Tuesday, March 12, 2013

Knives BACK on the Planes...And THIS IS What You Are Afraid Of?

There has been much discussion over the past few days about a rule change that the TSA has made when it comes to knives on planes. They will now allow someone to carry on board the plane a knive with a blade no longer than 2.3 inches. I know there is some confusion when it comes to this, so let me try and show you with pictures, like I would with children, what this means.

Via Home Depot
This is a knife (above) with a blade 3 inches in length. This knife would NOT be allowed on a plane. This knife, unless someone would sneak it onto an aircraft, would not have anything to do with the new regulation changes and would still be restricted from the aircraft.

Via Home Depot

This is a knife that would be ALLOWED on the plane. A basic pocket knife with a blade of 2.25 inches in length. This is the knife that some would have you believe will bring down the next aircraft and are running around crazy because they are afraid for their lives. People are afraid to get on planes because someone might have one of these. While your fear may be warranted to some degree because we allow any dope in the world to get on a plane (unless you are a child with the same name as a suspected terrorist), at the end of the day the knife I showed you above is NOT the worst problem we have when it comes to airport security.

Here in the United States we face a problem. The problem is the TSA in general. Their rule making process is about as open and honest as a backroom meeting during the ObamaCare talks. They will search your children and basically toss around your grandmother for fun, but security is not the first thing on these people's minds. Remember, it was back in 2009 someone was able to fly through U.S. airspace with a bomb in their underwear, or the man we now call the "Underwear Bomber". In an answer to that failed attack, the searches in the United States got worse. We were then searched with devices that could see us nude. We were subjected to all-out ridicule in the security line if we objected to the way we were being searched.

Now, we come to today, and there are many people all over the web and beyond who cannot believe this could happen. How could we allow knives on planes when the hijackers had something close to a knife, which were really box cutters, but I guess that means nothing. I am now made to believe this is the BIGGEST threat to aviation. I am not buying it, and neither should all of you. I should be able to protect myself while on a flight if some nutcase decides to stand up and take it over. What is so wrong about that? Why am I wrong for wanting to protect myself on a plane?

I do not think the regulations go far enough, to tell you the truth. More individual should be able to carry their firearms on planes. As we know, there is a lack of air marshals patrolling the skies, so why could we not allow our military personnel to carry on planes? Why can't we allow certain other people to carry a firearm on a plane? I am not saying every little person who gets on a plane, that would be crazy. But really, if you really want to stay safe do you want to try and fight off a guy with a bomb with a pocket knife or would you feel safer if you knew that service man or woman was packing heat, ready on a whim to try and save the lives of the passengers on that plane? It may not make a difference if the guy has a bomb, but at least something could POSSIBLY be done.

The argument here is that someone could try to hijack a plane with a pocket knife, and that no one else on the plane with the same size knife would fight them. I do not see how that argument fits here. Your argument is based on the fact that everyone is a suspected terrorist, and that is the same logic the TSA uses when we go through screening at an airport. They suspect everyone of being a person who would want to take down an airliner, and that is why we are searched the way we are searched. There is no profiling involved when you have to search everyone like they were about to be put into a cell.

I give the American people MUCH more credit than those who say someone who carries a knife, no matter who it is, must be a threat to the plane. I should be able to protect myself if something happens, right? If that is all I have, then so be it. I do not think it goes far enough, as I have said, but it is a place to start. We cannot live our life in fear of something that may or may not happen. We are no more secure or less secure today after the rule change than we were before it. I am not sure what is so hard to understand about that. Until the people who are against this change are willing to admit to themselves that we have a larger problem on our hands, then nothing will get done and we will keep fighting each other while TSA touches little kids in private areas of their body.

At the end of the day, I want an advantage over the guy on the plane who may try to hurt me. If I cannot have that advantage, I want to make sure I have something that will at least give me and others on board a chance to win the battle. So, when you say you are against these small knives on planes ask yourself hat protections are you willing to give people to protect themselves and others? Do I have to pray there will be an air marshal on board the plane so I will be safe? That is not the American way. Yes, it is a plane but really people, is it any different than being on a Greyhound bus or even high speed rail? There is a risk in everything that we do on a day to day basis when we are at war with an enemy that hates us to the point that they would kill themselves to kill us. These people do not think straight, and for that reason no matter what regulation you put in or take away, at the end of the day it will not make you safer or even less safe than the day before unless people are allowed to protect themselves when they fly those friendly skies.

