Dear Israel and the American People

Dear Israel,

We the People of the United States of America do solemnly apologize for the actions of our so-called "leaders" with regard to this "framework" that might lead to a possibility of exploring the potential for maybe thinking about daydreaming about getting a nuclear deal done with Iran (after they have a weapon, naturally).

We're sorry you were sold out by King DingleBarry, but to be fair, he's been selling out the American people for 6 years now, so we're glad to finally have the company.

We the People still overwhelmingly support our only true ally in the Middle East, even if our media (read: demoKKKrat propaganda department) tries to make it seem otherwise. We are still proud still stand with you.

Signed with much regret,

We the People

*      *      *

To the American people (the ones who voted for the Petulant Pretender),

Way to go, low-information morons...

You elected a guy who is, in accordance with his only core belief, dedicated to the destruction of the United States as a world power. And you did it TWICE. The presidency isn't one of those things where you say, "I'll try anything twice, just to make sure I really didn't like it the 1st time."

Congratulations are in order for electing the one guy who could simultaneously spend more than all forty-three of his predecessors combined while making America the laughingstock of our enemies (and an embarrassment to our allies).

I've wondered what "leading from behind" really, truly meant since the day His Royal Lowness first uttered those words.

Now I know, and I tremble for my children's future - and the future of the United States of America...

No really, thanks a lot...

We are so screwed. ~ Hunter

 

Establishment And Free Exercise Thereof: What The First Amendment REALLY Is

I've never understood the mindset of people who claim that this isn't a Christian nation, or the religion was never meant to be part of government.

 

The "freedom of religion" part of the First Amendment is, in no way, a prohibition on religion in government. It is, however, a restriction on government in religion.

 

That restriction, known as the "establishment clause," means that the federal government cannot endorse a particular religion or sect over any other, nor can it require the people to worship a certain God, or require one to worship any God. A further prohibition on the establishment of its own religion, i.e., the Church of England, is intertwined with that.

 

The "free exercise" clause means exactly what it says - one is free to exercise one's religion freely, wherever and whenever one wants, provided that it does not endanger one's fellow citizens' lives. You can't hold Mass in the center lane of I-95, for example.

Separation of Church and State is an utter fallacy. It exists nowhere in our founding documents. The phrase itself is actually misquoted from a private letter Thomas Jefferson sent to the Danbury Baptist ministers responding to their fears that the U.S. government was about to choose an official religion. The actual phrase reads - "separation between Church and State."

 

That word "between" brings a whole new meaning to it, doesn't it?

 

What Jefferson meant - coincidentally, the over- and mis-used quote from the Treaty of Tripoli about the U.S. government not being founded on the Christian religion also means the same thing - that the Church (not religion) wasn't the government, as it was in so much of Europe at that time, therefore the government had no business or inclination to establish an official religion.

 

Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black coined the phrase "separation of Church and State," taking liberties with the meaning of the Constitution, despite having a reputation of being a literalist. As a member of the KKK (reputedly "just" to get votes), Black was very accustomed to taking liberties with the Constitution, despite his vote against segregation in Brown v. Board of Education. For the record, Black was a veritable mass of contradictions.

 

To claim that religion and religious principles were never meant to be part of government is folly. Jefferson himself, a supposed atheist, attended Church services held in the Capitol Building, clearly disagreed with that sentiment.

 

Perhaps it's time to return to the vision of the Founders and Framers and stop thinking we know better what they meant than they did when they founded this nation and wrote the documents we're SUPPOSED to live by. ~ Hunter

 

 

It's Freedom OF Religion, not Freedom FROM Religion

I first wrote about the First Amendment a couple of years ago. I detailed how the phrase "separation of Church and State" not only does not exist anywhere in our founding documents, but was taken - out of context and not even quoted correctly - from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to Baptist ministers in an attempt to alleviate their fears that the United States government was going to select an "official religion."

 

Given the recent signing into law of a bill in Indiana that, for all intents and purposes, simply says that the government of Indiana will not force a business owner to provide services to an event that conflicts with their religious beliefs, it bears repeating, as some people just don't get it.

 

Everyone walking this planet "discriminates" every day. It's a fact of life.

 

You spend your money at one store over another; you eat at McDonald's over Burger King, you drink beer "A" over beer "B." You use Exxon gas rather than BP. I could go on and on and on, but I hope you get the idea.

 

If you patronize a white-owned business rather than a similar but black-owned business, does that make you a racist? No...

 

If you go to a regular bar and not the local gay bar, does that make you a homophobe? No...

