Sunday, June 7, 2015
One of the key issues going into the 2016 presidential election will be how to deal with Radical Islam. Looking at all the GOP candidates, I am not sure Rand Paul would be my first choice but he really has the best ideas on how to deal with Radical Islam. He has stated that we should cut off all aid to countries that hate us and let them fight their own wars. I couldn't agree more. One of the biggest fears people have is going to another war, but the thing of it is is that there are many things we can do to deal with this without ever going into another war.
1. Acknowledge that it is a real threat
In spite of radical's own words that their desire is to establish Sharia Law all over the world, there are many in America who refuse to acknowledge that this is a serious threat. Jihadists believe that once the whole world is under Sharia Law it will bring the 12th Imam. Honestly, I think part of it is that people like to talk themselves out of calling this a threat because they really don't want another war. But that is a dangerous course. The first part of solving any problem is admitting we have one and this is no different.
2. Stop being Politically Correct
We unfortunately live in a society that is so consumed with political correctness that we allow it to interfer with truth. It is at it's worse when dealing with Muslims. I knew it was a Muslim the minute the bomb went off at the Boston Marathon. Yet I was called racist for jumping to that conclusion. The President won't even call it Radical Islam. Stop being afraid to say that this group is a danger and is one to watch.
3. Monitor Muslims more closely than others
The Patriot Act is one of the more controversial pieces of legislation ever passed. On one hand, it is a violation of Constitutional rights but at the same time we need to protect those rights from those who desire to take them away. Although my Libertarian friends will disagree, I don't feel that the Constitution should apply to those who want to destroy it. That is not all but many Muslims. As much as I want to understand the Libertarian point of view here, I just can't see how wanting to protect the Constitution from those who want to take away our way of life is somehow a threat to it.
4. Let them destroy each other
Although ISIS, Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Boko Haram, etc. all want the same thing (Sharia Law all over the world), they all don't like each other. That is something most people don't even realize. All these radical groups believe that worldwide Sharia Law will bring about the 12th Imam. To them that is their savior. But the thing of it is, all these groups want their group to be the one to do it. So they will destroy each other in order to make sure it is them. So this may sound cold, but let them do it. It will make our job easier in the long run.
5. Protect our borders
This is critical to making absolute sure that America doesn't allow any more radicals into our country. It is real simple strengthen national defense and build some bigger fences.
6. Start construction of the Keystone Pipeline
Most Americans don't even realize that every time we fill up our vehicles, we are actually funding terrorism. That is how dependent we are on oil from the Middle East. A few months ago Congress proposed legislation that would have got the Keystone Pipeline started but Obama stupidly vetoed it. The construction of this would make us much more dependent on our own oil so we wouldn't have to pay for terrorists every time we come home from work.
7. End all trade with them
Paul stated that we should stop providing aid to countries who want to destroy us. I will go a step further and say lets cut all ties with them. I am quite certain our nation can survive without their resources. The U.S. should stop all trading with them and especially stop providing them with weapons.
Those are just a few things we can do without having to go to war again.
Friday, February 28, 2014
Recently, Ted Nugent was interviewed on CNN by Erin Burnett. Nugent had Some valid points in this interview. He was upset that Hillary Clinton could go on TV and face a camera and say "What difference does it make?" regarding four dead Americans. He was also upset that Mr. Obama has lied about such things as being able to keep your plan under Obamacare, IRS, etc.
Since he had these valid points, you would think that Burnett would want to address his points. Instead, she was insisting that Nugent was making racist comments in addressing Obama. The first was the word mongrel which she tried to make a racial slur but he simply was saying that Obama was a bad man. There was no racial tone about it. The second was the word chimpanzee in which Burnett tried to make it like Nugent called Obama that which if you watch the footage it is clear he did not.
To make it short, that is the problem. She completely ignored his points and kept diverting attention to this phony racism. He like many others who have been falsely accused is not racist. He has promoted black musicians for years and has a black guitar player. By playing this bogus race card, Burnett and the rest of CNN has consistently ignored the real problem.
In closing, I just want to say that Ted Nugent is a great American and God bless him for speaking up.
Tuesday, December 10, 2013
I know the title alone will get people already reacting saying, you can't take that away. It is "Un-American."
I say the founding fathers didn't think so. When the country was founded, the only people who were allowed to vote were white landowning males. All other groups were considered too ignorant to vote.
Before you get on your high horse and start saying that was racist, sexist, and whatever other -ist you can think of, understand the time. In those days only white males were allowed to go to school. If you owned land, you obviously knew a little more than someone less successful. Therefore, you had a better idea of who to vote for. It was also motivation for those who were less successful to work harder so they could vote. So based on that, it was appropriate at the time.
I am not saying there weren't imperfections in the mentality. Women and minorities were discriminated against and I do commend all who fought for those changes that were needed. Because the Founding Fathers set it up that way, there have been four amendments that have dealt with voting rights. They were all justified amendments.
The 15th amendment gave voting rights to all races and prohibited the restriction based on previous condition of servitude. Then came the 19th amendment which gave women the right to vote. Next was the 24th amendment which did away with poll taxes which was a dirty tactic. Finally the 26th amendment prohibited states from making the voting age higher than 18.
