Maybe the answer to so many people coming here illegally isn't building a wall, but making immigration much easier to do legally. There are people who applied in he 90s still waiting. If you live in the corrupt parts of Mexico or Honduras making you wait decades it ridiculous.

This isn't just a case of "make it legal so the crime rate drops artificially". It's Fixing a system that has been objectively messed up for a long long time that no one wants to talk about. He left doesn't care and seems to advocate all the illegal immigration they can. The right says come legally but make it harder than ever to come here legally.

I believe it should be very simple to immigrate here and maybe make citizenship something that be obtained down the road. But our current system of "it's broken and let try to fix it by building a wall" is ridiculous.

This isn't to say illegal immigration is ok. It is saying legal immigration is ridiculously hard and needs to be made easier for people seeking refuge in a free land.

Let's try it again

As I look over this blog, full of stuff I wrote a couple years ago, I realize I've changed quite a bit in such a short time. My opinions have matured and developed, and sometimes have been almost completely reversed on certain issues. As I go forward with reactivating this blog (how can I no with such a great name?) I think it's only fair I state a bit of what I hold to as hard and firm principles. I may, in the future, critique some of my earlier posts and hold them up against my newer set of beliefs and policies. But for now I will keep it short and simple.

I believe first and foremost in Christ Jesus as my God and Savior. I believe Him and His principles are the only standard by which we can determine the morality of anything. I believe America should act, as a nation, in a moral way concerning how it governs and treats other nations and peoples. I don't, however, believe that every moral precept in the Bible should be legislated into law. I believe the government should be very limited in it's scope and power. Man is corrupt, and corrupt men given power won't be any less corrupt in how they govern.

I consider myself independent though I lean heavily libertarian. I am firmly pro-life, and while I am not a single issue voter, that is an extremely important issue for me and is a major factor in determining who I support. The number of abortions that have legally happened over the past few decades is horrifically high. And Americans should be ashamed for their apathy on the issue. Life and liberty go hand in hand, and I don't think we can truly have one without the other.

As I try to make this blog more active I want to express some of my intentions. I want to explore political philosophy as well as certain Theological topics, with a few random posts about whatever here and there. Hopefully this blog will, at the very least, help me grow in my analytical and writing skills. Thanks to anyone that reads this from here on out!

The Spotless One.

No, I don't mean Jesus when I say "the Spotless One", but a man who we are led to believe is about as Holy as Jesus. These past few weeks we have seens headlines full of scandals and cover-ups, let's review real quick.

IRS scandal: The IRS has admitted to targeting Conservative groups. The inspector general’s report made public May 11 found that IRS employees at the agency’s Determinations Unit from spring 2010 until about fall 2011 used keyword searches such as “tea party” and “patriot” to target groups applying for tax-exempt status. The Conservative groups were then put through lengthy periods of investigations and some requests for tax-exemption were delayed up to 3 years, all the while Liberal groups were rarely investigated.

AP Scandal: Documents and phone records were seized Unconstitutionally by the Justice department concerning a (then) ongoing terrorist investigation. In addition, a Fox News correspondent, James Rosen, was investigated and tracked because of an an investigation he was doing concerning classified material about North Korea in 2009. Eric Holder, U.S. Attorney General, is now under scrutiny for possibly lying under Oath. On May 15th he said, when questioned on possible use of the Espionage Act to prosecute members of the news media for publishing classified information, that he never took part in any "potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material...That is not something that I have ever been involved in, heard or, or would think would be wise policy,"  It has now been revealed that Holder had been involved in the discussions about getting search warrants to search reporters documents.

Benghazi scandal: I'm sure many are familiar with this one.Violent attacks happened in Egypt and Libya, specifically Benghazi, on American Embassies which resulted in the death of 4 men, including an Ambassador. Many officials in our government, including Hillary Clinton, said the attack was sparked by an anti-Islam online video. Many questions still revolve around these attacks, yet Liberals have been trying to bury it and leave it be.

Now what do these all have in common aside from showing how corrupt our government has gotten? Obama apparently is not connected, or in any way responsible, for any of them. Obama apparently wasn't even aware such things were conceivable. regarding the Justice Department spying on the AP, Jay Carney, White House Press Secretary said that  Obama “found out about that from news reports" on May 13.

So the way I see it is, we either have one of the most incompetent, ignorant presidents in recorded history, or   our president is covering up and he was aware of some or all of these scandals. I think it might be a bit of both.

Either way, the media is portraying these things as if Obama was deliberately kept in the dark lest he find out and break open these scandals. He now has "plausible deniability" (Kennedy anyone?) for all of these things. So we are told now, basically, that Obama is the Spotless Lamb, free from sin or blemish. A near perfect being in a not-so-perfect government. Maybe he is, maybe he really had no clue at all. It's possible, but not likely.