 

As far as I know, not a single case of this so-called discrimination has been an outright refusal of all goods and services to gay people. They've just been refusal to provide goods and services for things that the business owner disagrees with for religious reasons, AS IS THEIR RIGHT under the "free exercise" part of the First Amendment.

 

Freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion, nor was the First Amendment meant to protect government from religion. It's purpose was to protect religion from government, which is what this law was designed to remind you about...

 

But Hunter, wouldn't the ability to "discriminate" based on religious beliefs be forcing someone to participate in your religion? That would only be true if I could force you to spend your money at my business - which I can't do.

 

Let's turn that question around, though. Wouldn't that work the other way? How can freedom of religion (and the free exercise thereof) be considered a freedom if I'm forced to violate my religious beliefs?

 

Nobody is forced to practice any religion in this country. I can't force you to convert to Catholicism, and neither can the government, which is the primary reason for establishment clause of the First Amendment - to keep the government from endorsing or establishing an "official" religion.

 

What it doesn't do is give you the right to prevent me from practicing my religion in every aspect of my life. Your rights end where mine begin, and my rights are just as inviolable as yours.

It is interesting to note, however, that most of the liberals protesting this law remain absolutely silent on muslims throwing gay people off of buildings, beheading them, stoning them, etc.

Let's not mention good ole Hitlery Clintoon tweeting about the law (apparently not noticing the irony in protesting a law that's modeled after the law her husband signed into law at the federal level in 1993).

 

By the way, a person is free to not participate in my religious beliefs by - and here's the important part - doing business somewhere else.

 

See? FREEDOM... ~ Hunter

It's All In The "Book"

I've seen a great many comments and posts made by atheists - who are self-professed conservatives - that are profanity-laced tirades, mainly about Christians who stand against muslims (lowercase to denote my absolutely profound disrespect).

These posts and comments are almost always, nearly without exception, some variation on the "Radical Christians are the same as radical muslims..." or "Doesn't your god say not to judge..."

Blah, blah, blah...

Let's cut right to the heart of the matter, shall we?

The difference between a "radical" Christian and a "radical" muslim - the book they're so adamant about following.

The New Testament (which is what Christians follow) preaches love and tolerance for all mankind, among other things. In order to be a Christian, one must follow the teachings of Jesus. Calling yourself a Christian does not a Christian make. David Koresh, Jim Jones, Hitler all claimed to be Christian - see the point? Westboro Baptist Church is another great example.

The koran teaches hatred of unbelievers and literally grants one permission - nay, it commands one - to slay the infidels. What we call a "radical" muslim is, in reality, a fundamentalist. They're following their "prophet's" words to the letter.

A fundamentalist Christian, however, not only won't behead you for not believing, they'll actually pray for you that one day, you'll "see the light," as it were.

If atheists can't see the difference, they're not as smart as they think they are. Or they're being deliberately obtuse.

Personally, I think it's the latter. ~ Hunter

Time For A Cruz?

The Left and establishment Republicans are puking all over themselves about Ted Cruz running for president, making it a point to showcase Cruz's role in the partial government shutdown a couple of years ago - a shutdown they now call "disastrous."

Yeah.... It was soooooooo disastrous that Republicans now have a majority in both the House and Senate the likes of which haven't been seen since WW2 (Not that they're actually doing anything a with it).

I don't know if Cruz will, or even can, win, but he's got my vote. I've been saying this since Bush 43's reelection in 2004 - we need a true conservative to win the Republican nomination because - and here's the important part - CONSERVATISM WINS EVERY TIME.

Is 2016 finally the year conservatives win back the party and the government? Only time will tell, but if we don't, we're gonna have to start using the word "AINO" - America In Name Only - because the only "America" left on the planet will be her name.

This is a sad truth that nobody seems to realize, except those of us who have been paying attention for the last two decades or so. ~ Hunter

You Might Be A Liberal, Too...

I wrote "You Might Be A Liberal" about two years ago. It was a huge hit for the Facebook pages on which I write. Given the everyday ridiculousness that is liberalism, this follow-up is LONG overdue. I hope you enjoy...

If you think nuclear power plants in Iran is "just fine" but protest against them in America, you're a hypocrite, and you might be a liberal, too.

If you think Iran is enriching uranium for "power plants" when their stated goal is to wipe Israel from the earth, but the intercontinental ballistic missile system they're also developing is completely unconnected, I've got some swampland in Arizona to sell you, and you might be a liberal, too.

If you think the IRS, VA, Fast & Furious, etc. have nothing to do with King DingleBarry but Iran-Contra was entirely Reagan's fault, you clearly have your head in the sand, and you might be a liberal, too.

