Good Grief!

Mr. Webster defines Christmas as “the annual festival of the Christian church commemorating the birth of Jesus: celebrated on December 25 and now generally observed as a legal holiday and an occasion for exchanging gifts.”  Evidently a number of people in the United States of the Offended (aka the United States of America) aren’t aware that Christmas is a Christian holiday and are offended that some would insert religion into Christmas.

The Arkansas Society of Freethinkers (ASF) fought against plans to send elementary school children to see a production of “A Charlie Brown Christmas” at a local church.  One of the school’s teachers is part of the production.  The school principle sent home a letter to parents giving them an opportunity to opt out of sending their child to the production.  ASF stated that their beef had nothing to do with the cartoon, but with the “violation” of church and state.  An ASF vice president stated, “We’re not saying anything bad about Charlie Brown. The problem is that it’s got religious content and it’s being performed in a religious venue and that doesn’t just blur the line between church and state, it over steps it entirely.”  Maybe the clear choices to attend or not to attend didn’t give the supporters of ASF the freedom of choice they desired.

A group of parents in Missoula, Montana, are upset that the song selection for their school’s holiday program is “unfair, unconstitutional, and is a form of bullying.” An anonymous letter sent to the Missoula County Public Schools district superintendent stated, “We have no problem with it being called a Christmas concert, it’s just the fact the material should be secular.”  The letter went on to state that, “several of the students were uncomfortable.”  It is always interesting to me how an anonymous collective can state factually how others felt in a situation without a tinge of hearsay.  To fit the description offered by the parents, I’d wonder if the students were restrained or forced to cower for their part in the program.    

Good grief! Are the opportunities to attend Christmas concerts or to participate in Christmas plays unconstitutional or a form of bullying?  Amendment One to the US Constitution states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”.  It says nothing about separation of church and state and it says nothing about freedom from religion.  As always, these individuals have the freedom not to participate.

In 1789, while debating the proposed Bill of Rights in the US House of Representatives, James Madison said, he “apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience.”  This is a notable interpretation, since Mr. Madison drafted the original Bill of Rights.

I’ll save the arguments about separation of church and state for another post. But, I believe that the framers of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights realized that, although religion plays a big role in the US both then and now, in order to be fair to all it was best to prevent government from establishing an national religion or force citizens to worship God in any way but one of their own choosing.  I also believe that, by choosing the language as it exists in the Bill of Rights, they were striving for religious tolerance.

I’ll offer up the argument that the people in Arkansas and Montana are intolerant of Christianity.  But that’s not the point I want to make.  My point is the US Constitution and its amendments were put into place, among other reasons, to protect our rights and freedoms as citizens; nowhere are we guaranteed the freedom from offense.   The birth of Jesus Christ is why the Christians celebrate Christmas.  For the rest, if you choose to celebrate December 25 like any other day of the year we won’t be offended.

Christians have been celebrating the birth of Christ on December 25^th since at least the 4^th century.  Whether people like it or not, it is a Christian holiday. If that offends you, suck it up, rub some dirt on it, and get over it. And, to everyone, have a Merry Christmas.

Connecticut Tragedy

I am still in disbelief over the tragedy in the Connecticut elementary school last week.  I can’t fathom the terror the children and adults must have felt while the gunman prowled the halls.  I don’t know how a parent can survive the heartache and grief of losing a child, especially one as young as those killed at the school.  I do know that this is nothing short of a tragedy, but at the same time I am tremendously thankful for those adults who put themselves in harm’s way to protect the children.  Like all who go in harm’s way to protect human life, they are true heroes and I thank God for them.

In the aftermath of the tragedy, there is a lot of discussion in the media about why it occurred and how it could have been avoided.  As expected, many are focusing on banning guns and gun control.

There are lots of opinions and discussions posted on the web about tighter gun control laws.  Some have blamed the National Rifle Association (NRA) for the tragedy because of the NRA’s advocacy for gun ownership.   A few blogs have even advocated killing NRA members because of the organization’s position on gun control laws.   Do they hear themselves?  They are making threats and advocating violence in these outbursts against a group of people that were not involved. 

A natural response for us is to look at our own lives and wonder if this violence could have happened to us.  Many people want some action taken so they will feel better about their safety.  But that safety is merely an illusion.  When evil people, such as the shooter in Connecticut or the shooter at the mall outside Portland, are determined to cause harm, laws will do little to stop them.  According to an article in the Denver Post, Connecticut has some of the most stringent laws in the US.  The Connecticut shooter stole legally-purchased guns, transported them, and took them into a school, all violations of current Connecticut gun laws.  But do we really think more laws would have stopped him?

