Sunday, March 6, 2016

Justice for life? Maybe not.

"The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office." US Constitution, Article 3, Section 1.

Now here is a good example of most citizens not knowing what the Constitution says. Justices are not appointed to the Supreme Court for life, nor for any lower court. It is simply not stated thus.

But it brings up a dilemma: because what in the world did our Founding Fathers mean by "good Behavior"? With so much discussion on what the 2nd Amendment means, shouldn't there be even more discussion on what constitutes "good behavior" in a judge?

So if a justice gets drunk and falls asleep during a State of the Union address, is that justice upholding a standard of good behavior befitting a justice of the Supreme Court of the United States?

Or does it mean that if a justice is ruling on how they wish the Constitution was written and not the actual language in the Constitution is that justice acting in "good behavior"? Is judicial activism unconstitutional behavior un-befitting a Supreme Court Justice?

And if the justice has used poor judgement and a President can use said behavior to hold a justice's decision hostage should the justice not be removed?

Sunday, July 19, 2015

What is a life worth?

We live in a world that is living in squalor. Hatred and destruction are everywhere we look; from the Middle East where ISIS is destroying monuments, to the Southern United States, where the call is to exhume bodies of the “intolerant”, and erase all signs of our culture because of its perceived history.

We see the awful things happening around us, but don't want to admit that the reason things are so awful is because of us, and yet the simple truth is that we don't NEED to be awful. Human life is so valuable that Almighty God had to experience extreme suffering and torment of soul to show us a better path. Christianity has the solution, but the sinners in the world cannot see the simple truth.

Others religions, such as Islam, do not confer value upon human life. In fact, a video was making its way around the Internet in which a Muslim woman hoped her son would become a suicide bomber and take the very lives of the same Jewish people that had just saved his infant-life through a complicated surgery because the Muslim people do not regard human life.

In our own culture, the cult of abortion is removing the value from human life. By denying its very significance from conception, we are denying the merit of human life throughout the life span.

The current din coming from the homosexual crowd calling Christianity hateful is due to the simple fact that sinful people cannot separate their sin from their identity. It is easy to see when they continue to demand that we accept them as having been “born this way,” while denying that being born homosexual is contrary to their belief in the theory of natural selection.

For Christianity the world is clearly definable, sin is the nature of man, and yet man is redeemable. Man has greater worth and must somehow see that his sin is the monstrosity that is blinding himself to the truth; the Truth that they are truly priceless.

A eye-surgeon knows that removing the cataract will be a painful surgery with a lengthy recuperation, but the end product is worth the process. To leave someone blind and pitiful is cold-blooded, not the other way around. So in essence, despite the hue and cry that Christians are being mean for calling the world out on its sin, they are really trying to clear the mud away from the sinners eyes so he can see how truly valuable he is in the eyes of the Almighty Creator.

Sunday, April 26, 2015

Naturally, Humanity is NOT gay!

Here is my take on gay lifestyle:

In the Middle East it is acceptable to screw animals: camels, sheep, goats and donkeys. The Muslim people see nothing wrong with this practice, but we think it is deplorable and not acceptable.

Here in the US, we have a population that thinks it is acceptable to screw a member of the same sex. The Muslims think it is deplorable and, in fact, will stone, or hang, or behead or throw the person from a high building to kill them.

But simply observe how the human body looks. The man has a penis, and the woman a vagina, and these two apparatuses fit together perfectly. This is the natural design of humanity. The design of the human body was naturally meant for the use of these body parts in this fashion, anything else could be considered unnatural.

So for a human to have sex with a member of the same sex is UNNATURAL.  I can see it, and even those who think homosexuality is okay can see it. It is not natural and I should not be made to claim that I do not have a problem with it.

Another take:

Today’s question is: Why does the world say that an unchosen sexual disposition isn’t changeable, but an unchosen gender is?

Here the writer uses the terms unchosen to describe homosexual disposition. I agree it is a choice.... Here's why:

There is nothing natural about desiring a member of the same gender (see above). So when one begins to have those desires a choice is made....... to either accept the desires or to deny them
and choose to accept the natural choice. Only when you make the choice to accept same sex attraction as your predilection do you begin to act on it. The desires may be real or not (nothing has yet been determined psychologically), but the actions that lead to the homosexual lifestyle are clearly a CHOICE.

Homosexuality is not something we are born with....... but your gender is something you are born with.
The hypocrisy of demanding that we accept homosexuality as unchangeable and gender as changeable is laughable. Gender is natural, homosexual inclination is NOT natural.

If I can look at you, another human being, and say you are white, or black, or male or female.....but not say you are gay, then it is NOT NATURAL, it is not something you were born with. Demanding I say otherwise is simply being a bully.

Sunday, April 5, 2015

What is tolerance?

