Monday, November 14, 2011


There was a time when I thought I would be done with ranting.  Apparently, that is not the case.  I'm going to tell you right up front- You really do not have to actually read this...  Tonight, it's really I who needed this.  I just needed to release.

When I was thirteen, I wrote a song based on the fact that I seemed to be around whenever anyone met the person that they'd been looking for.  My lady friends met guys they liked- and several married those guys.  My buddies met girls they liked- and several of them got married.  Today, the majority of my friends are married, with families, stable careers (or at least a job), and seeing dreams come true.  Sure, they have also seen their share of misfortune, so don't think I'm making it out to be roses!

However, getting back to the point, my friends found the one they were with for at least a year while around me.  When they needed romantic advice, they asked me.  When my lady friends wanted to know about a guy, they came to me because...  I'm not too threatening, apparently.  When my guy friends needed advice on wooing women, they came to me...  Because I'm a hopeless romantic.  Apparently, women like romance.  Who'd have thought?

In the middle of all of this romance and destiny calling and fate knocking, I stood wondering just why the hell nothing went right in this department for me.  Heh.  I dated a few girls I knew, but nothing ever worked out.  Meanwhile, my buddies were still with their significant others.  So, naturally, I did what any songwriter does in a highly emotional situation: I wrote a song.

I keep the fire going - I keep it alive
Emotions are real - I keep them pure
A real, true love - For this I strive
Advice I keep - Come glean my stores

But though I help and I assist
Though I search still I have missed
Always the best man, never the groom
Still have within an empty room...

I am the keeper - Of the fire
I make the flame leap higher
But when will the ice inside of me
Melt away for love to see
That though I keep the fire of lo-ve
When will love come to me?
When will love come to me?
When will love come to me?
When will love come to me?

I keep the fire going - I feed its burn
Hearts connect and I - I simply smile
They find love - And they turn
I smile and laugh and celebrate - Hurting all the while

For though I help and I assist
For all my searching still I miss
Still the best man, never the groom
Dust gathers in that empty room (ch)

Tonight, something occurred which was completely innocuous- Something completely innocent, without great pomp or circumstance.  I'm not going into detail about it, but suffice it to say that it was absolutely ordinary and normal.  It's always the small things.

With this "small thing," I realized something- Nothing has changed.

I am in a new place, and I am surrounded by new faces, but nothing about my being a keeper of the flame has changed a bit.  I still help others out; I'm still approached by friends seeking advice; and yes, I'm still keeping that room empty.

In short, I still haven't found her yet.

Don't take any of this to mean that I dislike helping my friends, or that I am in any way jealous.  I love to help my friends- In any way I can.  As far as jealousy goes, I find it to be a foreign concept.  I am happy for those around me who find love, and I am more than happy to be able to help in any way.  I love my friends and my family immensely, and I'm more than satisfied in displaying that love in any way I can.

Yet still, I cannot shake this feeling of having been overlooked.  With only one exception, every ex-girlfriend of mine has found happiness, and I am overjoyed for that.  I love that they've found a love they can cling to.  Meanwhile, I still have a lot of lady friends who remain just that- friends.  Some would say that I'm in the perfect position to be a playboy, yet I do not wish to be.

So, if I could add another section to that song I wrote so long ago, it would be:

How long will it sit in dust
How long must I lay and rust
How long till the waiting ends
How long till I'm more than a friend
How long till I know love's kiss
How long must I still be missed
How long till I lay my head
Beside hers in our bed?

As I sit on this porch and rock alone
I think back and smile
Friends have brought joy to my home
My list of thanks could stretch for miles

Yet still I have an echo there
Where no echo should be
And never once was a fire lit
Where the fire ought to be...

I was the keeper of the fire
I made the flames leap higher
But the ice inside of me
Never melted away for love to see
So though I kept the fire of lo-ve
Love has never come to me...
I wish love would come to me...
Will it ever come to me...
See, it's only toyed with me...

...When will love come to me?

Tuesday, September 27, 2011

Erdogan's Egregious Error Part 1

Otherwise titled: How to make 6,000 a total of 600,000 with one phrase verbally expelled by an ignorant troglodyte.

In a recent interview, Recep Erdogan stated that Israel has killed hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, while only "a few" Israelis have been killed by Palestinian rockets.  He made another statement which was just as ludicrously bogus, but let's deal with this first.

I have to notice, right off the bat, that the man does not challenge the fact that the Palestinians fires rockets into a sovereign nation.  That in and of itself should flip on a few lights as to the reliability of the man's statements; not to mention the true nature of his motives.  The Palestinians firing rockets are, at little best, terrorists.  Period.  There is no other accurate portrayal, no matter what the Mass (Sheep) Media says.

I am sure that there are Palestinians who want nothing more than to live in peace.  I am convinced of this.  Since this is the case, their fellows ought to cease their terrorist activities and work things out via proper procedure.  That, or the peace desirous Palestinians ought to hang their terrorist neighbors; that would make a greater impact than white flags, I guarantee it.

Either way, they cannot bring a demand for recognition of their "sovereign state" while inside the boundaries of a recognized sovereign nation.  Not without the go ahead from Israel.  In this case, Israel will not allow them to do so, and why should they?  The national boundaries they have now were gained through legal and proper channels; one with Egypt, and one with Jordan.  The area occupied by so-called Palestinians?  A part of Israel according to the Israel-Jordan Treaty of Peace.  Those in the Gaza Strip?  Part of Israel according to the Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty.

Back to Erdogan's idiotic remark.

