The Government has got the first amendment backwards.

Oct 20, 2014 by

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a government redress of grievances. Seems pretty straight forward. But in this new world of Progressives, political correctness, and a government that has far overstepped the bounds set by the Constitution, it has been turned topsy-turvy.

Time and time again, Atheist organizations like the Freedom From Religion group, having nothing better to do with their lives, have filed suit against any person, group, or organization that has even a remote connection to the local, state, or federal government and has anything to do with religion, specifically the Christian Faith. They always cite either the “establishment” clause of the First Amendment, or the “separation of church and state” argument. Both arguments are completely bogus, legally groundless, and have nothing to do with the First Amendment.

In a recent especially egregious example, the openly gay Mayor of Houston Texas, has subpoenaed five Houston pastors to turn over their sermons and other pastoral communications to the city for signs of “political activity”.  Read this story for the whole sordid mess.

Houston Persecution

In another case, two Christian ministers in Idaho are being threatened with fines and jail if they refuse to perform same-sex marriages. Again, you can read the whole pathetic story here.

Idaho Persecution

In the Houston case, it is strange that the Houston Mayor has not subpoenaed any Muslim Imams for their sermons and other communications for signs of “political activity”. But that is a whole other blog post.

The problem with both these cases, and many like them, is that they have no basis in law, especially with regards to the Constitution. The First Amendment was written to protect religion from political persecution, not protect the government from religion. The “establishment clause”, for those like the members of the Freedom From Religion organization who are obviously confused by simple sentences, specifically states  “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”.  Where in either of these cases is Congress making a law respecting an establishment of religion? Right, I did’t read of one either. It further states that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion, which in both of the above mentioned cases is being violated. If Congress cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion, neither can the city or state.

With regards to the argument of “separation of church and state”, that phrase does not even appear in the Constitution. So as far as the Constitution and the First Amendment are concerned, there is no legal ground for the city of Houston or the State of Idaho to pursue harassment and persecution of Christians in this manner. In fact, both cases violate the free exercise of religion as well as abridging freedom of speech. In both instances the Christians are being persecuted by homosexuals although that is not always the case. The Gay Mafia is alive and well and as intolerant of the views and rights of others as any other hate group. How cases like this are even being won is beyond me. Apparently there are many courts and judges who are equally baffled  with the simple wording of the First Amendment or choose to ignore its true and stated purpose and intent.

 

 

 

read more

Why You Hate Fox News

Sep 18, 2012 by

I have noticed for some time how many liberals hate Fox News and spend inordinate amounts of time mocking and denigrating it. After some thought I think I have a reason for their hatred and disdain. It isn’t that what Fox News says or reports is necessarily wrong, misguided, or distorted, rather it is that they say anything at all.

Many liberals base their political and moral viewpoints on what I would describe as thin ice. The facts, rationale, history and perceptions upon which they build their viewpoints are on such shaky ground that any viewpoints, facts, or histories that either do not support their views or directly contradict them cannot be allowed to see the light of day. Since liberals cannot do anything to actually stop these contrary viewpoints from reaching others, they choose to instead vilify and discredit the messenger. Their rationale is that if the messenger is labeled as biased, dishonest, a nut job, or some other such adjective or noun, then the message must likewise be tainted.

If you as a liberal truly believed your political and moral viewpoints are valid and based on substantial facts, histories and other data, you would welcome other viewpoints and beat them against your views and come back convinced that you were right all along. The opposing viewpoints, in other words, would reinforce your viewpoints as being valid. But since too many liberals viewpoints will not stand up to this type of scrutiny and analysis, it is much easier to just dismiss the messenger so you will not have to exercise your mind and reinforce and re-validate your own viewpoints.

In other words, the best defense is to have no defense at all for your beliefs. Much easier to demonize the messenger. So carry on all Fox News haters, and don’t forget to get in a shot at Fox News either here or on Twitter, Facebook or Google+. I expect nothing less.

 

 

read more

Related Posts

Tags

Share This

Meathead is still a Meathead

Jan 29, 2012 by

One of my favorite shows as I was growing up was ‘All in the Family.’ But from the first the one person on the show that I disliked was meathead. Meathead was played by Rob Reiner who is so typical of the liberals that infest Hollywood to this day. I vividly remember one episode where Archie and meathead get into an argument over the second amendment to the Constitution. Back then I was not a gun collector but I had a deep respect for the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

In the argument meathead took the position that the second amendment meant that only the militia were guaranteed the right to bear arms. He based this on his distorted usage of that term in the amendment. This is a common argument used by liberals today in their misguided attempts to disarm us all and leave us at the mercy of criminals and a possible tyrannical government. For those liberals who are unfamiliar with the second amendment I will reproduce it for you.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Seems pretty straightforward and unambiguous, as the founding fathers no doubt thought. But the founding fathers had never envisioned the modern day liberal. From experience I can say that most liberals arguments are not based on facts but are a twisted perversion of reality. Liberals have taken a single, straightforward sentence and twisted it around in a feeble attempt to foist their beliefs on us all.

