Brothers

Brothers
E Plurubus Unum, Rex Montis

Saturday, July 18, 2015

Focus

I have done a good job cutting myself off from mainstream media. I found I was anxious, angry and stressed when I spent too much time in the news. So it was with great sadness and deep mourning that I heard of the four Marines murdered by Mohammad Youssuf Abdulazeez in Tennessee.

I was further grieved that CNN's opening and ending paragraph were about the type and detail of the firearm used. In an essay, this is how you drive your main point home; opening and concluding point.

The 'innocent' and loaded question of '"Who was the gunman and why did he open fire?"' is just another example of liberal media pandering to the PC gods.

Why are we so afraid to conclude that a Muslim Terrorist is exactly and simply that...a Muslim Terrorist? We certainly have no problem throwing around "Christian hate mongering" or "White conservative" as soon as the label seems to fit, but they can't seem to bring themselves to ask the question, "Why do Muslim Terrorists hate the west so much that they will murder, torture and destroy with impunity?" That is the issue that needs to be addressed, not the side-stepping "Islam is a religion of peace" pandering nonsense that is so popular right now.

Obama did a decent job of a press release, but he used words like "killed" instead of "murdered" and "attacked" instead of hate-crime. The transposition of which was used when describing recent race-filled incidents in our country.

Why do our leaders and policies reflect an apologetic attitude to the rest of the world and a PC campaign of 'just trying to be nice' in hopes that nations will like us, when we should be taking an iron stance on those that attack, use, rape and assault our country?

Some bullies don't want to be paid off, they don't want to play nice, and they don't want to be friends. They just want to take something nice and destroy it.

We as a country and we as individuals need to be far less concerned with what others think, and far less concerned with being well-liked and start practical application for defending our citizens. I realize that no matter what we do good people will die, but we can at least try to stem the tide.
No matter how much PC guru's would preach that Islam is a religion of peace, I can testify that statement is a lie. I know there are millions of peaceful Muslims, but the large strain of violence that permeates every Islamic country was seen when Muslims around the world abruptly cheered when the Twin Towers were attacked.

I found this quote from a website that is pretty spot-on for my worldview:
"We have seen the roots of Islamic violence in the life and teachings of Mohammed. We have seen that world events have conspired to place Islam and Christianity in a conflict of civilizations that has stretched from the sixth to the twenty-first century.
What the future holds is unknown. What is known is that Islamic civilization has a strong tendency to violence that stretches back to the days of Mohammed and that has begun to flare up in resurgent terrorist and revolutionary movements." http://www.catholic.com/documents/endless-jihad-the-truth-about-islam-and-violence

 One of my old sergeants used to say you never present a problem without also presenting a possible solution. I still agree with that.

So I tried to actually come up with a partial solution that is viable for my readers. Something that my readers have within their ability to do. I tell you what, it was not easy! But I did come up with a two-part strategy I believe everyone can participate in. #1 Pray for our country, since I do believe there is hope. #2. Stop watching and reading CNN, since they insist on reporting opinion instead of facts. NBC goes so far as to edit and produce outright lies. I personally do not watch either anymore.

There, I am empty on higher thinking for today. Sad, because this didn't feel very high ;)

After all of that, my opening and ending are the same. It is with deep sadness that I salute the servicemen that were murdered by a Muslim Terrorist.


Thursday, June 25, 2015

We're from the government and we're here to help...


It's perfectly fine, this is a medical procedure, it's for your own good. Now sit still Jonny and let it happen or we'll fine your parents, maybe charge THEM with a crime. Now, take your lobotomy.



Now, on to the topic: Mandated vaccines

More and more of our freedoms begin to erode, soon they will be all gone, because big brother knows what’s best for you, whether you like it or not.

Recently in the news, California is on the cusp of passing a vaccination mandate for children, not giving parents the right to opt out of vaccines. If you have read my previous post on vaccines, then you know how I feel about them, and how there are neurotoxins in them; Formaldehyde, aluminum and mercury to name a couple.

Big brother does NOT know best. For YEARS big brother (FDA) has told us that an aspirin a day is good for you, and encouraged you to take one every day regardless if you need it or not. This has been common thought and practice for years. Now it appears that aspirin is bad for you, and can cause bleeding to the brain and stomach. But if you had challenged the status quo prior to this, you would have been labeled as a nut, a fringe-thinker, even a conspiracy theorist.

