don't be afraid of what you believe

                I am afraid our children will look at their history books and ask us what we did to stop the spread of socialism in America. We’ll tell them stories about how we used to be able to buy 32oz soda’s, and people could say whatever they wanted without fear of government reprisal. Our children will ask us if we always had to wait 3 months for a routine doctor’s appointment. We’ll say “no, it used to be fairly fast”. They’ll ask us what happened, and we’ll have to say that we Christians and Conservatives didn’t do enough to stop it.

                America is a place of ultimate freedom; our founders thought it was important to instill freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of the press in the first Amendment to our Constitution. Why? Because they knew that those would be the first thing a potential group of dictators would go after. With freedom of speech, religion and the press, you are always assured a free nation. If someone comes along and wants to say not allow a restaurant in a city, freedom of speech allows us to speak against that person. If someone comes along and wants to force every business to pay for contraceptive services, well, freedom of religion comes along and says “nope, that’s a no no for us”. When a leader comes along and wants to infringe upon the rights of a person or a group of people, freedom of press comes along and lets the entire nation know what is going on. In today’s America, all three are under assault, no not by leftists on Twitter and Facebook, but by actual elected leaders of this Constitutional Republic we so know and love. For example, when a CEO of a company takes a stance against gay marriage, elected officials from Boston, Chicago, San Francisco, and Philadelphia (so far) have all banded together in attempt to stifle this CEO’s First Amendment right to free speech. Here is just one article that highlighted that stifling: http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/chicago-alderman-says-hell-block-chick-fil-a-expansion-in-northwest-part-of-the-city/2012/07/25/gJQAnPIt9W_story.html . Search the news, you’ll find out about Boston’s mayor saying he will block Chik Fil A in Boston, the mayor of San Fran said the same, and Mayor Nutter of Philadelphia said he will be putting together a letter of condemnation for the words of Dan Cathy of Chik fil A. I know our leftist friends think this is just dandy for elected officials to do, but I ask them this, would it be ok for a Christian mayor to block Target from opening any stores in their city? Would it be ok for a Conservative to not allow Nabisco to ship any of their products into or through their city? Oh please, enlighten me on how that’s different. Next I want to talk about the freedom of religion that is under attack. In their new health care law dubbed “Obamacare”, the liberals have mandated that every business must provide contraceptives to their employees. Wow, what a great thing, huh liberals? Now you don’t have to pay to be irresponsible. There is a slight problem with that though, there are Catholic businesses out there, and there are Catholics who own businesses. According to Catholic teachings, contraception is not ok. So now, the Government of the United States of America has infringed upon the religious rights of millions of Americans. All of this is going on right under our noses because our press has become corrupted by the very people they were created to keep in check. One side has the press in their back pockets, while the other side attempts to make that same press like them. So, nothing of any importance ever gets reported to the American people. Then, when a news organization does emerge, that attempts to take on the status quo, they are mocked and belittled constantly by our President and other elected officials. Here is your proof on that claim, I normally don’t site Brietbart or other “Conservative” media in my blog because I don’t want liberals to say my sources are biased, but I literally cannot find a story on this anywhere else in the media, which kind of proves my point. The President insults an entire group of people and no major media outlet even reports it: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/07/14/If-You-Watch-Fox-News-Obama-Says-You-re-Stubborn .

                So, as you can see, our First Amendment freedoms, and probably our most important freedoms are under attack as of the moment I write this blog. There is no negotiation with this, there is only defeating it. Any Republican who would negotiate with these people need to be voted out in the primary.  If you know me, you know I believe strongly that words mean things, so it is with that in mind I say take this election seriously, it may be the most important election of our lifetime.

