Monday, July 29, 2013



President Barack Obama’s Six Months of Blunders

WASHINGTON — The other day another pundit came to my side. I have been watching this steady trickle of sages joining the cause ever since the spring of 2012 when I pronounced, at book-length complete with footnotes, The Death of Liberalism.

Now the veteran columnist Daniel Henninger of the nigh unto infallible Wall Street Journal has pronounced the glum news. On July 10 Dan wrote, “July 3 was the quiet afternoon that a deputy assistant Treasury secretary for tax policy announced in a blog that the Affordable Care Act’s employer mandate would be delayed one year.” And Dan stated with marmoreal solemnity: “Mark July 3, 2013, as the day Big Government finally imploded.” Others too have made similar discoveries, none more memorably than Victor Davis Hanson who celebrated July 4, 2011 by stating that the Founding Fathers’ vision of government had been vindicated. Obamacare had been rushed into law and with its trillion-dollar overruns atop all the other federal overruns would prove to be “unsustainable.” He called the Liberals “Frankensteins.” I called them zombies. Nonetheless, whatever living corpse you choose, with Obamacare, came the last gasp of liberal overreach.

As Wes Pruden said in the Washington Times on July 5, this “one-year delay in enforcing the employer insurance mandate for Obamacare, which might not even be legal,” had top White House advisors heading for the exits and “Minions…hastily assigned to explain the delay.” He added, “Obama and his gang obviously don’t know what to do next.” That is correct. This White House has already transcended that of Warren Gamaliel Harding and of Jimmy Carter. It is the most incompetent in modern American history.

Just consider President Barack Obama’s recent catastrophes. There is Benghazi. It took place during the last election (which should have sealed Obama’s fate), but this spring it became obvious that Ambassador Christopher Stevens should not have been there, was not given proper security even once the attack began, and the event suffered various cover-ups. For instance, all that nonsense about the anti-Islam video that mysteriously appeared in the talking points without having ever been suggested by the CIA. Where did the claptrap about the video come from? That should not be too difficult to establish.

Then there is the IRS scandal. Quite obviously the IRS was politicized to such an extent that its investigators prevented Tea Party groups and other conservatives from participating in the 2012 election. One defense offered by the IRS was that the agency is too vast to be held accountable. Congress should continue its probe and hold the IRS accountable.

Congress also ought to be looking into the Obama Administration’s subpoenaing of journalists’ records and the allegations of a State Department cover-up of irregularities by our ambassador to Belgium. Then there is the NSA disaster. It now appears that the dimwit Edward Snowden walked off with a vast horde of intelligence. We are even hearing that he has in the cozy confines of the Moscow airport the manuals for keying into NSA intelligence gathering projects. How did he get them? Who is responsible?

All of this incompetence took place under President Obama’s watch. Now comes word that the president is popping off about Trayvon Martin again. Initially he blustered, “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.” With the acquittal of George Zimmerman he is saying we can “honor Trayvon” by putting an end to “gun violence.” Still worse is his outburst this past May on sexual assault cases in the military. Commenting on them he — the president of the United States and commander in chief of the military — pronounced that the accused should be “prosecuted, stripped of their positions, court-martialed, fired, dishonorably discharged…” You can be sure that his outburst put in jeopardy sexual assault cases all over the country. Thomas J. Roming, a former judge advocate general of the Army, told the New York Times, “His remarks were more specific than I’ve ever heard a commander in chief get…. Every military defense counsel will make a motion about this.”

I can think of no previous president who has so blundered in his first six months in office — and this was his second term, after he had four years to learn on the job. We are now faced with three more years of the community activist serving in the White House. Joe Biden, help us.

Friday, July 26, 2013


When you look at the evidence and testimony at the actual trial (not the trial by President Obama or the MSM), you realize that this case should not have been brought to trial in the first place.

Emotions aside, the actual evidence showed that Trayvon Martin was the aggressor in this incident. A jury approved by both the defense attorneys and the prosecutor acquitted Zimmerman. That should have been the end of it.

