Clean Old-Fashioned Hate?

I would like to first issue a warning for this article. This is a racially charged blog based on my beliefs about race relations as they pertain to government and not how I personally feel about other races. I have never been a racist and will never participate in racist activities, but I do have strong convictions pertaining to how government attempts to regulate race relations. This blog is dedicated to those convictions.



The Reparations for Slavery bill, after 143 years of freedom for black Americans, is still looming over our great country. Sherman, after obliterating the South in his march, initiated Special Field Orders, Number 15, which gave 40,000 newly freed slaves and their families 40 acress of land, notably privately owned, around the coasts of Georgia and South Carolina and a mule, notably federally owned. What Sherman attempted to do after the abolition of slavery was, on the one hand, generous to the newly aquired free people of our country, and, on the other hand, inequitable to the landowners whose property was stolen. Press the fast forward button to modern society. The campaign launched by Deadria Farmer-Paellmann to coerce private organizations with historical links to slavery started in 2000, and by 2005, corporations, including J P Morgan, Wachovia, and Aetna, had issued public apologies for their part, over 100 years prior, to propogate slavery. Dorothy Tillman, an alderman in Chicago, has stated that one idea for acceptable Reparations could be governments increased funding for restrooms, movie theatres, and restaurants that are used dominantly by the black community rather than fiscal giveaways. Some perpetuators of this idea of reparations call for government owned public land to be handed over to the black community for the possibility of increased equality. On July 29th, 2008, the American House of Representatives issued a formal apology to the descendants of slaves and those who were negatively affected by Jim Crow laws and other forms of segregation. This superfluous action was initiated by Steve Cohen, a white Representative, as a measure to perpetuate his tenure in office for his 60% black constiuency. This extra strike on the spike that already exists in the heart of race relations in order to maintain public office is thoroughly immature, irresponsible, and irrational. Our government now has issued a formal apology for something that occurred between 1619 and 1865 to which none of us is directly connected. We are currently in the fifth generation removed from slavery, which means that black people born in America who are in my age range (between 25 & 35) haven't even experienced slavery or Jim Crow laws. Racism exists and will always exist. All humans differ in many ways from race to race, and we will exploit those racial differences. We will, out of anger, frustration, and ignorance, blame race for traits or occurrences that honestly have no directly correlation to race. This fact renders the belief that we can "overcome racism" foolish because it will never truly go away. Petition government to push "hate crime" laws which increase the severity of punishment for crimes committed across races, genders, sexual preferences, or nationality. Ask for money, land, recreational equipment, restaurants, and tax breaks as a repayment for what your great great great grandparents had to endure in the fields. Deliver orations, write songs, publish poetry, and protest peacefully about the way that another race is holding you down. Go ahead and drive a campaign against those who have no power to suppress you anymore, and we who would receive the punishment as a result of the success of your campaign will shake our heads in disappointment. We will eat our popcorn and sip our soda as though at a movie while you foolishly chase your tails on this issue. Regardless of whether you obtain your jewel encrusted bauble or tumble painfully down the hill you sit atop, your endeavor is invalid. After I have dictated all of this detail on the bleeding-heart-liberal cry for help in this alleged white male bent country, I have to respond with a hearty "NO". Please quit bludgeoning a deceased equine. Just as a police officer does not give a citizen a ticket for not wearing his seat belt unless his car is in motion, do not punish a people who are not promoting, perpetuating, or calling for the reinstatement of slavery. Use the current law system, put in place over the last 143 years to protect civil rights, to defend the honor of being human with "certain inalienable rights", but do not call for exaggerated compensation for an act that the current denizens of our country had absolutely no hand in performing. Now, I would like to dissect the loosely and incorrectly used term "reverse racism". First of all, Webster's dictionary defines racism as "hatred or intolerance of another race or races", which applies to everyone, even black people. So, what could reverse racism mean if racism is a term to describe a person of any color who has intolerance for a person that does not share the same ethnicity? Reverse, in Webster's world, means "opposite or contrary in position, direction, order, or character", which lends itself to a less liberal usage as that which is abused by supporters of black Americans in politics. If one is opposite or contrary in position, direction, order, or character to hatred or intolerance of another race or races, then, by that very definition, one is not racist. When one uses the term reverse racism, he is stating that the occurence, person, law, or other target accused of this alleged act is actually not acting in a racist manner at all. To use this term is ignorant, and, if one enjoys the position of ignorant, which equates to educational neutral in the gearbox of intelligence, then he should definitely stay out of positions of power, stay away from the microphones of the media, and stay away from those who are gullible and seeking someone who will validate ignorant beliefs.

