Kanye WTF

Man can anyone tell me who Kanye thinks he is? Now I'm not the biggest fan of country but I still at least have respect for people in general. For Kanye to just snatch the mic and completely disrespect Taylor Swift at the VMA's was ridiculous! His music if you can call it that isn't even that good. Shit most of it is auto-tune which is a joke. Hey if you can't sing then don't. Don't go use a freaking box to make your self sound better so you can push your bullshit cd. Now when Kanye first stepped on the scene and dropped through the wire I was feeling him. I had respect. Now I see this kid that has a totally unwarranted ego who thinks he is way more talented than he is. Kanye you ain't even half the lyricist that Taylor Swift is. Man I wish I was a talentless hack with money so I could pitch fits and act like a total bitch. I bet Kanye ain't got the balls to do that to another rapper. What a punk! Anyway for more insightful posts continue below.

Religion

Religion is a sensitive subject for every and any person you may talk to. People have beliefs that are so strong our world has been in countless wars since the beginning of recorded history all in God's name. There are countless religions in every country all with a different idea of the afterlife and what is to be expected in that after life. Some believe that by killing others or themselves for "God's Cause" that they will be welcomed into the afterlife of eternal happiness. Some believe even the smallest sin can condemn them to eternal torment in hell being roasted on a spit like some kind of a kabob. Some religions put the focus on their buildings, specifically the church, and some on faith alone. The questions are always the same, who is right, who is wrong and is there even a god?

I don't consider myself to be a very religious person but I do believe in God. I haven't even been to church in probably about 8 years. I have experienced multiple churches from Baptist to Mormon and to be honest I personally am not a fan of organized religion. In my experiences most churches implement a form of guilt and fear to control the congregation and in a technical way force them to comply to the set rules and guidelines for fear of eternal damnation. Eternal damnation, now that is a powerful deterrent. Who wants to spend eternity suffering? I know I don't. In a way when if you take a step back and look into the shadows there a few men standing there who have all the power and control over the main churches of the world. These men presently and in the past have made decisions and choices that influence millions. Who gives them this power, God? Millions of people give tithing and instill faith into these men and their churches but why? Two simple answers, faith and fear.

In history people have always looked into the heavens for answers to things that could not be explained by science. When someone dies people want to know where they go and what happens. Man is a vain creature and as this vain creature we tend to believe that we are very important and we are to good to die and that be it. There must be something else, something more. Not to mention all the original unanswered questions such as where does the sun come from, why did my crops fail, or where did all the animals go. Hence the arrival of God, with God we do not have to die and be no more, we can live on in eternal bliss and nothing sounds bad about that. We can answer all kinds of questions by using God or God's depending on the religion or faith. If something bad happens and you don't know why you must have angered god, and if something good happened you must have pleased God and are now in his favor. Ok, now that we have intelligent vain creatures running around believing in different and multiple gods the background has been set for someone to step in as a prophet and preach to man what God wants from them. This is where organized religion joins the party. Now what is the best way to control a person or group of people? Everyone who says fear gets a smiley face. When organized religion as we know it today popped up people already had some pre-set ideas of God and what was expected. Organized religion capitalized on these beliefs. The major churches could makes rules or "commandments" to control the people of the land. The leaders of these church became more powerful than the kings and queens of entire countries. After all now even a king or queen doesn't want to go against God or his servants. At this point you could reasonably argue that the founders of organized religion used it to control people and gain power as well as wealth. What better way I'd say, you and your church are the people's connection with God. They don't want to be in bad standing with God so they better be in good standing with you right. The question is again why should you believe in a man or a building?

