There is NO such thing as "Separation of Church and State" it is simply a liberal fairy tale

I am truly sick of the whole "separation of church and state" discussion that seems to be a knee-jerk reaction by liberals whenever a conservative mentions their personal faith.

The Foundation Documents of the U.S. include the Declaration of Independence; Constitution and Bill of Rights (the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution). The Declaration of Independence includes multiple references to God (or "The Creator" - who the heck do you think created us at the top of earth's food chain if not "God"?) and is the primary document on which the foundation of the USA rests.

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights does not include any language that establishes a "separation of church and state". In point of fact, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment protects the right of the people to have and practice their own chosen religion. This was written into the Constitution because of the situation in England that many of the Colonials suffered under.

In England; there existed the Church of England - a national church that was also a political entity and which could exact taxes from the citizens of England - in addition to the taxes exacted by the government. Many an English Landowner - most notably the second (or third, etc) sons of a nobleman lost their property - and their titles due to unjust taxation by the Church of England.

In America, the Founders were committed to preventing a state established religion that could exert similar authority to the Church of England. Thus, the First (ratified) Amendment to the Constitution is written to protect the people from being forced into an autocratic situation - that of having a state run religion.

As this is the history - and yes, it is documented - look in the Foundation Documents and the Articles of Confederation - to see the background explained here in this Blog post.

The actual term and interpretation of "separation of church and state" is contained in the text of a personal Thank You letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Church in 1802. This letter actually exemplified the explanation given above - that no man was subject to explaining his faith to any other man. Nor, was a man's faith subject to governance by the Federal Government.

So, as is exemplified in both the First Amendment and the Danbury Letter, in all fact; the term "separation of church and state" has been usurped by those who would deny the basic Christian Principles in the foundation of the US.

As if this was not enough; there is an Article of the Constitution which lays down clearly that if there is an incorrect "interpretation" of the Constitution and the Amendments, that interpretation - and any following actions based on that incorrect interpretation - do not constitute the creation of a right - or precedent of law that will stand under examination.

The meaning of the Founders was clear - practicing the religion of one's choice was protected in the US and infringement of that right is indeed Unconstitutional.

Life or Death? The choice seems abundantly clear...

I actively watched the major speeches of both the GOP and DNC conventions. The issue with the greatest clarity for me is the dichotomy of the two 'tickets'.

On the one hand, we have the silver tongued speaker who voted repeatedly against legislation to protect live babies (little human beings) when born following an attempted late term abortion. A man who would not want to "punish his daughters with a baby"(1) if she were in Bristol's shoes. A man who is all for protecting the polar bear and the three-toed purple spotted tree frog - but not a child.

On the other hand, we have a man who is pro-life who chose as his running mate a woman who, pregnant with a child the parents knew had special challenges - accepted that gift from God with open arms. A woman who believes in abstinence teachings for children - so that they may be taught by the ones with the true responsibility in the matter - their parents; not so that they be ignorant. A woman who feels a politician's job is to serve "with a servant's heart" (2). A woman who, upon finding her own daughter pregnant; once again accepts God's challenge ahead and supports Bristol and looks forward to welcoming her grandchild.

That is about the most clear you can get on the differences between McCain/Palin and Obama/Biden. A ticket that stands for life and respect - or - a ticket that stands for fluid morality.

The choice, for me, is clear.


Notes:
(1) - Senator Obama on March 30, 2008 in a Town Hall Meeting
(2) - Governor Palin on September 3, 2008 at the RNC

Liberals - the only ones who can "SAVE THE EARTH" - in their minds

One thing that astounds me is the level of hubris in the minds of the environmentally elite. (or those who like to think they are "elite")

Creationists, Darwinists, etc - agree that the earth is old. Over the life of the earth; species have come and species have gone. Extinction of one group has led to an opportunity for another to arise or thrive.

Those who are so intent on preventing the extinction of any species need to be aware that we are interfering with the process of the earth. By stepping in and re-creating or infusing new populations; we need to ask "are we stopping a normal event that will prevent another life form from growing; or even being?"

Yes, I know the hue and cry of "man is destroying habitat" will bombard me. I would say that the earth cycles and sun/solar system cycles destroy habitat and have done so for millennia on end.

The natural resources of the earth exist - irrefutable fact. They are being used under a technological evolution and invention by man. Cows, horses, lions, tigers, bears and beavers are not using (to my knowledge) air conditioning. Man is. Is it a "luxury?" Perhaps. I would say both A/C and heat have prevented human death and extended human life.

Is it "bad" or "evil" to use heat? No. Cavemen used wood fires. Due to smaller populations, this was not an issue. Today's population would not be able to subsist on wood energy without exhausting "wood reserves". Thus, oil and petroleum products are more sustainable than the technology of the Neolithic period. That is an improvement and advancement that protects the resources of the earth. Though some people still use some wood energy, it is by far replaced by oil. Follow me here before jumping my ass.

