I just saw an article in USAToday, where Mr. Pistole (chief of the TSA) said his agency's newest focus will be on trains and subways.
Honestly, I hope so.
No, I don't enjoy authority for authority's sake, which is what the TSA is and has always been. However, until the collective anger of this nation reaches critical mass, they'll be there. I've been saying for quite some time that the government of this nation is like an ingrown toenail, and our nation won't heal until we bite the bullet and rip that mother out. Having suffered through a few actual ingrown toenails in my younger days, I know that it hurts so bad to rip them out that a man will generally let it fester until the pain can no longer be tolerated before getting out the pliers and going to work.
We're going to see that in America, and we're going to see it soon. It's not because of a "few nutjobs", it's going to simply because John Q. Public is going to eventually get so fed up with The Man that there will be a shortage of rope in this nation. Government employees will be seen as somewhere between pedophiles and gangbangers in our society's scumbag-scale. They will become strange fruit dangling from the lampposts, and they will have no one to blame for it but themselves.
I wish, for humanity's sake, that things would never get that far. Unfortunately, since the beginning of time, it has been in man's nature to control others. When you take an ordinary man and put him in control, he will allow himself to become a god in his own mind. The downside of this is that he is nothing but an ordinary man, and those he controls typically don't like being controlled.
It will take a bit of time for this to happen, but it would appear that the TSA has become the alarm clock that is systematically waking up Boobus from his great American slumber. On that note, I say let the TSA take the reigns at the post office, while we're at it. Let them monitor the drive-thru lane at WhataBurger. Let them man the call centers for tech support. Let them into every facet of our lives outside of our own homes, and give them the power to giveth and taketh away...just like they have at the airports right now.
If you give a man an inch, he'll think he's a ruler. Let 'em keep pushing until they push us ALL into a corner. Let 'em make it so tough that everyone and their uncle has been accosted by these scumbags. If you keep pushing and pushing, pretty soon this nation will be so compressed that it will explode.
Let's roll...
Monday, November 22, 2010
Sunday, November 21, 2010
I'd gladly fly "Shit Happens Airways"...
Seriously, was the Transportation Safety Agency specifically created as a means to "ease" Americans into tyranny, a la the parable of the frog and the boiling pot?
It's a well-known fact that most of these gubbmint lackeys are little more than McIdiots that managed to squeak through a security check, which tells me they aren't exactly the greatest people on the planet to be ensuring that we don't die in a fiery airplane crash.
That being said, I have a pair of questions to ask of the TSA (and government, in general) regarding the arrest of Sam Wolanyk in the very same airport as John Tyner of "Don't touch my junk" fame.
1) What are you hiding? If your general activities (your "pat-downs" and other related searches) are on display for the public who happen to be waiting in line for their turn to get molested by the PornoTron scanners and rubber-glove-wearing agents of the state, WHY IS IT A CRIME TO FILM THIS ACTIVITY? Surely, it can't be because "the terr'ists" might see what you're doing, if EVERYONE IN LINE CAN SEE IT! Why is it a crime then, for a private individual who helps pay your salary, to film you as you perform the duties he is paying you to do in public?
2) If a man is willing to strip down to his skivvies in order to show you that he's not carrying any guns or explosives, why would you not simply see that he's hiding nothing and allow him to move on? Why is it necessary for him to put his clothing back on, for the sake of allowing you to give him a "pat-down"?
Is it the job of the TSA to search for weapons, with pat-downs and PornoTron scanners being a tool to help in this search for those who don't want to remove their outer clothing? If a man is wearing skin-tight undies and nothing else, what is a pat-down going to tell you after he's put his clothes back on?
Could it be that it's not really about security, but rather, only about showing travelers who "The Boss" is when you go through an airport?
Undoubtedly, this incident was completely staged by Mr. Wolanyk, simply to prove a point...and, for what it's worth, it's hard to deny that his point was very well-made! That point is, of course, that our government is completely and totally full of shit when they tell you that their pseudo-security measures are there for your protection (as opposed to being yet another mechanism for conditioning people toward authoritarianism).
They can't stop anything from getting onto an airplane, as long as a TSA agent making barely more than a shopping-mall rentacop can be bribed with an extra hundred bucks to pad his kids' Christmas gift fund. The moment "following procedure" becomes more important than "getting the job done", the TSA becomes just another gov't bureaucracy.
Personally, I think airport security should be privatized...but not in the "opt-out" version given to us under federal law, where an airport is given the choice between gov't rentacops or one of the handful of "approved private security agencies". Personally, I think airport security should be handled by the airlines themselves. Instead of paying a federally-mandated tax to cover the ridiculous cost of the TSA (in addition to the income tax money diverted to them via "Homeland Security"), a minor $2 fee could be instituted to the ticket price for air travel that would provide more than enough to handle the cost of equipment and manpower for pre-flight security screening.
Not only would this be infinitely cheaper to the passenger, as well as being much more efficient (like everything else the private sector does when there is no gov't involvement), but it would provide for the AVENUE OF ACCOUNTABILITY that is sorely lacking with the TSA.
Imagine the possibilities! An airline could tout itself as "more secure" than its competitors, for those pansy-ass cowards that willfully submit to getting rape-scanned and felt up because they're afraid of funny brown people in pajamas. "Iron-Fist Airlines" could probably charge that left nut they're gonna grope in the security line, because some people think it's a good idea to pay for such things.
