House debating Schiavo bill

Here we go again with lawmakers trying to take powers for themselves. I feel bad for the woman in the middle of this, Mrs. Schiavo. But really, congress has no place stepping in here. Last I checked, the republicans wanted to deny marriage rights to gays and lesbians, with which comes the ability to make medical decisions for a spouse. Now they are trying to deny those same medical rights to Mr. Schiavo, who is legally, lawfully, and heterosexually married. This is a matter for the court system to work out on its own, in its own due course. When one part of government feels like it doesn't like what another part is doing and tries to make its own rules where it doesn't belong, then you know government isn't working. Why doesn't congress stop wasting time and go back to work on what it is supposed to be doing?

Texas Capitol's Ten Commandments at the Supreme Court

One thing bothers me here. It is the way that in one breath we cry for the first ammendment to protect free speech and then in the next breath use it to quash the religious principles and heritage that founded this great country. If a large erotic (but not pornographic) mural were donated and put up in a public building, those crying for its removal would be labeled as anti-american because they want to tread on the first ammendment protection of freedom of speech. Yet, if a large mural of something stated to be religious is put up, those same people who look down on others for treading freedom of speech turn around and cry that this isn't freedom of speech, but a government endorsement of religion.

A religion does not have to be formal or formally recognized. Webster's first definition of religion is, "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usu. involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code for the conduct of human affairs." So, let's see. If I believe that the world was created naturally, through physical and evolutionary processes, that the purpose of the universe is for me to simply live in it, that humans evolved like all other animals and developed their own intelligence and agency, then I go out and plan a weekly hunting or fishing trip that can be seen as a ritual to nature, and create a moral code for the conduct of human affairs in nature (such as don't litter, don't kill what you can't eat, don't destroy nature), then I would have all the necessary points to be considered a religion. We'll call it the Church of Nature (I don't know if there is a body named as such, and if there is I mean no offense). Now, as a member of the Church of Nature, I paint a beautiful scene of mountains and forests and streams. Can that picture be put up in a government building since it is an affirmation of my religion and beliefs? What if I also add to the bottom, don't litter, don't kill what you can't eat, don't destroy nature?

This example is a little extreme, but it was to make a point. Will we get to the point where everything is somehow religious or offensive to somebody? What then? Will there be no decorations, no murals, no pictures of any kind? Where does it end?

The best solution is to first minimize the amount of land and property that government "owns" in this country. Government should not "own" land because that simply means that it is owned by all citizens equally. And unless all citizens have the same opinions, then all citizens should not own the same piece of property, as there will be continual squabbles over it. If everything is owned privately, then this whole problem is circumvented.

Social Security plan backed in Utah

Well, although the President's plan seems like it might be a step in the right direction, it is far too little. Social Security has always been a socialist policy, and will continue to be so as long as people are not given a choice of whether or not to participate, and as long as any money is forcibly removed from people to pay for it, whether as taxes or anything else.

Socialism is defined by Webster as, "a theory of social organization in which the means of production and distribution of goods are owned and controlled collectively or by the government." A second definition states that the Marxist theory calls socialism, "the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principless."

So what does that mean? It means a system where individual controls and freedoms are given up to the government or the group to control. People put up a big stink about big brother and the Patriot Act taking away their freedoms, and yet they are more than happy to give up their freedoms because they think they are helping others and that the government needs to protect us from ourselves.

The part that really scares me is how Marxist theory says that socialism is just the stage between capitalism and communism, on the way to communism. And the way this country is headed, we're running towards communism with open, yet unsuspecting, arms. As soon as the government starts to take control away from the individual, and starts telling people what they can and can't do with their own property, that nation is in trouble. That began with income tax, and has continued with Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.

Oh what a subtle snare this is! Make people think they are helping themselves by letting government protect them from themselves. But they don't realize the freedoms they are giving up. In essence they are allowing the government to steal from them. And oh how this weakens society. Remember the old saying, "The chain is only as strong as its weakest link." As the people allow government to group us together and take our property from us to distribute it amongst everyone, the entire chain becomes weaker still.

We are in essence rewarding people for being lazy or stupid, while punishing those who work harder and/or smarter. Did we learn nothing from Darwin's theory of Natural Selection and from evolution? In nature, a weak animal cannot be saved from preditors by its friends, it is sad but true. If an animal becomes lazy and weak, or doesn't want to work hard to get food, or isn't smart enough to adapt and eat, then it will die, and there is nothing its compatriots can do. However, we keep trying to save the lazy and dumb, providing for them a means for survival and rewarding them for their laziness by giving them a handout. Then they pass that on to their children (which can be many since we give people an incentive to have more), who learn the lifestyle. So society as a whole deteriorates, becomes weaker, becomes dumber.

Where does all this lead? Why, to communism of course! Just as Marxist theory says! When enough people are lazy and dumb and don't want to work for their meal, they will become the majority, and the lawmakers will be elected by them. Slowly but surely, the laws will become more socialistic, until one day we find ourselves in full-fledged communism. If that day comes, don't say I didn't warn you.

Judge Says Calif. Can't Ban Gay Marriage

You know, it is amazing to me how many people end up getting so upset with an issue when it shouldn't have been an issue in the first place. At least not one the goverment should have put their hands into.

It seems that every time government tries to legislate morality we run into problems and divisions, as a country. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for morality, and wish that everyone would live highly moral lives. I'm also of the personal belief that the heterosexual, monogomous, chaste-before-marriage lifestyle is the way to go. However, when legislators and goverment try to tell the people what is and isn't moral when it comes to things that don't directly affect others, then things start to get crazy.

The recent upheaval over Gay Marriage is the obvious example. How come we let people live together (whether heterosexual or homosexual) but when they want to "marry" as homosexuals we say no? Why do people get automatic benefits as a spouse at all under government rules? Another example that comes to mind is Polygamy. Why is it illegal to marry 10 women, but not to sleep with 10 outside of marriage? How about prostitution? Why is it that a person can engage in as many sexual relationships as they want so long as they are not paying for them directly? Is that to say that somehow the exchange of money is more powerful or important than the exchange of feelings? Whether by money or by pleasure, everyone gets paid something for consentual relationships.

No, the answer is not to dictate morality through legislation, but rather to leave it to churches, families, and individuals. I have come to the conclusion that the answer is not to recognize marriage legally at all. Marriage is a religious rite, not a legal partnership. A legal partnership may be drawn up by two or more individuals, and will be binding in a court of law. So if someone wants to get married they can do so, in their own religious way. At any time before or after their religious ceremony of choice (which no government should need to sanction nor collect a fee to allow), they can enter into a legal partnership which states whatever divisions of property, conditions, requirements, benefits, or obligations that the partners wish to create. That way government stays out of legislating morality, and sticks to enforcing contracts, which is exactly what it is supposed to do for citizens.

Original Intent and the Income Tax

"Oh, look how far we've come!" That is what those who are in favor of socialist policies say, and point to all the people that "we" have "helped" with programs like social security, welfare, medicare, and all the others.

I, on the other hand, wonder how we got this far down the wrong road, taking away people's freedoms by taxing them heavily and then using that money to promote laziness and reliance on government. It is simply legalized stealing, forcing people to pay for things they never use so others can use them, forcing people who work harder and smarter to pay for people who are lazy and/or stupid.

Everything that government can do, the private sector can do better, and much more efficiently, without usurping the rights of the people to make their own choices.

After all, we Americans claim that we're free! But what are we free from? What did we gain freedom from when we declared our independence? Freedom from tyrrany? Freedom from oppression? Yes! And what does that mean? Freedom from government!!