Thursday, October 10, 2013

America: The Land of the Fearful and Home of the Enslaved

Fear has controlled humans for thousands of years. In ancient times, we feared the dangers of nature, barbarians and gods. In the times of proper civilization however, we have created a new thing to fear: our leaders. We gave them everything to avoid pain and annihilation, but drunk with power they have betrayed us. Today, again, we are afraid. The religious, the spiritual and the faithful fear persecution. Libertarians and conservatives fear government violence and political silence. Liberals fear that if we are left unattended by government, then not even God will step in to care for the poor. The America we live in today is no longer the America that our forefathers died for and titled "the land of the free and the home of the brave." No: despite how we have flourished in the past hundred years, we are now slaves to fear, and bravery is arrested for trying.

How do I come to this conclusion? Easily: examples of control - the consequence of fear - are everywhere.* We should be ashamed of ourselves for allowing this list to get so long. We should be outraged at the people in our capital city. We should be sharpening our pitchforks. In 1776, Thomas Paine wrote, “Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built on the ruins of the bowers of paradise.” Unfortunately the book was titled Common Sense, a principle abandoned by humans frequently throughout history. As a result of our fear, we elected temple robbers, fools, tax collectors (in the Biblical sense), and Pharaohs. Despite what is said in Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution, we have indeed bestowed royalty upon our governmental officials. Just look over the list I put at the end of the blog. In our bustle to throw our freedoms away, we have given so much power to Washington. Our fears have transformed the American people from a monument of courage and hope to ignorant sheep for shearing and greedy pigs for slaughter.

On the topic of fear, I think Franklin said it the best: "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." Even though governments of the past have rarely been little more than black holes of arrogance and venal ambitions, we keep pushing to make them stronger. As a Christian, it especially pains me to see others of my faith shoveling their freedom into the pockets of others. 1 John 4:18 despises fear but pursues love, saying, "There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves torment. But he who fears has not been made perfect in love." God doesn't want us to fear**. As Christians, are we not then commanded to be brave? Even simply as Americans we have not only the right, but the constitutional responsibility to cast this oppressive leadership away. Thomas Jefferson (and several others) covered this basic right by announcing, “Every law consistent with the Constitution will have been made in pursuance of the powers granted by it. Every usurpation or law repugnant to it cannot have been made in pursuance of its powers. The latter will be nugatory and void.” I find it very upsetting that we have used the excuse of fear to slip farther and farther into the control of others. In this fight, we cannot be fearful. We must restore our Constitution.

If we cannot be fearful, then the only option left is to be free. Fear creates chains, but the opposite of fear creates freedom. Perhaps a second revolution is at hand, before we are completely swallowed by history. We have teetered on the edge of oppression for too long. Remember the first Democratic president's words: "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. I am not a friend to a very energetic government." Where has the Democratic party put its honor? And what have the Republicans done to their logic? They direct us to increase their power, rather than to serve their nation. In this they undermine, devalue, and liquidate the principles our country was created to uphold. Personally, I am ashamed for not being outraged sooner. I am ashamed to have waited until today to write this. The America that was founded on July 4th, 1776 does not exist anymore, but I think it can again if we are willing to be brave and fight for it.


“Common sense will tell us, that the power which hath endeavoured to subdue us, is of all others, the most improper to defend us.”

“O ye that love mankind! Ye that dare oppose, not only the tyranny, but
the tyrant, stand forth! Every spot of the old world is overrun with oppression.
Freedom hath been hunted round the globe. Asia, and Africa,
have long expelled her.?Europe regards her like a stranger, and England
hath given her warning to depart. O! receive the fugitive, and prepare in
time an asylum for mankind.”

“A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason.”

― Thomas Paine, excerpts from Common Sense


“A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one.” 

“The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution. By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority .... Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing.”

― Alexander Hamilton

"A government is like fire; a handy servant, but a dangerous master."

