One Year: 9/11 Anniversary

The calendar says it’s been a year
I don’t see how that can be
Our daughter still wakes me up
Calling out for her daddy.

She’s only four years old
How can she understand
She’ll never again reach out
And hold her daddy’s hand.

How can she be expected
To believe what I can’t explain
That daddy wont be back
To hold her close again.

I close my eyes and feel you
And tears run down my face
Unbelievable tragedy
Out the door you raced.

You had a job to do
It was your life, I know
I just wish I’d held you closer
And not counted on tomorrow.

Be more like Jesus? Which epithet do you prefer?

How many of you are tired of hearing “I thought you were Christian? Doesn’t Jesus say to love everybody?” Or, “You’re being a bad Christian for saying xxxx”. The ones who have never read the Bible for more than cherry-picking things they’ve been told upholds their position have no idea what the Bible actually says about confronting evil.

Jesus never said not to call evil out, in fact, he did just the opposite.

Matthew 21:12-13 – And Jesus entered the temple and drove out all who sold and bought in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those who sold pigeons.
Matthew 21:13 – He said to them, “It is written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer,’ but you make it a den of robbers.”

Yes, he called them thieves!

Jesus called the Scribes and Pharisees “fools, hypocrites, unmarked graves, blind guides, whited sepulchers, brood of vipers” and many such epithets. Jesus called them “hypocrites” seven times in one chapter.

Do any of you really believe Jesus was talking about farm animals when He said not to cast pearls or give what is holy to “the dogs and pigs?”

Jesus referred to the recalcitrant Jewish leaders as, “an evil and adulterous generation,” “serpents and snakes,” and “children of the devil.” Speaking to the scribes and Pharisees, Jesus gave them a message for King Herod: “Go ye, and tell that fox…

You would be hard pressed to find even one instance in the Bible where Jesus condoned sin. Every time He was asked a question by the “hypocrites”, He answered defiantly and offensively, rather than defensively. He wanted to make sure people knew that their sin was intolerable in the sight of God-not that their sin was okay because God loved them anyway.

So, the next time someone calls you a “fake” Christian or accuses you of not living, to the best of your ability, like Christ, refer them to the Book of Matthew and ask which epithet they prefer.

Evil is evil, and wrong is wrong. The only thing being “PC” has done is to white-wash sin. Calling something by a different name does not change the thing itself. A sin is still a sin, no matter what you want to call it.


Documented Proof of Jesus

I hear people saying that the Bible is a myth, a fairy tale and that we Christians worship a mythical “man in the sky”. If there weren’t so much evidence of Jesus, perhaps I could see their point. The first time I looked into documented proof of Jesus I read Lee Strobel’s “A Case for Christ”, and I highly recommend it.

Do you have any idea the mountain of documented, verifiable proof there is of Jesus? Not only that he lived, but that his followers thought he was the Son of God, and that many claimed to have seen him after his death?

Josephus was a non-believing historian who wrote:

He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.”

Tacitus wrote:

“the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ.”

Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa…

What “mischievous superstition” do you think he was referring to? Could it have been something as benign as Jesus being a mere prophet? I doubt it.

Pliny the Younger wrote:

Meanwhile, in the case of those who were denounced to me as Christians, I have observed the following procedure: I interrogated these as to whether they were Christians; those who confessed I interrogated a second and a third time, threatening them with punishment; those who persisted I ordered executed.

“They (the Christians) were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.”

Lucian of Samosate wrote:

“The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. . . . You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property.”

If we take only non-Christian references to Jesus, we still hit many points of the theological Christ Jesus.

  • Josephus said Jesus was called the Christ
  • Jesus did “magic” (miracles), led Israel into new teachings and was hanged on Passover – according to the Babylonian Talmud
  • Tacitus said Jesus was crucified in Judea
  • Jesus claimed to be God and would return – said Elizear
  • Pliny the Younger wrote that Christ’s followers believed He would return and that the followers were worshiping Jesus as God.

You don’t have to believe in Him, or even believe that He was the Son of God, but He was anything but mythical.

I used several different resources to support this article, mainly because my hard copy of Strobel’s book is packed away.
Strobel’s book in .pdf form

A Conservatives Impression of the Progressive Mind

Originally published July 13, 2013 – Edited & repurposed

A study came out a few days ago proving that there is an actual brain composition difference between the conservative and the liberal brains. Considering that I am dumbfounded by how liberals can actually think the way that they do, I am inclined to believe it.

