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 

The Debt and the Jobless rate

Seems to me, the only jobs Obama and friends care about, are their own.

From my point of view, all the new debt added by Obama and buddies, could have been used better to actually help businesses add more workers and inspire real jobs. But more entitlements, and to major businesses and banks DID NOT add real jobs. Money handed out, with basically NO conditions set on the use.

Just how many real jobs ...in the USA ...could a TRILLION dollars created? Or even that first $700 BILLION?

The man has NO idea what he's doing. None.

Squirrel hunting with Patrick

On this warm summer day, Patrick was busy with ending his day's chores. His wife was tending to the children, and he was dreaming of all the possibilities a new world could bring with it. But that dream was yet to be born in real life, but there were those who struggled each day to bring that to the land.

As Patrick sets his work tools away, he considers a bit of hunting before sunset. From his work shed closet, he pulls out his most recent acquisition, an affordable used rifle with impressive new features. Patrick marvels at the rifle, and is anxious to take it out. He knows that some of his brethren have also purchased new rifles, some newer and better than his, but Patrick had a budget, and a family, to consider.

Patrick slings to his shoulder his rifle, leaving behind the older .36 caliber he had been using. This one was a smaller caliber, but he knew the newer advantages would prove useful in the field. Patrick also picked up some ammo and headed to the nearby woods.

After Patrick settles into a nice shaded spot beneath an oak tree, he watches  for sign of squirrel. Not long to wait, Patrick sights in on gray squirrel, fat for the eating he thinks.

As Patrick began his slow pull on the trigger, he heard a snap of a twig behind him. Peering behind the tree, he sees his friend and neighbor, Bart. Bart by now comes up on Patrick and whispers, "Patrick, we need you to come down to the cross roads. It's time. They are already headed to the munitions storehouse"

Patrick knew. He knew that talks had failed, and it would be no time before the King's army would come to take control of them, and their guns.

Quickly, Patrick picked up that little M1 carbine, and the extra magazines he had, and went with Bart. Bart too was armed with his own rifle, some kind of AR something or other. As  they got closer to the crossing, they saw their neighbors also armed and ready. Too late to get the militia's arms from the storehouse now. If you didn't have your own gun, it was too late. The Red Coats had already raided the storehouse and destroyed or collected all the guns in there. Good thing for Patrick, he had already purchased his rifle. It wasn't a big gun, but it could help fend off the Red Coats until more of his neighbors arrived. ..................................

As you have read the above, I ask, is that so out of the imagination that if our forefathers had such access, they wouldn't own such guns? Do you not think they would have armed themselves, for sport, hunting, or protection, with what could have been available if it were today? Or do you think they would have by-passed the M1 Carbine or AR-15, and just bought the .36 caliber, single shot, black power single shot muzzle loading squirrel rifle?

The 2nd Amendment - it ain't about hunting.  And just because it was over 235 years ago, doesn't mean there will never be tyrants here again. I happen to believe they're just around the corner!

Congress shall make no law ...

U.S. Constitution - Amendment 1
"Congress shall make no law respecting an 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."

Religion has always been under attack. And of late, more attacks, and more attempts to remove all mention God in public. I DO NOT want my government to "establish" any religion. Even if it was to be the Christian faith, I don't want the government to dictate what religion we must practice, and make any "law" to do so.

And guess what. Since it's ratification in 1791, this government, OUR government, HAS NEVER made any LAW which has "established" a religion...any religion!

It is my general understanding, that to "establish" a religion, the government would have made one religion THE one that all must follow. I would also expect that if we were "establish" something, like establishing rules to play by, then we would expect to follow those established rules, or risk forfeiting a game, or rights, or benefits. With that thinking, it is a fact that our government has not done anything like that, and NO ONE has been denied any government benefits or other rights under the constitution, because of the lack of practicing any one religion. If anyone would have been so denied, then redress should be made.

So ... What's the deal with all the law suits and protests over the word "God" on money, signage, or anything else in local, state, or federal government? In all these years, about 220 years, NO ONE has been made to practice any one, any "established", religion. NO ONE has been denied their rights. And I can not imagine ANY harm that has come from such mentions. (As a point to be made here, one of my co-workers is a Muslim, and it doesn't bother him in the least. He has told me that he knew our country was founded on Christian principles, and his family moved here anyway.)

It looks to me, that the only real issue with such objections, is that there are those who HATE God and/or religion, and don't want to see it anywhere. It is simply an attack on ALL of us who practice a religion. And I dare say, it is almost exclusively Christianity that is being attacked.

