How prophetic the Founding Fathers were...

I'm told that the Patriot Post's daily emails always start with a quote from one of the Founders or Constitutional Framers.  The longer I live the more amazed I am at how insightful, prophetic and downright brilliant those 
men were.  A friend of mine forwarded me today's quote which was particularly good:

"[L]iberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have everything to fear from its union with either of the other departments."* 
                                                                                  --Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 78, 1788


*Hamilton, A. (exact date unknown) Patriot Post, Founder's Quote Database, Retrieved 11 Febr., 2015 from http://patriotpost.us/quotesutf8=%E2%9C%93&q%5Bname_cont%5D=Alexander+Hamilton&q%5Bquote_category_id_eq%5D=&t=judiciary&commit=Search

Symbolism over substance and tardy at that. This is what passes for statesmanship and diplomacy and world leadership today.

First came yet another Muslim terrorist attack. This one in Paris on a French magazine that had supposedly disparaged Mohammed in some way .So, typically, followers of the "religion of peace" have to go on another killing spree in the name of Allah.

Then came a "solidarity" march with 40-some world leaders marching arm-in-arm with France's president in the streets of Paris to show France the world stands with France and against Muslim terrorism in the aftermath of the bloodshed. Conspicuously missing from this demonstration of world solidarity? Only Barry Obama, the leader of the world's remaining superpower, the USA.

A week drags by with the world's "talking heads" who are normally Obama's biggest sympathizers and excuse-makers even questioning his absence. Considering that America herself had also suffered its latest Muslim terrorism event costing 3,000 lives not that long ago on September 11, 2001, Obama's absence and flimsy excuses for it were impossible to notice and question.

Finally, he sends his Secretary of State, John Kerry to do some kind of fence mending. Something. Anything to "get the heat off" and seem to do something, you know, statesmanlike and prove that Obama is really a world leader and of a superpower no less.

So, what does he do? He goes to France, says "I just really wanted to come here and share a hug with all of Paris and all of France." Really? Seriously? In the aftermath of yet another Muslim terrorism mass killing, the Secretary of State of the world's one remaining superpower wants to give France a "hug?" 

Oh, but it gets worse. During his visit, you know; just to show how sincerely he and the Obama Administration want the French to understand that their administration is just chock full of formidable, credible statesmen who are unbelievably serious about doing something about terrorism, Kerry introduces American singer-songwriter James Taylor to sing the French a very off-key, twangy version of his 1971 hit "You've got a friend."

This is what passes for leadership and statesmanship in the watered-down, dumbed down 21st Century. A president that disses the world in a symbolic stand against Muslim terrorism and to divert criticism he sends Kerry who tells everyone affected he wants to give 'em a hug and have someone sing 'em a lullaby. God help us.



*Meichtry, S. (16 Jan., 2015) Wall Street Journal, John Kerry pays tribute to victims of terrorist attacks. Retreived 16 Jan. 2015 from http://www.wsj.com/articles/john-kerry-pays-tribute-to-victims-of-paris-terrorist-attacks-1421414352

Firearms refresher course.

This was going round the internet today. Too good not to pass onto you here.

Just a reminder!

Firearms Refresher Course 1. "Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not."~Thomas Jefferson

2. "Those who trade liberty for security have neither." ~ John Adams

3. Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.

4. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.

5. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.

6. Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.

7. You only have the rights you are willing to fight for.

8. Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety.

9. You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.

10. Assault is a behavior, not a device.

11. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.

12. The United States Constitution (c) 1791. All Rights Reserved. 13. The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others. 14. What part of 'shall not be infringed' do you NOT understand? 15. Guns have only two enemies; rust and politicians. 16. When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves. 17. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.

IF YOU AGREE, PASS THIS 'REFRESHER' ON TO TEN FREE CITIZENS.

"I love this country, it's the government I'm afraid of"

Ted Turner: I Think It's "Good" U.S. Troops are Killing Themselves

Can you imagine the outcry if, say, George W. Bush or Sarah Palin or Rush Limbaugh or some avowed Christian like Tim Tebow had said they think "it's good" American soldiers are committing suicide? Yet, when it's someone on the left, it's never covered at all in the media, let alone protested.

The fantasy that is gun control.

WASHINGTON - Controlling access to guns would appear, on its face, the simple answer to preventing public massacres like the movie-theatre tragedy in Colorado.*

Tragic random violence like the senseless movie theater massacre in Aurora, Colorado last week always stirs the debate about gun control. However, the answer is not in more toothless and ineffective regulations on law-abiding citizens. Nor is it finding ways of allowing FEWER or NO guns in the hands of the people. Gun control is nothing more than a kneejerk "feels good" solution that is impotent in prevention of crimes like this and empowering for potential dictators, despots and other oppressive forms of oppressive government. An objective look at history shows that anywhere the citizenry has been disarmed and tyranny (soft or hard) and/or outright despotism has followed. And why not? What the hell's a disarmed citizenry going to do to stop it?

