Toying with our emotions

Gabby Giffords wrote an op-ed piece in the New York Times yesterday in regards to the senate vote on gun control.

As you can imagine, it's dripping with heart-felt emotion:

SENATORS say they fear the N.R.A. and the gun lobby. But I think that fear must be nothing compared to the fear the first graders in Sandy Hook Elementary School felt as their lives ended in a hail of bullets. The fear that those children who survived the massacre must feel every time they remember their teachers stacking them into closets and bathrooms, whispering that they loved them, so that love would be the last thing the students heard if the gunman found them. On Wednesday, a minority of senators gave into fear and blocked common-sense legislation that would have made it harder for criminals and people with dangerous mental illnesses to get hold of deadly firearms — a bill that could prevent future tragedies like those in Newtown, Conn., Aurora, Colo., Blacksburg, Va., and too many communities to count.

Let me start off by saying, I have the utmost respect for Gabby Giffords (former Democratic Senator from Arizona, who was shot in the head on January 8, 2011). She has fought a courageous battle in recovering. She has been an inspiration for many Americans, and she should be commended for that.

However, in saying that, background checks could not have prevented the actions of Adam Lanza and other madmen from doing the horribly, horrific acts they committed. The weapon Lanza used belonged to his mother, who would have passed the background checks. If we banned certain "assault" weapons, this isn't going to stop a criminal. Connecticut already had a ban on these weapons. 

Letting emotion dictate our policies is not only incredibly foolish, but dangerous.

We do need to come togehther to try and come up with a solution, but placing more background checks and placing bans on certain assault weapons isn't going to accomplish anything. The 2nd Amendment, and I will state it for you in case you have forgotten what it actually says (and means)

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The orignial intent of the 2nd Amendment is to protect citizen's rights to bear arms against a tyrannical government. Any infringement upon these rights is deemed unconstitutional. Senators like Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, and Ted Cruz are fighting for our constitutional rights as American citizens, and it is a damn shame that protecting civil liberties is now seen as "extreme," or somehow those not in favor of gun control legislation do not care about the victims whose lives have been lost. 

You know what is a shame? Legislators, senators, and our current administration using victims of these heinous acts, as propped up political propaganda. It's disgusting. 

And even more amazingly now, there are comedians like Jay Mohr and Lawrence O'Donnel actually blaming the 2nd Amendment for the bombings in Boston earlier this week. We have to stop this blameshifting.

Our priorties are all wrong. 

Post Inauguration Thoughts

I've had a lot on my mind recently in regards to the state of politics in this country. Ok, let's be honest, I always have that on my mind. As I was driving home from Florida, Monday, I had time to collect some thoughts as President Obama was inaugurated into office for his second term.

I often think my opinion is not the popular one, but then I realize lots of people relate to me. As I mentioned on facebook Monday, I never like to be labeled anything for that matter, but definitely not another anti-Obama person. Let's get one thing clear, because of my beliefs politically, I am not a Barack Obama supporter. I never have been. BUT, let's also get one thing clear as well, the problem in this country for a long time has been status quo politics. We have politicians who claim to be fiscally conservative like Paul Ryan, who is nothing short of a moderate. Ryan is about the furthest you can be from being a fiscal conservative.

I was a fan of George Bush, the person, not George Bush the President. Many Obama supporters are obviously not Bush fans or fans of the GOP party altogether, and rightfully justified in most instances, but if we take away the Obama name, he is hardly different than Bush. Their foreign policies are the same, they are both big spenders. Obama claims, or at least claimed to be anti-war back in 2008, but he's hardly that. Obama tried to extend the war in Iraq, wanting to keep thousands of troops there passed the proposed deadline, which was set in place already by... yep you guessed it, Bush.

I imagine if Obama was a republican, most in this country would be chastising him for supporting NDAA, Patriot Act, TARP Bailouts, and don't even get me started on the drone strikes in Yemen and Libya or the whole Benghazi ordeal.