                This next paragraph is for my Christian friends. If you are not a Christian, feel free to read on, but understand that I am speaking to Christians here. In the wake of this Chik fil A incident, I have heard and read a lot of things from Christians about How we need to accept people, and let them be who they are, because the gay community sees us as intolerant and bigoted. First of all, I don’t quite understand this argument. When have we been in the business of shaping our image so more people like us? By no means am I saying that we should start having a gaydar set up at every church entrance, and kick people out at the door. But I am saying if someone has a problem with pornography, we don’t get them a subscription to Hustler. We support them through their problem, but we don’t support ways to exacerbate it. Also Christians, we need to understand that liberalism is diametrically opposed to Christianity. There is no way to be both. Besides the fact that liberals support the murder of millions upon millions of God’s creations in the name of women’s health, there is no way for a Christian to call themself both a Christian and a Liberal. For example, God tells us that he gave us free will, our freedoms to be what we are come from God. Liberals believe our freedoms are given to us from government. In giving us that free will, god also told us to give to the needy and feed the hungry. We should absolutely be doing that, but of our own free will not at the will of the government, can you imagine the look on God’s face when you get there and say you gave to the needy because you supported legislation to ensure the government takes money from the rich and gave it to the poor? I have to think he would be rather upset, and tell you that is not true charity. When Israel got its first king, it wasn’t because it was what God wanted; God wanted his people to rule themselves under His commandments. But the people wanted to be like the other nations and have a king, so God gave them one.  The Israelites were placed in bondage and slavery to governments as a punishment, so I can’t imagine God would want us to voluntarily place bonds on ourselves. Listen, I don’t claim to be a Bible scholar, I don’t even claim to be a great Christian, but I’m afraid if we don’t get our act together and start fighting liberalism inside our own churches, we will only have ourselves to blame. The last thing I have read is that we should trust that God has a plan, and I absolutely think that is accurate, but I do not think that is a reason to stand by while our nation destroys itself from the inside out. Did you ever think that maybe God placed us on this earth and gave us his word, and called it a sword was so that we could be armed to fight for what is right? Maybe, just maybe, we are God’s plan, and we need to stand up and preach from the pulpits that the way our country is headed is wrong, and we love you, and we will help you, but we will not stand by and watch while you attempt to tear down one of the main tenants of Christian life, the traditional family.

                Ok, again, those who know me know that I don’t mince words. I would appreciate your feedback on this one, and feel free to not mince words, I can take it. Thanks for reading.

Blog about Brett Kimberlain Day

I am following in the footsteps of greats like Glenn Beck, Michelle Malkin, and Breitbart.com and joining in for blog about Brett Kimberlain day. Brett Kimberlain is a seriously disturbed man. Below I am going to post some links to stories about this guy from sources who did much more research then I am able to do. The point of this post is to show that though conservatives are portrayed as the violent ones because of our love of the Second Amendment and our portrayal as violent people on hollywood. History shows liberalsm has been much more violent throughout history then us evil conservatives.

Shortly after the Civil War, a group of Democrats who did not agree with the outcome of the war created a "fraternity" type club called the Klu Klux Klan or KKK. While it started out as a peaceful club, the KKK eventually turned into the terrorist organization we know it as today. Throughout the 20th century, the KKK worked to get Democrats elected to the House and Senate of both the federal government, state government, and local governments.

In 1966, a group of young black revolutionaries from Oakland created the black power movement called The Black Panther party. This terrorist organization is the only one to rival the KKK in it's violent rhetoric in the 20th century. The Black Panthers gained most of their notoriety in opposition to the Vietnam War in the 60's and 70's. These terrorists have been involved in police murders around the nation. In the 80's, the Black Panther Party was outlawed. Currently, They have been replaced by The New Black Panther Party. Most recently The New Black Panther party was involved in the voter intimidation case in Philadelphia. They were also involved in offering $10,000 for information leading to the whereabouts of George Zimmerman before he was charged with any crime.
In 1969, Weather Underground was created. Two of the major people involved its creation were Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dorhn. Weather Underground was revolutionary organization of young leftists who really enjoyed building bombs. In 1970, while building a bomb to use at a Non-Commisioned Officer dance at Fort Dix Army Base in New Jersey, the bomb exploded and killed two people. They are also responsible for blowing up a statue tht honored fallen police officers, then after it was rebuilt, they bombed it again. Ayers and Dorhn were also responsible for a bomb that rocked an FBI building, the Capitol Building, the Pentagon, and the New York City Police Department.

I am not saying that there aren't deranged people on the right. I absolutly deplore anyone who blows up an abortion clinic in the name of Christianity. I am absolutly against Fred Phelps and his organization and the verbal violence they provide in the name of Christianity. But in far more volume the left has commited more organized crime than the right throughout our history in the name of leftist causes. My last example that is going on today is the depiction of the Tea Party on the right, and the Occupy Movement on the left. The Tea Party has not had one violent crime commited at a rally yet they are portrayed as violent and racist. The Occupy Movement got so bad they had to have rape free zones, yet they are portayed as the peaceful grassroots protestors.

Below are the links I promised, enjoy.

Michelle Malkin
http://michellemalkin.com/2012/05/23/free-speech-show-solidarity-for-targeted-conservative-bloggers/

The Blaze
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/readymeet-soros-funded-domestic-terrorist-brett-kimberlin-whose-job-is-terrorizing-bloggers-into-silence/

Breitbart
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2010/10/11/Progressives-Embrace-Convicted-Terrorist

Read and enjoy.