The ironic thing is all men other than Jesus are destined to be flawed. As a man Jesus was said to be perfect as he was the son of God, but was Jesus still not a man? Would this mean that Jesus could make mistakes? The truth being we will never know. Jesus himself supposedly did not leave behind any writings or gospels but his disciples did. His disciples were not son's of God and therefore were not perfect. This being said it is completely possible that the writing or gospels by these men may be flawed. If no man is perfect not even the disciples Jesus then think of the other writing and gospels in the bible. Another thing that should be looked at is individual perception. Two people can see the exact same series of events at the exact same time and end up telling two completely different stories. This leaves the events "documented" in the bible up for even more speculation. Not to mention the fact that there are gospels that were not allowed into the bible. This in my eyes is understandable seeing as there are hundreds if not thousands of gospels and that would be one big book if we allowed them all in there. The question this poses is what if there was a gospel left out containing valuable information? History is written by those in power and by those that win wars. Think of the American Civil War, if the Confederates had won that war American history would more than likely read a little bit different would it not. So at the time of the publication of the bible it would make sense that those in power had their own agenda on how they wanted themselves viewed in the scheme of things. Also you have to think of what religion was preaching as acceptable and moral during that particular time as well as what was the agenda of the church. People as a whole need some thing to believe in. If you were to write a gospel explaining Jesus as a regular guy with really good ideas not many people would take note. Same as if Moses had only snuck his peoples out of Egypt and not parted the Red Sea most people would not care. People need miracles to give them hope and promise for a better tomorrow so if you give them exceptional stories of grandeur they pay attention. This brings to mind all the subtle contradictions of the bible itself.

There a couple of things that tend to make me scratch my head when I think of the bible. God speaks of an eye for an eye but then in the 10 Commandments murder is a sin. So this is just a little contradiction. If a man murders my brother should I not be able to murder his? This would be the literal translation of eye for an eye. The question is here how literal is one to take this? Do I kill this man's brother or does God? I also often think about wrath. Wrath is one of the seven deadly sins I do believe. If you look back into the Old Testament was God not wrathful? Ummm.... Could this be hypocritical? Maybe, maybe not. You must remember the gospel that describes God as wrathful was written by a man and therefore may be complete hogwash. It is kind of curious though how God goes from wrathful in the Old Testament to loving and forgiving in the New Testament. I wonder why the sudden change? Is there a missing section where God reaching down to Earth and partakes in some herbal remedies or was it just the change in the world itself. Where there less wars going on? Did the farming season start to flourish? This all remains to be seen.

This brings me to the way the actual church building is viewed. I can completely understand if someone wanted to build a church or temple so this person and their friends could all praise and worship God together but why should a person feel guilty if they miss a day? In most organized religions there are great beautiful buildings built in God's name for worship and the congregation is expected to attend a service at this building on that particular religion's chosen day. Tell me do you really think that God requires you to be in this building? Is not a personal relationship with God just as good? So why would churches make it appear that you "need" to attend the services in order to receive salvation? I think it's because in most cases most churches wouldn't exist unless people had faith in the building as well. With Catholics you have confession, why do you need to confess to priest? Aren't you supposed to ask God for forgiveness? If more people believed that you only need your personal relationship with God then there would be less church goes and as a result less tithing.

For all the non church goers and folks that just don't know tithing is when you give 10% of you monthly income to God or since God's not around to collect to the church. You may ask why does God need money? Simple, God does not need money, churches' need money. You can't build those beautiful building with out money. Oh and don't forget that those priests have to be taken care of, fed and clothes you know. I agree with tithing to an extent. I believe if you have the money and you know it's going to a productive expense then sure go ahead, tithe. On the other had if your are behind on your bills and the tithing goes to your preacher man's new boat that rethink this decision. Some churches have wonderful programs that assist their members in times of need and provide food to less fortunate families. These are things I fully and completely support. I just personally think that when it comes to tithing it is something that you need to fully think through and not completely depend on blind faith alone.

