Don't You Just Love the Media?

Here is the headline in the April 4 edition of Newsweek Magazine:

The End of Christian America

The percentage of self-identified Christians has fallen 10 points in the past two decades.

And the article goes on to explain how the number of Americans who claim no religious affiliation has nearly doubled since 1990, rising from 8 to 15 percent.

Now, smack dab in the middle of the article, the author says this:
Let's be clear: while the percentage of Christians may be shrinking, rumors of the death of Christianity are greatly exaggerated. Being less Christian does not necessarily mean that America is post-Christian. A third of Americans say they are born again; this figure, along with the decline of politically moderate-to liberal mainline Protestants, led the ARIS authors to note that "these trends … suggest a movement towards more conservative beliefs and particularly to a more 'evangelical' outlook among Christians." With rising numbers of Hispanic immigrants bolstering the Roman Catholic Church in America, and given the popularity of Pentecostalism, a rapidly growing Christian milieu in the United States and globally, there is no doubt that the nation remains vibrantly religious—far more so, for instance, than Europe.

And then says: fewer people now think of the United States as a "Christian nation" than did so when George W. Bush was president (62 percent in 2009 versus 69 percent in 2008).

Don't you love how the media can twist and turn words - headlines - and then contradict themselves within a few paragraphs?
If - and it is a very big IF - religion is faltering in America, it is because the very same lemmings who follow the obama regime and worship at the feet of opra winfrey believe what the media shove in their faces. Why else would the percentage of believers change in such a very short time?
It's been over the last few years that the media has been pushing their anti Christian / anti religion / anti tradition in general - quite heavily - and promoting - again quite heavily - all things secular. Sometimes in subtle ways...for instance, here we are in the most holy of Christian holidays - Easter - and what is the Disney Channel showing this evening? "Hallowe'en in April" movies. Hallowe'en, a most decidedly non-Christian holiday, being promoted on the most Christian of Holidays.
Um...Hallowe'en's in October. Keep it there.
(This is not a knock on Hallowe'en, by the way, lest anyone thinks it is).
Where are the religious movies that the stations used to show every year (The Ten Commandments, Jesus of Nazareth, The Greatest Story Ever Told)?

Although many deny it, the media truly does control the lives of the majority, and not just in our belief system. Another good example is how they promoted obama's run for the presidency:
Time has featured Obama on its cover 14 times since Jan. 1, 2008. Newsweek was close behind, featuring the now-president-elect on 12 of its issues. Time has had 52 issues in 2008, so Obama has been featured on more than one-in-four of its covers, or about 27% of the time.

That number, though, goes even higher if you include how many times Obama has appeared in the "skybox" -- 11 times.

That means Obama's face or name has somehow made it onto the cover of Time just about half of the time this year (25 out of 52 issues -- 48%)

Newsweek has had 49 issues this year so far (through Dec. 22), so Obama has been featured on about a quarter of its covers as well.

In contrast, the Republican nominee, John McCain, made the cover of Newsweek just four times the entire year, and twice he shared it -- once with Obama and once with Sarah Palin.

Tell me there's not a media bias - if you do you are either fooling yourself or have your head in the sand.
(By the way, I am not a McCain fan - The Constitution Party or even Ron Paul was/is more my speed. But, neither one made any media inroads. Hmmmm....)
Hence my point - the media chooses and the mindless lemmings follow.

As for me, I follow my Christian beliefs that Jesus Christ is the one and only way, no matter what the media spews. I don't follow their so-called popularity polls.
As for me, contrary to what the media (and the actors) says, I believe in the tradtional family.
As for me, I vote for who I believe to be the best person for the job. I must admit, however, that if I see the media rallying around a certain candidate or "idea" as they did during the 2008 election, I immediately become skeptical.

Anger toward media is not a new phenomenon, by the way. Here is what Thomas Jefferson, our Nation's third president, had to say about newspapers:
"I do not take a single newspaper, nor read one a month, and I feel myself infinitely the happier for it. "
*and*
"Advertisements contain the only truths to be relied on in a newspaper."

Our forefathers were truly smart men.

PS Don't even get me going on the THEORY (remember, it IS a theory) of evolution that the media passes as actuality!


.

The American Way - Get Over It!

OK, as any of you who read my blog know, I did not vote for Obama. There are many reasons why and numerous older blogs of mine of last fall cite some of them.
Well, he won, but he didn't necessarily win as big as the media would have you believe.

They would have you believe that virtually everyone except for a very few extremists voted for the man. Well, that's simply not true: the popular vote shows that 69,456,897 of the actual votes went for Obama and 59,934,786 went to McCain - quite a bit closer than one might think, considering all of the bias being printed. And that's not even listing all of the independent votes for the smaller party candidates that were not listed. In other words, contrary to popular belief, there is still an extremely large segment of the American population who is not for Obama. And yet, we are all cast aside and told to get behind him - stand united!
What? Like all of you Obama worshipers stood behind George W or any of the other presidents? Why is Obama any different? Oh yeah, he's for "change" (among other reasons).
Now, before you start on me with all of your anti-Bush rhetoric, understand that I am also very disappointed in ol' George. I did not like many things he did. Many things. But, the media would have you believe that Bush is the cause of every nuance of our nation's ills - simply not true. Do your homework if this is what you believe.