The first and most obvious is the number he used.  According to B'Tselem numbers, there have been nearly 6,500 Palestinians killed since September 29, 2000 to the present day.  Even as a conservative estimate, these numbers are a far cry from "hundreds of thousands."  More interesting, perhaps, is the breakdown of this number.

According to B'Tselem, 98.8% of these figures are "killed on their own land."  How can that be, I ask, when these lands are properly Israel?  The fact that B'Tselem calls these areas "occupied territories" brings into question their own allegiance.  If you go to IfAmericaKnew, you find a further distortion of the facts: They state that according to B'Tselem, between 3,535-4,226 of these deaths belong to civilians.

Here's the problem- Palestinians have no actual army.  The entire population, fighting age, IS the army.  In a word, there may be no army, but there are also no civilians.  The only reason they can be classified by "civilians" by this so-called humanitarian organization is because they could not be "actively tied to violent activity."

By the way- Israeli deaths stand at roughly 1,262- Rough because it is not a complete enumeration.  This number is significantly higher than the "few" Erdogan stated.  While it is significantly lower than the deaths of Palestinians, take into account the emergency medical accommodations available within Israel.  If not for these, the large majority of the more than 8,000 injuries would surely have been mortal.  Incidentally, this would place the number of Israeli deaths at far higher than Palestinian losses.

Let's look at the beginnings of "Palestine."

They came into being roughly about 135 A.D.  Prior to this, the land was- Israel.  Palestine was formed as a direct result of the Roman Empire- It was a move by the emperor Hadrian in 135 AD to prevent the conquered Nation of Israel from attempting to rise up any longer.  He moved his armies into the region and scattered Israel.  At this time, Jerusalem was leveled, and two foreign peoples were moved into the new regions he'd created, respectively named Palestine and Aelia Capitolina, part of the new province Syria Palaestina.

So to recap, Palestinians claim to own land for which they never had right to; land which was wrenched from Israel by Rome for the origination of Palestine.  Israel finally reclaimed the land which was theirs prior to ancient occupation with the peace treaty signed between Israel and Jordan.  Now, Palestinians are attempting to claim land which was not rightfully theirs to begin with as theirs now- Though the land in question has been legally and rightfully Israel's since 1979 and 1994.

So- With all of this being said, I have just one question:

What is the issue here?  Bottom line, Israel is dealing with squatters, and they're even willing to give them portions of Israel.

Try taking over someone's home and see if they're as kind.

PS: Hello to the readers from the United Arab Emirates and other Middle East countries.  I welcome all of your comments, but for those of you who are prone to aggressive linguistic jabs, I say this: Save any threats for some other person.  I'm not intimidated. Thanks.

Friday, September 23, 2011

Flirting DOES NOT Help A Relationship

This is an older blog that I just wanted to repost due to the ridiculous amount of chatter I've been hearing lately on this very subject.  Supposedly, this sort of thing is good for a relationship- Anyone who says that obviously has a screw loose.  With that said, I give you:

In regards to the article written by Dave Zinczenko and published on Yahoo courtesy of Men's Health. This article can be found here:
Why Flirting Can Help Your Relationship

Flirting DOES NOT Help A Relationship

The idea of flirting outside of marriage is so akin to adultery, I find it offensive. There is a certain level of flirting that is natural, is normal, and is almost a subconscious thing. The cashier at the convenience store paying a compliment, or vise versa, for example.

However, to knowingly flirt while in an emotional drought in one's relationship puts one in dangerous territory, to say the least. Women especially are vulnerable to this form of emotional "foreplay," as the article called it.

The reason is that women are largely emotional beings. While very rational, and intelligent, God created women to be more in touch with their emotions for their children. (For their husband, to a degree, but that's a different topic.)

Because of a woman's naturally emotional standpoint, when her husband is not meeting those emotional needs at home, the last thing that she needs is to have that need met outside of her husband. It can cause/will cause her to question the validity of her marriage, the competence of her husband, even the genuineness of her feelings for him.
Obviously, you can see where this situation CAN lead to adultery.

For a man, the danger is slightly different. Not quite as threatening on an emotional scale, but just as dangerous, nonetheless.
A man has the ability to know when a woman is flirting with him. The mark of a truly content husband is his inability to notice, or his refusal to lend credence to, another woman's flirtations. As you can imagine, therein lies the problem- IF he is truly content.

As this article focuses on a couple who have hit a rough patch, we must assume that one or both are not feeling fulfilled. This means that, in spite of himself, a man's detection system is fully operational.

Because of this, when that pretty little waitress calls him honey and winks, there's something that hits him inside. If he is not careful, this will cause his thinking to become much more sexual in nature, leaving him fantasizing about someone other than his wife.
For this man, it is a rather short step from the fantasy to the action, provided he truly has convinced himself that there's no point in holding out.

I completely believe that there are men and women who have enough self control to not fall into temptation. I am convinced that a person is truly blessed when their spouse, following a withstood temptation, returns home to sweep them off their feet, demonstrating their love in action in a way both needed.
In this regard, I can see the author's point- However, it is far too risky and dangerous to initiate such a situation on one's own. Such a thing is like issuing an invitation to the devil.

However- Flirting within the relationship... Have fun!!

Tuesday, September 20, 2011

Two and a Half... Laughs.

All right- I'm about to do something I have never really done on this blog...  Review a television show.

I don't know if anyone caught the new Two and a Half Men, but...  Well, let's just say that their idea to kill off Charlie but keep the show going has not inspired me to continue watching.  Let's be honest about this- Charlie Sheen WAS the show.  There really is nothing else there without him.  Every other person on the show was more of a supporting role than anything.