And I'll add this, other than a few religious zealots, most of us DO NOT go around attacking their, the non-believers, right to NOT believe in a religion. I'm not harmed by their non-belief. Their non-belief has no effect on my life. So to those who want to wipe God off everything, I say ....give it up! YOU have not been harmed or denied anything because of MY belief, or the word God on our currency, or the Ten Commandments on the building of the Supreme Court. And don't deny MY right to the free exercise thereof, by trying to attack my faith at every turn.

Pay attention on this one: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." And, NO LAW has been made to establish a religion. NONE. Nadda.

Bring back the WPA

Many years ago, back in 1935, the government enacted the Works Progress Administration (WPA), which was a relief measure for the millions who were out of work. With some changes in the 8 years the program ran, some 8,500,000 different persons had been put to work on over 1,400,000 projects, which included over 600,000 miles of highways, roads, and streets; constructed or improved more than 120,000 bridges, over 120,000 public buildings, with 8,000 plus parks, and 800 or more airport landing fields. (Google WPA , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Works_Progress_Administration )

During those 8 years, the government spent about $11 billion in wages to all those people eligible for work. At today's dollar, that would be about $180 billion. But that, in my view, would be a far cry better way to spend the money, and getting people to work, than just giving money out. It's a dang sight less that $800 billion too!

This was done to give people a way to "earn" the money the government was giving out. With that, the idea that people would retain more self respect at having "earned" the money, than sitting by and having it just given to them.

Have we lost that? I think so. I think our social programs have enslaved some people to rely on the government for all their needs. I think so many of those folks, have lost all respect for themselves and their homes, and their stay in life. They may rant and rave about other people (often conservatives) not respecting them, but they do nothing, or very little, to improve themselves. Why should they? The government has been taking care of them, in some cases for a couple generations!

I think we need to go back to a similar worker program. I can't tell you how to do it, but with the sharp minds in the country, I'm sure it could be devised and implemented.

But we NEED to get people to working to "earn" their money. If they refuse to work, then food kitchens and public shelters for them. NO car, no house/apartment, no cell phone. Just food and basic shelter.

I expect for some, they would quickly find a better job that THEY choose, instead of a government worker program. At least, they will work harder at finding a better job.

So I say, bring back the WPA. Get people off welfare and back to earning their way. While some will never change, most will find that earning their money, is far more personally rewarding, than taking hand-outs.

Happy Children's Day

On this Father's Day, I am wishing my kids, a Happy Children's Day. Without the children we help bring into the world, we wouldn't be dads.

I am a proud ... a very proud ... dad. NO greater title I've ever had, has meant so much. And with that, so much responsibility.

Lord knows, I've made plenty of mistakes in my life, and as a father. But for the most part, I've done okay. And my kids ... Well, they are very productive, hard working, honest and respectful kids. While I had a hand in that, as well as their mother, I really have to hand it to my kids for taking all they learned, the good and the bad, and doing well with it.

I know other dads too, who have done so much for their kids, and their kids honor them with being good citizens. What a gift back to us, the dads. Happy Father's Day to all you Dads out their.

There are those, who aren't involved. Or those who misdirect their kids in such harmful ways. It's tough being a kid, when those all around you, specially their own dads, are cheating them out of all the chances they should have for better lives. There are those too, who don't want their kids to have better, or who bring such pain upon their own children. I can't wrap my head around that at all. Even for kids I don't know, my heart hurts for them. They deserve better, much better.

But this annual acknowledgment of fatherhood, this Father's Day, marks for me a renewed thankfulness for my kids. I'm am honored, every day, to be their dad. They make me look better than I am, by being the good citizens they are.

I will enjoy in my Father's Day. But I rejoice at being my kid's "Dad". Thank you! And thank you God, for such Blessings.

To my kids, with all my fatherly love,
"Dad"

I Swear

All men (and women) are flawed. We are all subject to mistakes and bad judgement. While many of try hard to retain our honor, we will have times where we fail in some way.

But, we place some men and women in positions of public trust, and we hold them to a higher standard. A case in point -

You happen to be at the scene of a crime. You're an on-looker only. You don't know the victim, nor any of the Police Officers. But, what you do see, is one of the Police "pocket" an expensive wrist watch, and walk away. You weren't the only one who saw it, and later on, the Police Department was asked about the Officer's actions. The Dept. stuck by the Officer, because the Officer said he didn't take anything.

No long after, that same Officer had gone back to the store, and returned the watch, and asked the store owner to keep it under his hat.

