Defense?

Disclaimer: For those who chose to read this article, I am purposely touching on sensitive areas of discussion. I am not trying to offend, however I am not trying to be a patriot in this matter either.

I have been struggling with an issue lately and I am having difficulty finding a solution or clarity in the matter.
Before my son joined the Navy, I had a long talk with him over consequences. I asked him if a man who joins the military to serve his country during a time of war is guilty of murder if he has to kill someone in defense of this country.

My reason for the question was this; he joined in a time when a war was going on. He was raised as a Christian who does not believe in killing. Joining meant he could possibly be put in a situation where he had to take a life. Is taking a life in defense of a nation wrong?

But the question was not one I could simply say no to. I had to look at the circumstances of the war. I personally believe that we had no right to go to war over the 9-11 incidents. Many other Americans felt the same way. As a matter of fact so few people were joining after the attacks that there were debates as to whether the draft would be reinstated or not.

Instead of the draft going back into effect, the war department offered signing bonuses and had fancy commercials about being all you could be. Then, along came Colin Powell and the lies on the news about weapons of mass destruction. That got America all worked up and paranoid and that got the people to finally sign off on the war and people started joining up
.
Now, I am not an idiot, I know that freedom comes at a cost, but if the government is manipulating the people to achieve their own means, then the war would be wrong. So what about all those patriotic people who believed the lies and went to defend the country from weapons of mass destruction that did not exist? Are they not only foreign invaders, but murderers?

And what about those who died? More soldiers died defending the U.S. from imaginary weaponry then those who died in the 9-11 attacks. Are the families of those soldiers proud of those who served and did their duty, or are there some out there who agree with my point of view, and did not want a loved one to sign up?

And what about those who were “conscientious objectors” to the war and had their careers ruined because they did not agree with the war and refused to deploy?

What about the Abu Ghraib prison incidents or the soldiers on trial for rape and murder? This is all for the good of this nation?

So, again my question has no clear cut answer. My King James Bible says “thou shalt not kill” Exodus 20:13. The definition of kill in the Merriam-Webster dictionary is: “to deprive of life: to cause the death of.” This is pretty cut and dried to me. People are not to take the life of other people.

Now, there is of course a difference between just shooting someone, like during a robbery in a convenience store, or defending your home and family from burglars, and defending a nation from terrorists. The difference between murder and defense is, in my opinion, in the why.

If a person kills just for the act of killing, or for a total disregard for life, then I believe God considers it wrong. But in justly defending a loved one and an invaders life is lost; I believe God would not condemn us defending the life He gave us. But don’t different people consider different things as just?

However, if the cause we are fighting is not just, and we put ourselves in harm’s way, are we defenders and patriots, or murderers?

From the day we landed on foreign soil, the people we were there to”liberate” wanted us gone. Our troops were pelted with rocks and were spit at. It was clear that our presence was not wanted. However, our troops stayed, and more people died, both innocent civilian, and soldier alike because we invaded.

The difference between 9-11 and our troops landing on foreign soil is this. September 11 was an attack on us by terrorists. Little more than a dozen men were involved in the attacks on the World Trade Centers, The Pentagon, and had a failed attempt on the White House. It was not a full blown military campaign. When our troops hit Iraq in March of 2003, we became the invaders.

Since the war began, citizens of this nation have protested the war and have largely been ignored by the government that is supposed to represent the voting populace. And more people have died and continue to die.

Most people do not like to look at things as black and white. To some, absolutes are not absolute in a situation like this. As I see it, the attack on us was wrong, obviously. However, we were no better than the terrorists when we invaded Iraq and more people started to die.

People like to misquote scripture in a situation like this and ignorantly, or arrogantly state “an eye for an eye” Exodus 21:24. However, that was before the time of Christ who taught us to “love thy neighbor” Romans 13:9 and to turn the other cheek Matthew 5:39. Surely there were other ways to handle the situation. But murder, death, kill, always seem to top the list.

Honestly, I am not sure what I would have done had I been President at the time. But I always have believed in seeking God’s advice first. Listening to the voters can’t be bad since they put a President in the Oval Office.

Well, I am not President and the question still remains: defenders or murderers?

School Spying!!??

PHILADELPHIA –A federal lawsuit accuses a suburban Philadelphia school district of spying on students at home through school-issued laptop webcams.

The suit says Lower Merion School District officials can activate the webcams remotely without students’ knowledge. The lawsuit alleges the cameras captured images of Merion High School students and their families as they undressed and in other compromising situations.

Families learned of the alleged webcam images when an assistant principal spoke to a student about inappropriate behavior at home.

