Thursday, March 27, 2014


Remember when America was the land of the free? Those were the good old days.

They lasted for about fifteen years. From 1789 - 1803.

The founders of our great nation signed a deal in 1787 that took effect in 1789 to put the power of government in the hands of the people and rest it all on their own consent to be governed.

That ended as the Supreme Court decided in 1803 to give itself the luxury of judicial review on all laws implemented and executed by the people - the real source of government. In essence, an oligarchy was created in 1803 and has existed ever since.

And for some reason, we continue to put up with it.

This week the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) began hearing arguments from companies which are owned by people who have a strong religious objection to post-conception birth control. Meaning, these people believe in life at conception and refuse to do any harm to the living soul inside its mother's womb. For some reason, some mothers do not refuse to do harm to the living soul inside their womb, but that's an argument for another day.

For now, let's focus on what a justice on SCOTUS told those with religious objections to ending the lives of the unborn.

[Justice] Kagan noted that the Obama health law doesn't require corporate employers to provide insurance. The Hobby Lobby owners could have paid a fine, which, she observed, is much less than the cost of insurance. It's "a choice," she said.
Interpreted: If you want to practice Judeo-Chrisitian beliefs in the United States, pay a fine and get over it. It's a choice.

In fact, Ms. Kagan is quite wrong. It's not a choice; it's a fundamental God-ordained right enshrined in everlasting security by the Constitution of the United States.

It's not a whim or a decision, it's natural law.

Life and my religion are the laws entitled to man to by nature and nature's God.

The Declaration of Independence is the most concrete and concise formulation of human rights ever developed. By its content we are reminded that 
"to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
Try to remember that when the act of treason that was our Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776, it was signed with full knowledge that it was treason against the most powerful military in the world.

That should be sobering and inspiring at the exact same time. But remember, we don't need a call to arms to cause revolution, we have the ballot box and it can be our greatest asset against tyranny. We must elect people who believe in a limited judicial system. No more life-time appointments for any position in the three branches of our government. Term limits on all levels. Lower taxes and zero compulsion to purchase products by mandate from the government. Property rights that allow us to develop our farms and land without the EPA fining us thousands of dollars per day, and certianly no more radical judges or states seizing children from their families because they believe the state knows best.

The government can only reach as far as we allow it. This year is a good time to start slapping its hand a little harder every time it reaches for the dollar in our wallet or the Bible on our shelf.

Saturday, December 21, 2013


It's hard to turn your head this week without reading a headline involving Duck Commander founder and patriarch Phil Robertson.

Mr. Robertson gave an interview to GQ's Drew Magary for the January 2014 issue of the magazine, and his quoting of Scripture as well as his application of that Scripture to current popular culture's lifestyle did not go over well at all. In fact, it has seemingly cost him his job with A&E.

The common argument from the right has been "Phil has a First Amendment right to free speech!" and they are right.

The common argument from the left has been "A&E is free to fire Phil for his comments, get over it." and they are right.

Phil Robertson is/was an employee of A&E, and A&E has every right to suspend or fire him for comments they deem disparaging to their brand. Mr. Robertson's right to free speech is not being impeded by the government, but by his employer and therefore there is nothing illegal about this scenario and there is nothing worth getting worked up over from a Constitutional perspective.

What should be highlighted and noted is the actual content of the interview versus the reaction from detractors.

In fact, the author of the article, Drew Magary, makes no attempt to hide the fact that he himself is a detractor from the outset. His condescending tone is overwhelming throughout the article as he attempts to intertwine it with a feigned admiration of Mr. Robertson. Why else would so much vulgarity be necessary in an article about the biggest name in Christianity today?

Describing Mr. Robertson, Magary writes:
He spends most of his time out here, daydreaming about what he calls a “pristine earth”: a world where nothing gets in the way of nature or the hunters who lovingly maintain it.
No cities. No buildings. No highways.
Oh, and no sinners, too. So here’s where things get a bit uncomfortable. Phil calls himself a Bible-thumper, and holy shit, he thumps that Bible hard enough to ring the bell at a county-fair test of strength.
Cute, right?