That didn't happen. In stead, the word got out, and the Dept. and the Officer were pressured into coming clean during a new press conference, but stating that the watch was returned, and it was a mistake that was fixed. Asking forgiveness, the Officer kept his job.

Months later, you were called for jury duty. During the trial, the same Officer you had seen steal the watch, sat down to testify, after taking an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. In your mind, you know that the Office also took an oath when he was sworn into duty. And he lied. Will he lie now? Can you believe all that he testifies to?

This is why Officers get let go (if not criminally charged) for such acts. Their word....their oath...is  no longer worth anything. They lied, and that demeaned the public trust. and don't we want to hold them to a higher standard? Isn't that reasonable? I expected that when I was behind a badge.

So shouldn't we expect to hold those in public trust, to a higher standard? In the current news, New York Representative Anthony Weiner, had been sexting sleazy pictures of himself. He sent them to women he says he didn't know. (Hope none of them were juveniles. That could be a whole new issue!) Then, he lied, on the air, in front of all of us, and even demeaned those who were making the accusations and asking the questions. Deny....deny...deny.

Then, the indisputable truth comes out, and it was all a bad mistake. He's sorry and confesses his wrong doing. But he wants the people to keep him in office.

Can Weiner EVER be trust again? Will we even REALLY know of what he will do or say?

He should resign. If he doesn't resign, he should be impeached and removed from office. And with that, we should EXPECT the higher standard from those placed into public trust.

Oh, and for those who say it is a largely private matter between him and his family? Wrong. If it were private, we wouldn't have know about it. The moment he sexted to a stranger, an unknown (to him) woman, then it was no longer private. HE made it public.

Weiner ... Time to go back home and call it a career.

An Argument FOR Concealed Carry

Why is the 2nd Amendment important? Among all the important reasons of a free America, and a free citizen, is that of simple self protection.

There are those who are totally against gun ownership by private citizens. And there are those who sorta support the second amendment, but not Concealed Carry. In the minds of some, "let the police do it", would be their response. That last thought it where I'm headed with this.

Just this past week, a woman in our office building was out for her walk over lunch. She walks around the sidewalk that surrounds the building. She walks each day the weather is nice, and at just before noon. On this day, it was a beautiful day, sunny,warm temps, and perfect for walking. There were plenty of people coming and going in and out of the bank building. No one would expect this to involve any danger.

While she was walking, near the underground garage entrance, a man approached her, pandering for money. When she tried to back away, he grabbed her by her arm. Fortunately, she was able to pull away and run to the building for help. At that time, one of the building maintenance men saw what happened and went toward the man. The man then pulled out a box cutter and lunged at him. He was able to dodge the thrust and the man then took off. (It was later learned that after those assault, he tried to assault another woman a block away.)

9-1-1 was immediately called. A second call was made. And the wait began. And more wait, After about 35 minutes .... yes, 35 minutes .... the police arrive. Once they began getting the story, the building security told them that the suspect was ON CAMERA, almost two blocks away, drinking a beer. The police then were able to go grab the guy and haul his ass to jail.

35 minutes. If you're a victim of a violent crime, "3" minutes is alreay way to long. But "35" minutes, is a lifetime. A frustrating and anxious time to "wait for the police". Had that event turned deadly, someone would have bled out and a chalk outline would be there after the body is taken away!

In this case, it was very fortunate that no one was injured. THIS TIME, with THIS CASE, no one was injured. But it very easily could have turned out differently. And no one around, could have stopped it. (Security for the bank, who are armed, can not [and should not] leave their posts inside.)

I am not advocating that every citizen be armed. I AM advocating that ANY citizen, who can legally own and carry a firearm, and who will take the required course to do so, should be permitted to carry. And should be permitted to carry most everywhere, for violent crime happens everywhere.

As I have said and written about before, for all the desire of the police to get to a scene BEFORE a violent incident happens, the fact is that they don't even know it's happened until someone calls it in. That means a VICTIM has already be made and the crime has already happened, at least in part. Waiting for the police to do handle it, is great for the response and investigation, but is almost always too late for the victim.

I want MY opportunity to protect myself and my family. And I don't want anyone to tell me I can't have that right. I totally get the training and background check being required, and the expectation (legally and morally) of being responsible for my own actions. But I should, an in my view, have the right to protect my family and myself. One man with a knife, or 4 men with bats, is defendable against with a good handgun!

Are You Anti-Gun?

The world is not always a friendly place. With our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the constant threat to our very existence by terror groups, the world scene is scary enough. Throw in the drug wars just across our southern border, as well as the day-to-day victimization from hoodlums, it can be down right deadly right here at home.


