One of the things I don't understand is how a person can claim to be a conservative, but rail against people who choose to be homosexual. Honestly, the mechanics of two men doing things that don't need to be talked about makes my stomach turn, but if two consenting men want to do that it is their business.

Conservatives are big on the tenth amendment when it comes to opposing entitlement programs, but when it comes to morality they are quick to use the force of government to suppress an individual's God given liberty. Speaking of God, I am confident that the God in the Bible is against homosexuality. I am pretty sure that those that reject Him will go to hell. I even think that the homosexuals should keep their sexuality out of schools and public places. Of course, I think heterosexuals should keep their sexuality out of public places, too. With all of that said, it isn't our responsibility to keep people from making what we believe are bad choices, unless it causes harm to someone else. Last time I checked two consenting adults fornicating together doesn't hurt anyone else.

Homosexuals have done themselves a real disservice by flaunting their sexuality in front of everyone. By pushing their agenda in the public schools and attacking anyone that disagrees with them they have really alienated themselves and made themselves look antagonistic. They have also done themselves a real disservice by accusing their opposition of being homophobic or prejudice. Get real. This all reminds me of the Clint Eastwood film "Escape from Alcatraz". In the film Clint went to talk to a black guy, but he didn't sit down. The black guy accused Clint of either being afraid of black people or hating them. Clint sat down next to the black guy and said he hated them. Of course, I don't think he did, but when people are only given the choice between fear or hate there is a good chance they will chose hate because fear is a weakness. No one wants to be perceived as weak. Homosexuals would serve themselves well to understand that there are people that disagree with their lifestyle and accept it. Heterosexuals would do well to accept that there are going to be people that don't conform to their vision of what life should be like.

Even if everyone suddenly became accepting of each other, this doesn't solve what I believe is the real reason that homosexuals want to get married. I am not sure I believe that it is because they want the certificate. I think it is because of the legal standing that having the certificate gives them in regards to insurance and other benefits that married heterosexual couples receive. I am curious if the majority of homosexuals would really want to get married if they were able to receive all the benefits of marriage without being married. I know there will be some that still want to get married on principle, but I suspect that if homosexuals real goal is to be accepted, and not try to convert people over to their belief system or get special privileges, then we may all agree that we are all on equal footing.

Regardless of the reason homosexuals want to get married, conservatives would do well to do some self reflection. Regardless of your position on homosexuality, using the Constitution to defend your liberty while ignoring it when it comes to other people's liberty is nothing short of hypocrisy.

After the Glenn Beck / Debra Medina issue today, I began to think about what the issue with 9/11, truthers, and anti-truthers are. Glenn Beck seems to think that anyone that doesn't believe the government's story about 9/11 completely is a truther. I think that is a misconception. The fact is there are plenty of people that believe the government was directly involved with 9/11, and I would agree there is no real evidence to support that. However, there are a lot of people labeled as truthers that think that the government was responsible due to negligence. Not that the government didn't connect the dots, but that it had all the dots but refused to do anything. There is plenty of evidence to support that idea just since 9/11.

Look at the panty bomber. His own dad said he was a danger and no one did anything. According to CNN the CIA was tracking him, but nothing happened. What about the Fort Hood shooter? Sign after sign was swept under the rug and dismissed. In these cases it wasn't the government that protected us, it was us protecting ourselves. So is it really unreasonable to think that the government was at minimum negligent in the events of 9/11? If that makes a person a "truther", then is it really that unreasonable to think there might be a valid point in there some where? We know the terrorists flew the plane into the world trade center buildings; it's on tape. What isn't clear is why the government was following the 9/11 hijackers but did nothing to stop them; the same way they knew about the panty bomber and didn't stop him; the same way they had information about the Fort Hood shooter and didn't stop him. One time is a fluke, but we have multiple instances of the federal government not doing its job. Instead they want to force us to give them strip teases at the air port. Why would anyone believe the government isn't at least partially responsible for all of the terrorists attacks we have had since, and including, 9/11?

It's all over. People everywhere are talking about how Glenn Beck took down Debra Medina for not coming out against the 9/11 truthers. I find this completely ironic, and a bit disturbing. Glenn Beck is doing exactly what he accuses the washington elite of doing. "What? How can anyone who is evolved in their thinking think that 9/11 has some unanswered questions? Is she stupid?" Glenn Beck didn't say that; I modified what someone said about Sarah Palin, but isn't that exactly the same kind of treatment that conservatives have been complaining about?

I don't believe that the U.S. government was directly involved in taking down the towers, but I do think that there are a lot of unanswered questions. The truth is that there are different types of 9/11 truthers, and anyone with any integrity would investigate more about what the truther movement is about before they blanket statement everyone as crazy. In this regard, Glenn Beck has fallen down. Has anyone wondered how the plane was able to hit the Pentigon? Isn't it a no fly zone? Didn't anyone see that there were four planes flying in the wrong flight paths? Does it really take more than ten minutes for our military to get jets in the air to protect Washington D.C.? Do these sound like the questions of a crazy person? Maybe, you think they do, but then why question anything the government does? Is it wrong to question the government? Does Glenn Beck think he is the only one that can question the government? Does he think he is the only one with valid questions? I don't know, may it is wrong to question Glenn Beck, too.