WE are told that religion is the scourge of the world, that all conflict and hatred is bound up in man's inability to come to terms with everyone inherent worth and the desire to make others feel less moral than we.  Yet, in the world that we live, many claim the badge of tolerance and therefore they feel that they are morally superior. They accept everyone as they are, they make no judgement, they do not discriminate, they love everyone. EXCEPT.......

They really don't.

There are many examples of this:

  • Sarah Palin and her Down's Syndrome son Trig have been attacked mercilessly by the left using terns that they themselves say are hateful (ie. C**t, Retard, Imbecile, Batshit Crazy, Bit*h, etc)
  • Rush Limbaugh is a large target because he isn't afraid to tell the truth about what is going on in Washington DC and he must be stopped, even if they need to tell lies about him to get his voice off the air.
  • The TEA Party movement is called traitors and terrorists, because they simply want the size of government to shrink, they want American citizens to be responsible citizens, they want illegal aliens to not be given handout that have been paid for by the Americans who are now being told they will never see any benefits from their years of sacrifice.
  • The military are ridiculed by those who have never offered a single eyelash to defend our way of life, nor protect another human life (and that includes pre-born life).

One begins to wonder how those so intolerant of so much can call themselves tolerant?

Because the term does not mean what it originally meant. defines tolerance as: 

  1. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, beliefs, practices, racial or ethnic origins, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.
  2. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions, beliefs, and practices that differ from one's own.
  3. interest in and concern for ideas, opinions, practices, etc., foreign to one's own; a liberal, undogmatic viewpoint.
But as we are now seeing, there is very little acceptance of opinions that differ from one's own.
Instead the term has been redefined (a well-used tactic of the left) to mean the complete opposite of its original meaning.  The self-righteous left is now using this term to mean ..........................................

The intolerance of intolerance.

Let that sink in............... Instead of demanding that other's be respected for their inherent worth, we are told that some people are to be more respected and many people are to be disrespected because they supposedly are disrespecting others.  The Moral High Ground is to hate others because they hate.

Doesn't this sound a little like two wrongs being used to try to make right?

I, being a self-righteous elitist get to define who the haters are and then I get to hate them, and not simply with hate, but with


The world  has become a more dangerous place because Tolerance has reared its ugly head in our world.  When those who like to feel that they love everyone, that they are accepting of others', and non-judgemental become the arbiters of the terminology this is the ugly turn it can take. Now Hating has become okay as long as you are hating those who you believe, even without cause, are hating.

Those who claim to speak for the oppressed have now become the oppressors by trying to remove the voice of those they disagree with. It isn't even about helping the oppressed anymore, it has become about: hurting and destroying anyone who thinks differently than you.

Tolerance = Bigotry    How do we un-weave this tangled web of lies and deceit?

A shout out to Alfonzo Rachel for clarifying this for me.

Saturday, March 14, 2015

Atheists Borrow from Christian Doctrine

Evolution borrows Christian Dogma

If evolution is the path through which life, and indeed human life, resides on this planet than there are many problems with how humanity is treated.

Evolution teaches that man is nothing more than an animal. It resides at the top of the food chain simply because it has become intelligent by means of natural selection. Evolutionists believe that man is a product of the earth, and a product of the universe, that there is nothing inherently majestic or special about human beings in the cosmos.

If man is no different that the animals, than his access to the resources of the planet should be no more restricted than an ant, or a duck.  As the animals all have equal access to the resources of the planet, than man being nothing more than an animal should also have the same access without restrictions.  There is no evolutionary reason for man to not build whatever he wishes where ever he wishes anytime he wishes. No reason for an animal to restrict  its use of the resources of the planet that spawned its very existence.

Environmentalists want man to be restricted from using some resources because it "harms" the environment. That is not logical, because if man was made from the same materials as the earth was made, than by not allowing him free use of all the resources is the same as genocide, and has potential to lead to extinction of the species.  In theory the planet spawned all life spontaneously, than all life can be said to be a product of the planet, and human use of the planet is no different than a plant using decayed waste as a nutrition source. So where did the idea come from that man is the master of the planet and needs to care for the environment?

The idea that man is higher than the animals, and that he needs to subdue the planet and be its steward comes from the Bible. Many environmentalist and atheists are borrowing from Christianity to make their claim.  The only possible reason for man to be restricted from complete access to Earth in its entirety is because the Bible teaches that man was made higher than all other animals and was commanded to rule over the whole planet and cultivate it.

So there is absolutely zero evolutionary reason for man to not:

Drill oil in the Gulf of Mexico
Cut down forests
Build in wetland areas
Burn coal and fill the skies with smoke
Ignore a minor temperature change
Create chemicals that kill insects
Put animals in cages
Use animals for experimental purposes
Drive massive vehicles
Create antibiotics that kill pathogens
Have intercourse with animals
Fish, hunt, or destroy other species, even to the point of extinction
Clone, or genetically modify any life form
Enslave other races, genders, species

No evolutionary reason at all!

