I'm an equal opportunity opponent of despots!

I heard a few days ago that Lt. Governor, Casey Cagle, threatened to use his position as president of the state Senate to kill a proposed sales tax exemption on jet fuel. The move was aimed at Delta Air Lines after their recent announcement they would no longer offer discounts to NRA members. Then, this morning, I hear that lawmakers officially struck down the exemption yesterday. From Reuters.com, we read the following:

Delta said it was ending a discount program for NRA members and had asked the gun rights group to remove its information from the group’s website after the Feb. 14 slaying of 17 students.... Georgia Republicans had criticized the airline’s move to cut its ties to the NRA. They were led by Lieutenant Governor Casey Cagle, president of the state senate, who vowed to kill any tax legislation that benefited Delta. The bill that passed the Georgia House of Representatives and Senate on Thursday had previously included tax exemption language that had been projected to save Delta some $40 million a year in jet fuel tax.

Really, people?  OK, I know this isn't rocket science but come on!  The first amendment is supposed to protect us against government retribution when we speak out on certain issues. If the NRA speaks out against gun control, people have the right to protest them. If a company like Delta Air Lines decides not to offer discounts to members of the NRA, that's their right. I don't have to like it. I don't have to fly on Delta. I can go on social media and tell everyone who will listen that they should boycott Delta because of their actions toward the NRA. That is what freedom looks like. When government officials use the power of their office to punish a company exercising its God given rights of speech and association, that is what tyranny looks like.

A straightforward reading of the First Amendment shows that it specifically forbids the government from infringing on our right to free speech or association. In other words, the First Amendment doesn't restrict what Delta can do or what the NRA or what I can do; it restricts what the government can do. I will also remind you that we're talking about gun control – a heated political issue. So GA Republicans are specifically punishing Delta Airlines because of its political speech! How much more blatant of a violation does this have to be before more conservatives speak out against it?!

It was just a few years ago when I spoke out against my own state of KY for trying to take away a sales tax exemption from the Ark Encounter. How is this any different? It was Democrats then but I'm an equal opportunity opponent of despots. As they say, "What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander."  I do not overlook tyranny just because the tyrants have a little “R” after their names.

People have the right to be stupid and Delta has the right to offend millions of NRA members. They will have to live with their decision when the offended members stop flying on Delta or start calling for boycotts. But when they suffer political reprisal because of their position, they will have an ally in me. I do not want the government choosing sides in political debates, even if they happen to be on my side this time.

Further reading:

More Liberal Bigotry

No Christian Owned Businesses Allowed In Boston!

Liberals don't understand rights

Too Quick to Forgive

There really are thought police!

Americans just celebrated the anniversary of our independence from England. It's sad that so many Americans think of Independence Day only as an opportunity to watch fireworks while they are completely ignorant of what they're celebrating, when we declared our independence, who we declared independence from, and why. Here's a funny (but still sad) video showing random people who can't answer even the most basic questions about the history of our independence.

Some kids who paid attention in school might believe we fought the Revolution because of a tax on tea. That's actually a very misleading characterization of the attitude of the colonists. It's a complicated subject but the reasons more accurately involved things like an oppressive government that did not give colonists any voice in the laws that affected them and a strong military presence of British soldiers in the colonies. The colonists believed that governments should protect the rights of its people – not subjugate them; they believed that armies were for fighting enemies – not keeping citizens in line. Because of his repeated abuses against the colonists' rights, King George III was called a tyrant.

Now, fast forward to the present. Just a couple of weeks ago, a third grade, NJ student used the word “brownies” during an end-of-the-year party at school. His mother says he was talking about the baked dessert but another student in the class considered the term to be a racial slur. Instead of educating the offended student about the word, the school decided to call the police who interviewed the 9-year-old about what he said. Read the following quote from the article from the Huffington Post:

The school then called the Collingswood Police Department to settle the matter, according to Philly.com. The exact comment the boy allegedly made has not been made public, but his mom, Stacy dos Santos, said she believes the school officials overreacted.

“He said they were talking about brownies... Who exactly did he offend?” dos Santos told Philly.com. “There was a police officer with a gun in the holster talking to my son, saying, ‘Tell me what you said.’ He didn’t have anybody on his side.”

The boy stayed home the last day of school and police said they have since referred the incident to the New Jersey Division of Child Protection and Permanency.

My first reaction was probably the same as most people's, namely that political correctness has gone too far. However, this is more than a simple case of overreaction. It highlights exactly how vulnerable our rights truly are. It's not just that the officials felt the need to call the police but it's also that the police bothered to respond at all!

As seen in this quote, the exact context surrounding the word, “brownies” is not known. Let's assume, for a moment, that the student was indeed making a racial slur. Please tell me when it became a crime to be racist? Do we not have the freedom of speech? Do we not have the freedom of association? Unless the child actually threatened violence the police should have told the school officials to call the child's parents and stop bothering them. Instead, the police responded and wanted to know exactly what the child said. Why? If the child had said he was calling a dark-skinned student, “brownie,” what then? Would the police officer have arrested him? If not, then what is the point of the police even being there? The mere fact that a police officer was there shows that our first amendment rights are being threatened.

To live in a free society means that people will sometimes say things other people don't like. I'm sorry but there is no right to “not be offended.” I don't agree with bigots but I will still defend their right to be bigots. They can spew their hatred and I can highlight their ignorance. I'm happy to compete in the arena of ideas but I don't want the government deciding whose ideas are acceptable and whose are criminal.

What would happen to me if someone decides my blog is filled with hate speech? Might I someday expect a knock on my door by an armed police officer demanding, “Tell me what you said”? Does the government fear someone being called a name? It seems to me they don't care that the actions here are earning them the name, tyrant! “King George, meet the NJ police and public school officials.”

