Outstanding blog. Check it out:
14 October 2010
Outstanding blog. Check it out:
Posted by SSG_E at 12:39
15 August 2010
Hell no! While I have long defended people of all religion and their right to practice their faith freely in this country I can no longer ignore the glaring differences between Islam and nearly every other major religion on the planet. People have done terrible things in the name of Christianity, but that occurred centuries ago. The religion is modernized and has under gone reformations. The occasional nutjobs make headlines, but they are a fringe. Islam receives every excuse. The media gives it a pass. History books used in schools give it a pass. It is supposedly such wonderful religion of peace. No it is not. Muslims supposedly contributed so much to the world in math and science. Perhaps some did, but this was in spite of the Islamic faith and not due to its teachings. There are probably some good practitioners of the faith that are conforming to their own version of the faith devoid of its inherent violence and lack of civility. They need to be more vocal and demand an international reformation of the faith. Unfortunately they'd probably have their throats cut by the more orthodox muslims.
In New Jersey a woman was repeatedly raped by her ex-husband. He said that it was her duty. He was her husband and under Islamic law she must submit to him. Well what does Islam have to say about this?
Qur'an 4:34 states:
Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.
Muhammad said: "If a husband calls his wife to his bed [i.e. to have sexual relation] and she refuses and causes him to sleep in anger, the angels will curse her till morning" (Bukhari 4.54.460).
He also said: "By him in Whose Hand lies my life, a woman can not carry out the right of her Lord, till she carries out the right of her husband. And if he asks her to surrender herself [to him for sexual intercourse] she should not refuse him even if she is on a camel's saddle" (Ibn Majah 1854). (From Jihad Watch)
So the woman seeks a restraining order. She would like to be protected from her husband who brutally raped her on multiple occasions. The judge said NO. Apparently if rape is okay with Islam it is ok with him.
We are supposed to be a Republic. A nation of laws. Our laws are supposed to protect OUR rights. The government's one and only legitimate function is to protect the people and maintain maximum liberty consistent with civil society! If we have descended to this degenerated state then there is little hope. This is unacceptable. Have we so weakened our nation and its institutions? This is sad. What is happening to this country? Political correctness is a cancer that is destroying our culture and society. Where is the outrage? Moreover, where is the media? Maybe I missed it, but have you seen this reported ANYWHERE?? If a Christian or Catholic man tried to use his faith to justify such a despicable act people in the media would demand he be strung up and his faith criminalized (I may be exaggerating only slightly). There would be justifiable outrage. Why the double standard?
The ones who want to build that mega-mosque right next to Ground Zero should be told to piss off. If a Greek Orthodox church can't get their existing facility rebuilt in its original location at Ground Zero why the hell are we fast tracking this mosque? Unacceptable. This is only meant as a finger in the eye of America and salt on the wounds of the victims' families. It is the equivalent of the muslims destroying the Temple Mount and then building the Dome of the Rock on its old foundation. Islam is about conquest and forcing others to submit. There can be no peace. Not until there is a fundamental transformation of Islam.
Please checkout http://www.jihadwatch.org/ .
Posted by SSG_E at 21:51
07 July 2010
I have not posted in a very long time. I am trying to change that. This is the first in a series of essays I am going to post on this blog. I hope I can post more regularly.
Those who migrated to America from 1629 to 1775 were not “paradigms of diversity” as we would define it today. Almost all came from the same part of Europe, spoke the same language, and believed in the same God. However, there was plenty that they disagreed on. There were serious cultural differences among the people who colonized America. The people of colonial America all sought to worship God in their own way. In England the Anglican Church was not going to allow this to happen. Interference from the State into religious affairs was a fact of life. Puritan reformers wanted to “purify” the Anglican Church of some of the practices and customs that were deemed to be too much like the Catholic traditions that the church was supposed to have abandoned. The Puritans wanted the Anglican Church to be “more Protestant” and the Stuart Kings, as head of the Church of England, did not like this criticism. Many feared that the monarchy was increasingly influenced by the Catholic Church.
The formula for religious freedom in America looked something like this: Suspicion + Dislike = Liberty. Each group, whether they were Puritan, Quaker, Catholic, or any of the other various Christians migrating from Europe to America had a fundamental disagreement with their country of origin. The State regulated religious affairs to a high degree in Europe. There was an official State religion. If you did not practice that religion in accordance to law, or more likely royal decree, you were likely persecuted. Now, these differing groups shared two things: they disliked each other, and they were suspicious of government involvement in religious affairs. Quakers in colonial America disliked Puritans, and that dislike was mutual. To Quakers the Puritans were stuffy and misguided. The Puritans saw the Quakers as licentious and strange. There were even instances of Quakers causing a ruckus in Puritan towns. They would disrupt Puritan church services, and in at least one instance, strode about the pews naked in the middle of a sermon. These groups disliked and distrusted each other. They all distrusted State involvement in religion. So, these groups made it a point in every colony to protect their right to worship as they please. The best way to ensure this right was to make freedom of worship a fundamental right not subjected to the whims of the rulers or colonial assembly. Each religious denomination in every colony was vigilant against interference from others in their personal religious affairs. The sentiment among the colonies was that each should mind their own business, and more importantly so should any governmental element.
