Latest Entries »

It is a fickle thing, the argument of both the establishment and free exercise clause of the constitution and its application to individual institutions. It becomes a tricky thing to juggle for conservatives, or at least the past day or so has shown that.

http://espn.go.com/new-york/nfl/story/_/id/7963138/high-school-graduate-denied-diploma-temporarily-tim-tebow-pose  is the story that is getting attention. Now, alot of those having fits about this I’ve seen going from a 1st amendment angle. There are a few things to bring up that are flaws in the argument.

1. The student was not showing a genuine show of prayer. It was based on a five dollar bet with a friend. It is only a coincidence that what was bet about was a “prayer-like” move.

2. The school is not a public school. It is a catholic school. Catholics have several irreparable differences with evangelical Christians that are brought up by this imagery. Matter of fact, this imagery is why the catholic church is not more dominant a religion today that it was previous to the puritan/separatist movement that in a large way culminated in the founding of our country.

3. If religious institutions are viewed as individuals when it comes to rights (and I argue that they are) then they must be allowed to set up rules in such a way to reflect their religious values.

4.  While I love that Tim Tebow has increased the awareness and reach of evangelical Christianity today we must realize that quite a bit of the “tebowing” phenomena is nothing more then planking that is actually ridiculing evangelical Christianity. It is mocking. And while that mocking still leads to higher exposure and I argue the furtherance of the kingdom in the long run, it is still mocking.

So are we really saying that it is not constitutional for a private school to set up rules based on acceptable behavior inside of their school? If you are arguing that point, you do realize that adoption of this interpretation of religious freedom has far-reaching consequences that touch nearly ever sector of society changing it for the worse (in my opinion of course)? One thing I stress more then anything else, is consistency and intellectual honesty. I believe this in some individuals is showing the opposite.

Anyone want to dispute or educate me on how I’m wrong? I’m open to discussion on it, but I just don’t see the argument’s merit at all.

If ever someone wanted to make me feel like I have no vote in an electoral process it is now working. Sure, I can vote and my vote be counted in November. But in the nomination process there are a slew of things that means to me that it is pointless to vote at all.

 

Case #1 : While this year’s impact of this was diminished by the plethora of delegates that were assigned based on percentage of vote instead of all delegates from one state going to the candidate who won that state the idea that early primary and caucus states hold so much power to decide who is the nominee effectively eliminates the importance of votes held in late primaries.

 

Case #2 : Caucuses are a nightmare where someone can get 10% of the vote and still get the majority of the delegates. Although, I will say that the only people I see reporting that this has happened are from Ron Paul’s camp, but I do see how these rules can lead to it. In Mass. its supposed to be binding proportional vote delegates which Romney won all of them. Ron Paul has suspended his attempt to garner another vote, but yet is picking up delegates anyway.

 

Case #3 : Some states have ridiculous rules for getting on the ballot. I know “its the rules you must live by them”, but that doesn’t mean they are not broken. To have a primary in virginia leaving out all but two candidates is infuriating and embarrassing and led to me literally not having a vote in the primary. All this on a technicality and I would argue a flawed premise. Say I was active in getting signatures…I wouldn’t have been doing so for Rick Santorum (who I would have voted for) I would have been doing so for Michelle Bachmann who I ended up deciding not to vote for because she did not run a strong enough campaign to win anything. So, theoretically while I could’ve replaced one of those out of states signature takers that got thrown out, I wouldn’t have known to do so at the time. Major candidates, heck, all candidates running should be on the ballot to allow for everyone to have a vote.

 

Case #4 : Open primaries/caucuses. The idea that someone that is registered in the  other party can cross party lines to vote on a nomination is ridiculous.

 

Lets say that stuff coming out about Ron Paul winning delegates is true. What happens if somehow he did win the nomination (which he is not, it is not a mathematical possibility unless they suspend election rules) by gaining delegates when he did not win the vote for those delegates. Tell me 1.) How is that ethical. 2) How do you ever expect me to support such utter disregard for voters and 3.) I can guarantee you I would not vote for a candidate who won the delegates without being competitive in the vote totals.

 

What we need to do, is eliminate caucuses, make all states delegates binding for the first vote at the convention, and schedule all primaries for the same day, or we can not count the votes until all primaries are done with voting.

Like a lot of other circumstances I find myself disagreeing with both sides of the arguments going on right now. First you have die-hard birthers who are hell bent to prove that Obama is not eligible to be president. Then you have the rest of conservatives who hold birthers with such contempt.

