I heard portions of a speech made by Secretary of State John Kerry where he felt it necessary to defend President Obama's failure to reassure Americans on the aftermath of two terrorist atrocities, in Belgium and in Pakistan. He continued to express how America needs to change our image of being a bully. We apparently need to work on the way in which we're viewed by the other countries of the world. Consequently, the president continued his diplomatic visit with an historically hostile regime, while Americans were shaken.
I have a simple question: WHY?
Why do we need to concern ourselves with the way we are viewed by other nations? What do we care about the way in which they perceive us, real or imagined?
Our government needs to be concerned about keeping us safe, and if they're unable to do that, at least make us feel like we are.
Political correctness has soared to ridiculous heights when we're more concerned about our image than our well-being.
Let's be sure we don't offend those who are out to do us, our way of life, and our allies, harm.
Tuesday, March 29, 2016
Friday, December 4, 2015
Knee Jerk Gun Control, or Eliminating a Threat?
Even though mass shootings have shifted from being committed by lone, disgruntled, unhinged persons taking out their sense of vengeance on their so-called oppressors, to more idealistic disgruntled, unhinged persons, in groups of two or more, the left wingers continue to blame guns for the offenses.
The solution to people shooting each other is simply to outlaw guns, at least certain guns. When guns are no longer available, problem solved, no one gets shot. Simple.
Are they seriously that stupid? (Rhetorical question).
Marijuana, and numerous other drugs, have been illegal for years. We have even declared a "war on drugs". Thank goodness we got that stuff off the streets, huh?
Driving impaired has been illegal for years. Sure am glad no one's getting killed, or killing, doing that anymore.
How about something as simple, and seemingly enforceable, as driving while using an electronic device (texting)? Nice not having to worry about that any longer.
Yeah, but these things don't kill people! Really? I think statistics prove otherwise.
It's obvious that the problem isn't the gun - it's the shooter. Like anything that's deemed illegal, there are those that will disregard the law to carry out their intent. Openly or covertly, they will do as they please.
I contend that the solution to these mass shootings is to have more people armed and able to defend themselves. Most criminals, whatever their crime of choice, do not want to be caught, and usually fear the consequences of doing so. Someone's not going to light up a joint in front of a policeman, or text while driving with a cop behind him. I don't think these shootings will occur if there's the slightest chance someone might return fire. No one did in Paris, nor did anyone in San Bernardino. This goes for the local crazy, or the terroristic crazy.
The argument might be made that if we're all armed, there'll be shootouts all over the place. It could happen, I guess. But ask yourself: would you rather be part of a shootout, or be part of an execution? Sheep don't fight back, but simply line up for the slaughter. You never hear of a sheep putting up much of a struggle, do you?
These shootings have increased with our current administration. I believe it's because of the civil unrest that is being perpetuated by the administration. Disarming the populace would further that civil unrest, maybe to the point of an uprising.
I'm pretty sure we will all want to be armed should it come to that. After all, that's why our 2nd Amendment rights exist to begin with: to protect ourselves from the government.
Whoever we're protecting ourselves from, the nut-job or those in power, it will be hard to do if they're the only ones carrying weapons.
I, for one, don't want to be a sheep.
The solution to people shooting each other is simply to outlaw guns, at least certain guns. When guns are no longer available, problem solved, no one gets shot. Simple.
Are they seriously that stupid? (Rhetorical question).
Marijuana, and numerous other drugs, have been illegal for years. We have even declared a "war on drugs". Thank goodness we got that stuff off the streets, huh?
Driving impaired has been illegal for years. Sure am glad no one's getting killed, or killing, doing that anymore.
How about something as simple, and seemingly enforceable, as driving while using an electronic device (texting)? Nice not having to worry about that any longer.
Yeah, but these things don't kill people! Really? I think statistics prove otherwise.
It's obvious that the problem isn't the gun - it's the shooter. Like anything that's deemed illegal, there are those that will disregard the law to carry out their intent. Openly or covertly, they will do as they please.
I contend that the solution to these mass shootings is to have more people armed and able to defend themselves. Most criminals, whatever their crime of choice, do not want to be caught, and usually fear the consequences of doing so. Someone's not going to light up a joint in front of a policeman, or text while driving with a cop behind him. I don't think these shootings will occur if there's the slightest chance someone might return fire. No one did in Paris, nor did anyone in San Bernardino. This goes for the local crazy, or the terroristic crazy.