But the left loves to promulgate racism. They are at the least race hustlers and at the worse, racists. People like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson flail about with their racist proclamations while people demand the death of George Zimmerman. MSNBC works closely with Sharpton, Jackson and others to make certain the racist left fans the flames of unrest.

Some leftists use words like “wannabe cop” and “vigilante” to describe Zimmerman. All the while, they ignore the actual evidence of the violent troubled past of Martin. Convenient. They have gone so far as to include Zimmerman’s home address with a photo of someone posing with a semi-automatic rifle and the caption “Zimmerman we comin for yo life….” I have noticed that the so-called anti-gun Justice Department has not announced any investigations into these comments, the legality of the gun, or the seriousness of the death threats.

Even before the trial, President BO (the amateur president) sided with Martin, pointing out that he could have been his own son.

After the trial, President BO (the amateur president) should have reminded Americans that we have a jury system that had done its job, that the prosecution put forth its best case and could not prove Zimmerman’s guilt. Proving guilt is the basis of our judicial system. One is not guilty under the law unless he can be proven guilty.

We now know that Zimmerman was not guilty of manslaughter, because the jury said so. In our system, that’s the way it works. Zimmerman was not guilty of anything until a jury said he was, and no jury said that.

President BO (the amateur president) followed the trial with a speech in which he made no mention of the stress of the Zimmerman family through all of this. Instead, he fanned the race flames by saying, “…(the) outcome and the aftermath might have been different” if Martin were a “…white male teen.” That, my ignorant liberal friends, is racist.

In his July 19th speech, President BO (the amateur president) said the attack on Trayvon Martin was like a personal attack on himself. He said, “Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago.” Now I’m not certain whether he was admitting to having been of the same character as Trayvon Martin or was just an attempt to enrage the left to the level of violence and threats of death. Either way, it was a very amateurish, stupid thing to say.

Not being satisfied with omission and racism, President BO (the amateur president) went on to accuse the Sanford Police Department of “racial bias.” He said that they did not perform their job in a “fair, straightforward way.”

The sad thing is, there are hundreds of things President BO (the amateur president) could have said to lessen the racial tension. But he didn't say any of them. He chose the low road, the road to political profitability. He keeps portraying himself as the poor, hard-done-to black man.

The real racists in this country are liberals, the liberal MSM and our fearless leader, President BO (the amateur president).

Tuesday, July 23, 2013

Monday, July 22, 2013

Saturday, July 20, 2013


According to the Chicago Tribune, Detroit will have a long road through bankruptcy.

In the first 12 years of the new century, Detroit lost more than 26 percent of its population. That is in part because of the “cruel” exodus of General Motors and the outsourcing of American manufacturing, Both of those happened because of the long-term failure of the idealistic, liberal governmental intrusion into the market place and the unsustainable demands of unions.

Last year, the FBI cited Detroit as having the highest violent crime rate for any major American city. We read much less of that than of the Zimmerman verdict. That’s because the Zimmerman verdict could easily be spun to be about race, which it was not.

Detroit has been spending on average $100 million more than it has taken in for each of the past five years. The city’s $11 billion in unsecured debt includes $6 billion in health and other retirement benefits and $3 billion in retiree pensions for its 20,000 city pensioners, who are slated to receive less than 10 percent of what they were promised. Between 2007 and 2011, an astounding 36 percent of residents lived below the poverty line. Last year, the FBI cited Detroit as having the highest violent crime rate for any major American city.

And now Detroit’s desperate request for a bailout has been turned down by the Obama White House.

Who could have possibly known in advance that liberal policies and unions would wreak such economic havoc? Answer: Conservatives, but the only response to their warning was to call them the radical right.

And so we learn from our mistakes. Or do we?

As suggested by David Burge, the Iowahawk:

Turn Detroit into a national park, to show our kids the wonders of "Government Help."