The common thread for all of these groups was the desire to live their lives and practice their faith without interference from outside groups or the State. In colonial America this was possible. Primarily due to the sheer distance separating them, the colonies were relatively free from the dogmatic influences of their country of origin. The Atlantic was a buffer between the colonies and the religious turmoil back home. So these groups that escaped persecution in England, or elsewhere, were successful in achieving the religious freedom that they sought to establish. The colonies became progressively less European as time went on. They established their own culture, religious traditions, and legislative assemblies and laws. They gained a measure of self government that was impossible to achieve in the highly hierarchical European monarchies. This translated into, if not tolerance, an acceptance of other religious practices. People did not want other groups or government meddling around in religious affairs. So they protected all faiths by ensuring that the colonial legislatures could not regulate the religious affairs of any group.
The “wall of separation” (as Jefferson would later describe in private letters) was not designed to cut religion out of government affairs. It was designed to keep the government from meddling in the affairs of the faith. In fact many colonies had an official religion even at the signing of the Constitution, and it was wholly compatible with the letter of the Constitution as understood by the Framers. The First Amendment prohibited the federal government from interfering in the religious affairs of the states. It is important to understand this distinction if we are to understand what religious freedom is all about. The Constitution is designed to guarantee that religious establishments are safe from outside interference from the government. The “separation of church and state” is a phrase not found in the Constitution, or in any of the colonial charters or state Constitutions. Today when federal courts strike down religious expression within the states, they are perverting the meaning of the First Amendment. The Founders intended NO federal intervention in religious issues of any kind. It is therefore my contention that the colonies were successful in establishing freedom of religion, and furthermore we have lost much of that freedom today. Every time some federal judge or some bureaucrat insists that a local courthouse or school purge all symbols of religious expression we are destroying that freedom. All of the colonies protected religious freedom and individual rights while still displaying the symbols of the prominent faith in the colony. In today’s world we have perverted the meaning of religious freedom to mean absolutely no religious expression. While in general we are still free to worship as we choose, there are those who are trying to take that freedom away. In colonial times, such usurpations would not be tolerated. While there have always been elements that have exploited religion and wielded it as a tool to get what they wanted, the story of colonial America is one of unprecedented religious freedom. While this term has changed in meaning somewhat over the last 200 or so years it still retains its relevance today. This adherence to individual rights, and the right to pursue a faith as one pleased was the cornerstone of the struggle for independence that would culminate in the founding of the greatest beacon of liberty the world has ever seen.
Posted by SSG_E at 22:17
01 May 2010
James Madison once said: “Enlightened statesman will not always be at the helm.”
He was definitely correct.
Posted by SSG_E at 22:17
14 April 2010
"The two highest achievements of the human mind are the twin concepts of “loyalty” and “duty.” Whenever these twin concepts fall into disrepute--get out of there fast. You may possibly save yourself, but it is too late to save that society. It is doomed."
Posted by SSG_E at 21:02
29 March 2010
“Unjust laws have to be fought ideologically; they cannot be fought or corrected by means of mere disobedience and futile martyrdom" --Ayn Rand
I won't be posting anything for a while. Started a new job. Things are hectic and I won't have much time. So I will occasionally post quotes that I feel are relevant to current events.
Today's quote is regarding the 'hellthcare' [sic] bill recently signed into law. It is a fitting quote indeed.
Posted by SSG_E at 12:47
17 March 2010
1/3 of Doctors Say 'I Quit' If Obamacare Passes:
From CNS News:
"Nearly one-third of all practicing physicians may leave the medical profession if President Obama signs current versions of health-care reform legislation into law, according to a survey published in the latest issue of the New England Journal of Medicine.
The survey, which was conducted by the Medicus Firm, a leading physician search and consulting firm based in Atlanta and Dallas, found that a majority of physicians said health-care reform would cause the quality of American medical care to “deteriorate” and it could be the “final straw” that sends a sizeable number of doctors out of medicine.
More than 29 percent (29.2) percent of the nearly 1,200 doctors who responded to the survey said they would quit the profession or retire early if health reform legislation becomes law. If a public option were included in the legislation, as several liberal Senators have indicated they would like, the number would jump to 45.7 percent."
Premiums Will Rise Under Obamacare
New Poll Confirms Once Again that Americans Overwhelmingly Oppose Obamacare
New Study Shows that Obamacare Will KILL 700,000 Jobs
Physcians Against Obamacare!
Posted by SSG_E at 14:38
Lt. Col. David Hurley, commander of Schweinfurt, Germany's 15th Engineer Battalion, presents unit coins to two 9th Infantry Division World War II veterans -- Charles Aldieri, a former corporal with the 746th Tank Battalion (shaking hands) and Jack Jewell, a former first lieutenant with Company B, 39th Infantry -- during a March 8 ceremony honoring the division's efforts in capturing the famed Remagen Bridge in the closing days of World War II. The commemoration took place in the Remagen Bridge and Peace Museum now housed in the remains of the span, which collapsed 10 days after its capture on March 7, 1945.
Photo Courtesy United States Army
These brave men and women sacrifice so much in their lives so that others may enjoy the freedoms we get to enjoy everyday. For that, I am proud to call them Hero.
We Should Not Only Mourn These Men And Women Who Died, We Should Also Thank God That Such People Lived
This post is part of the Wednesday Hero Blogroll. For more information about Wednesday Hero, or if you would like to post it on your site, you can gohere.
Posted by SSG_E at 07:46
13 March 2010
From the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI):
Are you more knowledgeable than the average citizen? The average score for all 2,508 Americans taking the following test was 49%; college educators scored 55%. Can you do better? Questions were drawn from past ISI surveys, as well as other nationally recognized exams.
I missed 1. That's a score of about 96%. That means I scored 40 points higher than the average college educator. Elected government officials who took this exam averaged a score of 44%! WTF!
Posted by SSG_E at 14:24
12 March 2010
Daniel Webster wrote,
"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters."
Posted by SSG_E at 22:18