Christmas is not a violation of church and state separation!

I'm sure you've heard about the "war on Christmas" that was hyped by the media, both Liberal (the majority of the media) and Conservative (thankfully we have this, as an outlet from the crap from the Left) outlets. Usually, it is poised in such a fashion that one is led to believe that it is a violation of the "separation of church and state" concept that Liberals claim is in the U.S. Constitution and in a letter that is frequently cited as proof that the Founding Fathers wanted no religion in American society. This concept, as it is in the U.S. Constitution is of course, absurd. The First Amendment, if Liberals actually read it rather than twisted its words, prohibits the establishment of religion, and also allows for the free exercise thereof. In other words, the United States can't have a national religion. They can't say that one religion is acceptable or more acceptable, over another. They can't favor a particular religion. This is usually the argument that is made when Liberals are perceived as "bashing Christmas" or starting a "war on Christmas".

Well, let's think back to when this country started. Why did people come here to begin with? Well, to escape religious persecution. Why were they running from religious persecution? Because England created a "national religion". Remember? It was called the Church of England. Why was it created? Well, remember that King who wanted a divorce and the Catholic church said "NO!"? Well, that's why the Church of England came into being. Henceforth, the establishment of a religion. This is what the Founding Fathers intended when they said "no establishment of religion". In other words, if the United States had a Church of the United States, then, the Liberals could complain all they wanted too! And, I would agree with them. However, one cannot ignore the fact that the United States was founded on religious freedom. Simply because you celebrate Christmas does not mean that you're favoring Christianity. It is a celebration! It's part of U.S. History. For a couple of hundred years, the United States has celebrated this holiday. And now, the last five years or less all of a sudden by celebrating it as a national holiday, we have Liberals who are SO offended by it? Amazing! Why is it that only in the last few years, this has been a problem. The country seems to have been fine for the first couple of hundred years plus, why now is it a problem?

So, for those of us that take Christmas as a more personal celebration, of course we feel that our faith is being attacked. We attach meaning to the holiday above and beyond the national sense. So, when Liberals attack the day as a religious holiday, which many Americans probably don't even think about that part of it. For them, it's about the gifts and family and friends getting together. The rest of us do take offense to the fact that they are trying to prohibit so many aspects of Christmas. They want to change the name to "Happy holidays" or "seasons greetings" instead of "Merry Christmas". So, interesting how that dosn't infringe on our right to freely practice our religion. Thankfully, those that wish to protect the holiday are beginning to realize that litigation can work both ways. While some made find themselves being litigated for supporting "christmas", others are finding themselves being litigated for not supporting "christmas". Particularly, I find this in terms of school districts. They want to take away certain Christmas songs because of their religious conotation. They may have a religious conotation, but, they are appreciated for their Christmas value. I would be willing to bet that most kids don't even think of religious conotation when it comes to the song!

So, there has been this big war brewing about Christmas. There has been much Legislative bickering regarding this. It has been set up as "you're either for Christmas, or against it". Well, that's fine. I think that's the way it should be. Again, the separation of church and state revolves around the concept of the establishment of a national religion, like a national church. Which, the United States does not have. We allow for anyone to practice their religion, or to not practice if they so choose. The Liberals want no religion in society that may give the appearance of "government favoritism", which, completely molests the concept of the prohibition of the establishment of a religion. Well, having no religion in society, how far of a stretch is that from practicing "atheism"? That's the belief in nothing. Or, being Agnostic, the belief in a higher power, but you're not ready or willing to acknowledge it by a specific name. So, by taking this route, essentionally, you're favoring these two belief systems. Or at least, one of them. That's not cool, but, Liberals seem to be ok with it. Well then, by your own definition, why are you not violating the First Amendment by favoring one belief system over another? Because, you essentially are favoring them.

So in Congress, a resolution was put out there in the House of Representatives. The Resolution, specifically, says:

Whereas Christmas is a national holiday celebrated on December 25; and


Whereas the Framers intended that the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States would prohibit the establishment of religion, not prohibit any mention of religion or reference to God in civic dialog: Now, therefore be it resolved, that the House of Representatives –


(1) Recognizes the importance of the symbols and traditions of Christmas;
(2) Strongly disapproves of attempts to ban references to Christmas; and
(3) Expresses support for the use of these symbols and traditions, for those who celebrate Christmas.