I will not change anyone's mind on this, but on the show at 11pm on Tuesday we will be talking about this subject in more detail. I get that it might scare some people because they think NOW will be the time another airliner is jacked out of the sky, but we are AMERICANS and we REFUSE to live in fear of something that MIGHT happen. Most of these new regulations after 9/11 do nothing to make you safer than the day before 9/11, yet we follow them because they MAKE US feel better. It does not matter if they work or not, as long as they make us feel better inside.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is not what I want for America. I want simple rules to make sure that something does not happen again. We cannot rule out that someone may try it again, no matter what the rules are. So, if your ONE interest is safety, then there are many objects we are allowed to take on planes that could injure people. Why are you people not fighting for the abolition of all carry-on packages? Seems simple to me. If you are really looking for the safest environment, do not allow people to take anything on the plane with them and force them to check everything.

Stay consistent, or you end up looking like a fool!

Monday, March 11, 2013

Judge Stops NYC Ban on Large Drinks

A state judge on Monday stopped the implementations, which was to start on Tuesday, of new rules that would have punished certain places of business if they sold sugary drinks above 16oz. in size. This is a win for anyone who has a brain, and most people had to know this was coming. Even in a state like New York, you have to expect some people will get angry when they cannot go to the pizza place of their choice and walk out with a 2 liter of soda, as many people do in the city.

The rules were all over the place, and was one of the reasons the judge in NY struck down the rules. Different businesses had different rules that would regulate them, and in the end it would have been a clustered mess that I am not sure even a court could have figured out. Of course this is not the end and I am sure the city will fight it, but the understanding is that Mayor Bloomberg, or Nanny as some have called him, overstepped his bounds by pushing the health department to sign off on these new regulations when the city council should have been the body to do it if they chose to do something like this.

I am sure the Mayor knew that the council would never have done this because of the bad publicity they would have received from the people in the community, not to mention the people who visit NYC. It is one thing to do something in the name of public welfare and safety, but it is another thing entirely when you do something that has nothing at all to do with public safety to begin with. People choose to eat and drink what they want, and no government body should be able to tell me or anyone else for that matter what size soda we should have with our dinner.

This is a problem we are having in America, and we the people are partially responsible for creating the problem. Every single time something bad happens to us, we run to the government and ask them for some help. We cannot help ourselves, it seems, but we surely will run to the government to help us because, well, why would they say no? The more people who run to the government for help, the larger it gets and the more money it needs. Just look at some of the programs we have in this countr and how much we spend on them. How much could we save if those people who may have been in the fringe about getting help maybe tried to help themselves?

There is no doubt some people really need help, but for those who create situations that screw themselves over, why should you and I have to pick up the tab for their mistakes? I am not in the business, and neither are any of you for that matter, of giving out money to people who do not try and help themselves in one way or another. What all of this leads to is the government pretending it has the power to do whatever it wants, because the people are wrapped around their fingers and cannot let go. We created this monster of a government because we could not help ourselves, and now people complain the government is making up ways to help us when we do not even need the help. Well, in reality, if we did not run to the government for everything that we needed in the first place then there would not be this mentality in Washington and elsewhere around the country that government can do what they want, say what they want, and spend what they want all the while screwing over the populace that the politician knows will never vote against them because of the letter next to their name.

If we created this, we can end it! It only takes standing up for what you believe in to get the ball rolling, and sooner or later things will change. Will it be in time to save this nation? That remains to be seen!

Friday, March 8, 2013

McCain: Sen. Paul, Sen. Cruz and Others 'Wacko Birds'

McCain calls Paul, Cruz, Amash ‘wacko birds’

If this is not a case of the pot calling the kettle black, then I have no idea what is! let me straighten this out for all of you out there who may not know what is going on. Somehow, at some point without anyone knowing, apparently John McCain became the mouthpiece of the Republican Party and decided to call those who stood up on the floor of the Senate to filibuster the Brennan nomination 'wackos'. He seems to think these types of actions are not good for the party nor the country, although I am sure when he stands in defense of his own opinion that is fine to do. When someone else does it, even from his own party, then THAT is wrong and you are a wacko. Remember what I wrote the other day? This is the reason why these old timers need to be led out of the Senate and the Congress and the new guard needs to take over. If we allow John  McCain to be the voice of reason, then we have more problems than we think we do!

