I have examined all of the known superstitions of the world

"I have examined all of the known superstitions of the world and I do not find in our superstitions of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all founded on fables and mythology. Christianity has made one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites." - Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)

For more quotes visit the link above.

Time Chooses Mini-Bush Man of the Year

Time chose Bush “for sticking to his guns (literally and figuratively), for reshaping the rules of politics to fit his 10-gallon-hat leadership style and for persuading a majority of voters this time around that he deserved to be in the White House for another four years,” Jim Kelly wrote in the magazine.

Funny.

I think Time chose Hitler as man of the year 1938 for pretty much the same reasons.

Journal Entry

With the advent of blogs, it is pretty important not to make the mistake of confusing the blog with a journal. I read some blogs lately where it was pretty evident that the author was posting something to the world that was probably better kept in a private journal. Unless you are trying to scream out "help me!" (which would be better directed to the telephone after dialing a help line)...

I don't see any reason to publish your private journal to the world unless you want to give away your half-baked ideas to people, or you are crying out for help. On one hand, it seems as though a blog should be a place to put finished ideas.

On the other hand, sometimes you just don't feel like finishing an idea.

Like this one!

Fat, lazy, dumb and ill-prepared to deal with nearly everything.

The US has gotten itself into a very precarious situation. We heavily rely on resources like electricity and gasoline, and we have continued to distance ourselves and make enemies with those who control and compete for those same resources. Furthermore, we have not taken the time to protect our infrastructure from those who would do us harm. And let me add that when I say infrastructure, I am not only speaking about power plants and drinking water systems, I am also speaking about the conditions of myself and my fellow citizens. We have been disarmed. We are fat, lazy, dumb, and ill prepared to deal with nearly everything.

2nd ammendment analysis

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

When our forefathers penned these words, they hardly could have imagined how much today's Americans could have twisted their original intention.

This is because of several reasons, I think. Firstly the meanings of the words have changed quite a bit since this draft was scribed. And secondly, arms technology has evolved as well.

The link above points to a DOJ document defining a facet of the 2nd ammendment, specifically if the 2nd amendment speaks of the rights of an individual, a group, or established militia (independent, state, or federal) to keep and bear arms.

Because it is so specific in its focus, the logic used to interpret the ammendment text is very interesting. Here are some points:

The DOJ starts by defining the various possibilities of interpretation: rights are given to individuals, organizations, or militias. Then they speak a bit about the history of court decisions on the subject. Finally they conclude that..." Recent decisions of the Fifth and Ninth Circuits have begun to remedy the relatively sparse judicial analysis of the meaning of the Second Amendment. In 2001, the Fifth Circuit in United States v. Emerson adopted the individual-right view, based on an extensive analysis of the Amendment's text and history. The following year, the Ninth Circuit in Silveira v. Lockyer rejected Emerson with an extended counter-analysis and reaffirmed its adherence to the collective-right view.
Six members of the Ninth Circuit dissented from denial of rehearing en banc and endorsed an individual-right view.
In sum, the question of who possesses the right secured by the Second Amendment remains open and unsettled in the courts and among scholars."

Why there is so much confusion on such a simple statement as "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" is a bit beyond me. When I read the phrase, it is pretty clear what the forefathers meant. Those who strive to twist the meaning of the words to suit their own unconstitutional gains need only place the original words in their original context and it will be quite clear that any attempt to interpret the words as anything other than a ban on the peoples' right ot keep and bear arms is simply wrong. In fact, this is exactly what the DOJ did in their research: "Accordingly, we turn to the Amendment's text, as commonly understood at the time of its adoption and interpreted in light of other provisions of the Constitution and the Amendment's historical antecedents, to discern its proper meaning."

So what did they find?

Well, you can read the text for yourself (it's pretty long). Essentially they break the ammendment into two sections: the core statement: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" and the "pretext" "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State". They proceed to analyze each part.

"The right of the people" refers to a right of the individual citizens of the U.S., not a militia, or branch of the armed services or individual in active duty in the armed services. "To keep and bear arms" is interpreted in the language of the time (and it means the same thing today), as "to own or carry." "Shall not be infringed" is also very clear. The word "infringed" has not changed in meaning very much over the years and it obviously means that in order for something to be protected from infringement, no restriction whatsoever shall placed upon it.

