Wednesday, September 26, 2012

Terrible Call or Horrendous Non-Call

The manner in which the mainstream media treats liberals, President Obama being the chief among them, can be compared to the replacement refs in the National Football League.  Week after week we're seeing terrible calls in the NFL, not the least of which was last Monday night's game where the game was lost to the Green Bay Packers (and I'm a Vikings fan, so I speak with some objectivity here!) due to two calls on the second to last play of the game (the last being the point-after kick).  It was actually one terrible call and one horrendously missed call.  

The terrible call was to call the catch in the end zone "simultaneous possession."  How could that be?!  Jennings is a good 8-10 inches higher than Tate, the ball is clearly IN his hands before Tate touches it - then as they go to the ground Tate grabs hold of the ball with Jennings - but Jennings already has it securely in his arms and against his chest!  It was clearly Jennings' ball that Tate was attempting to steal away.

The horrendously missed call was PRIOR to the catch - where Tate, with two hands, SHOVES #37, Sam Shields, out of the way!  That's what REAL refs would call "offensive pass interference" which would nullify any chance or argument for Tate catching the ball.  See for yourself:
OK, back to what I was saying about how the mainstream press treats liberals.  Let's just take the attack in Benghazi, Lybia - where the United States ambassador and 3 others were killed.  The Obama administration comes out and says it was a spontaneous attack brought on by protestors due to an insulting, and very amateur video (called a movie).  In reality it was a well planned terrorist attack on the anniversary of 9/11.  On top of that, being a US Consulate - it is consider "American soil," so it is a terrorist attack on American soil on the anniversary of the worst terrorist attack in history.  The Obama administration therefore MUST distract and play down the reality of the situation not only for that reason, but also the question arises "Where was the Ambassador's protection/security?"  He was virtually ALONE when he was attacked!  Two of those killed were former Navy Seals, who were not "on duty" - but heroically stood up in the face of certain death for the sake of the Ambassador.  There was NO security, NO increased protection on the anniversary of September 11, 2001 and this was AFTER there were warnings that the Ambassador was in danger!  One could say that President Obama made a "bad call" in this matter - or an horrendous non-call.

Thursday, September 20, 2012

The End of Democracy?

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.”
Alexis de Tocqueville

Real Waterbed

It's in German, but still funny!

Monday, September 3, 2012

Separation of Church and State?

Does the statement "separation of church and state" exist anywhere in the U.S. Constitution?  No!  The origin of this statement comes from a private letter from then President Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association (DBA) in Connecticut and in response to a letter they had written to him.  Essentially, the DBA was asking for President Jefferson's support in preventing churches and church organizations, like the DBA, from being taxed by "those who wish to rise to wealth and importance on the poverty (taxation) and subjugation of the people."  President Jefferson's response was that they have the support of his office in that regard due to the fact that there is a "wall of separation between church and state" based upon that which IS in the Constitution that Congress "would make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."  The important part here is the "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."  

The original intent therefore, has nothing to do with prohibiting prayer in public places, nativity scenes on public squares, etc. for these are "free exercises thereof."  The Constitution prohibits Congress from establishing a religion, as in a "state religion" (like they had under British rule, where Anglicanism was the "Church of England" - a "church of state").

President Jefferson closes his letter by reciprocating the prayer and intention of the DBA.  

Below are the letters of historic reference:
 
Letter from the Danbury Baptist Association:
The address of the Danbury Baptist Association in the State of Connecticut, assembled October 7, 1801.
To Thomas Jefferson, Esq., President of the United States of America

Sir,
Among the many millions in America and Europe who rejoice in your election to office, we embrace the first opportunity which we have enjoyed in our collective capacity, since your inauguration , to express our great satisfaction in your appointment to the Chief Magistracy in the Unite States. And though the mode of expression may be less courtly and pompous than what many others clothe their addresses with, we beg you, sir, to believe, that none is more sincere.

Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty: that Religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals, that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions, [and] that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor. But sir, our constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter, together with the laws made coincident therewith, were adapted as the basis of our government at the time of our revolution. And such has been our laws and usages, and such still are, [so] that Religion is considered as the first object of Legislation, and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights. And these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgments, as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore, if those who seek after power and gain, under the pretense of government and Religion, should reproach their fellow men, [or] should reproach their Chief Magistrate, as an enemy of religion, law, and good order, because he will not, dares not, assume the prerogative of Jehovah and make laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ.
Sir, we are sensible that the President of the United States is not the National Legislator and also sensible that the national government cannot destroy the laws of each State, but our hopes are strong that the sentiment of our beloved President, which have had such genial effect already, like the radiant beams of the sun, will shine and prevail through all these States--and all the world--until hierarchy and tyranny be destroyed from the earth. Sir, when we reflect on your past services, and see a glow of philanthropy and goodwill shining forth in a course of more than thirty years, we have reason to believe that America's God has raised you up to fill the Chair of State out of that goodwill which he bears to the millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for the arduous task which providence and the voice of the people have called you--to sustain and support you and your Administration against all the predetermined opposition of those who wish to rise to wealth and importance on the poverty and subjection of the people.
And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his Heavenly Kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator.
Signed in behalf of the Association,
Neh,h Dodge }
Eph'm Robbins } The Committee
Stephen S. Nelson }
  (Source: http://www.wallbuilders.com/)libissuesarticles.asp?id=65)
The letter as delivered to the Danbury Baptist Association:
Messrs. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, and Stephen s. Nelson
A Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association, in the State of Connecticut.
Washington, January 1, 1802
Gentlemen,--The affectionate sentiment of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature would "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem.
Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802  (Source: http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=65)

 Draft of President Jefferson's letter (not sent):
To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem & approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and, in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more & more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" thus building a wall of eternal separation between Church & State. Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect,
[Jefferson first wrote: "confining myself therefore to the duties of my station, which are merely temporal, be assured that your religious rights shall never be infringed by any act of mine and that." These lines he crossed out and then wrote: "concurring with"; having crossed out these two words, he wrote: "Adhering to this great act of national legislation in behalf of the rights of conscience"; next he crossed out these words and wrote:]
Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience I shall see with friendly dispositions the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced that he has no natural rights in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & the Danbury Baptist [your religious] association assurances of my high respect & esteem.
Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802. (Source:  http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpost.html)
So, when someone says "separation of church and state" - help educate them on where that REALLY came from and WHY President Jefferson said it.  It must be granted that President Jefferson himself "refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion," because in his personal opinion it was not his role to do so - but he does not state they cannot be performed - as these were "to the voluntary and discipline of each sect."  It must be noted too - THAT part was NOT INCLUDED in the final draft which was sent to the DBA, thus even though we can see it was his opinion - THAT part was not expressed to the DBA and is only found in the drafts of that particular letter.  When considering that which he DID write to them, THAT part should not be considered - it was left out for a reason.