Drunk driving is unlawful in every state, yet many still die in drunken driving accidents.  Murder is illegal yet the FBI reported almost 14,000 murders in 2009.  Many drugs are illegal, yet the US Department of Justice’s National Drug Intelligence Center estimates the cost of drug use at $174 billion annually.  Furthermore, the US Drug Enforcement Agency estimates that each year 7 million pounds of marijuana enters the US across the Arizona/Mexico border alone.

Not only do laws not stop people from doing bad things, a total gun ban will not stop bad people from having guns.  If we can’t stop 7 million or more pounds of marijuana from crossing the border, how do we stop the smuggling of weapons, especially if people are willing to pay for them?

Even if guns are not available, a person determined to do harm will find some way to inflict harm.  The same Denver Post issue previously mentioned, also ran a news story concerning four people burned in an attack when the culprits sprayed the victims with a flammable liquid and then set them on fire. 

The solution to ending these tragedies is not more laws, but to educate the population to read the warning signals, to create ways to prevent and treat mental illness, and establish a way to communicate the threat and stop these people before they kill.

My thoughts and prayers go out to all of those affected by the shooting tragedies.

Earn It

My little brother is a non-commissioned officer in the US Army.  I am very proud of him and his service to our country.  While he was deployed to Iraq, I searched on the internet to find a gift, a hat, a cool t-shirt, something that I could send to him to let him know his service is appreciated.  During my search, I stumbled across Rangerup.com, a small company that makes “shirts for the military and the patriotic Americans who love the men and women of the Armed Forces. The guys that own this company either were or are still in the military.”

I went to their website recently and found a t-shirt (http://www.rangerup.com/earnit.html) with, “Contrary to popular opinion, no one owes you anything” printed on the front. On the back is printed, ‘Earn it.”  There is a commentary on the same webpage about entitlement and the spread of “entitlement disease”.

The commentary states:

“The occupy movement is a group of people who believe they deserve more - more opportunity, more money, more benefits, more whatever. They believe that life isn't fair.

They are right. It never will be and it never has been.”

The writer goes on to state several methods to achieve what you want out of life. One is, obviously, to work hard. Another is to start a business.  He further writes, “Some people who work harder than you do will never achieve your level of success and some people that work markedly less hard will blow you out of the water. And that will always be true because life isn't fair, people have different skill-sets, and luck plays a huge role in life.” 

He’s absolutely right.  Eddie Van Halen has probably made a bazillion dollars playing guitar.  I’ve never made a cent and probably never will.  Is that fair?  It would be nice to get paid that kind of money, but the fact of the matter is I do not have the same talent nor have I practiced as much as he has.  So to think it’s unfair is an exercise in lunacy.

The writer begins his final paragraph by saying, “But what I can tell you is that you have to take responsibility for your life or you will become, and remain, a loser. Every success and every failure has to be yours.”

We hear a lot about fairness and what is or is not fair. There are a lot of people demanding unwarranted or unearned advantages or benefits.  And it’s a lot easier to blame someone or something instead of accepting responsibility.    You have talents. How you apply your talents and how much effort you put into them are your choice.  Maybe they aren't in the areas that bring wealth and fame, but they lay a foundation for success.  Life is and never will be fair.  But, it is your life and how you spend it is your choice.

Shrug?

Note: Since I've started blogging, I've been approached by friends and co-workers inquiring about guest blogging. Today's post is the first guest blog and is penned by John Galt. I hope you find this post as thought provoking as I did.

To shrug or not to shrug, that is the question.  Whether it is nobler of the mind to persevere under the looming burdens of out-of-control government spending or to shrug, quit trying and exit the workforce.  Frustration? Heck yes!  More so because I have no direct control over the decisions, yet I suffer the outcome.  If we tumble over the fiscal cliff, my household will lose over $200 a week directly.  Under the threat of Obama-care, my medical costs skyrocketed by hundreds of dollars a month years ago.  My federal salary has been frozen for years now with no hope of a cost-of-living increase, yet the cost of gas and essentials continue to soar. 