Four reasons why Obama was reelected:

1) Ignorance by his policies
2) The U.S. is becomming more socially liberal
3) Too many in this country are dependent on government handouts
4) Mitt Romney was the LAST choice of many in the GOP

Social issues are important to most people, and I consider them important as well, but to vote for a president solely based on the fact that he has come out in support of gay marriage is, well pretty dumb if you think about it. Obama is not going to somehow legalize gay marriage. It is a state by state issue. And further more, why do people not realize he has pandered to the LGBT community to get their votes. A presient's personal view on gay marriage is pretty much irrelevant. I understand that most in the gay community feel like they have a voice with a president supporting this, but in reality, he can't do anything because it's a state issue.

The republican party is seen by most as backward, because of some of the comments made by Todd Akin and others regarding abortion. The GOP is also seen as anti-science and anti-gay. This is why they are failing to attract the youth vote.

As I have said before, the GOP must embrace libertarianism, and libertarian-minded republicans if they want to change their party's platform. For a die hard conservative, you have to realize if you support a libertairan candidate, you're not giving up your socially conservative values, you just have to realize the government has no place enforcing morality. The GOP should want to limit government overall.

Grassroots activists did not support Romney, and he was the last candidate they would have chosen. If the GOP wants to win, they have to have the support of these individuals who will get out, knock on doors, put up yard signs, make phone calls, etc. The GOP must also not continue to shun libertarians, particularly at national conventions like we saw this past year in Tampa. If the GOP continues to elect more "fiscal moderates" because they think they are more electable, the GOP will continue to spiral downward.

Lastly, I thought I would post a YouTube video that clears up some of the confusion most have about libertarians. Julie Borowski is a policy analyst for FreedomWorks, and is one of my favorite libertarians.

The Day After

People are incredibly predictable. Today feels a lot like that November day in 2008. Some people happy, others very unhappy. Some people like to get philisophical about how we should all act, treat each other, etc. 

I'm always ALL for working together to solve a common goal, but how we didn't learn our lesson four years ago is baffling. This president, nor individuals in congress believe in non-partisanship. We're going to be faced with the same problems, same issues as we are today in 2016. Except of course, we'll all be paying out of our nose in taxes trying to afford Obamacare. 

I've expressed my displeasure with "status quo" politics before and until we come to the realization of not accepting this problem, we will continue to spiral downward. 

The liberty movement within the Republican party is a strong one and is continuing to gain momentum. We'll be pushing candidates like Justin Amash (reelected in MI-3), Thomas Massie (KY-4), Ted Yoho (FL-3), and David Schweikert (AZ-6), Kerry Bentivolio (MI-11, and of course Sen. Rand Paul (Ron Paul's son) who should make a strong run in 2016 for the Presidency. If you're not familiar with this movement, make yourself informed. Candidates and ideals like this are the future face of the now broken Republican party. 

So here's to 2014, and eventually 2016!

Serving Up Hate?

This will be brief because I myself am tired of hearing about this whole, completely blown out of proportion Chick-Fil-A saga. I've seen a few posts on facebook and twitter saying that instead of spending my money on chicken, I should donate it to a homeless shelter or just save it for a much worthier cause.

I don't necessarily disagree. In fact, I do agree.

But ultimately, what I do with my money what you do with your money are two completely different things. My money is my money and your money is your money. Money is a private matter. I don't appreciate someone telling me what I should do with it. I've also seen that if I support Chick-Fil-A, then I'm "supporting hate." That is the most asinine comment I've seen through this whole thing.

I want to see a show of hands of how many of these anti-Chick folks are going to not buy gas anymore because owners of OPEC put homosexuals to death.

I'm still waiting for those hands...

How about backing off what somebody's personal beliefs are. I don't necessarily agree with Cathy's "stance" either, but I RESPECT someone for standing up for what they believe in. And whether you want to admit it or not, IT IS about First Amendment rights, and Chick-Fil-A shouldn't be chastised for their belief someone ASKED them about. Dan Cathy never said he hated gays. There is a difference between having an opinion and hating someone.

