An article on today's SeattlePI.com states that US President Barak Obama thinks that marijuana is no more dangerous than alcohol. Here's the brief article:
"President Barack Obama says he doesn’t think marijuana is more dangerous than alcohol.
Obama doesn’t argue for legalizing pot. But he says in an interview with “The New Yorker” that pot is less dangerous than alcohol, quote, “in terms of its impact on the individual consumer.”
The president has acknowledged using pot when he was young and calls it “a bad idea.” He says he’s troubled that poor kids, many of them African American and Latinos, are far more likely to get locked up for smoking pot than middle-class kids.
But Obama urges a cautious approach, saying people who think legalizing pot will solve social problems are, quote, “probably overstating the case.”
When it comes to harder drugs, he says, the harm to users and the social costs are profound."
I take exception to the President's remarks because I feel they are short-sighted and dangerous towards the moral health of the country. As with his comments regarding gay marriage, illegal immigration and his oft-verbalized Jesse Jackson-like beliefs in racial inequality, the President is placing his personal opinion above that of the majority of Americans. What he says is right; and anyone who disagrees is wrong, hateful, etc.
As if its champion, President Obama seems to tout the "What's wrong is actually right; and what's right is now wrong" line of thinking that is now constantly pushed on the country by media, drug users, the gay agenda, anti-religionists, historical revisionists and other such groups or persons who advocate that morally corrupt practices are perfectly acceptable; while those who stand firm in their morals are called hateful, short-sighted, antiquated, bigoted, idiots, etc.
The President seems to be turning his back on the historical truths that formed this country, and made it a beacon of freedom and good to the entire world. As he leads the charge against morality and the greater good of the United States, he does so in the most reckless manner; and, in a way I would have never thought possible of a US President only a few short years ago.
By selectively ignoring the greater good of all Americans, Obama is failing to "Uphold and Defend the Constitution of the United States." He is placing the interests of the Federal Government above that of the individual States, and literally forcing the citizenry to abdicate their freedoms of both thought and fair and equal representation on both the State and Federal levels.
How is this right? As it was devised, the Constitution was designed to assure freedom of thought, freedom of choice and freedom from governmental intrusion in our daily lives. Yet, President Obama tells everyone what is right, what is wrong, how we should think and feel and that big brother is only looking out for the good of everyone.
What a load of hogwash!
One of these days, Americans will awaken to the reality of the moral and ethical decline of the United States; then wonder how we got there. The President's remarks on this, and other subjects, clearly show how this decline is progressing; propagated by a supposed leader who clearly has his own personal agenda that stands above the greater good of the United States.
The comments that followed the article were filled with hateful expressions towards anyone who disagreed with the President. Name-calling was prevalent, and respondents were downright mean and hateful towards anyone who stood against marijuana use. One respondent attacked the classification [by the Federal Govt.] of marijuana as a Class 1 drug. They went on and on about "how stupid" it was that their maryjane was so wrongly listed. Being a former medic, I took exception to this person's viewpoint and responded to that remark. Here is my comment:
"Marijuana is a Class one drug because it alters a person's LOC (Level of Consciousness). Despite what all the bullies on here say, alteration of LOC--no matter how small or large--is NOT a good or acceptable thing.
Name-calling and attempted intimidation by these pro-pot bullies in an effort to cow others into a position of acquiescence only shows how narrow-minded they are; never interested in any real and thoughtful dialogue, but only in their own viewpoint."
As anticipated, I was attacked for my contrary opinion.
Showing posts with label Current Events; American Society. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Current Events; American Society. Show all posts
Monday, January 20, 2014
Friday, December 20, 2013
A Judge Overturns A Majority Opinion
This afternoon, a Federal Judge in Utah struck down a provision in the Utah State Constitution regarding the definition of marriage, which was voter approved in 2004 by a 66% majority. The article contained all the now usual celebrations from the gay community; but few from anyone who disagreed with the Judges ruling.