Here's something I find rather scary - - - - -
did you know that most school districts are going to have the inauguration broadcast during school on Tuesday? And since the actual swearing in takes place at 11:30 - lunchtime - that many are going to allow the kids to eat lunch in their rooms so they could watch "history being made" (yes, a direct quote)?
I don't recall this ever happening before. Ever.
My eight year old daughter will, fortunately, be making history another way; she will be at home with me instead of being brainwashed by the extreme leftist socialist agenda that has become common place in our New America.
And I can just hear all those folks coming at me with their spears for doing so. I am teaching her that her father stands by what he believes. She is eight and if she is going to learn about today's politics, I'd rather she learn from me than the liberal left.
Obama was elected president of the United States by popular vote and electoral college, and I accept this. It does not mean, however, that I must stand behind him. I won't. When I mentioned this through another avenue, a friend told me she was "disappointed" in me for my feelings.
My question to her and the others who feel this way: did she and the other Obama worshipers stand by Republican president-elects in the past? No.
Would she and the others have stood by McCain or, better yet, Romney (if he had made it that far)? Highly doubtful. And yet, I am being told that I should stand behind Obama.
I won't.
I voted against him! Why would I back him? He doesn't stand for what I believe.

Remember something here: my reaction to this newly elected president is as old as the United States itself. Heck, a war was even begun as a direct result of the 1860 election (when Lincoln was elected, for the few of you who did not know).
Just as virtually every president-elect before him, Obama has many many against him, and that's OK. It's called checks and balances folks, and that's what makes this country (or made this country) the great country it is. Otherwise we would have a dictatorship.
No matter who gets elected president (even if it's my pick), I hope we will always have those who fight him/her every step of the way. That's the American way. And it's our right as Americans.
At least it was. I'm not so sure anymore.



.

My Thoughts Exactly

It's been a while since I've had anything political in this blog.
The current economic situation, especially with what is going on in the auto industry, is near and dear to me, and it affects not just those of us in Michigan, but the entire country. Only if the industry collapses will folks from the far-reaches realize just how important the big three automakers truly are nation-wide.
Has the auto industry made mistakes? You betcha! But, I don't believe there are many corporations out there who haven't made mistakes.
I guess the best way for me to write how I feel is to let a professional local columnists explain it instead. This is one of the very few times that I agree with media commentary
(from the Detroit Free Press):

Hey, you senators: Thanks for nothing

A few parting words for the senators who squashed the auto rescue

By MITCH ALBOM • FREE PRESS COLUMNIST • December 13, 2008

Do you want to watch us drown? Is that it? Do want to see the last gurgle of economic air spit from our lips? If so, senators, know this: We’re taking a piece of you with us. America isn’t America without an auto industry. You can argue whether $14 billion would have saved it, but your actions surely could have killed it.

We have grease on our hands.

You have blood.

Kill the car, kill the country. History will show that when America was on its knees, you lawmakers wanted to cut off its feet. How does this happen in America?

Suddenly, the worker is the problem? Suddenly, unless union members, overnight, drastically slash their wages with a hard deadline, you pull the plug on an industry?

Suddenly, Detroit is the symbol of economic dysfunction? Are you kidding? Have you looked in the mirror lately, Washington?

In a world where banks hemorrhaged trillions in a high-priced gamble called credit derivative swaps that you failed to regulate, how on earth do we need to be punished? In a bailout era where you shoveled billions, with no demands, to banks and financial firms — who created the problem in the first place — why do need to be schooled on how to run a business?

Who is more dysfunctional in business than you? Who blows more money? Who fashions and molds its work based on favors and pork and traded compromises?

At least in the auto industry, if folks don’t like what you make, they don’t have to buy it. In government, even your worst mistakes, we have to live with.

And now Detroit should die with this?

In bed with the foreign automakers

Kill the car, kill the country. Sen. Richard Shelby, Sen. Bob Corker, your names will not be forgotten. It’s amazing how you pretend to speak for America when you are only watching out for your political party, which would love to cripple unions, and your states, which house foreign auto plants.

Corker, you’ve got Nissan there and Volkswagen coming. Shelby, you’ve got Hyundai, Honda, Mercedes-Benz and Toyota. Oh, don’t kid yourself. They didn’t come because you earned their business, a subject on which you enjoy lecturing the Detroit Big Three. No, they came because you threw billions in state tax breaks to lure them.

And now — this is rich — you want those foreign companies, which you lured, and which get help from their governments, to dictate to American workers how much they should be paid? Tell you what. You’re so fond of the foreign model, why don’t you do what Japanese ministers do when they screw up the country’s finances?

They cut their salaries.

Or they resign in shame.

When was the last time a U.S. senator resigned over the failure of his policies?
Yet you want to fire Rick Wagoner?

Who are you people?

More money for the lords of Wall Street

There ought to be a law — against the selfishness and hypocrisy our government has demonstrated. The speed with which wheelbarrows of money were dumped at the feet of Wall Street versus the slow noose hung on the auto companies is reprehensible. Some of those same banks we bailed out are now saying they won’t extend credit to auto dealers. Wasn’t that why we gave them the money? To loosen credit?