Can you believe this??????? Not only did school officials illegally spy on a student, but they later corrected the student about behavior that the officials should not be privy to. They spy then they have the audacity to call a student into the office about their behavior?

I learned recently that the government can spy on citizens by activating cell phones and laptop camera’s if they feel they have a reason to do so. Which, in my book is: (A) a very big intrusion in our private lives. (B) An example of the government using 9/11 to justify more probing into private affairs. And (C) a severe lack of the very privacy and freedom that the war in Iraq and Afghanistan is supposed to be defending.

Since 9/11, our government is justifying all types of spying for “our security” but schools spying on students?

According to a follow up article: In a statement released late Thursday, Christopher McGinley, the superintendent of Lower Merion School District of Ardmore, Philadelphia, admitted that the Mac Books’ cameras could be turned on without the user’s knowledge, but said that the functionality was part of a security feature.

“Laptops are a frequent target for theft in schools and off-school property,” said McGinley.

“The security feature was installed to help locate a laptop in the event it was reported lost, missing or stolen so that the laptop could be returned to the student.” When switched on, the feature was limited to taking snapshots of whomever was using the notebook and capturing the computer’s current screen.

This does not make a whole lot of sense to me. The “security feature” can be foiled with a piece of tape over the lens of the camera.

I would think that it would be far more efficient to simply track the computers IP Address. Unless the computer is off. Either way, the excuse about why the computers cam was activated seems iffy at best to me.

On Tuesday, a high school student and his parents sued the district, claiming that the boy’s MacBook had been used to spy on him in his home. According to the lawsuit, Michael and Holly Robbins of Penn Valley, Philadelphia, said they first found out about the alleged spying last November after their son Blake was accused by a Harriton High School official of “improper behavior in his home” and shown a photograph taken by his laptop.

If the school was concerned about a missing computer, shouldn’t they try to contact the parents first before going into spy mode?

The article did not mention that the student was attempting to steal the computer, so why was the tracking feature activated, and why was he being spied upon by the school? And why was he called into the office when they had no right to do so?

And if the teachers, or principles, or whoever was peeping saw any kind of nudity or private intimate moments, then they need to be sued/charged as a sexual perverts. And the peepers need to have their positions terminated as well.

My youngest son will start high school in a couple years, and should something like that ever happen, and it probably won’t, but should that ever happen to one of my kids, there will be hell to pay. I do not care about what position a peeper holds with the school, they will be held accountable. Should someone from a school try to illegally spy on one of my kids, that computer will double as a bat.

When my son starts high school and comes home with his school issued laptop, the camera on the computer, if there is one, is going to get a coat of “white out.” And if removed by my son or the school, a new layer will be applied.

I do not like computers in schools. I do not feel as though listening to a cd, and getting on Facebook in class is conducive to good study habits. And now, as though having a kid in high school is not enough of a concern, parents such as myself also need to make sure that our children are not being spied on by the school system.

ACLU SHAM

ACLU

I am tired of the ACLU fighting for the wrong things. They want to abolish the death penalty. The death penalty for 100% proven convicted killers would save this country money by not having to feed and house these people. It would also mean there would be no more need to build super max prisons if there is no one to put in them. And after time the crime rate would drop if the criminals feared the repercussions of their actions.

Some have said that it takes thousands of dollars to electrocute a man. It has also been said that lethal injection is cruel and could take too long. A bullet to the temple would be fast, efficient, painless and very cost effective.

I am sick of human rights groups saying that the death penalty is cruel. I suppose that the families of the people killed by the BTK killer would not think that way. Or the families of the people who Jeffrey Dalmer ate. Or the women, who were raped, tortured and slowly killed. Or the women who locked their children in cars and pushed them into a lake to slowly drown, why do they deserve to live? What about those victim’s families? Would they agree that the death penalty for the criminals would be too cruel?

The point of being in jail is to have your rights as free citizens removed until your sentence is served. In some cases imprisonment is fine. But handing a proven, convicted killer a sentence of 5 life terms with no chance of parole is just sentencing the taxpayers to feed and house a criminal.

The ACLU wants to get rid of hand guns since there is no civil war going on. However they seem to forget the quote by Thomas Jefferson which states “No Freeman Shall Ever be Debarred the Use of Arms”. He did not say soldier or patriot, he said “free man.”

The ACLU supports abortions and sexual rights. In Kansas, a 16 year old can engage in sexual activities, legally. Their website states: “the ACLU’s reproductive freedom project protects everyone’s right to make informed decisions free from government interference about whether and when to become a parent.” How many 16 year olds do you think actually read through the information on the ACLU website for their “information” to base sexual activity on?

