Thanks again to @thekarmichammer
16 April 2009
Senator Sam Brownback
Video courtesy of @thekarmichammer Thanks for all your hard work! :)
Senator Sam Brownback
15 April 2009
Tax Day/Tea Party Day
Are you a fellow patriot?
That's how I was greeted today, upon arriving at my local area Tea Party. I answered "yes, I am". I knew that it was code she was using (are you one of us?), but well, why not use that to my advantage.
I do consider myself a patriot - I'm an honest patriot. I feel the way to be truly patriotic is to speak the truth about your nation.
Let me say that I completely understand how someone could be exasperated with their government. I understand the idea of being upset over unnecessary spending - I remember the stories of the $3,000 hammers and $500 toilet seats. I can understand being upset about huge deficits. What I'm trying to figure out about the Tea Party movement is: What exactly are they protesting? Higher taxes? The Bailouts? Huge borrowing? Pork Barrel Spending? or are they protesting the election of a Democrat to the White House?
On higher taxes, I guess they all must make a helluva lot more than I do. It seemed to me that only the highest tax bracket was going to get an increase and it was only about 3%. Or are they protesting the "possibility" of new taxes?
On the Bailouts, where were they last fall when the Bush administration was in charge of this?
On Deficit Spending, do they not remember Reagan? Do they not remember a hugely expensive war? Again, where have they been?
On Pork Barrel Spending, I saw many Democrats named - but where were the Republican names to go with them?
I guess my biggest issue - is when "protecting" the Constitution is mentioned. George W. Bush and his cronies used the Constitution to wipe their asses for 8 years - where was the outrage then? No, these were the same people that would tell you "I have nothing to hide" when it came to warrant-less wiretapping - or would say "I don't care what you do to the terrorists" when confronted about torture. I don't understand how that can be reconciled.
Tax Day/Tea Party Day
14 April 2009
A Plea...

NO ONE CARES ABOUT THE FIRST LADY'S CLOTHING!
This is a plea to all my media friends, please stop talking about what the First Lady is wearing. If she "recycles" outfits or pieces, or wears something that Oscar de la Renta doesn't like - IT'S NOT NEWS! Put that crap in Cosmo or People magazine, but please stop polluting my news sites with it.
We have a person, a real, breathing, thinking human being in the White House and he has a person, a real, breathing, thinking, human being as his wife. Instead of treating her like some Hollywood starlet, maybe focus on the things she's trying to do. The only story I've enjoyed ready about FLOTUS and her clothes, was the gardening story - where she had dirty kneed pants and velco sneakers. That was awesome...I can't imagine any of the other First Ladies that way.
The President and First Lady are not royalty - this idea that they are somehow breaching protocol by being human, is absurd.
*Yes I realize this is a fluff post about a fluff issue - but well, it happens (I have an excuse, I'm not a professional). I am hoping to get some video footage of my local Teabagger party tomorrow, assuming we don't get assaulted lol.
A Plea...
11 April 2009
Punishment?

I must admit I'm a fence-rider when it comes to the existence of God. I'm a skeptic, I think it's a story with some really good parts - but I also feel like there is way too much that has been tainted by the hands of men (the compilation of the Bible, for instance). But it was a bit comical this morning when I awoke to tapping on my screen door. Two Jehovah's Witnesses had chosen my house today. I wouldn't have really thought much of it if I hadn't posted my Blog Against Theocracy post last night - I thought the timing was funny. I guess I was being "punished". LOL.
On to other random things:
Notre Dame -
To those protesting the appearance of the President at Graduation. Please shut up. He's coming to address your commencement, not to become a Bishop. Your school has hosted several speakers who's views do not gel completely with Church doctrine...this is not a special circumstance. If you had an issue, you should have thought of that before you invited him to speak.
Arizona State University -
First off, it's an "honorary" degree...quit being stupid. While I disagree with the idea that the President is not "deserving" of an honorary degree, I have to admit I think the Scholarship program fits much better with what this President is about.
The Vatican -
Any one that knows me, knows that I am not a fan of the Vatican - it is nothing personal against followers of the Catholic faith, it is the Vatican itself. The repressive and regressive nature of it's doctrine, is something I can't agree with. Guess that's why I'm not Catholic. Anyway, the Vatican has decided that Caroline Kennedy is not worthy of being our Ambassador to the Vatican. My first thought is, why do we have an ambassador to the Vatican? My second thought is, fine - you don't like Caroline Kennedy because she's pro-choice, then well - you don't get an ambassador. Period.
Anyway, I hope everyone is enjoying the Blog Against Theocracy, I realize that I'm not a very good writer when I read these posts...lol I have some work to do!
Punishment?
10 April 2009
It Wasn't Supposed To Be This Way
Our founding fathers understood something...power corrupts everyone. To protect both the government and the church, they intentionally made sure to eliminate religious entanglements from our country's founding documents. So much of that wisdom seems lost now.
“History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes."
- Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Alexander von Humboldt, 12/6/1813
Compared with:
"I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God, and that's what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards."
- Mike Huckabee, January 2008
What Mr. Huckabee and others like him do not seem to understand, is that our government was INTENTIONALLY created devoid of religion. Not just devoid of Christianity - but ALL religion. Aside from the date line, there is no mention of "God" in the document.
I have a feeling that Mr. Madison and Mr. Jefferson have been spinning in their respective graves, since at the very least the 1950s. Our money, our oaths of offices, our Pledge of Allegiance, offices of "faith based initiatives" - it wasn't supposed to be this way.
"Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U.S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and tese are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation."
- James Madison, "Detached Memoranda"
Madison was concerned about Chaplains - and look where we are now.
During the Presidential elections of my lifetime, I cannot recall one where the candidate didn't feel the need to affirm his/her Christianity. Ask someone if they would vote for an Atheist for President - 53% of the time you'll get a "NO". So while we do not have a law that violates Article VI of the Constitution, we have a national attitude that does.
Article VI clearly states (emphasis added):
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
So what are we doing?
How is it that the same people who believe that the Constitution should be interpreted in the strictest manner are the same ones who focus only on the "freedom of religion" but ignore the "no law respecting the establishment of religion"? The people that believe in "intelligent design" can't see the intelligent design in our Constitution. The wall of separation between church and state is for the protection of ALL of us.
Our founding fathers understood this and they took measures to prevent religious arguments from damaging our Republic. We should be infinitely thankful for that.
Check out other Blog Against Theocracy blogswarm posts!
Awesome Art Courtesy of TheKarmicHammer
It Wasn't Supposed To Be This Way