In the most basic terms, do you support or not support Christmas? The vast majority of Republicans and Democrats supported this measure. If you celebrated Christmas in a way that takes into account the spiritual meaning of the holiday, this measure acknowledged that the House of Representatives supported your doing that; again, if that's what you did, if you chose to. Well, there were 22 Democrats that refused to support this measure. I will list below those 22 Democrats who refused to support it. Since Democrats often twist people's words in that if you're not for what they're for, then you're obviously against it then; I will take that position here. I will go so far as to say that they are violating my First Amendment Right to freely practice my religion and I believe they're in violation of the First Amendment, and, should at the very minimum, be censured for it, and have that published in the Congressional Record. Although, this vote on this particular resolution is officially in Congressional Record as it is. Below, find the 22 Democrats who are anti-Christmas. Feel free to write and e-mail them and ask them why. What do they have against Christmas and me celebrating it in the way I choose?

Congressman Party-State District
Ackerman D-NY 5th
Blumenauer D-OR 3rd
Capps D-CA 23rd
Cleaver D-MO 5th
DeGette D-CO 1st
Harman D-CA 36th
Hastings D-FL 23rd
Honda D-CA 15th
Lee D-CA 9th
Lewis D-GA 5th
McDermott D-WA 7th
Miller, George D-CA 7th
Moore D-WI 4th
Moran D-VA 8th
Payne D-NJ 10th
Rush D-IL 1st
Schakowsky D-IL 9th
Scott D-VA 3rd
Stark D-CA 13th
Wasserman Schultz D-FL 20th
Wexler D-FL 19th
Woolsey D-CA 6th

www.house.gov

Those of us in Washington State, will not be suprised about Representative McDermott (aka, Bagdad Jim) and the way he voted on this particular resolution. After all, he is from the People's Republic of Seattle and represents their Communistic views.

Ain't nothin' new!

Have you noticed how the Liberals are really decrying President Bush for "spying on Americans" covertly and violating people's "Civil Liberties"? They sure do get awful loud about it don't they? Well, wouldn't it be a real hoot if President Bush wasn't the only one doing something that seemingly violated someone's Civil Liberties? Well, hoot it up! Cause, it's happened and the Liberally biased Media isn't telling you about it! Nor are the usual suspects of Democrats (namely Pelosi, Kennedy, Kerry, Reid to name a few) talking about it.

Here's some interesting info. In 1994, Clinton Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick said "The Department of Justice believes -- and the case law supports -- that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes and that the president may, as he has done, delegate this authority to the attorney general. That same authority pertains to electronic surveillance such as wiretaps." She said this in testimony to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. So, Clinton engaged in it. In fact, in 1993, President Clinton provided one of the greatest examples of warrentless searches by searching the home of a former CIA officer, Alderich Ames, who was spying for Russia in 1993. The evidence gathered led Ames to plead guilty.

In 1994, President Clinton expanded the warrentless searches by including domestic surveillance to include intelligence gathering that had no foreign intelligence value at all. So, he was in favor of spying on Americans for no particular reason? Not quite, but it would seem so, wouldn't it? He tried to get support for it by saying he wanted it for a new policy on quelling highly violent activity in public housing projects. Didn't hear about this on CBS, ABC, NBC or CNN? What a shock! Seems the non-Liberally biased media is taking to censoring the news!

In 1978, President Carter made use of these warrentless searches as well. He, and Attorney General Griffin B. Bell used them to investigate two men spying for the Vietnamese Government. Further, also in 1978, both Congress and President Carter created FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) which created a secret court to hear foreign surveillance cases and required Federal Agents to get approval on most cases before conducting surveillance. However, recently, this same secret court stated that "they have long held the belief that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information."

So, what do we know from all of this? Clearly, the Federal Government and the President have a long history of doing things that appear to violate Civil Liberties? That it's been done before and that the modern day Liberal doesn't seem to want you to know about it. Nor does the mainstream media seem to want you to know about it. In fact, I would go so far as to say that not only is the mainstream media not talking about these other examples, whom are democrats, but, they're intentionally censoring this news! Way beyond Liberal Media Bias! So, before you go believin' that what President Bush is doing is new, think again! It's not. Does that make it right? Not necessarily. However, Liberals need to stop crying about what Bush is doing like it's new and 'fess up to some interesting facts. Those in their party have done the same thing! So, what Bush is doing, it ain't nothin' new! Write your people in D.C. and tell them, they're not foolin' anyone. You know President Carter and Clinton have done similar things, so, stop coverin' that crap up!

www.senate.gov
www.house.gov

What's behind "The Island"?

It is not very often that a movie offers a truly important lesson for people to walk away with. Most movies are for pure entertainment and offer little else. Hollywood, in this day and age, spend SO much time with such garbage in the form of extremely poorly written scripts, an over-reliance upon big name actors and ultra "cool" special effects (which sometimes really are not all that cool) and lots of things blowing up. Not to mention all the sex that's usually involved in the script which may, or may not, have much to do with the story; but, the story is usually so poorly written and directed that at that point, does it really matter?