Where’s your tight grip on those funds, senators? Or do you just enjoy having your hands around blue-collared throats?

No matter what the president does, history will not forget this: At our nation’s most uncertain hour, you stood ready to plunge tens of thousands of families into oblivion. Push them onto public payrolls, unemployment, no health insurance. And you were willing to put our nation’s security at risk — by squashing the American manufacturing we most rely on in times of war.

And why? So you could stand on some phony principle? Crush a union? Play to your base? How is our nation better off today now that you kept $14 billion in the treasury? Are you going to balance the budget with that?

Don’t make us laugh.

Kill the car, kill the country. You tried to slam a stake into the chest of this business, and you don’t even realize how close to the nation’s heart you’re coming. Shame on your pettiness. Shame on your hypocrisy. This is how we behave two weeks before Christmas? Honestly. What has become of this country?

.

A Prayer and a Hope

I hope and pray that every American will one day open their eyes and ears to what our country was founded on and why.
I pray that they read and understand the true meaning of the U.S. Constitution and its Amendments.
I hope that they find and read a copy of the Declaration of Independence and understand that those who signed it put their lives on the line for what they believed in.
I pray that they understand why the Revolutionary War was fought. And just how tough that War was to fight.
I hope that every American will read the true history of the colonization of America and realize that, yes, for the greater majority of the colonists, religion was a major reason (and a way of life) for their settlements on these shores.
I pray that modern day Americans have not become so complacent that they are willing to forgo our freedoms so they can "have more."
I hope the new president realizes that, yes, he may have won the presidency but their are still millions who do not like nor want his socialist policies, for they go against every grain of our forefather's founding documents. I pray that those who voted for this man will see this before it's too late.
I pray that Providence will step in and guide this new president in the right direction - Providence being God and not the likes of Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., Louis Farrakhan, or Jesse Jackson

One More Political Blog Before the Election

(I will resume my history blogs very soon - just a few more political things I need to get off my chest.)

Don't you love it when you have a political conversation with someone and when you bring up something like the Constitution Party they tell you to get into reality - that a third party can never win. This has been said to me a few times lately. I tell folks that I am not very fond either of the two major political parties - that neither is representing me and my values. Of course, I am told, my values are antiquated. My morals no longer fit in today's society. That I am taking my Civil War reenacting too far and am living in the past.
No kidding - I have been told this! Recently! Just because of my traditional values.
The funny thing is, I have found most people I know outside of reenacting share my values and morals as well. Hmmm! One wouldn't know this by what's printed in the media, now would they?
Anyhow, because I will not vote for either of the two major parties, I am told that I am throwing my vote away.
So, please - - - -
Tell me how voting on my principles is throwing my vote away.
Tell me how voting for the "lesser of two evils" rather than voting for what I do believe in is throwing my vote away.
And speaking of the lesser of two evils, most folks tell me that I am voting for the greater of two evils if I do not choose their party! This comes from both camps, by the way (although, I must admit, the McCain camp is a bit more open to my choice of the Constitution Party over Lord Obama's followers).
Now, even if you actually feel you are voting for the lesser of two evils by picking McCain or Obama, you are still voting evil, are you not? Just one is...ahem...lesser.
Let me make this perfectly clear: I cannot - and will not - vote against my beliefs. Not just religious but moral - from the Constitution Party's web page (www.constitutionparty.com/):
In the first place, a wasted vote is a vote for someone you know does not represent your own beliefs and principles. A wasted vote is a vote for someone you know will not lead the country in the way it should go. A wasted vote is a vote for the "lesser of two evils." Or, in the case of John McCain and Barack Obama, what we have is a choice between the "evil of two lessers."

America has not elected a third party candidate since 1860. Do you know who won the presidential election in 1860? Abraham Lincoln, on the third party Republican ticket! So please don't say voting for a third party is throwing your vote away. Or that, because I brought up an example from the past that it's a bad thing. It's not. We here in the 21st century can learn from the past.
A third party has been elected before - once the word can get out, it can happen again.

Now, am I living in the past for the way I am voting? Am I throwing away my vote?
Maybe in some minds I am, but I will not vote evil. And that gives me a clear conscience.

Still Worshiping Obama?

This whole Joe (Wurzelbacher) the Plumber thing really has me bothered. Just in case you've been living in a cave these last few weeks, here's an explaination:

In Toledo on Sunday, Wurzelbacher told Obama that he was preparing the company, which earns more than $250,000 a year, and said: "Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn't it?"

Obama said that under his proposal taxes on any revenue from $250,000 on down would stay the same, but that amounts above that level would be subject to a 39 percent tax, instead of the current 36 percent rate.

"And the reason why we're doing that is because 95 percent of small businesses make less than 250 (thousand). So what I want to do is give them a tax cut. I want to give all these folks who are bus drivers, teachers, auto workers who make less, I want to give them a tax cut," he said.

Wurzelbacher protested, saying he's been a hardworking plumber for 15 years and why should he be taxed more.

"It's not that I want to punish your success," Obama said. "I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you that they've got a chance at success, too."

At a later point in the discussion, Obama said: "I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

Scary stuff, don't you agree? I mean, this is blatant socialism.

