Paying taxes is not charitable work

How compassionate is it really to pay your taxes and never lift a finger to help someone in need. Just shrug your shoulders, it's the government's job. You've got the same number of people in poverty now that you had before welfare, but you have more people skilled at manipulating numbers.

Bottom line: My church and civic organizations are faster and more efficient than government programs.

Using scripture to back tax plans is wonky. Jesus said to get out there and help people. That means donate money to a soup kitchen and better yet, go and serve at one.

Donating someone else's money to the people you consider in need isn't going to get anyone to heaven, so if paying your taxes clears your conscious, then keep voting. Just remember that the devil knows more scripture than the average self proclaiming Christian.

Israel is the key

How can a group of countries pursue a deal on the Middle East without including our most important ally in the Middle East? From the youngest days that I began taking an interest in this world and the foreign policies of the US, I have always believed that Israel is the most important country in the Middle East, and I will continue to believe such.

Israel provides balance and a welcome change from religious extremism. Perfect example: when was the last time a Jewish person, strapped with an explosive belt, entered a crowded market and detonated himself along with hundreds of others? It doesn't happen.

Israel has one of the most advanced intelligence services in the world. If Israel tells you that its neighbor is up to something, the neighbor might just be up to no good, so why not take note? Further, they have one of the most advanced military capabilities in the world. Ever hear of the Six Day War?

All this being said, why is the US taking the lead, in concert with other non-Middle Eastern countries, to negotiate with Iran? Israel has all the knowledge and the capabilities, and what are we doing? Tying its hands. Cajoling it to stand by and wait. Well, here we are with hardly anything to show for it but a broken leg of John Kerry.

No thanks, I'll just be here standing with Israel.

Uber driver arrested for working!

This is what it has come to, people. Arrested for making a living. The driver did not assault anyone or otherwise hurt anyone. His competitor called the police, and the police, as agents of the competition, arrested the driver. Keep it classy, America.

http://www.wjhg.com/news/regional/headlines/Police-Arrest-Uber-Driver-Under-Key-West-Ordinance--314951191.html?device=phone&c=y

Lone Survivor

So, I just finished Lone Survivor again. Can barely describe how that movie makes me feel. While in a different service, we served together. While I never saw action such as theirs, I understand it.

What hits me harder than the movie itself is the pictures of the actual men who died during the operation after the ending. Real people with real families. Babies and little boys and girls who will never see their fathers again. And there was my classmate, Mike McGreevy. The way he's looking at his baby in that picture, and all that child has is his picture now.

But Mike was a fighter, and he believed in what he did. We all did. Still do. Perspective is really heavy. I never saw Mike McGreevy when he wasn't smiling, and he picked me up a time or two when I needed it. Just a massive ball of positive energy, he was.

I'm not posting this so people will feel sorry for me. I'm posting this because we need to remember what these gents sacrificed. I'm ok, but they're never coming back. Let's not forget it.

Life is not a choice.

This is a 24 week old infant. You can see that he is surviving on his own.

Democrats think you have a right to kill this child.

Let me ask you this, if someone walked up and killed the baby in her arms rights now, would it be a crime? The answer is yes.

Why is it any different inside a womb at the exact same point of development??

Photo courtesy Representative Steve Stockman.

One day, we can all be criminals....

How do you convince someone that the incremental encroachments upon our way of life actually can result in total loss of liberty sometime in the future?  Even with all the regulations and laws, 99.9% of the "law abiding" populace will never end up in jail for anything they say or do.  This belief does not acknowledge loss of property as an actual punishment.  Like civil asset forfeiture, the EPA seizing your land, eminent domain, government fines, $130,000 fines for refusal to bake a cake, etc.

Property is an inalienable right just like life and liberty, but we do not treat it as such.  Most people will never be attacked by the bureaucracy; therefore, the problem does not really "exist".  To them anyway.  Ask the person who lost their life savings attempting to defend himself against regulations not even made by elected officials.