What all that means is that we can't take away the right to vote based on gender, race, or age. That is great because it should never be taken away because of those reasons. However, none of those amendments say that we can't restrict voting rights due to other factors.
Should a high school drop out be allowed to vote? I don't think so. He or she couldn't even finish high school which is not that hard in this day and age. How can we honestly trust that person to make an intelligent and informed vote?
Should a person on Welfare, Food Stamps, or any other kind of assistance be allowed to vote. I don't think so. He or she cannot make it on his or her own abilities and ambitions without being a burden to the taxpayers. How can we honestly expect that person to make a vote that is objective and not self-serving?
What about a person with a criminal record a mile long? Some states do restrict for this reason, but how can we expect such a person to make a vote based on any kind of morality? I am not saying people don't change , but still the risk is too big.
I know democrats will never go for this. They live off the uninformed vote and Obama never would have got elected twice without it.
Tuesday, December 3, 2013
I really don't like the direction this country is going. It seems that liberal ideology is just taking everything over. We have reached a point in our society where the Ten Commandments and the Bible get removed from everything because they could offend those who do not believe. Yet atheists are allowed to post signs such as this.
How is that fair? That is the most blatantly offensive sign I have ever seen. Yet Christians can't post signs that offend people but atheists can.
Atheists are not alone though. Why is it okay to post this billboard?
That is just nonsense. So it is not about offending people, it is about who is being offended. So what that means is that we can offend Christians but nobody else.
How did our society get to this point?
It is real simple. We started electing Democrats. It is time to call a spade a spade. The Democrats are the party of the devil. In fact the letters actually stand for Devil enjoys making own crazy rules all the time (DEMOCRAT). I am in no way saying that I agree with everything the Republicans do, but at least they don't blatantly disrespect God.
The Democrats are exactly what the devil is. They give you a message that seems so appealing. If you make a mistake and get pregnant, that mistake should not hurt you so go ahead and kill that baby. It is okay to love who you want and marry who you want. They give all these government assistance programs like welfare, food stamps, child support, etc. Now the latest is this Obamacare crap. Contrary to what they say, it is not about helping the poor. It is about controlling the people. That is why they demonize the wealthy and successful. They can't control them.
They sell their message in a way that makes it seem like the people are gaining freedom when in fact they are losing it. The harsh reality and this will be an inconvenient truth for many is that every time we elect a democrat, we fall further from God.
I know that so many people don't want to go against their unions, but at some point they need to realize that God can do more for them than their union can. But somehow liberals have convinced people not to use Christian values as a basis for voting. And people seem to think that faith and politics should be separate. Did we ask Jesus for his opinion on that?
The only way to get this country going again is to stop electing Democrats. That is the cold hard truth.
Wednesday, October 23, 2013
Proponents of so called Marriage Equality have been really diluting the word of God by claiming that his greatest Commandment is love. Therefore, love everybody and let them live. Even some pastors are saying that which puzzles me. The problem here is that they are confusing love with acceptance. It is true that God wants us to love our neighbors and the greatest commandment is love. But does that mean we just accept things that God says are wrong because they say this is who I am and I can't change.
Leviticus 20:13, If a man has sexual relations as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. That is very clear that that is not an acceptable behavior in God's eyes. The idea that we should just accept this because of love really doesn't hold water.
Imagine this.A father loves his son unconditionally. But one day he finds drugs in his room. He tells his son that he is welcome any time but the drugs are not. So if you are going to have drugs you are not and you have to leave if you have drugs. Get rid of the drugs and you are welcome to come back any time but drugs are not welcome in my house.
Is that a lack of love? I don't think so. He is not accepting his sons lifestyle but will welcome him back when he changes it. That is tough unconditional love. Yet, he did not accept a lifestyle choice that God says is wrong.
Let me ask this. What if the son were to look at his dad and say, "But Dad, this is who I am and I can't change." Would that fly? Of course not. What if pedophiles start using that argument? It is not an acceptable answer for any of them. So why is it acceptable for homosexuals to use it? I don't get it.
Friday, October 11, 2013
Since the government has been shut down, Mr. Obama, I still refuse to call him President, has repeatedly blamed one small faction of the Republican party. He has also repeatedly referred to them as extremists. He is talking about the Tea Party. Let me start with his first inaccuracy. The Tea Party is not a branch of the Republican party. They hold both parties accountable for following the Constitution and being fiscally responsible. Nobody should be against that.
Now, for the extremist part. Compare the picture above with the one below.
Can you really compare the Tea Party with this? Give me a break!
When is the last time you heard of the Tea Party doing this?
One last thought, if Mr. Obama is so against the people at the top, why is he not against any of these people below.
Tuesday, October 1, 2013
As we all know, the government has partially shutdown for the first time in 17 years. Like many other issues, the Republican party will be blamed for it. Not because it is right, but because it is what CNN, MSNBC, PBS, ABC, CBS, and pretty much all other news sources except FOX will tell the public.
They will choose to ignore the fact that Mr. Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid refused to compromise and come up with a plan that is acceptable to all parties. They will not ask the tough question that if this is such a great law, then why are all those who passed it exempting themselves from it.
The reality is that it is the Democrats who are leading the country towards Socialism and ultimately communism. It is also a sad reality that the media and the public will choose to ignore it.
God help us.