To the "N"th degree

I recently had the opportunity (afforded me by my best friend) to peruse an article about public school students in Maryland taking a lesson from a prison warden in the Baltimore area. Dan Rodricks, the article writer for The Baltimore Sun, follows a teacher, Ed Morman, who taught for only a brief time, and his perspective through this educational moment with law enforcement. I will summarize the article so that I may get straight to the point. The warden asks if any of these inner city children knew someone in prison; all hands raise. The warden then asks if any of these kids had ever visited a prison; all hands raise. In the remainder of the article the writer lauds inner city teachers while this former-teacher-now-librarian expresses his discontent with inner city schools. One specific caustic statement by Morman troubles me to the point of blogging. Morman stated that he detests politicians who say that we Americans know best how to spend our money. He adds that he believes that this statement by politicians is junk. He enforces his belief by uttering that "taxes are the price we pay for civilization" quoting something he had heard in the past. I must now end story time and move toward education time.
Allowing inner city school children, who we know are more likely to end up in prison, to be an audience for a prison warden is an excellent educational move by the Baltimore area school districts. I would like to say that I wish all school systems all over this wonderful land would give children a chance to view a prison cell, eat prison food, and watch some videos of how unruly prisoners are treated. Education is king in the land of knowledge, and, when we call upon this king to knight us with his sword of truth, all we receive is power and understanding. Hands-on in-your-face education works for a certain portion of our public educated children, so incorporating this methodology into educational vernacular is imperative. I have elaborated on my respect for the decision of the school about which this article is written so that you, the reader, don't misconstrue my true meaning when I say what I am about to say.
You and I, regardless of education, responsibility, or practical knowledge know better how to spend our money than our corrupt, overbearing, immature, irresponsible government. Morman is wrong is all respects when he agrees that tax is the price we pay for civilization. Morman errs in his diction by daring to misuse his free speech by stating that politicians, or anyone for that matter, who state that we know better how to spend our money than the government are wrong. Morman says he detests politicians who make this statement. Webster's dictionary lists detest and hate as synonyms. For those of you liberals out there, synonyms are two words that have the same, or nearly the same, definition. Morman has some inherently liberal beliefs about government and education, yet he also hates politicians. The first mistake he has made as a liberal is performing an act of intolerance, yet tolerance is the very essence of liberal politics. The second mistake that Morman makes is hating politicians, who are the backbone of liberal politics. In one statement, Morman has lauded liberal politics while cursing liberal politics. This is a clamoring and suppurate example of the stark contradiction in liberal politics. If liberals are so self contradictory in such subtle manners, what makes us think that they will not act in these manners in high offices of power. I seem to recall a recent liberal president, which is the highest office in this country, committing perjury, which is lying under oath. To lie under oath is to contradict oneself. Therefore, a liberal, holding the highest office in this country committed the greatest single act of contraction. I think the facts speak for themselves.

Ashamed of my fellow Americans

Recently, my wife and I embarked on a five day and four night cruise to the Bahamas on a popular cruise line named Carnival. The ship we sailed on was one of the smallest in the world even though many activities were available on it. I was impressed with the hospitality of even the people who mopped the floors. The food was astounding and worthy of no less than fifty dollars a plate though it was all purchased with the cruise package. The on-board casino even had their own flavor of some long standing Vegas games. Photographers were omnipresent, wanting to capture our trip in a photo-biography. We brought along my best friend and his wife in order to have a point of familiarity and some camaraderie for the trip. All events, meals, amenities, and off-board excursions combined to create a relaxed and enjoyable overall experience. Yet, something haunts me. Before I lose you, this is still very much a political article.

