Finally?!?

Obama releases his birth certificate.

Big deal. Who cares. This was the dumbest argument ever. I was ashamed it happened in the first place. This is almost as dumb as when people said Bush caused the World Trade Centers to fall and the levies to break in New Orleans.

Thank God this is done. Sick of it. We have bigger things to worry about, like the fact we're spending ourselves into destruction.

Also, no one wants Donald Trump to be president. No one.

Finally, happy Easter!

One Year Ago, the Truth Came Out

In 2009, a scandal broke out in Europe, which most Americans were ignorant. Emails from scientists revealed there was manipulation of data in climate change research, showing exaggerations of how severe things really were and the urgency to act now on global policy to stop global warming.

But, then the truth came out, and it turns out scientists were lying. Chairman of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Rajendra Pachauri has come out and says he regrets the falsehood of saying there would be no more glaciers in the Himalayas by 2035. Read his full statement here.

Also from the Guardian, which by the way is a left-leaning newspaper in the UK, is an article about what has changed.

There still might be global warming, and no one is really pro-pollution and hoping we all die in the second great flood(which theologically couldn't happen, unless you don't trust the Bible...that's another blog post). But let's be honest, use all the facts, remember there is a lot of money and power involved in this topic on a global scale, and question with boldness. Putting our heads in the sand will not help anyone or anything. But neither does lying to prove what you are doing.

[Image from The Nothing Corporation]

Obama is out of touch...seriously out of touch

Well, the elections are over. No more really bad ads during football games, which probably unites us as a country more than politicians. I know people who would really like to just watch sports in peace, and not hear how candidate X wants to ship all the jobs America ever created to China or how the other candidate Y wants to give us Sharia law.

But after the House will have a swing of at least 61 seats for "the party of no," what does President Obama think the problem was which led to such a swing?

A lack of communication.

Seriously.

To quote a CBS News article found here, it says, "President Obama acknowledges what many have seen as his chief weakness – failing to sell the importance of several legislative milestones to the American people."

Maybe it was the fact people did NOT WANT what was passed? Did this thought even cross your mind? This is the arrogance people really hate. It's not the fact that Mr. Obama can't speak. I've found him to be a great speaker. It's never going to be his delivery which is a problem. It's the content of the speech I'm going to hate. Governor Bobby Jindal gave the response to President Obama's speech in 2009 after the state of the union address. It was painful to watch. He's probably not going to do anything on the national level of politics ever again. It made Mr. Obama look awesome. I don't like Mr. Obama, but he looked really good.

No, maybe it's the fact taxes are going to rise, along with my health insurance (which has already happened). Maybe it's the fact our economy is going to face massive amounts of inflation because we're not willing to sacrifice some programs. Maybe it's the fact our debt is out of control, and we're going to be Greece in a few years. It's not the lack of communication. President Bush didn't communicate well, but he understood he lost power and tried to change his agenda (which I didn't like). President Clinton understood in '94. President Obama doesn't.

It looks more and more like Mr. Obama is a rich man's Billy Mays, RIP. We know the products aren't all that great, and we liked the initial pitch. But now that we got them and see what they really are, we want our money back. But rather than have satisfied customers, they give us more stuff we don't want.

We're not dumb, and we do get it, Mr. Obama. We just don't want it.

The new third reich?

Here's an interesting little article out of bbc.com:

Germany is racist.

Ok, after reading it, you know they aren't really. They're just becoming more nationalist and want people to actually become German. So they want people to have an idea of being a citizen of a country. Wait just a second. Nationalism in Germany? Where have I seen this before? 1930s, anyone?

Ok, that was probably a big leap. I mean, just be cause German Chancellor Angela Merkel wants people to learn German doesn't me they are going to renew the reading of Mein Kanpf. But here's my bigger problem. Germany will get a free pass from being called racist or Nazis because they're in Europe. As we all know, people in Europe are far superior than here in the United States. They're more tolerant. They are better at being open-minded. They have better beer. Ok, I agree with the beer.