Rather the answer is to do away with all the stupid and impotent restrictions on the citizen's right to keep and bear arms. Forget the silly and ineffective "no guns" signs on shopping malls (remember Omaha and Ontario, Canada mall shooting rampages?), churches (numerous incidents of crazy people shooting up churches full of unarmed worshippers in Emporia, Kansas 1986, Long Island,NY 2002, Wichita, Kansas 2009 just to name a few) and educational institutions (e.g., Columbine High School in Colorado in 1999 and Virginia Tech in 2007) because they obviously don't hold back anyone who's made the decision to go violently anti-social. Instead, all those signs do is tell such psychopaths that there are a large number of unarmed victims inside.

No, instead, the answer is to let anyone legally licensed to carry their weapon do so - anywhere, anytime. That way at least innocent shoppers, church worshippers, university students and movie goers would at least have a fighting chance.

Liberals and other anti-gun types claim that to do so would increase the numbers of violent crimes involving firearms. Really? There's not been a case yet of someone legally licensed to carry concealed going off and doing something as insanely violent as happened in the Colorado movie theater this past week. Not only that, but during the days of OPEN-carry in the 19th century western expansion of the US (known by the slang term "wild west"), there was actually far less firearm violence than there is today. So, liberal fears of an armed citizenry creating more gun violence is just hysteria, not well supported fact.

Anti-gunners claim that people today are far more prone to violence than they used to be. Perhaps, but are they really trying to say that conditions like schizophrenia (Colorado movie theater shooting), brain tumors (see UT-Austin shooting rampage 1966) and other documented medical/psychological conditions resulting in anti-social gun-related violence have suddenly just been invented this past 40 years or so? Again, such rationales against allowing the innocent citizenry to protect itself is just hysteria and not supported by logic or fact.

Anti-gun folks think that if they outlaw guns, then guns will just simply disappear from everywhere but police and military arsenals and therefore gun-related violence will disappear. Really? Washington, DC has had the most-restrictive gun control laws in nation (if not the world) the past 40 years and during that time has led the nation (or been in the top 10 in the nation) in gun related homicides and other violent crimes. Besides, there are so many firearms already in the world, that to think mere laws will make them vanish is fantasy, sheer fantasy. And even if they did, the technology for making new ones is so well-known and widely available that there would be a proliferation of new firearms in no time. Besides, making liquor illegal did absolutely nothing during Prohibition to make it vanish from the face of the earth. Rather it created a criminal enterprise to supply it to the masses. Instead of far less liquor and crime, the country got far more of both - and violently so. So, again, such liberal fantasies are just that - fantasy and not reality.

And, while we’re looking at the historical record, let’s take a look at the government’s abilities to restrict and ban other things. The 18^th Amendment to the Constitution, commonly referred to as “Prohibition” tried to eliminate the manufacture, sale and/or possession of  “intoxicating liquors”(for other than religious and medical purposes). Such a ban was impossible to accomplish and instead of eliminating liquor merely served to increase the quantity and usher in the mafia who was happy to illegally manufacture it and through illegal means like “speak easys” and even extortion created a booming market for it. And to ensure their place in the market gave dramatic increase in violent crimes like the aforementioned extortion, arson, arson by bombing, homicide by knife and gun and so on. And the government’s war on narcotic drugs hasn’t had much better success.

Oh, please; Bill Nye warns Creationism "threatens U.S. science?"

Bill Nye, former 'Science Guy,' warns creationism threatens US science (Christian Science Monitor)

Bill Nye: Creationism Threatens U.S. Science (Huffington Post)

Really? "Creationism Threatens U.S. science?" Nye said he fears the things Evolutionists purport "...about nature and the universe can be dismissed by a few sentences translated into English from some ancient text..." - meaning the biblical account of Creation in Genesis 1:1.

Religious background aside, after carefully exploring the Theory of Evolution, I've always found that with its gaps, it takes far more "faith" to believe in Evolution than in Intelligent Design/God created. And Nye's hysterical claims emphasize that fact. For example, it begs a few questions;

1. If Evolution is such a sound scientific theory and Creationism is not, how could Creationism threaten U.S. science? Remember, Evolutionists "...[oppose] efforts in recent years by lawmakers and school boards in some states to present Bible stories as an alternative to evolution in public schools." (Emphasis added to a quote from both articles above). And in most - if not all cases, Creationists only advocate for "equal time" representation (e.g., "alternative") not exclusivity.

2. And - just for the sake of argument - even if Creationism somehow did "threaten U.S. science," why would it threaten only U.S. science? Why not science throughout the world? Again, if Evolution is so almighty scientifically sound and Creationism is just some crackpot, half-baked, unfounded theory, how is it so threatening as an alternative theory?

