We Need Prayer Back In Schools!

“We need prayer back in schools!,” said someone.

“Okay,” I said. “Whose prayer do you want? The Episcopalians? The Baptists? The Methodists? Church of Christ? What about the Jehovah’s Witnesses? Or the Seventh Day Adventists? Do you want the Primitive Baptists, or the Free Will Baptists?

American Entitlement Culture

Recently, I happened across an item which read “When they analyze the demise of western society due to the entitlement epidemic, it’ll trace back to giving kids awards just for showing up.”

Of course, it can sometimes be difficult to discern sarcasm when reading, and I rather suspect there is at least a smidgen of sarcasm in that brief remark.

Sarcasm, of course, can, and is often used to convey a truth, or truths about numerous subjects, and is a teaching tool, as well.

Because I often use dictionaries to aid my understanding, I chose to look up the definition of the word “entitlement.” Here’s what I found:
As a verb, to “entitle” is to give someone a legal right, or a just claim to receive or do something.

For example, in the United States, the First Amendment is an entitlement to

Reasoned Debate: Our Second Amendment Rights & Preventing Firearm Violence

Alabama State House GOP “Dare Defend Our Rights” gun logo, from the FaceBook page of Speaker of the Alabama House of Representatives Mike Hubbard, R-Auburn

Recently in another Social Media forum, a long-time friend had posted a link to a site operated for the Alabama State House GOP faction, which is a so-called “supermajority” in that state’s elected legislative body. That site may be found here: http://ALHouseGOP.com/WeDareDefend/.

Perceiving that that those political ideologues were very likely drumming up support for their positions based upon pure emotion and fear, rather than reasoned, rational and informed debate, I initially responded by quickly writing a somewhat sarcastic response, precisely worded to give pause for thought. My initial response elicited a query, to which I delightfully replied more eruditely.

The exchange as it exists presently, now follows.

• Me: Yeah. Alabama was wrong on their right to segregation and their right to deny civil rights, too.

• Friend: So, do you support the

Ronald Reagan co-signed letter supporting Assault Gun Ban

The Second Amendment, as some have so misbelieved, has no limitations. However, as we all know, there are limits to our First Amendment freedom-of-speech rights. For example, one cannot yell “FIRE!” in a crowded theater. It is reasonable, therefore, that limitations should similarly exist for the Second Amendment, some of which already include denying firearm ownership to convicted felons, and those who are mentally unstable.

As some have come to so interpret it, the purpose of the Second Amendment is to empower citizens with the ability to overthrow a despotic government – not to hunt wild game. If that be the case, one mustn’t be intellectually dishonest about the matter, and must acknowledge if that interpretation is at least accurate in part, then the Second Amendment was written to give citizens the right and authority to kill their governmental leaders.

Regarding how the spirit of the Second Amendment might be honored while simultaneously providing sane regulation to prevent tragedies as we have most recently witnessed, I offer the following.

The Second Amendment reads

“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.”

• People who own firearms – particularly military style assault weapons – should be required to, as part of their ownership – be active members in good standing of “a well regulated militia.”

• Individuals who only own hunting firearms could be exempted from militia participation requirements.

• All firearm owners should be required to pay a federal tax upon acquisition of the firearm, no matter the type.

• All firearm owners should be required to submit to a federal background investigation and security clearance, including fingerprinting.

• Military style firearms could be subject to an acquisition tax, the amount of which could be the equivalence of the purchase price, or more – similarly to the tax imposed upon fully-automatic weapons.

• Annual accountability for all firearm owners – essentially asking the legal status of the individual, e.g., whether they’ve been arrested, or convicted of any disqualifying crime or behavior, and performing mandatory annual background checks with federal, state & local Law Enforcement Agencies.

• Lying or attempting to deceive to obtain a firearm by deliberately misleading would be a federal crime, the punishment of which could be determined – perhaps even including a ban on ownership for a set period of time, up to and including a permanent lifetime ban.

—

Ford, Carter, Reagan Push for Gun Ban

May 05, 1994|WILLIAM J. EATON | TIMES STAFF WRITER

WASHINGTON — Three former presidents endorsed legislation Wednesday to ban the future manufacture, sale and possession of combat-style assault weapons as a closely divided House neared a showdown today on the hotly controversial issue.

Gerald R. Ford, Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan sent a letter to all House members expressing their support for the measure, effectively joining President Clinton in urging approval of the ban.

Together, the four make a formidable lobby, stretching across

Yes, it’s perfectly legal to lie to police.

Doubtless, at one time or another, many of us have read or heard of individuals being charged with “lying to police,” “giving false information to a Law Enforcement Officer,” or any of the other numerous charges which go by similar names.