As I discussed in my last post…do we really have freedom… if it begins to be more and more regulated? How long before we are told what opinions we are allowed to have? Will we be “allowed” to grow our own food? How about having a say in how we raise our children? Where does the madness end?

It ends when the average citizen gets pissed off enough to stand up, draw a line in the sand and say, “That’s enough.”

I have already drawn my line.  I’ve seen what happens in other countries when the elected people that are supposed to represent, get too big for their britches, and it isn’t pretty. You can murder an unborn child, but heaven forbid you have a say in what is injected into the one you chose to keep alive. Little by little, we are losing before the fight has even begun.  Pray, think, act.

Sunday, June 14, 2015

Silent Thunder



Are you free to say whatever you want as long as you follow a lengthy set of rules and stay away from taboo topics? Or is this subjective freedom? Is it freedom at all?

A recent online debate recently caught my eye. Now my disclaimer, as a blogger I often wonder if you can engage in true debate in an online forum. I know there is a distinct advantage in some cases, as I can often research my response before I make them. Emotional retorts are often times just that, emotional instead of factual, and I am just as guilty as anyone. I believe you can debate, it is just hard to hold anyone accountable for what they say. End of disclaimer.

The debate in question was a discourse on freedom of speech. One opponent was arguing that Canada does in fact have freedom of speech, while the other postulated that limited freedom is not freedom at all. The debate turned into a tantrum with overreaching statements that if we try to stop terrorism then we are quenching freedom of speech. I am not going to stoop to that level. However, it did bring up an interesting question for most of our freedoms for me personally. Does a country truly have freedom of the press if the government can regulate what is published? Does a country have freedom of speech if government can arrest you for an opinion they have not sanctioned? Does a country have freedom to keep and bear arms if those rights are systematically stripped? Does a country have freedom of peaceable assembly if the government limits that right to specific groups? Does a country have freedom of religion if the government sanctions what can and what cannot be said in church? These are questions to ponder, and they are not philosophical. They are coming to a state near you.

For the sake of space and attention span, let’s stick with freedom of speech for this post. Recently, near the town I live, a person was found hauling their garbage to the dump. He was holding his garbage in his trailer with an American flag. This is such a personal issue to me, because of how much that flag means to me, because of the friends I have who fought and died for what that flag means, and were then buried beneath those stars and stripes. To see someone so callously use and abuse Old Glory sets my blood to boiling, to say nothing of those that burn or urinate upon it. HOWEVER, that is the true sign of a free country, the right to protest or act peaceable in whatever manner inspires you. I could do an entire post on the stars and stripes, but I will not. Suffice to say, there are many countries where you could be arrested and even executed for disrespecting the nation’s flag or say, even a book. What would happen if Lil Wayne walked on the Islamic Flag? I suppose it would depend on what country he was in when he did it...

So, if flag burning is one of the signs of a free country, what are the beginning signs of a repressed country? The original question was, “Does Canada have true freedom of speech if that freedom is limited by the government?” Point of fact, in Canada, you can and will be put in jail if you preach from the pulpit that the bible says homosexuality is a sin. There are good pastors with good hearts and no ill will or intent in jail in Canada right now simply for reading the bible out loud on this topic, as Canada has labeled it hate speech. I would conclude this is not freedom of speech, this is not freedom of religion, and this is not freedom. What a precedent. Regardless what anyone’s opinion on homosexuality is, if people are not free to discuss it or talk about it, where does the encroachment of government end? If we do nothing are we just zombies in a game? What about the extreme bias in America towards Christianity that we should wake up and take a look at. Hillary Clinton's retaliatory statements when questioned about the security clearance of certain high level security staffers that have family ties to the Muslim Brotherhood should at least raise an eyebrow.

