The Latest Example Of Liberal Lunacy

The moonbats are at it again.

As each day goes by, I become more and more convinced that liberals have to be some sort of alien life form from another planet.

It seems to be the only explanation for utterly stupid things that concern them.

I was sort of hoping that with the Christmas season behind us, this “separation of Church and State” silliness would go away for awhile.

In the latest example of liberal lunacy, the Freedom From Religon Foundation is urging a boycott of the United States Postal Service.

What has these mental midgets so outraged is that the USPS plans to issue a postage stamp honoring a woman.

This woman:

Mother Teresa.

A Nobel Prize winner who, unlike some recent folks awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, actually did something to earn the award.

The Freedom From Religon Foundation had this comment:

“Mother Teresa is principally known as a religious figure who ran a religious institution. You can’t really separate her being a nun and being a Roman Catholic from everything she did.”

Right.

Like spending her lifetime doing humanitarian work in the poverty and squalor of Calcutta.

The idiot liberal (redundant) members of the Freedom From Religon Foundation are among the left-wing whack jobs who are always running their mouths about how we all have an obligation to help those less fortunate than us, would be singing the praises of Mother Teresa if she had  been an atheist.

Because she was a Roman Catholic nun, she shouldn’t have her picture on a postage stamp.

Just what planet do these people come from anyway?

The Separation Of Church and State For Dummies

Once again, it’s that time of year when liberals raise a ruckus over any type of Christmas display in or around a taxpayer-funded building, such as a courthouse or a public school, claiming such a display violates the Constitutional provision regarding the separation of church and state.

It’s ironic how liberals only cite the Constitution when they feel that they can use it to promote their anti-Christian agenda.

And in the spirit of the season of Good Will Towards Men, we feel it is our duty to clear things up for them so that they stop making fools of themselves.

Let’s start at the beginning. The First Amendment to the Constitution reads as follows:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Now to most rational people that seems pretty straightforward.

No law respecting any establishment of religion is a reference to the fact that many of the earliest settlers of this continent came here to escape the religious persecution that was commonplace in most of Europe.
This oppression was the result of the Church of England, the Anglican Church, becoming the official government church, and non-conformists were not looked upon kindly.

…or prohibiting the free exercise therof…

How blinded by ideology does someone have to be to try and twist the fact that the First Amendment clearly states that the government will make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religious beliefs?

Or to totally ignore the fact that the phrase “separation of church and state is nowhere to be found in the Constitution?

The correct wording, wall of separation between church and state, is taken from a letter President Thomas Jefferson wrote in reply to a message form the Danbury Baptist Association, which at the time was a religious minority in Connecticut.

The leaders of the congregation sent the following to Jefferson:

“Among the many millions in America and Europe who rejoice in your election to office, we embrace the first opportunity . . . to express our great satisfaction in your appointment to the Chief Magistracy in the United States. . . . [W]e have reason to believe that America’s God has raised you up to fill the Chair of State out of that goodwill which He bears to the millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for the arduous task which providence and the voice of the people have called you. . . . And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his Heavenly Kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator.”

However, they ended the letter with the fact that they were apprehensive about the principles behind the First Amendment guarantee for “the free exercise of religion.”

“Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty: that religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals, that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions, [and] that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor. But sir, our constitution of government is not specific. . . . [T]herefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights.”

Their concern was that, according to the way that they read the wording of the Constitution, the right of religious expression was government given, rather than God given, and that a time might come when the government might someday attempt to limit religious expression.

Sound familar?

Seeking to address those concerns, here was Jefferson’s reply:

“Gentlemen, – The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association give me the highest satisfaction. . . . Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties. I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association assurances of my high respect and esteem.”

Jefferson’s use of the words “natural rights” affirmed his belief that religious rights were inalienable rights.

To sum up, the Constitution clearly states that Congress will not establish a religion, or hinder someone’s religious beliefs.

Why is this so hard for liberals to understand?

A manger scene in the town square is no more a violation of the Constitution, or of the government establishing a religion,  than is a Menorah on a courthouse lawn, or a Kinara placed in the halls of Congress.

And if that were the case, didn’t White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel violate the Constitution and step over the wall of separation between church and state when he lit the National Menorah on Sunday?

 

 

 

 

 

 

A Reader Calls Me A Bigot…Maybe He’s Right

In an article I did yesterday, I pointed out some of the glaring inconsistencies in the way liberals think, and in what they believe.
You can read the article here.

And of course some liberal lunatic had to leave the following comment:

“It sounds to me like you’ve encountered people such as yourself and assumed they were liberals because their bigotry and bias was a different flavor than yours.”