In a previous blog (during the whole Proposition 8 debacle), I stated that I think gay marriage is an inevitability in the US. However, I disagreed with the manner in which this struggle was being fought; which is to say that the LGBT community is seeking to force their agenda on everyone rather than allowing time to go about its slow, steady change to the opinions of Americans everywhere.
Now, these five years later, we are seeing almost every day new rulings that tell the majority of Americans that they are wrong and now must accept gay marriage whether they like it or not. Dissenting opinions are quickly quashed by those who claim tolerance, but display none towards anyone who dares speak out.
Anyway, I had to write my dissenting opinion on the local paper's boards. I won't go back and read any comments to my opinion because I know that they will be filled with hateful words, and my beliefs will be reviled and attacked at every turn.
Here's my response:
"Next up...The PC Thought Police will be attacking anyone who has the temerity to even THINK differently than what the gay agenda tells everyone they MUST think. If you disagree, you are hateful, bigoted, prejudiced, blah, blah, blah...
I didn't grow up in Utah; I have know a number of people who are gay, worked well with them, and have no problem with anyone who is gay. However, I personally find the thought of gay marriage to be morally repugnant. I will never agree that gay marriage is a civil right, and that the laws and interpretations regarding such have been twisted and skewed to create a hostile environment towards anyone who disagrees with the LGBT position on the matter. Our lawmakers, corporate leaders and local leaders are being relentlessly, viciously attacked and cowed into positions of acquiescence to make it appear that all Americans view gay marriage with open arms.
This is a great lie that the majority of Americans fail to speak out against for fear of being called names and labeled with terms that most gays don't even understand, but which help them to belittle anyone who dares have an opinion contrary to what they are telling everyone else that they should believe. This incredibly vocal minority is dictating to a vast majority of Americans how to think, and in doing so, are stripping our populace of their freedom of speech on this matter. There is no open dialogue; no differing of opinion. In this matter, there is ONLY the opinion that the LBGT community dictates. Anyone who thinks otherwise is hateful, bigoted, prejudiced, blah, blah, blah..."
In a previous blog (during the whole Proposition 8 debacle), I stated that I think gay marriage is an inevitability in the US. However, I disagreed with the manner in which this struggle was being fought; which is to say that the LGBT community is seeking to force their agenda on everyone rather than allowing time to go about its slow, steady change to the opinions of Americans everywhere.
Now, these five years later, we are seeing almost every day new rulings that tell the majority of Americans that they are wrong and now must accept gay marriage whether they like it or not. Dissenting opinions are quickly quashed by those who claim tolerance, but display none towards anyone who dares speak out.
Anyway, I had to write my dissenting opinion on the local paper's boards. I won't go back and read any comments to my opinion because I know that they will be filled with hateful words, and my beliefs will be reviled and attacked at every turn.
Here's my response:
"Next up...The PC Thought Police will be attacking anyone who has the temerity to even THINK differently than what the gay agenda tells everyone they MUST think. If you disagree, you are hateful, bigoted, prejudiced, blah, blah, blah...
I didn't grow up in Utah; I have know a number of people who are gay, worked well with them, and have no problem with anyone who is gay. However, I personally find the thought of gay marriage to be morally repugnant. I will never agree that gay marriage is a civil right, and that the laws and interpretations regarding such have been twisted and skewed to create a hostile environment towards anyone who disagrees with the LGBT position on the matter. Our lawmakers, corporate leaders and local leaders are being relentlessly, viciously attacked and cowed into positions of acquiescence to make it appear that all Americans view gay marriage with open arms.
This is a great lie that the majority of Americans fail to speak out against for fear of being called names and labeled with terms that most gays don't even understand, but which help them to belittle anyone who dares have an opinion contrary to what they are telling everyone else that they should believe. This incredibly vocal minority is dictating to a vast majority of Americans how to think, and in doing so, are stripping our populace of their freedom of speech on this matter. There is no open dialogue; no differing of opinion. In this matter, there is ONLY the opinion that the LBGT community dictates. Anyone who thinks otherwise is hateful, bigoted, prejudiced, blah, blah, blah..."