Liberals don't understand rights

From the Huffington Post, we read this new tactic of one, radical liberal who wants to foist gun control on us:

The Second Amendment is highly contested. There is no doubt that people do have the right to carry and have a stockpile of guns (“the right of the people to keep and bear arms”) and a state has the right to organize a well-regulated Militia. But, the main issue is on the right to self-defend with a firearm.

The main problem with the notion of self-defense is it imposes on justice, for everyone has the right for a fair trial. Therefore, using a firearm to defend oneself is not legal because if the attacker is killed, he or she is devoid of his or her rights.

OK, so it's not that new – I've heard variations of this argument before. I just think it's hilarious. I really don't think such an assault on common sense could ever gain much popularity among the population at large and certainly couldn't become law. Still, liberals have surprised me before so I never take their crazy ideas too lightly.

Do I really even need to explain what's wrong with the idea of making self-defense illegal? Such a bizarre concept can't even stand up to its own logic: The constitution also says I have the right to life, liberty, and property. Therefore, an attacker who intends me harm or an intruder who intends to steal from me has already infringed upon my rights. So the liberal's solution is that I should let this person victimize me so he can face a fair trial later? This is why I say liberals are brain damaged.

I believe the flaws in this argument are self-evident so I won't waste any more time pointing them out. Instead, I want to use this as an opportunity, once again, to educate liberals in the concept of rights.

Our founding fathers believed our rights are endowed by our Creator. It's not the government or the constitution that grants us our rights. They are literally, God-given. We establish governments to do things like keep the peace, build roads, and defend our borders. We give them the power to make laws and we agree to live by those laws. We also understand the government needs money to do the things we expect it to do so we also agree we'll pay taxes.

When we grant the government so much power, we risk creating a tyranny. To help prevent this, the founding fathers placed specific restrictions on the government saying there are certain things we will never allow it to do: it cannot infringe on our right to practice our religion, for example, or to speak, or to assemble, or to own guns. The government can't search our homes without a cause and, if we're ever accused of a crime, we must have a speedy trial and be judged by our peers – not by some bureaucrat. The thing to remember about our Bill of Rights is that the restrictions are meant to limit what the government can do and protect us!

Private citizens aren't restricted by the Bill of Rights. One right I have is the freedom of speech. This specifically means I am able to share my thoughts about politics or religion or whatever strikes my fancy and the government cannot censor what I have to say. Believe me when I say I have a lot of opinions and I exercise my freedom to speak every time I blog. If you have a different opinion than mine, go start your own blog but don't expect me to open my blog to you so that you have a forum. If I want to censor the comments people leave on my blog, I will. If I should censor someone's comments, I'm not “violating” his free speech. He's free to speak somewhere else. I'm not obligated to provide someone else a forum to speak but neither can I stop him.

Liberals have a misunderstanding about rights. They believe the constitution gives us our rights and that it's the job of the government to guarantee that we get to exercise our rights. For example, liberals believe there is a “right” to health care. Therefore, they want the government to either provide medical insurance (like medicare or Medicaid) or force private employers to provide insurance. In other words, if someone doesn't have medical insurance, liberals think everyone else is obligated to provide that person with insurance so that his right to health care is not infringed. This attitude about rights is exactly backwards. It grants more power to the government and places more burdens on citizens.

The liberals' abuse of rights can be seen in many forms. I've already talked about the “right” to healthcare. There's also some imagined right to birth control so Obamacare requires insurance companies to provide contraception for free. There's a right to have an abortion so federal funds are made available to groups like Planned Parenthood. From time to time, liberals bring up the fairness doctrine that would require radio stations that air conservative radio hosts, like Rush Limbaugh, to provide equal time to people with a liberal point of view. They believe this “protects” the freedom of speech by ensuring the speech is “balanced.” That's funny, I don't remember the word “fair” being part of the first amendment – only “free.”

So now liberals want innocent, law-abiding citizens to become victims so that rapists, murderers, and burglars can be guaranteed their right to have a trial. I'm sorry, but that's not my job. The criminals are the ones who are putting their lives and liberty at risk when they choose to commit crimes. If someone tries to harm someone in my family, I will let God judge him; I'll also do what I can to arrange the meeting.

Can Darwinian evolution produce a healthy society?

Evolution is amoral. If nature is all there is, then there is really no such things as good or evil. One man killing another is really no different than a lion hunting a zebra or an apple falling from a tree. They are all just descriptions of things that happen without an interest if they're right or wrong. Of course, we recoil at comparing murder to an apple falling from a tree. We know, almost instinctively, that murder is “wrong.”

It's this built-in sense of knowing some things are always wrong which suggests that maybe nature really isn't all there is. Maybe there's an absolute standard of what is right – a transcendent truth that trumps any individual's opinion. Where might this universal standard be? Some might suggest that our sense of morality comes from community. It's a collective agreement on what works best for society as a whole. Everyone is better off if people don't kill, steal, and cheat.

When we start looking to societal norms as “right,” we still cannot find solid grounds to identify any particular behavior as wrong. Most people consider slavery to be wrong. However, slavery was allowed in the US for 400 years – from the time of the early settlers to the time it was a flourishing, world power. How can we objectively say that we're right now and they were wrong then? When the Nazis were being tried after WWII, most of them claimed that their war “crimes” were legal in their society. Again, who are we to say that another people in another place are wrong and we're right? The bottom line is that if there is no immutable law that transcends human opinion, then might makes right. There are no, inalienable, God-given rights. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are only privileges the state lets us have.