In tomorrow's technology, oil will become obsolete. Though some applications may continue to exist. However, we are not at the point of 'getting off oil'. Does this mean we will 'kill the planet'? No. (Though the case is certainly out there that technology advances in energy have been ignored due to the abundance and cheap availability of oil. ) If the perfect "renewable, clean, powerful energy solution was unveiled today, it would still be DECADES before delivery systems were in place in every nook and cranny of the US; vehicles able to use that energy are built; vehicles are replaced and are on the road that use the new fuel and not one "oil" car is left running; homes are powered by the magic new fuel; ALL 170 by-products of oil are recreated in some other form.

This process of replacing all oil touch points is not some unimportant piece of a new fuel program - it is integral to converting the country - and the world to new systems. You cannot by-pass his process by shutting off the spigot today and letting people suffer until new technology is in place. The world has to continue to run for those decades without much interruption or (nature of man) there will be massive wars, deaths, pestilence. I would think the environmentalist elites would be against these disasters. (maybe not)

Those who belittle the pragmatic and call them "planet haters"; "knuckle draggers"; deniers or whatever; I find interesting. They are bullies. These bullies assume if they ridicule those of disparate view points - or who bring up points that the enviro-bullies have no answer to - the pragmatists will curl up and blow away. You are all in for a sorry day coming quickly upon you. Those who are realistic enough to understand that oil will play a part in our near (and medium term) futures are gaining clout and voices. Those who call themselves "earth aware" will know that no longer will we run away and hide from sarcasm.

Those who are enviro-bullies are infantile political sycophants with little or no natural intelligence. Let's hope the one with the big ears doesn't get to move this January….

Tina Davila - Victim of U.S. Governmental Ineptitude

The following news story is heartbreaking, frustrating and just plain maddeningly unnecessary. I am posting it here today for a very clear purpose.

The scum killer in the story is - you guessed it - an Illegal Alien. Yep, that is correct. If the do nothing bozo's in Washington D.C. had simply DONE THEIR JOBS, the probability is that this loser wouldn't have been in the US in the first place.

This murder of a Mom, a wife, an American is the responsibility of our leaders. This is the result of - and therefore the fault of President Bush, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, the Mayor of San Francisco, and every other politician or law maker who has not stepped up and put an end to the open borders of the United States. If I had my way, this family would take this to the people named above (and all the others I did not have room to name). I think this family should sue every political 'leader' who has failed the citizens of the US - and this Mom in particular.

Let me ask you this; how many more Americans have to die and families have to be left bereft before we demand action? I am SO past the point of 'enough'. Write, call, meet with, demand that your elected officials CLOSE the borders NOW.

Too bad Houston citizen - and fighter of crime - Joe Horne - was not at this location - maybe he would have had his shotgun with him. I know that I for one will be supporting the 'open carry' bill in Texas.

Slain mom's kids plead for help finding her killer.

Tina Davila died defending baby from carjacker: 'She was the coolest mom'

By Mike Celizic

TODAYShow.com contributor

They wanted her car. She wanted her baby. And because of that, Tina Davila, mother of five and beloved by all, is dead. Her family wants her killer brought to justice.

"She was a good person and she was good to be around," Davila's 17-year-old daughter, Patricia Matt, told TODAY's Meredith Vieira Wednesday in New York. "Everybody wanted to be around her. All the kids liked her. They thought she was the coolest mom."

It was April 17 when Davila was killed in Texas because she refused to give an assailant the keys to her car, in which she had left her infant daughter. But the pain of the loss, painted in tears that flowed down Patricia's cheeks, is still fresh for those she left behind.

The 39-year-old Davila had pulled into a parking lot of a Harris County, Texas, cell phone store to pay her bill. She left her daughter, 4-month-old Kaylynn, in the back seat and started to go inside when she was accosted by a man who grabbed for the keys to her SUV.

The confrontation was captured on grainy surveillance video from inside the store. It shows a man, identified by police as 23-year-old Timoteo Rios, an illegal immigrant from Mexico, grabbing for the keys. Davila pulls back, and the man stabs her in the chest several times before turning and fleeing. Davila, mortally wounded, runs after him before turning and staggering into the store for help. EMTs rushed her to a hospital, but she died there of her wounds.

Still at large!

Rios remains at large, and police suspect he's fled to Mexico. A man identified as his accomplice and the driver of the car in which they arrived at the store and fled the scene, is in custody. Police said he is Kennedy Escoto, 17. He has been charged with aggravated robbery for his involvement with the theft of beer from a convenience store immediately before the attempted carjacking that left Davila dead.