Now, they've brought in Ashton Kutcher.  At first, I wasn't sure what to think about the move.  It could have been good, it could have been bad.  Turns out, bad doesn't BEGIN to cut it.  They're replacing the rascal character with a billionaire whose whining could potentially win over Moaning Myrtle from Harry Potter.  More than that, suddenly ALAN is the lady-advice guru?!  For crying out loud- It would have been better to get an over-the-fence neighbor!

As much as I hate to say it, the season premiere was funniest in the scenes where Charlie was being talked about, or talked to...  And the sad thing is, Charlie was nowhere to be seen.  That doesn't bode well for that 70's show kid...

Honestly, the best thing the network could do, at this point, is announce that Sheen will be signed back on, and turn this whole new season into some horrendous nightmare...  Sort of like the one it's shaping up to be.

Monday, September 12, 2011

A 9/11 Post on 9/12

I'd meant to post this earlier, but it remains just as true today as yesterday:

Keep those who lost loved ones 9/11/01 up in prayer.

For those who did not lose anyone, it may be tempting to consider 9/11 as a memorial and move on.

For those who lost... 9/12 is the memorial of the day after, when no information came through. 9/13 is the memorial of the day when fears gave way to a dull ache. 9/14 is the memorial of the day when they finally discovered the person they'd been seeking would never again light up their life... And many have not even had THAT closure.

So, for all of those who were never able to say goodbye properly; and for all of those who only know of their parents because of pictures and articles and monuments... Pray.

Thursday, August 4, 2011

Constitutionalist Commentary part 3

This is part three of a series I will be doing on why I identify myself as a Constitutionalist. I have been receiving questions lately on why I chose the Constitution Party over the Republicans, and I cannot explain the answer in any more brief a way than this: The Constitution Party represents my views more closely than any other party.
However, for those who are looking for more information, read on. This third part will cover the section titled “Bring Government Back Home.” You can find it HERE. I recommend reading it, because I will refer to it regularly throughout this post.
This section pretty much speaks to the issue of small government. The basic premise is that the Constitution granted certain powers to the federal government; but it also states that, where power is not granted to the federal level, it is either the state or personal level governing. A great deal of significance has been lost when it comes to this section.

Simply put, what is the federal’s, remains with the federal. What is the state’s belongs with the state. What is neither expressly given the federal or the state is strictly a personal responsibility. When the federal government legislates away personal responsibility, freedom begins to wane. Personal responsibility, you see, is where freedom truly starts.
For quite a while now, the government’s approach to power has been to grant it to itself when a lack of Constitutional power is discovered. The Environmental Protection Agency is a wonderful example of this, as is the National Education Administration. Decisions are being made on a daily basis by individuals who have not been elected, but rather hired by a bloated, out of control governmental effigy. Simply speaking, while the need for secretaries is a given for elected officials, unelected officials regulating use of land; crafting building codes; and demanding education be done exclusively within the public system, all point to the same issue. In short, we need a government that does its Constitutional job, rather than hand it over to be seen to by others unelected.
To bring the government back to its Constitutional boundaries, certain steps must be followed, and certain sacrifices must be made. The largest, of course, would the “easiest said”: The return from “giver-ment” to “government.” From there, a reduction of personal regulations, and so on.
Additionally, this would mean the return of power to the individual states. No longer will the federal government decide for them what they will spend on aid to destitute, for instance. Now, this may mean that some states will pull all funding, while others put more funding into the issue. However, if the citizens have an issue with any use of state power, the answer is not to cede it to the federal government; the answer is to change it from within.
Any candidate willing to do this, who stands behind this 100%, will get my vote- Pure and simple.
The next section speaks about Character and Moral Conduct. I’ve got more than a few things to say about that, so stick around.

Thursday, July 21, 2011

Constitutionalist Commentary part 2

This is part two of a series I will be doing on why I identify myself as a Constitutionalist. I have been receiving questions lately on why I chose the Constitution Party over the Republicans, and I cannot explain the answer in any more brief a way than this: The Constitution Party represents my views more closely than any other party.

However, for those who are looking for more information, read on. This second part will cover the section titled “Sanctity of Life.” You can find it HERE. I recommend reading it, because I will refer to it regularly throughout this post.

The first part of this section quotes the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The phrasing from the Constitution quote is most important. It states, very specifically, that it secures liberty for both the current generation, and the generation to come. In other words, those which have been born, and those yet to be. If any wonder why most pro-life groups are referred to as “right to life,” this statement is why. Any termination of human life, at any stage, is a gross violation and transgression against the Constitution.

I agree fully with the statement that a pregnancy should not be terminated for the crimes of the father. Rape and incest are crimes in themselves, and ones which wreak havoc on all involved parties. However, to end the life of an innocent only furthers this damage, and furthers the crime. One innocent has already suffered in this situation- Two innocents suffering is unthinkable. A recent study showed 73% of rape victims give birth to their children; a prior study showed 75% to 85% chose the same way. Obviously, the majority of the victims in this study did not think along the lines of most pro-abortion mouthpieces. Furthermore, data shows termination of such pregnancies to be detrimental to the victim. It does not solve a single problem, and it leaves the victim feeling like a criminal.

Abortion is also not an acceptable birth control method. If one wishes to spin that roulette wheel, they can take their chances with prophylactics of varying forms. Methods such as the morning after pill do not work in practice within other areas of life- One cannot rob a bank and decide to give the money back the next morning; one cannot kill then decide to give the victim’s life back the next morning; nor can one become pregnant, then decide to give the child back the next morning. Such is life, and life has consequences which must be faced.

The only method of birth control which is one hundred percent effective is abstinence. If that seems unbearable, then spin the wheel and take what comes.