It's a Wonderful Day in the Neighborhood

Tuesday, 9 May 2012, a day which will live in conservative lore for a long time. Let me break it down for everyone since it was such an outstanding day for conservatives all across the fruited plains.

Indiana

We'll start with Indiana because Indiana means a lot to the conservative movement. In Indiana, moderate Richard Lugar lost in a landslide to conservative Richard Mourdock in the republican primary. The reason why this is a good story is this, Richard Lugar served in the senate for 36 years. He was the third longest sitting senator in the senate. The problem with Lugar is that he was all about compromising with the liberals. I'm not adverse to compromise, but it seems recently, the only people compromising are the republicans. When republicans go across the aisle, it's bad for the country. Conservatism is the proven way to get an economy going and get jobs back to Americans again. No, don't give me that Bush didn't get the economy going, and Bush didn't get jobs back to American's again crap. There is a reason for that, Bush wasn't a conservative. You can't bail out auto companies, sped billions on a stimulus package, and basically have an open border policy and be a conservative. The simple truth is conservatism works, when liberalism takes hold whether through Democrat or Republican legislator, it is bad for America. So, having a conservative battling for the senate seat instead of a moderate is a good thing. But we're not done yet.

Wisconsin

Wow, Wisconsin was a fun race to watch. In case you don't know, Governor Scott Walker is up for a recall election because the public sector union bosses didn't like the fact that he balanced the Wisconsin budget and put the public sector unions in check at the same time. So, they had a primary Tuesday, Governor Walker ran unopposed in the primary. Running unopposed means he had absolutely nothing to worry about in this primary election. There was no one running against him. In the Republican primary, Walker got a total of 600,000 votes. That total is just about equal to the TOTAL votes in the Democrat primary. That's just part of the fun. The reason he was recalled, the supposed outrage because of Gov. Walker's stance against public section union's having certain rights that private employee's don't have. The union's candidate, Kathleen Falk, lost to her Democrat opposition by 18 points. Oh we're not done yet, the Democrat she lost to, Tom Barrett has been staying as far away from unions as he possibly can. The fun to this one is that it is yet more proof that the media can't be trusted. Watch this one, Walker is going to win this one big. Moving on...

North Carolina

This one is for all my Republican friends who say "social conservatism is a non-winner". North Carolina voted for a Constitutional Amendment to their state Constitution that defined marriage as between one man and one woman. This is the 30th time a vote has been put before the people of a state and the 30th time same sex marriage has lost. But once again, you would never know this if you listen to the media. If you listen to them, you would think the social conservatives are in the minority. By the way, the only places where gay marriage is legal are those places where it was imposed on the people by the legislature or by the judges. Remember, even the liberal capital of the world California voted to define marriage in their Constitution to between one man and one woman. Oh, we still have one state left to go.

West Virginia

This one is just fun. The President during a re-election year still has to run a primary in the states. You don't hear about it because he always runs unopposed and always wins. That being said, it is feasible that someone could very easily get themselves on the ballot in some states, and run against the incumbent president. That very thing happened in West Virginia. Don't ask me how, but an inmate in a federal prison in Texas got on the Democrat primary ballot in West Virginia, The inmate got 41% of the vote against the sitting President. After hearing this, I laughed for a while. How does that happen? It's very simple; the President has put himself at odds with the coal industry. Well, the coal industry is kind of a big deal in West Virginia. It is so bad there that after he voted in the primary Democratic Senator Joe Manchin was asked who he voted for, Barack Obama or the inmate, and Senator Joe Manchin refused to say who he voted for.

Ultimately, I recognize it is only May; we still have a long way to go until November. But this is a sign of the election to come. My point in all of this is don’t listen to the media, don’t listen to Hollywood, and ignore the polls. Just watch, because if you're anything like me, November is going to be fun.

History Has a Tendency to Repeat Itself

If you don’t know your history, you are doomed to repeat it. However, that may be a good thing this time around. In 1980, America has a high unemployment rate, high inflation, the U.S. dollar had been devalued, problems with Iran, and two oil shortages helped to prove the liberal ideas of Jimmy Carter and the Democrats don’t work. In November of 1980, the American people woke up and elected Ronald Reagan President of the United States. As everyone should know, “The Reagan Revolution” ushered in a new era of prosperity and American exceptionalism. Really, about the only good things that happened from 1976 – 1980 was the release of the original Star Wars and Rocky movies. In 1980, America woke up and elected a great leader to show our strength around the world, raise our economy to its rightful place as number one in the world.