What Magary misses is the fact that Phil's entire point in the interview is that we are all sinners and if we could turn from the sin to serving God and loving Him with all our heart, things would be better in the end.

Says Phil -
“We’re Bible-thumpers who just happened to end up on television,” he tells me. “You put in your article that the Robertson family really believes strongly that if the human race loved each other and they loved God, we would just be better off. We ought to just be repentant, turn to God, and let’s get on with it, and everything will turn around.”
“Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”
Mr. Robertson is paraphrasing I Corinthians 6: 9-10 which reads - 
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
And therein lies the problem.

You cannot call out ever culturally celebrated lifestyle and not offend a massive amount of people.

When even right-wing pundits say, "I don't agree with everything he said..." it's likely because their soul was deeply stirred with conviction, and in this day and age conviction is easily confused with offense which is pretty much illegal.

Offending people has become our society's unpardonable sin, and conviction is deeply offensive to most people. Much like when someone you care about tells you what a jerk you're being; you're not offended because they are wrong, you are convicted because you know they are right.

And that's a hard pill to swallow.

The great hypocrisy of popular culture is how they care so much about the feelings of them and theirs but not of others. What about the offensive nature of nearly every show on MTV and Comedy Central which glamorizes and celebrates drunkenness, adultery, immorality, idolatry and yes, homosexuality? Why is the media not concerned with the feelings of Christians everywhere?

Because living a healthy, moral lifestyle is not largely entertaining. And that's exactly why Duck Dynasty has been so phenomenally successful. Americans relate and are entertained by people living the way they live - God-fearing people who have found success and do not allow society's pressure to hamper their own convictions and principles.

Make no mistake: America is not offended by Phil Robertson, it is convicted, as was I, by his words.

We are all imperfect. None of us will make it out alive. Hell is the punishment we deserve, but there is a loving God who wants to shower you with His mercy if only you will accept Him at His word and have faith that His way is right. But in so doing, we must abandon our sinful way, the ways that have become natural to us, the ways that say "If it feels good, do it." We are all equally guilty in the eyes of God, but there is hope in salvation.

That's all Phil Robertson was saying, and A&E and the media's quick turn against him is not because it was hateful or offensive, but because it was true, and it was overwhelmingly convicting.

We all do wrong every day. If we would admit that and do our best to do right, the world would be such a better place.

How is that so offensive?

Sunday, December 15, 2013


It seems to be a really good thing that so few people read the newspaper anymore. If they did, and if the whacko, agenda-driven websites to which the archaic medium of news aggregation is running was proving a succesful venture (it's not), then people may soon realize that we live in a world where when you murder two innocent people because you can't get over a girl, the papers will immortalize you as the victim and focus solely on you and ignore your victims. If people knew that to be true, they may begin to hate the type of people we have become.

Take a look at this gem from the online home of The Birmingham News -
MOBILE, Ala. -- Friends of the man who killed China Barber and Augustus "Gus" Bennett said that they want people to know that he was not a monster.
Robert "BJ" Sprinkle Jr., 23, arrived at an apartment near the University of South Alabama on Tuesday of last week before the sun rose.  When his estranged wife, Barber, answered the door, Sprinkle shot and killed her as she begged him not to, and then turned the gun on her new boyfriend, Bennett. Sprinkle then took his own life, leaving no one to answer the question "why?"

Cassie Holmes, a student at USA who had been a close friend to Sprinkle for more than 10 years, is upset by how Sprinkle is being portrayed in the aftermath of the shooting.
The two grew close beginning in their early teenage years and rode the same bus to school, forging a close bond shortly before Sprinkle began a relationship with Barber.
Holmes said Sprinkle's family became like a second home to her when she needed to get away, and that relationship made him feel like family to her.
"He was the sweetest, most gentle and kind-hearted person I still know to this day," she said.
The article goes on to describe the killer as a super nice guy without a "violent bone in his body."

If I were to conduct minimal research, say, reading the article posted above, I am beyond certain I could ascertain an entire portfolio of evidence to the contrary.

