Sunday, July 10, 2011

The Fallen Americans: Our Irrelevant Majority


Richard Nixon made his presidential appeal to a "Silent Majority;" a majority that he believed had the ability to change the course of America if they would only speak up. Today, we have the same situation, and it is more important than ever.

However, if the past is any indication of whether this new Silent Majority will take a stand, then hopes are dismal at best. This new silent Majority is more than just silent - it has become Irrelevant. Think about it: when did we speak up when prayer was taken out of school and God was removed from almost everything having to do with government? When did we speak up when the Supreme Court ruled that an unborn child does not have the right to life? When do we ever speak up, except to complain and then do nothing?
The other side isn't afraid of us. They take it for granted (and rightly so) that this new Silent Majority will only make a few complaints, and then eventually quiet down and disperse. We certainly are the Irrelevant Majority.

...It's time to make a change. We cannot afford to be silent again. No longer can we watch as the principles and statutes instituted by God are set by the wayside and ceremonially executed by a culture that is hostile to everything we believe in. It is time to make a stand. We cannot go quietly. We have lost so much ground already, and the only thing we can blame are the faces we see in the mirror.

We are the last hope for America, and unless we speak up now and take a stand, we may never recover. It is our duty to stand for what is right. It is our duty to speak up, and no longer be an Irrelevant Majority.

WE ARE CHRISTIAN...
WE ARE AMERICAN...
THEREFORE, WE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR AMERICA.

Let's take our stand now - before it's too late.



*Flag image from PatriotIcon.org

Friday, June 24, 2011

I Have Returned!

Well,
It has been a while since I have posted on the ol' blog. I would say that I have a good excuse, being a full time college student, but that doesn't seem to cut it.

Perhaps I just needed a break. I don't know, give me a break. ANYWAY, I am back! I will try to post more often as I get the chance, and shall once again analyze the world to pieces.

Until then, here is something to keep you occupied:



Rock on, America!

Friday, May 13, 2011

The Truth About the Supreme Court

This is a guest post by Austin Eldridge, author of "Austin's Blog: Musings of a Conspiracy Nut"

All of you know about Roe v. Wade. This was one of the biggest decisions in Supreme Court and U.S. history. This was the landmark decision that made abortion legal in the United States. But, I recently heard a very interesting point on this decision.

I am going through a Constitutional Law course that is done by Michael P. Farris, president of Patrick Henry College, and chairman and general counsel of the Home School Legal Defense Association. He was talking about the Supreme Court and their decisions.

He pointed out, as some of you may know, that the Supreme Court cannot MAKE law. They INTERPRET the law. Congress is the only branch that can make law. Think about it for a second. This means that the Supreme Court CANNOT say that Roe v. Wade applies to the whole United States. Roe v. Wade technically should apply ONLY to Roe and Wade. Why? Because the Supreme Court can't make law! Roe v. Wade is NOT a law, it is a ruling. Therefore, it should not apply to the whole U.S. It should only apply to the people involved in the case, in this example, Roe and Wade. But, it has always been thought of as a law, and as applicable to the U.S.

I think if more people can realize this, Roe v. Wade might be overturned. As a side note, I would definitely recommend Michael Farris's Constitutional Law course. The book is titled "Constitutional Law for Enlightened Citizens". It also comes with a lecture C.D.


Austin Eldridge is a first year blogger, and is a good friend of mine. He enjoys posting on his own blog, which you can check out at http://musingsofconspiracy.blogspot.com/

Sunday, January 30, 2011

MiThoughts on the First Amendment (Separation of Church and State)

The First Amendment in the United States Constitution states that,

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people to peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

There are (obviously), different opinions on the meaning of this amendment. Some think it means religion has no place in government because of “Separation of Church and State” doctrine. Others say that there is no real separation of church and state anywhere, in the Constitution.

A question then arises,

“Where in the world did separation of church and state come from anyway?”

To answer that question, we have to go back to the 19th century, during Thomas Jefferson’s term as president. The Danbury Baptists (a minority denomination in Connecticut) had written Jefferson about their concern over religious rights. The president wrote back to them, and you can read the transcript of Jefferson’s letter below:


Mr. President

To Messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem & approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more & more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.

(Source: http://www.newgenevacenter.org/06_Historical-Documents/1802_Jefferson's-'Wall-of-Separation'-Letter.html)



That, ladies and Gentleman, is where the term “Separation of Church and State” originated. To make a long story short, Jefferson’s letter (or rather that specific section of the letter) is used to justify the efforts to remove any and all expressions of religion from essentially every aspect of government.
So what do I think? What are MiThoughts on the issue?

I do believe that the first Amendment creates a “wall of separation” between Church and State.

Now, before you start jumping to conclusions, allow me to explain what I mean: The First Amendment CLEARLY STATES that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

SOOOO…the Constitution CLEARLY forbids Congress to make any law that concerns an establishment of religion… I believe that the constitution has separated congress from affecting and influencing religion. But I won’t get into what an “establishment of religion” means. SO MANY other people are concerned with that, and there are so many wonderful debates on the subject.

I want to touch on a DIFFERENT aspect of the amendment, specifically the part that says CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW…

Does the First Amendment say that THE PRESIDENT is expressly forbidden to be religious or to express his religious beliefs? Does it say that a STATE SUPREME COURT may not have the Ten Commandments on display? Does it say that SCHOOLS are forbidden to have prayer, or to express religion in any way?

Does it mention ANYTHING other than forbidding CONGRESS to make a LAW?


I have not heard many people asking these questions, and I think it is high time somebody did!


The fact is, the Constitution does NOT say anything other than Congress shall make no LAWor prohibit the free exercise thereof.

Don’t be caught up by asking the wrong questions, or letting someone trick you into answering the wrong questions….


The mind of El Pensador doesn’t work that way, and neither should yours.


Rock on, America!

Thursday, January 27, 2011

I REFUSE to Post Today!

There are many reasons why I decided not to post on the blog today. A few of the more significant reasons are as follows:

1. I just don't feel like it.

2. I have previously been too busy, and to post now would be almost the same as admitting that I had free time for a few moments (which ISN'T true).

3. ...I forgot what reason number three was, but it was a GOOD reason!

4. I am working on an forthcoming post which deals with a very controversial topic...the First Amendment.

5. I wanted to add that last part as a "teaser" to keep you on your toes, and encourage you to "stay tuned" until I eventually post it (which won't be too far away, so have patience).


Those reasons (as well as many others) are why I chose NOT to post today. Sorry to disappoint!

Wednesday, January 26, 2011

Quote of the Day: And it's a DOOZY!

"The man who tries to walk two roads will split his pants."
    - West African Maninka Tribe Proverb 

Wednesday, January 5, 2011

Ronald Reagan: Jokes About Communism

It's no wonder why so many people loved President Reagan. He wasn't afraid to laugh! Here are some clips of him telling jokes about communism. Enjoy!


Saturday, January 1, 2011