Yet, when the US tries to have talk of immigration reform, here's what we see:



Yes, the US is a group of Nazis because they want the same thing as Europe. People on the left we'll always say we need to be more progressive, like Europe. So I guess that means we get to finally have an official language, close our borders, and have real reform? No, probably not. But it does mean we can prove the hypocrisy.

Does anyone care to vote?

The glennbeck.com(a website) picture of the day had this posted. A little research shows this isn't exactly true. Federal Elections Commission (a government commission) shows the turnout for the 2008 election was 56.8%. But in 2006, the report says only 37.1%. Either way, it's not good. I have to wonder what the percentage of people watching American Idol or Dancing with the Stars votes. They might actually vote multiple times, but the percentage of their turn out would be ridiculous.

Probably like 300%.

Even the Iraq number is skewed. According to a Washington Post story in 2005, the turnout was really 63%.

So the sign is skewed in both directions, it seems.

But let's take the real numbers given and factor in some real life facts. In the United States, voters had to deal with the weather. They needed to go to some random building close to their neighborhood. They maybe even had to talk to a sweet woman older than my grandma handing out flyers. No wonder we haven't got at least 60% turnout since 1968! Probably too many people worried about their facebook status!

Iraqis had to go through security which makes our airports look unsafe, armed guards, and had to stick their fingers in ink so they couldn't vote twice.

It's obvious now what the US needs: cooler ways to vote. We need more guns at the polls. We need to feel like we might not make it. Give granny a Glock!

Maybe not.

At any rate, It's still dumb the "democracy" the world looks to as a beacon of freedom is actually only being ruled by less than 40% on non-presidential election years and under 60%. How can we be a democracy, when really we are only ruled by few?

Conflicted during church

Today at church, the Gospel reading was Luke 12:13-21. It's the classic parable about the rich man who is given so much abundance from his crops he decides to tear down his barns and build bigger ones so he can store it all. But he dies the next day. The point is not to spend so much time on earthy things but rather the things of the Lord, which is built on eternity.

The priest reminded us about ho much we possess and asked how much do we really need in our life. I thought it was a fine homily, and it is a good reminder to us, especially in the United States, that we can really do without certain earthly things and to live a simplistic lifestyle. I'm all for this. I still don't own a bed. Simplicity to me is a valuable trait which Christians should be willing to exercise as often as possible. Too much stuff distracts us from the Lord and relying on Him and his provision.

So we move into the creed and then to intercessions. Here's where it was a problem.

"Let's pray that wealth can be distributed evenly..."

I did not reply "Lord, hear our prayer."

I was not sure what to do at that point. My political convictions of conservative principles and small government told me this prayer was misguided and wrong. Governments should not redistribute the wealth. Ever. Charity should be based on the individual, not on someone telling you to do something. It ceases to be charity at that point. You should tithe your money and give even more out of your wealth. You should make the choice. It should be done because you are convicted to help, not because if you do not pay you get convicted for tax evasion.

But the Catholic side of me said the Church knows what it should be doing. They should be the agent of change. They should be on the front lines of helping the poor and living up to the teachings of Christ. But I would also say the church has to be aware the places where the Gospel is growing the most are places where there are many who are poor. Europe, with the exception of Poland, is becoming more and more godless as time progresses. It will only be a matter of time before Islam will be their top religion, with atheism probably somewhere in the top three (and yes, I know atheism is not a religion; it's just to illustrate the point). In Central and South America; Asia, especially China and South Korea; and Africa show the largest growth of Christianity. These are places where wealth is minimal.

Maybe I'm looking at it the wrong way. Maybe the goal is to make everyone poor so the proud will be humbled and the Gospel will flourish once again. But prayer requests for the redistribution of wealth should be left out of church. Prayers for an increase in charity and an emphasis on actually tithing ten percent of your income should be what is being preached.