Ignorant.

No soup for you!

Yesterday, I found something really interesting and I must say stupid about starving kids.

Stop feeding starving children, or else!

The American Humanist Association sent that message to a school in Robbinsdale, Minn., accusing them of violating the U.S. Constitution by allowing students to participate in a community service project at a church that involved preparing meals for impoverished children in Haiti.

The humanists got their britches in a bunch after the family of a student at the School of Engineering and Arts objected to the project being held at Calvary Lutheran Church.

On the site instead of writing starving children they wrote starting (a typo I guess). 

 

Just because this work is done by Christians, these "humanists" (I would say idiots)  would rather see children die of starvation than be fed just because of their humanist non-beliefs and anti-religion agenda. 

I could write a lot more on this but this is really basic stuff.  Not to feed hungry children because of a religious institution is involved is ignorant.  What kind of people are they? I guess they are like Obama in that they don't believe in the Constitution as they would like to go against it. This has to do with the First Amendment of the Constitution.The church is exercising it's freedom in helping these children.  Leave them alone!

If you don't like it, start your own counter-charity and do more good than the church.  Use some common sense.

What’s on my mind today?

There are soldiers that have lost their lives for people that do not show any gratitude or respect for them. In countries that have asked for help, not only are some of the citizens guilty of this, but also government officials. In Afghanistan, leader Hamid Karzai is a great example of this.  The United States did not go to war in Afghanistan to protect him, but for their own reasons.  Nevertheless, they have spent countless billions trying to restore the nation and defend it from it's own Taliban extremists within.  Most of these countries it seems, want help in defending themselves against the Jihadists, but on their own terms only.  Most of these countries don’t want foreign troops on the ground.  At least not for long anyway.

These countries want help financially. They also want weapons but they don’t want troops on their land. The only recourse that comes to mind if we want to help them on their terms, would be to use drones or fighter jets to strike at targets strategically.  But then if a civilian is killed then they put up a fuss.  War is a dirty business and fighting terrorism is no different.  There are risks in fighting it, there are unfortunate casualties in fighting it.  But the alternative (giving up) is far worse of an option.

Some countries want to get help in getting the Jihadists out of their country, but then at the same time, it seems that they are protecting them by their own actions and words. President Karzai from Afghanistan can’t make up his mind about having some troops left in the country after most of the troops are pulled out. Does he think that the Jihadists will stop their rampage of murdering and torture just because the troops have left? By refusing to sign a deal with the U.S., it looks like he’s protecting the same people that are killing and torturing his people.

Pakistan, is another example.  How many years did they deny that Bin Laden was in their country? He was one of the worst Jihadists in the world. Pakistan was collecting aid from the United States all the while harboring the target the U.S. was after.  I guess it was a money maker for them to keep that up. 

Jihadists need to be eradicated, make no mistake.  Some countries just don't seem to realize the danger of dealing with jihadists with half measures.  Jihadists either make it a sport of killing or torturing people because of the radicals that have supplanted Muslim faith with their own way of showing their faith in God. I would also say some are doing it just because they want to kill and torture and are using religion as their excuse.  If that doesn't make a case for really fighting terrorism to some of these countries, then probably nothing will.

That’s my rant of the day.

Have a good day.

Is free press on the way out?

If president Obama has his way, not only will citizens' privacy have been taken away when he's done, but  so would free speech and freedom of the press.   Fox News recently ran a story about what the administration wanted the FCC to start doing.

The FCC is launching a new study, taking upon itself the task of deciding what news the public “needs” to hear, versus the news the public wants to hear. The agency will conduct a “General Population Survey” that will “measure community members’ actual and perceived critical information needs.”

Got that? What you think (perceive) you need to know is different from what the government says you need to know.

Thankfully, it now looks as though the public backlash has caused them to rethink this dumb idea. Maybe it won't go through.

But I've mentioned before that in the future as neighbors we might have either a third world country or a communist one. I really believe it’s going to happen in the very near future if this supposed-to-be president is not stopped from implementing his agenda. What I would like to know isn’t there supposed to be a group in that administration that is supposed to speak on behalf of the citizens? If so where are they?

Why would the US want to purchase guillotines?

