As I returned from lunch today I noticed an electrical service station littered with high voltage warnings, and noting the danger of tampering with the contents.

All of the warnings were in English. Sadly, a lawyer could probably have a field day if an illegal alien who doesn’t speak English tampered with it and hurt themselves, which leads to a bigger point – we need a common,  standard language in this country. Many states already have this, but unfortunately Texas, where I live, is not one of them.

Whenever a politician brings up the subject of “English As The Official Language”, the familiar wails from the Left start up. They call it “divisive” or even “racist” to enforce a common language. The ACLU even laughably claims that a common language of English would prevent non-English speaking people from receiving government services. Never mind that it’s entirely possible for a non-English speaker to learn the language – logic has never been a strong point of the Left.

But this thought that somehow using English as an official language is “divisive” is complete farce.

This is obvious to anyone with a rudimentary understanding of logic. Two people who can not communicate with each other can not possibly reach any kind of understanding, therefore there is no chance at a real “unity”.

The converse is also true – As an exercise, consider the story of the Tower of Babel from Genesis 11 in the Bible. Even if you’re not a religious person, the story holds a truth: It notes that in order to divide humanity into groups, God gave them different languages to make them unable to understand each other.

So, logically, to promote unity there should be a common language, and to promote discord, multiple languages.

In order to communicate effectively, whether it’s a topic of discussion or a way to alert a person of imminent danger, whether it’s an electrical station or a storm capable of producing tornadoes, a common language, and the ability to communicate, it not only necessary, but logical. Requiring everyone to adhere to a standard is not racist, either, as no one is saying to anyone that you can’t speak a language other than English, just that English should be a language that all American citizens speak.

When liberals talk about freedom, they mean something completely different than what a conservative or a libertarian would consider freedom.

To a conservative / libertarian, freedom is the ability to make choices in life – free will, and self-determination.

This is not what a liberal considers to be freedom. If you analyze liberal positions, you will see that the Left actively looks to subvert freedom as conservatives know it and replace it with a freedom from accountability.

While reading some news sites, I came across this article: http://tinyurl.com/36camd2  .

Several things struck me about this article. First, how ridiculous is it to psychoanalyze a fictional character? Second, by trying to explain the so-called “root cause”, they are trying to remove any responsibility for Darth Vader doing evil things.

When Natalie Maines created a controversy with her comments about then President Bush, the left complained about “censorship” when people heard her comments and decided that they didn’t want to listen to her songs on the radio anymore. By raising the spectre of censorship against Maines, the left was trying to remove any accountability she had for her comments.

Even abortion is an attempt to remove accountability. By allowing women to murder their unborn child, the left is trying to remove the consequence of sexual intercourse. Barack Obama, as a candidate, once said that he supported abortion because if one of his daughters made a mistake, he didn’t want them punished with a baby. This removes accountability from the choice of having sexual intercourse.

The Left likes to look for “root causes” as to why the terrorists hate Western Civilization – which absolves the terrorists of choosing to murder innocents. Sadly this “root cause” nonsense occurs amongst Leftist thinking over and over again. Violent criminals can’t be held responsible for their actions, because they’re just victims of society.

Consider a thug that rapes and murders a young woman. To a liberal looking for root causes and freedom from accountability, this thug is an innocent snowflake who had daddy issues and couldn’t control himself. When they attempt to shift blame to the father, it’s not his fault either because he decided to start drinking, and ended up an alcoholic, it’s his mother’s fault for abandoning him at a young age – and the shifting of accountability goes on and on and on…

Where does it end up? Ask a Liberal, and depending on their mood you’ll get one of two answers as to who’s fault it is…

They’ll either blame George W. Bush or Global Warming.

Until the liberals decide that Global Warming has a personality disorder. Then it’s all Bush’s fault.

One argument that Pro-Abortion advocated make is that they want the matter of abortion to be “an informed choice between a woman and her doctor.”

Unfortunately, under scrutiny this is exposed to be another lie from the pro-choice crowd. Recently, the state of Oklahoma passed a law that would require women seeking an abortion to have a sonagram first. Pro-Abortionists, predictably, have gone berserk about it.