We rode a local form of transportation called a jitney bus across Nassau to a fine establishment who gave us white sand beach access for a small price. The trip to the hotel wasn't as impressive to me for we were joined by what seemed to be a gaggle of college-aged "spring-breakers" who, seemingly, were from affluent families. I say this not in judgement of these creatures, but as a point of contrast to the trip back to the docks. The jitney is a small bus that has seven rows of seats, a driver's seat across from the boarding door, and a passenger seat juxtapose the driver's seat. On the right side of the aisle is positioned one seat, while, on the other side of the isle sits a bench seat that holds two. Attached to this bench seat is a fold down style seat which can be implemented by folding it out into the aisle should the anchored seats fill to capacity. On the ride to the hotel, the "spring-breakers" spoke rather loudly, passed dollar bills (the fee for riding was $1) over the heads of the locals, and used common "swear words" (so to speak) without inhibition. Again, I say this only to contrast the ride back to the docks. Tired, sunburned, and ready to eat, we left the hotel and made our way to the jitney stop. What ensued was remarkable. People got on and off this bus as if this were their primary or maybe even only mode of transit. They said "good afternoon" to each other when boarding and leaving the jitney. They thanked the driver for the ride, though he happily took their legal tender as well. One gentleman stood at the door and aided passengers in getting to seats, though he didn't work for the jitney. Little to no words were exchanged during the ride, seemingly out of respect for the other passengers who seemed to be ending thier respective work days. People shuffled without complaint, eye-rolling, or irritated body language to allow new passengers to use the fold out aisle seats and find available seats until the jitney was at capacity. The sense of community moved me. I remarked about this experience several times on the trip to my fellow cruise mates. I even went so far as to share my revelation with our maitre d'hotel that night at our dining time. I now relate this to you because I must attach this experience to that which I know to be true about our society.

Liberal thought, law-making, and rhetoric contribute to a false sense of community. It teaches us to work together, yet controls all of the tools for working. It teaches us to share, yet withholds all of our resources. It teaches equality while pandering only to smaller sectors of society. Liberalism defeats community by delivering on promises that directly contradict its teachings. Our Constitution allows for ". . . life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", but often our pursuit creates an insular being inside of us. We allow the sense of entitlement, our feelings of desperation, hopelessness, and frustration over our pursuit, or just the values of our mass media in America to take our focus from our great community and tarnish it with selfishness. I saw on that jitney ride from the white sand beaches of Nassau what America should be. The United States ought to be three hundred million people who shamelessly, selflessly, and complaintlessly stand up and offer a seat to someone else who is tired from a long day at work. I am ashamed of my fellow Americans when I see people using angry hand gestures at someone else on the road when he sees someone driving in a way he doesn't like. I am disappointed with citizens who are in too much of a hurry to allow someone to take their spot in line at the doctor's office, fast food restaurant, or grocery store. I am frustrated with our media who holds everyone to standards which they internally ignore. I am saddened by the "left wing" political beliefs being shoved into the heads of American children in government schools further narrowing our ability to see all sides and judge according to true right and wrong.

Left-wingers, special interest groups, and selfish mindless automatons of the state beware. A time comes of great reform for America. Lady Liberty will once again reclaim what is the people's and not the government's. We will all stand up one day and quit taking your white washing of our minds. We will become the great community again that we once were.