The statement that court decisions are binding only to the parties involved is true. Roe vs Wade was binding only to the parties involved, and further reference to it as binding national law is lunacy. The courts do not create federal law- They enforce them. The Supreme Court is granted the power to strike down unconstitutional laws, but it is a power not granted them to create law by ruling. Such statements are not in keeping with the express powers granted within the Constitution.

Moreover, every state is a separate government ruled by law itself. Each of these states is sovereign, independent of Federal rulings. Each state has the right to govern itself, to the extent the Constitution allows. As pertains to abortion, every state can, and must, deny and renounce the rulings of the Supreme Court as binding law.

I continue to stand behind anyone willing to stand up and be counted as pro-life. Thus, I am in full agreement with the nomination and campaign of anyone with a pro-life agenda. This includes legislation, judicial enforcement, law enforcement and executive order. No innocent life should be ended at the whim of another.

The section continues by declaring that the advancement of federal power through legislation such as the FACE Act to be in violation of the Constitution. I firmly agree, and affirm that the government must immediately withdraw the law. Such legal action is specifically and completely within the State Government’s power, and to be enacted or repealed by the State alone. The federal government has no Constitutional authority in this matter whatsoever.

Continuing, I stand with the party stance on stem cell research. Such cells are unnecessary for this form of research, and can be harvested from a number of other resources. These resources include the placenta and the umbilical cord. A human life need not be ended to research the potential extension of another.

I also stand with the party regarding euthanasia, infanticide and suicide. These are all right to life issues, all covered by this section, and all preventable with proper care and knowledge. The end of any life need not be so cheapened. Indeed, all life is far too valuable to waste in any of the afore mentioned manners.

I personally do diverge slightly from this section. While I believe that human life begins at conception, I acknowledge that there are life-threatening pregnancies which occur. By this, I mean that so-called “tubal pregnancies” threaten the life of the mother. These pregnancies are rarely carried to term, and it is even rarer for the child to be found alive in the event of a full term pregnancy.

As such, I believe that in cases such as these, such pregnancies should be monitored closely. If there is any problem inconsistent with normal pregnancy; any problem where the medical community would be unable to intervene on behalf of the mother and child; the pregnancy must necessarily be terminated. This is a last resort, and most serious in nature. Every such termination would need to be reviewed, with every bit of documentation of the pregnancy, to ensure that nothing further could be done.

This method would also be immediately halted should technology progress to the point of transplanting tubal pregnancies to the uterus. At this point, no abortion will be permissible. All emergency funding for such procedures would immediately be transferred to tubal/uterus transplants, and all further abortive procedures would be prosecuted as murder.

This is the only area in which I diverge on this issue, and one that is reconcilable with the stance as a whole. I will explain.

In war of any kind, there will be casualties. These casualties can be minimized, but sometimes this minimization comes at great sacrifice. During Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, our soldiers often had to make a snap decision regarding the right to life. When a child or a woman came walking forward with a bomb strapped to them, the choice was clear: kill the carrier, or allow many more to die.

Likewise, in an emergency situation, triage is often followed. In this instance, once more, decisions must be made regarding the right to life. For some individuals, no amount of medical knowledge will save their lives. Then, there are others who can be saved, but only at the cost of the first group. Finally, there are those who need medical attention, but can wait for only one other group before time runs out. In this situation, the first group is nearly always sacrificed to save the other two.

Finally, our law enforcement officers are placed in situations where they too must make decisions regarding the right to life. In these situations, they are often faced with a perpetrator intent on harming himself or others, and often with far more lethal intentions. The decision they face is such: Shoot and possibly kill the suspect, or allow them to harm and possibly kill others? Though it is a hard choice to make, often the only decision to be made is the shooting of the suspect to save the lives of others.

In these three examples, we see that the right to life is sometimes necessarily voided for the wellbeing of others. Likewise, my position does not contradict the overall position of the party. Rather, it acknowledges the tough reality of life itself: That sometimes, choices such as these must be made.

However, these choices are not open to those who would use them at whim. Those who do we call murderers, terrorists, Nazis and other such titles. No, these choices are made only by those facing the decision from a third person perspective. They are not the potential victim, nor are they the potential villain; they are the deciding factor in a tragic twist of life. Only in the case of a truly life threatening situation do these choices arise, and only the deciding factor can make that unbiased call.

To summarize, abortion is a violation of the Constitution in that it ends an innocent life. No court can create binding law contrary to this, as it violates the Constitution. No federal agency can force state government to allow abortion, as that violates the Constitution. Abortion is not a form of birth control, and often creates more problems. Abortion does not solve problems; it only makes the problems worse. There are rare cases in which abortion may be justified, but only until this archaic and horrific practice can be replaced with a more humane method of saving the life of the mother.

This is my commentary on the Sanctity of Life section of the Constitution Party. Next I will review the section: Bring Government Back Home.

Tuesday, July 19, 2011

Which of These Sounds Right?

Pharaoh and all his men were storming into the open area of the Red Sea. As they neared, Moses looked up and asked God, "Aren't you going to wash them away with the Sea?" There was a snort from on high, followed by, "What?! And pollute My creation?!"

Jesus and His disciples were just finishing up after He fed the five thousand. As the crowds left, and his disciples began to gather the food, Christ had one last instruction for them. "Make sure you collect any remaining trash, too! We want to make sure we don't litter."

As God looked out over the expanse of space, He created the planets. After forming Earth, He glanced around. Then He said, "Let there be non-mercury laden, carbon footprint reducing light!"

After Joshua leveled the last stronghold of their enemy, he began to order his men to sow salt into the ground. Suddenly, a messenger of the Lord appeared. "Belay that order!" the messenger cried. "The Lord's decided that would be bad for the environment."

