Tag Archives: Common sense

Is Islam a Religion?

We should start with some kind of definition of Religion. How do you define that word? Merriam Webster defines it thus:
Definition of religion
1 a :the state of a religious
a nun in her 20th year of religion
b (1) :the service and worship of God or the supernatural
(2) :commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 :a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic :scrupulous conformity :conscientiousness
4 :a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

That is pretty broad. Using that definition we could call many things a ‘religion’. Let’s see if we can find a more practical one. To do that we will look at the majority of what we call religions in the world today. Do they have a common theme or thesis? It turns out they do. Whether you are speaking of Buddhism, Judaism, Hinduism, Shintoism or Christianity, to name only a few in today’s world, we find that they all have a few common threads. Among them are: Love of their fellow humans and even lower forms, tolerance, forgiveness. And kindness. None of those mentioned espouse killing nor intentional cruelty. With the possible exception of Buddhism, all of the holy works of these religions were written by observers. The Bible, for instance, was not written by God, though it is thought to be inspired by that being. There is no book in the Bible that was directly written by Jesus. They were written about Him, or the works of the Christian God.
Buddha did write, but he wrote about his philosophy of life and how he thought it should be lived. He never claimed to be inspired by any supernatural, omnipotent or omniscient being. Many of those philosophies can be found, in one form or another, in most religions yet today. His thoughts have been expounded upon by many leaders of the faith. I suspect he would be shocked to find that he has become deified.
Now it is time to turn to Islam. The holy book of Islam was written by one man. Muhammad or Mohammad, depending on where you look. Muhammad is the only recognized “Messenger of Allah”, their name for God. His ‘Holy’ writings can be found in a book called the Quran. This is a book of 114 chapters and it covers the gamut of the beliefs of that one man. I have the English translation of that book and will quote extensively from it later in this missive… A translation by one of their own, a respected Imam or religious leader. Perhaps priest would be closest to a Christian’s understanding of the word. I did a search for the word love in that work. I found it referenced in only one context, with reference to Allah. There are many mentions of ‘good’, but even that is skewed from our understanding of that word. A good wife, for instance, is one who is totally subservient to her husband. She must obey him in all things. The Quran specifically deals with the disobedient wife. She is to be punished up to and including beating. That is ‘good’ in the Quran. Most religions forbid lying. The Christian and Jewish holy books even incorporate that into their primary tenets. For both the ninth commandment is “Thou shall not bear witness against your neighbor.”
The Quran says that it is quite alright to lie to any infidel. (that’s you and I) That comes into play when they are trying to convert you to their religion. For instance, they are not allowed to have any friends that are not confirmed Muslims, BUT, they can pretend to befriend you in order to convert you. By the way if you refuse to convert they are instructed to use any means and if those means do not work they are to kill you rather than leave an apostate alive.
Killing is allowed in many instances particularly in the case of women. A husband may kill his wife for the heinous crime of going outside without their burka, being alone with a man not of their household, disobedience in many forms or even a perceived ‘dishonoring’ of the family. I see more and more of this everyday in the news and here in the U.S. it is becoming a common practice. This religion does not respect the women among us. They are not to be considered in any manner as equal to other than another chattel. A woman not in a burka may be used in anyway a man chooses including, but not limited to rape or gang rape even killing if they feel the offense is great enough such as wearing a blouse that actually shows some cleavage. Those are ‘asking’ to be raped. Again, see the headlines. Oh yeah, I can be killed for writing this. You are not allowed to speak against the Prophet. Shucks, you can’t even attempt to draw a picture of that religious stalwart. If you doubt that, remember Pamela Geller and her attempt to hold a contest for the best picture of Muhammad. Two Muslims were killed while attempting to shoot up the venue with high powered rifles. She has lately been the subject of attempts to behead her for speaking out about the Islamic ‘religion’.
Let’s look at another way women are devalued by Islam.  Sex slavery and rape of the infidel is sanctioned and rewarded under Islam. Muslim clerics all over the world confirm the right to have sex slaves. It is in the Quran — the word of Allah. Politicians and courts of law keep turning a blind eye, law enforcement keeps ignoring it, so this pox on our communities will continue to get worse.
Following a victory, Muhammad would usually distribute the captives, both male and female, as slaves to his soldiers. And Muhammad is the “perfect example for Muslims.” According to Islamic law, Muslim men can take “captives of the right hand” (Quran 4:3, 4:24, 33:50). The Quran says: “O Prophet! Lo! We have made lawful unto thee thy wives unto whom thou hast paid their dowries, and those whom thy right hand possesseth of those whom Allah hath given thee as spoils of war” (33:50). 4:3 and 4:24 extend this privilege to Muslim men in general. The Quran says that a man may have sex with his wives and with these slave girls: “The believers must (eventually) win through, those who humble themselves in their prayers; who avoid vain talk; who are active in deeds of charity; who abstain from sex, except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess, for (in their case) they are free from blame.” (Quran 23:1-6)
Prosperous are the believers who in their prayers are humble and from idle talk turn away and at almsgiving are active and guard their private parts save from their wives and what their right hands own then being not blameworthy.” (Quran 23:1-6)
Those whom their “right hands own” (Quran 4:3, 4:24, 33:50) are slaves, and inextricable from the concept of Islamic slavery as a whole is the concept of sex slavery, which is rooted in Islam’s devaluation of the lives of non-Muslims. The Quran stipulates that a man may take four wives as well as hold slave girls as sex slaves. These women are captured in wartime and are considered the spoils of war. Islam avoids the appearance of impropriety, declaring that the taking of these sex slaves does not constitute adultery if the women are already married, for their marriages are ended at the moment of their capture. A manual of Islamic law directs: “When a child or a woman is taken captive, they become slaves by the fact of capture, and the woman”s previous marriage is immediately annulled” (Reliance of the Traveller, o9.13).
The whole point of this diatribe is this: Should Islam be considered a religion in this or any country, or is it simply a philosophy with religious overtones? Does it really have any right to our Constitution’s freedom of religion clause? Rather obviously, I would say no.