Think you are free of government influence?  Read this article by David Montgomery, and I think you may reconsider.  Here is a small excerpt:

What Makes a Criminal?

Merriam-Webster defines crime as “activity that is against the law.” Law is defined as a “set of rules made by the government.” Thus a criminal is someone who breaks government rules.

The law as a whole is an ever-expanding collection of rules that politicians (“lawmakers”) decree and occasionally repeal. Laws are as moral as the politicians who make them.

Simply put, laws are the rules politicians make up, and criminals are people who break them.

It floored me to realize: Anne Frank was, in fact, a criminal. She was a fugitive of the law.

We can express outrage at the designation since Anne did nothing wrong. And we can debate which rules of any particular regime are tolerable or repugnant. But our opinions don’t change the fact that “criminal” is a government-defined standard imposed on us, the governed.

A law-abiding citizen was obligated to turn Anne into the police. To assist her was a crime. In America the Fugitive Slave Law obligated law-abiding citizens to turn in runaway slaves, and assisting them was punishable by 6 months in jail and a $28,000 fine (in today’s dollars).

In early colonial America masturbation, blasphemy, and homosexuality werecrimes punishable by death. Virtually any act you can think of has been criminalized by one regime or another. Being a law-abiding citizen only means you comply with whatever rules politicians have imposed on you.

Throughout history we observe only a slight overlap between the endless supply of laws governments impose on people and the handful of acts we all agree are morally wrong: theft, assault, rape, murder.

https://bananas.liberty.me/youre-a-criminal-in-a-mass-surveillance-world-how-to-not-get-caught/

Illegal immigration and the safety of your children

To the average, disinterested American and to the Democrat, those who enter the country illegally are a non-issue.  The average American does not care because he or she believes it will never affect him or her, and the Democrat knows there is a high likelihood that the illegal individual, once naturalized via amnesty, will register to vote Democrat.  Democrats essentially buy votes indirectly by turning a blind eye to a very real problem.  What if you are not the average American and you become a crime statistic?



When you have a porous border, when you require no identification to receive benefits, when you do not check for citizen status when registering to vote, and when you make no serious effort to deport those illegal immigrants convicted of actual crimes, as a country, you surrendered your ability to maintain any accountability over whatever programs you have in place.  Want food stamps even though you should not be here?  Here you go.  Want a driver's license and a voter's registration card even though you should not be here?  Sure, no problem.  Convicted of a crime? Just do not do it again.  How fair is it to the rest of us for an administration to refuse to enforce existing laws simply for the benefit of a political agenda?  Not very.



The President demonstrates a refusal to enforce laws that he does not approve.  Deport someone who committed a crime?  No.  Deport illegals?  No.  What other parts of his job is he not doing while not telling us of his inaction?  Can you really trust this person to track terrorist threats when he refuses to secure a border?  If you look up the definition of "not secure", I am fairly certain that you will discover that, as it pertains to the border, anyone might come and go with little threat of getting caught.  It was this exact type of vulnerability that enabled terrorists to board planes with box cutters and change our national security landscape forever.  Have we yet forgotten that terrorists research weak areas in security, exploit those weak areas, and set up these types of monumental acts to gain notoriety?



For one, I am entirely sick of the incompetence sitting inside the White House at this very moment.  I am completely disgusted by a political establishment that refuses to address a serious issue simply because it benefits directly from inaction.  I am totally fed up with anyone who makes excuses for anyone crossing the border ILLEGALLY.  In short, if these statements describe you, you are a consummate idiot.  

"According to a recent study released from the Center for Immigration Studies, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) released 30,558 criminally-convicted illegal immigrants, with a total of 79,059 convictions altogether, in 2014.

Furthermore, the CIS report shows that among the 904,000 illegal immigrants who have ignored orders to leave the U.S., approximately 167,527 of these are convicted criminal immigrants.

Likewise, CIS’s April 2015 statistics indicate ICE has only arrested 11,983 at-large convicted criminal immigrants—despite the fact 168,000 criminal immigrants were identified.