I was on YouTube the other day and I was watching a debate between an evolutionist (David Silverman) and a creationist (John Rankin). Most debates of this kind focus on the evidence for or against the respective theories. However, this particular debate discussed the question, “Can Darwinian evolution produce a healthy society?” As usual, Silverman, the evolutionist argued that our moral values are basically evolved instincts to do what is best for the community. Blah, blah, blah. I've blogged about these types of comments before.

To his credit, though, Silverman was a little more candid about the idea that there is no ultimate right or wrong according to evolution. His opinion was basically, “whatever works is right.” But the most intriguing thing he said was that it is the very idea of “absolute truth” that is harmful to society! According to him, it's the religious zealots, the ones who think they know God's truth, who will strap bombs to themselves or fly planes into buildings. His is a clever tactic. Well, maybe not clever but certainly novel. He says on one hand that whatever provides the most benefit to the most people is “good” but believing there is a such thing as objective good is “bad.” Incredible!

I see a couple of flaws in his approach. Obviously, it contradicts itself. After all, how can he seriously say in one breath that there is ultimately no objective right or wrong, then in the next breath say that believing in an objective moral standard is “wrong”?

But the thing that really struck me is a point that seems to have completely escaped Silverman. His claim is that our sense of morality is an evolved trait that instinctively drives us to act in a way that's best for society overall. He further claims that religious dogmatism works against the best interest of society. What Silverman completely overlooks is that, if evolution were true, then our seeming irresistible urge to believe in a divine being is also an evolved trait. The overwhelming majority of people in the world today – indeed, the majority of people who have ever lived – all believe in some deity. So then, if evolution is true, there must be some sort of survival benefit to believing in God (or at least a god or gods)!

Once again we see the case of a flawed world view unable to measure up to its own standards. If our sense of right and wrong is an evolved trait, then our belief in God, another evolved trait, is instinctively right. Since the majority of people believe, then belief seems to be the preferred trait. Therefore, unbelief – aka, atheism – is morally “wrong.”

What we have is a paradox; if Silverman is right, then he's wrong.

Too Quick to Forgive

The Bible commands us to forgive. Sometimes, though, someone may have committed such a great wrong against us that we have trouble forgiving him. In those cases, we feel justified in holding a grudge. Nevertheless, the Bible is clear – if the sinner repents, we are to forgive him.

Be on your guard! If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. And if he sins against you seven times a day, and returns to you seven times, saying, ‘I repent,’ forgive him.”

Luke 17:3-4

The words of Jesus are clear: we rebuke the sinner but then we forgive him if he repents! Christians, in general, tend to be very forgiving. In the case of our personal dealings with other people, it's probably always the best thing to do. Don't hate. Don't hold a grudge. Just forgive. However, from a political perspective, I believe we're a little too quick to forgive.

I was reading and article online about the Fire Chief in Atlanta who was just fired for having written a book (completely on his own time) that discussed his Christian perspective on sexual morality. Considering that this is a municipality, a governing body, punishing a person for expressing his religious beliefs, I don't see how this is not a violation of the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment. The mayor of Atlanta said, “I will not tolerate discrimination of any kind within my administration.” Now that's funny. I guess he means, “discrimination of any kind against gays.” He seems to have no problem with personally discriminating against Christians.

Now, I hold government bodies to a different standard than I do private employers. I believe the state cannot be allowed to discriminate at all. We could not, for example, have a fire department that refuses to enter a black neighborhood or a police department that refuses to arrest white people accused of crimes against blacks. On the other hand, I believe private individuals and employers should have the right to discriminate. If this fire chief worked in another capacity for a private employer, I wouldn't be arguing that his rights were violated. However, I would still hold it against that employer.

The fire chief article included a link to the Duck Dynasty fiasco that happened about a year ago. I don't watch the show, but I understand one man on the show expressed his religious beliefs about gay marriage and A&E, the channel which carries the show, tried to drop him from the show. Cracker Barrel, a restaurant chain that offers southern style cuisine, also said it would no longer sell Duck Dynasty merchandise. Well, the backlash they received from the public was so severe, both reversed their decisions within 48 hours.

Since both A&E and Cracker Barrel are private businesses, I believe they were acting in their rights. They shouldn't face government fines for their decisions but these employers need to be held accountable by the public. Frankly, I'm getting sick and tired of businesses discriminating against Christians for the sake of tolerance toward gays.

When A&E and Cracker Barrel made these decisions, the public let them know they didn't like it. But even though they reversed themselves, I wonder how repentant they were. A NY Daily News article quotes A&E as follows:

“We at A&E Networks expressed our disappointment with his statements in the article, and reiterate that they are not views we hold,” the network’s statement continued. “But ‘Duck Dynasty’ is not a show about one man’s views.”

Hmm. That doesn't sound very repentant. To me it sounds like they're saying, “We still hate Robertson's views but we're going to keep him on the air because we don't want to lose all the viewers who agree with him.” I would have liked to hear something more like, “We were wrong and acted rashly. Robertson expressed his deeply held religious beliefs and we should have respected his right to do so. We believe in tolerance and that should include tolerating even those views different than ours.”

Cracker Barrel was slightly more contrite. Another NY Daily news article says:

You flat out told us we were wrong. We listened. Today, we are putting all our Duck Dynasty products back in our stores. And, we apologize for offending you.... We respect all individuals' right to express their beliefs.... We certainly did not mean to have anyone think different. [They should apologize for their poor grammar. They should have used “differently.”]