May I suggest a VERY good book written by a friend of mine? It just came out, specifically covering freedom of speech. Ironically it is endorsed by liberal and conservative alike, Christian and atheist, straight and homosexual. It is called, “Shhhh! Quiet Christian.” By Gus Booth. A provocative, educational interesting read to say the least. It will make you think if nothing else.
It can be found easily, but here is a link to Amazon if that is easier still.

http://www.amazon.com/Shhhh-Quiet-Christian-Gus-Booth/dp/1629527386/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1434317994&sr=8-1&keywords=shhhh%21+quiet+christian

Thursday, May 14, 2015

Contribution vs Entitlement


I don’t think I’ve ever gone two calendar months in-between posts before! Well, there is a first time for everything.

I was thinking today that America should consider doing what so many other countries have done; implement a service plan in order to become full citizens.

I suppose I could do a google search, but how about not? Off the top of my head, England, Germany Israel and maybe Argentina…Mexico? All of these require every citizen to put in a certain amount of military service.

I think American’s have gotten used to entitlement…like something is owed to them for the very act of drawing breath. What we consider poor, 80% of the world consider rich.

I propose a hybrid system in which you must give two years of your life to your country. Don’t like the military? Red Cross, Third World Country Disaster Relief, anything that would help with the perspective of how great a country to live in America really is.

This plan could be implemented immediately after high-school. Drop-outs are immediately sent to Africa to dig wells. What a great education incentive.

It may not be the answer, but it's a start. I've seen far too many career stay-at-home children of late.
 
 

Tuesday, February 24, 2015

My body, my choice

Ever heard the expression, "My body, my choice"? It is usually associated with a women who is pro-choice. I have already done a post on abortion in the past and do not feel the need to do another at the moment. However, I do want to focus on a choice.

I have been briefly, very briefly, following the story of Cassandra Callender, a 17 year old who has refused cancer treatments after two rounds of chemo.

The last thing I read today was a judge ruling that Cassandra lacked the ability to make the decision, and will be forced to undergo chemo against her will. I found this hopelessly ironic since judges and courts have ruled that if a young teen wants to have an abortion to kill a child, they can do so without parental knowledge or consent (exceptions to this all over of course, but making a general statement).

I further wonder at the logic of forced medical treatment that is admittedly only 80% successful, and even the success can lead to a myriad of other health problems from injecting poison into the body. Plus the possibility of the cancer coming back out of remission.

Imagine if someone was forced to do blood-letting because a judge and medical doctor of the time insisted it was 80% successful. This sounds as effective as the 1940's lobotomies to cure mental illness.... or how about a toxic dose of mercury? (well, they do say it's okay NOW if it's injected into you in a vaccine, so it must be okay...right? It's only a neurotoxin after all).

Or how about heroin? That used to be prescribed by doctors who knew best as well.

I can't really rationalize forced chemo treatment at all. I just sit here and shake my head.

"...professing themselves to be wise, they became fools..."

Friday, January 02, 2015

Is Christian-American-Moderation a triple-oxymoron?



Happy New Year everyone! Lets get started

Let me preface this entire post with a frustration of mine. Generally speaking, there seems to be a predominant personality type that I have been coming into contact with lately. This personality is quite simply, ignorance. This word is not an insult (well it could be), but merely the perfect word to describe lacking awareness or knowledge, uneducated on a subject. It used to be that I would only come across these types of people in the form of college freshmen, or college dropouts that took a class once and consider themselves very educated (keeping in mind that most Americans can get a good education with a library card). This personality type is usually followed up with the belief that yelling louder makes you “righter.” However, I have been running into more and more of these types of late with a wide variety of background and age. I blame it on the technology age and the ability to cheat the research system by using an online search engine.

Don't get me wrong, I am using the internet right now to spew my own opinions, and am a frequent search-engine user. With that being said, I understand that everyone has a different worldview, a filter or life-lens through which everything is weighed, translated and perceived. Yet, when your life-lens is merely the regurgitation of rhetoric you have heard from friends, the internet or a “reliable source” without any real evidence, research or conviction...I have a problem accepting your opinion as valid.

Now that I have prefaced this post, let us address the topic that was posed as a question. Quite frankly, it is a tough question to answer. Firstly because I do not know if there is such thing as a triple-oxymoron, but for arguments sake lets pretend there is such a thing. Secondly, because it is quite complicated. Lets try to iron it out together.