So, that only affects me, right?  Because money is tight, I eat out less and almost never go out.  I don’t buy more than necessary and I scrutinize every purchase.  I shop with coupons and for generic brands.  I am putting less into the economy because I have less to spend and I am uncertain that the money flow will improve. So I am holding onto my money.  There are a lot of small businesses in the area that have closed because people like me are staying home, buying less and hunkering down while awaiting the fallout of the inactivity of Congress and the pigheadedness of the President.  Even the larger chains are closing, consolidating, changing their marketing schemes or whatever it takes to stay in business.  Companies change to stay in business;  I’ve changed my practices to stay within my means. 

Yet, the government wants to continue to spend and spend and spend without making changes.  Fiscal responsibility--do they understand the term?  If Congress men and women don’t pay their personal bills, don’t they endure the same penalties that we do?  Must not, or they would realize that we no longer own our country because the debt we accumulate is held by other countries.  If the mortgage company owns your house until you pay off your mortgage, don’t these other countries that hold our debt own us until we pay off our debt?  But the debt continues to climb out of control.  At some point, the bill is due and we will not be able to pay.  Where are we then?

I can shrug, quit paying my bills and put my hand out for entitlements from the government.  My kids would probably qualify for money for college, they could get free lunches in school, and I could get unemployment, housing, food stamps and benefits of all of the government entitlement programs.

To do that, I’d have to first shrug off my pride, my self-respect and throw away my potential earning power.  I’m not implying that all other people are taking advantage of the programs, but because I have the potential to do more, I feel that I and others like me are being punished.  It is not that I live lavishly; it is that I live within my means because that is what my parents taught me to do.  Don’t spend money you don’t have.  Pull yourself up by your bootstraps and go on.  Honor your commitments.

My parents promised that if I work hard I will be rewarded.  Well, maybe they weren’t prepared for a President with a socialistic lean, bipartisan antagonism and unrealistic expectations to undermine that promise.  At this point, if I strive to work harder for some gain, I won’t reap any of the benefits because they will be taken away either directly by the government or through the mess the government has made of our economy.  So, while I think about shrugging, I’ll eat my delicious lunch of Kraft macaroni and cheese while I sit at my desk and hope no one slips a pink slip under the door today.

The Moral of the Story

Chances are you’ve never heard of Lindsey Stone.  Until a few days ago, I’d never heard of her.  But her immoral story is one with a moral.

Lindsey had her picture taken while making a rude finger gesture and pretending to shout beside an Arlington National Cemetery sign that says “Silence and Respect”.  She then posted the photo on her Facebook page.  I don’t think the result was quite what she expected.

It turns out the response to her post was very negative.  So much so that she responded by posting on Facebook "Whoa whoa whoa... wait. This is just us, being the d*****bags that we are, challenging authority in general. Much like the pic posted the night before, of me smoking right next to a no smoking sign. OBVIOUSLY we meant NO disrespect to people that serve or have served our country."

Ms. Stone might have thought she was challenging authority, but in reality she was acting like an inconsiderate jerk.  Apparently what she failed to understand is that such signs are posted because many people, either lacking common courtesy, common sense, common decency, or all three need a reminder to be considerate of others.  Her so-called rebellion against authority was nothing more than an act of childish and inconsiderate behavior by a 30-year-old adult who should have known better.

Ms. Stone and her supervisor were on business travel when the photo was taken.   Someone posted a Facebook page called “Fire Lindsey Stone” and over 30,000 joined the group.  Her employer, a Cape Cod-based nonprofit organization that assists adults with learning disabilities, was inundated with angry emails and phone calls, ultimately firing Ms. Stone and her supervisor, who snapped the picture.

I’ve seen several web posts about free speech and whether or not Ms. Stone should suffer for a bad joke on her personal Facebook page.  Some posts favored her firing and others did not.

While Congress and the states cannot pass laws that abridge the freedom of speech, this does not extend to employers.  Employees whose speech and behavior embarrass or reflect poorly on employers can be fired.  While Ms. Stone probably thought her behavior harmless, she was, at the time, a living, breathing representative of her employer.  Like it or not, her behavior reflected poorly on her company, and they terminated her.

Did her behavior warrant firing? Fortunately, I didn’t have to make that decision.  But the moral of the story is that our behavior, especially stupid, rude, and inconsiderate behavior can and often has unintended consequences.  Before engaging in such behavior, think about the possible consequences. And, don’t advertise your moral failings by posting the photos on social media sites for the world to see.  

Thank You

Tony finally beat the cancer he’d been fighting for seven years.  A man of incredible faith, Tony passed away on November 30^th and now resides in the Kingdom of Heaven.  Tony leaves behind a wife, two children, and a huge hole in the world.