Do see what I mean by only, “slightly more contrite”? You told us we were wrong. We apologize for offending you. We didn't mean to have you think we don't respect everyone's beliefs. Where's the part where they said, “We were wrong”?  We're constantly being abused by intolerant businesses and government officials and we accept their non-committal apologies. 

1 John 1:9 says, “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins.” What kind of “confession” is it if I said, “Forgive me, God, if I've done anything wrong”? In such a weak prayer you're not even admitting to any sin, let alone confessing one.  If these companies would admit to being wrong, I would forgive them. But since they don't, I won't. They need to be held accountable for their sins. We need to make them see that we won't forgive them until they repent. If we hold their feet to fire every time they make a bad decision, they might become a little more circumspect. Maybe they'd reconsider their corporate philosophies. Maybe they'll stop making such bad decisions in the first place.

I Demand A Plan From Hollywood!

I'm not exactly sure why the majority of celebrities are liberal but I have a few theories.

First, liberalism goes hand in hand with elitism. Since celebrities receive adoration from the masses, they tend to think they're important people which is only a small step away from thinking they're better than everyone else. They quickly develop the belief that everything they say is wise and often use their celebrity status as a platform to tell everyone else what is best.

Second, I believe people derive satisfaction from hard work. Since celebrities don't really work hard, they often engage in charitable causes in order to feel they're doing something worthwhile. However, instead of serving (like most people do when they help with a charity) celebrities feel they need to tell other people what to do. As I said above, their attitude of self importance makes celebrities think they know what's best for everybody and their idea of benevolence is to force everyone else to "be good."

The problem is that liberalism is hopelessly intertwined with hypocrisy. To be a liberal is to be a hypocrite and celebrities are no exception.

Liberals think that guns cause gun violence and they believe that if we can just restrict more people from having guns, it will reduce the violence. They don't seem to take into consideration the “disregard for life” mentality held by the people who commit crimes with guns. What inspires a person to pick up a gun and kill someone? Such an idea is anathema to Christians who believe that we are created in God's image and murder is literally a crime against God. On the other hand, the Bible says that people who hate God love death (Proverbs 8:36). Perhaps the root of the problem isn't guns but is a violent culture that rejects God and glorifies killing in movies and video games.

In the wake of the Sandy Hook (and other mass shootings), several liberal celebrities have lent their celebrity status to promote a video called, “Demand a Plan” where they call on their fans (i.e. “the masses”) to demand that legislators pass more gun laws. By appearing in the video, I suppose the celebrities hope their fame will move people to action. I guess it's not unreasonable to think a celebrity can induce people to act since businesses pay celebrities millions of dollars to advertise their products. But if these celebrities think their appearance in a video can influence people to lobby against guns, why don't they also see that, by starring in movies where they use guns, their fame and influence might be promoting the same violent culture they're trying to combat?!

Here's a hilarious video where images of celebrities shooting and killing people are added in between the same celebrities' calls for more laws restricting guns. I don't need to explain why the video is so powerful. The hypocrisy of the liberals who profit from gun violence - and even use guns themselves - while they claim to want to end gun violence is plain to see.

Now, don't get me wrong. I am not asking for laws that restrict the use of guns in movies. There is the First Amendment, of course, and I recognize that people have the right to make offensive movies. I'm for liberty and wouldn't have it any other way. Celebrities, too, usually cloak themselves in the First Amendment to hide the shame and guilt of the trash movies they star in. I wish that they would champion the Second Amendment like they do the First.

What I am calling on is a little self control from Hollywood. Why don't they lead the charge and start making films that edify instead of dehumanize? I'm not even saying all movies have to be G-rated; just cut out some of the wanton, gratuitous stuff.  Instead of using their fame to call for gun control, these celebrities should tell movie producers they're not going to star in films as murderers who shoot people with guns.

I demand a plan from Hollywood!

Looking Back on 2012

Many news sources at this time of year publish “Top 10” lists looking back on notable events of the past year. Many of these lists are lighthearted or, at the very least, try to reflect on some of the more positive events of the expiring year. I'm not saying that nothing good has happened in 2012 but as I look back, this year seems to have brought many challenges to the Church. I hate to throw a wet blanket on everyone's New Year celebrations, but here are a few things Christians need to think about and pray for in 2013.

Gay Marriage

Chick-fil-A CEO, Dan Cathy, suffered much political persecution after his personal endorsement of traditional marriages. In a less publicized story, Matt Grubbs, owner of Maryland based, Discover Annapolis Tours, has decided to close shop rather than facing a pointless legal battle with Maryland's Commission on Civil Rights because Discover Annapolis Tours does not offer its services to same sex couples. These are not isolated cases. More and more Christian business owners are discovering that their right to exercise their faith is subservient to an unenumerated right to be gay.

The tide is turning in America concerning gay marriage. In November, Maine and Maryland became the first states to approve gay marriage by popular vote, breaking a 32-state streak where gay marriage has already been defeated at the ballot box. In some states where gay marriage was defeated in referendum, it has still been foisted upon the people by activist courts or liberal legislatures. Nine states now allow same sex marriage.

Obamacare

Christian owned businesses have also found their right to practice their religion is being infringed upon by The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (commonly called “Obamacare”). In an editorial last January, Catholic Bishop, David Zubik, detailed how the new health care law violates Catholic doctrine by forcing Catholic owned organization to pay for birth control and abortion-inducing drugs as part of its healthcare benefit their employees.

The new law doesn't just effect Catholics. Any Christian who owns a business will be forced to offer these services to their employees regardless of his or her religious conviction.

The Obama administration has set forth guidelines in a weak attempt to defend the religious liberties of Christian businesses but they are so narrow they basically do not exempt anyone except churches.

By the way, since when does the government get to decide which organizations are religious enough to practice their faith?