Statistics are revealing that the average age of those receiving abortions is dropping from nineteen to seventeen. This means that the teenage girls having their babies murdered are getting younger. I guess teens are not doing their homework and trying to get informed before having sex.

The ACLU also has a stance on Religion. “The right to practice religion, or no religion at all, is among the most fundamental of the freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. The ACLU works to ensure that this essential freedom is protected by keeping the government out of religion.” However, I pulled this off their website: “A unanimous federal appeals court yesterday ruled that county commissioners in Haskell County, Oklahoma unconstitutionally sought to promote their personal religious beliefs by erecting a Ten Commandments monument on the front lawn of the county’s courthouse. The decision by the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals comes in a challenge filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Oklahoma on behalf of a local resident.”

So, because the people who wanted to erect the monument of the Ten Commandments are county commissioners, and technically represent the government, they are not allowed to do so because it comprises a violation of church and state? This is a rare case where the church and state agree on a single issue and that is giving credit to God, and it is not allowed because the people erecting the monument are government officials? So where is the freedom to worship?

If government officials are allowed no religious opinions, and that is NOT what separation of church and state are about, then that would explain why this country is so messed up that we have Obama as president.

Separation of church and state is to keep the government from interfering in matters of faith. That does not mean that the government can’t worship.

ALL 50 states praise God in their preamble. ALL OF THEM. Maybe the ACLU needs to read the preamble of Oklahoma which states in part “Invoking the guidance of Almighty God, in order to secure and perpetuate the blessings of liberty”

The ACLU is not helping democracy.

Keep And Bear Arms

“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. “

Thomas Jefferson

Earlier, I was reading a mini biography on Sylvester Stallone and I was floored by an anti- gun comment he made.

[Talking about the proliferation of guns in the U.S., following the murder of Phil Hartman in 1998, who was shot to death by his wife] “Until America, door to door, takes every handgun, this is what you’re gonna have. It’s pathetic. It really is pathetic. It’s sad. We’re living in the Dark Ages over there. It has to be stopped, and someone really has to go on the line, a certain dauntless political figure, and say, “It’s ending, it’s over, all bets are off.” It’s not 200 years ago, we don’t need this any more, and the rest of the world doesn’t have it. Why should we?”

It should be noted that his mentioning of “We’re living in the Dark Ages over there” is because Stallone was in England at the time and “over there” refers to the USA.

I am so tired of all the people in this country who are blaming this countries woes on handguns. There are so many people who want firearms banned because they blame the loss of life on the weapon. In actuality, the weapon is merely a scapegoat.

A handgun is a tool, just like a tire iron. A pistol or rifle is useless without someone in control. I can put my tire iron on a wheel and wait, but the tool will not loosen the lug nut without someone controlling it. By the same standard a fully loaded gun can not injure anyone without someone exerting force and pulling the trigger. The weapon is only a threat when it is in the wrong hands.

I believe it is total folly for anyone to think that we will ever be rid of firearms. First off there are so many guns in this country already that it would be futile for the government to try to collect them all. Not only would many be hidden, but I would be ready to bet that some sort of civil upheaval would come of it.

Also, so much of the economy is based on the sale and manufacturing of these weapons. If you remove just pistols from the American economy save for police and military, there would be many millions of dollars in lost revenue and thousands of people out of work.

People buy guns, replacement parts, powder, reloaders, and primers every day. People have their guns serviced daily. People take their weapons to ranges daily. People sell guns to pawn shops daily and people come into pawn shops and buy guns daily.

People hire trainers to learn how to properly use their weapons, people buy holsters, books, cleaning solutions, ammo boxes, targets, protective cases, and locks. All this and more generates revenue which helps the economy.

It is not the fault of the gun that it is used in a robbery or gang slaying. But it is total and complete hypocrisy for a government official to try to ban guns when he is protected by the guns his bodyguards are packing.

Or by an actor who’s movie career consists of movies where the starring character uses guns throughout the movie. Stallone has made more movies using the pistols he wants this nation to be rid of then not.

The simple and honest fact is that this nation needs guns. And we not only need them for self defense but as a large part of this countries revenue.

I know I mentioned just banning pistols, but why would the government stop there? Let’s now assume rifles are banned as well. Now this country’s population is in a tail spin because of millions in lost revenue, the citizens have no way to protect themselves and now we add another problem, game.

If the government bans pistols and rifles then we are going to have a deer problem. We will have a huge rabbit problem and pheasant, duck, and goose to name a few. I suspect that every type of game currently being hunted will experience a population explosion if not hunted to a certain degree. And hunting these animals with a bow will not be as effective.

Hunting not only provides food and revenue, it also controls the population of certain animals. Hunting keeps the ecosystem balanced. No hunting? there goes the delicate balance of things.