IF any of these examples resonates with you; if you feel that any of these are right sounding; if you think the Bible has totally covered up an eco-sensitive Creator, one who is ultimately concerned with the protracted existence of this world... You're blooming nuts.

Remember, we're talking about a God who will leave the bodies of hundreds of thousands to rot in the Valley of Meggido. Also, the same one who destroyed it once already with a flood- And if you think THAT wasn't bad for the environment... Finally, this same God will destroy this world with fire when all is said and done- How's that for global warming?

Look, it boils down to this: We are called to be stewards of creation. We are meant to care for it, and to prevent things such as extinction. However, we are not called to prevent people from using incandescent light bulbs.

Thanks for listening.

Wednesday, July 13, 2011

Renegade's Rants!!!: Constitutionalist Commentary part 1

Christian Forums Blog

Constitutionalist Commentary part 1

This is part one of a series I will be doing on why I identify myself as a Constitutionalist. I have been receiving questions lately on why I chose the Constitution Party over the Republicans, and I cannot explain the answer in any more brief a way than this: The Constitution Party represents my views more closely than any other party.

However, for those who are looking for more information, read on. This first part will cover the Preamble to the party platform. You can find it HERE. I recommend reading it, because I will refer to it regularly throughout this post.

They begin by giving glory to God. As a Christian, and a firm believer in the law of sowing and reaping, I view this as only right. Without God, there can be no success, no progress, and no freedom. Ascribing God the honor due Him is tantamount to a successful nation. This is seen throughout the Old Testament with Israel’s example, as well as other honorable mentions.

From there, we move on to an acknowledgement of the foundations of this country. Though revisionists have attempted to rewrite the majority of our nation’s history, the fact remains that this country was founded on Biblical principle. The fact remains that the majority of the founders were Christians, though their dogmatic and theological beliefs varied.

There is one glaring fact about this section that I wish to expound upon. For this country to have grown in the way it has, and succeeded in the way it has, there could be no other foundation other than the Bible. The Koran demands unbelievers be converted, by any means necessary. The redes of Wicca, or witchcraft, allow for gross misconduct, so long as no other living person is harmed. Atheism would never have founded a nation wherein religion is practiced freely. However you look at it, the principles and precepts upon which the nation was founded could come from only one place- The Bible.

Now some have stated that the first and second commandments come into direct contradiction with the Constitution. I want to take a moment to address this. The idea is that, because the first two commandments deal with having no other god before God, the first amendment is contradictory. Thus, most people using this argument are doing so in hopes of “proving” the United States was not formed on a Christian foundation. The argument is fundamentally flawed, however, when one takes into account the fact that it allows for the free practice of religion, but does not demand the adherence to a specific religion. As such, it is not anything even close to a contradiction; rather, it is further proof of the wisdom of the Founders. They formed the country based upon the whole of the Bible, rather than just a few parts.

Now we come to the five principles listed at the end of the preamble. I will list and comment each one.

· That each individual is endowed by his Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are the rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness… I agreed with these words when I first read them in the Declaration of Independence, and I continue to agree with them. Some may point out that the word “property” is not found in the original Declaration- This is wrong merely on a technicality. The word is found within the original, but not within the ratified version.

· That the freedom to own, use, exchange, control, protect, and freely dispose of property is a natural, necessary and inseparable extension of the individual's unalienable rights… This is a point I believe to be one of the most at risk liberties in our nation today. The regulatory nature of every form of government, from local to federal, in regards to property is preposterous. More to the point, the fact that these rights are continually trod upon through the use of sovereign ownership, in whatever form it takes, is a supreme violation of the people’s will, and a betrayal of their good faith.

· That the legitimate function of government is to secure these rights through the preservation of domestic tranquility, the maintenance of a strong national defense, and the promotion of equal justice for all… Some may disagree with this statement; I do not. Government was never meant to be a wet nurse, a “Daddy Warbucks,” or a savior. It was meant to be a sentinel- Ever vigilant to the welfare of the citizens. Welfare is not defined as a check every week or so. It is the well being and peace of every individual to live out life and live to the fullest. However, it is not the government’s job to assure that person is able to live at the peak of their potential- Merely that they have the opportunity and chance to do so. Everything else is up to the individual. Basically, the statement of the government is this: “I keep you safe, and provide the peace and the law to allow you to succeed; get to it.”

· That history makes clear that left unchecked, it is the nature of government to usurp the liberty of its citizens and eventually become a major violator of the people's rights… Nowhere in history do we see a government remain a champion of liberty and freedom. If there were such a government, it would still be around today. As such, every government must remain constantly and consistently in check at all times. There is need for growth and flexibility, but there is also a requirement for a very specific boundary that will not, and cannot, be crossed. This government has crossed it long ago.

· That, therefore, it is essential to bind government with the chains of the Constitution and carefully divide and jealously limit government powers to those assigned by the consent of the governed… This is how the above commentary is achieved. That the Constitution remain the highest law of the land; that said law not be changed except in great need, such as the Civil Rights movement; and that no part of the Constitution be altered to allow for greater government power. Power truly does corrupt, and it will corrupt a system as easily as a human being. Once corrupted, the entity will continue to grow, much like cancer. Thus the need for absolute accountability on the part of the public servants, which will begin with a heavy emphasis on the word “Servant.”

This is my commentary on the Preamble of the Constitution Party. It is, in my opinion, one of the most accurate appraisals of where this nation needs to be. No other party has the wherewithal to champion such a goal. Certainly no other party is willing to make the sacrifices necessary to return this nation to its original design.