Friday, July 19, 2013


In New York, Cops arrested in a clash at Park Ave. and E. 71st St. around 10 p.m. A family visiting New York got stuck right in the middle of a destructive protest. Barbara Ames, from Avon, Ind., was stuck in her car with her two granddaughters, ages 6 and 8, on Broadway between 45th and 46th streets, "...we’re being terrified. We just want to go home . . . They keep hitting the car and scaring the girls."

In Orlando, crowds got rowdy and arrests were made when cars were bashed and had their windows broken.

In Los Angeles there was a clash between Police Department officers and people protesting the Trayvon Martin verdict in South Los Angeles on Sunday night. Some demonstrator threw rocks and D-cell batteries at police.

In Oakland, Calif., during protests that began late Saturday night, some angry demonstrators broke windows, burned U.S. flags, set fire to a business, vandalized a police squad car and spray-painted anti-police graffiti. One police car was daubed with the words “Kill Pigz” as American flags were torched. “Kill Zimmerman” was also scrawled on the Alameda County Court.

Here are some pictures.

Sure are they all, all civilized people.

Thursday, July 18, 2013


Liberals believe that if you are young and have a bag of Skittles and a can of soda you should be able to go anywhere you want to go, do what you want to do, and look like what you want to look like, including wearing clothing that keeps you from being identified.

Liberals also believe that with all of that you should be able go into neighborhoods that you don't usually frequent, walk between houses, look into windows and hide from any onlookers.

Liberals further believe that a young person who does all of those things, then doubles back on the guy appointed to keep a watch on the neighborhood, breaks his nose, pounds his head on the concrete or asphalt, and beats him mercilessly just because he was being followed, is somehow a victim when he is shot in self defense.

Liberals believe that in a state that allows the legal carrying of firearms by  qualified people, there are some people who should not be allowed to carry those firearms except in circumstances in which liberals approve.

Liberals believe that Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law should be rolled back to the federal law levels which require the victim of an attack to try to flee before using force, especially deadly force, to defend himself, thus placing the burden on the victim instead of the perpetrator.

Liberals do not believe in the rule of law. They believe in "majority rule," the very thing the Republic was formed to avoid. They believe that after a fair trial, they should be able to overturn a verdict if they think it fitting.

Liberals further believe that if you don't like the verdict in a jury trial you should rise up in protest, destroy other people's property, beat people up (Chicago and Los Angeles) with whom you disagree, and steal merchandise from stores, because that will even the score.

Liberals believe that it is proper to cause a man who was found not guilty by a court of law to have to live the rest of his life in fear because they do not like the verdict of that trial.

Liberals believe that a single case self defense in Florida is far more important than the 700+ murders that have taken place in the inner cities of places like Chicago, Houston, Atlanta, New York, Detroit, etc.

Liberals believe that if the MainStream Media says a case is on the minds of everyone, it is on the minds of everyone, in spite of the fact that it is on the minds of everyone because, and only because the MainStream Media put it on the minds of everyone. The MSM doesn't seem it important to put the other killings in the country on the minds of everyone.

Liberals believe that the value of human life is relative. They believe that some human life is more important than other human life. A troubled teen's life, for instance, is more important than the life of an average citizen who is trying to keep his neighborhood a safe place to set up residence. They do not recognize equality of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Liberals believe the president and/or the DOJ should step in and do something, even if it's wrong.

Liberals have a sick, un-American mind set, as evidenced by their reaction to the George Zimmerman verdict in a court of law.

Monday, July 15, 2013


George Zimmerman was found not guilty. That does not mean he was found innocent. No person in the history of the republic has ever been found innocent in a court of law. There is no such thing.

Not guilty means that there was not enough evidence (not emotion...evidence) for a jury to convict George Zimmerman of the crime of which he was accused.

We all have, and are entitled to, our opinions in this case. How we express those opinions reflects who we really are.

So how should we respond?

Well, according to the black community, the proper response is what they too often respond with: The destruction of other people's property. Poor little punks. They've been wronged and they're going to get revenge.