― George Washington


*Some of the tools that are being used to control us ("some" being the key word): 
  1. Your freedom of religion and freedom of speech are being oppressed:
  2. The current administration has vindictively closed memorials and many national parks that require nothing to maintain. Here are two examples:
    1. Your WWII memorial:
    2. The Grand Canyon isn't "allowed" to reopen even though citizens have requested to run it privately, in order to maintain their small businesses:
    3. Moreover, the Grand Canyon that you technically own through the taxes that you are still paying, is so off-limits, that they'll cite you for visiting:
  3. Obama calls himself your boss: 
  4. Meanwhile, the larger portion of the media continues to portray Obama as God, despite his extraordinarily low approval rating. See how they worship him? And see how he fails?
  5. GOP attacks Ted Cruz
  6.  You know, there is another line on your ballots in which to write the name of any candidate you choose, even if they are not from a specific party. Elections were never meant to be like searching through the dumpster for a good piece of trash.
  7. How do you feel about the extraordinary breach of conduct by the media and the government to use children's deaths as tool to remove your second amendment right to defense against not only every day dangers, but also tyranny?
  8. The Patriot Act is an easy way for the government to have you arrested if they think you are a threat.
  9. Are you aware of how many taxes have been added to fund failing government programs (remember the postal service and your last visit to the DMV)? How many more taxes can be imposed before your wallet starts to starve?
  10. In fact, the entire Devision of Motor Vehicles is a great way to control transportation of the population. Think about it: why do you need to register your car in order to use it? And why are you forced to purchase insurance? These are easy ways for the government to know what you are doing. No, they probably don't care about what you're doing with your life today, but what happens when you disagree with someone who has the power to stalk your everyday movements?
  11. Even seat belts are a sign of control. "Having liberty means that you have the right to take risks. You should be able to sky-dive, smoke a cigarette, drive without a seat belt, or drink a 20-oz soda (despite his excellency King Bloomberg’s wishes) if you so desire." - Gary Nolan
  12. How about our educational system
  13. Obamacare is more of a punishment for being a citizen than a help to those in need.
**for those of you thinking, "But the Bible says to fear God", the term used for a fear of God might be better translated as "awe" or "reverence". Fear of God does not denote dread or anxiety.

Wednesday, March 27, 2013

Hypocrisy: Pro-Choice and Gun Control

Hypocrisy is rampant in all politics these days. Sometimes people simply don't understand each other (see and sometimes it truly is mortifying to see how little people think. Two topics that I feel passionately about are abortion and gun control. These topics are mostly unrelated, except for one fundamental aspect: both deal with the subject of murder. It would frustrate me if liberals believed in abortion only, or gun control only, but the fact that they put both of them together seems very hypocritical. If I legally reserve the right to protect my way of life by killing an innocent fetus, I most definitely reserve the right to protect my body and my children by killing any government or individual attackers.

Whether you want to argue one way or the other is up to you, but you cannot argue both pro-gun control and pro-choice. I will not take you seriously. Regarding abortion, please first think this topic through. (1) It is undeniable that a fetus left alone to be born eventually becomes an individual with a right to life according to the government and the majority of humankind. (2) A fetus is indesputably a living organism. (3) It is undeniable that it is against the law and the majority of humankind to kill individuals outside of self-defense; this stands even if (a) they are unable to feel pain, (b) they are unconscious but will likely gain consciousness, (c) are underdeveloped in some way, or (d) cannot survive separately from another human. Regarding point (a), there are people who have nervous disorders and are unable to feel pain. These people are not considered inhuman. Regarding point (b), when someone is asleep, or knocked out they are unconscious. If someone suffers a brain injury they may be unconscious. If the individual is likely to awaken again, they are not killed, and they are always considered human. Regarding point (c), many children are born underdeveloped, and some people go through their whole lives with underdeveloped bodies due to medical problems. They are still considered to be human. Regarding point (d), a two year old is still too dependent to survive on its own, just like an unborn baby. Many individuals with medical problems are also too dependent to survive alone. These people are still considered to be human.