The Devil, Satin, Lucifer, what ever you want to call him, always interests me. I honestly think that Satin is the most interesting part of the whole mess. So God created the heavens and the earth and every thing that dwells in them, correct? So God created Lucifer his most beautiful Angel. You know its said that the angles where created as God's servants and companions and were given no free will. So when God chose Jesus to go to earth and save the humans from their sins how is it that Satin got his panties in a twist with no free will. Heaven's suppose to be perfect with no pain, no wanting, and everyone doing God's will right? Oh, with everyone or everything having been created by God wouldn't God have control over Satin and be able to just be like, "Hey Satin, shut up, sit down, and chill." It makes sense to me anyway. So now Satin goes all crazy and starts some static with God bucking the system. There's war in heaven and Satin is cast out into the pits of hell. So now that Satin is in hell he wants to get back at God and forms a plan to corrupt all the humans and make them sin, damning their souls to eternal torment in hell. Don't ask me why but this makes no sense to me. Here is Satin wanting some glory for himself by saving the humans and now he detests them to such an extent that he wishes to torture them for eternity. The only way this makes sense is if by having all these souls condemned to hell he is really building an army of hateful sinners. These hateful sinners would be enraged by God's judgment of them and also want to get even. What better way to attempt a take over than to build a bigger army than the one God has. Wait, couldn't God just whip up some more angels or for that matter just destroy Satin with a single wiggle of his pinky? Technically he should be able to, or should he?

So here a little thing I ponder from time to time. So since Satin was created by God where does Satin get his power? He was cast out of heaven so obviously God has or had power over Satin but what has changed from that time to now where Satin has power to do as he pleases with God supposedly unable to do anything about it? I think that if this is actually how things have played out it have something to do with the way Satin thinks. Scientist say that the average person only used 10% of their brain so that would mean that there is 90% of the brain untapped. If you think of all the things that people can do such as making them selves sick merely by thinking they are imagine what these folks could do if they were able to access the full potential of their brain. Would it be possible then that if you think you can then you can? Potentially this would mean that a soul cast into hell could pose a rival for power against Satin. This makes thinks much more interesting. The reason this become more interesting is if Satin can attempt to rival God, a human soul can attempt to rival Satin, why couldn't a human soul attempt to rival God? Now we've really reached a taboo subject. Don't get me wrong I have no intention of trying to over take the throne but just a little food for thought, God had to come from some where and if Satin can change the system he was created into why can't you?

Bamboozled

Our country was founded on the peoples right to choose and make their own choices weather these choices be right or wrong. We were given the freedom of speech, the right to bare arms, and the right to pursue happiness. Now certain things have always been illegal such has hurting others, stealing, and using mind altering substances. Other things however have recently been made illegal due to a concern for public safety and the apparent public ignorance to these things. So if the public is so ignorant of their own safety then why can we still elect the people that control our country? What makes these people in power know better what may ail us than us? Do they feel superior and think that the general American public has no idea what may cause them harm?

With the millions of anti-smoking ads that play across the television screen every night like some horrific game of flash cards how would the general public not know that cigarettes cause cancer and multiple other illness. In that respect in this day and age what doesn't cause cancer? I have come to the conclusion that I will die of cancer weather I smoke or not. With everything from cell phones to the rubber in my shoes linked to some form of cancer or the other it seems the disease is inevitable.

So why is it that our states and political leaders are banning smoking everywhere from public places to your car when minors are present? Cigarettes are taxed in almost every state and pull in only god knows how much money a year in state and federal taxes. So why do these people in power want to limit where the smokers can partake in the cloudy habit? Which brings me to the point of what happen to our right to choose? Currently every public establishment in the state of Washington is not allowed to permit smoking inside the building because of second hand smoke. Now I understand that over the years second hand smoke has been "proven" dangerous, mostly by people attempting to prove it is dangerous, but why should a place of business not be able to choose weather they will allow smoking or not. They say it's because the establishments may not have the best interests of their customer's in mind; that they are out to make money. I say you're right! They are a business, that's what they do; they are interested in a profit. If we made choices for all business in a similar fashion how many would have to be regulated and controlled but an outside body? Too many to count my friends.

Every one has been educated on the dangers or smoking and second hand smoke so they should be able to make the choice of weather or not to be a patron in an establishment that contains a room full of smoke. So if you aren't concerned with your health come on in and if you are there is sure to be another place of similar minded folks such as yourself. But here's where the preverbal smoke hits the fan, what if this particular non smoker does not want to go some where else? What if they want to stay at that location but not have to partake in the foggy atmosphere? This is where people become angry and usually ask well if I'm not a smoker why should I have to either be exposed to the smoke or go somewhere else?