Let's be fair. It is not only the black community that responds with such unmitigated violence. Remember the response of whites after...after. Well, not that one. Maybe it was...


The only white response to situations that included mass violence I can think of is when unions have responded when things didn't go their way.

This morning (Sunday, July 14, 2013) I watched on TV a group of blacks attack a police car in California.


What the heck has California to do with this verdict and/or this trial.


Those black destroyers were just stupid, rotten thugs who have no business being a part of society.

"Joe! Joe," I hear you shouting. "That is the very problem! It's racism to point out that the perpetrators of the attack on the police car were black!"

No. It's what happened. I wish it had not happened, but it did.

Look. There is absolutely no excuse for racism. Period. None. But to pretend the people who did this were not black is beyond stupid.

If you are a black person and you defend their actions, you are as stupid as they are and represent your race poorly.

If you are a white person and defend their actions, you are as stupid as they are and represent humanity poorly.

There is no reason, and no excuse, for responding to this verdict with violence of any kind, in any place, in any way. No excuse.

I don't care what color you are. Violence is not a proper response for people who think their "race" has somehow been insulted by the Zimmerman/Martin case. If you want to be treated like a civilized citizen, then act like one. If you don't care to act civilized, then you get what you deserve.

Rioting and destroying property is not the way to improve race relations. It will divide. It will not unite.

Now (July 17, 2013) I see that "demonstrations" are taking place all over the country, some of them resulting in the destruction of personal property, and not the property of George Zimmerman, the jurors, the prosecutor, the defense lawyers or the judge. How stupid is that?

What? Do they think they are going to overturn the verdict with their rampage?

I hear that DOJ is going "to look into the verdict." If that happens, all semblance of justice in our system will disappear and total tyranny will result.

George Zimmerman is not guilty. I do not mean he is innocent. I mean he IS NOT GUILTY. The jury said so, and that's the way it work in America. You want some other system, work to change this one or move to a country where the system is "...guilty until proven innocent." France might be a good choice.

Zimmerman should not fear for his life and limb, unless he does something in the future requiring a physical response, like attack somebody. He should not now pay for shooting Treyvon Martin, because he was found not guilty.

Let it go! Like it, hate it, change the system or get out of the country. Don't you come to my house with your violence, tearing up my property or threatening me with harm. I'll shoot you dead.

Sunday, July 14, 2013

Saturday, July 13, 2013


Commissioner Grimm, commissioner of the NFL, decided to make some changes in the rule book. He decided to make them unilaterally, bypassing the usual procedures and the cumbersome meetings. He decided to make these rule changes on a day when no games were being played and before the following Sunday’s heavy schedule, during which he decreed they would be implemented.

The first rule he made was to alter the shape of the ball. He decided that the ball would be round like the balls in other games: basketball, volleyball; soccer; baseball; golf and the like.

Secondly, to ensure everybody’s safety, Grimm made contact with a player from the other team a fifteen yard penalty.

Then he announced that there would be no more tackling, again for the safety of everyone involved. 
Commissioner Grimm’s final decision was that there would be no more of those ugly chalk lines on the field. 

From now on there would be finely cultured Kentucky Blue Grass on the field. To protect the grass, football players would have to wear ballet like soft shoes during the game.

In the months that followed, the networks began to complain that viewership had fallen off. Ratings were slightly lower than those of the National Curling League.

Football players were not happy, either. They slipped and slid all over the grass in their girly shoes.

Quarterbacks hated the new ball. It was so hard to get a grip on it. They had to throw it like a basketball! If that weren’t enough, they kept getting tagged by the unrestricted defense.

Commissioner Grimm just couldn't understand why his marvelous plans were so hated.

It was getting grim...very grim

Thursday, July 11, 2013

Tuesday, July 9, 2013


Weeks of wet weather preceding Lincoln's second inauguration had caused Pennsylvania Avenue to become a sea of mud and standing water. Thousands of spectators stood in thick mud at the Capitol grounds to hear the President. 