And it gets even better! Check out what this letter writer had to say in the October 20th edition of the Detroit Free Press:
What do the media do? They go after Joe the Plumber, investigating his personal information regarding income, tax status, and whether he has a plumber's license.

This sends a pretty scary message to those of us who want answers from our politicians: Ask the wrong question and you may become a target of the media.

And another wrote:

As soon as Joe the Plumber (Samuel Wurzelbacher) disagreed with the policies of the media's anointed president (Barack Obama), the witch hunt began. Editors across the nation sent out their minions to dig up any dirt they could find out about Joe. It didn't take long.

Some may disagree with my opinion that the vetting process by the media has been somewhat harsher on Sarah Palin than of Sen. Obama. However, when did the media start vetting American citizens because of their opinions? To publicly embarrass Wurzelbacher and his family is far beyond disgraceful.

And this from Rush Limbaugh: So, the Obama campaign hasn't found anything substantive on Joe the Plumber. The fact that they are looking is an outrage. He's a private citizen. Folks, I advise this once. I want you to do this in the next week. Rent the movie "The Lives of Others" about East Germany in the eighties. Rent the movie "The Lives of Others" to find out what happens, what it's like when a government (or a campaign) keeps track of and investigates private citizens.

By the way, the Free Press announced this past Sunday (Oct. 19) that it endorses Obama for president. Anyone surprised? They based their decision on, ahem, "sound judgment." Oh, I'm sure they put a lot of thought into it. Endorsing someone who has pretty much done nothing. Really. What has he done? Oh, that's right, he speaks for (socialist) "change."
(here's a great article about newspaper endorsements
www.mlive.com/saginawnews/opinion/index.ssf/2008/10/get_your_brain_in_gear_and_don.html)

And here is one of the scariest editorials I've ever seen - look at the flippant way this so-called columnist calls those who disagree with her and Obama racists:
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081021/COL10/810210375/1081/COL

What a sad state in which we live.
I fear for the future of this country should Obama make it to the presidency.

.

Politics

Is anyone else afraid at how the Obama followers worship the man like he's the 2nd coming of Christ? I mean, literally worship. Have you ever read anything the man has done wrong? Has he done anything wrong?
What scares me is when (yes, I say when because McCain doesn't have a chance due to media/Hollywood - Hollywood/media) Obama becomes our president, these worshipers will love everything he does, no matter how socialist it may be, because to them he is all-knowing...god-like.
Now, I am not saying I'm supporting McCain - he is, to me (for the most part), a Republican in Democrat clothing (or vice versa).
But, the accolades for Obama are sickening, and I'm not falling for his "change." He's no different than any other politician in either of the two major parties.
There's no one there speaking to me.
By the way, just this morning I was asked by an Obama supporter if I am better off today than I was 8 years ago. I replied in the affirmative that not only am I doing better, but so is my wife. And my oldest son also goes to college full time AND holds down a full-time job! Wow! Go figure!
Guess what? This person still refused to believe that I was doing better than I was 8 years ago. He actually said he didn't believe me!
But, that's the way liberals work - you must "feel their pain" (to quote their other god, William Jefferson Clinton). They want me to be out of work, broke, lose my house, etc. so I can feel their pain. They would love nothing more.
No, sorry folks, I won't be voting for Obama this November. Nor will I be voting for McCain. But, if you are interested, I plan to click the name of Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party. He will most likely be my candidate of choice.
http://www.constitutionparty.com/
I won't fall for the Hollywood/media hype of Obama.
And McCain is not the right man, either.
Both are so far off base of what our country stands for that it isn't funny.
If you want to vote true American, go to the U.S. Constitution Party's site - that's where you'll see their platform.
The Constitution Party vote, although small in comparison (but growing) will be my own right to choose who I feel can lead our country down the right path.

Out of my Sunday Morning in mid-September Mind

My thoughts on a Sunday morning in Michigan - - -

OK, it's been a while since I wrote anything contemporary, but there are a few things I must get off my chest:
Isn't it something how the supposed "bipartisan" media is just doing their best to clobber McCain and Palin, but yet those two are passing Obama by without the god-like accolades of the press. The media and celebrities hate it that the majority of middle America - who they feel they should control (look at the global warming farce) - do not listen to them.
Now, I'm not saying that McCain is necessarily my man of choice, but, at this time, I really like Palin. Will my opinions change in the coming weeks? One never knows. I will keep close tabs. I don't ever trust the press nor celebrities in their extremist liberal views. And I especially do not want who Europe or the middle east want me to vote for.
Nope. I may just end up voting against the two main parties by voting independent. But, for now, I do like Palin - oh, and McCain (as far as between him and Obama, for what it's worth).

Oh, and I also wanted to make this point as well: in an Obama ad it was stated that if McCain were elected, he would get rid of Rowe vs Wade. What? He can do that? When did the president get such power?
And as far as Palin being too religious because of the supposed Separation of Church and State myth, please read my blog (it would not fit on one line - sorry):

http://passionforthepast.blogspot.com/2007/11/
myth-of-separation-of-church-and-state.html

I would also like to point out the double standard the media has against Palin. Just this past week, Charles Gibson "interviewed" Palin, asking some pretty tough questions and did his best to make her look like she is not ready to be a vice president. But, when questioning Obama - the man who would be KING - the questions are, um...noticeably lighter.
See for yourself:

Obama interview:
How does it feel to break a glass ceiling?
How does it feel to “win”?
How does your family feel about your “winning” breaking a glass ceiling?
Who will be your VP?
Should you choose Hillary Clinton as VP?
Will you accept public finance?
What issues is your campaign about?
Will you visit Iraq?
Will you debate McCain at a town hall?
What did you think of your competitor’s [Clinton] speech?