Nothing that McCain has ever done for the party really ever mattered much. He ran as a moderate for President and got the crap kicked out of him. I am not sure I would be taking advice from a man who is just barely a Republican, and frankly could be confused as a Democrat by those who pay no attention. he attacks his own party, members of his own party, and for what exactly? What does he gain by doing this? Is this to show the younger Senators that they need to be wise to the elders of the Senate and only do things that they approve of? Even if that is the case, he is going about it in all the wrong ways and the younger generation of Senators may actually see this as a way for the elders of the Senate to try and take advantage of them, making things worse.

We have to understand where John McCain and Lindsey Graham come from. These two men, who have spoken out against the filibuster, were also two men who dined with the President while Paul and others stood on the floor of the Senate. They were wined and dined by our Dear Leader for the evening while some people who actually have a cause stood up and did their jobs. Who am I supposed to respect more in this instance? Am I supposed to respect men who claim to be Conservative but give the President whatever he wants when he wants it? Am I supposed to believe that is the best way to handle the problems we have today? Am I supposed to believe that not asking questions is the right thing to do? If so, then McCain and Graham are the best two men we have in this nation. If that is true, then the younger generation in the Republican Party are playing with  our emotions and the elders of the party must know better.

I do not believe that for ONE MINUTE! Do you believe McCain and Graham and others when they sit and dine with a man that hours before they were talking against? Do you believe men who will sit by and break their promise not to raise taxes just hours after telling people they will not raise their taxes? These two men are Democrats, no matter how you slice it, and this is why the Party is falling apart because it has been taken over by the Left. I may not agree with Paul or even Cruz on everything, but their mentality is not to give the Democrats what they want just because it would make them happy and stop a fight. If this is the mentality of the new Republican Party then these younger Senators may want to rethink their party affiliation and go in another direction. They should not be treated like second-class citizens just because the old guard thinks they run things. It is time the younger generation took the power, and if that takes ticking off the likes of McCain I say keep on keeping on!

Thursday, March 7, 2013

Sen. Lindsey Graham Switches Vote On CIA Nominee, Says Filibuster Changed His Mind

Sen. Lindsey Graham, not one of those on my short list for best politician of the year to say the least, has said that he will vote in favor of CIA nominee John Brennan. The reasoning? Because of the filibuster by Rand Paul on the floor of the Senate yesterday! This is the reason given by Sen. Graham as to why he will vote in favor of a nominee that he says he was going to vote against. What kind of sense does that make and do any of you reading this actually believe a word he is saying?

You have to wake up pretty early in the morning to fool people like me, and I do not think Graham wakes as early as it takes to fool most of the people who pay attention to some of this stuff. He says he would not have voted in favor, but because Paul accused the President of possibly sanctioning a strike on an American citizen, that gives him ground to vote in favor of the nominee. While the two may have some things in common, if Graham thinks the question should not be answered either than he is as bad as the President or the Attorney General. Sen. Paul NEVER said the President WOULD kill an American citizen on U.S. soil, he just asked the President to say that he never would and would afford the American due process rights. What is so difficult about agreeing to that?

It seems to me the ol' boys club is at it again, and they are willing to side with a President pushing for more and more power. Graham is no better than Boehner in my mind, and just as incompetent as any o the other people in the Senate or the Congress that will sit there and kiss the ass of the President on demand just to try and make a deal that will never work out for the people. These are the same type of people who sat there last night with the President and had dinner with him while Sen. Paul stood there with Ted Cruz and others to make a point. If you give the President this kind of power, your Republic is soon to go right down the drain. But do people like Graham get that? Do they understand?

I believe they do, and this is not some case of these people being so blind they have no idea what is going on around them. They help the President along the way while beating him up in the press, and we are supposed to sit here and be cheerleaders for these people? John McCain is another one of those Senators that lost is balls somewhere between here and Arizona, yet we as "Conservatives" hate calling them out because they lead the party. It is time to get rid of the old and get in the new guard. The Republican Party will not be able to stand with the likes of John McCain and Lindsey Graham, two Leftists in Republican clothing.