As he stood on the East Portico to take the executive oath, the completed Capitol dome over the President's head was a physical reminder of the resolve of his Administration throughout the years of civil war. 

Chief Justice Salmon Chase administered the oath of office. 

In little more than a month, the President would be assassinated


  AT this second appearing to take the oath of the Presidential office there is less occasion for an extended address than there was at the first. Then a statement somewhat in detail of a course to be pursued seemed fitting and proper. Now, at the expiration of four years, during which public declarations have been constantly called forth on every point and phase of the great contest which still absorbs the attention and engrosses the energies of the nation, little that is new could be presented. The progress of our arms, upon which all else chiefly depends, is as well known to the public as to myself, and it is, I trust, reasonably satisfactory and encouraging to all. With high hope for the future, no prediction in regard to it is ventured.   

  On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it, all sought to avert it. While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, insurgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war—seeking to dissolve the Union and divide effects by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came.

  One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."

 With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.

Poor Lincoln. He did not know any better than to invoke God in a public address. He was so ignorant! It is a wonder anybody that unenlightened could have actually set a course that would result in the freeing of slaves and the turn toward the dissolution of racism.

Too bad Democrats didn't think of it. But then, how could they? They believe in enslavement through dependence.

I'll take Lincoln's approach, if you don't mind.

Monday, July 8, 2013


Trust liberals to feign tolerance and act intolerant.

Friday, July 5, 2013

The Declaration and the Constitution

Dr. Larry Arnn, Hillsdale College President, argues that the American republic’s meaning and proper method of operation is found in two documents, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. He introduces the two main principles of the Declaration–Nature and Equality–and explains how they are key to understanding the arrangements of government found in the Constitution.

Question: What was the idea in the Declaration of Independence that was controversial
during the Civil War?
Answer: All men are created equal.

Question: What was the main concern of the Anti-Federalists about the Constitution?
Answer: That the Constitution would make the federal government too powerful and

Question: What are the four references to God in the Declaration?
Answer: “Nature’s God,” “Creator,” “Supreme Judge of the World,” and “divine

Question: What are the two main principles of the Declaration?
Answer: Nature and Equality.

Question: What are the three key arrangements of government underlying the Constitution?
Answer: Representation, Separation of Powers and Limited Government.

Tuesday, July 2, 2013


IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

The 56 signatures on the Declaration appear in the positions indicated:

Column 1
   Button Gwinnett
   Lyman Hall
   George Walton

Column 2
North Carolina:
   William Hooper
   Joseph Hewes
   John Penn
South Carolina:
   Edward Rutledge
   Thomas Heyward, Jr.
   Thomas Lynch, Jr.
   Arthur Middleton

Column 3
John Hancock
Samuel Chase
William Paca
Thomas Stone
Charles Carroll of Carrollton
George Wythe
Richard Henry Lee
Thomas Jefferson
Benjamin Harrison
Thomas Nelson, Jr.
Francis Lightfoot Lee
Carter Braxton

Column 4
   Robert Morris
   Benjamin Rush
   Benjamin Franklin
   John Morton
   George Clymer
   James Smith
   George Taylor
   James Wilson
   George Ross
   Caesar Rodney
   George Read
   Thomas McKean

Column 5
New York:
   William Floyd
   Philip Livingston
   Francis Lewis
   Lewis Morris
New Jersey:
   Richard Stockton
   John Witherspoon
   Francis Hopkinson
   John Hart
   Abraham Clark

Column 6
New Hampshire:
   Josiah Bartlett
   William Whipple
   Samuel Adams
   John Adams
   Robert Treat Paine
   Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island:
   Stephen Hopkins
   William Ellery
   Roger Sherman
   Samuel Huntington
   William Williams
   Oliver Wolcott
New Hampshire:
   Matthew Thornton

Monday, July 1, 2013


The Atheists' "Monument"
Let me be the first to say that a person has an absolute right to be an atheist if he wants to. That's none of my business. I don't understand how a person could think himself rational and be an atheist, but I guess it can be done. I've never heard one rational thought from an atheist, only hatred and intolerance.