 

So it truly does beg the question. What happens if it is proven without any reasonable doubt that Barack Obama was born in Kenya or by other means ineligible for office? I have a hard time even picturing it. Every signature would be a fraud. Joe Biden may’ve signed the legislation, but Biden did not run for president. It would make the election itself fraudulent. What about all the pieces of legislation that were vetoed? Do they come back into question? After all they were vetoed on false pretenses.

 

I contend that proving this without reasonable doubt would cause a constitutional crisis that could actually require a constitutional convention to determine what to do next. Once that is called all bets are off. I do not trust the current establishment in either party to re-draw the constitution or to leave it alone once they are given that power. So in short, in some ways its potentially better if Barack Obama was never proven to be ineligible even if it could potentially reverse everything he has done.

 

I also contend that the poisonous vitriol towards birthers (who are over-generalized because the term birther refers only to his place of birth and there is an entire different argument about his father being a british national making him ineligible for presidential service) is causing a lack of trust even in other conservatives. A skeptic often believes that those who attack their skepticism as conspiracy theories and unfounded racist or whatever other label are thus continuing and covering up that which they are attacked for. Nothing will stoke the fires of a movement like being called crazy, racist, or conspiracists. I know if someone did that to me I’d be louder in my dissent on the subject. So those that wish that birthers would go away are doing themselves and the other side of the conversation a disservice by attacking. If you have a point of view that thinks that it is unfounded, educate the person on why it is unfounded or why it may not be beneficial to go down that road don’t attack them.

 

Ever noticed how slow moderate democrats are to chastise or call out their liberal members? There is a reason for that they know that there is an anti-status quo argument out there and they use that to get their ends done. At least thats how it happened pre-Obama where they seem to be fully embracing the fringe left of their party. Call people out on racism, but do it in a way that actually has a chance to make a difference. Alert people to the dangers of the argument, but do it in a way that doesn’t make them louder. Don’t continuously stoke the flames and continue the distraction and perceptively negative consequences from the narrative erupting again by ridiculing them. To do that just makes everything worse.

Democrats are not alone.

I always knew that there were a number of people in power that are republicans that were hellbent on preserving an unending amount of power for the federal government, but the sheer number of those politically active republicans that defend it is astounding.

They always say that they are conservative and when you challenge them they either use a perversion of ronald reagan to show “they are” or say that noone can define what a conservative is so it is relative to the status quo.

At this point we are so far to the left that when you use relativity the british system could be deemed conservative.

Oh, and for any that see me as misinformed continue to talk about me on your blogs I relish being singled out by those I have dedicated my social media life to expose. If you believe what the socialist indoctrination centers have taught you I would rather it be that way.

For those who are liberal that’s fine. I even understand to an extent the logic behind your political choices. While I will work against nearly everything you stand for, at least your not calling yourself a conservative while advocating ignoring the constitution when it is advantageous to you then denigrating those who want to ignore the constitution when it is helpful to them.

Your not arguing with me when you argue the constitution you are arguing with the statements and speech’s of the founding fathers and the constitution itself. The constitution came with it a method of changing the constitution to add power to the federal government. Its called the amendment process.

That is why while I oppose a personal income tax on the basis that I believe that it is a violation  of my privacy and due process rights I will not argue that it is unconstitutional. At least it followed the protocol set by the constitution.

The founders said what they meant I really do not need to add to that for it to argue my point. Maybe you might think that you can question what the “meaning of is is” but I guarantee you if you do your no ally of the constitution and certainly not a conservative.

 

U.S.S. Missouri

Admiral Nimitz signing the peace treaty on the Missouri

Sight from where Japan surrendered

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-uss-missouri-20120311,0,6134093.story

While this is most definitely a sight, and a wonderful event to be sure it creates a personal connection to my life that I did not realize the full extent of it. I was born 42 years to the day from the day Pearl Harbor was attacked by the Japanese dragging us into the pacific part of the war. My Grandfather would graduate from the Naval Academy and get deployed. His first deployment? Was to be the CO in charge of these very guns upon the U.S.S. Missouri. That deployment ended on the Deck of the Missouri with Admiral Nimitz signing the peace treaty ending the pacific part of World War II. My grandfathers name is Walter Earnest Saunders. He retired as a commander on the base at Boca Chica (southern Florida Keys almost to Key West). I love you Granddad and you deserve every bit of respect and honor and thanks given to you.