The very phrase "gun control" is therefore unconstitutional.

Hey, let me be very clear. I am not a gun-toting NRA card carrying Republican. But I beleive VERY strongly that we need to protect our country from this blatant disrespect for the Constitution.

The Constitution protects us. It contains our Bill of Rights. It prevents one branch of the government from gaining control over another. It prevents the government from overpowering the people, and one State from overpowering another. It tells us how to conduct our voting ...and to the letter! It is the basis of our democracy, it is what separates us from socialist countries and dictatorships, it is our American ideal! It is a very clear and specific document.

The farther we get away from the strict interpretation of the Constitution, the more we bastardize its true meaning and disregard it's clear guidance, the harder it will be for us to call upon its Power when we really need it.

You may not agree with the right to keep an bear arms, however know this: it is unconstitutional for you prevent another from keeping and bearing them. If the Gun Control lobby wants to create laws that control guns IN ANY WAY, they must first follow the constitution and garner support for a Constitutional amendment!

Please read and protect our Constitution!

Never Forget?

After 9/11, we saw such phrases as "never forget" and "never again". Well, several years after the incident, I ask, "Forget what?" Do we even know what caused this attack? Well I guess we know but we obviously don't care. In response to an attack which was originally provoked by theU.S. invading and occupying a foreign country (Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia), folks from the other nation wanted to send us a note, teach us a lesson: "Hey U.S., you don't own the world. Get out of our country and leave us alone." The failure of most Americans to understand this message is mostly due to our egomaniacal belief that everything we think is "right." Imagine some other country invaded the U.S. and occupied us. Their reason: Americans are fat and unhealthy, they use too much of the world's resources and in their refusal to sign the Kyoto treaty, have shown that they do not care about how the U.S.'s careless actions are destroying the environment and hurting the world community's health. Hey, these are valid concerns. Why not invade us and straighten us out, right? Are these reasons any less valid than those of Bin Laden? All he said was "get U.S. military out of Saudi Arabia". A pretty simple request if you ask me. Why do we need U.S. military in Saudi Arabia. There is only one reason...to secure the oil.

Anyway, what do we do in response to getting attacked. Well most folks would try to unravel WHY our enemy hates us so much and then try to resolve that issue. This is a diplomatic solution and one of the oldest military tactics. If you remove the reason that the enemy is attacking you, they will have leas reason to attack you, their troops will have less moral, etc. Jesus Christ used this tactic repetitively. (And I should point out, it's obvious that Jesus NEVER attacked ANYONE physically for ANY reason. He used diplomacy for all solutions, even making the ultimate sacrifice, surrendering himself to die as a diplomatic example to represent visually to all people what is good, and what is evil.

So what has the U.S. done in response to being attacked? Well we've gone and invaded another country. I ask, how is that going to resolve the problem that we had in the first place: a small group of people hates us because we attack and invade Muslim countries. They attack us for it, so what do we do? Well, we go and do it again, thus making more passionate enemies.

In the months following the attacks, we had the world's sympathys. We could have negotiated ANYTHING we wanted. But instead of rallying the world in our support, we lied to them (Bush: "Hussein has WMD's") and distracted them (Bush: "Hussein is connected to Bin Laden"). Now most of the world thinks we are bunch of arrogant bastards and doesn't side with us.

And our original enemies: They hate us even more.

Bin Laden waited 10 years to attack us after George Bush (Senior) invaded in 91.

When will the next attack against us occur?

I ask you, How have we made our country safer?

The answer is, We have not. We have made it more dangerous and uncertain for our children.

Happy Holidays

This Holiday Season I ask all to take a look inside...at our religious beliefs. Are our actions in line with our beliefs?
Don't be a hypocrite in the name of religion. For example, if you are going to bomb, maim and kill people in the name of Jesus, ask yourself if Jesus would really do that. The answer is no, of course not. Jesus would have chosen diplomacy or death. Therefore, if you are of like mind to continue killing, then don't go around calling yourself a Christian. That's insulting to real Christians, scarce as they may be.

I wish you all a safe and happy new year season,

S

PS- I am not religious at all.