Be that as it may, I find it utterly hilarious what atheists have done in Florida. They've built an atheist monument! A monument! 

Well...monument seems a bit overstated for what they built. What they built was...are you ready for it?...they build a bench!

Now a bench is not the first thing that comes to the mind of a rational being when some sort of point, honor or memory is contemplated, but I did say that atheists are not particularly rational, didn't I?

In Starke, Florida the American Atheists have "erected" a monument next to the granite Ten Commandments slab that they tried unsuccessfully to have removed.

Fair enough. That's their right.

It just seems odd to call attention to one's group when the main characteristic of that group is to be intolerant of others' rights to express themselves.

Let's take a look of all of the altruism shown by the American Atheists in recent years. Here's a little quiz to help you with that look.

1.  What group was the first on the scene with food and water for the victims of Hurricane Andrew?

a.  Christian organizations
b.  The federal government
c.  Atheist organizations
d.  The American Red Cross

Answer: Hours after Hurricane Andrew's winds had subsided, Southern Baptists drove mobile kitchens into the hardest-hit neighborhoods, where they dished out warm meals and poured drinks by the thousands.

It was the beginning of a massive relief effort by the Baptists, who started helping victims long before federal aid or troops arrived.

2.  What group was the first on the scene with food and water for the victims of Hurricanes Charlie, Frances, Ivan and Jeanne?

a.  Atheist organizations
b.  The American Red Cross
c.  The federal government
d. Christian organizations

Answer: In the wake of Hurricanes Charley, Frances, Ivan, and Jeanne, more than 8,000 Southern Baptist disaster relief volunteers prepared more than 2.1 million meals and completed more than 6,300 cleanup and recovery projects.

3. What group was the first on the scene with food and water for the victims of Hurricane Katrina?

Answer: As soon as they were allowed in, Southern Baptists had more than 30 mobile kitchens operating in affected areas of Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi. With bright yellow shirts and shining spirits, the Illinois Southern Baptist Disaster Relief team ran their kitchen in a hot, dusty church parking lot in Bogalusa, Louisiana. They provided 14,500 meals to that parish alone in one day.

4.  What group was the first on the scene with food and water for the victims of Perfect Storm Sandy?

a.  The American Red Cross
b. Christian organizations
c. Atheist organizations
d. The federal government.

Answer: Southern Baptist Disaster Relief volunteers deployed after Hurricane Sandy had prepared more than 1.2 million meals as of Monday (Nov. 19) in New York, New Jersey and, earlier, in West Virginia.

5.  What group was the first on the scene with food and water for the victims of the Moore, Oklahoma tornadoes?

a.  The federal government
b.  Atheist organizations
c.  Christian organizations
d. The American Red Cross

Answer:  The first day after tornadoes hit Moore Oklahoma, Southern Baptists and the Red Cross served 30,000 meals. The number of meals provided after that went up.

I could go on, but I won't

The American Atheists provided absolutely nothing after these and other disasters. They're such a great group of people.

"But they paid their taxes so the government could help," I hear you saying.

Do you not remember the outcry about how long the federal government took to get on the scenes of these events? They took weeks to supply the first bottle of water. Some of the aid they promised after Sandy has yet to be seen. Please don't talk to me about how well our taxes are spent.

The Red Cross arrived very soon, and indeed, worked with Christian organizations to provide a lot of relief.

The American Atheists don't earn any respect for themselves when they provide virtually nothing of any value whatsoever to society. All they can ever do is express their intolerance for people of religious faith and go to court to try to exempt them from the rights of life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and the right to free speech, the right to practice their faith unencumbered by intrusion by the federal government.

Come to think of it, a bench is probably the very best "monument" atheists could have erected for themselves. All they ever do is sit around trying to make life miserable for citizens of faith.