In the argument of abortion, the primary question is this: When does a fetus become a separate person from its mother? The government states that after 24 weeks, the fetus is considered its own child. This is because if the baby was removed from the mother, it could very possibly survive. Moreover, the neurological system is mostly intact now, and all that is left to do are some finishing touches. However, it cannot be argued that a complete neurological system is what makes a human. Clearly, there are many disorders that prevent a complete neurological system to develop. Babies start developing their brains on the fourth week of pregnancy, and it never stops developing until the child is over 20 years old. If the brain does not constitute individuality, then the only other options are consciousness, and being physically connected to the mother. Simply because someone is unconscious, does mean they are not an individual, so this argument is obviously irrelevant. The child will wake up some time. If I fell asleep and someone killed me in my sleep, they would not be able to justify it by  saying, "What? She was just an unconscious, organized cluster of cells," despite the fact that the statement was true. Moreover, no one can prove when a fetus becomes a human child. As far as being connected to the mother, people seem to forget that before the baby could possibly start to develop, half of it had to come from a man's sperm. Seeing that it makes no sense to say that half of a baby belongs to the mother and half of it belongs to the father, it would only best conclude that the child belongs to itself and it has the right to live. This is the pro-life argument against pro-choice.

Whether you agree with any of the pro-life information I have presented or not, you must at least be open to the possibility that the child is alive, and is an individual separate from its mother. Personally, I think that if there is a mere possibility, then it should be considered as alive, but you do not need to agree with me. The issue I am currently addressing is the fact that many liberals (not all) believe in both abortion as well as gun control. Oftentimes, they believe in the removal of guns entirely. To those of us who believe that a fetus is an individual, it does not make sense to kill babies but not the one attacking our family, freedom or home. This is equivalent to saying that it is okay to make yourself comfortable, but don't defend yourself. It is like saying that any child is subject to anything its mother decides for it, no matter how terrible, and that we are subject to anything that any criminal or tyrannical government decides for us, no matter how terrible. I understand this logic if the goal is to destroy innocent people or to become a world power all by yourself, but that is not the goal of the people. (If it is the goal of anyone at all, I hope you are sterile and cannot obtain a weapon of any kind).

As a woman, I would like to carry a gun with me for defense. I am very far from having a fascination with guns (I find them to be boring weapons), and I certainly have no desire to murder anyone. Still, I would like to carry a gun for my own defense as well as my family's. There is nothing wrong with fighting back if I am attacked, and I want the best chance possible. I do not trust the world, and definitely not trust the government to protect me, as neither have proved to be effective throughout history. So whether you want to go the route that its okay to potentially kill someone for your own sake, or if you want to go the route where it is not okay to potentially kill anything on purpose, you must make a decision. You cannot argue that it is not okay for me to protect my life against an attacker, and then turn around and tell me that it is okay for us, who are supposed to protect our own kind, to kill a fetus that has any possibility of being considered a child.

**For those in favor of abortion, also think about adoption. Unless the mother's life is in danger, adoption is a fantastic option.**

Thursday, February 28, 2013

Guns and Christianity

I'm sure you have noticed the frenzy regarding gun control since the shooting in Connecticut. It isn't any surprise that controversy over this topic is huge - after all, the fight is something that affects just about everyone, and people's lives are at stake from any perspective.

There are many arguments that are pro-gun and many that are anti-gun. I'll go ahead and let you know now that I am pro-gun, if you haven't guessed already. I have many political reasons for this: I believe that the 2nd Amendment states we have the right to individually own guns and form militias to protect ourselves from harmful criminals and governments. I believe that people deserve the right to defend themselves on an equal playing field if they are attacked by wayward police, soldiers, or criminals with illegal weapons. I believe that criminals will obtain guns with or without laws, and moreover, obtain other kinds of weapons if they are unable to reach a gun (eliminating the purpose of the law). I believe that history has revealed that many governments are more of a threat to their people than to other nations, and most of those governments did not begin that way. I also believe that history repeats itself, and in the event of America's fall, any citizen should have the means to defend themselves.

James Madison was the primary author of the Constitution, and he wrote: "Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." At the time, he believed that large government military coverage would easily destroy the country they were attempting to found. I think that it is still true today, though the government has a lot more work to do. However, it is still very possible if we continue to grant power to officials in high places.