Naturalization or emigration

Taxation is a necessary revenue generation function of a government by which they require all citizens under their protection to fiscally aid corporate efforts. Dictionary.com defines a tax as "a sum of money demanded by a government for its support or for specific facilities or services, levied upon incomes, property, sales, etc." (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tax). This would denote that the government is, indeed, rendering support or facilities or services. Somewhere in the definition, I think that all the semantic masterminds left out the word citizen, because it is only fair to tax citizens and provide support, facilities, or services to citizens. A citizen, by definition, is "a native or naturalized member of a state or nation who owes allegiance to its government and is entitled to its protection (distinguished from alien)" (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/citizen). Given that a citizen has an allegiance to its government and that said government requires a tax for the services provided, by definition, those who are not citizens should not receive the benefits of being a citizen because the government and these individuals have no allegiance to each other. One doesn't rush a fraternity only to say that he refuses to be initiated but still wants to receive the perks of being a brother. One doesn't say he believes that Jesus is the Christ, refuse to get baptised (which is a step of obedience), and expect everyone around him to believe that his faith has really changed his heart and his life. One does not show up to all the practices for a little league team, not pay the fee to play, and still expect to start the first game. In the same way, if one is not a citizen of a country, they have no rights to the amenities granted to citizens. To expect such would be to become the subject in the three aforementioned examples. To see immigrants protesting laws defending those who have rights protected by our Constitution and who were either born here or were naturalized disgusts me. I must turn my head and exhale so as not to regurgitate the delectable morsels my wife prepared for my dinner when I hear about aliens, who are not in the process of naturalization, who were born here by an alien who had no intention of being naturalized, or those who export the majority of the revenue they generate for themselves to their homeland, fighting for "their rights". Though you may be aiding our economy in some part by holding the crutch underneath the right arm of entrepreneurship in the small business sector, my suggestion to you would be to abide by the laws set forth in our country BEFORE YOU WERE BORN or emigrate. It really is your choice. If you'd like to settle here, naturalize yourself. Learn English. I'm not sure if you have somehow overlooked this fact, but American English is our official language. If you can't ask me where the restroom is without using "donde esta", then you don't deserve to receive welfare in any form from my government. If you can't ask me to hand you a hammer without calling it a "de hamer", you need to be working in your mother country.
The simple fact is that, if you would like to enjoy the benefits of citizenship in United State of America, you are going about being involved in our society in an unacceptable fashion. One doesn't fix a radiator by working on the air filter in an automobile, so why should one fight laws that are being passed to defend the age-old laws and native citizens who existed before you swam the Rio Grande, navigated the Atlantic or Pacific Ocean, or rode down Niagra in a barrel? Learn from your ancestors. Nobody came to America to stay unless they had plans on becoming an American. If you are not naturalized, you are not an American. Theodore Roosevelt, one of the greatest presidents with whom we have been graced, said it best when he said that the immigrant ought to learn our language and our customs yet not forget whence they came. Do us a favor: move up to citizenship or move out of our country. We don't want you further diluting the society that the liberals are already attempting so hard to destroy.

Me First and the Gimme Gimmes

As we enter the holiday season, I am reminded of years gone by during which I have sought out a gift for a friend or loved one. One wants to believe the commercials in all of their glamour and hype about how the stores are extravagantly decorated in green and red. Americans everywhere long for the carols written so very long ago either revamped into new rockin' versions or sung by vocal legends clinging to their strong name. Citizens of all states wander through isle after isle in their mind creating a picture of the ultimate Christmas shopping and giving season. All of these beautifully Hollywood-orchestrated scenes are abruptly shattered once you step foot into a Communist Wal-Mart or some other retail establishment. In place of all of the beautiful hyms of Christmas is the din of shoppers frantically grabbing heartily sought after items before another patron steals them away. The whirlwind of activity created by the masses swarming the store has caused meticulously decorated Christmas trees, heart-warming nativity scenes, or garland donned decorations to come crashing to the well-trodden floor. In place of the warm, smiling employees are teens who would rather be texting their friend (who is working at another retail marketplace) than aiding customers, the middle aged mom who would rather be with her kids than scanning your clothes, or the fiscally deprived retiree who desires no more than to sit in front of his fire with some apple cider rather than sell you that cup of lo-fat mocha latte. Sometimes, I think that we torture ourselves from Black Friday until Christmas Eve just so that Christmas Day is that much sweeter to enjoy. Of course, there's always the week between Christmas and New Year's Day to return all of the gifts that you didn't really want in the first place. I know this isn't a political blog up to this point, but I'm about to tie all of this together. Liberal mindset dictates that the government needs to help everyone and that all of our tax money should be distributed according to that principle. The mindset of fiscal redistribution leads to several ideas that will further drive the American Dream into the arms of Communism. The first idea that stems from fiscal redistribution is the idea of "Me First" and "Gimme Gimme". Fight this mindset over the holiday season. Quit thinking of what can be done for you and work to serve those in need around you. It is not the governments job to perform this function. It's each citizens' duty.

