A blog for the people to provide you insight to the world around us and what's happening in our nation from a classical liberal perspective. This blog is committed to undaunted truth seeking with a real understanding of history to look back on. Individual liberty, right to life, private property, constitutional rights, societal issues, economic issues, and foreign policy will be examined through the current events of today. Daily Prole is medicine for your intellect and moral sense.
"If there is hope . . . it lies in the proles" (George Orwell-1984)
Nearing the end of another work week, I wanted to blog a quick entry.
I have to say that I don't have that feeling called "working for the weekend." Friday is a day that I am no longer excited about, because it is the second busy day compared to Monday.
Although, I do get to wear jeans to work in the office which is exhilarating. I feel like I'm in a scene from Office Space, the one about Hawaiian Shirt Day. If you don't know what I am talking about, just watch below.
It's been a crazy week.
There was a tragic killing in Florida that has been hijacked by the media, race hustlers, and political agitators before the justice system works.
Hunger Games have surprisingly grown to great popularity albeit a Libertarian message that is at odds with a largely Utopian Progressive Hollywood.
Obamacare has taken a severe beating with weak arguments by the Solicitor General in defense of health care overhaul. And the apparent strong possibility of the individual mandate being in trouble. The mandate is the proverbial foundation to the housing structure of the bill for which it will all crumble.
Tim Tebow get's a press conference for coming in as a "back-up" quarterback. This ignited "Tebowmania" throughout the NY countryside, through Jersey Shore, and up to Times Square.
Obama was caught on a hot mic telling the Russian President that he would have "more flexibility" when his "last election" was over to better discuss disarmament.
You may be saying to yourself, "Ya, here are some the headlines and stories I have seen or read." That's great. You are a great American citizen who keeps yourself informed. This is called blogging, so bear with me.
Now, how about this story that should be at the top of the list and talked about more than Treyvon or Tebow. Army Specialist Dennis Weichel sacrificed his own life for a little Afghani girl. Yes...An Afghani girl. I'll say it again. One of our US soldiers pushed a little innocent Afghani girl out of the path of an armored vehicle steaming forward, crushing the ground beneath.
Well, I guess this story was not as "edgy" as the isolated incident of a mentally exhausted man that was re-sent to the war front despite his mental condition that killed 17 Afghan civilians.
I can reach the end of this week with Tebow, Treyvon, Hunger Games, and Obamacare in my mind. On the other hand, I could end this week with one example of many of the greatness of the American spirit and character exhibited by Army Specialist Dennis Weichel on my mind.
Good Friday is not until April 6th but I am choosing this Friday as a "Good" Friday to ponder on this great country and it's courageous military whose momentous work that protects life and liberty. This life and liberty was extended to a little girl from a far away country at the expense of a great soldier, man, and father of three. He died for a child not of his own.
What is life? Is it our own to never lay down for another? Blood has been shed for the cause of liberty. I don't think we should be over in Afghanistan but this soldier was. And a little girl is alive today because of him. I can focus all day about the brutal costs of blood and money in these wars. However, I must not forget that our military men and women are greater than even my most solid argument against interventionist war. They do fight for liberty whether or not those who send them do.
May God bless Army Specialist Dennis Weichel's family and the little Afghani girl and her family. In the five minutes till Friday I could have wasted it on a hot, edgy media headline. I choose Army Specialist Dennis Weichel over ________________________ (insert whatever-the-hell-you-want.)
You remember when those terrorists on 9/11 used children on wheelchairs to conceal their weapons? You remember when The World Trade Center was bombed in 1993 by children in wheelchairs strapped with explosives, rolling into the building? How about the Lockerbie Bombing of Pan Am flight 103, where children in wheelchairs boarded the flight with explosives concealed in their wheelchairs?
Oh, you don't? Are you asking if I'm crazy? No, but the TSA is.
No, kids in wheelchairs did not cause these horrific events. However, they apparently need to be patted down even to the point where they tremble with fear. Because, our wonderful Government sees them as risks.
The kid is terrified as some strange man is groping him. He's not a damn threat! He is a kid in a wheelchair with a average American family going on vacation to Disney. This is appalling and it shows that we are not very secure if the TSA spends time patting down a 3 year-old in a wheelchair.
What if the child was an Arab from a Muslim family going on vacation? That was the question posed by Dennis Miller on his radio station. Let's not be intellectually dishonest. There is no justification for this. This should not happen and should never happen again.
