This little phrase has caused quite a bit of trouble in years past, but recently, probably due to the confused and muddled presidential elections, it has not cropped up anywhere prominently.
The ACLU, or the American Civil Liberties Union, is a left-wing, communist, liberal activist group, which does nothing to defend Civil Liberties. In their defense, their name says NOTHING about defending them. Instead, this organizations only goal seems to be to whittle away at our basic rights and freedoms. Now the ACLU uses a clause entitled "Seperation of Church and State," quite frequently in their court cases.
Hard core liberals insist that it has been laser-etched into the constitution, and equally hard-core conservatives maintain that nothing remotely like it has ever existed.
Both are wrong.
In the first amendment, the following statement is written: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
In short, the government is not allowed to make laws that mess around with religon.
Liberal lawyers have taken to calling this amendment "The Seperation of Church and State."
Liberals, being idiots, blindly except their skewed interpretation of the first amendment as fact, saying that the Constitution forbids ANY interaction between government and "church," or religon. This, like most liberal beliefs, is incorrect.
The amendment does not want a social seperation of church and state, but a legal one. Why? Because at the time of the revolution, the English government and the Anglican church were closely intertwined. The Anglican Church was the official church and religon of England. Americans have always wanted to worship freely, remember the pilgrims?
No other church besides the church officially designated by the government was allowed in Britain. The national church was even roping in tax money to run themselves, because they were the "official church."
The amendment in the constitution was to prevent government from infecting the church, or having either one controlling the other. Although some might think things would run smoother, we do not live in a theocracy, therefore, no single church should be allowed to make laws and enforce them.
Now before some idiots misinterpret what I'm saying, let me finish. This amendment says government has no right to restrict or abolish religon. Therefore, the ACLU atheist nutjobs who have been trying to use this to their advantage, should look again. If the government is not allowed to inhibit and restrain religous practice, then there is no Constitutional law saying that nothing judeo-christian should be allowed on government property. If the founding fathers wanted our nation to be atheist, then why do we open our congress sessions with prayer? Why do we swear on a bible in court?
Because our nation was founded on the princibles from religon. Without those princibles, our government would degrade into meaningless chaos, so maybe we should not be so quick to abolish them.
Friday, June 27, 2008
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Washinton Go Nuts over Oil
Well, looks like some yammerhead actually decided to use that mushy stuff inside their skulls. Still not sure if it's brains or not, but their using something.
What happened is this. Basically, paying 4-5 bucks a gallon has finally gotten those idiots in Washington to ignore the greenie-weenies and actually drill for oil in our own nation.
That's right ladies and not-so-gentlemen. Oil DOES come from other parts of the world besides the middle east. Actually, the United States is INCREDIBLY oil rich, with wells criss-crossing the continent. From Pennsylvania, to Arkensas, to Oklahoma, to Texas, to Montan, to Alaska.
Some of you are probably leaning forward going "Holy-freakin-cow! If we have all that oil, what do they want our firstborn in exchange for gas?"
Reason: Enviromentalists. The Scum of the Earth.
These tree huggers claim that Oil is bad for the enviroment, and destroys animal life. They accuse the oil pipes of blocking migration patterns, and then contaminating everything if they blow a leak.
#1: Oil pipes in cold areas actually create heat, promote plants to grow, and animals to congregate around them for warmth. Yessir, giving animals a warm place to be when it is freezing is going to destroy all life on earth.
(Most of the other ones are in the desert, and there's not much to damage there in the first place.)
#2: Oil pipes are 3-6 feet off the ground. How is that blocking ANYTHING'S migration pattern? My friends, deer can get under, over, and through just about everything we put up, and their larger cousins should have no trouble at all with a pipe that's been raised off the ground.
#3: Most of those oil pipe leaks/explosions happened when some envirmental terrorist decided to SHOOT IT WITH A RIFLE. Gee... maybe that could cause those things.
As a final kicker, the ocean shelf off the coast of Florida is one of the richest in oil that we have. Are we allowed to drill for it? Nope. Why? Partly because the greenie weenies are afraid of hurting fish, but the REAL reason is even more idiotic. Because the old people in the retirement communities don't want Oil Rigs spoiling their ocean view. Tell me that isn't dumb.
What happened is this. Basically, paying 4-5 bucks a gallon has finally gotten those idiots in Washington to ignore the greenie-weenies and actually drill for oil in our own nation.
That's right ladies and not-so-gentlemen. Oil DOES come from other parts of the world besides the middle east. Actually, the United States is INCREDIBLY oil rich, with wells criss-crossing the continent. From Pennsylvania, to Arkensas, to Oklahoma, to Texas, to Montan, to Alaska.
Some of you are probably leaning forward going "Holy-freakin-cow! If we have all that oil, what do they want our firstborn in exchange for gas?"