Saturday, January 28, 2012
Inspiring Story: Lucas and Juno
This story is absolutely amazing. Please read his. It will bring a new meaning to the term, "Man's best friend."
Lucas and Juno: Special bond of a rescue dog and dying boy
Lucas and Juno: Special bond of a rescue dog and dying boy
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
TSA Taking Illegal Liberties
**The following article appeared in the 22 June 2011 edition of the Seattle Times. Full credit is given**
"TSA curbs checkpoint photography by travelers — but it's legal"
By Christopher Elliott
Tribune Media Services
Mind your camera when you're traveling this summer.
Taking an innocent snapshot in a public area in the U.S. may get you in trouble, even if photography is allowed. It almost landed Ryan Miklus behind bars when he flew from Phoenix to Reno with his parents recently.
When Miklus tried to videotape an altercation between his mother and a TSA agent, another officer tried to stop him. "You are not allowed to film," the officer says on the video. "You need to go. You cannot film us."
"Where does it say that?" Miklus asks. "Show me the law. Show it to me and I'll stop."
The agent doesn't answer, but leaves and returns with several airline employees, one of whom tells Miklus that it's "against the law" to take photos at a security checkpoint.
"Put down the camera!" the employee orders. Miklus continues taping. A police officer later refuses to arrest him.
Such incidents are becoming increasingly common, making shutterbugs hesitant to take pictures that they're well within their rights to take. They include security guards harassing a photographer shooting in a Los Angeles park and a man being threatened for videotaping a whale in the Florida Keys. TSA screening areas are a flashpoint for these encounters, with officers sometimes threatening passengers, blocking their view or citing nonexistent rules in an effort to force them to stop taking photos.
"I used to deal with one of these a month," says Mickey Osterreicher, the general counsel of the National Press Photographers Association (NPPA). "Then it was weekly. Now it's almost every day. Citizens are being told that they can't take pictures out in public — whether it's a building, a bridge or a train."
Travelers are confused. Bridget Garrity, an attorney from Torrington, Conn., recently spotted a sign at BWI Marshall Airport suggesting that taking photos of TSA screeners is illegal. "It was hung on the wall right above the entry to the security lanes for the machines," she says. "It did have some reference to a federal code, but I couldn't get it all down." Garrity was tempted to take a picture of the sign, but was afraid that she might be breaking the law.
Jonathan Dean, a spokesman for BWI, confirmed the signs near the screening area, saying that they're there because "TSA typically discourages photography at its checkpoints."
Why the crackdown on photography? Carlos Miller, a Miami-based multimedia journalist and author of the blog Photography Is Not a Crime, says that law enforcement agencies have felt threatened by photographers since the videotape of Los Angeles police officers beating Rodney King made the rounds in 1991. It accelerated after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and has spun out of control with the development of social media, location-based technology and cellphones with easy-to-use digital cameras. "Cops feel as if they have to protect themselves," he says.
There's a second reason why photography in public places is frowned upon, according to Miller and others. Officials assume that there's a link between photography and terrorism, so anyone taking pictures of airports, screening areas, parks, bridges or any other site that terrorists could put in their crosshairs becomes a suspect, they say.
The Miklus incident has prompted the TSA to review its policy on photography at screening areas, according to a post on the agency's website. Many agency-watchers worry that the government will try to ban photography, but when I asked the TSA about the review, it said that the statement on the website has been misinterpreted. "We recognize that using video and photography equipment is a constitutionally protected activity," TSA spokesman Greg Soule told me.
The agency is only reviewing its guidance to officers, he said, "to ensure consistent application" of its regulations. TSA posted a clarification on its site shortly after my inquiry.
What really are the rules?