This is not a Republican, Democrat, Liberal, or Conservative issue. This is an American issue and needs to be reported on by all mainstream media outlets. We are not more safe because this kid was molested till he cried.
You do not need to concede your liberty and allow your kids to be groped to fight terrorism. Well played TSA, you are on top of your game. I just read Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking. Is Hawking the Wheelchair Terror Group leader?
If you are new to this blog or a current follower, I want to share with you the meaning of the title, Son of Liberty. I am not doing this just for the sole reason of me finding a home-made video by Jim Bob in his garage with his buddies called The Sons of Liberty, an anti-government militia, on YouTube. I would provide a link but then I would be promoting them.
So, first, I am not part of a militia call the Sons of Liberty. But if you are a supporter or member of a militia; I do want to clarify that I am not condemning them as they are protected by the constitution.
Second, although I do appreciate the important work of the original Sons of Liberty, the Anti-Federalists Samuel Adams and Patrick Henry; the blog is not named after them. Although it should be noted, that they secured our Bill of Rights and we wouldn't have any liberty in the Constitution without their work.
I have digressed but now I will delve into the meaning in my blog title.
At first, you may think this blog is purely about politics. Well, you would be wrong. I do cover politics. I love politics...at times. As you will see in the above title box, this blog covers a number of topics. But at the core is liberty.
To better understand my philosophy and the overall purpose of this blog, you must first cognitively grasp the idea of liberty. Liberty can be more specifically defined for this article as "individual liberty." Without individual liberty it is impossible to have a free society with a small non-intrusive government. To be free of foreign invaders is not enough. Liberty can not be thought of as being something we need constant wars for. As James Madison confessed, “If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.” I will not go in great detail in the times in history but you can do your own research and see such examples as the Japanese-American detainment camps during WW2. It is foolish to just sit back and be at peace in your mind thinking that since we can just keep starting wars and sending our soldiers to occupy/police then we have "liberty."
Wars, patriotic rhetoric from politicians, Acts by Congress, and even those promises from your ideal Republican running for the Office do not define nor preserve individual liberty. Man does not create liberty.
My philosophy on individual liberty can be found in agreement with Frederic Bastiat's The Law. He said the following:
"Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place."Ref.
"Liberty existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place" is one of the most powerful statements in the history of mankind, especially for America. Not only is this powerful but true. Liberty is a Natural right, same as life and property. Without individual liberty, you do not have your property rights or your right to life. We have seen when our lives and property can be regulated and even defined "because men have made laws." We have a property tax even on property that is owned outright. Human life in the womb is considered "not human" enough to have a "right to life."
Our daily life choices our regulated now on the part of Utopians on the Left and Utopians on the Right. On both sides of the ideological fence there are those who uphold the "community" against individual liberty. Individual liberty is viewed as dangerous to the community because it is erroneously thought of as "destructive." Those on the Left want to restrict liberty and force them to take care of the less fortunate. Furthermore, they also want liberty restricted for the sake of a unrealistic "noble" government to make our choices for us. On the other hand, you have those on the Right who view uninhibited individual liberty as a threat to the whole community on pure moral grounds. However, "morals" are created by the Left also to justify force and theft of individuals for their programs. Now, the Right tends to merely restrict individual liberty and not force afterwards. An example would be the "War on drugs." Individuals should be restricted from using "street" drugs on themselves such as marijuana because it is viewed as a "moral threat." The Right also tends to restrict liberty for security reasons. They will publicly rail on the Left about "big government" but at the same time they use "big government" for their ideological whims.
There are many examples of Statists on the Left but I want to give a specific example of a Statist on the Right. You might know him, his name is "Slick" Rick Santorum. He thinks individual liberty is "radical individualism." He criticizes the beliefs on the "Libertarianish Right." His logic is so flawed that he even makes himself sound like a fool by adding "ish" at the end of Libertarian. Just watch this video clip of his pathetic reasoning.
The Declaration of Independence defines individual liberty as the "pursuit of happiness." Our pursuit for happiness has been under attack from the Left and the Right. It is "radical" for us to have individual liberty to pursue our happiness in life with freedom of choice.