First, meathead’s definition of militia is completely wrong. I think he interpreted the modern day militia to be the National Guard.  The definition of militia as given by Merriam-Webster is:

a: a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency

b:the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

But when the Bill of Rights was written the definition of Militia was somewhat different. Back then the militia was defined as the whole body of able-bodied citizens. This included men and women. Merriam-Webster uses this definition too but has added that this includes men only and declared by law as being subject to call to military service. Even if we accept Merriam-Websters definition to include men only and declared by law, this includes most of the male population as all men are subject to the draft to this very day.

But even with the phrase ‘well regulated militia’ added to the second amendment, this does not imply that a well regulated militia is the sole justification for the right to keep and bear arms. What meathead conveniently leaves out of his argument is the fact that the second part of the second amendment does not say: ‘the right of the Militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’  It specifically states the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. What part of PEOPLE and infringed don’t liberals understand?

My final argument is that when the founding fathers drafted the Constitution and Bill of Rights, the arms that would later equip the militia that won our freedom from the British were in the hands of the people before a militia was ever organized and called into service. The arms were not supplied by the government. If we are ever confronted with a tyrannical government sometime in the future, how is a militia ever going to be formed to defend liberty if the guns needed to defend against that tyranny are in the governments hands and not we the people’s hands? Please answer that question for me meathead.

 

 

read more

The distortion and perversion of the first amendment

May 19, 2011 by

It seems the ACLU is at it again. They are threatening to sue a New Jersey high school with a 70 year tradition of hosting graduation ceremonies in a historic auditorium. The ACLU claims the event violates the “separation of church and state” as well as the first amendment.

The venue is owned by a Methodist group and it seems one person complained about the building’s religious symbols and Christian-based references – among them a 20 foot white cross above the auditorium’s entrance. The ACLU wants the school to remove or cover up the cross and three other religious signs.

In an attempt to reach an accommodation with the ACLU school officials agreed to change the graduation program to remove the student-led invocation and two hymns, to rid the ceremony of any religious references. But of course this was not enough for the ACLU, who is still threatening to sue if the school doesn’t fully comply.

The first amendment to the Constitution states:

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.

The original intent of the first amendment with regard to religion seems unambiguous. Congress shall make no Law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof.  The New Jersey school is making no Law nor is it prohibiting the free exercise of religion. It is simply a graduation exercise.

But over the years the first amendment has been distorted and perverted to fit the political, social, an moral tenants of various parties. Even the Supreme Court has endorsed these distortions and perversions.

It has now been established that the first amendment now refers to states and municipalities, in addition to the federal government. In the middle to late twentieth century the Supreme Court began to interpret the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses in such a manner as to restrict the promotion of religion by the states. No longer did it have to be a law, now it is simply a perceived preference of one religion over another religion or non-religion.

Now it has reached the point where the first amendment is being interpreted as not being able to even acknowledge God in public. The infamous “separation of church and state” has grown out of this distortion and perversion. As Ronald Reagan so eloquently said:

To those who cite the first amendment as reason for excluding God from more and more of our institutions and everyday life, may I just say: The first amendment of the Constitution was not written to protect the people of this country from religious values; it was written to protect religious values from government tyranny

The New Jersey school is not trying to create a state church, not trying to repress freedom of religion, not enacting any laws, and not discriminating against anyone. They just want to continue a 70 year tradition. Yet from a series of Supreme Court decisions and manipulation by other courts, government agencies, and organization like the ACLU, the first amendment is being used as a weapon to attack religion wherever it raises its “ugly” head.

The first amendment has gone from being a 45 word sentence with clearly stated intentions to a muddle of leagaleze that bears no resemblance to what our founding fathers intended. Unfortunately, the same could be said of many of the amendments to the Constitution. I am constantly amazed that our country is fast becoming a country where the good of the few outweigh the good of the many. How sad.

 

 

 

read more

Related Posts

Tags

Share This

First Impressions – Asus Eee 1215b laptop computer

Apr 27, 2011 by

I have had my new Asus Eee 1215 laptop for a couple of days now. It is a replacement for my old Dell Mini 9 netbook. I ordered the Asus both to replace my Dell and act as a HTPC for my home entertainment system. I had thought about ordering a dedicated HTPC but I figured why not use a laptop instead. When I am not using it in the HTPC capacity, I could use it for my laptop.

The specifications for the Asus Eee 1215b are as follows.