Meanwhile, at the next ticket counter, people like me could take their chances with "Shit Happens Airways". It's like the Greyhound of air travel. Security consists of some dude with a hand-held metal detector, and their firearms policy consists of "Keep your guns and ammo separated until you get off the plane!". You would, of course, be allowed to keep your nail clippers, scissors, box cutters, Benadryl, et cetera. You'll be offered the choice of domestic beers, in your choice of 12 or 16oz cans (24oz when available), and no one will have you arrested if you bitch about the temperature! In fact, no one will have you arrested at all, unless you seriously interfere with the property or safety of another passenger. In short, you're paying low-budget prices for low-budget air travel...because you aren't concerned about comfort, nor are you really that concerned with the extremely minute possibility that someone will smuggle a bomb onto the airplane you're flying on. You're more concerned with getting where you're going for as little money as possible, than you are with being comfortable...and you feel even more comfortable knowing that if you see someone lighting his boxer briefs on fire, you're free to start beating him over the head with a tray table without fear of being arrested for either beating the shit out of him OR for ripping the tray table off of the seat in front of you before you do it!
Then, of course, there could be a multitude of other airlines that choose to split the difference all the way through the scale. You'd see higher or lower security, comfort, and ticket pricing depending on what the owners of the airlines themselves thought was necessary to keep their bottom line in check.
If given the choice, I'd much rather send my family on a slightly less-comfortable airplane and be in charge of keeping my own family safe, than have to submit them to gubbmint PornoTron operators so they could take kiddie-smut pictures or feel up my kids. These people couldn't stop terrorism if it was laid out front and center, with a giant red "OFF" button. Then again, I'm that same kind of guy who thinks depending on the police to keep me safe is like depending on a public school teacher to actually educate someone. I guess I'm just crazy like that...
It's a well-known fact that most of these gubbmint lackeys are little more than McIdiots that managed to squeak through a security check, which tells me they aren't exactly the greatest people on the planet to be ensuring that we don't die in a fiery airplane crash.
That being said, I have a pair of questions to ask of the TSA (and government, in general) regarding the arrest of Sam Wolanyk in the very same airport as John Tyner of "Don't touch my junk" fame.
1) What are you hiding? If your general activities (your "pat-downs" and other related searches) are on display for the public who happen to be waiting in line for their turn to get molested by the PornoTron scanners and rubber-glove-wearing agents of the state, WHY IS IT A CRIME TO FILM THIS ACTIVITY? Surely, it can't be because "the terr'ists" might see what you're doing, if EVERYONE IN LINE CAN SEE IT! Why is it a crime then, for a private individual who helps pay your salary, to film you as you perform the duties he is paying you to do in public?
2) If a man is willing to strip down to his skivvies in order to show you that he's not carrying any guns or explosives, why would you not simply see that he's hiding nothing and allow him to move on? Why is it necessary for him to put his clothing back on, for the sake of allowing you to give him a "pat-down"?
Is it the job of the TSA to search for weapons, with pat-downs and PornoTron scanners being a tool to help in this search for those who don't want to remove their outer clothing? If a man is wearing skin-tight undies and nothing else, what is a pat-down going to tell you after he's put his clothes back on?
Could it be that it's not really about security, but rather, only about showing travelers who "The Boss" is when you go through an airport?
Undoubtedly, this incident was completely staged by Mr. Wolanyk, simply to prove a point...and, for what it's worth, it's hard to deny that his point was very well-made! That point is, of course, that our government is completely and totally full of shit when they tell you that their pseudo-security measures are there for your protection (as opposed to being yet another mechanism for conditioning people toward authoritarianism).
They can't stop anything from getting onto an airplane, as long as a TSA agent making barely more than a shopping-mall rentacop can be bribed with an extra hundred bucks to pad his kids' Christmas gift fund. The moment "following procedure" becomes more important than "getting the job done", the TSA becomes just another gov't bureaucracy.
Personally, I think airport security should be privatized...but not in the "opt-out" version given to us under federal law, where an airport is given the choice between gov't rentacops or one of the handful of "approved private security agencies". Personally, I think airport security should be handled by the airlines themselves. Instead of paying a federally-mandated tax to cover the ridiculous cost of the TSA (in addition to the income tax money diverted to them via "Homeland Security"), a minor $2 fee could be instituted to the ticket price for air travel that would provide more than enough to handle the cost of equipment and manpower for pre-flight security screening.
Not only would this be infinitely cheaper to the passenger, as well as being much more efficient (like everything else the private sector does when there is no gov't involvement), but it would provide for the AVENUE OF ACCOUNTABILITY that is sorely lacking with the TSA.
Imagine the possibilities! An airline could tout itself as "more secure" than its competitors, for those pansy-ass cowards that willfully submit to getting rape-scanned and felt up because they're afraid of funny brown people in pajamas. "Iron-Fist Airlines" could probably charge that left nut they're gonna grope in the security line, because some people think it's a good idea to pay for such things.
Meanwhile, at the next ticket counter, people like me could take their chances with "Shit Happens Airways". It's like the Greyhound of air travel. Security consists of some dude with a hand-held metal detector, and their firearms policy consists of "Keep your guns and ammo separated until you get off the plane!". You would, of course, be allowed to keep your nail clippers, scissors, box cutters, Benadryl, et cetera. You'll be offered the choice of domestic beers, in your choice of 12 or 16oz cans (24oz when available), and no one will have you arrested if you bitch about the temperature! In fact, no one will have you arrested at all, unless you seriously interfere with the property or safety of another passenger. In short, you're paying low-budget prices for low-budget air travel...because you aren't concerned about comfort, nor are you really that concerned with the extremely minute possibility that someone will smuggle a bomb onto the airplane you're flying on. You're more concerned with getting where you're going for as little money as possible, than you are with being comfortable...and you feel even more comfortable knowing that if you see someone lighting his boxer briefs on fire, you're free to start beating him over the head with a tray table without fear of being arrested for either beating the shit out of him OR for ripping the tray table off of the seat in front of you before you do it!
Then, of course, there could be a multitude of other airlines that choose to split the difference all the way through the scale. You'd see higher or lower security, comfort, and ticket pricing depending on what the owners of the airlines themselves thought was necessary to keep their bottom line in check.