The argument might be made that if we're all armed, there'll be shootouts all over the place. It could happen, I guess. But ask yourself: would you rather be part of a shootout, or be part of an execution? Sheep don't fight back, but simply line up for the slaughter. You never hear of a sheep putting up much of a struggle, do you?
These shootings have increased with our current administration. I believe it's because of the civil unrest that is being perpetuated by the administration. Disarming the populace would further that civil unrest, maybe to the point of an uprising.
I'm pretty sure we will all want to be armed should it come to that. After all, that's why our 2nd Amendment rights exist to begin with: to protect ourselves from the government.
Whoever we're protecting ourselves from, the nut-job or those in power, it will be hard to do if they're the only ones carrying weapons.
I, for one, don't want to be a sheep.
Monday, November 11, 2013
Atheist Church? Gimme a break
I heard on the news today where there is a new movement in America. Apparently it is a spill-over from something already occurring in Europe - atheist churches. Or more specifically, atheist mega-churches.
For real?
What a contradiction!
Definition of "atheist":
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Definition of "church":
a building designed for public forms of worship, esp Christian church.
Given these two definitions, what you have is a gathering of people who don't believe in anything, gathering in a building reserved for worship. What's the point? What are they worshipping?
Sounds to me like they just need a clubhouse.
For real?
What a contradiction!
Definition of "atheist":
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Definition of "church":
a building designed for public forms of worship, esp Christian church.
Given these two definitions, what you have is a gathering of people who don't believe in anything, gathering in a building reserved for worship. What's the point? What are they worshipping?
Sounds to me like they just need a clubhouse.
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
The "n" Word
Paula Deen has been all over the news lately for her admitted use of the "n" word as a racial slur, and righfully so. It has cost her work, sponsors, and money.
Let's face it, the "n" word is just as offensive today as it's been for the last 150 years or so. It was always intended to be an offensive word, and Ms. Deen is paying dearly for her use of it.
But let's also be fair. If all of the record labels would drop the artists that fling the "n" word around, much more freely and openly than Paula did, we would probably have about 50% fewer recording artists. The same goes for comedians and actors. Why isn't the entertainment industry as a whole dropping people like flies for their use of the "n" word?
Because the majority of people that so casually use that word are black. Is the word any less offensive because a black person uses it? And what about the slurs used by this same group of people toward caucasions, aren't they also offensive?
I just don't understand why you're allowed to say whatever you want, about whoever you want, but only if you're black.
Make everyone suffer the same career and monetary punishment, regardless of who utters, or shouts, or sings, the offensive word(s).
Let's face it, the "n" word is just as offensive today as it's been for the last 150 years or so. It was always intended to be an offensive word, and Ms. Deen is paying dearly for her use of it.
But let's also be fair. If all of the record labels would drop the artists that fling the "n" word around, much more freely and openly than Paula did, we would probably have about 50% fewer recording artists. The same goes for comedians and actors. Why isn't the entertainment industry as a whole dropping people like flies for their use of the "n" word?
Because the majority of people that so casually use that word are black. Is the word any less offensive because a black person uses it? And what about the slurs used by this same group of people toward caucasions, aren't they also offensive?
I just don't understand why you're allowed to say whatever you want, about whoever you want, but only if you're black.
Make everyone suffer the same career and monetary punishment, regardless of who utters, or shouts, or sings, the offensive word(s).
Monday, January 14, 2013
Classroom Socialism
I "borrowed" from a post I saw on FaceBook and thought it too interesting not to pass on here. Just when you thought there was no hope for liberal academia.
I have no idea who the source of this item is, so no copyright infringement in intended.
I have no idea who the source of this item is, so no copyright infringement in intended.
Tuesday, October 9, 2012
Another Reason to Dislike NPR
On Monday, October 8, 2012 I heard an interesting (disturbing) interview on NPR news (yes, I was bored, and that was the only radio station I could pick up).