I first met Tony at a time when I had slipped away from church and my faith.  Tony inspired me to renew my faith and, as a result, I became active in church again.  In all the years I knew Tony, I don’t think I ever saw him without a smile on his face.  If he can smile while battling cancer, then it seems silly for me to be angry over a bad day at work or some other inconvenience.  His example inspired me to be a better person.

I have regrets.  I regret that I didn't spend more time with Tony and I regret that I didn't thank him for being an inspiration and role model.  I truly believe God brings people such as Tony into our lives for a reason, providing us with opportunities to grow as Christians and as human beings. I missed my chance to thank Tony, but I’ll try to let his family know what he meant to me.

If you look around, there’s probably somebody in your life like Tony, serving as a role model, an inspiration, or friend.  Don’t pass up a chance to tell them what they mean to you and to thank them and thank God for them.  Gifts like these people are too precious to take for granted.

Hot Button

More than three weeks after the election, the conservative “talking heads” are still performing a postmortem on Romney’s loss.  Was there something wrong with the message or the messenger? There is a lot of talk about what the candidates did wrong, but I believe the real problem is something different. 

I think the problem is the hot-button vote on issues touted in the media.  These are the low-information voters who vote based on a candidate’s stance on politicized social issues, such as same-sex marriage or abortion rights.,.  What’s sad is the voters are casting their vote for a candidate based on the candidate’s opinion on an issue when the President has little to no power or authority to affect changes on these hot-button issues.  Do, these voters know that?

Title 1 of the US Code of Federal Regulations defines marriage as between a man and a woman.  That’s because a legislative act approved by Congress became part of the US Federal Code of Regulations.  The President can’t change that, only Congress can. More importantly, the issue belongs at the state level, not the federal level.  Why? Because states issue marriage licenses, there is no federal marriage license.  So why are we electing a President based on this issue?

The landmark Supreme Court decision in the case of Roe vs. Wade struck down many state laws regulating or restricting abortion by arguing that the right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion.  Whether you agree or disagree, the US Supreme Court has stated that abortion rights are protected by the US Constitution. To change that requires a change in the US Constitution.  Article V of the US Constitution defines the amendment process.  The President doesn’t have a part in amending the US Constitution, so why is this an issue during a presidential election?

So, when considering how to cast your vote for president, what power and authority does the President have?  He is responsible for foreign policy and national security. He is responsible for domestic policy, such as energy and law enforcement. And he is constitutionally obligated to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”

The President is head of the executive branch of the government.  Congress has delegated to the executive branch through the Administrative Procedure Act and other legislative acts the power to establish federal regulations.  These regulations impact the economy, preventing employers from hiring or expanding their businesses (http://active-thinker.blogspot.com/2012/09/get-out-of-way.html).  Given the sorry state of the economy, wouldn’t you think this would be an Election Day issue?

When several states began passing laws to control illegal immigration, the US Justice Department sued the states. If the states are concerned about illegal immigration, shouldn’t the President do something to secure our borders instead of suing the states?  The President has chosen not to enforce immigration laws for illegal immigrants meeting certain criteria, in spite of the fact that he is legally obligated to do so. How can he legally do that?

The President is, nominally, the leader of his political party.  President Obama’s party has controlled the Senate throughout his term and controlled the House during his first two years in office.  The Democratic-controlled Congress passed the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which is an unpopular piece of legislation that a majority of the country wants repealed.  The Senate, although legally obligated to do so, has not passed a budget resolution in over three years, preventing Congress from passing a Federal budget during the same timeframe. 

Due to the debt ceiling crisis, Congress passed the Budget Control Act of 2011. This act will trigger across-the-board cuts in discretionary spending starting January 2^nd, if Congress does not produce legislation to reduce the Federal deficit before the end of the year.  In addition to the automatic cuts (sequestration), provisions of the ACA go into effect and tax cut legislation expires at the beginning of 2013.  The Congressional Budget Office predicts this will lead to another recession and increase in unemployment.

Listening to the voter’s exit comments on how they voted, it was apparent that too many people voted based on hot-button issues and not the issues that the President has the responsibility to address..  We can do something, before we suffer another four years of fiscal irresponsibility and adversarial relationship with the States and with Republican leaders in Congress. Go to www.whitehouse.gov and tell the president what you think. Contact your Congressman or Senators and let them know what you think and how you want them to vote.  Study the Constitution so you are informed on the roles and responsibilities of the office.  Then, talk to your kids and your friends so they also know where the responsibilities lie when they decide on a candidate.  Make your vote count.