If given the choice, I'd much rather send my family on a slightly less-comfortable airplane and be in charge of keeping my own family safe, than have to submit them to gubbmint PornoTron operators so they could take kiddie-smut pictures or feel up my kids. These people couldn't stop terrorism if it was laid out front and center, with a giant red "OFF" button. Then again, I'm that same kind of guy who thinks depending on the police to keep me safe is like depending on a public school teacher to actually educate someone. I guess I'm just crazy like that...
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
More on the FLDS...
In case you've been reading my stuff from the beginning, you may remember that my very first post was on the FLDS church members having their "compound" (more like a commune, but "compound" makes them sound more like the Branch Davidians) raided by the Texas CPS...and how the Sheriff's Dept brought out a tank nicknamed "Bubba" to help them kidnap more than 400 women and children.
Tonight, I'm reading in the Houston Comical (er, "Chronicle", whatever) and I see where an FLDS member has just been sentenced to 20 years in prison for "sexual abuse of a child"...who happened to be his 15 year old wife.
Now, before this conversation goes any further, I would like to once again reiterate for the record that I do not endorse or condone child molestation, polygamy, running stop signs, or any other random crap the state claims this man did. I'm merely making a point here.
That being said, let's look at this situation once again. It was not until after the FLDS moved to Texas, that the Great State of Texas decided to introduce and pass legislation making it a crime to marry a person under the age of 16. Prior to this, the statute read that a person must be 14 years of age, in order to be married. This actually happened in 2005. No bullshit, a 14 year old could legally be married in Texas during Bubba Dubbya's first four years!
Now, let's examine the notion of "consent". It's a really funny thing, what the government considers the lawful age of consent to be, and I find it strange that it sets random arbitrary age limits on what an adult is or is not allowed to do.
For instance, a person can lawfully consent to marriage at the age of 16...but can't buy a pack of cigarettes. At the age of 18, a person can lawfully consent to purchase of cigarettes, lottery tickets, et cetera and can also enter into legally-binding contracts...including a contract binding him or her into military service, where he might lose his life on the battlefield. Ironically, this same government that claims you're "mature enough" to kill and be killed for political purposes also happens to be the same government that says you're not "mature enough" to decide that you want to drink a cold beer after a long hard day of work until another three years!
Now, let's examine the text of the laws amended in 2005 by the state legislature here in Texas. Upon reading it, it almost appears as if these literally HUNDREDS of changes to the law were made specifically criminalize the Fundamentalist Church of Latter-Day Saints.
I'm gonna go out on a limb here, and say that both the 20 year old groom and his 15 year old bride were both consenting parties to this "marriage"...and I'm also going to assume that, if one or both parents were members of the FLDS church, then "parental consent" was given. According to Texas law, "parental consent" requires the signature of only one parent, but I'm assuming it must be the custodial parent in case of divorced or otherwise separated parents...but, again I'm assuming here, if the kid is on the "compound" with one parent, it would be the custodial parent.
So, here we are, faced with two very interesting issues once again.
A) Was the "age of consent" law governing state-sanctioned marriages changed solely upon the religious and cultural beliefs of a group of people who moved to Texas in 2003, or was it because the Great State of Texas had a massive change of heart and all of a sudden decided that 14 was just too young to make up your mind...but 16 was old enough?
B) Does the state have an inherent right to limit how many marriage contracts a person may lawfully consent to enter? I'm asking because the article in question states that a man was sentenced to 20 years imprisonment for "sexual assault of a child" that he had chosen to be his wife. While the "child" in question was a minor aged 15, he would still be prosecuted for the same offense if this "child" was a minor aged 16...provided he had already legally married another minor "child" aged 16. The state says that you can marry one 16 year old girl, if her mom signs the permission slip. The state says that if you marry one, you're a lawfully-wedded man...but if you do it twice, you're a child molester.
So does the state have the authority to make such decisions for us? Does it have an inherent right to declare how many people we may consensually enter into contracts with? Does the state have a right to declare how and under what circumstances a parent may provide parental consent for a minor?
Tonight, I'm reading in the Houston Comical (er, "Chronicle", whatever) and I see where an FLDS member has just been sentenced to 20 years in prison for "sexual abuse of a child"...who happened to be his 15 year old wife.
Now, before this conversation goes any further, I would like to once again reiterate for the record that I do not endorse or condone child molestation, polygamy, running stop signs, or any other random crap the state claims this man did. I'm merely making a point here.
That being said, let's look at this situation once again. It was not until after the FLDS moved to Texas, that the Great State of Texas decided to introduce and pass legislation making it a crime to marry a person under the age of 16. Prior to this, the statute read that a person must be 14 years of age, in order to be married. This actually happened in 2005. No bullshit, a 14 year old could legally be married in Texas during Bubba Dubbya's first four years!
Now, let's examine the notion of "consent". It's a really funny thing, what the government considers the lawful age of consent to be, and I find it strange that it sets random arbitrary age limits on what an adult is or is not allowed to do.
For instance, a person can lawfully consent to marriage at the age of 16...but can't buy a pack of cigarettes. At the age of 18, a person can lawfully consent to purchase of cigarettes, lottery tickets, et cetera and can also enter into legally-binding contracts...including a contract binding him or her into military service, where he might lose his life on the battlefield. Ironically, this same government that claims you're "mature enough" to kill and be killed for political purposes also happens to be the same government that says you're not "mature enough" to decide that you want to drink a cold beer after a long hard day of work until another three years!
Now, let's examine the text of the laws amended in 2005 by the state legislature here in Texas. Upon reading it, it almost appears as if these literally HUNDREDS of changes to the law were made specifically criminalize the Fundamentalist Church of Latter-Day Saints.
