Why the Church Lost Me

I understand that this small missive may anger some. that is not my intention. It is but the thoughts of a small man that in no way is a religious zealot. These thoughts are meant to show my disappointment in the institutions that are supposed to make us better than what we are. If you disagree with this that is fine. But do not hold any that is said against me. And yes I am from an older generation than most that would read this.

In the past 20 years I have watched the slow decline of most organized religions. This started slow, as the next generation lost interest in church. Then we had the emergence of the 2% demanding that they get treated well. Ok, that’s fine, but then it started to be that the 2% wanted to make it that if you weren’t them you were bad. That if you thought different it was bad. At the same time the Church (and I will use that word for most of the organized Christian religions) decided that they needed to bring more people into the church so they could pay their bills or whatever.

When we were brought up in the church, we were always taught a few things. One was that God is infallible and perfect. another is that God created all of us in his (I use his not as a proper pronoun but as it has always been used) image. And we were also taught that God has taught us that a few things are wrong. He has even given us lessons about what happens when we go against these teachings. Now I do not profess to be a perfect Christian, the Lord knows I have plenty of faults. But I attempt to at least hold to the major teachings.

Among the wrongs are sexual deviations.(remember Sodom and Gomorrah?). And that God has joined man and woman to be one. That he created woman to be a companion and a help to man, and instructed man to be a companion and a help to woman. That with Gods help Man and Woman together could accomplish anything. that life begins at conception.  there is a lot more that He has taught us, but maybe that is for later.

Now we have the Church cow-towing to this group and leaving the teachings behind. They don’t even try to do as He wanted, to educate. They just accept and include. They have lost the word and I would suspect the connection to God.

For the church to say that a person of a gender created by God that feels like they are not of that gender, would seem to be that the church has forgotten a basic tenant. How can they reconcile that god is infallible and yet has made a mistake in the gender of the person? Or that same sex relations would be ok with the way he has taught us?

This is why the Church has left me. They have forgotten that they are the ones that are to be the spiritual leaders, and are supposed to show us the ways, if not the way to God. They have become no more than a business.

What do I think the Church should do? Embrace Gods teachings. Should we turn away those that are outside of these teachings? No. We should bring them into the Church and show them the path. Let them understand that which God has taught.  But we have to stick to the teachings. God took a prostitute and made her whole, and even made her his wife. He took a lier and taught him to tell the truth. He took a thief and taught him how to give.  He took the weakest of us, the sinners, and made them whole. This is what we are supposed to do. We are not, however, to abandon those teachings that we have already learned to accommodate those that would have us brought down to their level. And as always we have to show them God’s love. Go out unto the world and teach the way of the most merciful Lord God. Do not shun the smallest among us, rather give them a ladder so they may see.

I hope in some small way I have without malice in my heart, shown a glimmer of the light.

As always may the Peace of the Lord always be with you.

Glenn

Pelosi shut’s down SOTU

I was thinking(never a good thing). did you know that the date of the 29th is not Trump picking a date, it is by constitutional and congressional law. You see the constitution MANDATES that congress assembles once a year on a certain date unless congress changes the law. congress has set the 29th as the date to meet.
so since congress HAS to meet on that date the president is helping them fulfill their constitutional duty. How is that for irony. apparently Nancy hasn’t looked at the constitution in so long she forgot that one.
 
ohhh this also means that according to law Speaker Pelosi can not change the date arbitraily. she has to get congress to change the date.
did you also know the President can convene congress if he wants? He can call them into session and give his address. While this power under article 2 section 3 may not have been used since Pearl Harbor, it is in fact a tool the President could use.
 
20th amendment section 2 –
. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.
 
article 2 section 3 –
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

a “radical law”?

I had what may be a radical thought, this thought came around when I was thinking about the Second Amendment and the Federalist papers. Going back to constitutional originality and what our framers were actually thinking when they made the laws, I came up with a thought  for a law that I know will never happen.

“We the people, in conjunction with United States Congress, and the President of the United States, enact the following law into the Federal Register.

In the following of the Constitution and the reasoning behind the Second Amendment, do ordain that in order to be prepared for a state or national emergency and the possibility of the unorganized militia being so conscripted into service of either the state or the federal government order that no person that could be so conscripted shall be denied the purchase of any weaponry that could be used in defense of the state or the nation.