So, not knowing our history hurt us in 2008, we elected Jimmy Carter all over again. But we have a chance here to elect the next Ronald Reagan, someone to lead us into another era of prosperity and American exceptionalism. Here is my question though, is that person an appeasing moderate? I don’t think so. That person is a Conservative, a candidate who will follow the Constitution to the letter, and not “reach across the aisle” to negotiate with the people who have been known to push through unconstitutional laws without even reading them. It’s time for a President and a Congress who doesn’t want to work with the people who want to redistribute wealth, cause higher inflation, spend our grandchildren into oblivion, and bow to foreign dictators. Ultimately, our Reagan isn’t Romney, it’s Cain, Bachmann, or Santorum. One of the staunch Conservatives on that stage debating. Let’s be realistic a second here. A blind turtle could have beaten Carter in 1980. The Republican Party chose Reagan because he was the best man for the job. I believe in 2012, a blind turtle could beat Obama. So let’s take this opportunity and take the best person possible for the job. It’s not about who can beat Obama, cause they all could. It’s about who is the best person to bring back our pride in America and bring back that respect demanded from other countries.

In 2008, I prayed history would not repeat itself, it did. Now, in 2012, I pray history does repeat itself.

A Personal Lesson on America's Healthcare

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/03/13/baby-joseph-gets-second-chance-life/

The above link is to the story, I'm sure you've heard about, of baby Joseph. He is the Canadian child with a neurological disorder who the Canadian government is trying to pull the plug on. This story has hit a personal nerve with me, because as some of you may know I lost a child, Glenn III, to a genetic disorder. If you don't know, Glennie (as we called him) was diagnosed with Spinal Muscular Atrophy at 6 months old. His doctors, said he would not make it past his first birthday. Glennie made it to 22 months. My son fought hard, he was a tough kid. But all along the way, the doctors and nurses stood by while my wife and I made every decision for our son. At no time, even though the death of our son was guaranteed, did anyone step in to tell us what we had to do. What the Canadian government is doing in this case is appalling. The fact that anyone thinks it is appropriate to tell someone when it is time to pull the plug on their own child is beyond anything I can comprehend. However, that is what we are headed to in this country. When Sarah Palin mentioned "Death Panels", she wasn't kidding. Some of the decisions my wife and I had to make were horrible, something I would not wish on my worst enemy. But they were ours. There is not much in my life that I remember as clearly as I do the decisions that I made in the short life on my son. Not even events like September 11 ring as clearly as those decisions. But I was the best man for that job.

Now, they want to take the ability of parents to make decisions about their child’s wellbeing? I don't think so. While I'm still alive on this earth I will tell as many people as possible about my personal experiences in the GREATEST health care services on the planet. And due to the fact that I know what it's like to lose a child, a pain no one can know unless they have lost the same thing, I will fight Obamacare with every fiber of my being so that no family ever has to lose a child, and have nothing to do with the decisions being made.

Sorry for the rant, but as you can see if you read the whole thing, I'm pretty passionate about our healthcare system, and though the liberals think it's the shining country on a hill, I DO NOT want to be like Canada.

Oldie but Goodie

I posted this a long time ago, but in the hopes of becoming published at some point, I deleted it. I am bringing it back, because it is one of my favorites, and I think best written, and we'll see what happens in the publishing department at another time.