My Grandfather Walter E. Saunders in an SNJ Carrier Training Plane

Remember to thank a Veteran, and in this climate go out of your way to thank a currently serving military person. I'm sure they need all the reassurance that they can get in this environment. Without them, we have no chance to fight for our freedom with words.

Top 12 Girls…

Chelsea Sorrell: Good voice, decent song choice, way too safe with the arrangement and I saw no real distinction between her and carrie other then the fact that her voice is not as good as underwoods is now or when she was in the top 24.

Baylie Brown:The worst of the three country girls..I do not see a possibility of her survival without help from the judges.

Skylar Laine: Good energy, but poor execution. I’ve never liked her voice.

Shannon Magraine: Big fan of her dads from when he played MLB baseball for the cardinals. Her vocal was nearly flawless, but the song choice made it almost irrelevant. I do not see her singing that sort of music on an album I’d even think of buying.

Jennifer Hirsh: The whole time she was singing I was thinking of that girl from glee…and I don’t like glee.

Hollie Cavanaugh: Another nearly flawless vocal, but I never found myself liking it. Not sure exactly what it is, I do hope she gets through for me to hear her sing something different.

Haley Johnsen: I voted for her and used every vote I did for her. Her vocal was not perfect, but her use of arrangement and if she hadn’t waivered a couple times in her voice I would have preferred her version over Annie Lennox’s version. (As non-pc as that statement is)

Hallie Day: All I have to say, is whatever song it was she sang, I have heard it before but didnt know who did it..she did it much better.

Jessica Sanchez: Considering she was sick I thought she sang well. But I couldn’t get into the song and that hurt her in my list.

Erika Van Pelt: I barely remember her performance. Nothing bad, but nothing memorable.

Elise Testone: I went into this episode actually thinking I’d vote for her..I wish she had stuck with the piano all the way through. Still great and in my top three but just not what I expected.

Brielle Von Hugel: I didn’t think she sang well at all…and sorry singing “Dock of the Bay” exactly how it was originally sung gets you a “bad karaoke” reference from me.

My top 6
Haley Johnsen
Hallie Day
Elise Testone
Jessica Sanchez
Shannon Magrane
Chelsea Sorrell

Prediction
Voted in
Hallie Day
Elise Testone
Chelsea Sorrell
Jessica Sanchez
Hollie Cavanaugh
Judges pick
Haley Johnsen

Wild card (#13) will be a guy

American Idol Top 12 Guys

With that set done all I have to say is that I am glad that I decided to give this season a chance. After disappointment for the past 4 years for me I can say that this is no disappointment. Here is what I thought of each performer.

Reed Grimm: Reed opened the set up this week. “Moves Like Jagger” by Maroon 5 was the song. I actually thought it was a bit too predictable a choice of song, but he made it his own by slowing it down (finally learned some of the words to this song). His musical strengths show in more then just instruments but down to his muting of his voice at parts (just like adam levine) and “scatting” which was not overdone as it has been on American Idol in the past. It pulled together for a great performance.

Adam Brock: Adam sang the first of many songs that were originally sung by women. Which was always a big piece of advice that simon cowell continuously said. He was solid vocally, reached a very moving emotional performance while keeping his soulful signature.

Colton Dixon: “Decode” by Paramore is one of my favorite songs, and I was scared that would hurt my vision of what he’d do with it. It didn’t he performed well, moved well, and sang well. In these first three I don’t think they missed a single beat at all. He has a very Jason Wade type of voice (lead singer of lifehouse) but with a bit more energy really then Jason has ever shown in a song.

Deandre Brackensick: The guy is the best vocal since Adam Lambert, and probably the second best ever in idol. However, his overuse of falsetto (which I like in small doses) I think hurt him irreparably. He reminds me of another idol contestant a few years ago by the name of Jason Castro, but he takes it to another level entirely.

Creighton Fraker: Sang beautifly, but the song was incredibly safe and when you compared his reaction to those in front of him it really was quite flat. He will more then likely suffer a less then optimal vote split with Reed Grimm.

Aaron Marcellus: Did a good rendition of the jackson 5 song he picked. It must have sounded better there then on tv because I thought it was good not great.

Heejun Han: The guy oozes likability, and he really can sing, but the song choice will hurt him.

Eben Frankewicz: Great singer, but really looked shaken up there..maybe just in comparison. Sang great.