I'm gonna go out on a limb here, and say that both the 20 year old groom and his 15 year old bride were both consenting parties to this "marriage"...and I'm also going to assume that, if one or both parents were members of the FLDS church, then "parental consent" was given. According to Texas law, "parental consent" requires the signature of only one parent, but I'm assuming it must be the custodial parent in case of divorced or otherwise separated parents...but, again I'm assuming here, if the kid is on the "compound" with one parent, it would be the custodial parent.
So, here we are, faced with two very interesting issues once again.
A) Was the "age of consent" law governing state-sanctioned marriages changed solely upon the religious and cultural beliefs of a group of people who moved to Texas in 2003, or was it because the Great State of Texas had a massive change of heart and all of a sudden decided that 14 was just too young to make up your mind...but 16 was old enough?
B) Does the state have an inherent right to limit how many marriage contracts a person may lawfully consent to enter? I'm asking because the article in question states that a man was sentenced to 20 years imprisonment for "sexual assault of a child" that he had chosen to be his wife. While the "child" in question was a minor aged 15, he would still be prosecuted for the same offense if this "child" was a minor aged 16...provided he had already legally married another minor "child" aged 16. The state says that you can marry one 16 year old girl, if her mom signs the permission slip. The state says that if you marry one, you're a lawfully-wedded man...but if you do it twice, you're a child molester.
So does the state have the authority to make such decisions for us? Does it have an inherent right to declare how many people we may consensually enter into contracts with? Does the state have a right to declare how and under what circumstances a parent may provide parental consent for a minor?
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Straight outta Rikers Island...
Today was a damn fine day for a man named Dwayne Carter, being released from Rikers Island Correctional Complex after being held for eight months. He was convicted of "Attempted Weapons Possession" for a .40S&W-caliber handgun found on his tour bus after it was searched by police in New York City.
The thing that really bugs me about this case, even more so than the fact that he was ever in jail to begin with, is the public backlash against him by the majority of "white conservative" America. If you look at the newspaper articles about his arrest, his conviction, his being sent to solitary confinement for the last month of his confinement for possession of "contraband" (an MP3 player that wasn't one sold by the prison commissary), or his release from prison, it would seem that all you'll find are thinly-veiled racist remarks coming from both white and black when you look in the comments sections of these papers.
Being a white conservative male, I'm not going to focus on what the "other side" is saying, but rather I'll go ahead and condemn what my fellow white male conservatives are saying.
Before I get there, let's look at a few things about the rap musician known as "Lil Wayne", shall we?
1) Dwayne Carter had a lawfully-purchased, loaded handgun on his tour bus.
2) At the time of his arrest in New York City, Dwayne Carter did not have a felony record.
Now, don't get me wrong...the man was known to smoke copious amounts of marijuana, as well as engaging in the use of other recreational drugs such as cocaine and ecstasy (MDMA). He sang very vulgar profanity-laced rap songs. He has tattoos on his face. His pants are usually three sizes too large, and hang half-way off his ass. In short, he's the guy most middle-aged conservative white male suburbanites would lock their doors and roll their windows on, if he were to walk up and ask for directions while they were stopped at a red light.
That kinda makes me wonder about something, though. Suppose it was an aging hillbilly wearing a cowboy hat that was singing songs about getting wasted on cocaine and booze, committing acts of misogyny, and having issues with the police. You know, someone like Johnny Cash!
Can you imagine that? In this day and age? Bill O'Reilly would be screaming to have those cops drawn and quartered for even thinking about pulling over the tour bus! The NRA and GOA would be blowing up our emails, demanding that we all call the mayor of NYC to demand that their draconian gun laws be repealed...and that after immediately having Mr. Cash released from jail with all charges dismissed, they give him the key to the city!
But no, we can't have that, because Lil Wayne promotes the "ghetto lifestyle" of drugs, misogyny, and refusal to submit to common mores of society! Oh yeah, and he's black.
I guess there's not a whole lot that's changed in America during the past hundred years, huh?
The thing that really bugs me about this case, even more so than the fact that he was ever in jail to begin with, is the public backlash against him by the majority of "white conservative" America. If you look at the newspaper articles about his arrest, his conviction, his being sent to solitary confinement for the last month of his confinement for possession of "contraband" (an MP3 player that wasn't one sold by the prison commissary), or his release from prison, it would seem that all you'll find are thinly-veiled racist remarks coming from both white and black when you look in the comments sections of these papers.
Being a white conservative male, I'm not going to focus on what the "other side" is saying, but rather I'll go ahead and condemn what my fellow white male conservatives are saying.
Before I get there, let's look at a few things about the rap musician known as "Lil Wayne", shall we?
1) Dwayne Carter had a lawfully-purchased, loaded handgun on his tour bus.
2) At the time of his arrest in New York City, Dwayne Carter did not have a felony record.
Now, don't get me wrong...the man was known to smoke copious amounts of marijuana, as well as engaging in the use of other recreational drugs such as cocaine and ecstasy (MDMA). He sang very vulgar profanity-laced rap songs. He has tattoos on his face. His pants are usually three sizes too large, and hang half-way off his ass. In short, he's the guy most middle-aged conservative white male suburbanites would lock their doors and roll their windows on, if he were to walk up and ask for directions while they were stopped at a red light.
That kinda makes me wonder about something, though. Suppose it was an aging hillbilly wearing a cowboy hat that was singing songs about getting wasted on cocaine and booze, committing acts of misogyny, and having issues with the police. You know, someone like Johnny Cash!
Can you imagine that? In this day and age? Bill O'Reilly would be screaming to have those cops drawn and quartered for even thinking about pulling over the tour bus! The NRA and GOA would be blowing up our emails, demanding that we all call the mayor of NYC to demand that their draconian gun laws be repealed...and that after immediately having Mr. Cash released from jail with all charges dismissed, they give him the key to the city!
But no, we can't have that, because Lil Wayne promotes the "ghetto lifestyle" of drugs, misogyny, and refusal to submit to common mores of society! Oh yeah, and he's black.
