HGTV And Tolerance

As many of you likely know HGTV canceled a television show featuring the Benham brothers, twins who have made millions restoring and fixing up houses and “flipping” them. The show was supposed to feature the both of them helping others learn how to fix up and then flip houses, but before it could even air it was canceled. Why? Because they are Christians who have openly expressed their beliefs. First they oppose abortion and they are for traditional marriage as opposed to gay marriage. Wow, now there's a shocker. Two conservative Christians who happen to believe what they have been taught all their lives, and what most Christians actually believe but are afraid to come out and say. So my question to you o gentle reader and to HGTV is this; What does their religious views have to do with teaching others how to flip houses? Not sure I see the connection.

But alas the left wing media took offense and outed them trying essentially to make them look like some kind of monsters and pressured HGTV not to air the show. So much for tolerance.

Perhaps it's a lack of understanding of what the word “tolerance” actually means. From the dictionary: “Tolerance is a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one's own.

interest in and concern for ideas, opinions, practices, etc., foreign to one's own; a liberal, un dogmatic viewpoint.”

Funny it doesn't say a thing about us agreeing on anything. To quote “The Princess Bride” “ you a keep using thata word, I donna think it mean what you think it do.” What we actually have here is a serious lack of tolerance for those who think or speak differently from what is considered politically correct.

My cynical side that this is little more than a publicity stunt done by HGTV to try to boost their ratings. Perhaps they noticed what happened with AE over Duck Dynasty or how well Chick Fillet did after they were outed, I don't really know but I am very hard pressed to believe that HGTV had no clue as to what they believed before they even started filming.

So some of you might be thinking so what? The brothers themselves aren't really bothered by it so why should you be? It's because it's starting to look like that the only freedom of religion that you can have is one that you have to sacrifice on the altar of political correctness in order to make it in the business world especially if you are in the service industry.

Everyone who pays attention knows about the bakers and photographers who refused to give services for gay weddings,citing their religious beliefs, and what happened to them as they were dragged into court, but I wonder how many of you know that this has happened over 600 times in the last couple of years as various groups, mostly gay and lesbians, as well as some atheists, have gone after Christians and Jews for various reasons over their faith. Tell me something my left leaning friends, why not go to someone else who will provide a service for you rather than showing them, said offending businesses, the same kind of intolerance you feel is being heaped on you? You will get a lot further in getting support for your cause if you show the kind of compassion and mercy that you felt you were denied years ago.

This is where the hypocrisy of the left comes in. Thirty years ago a gay man or woman was risking a lot by coming out of the closet. Many Christians were not very accepting and some openly suggested the AIDS was a direct act of God to kill homosexuals. Gay people were looking for tolerance and acceptance that seemed to be lacking yet over time, and it has taken time, many who were once against homosexuality, never mind gay marriage, have come to accept it. Yes there are still a large number of people, Christians and Jews, who still disagree with the “gay lifestyle” but for the most part it has become a live and let live situation. Gay marriage is already accepted in about 15(?) states and will likely gain acceptance in all the rest before to much longer, yet those very people who wanted tolerance and equality are now attacking the very people they wanted acceptance from in the first place.

Apparently you folks on the left haven't learned a thing.

At some point in time the political winds will shift against you, as it has in the past, and when it does all those people that you have hammered and made martyrs, all the lack of love and tolerance you have displayed is going to come back and bite you in the backside. It's like watching what happened in Northern Ireland between protestants and Catholics one would kill the other because the other had killed the one. It wasn't until they actually sat down and talked that things calmed down and that's the whole point of this.

If all your going to do is try to intimidate and silence Christians and Jews instead of engaging them in open , honest discussion, showing the mercy and compassion and real tolerance that you once so dearly desired ,than you will have a massive fight on your hands that you will eventually lose once the political winds change again.

What I want to see is real tolerance. Tolerance that accepts that others view the world differently and most likely always will. Tolerance that learns that the best approach is always going to be with mercy and love not threats and lawsuits or government intervention.

Iraq and Crimea.