The DNC Booed God

More and more often, we see God being pushed out of public discourse. Prayer has long since been removed from schools along with the 10 Commandments. High school commencement speeches are scrubbed and censored to insure no student makes any mention of God. In general, any mention of God in the public arena risks swift reprisal from the ACLU or the Americans for the Separation of Church and State.

The recent election shed light on the current administration's attitude toward people of faith. The Democrat platform conspicuously omitted any mention of God and Jerusalem as the capital of Israel (both of which had been included in the platform in previous elections). Having long been seen as the anti-God party already, the Democrats soon realized that omission was a little too blatant and moved to amend the platform and add the words. A voice vote was taken and the motion did not seem to have the required number of “aye” votes to be adopted. In an awkward moment of indecisiveness, former Governor, Ted Strickland, deemed the motion had passed which prompted a round of boos from the delegates.

On September 5, 2012, Democrats booed God!

Mass Shootings

2012 was spotted with tragic murders in Colorado and Connecticut. The senseless events serve to remind us that evil is real. John 16:33 tells us that in this fallen world there will be tribulation but we can have peace in Jesus.

These sad events have been made even more unfortunate as political opportunists have shamelessly used them as leverage to infringe upon our God given right to own guns. The war on God includes attacks on our liberties.

IN CONCLUSION...

There were many things that happened in 2012 that I could discuss now but I don't mean this to be an exhaustive list. Neither am I saying that these are the “top” events of that past 12 months. I've merely given these few examples to put the past year into perspective.

The New Year is usually a time for celebration and optimism. People see it as a turning of the page – an opportunity to start over on the right foot. I'm not trying to take away from any of that. Instead, I want people to think about some goals we could have for 2013 that might be a little more important than losing weight or going to the gym.

The Second Amendment: It's Not About the Right to Hunt

In the wake of the Connecticut tragedy, as was in the case of other mass shootings, there is a lot of talk about gun control. It's unfortunate that people will exploit such an event for political purposes but they do. In 2009, there were 12,632 homicides by firearms (about 34 per day). Of course, many of those deaths are related to drug and gang violence but in the CT shooting, the victims were innocent children. So even though there are shooting deaths every day, it's easier to use the events in CT to stir up outrage against the seemingly increasing violent consequences of gun ownership. But such a blatant appeal to emotion is not the point of my post today.

In an apparent attempt to show sympathy and respect for the victims of the shooting, some sporting goods stores, like Dick's Sporting Goods, has suspended the sale of all semi-automatic rifles. Since they are a privately owned business, they have the right to decide what they want to sell and not sell. This is not the government pulling guns off their shelves; it's their own decision so I'm OK with it. I do, however, question the wisdom of it. By suspending the sale of certain rifles, they may send the message that there is something wrong with those rifles. However, neither is this the point of my post.

Those who oppose the private ownership of guns use several approaches to restrict their use. Some would like to see an outright ban on any gun but such a radical move cannot be accomplished in one stroke. Therefore, they seek to disarm us incrementally. For example, they want to ban certain “military style,” “assault” rifles. The Bushmaster, used in the CT shooting, fires a .22 caliber round. I'm not aware of any military in the world that issues a .22 caliber rifle so it could hardly be called a military rifle. It only looks like a military rifle and liberals hope the undiscerning masses don't understand the difference.

There has also been much discussion concerning high capacity magazines. I've heard some people make the argument that there is no legitimate, sporting reason to have a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds. The Bushmaster's magazine will hold 30 rounds so it can be fired 30 times without reloading.  Since the Bushmaster is used primarily in competition shooting, it's convenient in practice, when people are firing hundreds of rounds at targets, to have to reload less often. In hunting, the Bushmaster is not likely to be anyone's first choice. A rifle with a 30 round clip is too heavy and awkward to lug around in the woods.

But whether or not there is a legitimate sporting reason to have assault-looking rifles or high capacity magazines is all beside the point. The second amend guarantees our right to own guns – not to hunt and not to have shooting competitions. Read the second amendment for yourself:

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

The reason the founding fathers wanted to protect our right to own guns is overtly stated in the text: they believed a militia was necessary to maintain a free state. Let's face it, it's harder to oppress a citizenry that is armed. 

Now, some people have interpreted the term “well regulated militia” to mean that the Constitution was guaranteeing the right of the military to own guns. That's absurd. The Bill of Rights are specifically intended to protect the rights of individuals and to restrict the powers of the government.  Are we really expected to believe the second amendment was written to prevent the government from infringing on the government's right to have guns?

When the Bill of Rights was written, the US had just won its independence from England because it was able to overthrow Britain through the use of arms. Not wanting to ever subject the People to tyranny again – even tyranny from the fledgling US government – the founding fathers promised they would never take guns away from the People. Yet here we are, 200 years later, listening to despots who are anxious to take away our guns.

I think, too, that we need to carefully consider the wording of the second amendment. Some people believe it's the second amendment that gives us our right to bear arms. Actually, the amendment presupposes that right and prevents the government from infringing upon it. Notice that it doesn't say, “the people will have the right to bear arms.” Instead, it says that the right to bears arms will not be infringed. According to the Declaration of Independence, rights are given by the Creator and it's the role of the government to protect our God given rights. The second amendment acknowledges the right to use arms to defend oneself and promises that the government shall not intrude upon that already existing right. Repealing the second amendment does not take away our right to bear arms – it only removes our protection from a tyrannical government if it decides to take away our guns!

Liberals are tyrants. They're despots. I've said before they want a peasant class to reign over and gun control is simply another link in the chain they wish to use to bind us. Unarmed peasants are far easier to oppress. They don't care about our right to hunt; they're worried about our ability to resist.