I came across a quote some time ago and it sums up the way I’ve experienced the liberal arguments. If you know who to attribute this quote to please leave me a comment so that I can give him/her proper credit.

Arguing with liberals is like playing chess with a pigeon. It doesn’t matter how good you are at chess, the pigeon is just going to knock over all the pieces, crap on the board, and strut around the table looking victorious.

Doesn’t that sound a whole lot like the “arguments” you’ve had with the Progressives in your life?

I watched a YouTube video earlier today in which Piers Morgan argued with Dana Loesch about gun control. You can find the YouTube video at the bottom of this paragraph.

He asked her “ … is there any reason why a civilian would need a magazine clip, uh, magazine drums as it is now, of a 10 round limit or more?” Her reply was that she had just read a story today in which a man was attacked by a “gang of men” with bats and tire irons. His response? “What’s the point of that, of that anecdote?” Uhm …Piers, do you not recall the question you JUST asked her, to which she is now replying?? Hello?? Then he goes on to say “But Dana, Dana, why do you tell that story?”

Then he says that he’s watched the video of the attack, that the victim was attacked with “a bar of some sort” (remember, it’s a tire iron!!), and says “ … but he’s alive, he didn’t get killed.” He asks her if her “suggestion” is that “someone should’ve pulled a gun out and shot somebody.” Well, apparently he’d rather be beaten with bats and tire irons, but I will tell you right now, if I’m attacked in the middle of the street by a gang of men wielding weapons of any type, I’m not going to think twice – damn straight I’d shoot!

The simple FACT is that tightened gun control has not lessened crime in any state that has tightened them. Another simple FACT is that a criminal, or a mentally deranged person, is not going to give a damn about the law. The only people who are going to care are your law-abiding citizens, who will then be without protection (oh, wait, we could use our whistle!!) when the lawless attack us.

I seriously don’t understand how the left brain works. I go to the left blog comments and it’s full of hate and vitriolic diatribe aimed at the hateful, government hating, intolerable, racist right. I read the right blog comments and, though there are jerks in every group, the vitriol is aimed more at this (P)residents Administration and the progressives as a whole than toward any one citizen with a view.

I spend a lot of time on Twitter. I am a Right Wing, Tea Party member, gun-toting, Bible believing, Constitutional Conservative Texan. Too many of the “conversations” that I’ve had with liberals on Twitter go something like this:

Her “OMG, RACIST!!” remark came on the heels of me saying there were numerous links on Google stating that Vonderrit Myers Jr did, in fact, have a gun. Because I believed the preponderance of evidence, I was a racist.

Most of the hate-filled, mean, filthy stuff said on progressive/liberal forums is directed at any one who doesn’t see things their way. Who’s the intolerable one again?

Believe it or not, we’re all entitled to our opinions. We’re even entitled to voice those opinions. You don’t have to agree with anything I say, but you do not have the right to stop me from saying it. It works the other way too! I don’t have to like what you say, but that doesn’t give me the right to try and stop you from voicing your opinion. The 1st Amendment really is a wonderful thing.

Stop with the red herrings and the name calling already. Act like civilized, mature adults. I can absolutely guarantee that you aren’t going to get me to even listen to your point of view if you can’t stick to the facts. Start with the leftist ploys of distract and attack and the “argument” is over. You lose.


Subscribe so that you don’t miss my next post!

Leftist Blame Game

Originally posted April 24, 2013

Mark Steyn said that the definition of a nano-second “is the time between a mass shooting and some guy from the left blaming it on talk radio, or Sarah Palin, or Fox News.”

Why is it that every time a lunatic goes on a massacre, the left immediately start with the ‘it must be a right-winger’ bit? We heard it with:

Jared Loughner

Gabby Giffords shooting
Michael Moore, Kathy Griffon and Jane Fonda believed it must have been Sarah Palin’s ‘target-like’ icons on her web page that caused this. Keith Olbermann thought that maybe O’Reilly and other conservatives should be held partly responsible. Paul Krugman decided it was a Tea Partier. Seriously?? Actually, the maniac behind that was Jared Loughner, who left behind a manifesto endorsing Hillary Clinton for President, defends Barack Obama, agrees with gun control, and left a litany of praise for several leftist political propagandists. Sure doesn’t sound like a right-winger to me! He bought his gun and ammunition legally. Though he seemed to certainly have mental health issues, he had never been declared mentally unfit by a court so it’s doubtful that an extended background check would have even slowed him down.