Sonagrams are not done just to try and determine the gender of the child, they can also measure the development of the child – skull diameter is measured, femur length is measures, and even the heart rate is measured. All of this is relevant data to the “medical procedure” of abortion. So why shouldn’t this information be given to women?

The reality is that it exposes another lie that the pro-abortion crowd tells: That the fetus is a glob of cells, and not really a baby. Talk about disregarding the man behind the curtain…

The heartbeat can usually be detected just 5 weeks after conception. Shouldn’t women be informed of the heartbeat they’re about to stop?

C’mon, pro-abortionists, you say you want women to make informed choices – and yet you seek to deny some relevant information?

I guess that exposes the third lie – that the “pro-choice” crowd supports the choice, that none of them really want abortions. “Safe, Legal, and Rare”, right Mr. Clinton?

Then why oppose this law? Why are you pro-choicers afraid that some women, after hearing a heartbeat, might choose life?

Many of us, especially if you correspond in any political forums, have likely seen the following “brilliant” point from a liberal on abortion:

“Yeah, well if you’re so pro-life, why don’t you adopt a kid! Otherwise, shut up!”

The problem with the statement is that like most liberal arguments, it’s completely devoid of logic.

Pregnancy is not a choice. A woman can not choose whether or not to be pregnant the same way a woman can choose what color shirt to wear. Somewhere, a man is involved – even if the woman goes to a sperm bank. It’s not a switch that can be flipped like the lights.

Pregnancy is, however, a consequence.

Not all consequences are bad, for many couples pregnancy is a happy consequence of the result of trying for a baby – but make no mistake, pregnancy is a consequence, most often the consequence of having unprotected sexual intercourse.

With that established, the liberal “argument” of desiring conservatives to adopt the “unwanted” children is asking a conservative to accept the consequence from some one else’s actions.

It would be just as absurd for a college student to ask someone else to accept the hangover from the previous night of binge drinking…

Now that the EPA has decided that a certain type of plant food is actually a dangerous pollutant, this unfortunately opens the door for drastic government regulation and control of people’s lives.

In my first article, I mentioned that almost everything a person does effects their health. Similarly, almost everything a person does affects their environment. Now that you officially emit a dangerous pollutant every time you exhale (never mind that plants absorb it and release oxygen), the door for more government control of your life is open.

While you could point to ClimateGate and the “fixing” of data as a point that despite liberals claims, Global Warming, Climate Change, ManBearPig, or whatever they want to call it, isn’t really happening – this is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

Face facts: Even using the dubious metric of a “Carbon Footprint”, Clowns like Al Gore have a much higher “footprint” than most of the people he lectures about melting ice caps.

What’s the point? The point is that the environmentalism movement has nothing to do with the environment. If Al Gore was really a true-believer, why doesn’t he abandon his first-world lifestyle and go live in a mud hut somewhere? Hey, Sheryl Crow – how much toilet paper do you really use?

However, once you’ve fooled enough people into thinking that a “carbon footprint” is bad, then you can get enough people to vote for politicians who want to regulate people’s behavior, and you get awful ideas like Cap and Trade, or China’s one birth policy. After all, we have to “Save The Earth”. And that, much like government run health care, is nothing more than a blatant power grab by a bunch of Statists who want to control every aspect of your life, from how much energy you’re allowed to use to how many kids you’re allowed to have.

Health Care and Environmentalism are just two roads to the same destination: Totalitarianism – or perhaps more correctly – Fascism.

All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state. — Benito Mussolini

Many children while growing up hear their parents tell them that “you are what you eat”. While this kernel of truth is appropriately simplistic for a child, as adults we know that diet is just one aspect of our overall health.

It could be said that just about everything you do in your life affects your health – what you eat, how much you eat, what you weigh, when you exercise, how much you exercise, when you sleep, how much sleep you get – all this and more affects your health.

No doubt you’ve heard the conventional arguments against health care – that it will lead to rationing, “Death Panels”, poor service, massive government debt – all of which are true, but there’s another angle to this that’s just as disconcerting.

If taxpayers are paying for your health care, then your health is a matter of public interest. If there is massive amounts of debt, then the public taxpayers will likely be even more interested in your health care, and how to reduce cost.