Advertisements

Campaign to Kill Good

The Campaign to Kill Good

We have become a nation ruled by an oligarchy. Oligarchy is defined as “a political system governed by a few people”. Usually the rich. Now an oligarchy does not care very much for the common people. They do pay lip service to them. They continue to promise that group that they are the ones that will improve their lot. Any one opposing them is demeaned and slandered into oblivion, while they just keep promising the masses that they will improve their life if only they will wait just a little while longer while they, the elite rulers, solve just a couple more problems. The oligarchy makes use of the “big lie”.
The big lie was brought forcefully to the forefront of national politics by Hitler. He knew that any lie repeated often enough is taken for absolute truth and he gained total control of the government with this tactic.
Today we have a movement that is called liberal, but the proper term is progressive. These are two different views of how a government, our government, should work. The liberal works in small steps to advance their agenda. First they take over the education system starting with the colleges and universities. If they can control what the future teachers are taught they will control what the children are taught by those future teachers. Then they co-opt the mass media using these liberal educated student journalists so they are able to spread the word in any way they want. They can use the “big lie” much more effectively.
Enter Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Barack Obama and today’s pretender to the throne, Hillary Clinton. Each were or are convinced they can rule because they have convinced the greater mass of people that individual liberty is a fallacy. They shout that this should never have been a republic, but rather a democracy. In a democracy the voice of the people are heard and that voice is personified in the person that collects the votes required to sit in the Oval office. That one person has a ‘mandate’, evidenced by the mere fact that he or she won the election, to speak for all the people. They have their pen and phone. Any separation of powers is nothing more than a hindrance to their governing.
Enter on to our stage one Hillary Clinton. A proven liar, who actually said that it was her “turn” to rule America. She of the “big lie”.
We cannot forget the other facet of today’s American political scene, the republican party. Supposedly the ‘loyal opposition’. They would much rather have a Clinton presidency that will continue to grant politicians surcease for their greed and power hungry appetites than support the person that won their party’s nomination. They have not so much as run one TV ad for ‘their’ nominee. Their fear of losing their gravy train and the power they wield in government is tantamount to treason. No, it does not meet the legal definition of that heinous crime, but it does meet the social definition. They apparently are so concerned about protecting their position that they would rather see this country go completely social democrat than defend the constitution and the republic.
This country led the world in military might, economic stability and social justice for over one hundred fifty years. Today we are a third world power militarily, the world banks are leaving the dollar behind as the benchmark and moving to the Chinese Yuan or Renminbi and social justice has been replaced with the devaluation of the Judeo-Christian ethic to the point that a person can now be sued into financial ruin for adhering to their Christian beliefs. Freedom OF religion has been replaced by the credo of freedom FROM religion.
This is the destruction of good in the name of greed and power.
It seems that we no longer have a two party system in this country. We have on party called Democrat that is focused on the destruction of the Constitution because it is “outdated” and no longer applies to modern society, though they have never satisfactorily explained how that is so, and another party called Republican that are anything but. They are perhaps even more greedy than their cohorts in the other side of the aisle.
There has to be a political party that honestly desires to return this country to the land of the free. Libertarians? Nope. They do indeed want a smaller government, but the government they want is isolationist in this world of global economy and ISIS. The government they want is so small as to be next door neighbors to anarchy. Greens? Nah. Too narrow in focus and they want many of the same things the liberals want just for different reasons. There are many neophytes out there struggling to find the alternative to the present major parties. I have looked at many and spoken to most of the leaders. None seem to measure up to the founders ideals. I still believe in those ideals.
The only one that comes close, in my humble opinion, is the Constitution Party. I will have more to say on them another time
That leaves the main question. How do we stop the destruction of good?