Jeremy Rosado: I’ve never fully understood his vocal appeal. He did better then I expected, but lacked eneergy & emotion throughout.

Chase Likens: Sang a great song choice very well. Was not overly impressed but vote splits favor him quite a bit.

Phillip Phillips: I disagree completely with randy jackson. I thought the changes to the melody made his song better by miles. The performance of the night looking at what the point of this night is. He defined himself very well & sounded awesome.

Joshua Ledet: Awesome arrangement and delivery had even my 2 month old son raising his hands. He sounded alot better then he did in vegas/hollywood.

Jermaine Jones: I was so glad they invited him out of the four and he did absolutely great. The sad thing is it still might not be enough and now he can’t come back if he leaves now.

My rankings
1. Phillip Phillips
2. Colton Dixon
3. Reed Grimm
4. Adam Brock
5. Jermaine Jones
6. Heejun Han
7. Joshua Ledet
8. Deandre Brackensick
9. Ebben Frankewicz
10. Creighton Fraker
11. Aaron Marcellus
12. Chase Likens
13. Jeremy Rosado

My prediction
Phillip Phillips
Colton Dixon
Reed Grimm
Adam Brock
Joshua Ledet
Judges : Deandre Brackensick

While your answer may gravitate towards answering my question affirmatively this post will attempt to show that there should be and is a limit to which interpretation of the constitution is allowable inside of the constitution.

“General Welfare”

Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare but is restrained to those specifically enumerated, and . . . it was never meant they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers. -Thomas Jefferson

“If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the “general welfare,” and are the sole and supreme judges of the “general welfare,” then they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every state, county, and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the United States; they may assume the provision for the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, everything from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police would be thrown under the power of Congress, for every object I have mentioned would admit of the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the “general welfare.” -James Madison

True meaning of 9th and 10th ammendments.

“I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: that “all powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states or to the people” [the Tenth Amendment]. . . . To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.” -Thomas Jefferson

“I declare it as my opinion that [if] the power of Congress be established in the
latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations . . . of the limited
government established by the people of America.” -James Madison

“Our country is too large to have all its affairs directed by a single government. Public servants at such a distance and from under the eye of their constituents . . . will invite the public agents to corruption, plunder, and waste. . . . What an augmentation of the field for jobbing, speculating, plundering, office-building, and office-hunting would be produced by an assumption of all the state powers into the hands of the federal government!” -Thomas Jefferson

“The states can best govern our home concerns, and the [federal] government our
foreign ones.” -Thomas Jefferson

“Commerce Clause”

http://constitution.org/col/02729_fed-usurp.htm

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the State governments will here enjoy another advantage over the federal government. The more adequate, indeed, the federal powers may be rendered to the national defense, the less frequent will be those scenes of danger which might favor their ascendancy over the governments of the particular States.

If the new Constitution be examined with accuracy and candor, it will be found that the change which it proposes consists much less in the addition of NEW POWERS to the Union, than in the invigoration of its ORIGINAL POWERS.”

-James Madison

“To make a thing which may be bought and sold is not to prescribe regulations for buying and selling. Besides, if this were an exercise of the power of regulating commerce, it would be void, as extending as much to the internal commerce of every state, as to its external. For the power given to Congress by the Constitution does not extend to the internal regulation of the commerce of a State, (that is to say of the commerce between citizen and citizen,) which remain exclusively with its own legislature; but to its external commerce only, that is to say, its commerce with another State, or with foreign nations, or with the Indian tribes.”

-Thomas Jefferson

If we apply their words and the intent of the words in the constitution so plainly enumerated by our founders we will see that a majority of things that are handled by the federal government are not authorized by our constitution. Even shortly after the constitution was composed there were attempts to intentionally misconstrue the words of the constitution to grant more power to the federal government. These quotes were reactions to those attempts and thus grant context to what I say is the original intent and meaning of the words used in the constitution.

Just because you can twist the sayings with current grammar or current word usage to mean what you want it to mean does not mean that your interpretation is in any way valid.

Nothing, and I repeat nothing angers me more then one particular argument Liberals make “in defense of their choice of abortion”. Honestly, while the fact that abortion exists outside of limited real possibilities for self defense arguments anger me it will not make me angry with you. If you are pro-choice you are wrong and in my view you are promoting the existence of genocide by your view. However, promoting the existence of genocide is at least not without precedent. Well meaning people, respected people at the time defended slavery, the spanish inquisition, the crusades. Now we look back at all three and we cannot wrap our heads around how someone can believe something so evil could ever be right. I would go more into that, but this is not my purpose here.