Reason: Enviromentalists. The Scum of the Earth.
These tree huggers claim that Oil is bad for the enviroment, and destroys animal life. They accuse the oil pipes of blocking migration patterns, and then contaminating everything if they blow a leak.
#1: Oil pipes in cold areas actually create heat, promote plants to grow, and animals to congregate around them for warmth. Yessir, giving animals a warm place to be when it is freezing is going to destroy all life on earth.
(Most of the other ones are in the desert, and there's not much to damage there in the first place.)
#2: Oil pipes are 3-6 feet off the ground. How is that blocking ANYTHING'S migration pattern? My friends, deer can get under, over, and through just about everything we put up, and their larger cousins should have no trouble at all with a pipe that's been raised off the ground.
#3: Most of those oil pipe leaks/explosions happened when some envirmental terrorist decided to SHOOT IT WITH A RIFLE. Gee... maybe that could cause those things.
As a final kicker, the ocean shelf off the coast of Florida is one of the richest in oil that we have. Are we allowed to drill for it? Nope. Why? Partly because the greenie weenies are afraid of hurting fish, but the REAL reason is even more idiotic. Because the old people in the retirement communities don't want Oil Rigs spoiling their ocean view. Tell me that isn't dumb.
Monday, June 16, 2008
The Gay Pride Parade Marches On (sadly)
California has decided to become the second state in our formerly wonderful Union to condone the marriage of same-sex couples.
The Associated Press released an article going over it in gruesome detail, viewable here.
Dozens of people "rushed to the altar" to seal an agreement that "they were already married in their minds and hearts," but have never "been able to have experience of community and common humanity."
What?
"Common Humanity?" What in the world is THAT supposed to mean? If they were married in their minds and hearts already, then why do they want to change their status in the eyes of the law? Seriously. In spite of the example of two old lesbo biddies, who've purportedly been together for over 50 years, homosexual relationships rarely last.
Sorry people. It's a fact. Gay people change their partners frequently, and many of them became fruitcakes for the express purpose of proving that they were no chained down and free to do as they please. Soooo.... how does marriage fit into that "Nothing Holds Me Back" attitude?
Divorce rates are already sky high, and half the kids you meet come from either a broken home, or one without their original mother or father. Whether liberal pop culture wants to admit it, or even whether the child wants to admit it, broken homes have significant effect on a child's mental being. I'm no saying they go "mental" or "nuts," but that it affects how they develop and think, and the effects are rarely positive.
What does this have to do with gay people getting married? Well, believe it or not, these fruits want to have CHILDREN! Whoops! Surprise, they can't, so they want to adopt them. First off, imagine how the kid must feel.
"Swell, I'm being adopted by a couple of flakes."
Oh, wait, I forgot, liberal brain-washing education techniques will have those "nasty, hateful, ignorant, politically correct" thoughts expelled from their minds before much time passes.
(Think I'm kidding? Kaliforniastan already teaches first graders to celebrate gay pride days.)
Second, in the ideal environment, a child should have both strong male and female figures in their life. A mother teaches her son how to be compassionate, caring, and gentle. A father teaches his son how to be a man, how to compete, work, struggle, and win. Too much of one, and none of the other is going to produce weird people.
So with that in mind, if your have TWO father figures, or perhaps one or both don't act like men, the child is going to be seriously confused and warped.
Same thing with two mothers.
Long story short, gay people should not be allowed to adopt children for the simple fact that by doing so, the child's development will be seriously screwed up.
Now, our culture is doing everything in it's power to deny this, but the most basic unit of society is the family. Society, government, culture, and more don't exist until the family level. Two people in love, living together, are not a family. There is no society or culture, just two people fulfilling their desires. There is no semblance of government. Only two people engaging in a battle of wills to see who's will will be instated. One person is nothing. No culture. No government. A family is where things begin. There is the ruler and justice keeper: the father. There is the administrator, adviser, and caregiver: the mother. And finally there are the undetermined number of often troublesome subjects who, given proper guidance, can work with the family, and eventually start their own: Children. (or maybe a dog/cat.)
Now, the roles have sometimes been reversed, the mother taking charge, or in some case, the child decides what is done, but no matter how many liberals or femme-nazis hate it, THAT is the basic structure of a family, which, in turn, in the basic unit of society.
The gay movement is destroying the most basic unit of society, and when you destroy the basic unit of something, it will crumble. Condoned homosexuality will open the doors for a flood of other, even more immoral requests.
I'm blowing hot air?
Well, if two man are allowed to have sex, and then maybe get married, then why not make incest legal? Or maybe pedophilia? That's different you say? Sorry friend, it's not. It is considered morally wrong to lie with a man as one does with a woman. Same applies for those other two things I mentioned. Gay people have been trying to get rid of those silly morals for the longest time, but once they do, everything falls apart. They want to smash the wall, because it is big, mean, ugly, and holds them back. However, they forget that the wall was put there for a reason.