And what Chick-Fil-A does with THEIR money is THEIR business. Just in case you forgot. But at the same token, if you don't want to spend your money at the Chick, no one is, and has ever made you. Stop using things like this for your own propaganda. If you really want to make a difference in the gay rights arena, go to your local congressman (or congresswoman) and insist that government stop making it a GOVERNMENT issue.

Ok, so maybe this wasn't that brief after all, but sometimes things just need to be said. 

We Didn't Invent the Chicken (Or Your Opinions Either)

It goes without saying that obviously in the eyes of the media, Chick-Fil-A is not the most popular fast food eatery this week among some people. Chick-Fil-A President Dan Cathy told the Baptist Press that his restaurant has always supported the 'traditional marriage'

"We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that," Cathy told the Baptist Press, the news agency of the Southern Baptist Convention.

Now obviously in today's age of franchises such as Oreo coming out in support of gay marriage, one coming out against isn't going to be the popular one among some individuals in the LGBT community and beyond. 

Here's my issue.

It isn't going to affect me what Oreo or Chick-fil-A's "stance" is on a certain topic. As long as they continue to do what they've done to be successful companies and serving their customers the best way they know how, it doesn't affect me. What's being misinterpreted in what Cathy said, is the fact that he never said that he or Chick-Fil-A hated people who are gay. He was simply answering a question and gave his stance.

People have to learn to respect both sides of an issue. You don't have to agree with Cathy or what Chick-Fil-A stands for, but agreeing with someone and respecting them is a whole other issue. I have plenty of folks who disagree with me daily, and that's fine. I respect their opinion and you should respect mine.

With that being said, I do not feel companies and franchises need to employ a "company stance"  in what they believe on these issues. Neither Chick-Fil-A nor Oreo are politically driven organizations. We don't (or shouldn't) look at franchises or celebrities to decide who we should vote for come election time. We don't need to know and quite frankly, if some of you actually knew what stance certain companies would take if they had to, you would probably wouldn't like it, whether you would be boycotting one way or another. I thought it was silly for people to boycott Oreo for their rainbow cookie in support of equality, and I think it is equally silly for folks to boycott Chick-Fil-A.

1st amendment rights aren't just for those of the popular opinion. And obviously, it is your choice to eat their chicken or not. Has been and always will. No one is forcing you to support them, and no one is telling you that you can't eat there either. That's the beauty of living in this country of ours. (For now)

If you've ever ate at Chick-Fil-A, than you know the type of courteous, friendly, sensible service you've come to appreciate eating at one of their establishments. Chick-Fil-A holds their employees to very high standards, and after speaking with people who have worked at a Chick-Fil-A, they require to you to be extra polite (i.e. "My Pleasure").

Next time you're in a Burger King, take note. That ain't happening.

Obviously if you know me, you know I believe anyone should be allowed to marry whoever they choose, for reasons I oppose government force, but that's another blog post. Also if you know me, you know I am a huge Chick-Fil-A fan. But honestly, it wouldn't matter to me who it was.

But lastly, let's really think about what we're doing if we boycott Chick-Fil-A. Are they going to be so affected so much that they run into bankruptcy? Not a chance. Are you going to be doing anything to promote equality if you don't eat chicken? No. 

So for heaven's sake, let's hop down from our perch a top the high horse, get a grip on reality, and start worrying about more important things, like the upcoming Presidential race. 

Chick-Fil-A released this statement earlier: 

"The Chick-fil-A culture and service tradition in our restaurants is to treat every person with honor, dignity and respect — regardless of their belief, race, creed, sexual orientation or gender," according to the statement. "Going forward, our intent is to leave the policy debate over same-sex marriage to the government and political arena," it said.

Concert Observations

For Caitlin's 30.... errr I mean 29th Birthday, we went to the Brothers of The Sun Concert at Bank of America Stadium to see Jake Owen, Grace Potter, Tim McGraw, and Kenny Chesney.