It's very simple. We have individual liberty which entails our right to life and to our property. However, we can not use our liberty to harm others or to take away other people's liberties. That's where the role of government comes in. It is there to protect our liberties and to bring to justice those that harm others. Our government isn't there to conduct Left-wing or Right-wing social engineering. We the people put together government to protect our liberty not to define it or restrict it. Karl Popper said it best, in his classic work, The Open Society and It's Enemies Part I:
“Such arguments in favor of utopian engineering exhibit a prejudice which is as widely held as it is untenable, namely, that social experiments must be on a ‘large scale’…The Utopian engineer we are opposing is right when he stresses that an experiment in socialism would be of little value if carried out under laboratory conditions, for instance, in an isolated village…But this very example shows where the prejudice of the Utopian engineer lies. He is convinced that we must recast the whole structure of society, when we experiment with it…But the kind of experiment from which we can learn most is the alteration of one social institution at a time. For only in this way can we learn how to fit institutions into the framework of other institutions, and how to adjust them so that they work according to our intentions. And only in this way can we make mistakes, and learn from our mistakes, without risking repercussions of the gravity that must endanger the will of future reforms. Furthermore, the Utopian method must lead to a dangerous dogmatic attachment to a blue print for which countless sacrifices have been made. Powerful interests must become linked up with the success of the experiment. All this does not contribute to the rationality, or to the scientific value, of the experiment…(Piecemeal engineering)—and not Utopian planning or historical prophecy—would mean the introduction of scientific method into politics, since the whole secret of scientific method is a readiness to learn from mistakes.” (Karl R. Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Part I, [New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1962], 162-163.)
How did Liberty find me? Well, I was born like every other human baby fighting for freedom in the darkness of the womb. I was born not under any "rights" created by man but under the Natural rights afforded to us by our Creator. If you are a Christian then you understand about liberty in the spiritual sense. Liberty first found me through the grace of Jesus. I was very much bound to my own frailty as a human and the transgressions that I commit through life. Christ set me free and Liberty found me.
You see, my Christian belief is protected because of individual liberty. Under individual liberty you can worship who or what you want. You can join whatever religion. We wouldn't have religious liberty without the understanding of individual liberty. Liberty was not just in my religious beliefs, it became more real through my love of History, literature, poetry, philosophy, and economics.
I heard a radio talk-show host say, "I hated being told what to do growing up but I respected authority, especially the authority of my parents." This is exactly what my mindset was growing up. I hated being told what to do because inside my heart liberty was dear. However, I understood that I had authority over me that was supposed to be there. So, I respected it. Now, there were times I rebelled like everyone else because we are only human. Authority whether right or wrong will be resisted by people.
Without liberty, there wouldn't be such great works of literature, poetry, and overall works of history. We have those to read, enjoy, and learn from because of liberty. However, there have been those that use their liberty to evoke change in society to restrain liberty. It is those works that we must be weary of and fight their influence on others. Furthermore, we must fight to derail their paths to implantation in our society through legislation, regulation, and judicial rulings.
From my studies of the Magna Carter to the Pilgrims landing in the New World to the War for American Independence to the Declaration of Independence to the Constitution; liberty was very real to me but did not mature till the year 2008. I spent the previous 8 years thinking that liberty could be defined and played with by the government under Bush. I saw nothing wrong with a "big government" and believed that Republicans had our best interests. I was dead wrong.
Like a lot of Conservatives and Liberals, I believed a lie that we need Big Brother to say what liberty is and just take care of us. Whether through war or welfare, I used to believe that our liberty is defined by our "noble" leaders in our government. I at first was liking the Democrats because of how they respected civil liberties and didn't want the destitute to go without help. Yet, I studied their failed policies and flawed logic and found my self more philosophically in line with Republican leaders in history. However, I blindly followed Republican leadership and policies. I was a drone to that party.
Liberty finally found me and shook me to my senses when I started reading John Locke, Bastiat, Blackstone, Montesquieu, Milton Friedman, and Thomas Jefferson. I also read great works of literature like 1984 by George Orwell.
It all reached a climax in 2008 when I saw Ron Paul speak at a debate. I was dumbfounded to hear a Conservative speak about how liberty is under assault by the very so called "Conservative principles" that the Republican party have been evoking. War, excessive taxation, government growth, and out-of-control spending have been eroding our individual liberty and both damn parties have allowed it to happen. He would say things like, "The moral and constitutional obligations of our representatives in Washington are to protect our liberty, not coddle the world, precipitating no-win wars, while bringing bankruptcy and economic turmoil to our people.' Ref. And he would say, "There is only one kind of freedom and that's individual liberty. Our lives come from our creator [sic] and our liberty comes from our creator [sic]. It has nothing to do with government granting it.' Ref. He also said, "You don't have freedom because you are a hyphenated American; you have freedom because you are an individual, and that should be protected." :Ref. He also talked about the destruction of the dollar and inflation caused by our Republicans and Democrats through their "laws."