I guess there's not a whole lot that's changed in America during the past hundred years, huh?
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Deo ducente...
"...one nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all."
That statement has become quite controversial in recent times...and, on its face, is completely contradictory.
Recently, an atheist from Texas lost a court case regarding the state adding the words "under God" to our state pledge that his child is expected to recite in school, claiming a First Amendment violation of his freedom of religion.
Today I, using that wonderful networking tool known as facebook, asked my friends and family if they would be offended if the words "in the absence of God" were included in the pledge in place of "under God"...and, if so, WHY.
Many people were very adamant that the words "under God" should be included in the pledge, and would be offended if the substituted phrase were used instead...but most didn't bother to provide any type of reasoning for this. The three who did attempt to justify their position were under the impression that the United States is somehow a "Christian" nation, and our citizens should acknowledge this. Many people stated that since a person is not forced to say the pledge of allegiance, that the phrase "under God" shouldn't be an issue...but, ironically, these were the very same people who stated that they would be offended if the words "in the absence of God" were substituted.
First and foremost, let me get a few facts out of the way...
1) The United States of America is, predominantly, populated by those who claim affiliation with some manner or denomination of Christianity...and I am one of these people.
2) The founding fathers of this nation were, for the most part, believers in God...whether they be Christians, deists, or otherwise.
3) The fundamental principles of freedom of choice and a fairly universal code of morality amongst civilized society is found within the teachings of Christ.
With that being said, the United States is not a "Christian" nation, in the sense that Iran is a "Muslim" nation or Israel is a "Jewish" nation. The US is no more a "Christian nation" than a bacon cheeseburger is a "Christian meal" merely because I ate a bacon cheeseburger after church.
If a person is offended by the notion that his child would have to sit through someone else reciting a pledge of allegiance to this nation that included a reference to the absence of God, even though his child was not required to say it with the rest of the class, it makes me wonder what respect they have for the notion of freedom in this nation if they think that the child of an atheist should be forced to sit and listen to others recite the pledge acknowledging God simply because they don't have to say it with the rest of the class.
The last time I checked, the IRS does not ask you about your religious beliefs or affiliations. It matters not to them if you are atheist, Hindu, Muslim, Catholic, Pentecostal, or Southern Baptist...if you work for a living, they're still going to take your money. The same holds true with the county tax assessor. If you own property, it's getting taxed, and they aren't going to question you about your church membership. They're going to look at what you've got built on your land, and send you a bill. That money is going to end up funding a public school, which will include a recital of the Pledge of Allegiance at some point or another.
In the First Amendment of our United States Constitution, it clearly states that congress isn't allowed to enact any law respecting the establishment of religion. The argument is often made that the First Amendment does not apply, because a child is not forced to recite the pledge of allegiance in school or elsewhere. However, is it not being done while taxpayer-funded teachers and administrators are on the clock? Is it not being done within a taxpayer-funded building? Is it not being done within a school that a child is lawfully required to attend if that child is not home-schooled at his parents' expense (in addition to the property taxes that have already been paid)?
Who passed the laws requiring taxation? What happens to a person if he neglects or refuses to pay taxes?
A more important question to ask is, what gives a Judeo-Christian majority the right to tell others "We're going to publicly state our beliefs at the expense of us all, you included. If you don't like it, you don't have to participate...but we're still going to use your money.", while telling the atheist minority that they don't have the right to have their views publicly expressed in the same manner, being paid for by that same pool of tax money?
You simply cannot claim that it is right to use the phrase "under God", followed by the phrase "with liberty and justice for all", unless you are willing to look past all logic and reasoning. There cannot be "liberty and justice for all", if that liberty and justice does not include the atheists amongst us. Otherwise, it is only "liberty and justice for some", or "liberty and justice for the majority".
We don't live in a democracy, where the mob rules. We live in a constitutional republic with a limited representative democracy and a certain amount of enumerated inherent and natural rights recognized by our constitution. Amongst them is the right to freedom of religion. We have the right to believe as we choose, and to speak as we choose...so long as it does not infringe upon the right of others to do the same.
That is the constitution I swore, before God Almighty, to uphold and defend. That is the constitution that defines the republic for which our flag stands, to which we pledge allegiance...and when we declare this nation to be "under God" in doing so while tax dollars from all citizens are being used, we violate the first constitutionally-guaranteed and God-given right enumerated in our constitution.
This is not only a violation of constitutional law, but also contrary to biblical instruction. We are taught to abide by the laws presented to us by the lawful authorities in the 13th chapter of Romans. As the highest law of the land, there is no higher authority than the US Constitution in this nation, but God Himself. In Galations 5, we are told to "walk by the spirit", and that Christ has set us free for the sake of freedom.
I am a Christian by choice, not by force. A forced faith will always be a false faith, no matter how you choose to spin it. I am reminded of the old saying about catching more flies with honey than with vinegar. If someone is not a believer in Christ, what is more likely to persuade him? Will it be the Christ-like actions of your concern for his well-being, your tolerance, your perseverance of faith in times of trial, and your ability to love him not because of what he's done or said, but rather, in spite of these things? Will it be because "your side" won a court case that FORCES his child to listen to your stated beliefs?
Well, what is it?
That statement has become quite controversial in recent times...and, on its face, is completely contradictory.
Recently, an atheist from Texas lost a court case regarding the state adding the words "under God" to our state pledge that his child is expected to recite in school, claiming a First Amendment violation of his freedom of religion.
Today I, using that wonderful networking tool known as facebook, asked my friends and family if they would be offended if the words "in the absence of God" were included in the pledge in place of "under God"...and, if so, WHY.