I realize as I write this that some people will think I'm some fringe, militant nut. They might believe I have a bunker dug out in my basement where I'm just waiting for anarchy to begin. Let me say that I don't have any sort of Patrick Henry complex. I'm not calling people to arms (literally). I'm simply trying to wake people up to the fact that tyranny is real and liberty is something that must be zealously guarded. Any little threat to liberty must be beaten back.  Our first line of defense is the first amendment and I'm using my blog to bring the threats to light (we'll talk another time about liberal threats to the first amendment).

Tragic events like what happened in CT can cloud our judgment. We need a cooling off period before we react. Should we mourn? Certainly! Should we looks for ways to prevent similar tragedies? Absolutely! But if I may borrow the wisdom of Ben Franklin, we shouldn't give away liberty in the pursuit of safety or we'll end up with neither.

No Christian Owned Businesses Allowed In Boston!

You know, I've about had it up to here with liberals. I'm not talking about the rank and file Democrat, mind you, though they're annoying enough. I'm talking specifically about liberals in elected office. They go far beyond annoying.

A certain amount of “bleeding heart” can be attributed to altruism. Feed the hungry, help the poor, and similar objectives may be noble ideals but liberals and conservatives have different ideas about how to address them. The problem with liberalism is that, the more committed one is to the idea, the more irrational he must be. A quest for tolerance, for example, virtually drives liberals to be intolerant. It's unavoidable. So I've resigned myself to the fact that, if I wish to contend in the arena of ideas, I will have to suffer listening to the hypocrisy of liberals. Oh well.

However, when we're talking about elected liberals, we're talking about something else all together. Because of their political office, they are in a position to force their ideology onto people. They're not just annoyances, they're despots!

Just recently, Dan Cathy, the President of Chick-fil-A made some comments about how he supported the biblical definition of marriage and expressed his concerns that America's attitudes toward gays might bring a judgment from God. Whether or not anyone agrees with Mr. Dan's comments is not the point. No one can argue that Mr. Dan has a first Amendment Right to say them. The First Amendment not only protects his free speech, it also protects his right to hold his religious beliefs. And just in case you haven't read the First Amendment lately, I will remind you that it specifically forbids the government from infringing on our freedom of speech or prohibiting the free exercise of our religion. In other words, the First Amendment doesn't restrict what I can do – it restricts what the government can do.

Of course, liberals politicians will never let something like the Constitution stand in the way of their particular brand of justice. In response to Mr. Cathy's comments, Boston Mayor, Thomas Menino said the following:

“I was angry to learn on the heels of your prejudiced statements about your search for a site to locate in Boston. There is no place for discrimination on Boston's Freedom Trail and no place for your company alongside it.”

Isn't that strange? I mean, what would liberals be saying if a conservative mayor said something like, “Because of their favorable view of gay marriage, Starbucks is not welcome in our city”? No doubt they'd be protesting that mayor just like they are now protesting Chick-fil-A. Liberals are blind to their own intolerance.

Other liberal politicians have made similar remarks. One Chicago alderman, Joe Moreno said, “There are consequences for freedom of speech (and) in this case the consequences are... you're not going to have your first free-standing restaurant in Chicago." Gee. How much more blatant can they be? Do I need to remind the alderman that free speech specifically means that one can express his political or religious views without consequences? I suppose I must because he doesn't seem to get it. If a private citizen suffers political reprisal for expressing his political or religious views, he doesn't have free speech!

Would liberals dare say the same thing of black owned businesses?  What about a Muslim owned business? Never mind.  The hypocrisy of liberals in this case is an ancillary issue. What concerns me more is the blatant attack on religious liberty. Democrat mayors and other elected officials are specifically abusing the powers of their office to exact punishment on a privately owned company because of the religious beliefs of its president. This should be grounds for their impeachment.

These people should be ashamed but they're not. They remind me of the Democrats of old who stood on the steps of schools in the segregated south and refused to let black students enter. The Mayor of Boston might as well post a sign at the city limits: “No Christian Owned Businesses Allowed In Boston!”

Bigots! Tyrants! Bullies! Despots! Did I mention how they annoy me?

If I Wanted America To Fail

Here's a provocative video put out by a group called, Free Market America.  The video speaks for itself so there's not a lot I could add except maybe, "Amen"!

What's Not Being Said About Rush Limbaugh's Comments

We've all heard about Rush's remarks concerning law student, Sandra Fluke, who testified before congress. We've all heard about Obama's call to Ms. Fluke, offering his condolences for Rush's remarks. We've all heard Nancy Pelosi's seeming outrage and her comment that Rush should be “advertiseless.” We've all heard Sean Hannity and other conservatives correctly identify the double standard of Democrats who condemn Rush's remarks but have no comment about the hateful things liberals say about conservative women. Well, here's something you probably haven't heard:

I'm a firm believer in free speech. Rush's remarks, though they may be offensive, are his opinions and he has the liberty to speak them. Of course, since Rush broadcasts over publicly licensed radio signals, there are certain words he's not allowed to use. Beyond that, he can speak his mind no matter how extreme his views may be.

Like Rush, Bill Maher is free to speak his mind. Unlike Rush, however, Bill Maher broadcasts over cable television so he can even use 4-letter words which Rush can't (and he uses them frequently). Compared to Maher's comments about women, Rush's use of words like “slut” and “prostitute” are somewhat tame. Even so, Rush Limbaugh's and Bill Maher's comments are both protected by the First Amendment.