He was the only one who truly believed in individual liberty without government intrusion. He didn't align himself with Democrat or Republican ideology. He, like myself, aligns himself with liberty, above all else.
I am a son of Liberty and my parents are my Creator and the State of Nature where Liberty was before man. This blog is where you can be informed and enlightened on individual liberty. What is more, this blog embraces all different works, topics, and ideas where our individual liberty allows us to have discourse and debate. Join my site and follow this blog to be a son or daughter of Liberty.
No. I know what you are thinking. It's not an article on the rakish and sordid Kennedys. Who wants to read about good ole Teddy K. driving into a lake, drunk after a night of partying, killing a young woman? Although I would love to further discuss this, I must continue on a different topic.
An article by the Heritage Foundation entitled "Ten Questions Obama Should be Asked at Tuesday's Press Conference" list 10 pointed but veracious questions that Obama should be faced with.
Question number 5 deals with the Constitution and contraception coverage. This is the question that I am going to address. I read this article after being very irritated throughout the day. I'm sure you have heard about Rush Limbaugh and the controversial "slut" statement. Even if you don't watch too much news, the media and Obama will make sure everyone hears about it.
I believe that Obama wanted our focus to shift from his unpopular and unconstitutional Obamacare and other failing policies. Rather, he wants us to think about condoms, sex, woman's health, and it should all be free. And the main stream media agree and are having a blast reporting on this every minute.
I will not deeply expound on contraceptives and women's health. Nor am I going to write about the rights or wrongs with using contraceptives. That is up to you. If you are like Santorum, then it is up to your local government if they want to ban them. I will address Rush Limbaugh's comments; contraceptives and their constitutionality and importance; and Obama's pitiful meddling in this matter.
Limbaugh was wrong for calling Ms. Fluke, who testified before a congressional hearing on contraceptive coverage, a "slut." He knows it and he apologized. You ought not call women that, especially on live air. Misogyny, intolerance, sexism, and superiority by men can be found on both sides of the ideological fence. There are countless examples of Liberal men in the media who have viciously attacked Conservative woman and called them reprehensible, misogynist terms. Bill Maher, a major Liberal comedian/political commentator called Sarah Palin the four letter "c" word and has a history of vile, sexist comments. There are more examples; research and see for yourself . Rush is treated as the most evil man in America but he is one in many political commentators who have said sexist terms regarding woman. And in regards to the loathsome, iniquitous microcephalic, Bill Maher, he donated 1 million to an Obama super PAC. Maybe Obama will rethink and give back the donation since he is now the "guardian of woman." Sarah Palin is asking Obama too give the money back.
Back to the lovely topic of contraceptives. Ms. Fluke, a Georgetown law student, now turned activist, testified in front of a Democratic congressional committee. She spoke without any qualms about how she and other woman are entitled to free contraceptives. Because a woman's sex life especially in school can be too costly. This is so absurd, unconstitutional, illogical, and immoral. No one should be forced to pay for woman to have sex. This is not a woman's health issue, it is a liberty issue. We here at Son of Liberty passionately defend liberty and will warn others when liberty is in danger. The sacred document that protects our liberties is the Constitution. The Constitution does not allow for this to happen. Furthermore, a key element of liberty, is individual choice and responsibility. Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, Doug Bandow said in regards to Obamacare and contraceptive coverage, "it took over medical decisions best left to individuals." Doug Bandow altruistically continued to postulate:
Contraception is not an essential medical service more important than treatment for breast cancer, leukemia, colon cancer, and Alzheimer's. Or my knee replacement. If contraception should be "free," why not these other far more vital treatments? Why allow deductibles and co-pays to discourage anyone from getting any medical treatment?Former Maryland Lt. Gov. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend blamed opponents for wanting "to fight about contraception being available for women." Robert Boston of Americans United for Separation of Church and State similarly charged that "the Bishops" want "to personally cut off access" to contraceptives.