This is were the issue becomes a toss up because the same question applies to the smokers, why should they have to go some where else? In reality there is no real answer to either question. It comes down to people and what they can handle as a person. You will most likely find smoking in bars, bowling alleys and similar places. I can't remember the last time I saw anyone smoking in a restaurant. People have to realize there are places where smoking is just a part of the establishment like funny pictures on the wall or ladies in skimpy clothing.

In Washington State to go along with the no smoking in public establishments you must also be 25 feet away from any public entrance. This always makes me smile as it poses many more possible problems that is solves. For example some people who don't smoke will smoke when they are drinking alcohol and bars are notorious for being filled with a grayish blue haze from the customers all drunkenly chain smoking. So in Washington State to obey the law when these patrons want to smoke they must leave the bar and walk 25 feet from the door. Now you have to be careful because of the other public entrances that may be around, potentially you may end up a block down the street from you favorite hole in the wall. The point being, you now have an intoxicated person or persons on a public street corner smoking. This may not seem like a problem to most but you have to read between the lines. Public intoxication is against the law, as well as loitering. These well meaning folks have just broken two laws that are ticket able as well as potentially arrest able in the pursuit of a fulfilling puff. Now on the flip side of things alcohol tends to intensify emotions. You have a bunch of goofy drunks hanging out on a corner smoking and there is eventually bound to be a problem. Some bars have set up outside smoking areas which I personally think it great. Only problem is they are generally not 25 feet from a public entrance, and around and around we go.

I recently read that California has banned smoking in vehicles where minors are present. I can understand this. In many cases the child is with parents or a person of authority and can not challenge the person who is smoking. I have no problem with protecting this country's children. I can not argue too much on this other than again it takes away our right to choose. As a parent you raise your children the best you can and try not to expose them to anything harmful but in this case you are a smoker with an addiction and can't help but lighting up while on precious car rides in the country with the little ones. As I said I don't think you should smoke with the rugrats in the car but there are a few issues I do have. The law states that a person can not be pulled over specifically for smoking with minors in the vehicle but must have been pulled over for a different driving infraction such as speeding. So, you can be ticketed for this "crime" but you can not be pulled over for it? Interesting, how long do we think that will last? Before long a police officer will see a cigarette and a car seat and then man those lights will be flashing. It makes me wonder how many times law abiding citizens will be pulled over after dropping off little Suzy at daycare. This law also can open the door to your home. How long until someone decides that people should not be allowed to smoke inside their own home while children until 18 are present in the residence. As they say the hits just keep on coming. To stay on the vehicle and driving subject but to steer away from cigarettes lets talk about seat belts.

The same issue applies to seatbelts. Our right has been taken away to choose. From the time a teenager becomes interested in driving they are show movies, pictures, and multiple variances of things that explain the tragedy of car accidents and the potential hazard of not wearing a seatbelt. So why is it that we need the state and government to step in and make it law to wear a seatbelt? The powers that be state that it is for our own safety and they are looking out for our best interests. I can understand this but why is it that they feel the need to take away my right to make that decision? In no way does my not wearing a seatbelt endanger or affect others. Every driver is fully aware that if they are to jump in the car with out wearing a seatbelt and race down the interstate at 1000 miles an hour and hit anything they are bound to be thrown through the windshield or bounced around the car like a pinball machine. People should have the right to make that decision weather right or wrong. If I decide to put my life in jeopardy then so be it, that is my choice and my right.

My real question is how far will all of this go? With the current "obesity problem" in the US today is food next? Will the state or government soon be telling us what we can and can not eat? Take a walk through the grocery store and look at how many food items are unhealthy on the isles. Should the state or government be able to limit what we can purchase and eat in our best interest? Should they be able to mandate exercise and a low carb diet?