When gun control laws are enforced, why do gun crime rates go up? It has been brought up by multiple people throughout the world that proper gun control laws would do away with gun-related violence; however, they do not. According to an article written by John Lott in American Enterprise, "In the four years after the United Kingdom banned handguns in 1996, gun crime rose by an astounding 40 percent" (1). This quote has been found to be true in many countries throughout the world. The United States Congress, in 1968 after the murders of Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr., passed "The Gun Control Act"; which brought more restrictions on the sale and use of firearms. In an article written by M. Stanton Evans, he states "the Gun Control Act has done little to impede the growth of crime in our society" (1). These two points make it pretty clear that the way to less gun violence is less gun control.
Take the tax cuts in the early 1980s as an example. President Ronald Reagan, with the country facing the worst recession since the Great Depression, cut taxes on the wealthiest Americans. Now to look at this, it almost sounds ludicrous, but let us look at what that did. It helped the wealthy keep more of their money. In turn, those wealthy people hired more middle class and lower class workers at their businesses. They also bought more expensive things which helped the economy and brought more people to work in different jobs. Since there were more people working, in turn it affected the poverty level, leaving less and less people in poverty. So, in short, giving the American people more freedom solved the recession very quickly. Now contrast that to the Great Depression. President Roosevelt, when faced with the Depression, quickly came up with multiple social programs, which in turn brought government spending up which raised everyone's taxes across the board. This kept businesses from hiring new employees and laying off existing employees. All of these actions raised unemployment, which meant people were not getting paid. If people do not have money, then they do not spend money; therefore, the economy suffers.
If you pass a law taking guns away from the citizens then, yes, the citizens who follow the laws will obey. These are not the citizens we are worried about. The citizens we are worried about are the ones who have no issues with breaking a law or two. Now, all that these laws have done is make law-abiding citizens easier targets for the criminals to harass, whereas if you give the American people their true right to own a firearm, you give them the ability to defend themselves against those who wish to harm them. Just like the tax argument I made earlier; if you want less crime, you give more freedom. By combining the fear of possibly meeting a gun owner on the other side of the door and the fear of very harsh punishments if a violent crime is committed, you will significantly reduce the violent crime rate. In his article written in the American Journal of Criminal Justice, Alex Piquero states, "According to the state of Florida, the results under 10-20-Life are impressive. In only five years, from 1998-2003, 10-20-Life has helped drive down violent gun crime rates 28 percent statewide" (1).


Works Cited
Evans, M. Stanton "Crime and Gun Control." National Review 31.45 (1979): 1434.

International Security & Counter Terrorism Reference Center. EBSCO. Web. 17 Nov. 2009

Lott Jr., John "GUN BANS DON'T CUT CRIME." American Enterprise 13.7 (2002): 10.

Education Research Complete. EBSCO. Web. 17 Nov. 2009.

Piquero, Alex " Do Gun Laws Affect Crime the Way Steroids Affect Homeruns in
Baseball?" American Journal of Criminal Justice. EBSCO. Web. 17 Nov. 2009.

What is a "Blood Libel"?

As early as Saturday afternoon, we started hearing it. Media members and even members of Congress pointing fingers at people. Listen, if there is blame to be assigned in any tragedy, I will be happy to point it out. I don't see however, how the actions of a 22 year old man with no political ties at all can be blamed on Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, or even Sharon Angle as I read today. The answer is, it can't. The liberals, with no proof, are simply trying to use this tragedy to silence the opposition. They are scared of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Sarah Palin, and the entire Tea Party movement. Why? Because they are making an impact. They are informing the country of exactly what the liberals are doing, and what their obvious intent is. So, they need legislation like 'The Fairness Doctrine' in order to silence the conservative crowd. It is absolutly horrible to use this tragedy to push a piece of crap legislation, but you watch, that's what they're going to try and do. Probably in the Senate first. So, let's get this straight, a moderate democrat Congresswoman was the target of an attack, by a domestic terrorist, just calling a spade a spade here. He may have been mentally deranged, but still tried to accomplish his agenda through violence. Then, somehow, that terrorist attack becomes the fault of conservative public figures? How does that work?

Here is how that works. The liberals don't have to play by "the rules". They believe they can bend the rules to fit their needs. They have no respect for any authority. This is why they hate the fact that the Constitution was read on the floor of the House of Representatives. The Constitution and the Bible have something in common when it comes to liberals. They are antique documents written by people who were not as smart as they are. The Constitution also is symbolic that there are rules that they must abide by. So would they thing twice about passing 'the Fairness Doctrine' which is a clear violation of our 1st ammendment rights? No. Would they think twice about passing a healthcare bill with a mandate attached to it clearly violating the Article 1 limits to federal power? No. So, when something like this happens, it is no big deal for them to go ahead and pass judgement with zero proof. Make accusations with zero proof because the ends justify the means.

Conservatives don't play that way. I wouldn't want to start now either. Could 9/11 have been caused by the fact that Clinton weakened the ability for government law enforcement agency's to communicate with each other. It could have. How about the USS Cole, that could have been because of the liberals weakening of our military and the increasingly stringent rules of engagement. But we don't pass blame unless we have proof. That comes from a respect of our rules and our laws. A respect of our law enforcement to do the investigative job and find out what the "cause" was.

So, to answer the question in the title, a "Blood Libel" is when blame is assigned for a mass murder, or some other tragedy. I have no problem with that, find the cause, and fix it, or leave it alone. However, to pass blame before any proof is collected, Sheriff (and I use that term loosely) Dupnik, is just plain wrong and unprofessional.