If your idea of religious "tolerance" means bending over backwards for islam while demeaning Christianity and Judaism, you obviously don't understand why and how the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written the way they were, and you might be a liberal, too.

If you think your imaginary "right" not to be offended trumps my actual right to say whatever I damn well want to say, your mother put your helmet on too tight, and you might be a liberal, too.

If your idea of equality is tearing down those who are successful to the level of those who aren't instead of helping the less fortunate become successful, not only are you an idiot, you might be a liberal, too.

If you believe animals have rights but pre-born humans don't, it makes me wonder what your favorite window flavor is, and you might be a liberal, too.

If you don't bat an eye at murdering unborn babies, but protest a convicted criminal being put to death, there's something really, horribly, terribly wrong with you, and you might be a liberal, too. (from my friend Teresa)

 

If you criticize Republicans for spending money to seek justice for the four Americans murdered at Benghazi, but have no problem with the billions being spent to support illegals, there's no question whatsoever that you're a liberal. You probably eat crayons, too. (Teresa)

 

If you thought the Affordable Care Act was going to do anything about the cost of healthcare, you truly don't understand economics, and you might be a liberal, too.

 

If you think the sun's waxing (it means more, liberals) activity has nothing to do with global warming but the sun's waning (it means less, liberals) activity has everything to do with the impending "global cooling" (yes, I'm serious), your head is so far up Algore's fat a$$ that nothing can be done for you, and you might be a liberal, too.

 

 If you think Ted Cruz (an actual Constitutional scholar) is an idiot for pushing for a return to the Constitution, but think King DingleBarry (a Constitutional scholar in his own mind) is the smartest being in the history of the world, just shut up, because you might be a liberal, too.

If you think the forty-seven Republican senators who signed an open letter addressed to Iranian leaders committed treason, but think John "Lurch" Kerry, Nancy "The Catholic" Pelosi, and King DingleBarry doing the same thing (except Kerry and Pelosi actually went to the places they interfered with) is just peachy, I'm pretty sure you rode the short bus to school, and you might be a liberal, too.

If you think freedom of speech only applies to people who agree with your point of view, I seriously have to wonder about your comprehension of the English language, and you might be a liberal, too.

If you think education equals intelligence, but have a degree in Eastern European Art Philosophy (and took ten years to earn it), you don't understand what intelligence really is (and you're wasting your clear talent for cooking McDonald's fries), and you're definitely a liberal, too.

If you think banning "assault" weapons deters crime, but sending criminals to jail does not, you're truly an idiot of the highest magnitude, and you should probably be the one to go tell the gang-bangers to give up their weapons. We'll wait to see how that turns out for you. Oh, you might be a liberal, too.

If you think our enemies just need to be "understood" and we need to "empathize" with them, you might be Hillary Clinton, and you might be a liberal buffoon (OK, there's no "might" about it). ~ Hunter

 

Betrayal Anyone?

King DingleBarry is mulling tax increases by Imperial Decree (read: Executive Order).

The entirety of this administration shows its bountiful jackassery by skipping Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's speech before a joint session of Congress, calling that speech "dangerous" and "destructive." I guess Iran getting nuclear weapons is not "dangerous" or "destructive."

No less than fifty-five demoKKKrats skip the speech, with those that attended calling it "political theater" and other ridiculous things, never once touching upon the actual substance of the speech.

The Constant Campaigner has recently declared himself above anything Congress does, saying, in effect, that it doesn't matter if Congress - which, need I remind you, is a co-equal branch of government - votes to deny his Royal Edict (and massive overreach) on illegal immigration and its essential amnesty for people whose very first action in our nation is to break the law; he's going to do it anyway - displaying a complete disregard and utter contempt for this country and our history/traditions/culture.

Hillary Clinton, the presumptive demoKKKrat presidential nominee for 2016, is currently under fire as it's now known that the Clinton Foundation took donations from foreign governments - while she was Secretary of State, no less - with, shall we say, less than stellar human rights' records, particularly regarding WOMEN'S rights (which she proclaims to champion). Oh yeah, did I mention that we also learned today that she never used a government email account - which is REQUIRED BY LAW - while conducting official State Department business?

Aaannnddd to top today off, we find out that the Republicans bowed down, ONCE AGAIN, and passed a clean bill funding the Department of Homeland Security - which includes funding King DingleBarry's de facto amnesty executive order. Never mind that the Republicans control both houses of Congress and nothing should get through that isn't approved by said Republicans.

Anyone else feeling a tad..............BETRAYED? ~ Hunter