Of course the military will probably use deer, duck, pheasant, goose, and quail hunting as training.

However, it is irresponsible for this nation to try to ban guns to control violent behavior. That is like trying to cure bronchitis by taking the patients lungs out. Guns do not kill, people kill. And people do not use just guns to kill. They use their hands to strangle. People beat people with any sort of club, including a tire iron. A garrote is a strangling device which can be made from part of a broom handle and piano wire, are we gonna ban broom handles and piano wire also?

What about knives, clubs, bricks, lumber, rocks, poisons, and etc? Is the USA going to try and ban everything that man uses to deprive someone of their life?

And as far as this comment from Stallone: “It’s not 200 years ago, we don’t need this any more, and the rest of the world doesn’t have it. Why should we?” I think Dolf Lundgren hit him a few too many times making Rocky 4.

We are a democratic nation and this democratic nation was built on weapons usage. Russia, Germany, Asia, and Britain, are not Democratic nations and do not have a Constitution guaranteeing their people the right to keep and bear arms. I do not live over there so why be concerned with how they run things?

As a matter of fact, most of the signers of the Declaration and the Constitution came here to escape their own King and help the peoples over here establish a more democratic type of government then the one they had. And that system of government guaranteed the peoples of this nation that they have the right to keep and bear arms. “No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” (Thomas Jefferson.) Notice the quote says “free man.” Not a soldier, but a free man.

Immigrants came from all over the world to forge this great nation and it could not have been accomplished without the firearm. And as I said earlier, removing firearms will not make the violence in this nation cease. As a matter of fact, the criminals who do not surrender their weapons and shells will be far better off in their non-altruistic pursuits with little or no resistance from the people they are terrorizing.

Maybe if the judicial system would enact the death penalty in all 50 states then the crime rate would drop. It sure could not hurt the economy to not build a new super max prison for convicted killers. It would not hurt the economy to not have to feed thousands of killers currently being housed in jail. It would certainly not hurt the economy if thieves and murderers currently thought twice about robbing a “quickie mart” and killing the clerk.

Keep the guns. Ice the killers on death row who are literally feeding off the economy like the pariah they are. Give it a few years then see where we are.

As far as Stallone, his quote, and the people in this nation who share in his opinion, they can say what they want because of the men and women who fought for the freedoms we enjoy, by using guns.

James Madison said it best. “Americans have the right and advantage of being armed – unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” Stallone’s quote came when he was living in England. One of the other countries whose government is afraid to trust it’s people with arms.

George Mason: “To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them.”

George Orwell: “That rifle on the wall of the laborer’s cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there.

Noah Webster: “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.”

The statement above is true enough, but having guns is one thing, having the freedom to use them is the issue that we must fight for. And ironically enough we must never use the gun itself to sway our political dolts to allow us to keep them.

I am gonna end this with an interview from Ted Nugent, enjoy.

Our Rights?

Mr. President,

I do not believe for a moment that you will ever see this but it is a good way for me to vent.

Sir, I keep hearing that you are a Christian but I see no evidence of that. Why do you want to keep up with the Europeans so badly? Why do you want to keep schools open longer when teachers are already underpaid, and schools are underfunded?

Why do you not support my Constitutional right to keep and bear arms? Do you honestly think all crime will end if no one has a gun? I tend to favor this quote from a founding father: The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. – Thomas Jefferson

If the people can’t defend themselves, what is to keep this government from following in the steps of King George, or even Hitler?

Why have you not re-instated the rights that we Christians lost a few years ago? Why no prayer in schools, aren’t you Christian? I don’t see the Ten Commandments being put back on the walls of PUBLIC buildings.

According to polls, 83% of the American people say they believe in God. The majority of those people will claim their faith as Christian, same as you do and yet Christians are losing the battle to pray? What are you doing about this, as a Christian?

There is a rumor concerning the ACLU trying to ban prayer in the Navy, are you going to have a “sitting on the fence ” attitude over that or are you going to do the Christian thing and help defeat it?

I am sure you remember your history, so I don’t need to remind you that this nation was founded by people leaving the areas of the world you want to emulate. King George also stifled the people’s rights.

We are unique in this world in that we are a democracy, and you sir are an ELECTED official who is trying to shape this nation into what you think it should be and are ignoring what the people are telling you to do. Not Democratic.

Geoff Kuhn

Sexual Rights!?

Sexual Rights?
Spouted by Geoff Kuhn

I was on the ACLU website recently and they believe that a person has the right of reproduction and should not be hindered: “The ACLU’s Reproductive Freedom Project protects everyone’s right to make informed decisions free from government interference about whether and when to become a parent”. Notice that there is no age mentioned.