One thing's for sure, our government isn't worth of trusting too much right now. Whether it's violating our free speech and privacy by seizing records and information unconstitutionally, or targeting groups and people simply based off of what party they support in what values they have, we know that our government won't think twice before stabbing it's citizens in the back. So stay vigilant, vote, pray, and STAY INFORMED! It's all we can do at the present to try and keep a hold on a corrupted system.

The Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave.

Freedom... I think it's something many Americans take for granted. We don't often think about how easily we could lose it, whether by a power grab or a foreign country invading. But that is why we have safe guards. We have checks and balances to defend us from internal tyranny, and we have a military to protect us from external tyranny. The latter form of defense is what I would like to recognize today.

Today is Memorial day. A day we can remember all the courageous men and women who died to keep this country free.

America has been involved in lots of wars in its near 250 year existence. From the American Revolution, To the Spanish/American War, from the World Wars, to the War on Terror, we've had a history of conflict to protect our country and freedom. Somewhere around 700,000 thousands troops (not including the Civil War) have died defending this nation. And today we honor them and remember the debt we owe them.

I would like to quote A man who served in our military,Father Dennis Edward O'Brien, USMC, about why our troops are so important.
 "It is the soldier, not the reporter, Who has given us freedom of the press.
It is the soldier, not the poet, Who has given us freedom of speech.
It is the soldier, not the organizer, Who gave us the freedom to demonstrate
It is the soldier, Who salutes the flag, Who serves beneath the flag.
And whose coffin is draped by the flag, Who allows the protester to burn the flag."

Our armed forces do their best to preserve our great nation. Our country wouldn't even be here if it weren't for the deaths of many men. So I ask that you think about your freedom today, and think about those who died allowing you to have it. God Bless America.

Justified: an original Gospel series

(Sorry I've been gone for a few weeks. It's been busy lately.)

So today I want you to imagine a trial. A man is accused of robbing a bank with a partner and killing 2 guards. There is overwhelming evidence, including security footage, witness reports, and the confession of the partner, that the man is guilty. When the trial comes the man pleads guilty before the judge, but the man claimed he should be set free. The judge then asks him what justified the man robbing the bank. "I wanted the money I deserved for all the work I've done in my life", said the man" but before you judge, remember all the good civil service I've done. I've never gotten a speeding ticket, helped out in the community, I've even been going to the Catholic church down the street for the past 10 years! I'm not a bad man, I just felt I deserved the money." The judge sentences the man to life in prison.

So in the completely hypothetical case above we have a man who committed a crime which resulted in the death of two men. The man was obviously guilty, but he justified his actions by saying all the good things he had done previously.

Now let's consider another situation. Let's say we had laws written down in a book that we must follow or else we were to be punished. Now let's say all men broke these rules because it was in their nature to do so. Man rejected these rules because they thought they knew better. Now at the end of each person's life, there was a trial. The trial determined whether the people should be allowed to live in Peace and Perfection, or be punished for all eternity for their crimes. Each person was tried before a throne. And every crime that was ever done by the person was brought up, the person has no choice but to plead guilty. When the judge asks for justification of these actions what will man say? Are they justified by their good works? no. Good works are fine, but they can't save a person from the deserved punishment for the crimes they did. The only thing that could possibly save this person is a pardon, something that says all the blame shall be taken from the person.

Now the situation above is a true representation of what the Bible tells us will happen. The books that contains the law is the Bible. We will all be judged before God someday, and no man can save himself from judgment he deserves. But luckily we DO have a pardon. A perfect man, the Son of God, came down to earth, lived a perfect life, and then died, taking all our crime and sins on himself in that act. He presented himself as a pardon for our crimes.The Bible says  "And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world."1 John 2:2

 Through him alone may we be justified. But a pardon must be accepted. so we must accept Jesus' sacrifice for him to take effect. "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."1 John 1:9

Romans 3:22-28
English Standard Version (ESV)
22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

27 Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28 For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.

Freedom of Religion, or From?

So I'm ticked off today after finding out about a situation occurring in our military. A Mikey Weinstein, President of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation had a meeting with pentagon officials last week. Mikey said that U.S. troops who witness and try to convert people of other nation's are guilty of sedition and treason and should be punished to stop a "tidal wave of Fundamentalist". Mikey declared soldiers that share their faith with other people are violating the Constitution.

Weinstein pointed out a policy called "Air Force Culture, Air Force Standards," that has a regulation which states
 "Leaders at all levels must balance constitutional protections for an individual's free exercise of religion or other personal beliefs and the constitutional prohibition against governmental establishment of religion,".
Weinstien says this regulation needs to be enforced and that any soldiers caught violating it by sharing his faith should be prosecuted. He said "We would love to see hundreds of prosecutions to stop this outrage of fundamentalist religious persecution." And later compared proselytizing to rape,saying "It is a version of being spiritually raped and you are being spiritually raped by fundamentalist Christian religious predators," The Pentagon then said in an interview that proselytizing is not allowed in the military.