Many people were very adamant that the words "under God" should be included in the pledge, and would be offended if the substituted phrase were used instead...but most didn't bother to provide any type of reasoning for this. The three who did attempt to justify their position were under the impression that the United States is somehow a "Christian" nation, and our citizens should acknowledge this. Many people stated that since a person is not forced to say the pledge of allegiance, that the phrase "under God" shouldn't be an issue...but, ironically, these were the very same people who stated that they would be offended if the words "in the absence of God" were substituted.
First and foremost, let me get a few facts out of the way...
1) The United States of America is, predominantly, populated by those who claim affiliation with some manner or denomination of Christianity...and I am one of these people.
2) The founding fathers of this nation were, for the most part, believers in God...whether they be Christians, deists, or otherwise.
3) The fundamental principles of freedom of choice and a fairly universal code of morality amongst civilized society is found within the teachings of Christ.
With that being said, the United States is not a "Christian" nation, in the sense that Iran is a "Muslim" nation or Israel is a "Jewish" nation. The US is no more a "Christian nation" than a bacon cheeseburger is a "Christian meal" merely because I ate a bacon cheeseburger after church.
If a person is offended by the notion that his child would have to sit through someone else reciting a pledge of allegiance to this nation that included a reference to the absence of God, even though his child was not required to say it with the rest of the class, it makes me wonder what respect they have for the notion of freedom in this nation if they think that the child of an atheist should be forced to sit and listen to others recite the pledge acknowledging God simply because they don't have to say it with the rest of the class.
The last time I checked, the IRS does not ask you about your religious beliefs or affiliations. It matters not to them if you are atheist, Hindu, Muslim, Catholic, Pentecostal, or Southern Baptist...if you work for a living, they're still going to take your money. The same holds true with the county tax assessor. If you own property, it's getting taxed, and they aren't going to question you about your church membership. They're going to look at what you've got built on your land, and send you a bill. That money is going to end up funding a public school, which will include a recital of the Pledge of Allegiance at some point or another.
In the First Amendment of our United States Constitution, it clearly states that congress isn't allowed to enact any law respecting the establishment of religion. The argument is often made that the First Amendment does not apply, because a child is not forced to recite the pledge of allegiance in school or elsewhere. However, is it not being done while taxpayer-funded teachers and administrators are on the clock? Is it not being done within a taxpayer-funded building? Is it not being done within a school that a child is lawfully required to attend if that child is not home-schooled at his parents' expense (in addition to the property taxes that have already been paid)?
Who passed the laws requiring taxation? What happens to a person if he neglects or refuses to pay taxes?
A more important question to ask is, what gives a Judeo-Christian majority the right to tell others "We're going to publicly state our beliefs at the expense of us all, you included. If you don't like it, you don't have to participate...but we're still going to use your money.", while telling the atheist minority that they don't have the right to have their views publicly expressed in the same manner, being paid for by that same pool of tax money?
You simply cannot claim that it is right to use the phrase "under God", followed by the phrase "with liberty and justice for all", unless you are willing to look past all logic and reasoning. There cannot be "liberty and justice for all", if that liberty and justice does not include the atheists amongst us. Otherwise, it is only "liberty and justice for some", or "liberty and justice for the majority".
We don't live in a democracy, where the mob rules. We live in a constitutional republic with a limited representative democracy and a certain amount of enumerated inherent and natural rights recognized by our constitution. Amongst them is the right to freedom of religion. We have the right to believe as we choose, and to speak as we choose...so long as it does not infringe upon the right of others to do the same.
That is the constitution I swore, before God Almighty, to uphold and defend. That is the constitution that defines the republic for which our flag stands, to which we pledge allegiance...and when we declare this nation to be "under God" in doing so while tax dollars from all citizens are being used, we violate the first constitutionally-guaranteed and God-given right enumerated in our constitution.
This is not only a violation of constitutional law, but also contrary to biblical instruction. We are taught to abide by the laws presented to us by the lawful authorities in the 13th chapter of Romans. As the highest law of the land, there is no higher authority than the US Constitution in this nation, but God Himself. In Galations 5, we are told to "walk by the spirit", and that Christ has set us free for the sake of freedom.
I am a Christian by choice, not by force. A forced faith will always be a false faith, no matter how you choose to spin it. I am reminded of the old saying about catching more flies with honey than with vinegar. If someone is not a believer in Christ, what is more likely to persuade him? Will it be the Christ-like actions of your concern for his well-being, your tolerance, your perseverance of faith in times of trial, and your ability to love him not because of what he's done or said, but rather, in spite of these things? Will it be because "your side" won a court case that FORCES his child to listen to your stated beliefs?
Well, what is it?
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Where the Pope and the Southern Baptist Convention see eye to eye...
No, I'm not talking about Christ dying for our sins. That should be a given. I'm talking about the ludicrous nonsense of denouncing embryonic stem cell research in the name of "protecting life". This is asinine beyond belief. Seriously. To use my cousin Travis' favorite phrase, such an opinion is "Full-on Retard" in my not-so-humble opinion.
I read an article about the first treatment in a human using embryonic stem cells, which were injected into the spinal cord of an injured patient yesterday...a treatment that is called a destruction of "defenseless human life" by the Catholic church and "the most vulnerable members of the human community" by the Southern Baptist Convention.
Why is this point of view so Full-on Retard? Because it simply isn't based in any sense of reality whatsoever. Okay, it's obvious that I'm not anti-abortion like many Christians are, simply because I have a different view on what a human "person" is. That notwithstanding, let's examine the two situations here.
An abortion, in the typical sense of the word, is a terminated pregnancy that typically happens when the fetus is younger than three months' gestation. An embryonic stem cell, on the other hand, is harvested from an embryo...not a fetus.
An abortion is performed while the fetus is in the mother's womb, to terminate a pregnancy. An embryo used for research is extracted from a test tube, typically the left-overs from a fertility clinic.
An abortion kills a fetus that has potential to become a living person. Using an embryo for research will kill an embryo that has potential to either help save a human life, or wind up in a dumpster.