I had a popular question come up recently, but it was made in the form of a statement. “Christians shouldn't drink alcohol.” I have heard this statement before, usually from ignorant people, sometimes from people who don't claim to be Christians at all. However, the person who recently presented this statement was taken aback that I did not support that statement. Furthermore, this person is educated, well-versed and thoughtful. So I asked him what his basis was.

He stated that anything that affects the brain should be avoided, because as Christians, we are supposed to be sober minded, and the bible says that drunkards will not enter the kingdom of heaven. I responded with the first thing that came to mind, as I have a small background in this subject matter. “When I exercise, endorphins are released, and affect the brain...should I not work out then because it might affect my brain?” I further acknowledged that drunkards and gluttons were considered the same from a biblical vantage, but that God gives grace to us over sin and death, AND that alcohol and food are not bad in and of themselves, but the abuse and overindulgence are, and that Americans are terrible at moderation of any kind. Too much exercise, too much sleep, too much food, too much sugar, too much work are all examples of a lack of moderation.

We got back on topic when he said that wine could have been non-alcoholic. I responded that Jesus turned the water into wine in Canaan, to which he responded Jesus would not have created anything that would lead to drunkenness. I stopped him there and asked if he was blaming an object causing sin or a lack of self control. It is not the Ford F-150 that causes major accidents, but the driver that is drunk. It is not the 5 gallon bucket that causes infant death, but the inattentive parent. It is not sex that causes adultery, but the lack of for-planning and self-control. I purported that God has always created good things that humans have abused, neglected or misused.

I further acknowledged that historically, wine is the English word used for both non-alcoholic juice, alcoholic wine, and low alcoholic content water diluted wine. As with any text, anything taken out of context can be warped and manipulated to make it say whatever you want. With that said, I do not want to tell anyone reading this that “Christians should drink alcohol.” I think you should have a thorough understanding of what you are reading, the time, the context, the translation, while reading everything in it's entirety instead of strip-mining the bible to make it say what you want. In conclusion, no, I don't think Christ turned water into grape juice. Otherwise the main guy at the wedding wouldn't have told exclaimed that he saved the best wine for last (historically good wine is served first, then the bad after the gusts have gotten tipsy and don't know the difference).

There is a verse that is often abused by Christians who do not believe in drinking and try to force their beliefs on others. (side note: I DO believe in absolute moral truth, while simultaneously believing that some truths are relative to the individual). Romans 14:13 paraphrased, “Stop passing judgment on others (we often leave out this part when quoting this verse), but make up your mind not to put a stumbling block in front of others. The footnote in the Life Application Study Bible NIV says this about the verse:

Some Christians use an invisible weaker brother to support their own opinions, prejudices, or standards. “You must live by these standards,” they say, “or you will be offending the weaker brother.” In truth, the person would often be offending no one but the speaker. While Paul urges us to be sensitive to those whose faith may be harmed by our actions, we should not sacrifice our liberty in Christ just to satisfy the selfish motives of those who are trying to force their opinions on us...believers should not project their standards on others.”

Now, I am not trying to make the bible say what I want it to say, but if you actually read it, most references are speaking of overindulgence. It talks about drunkards and gluttons, not drinkers and eaters. Jesus himself said, “The son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, here is a glutton and a drunkard...(Matthew 11:18). Do you think he was referring to non-alcoholic grape juice if judgmental pharisee's were accusing him of overindulgence? Doubtful.

I went online (darn the internet) and did some research into Hebrew culture, Greek wording etc, and did come up with the three different types of “wine” as I stated above. This argument could literally go on and on, but this post is long enough. Suffice to say that in my research there are MANY opinions out there about what Christians should and shouldn't do. Many of the arguments only use half verses, or conveniently leave out half of them. After everything I have looked at, I believe that every Christian should decide for themselves what they should do. Discussion is a good thing. I believe the following are some good rules to follow:

  1. Don't flaunt what you do, whatever your opinion
  2. Don't intentionally do something to cause someone else to stumble
  3. Understand that you will stand before the judgment seat of Christ for YOUR actions, not someone els's
  4. 1 Cor 10:31 “So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God, do not cause anyone to stumble...(read the whole thing in context)

Suffice to say this is a touchy subject in America. Can overindulgence of alcohol lead to bad things? You better believe it...just like the misuse and overindulgence in many other things Christians choose to conveniently ignore.