One Reason Liberty is Dying in America

There was a time in this country when personal liberty was the key to the entire philosophy of the United States of America. That philosophy no longer pertains. I think I have found the major reason for that and I would like you to begin consider the ramifications as well as the cause.

It is reasonable to state that it really began to take hold in this country with Teddy Roosevelt, who told the nation during a July Fourth speech that we should ignore the preamble to the Declaration of Independence the very thing the Fourth of July, Independence Day as it used to be called, was celebrating. He was followed in the presidency by one Woodrow Wilson. Now he went a little further by declaring that the president had a “mandate” by virtue of the fact that he won the election, to be the “Leader and sole representative of the people.” In other words, he believed the President should be acknowledged as the Sovereign of the government. This has reached its ultimate goal in Barack H. Obama, our Sovereign.

OK, that is how it all started. How did we let it happen? Ahh, to paraphrase Shakespeare, there’s the rub.

This country was founded upon the principle of freedom that comes from the acceptance of responsibility. This thought is found in many forms in the founders explanation of the constitution, the Patriot Papers. Just what is this “acceptance of responsibility” that I find so important and why is it important?

The founders truly believed that freedom, while granted by God, would never be easy to maintain. There would be a cost and that cost would be the responsibility to work to keep it. How, you might well ask? It is very simple to put into words and, for some, so difficult to do. You must accept the responsibility for yourself. And and all of your actions. You must never allow others to absolve you of that responsibility. If you want material wealth, go out and earn it. If you want political freedom, fight to protect it even when your neighbor tells you that the government will do all of that for you. They won’t and never can.

The premier promulgator of “progressive philosophy” was a man named John Dewey, 1859-1952. Dr. Dewey published many things from books to scholarly papers espousing his philosophy. He believed that no person was ‘born free’. He had to be made that way and protected in that condition by government. The government must begin this process in a person’s very earliest stages of life with an education system that taught him how to think of government and his/her own position in the scheme of things. The must be taught that it is the government’s responsibility to assure that your “freedoms and equality” are protected. Does your neighbor have more land than you? The government is required to take some of that land and give it to you, his less fortunate (Read lazier) neighbor. The government must create equality since it does not exist in any natural state as the Declaration of Independence so beautifully states. It was his teachings that led to Teddy Roosevelt to tell the American people in an Independence Day, now simply the fourth of July, speech that we should just ignore the preamble to that seminal document of our nation.

Please don’t get the idea that progressive philosophy began with Dr. Dewey. That has been around for a long, long time. It has failed every time it has been tried, from late Rome to England prior to the Magna Carta in 1215. His educational philosophy was formulated while studying for his PhD at Johns Hopkins University, the original progressive University in this country.
So now we have intelligent, but under educated children and University Chancellors both decrying the first amendment and denying its practice on their campuses. We have a federal government attempting to criminalize dissent as in the scientific thought on the bogus climate change agenda of the current administration.

The reason Liberty is dying in America? Because the liberals and the progressives say that it must. For our own protection. I say to them … Please don’t protect me from myself! Please don’t protect me from my natural equality and require me to have your version of equality.

Why?

Why?

I had an interesting question asked of me by a friend last night. Why am I so adamantly and passionately supporting Cruz and equally adamantly and passionately opposed to Trump and his political sister, Hillary?
A great part of the answer revolves around the country I grew up in. You see I grew up in a country that respected the rights of others. Where the phrase “my rights end at the start of your nose,” actually meant something. A country that respected the right of a person to run his or her own business and if he/she put in place a policy that I didn’t agree with, it as my right not to patronize him and urge others to do the same.
The country I grew up in had no tolerance for a supreme court that ignored the constitution and wrote their own laws. The constitution was the SUPREME law of the land, not groups of unelected bureaucrats and Judges that made it up as they went along. My country thought that the Declaration of Independence was almost sacred. When it said – “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their CREATOR …” it meant something. I meant that this was a country founded on the rights of the individual as granted by God, not men.
I have lost my country. A country whose uniform I proudly wore and to whom I swore the oath to defend the constitution and my country against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. Nobody, including me, has ever said “that’s OK, Rick, you don’t have to hold to that oath anymore. Just forget it.”
Now I find that there is an election that has many people running that honestly believe that Declaration of Independence and The Constitution of the United States are just old pieces of paper that need to be forgotten and ignored. That the reasons this country was founded on individual liberty and a trust in God is no longer pertinent to our lives and certainly not something our government should have any concern for. Mr. Trump has said the following and though I may paraphrase the concepts are identical:
1> I don’t think I have ever asked God for forgiveness. I trust in my own judgment about right and wrong.
2> If a man thinks he is a woman he should be allowed to be in the bathroom our wives and daughter’s use.
3> I don’t need to follow the rules. The rules aren’t always things I agree with.
4> Wrote an entire book about how to con people and then uses those tactics while campaigning to be MY president.
5> Promotes violence within his own organization and among his followers.
Promises that if he is not the nominee there will be riots in the streets across our land.
6> Cannot tolerate any form of disagreement.
7> Is afraid to meet his opponent in a head to head debate even when openly challenged to do so.
8> Believes the rules should be changed to fit his own personal definition of “fair” even though some of those rules have been in place long before he decided to run and all have been in place before this campaign began.
9> When asked about the Convention of States project he reportedly replied “What’s that?”