Treyvon Martin’s shooting – Immediately it was blamed on a racist right-winger, before any facts at all were known. AFL-CIO Executive Vice President Arlene Holt Baker said it is “conservative, right-wing policies that are to blame” for Trayvon Martin’s death. She was referring to the “Stand Your Ground” bill, which is not a conservative policy. The bill was passed in Florida with 100% unanimous senate approval. Every Democrat, save one who abstained from the vote, voted for the bill. Then, NBC gets caught red-handed doctoring the 911 tape to fit their leftist agenda. Not only is Trayvon Martin’s shooter not a racist, he was a registered Democrat! Whether or not Mr. Zimmerman shot in self defense is for the jury to decide, but whatever they decide, it had nothing whatsoever to do with a right-winger, a racist, or the Stand Your Ground bill. Zimmerman bought his gun and ammunition legally, and had a conceal & carry permit. An extended background check would have done nothing whatsoever to stop this shooting.

Colorado Movie Theater shootingBrian Ross, of ABC, explained that the alleged shooter, James Holmes, was a Tea Partier. Wrong! James Holmes described himself as having “middle of the road” political leanings. That’s a long way from a conservative. Peter Dreier of says that it’s Wayne LaPierre’s fault because LaPierre, like many Americans, advocates gun ownership, the “Stand Your Ground” law, and concealed carry. Mr. LaPierre is the Executive Vice President of the NRA (National Rifle Association). When did the media start blaming anyone other than the actual perpetrator of a crime? It’s seriously getting ridiculous. To be fair, an extended background check may have prevented this tragedy.

Boston Marathon Explosion – Before the blood of the victims had even begun to dry, Chris Matthews started blathering about how “ … domestic terrorist people tend to be on the far right …”. Which terrorist(s) is he referring to, exactly? As if that weren’t bad enough, enter David Sirota, writing for, who wrote a piece stating, in part, that white men are usually behind “those shootings” actually titled his article “Let’s hope the Boston Marathon bomber is a white American”. As we know now, the bombers are not right-wing, they are Chechnyan (Chechen?), Muslim terrorists. Wow, that’s a huge surprise. And, I heard this week that they didn’t have the permits for the guns they used, either! Can you imagine that? Muslim terrorists didn’t care about the gun laws? That background check law would’ve surely stopped these guys, right?


Joseph Stack flew his plane into the IRS building in Austin, Texas – He was angry at the IRS and was as far away from right-wing as I think you could get. That didn’t stop Chris Rovzar of New York Magazine from proclaiming

He was mad at the IRS, and left what CNN reports was a suicide note on a local website, detailing his trials with the agency. In fact, a lot of his rhetoric could have been taken directly from a handwritten sign at a tea party rally.

He left behind a manifesto that blamed capitalism, President Bush, the healthcare system, government and the IRS. Naturally, the leftist media decides that since he railed against the government, healthcare and the IRS, he MUST be a right-winger/tea partier. Wrong again!

Amy Bishop opened fire on her colleagues in Alabama – It didn’t take long before we heard the same ole, same ole from the left. Reuters Foundation Fellow Jonathan Curiel wondered aloud ““Does racism explain the tenure shooting and the Tea Party movement? Amy Bishop was a liberal to the core. She was described as being a “far left political extremist obsessed with President Obama”.

James Lee took hostages at the Discovery Communications HeadquartersThinkprogress, a typical leftist website, wrote that Lee’s manifesto bore a “troubling resemblance” to “anti-immigrant” groups. If you actually took the time to read the manifesto, you couldn’t help but come to the conclusion that he was a crazy ass eco-terrorist who thought humans needed to die to save the planet. Yep, sounds like a Tea Partier to me!


Faisal Shahzad attempted to bomb Times Square – New York City’s Mayor Bloomberg said the perpetrator was probably ”a mentally deranged person or somebody with a political agenda that doesn’t like the health-care bill or something.” Robert Dryfuss writing for The Nation said the bomber was “either a lone nut job or a member of some squirrely branch of the Tea Party, anti-government far right. Which actually exists in Connecticut, where, it seems, the car’s license plates were stolen.” Not to be outdone, the Daily KOS (big surprise!) joined in the bash-fest with

The reality is that in this country there seem to be essentially two scenarios that can unfold at this point when we hear about terrorism, two kinds of people/groups that typically end up being involved. And that says quite a lot in and of itself. If I were the Tea Partiers, I wouldn’t be too quick to dwell on the question of why Americans might think they’re involved in terrorism. I don’t think that’s a discussion that’s going to go well for them.