Palin interview:
Do you have enough qualifications for the job you’re seeking? Specifically have you visited foreign countries and met foreign leaders?
Aren’t you conceited to be seeking this high level job?
Questions about foreign policy
-territorial integrity of Georgia
-allowing Georgia and Ukraine to be members of NATO
-NATO treaty
-Iranian nuclear threat
-what to do if Israel attacks Iran
-Al Qaeda motivations
-the Bush Doctrine
-attacking terrorists harbored by Pakistan
Is America fighting a holy war? [misquoted Palin]

A little biased? You think?
Folks, this is media bias at its finest.

But, you know what? The media is hanging on by a thread. They are slitting their own throats and they are dying. They are looking for any news to sell, and what could be better news than for the first black man to get elected President of the United States? How many papers would they sell and how high will their TV ratings be as compared to if McCain won?
That's all they're looking for.
And speaking of a black man possibly becoming president (I'm on a role, so pardon me if my words get a bit jumbled), I have been called a racist against blacks if I don't vote for Obama.
Wow! Now we have to vote by race!
Well, it's working for the black American population, for, according to this blog
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/
archives/2007/08/obama_and_the_black_vote.php

because of Obama, the black vote will be up at least 30%. I have also read (in various places) that it is suggested over 90% percent of the black population will vote for Obama (google it - there are too many links and sources to cite on this one). If this is the case, isn't the black population a bit, shall we say, racist?

OK, off of the two political parties and on to something that folks should also be aware of:
Did you know that California has banned the words "Bride and Groom" from its marriage licenses? It is now "Party one and Party two."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=74768

I don't think this is a good way for gays who want to marry and be like everyone else to get the average American to back them. By removing these two words, a tradition that goes back to the middle ages is being destroyed.

Oh, what a world in which we live.
Yup, "Passion for the Past" indeed.

More on Revisionist - oops! sorry - Alternative Historians

Why oh why do folks today like to place their 21st century morals and values on those from the past?
Why oh why do they insist that those who lived long ago were every bit as raunchy and rude as so many in our modern society?
Now, before you start clobbering me about how I have blinders on, how they really were as crude then as many are now, please understand that I realize that pre-marital sex, obscene language, rape, and many other ills did exist in the "olden days."
It just wasn't nearly as prominent and open and, dare I say, accepted as it is today. Here in 2008, anything goes: if it feels good, do it. Just turn the channel! Oh, just give them a condom in the 6th grade - they're going to do it anyhow! 1st ammendment says I can say anything I want whenever and wherever I please. Hey! They didn't tell me the coffee was this hot - I'll sue!
Need I go on?
First of all, please understand that, per capita, there was much less pre-marital sex in the mid-19th century than today. Because of journals and diaries and birth records (for children born out of wedlock), we know this to be true. I have yet to find proof of the opposite. Yes, I know that amongst the men in the military VD was fairly prominent. But, that's just the men in the military. Men only around other men and no females about. At all. This is, after all, the 'old school' military when women could not join. Except for an officer's wife, a laundress, or one of the ladies that snuck into camp to give the men "pleasure," a female would have been a rarity. Naturally, upon seeing a woman after quite a while without seeing one would get any man excited.
And on the homefront, people worked from 12 to 14 hours a day, six to seven days a week, plus church (yes, church!) and family and visiting on Sundays. When would they have had time for extra-marital affairs?
But, the new "alternative" historian (I swear I saw someone with this as his bi-line on the History Channel!) would have you believe otherwise.
All that I can say is show me the proof. Real proof.

Folks today also do not take responsibility for their own actions - the woman who successfully sued MacDonalds because she didn't know their coffee was HOT is a prime example of the stupidity of many in this modern day and age.
It's HOT coffee, and is advertised as such. Not warm. HOT! Let's think about this. Hot means hot. Oh! But not that hot, right? No - hot means hot! Look it up in the dictionary.

Language abuse. Does anyone know what the 1st Amendment concerning freedom of speech really means? Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
There - that is the full text of the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Besides proving the myth of separation of church and state to be wrong and a lie, it also tells us that we have a right to freedom of speech. But, do you believe that (A) in an age (colonial and Victorian) where openly saying what was considered foul language in public could get one put in the stocks or in prison, our forefathers meant for this amendment to protect the right of one who spews obsenities every other word? Or do you think that maybe - just maybe - (B) they wanted us as Americans to be able to speak out against our government without fear or retribution? Hmmm...no brainer.
Unfortunately, there are those who feel A is the correct answer. I wish these mis-guided folks would study up on their history, especially their social history. They would then understand what our forefathers truly meant. Here is a quote from Thomas Jefferson, our third president, in a letter written to William Johnson in 1823 (taken from the book Thomas Jefferson: Writings Autobiography / Notes on the State of Virginia / Public and Private Papers / Addresses / Letters): “On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”
I am pretty sure we all know the probable reason this freedom of speech amendment was written.
By the way, "blue" language was considered a crime until the late 1960's or early 1970's.