So far, we've discovered that in doing research on human embryos, we aren't destroying anything that wouldn't be destroyed anyway. Fertility clinics create multiple lab-produced embryos for couples that can't have children without the help of modern technology, and there are often many left-overs. Believe it or not, but not every mother-to-be visiting a fertility clinic wants to be "OctoMom"!
Now, let's move on to the next point of contention. Many overly-religious types seem to think that because stem cells are present throughout the entire life-span of a human body, that it isn't necessary to harvest them from embryos. Well, that might be true, if it weren't for one simple little fact. As the human body gets older (from the point of conception onward), stem cells become less and less able to differentiate. A "stem cell" is called such, because it has the ability to differentiate (or become another) type of cell. An embryonic stem cell is able to become any other type of cell found within the human body, for obvious reasons. It's an embryo, duh! As the body becomes older, stem cells become more specialized...and therefore, less likely to differentiate to other types of cells. This is even true with cord blood from a newborn baby.
Since the beginning of stem cell research, there have been several scientific developments involving stem cells other than the embryonic variety, as well as the "induced pluripotent stem cell" created by altering adult stem cells. One researcher has even found a way to extract amniotic fluid containing stem cells he says can be made to differentiate into various types of cells.
However, here's the deal:
There are almost half a million frozen embryos in the United States alone, and the vast majority of them have "expired"...meaning they can't be thawed out to produce a living person. They are bound for the dumpster, regardless of whether mankind finds a way to use them to cure a disease. Nervous system cells are much more difficult to produce using any method EXCEPT an embryonic stem cell. The greatest foci of stem cell research are neurological disorders and spinal cord injuries, and have been since its inception.
So, while the Southern Baptist Convention and the Vatican are "saving the babies" that will eventually be treated as medical waste and incinerated as such, many people are dealing with debilitating, crippling, and often life-threatening injuries and illnesses.
Marty McFly had to quit his job as a working actor, because his Parkinson's got so bad that he was unable to work in front of a camera. Superman died in a wheelchair at the age of 52, due to complications from a broken neck that occurred after falling off a horse. Meanwhile, several people very near and dear to me are suffering through a lifetime of MS...including a friend of mine from college, and my own aunt. Embryonic stem cell research offers what is currently the best hope to cure those suffering from such injuries and illnesses.
God gave us the gift of life...and He also gave us the mind necessary to perform the healing art known as modern medicine, in all its myriad forms. So if you're one of those people who think it's okay for my loved ones to suffer through a disease that threatens to snuff out their lives at a young age while putting them through untold agony while they still live, in order to "preserve the sanctity of life" in an embryo that will be thrown away like yesterday's newspaper because it will not and cannot be used for its originally-intended purpose, I really don't have the words to express what I think of you...
I read an article about the first treatment in a human using embryonic stem cells, which were injected into the spinal cord of an injured patient yesterday...a treatment that is called a destruction of "defenseless human life" by the Catholic church and "the most vulnerable members of the human community" by the Southern Baptist Convention.
Why is this point of view so Full-on Retard? Because it simply isn't based in any sense of reality whatsoever. Okay, it's obvious that I'm not anti-abortion like many Christians are, simply because I have a different view on what a human "person" is. That notwithstanding, let's examine the two situations here.
An abortion, in the typical sense of the word, is a terminated pregnancy that typically happens when the fetus is younger than three months' gestation. An embryonic stem cell, on the other hand, is harvested from an embryo...not a fetus.
An abortion is performed while the fetus is in the mother's womb, to terminate a pregnancy. An embryo used for research is extracted from a test tube, typically the left-overs from a fertility clinic.
An abortion kills a fetus that has potential to become a living person. Using an embryo for research will kill an embryo that has potential to either help save a human life, or wind up in a dumpster.
So far, we've discovered that in doing research on human embryos, we aren't destroying anything that wouldn't be destroyed anyway. Fertility clinics create multiple lab-produced embryos for couples that can't have children without the help of modern technology, and there are often many left-overs. Believe it or not, but not every mother-to-be visiting a fertility clinic wants to be "OctoMom"!
Now, let's move on to the next point of contention. Many overly-religious types seem to think that because stem cells are present throughout the entire life-span of a human body, that it isn't necessary to harvest them from embryos. Well, that might be true, if it weren't for one simple little fact. As the human body gets older (from the point of conception onward), stem cells become less and less able to differentiate. A "stem cell" is called such, because it has the ability to differentiate (or become another) type of cell. An embryonic stem cell is able to become any other type of cell found within the human body, for obvious reasons. It's an embryo, duh! As the body becomes older, stem cells become more specialized...and therefore, less likely to differentiate to other types of cells. This is even true with cord blood from a newborn baby.
Since the beginning of stem cell research, there have been several scientific developments involving stem cells other than the embryonic variety, as well as the "induced pluripotent stem cell" created by altering adult stem cells. One researcher has even found a way to extract amniotic fluid containing stem cells he says can be made to differentiate into various types of cells.
However, here's the deal:
There are almost half a million frozen embryos in the United States alone, and the vast majority of them have "expired"...meaning they can't be thawed out to produce a living person. They are bound for the dumpster, regardless of whether mankind finds a way to use them to cure a disease. Nervous system cells are much more difficult to produce using any method EXCEPT an embryonic stem cell. The greatest foci of stem cell research are neurological disorders and spinal cord injuries, and have been since its inception.
So, while the Southern Baptist Convention and the Vatican are "saving the babies" that will eventually be treated as medical waste and incinerated as such, many people are dealing with debilitating, crippling, and often life-threatening injuries and illnesses.