So here is the type of quote that will set me off. “You are a man therefore you do not understand and have no right to even have an opinion or advance your opinion on the subject”.

Now, I’m trying to blog about this as even tempered as I can, because even the thought of that phrase completely enrages me so I will do this in as polite a way as I can.

Yes, I am a man. I do not have a womb. I will never give birth to a child. Arguably some may say (wrongly) that I would never experience the amount of pain that is associated with that.

But lets look at this. It is my argument that this argument betrays a poisoned mind that is in need of a serious circumspection on everything it believes. Right after this they always go to the “you have no compassion by believing that abortion is murder.” I won’t so much go after that part of the argument as I will to expose the outright hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty inherent in that statement.

When a baby is created it happens because of an intensely intimate act that is chosen to be participated by both the man and the woman. (With the obvious exception of rape) Now, this act means nothing to many men, and is flaunted as merely recreation which I view as an abomination. But those men are not who I am talking about here. So you have a guy that intensely loves a woman. His DNA is every bit a part of the child as the mother’s DNA is. And immediately from there this man develops a bond with his child. (Not all men will, but that is completely outside of the point) So lets say this father wants to keep his child.

By stating flatly that a man has no right to even have an opinion or relevance in the narrative that is around abortion you are doing so much more then just saying that. Lets take me. Say in a parallel universe my wife was not the absolute wonder and treasure that she is.

So my wife immediately upon finding out she was pregnant was labeled a high risk pregnancy. We were a few years and better financial situation away from using adoption as our only possible avenue. I became unemployed, we lost our house & an apartment, I found out that I have a chronic condition with no cure or effective treatment. So we were broke in a bad situation with an at risk pregnancy. In our first official appointment the nurse practitioner did the ultrasound. She stopped the ultrasound abruptly and said that we HAD to come back the next day with a haunting look in her eye.Tho moment I realized what that meant I started have difficulty breathing and my mind went completely blank. I was so upset that I could not cry, and choked back the tears when they started for my wife. I did not sleep that night and I did not do anything that night. The Dr. apologized and said the n.p. had performed the ultrasound wrong and there was no signs of miscarriage. That night I thought long & in detail what the loss of the child I never thought I’d have save the grace & favor of God. It is indescribable, and it would kill a part of myself forever. Everything in the pregnancy worked out w/complications in the end and thus Lori & I have our world in our lives. His name is Noah he is slightly less then two months old.

So what if my wife and her doctor had met that day without me and they decided to have an abortion. It would have been all of what I imagined and more. Because at that point I would have to deal with the fact that my wife chose to have an abortion and end my sons life. I can’t even speculate, I would eventually forgive, I could never forget, and it would change the direction of my life irreversibly. You are going to tell me that I have no right to have an opinion? If you truly believe that I truly believe you are either a) lying to yourself in order to excuse your opinion and make it less monstrous b) sociopathic or c) You don’t give a crap about anyone but yourself. I’m sorry, but in my view from my perspective there is no other option.

So the next time you think about saying that I have no right to have an opinion on abortion because I am a man know that using any sort of compassion argument exposes yourself. And to answer the question if I have compassion for the woman who makes the choice to have an abortion the answer is I do. I understand what societal pressures are, I understand what a situation that looks to have no answer looks like, and I understand that when you divorce yourself from your conscience that it seems the easy way out in the same way that suicide is looked at as the easy way out. I also have compassion because if you have not seared your conscience to no return eventually you will look at your life and say, if I hadn’t had that abortion, I’d have this 5 year old here, maybe he/she graduates this year, maybe go to college at this point. There is no excusing it, and the psychological trauma inflicted by an abortion that is brought to the forefront by an ultrasound is proof of the barbarism of the practice. It is genocide, and as long as it stands we cannot claim any solace in God’s word, because when you are wrong, this wrong, even if you are a Christian there are consequences for your actions.

But when you use the word compassion to me, expect me to throw a giant size mirror in front of you and not mince words.

I hope you have time to read this. Unfortunat­ely 250 words, similarly to 140 characters is often far insufficie­nt for me. My biggest fault as a blogger is probably my lack of brevity, but you can find my response here http://wp.­me/p1SM9y-­2a
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,104 other followers