In fact, contraceptives are available to all and no one is campaigning to ban the pill, IUD, or condoms. Saying that insurance coverage is necessary for access to contraceptives is like saying insurance coverage is necessary for access to aspirin. Anyone can buy contraceptives today.
But someone has to pay. The only question is who.
Insurance coverage is not "free." Premiums must rise to cover expanded benefits. Female employees will pay more if their insurance is paying more.Of course, the mandate also requires the impotent, infertile, gays, sexually inactive, sexually less active, and those opposed to contraception to pay for those who use contraception, especially in abundance. Why should the former be forced to subsidize the latter? Why is this wealth transfer a new national imperative and "right"?
The president declared: "Every woman should be in control of the decisions that affect her health. Period." Quite true. But the way to do that is for women to pay for their own health care and decide what they want their health insurance to cover.
The First Amendment protects religious liberty. Furthermore, I believe that means "moral conscience" objection. Because you don't have to be "religious" or go to a certain denominational church or align oneself with a particular faith to have a "moral objection." Doug Bandow says it is "freedom of conscience." He says, "Freedom of conscience is the foundation for all human liberty, something that reflects the very nature of the human person. It is not a privilege granted by the state. A limited, constitutional government created to protect individual liberty has an obligation to respect religious beliefs, even — indeed, especially — unpopular ones."
Contraceptive coverage is negated by individual and religious liberty assured by the Constitution. This is coupled with the obvious fact that contraceptives are readily available and not an important health issue like cancer, diabetes, and so forth. If you have a lifestyle as Ms. Fluke or other people, you should continue to have individual responsibility of paying for own contraceptives or choose a private insurance policy.
If you have time, please read that entire article by Doug Bandow, it is a work of sheer brilliance.
Now I will briefly rant on Obama calling Ms. Fluke. Obama said he called Fluke because he thought of his daughters. Super Obama wore his tights and cape at the press conference today. He was "defending" woman everywhere, not just Fluke. He called an encouraged Fluke and thanked her. One word: appalling!
Our president has an economic crisis, dilemma with potential war, and European economic instability. Not to mention, jobs are scarce and gas prices are out-of-control. He calls this Fluke girl who wants free contraceptives in order to not pay for her sexual lifestyle to encourage her. Is this a role model for every American girl, Mr. President? Is she courageous? Is he worth your time? Are you not just playing politics? Put up your superhero outfit back in your closet and put on your "presidential" clothes and get to work dealing with more pressing issues at hand.
May I make a suggestion for a courageous woman for Obama to call? How about the Indiana mother who shielded her own body over her children to protect them from the tornado and lost both her legs? Oh, have you called Agent Terry's family yet, Mr. President? You know, the American border agent who was killed by guns that were given to the cartels under your administration? Did you call his family to encourage them and to tell them thank you for raising such a brave American hero?
The Utopian Statists want you to believe that there is a "war on woman" launched by the "sexist" conservatives. Obama, like a true failed leader, panders to that. This isn't about war or woman's health. Contraceptives is for both sexes. Why isn't Obama and his liberal cronies talking about free coverage for males? Isn't that sexist? Obama and company want you the American to focus on sex, woman's health, and condoms instead of his failed policies that have greatly harmed this country.
I wrote this to inform you the absurdity of it all and the illegality that poses a threat to our liberty. Now, move on from this and do not accept this as ground to debate on with the Libs. Stay strong and continue to fight to get this guy out of office. Keep the debate on his failed policies and failed leadership. Don't get sucked into a "woman's health" dialogue on contraceptives because it is rubbish.
The GOP establishment and the media have been perplexed and confounded over Dr. Ron Paul’s steadily increasing popularity. So not too long ago they resorted to pulling out a bogus charge of racism against him re: a newsletter written 20 years ago by someone else that was connected with him but of which he denies knowledge and renounces. That innuendo also died a quick death which is testimony to its spuriousness. But I say his actions always speak louder than any words indirectly connected to him. My view on racism is simple. God “hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth.” (Acts 17:26)
I write the following reasoned defense based on research I have done.
Interracial animosity has been responsible for much ugliness throughout our history and that of the world. The ease and frequency with which rival partisans, ever ready to score cheap political points, hurl charges of racism at one another divests the word of meaning and, in the process, threaten to marginalize the very real evils to which racial animus has far too often given rise.