If the state and government can make us wear seatbelts and determine when and where we can smoke then why can't they decide what we eat for our own best interests? For god's sake too much sun has the potential to cause skin cancer are we to be limited on out amount of time outside? Some say that a few of these laws are a morale issue. I can believe that some of them are. With the government on a general standpoint of separation of church and state where does it come into play that they can legislate moral issues? They can not as each person has a different set of morals and values. Which once again reintegrates my point of the reason why we have the right to choose and make choices for ourselves. The point of the entire debate is that when we allow small things to be taken away we open the door to bigger and bigger things. I compare our slowly pick pocketed rights to that preverbal thief in the night, you don't notice the change from the dresser missing but when you get to the living room and the plasma is gone you stop and realize you've been bamboozled.

Real Life

It would seem real life these days has taken a backseat to a more politically correct, tip-toe on eggshells type of life style. While the average American works hard and scrapes by just to have one more bill or tax thrown at them, the Government and television makes us believe it is all ok. From movies that always have a happy ending, weather it's zombies or knocking up the one-night stand, or the President telling his people we are winning a war that can not be won, all of the real problems are put on the back burner to simmer and eventually boil over.

We live in a country founded on free speech, yet at every winding turn people are criticized and punished for speaking their minds. Our country has become a place where we believe we have the right to seek financial gain because someone has offended us. When did this happen? No where in the constitution does it say we as people have the right to not be offended. So, because Don Imus called a female basket ball team "nappy headed ho's" he loses his job and is able to be sued for defamation of character? Give me a break. The student that originally intended to sue stated her reputation was ruined; she was being viewed as a prostitute, and laughed at by her piers. How would this comment from someone who has never before met her ruin her reputation or make someone view her as a prostitute? The only thing that can ruin her reputation is her own actions.

I think it's time we start taking responsibility for our selves in this country. After all, words are just that, only words. The thing that gives them power is the people that listen to them and then put up the big top for the media circus they have now created.
While we're out loosing out minds in the street over the entire "he said she said" our children are becoming more disrespectful and lawless. Now, when a child walks into a class room and mows down his classmates because they made fun of him in gym, we have a real problem. But wait, the parents had no idea their child had problems, and it must be the fault of music, movies, and video games. Oh, and let me remind you, the same parents who blame the video games and movies are the same parents who purchased them.

Parents also wonder why they receive no respect from their children. There are three very good reasons. One, parents do not interact with their children and involve themselves in their lives. Two, parents are no longer able to discipline their children. Three, some parents are children themselves, giving birth at age 15, 16, and 17, having no idea how to raise a child, as they probably have not been properly raised themselves.

We have been forced into a world where we negotiate with a 3 year old about bed time and are forced to bribe our children for obedience and respect. The world has evolved into a system of people who pass judgment without knowing what happened. If I am in the super market and my 3 year old talks back and swears at me, believe this, I will slap him on the mouth. This mere tap on the lips is a far cry from child abuse, but it is enough to let him know who's in charge and that I mean business. Now if I were to yank the child out of the grocery cart and perform a WWF wrestling move on him, power bombing him, and then demanding a clean up on isle 4, by all means call the authorities. But in the first example, what gives you the right to judge how I disciple my child? After all the talking and explaining, sometimes a child needs to be spanked. A spanking gives a very clear message. This message is, you were warned and play time is now over.

I will always remember a story my Grandpa told me when I was a boy growing up in Georgia. There was an older woman who called the police on her son. When the police arrived they asked the woman what the problem was. She simply stated that her son had been misbehaving at school and sassing her. She told the police he was too big for her to hold down so she could whoop him and this is why she needed their assistance. The police proceeded to hold the boy down while his mother gave him a spanking. Some folks today will hear this and be appalled, but why? There was no long term physical harm done to the boy. If anything, he was embarrassed, and what's wrong with that? The boy should be embarrassed by his actions. This, I promise you, taught the boy a good lesson. You may ask what that lesson was, and the lesson my friends is, you're never too big for a spanking or too big to respect for your mother.

We have gotten away from the discipline of our parents' day by worrying that our children will be traumatized and scarred for life due to embarrassment and lack of self-esteem. At the same time, this is why we put into practice the "no child left behind" idea. Can anyone tell me how this actually benefits children? I am prepared to hear the normal jibber jabber of how children will have better self -esteem and the other kids won't make fun of them. This may be true for the moment, but what about when children become adults? How can children benefit when they are walked through life never being disappointed or embarrassed? This carries so many negative side affects, and yet we all think it's such a great idea.