If the State is paying for your health care, the State then can start to proscribe new laws regulating your activity in order to lower the cost of health care.

Red meat? Too much can be bad for you. It is now forbidden for anyone to eat more than one serving of beef in a week. Or, if it helps make this more believable – trans fats are now forbidden. In fact, some members of congress want to prevent you from growing your own food by fining you one million dollars.

Smoking? Terrible for you. It is now forbidden for anyone to smoke. (And since smoking is illegal in bars, stadiums, and other outdoor areas, the places where a smoker can go to smoke gets smaller and smaller.)

Excerise? This is good for you. It is now mandatory that everyone exercise at least 15 minutes a day at a government licensed exercise facility.

Sleep? Your body and your health requires it. It is now mandatory for all citizens to get at least 7 hours of sleep a night.

And the list goes on, while the state takes more and more control of your life in order to lower the cost of health care.

One point often overlooked in the gay marriage debate is the reason why Government States recognize heterosexual marriage: To govern the inheritance of land and title amongst biological offspring of the union.

In other words – which of your kids gets what when you punch your ticket to the afterlife? Sadly, when a large part of the world is illiterate, there is no Last Will and Testament to settle matters.

Unfortunately, dealing with inheritance quickly becomes pretty messy. Who inherits what? In most cultures the first born son ends up with the lion’s share of the inheritance, even over the widow. Simple enough, right? Yet the Bible sets a precedent where the younger, first born son of a man’s wife (Isaac) gets his inheritance before a man’s older, first born son of his mistress (Ishmael). Sounds unfair, but it’s also a way to promote marriage and fidelity. So the man’s first born son to his wife gets the inheritance. What if the man had no male heir, but had a few daughters, and a man claiming to be an illegitimate son show up, who gets what then?

As a result, government had to get involved to set down rules governing inheritance claims. And, as part of the precedent set by Abraham, in order to follow the inheritance laws and customs marriage was necessary for the State to recognize.

Since a homosexual union can not produce biological offspring, the question that’s not being asked enough is: What problem, exactly, are you trying to solve by having a government recognize a homosexual union as a “marriage”?

Inheritance? You can leave whatever you want to whoever you want in a Last Will and Testament. Medical decisions in the event you’re incapacitated? Living Will and Power of Attorney documents – which in some states even heterosexual married couples have to specifically grant each other.

So, I’ll repeat the question: What problem, exactly, are you trying to solve that requires Government States to recognize Gay Marriage?

A man was working on his lawnmower one hot, humid, day, while his children played in the yard with his parents. Since it was such a hot, humid, day his wife thought the family would like a cool drink, so she made a couple pitchers of lemonade and brought it out to her family. As they drank the refreshing glasses of lemonade, the man remarked that he had a headache that he couldn’t get rid of.

Two minutes later, while the children were still finishing their drinks, the man passed out and was completely unresponsive. His wife called 911 for an ambulance as his parents gathered up his kids to go to the hospital and to call the man’s two brothers to inform them of what was going on.

Later that evening, the woman was met by Doctor Wilton.

“Mrs. Doe”, the doctor started, “your husband has some form of head injury. I’ve applied a band-aid to his forehead which should do the trick in a day or so.”
“Shouldn’t you do an MRI or something to determine the cause?” she asked.
“Ma’am, I’m a doctor, and it’s really best if you just let me handle things”.

A few days had passed, and the man showed no signs of improvement. When Dr. Wilton checked in on his patient, he was alarmed that the man had not improved.

“Ma’am”, he started, “if it’s alright with you, I’d like to consult more Doctors on this.”
“OK, that sounds good” she replied, relieved that the Doctor was at least doing something.

An hour later, Dr. Wilton returned with Doctors Carson, Rose, and Kendal. Doctor Carson made his diagnosis and proclaimed that the patient hadn’t woken up because he was depressed that he was still wearing the same band-aid, and suggested they apply a new band-aid to get the man out of his malaise. Doctor Rose stated that the problem was that the band-aid wasn’t large enough, and that there should be two band-aids on the man’s forehead, and one band-aid on the wife’s forehead as well, since everyone should have a band-aid. Doctor Kendal, in between sips of his martini, stated that the current band-aid wasn’t inclusive enough, and that a blue band-aid should be used instead of the regular peach colored one.