So, let us remember that the "change" in vote may not even be a change at all. Graham states that, "I was going to vote against him until the filibuster, so he picked up one vote,"

I am not so sure that is the truth. It might well be, because it would make sense someone like him would change his mind for that reasoning that makes no sense to any of us, but at the same time this man is on the President's side every chance he gets. He may talk a big game against the President, but he will wine and dine him and make him feel like the King he believes he is

At the end of the day I guess it does not matter all that much WHY he is voting the way he is. This is the old guard and those of us younger Republicans (and even those of you who are not young) need to start supporting the younger Republicans like Cruz who are not afraid to stir the pot and tick the Republican leadership off. Remember, these old boys are getting older and they will not be around forever, and the LAST thing this nation needs is more people like them that will follow the Leftist way of thinking. We need much more than that. We actually need a party that is DIFFERENT, and right now I am not so sure we are seeing that with the leadership that we have.

Wednesday, March 6, 2013

Sen. Paul Ends Filibuster, But His Points Live On

Sen. Rand Paul, after a 13 hour filibuster, has yielded the floor for the nomination process to begin on the next CIA director. His filibuster, as he said himself, was less to do with the nomination but much more to about where this nation is headed as far as treating American citizens with the rights they should be afforded under the Constitution. American citizens should not live in fear that if their government does not like what they are doing that the same government they should be protected by can kill them out in the street, in a coffee house, or in their own home without due process of law.

There are a lot of people out there that do not like Rand Paul. There are many different reasons and I get that. I am not here to push this man for some higher office or even legitimize some of the opinions that he has. But at the end of the day, this day, it was never about a war in another country or how he felt about fiscal policy, but more about the direction that this Administration and other Administrations have taken this country and the power they have assumed. It is not right for one man to be judge, jury, and executioner of legal American citizens in the United States. I do not care if the Attorney General says that it may not happen or that it would be an extreme circumstance, the fact that they would not say no that it would never happen shows me that it actually could. If you are willing to demonize a man because you do not agree with him 100% even though his points are valid, then maybe you are part of the problem and not part of the solution. This is not a game, a joke, or a conspiracy. It is talked about openly in Senate hearings and in memos that all of us can read. In fact, the Attorney General, on the same day as the filibuster, testified in front of a Senate Committee and was asked about this situation. His answer was not one I would agree with, and frankly left open the chance the President could order a hit on an American citizen.

It is about time we swept whatever it is we have against people that will stand up for right under the rug for a bit and actually championed people who will say and do the right thing. Paul did not have to stand up there all day to prove a point, but he did so and more and more people got to see him and hear him because of it. His points are valid points, and if you are ready to give THAT much control over to one man you have already become a lost cause in a society yearning to be free once again. This is about our BASIC freedoms. Our freedom to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This is about our right to a fair trial, or a trial PERIOD! This is about our right to face our accuser in open court and have a jury of our peers decide our fate (or a judge in some instances). This is more than just one man and a filibuster, this is about telling the Executive branch of our government that there is a line you do NOT cross, and that line is killing your own for twisted reasons. If you give the power to one man to make that decision, there is no doubt in my mind that we will no longer be afforded the same rights we enjoy today 50 years from now.

AT the end of the day, everyone, not many people will remember that Rand Paul did this but the conversation of unmanned drones in the skies will live on. Not because of Rand Paul, but because he took the time to repeat over and over again what officials have said and others who did not know before will now know and question. There is no doubt in my mind that this is a topic that transcends political parties and political ideologies...at least for the most part. NO ONE wants their government to hold that kind of power over the people, and our Founder's would be rolling over in their graves if they knew that someone like Rand Paul even had to bring this to the people's attention. This should not even be an issue, and our Executive branch should NEVER think they are above the people who put them in their positions of power. 

President Cancels Public Tours of White House, Blames Budget Cuts

The "People's House", as some have referred to it (like Michelle Obama in 2010), will be closing to public tours on Friday until further notice because of what the White House says is budget cuts stemming from sequestration. The U.S. Capitol, however, will remain open to tours from the public because money was able to be moved around to make sure there was enough there for security and other workers. Apparently, the White House could not find the same kind of fix for the problem with tours to the White House.