That this law will make any state law invalid and override any future state law. This law does not require any individual to purchase such weapons.”

d

How about that for a law that will never get past anybody?  ROFL

Glenn

Trump’s oval office address

Like so many others, I watched the president address the nation on the border  wall problem. Then I also watched the Democratic response.  then I watched all the news channels  and their attempt at fact checking. I have also been following like most,  a all the drama that has been going.  I come away with the following observations ;

after the president’s speech I have seen from most of the mainstream media  an attempt  to fact check and put down  what he has said ,but all their efforts show that his data was accurate . the best that they could do was to try and qualify the data  to show  his error  if any .

One of their biggest attempts was to say that  the drug seizures were all at border checkpoints .  well , DUHHHH.  Tat is where most of the enforcement is concentrated . there is no way of telling how many cross the border in unprotected areas  and the counts are only from those areas that are protected .

Then in their after the address speech Chuck and Nancy  could only come up with their same old tired talking points .  orange man bad, orange man lie,  wall immoral,  wall ineffective , just the same old same old. they attempted to convince the American public  that Mr. Trump had provided him with no details .  when  in actuality  had provided them with a complete  plan ,  drawn up incooperation with  the people involved ,  law enforcement,  DHS ,. .. .

So what did we see last night?  we saw from the president  a request  to protect the border  and open up the government .we saw the president  saythat the wall is only part of the  solution.  this solution includes  more of everything.  more technology ,more border patrol  personnel, more facilities. Everything the Democrats want.  we also saw , from the Democratic leadership the constant  resist  and we will not do anything you want  even though it helps the nation , routine.

Do not be surprised if all you see today for the news stations  is an attempt  tear down  anything Mr. trump  had said . you’ll also see lots of stories  of how it is affecting  the workers , avoiding any  mention  of  the issues attempting to be  dealt with .  with Chuckies call  for the president to  open up the government and we will  take care of border security later ,  we see that  if that course is taken , border security will never get taken care.  it will just be shoved off to the side  and never  acted on .

Meixco pays for the Wall

here we go again. ya’ll think that Mexico will directly pay for it???? ya’ll r dum (lol) do you understand finances? here is how it goes, you want to buy a house, naturally you dont have the cash for it, so you go to a bank to finance it, then you pay the bank back(plus intererst) and the house becomes yours. Or you want that great stereo thats on sale , but dont have the money, you use your visa card that you pay back. that is kinda how this goes. we will finance the “wall”, Mexico will pay with tarifs, and fees, and by the numbers that are stopped that dont make it in that cost us a lot. that is how they will pay for the wall. not to mention the jobs that will come back here due to tarrifs

census and the 19th and 26th amendments

Good Day;

There have been questions about putting a citizenship question on the census. After a lot of reading in the constitution, as a constitutional novice, I have come up with a better question that is in accord with the constitution. This question is a simple one that abridges no rights to any group. The question would be, are you allowed to vote in a federal election. This question is actually required by the constitution.  You see the way the constitution says it, you count everyone, and then take out those that can not vote in a federal election. simple huh?

With that being said, I have a question. Did the 19th and 26th  amendments change the 14th amendment? I ask this as with the census fast approaching it is needed to find out the actual enumeration in respect to representation.  I will post the section of which I speak  to help.

2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

The section in bold is the section in question. As you can see it specifies male citizens of the age of 21.  With the 19th saying women have all the rights  as men, do they not then bear all the responsibilities?  Thus if you loose your right to vote in a federal election, you would then loose the right to have the representation in such an election? Similarly those that are 18 having received the right to vote for their choice of representatives would also loose that right?

My research thus far has alluded no answers to this important question. any help would be appreciated.

Thank you

Glenn

Unconstitutional taking . New mag ban

 

Hello all:

I have been thinking here and may have stumbled upon a thought. I will let you decide if I am right or wrong in it.

This thought goes that any law that makes that lawfully bought gun magazine unlawful, is in itself an unconstitutional law. Let me show you the 5th amendment to the US constitution and we can go from there.

Amendment 5 – Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Now I will go with just 1 part of that amendment. it goes like this – nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. Since the law now mandates you get rid of any non complying device or render harmless, the state has now taken your private property. now how to fulfill the rest of the sentence? the state has declared that that property is dangerous to the public and is therefore to be outlawed and taken. so for the public use it is now unsafe to have them. And since the state is not paying you to replace such items it is unconstitutional. Now since this is unconstitutional you are required to not follow this law.

This may be a stretch, but I have seen rulings that have been way worse than this. What say you?