How Guns Relate to God's Words
Now that you are familiar with my opinion on a political level, I am compelled to explain my views from the perspective of a Christian. Many people find themselves conflicted on the topic of guns because of course, guns are objects created specifically to harm others. This existence would generally be objected by many people who have read parts of the Bible and know the phrases "Thou shalt not kill" and "turn the other cheek". Yet still, we read all sorts of things in the Bible about people who fight and kill other people, even under God's orders; this would appear to make a contradiction, and confuses many Christians as well as non-Christians who study the Bible. You may also question the harm of adding yet another law, as long as it is intended to bring more peace.

Contrary to common knowledge, modern Bibles typically phrase the sixth commandment "You shall not murder," rather than, "You shall not kill." The Hebrew word inserted in Exodus 20:13 is more accurately translated as "murder" - the original Hebrew text describes the word as malicious and unlawful killing. This would indicate that killing is accepted when it has proper cause. Exodus 22:2 states, "If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed." In this context, it is obvious that self defense is an acceptable situation in which to kill, though it also elaborates that if the thief is only discovered later, then there are other punishments later. It is okay, however, to defend one's house, and I would assume also do defend one's person and other people. This explanation certainly allows a Christian or Jew to possess a weapon of any kind, as long as it is only used in a defensive scenario.

I cannot deny, that it is a very big thing to allow yourself to be killed by another man, simply in order to avoid killing the criminal. I may concede this to be unintelligent in most cases, but martyrdom is not an evil thing either, unless there are other duties that a person is meant to complete (such as raising children). Even by this option, however, it is still exactly that - an option. It is unfair to remove people's possessions of defense simply because there are some who think that killing even in defense is evil. For instance, I do not support gay marriage, but I do not think that marriage should be anything regulated by law anyway, and therefore makes the argument regarding such a union irrelevant. I believe that marriage is between two people and God, not between the government. 

"The Strength of Sin is in the Law"
To delve further into the topic of God, guns and the law, I would like to explain 1 Corinthians 15:56. "The sting of death is sin," it says, and continues, "and the strength of sin is in the law." Non-Christians may find this to be a particularly odd statement. Did that verse just say the law is evil? Yes, it kind of did, but probably not the way you are interpreting it. To fully understand what is being said, let me explain the first half of the verse before the second. "The sting of death" obviously refers to the thing that makes death so terrible. The reason that this thing is sin, rather than pain or just the vague loss of life is explainable through the story of Adam and Eve. Before Adam and Eve sinned, it is said that there was no death. There weren't any rules, either, except not to eat of the fruit on one tree. Other than that, everyone lived happily together with nature. The moment they committed the first sin, however, they introduced death into the world, and were cursed to have the earth distrust us (as it should, since we sin and destroy things).

I understand that this is getting fairly philosophical, and it will become even more so. In order to perceive the meaning of the second portion of that verse, please note what sin is, exactly: sin is the breaking of the law. If sin is only the breaking of the law, then that would mean that if there was no law, then there would be no sin. This is entirely true. However, there has been law from Genesis through Revelation. Before there was government to make law, God laid it out. When the people did not know God, there was a government to write and enforce the law. Breaking the law is considered a sin, even government laws (as long as they do not conflict with God's law). By this truth, one can surmise that if guns are in fact banned, it will be a sin to keep them, unless we are otherwise inspired by God. This particular fact enforces to me that we must fight to keep our rights in politics, before they become a moral problem as well.

On that note, we may presume that it is not evil to own a gun so long as it is only used in defensive situations. We may even assume  that because of these Biblical truths, there is no political reason to remove guns from law-abiding citizens. As further proof that we must protect our rights as Christians, we must also acknowledge that the creation of a political law could become a sin, therefore strengthening sin's power and reaches over more and more Christians and others as well. Thankfully, Jesus did come to redeem us from sin, but while we are on this Earth in this flesh, we can still succumb to sin and feel the repercussions of it. If the strength of sin is in the law, then why do we create more laws than what God has laid down, when all we are doing is strengthening sin itself?

Wednesday, February 20, 2013

Me vs The World

If anyone were to ask me why I don't do things like everybody else, I could attribute it to my name. I am not Everybody. I am Meredith, and "Meredith" starts with "Me". Moreover, I am not vain and I never lie.