It is God, in what ever religion you may find him, that sits on our shoulders and whispers to us when we might stray from what is right or wrong.
God, is mankind's "father". And like a loving father, God guides us and is our conscience. But we are free to choose and free to disobey. Man surely has, and surely will. But that is not to say we should strive to follow the teachings of His word.
What would be our right and wrong foundation, otherwise? What else is it seated? By what other measure, do we know right and wrong? Without God, or that higher power of justice, would we even have laws?
I'm sorry. I've strayed. My point is this. For about 235 years, there has been NO government established religion. NO ONE, has to follow any particular religion, and NO ONE has been denied services or protections, or any of their RIGHTS, by a prayer, the mention of God in a public place, or the word God on our currency and landmarks. Sorry if that offends you, but if it does, then you offend me. But you have a right to follow no religion, if you wish.
Before I conclude, I will say that I DO NOT want our government to dictate what religion I must follow. We sure don't need a religion that dictates that we cut off your head for following some other religion. Or be denied rights, because we didn't follow some 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!
God Bless You!
Dan
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Need help with my car
I am asking all of you to chip in and help buy me a new car. Please, I need a new car.
Now, I do have a car. But my transmission needs work, and I don't want to just fix it. The rest of the car is pretty good. Oh, a little air leak by the window, but I get pretty good mileage. I change the oil on regular intervals, and it runs good. The body has a few dings, but is still without rust. And, it does what it needs to do, I guess, i.e. get me to and from work, to the store, and so on.
But I want a new one. My car has some routine costs ... like tires, wiper blades, and such, and is paid off. But I want a new one. An all shinny and new and completely different one. And, I want you to help buy me one.
I know... I know. For far far less money, I can fix my transmission and have a good working car. But I want an all new one, and I don't want to fix what I have.
What? Why toss out the whole car, just to fix the transmission issue? Because, my neighbors have a new car, and I want one too, and why can't you help buy it for me? After all, I'm a good guy, so shouldn't I get a new car , and not have to spend my own money to fix the one I have?
Come on ... you've helped buy a bunch of other people get new cars, and you've helped bail-out big banks, and if you're willing to pay for a whole new health care plan ......why NOT buy me a new car? Please Mr. Obama ... Buy me a new car!!!!!
Some of our health care entities may need some overhaul. But let's not throw it all out, in favor of a government mandated plan that will cost us ALL and, from all appearances, will weaken the best health care services in the world. Some of it may be broken and need fixed. But not the whole thing ... and NOT at the cost of billions and billion and billions to all of us. And NOT managed by a government, who has NO BUSINESS, being "in business"!
BIG government. It's been coming for a long time, and it's here. I plan on watching to see who votes for this Obamacare plan and do everything I can to vote them out. And I don't care what party they may be in! We need to take back our country and set the record straight on who works for who!
By the way ... Don't report me Bro. Don't report me to The White House!
Now, I do have a car. But my transmission needs work, and I don't want to just fix it. The rest of the car is pretty good. Oh, a little air leak by the window, but I get pretty good mileage. I change the oil on regular intervals, and it runs good. The body has a few dings, but is still without rust. And, it does what it needs to do, I guess, i.e. get me to and from work, to the store, and so on.
But I want a new one. My car has some routine costs ... like tires, wiper blades, and such, and is paid off. But I want a new one. An all shinny and new and completely different one. And, I want you to help buy me one.
I know... I know. For far far less money, I can fix my transmission and have a good working car. But I want an all new one, and I don't want to fix what I have.
What? Why toss out the whole car, just to fix the transmission issue? Because, my neighbors have a new car, and I want one too, and why can't you help buy it for me? After all, I'm a good guy, so shouldn't I get a new car , and not have to spend my own money to fix the one I have?
Come on ... you've helped buy a bunch of other people get new cars, and you've helped bail-out big banks, and if you're willing to pay for a whole new health care plan ......why NOT buy me a new car? Please Mr. Obama ... Buy me a new car!!!!!
Some of our health care entities may need some overhaul. But let's not throw it all out, in favor of a government mandated plan that will cost us ALL and, from all appearances, will weaken the best health care services in the world. Some of it may be broken and need fixed. But not the whole thing ... and NOT at the cost of billions and billion and billions to all of us. And NOT managed by a government, who has NO BUSINESS, being "in business"!
BIG government. It's been coming for a long time, and it's here. I plan on watching to see who votes for this Obamacare plan and do everything I can to vote them out. And I don't care what party they may be in! We need to take back our country and set the record straight on who works for who!
By the way ... Don't report me Bro. Don't report me to The White House!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)