So what are the rules? And what should you do if you're told to stop filming or photographing?
Osterreicher says that there are only two public areas in the United States where you can't shoot pictures: military bases and nuclear facilities. "The warnings are clearly posted," he says. "Otherwise, if the public is allowed, then so are their rights."
But officials don't necessarily agree with that broad interpretation. For example, the TSA's current policy is that photography at security screening areas is permitted, as long as it doesn't interfere with the screening process. But what, exactly, constitutes interference? The agency also prohibits photography of its screening equipment, specifically the screen that shows scanned items. But that rule would appear to contradict federal law, since the screening equipment is in a public area.
And while it's OK to take personal photographs in state and national parks, commercial photos usually require a permit. Park police who don't want you to take pictures can exploit that rule by drawing a fine line between an amateur and a professional photographer.
Indeed, what constitutes the difference? Is it the tripod, the price of the camera or the quality of the footage? When I tried to take photos in Florida Caverns State Park near Marianna, Fla., last year, a park official told me that I would have to pay $75 for a photography permit. But I could avoid the fee if I left some of my equipment in the car — specifically my tripod.
It's an odd predicament, since we travel in a surveillance society. Law enforcement agencies can place cameras in public areas and monitor our comings and goings, but when we try to take pictures, we're sometimes told that it's not allowed. Why the double standard? Should you stand up for your constitutional rights the next time you try to take a snapshot of your family at the airport and a stern-faced security agent tells you that it's illegal?
If you're on vacation, it's probably not worth it. That's the advice Osterreicher gives NPPA members, too: It's not worth a trip to jail. "Be courteous, be respectful and don't get into an argument," he says. "Should you have the time and want to push the issue, ask to speak to a supervisor or report the incident to that agency as soon as possible. Otherwise, they have a badge and you may lose the argument."
"Just say, 'Yes, officer, thank you, officer.' And walk away."
The reader comments accompanying this article were uniform in their alarm at this clear indication of a leap forward in governmental intrusion, and against civil rights. I've stated before that the TSA is a dangerous entity that must be curbed, or even eliminated. They consistently trample the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and expect everyone to just accept it without question.
As citizens of the United States, it is our duty and obligation to question the government, and push for change when change is needed. The TSA is overstepping its authority once again. Write to all of your elected officials and insist that change happens. Let them know the TSA is not only a black hole for taxpayer money, but it is, as evidenced by repeated Constitutional abuses, time for it to go! If your elected officials don't speak out, then get involved in your local politics and support candidates who advocate change. Do something constructive; don't just sit around and complain.
"TSA curbs checkpoint photography by travelers — but it's legal"
By Christopher Elliott
Tribune Media Services
Mind your camera when you're traveling this summer.
Taking an innocent snapshot in a public area in the U.S. may get you in trouble, even if photography is allowed. It almost landed Ryan Miklus behind bars when he flew from Phoenix to Reno with his parents recently.
When Miklus tried to videotape an altercation between his mother and a TSA agent, another officer tried to stop him. "You are not allowed to film," the officer says on the video. "You need to go. You cannot film us."
"Where does it say that?" Miklus asks. "Show me the law. Show it to me and I'll stop."
The agent doesn't answer, but leaves and returns with several airline employees, one of whom tells Miklus that it's "against the law" to take photos at a security checkpoint.
"Put down the camera!" the employee orders. Miklus continues taping. A police officer later refuses to arrest him.
Such incidents are becoming increasingly common, making shutterbugs hesitant to take pictures that they're well within their rights to take. They include security guards harassing a photographer shooting in a Los Angeles park and a man being threatened for videotaping a whale in the Florida Keys. TSA screening areas are a flashpoint for these encounters, with officers sometimes threatening passengers, blocking their view or citing nonexistent rules in an effort to force them to stop taking photos.