Still, it is hard to see how, of all of the candidates in this race — and, for that matter, all of the politicians in Washington D.C. —Ron Paul should be on the receiving end of this allegation. If ever equality had a champion, he is it. Yet it is the only morally defensible form of equality for which he fights: equality before the law. There can be no liberty unless there is equality before the law. It is liberty and equality for all Americans that he advocates. There is nothing — not a single thing — in his quite extensive record in Congress that so much as remotely suggests otherwise. If there was, his critics would have long ago seized upon it. That they have not reveals just how flimsy is their case.
Not only, however, has he steadfastly refused to lend support to any measure that would result in treating Americans of some races differently than those belonging to other racial groups. He has just as ardently fought to insure parity of treatment of Americans of all races.
The so-called unwinnable "War on Drugs," for example, has had a devastating impact on black communities throughout the country. Crime, violence, and higher rates of incarceration for blacks are among the poisons produced by this prohibitively costly enterprise. Yet he alone among the candidates of this race demands an end to it.
His commitment to racial equality and liberty for all can also be seen in the way of his conflict with the other candidates over foreign policy. They are committed to an interventionist foreign policy that during the last decade has been falsely justified in terms of "the War on Terror." The overwhelming majority of those who have been harmfully impacted by it are people of color, namely Muslims and others of Middle Eastern descent. He, on the other hand, opposes this interventionism. African-Americans are notably over-represented in the military as a whole. They make up 19.1 percent of the active-duty force, and a staggering 24 percent of the Army, as opposed to just 12.1 percent of the population. So they incur a proportionately higher risk through our illegal and unconstitutional wars. As President, he will see to it that we follow the Golden Rule and do unto others as we ourselves would be done by.
He would also indeed be a peculiar sort of white "racist" who advocates domestic and foreign policies that would improve the plight of untold millions of non-whites. And it is more than a bit ironic that those whose policies have proven to be, quite literally in many instances, destructive of the same number of non-whites should be the ones calling him a "racist"!
In his own words, “[r]acism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist.The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.” [Government and Racism by Ron Paul, April 18, 2007]
Feel free to forward to all carelessly uninformed lemmings of the Republican party that you know.
************************************************** The below link is to the Unabridged: Ron Paul Anti-Racist Encyclopedia. This has many links and referenced quotes. http://ronpaulracistimpossible.blogspot.com/
Most people currently rely on the hearsay they get from the MSM. Have you ever told someone something and then they told someone else who then told someone else and before you know it what you originally said was taken out of context and eventually said something nowhere close to what you originally stated? What people hear and what the actual truth is are all too often 180 degrees apart. In fact, due to this recognized fact, hearsay (i.e. rumor, innuendo, etc.) is inadmissible in a court of law. Newsmax has been anti-Ron Paul from the get-go. I love Israel and I do know factually that our current policy is anti-Israel which Obama, Romney, Santorum, or Gingrich will continue to perpetuate although I liked Gingrich’s gutsy statement on the Palestinians being a fabrication and that there never has been a Palestinian state or a Palestinian people. I might be tempted in a weak moment to give in and vote for Gingrich (doesn’t look good for him being the nominee) just to see him blast Obama if it’s not Ron Paul but will definitely go third party if it’s Romney or Santorum. They are both liars. Our policy of giving foreign aid (which our Constitution does not authorize for any nation) to Israel is more like extortion money where we pressure them to make concessions and land forfeitures (that God gave them, I might add) that compromise their national security. In addition to the $2-3 Billion we give to Israel per year we give Tens of Billions to her enemies as well as arming them. How much of a “blessing” is that for those of you who are prone to quote God’s blessing on Abraham? Our policy in the Middle East reminds me of trying to extinguish a fire with gasoline.
Now if “the powers that be are ordained of God” in Romans 13:1 (i.e. our government and Constitution) and our Constitution is the “supreme law of the land” then to violate our Constitution is breaking the law. Our Constitution does not authorize any form of welfare either domestic or foreign and our Founders (it’s authors) support me on that. So foreign aid is a violation of our law. So if “I will bless them that bless thee” is alluding to foreign aid we have a scriptural conflict. It is not our business to interfere in the sovereignty of any nation. Ending all foreign aid has the net effect of helping Israel because it does not prop up her enemies. Netanyahu also told Congress last year that Israel can take care of itself and doesn’t need us. We also have thousands of years of Scripture where God has undoubtedly taken care of them. Let’s abandon that fallacious argument based on GOP establishment/MSM hearsay and have faith in God. He’s never failed them yet. Neutrality is neither blessing or cursing and it is Constitutional. As Jefferson said, “no entangling alliances.” That also means we should also get out of NATO and the UN. It is not isolationism it is non-interventionism.