Comments as always welcome.

Glenn

Cohen sentencing memo

I like others, sat and read the Cohen sentencing memo searching it and came up with this. not much in it. there were lengthy paragraphs about how he defrauded the banks, and the IRS, using his taxi medalians. then they had a section that the only way I could see the President implicated, 1 sentence. that sentence basically meant that the President said can you fix this, or fix this. and cohen, wanting to prove himself more than he was, said ok. cohen then “fixed”it (he thought of himself as a fixer). it does not mention that Trump had any knowledge of where the funds came from. it did say that Cohen was paid about a 1/2 million out of the campaign funds for legal services. and they tried to link the payments to the the legal service payments. They really played up the part of interfering with an election by not letting the public see something.(over played IMO). All in all it looked to me to be written by someone that was pissed they didnt get their way.

 

I am going to add this thought that I had today –

do you realize what else the Cohen memo showed? It showed a prosecutor that is hell bent on proving something no matter the facts. How? Look at the charges that have been filed so far. Cohen mostly charged with irs and bank fraud. why did the Mueller team look at these kind of things? they did a big dig to find other chargable actions to make cohen testify the way they wanted, and when he didnt or couldnt, they threw him to the wolves and told them, he didnt work out fry him up. This kind of prosecution leads one to think if anything they actually do get on Trump can not be suspect. that the means and methods used to bully the witnesses to testify the way they want are akin to water boarding.This makes the Mueller prosecution illegit.

Go ahead and try to change my mind.

Women and the census

 

 

 

 

Yes, here is another of those, saw a post and wanted to see something and found out another, posts from me.

Was looking thru the US Constitution again, and found something kinda funny. I will post the relevant articles below, but for now here is a weird thing.

Did you know that the Constitution says that representatives will be apportioned based on the number of whole persons(have to check on the meaning of that later) and that if any man is found to be able to not vote due to crimes and such, the apportionment will be decreased by that number of men not able to vote.

Note it says any man not woman, even the 19th only says that women can vote not that they are counted for representation. I have checked everything that I could and found nothing that gives any change in status for counting representation. So you can have 25k men incarcerated and that would change the number of representatives, but having 1 million women in jail would change nothing.

Here is the 14th amendment (replacing text from earlier in the Constitution)

2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

and now the 19th

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

 

Rudolph the red nose reindeer

have just seen some posts that are so wrong they aren’t funny.

Seems the SJW’s Rudolph the red nose reindeer is a means to demean those that are different. What this play actually does is show from the point of view of the person that is different, some of the problems they face. And his constant struggle to fit in. Kids wont play with him because he is different, parents try to make him appear the same, bosses don’t want him because he is different. All the things that those of us that are special have seen all our lives.

In the end, it finally shows that he has proven he can add to the lives of the people around him, and they finally accept him for who he is.  What can be wrong with that message?

It shows bullying is wrong and the effects of it. how many other messages it shows I can not list.

So tell me, Why should we NOT show this play to our kids so they may learn from it?

(a note: the island of broken toys can be equated to special schools and or psychiatric hospitals).

Here is the story of how this story came to be  –

  As the holiday season of 1938 came to Chicago, Bob May wasn’t feeling much comfort or joy. A 34-year-old ad writer for Montgomery Ward, May was exhausted and nearly broke. His wife, Evelyn, was bedridden, on the losing end of a two-year battle with cancer. This left Bob to look after their four-year old-daughter, Barbara.

One night, Barbara asked her father, “Why isn’t my mommy like everybody else’s mommy?” As he struggled to answer his daughter’s question, Bob remembered the pain of his own childhood. A small, sickly boy, he was constantly picked on and called names. But he wanted to give his daughter hope, and show her that being different was nothing to be ashamed of. More than that, he wanted her to know that he loved her and would always take care of her. So he began to spin a tale about a reindeer with a bright red nose who found a special place on Santa’s team. Barbara loved the story so much that she made her father tell it every night before bedtime. As he did, it grew more elaborate. Because he couldn’t afford to buy his daughter a gift for Christmas, Bob decided to turn the story into a homemade picture book.

In early December, Bob’s wife died. Though he was heartbroken, he kept working on the book for his daughter. A few days before Christmas, he reluctantly attended a company party at Montgomery Ward. His co-workers encouraged him to share the story he’d written. After he read it, there was a standing ovation. Everyone wanted copies of their own.