"I used to deal with one of these a month," says Mickey Osterreicher, the general counsel of the National Press Photographers Association (NPPA). "Then it was weekly. Now it's almost every day. Citizens are being told that they can't take pictures out in public — whether it's a building, a bridge or a train."
Travelers are confused. Bridget Garrity, an attorney from Torrington, Conn., recently spotted a sign at BWI Marshall Airport suggesting that taking photos of TSA screeners is illegal. "It was hung on the wall right above the entry to the security lanes for the machines," she says. "It did have some reference to a federal code, but I couldn't get it all down." Garrity was tempted to take a picture of the sign, but was afraid that she might be breaking the law.
Jonathan Dean, a spokesman for BWI, confirmed the signs near the screening area, saying that they're there because "TSA typically discourages photography at its checkpoints."
Why the crackdown on photography? Carlos Miller, a Miami-based multimedia journalist and author of the blog Photography Is Not a Crime, says that law enforcement agencies have felt threatened by photographers since the videotape of Los Angeles police officers beating Rodney King made the rounds in 1991. It accelerated after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and has spun out of control with the development of social media, location-based technology and cellphones with easy-to-use digital cameras. "Cops feel as if they have to protect themselves," he says.
There's a second reason why photography in public places is frowned upon, according to Miller and others. Officials assume that there's a link between photography and terrorism, so anyone taking pictures of airports, screening areas, parks, bridges or any other site that terrorists could put in their crosshairs becomes a suspect, they say.
The Miklus incident has prompted the TSA to review its policy on photography at screening areas, according to a post on the agency's website. Many agency-watchers worry that the government will try to ban photography, but when I asked the TSA about the review, it said that the statement on the website has been misinterpreted. "We recognize that using video and photography equipment is a constitutionally protected activity," TSA spokesman Greg Soule told me.
The agency is only reviewing its guidance to officers, he said, "to ensure consistent application" of its regulations. TSA posted a clarification on its site shortly after my inquiry.
What really are the rules?
So what are the rules? And what should you do if you're told to stop filming or photographing?
Osterreicher says that there are only two public areas in the United States where you can't shoot pictures: military bases and nuclear facilities. "The warnings are clearly posted," he says. "Otherwise, if the public is allowed, then so are their rights."
But officials don't necessarily agree with that broad interpretation. For example, the TSA's current policy is that photography at security screening areas is permitted, as long as it doesn't interfere with the screening process. But what, exactly, constitutes interference? The agency also prohibits photography of its screening equipment, specifically the screen that shows scanned items. But that rule would appear to contradict federal law, since the screening equipment is in a public area.
And while it's OK to take personal photographs in state and national parks, commercial photos usually require a permit. Park police who don't want you to take pictures can exploit that rule by drawing a fine line between an amateur and a professional photographer.
Indeed, what constitutes the difference? Is it the tripod, the price of the camera or the quality of the footage? When I tried to take photos in Florida Caverns State Park near Marianna, Fla., last year, a park official told me that I would have to pay $75 for a photography permit. But I could avoid the fee if I left some of my equipment in the car — specifically my tripod.
It's an odd predicament, since we travel in a surveillance society. Law enforcement agencies can place cameras in public areas and monitor our comings and goings, but when we try to take pictures, we're sometimes told that it's not allowed. Why the double standard? Should you stand up for your constitutional rights the next time you try to take a snapshot of your family at the airport and a stern-faced security agent tells you that it's illegal?
If you're on vacation, it's probably not worth it. That's the advice Osterreicher gives NPPA members, too: It's not worth a trip to jail. "Be courteous, be respectful and don't get into an argument," he says. "Should you have the time and want to push the issue, ask to speak to a supervisor or report the incident to that agency as soon as possible. Otherwise, they have a badge and you may lose the argument."
"Just say, 'Yes, officer, thank you, officer.' And walk away."
The reader comments accompanying this article were uniform in their alarm at this clear indication of a leap forward in governmental intrusion, and against civil rights. I've stated before that the TSA is a dangerous entity that must be curbed, or even eliminated. They consistently trample the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and expect everyone to just accept it without question.