Next, I will be looking at the next section: Sanctity of Life.

Monday, July 4, 2011

FDR, Nationalism and H.R. 973

"A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward."
~Franklin D. Roosevelt

I find it very interesting on more than one level that FDR, a man who lived about half his life as a cripple, made a statement such as this. I am not slamming him for being crippled- In fact, that is about the only thing I hold him in esteem for. The man was the only physically challenged president we've had, and he did a pretty decent job in many respects. The problem is that he also did a horrendous job in many others.

Actually, one of the first reasons I find it interesting is that it is a quote many liberals would wish to champion. Notice, I did not use the words Democrat or Republican: Truth be told, there is very little difference between parties any longer. No there is only ideology, and that breaks roughly into Conservative and Liberal, with many riding fence in between; but I digress. It is a quote they would champion because it sounds like a truthful statement from a heroic figure. The man could not walk, yet look at his keen observation!

I cannot help but notice, however, that the only backwards walking I've seen from most modern Conservatives is derived from their need to clean up the past administration's mistakes. The charge I often hear is that Conservatives are stuck in the past- Well, people who clean up someone else's disasters often are, though not by choice.

This brings me to an article I read earlier today originally written by the late Howard Zinn. In it, he lambastes what he terms "Nationalism ... One of the great evils of our time." The problem is, Zinn proceeds to describe patriotism- Not Nationalism. Now mind you, this man was a veteran. He fought in World War II. Thus, it was strange to read such a gross mischaracterization- He ascribes the very attitude which gave rise to Hitler to patriotism.

Take, for instance, this excerpt from the beginning of the article:

On this July 4, we would do well to renounce nationalism and all its symbols: its flags, its pledges of allegiance, its anthems, its insistence in song that God must single out America to be blesse

Is not nationalism -- that devotion to a flag, an anthem, a boundary so fierce it engenders mass murder -- one of the great evils of our time, along with racism, along with religious hatred?

This is not Nationalism- This is patriotism that is being attacked here. Perhaps more amazing in its sheer foolishness is the fact that the article attempts to paint the United States of America as unimportant, unexceptional and far from unique. He ends his abomination of an article with these words: "We need to refute the idea that our nation is different from, morally superior to, the other imperial powers of world history ... We need to assert our allegiance to the human race, and not to any one nation."

This is humanism at its best- Not to mention historical revisionism, interpretive deviance and terminological hijacking. While I agree that the U.S. has no feet to stand on from a moral perspective in many instances, the rest of his closing statement is purely progressive liberal bull.

I bring this up because once again, a Conservative has to set the record straight.

Nationalism is what Germany experienced during the rise of Adolph Hitler. It is an extreme attitude of superiority centered around a single powerful figurehead. The ruler institutes symbols and the subjects show reverence and/or deference to these without question, criticism or complaint. It was this attitude that allowed Hitler to not only come to power, but also to taking his first steps towards eternal, historical infamy. When Hitler was questioned, what resulted was often a less than pretty sight; within his government, individuals who stood against him wound up catching a bad case of death.

Contrasting heavily with this is Patriotism. Patriots support their nation, think highly of their nation and appreciate their nation. However, they are also highly critical if something seems to be affecting it for the worse- They speak out, demanding a return to proper adherence to rule of law, for instance. Or, hypothetically speaking, denouncing as wrong something as obvious as electing a duel citizen to federal public office. In this country, this sort of thing can be done at any time, anywhere. In this country, patriots rally behind a flag and their troops while demanding accountability from their leaders. In this country, people can do this without disappearing unexpectedly- Or being slaughtered on the spot.

This article exemplifies perfectly the need for H.R. 973. In short, it spells out the need for all courts, from Municipal to Supreme, decide cases based solely upon US Law and no other. It seems so simple and common sense that one might be tempted to dismiss it as unnecessary. Such a dismissal would be a colossal mistake, however.

As indicated in the earlier example, common sense is far from commonplace nowadays. As such, people are needing, more and more, for things to be spelled out for them. Our leaders in D.C. top this list. For this reason, I urge you to phone your Reps and Senators and demand their support and passage of this bill. It's simple, it's common sense, but in the long run, it may save this country.

If you don't know who your Reps and Senators are, try this handy online tool.

Tuesday, May 24, 2011

Regulation and Foul Play

There are certain things that this government does which truly annoy the crap out of me. Certain things such as... Banning cloves because they're supposedly trainer cigarettes- Though studies show differently. Studies actually showing that cloves account for less than 1% of all underage smokers preference. Studies further showing that though menthols are far more addictive, they remain legal.

Such as... Anti-bacterial soap potentially being banned by the FDA and EPA. Such as... A fool's group attempting to outlaw Happy Meals throughout the nation. Such as... A group trying to get trans fat banned.

If you want to know more about what's got me so riled up, check out the PDF booklet written by Ronin Lawbringer. All the links are below, and I do have permission from the author to make this available freely.

It all boils down to this: Freedom in this country is not freedom. Instead, it has become a simpering attempt at complacency while the overlords bilk us of everything.

Time to take a stand.

Tuesday, May 17, 2011

HELL: Eternal Justice, Eternal Love - part 2

Earlier, I spoke of the next destination in our lives- Not this finite one you and I live on planet Earth, but the one we live within it. Like a box within a box, our eternal spirit is merely housed within a finite physical shell. We are created as dependent eternal beings; able to live beyond physical death, but dependent upon our Creator for that life.