I think the 9/11 truther crap is a smoke screen. Let's ask these questions of the candidates: Who owns property, government or individuals? Should the government be involved with health care, medicare, medicaid, social security, or any other thing not found in the Constitution? Should the size of local, state, and federal government be minimal? Does government have the right to tell you what to eat, what to listen to, what to wear, what to drive, what to invest in, what to spend your money on, what to think, what to teach your kids, or who your money should be given to? The candidate that is the closest to our founding principals deserves to represent us, whether or not they have questions about 9/11.

After watching Silvio Berlusconi get a taste of his own medicine I began to think about how this one act could be used for good in the United States. Until now the federal government has consistently violated the Constitution with impunity. U.S. citizens that love freedom and are looking for answers as to how we can get the government's attention and make them fear us may have just been given a clue.

Here is the idea. In the Berlusconi case a man threw a statue, rather appropriate for Italy in my opinion, but here in the United States it would seem a bit odd. When our country wasn't happy about the tax on tea they took to throwing the tea off the ships, so we also should keep things in context. Today, we have bills that are over a thousand pages so it seems appropriate to replace the statue with tightly bundled copies of the bills that we oppose.

The affect is that the federal government has a much better chance of feeling the pain of their actions. It seems fully appropriate that when they hurt us, the U.S. citizens, that we hurt them in the only way we can. We tried writing letter, emails, calling, visiting, and protesting. What did that get anyone? A double down on the speed to communism. Note: this is communism because it is very much against our will. This is not socialism. It seems that the only way to get the attention of our government, now that they are becoming more like Europe, is to reach out and touch one of them.

After that, the question become what should we do if they ignore all reasonable attempts to get their attention.

I started this blog because my anger toward the government, starting under the Bush regime, increased to a point where I wanted to try to make a difference. I had hoped that a revolution could be avoided if the citizens of the United States would stand up and let their voice be heard. While it is true that some citizens did just that, I believe that the total comes to less than one percent of the population of the United States. Obviously, our government is not going to take anyone seriously when the total comes to less than one percent. Even the republicans only take it seriously enough to use it as a wave to ride back into power. Let's be clear. The government won't take the people seriously when the people won't get serious about their country.

The time to rise up has come and gone. Make no mistake. Obama said he would fundamentally change the United States, and he is. In any revolution there is a period of time when the good people have the opportunity to stand up and resist the tyrannical government. Germany had this chance, but they chose Hitler instead. The United States has had many chances to vote in statesmen instead of politicians, but they chose self serving pandering politicians. We see how they have brought us to the verge of bankruptcy and are showing no sign of stopping. We see how they have steadily handed over sovereignty to world powers. We see how congress, more concerned with getting elected, has abdicated its responsibility to manage a financially sound monetary system in favor of turning it over to a global corporation, the "federal reserve." What shall we say now that we have consented to these fundamentally destructive actions? Even if fifty percent of the U.S. citizens stood up and said enough, would it matter? Or would the government simply turn our military against us just as it did to its own veterans after world war one? I believe the latter; what have they to lose?

Some will undoubtedly say that we have 2010 and 2012. Who would we vote in? Only a small percentage of elected officials are up for re-election. Those that are running offer only two choices. Socialist government that redistributes wealth from the rich to the poor, democrats, or those that seek to redistribute wealth from the poor and middle class to the rich, the republicans. U.S. citizens have made it clear that neither party is qualified to run a war. Republicans want it to continue empire building, while the democrats want to drag their feet until the citizens demand our troops be withdrawn. Should we continue to choose the lesser of two evils as we have done for the last one hundred years? What other choice do we have? We had an opportunity to have Ron Paul lead us back to our founding fathers wishes, but the majority of people chose to be lead by the media. How can justice win when people are ignorant of its existence? I don't see 2010 or 2012 making any real difference in moving our country back in the right direction. Perhaps, it will be a new direction, but that doesn't mean it will be the right direction. Chances are more likely it will be the wrong direction.

So we come down to the question, "Is there any hope?" Not unless people are willing to put their lives on the line. Let's be real. The left has already said they have no problem using "the persuasion of power." They have said that they mostly agree with Mao that political change only comes out of the barrel of a gun. They have advised their minions to "punch back." Is it not clear that this is no longer an ideological war, but has been fundamentally transformed into a fight for life? Even if we were to trust the police to protect us, haven't we seen that the judges have no intention of punishing those carrying out the will of the progressives?

If there is hope, then it resides in ourselves. We are our only chance to free ourselves. Yet, it won't come by conducting business as usual. It won't come by staying out of the fray. It won't come by letting others take care of the problems. It will only come when every one of the three hundred million plus members of this great country leave our place of work, leave our home, and leave our comfort zone to demonstrate the raw physical power of the citizens of this country, as we did during the revolution, the civil war, WWI, and WWII, and again return the fear of God and the fear of the U.S. citizens back into the stone hearts of the government. But that isn't enough. Only when have we have restored that fear will we be powerful enough to get freedom loving statesmen back into our government, and remove the corrupt politicians. People that won't empire build, won't fundamentally change our country, but will respect the law of our land that is the Constitution. The very document that separated us from the rest of the world; and made us better than the rest of the world. The very document that made freedom for slaves possible. The very document that seeks to declare that every human has inalienable rights given to us by the Almighty. Our only hope is for each of us to again take our position as citizen rulers of our own domain and our country.

Now you see why I think our country is lost. There simply isn't enough time for the process to take place necessary for these actions to occur. Perhaps, if the citizens got serious enough to accelerate the process our country might have a chance, but last time I checked too many citizens were fighting over who would get the last mouse for Christmas.