When I hear people - especially so-called alternative historians (alternative / revisionist: same difference) - express the opinion that our morals are no different from the average citizen making a living in past centuries, I say, "show me the proof!" I can show you (and already have) my proof.
Just as I thought. They can't.

I really believe that in this everything goes society in which we live in today that we are not only harming ourselves with this attitude, but future generations to come. Our society has been sliding down hill "like a snowball headed for hell" (as the country song goes), and no president or whoever that says they're for change is going to stop it.
We are the only ones that can stop it.
I pray that we do.
The answers really do lay in the past.

Just When You Thought the Society Couldn't Get Any Worse

Sorry folks. Sometimes I just have to get things off my chest.
This is one of those time - - - - - - -

You know, hard work, discipline, and a strong faith in God were what, at one time, made this country morally strong. This is what people were raised on, and it worked.

But, have you noticed lately that the more lazy, the less faithful, and less responsible (discipline) people get, the worse off our society becomes?

There was a time not too long ago (in my childhood days), that getting a swat in school for misbehaving was standard punishment. I know first hand that it worked, too - and I did not need psychiatric help because of it, nor did my parents sue the teacher or the school. Instead, I got in bigger trouble when I got home.

There was a time not too long ago (in my childhood days), that belief in God - God the Father - the God of Abraham - God who's only begotten Son, Jesus, died for our sins - was as common as breathing. That if one didn't believe, they were...well...looked down upon by society. It was the norm to believe, and one wasn't called a "religious fanatic" if they went to church every Sunday.

And there was a time not too long ago (in my childhood days), that people had discipline. By this I mean that they took responsibility for their own actions. Racism, sexism, and numerous mental "disorders" (ADD, ADHD, etc.) were not to blame for their own misgivings. If they received poor grades in school, it was their own fault for not sitting down and studying. Or if they got fired from work, it was their own fault for not working hard enough or for taking too much time off work. Or it was pure laziness.
And now, society (by way of government) is actually helping today's youth to continue down that rotten path of laziness and not taking responsibility for their own actions. Check out this article that tells of how schoolkids can now be late or not even show up to class and not suffer any ramifications for it. It's in today's (June 25) Detroit Free Press:

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080625/NEWS05/806250309

How sad is that? What about those students who do show up to class every day - and show up on time? Doesn't that matter? Doesn't that put them above those lazy oafs who don't want to get up early to go to school? All that this is doing is catering to the lazy and irresponsible. I don't care that they can test out of a class. I certainly would not want to go to a doctor who tested out of a class - think of all they missed and could have learned that wasn't on the "test."

Then there is the athiest from Frankenmuth.
This guy moves to Frankenmuth, Michigan, and decides he does not like all the crosses on public property. Now, this city was founded totally on German Lutheran/Christian principles back in 1845 and has retained its heritage ever since. So some athiest - one man, mind you, who moved to the city on his own accord (one would hope that he at least visited Frankenmuth before moving there - he must have seen the Christian symbols throughout) - and decides it "offends" him. Who the heck is he?
Here is my favorite part of the Detroit News article: Before objecting to the crosses, Clarke found Frankenmuth a friendly, inviting place. People hold the door open for each other at the post office, he said. Drivers often give way to other motorists.
Isn't that something? People acting...well...CHRISTIAN!
And then there's the black guy who is quoted as saying, "You'd like to see more people who look like you." This from a black contractor who moved into town two years ago because he found it a good place to raise a family. Um...why would you move to a 99% white town then complain that there aren't enough blacks there?
Only in today's society...
But, back to the athiest, Mr. Clarke. I have an open letter to the man here:
Mr. Clarke - you have no right to push your lack of religion on this city who has survived, in part, due to their religion. Frankenmuth has every right to celebrate its heritage - there is absolutely NOTHING in the Constitution to deny this. Read it. Read the Declaration of Independence. Read any of our National Historical Documents. There is NOTHING that prevents ANY city or town in the United States from celebrating its religious heritage. NOTHING!
So, this liar goes on to say that he is doing this because he "felt they made Jews, Muslims and other non-Christians feel unwelcome."
Yeah right.
Mr. Clarke, your only purpose is to make a name for yourself (he ran for the state senate in 2006 and lost). You, sir, are nothing but a selfish person out to destroy the traditions of this country one step at a time. I thank God - yes, God - that you didn't make it into the senate. You confirm what I have found to be inherent in most athiests. Keep talking, Mr. Clarke. A revolution is about to take place, like one you have never seen. And I do not think you will like the outcome.

There - - whew! - - I got that out of my system...for now.