Bored of Education

I know that the government tailors their services to meet the lowest common denominator, but I believe that the standards for education should at least be different, if not better. Our country's education system is one of the largest institutions by which other countries compare themselves with the United States. Before you write this blog off mentally and click the little "x" at the top right hand corner of your screen, please just listen for a short time. The only point I want to make is that, since we now consider our education system a glorified baby-sitting machine, we ought to start at least teaching living principles to the children who must attend. Instead of crowding their minds with liberally slanted "social studies", we should focus on reporting history accurately and completely in history books, omitting none of the supposed "politically incorrect" material. Instead of instructing Calculus and Trigonometry to high school students, we should teach them how to manage money in true-to-life, hands-on ways. Rather than throw money away on students whose parents are not concerned by attempting to force them to graduate by a seemingly unattainable set of standards, we should have available work study programs for those who are willing to learn a trade in place of achieving a college preparatory diploma. In our VICA and other career-oriented classes and clubs, we should emphasize business ownership and set up classes to instruct principles of employee management, capital delegation, and time control. Let us start breaking the education system into parts that fit individuals as they develop rather than develop an education system that breaks people into parts that fit a government determined mould. Standardization is not the answer. Standardization is a principle of mass production, not of mass education.

Liberal Radio

Recently, I took some time out of my schedule to allow liberal radio to permeate my ears. The topics about which they spoke ranged from grunge music to Australia's Prime Minister's comments on their current involvement in the occupation of Iraq. I heard an advertisement for a labor union created clothing line and an animal activist group using children's comments urging "grown-ups" to do something about polar bears. In all, the passion for which the station backed its message was impressive.

Now that the encouragement has been regurgitated with chunks of my breakfast, I shall proceed to offer my humble and possible caustic opinion. Liberal radio, regardless of zeal and activism, is devoid of a solid political message. All that the liberals on this station could produce politically was a critique of current president George W. Bush. The left must come up with an answer in order to gain permanent followers. To throw stones at the opposition will attract rebels and volunteers, but, in order to cause lasting change in people, one must have an ANSWER to the questions that he poses.

I think that liberal thinking must exist, much as evil must exist for there to be a solid definition of good. We cannot know what is conservative if there exists no liberal. Also, nobody on earth wants a purely conservative way of thinking, governing, or living. It would be just as corrupt and enviable as its purely opposite existence. Modern liberal thought, or "progressive" thought as they enjoy pegging themselves, has many questions and assertions but no plan to answer or fulfill these political conundrums. Please don't get me wrong, they offered opportunities to serve in places and to purchase items that promote good stewardship of ones resources and environment. This does not offer any sort of buttress to the national political campaigns that strictly target what they consider to be a "failed administration" under our current President.

I have yet to meet a liberal that supports the Fair Tax, a bill that would abolish the IRS, create a flat 23% sales tax, eliminate all other taxes, and bring fairness and simplicity to our government's largest source of income. If liberals are about fairness, then why are they OK with high taxation? High taxation isn't fair to citizens who need that money to live day to day. They support high taxation because they support big government. Who else supports big government? The conservatives support big government. What, then, is the different between a conservative and a liberal? The liberals desire to utilize government to legislate our finances. The conservatives yearn to legislate our moral fabric behind the barrel of government guns. Freedom will be snatched from our cold dead hands either way if we don't start voting toward freedom instead of voting using our emotions.

I can just see the breadlines now . . .

An article I read on the WSBTV website yesterday perturbed me. I'm sure all of you oversensitive, overbearing, and overprotective parents out there are leaping for joy and gleaming your pearly whites over this one, but I, for one, find this situation scary and unfair. The article is quite truncated and concise. It states that a college in my town of Newnan had a student by the name of James Milhauser threatened students at the cafeteria of the school by saying that he was "organizing an attack against the lunchroom crowd." It follows by stating that the police investigation of the threat, taken as an act of terrorism, yielded that the kid had no concrete plans for carrying out the threat. Ok, all of you soccer moms can now inhale a peaceful lung full of fresh air knowing that one more terrorist is taken off the streets, for the article reports that he was booked at the Coweta County jail. Hooray for the office of homeland security! They can't seem to keep dangerous people from boarding airplanes with implements of destruction, but they do an EXCELLENT job of arresting kids who make unfounded "terroristic threats."