Does Obama intend to make a call to FEMA to start collecting people that don’t agree with his way of ruling the country? Previous to reading about this FEMA prisons, I listened to what Obama said during his State of the Union speech: “I have a telephone and a pen and if I have to use it, I will. Just one phone call” That sounded like a warning to what the citizens can expect if he doesn’t get his way. He's talking about using Executive Orders to bypass Congress to get things done his way. That's bad, but it gets a little scary when you look at this story.

Think about this; Why does the US government need 30,000 Guillotines and over 600 Million rounds of hollow point bullets?

There are over 800 prison camps in the United States. All fully operational and ready to receive prisoners. They are all staffed and even surrounded by full-time guards. But they are all empty. These camps are to be operated by FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) should Martial Law need to be implemented in the United States and all it would take is a presidential signature on a proclamation and the attorney general’s signature on a warrant to which a list of names is attached. Ask yourself if you really want to be on THE list.

Whom to believe?

In a previous post I stated that if I ran across an article that I couldn’t comment on it at the time, I would bookmark it for future reference.

Today, since I didn’t know what to beef about I went to my bookmarks. I found this

Almost every man alive can trace his origins to one man who lived about 135,000 years ago, new research suggests. And that ancient man likely shared the planet with the mother of all women.

The findings, detailed Thursday, Aug. 1, in the journal Science, come from the most complete analysis of the male sex chromosome, or the Y chromosome, to date. The results overturn earlier research, which suggested that men's most recent common ancestor lived just 50,000 to 60,000 years ago.

Now I know that a lot of people have lost faith because some preachers' actions away from the pulpit have cast doubts on them and indeed religion as a whole. The lies and misinterpretation of some verses of the Bible have not helped. But if your faith is deep enough, by reading the article quoted above, you will not be deterred from what science has claimed to have discovered using DNA. Because what they apparently have discovered goes against what is written in the Bible.

These days it’s hard to believe what anyone says - especially when it comes to science. I’m not going to use the same words as they did but how can two people mate when they don’t know each other and live apart from each other? I will say even though I don’t believe what they have supposedly discovered it’s still interesting to read.

The Iranians and their intent.

Iran's intentions.

Not too long ago I was reading about the Iranian ships leaving Iran to come to the American coast. From what I read, these ships are rust buckets and they don’t know if they will make it to the US border. The Iranians claim that it’s to show that they can reach the USA if they want to do so. So it's just to prove a point. According to what I have read it was to show their citizens that they are not scared of the USA. Of course they are not afraid. Why should they be? The road has been opened wide for them with the over-use of diplomacy. By the way this should be called the plow of Obama. Well Mr. Obama, Putin has shown that your plow has some defects and needs to be returned. By Obama's reasoning, he has averted a loss of lives and injuries in Syria with his plow (diplomacy).

Back to the Iranians. If the Iranians are not sure if these rust buckets can make it to their destination, how can they be sure that they would make it back? Maybe they aren't quite that bad, but my next question would be 'are they a suicidal crew'? Would they have something that they have been working on for a long time but the only way that it could be delivered is the way they are doing it now? If I were president, I would intercept them before they got near the border, the American submarines and all. If they won’t comply with the order to turn around, then the truth will be known about their intent. Then there will only be one thing to do. That would be to blast them out of the water, because they would be hiding something.

I can’t see the logic of the excuse that they have given. Why would they send ships that are rust buckets and endanger the lives of some of their own people, just to show that they can get close to the USA border? To me this sounds quite fishy.

Those are my opinions of the day.

Have a good day.

Keystone XL pipeline

According to what I’ve read, it seems by the way that it’s written that Obama is the only one to blame for not giving the okay for the pipe line. I would disagree with that thinking. I would rather think that some Democrats and Republicans might have some interest with some competitors and are willing to sacrifice the creation of jobs for the American people because of their greed for money.

I would say it would be safe for them to blame Obama. It seems to have become a fad on blaming him for almost everything that has gone wrong since he was elected. Myself, I wouldn’t trust him. Could it be that because of his yes men, he hesitates to put his name on the dotted line as he wouldn’t want to offend anyone? 

If what I’m claiming the reasons to be for Keystone XL not going ahead are true, then it’s true that some people have no regards for the welfare of the nation, preferring to serve their own wallet.  These sorts of people have no business being in a position where they can put themselves ahead of the good of the nation.

Obama has done enough things he can be blamed for and doesn’t need any help to be partly blamed for something that he might want to do.

That is my rant and my opinions of the day.