Not only are Rush and Bill free to speak their views, but we who listen to them are also free to condemn them. Some people have called for a boycott of Rush. Some people are canceling their HBO subscriptions because of Bill. The people who are upset with Rush or Bill and are reaching out to sponsors are simply exercising their free speech. When someone like Rush or Bill speaks his mind, he might persuade or repulse others. Listeners will either affirm or condemn their remarks. This is the marketplace of ideas. This is liberty.

What I see wrong in this whole affair is the condemnation of Rush made by elected, public officials. The First Amendment specifically protects the political speech of private individuals from the government! If President Obama uses the bully-pulpit of his office to shame Rush, he is using the power of the Presidency to infringe on the Rush's free speech. When Nancy Pelosi suggests that advertisers should drop Rush, she too is infringing on his First Amendment rights.

The left in notorious for their war on liberty. They don't care that Rush has free speech; they want to silence him. Neither do they care that their radical views on contraception (which inspired Rush's comments) violates people's freedom of religion. And while we're at it, what about their continuous maligning of FOX News? Have they noticed the First Amendment also protects the freedom of the press?

And let's be clear about something: these liberals aren't really offended by Rush's remarks; we know this because they say not one word about Maher's much worse misogynistic remarks. They are specifically interested in squelching Rush's political speech.

So let's sum up: private individuals are free to make offensive remarks. Other private individuals are free to embrace or reject those remarks. We can call on other people to boycott talk shows when the host says something we don't like. We can even boycott companies that decide to drop advertising on talk shows that we do like. We can say and do all these things and elected officials should not be able to use the sway of their office to influence our private discourse because our rights are protected by the First Amendment.

They do use their political sway, though. Fortunately, I have a blog and intend to exercise my right to speak out about the shameful tactics of these enemies of liberty.

Rights Belong to Individuals

In my last post, I talked about how Obama-care has mandated employers to provide things like contraceptives and other services which might conflict with the employers' religious beliefs. In an effort to defend this dangerous idea, liberals have raised many weak arguments. One example of a weak argument is the idea that, since pregnancies and babies are expensive, paying for contraceptives actually reduces the overall cost of health care.

The wisdom of this argument (if any) rests on the premise that it's better to sacrifice individual liberties for the betterment of society as a whole. In this case, by forcing employers to pay for contraceptives, everyone enjoys lower health care costs. This same argument has been used for years regarding seat belt laws: since seat belts saves lives and reduce injuries, forcing individuals to wear seat belts reduces health care costs to society.

First, let me ask: Is this really the precedent liberals want to set? Do they really want the benefit to society to be greater than the rights of the individual? In this case, they probably do which is why they raise the argument. However, this opens the door to tyranny. According to this logic, what would stop congress from passing a law mandating that everyone use contraceptives? Some might say, “Well, congress wouldn't do that” but the question still remains if congress has the power to do it. If we buy into the argument that congress can decide what's best for society – even at the cost of individual liberty – then yes, we've given them the power to do it!


In case there are liberals who still don't see the danger, let me ask this: what happens if next year, congress decides there aren't enough babies being born?  For the good of society, congress decides that no women may use contraceptives.  If the benefit to society is the objective, then what argument will liberals use then?

Second, there's a glaring flaw in the liberals' arguments: You see, the very notion that society incurs a cost for individuals' health care decisions stems from the liberal idea that society should pay the costs individuals' health care. Here's a suggestion: if someone makes a poor decision, let him suffer the consequences of it. When people don't have any consequences for bad decisions, it's a license to sin.

Since we've been talking about contraceptives, let's talk about a related issue – out of wedlock births. Today, more than half of all births to women under 30 are out of wedlock. In almost every area examined, children born to unwed mothers suffer for it. They are more likely to live in poverty, to drop out of school, and to commit crimes. What is the liberal solution to the problem? It's to give money to women who have children out of wedlock! Unmarried mothers often get food stamps, free health care (Medicaid), rent subsidies, daycare subsidies, etc. What if they have still another child? Why, they get more money, of course! Here's the weirdest part – if the women consider marrying the fathers of their children, they understand they will likely loose their government benefits. So women have babies and get benefits – they marry and loose benefits. By the way, with contraceptives so readily available, why is the illegitimacy rate so high anyway? Given the fact that illegitimacy rates are so high, do you think that at least some women might have an incentive to make bad decisions?

Consider the alternative. What if women who have children don't receive more government benefits but are simply burdened with another mouth to feed? What if they knew they would be saddled with higher and higher daycare costs for every child they have (while they have to work two or three jobs to pay for it)? If a woman knew how much of a burden a child would be, might she make better decisions about birth control or premarital sex?

Compelling all people to share the burden of those few who make bad decisions is another road to tyranny. When individuals have no consequence for making bad decisions, they have no incentive to make better decisions. This leads to higher and higher costs for the rest of us. It's the exact opposite of what liberals are trying to argue now. There is no savings. If something seems “free,” then more people will abuse it which leads to higher costs. If women believe they can have children with no consequence, then the overall cost to society is greater: higher poverty, higher taxes, higher crime, higher dropout rates, and higher everything.

Rights belong to individuals. So do responsibilities. When the government tries to protect the rights of society at the expense of the rights of the individual, it's not liberty. It's despotism.

Who Has the Biggest Right?

It's not unusual for liberals to lie but the lies... I mean “political spin”... surrounding the contraception controversy are getting a little more whopping than usual. On the DHHS website, Health Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said, “This proposal [the Blunt Amendment] isn't limited to contraception nor is it limited to any preventive service. Any employer could restrict access to any service they say they object to. This is dangerous and wrong” (bold added for emphasis). Nancy Pelosi has said the Blunt Amendment is, “part of the Republican agenda of disrespecting women’s health issues [by] allowing employers to cut … basic health services for women, like contraception, mammograms, prenatal and cervical-cancer screenings and preventive health reform benefiting 20 million women” (bold added for emphasis).