“Although the U.S. Constitution guarantees that the government will neither promote nor interfere with religious belief, some abstinence-only-until-marriage programs violate this core freedom by using public dollars to convey overt religious messages or to impose religious viewpoints. The ACLU works to end this misuse of taxpayer dollars and ensure that teens get the information they need to make healthy decisions.” Again no specific age mentioned. So I guess if you are an informed, horny thirteen year old with another willing, horny thirteen year old partner, then the ACLU has got your back?

They claim that with information a teen can make an informed decision concerning their own body. This may be true for adults, people over 18. But applying their statement to a 16 year old is bullshit. In order for the “information to be of any use, it must first be read.

Any loving, caring parent should stress only abstinence until after the wedding. Not a specific age when the law says the decision is not in the hands of the parent.

It is total folly to let any 16 year old make their own decisions sexually. This is where the STD’s are coming from. A 16 year olds brain is still developing and most kids react to teen pressure. Or when a teen who has an absentee parent has a desire to be loved, they could mistake the wolfish lust of a boyfriend for the love they seek. Or maybe they want to emulate a friend who enjoyed the experience.

I read a report on teen driving a few years ago and a PHD in something stated that a person’s brain is not fully developed until mid twenties. This is a different report from Harvard Magazine 2008.

“Research during the past 10 years, powered by technology such as functional magnetic resonance imaging, has revealed that young brains have both fast-growing synapses and sections that remain unconnected. This leaves teens easily influenced by their environment and more prone to impulsive behavior, even without the impact of souped-up hormones and any genetic or family predispositions. Human and animal studies, Jensen and Urion note, have shown that the brain grows and changes continually in young people—and that it is only about 80 percent developed in adolescents. The largest part, the cortex, is divided into lobes that mature from back to front. The last section to connect is the frontal lobe, responsible for cognitive processes such as reasoning, planning, and judgment. Normally this mental merger is not completed until somewhere between ages 25 and 30—much later than these two neurologists were taught in medical school.”

So, based on this information giving a 16 year old legal and parental permission to engage in sexual activities is possibly the stupidest thing a parent can do, just short of letting a baby cut teeth on the barrel of a loaded rifle.

When a young adult is in a position to do as they want with minimal immediate consequences, they are going to do what they want and not think of the repercussions of their actions. And if my statement was not accurate, then there would be no need for the aborting of, and the outright sanctioning of unwanted children, or the use of prophylactics.

STD’s are on the rise in teens because their “rights to reproduce” are supported by groups like the ACLU and most parents spout off some nonsense about “can’t stop them so they better use protection.” Any parent spouting that crap should have their children removed from their custody.

When a parent is indifferent to something so serious, they are condoning instead of preventing. Parents these days are not parenting. The X-box and the internet are teaching kids these days. If a family fell back on strong spiritual guidance, a child would grow up to be able to withstand temptations of the flesh, not succumb to them.

There should be no need for rights groups to support teen’s reproductive rights if the teen is not even old enough to vote, if the parents were setting the proper example. This actually encourages the teens sexual activities.

Nearly one million teen girls get pregnant each year. Nearly 4 out of 10 young women get pregnant at least once before they turn 20. Each year the federal government alone spends about $40 billion to help families that began with a teenage birth. –The National Campaign To Prevent Teen Pregnancy-

Teen abortion accounts for 19% of all procedures of this nature nationwide.

The United States has the highest teenage birth rate.

Statistics are revealing that the average age of those receiving abortions is dropping from nineteen to seventeen.

“There are states that have taken action and placed into laws, the right for parents to know about the surgical procedure being performed on their daughters. There are currently twenty-one states that require parental permission for a teen abortion and eighteen states that do not. There are also fourteen states that require a parental notification before performance of an abortion on a minor. The notification law requires that parents be notified, but permission of a parent is not necessary to go ahead with the procedure.” ChristiaNet-

So, in some states a pregnant seventeen year old can have an abortion without parental consent. This is actually really sick. Some states have enacted right to know laws about minors getting abortions. One has to assume that the teen is a minor since an 18 year old is considered an adult in any state in America.

Wouldn’t the fact that such laws had to be enacted be a sign to the ACLU that the “information” is not being heeded? If there are laws in place that require parental notification that the child is murdering their own offspring, why not STOP condoning teenage sexual practices, and the subsequent killing of innocents and start making real laws to protect them?

My visit to the ACLU website was to ask about legal information in seeking to start a bill to make it illegal for any teen under the age of 18 to have physical relations. I did not get very far once I saw their mission statement on reproduction.