I have, for the most part, stayed out of the debate over what to do about Russia invading Crimea. Today though, after hearing the President announce more sanctions on Russia, I felt I had to put in my two cents worth.

Today marks the 11^th anniversary of our invasion of Iraq. I bring this up because apparently this administration, along with many members of congress who allowed the Iraq war to happen, seem to have forgotten that. Over the last few days, including the speech Mr. Obama gave today, have roundly condemned Russia for invading another country essentially saying that in the 21^st century we can't resort to changing borders and having invasions for trumped up reasons. The irony of this statement is amazing.

If going into Iraq wasn't based on trumped up data, I don't know what else I can say about it. Our government was hell bent to overthrow Saddam Hussein and had been since the end of the first Gulf War, all that was needed was some sort of reason. That reason came in the form of a bogus claim of “weapons of mass destruction” primarily, “yellow cake” used for making nuclear bombs. While it was true that he had used chemical weapons in the past against some of his own people and Iran during the Iran/Iraq war, the real premise was the “yellow cake” that did not exist. Was there some chemical weapons found? Yes, but not in the amounts we were told. It was all bogus.

Now, 11 years later Russia goes into Crimea, by their request and with their approval, after our government sponsored, quietly I might add, a bloody revolution in Kiev, led by Nazi's. We interfered in the Ukraine because they were accepting Russia's offers of help rather than ours. So now instead of elected officials running the Ukraine we have Nazi's. Let me spell that out for you “ National Socialist.” You know the guys with the swastikas that hate everybody but themselves? Of course most Americans wouldn't know that because our media for the most part has ignored it. The BBC went into the Ukraine and actually interviewed the “leaders” of this coup and it turned out that most of them were extreme right wing zealots who would do Hitler proud. These are the people that our government is supporting.

Now we are threatening sanctions, Russia is threatening back, and we now have the potential of starting another world wide economic collapse or even the potential for another world war over the Ukraine’s legitimate government choosing Russia's deal over ours.

I do not want to be misunderstood, I do not agree with Russia occupying Crimea and it concerns me that perhaps they have a bigger goal in mind such as all of the Ukraine and, perhaps other nations of the former Soviet Union, but I would humbly submit to you two things despite that concern: The first being we have no right to stand up on a stage and tell Russia, or any other country for that matter, what they can and can't do, particularly in their own back yard. We lost that moral high ground a long time ago. Second, our government needs to stop sticking it nose where it doesn’t belong such as the internal affairs of a sovereign nation. We may not like what they choose to do but it's supposed to be their right to do so.

Just my Simple Minded Opinion.

Budget Cuts, The Troops and History

Apparently the powers that be have not learned from history.


When we were attacked on Dec.7^th 1941 we had a very small army. The army and the Marines had so little equipment to train with that they were using wooden guns and literally attacking saying “bang, bang” just as we did when we played as kids. There had been a steady increase of men enlisting because everyone could smell war in the air, but when we were finally attacked we were not much of a fighting force. We didn't have the equipment. The Japanese actually counted on that and calculated that if they took out most of our naval forces in the Pacific we would just cut our losses and run. They were wrong but it took us quite awhile to get all the forces that we needed ,and all the equipment which left our nation vulnerable. It would seem that we may be on the verge of repeating that mistake.


Citing an end to our current wars, and the end of the the “cold war”, the Obama administration, as recommended by Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, is planning on cutting military personnel to pre WW2 levels, as well as cutting back on various weapons systems, and cutting pay and benefits for troops as a step to get the budget under some sort of control.


Let me state that I have no objections to ending these very wasteful and pointless wars we have been involved in, and I have suggested many times that one of the ways to save money would be to close out all our bases around the world and bring everyone home, but now, instead ,they are going to target the troops themselves and this is just patently wrong.


I have served with infantry and artillery as well as communications in both peace time and war. I have literally walked in the boots of the troops as they have marched across the sand in foreign countries or on forced marches while in training. I understand the hardships of both being single and being married, with kids, and trying to live off of a paycheck that tends to be a lot less than your civilian counterparts, while your job in comparison is by far more dangerous.