As citizens of the United States, it is our duty and obligation to question the government, and push for change when change is needed. The TSA is overstepping its authority once again. Write to all of your elected officials and insist that change happens. Let them know the TSA is not only a black hole for taxpayer money, but it is, as evidenced by repeated Constitutional abuses, time for it to go! If your elected officials don't speak out, then get involved in your local politics and support candidates who advocate change. Do something constructive; don't just sit around and complain.
Monday, February 7, 2011
Super Bowl National Anthem?
Yesterday was the Super Bore--I mean, Super Bowl. My family was asked by close friends to watch the game with them, so I actually saw this yearly snooze-fest. Anyway, the National Anthem was sung this year by pop singer Christina Aguilera. When I say that the song was 'sung,' I actually mean to say that it was murdered.
First, Aguilera forgot a number of words--a total botch job. Second, in her effort to put a personal signature on the National Anthem, Aguilera absolutely murdered the melody. What I recognize as the songs' melody was nowhere to be found. Aguilera was constantly changing notes; jumping around so much that the melody, that the whole world was expecting to hear, was not included. I heard a few of the correct words, and a whole lot of musical garbage that was supposedly our National Anthem.
The message boards today are aflame with biting criticism of Aguilera. Nearly every comment and story I've read was critical of this pop diva--and rightly so. Aguilera should be embarrassed by her effort that was delivered to a world wide audience. I personally feel that she should apologize to America for the botched job.
Instead, after fleeing Dallas--the site of Super Bore 45--for her home base of La La Land, Aguilera actually defended her performance stating that she thought she did a good job.
...WOW!...
I don't know who is telling her that the performance was a thing to be proud of; but they should be fired. Missed words, missing melody and plain wrong words are never a reason to celebrate...ESPECIALLY when it is from "singing" the National Anthem of the United States.
I sure wish the Super Bore Committee and the NFL would insist on a proper and acurate rendition of the song that represents the Pride, Strength and Unity of our Nation, its People and its History.
First, Aguilera forgot a number of words--a total botch job. Second, in her effort to put a personal signature on the National Anthem, Aguilera absolutely murdered the melody. What I recognize as the songs' melody was nowhere to be found. Aguilera was constantly changing notes; jumping around so much that the melody, that the whole world was expecting to hear, was not included. I heard a few of the correct words, and a whole lot of musical garbage that was supposedly our National Anthem.
The message boards today are aflame with biting criticism of Aguilera. Nearly every comment and story I've read was critical of this pop diva--and rightly so. Aguilera should be embarrassed by her effort that was delivered to a world wide audience. I personally feel that she should apologize to America for the botched job.
Instead, after fleeing Dallas--the site of Super Bore 45--for her home base of La La Land, Aguilera actually defended her performance stating that she thought she did a good job.
...WOW!...
I don't know who is telling her that the performance was a thing to be proud of; but they should be fired. Missed words, missing melody and plain wrong words are never a reason to celebrate...ESPECIALLY when it is from "singing" the National Anthem of the United States.
I sure wish the Super Bore Committee and the NFL would insist on a proper and acurate rendition of the song that represents the Pride, Strength and Unity of our Nation, its People and its History.
Sunday, June 6, 2010
June 6th
66 years ago today, Operation Overlord was launched.
On June 6th, 1944, American and Allied forces stormed the beaches of Normandy, France as the move to penetrate Fortress Europe was begun.
Many men died on the five beaches designated Juno, Gold, Omaha, Utah and Sword. Nearly 5300 American and Allied men lost their lives on those cold, wind swept beaches.
As I was looking through the days news, I failed to find even a single mention of D-Day. This great and terrible battle is being forgotten here in the US.
So please pause, even for a moment, to remember those brave men who lie in graves upon French soil; both Allied and German.
The beginning of the end of the war in Europe.