I have a ton of questions now. Why is our Pentagon talking to a wackjob Atheist organization? What happened to our freedom of speech? I understand not wanting to force people into converting but simply sharing the Gospel or handing out tracks can't be seen as "government establishment of religion". A couple of weeks ago army men had to file of Bible references  that had been put on to the gun. Why? How could that possibly be government authorizing it?

Our military is in place to protect Our Rights in the Constitution. That is their primary mission. So what happens when the people they are working for start violating THEIR Constitutional rights? It's becoming more and more clear that our government is becoming anti-Christian, not just neutral. Christians make up a lot of our military, they have chaplains  church services, Bible meetings. And yet simply giving a testimony to foreigners is illegal? I'm not just arguing for Christians here though, I think any religion that wishes to share his or her face has a right to do so. I understand that they are active-duty, but they haven an opportunity to help. And censoring what they can say is wrong. Our country is becoming a disgrace.

So what should we do? We must pray and continue to be active in changing our government to allow us our Constitutional Rights. We must not be ignorant to the attacks on our Liberty the government has been making. I leave you with this question, assuming you're religious,would you still witness anyway?

Gosnell's Defense: Hey, Abortion is "Bloody and Ugly," But It's Not Illegal by Guy Benson

It's been a long few days for me and I didn't have time to write a post, but this is a very powerful article from TownHall.com. Hope to be back blogging in the next few days.


Abortionist and accused serial killer Kermit Gosnell's attorney wrapped up his defense presentation in a Philadelphia courtroom earlier this afternoon.  TheExaminer's Tim Carney witnessed the closing argument:
“Every one of those babies died in utero.” That is the pillar on which abortionist Kermit Gosnell’s defense rests. Defense attorney John J. McMahon’s closing argument Monday boiled down to this: Gosnell’s supposed crimes were really just late-term abortions. The question in Gosnell’s case, McMahon said, is not “whether he was an abortion doctor,” or “is abortion bloody and ugly?” The question is whether Gosnell killed babies after they were born or while they were still in utero. One of Gosnell’s alleged victims was named Baby Boy A by the grand jury. He was so big that Gosnell allegedly joked “he could have walked me to the bus station.” “They have no case” regarding “Baby A because it was killed in utero,” McMahon said Monday. Gosnell, through the abdomen, injected a chemical called digoxin into the baby “to prevent a live birth. The was the goal of Dr. Gosnell with [the mother’s] consent: to kill the baby in utero.”

Gosnell's attorney also told jurors that other measures -- such as snapping infants' necks and snipping their spinal cords -- were precautionary measures carried out on already-dead babies:
One baby was delivered into a toilet at Gosnell’s clinic. A clinic worker testified “I took the fetus out of the toilet. I snapped the neck. …” McMahon argued Monday that “not one line” of testimony in that case “indicates the baby was alive at any time.” Yes, Gosnell snipped many baby’s necks after delivery — but he had killed the baby in utero hours before with a shot of digoxin, the defense argued.


Of course, other lurid testimony from the trial contravenes the defense's core assertion.  Nurses at the clinic have testified -- among other things -- thatone baby screamed during a live-birth "abortion," and that another appeared to be "swimming" in the toilet into which it was delivered, as if he or she it was "trying to get out."  These are horrifying, but important, details.  Dead fetuses don't make moaning noises.  They don't try to escape.  They don't fight to breathe while being tossed into shoeboxes and discarded.  Plus, the "they were already dead" excuse doesn't explain Gosnell's macabre trophies (he stored the severed feet of his victims in jars around the office), nor does it cover the demise Gosnell's adult victim.  Defense attorney John McMahon clearly recognizes these gaps in his case, which is why he closed with a rant against the "racist" prosecution.  Cries of racism are especially rich, considering that Gosnell enforced a policy of de facto racial segregation at his unsanitary death mill, where white women were treated far better than women of color.

But the very fact that prosecutors are forced to meet the burden of proving these infants were delivered alive simply draws attention to the baffling and unjust standards constructed by our abortion laws.  If a fully-formed unborn infant is poisoned in utero, chopped to pieces, then vacuumed out of the womb, that's legally permissible. It's a textbook late-term abortion.  But if that very same infant happens to be delivered alive before the lethal blow is struck, it's murder.  Thus, a murder trial hinges almost exclusively on the determination of the scene of the crime.  If the killings of the exact same victims took place in location X,  they're sanitized into a "medical procedure."  But if they took place in location Y, they're felonies.  According to a witness, Gosnell once offered the following assessment of one of his victims: “This baby is big enough to walk around with me or walk me to the bus stop!”  But that very baby was not "big enough" to be sheltered from legalized pre-birth killing in many states.  How is this ethically, medically, or morally defensible?