The problem with cutting pay is that around most bases everything from rent to food is higher priced. Land lords know what you get paid , based on your rank, and they charge you more. Grocery stores and the big chain stores know this as well. We are not even talking about utilities or other things that you might need for your families. This is why we have so many military families on food stamps; they get sucked dry by those they are sworn to defend.


On top of pay cuts, they want to have military personnel pay for some of their medical costs. How many people in the civilian world, other than police officers and firefighters, are required to put their lives on the line 24/7 at a moments notice? Not many. How many train in potentially dangerous situations because that's the only way to prepare for the real thing? Very few. My point is that I can't see how you could expect someone who is doing as they are ordered to ( remember you can't just quit the military ) and they get hurt in the line of duty or get sick to have to cough up the money to cover it. If this is their idea of a way to cut military expenses then they should have the option to quit their jobs,just like their civilian counterparts, at any time. That would make it fair.


They have also talked about cutting equipment. I could care less about some of the old obsolete equipment, but I tend to worry about what up graded personal equipment might be lost that protects the troops on the ground. When we went into Iraq, as least my unit anyhow, we didn't have all the equipment that we needed. We were using the old style flak jackets, because the ones with the armor plating that was resistant to small arms fire and small explosions was not widely available as they are today. Our Hummers had no armor at all and our only protection from landmines were sand bags under our feet. I know just how ineffective that equipment was. I had one friend who took a spear like piece of shrapnel through his chest,the only reason he lived was because they didn't remove it until he was in surgery and another one who died because the flak jacket wasn't strong enough to resist a round from and AK-47. We lost vehicles, people and equipment simply because it wasn't that good. We were not properly equipped.


Last point. What makes the powers that be think that we live in a safer world where we can let our guard down?

Russia,China, Iran and North Korea are all threats to us and our allies. Do we just cut and run and ignore our obligations and treaties because we are cutting back? Do we need another Pearl Harbor to remind us?


Cut the fat, certainly, stop all the bloated projects that are costing more than they are worth but don't try to balance the budget on the backs of troops who have given up everything for your protection and the protection of our allies.


Just my Simple Minded opinion.

Creation,Evolution, and the Bible

I have been seeing many comments about the debate that went on last night between a prominent evolutionist and a creationist. The comments have been fascinating to say the least and somewhat heated. So I just thought I'd put my two cents worth in.


Let me start by saying that I believe in God. Furthermore I believe that it is entirely likely that God, how ever you may determine God to be, created this world and quite possibly the universe as we know it. I am not however a creationist.


To be a creationist you have to believe that the world was created literally 6000 years ago. Archeological digs have found sights that are much older than that, the oldest, that I know of anyhow, being in the range of 15-17 thousand years old. Having said that I also don't buy into millions of years old either, some of that same archeology and artifacts found in strange places tells me differently.


I am also not an evolutionist. To believe that I essentially would have to believe that all this life, in all it's varieties, just accidentally popped into being for no reason and without help in perfect conditions to form a functioning universe. Granted evolutionist say that it took billions of years of adaptation and only the strongest survive but it doesn't really answer the question as to how they manged to survive and adapt, it only suggests that they did.


I think the bottom line to this debate is that your never going to be able to prove either side of the argument to anyone who doesn't want to believe your viewpoint in the first place. The second thing though is that insulting your opponent, simply because you disagree with them is a little silly and doesn't help your argument at all.


One comment I would like to address though is the basic idea that the Bible shouldn't be taken seriously or it should be gotten rid of because it impedes real science. Really?


The bible has been at the core of western civilization for hundreds of years. The bible has helped influence everything from literature to art. The words, especially the Psalms and Isaiah ,along with the words of Jesus, have influenced more music and poetry, not to mention the great paintings, then any other book in the world. It's laws have been the foundation from which the western world has drawn it's own laws. The three biggest religions in the world, which affects billions of people world wide, all draw their history and beliefs from that book. It is a book that brings hope and comfort to all.
If you don't care for it, that’s your right, but don't be insulting to those who treasure it and see it's value.