So now, the first time little Johnny applies for a job and is turned down due to his lack of skills, who suffers? That's right, little Johnny does, but at least he didn't get held back a year in school, right. You may ask how is little Johnny suffering and I'll tell you. Little Johnny has no idea how to handle disappointment and his self-esteem that you were so proud of when he was six in now in the crapper because he's finally been told he's not good enough for something. Also little Johnny probably has no idea how to gain the skills necessary for the job in which he applied. He will more than likely run to mommy and daddy and ask for help. Little Johnny can do nothing on his own. When we let kids fail or not be as good as others, it builds character. It teaches them if you want something you have to work for it, and it won't always be easy.

That brings me to a pet peeve of mine. This takes us into the children's sports world. Now most of us have grown up playing and loving sports from baseball to football, and yes, even soccer. Most leagues play a season and at the end there are the play-offs to decide the champs and who gets that ever so coveted trophy. When your team comes in last place you shouldn't get a trophy. This builds a false sense of accomplishment. The children on that losing team should want that trophy and be encouraged to try harder next year to earn it. When we are forced to work for the things we want in life we are more proud when we finally get it. We may not always get what we want and this teaches us how to appreciate the thing we do have.

In a country full of consumers the amount of things we waste is ridiculous. Most people today don't earn the things they have, they have been given them. They ride on the government dole or mommy and daddy's coat tails. We as parents need to stop this. Think back to the time when we were kids. We went through hard times of disappointment and embarrassment and we are still standing. We didn't worry if someone was offended by our opinion, it was our opinion, and we stood-up for what we believed. Our parents took part in our lives and we didn't take a weapon from Uncle Joe's arsenal and play war at school with live rounds.

For the sake of real life we need to revert back to our country's original values and morals before we are overrun with adults who have no skills, massive entitlement issues, and lawyers armed with class actions suits.

Felons, Guns, and Injustice

I won't deny it, I am a felon. I made a mistake when I was 20 years old and I served my time. When you are release from incarceration you supposedly have paid your debt to society but this rarely rings true. Society views all people with a criminal record the same no matter what their crime was. You loose multiple right when you become a felon; your right to vote, your right to bare arms, and your right to be treated equally under the constitution. Most people will say that it serves us right. We broke the law and deserved to be punished, but when and where does the punishment end?

First and fore most prison and jail do not rehabilitate anyone. When someone is sent to prison or jail you basically just sent them to a school for criminals. When you go in you may know how to steel a car but by the time you come out you can cook dope and stick a blade into someone's heart through their ribs without drawing blood. Well I guess it's not always that extreme. The point here is people do suffer while in prison it's not a field trip to Wally World so when some one is released and have completed any stipulations set forth by a judge then they should be viewed as an equal citizen.

Someone with a criminal background has to work harder and perform better when it comes to employment that your normal everyday Joe . It starts before you even have the job. When you apply for a job and have to check a box revealing your criminal past you application will most likely find it's way into the round file a.k.a. the trash can. This is one of the most frustrating things for us would be job seeking felons. Why apply to just to get turned down again and again just because when I was 18 I stole a CD and push a rent a cop as I ran from the store. You may think what I just described is petty shop lifting but oh my friend think again, that is first degree robbery a class A felony. When you have this information is kind of puts a different spin on the person's criminal background doesn't it.

Let's talk about voting real, real quick. So this is the one that leaves me lost like a deer in the headlights the most. So because you broke the law why should you not be able to vote? I really don't under stand. Voting for a politician has absolutely nothing to do with the crime someone committed whether dishonest or violent. Originally I thought about saying that politics had nothing to do with crime, stopped, thought about it, laughed, and remember politicians are just crooks in suits. So again why can't a felon vote?

