Who Stood with Rand Paul...and Who Didn't...

Here is the list of Senators who stood with Rand Paul in his stunning filibuster of the Senate last night.

Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Pat Toomey (R-Penn.), John Thune (R-S.D.), John Barrasso (R-Wy.), Tim Scott (R-S.C.), John Cornyn (R-Texas), Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.)

Here is the list of Senators who would rather have dinner with Obama than #StandWithRand.

Sens. John McCain (R-AZ), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Tom Coburn (R-OK), Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), Bob Corker (R-TN), John Hoeven (R-ND), Dan Coats (R-IN), Richard Burr (R-NC), and Mike Johanns (R-NE).

Let this be a reminder to voters when election time comes around about which politicians really care about the rights of the citizens...and who doesn't.

via The Blaze

Time for a Third Party?

The only time a third party has ever risen to power in the United States was when the Republican Party defeated the Whig Party and the Democratic-Republican Party with the election of Abraham Lincoln.  Why? Because both the Whig Party and Democratic-Republican Party endorsed some form of slavery, and only the Republican Party was against it.  When both political parties endorse the same behaviors, it is time for a third party.

There is No Middle Ground

Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and, like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.

If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law: if the latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the people, to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.

John Marshall (Marbury vs. Madison)

Why Women Should NOT Be Allowed in Combat

Why should women not be allowed to serve in combat? 1. A 130lb woman cannot carry a 225lb wounded man off the battlefield. 2. The fact that a woman can be raped will be used by the enemy in order to manipulate/torture our forces. 3. It does not promote unit cohesion.  If the only reason that women desire to be in combat is to be promoted to higher levels in the military, then these reasons are selfish as they are putting their own desires above what is best for the military.

Special thanks to Michael Savage. Listen his entire argument here: http://ow.ly/humpT

Abuses and Usurpations

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

-The Declaration of Independence

The Declaration of Independence vs. Progressivism

The modern definition of equality is incompatible with the Declaration’s definition because the Declaration states that “all men are created equal” meaning that they are all born with the same human rights that the government is required to respect.  The modern definition is that all men are not created equal and the government needs to step in and via redistribution, make them equal.

Letter to Democrats that are Surprised that Their Taxes Went Up

Dear (insert name that voted for Obama), 

You have no right to complain about how your income is less and your taxes are higher. I (and others) have tried to explain time and time again that a vote for Obama is a vote for higher taxes--the welfare state that you desire cannot sustain itself otherwise! However, you refused to listen and voted for him anyway. Basically, I'm trying to say in the nicest way possible: you made your bed, now sleep in it. 

Respectfully yours, one ticked off Kelly.

My apologies to anyone that was made nervous by this post.

Defying Progressivism

"About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers...."

Calvin Coolidge

My Run-In With A Liberal, and Talk About Oil

I recently got into a discussion on Facebook with a friend of mine from high school regarding the history of oil and gas prices.  He believes that "green" energy is the only way to become energy independent and that the U.S. is unfairly using more than it's share of the world's oil, citing the alleged fact that we produce 20% of the supply but use 80% of it.  This was my rather lengthy reply.

In 1973 the Nixon administration (yes a Republican) began over-regulating the production of oil in the U.S. making it necessary to increase foreign imports (up to 35% of U.S. consumption). In the same year, the U.S. sent military assistance to Israel who had been attacked by members of OPEC.  In retaliation OPEC placed an oil embargo on the U.S. and increased the price for other nations by 70%. Oil in the U.S. then had to be rationed to the people (you could only get gas at certain times, and never on Sundays). 

Since then, more and more regulations have been put on U.S. production of oil starting with Carter's MEOW initiative and creation of the Department of Energy, making it harder and harder to drill for domestic oil and causing us to be more and more dependent on foreign oil. This is not, as some would have us believe, because we are "running out of oil." The U.S. is sitting on one of the largest oil reservoirs in the world, an estimated 2.3 trillion barrels (300 years) worth to be exact. It is current technology and excessive regulation that is preventing us from getting at it.   

The 20% and 80% figures that the Obama used in his reelection speech are blatantly stretched considering that those figures only apply to current tapped reserves; they do not include the amount of oil that is not being drilled or used in the current economy. So yes the U.S. government is being selfish because we refuse to drill for our own oil and would rather drain the supplies of other nations instead.

Special thanks to: Buy and Hold, Antenna Group, and Kiplinger.

Was America Founded a Christian Nation?

There are two ideologies regarding America’s religious heritage: 1. that it was founded on a Christian belief system, or 2. that it was founded on the separation of church and state.  The belief that America was founded as a Christian nation dates back to the Providential Religious philosophy, which states that America’s success was granted by God because it was founded in order to be the proverbial “city on a hill” to be an example of Christianity to the rest of the world.  Evidence used to support this theory is found in the Puritan’s quest from Britain in order to escape persecution from religious tyrants.  The Puritan’s desired the freedom to worship God in the way that they saw fit, and not the way that a king or a totalitarian religious leader told them to (similar to the modern day Catholic controversy).  This thesis does not speak for all people that came to America or the natives of the American continent, and therefore cannot be conclusive evidence that the United States was founded solely as a Christian nation.

The belief that America was founded on the belief in separation of church and state is based in part in the Providential Secular philosophy.  This view states that the Constitution was written in the heart of the Enlightenment period, where religion became less popular and “science” and “logic” replaced it as the socially acceptable school of thought.  The phrase “separation of church and state” is not actually mentioned in the Constitution, but was a phrase that Thomas Jefferson used in a letter to the Danbury Baptists to assure them that the new government would not interfere with their religious practices.  Many who subscribe to the separation of church and state view believe that this works both ways and that the church should not have anything to do with the government either.  History provides evidence to the contrary however, with the examples of churches run on a state level in colonial Massachusetts and Maryland.  These state funded churches were considered acceptable; it was the federal or nationally mandated churches that the American people wanted protection from.

            It is difficult to take the small section of the colonial population (the Puritans) or the colonial equivalent to an email reply from one of the Founding Fathers and base an entire nation’s religious views on just that information.  However, I am more inclined to belief that America was founded as an essentially Christian nation, as the European founders that wrote the Constitution did not base their value system on Islam, Buddhism, Eastern mysticism, or any other religion besides Christianity.  The very words of the 1^st Amendment, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” indicates that the founders desired to be free to practice religion, not be separated or protected from it.  56 men signed the Declaration of Independence, and 52 of them were indeed active members of their respective churches.  While not all of the colonists, natives, or even the founders themselves were Christians, the United States Constitution was in large part based on Christian principles and values which is why they are such a controversy today.

Politically Correct

Well I have to say I've been a little afraid to start writing blog posts. Not because I don't have anything to say-no just I think I should warn you all that this blogger has another definition for the phrase "politically correct."

For all of you mathematicians out there, use the reciprocal of the "politically correct" statement. For example, instead of undocumented worker I use the phrase illegal immigrant. Instead of unlicensed pharmacist I say drug dealer. Instead of sexual orientation I say sinful desires, instead of fetus I say baby, and instead of progressive I say socialist.

I suppose you can see why I was a little nervous about starting my blog. Not many people these days are willing to tell you the way things really are and they would prefer that I wasn't either. Too late, the ice is broken and I intend to tell readers the truth regardless of what other people believe I should be saying. So I leave you with this verse,

"Then he told them: Go and preach the good news to everyone in the world. Anyone who believes me and is baptized will be saved. But anyone who refuses to believe me will be condemned." Mark 16:15-16