Furthermore, and more disturbingly, notice that every ill, misguided teenager in the world who comes across this eulogy of the violent offender now knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that the best way to get their story told, and their name immortalized, is to murder those who do them wrong so that the papers will hold them in high regard and make the masses take note of why doing them wrong proved to be worthy of death.

An epic failure on the part of our media, but that should be expected, I guess.


In an unlikely turn of events, Hollywood liberals like Joaquin Phoenix, Casey Affleck, Russell Simmons, Bob Barker, Tim Gunn, Alyssa Milano, Pamela Anderson, Christina Applegate, Justin Bieber, Alec Baldwin, Drew Barrymore, Alicia Silverstone, Paul McCartney and many more Hollywood and government elitists and supporters of PETA have now taken a stand in favor of "Stand Your Ground" laws.

Sort of....

A representative for the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals penned a letter on behalf of the organization to a bear mauling victim asking her to use the incident to rethink her position on hunting.

The letter, obtained by website We Are Central PA, was authored by Alicia Woempner, special projects division manager at PETA, to Camille Bomboy, 18.
“This seems to be a good opportunity to put yourself in the place of the individuals you and the rest of your hunting party were trying to kill,” the letter said. “As terrifying as it must have been to be attacked by a bear, please consider the frightening and painful experiences that hunters set out to impose upon animals.”
“Now that you’ve experienced the horror of an attack—although this one was in self-defense—we hope you will choose to enjoy nature in only nonviolent ways. Thank you for your consideration.”

What PETA (and its supporters) is saying here is that this girl deserved to die because the bear was acting in self-defense. PETA, who would likely say guns are bad and George Zimmerman deserves hell, thinks mauling someone in self-defense is no big deal and should, in fact, be defended.

Remember this.

Wednesday, December 4, 2013


Obamacare is the Titanic. Democrats are the orchestra. Harry Reid is the Captain who has already left in a life-raft.

"The Harvard "Millennials" poll found only 22 percent of young Americans -- defined in the survey as between 18 and 29 years old -- plan to sign up for ObamaCare. Even more troubling for the administration, fewer than a third -- only 29 percent -- of people who currently do not have health insurance plan to enroll."
 If young, healthy people refuse to fund the healthcare of the sick and needy, well, I don't have to spell it out for you, but just know that everybody dies in the end.


 If the left's continual proclamation that the invasion at our southern border is innocent and being perpetrated by only those who hope for a better life, why is this such an attention-getting story?
Would Mexican news networks cover the theft of materials in Benton, Arkansas? Because that's the same distance from Mexico as Tepojaco is from the US.
Below is a list of some of the major news networks and liberal blogs who are covering the theft of a truck full of cobalt-60 in the town of Tepojaco, Mexico. 








Cobalt-60 is used in fighting cancer, but when mixed with other easily obtainable materials can be used to create a "dirty" bomb.

If the flood of strangers pouring into the US is really as innocent as the media has tried to make it seem, this story would have never been covered. There should be little concern for those of us in the states if what the left and its friends in the media have been telling us for so long is true.

Why the sudden worry?

Sunday, December 1, 2013


Watch the discomfort envelope the MSNBC anchor.

Shift in the chair. Wring your hands. Lean forward to seem domineering.

Monday, November 18, 2013


Remember when Congressman Alan Grayson from Florida said the Republican plan for health care was for you to "die quickly"?

And then, remember when Democrats fought non-stop to pass Obamacare, and then Obamacare canceled elderly people's policies by the thousands and then started shutting down their doctor's offices all around the country?

From Yahoo!
(Reuters) - UnitedHealth Group dropped thousands of doctors from its networks in recent weeks, leaving many elderly patients unsure whether they need to switch plans to continue seeing their doctors, the Wall Street Journal reported on Friday.
The insurer said in October that underfunding of Medicare Advantage plans for the elderly could not be fully offset by the company's other healthcare business. The company also reported spending more healthcare premiums on medical claims in the third quarter, due mainly to government cuts to payments for Medicare Advantage services.
Moral of the story - elderly people are unable to get proper health care because the government is not capable of making adequate payments to doctors on time. Now, thanks to people who agree with Alan Grayson, the government is seizing the medical industry by the throat and hoping and praying that old people will die quickly since they are nothing more than the drain on the system.

