FBurgNews » Politics http://www.fburgnews.com Fredericksburg's Community News Blog Mon, 06 Feb 2012 21:26:49 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 en hourly 1 Obama’s War On Catholics http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/MusingsOverAPint/~3/fXTAHZ7p6x8/obamas-war-on-catholics.html http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/MusingsOverAPint/~3/fXTAHZ7p6x8/obamas-war-on-catholics.html#comments Wed, 01 Feb 2012 17:00:00 +0000 David tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5349428160142078931.post-3941285803125311610 Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Pretty damn clear isn't it? Apparently not to President Barack Hussein Obama. Not to the heretical Kathleen Sebelius. Not to the C & E "catholics" who voted for Obama with full knowledge that he intended to attack the Catholic Church.

If you only get your news from the MSNBC and CNN, you're probably ignorant of the war Obama is waging against Catholics in the United States. Abortion, contraception, and sterilization are anathema to faithful Catholics. Now, Obama has issued a mandate, ignoring the Constitution, that faith-based institutions must provide birth control and reproductive services in health insurance plans. And if that wasn't enough, not only do they have to provide it in their health plans, they have to wave any co-pay and provide it free of charge.

Obama "graciously" informed the Church it has one year to find a way to violate it's moral standards. Conveniently that's after the next Presidential election. He's hoping real Catholics forget. It's not going to happen. The Church has fought worse enemies in the past 2,000 years, and prevailed.

And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. -- Matthew 18:16

The Catholic Church is the largest provider of health care services in the United States. Despite that, Obama made no secret before the presidential 2008 election that he would attempt to break the back of the Church and remove the freedom of religion for Catholics. Faithful Catholics were mocked and laughed at when we spoke out in warning. Sadly, schismatics who call themselves Catholics, voted for Obama in droves. They actually showed support for a man who considers pregnancy to be punishment for "a mistake." They may regret it now, but there is no denying their complicity in enabling Obama's assault on religion. Those voters share moral responsibility for this outrageous attack on our freedom of religion.


We would do well to remember Hitler and the Jews in Germany. We must remember the Mexican government's murderous attacks on Catholics in the 1920's. History does indeed repeat itself. This is not just a Catholic issue. This is an issue for people of all faiths. Obama's move is an act of government intimidation of religious institutions. It's an issue for all freedom-loving Americans. This administration has made it clear that they will rule by decree and slowly chip away at the freedoms of the people in the U.S. in the name of "progress." Will you stand idly by or will you speak up?

I will not violate my faith to support the treasonous edicts of an immoral president.


[ Original content posted at http://www.musingsoverapint.com ]
]]> http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/MusingsOverAPint/~3/fXTAHZ7p6x8/obamas-war-on-catholics.html/feed/ 0 Who Would You Trust? http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/MusingsOverAPint/~3/9FLEyCHWqv4/who-would-you-trust.html http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/MusingsOverAPint/~3/9FLEyCHWqv4/who-would-you-trust.html#comments Sat, 14 Jan 2012 14:31:00 +0000 David tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5349428160142078931.post-5474773386206373070 fail to act responsibly in safe handling of their weapons, I find it hard to feel sympathy for those who make themselves victims. However, that doesn't change my view of anti-gun laws and those who support them.

I've already mused over the natural right to self-defense. A gun happens to be part of the tool set. Why do so many people and states try to restrict our right to be armed? In my opinion it's a matter of trust. Not the prohibitionists' trust of me, but my ability to trust them.

Take the misnamed Mayors Against Illegal Guns, headed up by the aforementioned Mayor Bloomberg. These politicians do not want citizens to be armed. Why? Could it have anything to do with the fact that so many of the group's members are convicted criminals? Criminals inherently, and rightfully, fear armed victims. Gun control laws are not about guns; gun control laws are about power and control over people. In the United States, gun control laws have their roots in racism. Today, we see that the self-proclaimed "enforcers" still are lacking moral or legal ethics. When Meredith Graves was arrested, the Mayor chose to falsely claim that she was in possession of cocaine in order to destract from the ridiculous gun arrest. In the now dropped case against Mark Meckler, officials refuse to return his firearm, despite having no legal right to keep it. The state in this case is committing a criminal act in the name of control.

The anti-freedom folks try to make gun owners out to be dangerous and untrusted. Deep down that reaction is not a reflection on the gun owner, it's a reflection of the person's own mistrust of themselves to behave civilly under stress. Their own bigotry causes them to link criminals using guns with law-abiding citizens. And it's not just with guns that the false association occurs. In Illinois a disturbed person attacked people with drain cleaner. Suddenly anyone who needs drain cleaner to fix a plumbing problem needs to show a photo ID and they will have their personal information logged by the state. It's not a coincidence that Illinois is also the only state in the U.S. that refuses to trust law-abiding citizens with guns for self-defense.

If someone doesn't support my right to be armed, I know that I must be wary of their true motives. While it's not an infallible character clue, it does warrant suspicion. After all, what does an honest person have to fear from a law-abiding armed citizen? Absolutely nothing. In my view it is perfectly legitimate to judge a person's integrity by their view on the 2nd Amendment.

It's a matter of trust.



[ Original content posted at http://www.musingsoverapint.com ]
]]> http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/MusingsOverAPint/~3/9FLEyCHWqv4/who-would-you-trust.html/feed/ 0 Words To Live By http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/MusingsOverAPint/~3/ThbqL-6L7fw/words-to-live-by.html http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/MusingsOverAPint/~3/ThbqL-6L7fw/words-to-live-by.html#comments Thu, 05 Jan 2012 01:26:00 +0000 David tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5349428160142078931.post-4565257488193109469 grave duty." Contrary to popular thought, the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution is not the grantor of this right, the Amendment exists as an affirmation of what man naturally possesses. For those of us fortunate enough to live in Virginia, we also have the Virginia Constitution as yet another written reminder. Specifically we can turn to Section 13. Militia; standing armies; military subordinate to civil power:
That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

There you have it. God, the U.S. Constitution, and the Virginia Constitution all standing united to reiterate the right to be armed for self defense. That's a pretty strong triad giving us words to live by. Literally, words to live by.


[ Original content posted at http://www.musingsoverapint.com ]
]]> http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/MusingsOverAPint/~3/ThbqL-6L7fw/words-to-live-by.html/feed/ 0