The only argument that man should not do these things is because the earth was created perfect and man was put in charge of taking care of the planet by the Creator of the planet.  Your welcome!

Friday, March 13, 2015

Debt Payback Plan

An equitable and fair solution to the national debt issue.

Currently the National debt per citizen is equal to $56,634 and climbing, This includes men, women, and children. Unfortunately is does not include illegal residents.  Every single living, breathing person in this country owes a whole lot of money that eventually must be paid back. But we keep on spending and borrowing to pay for our spending, this is a problem that will not go away. But I do see a solution on how to bring down the national debt.

The first step is, of course, to stop the profligate spending. We need a balanced budget, no more borrowing to pay for things we cannot afford. And I am not talking about cutting the "growth of spending" for the future and calling it a tax cut. We deserve a balanced budget, we demand a government that is responsible with the taxes we give them.  It is estimated that over $850B per year is channeled through the welfare system, this is larger than the GNP of some countries, and unsustainable.  So step #1 is a Balanced Budget, and make in an Amendment to the Constitution, so it will be harder to ignore.

The second step is to devise a fair way of paying off the debt we have already accrued, which stands at $18T, as of this writing.  The only fair way to do it is to make everyone, including non-citizens, pay back their portion of the debt, the $56,634 mentioned earlier.  I know that sounds harsh but here is how we do it.

1. We are not unfair misogynists, we do realize that there are some people who cannot work to pay off their portion, but there will be only a few exemptions. My list includes anyone under 18 (until they turn 18 and then they begin paying back), anyone who is not physically capable of meeting their own basic care needs, elderly, infirmed, those confined to wheel chairs, and the severely mentally handicapped.  I believe everyone else needs to provide some measure of work to pay back their debt.  The majority can do something, even if it is just a couple hours a day washing dishes or greeting people at the door. Even a paraplegic can use a grabber to pick up trash along the roadside or in parks.

All the taxes they pay into the system go to decreasing the debt. This will require many years of hard work and labor for most Americans, including the illegals.

2.  So the second step is to inform all residents, citizens, resident aliens and illegals that they will be required to take part in paying back the national debt. As a condition of living and working here in the United States, you and your family assume responsibility for the debt that has accrued.  I can almost guarantee a mass exodus of people from the country if this would be included in any Amnesty law.  All the Muslims that have found refugee status here will also not be exempt. If our money is good enough to pay for your daily expenses, then you will be required to invest in the future of the country.

3. The fair part comes in now, because everyone will have their previous contributions to the tax base considered as paying their share of the debt.  So the senior citizen that paid into the system their whole life, will have their taxes for their whole life deducted from the debt they owe. This will mean that most will have already paid their portion off, leaving them debt-free to live out the rest of their lives.  For decades the Social Security Trust Fund has been used as a slush fund for increased spending, and not set aside, as it was established, for the funding of the Social Security Program. This means that most of the people who have paid into the fund over the years will see nothing for their contribution to the Trust Fund. Unfair instance #1.

For decades the hard working American laborer has paid their taxes, and taken little, or nothing, in benefits out, and will still be straddled with the huge debt our citizens owe. Unfair Instance #2. And if you were to include as their contributions the taxes they have paid into the system, their debt would be paid off or almost paid off.

Let me lay this out with an example:  A family of 4 will have a debt of  $226,536 ( almost a quarter of a million dollars).  The children under 18 will not have their income included because their debt will be paid off after they turn 18 so $113,268 will be their current obligation.  With a household income at the median income $52,250 ( and a tax rate of approximately 25% ( would pay $13,000 into the government per year. Meaning they would have their debt paid off in less than 10 years.

 This does however leave a rather sizable portion of the population that will owe a great deal of taxes and will need to find ways to pay that debt back. Those with a larger family will have more debt to pay back. Those who have not made any contributions to the system will have a larger burden to pay back. 

Before you think the rich are getting off, after all they have paid into the tax base for decades, in exceedingly larger amounts over the years, so their portion of the debt could already be considered to be paid back. But we will still have a government to run, the taxes the rich pay into the system will be used to contribute to the current running of the system. But remember we will have a Balance Budget and the only funding available for the running of the government will be the money the rich will be paying into the system going into the future.  That of course means the budget will be much lower than it is today, because the available tax base will be smaller as the majority will be paying into the system to pay back the national debt.

I know this will mean that the poor will have to find a job and start paying taxes. This is not heartless, as some may contend, this is what is right and fair for the whole population, we have subsidized the poor for decades and the problem has not gotten any better, in fact, we have grown the population that contribute nothing and receive assistance from the government. The time to pay back is upon us, we can no longer afford to borrow against our future.