Is there a greater example of irony? Those who have long applauded Roe v. Wade as keeping a doctor's visit between the doctor and patient private have now demanded that the government be overtly involved in every detail of that visit.

One thing that hasn't changed though is how many people will continue to die because of the progressive stance on doctors visits.

Monday, November 11, 2013


November 11 is Veteran's Day and there is no lack of stories of heroism and courage in the news feeds today.

However, of all the stories I've perused thus far, this piece by Benny Johnson at Buzzfeed is my favorite.

Here's a sample, but the full affect is only felt if you make the time to read it in full.

We are a generation winding down from a decade of war.

We are a generation winding down from a decade of war.
Getty Images

There is a really good chance you know someone who served in Iraq or Afghanistan.

There is a really good chance you know someone who served in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Here are some nice ways to welcome them home or just say thank you.

Here are some nice ways to welcome them home or just say thank you.
Eric Draper / Getty Images

1. Look them in the eye and give them a firm handshake.

Look them in the eye and give them a firm handshake.
Eric Draper / Getty Images

No one appreciates a firm handshake more than a soldier.

No one appreciates a firm handshake more than a soldier.

2. If they prefer not to shake hands…

If they prefer not to shake hands...

…then a chest bump will do.

...then a chest bump will do.

Just make sure you do duckface afterward so they can laugh at you.

Just make sure you do duckface afterward so they can laugh at you.

 So very well done.

As an amateur blogger I feel compelled to put my own Presidential tear-jerking Veteran pictorial piece together. Here goes....


Have him hold your umbrella if it gets misty outside.

Raise his elbow with your hand to indicate he's not doing it right.

Say thanks.

Sunday, November 10, 2013


How have those strict gun laws helped Mexico? So much that the people have had to ignore them in order to stay alive.

Tepalcatepec, Mexico -- For lime grower Hipolito Mora, it was time to organize and pick up arms when a packing company controlled by a brutal drug cartel refused to buy his fruit. For Bishop Miguel Patino Velazquez, it was seeing civilians forced to fight back with their own guns that made him speak out. For Leticia, a lime picker too afraid of retribution to give her last name, it was the seeing a taxi driver kidnapped in front of his two young children that persuaded her to join those taking the law into their own hands.

In Mexico they call it "the drop that makes the glass overflow," and it came at different points for the people living for years under the brutal Knights Templar in the western Valley of Apatzingan, an emerald green tapestry of orchards bordered by blue-gray peaks.

"We lived in bondage, threatened by organized crime," said Leticia, 40, who ekes out a living picking fruit and selling chicken on the side. "They wanted to treat people like animals."

Eight months after locals formed self-defense groups, they say they are free of the cartel in six municipalities of the Tierra Caliente, or "Hot Land," which earned its moniker for the scorching weather but whose name has also come to signify criminal activity. What's more, the self-defense group leaders, who are clearly breaking Mexican law by picking up military-style arms to fight criminals, say the federal government is no longer arresting them, but recruiting them to help federal forces identify cartel members.

The Mexican government, which has been fighting cartels in Michoacan state for years with little to show for it, has reached its limit as well: an Oct. 27 attack by alleged cartel agents on power distribution plants and electrical sub-stations in 14 towns and cities that were intended to terrorize the public. At least 400,000 people were left in the dark.

The self-defense groups started small with just a few dozen civilians. The ragtag groups now claim several thousand members in a valley of more than 300,000 people, competing with the cartel in raw numbers if not firepower.

Despite some success in the six municipalities of Tierra Caliente, the cartel continues to enforce a stranglehold on other parts of Michoacan, a rich farming state


Runner's World ran a surprising column on their website this week. Since Runner's World is about running and not about Constitutional philosophy, I was surprised to find an article by Nick Symmonds decrying the people's right to keep and bear arms.