Lie, lie, lie. The impression given by these statements is that Republicans want to take away women's access to birth control or any other “health care” service they might want to deny on a whim. It's a bold misrepresentation. No one is denying or even discussing denying women access to any health service. The only question being raised is, “who has to pay for it?”

The controversy was raised when Catholics began to publicly and strongly object to the DHHS guidelines that mandated Catholic employers like churches, hospitals, charities, and colleges, to provide contraception to their female employees as part of their employer-provided health insurance plans. The Catholic church objects to the use of contraceptives and said forcing them to pay for contraception for its female employees violates their freedom of religion.

What part of the First Amendment is ambiguous? Let me remind everyone what the Bill of Rights says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The Catholic Church has long objected to the use of contraceptives. To suddenly mandate the Church to pay for contraceptives for its female employees clearly places a prohibition on their free exercise of this long standing belief.

But liberals see it differently. They believe other rights exists – like a right to “health care.” Now, I've read the Constitution but I can't quote it from memory so I've done a word search on the Constitution. Curiously, the words, “right to health care” aren't found anywhere. By the way, neither could I find a “right to privacy.” If these rights exist, they aren't enumerated the way our freedom to religion is. At best, they are implied.

Let's assume, for a moment, that there is a right to health care. Who has the bigger right? Does the implied right to healthcare somehow trump my enumerated right to exercise my religion? Why must it?

Of course, that's not good enough for liberals. If someone has a right to health care, they believe that means they're guaranteed health care. OK, let's apply that same logic to the right to bear arms. Consider this analogy: The right to own a gun is enumerated in the Constitution. Have you ever bought a gun? A nice gun isn't cheap. A 9mm handgun could set you back about $400.00. Are only rich people allowed to exercise the right to own a gun? How can poor people like me afford $400 to buy a gun? Since I have the right to own a gun, what I need is for my employer to buy me one.

Here's a twist: what if I worked for Rosie O'Donnell? From what I've heard, Rosie O'Donnell doesn't believe people should have the right to carry guns (except for her bodyguards). That doesn't matter, though. I have the right to own a gun and, according to liberal logic, Rosie must buy me one no matter what her own conscientious objection might be.

Somehow I don't think liberals would go for the idea of compelling employers to buy guns for their employees. But they can't see the similarity in that and forcing employers to provide contraceptives for their employees.

“Rights” are not entitlements nor guarantees. The idea that the government can compel one person to act against his conscience in order to guarantee the right of another is anathema to liberty. The dangers that surround this issue are many and I intend to spend a couple of more posts talking about them. For now though, let me just say that a woman's “right” to birth control is no more sacred than my right to exercise my faith. Here's an idea: I will practice my religion and you buy your own contraceptives!

He Didn't Say It – But I Will

Now that he's topping the polls as the current frontrunner in the Republican primaries, Rick Santorum has become the new target of the liberal media. Over the last couple of days, much hay has been made over Santorum's comment that Obama's agenda was driven by “some phoney ideal – some phoney theology. Oh, not a theology based on the Bible – a different theology but no less a theology.” The alternative media (MSNBC, NBC, CBS, etc) has seized upon that as an attack on Obama's religious views and are crying foul.

You can watch the full context of the remarks here. It's easy for people with limited command of the vocabulary to pounce upon the word “theology” and see it as a discussion about Christian religion but from the full context, it's rather obvious to rational people that the “theology” he intended is that of radical environmentalism. Santorum even spelled that out for those media reporters who confronted him about it. He further clarified that he does not question Obama's Christian faith but, even now, the bias-driven reporters on the left continue to misrepresent him.

The ironic thing in all this is that there really is a big question about Obama's faith. Let's face it, here's a man who has been the President of the United States for more than three years. He's in the public's eye daily. There is a camera on him nearly every moment of the day that he steps foot out of the door. Everywhere he goes, everything he says, everything he does is reported in excruciating detail. Yet after all this time, he's still not able to convincingly persuade people that he's not a Muslim! Isn't that odd?

Now, certainly I'm not trying to brag but I will use myself as an example. Anyone who has known me for any length of time beyond a casual meeting knows that I'm a Christian. It's simple things that give it away. He will hear me talking about my faith, he will see me reading the Bible, he will see me going to church, maybe he will even read my blog! It would be impossible for anyone, after 3 years, to suspect me of being a Muslim. That's they way it should be. Acts 1:8 says, “ye shall be witnesses unto me.”

What do we know about our President's faith? I know that he never bothered to join a church after moving to Washington. I know that over the prior decade or more that he claimed to have attended “Reverend” Wright's church, he says he never once heard any of the “reverend's” incendiary remarks making it unlikely he truly attended. I know that he's radically pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, and pro-many other things that seem contrary to Christian values. I know that on at least two occasions, he misquoted the Declaration of Independence by saying, “We are endowed.... with certain unalienable rights” - omitting the words “by our Creator” even though they are in Declaration and were on his teleprompter! I know that in his last thanksgiving proclamation, he gave thanks to Alaskan Natives, American Indians, and US veterans before mentioning giving thanks to God. Oh, and I know that he's a bald-faced liar.

Jesus said that we can judge people by their fruits (Matthew 7:16,20). There's nothing about the President's life that convinces me he's a Christian. His blatant lack of fruit belies any occasional reference to God or the Bible. So let me be clear: I do not believe the President Obama is a Christian. Senator Santorum may not say that – but I will.