But, Nye expresses concern that by equally representing Creationism as a possible explanation to the origins of the universe and life we might "raise a generation of students who don't believe in the process of science," then that begs other questions (in the interests of consistent logic and so on):

If life as we know it occurred because of a random event, then:

1. Why is it that Planet Earth just so happens to stay in the exact rotational tilt angle range and the exact orbital path around its sun to sustain life for all this time? Why hasn't some random event came along to alter it's rotational tilt angle or its orbital path enough to cause Earth to turn to an ice planet or a ball of dust (say, like the moon)?, and

2. If life as we know it amongst the species - in other words, not just human beings - stems from some random event billions of years ago, why is it that every species has some kind of built-in reproductive system? Why didn't some kind of other random event come along that wiped out the earlier life forms - as in life forms randomly created but created without any ability to reproduce - before they developed ability to reproduce? If that would've happened, then life woudn't exist today in any form. Yet it does and has and seems to have a good shot at continuing to do so in the foreseeable future.

And that's just for starters. If you're interested in some scientific process analysis of both theories, I'd recommend two books:

•  Strobel, Lee, (2004) The Case For the Creator, Zondervan, Miami, Florida and Grand Rapids, Michigan
• Heeren, Fred (1997) Show Me God, Newark, England.

"[The chance that higher life forms might have emerged through evolutionary processes is comparable with the chance that] a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein."
- Sir Fred Hoyle, Hoyle on Evolution, Nature

Today's Animal Farm….

In George Orwell’s 1945 classic novel Animal Farm, the animals take over the farm. Because they think it’s not right that they sleep in a cold barn or out of doors while the humans live in apparent luxuries in the house. So, in the spirit of equality, fairness and so on they toss out the humans and take over the farm.

When writing the rules which will now govern their new situation, the animals agree that all the animals are equals. No one animal individually or by breed is superior to any other. And under no circumstances are any animals to live in the house the humans used to live in. Such domestic inequalities is what led to the previous intolerable situation they just replaced.

But before long, some scheming animals start subtly rewriting the rules. It isn’t long before an addendum is added saying that while all animals are created equal, some animals are more equal than others (the pigs, if I remember the story correctly). The situation keeps changing as the self-interests of the more scheming species of animals become the major focus. It continues to deteriorate until at the end of the story, some of the “lesser” breeds and species are outside the house, watching through the windows at the now-openly-more-privileged-because-they-are-more-equal pigs living in the warmth and luxury of the farmhouse.

Fast forward to today, 236 years after the Declaration of Independence was adopted and 221 years after First Amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution formally became law. In said First Amendment, Americans and all humans on American soil are granted free right to express their opinion regardless of medium commonly subject to certain limitations, as with libel, slander, and incitement to commit a crime, start a riot, etc etc etc.

A bumper sticker today reads “Against abortion? Don’t have one.” The implication being that just because one is against abortion should not deny another the freedom to get one.

But, have you noticed how the “freedom of speech” nowadays is more and more allowed only for certain opinions – politically-correct ones? Case in point; Dan Cathy, president of Chick-Fil-A was asked in an interview in mid-July about his stance – his opinion – of gay marriage. He said he and his restaurant are “guilty as charged” of being “very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit."* He did not say he hated gays. He did not advocate violence against gays. He didn't even say he would not hire as an employee or refuse to serve any gay customers in any of his restaurants. He merely expressed his religious view of gay marriage. Both his freedoms of religion and his freedom of speech – as protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution – supposedly allow him to do so.

Not only that, but Chick-Fil-A is a privately-held corporation. That means it has no stockholders to answer to. That means it as a corporation and/or its owners can have any opinion it wants to have. And our Constitution at least used to guarantee the freedom to express it – regardless of how unpopular it may be.

But, apparently not in Barack Hussein Obama’s Amerika. Oh, no. The Thought Police immediately launched a protest against Chick-Fil-A staging protests and “same-sex kissing days” at Chick-Fil-A restaurants and even the mayors of cities like Boston, Philadelphia and Chicago have threatened to not allow anymore Chick-Fil-A restaurants to be opened in their cities? Really? This is freedom of expression as envisioned by the Founding Fathers? An owner of a privately-owned company Constitutionally expresses his opinion in a radio interview and this kind of backlash occurs? Can you imagine the wingtail fits they would throw if any conservative or Christian or Republican or gun owner or whatever else they hate so much were to conduct such activities at a venue of the politically-correct over someone expressing their support of gun control or love of Jesus or their dislike of abortion?

  

How about these extremists show a little more respect for the First Amendment and practice what they preach in their Pro-Choice bumpersticker; “Against Chick-Fil-A’s views on gay marriage? Just don’t eat there and hush up.” 

Apparently some of today’s animals have subtly rewritten the rules of the farm. Apparently some are more equal than others. In today’s version of Animal Farm, only certain politically-correct people, groups and opinions are allowed to be freely expressed.  

*Man, Anthony (1 Aug., 2012) Sun Sentinal Retrieved from : http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/state/chick-fil-a-dan-cathy-gay-marriage-statement-battle-in-south-florida-over-chicken-politics#ixzz22J6XomIY