So, with all that potential, let's say all hell did brake loose. A nation on our highest alert. Emergency services pushed to their limits. An attack has caused major black-outs of electricity. People panic and start looting the stores. Police are swamped with calls for emergencies. Cell phones quit working. Gas pumps won't work (no electricity), so leaving the city is not an option. ATM's can't work, so you can't get your cash out. City services, including water and sewer, stop working. Food is gone off the store shelves. Human predators start walking the streets, looking to take what they want from others, be it their property, or their lives.
(If you prefer - Just consider a major earthquake or Katrina-like disaster, if that helps you get the idea.)

You are now in fear for your family's safety. Police are NOT available. EMT's aren't available. Gangs of hoodlums are a block away, and you hear breaking glass and people screaming for help. Hordes of hoodlums comb the streets, carrying baseball bats, pieces of steel rebar from a nearby construction site, and knives, and they are coming your way. Your spouse has fear in her/his face. The kids tremble with fear. They are all looking to you ... someone ... to protect them.

Next door to your left, is a very out-spoken anti-gun neighbor, who has always been very adamant about gun control. "It's the Police's job to protect us, people don't need to own guns," has been a common chant of his.

The other neighbor to your right, has NRA stickers on his car windows. In past days, you've smiled and shook your head, as you've often seen him, the "gun nut", leave for the range each week, carrying his cased AR-15 and assorted other firearms, and ammo. You recall one of your conversations with him, an old Vietnam Vet and sport shooter, whom you had just told that you didn't think anyone needed an "assault weapon", and you "weren't interested in joining the NRA".

You don't own a firearm. And now, you have no chance to go buy one, practice with one, or show your family the safe uses of one. So, now ... what are YOU going to do? Are you going to run to the anti-gun neighbor, and hope the "Gun Free Household" sign on his door will protect you?

Or will you be going to your "gun nut" NRA member neighbor to the right, and ask if he could help protect you and your family?

I don't advocate firearms ownership for everybody. Some people will not be responsible enough to learn proper use and care of one. Some too, are simply not able to pull the trigger on another person, even if their own life depended on it. For those people, get a good dog.

Otherwise, I am a firm believer that each of us are our own "first line of defense", and should be prepared to act in the face of threat to your family or yourself. And I highly recommend joining the NRA. The NRA is our single most important advocate for the 2nd amendment, and for personal protection.

By the way, it doesn't take such a dire set of circumstances for that need to protect your family. Victims are made every hour of every day. If nothing else, know this - For all their desires to do otherwise, the Police respond to a call AFTER there has already been someone victimized. For that victim, it is often too late. THAT is where murder trials start from.

If you choose to not own a firearm, that's okay by me. But don't try to impose YOUR choice on me.

The Economy and the Easy Button

What a mess we're in...the nation, that is. Nationally, we don't have a balanced budget. I'm not even sure we can balance it, the way we're blowing our nation's wealth.

In Wisconsin, that Governor has chosen a tough road, that is drawing bitter lines among that state's population.

And the partisanship seems to have prevented real rational voices for real answers, to be lost on those in power to listen.

But this simple guy sees it this way. Its usually the wrong choice to make, that is easiest. And the right choice, is often the hardest to make. Folks, their ain't no easy button for this problem.

The easy thing to do, to sooth nervous citizens and weak-kneed politicians, would be to keep on printing money, throwing money at the real problems, and just keep on building debt.

The hard thing to, is to stop the spending every where we can. We also need to make cuts, for everything that doesn't involve our security. Everyone needs to expect cuts. That also means that every corporation in America, needs to trim their budgets of fat and greed, and apply as much as possible to job growth.

EVERYONE needs to expect, and accept, cuts. And if we cut everywhere, maybe then, none of the cuts will hurt as much. But, short of national security matters, and that of emergency services and responders (who should still cut their fat), we can no longer yell, "Not me", and protest cost saving cuts for one, while expecting it for everyone else.

And during this time of cutting, if ONE politician votes for even a 1/2 % raise, they should be hung from a yard iron!

Corporate boards - If you have laid people off, but voted huge bonuses and raises for management and above .... shame on you, and I hope to know who you are, and I will not spend one dime on your product or services.

Lastly, while hard to find in stores anymore, as much  - BUY AMERICAN. While some things aren't even made here anymore, when given a choice, choose American made, even if it costs bit more. (I've been guilty too, and will be watching my own purchases.)

Time to tighten America's budget, and balance same.