There is one person in this race that has a lifelong history of standing for the constitution and the people of this land. He has openly opposed those who would and do denigrate the supreme law of this country. He even had that constitution memorized before he graduated form high school. He has stood on the floor of he senate and correctly identified the leader of the senate of lying and took heat for it! He has proposed bill after bill that would curb the power of the very body he was elected to in the face of those who forgot their promises the second they were sworn into office.
He has repeatedly stated that he wants to give me my country back to me.
I ask you – How can I not support him?

Should Islam be Considered a Religion in America?

This is a question being pondered by many in our country today. The subject logically begins with the definition of the word religion. Then, if it should not be called a religion, why and how come into immediate play?
How does one define the word religion? Merriam Webster says this: “: the belief in a god or in a group of gods : an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods.“ That might be a little simplistic for our purposes. That definition allows any group, large or small, to declare that they are following a religion for for any sensical or nonsensical reason. Even the constitution or at least the patriot papers and the founding fathers put limits on religion and its practices. Using religion to justify human sacrifice and you still face the death penalty. Using religion to start riots used to be considered against the law though you have to wonder these days.
Let us then, look at a definition that the founding fathers might have had in mind when they wrote the first amendment granting that “Congress shall make no laws respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, …” (pardon the aside here, but notice that it is very specific in saying that Congress, shall pass no law establishing a religion. Doesn’t say a word about praying at a football game or before a government body conducts business.) That definition might well be considered in today’s world, as well as yesterdays, as one which accepts the precepts of the Judeo-Christian ethic. In other words the respecting of life. Human life most of all. The phrase ‘Do unto others as you would have them do unto you’ comes to mind. Though it is not in the Christian or Jewish holy scripture nor any religion’s defining document it is perceived as the fundamental law of ethical life.
Ethical. An interesting word. Also the word ethos fits here. Ethical is defined as ‘involving or expressing moral approval or disapproval conforming to accepted standards of conduct ‘ and ethos as ‘the distinguishing character, sentiment, moral nature, or guiding beliefs of a person, group, or institution.’ Somehow the philosophy of the so called Islamic faith just doesn’t seem to fit well.
I have trouble believing that they would find a “religion” that allows the killing of a woman for being raped or a person refusing to accept another religion, or made fun of your gods image as acceptable religious behavior.
Most, if not all, religions, with the exception of Islam, believe that life is sacred. Particularly human life. There are religions that take that reverence much further than we Christians do. The Hindus believe that even cows are sacred. The Shintu religion go so far as to actually have marriage ceremonies for rocks. They tie them together with ropes to signify that bond. Many religions ban the eating of meat. The point here is that all religions accept the fact that HUMAN life is sacred. It is not to be taken from anyone lightly. The first problem we face in this discussion therefore is the one of definition in the legal sense. I propose that a valid starting point would be: “Religion shall be defined by the United States of America as that purported religious believe(s) that holds life, particularly Human life, is a sacred thing and will not be taken without due process under American law. No other law of any nation or entity shall be entertained.” That should be easily understood by even those nine unelected people in black robes in D.C.
The next point is the how.
That one is easier said than done. Congress could and, indeed should, pass a law to this effect, but those nine unelected robed figures might strike it down. There is another sure way to do it. You need either congress to call a convention of the states and have 38 of them vote in favor of the amendment OR have 34 of the state legislatures call one with the 38 yea votes following. It then would become the undisputed law of this land. Enough said.
Comments of all kinds welcome and encouraged.

Some Thoughts on Voter IDs

The discussion voter ID has creased recent weeks with Hillary’s insane for every one registered to vote when they have their 18th birthday. The left has repeated the mantra that voter ID would somehow disenfranchise “millions of blacks and minorities,’ but I haven’t seen an intelligent explanation of how this would happen.