But aside from the Israel issue, if we continue on our present course (Republican or Democrat; it doesn’t matter) we are doomed. We are on the verge of economic catastrophe that will dwarf any economic disasters of the past. Ron Paul’s economic policies are also spot on. Romney has even noticed their popularity and begun to parrot a few of Paul’s ideas himself in his typical “what do the people want hear” fashion.
Oh, “but we have to get Obama out” you say. Have you ever heard of “losing for winning?” And stop relying on hearsay by searching for the real truth.
Remember when your mother taught you to apologize? Maybe you pulled your sister's hair or pushed your brother for a cookie. Maybe you called your sister fat or your brother retarded.
Whether physical or verbal, we tend to harm others through our lives. Sometimes inadvertently, we can say something with no malicious intention that harms someone. We also can be responsible for other people's actions who are under our authority that can harm others.
Apologies are needed and are a moral by-product of Judeo-Christian teachings. The book of Matthew tells us to "reconcile with your brother" and the book of James tells us to "confess sins to one another."
We are a country founded upon the precepts of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Furthermore, we have made great strides in our young history to make amends for wrongdoing. We have apologized in the past and gave gifts as Matthew 5:24 tells us to do.
Recent violence in Afghanistan because of the burning of some Qurans by US troops has been a point of controversy. Oh, it's not the burning of the religious books. Hell, it's not even the despicable acts of the Afghans themselves, more specifically the soldiers that the Americans have trained, who are shooting our soldiers in the back of the head.
It's the apology heard round the world uttered by the feckless lips of our president that is the true controversy. Even now, there are reports that our military actually had pragmatic reasons to destroy those Qurans. The Qurans may have already been desecrated at the hands of their owners, the Taliban and Al Qaeda prisoners. There are reports that the Qurans were used to pass messages.
Inadvertent or purposeful destruction of the Islamic holy book is not the "great sin" that we need to be apologizing for. Mr. President, you need to be demanding an apology from Karzai and his people for the killing of US soldiers. Mr. President, the world may have heard your apology but the world also heard a concession to the egregious and ungrateful acts of bloody, barbarous violence by the Afghan people.
Afghan soldiers that our military have trained have been killing our troops before the book burning. The people have rioted and committed violence.
Let me remind you the reader, you the American, you the foreigner, whoever you are. Whether you support our presence in Afghanistan (I do not), our military have sacrificed greatly and spilled blood for these Afghans. What is more, we have spent over a half a trillion dollars in helping these people and protecting them.
Muslim clerics call for punishment and even death to American military. The same people we died for and are hemorrhaging money for are violently rioting, burning American flags, and pictures of Obama. More devastating, they have killed the soldiers who are there to help and protect them. They have said they would not accept an apology and demand punishment.
They don't want an apology and they don't deserve an apology. Do these same Muslims apologize for Christian churches and other objects of the Christian faith being destroyed? Do they apologize for the murders of countless Christians throughout the Muslim world?
Let's be more specific. Does Karzai apologize for the killing of Americans by his own soldiers?
Where was Obama's apology when the government under his administration gave guns to the Mexican drug cartels that have killed border agent Brian Terry? An apology that is rightfully owed needs to be given.
I am so furious over this whole Afghanistan quagmire. It needs to end. We need to pull out. We can't "democratize" them. We can't police and nation build. It has become a failure. The people don't want us there and are willing to kill our troops. They so easily commit violence and murder over a few Qurans being either inadvertently burnt or burnt to keep secret messages from reaching the enemy.
It is apparent that our President is weak but this shows him to be cowardly. Furthermore, it shows he favors one religion over all others. He can't even issue a stern condemnation and earnest plea to the Iranians to release the Christian pastor. He refuses to respect the Catholic faith with contraceptives. Only the Muslim faith gets a pass. Obama wouldn't say it was a Muslim extremist who shot those people at Fort Hood back in 2009.
The violence against our troops accompanied with that Muslim faith gets a pass by capitulation and cowardice voiced with an apology from our supposed leader.