Well, recently, I've discovered a movie that absolutely bombed at the box office. It didn't even make enough money to break even. Now, the average movie goer would hear this and say to themselves "wow, that movie must really suck!" Well, not so in this case. It's simply that most movie goers in this day and age want to be entertained, they don't stop and think about the message behind the movie. When you miss that message, the movie tends to lose some of its impact. Sure, it's an entertaining movie, but, when you think about it on a deeper level, it can really make you think and open up your mind. Such a movie can be found in "The Island".

The basic premise of the movie is a facility where clones are made for the sole purpose of using them as a "biological garden" so that when the real human counterparts on the outside need a particular part, they have an exact copy of that part available to them in their clone. There will be no chance (theoretically) of rejection of that particular part or organ upon transplanting it from the clone to the real human counter part.

The message in the sci-fi movie is, "is cloning morally acceptable"? You need to look at it on the level of, is the clone a clone, or, is it a living copy of someone else. Well, that's the challenge in the movie. The corporation who is producing the clones didn't see them as being human or living copies. They were a product. An exact copy of a living person, but, they were a product. At one point in the movie, the notion of the corporation tried to just keep the clones secluded and just use them as spare parts; but, the parts tended to fail upon transplanting them (even though they were exact copies) because (so felt the guy in charge) they had no life in them. There was no experiencing of feelings, emotions, essentially, no living. So, it was decided that they should not be secluded from all feeling, all emotions, all forms of living as we would know it. It seemed as though without these things, the parts in the clones didn't seem to have a will to live. Why should they, they're just regarded as parts, they've not lived any time of life or existence other than spare parts.

In the process of exposing the clones to these things, the clones develop a life. Natural human curiosity sets in and they begin to think about things, to question things, to wonder about things. Not all of them of course. Many just did what they were told. They were lied to about why they were there, and, the main goal was to be chosen in a lottery to go to "the island" where it was a living paradise. It gave them a sense of hope, a feeling of something good was coming. Let's face it, if you were a clone (and didn't know it) and were told you would be used for spare parts for someone out in the real world, or that you would be going (chosen by lottery) to some paradise island to live forever, what would you prefer?

The main character, Lincoln Echo 6 (played by McGregor from Star Wars Episode 1, 2, and 3 Obi-Wan fame) begins to question things, to wonder what the point of life was, to wonder what was really out there, he felt there had to be more. He digs and digs and finds the truth out. He realizes that he will die because there is no Island. At one point, he is told that the real life counter part in the real world "owns him".

This is the question then. Are clones real living beings that can develop into something that is just like a human, or, are they non-living, non-feeling things that can be used for spare parts? It's an interesting question, and Michael Bay (director of The Island as well as "the Rock") explores it wonderfully. He tries to show both sides of the issue. The need for organ parts that will save the lives of others, but, the dilemma of clones developing into something more than clones. Do they deserve to have a life or are they truly property that belongs to someone else? It certainly does make you think, and for Hollywood, that's a darn rare thing!

Kerry essentially calls U.S. Troops "Terrorists".

"You've got to begin to transfer authority to the Iraqis. And there
is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night,terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the--of--the historical customs,
religious customs. Whether you like it or not......Iraqis should be doing that. And after all of these two and a half years, with all of the talk of
210,000 people trained, there just is no excuse for not transferring more of that authority."

This was Senator John Kerry's comments on CBS's Face The Nation on December 4, 2005. What I'd like to call your attention to in specific to this exact quote (which can be found in the form of a PDF Document on the Face the Nation website) is the following: "And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the--of--the historical customs, religious customs. Whether you like it or not...Iraqis should be doing that." Well, from this quote, it appears as though Senator Kerry is calling the U.S. Troops "terrorists". Take a second look at that quote, but, that's essentially what he's saying. When you use "terrorizing" as an adjective, as Senator Kerry did in this quote, then adjective is describing a noun. The noun that he's referring to is the U.S. Troops. So obviously and logically, if the U.S. Troops are terrorizing, then they must be terrorists. An adjective describes a noun, if one is terrorizing, then they must be terrorists. There is no other logical conclusion to come to. And, this moron was a hair away from becoming our President. This idiot who describes our troops as terrorists. I would be embarrassed to be a Liberal in this day and age. There are many issues I do not agree with President Bush on (illegal immigration for example), but at least President Bush is not calling our troops terrorists!

