Christians, you MUST vote this election!! Here's why...

I just finished reading an article titled "Why Voting for Donald Trump is A Morally Good Choice". It is a great article. It does not state that Donald Trump is a morally good person, but rather analyzes how the nation will take shape under a Clinton presidency versus a Trump presidency, and these differences make Trump a morally good choice.

For those of you considering doing a write-in or third-party vote, please don't. Those votes may only hurt the primary candidates and can sway an election in the opposite direction that these voters actually hoped for. No third-party candidate has ever won a presidential election, in fact all they usually do is split parties.

I encourage you to read every word of this article. It is somewhat long, but worth reading, especially for first, second, even third time young voters.

"Should Christians even try to influence elections at all? Yes, definitely. The apostle Peter says Christians are “exiles” on this earth (1 Peter 1:1). Therefore I take seriously the prophet Jeremiah’s exhortation to the Jewish people living in exile in Babylon:
“Seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the LORD on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare” (Jeremiah 29:7).
By way of modern application, I think Christians today have a similar obligation to vote in such a way that will “seek the welfare” of the United States. Therefore the one overriding question to ask is this: Which vote is most likely to bring the best results for the nation?"

Another interesting read from 2010: http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/03/10/how-third-party-candidates-affect-elections/

Stop the anti-gun stupidity!

This is a semi-automatic rifle:

(image source http://www.colt.com/Catalog/Rifles/AR15A4)

This too is a semi-automatic rifle:

The first one is a Colt AR15A4 .223 caliber rifle. Average magazine capacity: 15 rounds.

The second one is a Springfield 87A .22LR caliber rifle, probably made around 1948. It holds 15 rounds.

Both are semi-automatic rifles.

Both are similar caliber. (For a good explanation of the differences, check this article out. The bullets are essentially the same diameter.)

[Neither is an assault rifle. According to this Wikipedia article, an assault rifle is,

An assault rifle is a fully automatic selective-fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine]

Wikipedia has allowed an edit to this definition that removed the "fully automatic" wording, however their references for this definition still correctly include those words. Liberal gun control agenda at it's finest.


Neither rifle is fully automatic, therefore neither is an "assault rifle". There really is very little difference in how these two rifles work.

Yet the politicians and liberal news media want the AR banned, because they do not understand what they are talking about.

It is not the gun that is the problem. It is the evil in people that is the problem.

Separation of Church and State....Not what you think.

The Founding Fathers of the United States of America did not state that church and state should be separate. They stated that CONGRESS could not make a LAW ESTABLISHING a religion OR PROHIBITING the free exercise thereof. The "separation of church and state" comes from a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists ensuring them that government would not establish a religion. This has been twisted and perverted into what people think it means today, but that is not what the First Amendment was intended to mean by any stretch of the imagination. It is nothing but a perversion.

To say that separating church and state was the intent of the Founding Fathers shows nothing but ignorance of them and their writings. Here is but a small sample that PROVES "separation of church and state" as it is practiced today, is NOT the original intent of the First Amendment.

"We have no government armed in power capable of contending in human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other." John Adams, 1798, Address to the militia of Massachusetts

"I have lived, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth -- that God Governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?" Benjamin Franklin, July 28, 1787, Address at the Constitutional Convention

"The great pillars of all government...[are] virtue, morality, and religion. This is the armor, my friend, and this alone, that renders us invincible." Patrick Henry, Jan. 8, 1799, Letter to Archibald Blair

"In my opinion, the present constitution is the standard to which we are to cling.... Let an association be formed to be denominated 'The Christian Constitutional Society,' its object to be first: The support of the Christian religion. Second: The support of the United States." Alexander Hamilton, Apr. 16-21, 1802, Letter to James Bayard

"The blessing and protection of Heaven are at all times necessary but especially so in times of public distress and danger. The General hopes and trusts that every officer and man will endeavor to live and act as becomes a Christian soldier, defending the dearest rights and liberties of his country."
 "You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are." George Washington

"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 & State." Thomas Jefferson, Jan. 1, 1802, Letter to the Connecticut Danbury Baptist Association

"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..." The Declaration of Independence, Written by Thomas Jefferson, signed by 56 Founding Fathers (listed here http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/Signers/index.htm and elsewhere). Clearly states that the purpose of Government is to secure the rights endowed by our Creator. Thus the document that CREATES our government, the Constitution, including all Amendments, was written in order to secure the rights endowed by our Creator. How then can church and state be separate when the purpose of the state is to ensure the rights of.... the church?

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Here's a great read: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/971381/posts

About Democrats...

Pretty fascinating video here: http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/us/must-see-video-the-real-truth-about-democrats Every political party has it's issues. But lets get the facts straight.

Waitaminute....

Remember DOMA? The Defense of Marriage Act? The Act passed by congress and signed into law by President Clinton in 1996? It defined marriage for federal purposes as the union of one man and one woman, and allowed states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages granted under the laws of other states. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act)

This law was challenged  and overturned in 2013. In the majority opinion on the case, SCOTUS said the following (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_6j37.pdf):

• "DOMA, because of its reach and extent, departs from this history and tradition of reliance on state law to define marriage."
• "DOMA’s unusual deviation from the usual tradition of recognizing and accepting state definitions of marriage here operates to deprive same-sex couples of the benefits and responsibilities that come with the federal recognition of their marriages."
• "The avowed purpose and practical effect of the law here in question are to impose a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority of the States."
• "The history of DOMA’s enactment and its own text demonstrate that interference with the equal dignity of same-sex marriages, a dignity conferred by the States in the exercise of their sovereign power, was more than an incidental effect of the federal statute."

Ok waitaminute. Are the States sovereign or not? In the DOMA ruling, SCOTUS said they are. Yet in the decision last week, SCOTUS completely contradicted what they said in the DOMA decision. So last week, SCOTUS took the 10th Amendment and flushed it down the toilet.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"

For those of you who haven't bothered to read it: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html

Cotton candy Islam

But Muslims who call the Islamic State un-Islamic are typically, as the Princeton scholar Bernard Haykel, the leading expert on the group’s theology, told me, “embarrassed and politically correct, with a cotton-candy view of their own religion” that neglects “what their religion has historically and legally required.” Many denials of the Islamic State’s religious nature, he said, are rooted in an “interfaith-Christian-nonsense tradition.”  
http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

Been tellin' ya.

No Guns? No Problem. No patronage at your store.

Dear Panera Bread, Target, Starbucks, (and any other establishment that I find has this type of policy) you have lost my business. Your anti-gun stance is idiotic.

You have made your stores killing zones for criminals who want to harm people. You have made it safe for them to come to your stores to kill.

Do you really think that your policy or signs will keep criminals with intent to harm and kill out of your stores? Do you think the mass murderer who walks up and see the sign on your door that says "No Guns" is going to get frustrated and take their guns somewhere else to kill? No. They're going to laugh and walk right in and start shooting.

And now you've made it to where law-abiding citizens can't shop/eat at your establishments with the ability to protect themselves and stop the person killing all your customers.

I hope and pray that this never happens at any of your stores (or anywhere else for that matter), but we all know that in reality it is just a matter of time.

I will avoid places like yours that prevent me from protecting myself and my family.

Ron Shaich, this "warm environment" you want to establish at Panera would be maintained if I brought my gun in. Why? Cause it's legally concealed, and the only way any of your precious customers would even know I had it would be if I had to pull it out to stop the criminal that just came in your store and started shooting everyone.

By the way, I love your shortbread pastries. I will miss them.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/09/08/panera-bread-ceo-dont-bring-your-guns-into-our-restaurants/