Let’s look at the purpose of requiring voters to prove they exist and are, in fact, citizens. Who would be harmed the most? Obviously it would be non citizens first. Then, of course, the dead couldn’t vote any more, nor voter that goes from polling place to polling place to vote multiple times, nor the person that has moved from one district to another having his/her vote cast for him/her in the district not lived in any more. This happened to me. I supposedly voted in a state I haven’t lived in for years and voted for a politician I was writing and posting articles describing his corruption! Not someone for whom I would likely vote. Oh my! I am actually discriminating against the dead and the illegals! How horrible of me. This would actually disenfranchise millions of voters! All for the good.

Now don’t get me wrong. Voter ID is not a cure all, end all for voter fraud. There is still the problem of those counties in PA and elsewhere that had NO republican voters. And there is the problem of corrupted voting machines. Yeah the list goes on. It would be an excellent first step, don’t you think?

The next step would probably be to set up a nation wide commission to vet each and every voting machine that is used in this country. Expensive? You bet. Time consuming? Sure would be. Necessary? Yep. Unless you can come up with a viable alternative.

Those of you that follow my blog will notice that this is considerably shorter than my previous 1000 word posts. I was reminded that the typical voter has a limited attention span so I am going to try for a much shorter series of posts and see if my following increases.

As usual comments, suggestions and opposing views are welcomed to the point of being encouraged.

Common Core Realities

Last week this reporter gave you the facts behind the myths of Common Core (CC). If you wish to refresh your memory here is the link: Blog- Fact Vs Myth This week I will endeavor to explore CC a little more intimately.

Be forewarned! This report will have editorial content in addition to factual content!
CC is, among other things a direct insult to the tenth amendment which states “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Nothing in the constitution gives the power over our education system to the federal government. Furthermore, the welfare clause of the constitution states, in paraphrase, that if the states can do something the federal government cannot. The states have run their own schools since the inception of the constitution so I guess they can do it.

As part of the Race to the Top program, the U.S. Department of Education awarded a total of $330 million in September 2010 that will strengthen the hold that the federal government and special interests have on K-12 curriculum content, increase the frequency of standardized tests, diminish the importance of traditional classroom tests, and further marginalize the role of parents and teachers. 

There are basically two systems for the implementation of CC at the state level. These are:
Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) partially funded by a grant from the Department of Education at $170 million and
SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) for $160 million

CC is a direct insult to conservative tenets and apparently seeks to eliminate all such adherents via subtle indoctrination of our children. There are many examples of this in the proposed tests themselves. But time and space limit my ability to expose them all here. We will examine a couple. The first is rather more blatant than subtle.
Ronald Reagan’s famous words at the Brandenburg Gate in 1987, in which he calls for Mikhail Gorbachev to, “come to this gate! … Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” becomes according to the College Board’s new Advanced Placement U.S. history exam, this was really a period of “increased assertiveness and bellicosity” on the part of the U.S. This is a multiple choice question so the ONLY correct answer is this one.

The phrase “… increased assertiveness and bellicosity ..” is so obviously editorial in nature as to verge on the ridiculous. One might be tempted to ask, increased from what or when? From the days of JFK and the Cuban Missile Crisis or perhaps the Nixon and Carter years? Probably not. You see Reagan had a reasonable expectation of a reasoned response from Gorbachev due to his diplomatic efforts. He got one. The wall came down. If I may paraphrase the same words in an editorial manner, that time can be viewed as a period of decreased bellicosity and assertiveness.

This is but one example of the left’s intent and attempt to brain wash our children.
There are a ridiculous number of examples of the idiocy of the math used in these tests, but we shall look at one only for reasons already stated.

18 students in a class room are told to count off increasing by a certain number. The last person to count off correctly said 90. What number was used to count off? Simple, right? 90 divided by 18 equals 5 so they were counting by fives. WRONG! The correct answer takes 128 steps and uses a format that most mathematicians can’t understand. If you gave your work in the straight forward 90/18=5 you got it wrong according to CC standards.

WV State Delegate Michael Folk is an airline pilot who has taught math in both high schools and colleges. It is my understanding that he holds a degree in math while his wife teaches science to WV children with a solid background in math. They are dismayed that they are unable to help their children with math homework for the simple reason that these well educated people can’t understand how the problems are to be solved! I have several other examples of this same thing, but again both time and space are prohibitive.

There is one other area that greatly concerns me and it is another of those ‘subtle’ intrusions into the parent-child rights. Many states, including WV have signed up for SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) which is funded by the Federal Department of Education to the tune of $160,000,000. This mandates that the schools will:

  • SBAC will test students using computer adaptive technology that will ask students tailored questions based on their previous answers.
  • SBAC “will continue to use one test at the end of the year for accountability purposes,” but will also create a series of interim tests used to inform students, parents, and teachers about whether students are on track.