You can read the article in its entirety here, and then read my response to Mr. Symmonds below. I'm sure Runner's World will be running it for the sake of balance very soon.

Mr. Symmonds,

     I was surprised to see your column on Runner's World's website this week. Runner's World (as far as I know) is a magazine dedicated to running, not political philosophy. However, since RW has decided to venture into political punditry, I will weigh in with some real-world, studied critiques of your position and hope you can see the other side for what has become an all too political topic. Let me assure you from the outset that we have more in common than you may think, which is really the point of this letter. We both love the outdoors, revel in the pride of providing for our families, and hold dear the Sovereign rights of man as given us by God and outlined and protected in our nation's uniquely wonderful Constitution.

    We have also both had life-altering experiences that changed our view on guns. You arrived at a crime scene in Los Angeles and felt violated enough to be willing to surrender your right to protect yourself with equal force against the bad guys. I, on the other hand, was sitting on the couch in my apartment in Birmingham, AL, all alone, when an intoxicated intruder began to force his way into my front door. Half of a pool cue was my only defense, and I realized that had he been successful, I could have been in some serious trouble.

     I am also glad to see that you are willing to publicly state your support for the Constitution and its Second Amendment which states, "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." That stand is not a popular one these days, and I am glad that we share a comon bond over our public supprt for it.

     However, I am perplexed by your article for three reasons which I would like to outline to you:

1.) You state: "I would gladly hand in all of my weapons if I knew that doing so would prevent any more gun-related murders in this country." So I wonder: Have you handed over all of your guns, or do you still have them and admit that good guys without guns does not equal bad guys without guns?

2.) You wrote: "We also have a government built on compromise, so here is the compromise I propose: Ban assault rifles and handguns for everyone except police and military personnel. These weapons are made to kill humans and should be strictly limited. At the same time, allow responsible citizens to own rifles and shotguns. Rifles are for hunting big-game animals, shotguns are for hunting birds; non-automatic versions of these weapons should be available for those with an interest in hunting or target shooting." That statement is a textbook definition for Fascism, a people controlled by a government, but more so it leads to this question: Would you rather allow only the government to elect our leaders due to rampant, proven voter fraud, or should the good people be allowed to continue to vote while the government designs better ways to keep known fraudsters out of the election box? Do you see how your logic can so easily be so horribly applied?

3.) The story of Christopher Lane in Oklahoma is a sad one. I hate to see another innocent victim dragged into the discourse of politics in order to prove a point. It's a shame you did so. Rather, I will ask you this: How many guns that are used in a crime are acquired in a legal manner, and do you believe it is the majority or minority? Furthermore, are you aware that the government with which you so willingly place all of the world's firearms is the same government that knowingly sold guns to drug cartels, refused to arrest the straw purchasers after they made their purchases, ignored and refused the pleas of gun store owners to stop supplying these evil men with weapons,  and then allowed those guns to be used in the murder of hundreds, if not thousands, of people in Mexico as well as American law enforcement officials all for the sake of advancing the very same agenda you now propose? In fact, that government  was held in contempt of Congress for obstructing their investigation.

Let me close with a quite brief description of our differences and implore you to consider them carefully.

I believe we were created by a loving, kind God who forgives us our sins and trespasses against Him no matter their severity. I believe he created us with certain inalienable right that cannot be desecrated or modified by man, no matter the goodness of his intent. I do not know if you believe this or not, but I hope you do.

I believe the American Republic protects the individual's rights from the opinion of the majority, and that we are all accountable to God Himself for how we live our lives. You believe the individual is always and only accountable to the majority, and that the majority may change the individual's freedoms at their leisure. That is called tyranny and is not a good thing.

Finally, I believe that every person, regardless of race, color, creed or sexual orientation has the God-given right to live a full and happy life and to protect themselves and their family with equal or greater force than whatever the bad guy may wage against them. You believe they should call the police and hope they get their in time. What a horrible stand to take against the good people of this country.