Election Nonsense (or politics lite: my opinion, for what it's worth)

Mental intimidation is what we have come to in this election, it seems.
As a white male, I simply cannot win no matter what choice I make in this election: if I choose Hillary, then I am racist. If I choose Obama, then I am sexist. If I choose McCain or any independant, then I am both racist AND sexist. And a fool, because everyone knows that both Obama and Hillary are for "change" (whatever that means).
What if I just don't LIKE the two Democratic nominees and do not feel they are better than the Republican or Libertarian nominee?
What if I feel they are hiding as much about their true agendaa as George Bush is?
I know, I know..."How could you even THINK of writing something like that, Ken?"
Because, I know enough about Hillary and her husband that they lie through their teeth and will stop at nothing to get what they want.
I also know that Obama has already been found in very questionable predicaments and has weasled his way out of them through "charm" - he is a press darling, don't you know.
Now, mind! I am not a George W. fan either. That man, who had the world by the balls (so to speak) right after 9/11, totally blew it by putting forth his world domination agenda. His U.S. Constitution splattering of the so-called "Patriot Act" and so much more have put such a sad spin on the state of the U.S. today that we have become a socialist state directly because of him (although, one has to admit that Mr. Clinton in the 1990's and George the 1st before him headed us in that direction initially).
So, what does a man - strong in his Christian beliefs, strong in his traditional values, strong in his traditional morals - do? Who is speaking for me?
As hard as I look at the three (and now, two) presidential candidates, I see no light at the end of the tunnel in which we are all spiraling through.
Oh, what times in which we live...

What Others Are Saying About Us

While in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, I had the opportunity to meet folks from around our country, since Gettysburg is one of the hot vacation spots in the U.S. I met people from upstate New York, Virginia, Maryland, Indiana, Delaware, etc., and some fine conversations ensued. When asked where we were from, however, some curious responses were given:


"So, where are you from?"
"The Detroit area."
1. "Oh! Home of the 'Hip-Hop Mayor'!"
2. "Are you packin'?"
3. "I'm sorry."
4. Oh! Little Baghdad!"
----------------------------------
"So, where are you from?"
"Michigan."
"Oh. Do you still own your house?"

Yes, these are actual comments/statements made to me during conversations made while on vacation out of state. Of course, I had to laugh because, well, show me what's not true? More people are losing their homes to foreclosure than ever before (there are probably at least a half dozen on my street alone - no kidding). Job loss due to lay offs, outsourcing, and just plain greed has affected, in one way or another, nearly every one I know, and the idea that the only jobs left are to become a greeter at Walmart or to become a fast-food employee has become a reality for far too many. And I am just a paycheck away from being in the same boat.
Detroit? Well, except the few years that the city had Dennis Archer as its mayor, Detroit has been nothing but an embarrassment to Michigan, as well as to the United States as a whole. It is a third world city in every sense of the word. Crime ridden like no other, its citizens are flocking to the suburbs in droves - faster than folks are leaving Michigan for the more prosperous southern states. Our socialist governor has done nothing to help the economy - oh, she talks up a storm, but has taken to keeping her nose up Kwame Kilpatrick's butt, doing whatever the hip-hop mayor wants her to do. She has been noticeably quiet during the latest text-message scandal...hmmm...could she have a role in it herself? One has to wonder...
Does anyone out there see a light at the end of the tunnel? I certainly don't. It's not mayor Kwame; it's not guv'ner Granholm; it's definitely not any of the Democratic candidates running for president (Hillary R. Clinton, B. Hussein Obama, or John McCain. Wait-----are you saying that McCain is a Republican? Ha! Could have fooled me!); it's definitely not our current president. There's no light at the end of the tunnel, and it's only going to get darker.
I have no answers - well, yes I do but none that will come to pass:
-Stop the outsourcing of decent paying jobs to low-income private companies on a local and national level.
-Bring back to the U.S. all current outsourced jobs
-Send back to their homeland all illegal immigrants. If you want to come to this country, enter legally and go through the proper channels
-Get rid of school of choice in all communities - forcing parents to actually to get involved and to work toward the betterment of their schools and community thus keeping the money brought in by their children's attendance in their neighborhood school system
-Lower gas prices to $1.50 a gallon - very reasonable - and keep it there. The oil companies would still be making billions but the morale of our citizens would get a major boost - pride would return, spending on goods would increase, and then the economy would strengthen tremendously. It's as simple as that.
As I stated, however, this will not happen. Instead, our country will cave in on itself within a matter of five years and the United States will be no better than the third world countries that Detroit has emulated. Especially when one of the BIG THREE presidential candidates gets into office.
Oh, the sad times in which we live.

The Angry White Man

I recently received the following (written by Gary Hubbell, although I added a few of my own comments) from a friend.
Yup, it describes me (mostly) pretty well.

Each candidate is carefully pandering to a smorgasbord of special-interest groups, ranging from gay, lesbian and transgender people to children of illegal immigrants to working mothers to evangelical Christians.

There is one group no one has recognized, and it is the group that will decide the election: the Angry White Man. The Angry White Man comes from all economic backgrounds, from dirt-poor to filthy rich. He represents all geographic areas in America, from urban sophisticate to rural redneck, deep South to mountain West, left Coast to Eastern Seaboard.

His common traits are that he isn’t looking for anything from anyone — just the promise to be able to make his own way on a level playing field. In many cases, he is an independent businessman and employs several people. He pays more than his share of taxes and works hard.

The victimhood syndrome buzzwords — “disenfranchised,” “marginalized” and “voiceless” — don’t resonate with him. “Press ‘one’ for English” is a curse-word to him. He’s used to picking up the tab, whether it’s the company Christmas party, three sets of braces, three college educations or a beautiful wedding.