Next, Kerry notes that, Iraqi troops should be doing that. Great, so, U.S. Troops shouldn't be terrorizing Iraqis, Iraqis should be terrorizing Iraqis. Now granted, I do know what Kerry meant. He wishes for the Iraqi troops to take more authority in the country and take more responsibility for doing these kinds of things. However, it was very poorly worded. If President Bush had said this, and worded it the EXACT same way, would the Liberally Biased media let him have a free pass? I don't think so! So, why is Kerry getting a free pass? Why does someone not confront Kerry with his own words and ask him why he feels that Iraqis should be terrorizing Iraqis at all, dead of night, women or children, whatever. No one should be terrorizing anyone regardless of the nationality of anyone. Someone needs to point out to Senator Kerry how poorly chosen his words were. Further, someone needs to demand an apology from Senator Kerry for essentially calling the U.S. Troops Terrorists. I have contacted Senator Kerry's Office and voiced my disdain with him over this, I would encourage you to do the same. When the liberally biased media gives a politician (who happens to be a Liberal) a free pass on something like that, then something's wrong with the media. No wonder the Network News is losing so many viewers and more are turning to Fox News and independent news sources. When Senator Kerry calling the U.S. troops terrorists gets no press coverage, it's up to Americans to demand an apology! Take action, contact Senator Kerry!

http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/contact/email.html

Senator John Kerry
304 Russell Bldg.
Third Floor
Washington D.C. 20510
(202) 224-2742 - Phone

Apparently, they STILL don't get it!

Whenever I talk to people about the hypocrisy of the Left what with their quotes that I have written about in the past regarding WMD and how dangerous Saddam was and how those quotes seem to fall into line with what President Bush was saying before the Iraq War, I've been told a couple of different things. First, I'm told that the Democrats didn't lead us into war. So, it doesn't matter if they believed the same thing because they didn't lead us into war. Really? So, apparently, you're only held accountable if you're leading the U.S. into war? So, if you vote for the war, you're not actually being held accountable because you're not physically leading (or perhaps symbolically leading?) the U.S. into war. But, you're voting for the war. Actually, let me re-phrase that. The Democrats actually voted for the "authorization for the use of force". Well, what's war if not a use of force? I mean really. I'll stop calling Libs morons when they demonstrate to me that they have the actual ability to think!

Ok, the second thing I'm usually told is that it is SO brave of these Democrats to stand up to this President and his administration and admit their mistake and so by having the hypocrisy of their quotes from before the war started and their quotes now denouncing it and screaming about how there never were any Weapons of Mass Destruction is a brave thing. They're being brave because they're admitting to their mistake. Really? Wow, I've never heard them admit to a mistake. What they do say however, is that President Bush lied, he got faulty intelligence and he re-worked it such that he could just go ahead with the war anyway. How many times have we heard Al Gore, Howard Dean, John Kerry, Charles "up-chuck" Schummer, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid talk about how Bush mis-lead the country, how he lied, how he played on our fears or some other such nonsense so that Bush could get his war? You hear it often. If you watch any of the network news stations, CNN or MSNBC they you probably hear it several times a week if not daily! Do they say that President Bush was mistaken? Nope. Why? Because Bush LIED! See, how it works is, the Democrats were "mistaken" while President Bush "lied". In the eyes of the Democrats, President Bush can't be mistaken, he can only lie. But at the same time, in the eyes of the Democrats, they're mistaken, they'd never lie! Incidentally, this second accusation comes from readers of the Liberal Rag of a paper here in Yakima, Washington called "The Yakima Herald Republic". Another reader, while not attacking me, attempted to punch holes in my argument about all the quotes by saying that they (the Democrats) were mistaken and what they did was incredibly brave to stand up and admit that. This, despite the fact that, they've not admitted anything. They simply say that Bush lied. That there were no WMD's and that the intelligence was faulty. Rather than blaming themselves, they blame Bush and the intelligence he received. So, it wasn't actually their mistake, it was President Bush's and the intelligence's mistake. That way, they come off smellin' like a rose. Well, something certainly smells, and it's not anything like a rose!

One last thought to leave you all with. How many times have we heard the Democrats attack the President and infer that he's not particularly intelligent? That he's just not as bright as one would think? Interesting, isn't it? If President Bush really isn't all that bright, and the Democrats are the only real smart ones, how then was President Bush able to fool the Democrats into voting for the "authorization for the use of force"? It would seem that President Bush is WAY smarter than the Democrats are willing to admit, or, the Democrats are WAY dumber than President Bush if they bought his "lie". So Democrats and Liberals, which is it?