This is overlooked in modern Christianity, and has been for some time. In fact, there have been those "hellfire and brimstone" preachers which have pushed forward the idea of our earning our right to enter Heaven here on Earth. These say that if one dies in sin, one falls through into Hell. Strangely enough, no sin is present in this world save that which grieves the Holy Spirit- That is if I'm reading my Bible right. Don't get me wrong here. I am not saying that humans are perfect, nor am I committing heresy.

What I am saying is that MY Bible states Christ died for the sins of ALL. That means every one of them, not just the ones we repented of this morning. In fact, the only sin which is not forgivable- Is not accepting that very forgiveness. It's the ticket to board the cruise ship; if you have it, you go- If not, you don't.

Nevertheless, these wonderful preachers made their money convincing people that they were hot because Hell was right beneath them... And not because they were packed into a tent tighter than sardines. It was this ministry of condemnation that gave rise to such mindsets as that of the noted agnostic, Robert Ingersoll. It was he who stated thusly:

They say that when god was in Jerusalem he forgave his murderers, but now he will not forgive an honest man for differing with him on the subject of the Trinity. They say that God says to me, "Forgive your enemies." I say, "I do;" but he says, "I will damn mine." God should be consistent. If he wants me to forgive my enemies he should forgive his. I am asked to forgive enemies who can hurt me. God is only asked to forgive enemies who cannot hurt him. He certainly ought to be as generous as he asks us to be.

Individuals who say these things seem not to be understanding a very crucial fact: We humans are eternal, within a finite vessel. In the beginning, after the Fall of Man, yet before the Sacrifice, all of humanity understood this. Indeed, Cain mourned that his punishment for killing Able was too great to bear. "Everyone who comes across me shall slay me," he states, giving reference to his own eternity within the finite.

Today, however, this seems to be the sum of existence for many, and how sad is that?! Regardless of the tragedy encompassed by such a life stance, it progresses and grows. Many are taken in by this foolish thinking, and the various forms of "logic" which spring up around it. Such as the idea that mankind is doomed for its rejection of God's love, when in reality, man is doomed for its fallen nature.

Much like a car with a shorting central computer, our lives spit and sputter and refuse to run well. Continuing on with this sort of problem could lead to far more serious disaster: A sudden seizing of the brakes and the remainder of life as a paraplegic, for this example. We could continue on, not knowing this fate is awaiting; or we could bring it in to the mechanic, who has already paid for the replacement so as not to burden us with the price.

This truth is NOT what Bell operates under in his most recent book. Instead, he presents his version of "truth," one that leaves out the troublesome issues of Hell and eternal justice. He asks, in essence, what kind of loving God would damn a human soul to eternal punishment? The answer, he states, is that God would not. Thus he commits to the ages an atrocious error, one which Satan himself has fabricated: The assumption one knows the Creator based upon a sole aspect.

If God is Love, than how could He damn a soul? If God were solely and completely the sort of fuzzy love we associate with teddy bears and Santa Claus, than He could not. Fortunately, God is so much more. In fact, we often start at the wrong end when teaching on the love and/or wrath of God. However, before we get to that point, we first must define terms according to the Bible, not according to today's understanding.

First, we must understand that Love is not merely a fuzzy feeling. The opposite of love is not hatred, and love has the ability to be seemingly cruel. The opposite of love is apathy, for even hatred errupts based upon love. The seeming cruelty of love takes place when it must allow for discipline and punishment. A parent hates punishing a child, but it must be done at times. Why? Because love desires the very best. Allowing an action heedless of future wellbeing would not be love- It would be gross indulgence. Thus, love will seem very cruel when the object of love does not act in its own best interest.

Then we must look to wrath. Wrath is not the form of anger we see today. If anything, it too comes from a point of love. Wrath is the natural response when the object of love acts contrary to its best interest. It is anger, disappointment and sorrow together as one. Anger that one could be so thoughtless as to disregard one's wellbeing so entirely. Disappointment that one could do so more than can be credited to mistake. Sorrow that one must be opened to punishment as a result of wrongdoing.

Where we tend to get things backwards is our teaching of the reasons for the Wrath. Most say that it is man's rejection of Christ's Love that brings the wrath. In fact, this is wrong. It is man's fallen state which brings the wrath. Sinful man does not reject the love of Christ- he rejects the sacrifice, thus taking the full weight of his own sin back upon himself.

God is not only Love. He is also just. Justice can abide nothing but complete and absolute conformity to upright living; that is, living according to the desires of love. Anything other must be punished. It is perfect love which leads to perfect justice. Love desires the very best; wrath is the result of infraction upon obtaining the best; justice responds to the infraction.

Our sin affects our entire being, a blemish upon an undying spirit. Yet we seem to believe it a temporary thing. Because of this false belief, many see the idea of Hell as being entirely too much. In reality, however, it is a just punishment based upon the lasting decision of an eternal being to reject a permanent covering. In effect, man is already charged with his crime, and the punishment is death. When man rejects the sacrifice, he rejects his own plea bargin- The one thing which could get him out of that death.

And yet, with all of this, people seem to believe an eternally lasting crime not worthy of an eternal punishment. The crime not forgiven, the only one, is the one for which forgiveness is not sought. Those eventually sent to Hell are sent, not because of God's desire to punish, but because they have condemned themselves.

Monday, May 16, 2011

HELL: Eternal Justice, Eternal Love - part 1

The Roman poet Virgil stated that "we each bear our own Hell."

William Shakespeare once famously penned "Hell is empty, and all the devils are here."

Oscar Wilde observed that "we are each our own devils, and we make this world our Hell."