Once morals have been abolished, everything is game. Sure, you can arbitraraly decide when it's gone too far, but even the best stop-gap in temporary. Soon you'll have other groups of people asking: "Hey! If they get THEIR way, why can't I!?!"
Incest, Pedophilia, rape, cannibalism, sado-masochism. It can all become VERY real, and very legal. And the odds are pretty good that it will start in California.
I don't care how mean it seems to keep them in there. The flies of chaos were locked inside Pandora's Box for a good reason. Try to let one out, and they all escape.
The Associated Press released an article going over it in gruesome detail, viewable here.
Dozens of people "rushed to the altar" to seal an agreement that "they were already married in their minds and hearts," but have never "been able to have experience of community and common humanity."
What?
"Common Humanity?" What in the world is THAT supposed to mean? If they were married in their minds and hearts already, then why do they want to change their status in the eyes of the law? Seriously. In spite of the example of two old lesbo biddies, who've purportedly been together for over 50 years, homosexual relationships rarely last.
Sorry people. It's a fact. Gay people change their partners frequently, and many of them became fruitcakes for the express purpose of proving that they were no chained down and free to do as they please. Soooo.... how does marriage fit into that "Nothing Holds Me Back" attitude?
Divorce rates are already sky high, and half the kids you meet come from either a broken home, or one without their original mother or father. Whether liberal pop culture wants to admit it, or even whether the child wants to admit it, broken homes have significant effect on a child's mental being. I'm no saying they go "mental" or "nuts," but that it affects how they develop and think, and the effects are rarely positive.
What does this have to do with gay people getting married? Well, believe it or not, these fruits want to have CHILDREN! Whoops! Surprise, they can't, so they want to adopt them. First off, imagine how the kid must feel.
"Swell, I'm being adopted by a couple of flakes."
Oh, wait, I forgot, liberal brain-washing education techniques will have those "nasty, hateful, ignorant, politically correct" thoughts expelled from their minds before much time passes.
(Think I'm kidding? Kaliforniastan already teaches first graders to celebrate gay pride days.)
Second, in the ideal environment, a child should have both strong male and female figures in their life. A mother teaches her son how to be compassionate, caring, and gentle. A father teaches his son how to be a man, how to compete, work, struggle, and win. Too much of one, and none of the other is going to produce weird people.
So with that in mind, if your have TWO father figures, or perhaps one or both don't act like men, the child is going to be seriously confused and warped.
Same thing with two mothers.
Long story short, gay people should not be allowed to adopt children for the simple fact that by doing so, the child's development will be seriously screwed up.
Now, our culture is doing everything in it's power to deny this, but the most basic unit of society is the family. Society, government, culture, and more don't exist until the family level. Two people in love, living together, are not a family. There is no society or culture, just two people fulfilling their desires. There is no semblance of government. Only two people engaging in a battle of wills to see who's will will be instated. One person is nothing. No culture. No government. A family is where things begin. There is the ruler and justice keeper: the father. There is the administrator, adviser, and caregiver: the mother. And finally there are the undetermined number of often troublesome subjects who, given proper guidance, can work with the family, and eventually start their own: Children. (or maybe a dog/cat.)
Now, the roles have sometimes been reversed, the mother taking charge, or in some case, the child decides what is done, but no matter how many liberals or femme-nazis hate it, THAT is the basic structure of a family, which, in turn, in the basic unit of society.
The gay movement is destroying the most basic unit of society, and when you destroy the basic unit of something, it will crumble. Condoned homosexuality will open the doors for a flood of other, even more immoral requests.
I'm blowing hot air?
Well, if two man are allowed to have sex, and then maybe get married, then why not make incest legal? Or maybe pedophilia? That's different you say? Sorry friend, it's not. It is considered morally wrong to lie with a man as one does with a woman. Same applies for those other two things I mentioned. Gay people have been trying to get rid of those silly morals for the longest time, but once they do, everything falls apart. They want to smash the wall, because it is big, mean, ugly, and holds them back. However, they forget that the wall was put there for a reason.
Once morals have been abolished, everything is game. Sure, you can arbitraraly decide when it's gone too far, but even the best stop-gap in temporary. Soon you'll have other groups of people asking: "Hey! If they get THEIR way, why can't I!?!"
Incest, Pedophilia, rape, cannibalism, sado-masochism. It can all become VERY real, and very legal. And the odds are pretty good that it will start in California.
I don't care how mean it seems to keep them in there. The flies of chaos were locked inside Pandora's Box for a good reason. Try to let one out, and they all escape.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Just You Watch
If you haven't heard about the flash flood crisis in Wisconsin, you can read about it here.
In short, a section of southwestern Wisconsin has been inundated with water, and experienced severe flooding. Why should we be concerned?