Soon, the man, still wearing the original band-aid, had 4 new band-aids on his head.

A few days later, the man still had not woken up. Doctors Wilton, Rose, Carson, and Kendal remarked that more doctors were clearly necessary, and went to fetch their colleagues. While they were gone, a nurse whispered to the woman that perhaps she should have Dr. Ron Gold take a look at him. She agreed, and Dr. Gold saw the patient. He ordered an MRI, and made the discovery.

“Ma’am”, he started, “your husband has a brain tumor and we need to operate immediately to remove it. Your husband should then wake up, and will have a recovery time of 6 to 8 weeks.”

Dr. Gold has no sooner finished talking when Doctors Wilton, Rose, Carson, and Kendal returned with 10 additional doctors.

Doctor Kendal was so enraged, he dropped his after-lunch brandy and yelled “Dr. Gold is out of touch! Don’t listen to this man! He wants to take away your band-aids, and you have a right to those band-aids!”. Doctor Carson argued that surgery was out of the question, as it would take far too many band-aids to close the incision necessary. When Dr. Gold tried to explain the concept of stitches, and how it was necessary to remove the tumor, a new Doctor, Doctor Barn, claimed that there wasn’t a tumor in the man’s head, and that the problem was that one of the band-aids looked like it had been removed and needed to be replaced. He then asked Dr. Gold why we hated the patient and wanted to see him harmed in a surgery. Another Doctor asked why Dr. Gold wanted to undo the progress they had made in treating the patient. Finally, one of the new Doctors, Doctor Baramba, exclaimed that the problem was that the woman didn’t have enough hope for her husband, and if she’d just have some hope, and allowed him to change the band-aids into much larger band-aids, that her husband would not only recover but would play Quarterback in the NFL upon his recovery. When the woman told Dr. Baramba that her husband never played football before in his life, Dr. Jacks lamented how unfair it was that her husband never played football.

The woman had heard enough, and wanted Dr. Gold to operate. Before she could finish her sentence, one of the new Doctors interrupted her and told her that they would decide what to do with the patient, and that she should go wait in the waiting room while they decided what to do about the unconscious man. After all, he said, they were the doctors and the trained professionals, and how could she, a middle class – no, a “common” woman like her know what was best for her husband?

The woman sit in the waiting room for a few hours. Finally, she was frustrated and went to check on her husband. To her dismay, she could barely recognize her husband – his entire head was covered with band-aids: red ones, blue ones, green ones, large ones and small ones, covering his entire face in band-aids 3 inches deep save for a small opening for his mouth and his nose.

A week later, the man died.

The autopsy report of the man showed that he died from a malignant, yet operable, brain tumor. Doctor Wilton and his associates claimed the report was biased, and that in the future, even more band-aids should be used to prevent this from happening to anyone else – and that effective immediately, it was their suggestion that band-aids be pro-actively handed out to everyone to place on their foreheads.

In the aftermath of the Mumbai terrorist attacks, one question that is on people’s minds is “Could it happen here?”

Unfortunately, the answer is Yes. The terrorists were able to somehow cross the Indian border and coordinate an assault in a major city, where they preyed on a mostly unarmed populace. What about the police, you say? There’s a story where a photographer, Sebastian D’Souza, was quoted as complaining about the armed police not shooting back at the terrorists.

So what should we, as Americans, do to protect ourselves from this kind of event?

Read More →

Many of us who are pro-Life Christians base this stance on Scripture and Church Teaching on the subject of abortion.

Many pro-Life Christians are familiar with these verses and others like them:

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
before you were born I set you apart;
I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”
Jeremiah 1:5

My frame was not hidden from You, When I was made in secret, And skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth;
Psalm 139:15

And now says the LORD, who formed Me from the womb to be His Servant, To bring Jacob back to Him, so that Israel might be gathered to Him (For I am honored in the sight of the LORD, And My God is My strength),
Isaiah 49:5

The question, and the subject of this entry, is how do we pro-Life Christians articulate our views to non-Christians? After all, telling an atheist that God does not approve of abortion is not going to sway his or her position on the matter. How can we argue a Pro-Life position without using religion?

Read More →