D-Day 06 June 1944.
On June 6th, 1944, American and Allied forces stormed the beaches of Normandy, France as the move to penetrate Fortress Europe was begun.
Many men died on the five beaches designated Juno, Gold, Omaha, Utah and Sword. Nearly 5300 American and Allied men lost their lives on those cold, wind swept beaches.
As I was looking through the days news, I failed to find even a single mention of D-Day. This great and terrible battle is being forgotten here in the US.
So please pause, even for a moment, to remember those brave men who lie in graves upon French soil; both Allied and German.
The beginning of the end of the war in Europe.
D-Day 06 June 1944.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Hollywood: Hoping We're Sheep
(I wrote this as an article response to a story about Hollywood and its agendas)
The executives and filmmakers in Hollywood use the medium to push their messages all the time; whether done so overtly or not. The article has told me nothing new. Hollywood pushed the fear of the cold war on its viewers all the time with films which told us to fear an imminent Soviet invasion. They constantly tell Americans that religion is not real and a waste of everyones time; that being Christian is a bad thing. We are told that casual sex is ok and that marriage is a thing that can be thrown aside like used piece of gum. We are led to believe that everyone who disagrees with homosexuality is a bigot who should be scorned and attacked.
Filmmakers glorify and endorse violence then feign innocence when real world crimes match those seen on film. They seem to be insulated from the very messages they spew.
In relating "made up companies" to real-life ones, the parallels are obvious and to claim innocence is just plain silly. The average American viewer is not as stupid as these people think.
But, that won't stop producers or directors from making movies awash in social commentary whether the average American viewer believes the message or not. These guys are just hoping that more and more people with a sheep-like mentality start buying into their false messages.
If you don't think these messages are in the films you watch, then you really haven't been paying attention. From the time since Birth of a Nation spewed out the goodness of the Ku Klux Klan (DW Griffith was a Klansman), to the films of today, the endorsement of social commentary has marched on unabated and will forever continue to do so.
The executives and filmmakers in Hollywood use the medium to push their messages all the time; whether done so overtly or not. The article has told me nothing new. Hollywood pushed the fear of the cold war on its viewers all the time with films which told us to fear an imminent Soviet invasion. They constantly tell Americans that religion is not real and a waste of everyones time; that being Christian is a bad thing. We are told that casual sex is ok and that marriage is a thing that can be thrown aside like used piece of gum. We are led to believe that everyone who disagrees with homosexuality is a bigot who should be scorned and attacked.
Filmmakers glorify and endorse violence then feign innocence when real world crimes match those seen on film. They seem to be insulated from the very messages they spew.
In relating "made up companies" to real-life ones, the parallels are obvious and to claim innocence is just plain silly. The average American viewer is not as stupid as these people think.
But, that won't stop producers or directors from making movies awash in social commentary whether the average American viewer believes the message or not. These guys are just hoping that more and more people with a sheep-like mentality start buying into their false messages.
If you don't think these messages are in the films you watch, then you really haven't been paying attention. From the time since Birth of a Nation spewed out the goodness of the Ku Klux Klan (DW Griffith was a Klansman), to the films of today, the endorsement of social commentary has marched on unabated and will forever continue to do so.
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Suing Over A National Day of Prayer
I read today that a large group of athiests in Wisconsin is suing the President, the Governor of Wisconsin, and several others over the country's 'National Day of Prayer.'
These citizens think that they are actually being forced to participate, and that they are excluded politically and societally because of their beliefs. So this group of whatever number they are, are seeking to tell every person in this country what to do and think. What the #@&%!!!
Instead of wasting taxpayer dollars in pursuit of the non-existant "Separation of Church and State" clause, why don't these good folks just decide they won't participate? It is certainly their right to, or not to, take part in the National Day of Prayer. Why sue over what really comes down to as a matter of personal choice?