The concern is that these convicted criminal immigrants will commit crimes upon being released, as in Sanchez’s case.

“The long-term ramifications are continued crime inflicted upon U.S. citizens,” Marguerite Telford, director of communications at CIS, said in an interview with The Daily Signal in June. “So the [Obama] administration’s catch and release policy means these criminal aliens are free to commit additional crimes.”

How Unusual Is Francisco Sanchez Case?

Illegal means not legal. Look it up.

I'm starting to sound like a Trump backer, but I'm not. Yet. What I am is a supporter of pragmatic and practical plans. More than that even, I like COMMON SENSE!!

Why are American citizens concerned at all about helping ILLEGAL aliens and preventing their deportation? Makes no sense. Everybody here knows we give federal benefits away for free, and do you not realize that ILLEGALS collect them too? What is it about the word "ILLEGAL" that you just do not get. I-L-L-E-G-A-L. Look it up. It means NOT LEGAL.

For crying out loud. Our citizens act like illiterate dropouts with zero intelligence.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/06/trump-on-criminal-illegals-both-sides-need-to-grow-up-and-put-americas-interests-first/

Rubio the wind vane

If you haven't noticed with Rubio, he sometimes changes his opinion based on polls weeks after the fact.

Take for instance the immigration reform that he co-authored. After realizing that it was extremely unpopular with the base, what did he do? He opposed it, lol.

And now this. MSM wants me to speak out against Trump? Oh ok.

He is such an insincere and immature politician, and he literally looks like a little boy in the midst of all this. Really, I can't wait to see him versus Trump in a debate because it's going to be good. Rubio is no David against Goliath. He's the Philistine himself.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/03/marco-rubio-jumps-in-with-msm-donald-trump-offensive-divisive-unserious/

Late term abortion or just plain euthanasia?

If a baby can live on its own, why would you not just deliver it and let someone adopt it? Why would you intentionally kill it just to kill it?

Late term abortion kills babies who can live on their own, and for what reason? Because the child was conceived under duress? Maybe so, but the child is capable of living on its own at the point of late term abortion.

At the point that a baby can breathe and survive outside of the womb, does it matter that the baby is a product of a rape or of incest? Remember, the baby can survive outside the womb. We aren't talking about a three week old fetus. We're talking about nine months gestation.

At eight to nine months gestation, the skin of the mother's belly is the only thing preventing the child from breathing and surviving on its own. Important time left for the baby to develop, nevertheless, a successful delivery can be obtained. Yet you want the right to kill it?

Democrats feel that it is an essential right to be able to kill a seven pound baby in the womb even though it could be delivered and allowed to live. I don't care who you are, that's called euthanasia. And I don't see what rape or incest has to do with any of it.

If rape or incest are factors, get the abortion before viability. At a certain point, scientifically, that baby is autonomous, even if it resides inside the womb. When you can take that baby out, and it breathes and survives on its own, rape and incest are irrelevant. If you don't want the horrible memory of it, give the baby up for adoption. The breathing and surviving baby has a right to life.

And let's not make this a women's rights issue. For crying out loud, large percentages of women agree that abortion at any stage is wrong, let alone the eighth or ninth month. Are women's rights only women's rights when left wing women approve of the position? Abortion is the same type of political issue as everything else in that people of both genders, of all races and of all persuasions find themselves on both sides of the issue.

No one can claim to speak for their entire gender or race. Those kind of absolutes are weak attempts to shutdown opposition without logical debate.

Be mature. You think you should be able to kill a seven pound baby in the womb, but it isn't because you are a woman. It is because you refuse to accept the fact that once your baby reaches the point that it can breathe in its own, you really ought not be trying to find ways to smother it. Don't hide behind your gender.

http://truthuncensored.net/every-dem-senator-voted-for-late-term-abortion-up-to-nine-months-of-pregnancy/#sthash.ysNWxAIt.fFFczbvF.dpbs