Enough about voting I could never come up with a logical explanation anyway, let's talk about the fun stuff, guns. So now this is the one that I understand the most and I agree with it to an extent. So we look at the world and all the violence that is going on and what do we notice? I can wait, does anyone know? Fine I'll tell you. If someone wants to obtain a gun illegally they can. Think of all the shootings that occur in the US. Rarely do you hear of one where Bubba used the shotgun he bought down at Wal-Mart legally. Most commonly you hear of the deranged mental patient or emotionally abused teen who magically "found" a gun and decided it was a sign to assassinate all the random people who had wrong him. What bothers me is all the real active criminals can find a way to obtain a gun and the law abiding citizens who made a mistake in their distant past are left helpless and unable to defend them selves. What am I suppose to do when Jack the Ripper comes a calling and I have to fend him off with a spatula and oven mitts? Oh that's right though, I deserve to be punished, but do all those around me?

Technically in the US you can petition the government for you write to bare arms again. They even have a specific agency assigned to determine who is eligible to receive this right back but wait, it would seem that congress has cut the funding for this agency. The ironic part of the funding cut is the agency still has employees they just don't have the funding to perform the task at hand. Here I think is the perfect example of someone who should receive their rights back. A gun dealer in Texas is taking he staff to dinner across the border in Mexico. He instructs all his staff to clean out the car so that there are no firearms or ammunition left in the car. His staff informs him they have and they proceed to cross the border. The car is stopped and there is one box of ammunition found. Being that it is the gun dealers car he is responsible and is arrested. He is charged with a class A Felony for transporting ammunition across the border. So this gun dealer comes back to the US is released with out serving jail time but still carries this crime on his record. The gun dealers business and livelihood has now been taken away from him. This is the perfect example of how every person with a criminal background has extenuating circumstances surrounding them. Every ruling to return firearms into some ones hands should be a case by case basis.

Health Care and the American Revolution

The New American Revolution


I’m sure at some point I will probably bring some unwanted attention my way for the things that I write. All I can say is come get some. I am an American and I believe it what this country was founded on, not what it has become. Maybe I am delusional though and America has always been corrupt and self serving, well the government anyway. I just watch the news, read what is posted on the internet, and I wonder when will another American Revolution take place? How long will the people in this country put up with all the garbage?

It seems to me that we all lost our independence and intelligence. When you become lazy and allow others (Government) to “take care” of us we lose our right to decide for our selves and choose our own path through life. Look at Iran where they held an election. The people of that country did not agree with the out come and felt there was fraud so they protested. Now the Iranian government will tell you these protests were violent and had to be stopped when in fact the aggressor was the government itself in an attempt to silence its people. These people knowing what may happen as a result of their protest still let their voices be heard. At what point will we realized we need to use out voices. We can not just sit back and let these people we put in office ruin the country from the inside out. Every time we let the government get away with taking away our right because it’s “in out best interest” we open the door to loose more and more. I am not a child and I know most of the repercussions for my actions. If I don’t wear a seat belt and get into an accident I have a higher chance of being injured. I think it still should remain my choice. I endanger no one other that myself by not wearing a seat belt. The issue is that out elected officials serve their own interests and treat the public like children, telling us what we “need” to know or what they “want” us to know. They no longer do the job they were intended to do.

Elected officials are put where they are by the people and as a result are supposed to work for the people. This unfortunately isn’t the case these days. The government pushes things they state are better for the country and its people but in reality they are just better for the government. I am one of those hated folks that do not agree with the mandatory health insurance bill being pushed. Now don’t get me wrong, I am not trying to deny anyone health insurance. I’m just not trying to come out of my pocket and pay for your health insurance when you refuse to attempt in anyway to help yourself. I work for a non-profit agency in the Portland Oregon area. I see these people everyday that live in subsidized housing with no employment and no intent to look for employment. Why should I work to support you? Can anyone give me a reason?