Initially, the Miranda v Arizona case made it clear that according to our Constitution, one had no compunction or legal requirement to speak with police. What that illustrates is refusal, not dishonesty. However, the recent Supreme Court ruling in the Stolen Valor Act case reinforced the notion that, unless one is under oath, lying – blatant dishonesty – is perfectly legal. Here’s how.

The “Stolen Valor Act of 2005” (Public Law 109-437) sought to

A Look at Job Creation -OR- How To Make Someone Say Anything… including the President

Over the past couple of days, I’ve been thinking about truth, truth-telling, falsehoods, lying and other machinations of language by and through which we communicate.

Interestingly, I’ve also though of where those items may have intersections of law, law violation, duty, freedom, rights and civic responsibility.

As an illustration, or imaginary case in point, if a police officer asks you a question, a person is most often and typically required to tell the truth. That is, they are required to answer honestly. There are various penalties associated with lying to a Law Enforcement Officer (LEO), which vary state to state, and in various localities.

Here’s something more specific, however. Number one, you don’t have to talk. That’s guaranteed by our Fifth Amendment. And even if there is no possibility of self-incrimination (that is to say, you are not accused of any wrong doing), a person still has no legal requirement to speak.

However, if they do speak, they must

Sure, money is power. But, is it also liberty and freedom? Or, is it a tool?

As Bob Dylan sang some years ago, “The times, they are a-changin’.” Our laws should reflect those changes while adhering to the values ensconced in our Constitution. In essence, the argument is about freedom – freedom from the large corporations that supply “content” via the Internet. As well, openness and honesty – popularly termed as transparency – should be the hallmark of all dealings, by government and enterprise.

In short, what we’re encountering in this age, in this era, is an almost unprecedented and wholesale onslaught of money and the power that comes with it. It is, in essence, a corrupting influence. It is, in essence, a type of bribery – and bribery is itself, a form of theft. Bribery is a form of theft because it takes away, removes, or forbids resources from going where they ought, or rightfully should. In this case, it robs freedom from the people. Not only does it usurp their decision-making capacity, it is a blatant announcement and condemnation of freedom, because it says that the rich, the wealthy have freedom, while the poor and disenfranchised have none.

If – as the Supreme Court has declared – money is the equivalent of free speech, and neither cannot, nor should not be limited, what freedom does the poor man have? Again, if money is equated with free speech (that is, our First Amendment rights), the poor man has none. And that, my dear readers, is but one reason why such a ruling is not only ANTI-Constitutional, but is antithesis of freedom.

Making a further case, our nation’s specie – that is, the currency and coinage – is the property of the United States government. It is NOT private property. Money is a thing used to represent something else. So again, I ask rhetorically… in such instances, and in this case, what does it represent?
—

Google Says “It’s Our Web”–and they bought it fair and square

April 23, 2012 Chris Castle

Who can forget then-candidate Ronald Reagan’s classic line at the 1980 New Hampshire candidate’s debate:  “I’m paying for this microphone!”  And Google probably is wishing that whichever Ivy League idiot thought of rebranding their anti-SOPA campaign site with the double entendre “It’s Our Web” had not been quite so…uh..transparent…about it all.

President Obama had dinner with technology moguls February 17, 2011 in California’s “Silicon Valley” at the home of John Doerr, venture capitalist and partner at Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, in Woodside, California. Flanking the president are (L) the late Steve Jobs, Founder/CEO of Apple Computer, and (R) Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of FaceBook. Also present are:Cisco CEO John Chambers, Google CEO Eric Schmidt, Netflix CEO Reed Hastings, Oracle CEO Larry Ellison, Twitter CEO Dick Costolo and Yahoo CEO Carol Bartz. Art Levinson, chairman and former CEO of Genentech, is on the Apple board of directors, and was also present. White House press secretary Jay Carney said after the dinner President Obama exchanged ideas with the business leaders “so we can work as partners to promote growth and create good jobs in the United States,” and discussed research and development spending proposals with the CEOs. (Official White House photo by Pete Souza)

Because it certainly is “their web” and they bought it fair and square according to

How to Desecrate Our American Flag

Use it as clothing; place it on the ground, etc. The photog is a retired US Army LTC, MD (Lieutenant Colonel, O-5). Of all people, he SHOULD know better.

http://www.Flickr.com/people/PathDoc/

Desecration is defined as
• “the act of depriving something of its sacred character—or the disrespectful or contemptuous treatment of that which is held to be sacred by a group or individual,;”
• to “treat (a sacred place or thing) with violent disrespect; violate;”
• “to profane or violate the sacredness or sanctity of something; to remove the consecration from someone or something; to deconsecrate;”
• as “an act of disrespect or impiety towards something considered sacred;”
• and to be “treated with contempt.”

Flag Desecration - writing on flag, and used as a garment

Flag Desecration - flag on ground, written upon, used as garment

The word “desecrate” is