Mr. Symmonds, claiming that we should allow only "responsible citizens to own rifles and shotguns" is as hypocritical as the morbidly obese preacher who preaches hell-fire and damnation for homosexuals. It is an elitist mindset that claims one individual should have rights that others do not. God hates sin all the same. How you define sin is between you and God. And how I protect myself, my wife and my son is between me and God as defined in the Constitution. With all due respect, Mr. Symmonds it is none of your business.

Best of luck to you. And may you never need a firearm to defend yourself or the innocent around you.

It seems you have no desire to do so.


This is my favorite story in a long time. Not because this guy duped the electorate or because a Republican won a Democratic stronghold district, but because it highlights the ignorance of the modern day voter.

A white Texas man won a political campaign Tuesday in a heavily black area using an unconventional tactic — according to a local media outlet, he pretended to be black.


“I’d always said it was a long shot,” Wilson said. “No, I didn’t expect to win.”
According to KHOU-TV, Wilson’s campaign “printed direct mail pieces strongly implying that he’s black.” The materials reportedly featured his campaign slogan emblazoned next to the faces of smiling black individuals.

One of his mailers even said, “Endorsed by Ron Wilson,” implying he had attained support from a famous former black state representative. In fact, in fine print below the endorsement, the campaign clarified that “Ron Wilson and Dave Wilson are cousins.”
“He’s a nice cousin,” Wilson told KHOU-TV. “We played baseball in high school together. And he’s endorsed me.”
 The question becomes, "Would you take your vote back if you voted for Mr. Wilson?", and if you answer yes to that question, does that not make you a big time racist?

The election of Barack Obama was the greatest exploitation of black Americans since slavery, and this story seems almost reminiscent of the Obama approach to pretending to be whatever it takes to get elected. Few black voters who chose to cast their ballot for Mr. Obama recognize his affinity for suing other candidates off the ballot, his ardent support of infanticide or his membership in an organization that promotes segregation and racism, but even if they were aware they would not be likely to change their vote since he met the only criteria to them that mattered: race.

Some would note the racism of that last line, but that's the whole point of posting this story. If the majority of those who voted for Mr. Wilson would indeed like their vote back, they are proving the idea of how Obama got elected 100% infallible. It's up to them where they go from here.

Friday, October 25, 2013


Hey - remember that time all those liberal actors were like, "We gotta elect Obama so the world can change for the better!"

Turns out, they may be starting to understand how wrong they were.

As a spooky reminder, here's that "Pledge to Serve Obama" video.

Monday, October 21, 2013


"The United States is proud of the role that we played in supporting the Libyan revolution..."


Newsbusters has video of Tennessee representative Steve Cohen stating that those of us who believe limited government is the right course for America are the very people his oath of office compels him to stand against.

The irony here is how a career politician like Cohen wants you to believe that NOT being a career politician is a bad thing. His elite mindset is dumbfounding. "Those second term guys! They don't know anything yet! They don't know how to play the game! Don't listen to them! Trust MEEE!"

More to the point, there is an actual enemy coming through our porous southern border and the progressives of Congress hope to make them feel as welcome as possible.

As for his oath of office, there's more irony in the fact that the left had to use political tactics like the Reconciliation budgetary process in order to pass the legislation that got us into this mess in the first place, and that procedure completely ignored the very document Mr. Cohen claims he's willing to protect.

There are three groups at work here:

1.) Liberal Progressives who want to change America into a socialist state.
2.) Career politicians who will fight to maintain the status quo of D.C. which allows them the ability to convince the people to prop of their lavish lifestyles in exchange for the politicians paying them back via social welfare programs and handouts.
3.) Those who hope to change America back to the land of equal opportunity without the threat of an IRS audit if you disagree with the government. Those who hope to restore personal liberty so individuals may stand behind their religious convictions without interference from the government which forces them to act against their convictions. And those who want to see the measure of success for our welfare programs based upon how many people leave it, not how many are on it.

For people like Mr. Cohen, all who oppose his agenda are the enemy, and all who want to live their lives by a different set of principles deserve nothing but a firm resistance from a large government set to rule people's lives and beliefs. That, ironically, sounds eerily familiar.