When I had said at the beginning of the article that liberals were missing a few brain cells, I was being sarcastic.

Now I’m starting to think that I may be onto something.

Because for someone to call me a bigot due to the fact that I point out the hypocrisy in their belief system, they must have a mental disease.

Then, the more I thought about it, according to the sick and twisted liberal viewpoint, what I believe does make me a bigot.

Really, is this the best you people can do?

There has to be at least one liberal out there out there with the moral courage to face an issue head on.

And I’m not talking about you halfwits who’s answer to everything is “Well, George Bush did this” or “Republicans did that.”

Explain to me why I shouldn’t have anything  but disdain for global warming hypocrite Al Gore, who’s lifestyle produces a bigger carbon footprint in a month than I do in a year!
And please don’t give me any of that crap about “carbon credits, the last guy to come up with a Ponzi scheme like that was Bernie Maddoff.

Justify the actions of the ACLU, a group of legal sharks who repeatedly file lawsuits hoping to stop the Boy Scouts of America from receiving any federal funding over the fact that the BSA refuses to have admitted homosexuals as Scoutmasters.
ACORN has received millions of federal dollars more than the Scouts have, is the ACLU suing ACORN for their staffers instructing people an how to make children become child prostitutes?
No?
I didn’t think so.

A few years ago, the ACLU served pro bono as defense counsel for two pieces of human garbage who sodomized and murdered a 9 year old boy.
Guess that’s something to be proud of, huh?

Tell me again why I should support President Obama’s appointment of Kevin Jennings as “Safe Schools Czar.”
A man who turned a blind eye to the homosexual statutory rape of a 15 year old boy.

Those of you living in your liberal fantasy world may find this hard to believe, but I don’t really care how two consenting adults choose to live their lives, or pick their sexual partners.

My problem arises when America’s school system tries to teach children about moral and lifestyle choices.
That is not the job of a schoolteacher, that is the job of a parent.
We who consider ourselves conservatives don’t need you to raise our children for us, we are perfectly capable of doing it on our own.

The holiday season will soon be upon us, and this will compel those on the left to go into one of their favorite rants.

Point out to me where in the United States Constitution the phrase “Separation of Church and State” appears.

Just what is it about Christmas that scares you lefties so much?

“Peace on Earth, Good Will Towards Men” sounds like a pretty good plan to me.

And despite your contempt for any public display of them, when you come right down to it, the Ten Commandments aren’t a bad set of rules to live by.

Please explain to me how Keith Olbermann is more level-headed and fairer than Glenn Beck.
Yet you have nothing but respect for the one, and nothing but contempt for the other.

Clear up for me how many of you are outraged when people in a neighborhood will post signs pointing out that a child molestor has moved into an area.
Are liberals really so mentally sick that they are more concerned with hurting the feelings of a pervert than they are with the safety of young children?

Give me a credible reason why we should think that the government is capable of competently running the health care industry when they foul up almost everything else they put their hands to>
Are we really supposed to believe that our medical records will remain private when a teenage kid can hack into computers at the Pentagon?

I could keep going on with this, but here is the bottom line:

I think that anyone who lives a life of wretched excess while telling me that I have to completelychange my lifestyle because “the earth is in the balance” is nothing more than a money-grubbing hypocrite that is beneath contempt.

I have nothing but disdain for any group of attorneys, no matter what fancy title they choose to give themselves, who defend admitted child molesters and murderers.

If a man wants to have sex with a man, a woman with a woman, or any combination thereof, I don’t care.
But I don’t want the state teaching moral values to my children, that’s a job for myself and my wife.
And if my idea of morality doesn’t mesh with yours, that’s too damn bad.

I fail to see how a Nativity scene on a courthouse lawn will bring about the end of civilization.
Any more than any other religious symbol would.

Please don’t expect me to be delusional enough to believe that pindits such as Sean Hannitty or Michelle Malkin are rabid mad-dog conservatives while in the same breath you try and convince me that Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews sall them right down the middle.

Not only don’t I want a sexual predator living in my neighborhood, Iwould go out of my way to make things so uncomfortable for such an individual that they would move.
And I would urge the folks in the area that this person moved to to do the same thing.
Would I be violating this persons rights?
Too damn bad.
Because unlike you liberals, I feel that the right of a child to be safe from a molester, or a woman from a rapist, far exceed the rights of a pervert.

I don’t feel that the government has any right whatsoever to dictate the terms of my medical coverage.
A while back I put forth the proposal that anyone who wants to sign on to the President’s health care proposals should be allowed to do so.
And that the feds should leave those of us who are happy with the coverage we have now the hell alone.

All of these things are a part of my belief system.

And if that makes me a bigot, then so be it.