That “… ask students tailored questions based on their previous answers.” thing bothers me. First who will devise these new questions? Presumably the Department of Education and their consultants. Consultants being those trade organizations mentioned at the beginning of this piece. So if your child missed that question regarding the bellicosity of the Reagan speech, they are going to receive reinforcement in the understanding of an editorialized question. Hmmmmm. (Time for some editorializing of my own.) Sounds more like indoctrination to me. Yeah, Stupid me. I am against the government indoctrinating my children or any body’s children with either liberal or conservative tenets. That is the responsibility of the parents and only the parents. Contrary to some, the child’s upbringing is the parents responsibility not the government’s.

The second mandate under the “Smarter” consortium is one test at the end of the year with periodic testing to “… inform students, parents and teachers about whether students are on track.” In the former case we already have a very good year end standardized test that has been in use for decades (with periodic updates). This does keep all informed the tack the students are on, so why spend the money to create a new one? The answer is left as an exercise for the reader.

Did you know that six states (Alaska, Minnesota, Nebraska, Texas, Virginia, and Wyoming) plus American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands participated in neither consortium? It was never a requirement. And what did they give up for this non-participation? Nothing. The money from the government for signing up in one or the other was earmarked exclusively for implementing the tests. Notice that the amount that each state received was never enough to cover all of the costs of implementation. The six states actually saved money by saying no. Funny how that works sometimes.

There will be more on this after a brief hiatus so other issues may be addressed. Let me know if you are finding these comments on Common Core helpful or should I just move on?

Musings on Immigration

Article 2, Section 3 of the United States Constitution makes one of the duties of the president clear. It states the the president “… shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” Naturally this assumes there is a law which he is supposed to “faithfully execute.” The current case of immigration is a problem that the president has decided to “fix” and since there is no law he has decided to make one on his own. This arrogation of congressional power to himself is plainly against the constitution he swore to uphold. If this power grab is allowed to stand we will have moved even further from a republic to tyranny.
Let’s face it, lawlessness breads lawlessness. Once you condone a lawless act you open the door for more such acts. Just to be clear, there are laws on the books, passed by congress as mandated by the supreme law of this land that state clearly how people can enter this country. The president maintains that prosecutorial discretion allows the DOJ to ignore this law if it so chooses. That just isn’t so. Prosecutorial discretion is clearly intended to be used on a case by case basis not on a blanket move to ignore a law. Now if the DOJ decides to investigate each illegal immigration to see if the laws are being broken and then decide, because of extenuation or some such reason, that is one thing. They have neither the funding nor the manpower to do so for millions of illegals.
The people of this country have stated that there is one way to gain entrance to our land. They have taken the proper action by codifying this in law. This law helps us weed out the lawless and the applicant that envisions brining down the government through acts of terror and just plain thievery or drug running. This president has decided to allow al to enter regardless of background or intent. Now he is proposing that they be given social security and a tax rebate on taxes they don’t pay. And yes, even grant them government support supposedly reserved for real citizens.
There is a quote from Heather Mac Donald, fellow of the Manhattan Institute that bears repeating.
On Feb 16, U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen halted President Obama’s illegal amnesty with a temporary injunction. The proposed amnesty program, Judge Hanen found, went far beyond mere prosecutorial discretion not to enforce the law against individuals . Instead, the Department of Homeland Security proposed to confer on illegal aliens a new legal status known as “legal presence.” But Congress has not granted DHS the power to create and bestow legal status. The amnesty program represented a “complete abdication” of DHS’s responsibility to enforce the law, Judge Hanen declared. Indeed DHS was actively thwarting the express will of Congress.
Notice that this a rather narrow ruling. The Judge does not address the constitutional questions raised, but rather ruled against the administration. His ruling is based on laws governing the DHS’s rule making.
As bad as Obama’s amnesty is (did I say bad? Make that egregious) there is another baddy lurking underneath that. You see, the very second this clandestine border invader steps on American soil he/she is a criminal in the eyes of our law. It should be no surprise that many go ahead and break more laws and some of them get arrested for that and put in jail. The arresting agency then follows standard operating procedure and notifies ICE that they have an illegal in jail supposedly so they can pick him up and deport him. This is a very common practice called a ‘Detainer’. It is used all of the time. You get busted in one place and are wanted for another crime in another jurisdiction they ‘detain you at the end of your sentence so the other place can come and get you. You might say a common sense approach. (I am not typing the he/she thing anymore. Not sexist, just lazy.) Should be a no brainer, right? This is known as Secure Communities a program that has been targeted by liberals since its beginning. They make the rather amazing claim that it is just not fair to remove an illegal alien just because he has broken more laws. Many of them insist that he shouldn’t have been jailed in the first place. They really do! So last year the Obama administration decided that Secure Communities needed to be dismantled almost completely. After all, who needs our communities to be secure from lawlessness? Police authorities in high immigration areas are under tremendous pressure, political pressure, to completely ignore everything they have been taught about lawlessness and public safety in order to protect illegal immigrants.
The stated goal of this campaign against Secure Communities is to de-legitimize deportation as a legitimate response to illegal immigration. That effectively means that we have no immigration laws. So come on in, ISIS. We will not only welcome you we will give you a social security and help pay you to attack us. The same goes for the drug traffickers, human sex traffickers, etc.
Here you have a little insight into the administration’s amnesty packaging. Still like it?