Well, if you're not concerned about the potential loss of life, already, then you have no soul, but this is my prediction: Some Left-Wing idiot is going to come out and accuse "Global Warming" of causing it.
It's summer time.
It's Hot.
Tis the season for Global Warming fruits to come out of the wood work.
With the heat on everyone's mind, I am predicting that we will hear a lot more about our "Carbon footprint."
*sigh*
In short, a section of southwestern Wisconsin has been inundated with water, and experienced severe flooding. Why should we be concerned?
Well, if you're not concerned about the potential loss of life, already, then you have no soul, but this is my prediction: Some Left-Wing idiot is going to come out and accuse "Global Warming" of causing it.
It's summer time.
It's Hot.
Tis the season for Global Warming fruits to come out of the wood work.
With the heat on everyone's mind, I am predicting that we will hear a lot more about our "Carbon footprint."
*sigh*
Monday, June 9, 2008
Obama gets the Nod
Ol' Obama wins, Hillary loses. What does this mean for the rest of us?
In short.... we're screwed.
Of the two Democrats fiercely duking it out for the nomination, Hillary was the more conservative of the two. (Yes, I KNOW that sounds weird, but it's true.)
Why did Obama get a free ride from the press? Because any kind of negative comments could be billed as racism. Obama claims to be running to try and break those barriers, but instead, Obama just proves how alive racism is. If there was no racism in our country, we would not be afraid to criticize Obama, because his skin color wouldn't matter. However, when negative comments are given the title of "prejudice," then it just proves my point. Obama has used his minority status to try and get the American people to vote for him out of guilt.
Why?
Well, we thought our country was entering a "new age" of enlightenment and acceptance, and if we don't elect Obama, then obviously our nation is not truely open-mined or educated.
(I'm being sarcastic.)
Obama is getting a free ticket in and I don't know why.
For the record, I am not racist, but the sheer fact that I have to explain that I am not shows how deep the liberal brain-washing tendrils have gone. If Condi ran, I would vote for her. If Alan Keyes ran again, I would vote for him, but Obama is too much of a wacko liberal racist for me to even tolerate.
McCain? The guy is a closet Dem and everyone knows it. He is less liberal than Obama, but... it isn't much of a lead. He'll do whatever pleases whoever's around him. He has no backbone, and supports the tracking chip. (The one that is implanted in your arm,) Who know what other crazed ideas he has, BESIDES amnesty for illegals. His stance on important issues changes constantly, and overall, he would be a poor leader.
The final analysis?
We have ONE canidate trying to coast to victory on the fact that he is a minority, and to show our lack of prejudice, we should vote for him.
We have ANOTHER candidate tryong to coast to victory on his record in the military. (Which, considered he was SHOT DOWN and CAPTURED, isn't all that great.)
The press gave them both free passes, and for us conservatives, it appears we're screwed.
(Personally, I think I'll be pulling for Bob Barr now.)
In short.... we're screwed.
Of the two Democrats fiercely duking it out for the nomination, Hillary was the more conservative of the two. (Yes, I KNOW that sounds weird, but it's true.)
Why did Obama get a free ride from the press? Because any kind of negative comments could be billed as racism. Obama claims to be running to try and break those barriers, but instead, Obama just proves how alive racism is. If there was no racism in our country, we would not be afraid to criticize Obama, because his skin color wouldn't matter. However, when negative comments are given the title of "prejudice," then it just proves my point. Obama has used his minority status to try and get the American people to vote for him out of guilt.
Why?
Well, we thought our country was entering a "new age" of enlightenment and acceptance, and if we don't elect Obama, then obviously our nation is not truely open-mined or educated.
(I'm being sarcastic.)
Obama is getting a free ticket in and I don't know why.
For the record, I am not racist, but the sheer fact that I have to explain that I am not shows how deep the liberal brain-washing tendrils have gone. If Condi ran, I would vote for her. If Alan Keyes ran again, I would vote for him, but Obama is too much of a wacko liberal racist for me to even tolerate.
McCain? The guy is a closet Dem and everyone knows it. He is less liberal than Obama, but... it isn't much of a lead. He'll do whatever pleases whoever's around him. He has no backbone, and supports the tracking chip. (The one that is implanted in your arm,) Who know what other crazed ideas he has, BESIDES amnesty for illegals. His stance on important issues changes constantly, and overall, he would be a poor leader.
The final analysis?
We have ONE canidate trying to coast to victory on the fact that he is a minority, and to show our lack of prejudice, we should vote for him.
We have ANOTHER candidate tryong to coast to victory on his record in the military. (Which, considered he was SHOT DOWN and CAPTURED, isn't all that great.)
The press gave them both free passes, and for us conservatives, it appears we're screwed.
(Personally, I think I'll be pulling for Bob Barr now.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