Hmmm...Let's see...the thinking is probably going something like this..."I'm athiest. I don't believe in God, or prayer. Now, here's the government telling me I have to pray on a specific day.How dare they do that! I'm not going to be forced to pray to a god I don't believe in! I think I'll sue and tell everyone in the country who DOES believe in God that they can't pray to whomever they believe in."
...and the rhetoric would continue. My point again is freedom. Freedom to choose to participate, or to NOT participate. Why do people feel it is essential to enforce their atheism on a majority of Americans who do indeed believe in a Divine being? Remember, this country was founded on Christian principals, by religious, God-fearing men who sought Divine inspiration every morning [through prayer] before continuing their work of framing the government.
The current Government of the United States does NOT endorse any specific religion, it does NOT force anyone to attend church services, it does NOT demand that its citizens pray to any specific Diety. The illusionary separation of Church and State is still intact; the country goes on.
These mamby-pamby atheists have zero business telling me that I can't pray. It is a personal choice to believe, or not believe, in any diety in whatever form.
In the bogus fight over (once again) the non-existant Separation of Church and State, the vast majority of Americans are being told (through Court decisions) they can't pray in public places; they can't worship in public places or on Government owned land; they can't see a display of the Ten Commandments (a set of guidelines which really only help all of us to be better people) pretty much anywhere outside of church buildings; and that the Founding Fathers really never brought religion into the development of this country through legal action, historical distortion, historical omission, rewriting fact to fit their agendas, etc.
Listen folks, this really is about the freedom to choose. Freedom to pray, or to NOT pray. Freedom to choose to participate in a particular event...or NOT. But instead of choosing to NOT participate, these folks are looking to enforce their personal beliefs on everyone else so they don't have "to feel uncomfortable in politics or society."
These citizens think that they are actually being forced to participate, and that they are excluded politically and societally because of their beliefs. So this group of whatever number they are, are seeking to tell every person in this country what to do and think. What the #@&%!!!
Instead of wasting taxpayer dollars in pursuit of the non-existant "Separation of Church and State" clause, why don't these good folks just decide they won't participate? It is certainly their right to, or not to, take part in the National Day of Prayer. Why sue over what really comes down to as a matter of personal choice?
Hmmm...Let's see...the thinking is probably going something like this..."I'm athiest. I don't believe in God, or prayer. Now, here's the government telling me I have to pray on a specific day.How dare they do that! I'm not going to be forced to pray to a god I don't believe in! I think I'll sue and tell everyone in the country who DOES believe in God that they can't pray to whomever they believe in."
...and the rhetoric would continue. My point again is freedom. Freedom to choose to participate, or to NOT participate. Why do people feel it is essential to enforce their atheism on a majority of Americans who do indeed believe in a Divine being? Remember, this country was founded on Christian principals, by religious, God-fearing men who sought Divine inspiration every morning [through prayer] before continuing their work of framing the government.
The current Government of the United States does NOT endorse any specific religion, it does NOT force anyone to attend church services, it does NOT demand that its citizens pray to any specific Diety. The illusionary separation of Church and State is still intact; the country goes on.
These mamby-pamby atheists have zero business telling me that I can't pray. It is a personal choice to believe, or not believe, in any diety in whatever form.
In the bogus fight over (once again) the non-existant Separation of Church and State, the vast majority of Americans are being told (through Court decisions) they can't pray in public places; they can't worship in public places or on Government owned land; they can't see a display of the Ten Commandments (a set of guidelines which really only help all of us to be better people) pretty much anywhere outside of church buildings; and that the Founding Fathers really never brought religion into the development of this country through legal action, historical distortion, historical omission, rewriting fact to fit their agendas, etc.
Listen folks, this really is about the freedom to choose. Freedom to pray, or to NOT pray. Freedom to choose to participate in a particular event...or NOT. But instead of choosing to NOT participate, these folks are looking to enforce their personal beliefs on everyone else so they don't have "to feel uncomfortable in politics or society."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