Tuesday, November 11, 2014

Autism, vaccines, doctors

A very curious statement was made by a Doctor today. He said, "There is not a single shred of evidence whatsoever that shots are harmful or that there is any link at all between vaccinations and autism."

As someone who does not hold a doctorate degree, and isn't a doctor, may I brazenly say that Doctor's don't know everything? I believe many doctors form an opinion that is based on nothing more than feelings.
I say this because I have brought the subject of vaccinations up to many MANY doctors over the years and I have received a 50-50 split on responses. The last two Doctors I have seen this past year each said that they do not give their children immunizations at all and never would. Then another doctor says there is nothing harmful at all and has given all 6 of his children the full recommended doses.

Does everyone out there realize that 20 years ago there were (about) 18-25 shots given to a person in their lifetime? Now a child before the age of 12 gets 69...that's SIXTY NINE shots!!!

I truly do believe in absolute moral truth. I do not believe truth is necessarily relative at all times. Regardless of THAT particular philosophical argument...how can any doctor, without any evidence, say with absolute conviction that there "is not a single shred of evidence...that shots are harmful..."

How about a simple google search? I know that's not academia at it's finest, but lets just take a look at what is in a standard vaccination shot:

Here is an exact quote from the Center for Disease Control (CDC) website as to side effects from common vaccines:

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/side-effects.htm

Mild Problems
Several mild problems have been reported within 2 weeks of getting the vaccine:
  • headaches, upper respiratory tract infection (about 1 person in 3)
  • stuffy nose, sore throat, joint pain (about 1 person in 6)
  • abdominal pain, cough, nausea (about 1 person in 7)
  • diarrhea (about 1 person in 10)
  • fever (about 1 person in 100)
Severe Problems
More serious problems have been reported by about 1 person in 100, within 6 months of vaccination. These problems included:
  • blood in the urine or stool
  • pneumonia
  • inflammation of the stomach or intestines 
Now hear this...also a direct quote from the CDC website.

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/additives.htm

 These are the Common substances found in vaccines they include:
  • Aluminum gels or salts of aluminum which are added as adjuvants to help the vaccine stimulate a better response. Adjuvants help promote an earlier, more potent response, and more persistent immune response to the vaccine.
  • Antibiotics which are added to some vaccines to prevent the growth of germs (bacteria) during production and storage of the vaccine. No vaccine produced in the United States contains penicillin.
  • Egg protein is found in influenza and yellow fever vaccines, which are prepared using chicken eggs. Ordinarily, persons who are able to eat eggs or egg products safely can receive these vaccines.
  • Formaldehyde is used to inactivate bacterial products for toxoid vaccines, (these are vaccines that use an inactive bacterial toxin to produce immunity.) It is also used to kill unwanted viruses and bacteria that might contaminate the vaccine during production. Most formaldehyde is removed from the vaccine before it is packaged.
  • Monosodium glutamate (MSG) and 2-phenoxy-ethanol which are used as stabilizers in a few vaccines to help the vaccine remain unchanged when the vaccine is exposed to heat, light, acidity, or humidity.
  • Thimerosal is a mercury-containing preservative that is added to vials of vaccine that contain more than one dose to prevent contamination and growth of potentially harmful bacteria.
Give that a read-through...I feel like a conspiracy theorist, but this is on the GOVERNMENT website! Common substances found in vaccines are FORMALDEHYDE, ALUMINUM and MERCURY!!!

But it's "okay" because there are only very small amounts of these in each shot. But WAIT! Remember, that is a small amount...times 69. May I also remind you that Mercury is a neurotoxin that attacks the brain, aluminum is a toxic element and formaldehyde is a poison. But it's okay, because some Doctors say that there isn't a shred of evidence showing that vaccines are harmful.

Now, please don't get me wrong...I am not advocating everyone stop getting vaccines...where would we be if Measles or Rubella weren't stopped cold?...millions dead! What I am advocating is that people don't walk around and drink the cool-aid...that you please, PLEASE learn to think for yourself and not just listen to every quack website (like mine) and every quack person with a degree that comes along sounding smart-ish.