Each of these statements seem to be a point that Rob Bell's latest book could originate from. In actuality, they reveal something rather true about this world; namely, that it can be a living hell, and that such a hell is based solely upon our own choices. Our decisions and the subsequent consequences can be disastrous, affecting not only our lives, but those of the people around us. It can truly be a hell of such dark and terrible conditions that we may be happy to see the Hell of the afterlife pale in comparison. Such a notion would truly bring happiness to many and satisfy most who are itching to hear something they like.

Now where have I heard that phrase about itching ears before?

Oh, yes. Second Timothy 4:3-4 --

3The time is coming when people won't listen to good teaching. Instead, they will look for teachers who will please them by telling them only what they are itching to hear. 4They will turn from the truth and eagerly listen to senseless stories.

That pretty much speaks to the latest happy-happy thoughts to come from the mind of Rob Bell. Now, within this book Rob suggests that Hell is a myth- Not outright, but in so many words. More literally, he makes the same historically rooted arguments every other anti-judgment person has ever made: That Gehenna was the local city dump always on fire, etc. He then jumps from these points to say that Christ never once spoke of eternal damnation.

Is he reading the same Bible I am, or did he mistake his Emergent Church Translation for a copy of Finding Peace Within? Before anyone gets upset with me about this, bear in mind that the Seventh Day Adventist church is founded on the idea of annihilation and soul sleep, as opposed to an eternal damnation in the Lake of Fire. Bell does not suggest this, but he's on board at least as far as Cecil Perry, President of the SDA church in England, has remarked. Perry made the statement in 2000 that:

“The message of hell is in stark contrast to the message of hope and love and tends to engender fear”
(“British Seventh-day Adventists Warn Against ‘Stoking’ Hell Fires,” Religious News Service, April 2000).

That's right- Apparently, fear is no longer allowed within the Christian faith. Now, I'm not going to outrightly claim the SDA church is not Christian. I am not doing this right now because at this point, I do not want to be sidetracked.

The reason I find it interesting that there is this sudden desire among the various Christian branches to erase Hell from the picture. It is almost as if everyone would rather the idea of an eternal judgment is TOO wrong, or TOO harsh. In fact, the idea of an eternally lasting judgment issued by an eternally just God makes eternal sense.

There is a strange correlation between this thought and some other observations. The first observation was made by Ms. Madalyn Murray O'Hare, when she famously stated: "The fear of hell is the basis for the Christian faith." In fact, that is not the basis of the Christian faith- Though such stark contrast in viewpoints has not been helped in current times by the likes of Fred Phelps.

In fact, it is the fear of God that is the basis of Christianity, and not fear as defined by 1, 2, and 4 of Websters Dictionary. Let's be honest about this- Even our modern definition of fear does not begin to describe what is spoken of in the Bible. Admiration, reverence, and the sort of "fear" felt when entering the presence of a very powerful but highly respected leader is what's spoken of... Not terror.

However, it IS this terror sort of fear that is spoken of by Perry and O'Hare. It is also this sort of fear which has led countless people to reject the truth of the Bible; these people who would rather be happy in a finite and mortal existence than be infinitely secure. The sort of fear that encourages people to make a joke and mockery of its very existence. It was funny man Jim Carrey whose character stated: "Maybe there is no actual place called hell. Maybe hell is just having to listen to our grandparents breathe through their noses when they're eating sandwiches."

This same fear is what has led people such as O'Hare and Perry to reject its teaching, or object to it, one of the two. The idea that there could be justice in the world, and beyond it, apparently does not sit well with those who do not wish to live by any moral or ethical code but their own. These are the people who claim that Hell is already present here on Earth; that we need not have one which will last for eternity, because we have one which can last our entire pitiful existence. As some might say, one which can last the most important part of our life: The part for which we are alive, and not merely memory. In the words of Ed Babinski--

Given headaches, backaches, toothaches, strains, scrapes, breaks, cuts, rashes, burns, bruises, PMS, fatigue, hunger, odors, molds, colds, yeast, parasites, viruses, cancers, genetic defects, blindness, deafness, paralysis, mental illness, ugliness, ignorance, miscommunications, embarrassments, unrequited love, dashed hopes, boredom, hard labor, repetitious labor, accidents, old age, senility, fires, floods, earthquakes, typhoons, tornadoes, hurricanes and volcanoes, I can not see how anyone, after they are dead, deserves "eternal punishment" as well.

Here's a twist, however. What if this so-called "most important part" is not? What if the most important part, that which we should live for, is to come? Some may argue that we should not look ahead, that we should live in the moment and for today. What good is that, I answer, if today's rash decision impoverishes one tomorrow? Every part of life is dependent upon the preceding part: An infant dependent upon his birth; a teen his childhood; an adult his teen years; and an elder their entire life experience. What if the transition of life to death is much like the transition from womb to cradle? The womb is all the infant knows, yet there is another eighty plus years before it outside of that womb.

As such a possibility cannot be ruled out, and no evidence can be presented to conclusively prove otherwise, one can certainly entertain thoughts of the outside world- The world beyond this existence. However, there is a serious misconception regarding the destination of the dead. This misconception hinges on the idea that there are merely two places a departed spirit can go: The first being Heaven, the second being Hell. There is, in fact, a third; the hall of judgment. There is no purgatory, no place to work off one's sins, but there is a place where one discovers if one's sins are covered by the Blood of the Lamb... And their own acceptance of that gift. It is here that we, having shaken loose the bonds of time, gather after death. It is not our final destination, but it is our next.

Thursday, May 5, 2011

Blessings to the Pioneers of Faith Hip-Hop

In April, several veterans of the Holy Hip-Hop genre gathered together for the first ever meeting of it's kind. With the opportunity to present my gratitude to so many who have had a positive influence on my life, you know I had to grab it.