He believes the Constitution is to be interpreted literally, not as a “living document” open to the whims and vagaries of a panel of judges who have never worked an honest day in their lives.

The Angry White Man owns firearms, and he’s willing to pick up a gun to defend his home and his country. He is willing to lay down his life to defend the freedom and safety of others, and will defend the lives of the unborn.

The Angry White Man is not a metrosexual, a homosexual or a victim. Nobody like him drowned in Hurricane Katrina — he got his people together and got the hell out, then went back in to rescue those too helpless and stupid to help themselves, often as a police officer, a National Guard soldier or a volunteer firefighter.

His last name and religion don’t matter. His background might be Italian, English, Polish, German, Slavic, Irish, or Russian, and he might have Cherokee, Mexican, or Puerto Rican mixed in, but he considers himself a white American.

He’s a man’s man, the kind of guy who likes to watch Civil War movies, hunt white-tailed deer, call turkeys, spend time with his wife and kids, re-enact the Civil War, change his own oil and build things. He coaches baseball, soccer and football teams and doesn’t ask for a penny. He’s the kind of guy who can put an addition on his house with a couple of friends, drill an oil well, weld a new bumper for his truck, design a factory and publish books. He can fill a train with 100,000 tons of coal and get it to the power plant on time so that you keep the lights on and never know what it took to flip that light switch.

Women either love him or hate him, but they know he’s a man, not a dishrag. If they’re looking for someone to walk all over, they’ve got the wrong guy. He stands up straight, opens doors for women and says “Yes, sir” and “No, ma’am.”

He might be a Republican and he might be a Democrat; he might be a Libertarian or a Green. He knows that his wife is more emotional than rational, and he guides the family in a rational manner.

He’s not a racist, but he is annoyed and disappointed when people of certain backgrounds exhibit behavior that typifies the worst stereotypes of their race. He’s willing to give everybody a fair chance if they work hard, play by the rules and learn English.

Most important, the Angry White Man is pissed off. When his job site becomes flooded with illegal workers who don’t pay taxes and his wages drop like a stone, he gets righteously angry. When his job gets shipped overseas, and he has to speak to some incomprehensible idiot in India for tech support, he simmers. When Al Sharpton comes on TV, leading some rally for reparations for slavery or some such nonsense, he bites his tongue and he remembers. When a child gets charged with carrying a concealed weapon for mistakenly bringing a penknife to school, he takes note of who the local idiots are in education and law enforcement.

He also votes, and the Angry White Man loathes Hillary Clinton. Her voice reminds him of a shovel scraping a rock. He recoils at the mere sight of her on television. Her very image disgusts him, and he cannot fathom why anyone would want her as their leader. It’s not that she is a woman. It’s that she is who she is. It’s the liberal victim groups she panders to, the “poor me” attitude that she represents, her inability to give a straight answer to an honest question, his tax dollars that she wants to give to people who refuse to do anything for themselves.

There are many millions of Angry White Men. Four million Angry White Men are members of the National Rifle Association, and all of them will vote against Hillary Clinton, just as the great majority of them voted for George Bush.

He hopes that she will be the Democratic nominee for president in 2008, and he will make sure that she gets beaten like a drum.

Creationism vs Evolution

Why do evolutionists fear the teaching of creationism so much? Why do they fear the idea of free thought and expression from both sides of the story? Why are evolutionists and scientists so against the creationist museum in Kentucky? One scientist even went so far as to state that the museum was so well done he feared that people would actually believe it was true! So? Can he prove that it's not? Of course he can't. First of all, science has many faults of its own - scientists change their mind more than the Clinton's do. Second, scientists get government funding - need I go any further (can anyone say "Global warming?").
One needs to remember one thing: evolution is a theory - just that...a theory. It has never been proven. Of course, to many, creationism is also a theory. So, if that's the case, then why not teach both?
Have you noticed that an evolutionist has this attitude that they are some how so far above creationists? That all creationists are academically lower than a slug's belly? Why? Because they believe in God, who created everything?
Again, I ask, what are they so afraid of? That quite possibly creationists might be (gasp!) right? That maybe their children may have the opportunity to see another side of the story rather than being brainwashed by a secular society? Isn't a public school supposed to teach all theories rather than just what a few supposed know-it-alls feel should be taught? Shouldn't I have the right for my child to have a full, well-rounded public education due instead of what the secularists and the commie ACLU organization (who continuously push the myth of Separation of Church and State) feel my child should have?
What are they so afraid of?
I'd like to know if the evolutionists believe in God and Jesus. I've been told that some do. Well, then, do they only believe certain parts of the bible, the parts that don't affect them directly? You know what I mean by this, I'm sure.
Do they pray?
Do they feel God had a hand in the creation of the earth and everything else? Or, as they seem to project, do they only believe in evolution. Or maybe they believe that God "planted the seed," so to speak, in which case He did have a hand in creating the heavens and earth, right?
If you happen to be an evolutionist and these questions make you feel uncomfortable, then maybe you ought to set yourself down and truly think about your life, as well as the afterlife. Think about what you believe, and why do you believe the way you do.