Just a few observations I made:

1) They make a killing on beer at concerts (And they could make more)

2) To stand up or not stand up? Generally to the few concerts I've been to, everyone stands up. That's common practice as I understand. There was a group of middle aged ladies in front of us who either had never been to a concert before, or the ones they have been to before, they sat. They made a fuss with the folks in front of them asking them to sit down. Naturally, they told them they were sorry and continued to stand. Eventually everyone stood up, but seriously? Stand up!

3) Even if you're not a fan of Kenny Chesney or Tim McGraw, they know how to put on a good concert.

4) There's always plenty of people watching entertainment while you wait.

5) I wore an App State shirt (shocking I know), and I had about 5 people either come up to me and high five me or shake my hand. It doesn't surprise me anymore.

6) Set change music? Apple Bottom Jeans, Country Grammar.....

7) Apparently I enjoy walking extra distances

8) Why I didn't go to more concerts when I was in high school or college is beyond me.

Attempting To Understand Differences

Over the last month or two, one thing we've heard all about all over facebook and twitter is about Amendment One. I very lightly advocated against amendment one. Mainly I just asked folks to be aware of what they were voting on before they went to the polls. Unfortunately, most people were not aware of what exactly they were voting on. It somehow turned into a gay marriage debate.

No matter where you stand on gay marriage, you could have still voted against this terrible piece of legislation. It wouldn't have meant anything against you personally. You can still not be in agreeance with someone and have voted against this amendment. This amendment may or may not have affected you personally, but all the same, it's not all about you (or me).

In my eyes (maybe I'm crazy), but allowing someone the same right as me to wed who I choose is exactly that, a right. I believe in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for everyone. It doesn't matter if someone isn't the same as me or doesn't believe in the same things I believe in. That is obsolete. You can still be strong in your Christian beliefs and want basic rights for everyone. Someone else's marriage, whether it be a straight or gay doesn't affect me. In other words, it's none of my business.

While I don't think government has a right to decide marriage, I also don't think churches should be forced to marry anyone they do not choose to marry. It's as simple as that. I have many different kinds of friends, and I love and respect each of them. That's the way I was raised. My entire life, I have always tried to treat people with love and respect because it's how I would like to be treated. This isn't a crazy concept, but accepting someone who might be different than you is hard for some folks to do. I understand it's not the easiest thing in the world, but denying someone a basic right (which by the way our state already had a law to begin with), is not o.k. in my book.

I have and still do identify myself as a conservative more or less leaning libertarian, and so often I am lumped into belonging to a certain political group. Most people have probably always assumed I am a staunch hard-core republican, which isn't necessarily true, but I still relate to many republican values. I've also more recently been called a "liberal" for my stance on gay marriage. So because of ONE issue, I am now a bleeding heart? I don't think so. No offense to anyone who identifies as "liberal", but it's not me.

Why must we label one another? We all do it. Even I do it all the time. It's not necessarily right, but there's not one single person who is reading this that hasn't been guilty of it before. I don't want to be placed or generalized into one certain group. I am my own person. I guarantee you if you've ever really got to know me, you know there's nobody else like me. And I hope that we could all say that. We should each be our own person. You're the only carbon copy of you that there is. Why would you want to be somebody else?

I also realize it's hard for some Christians to say they're ok with gay marriage. The way I see it, God created us all equal in his eyes. We are all loved by God and are all his children. We are all called to show Christ's love through our actions and words. These actions and words are not just meant for people who are exactly like us. That's too easy. You can't be scared of what you don't understand. We as humans don't understand a lot. That's what makes us human. But continuing to degrade someone because they are different than you is ludicrous. So I come to you with an open heart, and ask you to try harder. If I as a republican, white southerner can be accepting of others, why can't anyone else?

I leave you with a favorite Bible verse of mine:

"Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love. "

- 1 John 4:7-8