I am ashamed of the local police force. I am also ashamed of the citizens of Coweta County, and more specifically, Newnan, Georgia. We have allowed our country to take an event that devastated us all in some fashion and tuck our little legislative tail between our legs only to sit in a corner awaiting anything that even remotely resembles something that could be related to a small portion of the aftermath that was this same catastrophic event. In short, we have completely overreacted in this situation. I would say "I believe" that this was overreaction, but, since there was no evidence of an attack against this lunchroom crowd, there were no accomplices, and the kid really seemed to just be reaching out for a friend or maybe just some attention, we have totally missed the point. I haven't paraded around with a pen and pad inquiring from all of those people who know this Milhauser kid as to how he's been acting the last eighteen months, so I have no inside knowledge about Mr. Milhauser's psyche, moxie, or mores. I am not clairvoyant enough to read the article and just understand the whole situation, but I can make an accurate prediction of where this country is going if we don't all have an over sized cup of coffee and realize how much micromanagement laws limit our freedom. The next step for the school systems is to pass bylaws that allow school officials to expel students for a child's' just saying that they're going to beat up another child after school. We as a nation are using the government guns to change the way people think. When a large mass of people utilize a common governing body to coerce someone to think and believe a certain way, we call that brainwashing. How is that different from passing hate crime laws or terroristic threat laws? IT'S NOT. The "moral majority" which is neither moral or the majority wants us all to believe that they are doing what's right in trying to alter the way those of us who don't "think the way we all should" by passing laws that bolster the severity of impunity. A conviction sentence for those who commit crimes against another race or nationality is DOUBLED. I don't hate any race or nationality more than I hate a white male American, so if a black man breaks into my house and I shoot him, I could get the death penalty.

Peruse history and tell me what the next logical step was for Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics when stuff like this started happening. The answer is Communism. Bread lines. Specialization of workforce. Socialized medicine. Exorbitant taxation. You do the math. Personally, I'm apprehensive.

Do your part to turn this around. Contact your representatives and tell them what you don't like about current policies. Vote your convictions, not your emotions. Take ownership in your country. Do not let the elected officials have carte blanche. This is how Socialism starts, and Socialism ALWAYS turns into COMMUNISM.

church and state

The separation of church and government is a very touchy subject for many. Some feel as though our founders were trying to keep religion from ruling our country while others interpret our founders' plan as being one of keeping government out of our religions. Contrary to the contrasting opinions, the founders were trying to do both. These wonderful men came from a country or countries in which the ruler had levied his own belief system onto law making and enforcement. Right and wrong from a governmental standpoint was situational, only depending on how that despot or tyrant felt the day he had to make a ruling. I say all of this because our country has been involved in a tug of war, so to speak, for decades over this matter. Recently I had the privilege of perusing an article about said topic.
The government of the state of Georgia is apparently ratifying a measure to allow a class in public schools for the Bible to be taught as a book of history. Whereas, I believe (and my believe is founded in historical fact) that the Bible is historically accurate, and I believe (which is simply a personal spiritual belief) the Bible holds a lot of truth and use its writings to guide my life, I have to express some concerns regarding this movement.
My first concern is that this is a window for Christians to start taking issue with the mass education system. I see the Christians criticizing how the Bible is taught in schools and asking for only clergy or only Biblical scholars to teach the class. The instructor of the Biblical history class should be very well educated on the parallels between accepted history books and the history of the Bible. He should have a deep understanding of the chronology and pertinence of Biblical history, but he HAS TO REMAIN NEUTRAL religiously. I see the Christians using this class, which they may see as a 'victory', as a springboard to push other agenda items, such as teacher-lead prayer time. I see Christians attempting to turn our public education system in Georgia into a tool to "witness" to the masses. Christians, keep your hands off the public school system. It is not our governments job to educate our kids on your spiritual belief system. It is your job as parents to perpetuate your spiritual beliefs. This is not a Christian education class, it is a history class based on the historicity of the Bible. Keep it that way. Don't allow your emotions about your religion to take over and make decisions for other people. If you truly have faith in your God, then you know He will do as He wishes, and His wishes are for good. It's not the governments or your job to do so through the mass education machine.
My second concern is the possibility for an 'equality movement' in the education system. The people who practice Wicca or Islam or Taoism or Rosicrucian-ism (or any other belief system I didn't mention), I see, will desire an equal audience in mass education in the future. Other religious affiliations or spiritual groups will move to have classes added to school offerings as a measure of equality. First, this class is not about Christianity, so you other religions will have to move past this fallacy. Second, if other religions have historically accurate books that can be taught as a history class, then I believe they should be given equal treatment. For government to favor the Bible over another historical book is preposterous and unconstitutional. Government schools cannot teach religious beliefs as facts without becoming a theocracy. Remember the Church of England? Enough said.
All points that I care to make having been made, I believe that, even though we haven't always agreed on methodology or outcome of decisions, all of us who have a spiritual affiliation of some type can agree that none of us wants our kids educated by the propagator of a religious group with which we do not agree. In order to do that, we must make sure our public education system does not give out spiritual education of ANY kind. There are those who are radical in their spirituality and desire the government to become a theocracy either for Christianity or some other major religion, but they are not great in number. The eagle and the flag must, however, keep their watchful eye over those, even of our own countrymen, who seek to destroy freedom by forcing their religion on us all.
Thank you for reading.