Shalom

We are Veterans not Criminals

Today I am going to share a letter with you that will not likely see the light of day any where near the president, though it's addressed to him,from a Marine that I know well. He is less of a writer than I am but he asked me if I would clean this up a bit and then post it on my blog. I will gladly do so. This Marine has spent many years of his life serving his country in both war and peace, not that we have had much peace lately, and has seen more of combat and war than he would really want to see , if given the choice, but has done his duty in an honorable and commendable manner.
His letter addresses the the idea that at a stroke of a pen, Mr. Obama , has made it easier for doctors to submit information on anyone who is even asking about mental health issues to the national criminal back ground check for the intended purpose of possibly denying them the right to own and keep fire arms.


Dear Mr. President,
I recently found out that your administration, at the stroke of a pen, is trying to make it easier for doctors to violate their privacy oaths, not to mention the privacy act of 1974, in order to be able to submit names and information on any individual who even inquires about getting some mental health help to the “National Criminal Back Ground Check” data base for the purpose of keeping guns out of the hands of “potentially dangerous” individuals.
I must commend you for showing your hand so boldly and for somehow keeping this information out of most of the press. Very well played Mr. President.
But here is where this all falls apart. By doing this you have made absolutely sure that I, and many other combat veterans, will never set foot any where near a mental health facility. Where would be the incentive to do so? Many of us are gun owners. Why would I want to risk losing my rights? I have spent most of my life as a member of the armed forces and have been in more combat situations then I care to remember, I have defended the Constitution that you have sworn to uphold and have helped keep the proverbial wolf away from the door. What exactly is my crime? Nightmares? Getting uptight in a crowd? Being startled by loud noises? Of course , Mr. President, you would not understand, because you have never served.
I don't suppose though that I should truly be surprised. Your administration has done nothing for veterans and you have allowed for DHS, amongst others ,to label all of us combat veterans as “potential terrorists” while allowing real terrorists, The Muslim Brotherhood, access to you in the White House.
When you ran for office ,the first time, many of us war veterans were really hoping that you could actually bring about some hope and change. You said you were going to end the wars and while Iraq certainly has come to an end , for now anyhow, you have kept things going in Afghanistan, even going so far as trying to keep us there longer and have opened up new fronts in other countries bringing us closer to an even larger scale war and ,as a result, have created even more combat veterans ,of whom, you despise.
My humble advice to you is simple Mr. President. First end all the wars and conflicts we are involved with, then stop with this nonsense of putting honorable men and women at risk for mental health issues, who might otherwise go for help, if it wasn't for your idea to make their personal information available in a criminal back ground check.



We are Veterans not criminals.

Mr. Governor; Lets Try Tolerance

I am not a fan of cities. This is no secret. Give me woods and wide open spaces and I become a rather happy camper, but close quarters and tall buildings? No, I think not.


One of the cities I have avoided like the plague is New York. Growing up in the 60's and 70's all the movies portrayed New York as this gritty savage place ,full of violence and gang shootings ,and homeless wino's on every street corner. Not a very pretty picture.


Today, based on what I have been told, by folks who live there ,or at least nearby, and by friends who go there frequently that it's not so true anymore. In fact I have heard enough from them to convince me that not only would I like to go see it but that the people there are actually quite friendly to strangers and are most helpful.


But now, at least according to the Governor, I wouldn't be welcome in any NY city. It would appear that I may be to conservative for the governor and by extension the state it's self.


I'm not republican but I am pro guns. I am one of those guys who cling to my God and my guns. While I believe that every American should stand up for their gun rights I also recognize the fact that there are those who don't share that view and that is also their right. I believe in God , though I wouldn't be welcome in most houses of worship because of my very different views, but I understand and recognize that not everyone does and again that’s their right. This Mr. Governor is called “tolerance.”


I am pro life, though I make some exceptions ,as in the case of rape or incest, or if the mother is in danger, but again this is my view, my position. I might try to counsel a woman to have the child and give it up for adoption but I would not force the issue. I have many friends who are pro choice and I respect their right to be so. We may disagree, Mr. Governor, but my friends and I understand “tolerance.”