Marty McFly had to quit his job as a working actor, because his Parkinson's got so bad that he was unable to work in front of a camera. Superman died in a wheelchair at the age of 52, due to complications from a broken neck that occurred after falling off a horse. Meanwhile, several people very near and dear to me are suffering through a lifetime of MS...including a friend of mine from college, and my own aunt. Embryonic stem cell research offers what is currently the best hope to cure those suffering from such injuries and illnesses.
God gave us the gift of life...and He also gave us the mind necessary to perform the healing art known as modern medicine, in all its myriad forms. So if you're one of those people who think it's okay for my loved ones to suffer through a disease that threatens to snuff out their lives at a young age while putting them through untold agony while they still live, in order to "preserve the sanctity of life" in an embryo that will be thrown away like yesterday's newspaper because it will not and cannot be used for its originally-intended purpose, I really don't have the words to express what I think of you...
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Seventeen reasons to NEVER vote for Sarah Palin...
1) Has long-since advocated "abstinence-only education", instead of teaching proper means of birth control and STD prevention. For a glaring example of how this worked out within her own family, her 17 year old unwed daughter Bristol announced that she was pregnant on the opening day of the Republican National Convention.
2) Claims that the constitution guarantees an "inherent right to privacy"...but seems to think that, in light of this guarantee, the constituencies of the various states should see "their will" enforced upon others.
3) She, as the mayor of Wasilla, charged rape victims for the necessary evidence-gathering equipment...even though it's the only crime in which a victim has ever been charged to cover the cost of equipment used by police to investigate a crime.
4) She praised Bush's $700B+ bailout...but opposed Obama's $700B+ bailout.
5) Her second-highest priority as governor was to ensure that the state decided who was allowed to get married.
6) Her third-highest priority as governor was to halt infringements upon our liberties...except the right of peaceable assembly, and the right to smoke pot like she did.
7) She signed a bill allowing the state of Alaska to collect and store a sample of someone's DNA if they had been merely arrested (read: NOT CONVICTED) for a felony or a crime against another person.
8) She opposes the right to wager ones' own personal money in a game of chance.
9) She smoked marijuana when it was legal under state law (but still illegal under federal law), but opposes legislation repealing its' prohibition because of the message it might send to "the kids".
10) She thinks "Intelligent Design Theory", a pseudo-scientific idea with no actual scientific factual basis, should be taught in public-school science classes. Even as a Christian, I don't support teaching non-science in a science classroom...but this mother of four does!
11) Thinks the words "under God" in our Pledge of Allegiance were "good enough for our founding fathers"...even though the pledge wasn't written until well after our "founding fathers" were long-since dead, and the words "under God" weren't added until two years after the birth of my own father.
12) She calls "Cap and Trade" a "Cap and Tax" scheme...but also supports "Cap and Trade".
13) She repeatedly lied about where her campaign money came from, claiming "most of it" came from grass-roots donations instead of the corporate donations it really came from.
14) Made several trips to Washington to press for the "Bridge to Nowhere", but then later opposed it when it became a national scandal.
15) She claims that the US Armed Forces, as currently being used, are providing us with "freedom"...even though there isn't a single instance in her entire lifetime where the US military was ever used to actually defend our freedom.
16) Being a "hockey mom", she supported building a sports complex that left the city of Wassila more than $22 Million in debt.
17) She supports invading a nation that had nothing to do with any act of violence against this country, in a war that resulted in thousands of American troops and over a hundred thousand Iraqi civilians confirmed killed, to "spread democracy". Meanwhile, as a result of this "democracy-spreading", the majority of Iraq has no running water or electricity.
2) Claims that the constitution guarantees an "inherent right to privacy"...but seems to think that, in light of this guarantee, the constituencies of the various states should see "their will" enforced upon others.
3) She, as the mayor of Wasilla, charged rape victims for the necessary evidence-gathering equipment...even though it's the only crime in which a victim has ever been charged to cover the cost of equipment used by police to investigate a crime.
4) She praised Bush's $700B+ bailout...but opposed Obama's $700B+ bailout.
5) Her second-highest priority as governor was to ensure that the state decided who was allowed to get married.
6) Her third-highest priority as governor was to halt infringements upon our liberties...except the right of peaceable assembly, and the right to smoke pot like she did.
7) She signed a bill allowing the state of Alaska to collect and store a sample of someone's DNA if they had been merely arrested (read: NOT CONVICTED) for a felony or a crime against another person.
8) She opposes the right to wager ones' own personal money in a game of chance.
9) She smoked marijuana when it was legal under state law (but still illegal under federal law), but opposes legislation repealing its' prohibition because of the message it might send to "the kids".
10) She thinks "Intelligent Design Theory", a pseudo-scientific idea with no actual scientific factual basis, should be taught in public-school science classes. Even as a Christian, I don't support teaching non-science in a science classroom...but this mother of four does!
11) Thinks the words "under God" in our Pledge of Allegiance were "good enough for our founding fathers"...even though the pledge wasn't written until well after our "founding fathers" were long-since dead, and the words "under God" weren't added until two years after the birth of my own father.
12) She calls "Cap and Trade" a "Cap and Tax" scheme...but also supports "Cap and Trade".
13) She repeatedly lied about where her campaign money came from, claiming "most of it" came from grass-roots donations instead of the corporate donations it really came from.
14) Made several trips to Washington to press for the "Bridge to Nowhere", but then later opposed it when it became a national scandal.
15) She claims that the US Armed Forces, as currently being used, are providing us with "freedom"...even though there isn't a single instance in her entire lifetime where the US military was ever used to actually defend our freedom.
16) Being a "hockey mom", she supported building a sports complex that left the city of Wassila more than $22 Million in debt.
17) She supports invading a nation that had nothing to do with any act of violence against this country, in a war that resulted in thousands of American troops and over a hundred thousand Iraqi civilians confirmed killed, to "spread democracy". Meanwhile, as a result of this "democracy-spreading", the majority of Iraq has no running water or electricity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