Encroachment! 5 yard penalty.

I'm not sure how my audience feels about smoking cigarettes, but I loathe the act. I grew up in a home in which my parents smoked freely. I would show up to school and other children would ask me if I smoke, and, when I replied in the negative, was asked if my parents smoke. It was rather embarrassing, but I managed to push through those awkward moments by bringing levity to the situation or other such subterfuge. My hatred for the act, however, does not lead me to support any sort of anti-smoking legislation. I do agree with the separation of smokers and anti-smokers when the disgusting act of smoking infringes on an anti-smokers life, liberty, or property. This is the basis of this blog which was spurred on by an article I recently read.
The aforementioned article stated that a couple in Golden, Colorado was ordered by a judge that they could not smoke in their condominium. The condo obviously had other tenants residing juxtapose or above and below these smoking condo owners. The tenants and the condo owner both have complained to the couple about the smoke leaking into the other units in the complex, but to no avail. One tenant, the article notes, spent thousands of dollars attempting to "smoke-proof" his unit from the fumes emanating from the smoker's unit. The smoking couple now has to perform their habit out on the street away from the complex.

Let's start with the couple's response to the whole ordeal. These wonderful people have stated that they don't believe they shouldn't be able to perform a lawful act in their home. This is true, except that their act is now infringing on another citizen's rights. If they are adjacent to a unit that contains non-smokers and their smoke is infiltrating the neighbor's unit though, as mentioned above, he has spent thousands trying to bar the substance from entering his premises, then the owners should step in. If the owners do everything they can and still this sordid act's consequences are limiting the liberty of the neighbor, then the law must rule on the matter. Law must be limited to protecting citizen's rights. The smokers had an opportunity to perform their habit in privacy until it encroached a neighbor's privacy. Reasonable measures were implemented to prevent this encroachment and the privacy invasion continued. At the point at which all non-legally based corrective actions are perceived not to be working, the law must step in and rule accordingly.

The couple's second response to the ruling by the smoking couple stated that, if a blizzard were to hit, they would have to placate their addiction while enduring the outdoor elements. Since we have already defended the fact that the judge's ruling was legitimate, the cure for this ailment is that the smoking couple can either give up the habit, endure the elements, or find a new place in which to reside. These citizens knew for a long time that their smoke was annoying their neighbors, knew that they were a part of a home owner's association which governed the complex in which they lived, and chose to continue breaching other citizen's rights. This is blatant disregard for common liberty and should be punished as such. They are receiving just reward for their actions.

Allow this to be a lesson to all of you who are selfish in your habits, whether it be loud, obnoxious music, smoking and/or drinking, boisterous or raucous behavior, or any other act that infringes on other's ability to enjoy their freedoms. Americans will not tolerate immature or irresponsible behavior. Just as you have the right to act, think or feel the way you do under the First Amendment, we enjoy the same liberty. We will use our First Amendment right to petition the law to limit your abuse of your freedoms. Be vigilant is seeing that your behavior doesn't limit the rights of others. Heeding the idea behind this demand will allow all of us to enjoy the freedom we receive in the United States.