I guess what throws it way off though is that I am all for gay rights or should I say equal rights. If a gay or lesbian couple are consenting adults and they wish to be married then fine so be it, but I also respect the rights of those who oppose my views. Aside from it being a matter of free speech, it's called “tolerance” Mr. Governor.


My guess is that the NY governor could learn “tolerance” from my liberal friends in Vermont.


Vermont is a very liberal democrat leaning state. Conservatives are something close to an endangered species, yet though I was a self described conservative, when I lived there, 99% of my friends were, and still are, liberal,yet we can talk about everything from religion to politics, have friendly disagreements and still have a burger and a beer together. 20 years into these friendships and we are all still friends. In fact I just back from the long weekend with them. If anything their political points of view have helped shape my own view and over the course of 20 years I have become more open minded about many things both religious and political This is what tolerance can be like Mr. Governor.


But I guess that's the crux of the problem. He finds that anyone who doesn't share his view offensive,and he doesn't want them in NY state. That's fine I simply won't spend what little money I might have there, not that that should worry him much, but what about all the conservative groups and people who have businesses in NYC, and other parts of the state, that are religious in nature or at least conservative? Not to put to fine a point on it Mr.Governor, but if they decide to leave, your state will loose substantial revenue. Is that what you really want? All over a disagreement of political opinion? That's not “tolerance” that economic suicide.


I am a believer that most good hearted people are, especially in today’s world, accepting of others points of views and positions. Really it comes down to a few disgruntled individuals and groups who seem to make the most noise and make all the rest of us look bad, so in this case I don't think that he really reflects the views of all liberals, but just as a reminder to all of us consider;Tolerance is the accepting of someones views( not that you agree with them) even when they differ from yours.


My friends and I in Vermont have learned that, how about it Mr. Governor, want to give real tolerance a try?

Fair Market Value?

There are certain terms and catch phrases in the English language that can seriously drive me mad. Take for instance the word “whatever” if used properly the word “whatever” can be a good word such as in a sentence like “whatever happened to old Bob” or something silly like that, but when used by a sarcastic teenager as in the singular “whatever” with a disdain full look at their parents or siblings I suddenly want to break some or all of the child abuse laws. Some words can have that effect.


The latest set of words that have me wanting to slam my head into a wall are “fair market value.” Three times I have heard those words used when it has involved me and my family over the last couple of years and I am just a bit on the frustrated side.


Now I understand the term. It simply is in reference to the value of, in this case homes, compared to others in your area and their relative value. I understand the words. But I don't like them and I am never going to understand how a piece of property can sell for one price one day and then the next it cost three or four times as much or, in the opposite extreme, much less.


Four years ago I first heard the term used in reference to the house that we had owned; the price that you are asking for your house is above the “ fair market value.” A few years earlier our house had been worth what we paid for it but now not only was it not worth what we paid it wasn't even close to what we owed. Many of you who have read my blog posts in the past know how that all turned out, but for you who don't ,lets just say it wasn't good ,and a large, federally bailed out bank, made out like a bandit.


The last two times I have had this term directed at me has been in the last year or so. In both instances it has been used as an excuse to raise the rent, the most recent being about 3 weeks ago.


Who exactly is it that determines this? Why is it that a small 3 bedroom duplex can be rented out for almost 20 times more than what my grandparents mortgage was for their house? How can it be that the same type of housing out west or in the south would cost less than half of what I am paying now?This is insane and it puts me and my family in a tough spot. Can we pay for it once it goes up? Technically yes, but the problem is is that costs keeps going up but my paycheck isn't keeping up.


Considering the high price of living here in New England and the ungodly high property taxes making a mortgage almost impossible, we may be forced out of this area of the country, where all our friends and family are, simply because we have the misfortune of having a limited income.


So my conclusion is that “fair market value” is not terribly fair and the value is simply subject to those who want to dig more money out of our wallets and “fair market value” is only fair if you can pay for it. Just my Simple Minded opinion.