See the major conflict in my head is everyone keeps calling what the government is pushing heath care and it is not health care. If you go to the emergency room for what ever reason you choose to go you will be attended to whether you have health insurance or not. Now what the government is pushing is mandatory health insurance. What this will do is cover all the folks without insurance so now when they go to the ER they can present a card and say, Yes I have insurance. All that does in reality is prevent this person from having an outstanding hospital bill that would normally never get paid. Instead the rest of us working boys and girls get to pay their premiums so that they can go get their boo boo kissed for free. The newest thing I have now heard is the purposed plan that would fine the American public up to $3,800 if they do not sign up for health insurance. Wow, are you kidding me! This is seriously insane. What will the government force on the people of this country next? What will our children have to endure at the hands of the dictatorship that will soon be America? I hear obesity is a problem. Are we all to be forced on diets and told there are now weight limits on the human body and if you exceed it you will be fined? I find the governments attempts to control the people as cattle sickening. What is worse is when the public simply smiles and nods like the sheep they claim to not want to be. We are brained washed with the idea of it is what is best for us or we are helping those in need. I don’t mind helping the less fortunate, I work for a non-profit for god’s sake, but I have limits. I will help you if you will help your self. I am not a hand holder and I am not a coddler. If you want to kick back and not pull your load then you should not have the same as others. I guess it comes down to why should I have to pay if you don’t? This is where Obama comes into play.

Now I will not say that Obama is a Socialist or that he is trying to bring Socialism to America. What I will say is that Socialism is not a political system, it is an economical system. The definition of socialism is a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. What that basically says is that one person or entity controls everything and pretty much hands it out how they see fit claiming that this is being done to make sure that everyone gets a piece and is equal. I have a couple of problems. 1. Everyone no matter what they have done in this community is “entitled” to their share. 2. Entitlement is bullshit. We earn what we have. 3. One person that is in control has everything and would basically be a dictator. Again the world is not fair. You have to work for what you want and you still may not always get it.

All I know is at some point in time the American people will get tired of being told what’s good for them and the more or less shut up and comply. You can see the early signs of this with the mandatory health insurance push. People who are being call “disruptors” are going to the town hall meeting and making them selves heard. You can tell when your right and when some one has no response to what you are saying to them Take Barney Frank. After being as a question here is his response, “On what planet do you spend most of your time?” Frank asked the woman, who had stepped up to the podium at a southeastern Massachusetts senior center to ask why Frank supports what she called a Nazi policy.
“Ma’am, trying to have a conversation with you would be like trying to argue with a dining room table. I have no interest in doing it,” Frank replied.
He continued by saying her ability to deface an image of the president and express her views “is a tribute to the First Amendment that this kind of vile, contemptible nonsense is so freely propagated.”
Now I don’t agree with the defacing of a picture of the American President but I also don’t think people should be disrespected in this manor. I saw the video of this incident and this woman was not combative or rude. She simply stated her opinion in which we have the right to do. I think for a public official to respond this way is wrong when is talking to someone who gave him his job and that in the big scheme of things he is supposed to be working for. You wonder why the “disruptors” are disrupting and loud and it is simple. If you want to be heard when you don’t agree with the man in power you have to be loud, you have to be aggressive, you have to make sure that what you have to say is said. Do you really think any of these government guys want to hear anyone disagree with them? Hell no, after all they know what’s best right? Take last nights (9/9/2009) events during Obama’s Health Insurance Speech. Rep. Jo Wilson shouts out, “You Lie!” in response to Obama’s statement that expanding health insurance to all Americans will not mean expanding it to illegal aliens. I would have to agree with good old Joe here. How many of these illegals have face social security numbers and identification? With those they can get the same things as every other real American. Also I find it ridiculous that Rep. Wilson actually apologized for his little outburst. I firmly think the president should be challenged and should not just be able to do what ever he feels with no questions. The best opinion I have read on this situation came from John Barry, I believe writing for Newsweek. Here is a link to that article. http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2009/09/10/a-defense-of-joe-wilson-the-democractic-right-to-dissent.aspx?GT1=43002. He talks about how this outburst is a healthy sign that maybe people in government and outside f it will start questioning what our “leaders” are doing and why. Sit and think about that for a minute. Do they really have our best interests at heart? How much money do they make a year? I bet you it’s a lot more than the majority of us. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. With that said I’ll end with this… Stand up for yourself and what you believe, make your voice heard, observe your rights and protect them. From you right to say whatever you feel to your right to protect you and yours.