Eric Matt, Davila's first husband and the father of three of her children, got a call saying his ex-wife and high school sweetheart had been injured. Though the two had divorced in 1996 after eight years of marriage and three children, they remained friends. Matt said his ex-wife continued to help him out in tough times many times over the years.

"They told us that Tina was involved in an accident," Matt told Vieira. "My oldest son, we both went to the hospital, thinking she was in a car accident or something. When we arrived, we asked about Tina Davila that was in an accident, and the people said, 'You mean the woman who got stabbed?' Right then and there is when it kind of shocked and hit us."

Matt never got to see Davila. But he did learn that she had died protecting Kaylynn. "The officers said she wasn't willing to give the keys," he told Vieira. "Her last words were, 'My baby. My baby's in the back of the truck.' "

That Davila gave her life to protect her child didn't surprise Matt. "She would do that for every one of her kids," he said.

'Sticker mom'

Indeed, in her community, Davila was known as the "sticker mom," a title that reflected her penchant for covering the back of her car with decals representing the sports teams her children belonged to. She never missed any of their games and always led the cheers.

Her 15-year-old son with Matt, Payton, tried to describe his mother to Vieira. He got out the word "just," hesitated, swallowed hard, chewed his lip, took a deep breath, fought back tears and finally gave up, overcome by grief.

And that, said Payton's father, is why the three came to New York to appear on TODAY. "The reason we're here is the fact that there's one more person out there that maybe somebody will know. Tina was very important in our lives. She was a mother that was a good mother. She cared for every one of her children. Just to see the sadness in my kids — it's a lot of adjusting going on through this period of time. I feel there would be some closure in our family if this other man would be caught."

A $10,000 reward has been offered for information leading to the capture of Rios, whose police record includes brief jail terms last year for marijuana possession and for criminal mischief and failure to identify himself to police. Authorities say he may still be driving the gold Ford Taurus with Texas plates P42 CYY and a broken left-side mirror held on by duct tape that he was in at the time of the murder.

Fairness Doctrine - NOT Fair to America

"Our massive strategy was to use the Fairness Doctrine to challenge and harass right-wing broadcasters and hope the challenges would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue."

--Bill Ruder, Democratic campaign consultant and Assistant Secretary of Commerce, Kennedy Administration [1]

Today, there have been a number of reports that the liberal Democrat lead Congress is making yet another attempt to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine.

• For those who do not know what the Fairness Doctrine was;
  The rule was first articulated in 1949, when television was in its infancy and radio meant a handful of AM stations in each market. In its final form, the rule required broadcasters to "afford reasonable opportunity for discussion of contrasting points of view on controversial matters of public importance." Until it was abolished in 1987, this Federal Communications Commission rule required broadcasters to air all sides of controversial issues.
  

At first glance, something called the 'Fairness Doctrine' may sound innocuous. Fairness is, after all, a basic American value. But as a matter of principle, any such government controls on media content is anathema to constitutional guarantees of free speech. And in practice, the so-called fairness doctrine was deeply unfair.

Liberals are so intimidated by conservative talk radio that they are attempting to bring back the Fairness Doctrine. The Democrats state that the Fairness Doctrine will guarantee that more opinions will be heard. Of all arguments for the reinstitution of the fairness doctrine, the most inaccurate and insidious is that it will permit a greater diversity of opinion to be heard.

By requiring, under threat of monetary penalties, that broadcasters "fairly" represent both sides of a given issue, advocates of the doctrine say they believe that more views will be aired while the editorial content of the station can remain unaltered. But with the threat of potential FCC retaliation for perceived lack of compliance, most broadcasters would be more reluctant to air their own opinions because it might require them to air alternative perspectives that their audience does not want to hear.

Thus, the result of the fairness doctrine in many cases would be to stifle the growth of disseminating views and, in effect, make free speech less free. This is exactly what led the FCC to repeal the rule in 1987. FCC officials found that the doctrine "had the net effect of reducing, rather than enhancing, the discussion of controversial issues of public importance," and therefore was in violation of constitutional principles. [2]

Additionally, I believe that Nancy Pelosi and her crew know EXACTLY what the re-enactment of the Fairness Doctrine would do - that it would decimate conservative talk radio and TV. These are broadcasts where not only are opinions given; news stories are reported that are not heard at all on mainstream media channels and information is given to Americans who are too busy with work and families to chase the truth of news themselves.

If the fairness standard is reinstituted, the result will not be easier access for controversial views. It will instead be self-censorship, as stations seek to avoid requirements that they broadcast specific opposing views. With the wide diversity of views available today in the expanding broadcast system, there is a simple solution for any family seeking an alternative viewpoint or for any lawmaker irritated by a pugnacious talk-show host. Turn the dial.

[1]Quoted in Jesse Walker, "Tuning Out Free Speech," The American Conservative, April 23, 2007

[2] Excerpts from the Heritage Foundation - 1993