We Once Were …

We Once Were …

Our once great nation began life as an independent nation. We were a group of rugged individualist that depended upon our families and neighbors for our lives, sustenance and happiness. We knew our security rested within ourselves. If I may paraphrase a scholar of those time, Benjamin Franklin, who once said ‘If you wish to give up freedom for security you will have neither.’ Yeah, I know that isn’t an exact quote, but it is close.
Today we have a large group of people that believe they should receive all things from the government. They are owed something just for being born. The only thing they are owed is a mother and father that teach them and protect them until they are old enough to do those things for themselves.
You see the founding fathers knew this and set up a system of government that allow for individual growth and liberty. They did a pretty good job, in my humble opinion. Oh, sure there were some things that they simply couldn’t foresee, but they tried to allow for even that by making sure we, the individuals of that new nation, could modify the founding document to accommodate for growth and changing paradigms.
The basic assumption was that each individual would have the freedom to become that which they both wanted and were capable of achieving. They made it plain in the founding documents that we were all created equal. Does that mean that we can all achieve the same level of prosperity and greatness in our lives? Nope. It means that the law of the land will treat us all with equal respect and deference. The rest is up to you. Nobody owes you more than that. Once you are both mentally and physically capable of taking cae of yourself it is time for you to begin the process of growth and paying back what you were given for the first part of your life.
What? Payback? What payback? You began this life as a dependent. You were dependent upon others for everything. You could do nothing for yourself except attempt to get somebody’s attention to the needs of your body. And for the most part that was given to you without the expectation of payback. Just because none expected payback does not mean that it isn’t owed by the honorable.
Hmmm Honorable. Interesting word that. According to Merriam-Webster it has the following short definition: “: deserving honor and respect : having or showing honesty and good moral character : fair and proper : not deserving blame or criticism.” That was so important at one time in this country that is deserves special mention. Men pledged their “Sacred” honor only to really important goals. Their honor was so important that some gave their lives to protect it. There are few among us willing to do that in this day of infamy we now find ourselves living. Soldiers do it on a daily basis and are to be thanked for that. They deserve to be ‘honored’ for that. How about you? Are you deserving of anybodies honor? Really?
Through out our countries history we have set in law a variety of procedures that both define us and aid in protecting us from those that would destroy our honor and independence. Let’s look at one small example of that. How about new people that want in on this land of liberty? We felt you should observe the niceties and ask permission. Sort of like knocking on the door of a stranger you want to become familiar with. First you knock on the door and ask permission to enter. Should you decide not to do this simple act and enter without permission, you are subject to a plethora of possible penalties. It was intended that you should follow the proper procedure in gaining access to all this country has to offer. First you ask permission to enter then you indicate your desire to stay a while then you ask to become a member of the family and become a citizen.
Before you ‘marry’ into the family that is American we require that you know something about us and we know something about you. You have to learn our constitution and we give you a test to make sure that you have. Then you take the vows or the oath promising to defend that constitution and there are all those penalties for failure of that oath. Shucks, we even require people that want to work for us to take an oath before they may do so. I took an oath when I joined the service and did so willingly. That oath is for life. No one ever has came by and said that I didn’t need to obey it anymore. I willingly, loyally and even happily follow that oath to this day.
It seems to this writer that today honor and law has become a matter of personal convenience. If a law is inconvenient simply ignore we it. This is happening from the so clled pillars of our nation to the man in the street. Our judges, our media pundits, even our ministers. Our judges seem to believe that the first line of the constitution is a matter of convenience. Sharia law was never even considered by our our congress yet some judges feel it is OK to use it as a basis for some decisions. Our media feels that the Constitution is just an old, out dated writing with some suggestions on how we should behave. Some ministers feel that the bible wasn’t really serious when it condemned homosexuality, etc. The president calls us an Islamic nation. It doesn’t matter that most of our founding documents and the reason for the existence of this nation was religious, Christian freedom. Not a freedom from religion. Not so we could revere a philosophy that preaches the hate and destruction of any people that do not accept their narrow and hate filled so called religion.
We once were a nation that had honor. We once were a nation that held to the principle of self determination and respect for others. We once were a nation that stood proud and strong. We once were a nation of proud people. We once were.