The interviewer was talking to Professor Daniel Harlow, a religion professor at Calvin College, and others. The gist of the interview concerned the Old Testament account of Adam and Eve, and the fall of man into sin. Professor Harlow maintained that the story of Adam and Eve was not important to Christianity, and probably not accurate. One of his statements to back up his position was this:
Again, I want to emphasize, if Adam and Eve and the serpent were so central to biblical teaching, why did Jesus and the apostles not teach about it?
Are you serious?!? That's your argument? It amazes me how liberal thinkers go from A to Z, making up their own alphabet in between.
Look at it this way: when you take your car to a mechanic for repairs, is it necessary for him to give you the history of how the car was invented? Is that background needed for him to fix your car?
Jesus came to Earth to fix a problem (started by Adam and Eve). Did He really need to teach the Jewish people a story that they all knew all too well? Doesn't it make sense that He and the apostles taught how to fix the problem, not how it all started?
The whole interview was a reminder of why I don't like listening to the 'free thinkers' that NPR seems to attract.
The interviewer was talking to Professor Daniel Harlow, a religion professor at Calvin College, and others. The gist of the interview concerned the Old Testament account of Adam and Eve, and the fall of man into sin. Professor Harlow maintained that the story of Adam and Eve was not important to Christianity, and probably not accurate. One of his statements to back up his position was this:
Again, I want to emphasize, if Adam and Eve and the serpent were so central to biblical teaching, why did Jesus and the apostles not teach about it?
Are you serious?!? That's your argument? It amazes me how liberal thinkers go from A to Z, making up their own alphabet in between.
Look at it this way: when you take your car to a mechanic for repairs, is it necessary for him to give you the history of how the car was invented? Is that background needed for him to fix your car?
Jesus came to Earth to fix a problem (started by Adam and Eve). Did He really need to teach the Jewish people a story that they all knew all too well? Doesn't it make sense that He and the apostles taught how to fix the problem, not how it all started?
The whole interview was a reminder of why I don't like listening to the 'free thinkers' that NPR seems to attract.
Friday, September 21, 2012
"Entitlement" outrage
A few days ago Presidential candidate Mitt Romney was heard making the following comment:
"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what . . . he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. . . . I mean that’s what they sell every four years. And so my job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."
Liberals everywhere were almost immediately up in arms, claiming that Romney clearly doesn't care anything about the American people. The sad part is, there were a significant number of conservatives mirroring their opinion.
Come on people! Where did you ever get the idea that you were entitled to health care, food, and housing? And who told you that the US government was responsible for providing these things?
Heads up folks: you are NOT entitled to health care, housing, and food. All of these things are benefits, they are the result of your work. The bottom line is, when you work, you eat. You either pay for insurance, or find a job where a generous employer pays for it, or makes it available to you. You spend your money for rent or mortgage so that you have a roof over your head.
Where did we get such a skewed view of what our government is responsible for? Ask your grandparents how they ate 50 years ago. Ask them what they did when someone needed a doctor, or how they provided a home for your parents. I'll bet they all say the same thing: "we worked for it."
By the way, this is not a new concept! This is God's principle. Yep, it's even in the Bible. 2 Thessalonians 3:10 states is pretty clearly: "For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat." I don't know of any higher authority than that.
"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what . . . he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. . . . I mean that’s what they sell every four years. And so my job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."
Liberals everywhere were almost immediately up in arms, claiming that Romney clearly doesn't care anything about the American people. The sad part is, there were a significant number of conservatives mirroring their opinion.
Come on people! Where did you ever get the idea that you were entitled to health care, food, and housing? And who told you that the US government was responsible for providing these things?
Heads up folks: you are NOT entitled to health care, housing, and food. All of these things are benefits, they are the result of your work. The bottom line is, when you work, you eat. You either pay for insurance, or find a job where a generous employer pays for it, or makes it available to you. You spend your money for rent or mortgage so that you have a roof over your head.
Where did we get such a skewed view of what our government is responsible for? Ask your grandparents how they ate 50 years ago. Ask them what they did when someone needed a doctor, or how they provided a home for your parents. I'll bet they all say the same thing: "we worked for it."
By the way, this is not a new concept! This is God's principle. Yep, it's even in the Bible. 2 Thessalonians 3:10 states is pretty clearly: "For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat." I don't know of any higher authority than that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