I bet you can figure out where this is going, can’t you? Maybe the perp’s name gave it away? Yep, he’s a Muslim terrorist.

It seems every time there’s a tragedy with a perp behind it, the left starts with their blame the right game. I know there have been right-wing nutjobs who took lives due to their ideology, but there haven’t been many. There most certainly havn’t been nearly as many as the left would like you to believe.

Wake up America! You’re being lied to over and over again by the media, Hollywood, even the resident-in-chief!

If Senator Obama only knew what President Obama is doing!

I’ve decided that I’m going to start blogging again. To get back into the swing of things, I’m repurposing some of my older blog posts that people enjoyed.

Originally posted June 16, 2013
A few weeks ago I thought that writing on Obama’s hypocrisies would be a good topic for my blog. Since then, I’ve been keeping my eyes open for things that I thought would fit well with that theme. Wow, I knew the man was a hypocrite, but I really had no idea what a monstrous task I’d set for myself.

Obama Then vs. Obama Now – Hypocrisies Abound

United States Representative Steve Stockman of Texas summed it up best when he tweeted “Senator Obama is going to be irate when he finds out what the President has been doing.” He hit the nail on the head with that statement! Senator and candidate Obama said a lot of things that President Obama apparently does not agree with. The list is long, and covers a litany of different topics:

  • War/USA’s role in war
  • Budget/Fiscal Issues
  • Enhanced Interrogation/Human Rights
  • Obamacare
  • Lobbyists/Friends
  • Medical Marijuana
  • Executive Privelage use
  • Spying

War – How, when and if we should involve ourselves

Senator Obama gave a few speeches in which he railed against President Bush for Bush’s role in the Iraq War. Always, his underlying reasoning was that President Bush exceeded his authority when he started the Iraq War. In December 2007 Senator Obama told the Boston Globe that “the president does not have power under the constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation”.

However, in 2011, he did exactly that when he took us into war with Libya. Colonel Gaddafi posed no threat to the United States. At least Bush allowed Congress to vote on us going to Iraq, Obama didn’t even bother taking the issue to them.

In 2002, Sen. Obama opposed the Iraq War saying that it “will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.”

What effect then would a completely unjustified war with Libya accomplish? Joel Pollak, writing for Breitbart said:  “The same is certainly true of assistance to the Syrian rebels, which–aside from a desire to end the regime’s atrocities, which also applied to Saddam Hussein’s Iraq–has no clear strategic objective. In fact, entering late, on what is apparently the losing side, poses great strategic problems.”

Spying – How far is too far?

In 2005 Senator Obama decried Bush’s Patriot Act, saying

“…And if someone wants to know why their own government has decided to go on a fishing expedition through every personal record or private document – through library books they’ve read and phone calls they’ve made – this legislation gives people no rights to appeal the need for such a search in a court of law. No judge will hear their plea, no jury will hear their case. This is just plain wrong. Giving law enforcement the tools they need to investigate suspicious activity is one thing – and it’s the right thing – but doing it without any real oversight seriously jeopardizes the rights of all Americans and the ideals America stands for.” -emphasis mine

In August 2007, he pledged to “end the illegal wiretapping of American citizens”. But, just a few short years later, he defends his administrations right to go far beyond how Bush’s Administration used the Patriot Act.

Senator Mark Kirk of IL said

“This act by the Obama Administration is clearly unconstitutional. The federal government has no probable cause to believe that all users of Verizon phones are presumed the aiders and abettors to international criminals,” said the Senate staffer. He continued, “The 4th Amendment requires probable cause and it does not exist, unless if we are now to presume that all Americans are potential terrorists.”

The Administration has insisted the unprecedented invasion into innocent American’s privacy was instrumental in thwarting a major terrorist attack. However, they cannot disclose any information regarding any terrorist attack that was stopped using these means. As usual, their reply is, in essence, “trust us on this” … until we find out something new, and they change their reply again.

Watch Senator and resident Obama debate