A Little Common Sense

For the first time I will be posting the same commentaries to two of my own Blogs.

I am going to answer a recurring and spurious objection to the Article V convention and attempt to explain the necessity.

The objection usually points out that the federal government doesn’t follow the constitution now, why should they follow it after the convention? The misconception here is that we believe we can stop Obama. We don’t. I doubt that anyone can at this point when you consider the RINO support he is seeing. The whole point of the Article V is prevent future Obamas. How, you ask?

The answer to that is actually simple. We remove the factors that make it possible in the way the wording of the constitution currently exists. The answer lies in bringing the wording into the modern cultural paradigm as opposed to the one in which the founders worked. You see the founders could not envision that “politics” would become a path to immense wealth and power. Hamilton alludes to this in his Patriot Papers. They knew from their experience that people would seek election out of a sense of duty, fulfill that duty and go back to their private lives and more profitable jobs. They saw no need for term limits and probably never even considered such a measure. In their world it simply wasn’t necessary.

Today, in our culture, we have politicians winning elections based almost solely on their ability to raise money and/or from ineligible voters. Most, if not all spend many times the annual salary of the position they seek. Oh, it isn’t their money they spend. Heavens no. The money comes from special interest groups that have an agenda that may or may not be similar to what the people actually want. But then who cares about what the people want. It makes it impossible for the honest, hard working person to win an election. They just can’t afford to run. So we have the professional, career politician representing a few of the people. They can and do say anything they think you want to hear to get your vote knowing that they can ‘change their minds’ once in office and that the incumbent is the highly favored one in any race to election. I know. I know. That isn’t always true. On very rare occasions the people get mad and vote out incumbents.

Now we come to the crux of the amendment drive. Term limits. Voter ID. Limited government. Fiscal responsibility. Term limits would rid us of those self same professional politicians. If you aren’t able to make a career out of being a politician you move on to something a little more useful. And here I am talking not just of the elected ones, but the appointed ones also. Like the Supreme Court. Put in office by a bunch of self serving professional politicians For Life? Sorry, in todays world that just doesn’t make any sense.

The Constitution makes it plain that voters must be citizens it just doesn’t provide for making the voter prove that they are, in fact, citizens. It not only wasn’t necessary when the document was written. It was unnecessary. If you lived here in those days you were a citizen. If you were a black or a native or a woman you could not vote. We finally made some changes via the amendment process that changed that part. However back in the founders day there were no driver’s licenses or birth certificates or even government issued ID cards.

We have all heard the horror stories about voter fraud, Most recently in the presidential election of 2012. The main stream media would not even discuss the fact that there were entire counties across the nation that had no opposition parties that voted. Every single voter cast their ballot for B.O.H. 100% Now that is not only improbable, it is flat out impossible. Then you have politicians like Harry Reid. He has gone into election day behind in the poles for all but for his first election and goes on to win by a substantial margin. It is speculated that he receives more votes from dead people than live ones! I have no way of confirming that, but it wouldn’t surprise me. Democrats would have you believe that voter IDs would be discriminatory. It would disenfranchise many people. I spend a lot of my time each election cycle registering voters. That concept is just plain phony. There are dozes of ways to make sure every one that is a citizen and wants to vote are able to do so. But then if you invoke the law about only citizens voting you lose all of the illegal immigrants and the dead and the multiple voter from voting so in that area it certainly is discriminatory.

Fiscal responsibility is another bugaboo. We now have a national debt that consumes forty eight percent of the national income from our taxes just to pay the interest. Then there is social security. The money that the working stiff pays into that fund doesn’t go to pay for social security. It is ‘borrowed’ by congress and the loan has never been paid. This one is NOT an entitlement, folks. I was told when very young that my payment of that particular tax would guarantee me a certain amount of income upon reaching a certain age. In other words my money would be returned at least in part. Because of that borrowing the social Security Administration has to then borrow from other countries to make good on their word. That means we have to pay more interest on the new loan. A vicious circle. This one a simple balanced budget amendment may not be equal to solving.

Last and far from least is limiting government. The Preamble to the Constitution makes it quite plain that the federal government is actually quite limited. “ … establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity …” They are empowered to regulate actions between states, but not within any state border. Things like interstate commerce. That word interstate means between states. If a state can handle it the feds can’t. A little tweak to the welfare clause of the Constitution would eliminate things like denying mining permits and Obamacare to name only two. A cultural updating, not a rewrite. In simple language, if a state can do it, the feds can’t.

The Federal government is limited to providing for the establishment of the judicial system, provide the military for common defense, promote the general welfare and above all secure the liberty of the people.

I have reached my self imposed 1000 word limit. More next time. If you read it please comment.