You grok?

Due to a court ruling on August 23rd, 2010 all stem cell research came to a halt claiming:

“The American people should not be forced to pay for experiments — prohibited by federal law — that destroy human life,” said Steven H. Aden, the group’s senior legal counsel. “The court is simply enforcing an existing law passed by Congress that prevents Americans from paying another penny for needless research on human embryos.”

Quote @ Localtechwire

Read more

Since the creation of the Automobile it has been a symbol of freedom, freedom to do what you want, when you want. Without anyone knowing one day you could simply take off and travel the country for months, or maybe for only an afternoon. Now, however, with computers built into cars, you will never have the luxury of simply disappearing, or even have the ability to safe guard your car.

Read more

WASHINGTON — Breaking ranks for President Barack Obama on a controversial election-year issue, the Senate’s top Democrat on Monday came out against plans to build a mosque near the site of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Locked in a tight race, Nevada Sen. Harry Reid became the highest profile Democrat to respond to Obama, who last week backed the right for the developers to build a mosque near ground zero. Since his comments Friday, the Democratic president and his aides have worked to explain the statement, which drew criticism from Republicans and Democrats alike.

“The First Amendment protects freedom of religion,” said Jim Manley, a Reid spokesman. “Sen. Reid respects that but thinks that the mosque should be built some place else.”

Read full story @msn.com

Following that lovely statement:

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.

-The United States Constitution

Not only is not allowing the mosque to be built immoral by the standards set forth by the constitution on which our country was founded (which we all agree to by simply living in the country), but also by the United States law itself. Although President Obama’s campaign of socializing america is distasteful, or should be to most American’s, what he said was simply:

“As a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country,” Mr. Obama told an intently listening crowd gathered at the White House Friday evening to observe the Islamic holy month of Ramadan.

“That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances,” he said. “This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable.”

Read full article @CBSnews.com

Looking purely at what President Obama told the crowd, there is little to nothing morally, or lawfully wrong with that statement. As a nation The United States pledged to stand by the lawful code which rules the land. If an individual disagrees with the code for what ever reason, simply leave the country. However, if one wishes to be part of the United States one must also accept the code on which the country abides.

Although building a mosque near the site of a great tragedies in our nations recent past can be somewhat distasteful, or discomforting for some what are the possible reasons behind such a decision on the Islamic front?

1) To show that America continues to support freedom of religion.

2) Good location for the populous attending.

3) To show Islamic support for America.

4)  The possibility of enraging radical Islamic sects.

5) Possibly to insult American’s.

In what ever case, for good or for bad, the law is clear.

Now for my Opinion:

What I find the most despising about the whole issue is that there is an issue at all. The politicians and media are criticizing the presidents speech are either completely ignorant of what the word “freedom” means in the constitution or are simply tossing away with the code on which the United States built its reputation. Hell, the only reason I still have any respect for the United States is merely because the founding fathers set restrictions on what the government can and cannot do. Now with the media, a portion of the population, and the politicians denouncing what President Obama told the Muslim community, I’m curious, why would those who wish to hamper the building of the Mosque live in America? Republicans denounce the Mosque because the catholics and non-catholic conservatives are who they represent. The democrats denounce the building of the mosque because half of them are up for re-election. The populace denounces it because the media denounces it, and twists their minds into thinking about how insulting it would look. Funny thing though, in America no one should care about any of it. It is private land, on which citizens wish to build a place of worship, which they have chosen.

I know that each and every person who believes that that mosque should not be built is an enemy of me, because he is an enemy of my freedom.

I spit on you.

What is the world coming to when you must get a back ground check to simply pick up oil for minimum wage?

ascagoula, Mississippi (CNN) — A lack of screening of oil spill cleanup workers meant a sex offender got a job, and left him free to rape a colleague according to a Mississippi county sheriff.

A CNN investigation into the incident reveals that basic background checks were not done on those hired to remove oil from the beaches in and around Pascagoula.

Jackson County Sheriff Mike Byrd told CNN he was shocked when he met with the head of BP security for the area several weeks before the alleged rape took place. He said the BP representative told him that only drug screenings, not background checks, were being conducted on the cleanup workers.

Read more

Roughly one months ago the President Obama fired one of the United States best generals due to rude comments the general apparently stated when he became enraged that the president had been restricting his ability to fight the enemy. Now this:

Back-to-back months of record U.S. military death tolls — 60 in June and 66 in July — shocked many Americans, even though the Pentagon had been warning of higher casualties this summer as the U.S. and its allies push into longtime Taliban strongholds around Kandahar city and in the southern province of Helmand.

ROBERT H. REID

Read full article @msn.com

Read more

With the budget restrictions placed on NASA, and significant cut of government contracts/funding heading into the commercial space flight sector, will an American astronaut ever again head into space?

Previous Articles:

The new plan for NASA

NASA or the Addict?

Read more

Atlas Shrugged, the epic novel written by Ayn Rand well over 50 years ago has finally begun production; the rights being owned by John Aglialoro for nearly 18 years.

Read more

What are the antitrust laws? Many people say it protected democracy, many say it helped capitalism, but what did it actually do? Surprisingly created and put forth through the republican party, it can easily be said that it was the greatest contradiction that this party had ever experienced. Put forth to destroy monopolies? Give the government the power to deem whoever they suspect as criminal? Decide for yourself.

The antitrust laws are no doubt an equal threat to capitalism than the democratic ideals of socialism. Is this really what the republicans wanted? These laws in no way protect freedom, but in fact destroy it and an economy. While it is not right for a monopoly to force its consumers to buy a product, it is nearly impossible for a monopoly to survive under these conditions. These laws assume the monopoly is evil, and any hint of a monopoly is crushed, and all persons are thrown into jail. A monopoly survives by its customers. If this were a completely free economy, and one monopoly was somehow created over all products, in no way will that monopoly have the ability to force anyone to buy there product. If they raised their prices out of sheer “evilness,” just to control and extort its customers, the monopoly would die. New businesses would arise, realizing this ridiculous unwarranted price, and the one great “evil” monopoly would be forced to lower their prices in order to stay alive. And this my friends is how a completely free economy works, with NO government intervention. Government trusts, sanctions, and privileges only create artificial monopolies in which the government is constantly trying to find a balance between the freedom and restrictions they should impose upon the monopolies that rely on their help. A monopoly cannot afford to take advantage over its consumers; if they do, they only lose to the fact that the consumer has a choice of alternatives that arise to take advantage of their mistake. I am not denying that if a monopoly actually initiated force on its consumers that it is justified; that is when the government can step in to put the physical threat to a stop. But in no way does the government have the right to “monitor freedom” and dictate what we buy in our day to day lives.

So, please, I urge you to read these articles.

Wikipedia

Ayn Rand Lexicon

The wave of hatred is over: propaganda, wariness on the subject, simple disgust has driven many Americans to despise the thought of healthcare, and willing to accept or unwilling to accept any piece of legislature the government presents.  However, one  must wonder what is in that bill considering it has only been available for the senate and the rest of us to read for little over a week, and being ~2,700 pages it is doubtful all but a handful of individuals in the country have read the full bill. So let us venture into what was known before the bills passing is this (both to us and the senators who had to vote).

Read more