  • AMD Brazos E-350 dual-core processor running at 1.60Ghz
  • 2 GB ram
  • 350 GB hard drive
  • 802.11/n wi-fi
  • card reader slot
  • 2 USB 2.0 1 USB 3.0
  • web cam
  • hdmi output
  • Radeon 6310 with 512mb
  • 10/100 GB ethernet
  • 12.1 ” High definition backlit display

The case is quality black plastic with a patterned bottom. The laptop has a well built feel to it. The chiclet keyboard is almost full size and fairly easy to type one. The Synaptic touchpad is large and has a metal bar for right/left clicking. There are 5 Led’s on the front left edge of the laptop to indicate various status’s.

The laptop runs Windows 7 home premium edition. There is not too much bloat-ware loaded and some nice additional software in addition to what comes with Windows 7.  A trial copy of Trend Micro Titanium is provided for anti-virus software. In its capacity as a HTPC I have loaded Boxee software although I am very impressed with the latest version of Windows Media Center.

I have already hooked it up to my Home Theater HDTV and it works very well. I am able to run and stream full 1080p video with no buffering or stuttering. So it is mission successful for its ability to serve as both laptop and HTPC.

The only negatives I have have to do with the placement of a couple of keys and the fact that I have not found a way yet to disable the touchpad while typing. But these are not really flaws with the laptop, just something I will have to become used to.

Overall, I am extremely impressed with the Asus as well as Windows 7. I ran Ubuntu 10.10 on my old Dell and feel no need to replace Windows 7 with it. The laptop itself is a quantum leap over my old Dell. I have not been able to check the battery life but it is rated for a minimum of 6 hours. My research on available laptops in the price range I was looking at seems to have paid off. It is money well spent. I would highly recommend this laptop to anyone looking for a sub $500 laptop.

 

 

read more

Related Posts

Tags

Share This

Wisconsin, Unions, Greed, and Double Standards

Mar 5, 2011 by

The title of this post pretty much sums up my feelings about the current situation in Wisconsin over the proposed bill to limit collective bargaining among public sector unions. The bill the Governor of Wisconsin is proposing is something that is not only necessary but long overdue. Reckless spending, a significant percentage being spending on union pensions and benefits, has left Wisconsin no choice but to reign in spending, including spending in the public sector.

The reaction by the unions and Democratic legislators to this proposed bill is saddening but not unexpected. Unions have long had their way, to the detriment of the taxpayers of Wisconsin. As for the Democratic legislators fleeing the state to prevent a vote on the bill, that is an unfortunate tactic that sadly has been used by both parties in the past.

The unions argue that the bill is an attack on workers and the middle class. Nothing could be further from the truth. The bill  is about fiscal responsibility and balancing the budget. Does anyone without an agenda honestly believe the Governor would propose a bill like this if the government was rolling in dough? As for an attack on the middle class, unions only represent 12% of the workforce, which hardly makes it an attack on the middle class.

Collective bargaining is not a right, it is a privilege. It is a privilege that federal employees do not have. As previously stated, only 12% of the workforce is unionized, with most employees choosing not to belong to unions. So collective bargaining is not something that most employees need or even necessarily want.

The old argument is once again raised that teachers are underpaid for the important work  they do. While this may have been true in the past, it is hardly true today. Union workers in Wisconsin make substantially more in salary and benefits that do their counterparts in the private sector. The percentage of salary that union workers in Wisconsin pay towards their pensions and health insurance is far below what federal workers and private sector workers pay. The compensation packages that union employees receive at retirement are much more generous that packages received by non-union employees.

Union workers seem to have no qualms about receiving these kinds of generous benefits at the expense of the taxpayers of Wisconsin. They also have no qualms about keeping their students out of class while they protest in the capital. They have no qualms about having doctors right them phony sick leave slips so they can continue to protest.

The overall behavior of the union protesters in Wisconsin has also been deplorable. They have occupied the capitol building and been loud and disruptive. Their signs and chants show a lack of civility that is disturbing coming from supposedly educated professionals. If you were to follow the coverage provided by the liberal main stream media however, you would think they were all a bunch of angels. Comparing this to the coverage by that same media to Tea Party protests is very enlightening. The immensity of the differences in coverage is a  reflection of  the bias held by most media.

The bottom line is that if something is not done about the out of whack benefits that have been granted to unionized public sector workers in Wisconsin by collective bargaining, real damage will be done not to the union employees, but to the students that these same employees are supposed to be teaching. Furloughs will happen simply because the state of Wisconsin can no longer afford to keep funding these types of benefits. So it the union employees are truly concerned about their students, instead of their pocketbooks, they should accept the bill, as should the absent Democratic legislators. With the economy of the country in the state it is presently in, sacrifices have to be made by everyone, including union employees.

Of course this is just my opinion, I could be wrong.

 

 

 

read more