This is all a game people, and those who have been planning this for MONTHS will now go to D.C. and not be able to visit the White House because the President wants to play a game with the "People's House". We PAY for that house! Every time you send in your tax return or get a paycheck you are sending money to a government that uses it to better the lives of others in this country, or at least that is what the talking point is. It takes a long time to get approved and even set up a date to visit the White House. When I visited D.C. last year, about 4 months prior I contacted my Representatives office to try and get a tour of the White House. I was able to get tickets to tour the Capitol, but not for the White House...FOUR MONTHS IN ADVANCE! That is crazy enough right there, although I get the point of having to check people out before letting them in even though in most cases you are never going to rub elbows with the First family.

The White House could have found somewhere else to cut if need be, but I really doubt that the sequestration had much to do with this at all. Remember, these "cuts" were never really cuts at all, but just rolling back spending levels that were higher in the past. We are talking about $85 Billion dollars here, and a very small amount of that coming from in-house security at the White House for tours. Cutting down on the type of food that is made for the President could have saved just as much, but I doubt that was even a possibility. I get that it is our House and we pay for it, so if we pay for it should we not be able to visit it when we want. of course, like I said, there needs to be safeguards in place to make sure people are checked out before coming to tour, but to shut down the White House to make a political point will surely put a damper on the plans of that family who will be traveling to D.C. in the coming weeks and months who planned a visit to the White House 8 or 12 months prior.

Some of you may think I am making something out of nothing here, but that is our House and we pay the bills in that house. We are the owners of that house and the President gets to stay there because we elected him to do a job. We give him the some of the best cooks, food, and entertainment money can buy while he is in that house. We pay him a handsome salary to live like a king, take vacations on demand, and look down on those who have much less. We do not need a President to shove it back in our face when a family who has saved for years to take that trip to D.C. to see the White House now has to change their plans or just not visit THEIR HOUSE because of a couple bucks that could have been saved by taking away a few high-priced dinners, which are at OUR expense to begin with! The White House and the President can try to make this a political game if they choose, but at the end of the day everyone knows that this did not have to happen and there were other ways to save money at the White House.

This goes to show what the President thinks of all of us out here, though. He thinks of us as second-class citizens and because he did not get his way he is going to ruin the day for everyone who had plans to visit the White House. He is going to be the boy who takes his ball and goes home because he did not get more tax increases after he just got tax increases on EVERYONE just a couple months ago. How much money does the Treasury need before the President is happy? We are not even using this money to pay down the debt, so you can tax your tax increases and shove them as far as I am concerned. We are using the tax money for new spending. It is always something else that we NEED. We are like the crazy shopper who need six credit cards because he or she maxes out the other ones on demand when they go to the mall.

You people on the Left may stand by the White House for this decision, but I am guessing if you had a trip planned and could not wait to show your children the "People's House" you would be singing a whole different tune!

Monday, March 4, 2013

Things Are Looking Up...

After YEARS of doing Conservative T & T, throwing in T & T Tunes, and all the blogging I have done, one would think it would get a little old. Just look at what people like myself have to write about and talk about on a daily basis. There is almost nothing at all good going on in the world, the news is the same day in and day out, and frankly what I write about these days is almost the same thing I wrote about a decade ago, with the only difference being the players involved in the BS that is going on in the world.

Since bringing back Conservative T & T just a few shows ago, I have seen the great turnout and the enthusiasm that is being shown for the show once again. Maybe the break was good for all of us, because what I see happening is people not only getting serious but also wanting to get involved. This is why I do what I do. I do not do it for personal recognition or even to have my name somewhere that everyone would be able to see it. I do this because at some point something that I say will get through to someone and make them think. If I made people think today, I did my job. You may not agree with me, we will never agree on everything, but if you thought about what I had to say then you did something more than most American's have done today and that is something to be proud of.

There have been a lot of changes in my life. Many of them have been good changes and some I am still getting used to. I have a great new person in my life that I think deserves a lot of the credit for me being back on my game as far as the podcast goes. We have not known each other very long, but here and there you will meet people that you know right off the bat will have a great influence on you and what you do. They will give you a new perspective on life and make you think about some of the things you have thought in the past. These people are important in our lives, no matter if we are involved with them romantically or just as friends. These kinds of people make all of us better people, and it is because of them we can rise above a lot of the crap in the world to see the truth about what is right and wrong. If you know anything about T & T, it is all about truth and thought, and you cannot find the truth without a little thought and knowing right from wrong.

I find myself these days looking for new truths and new opinions. I find myself trying to look back at my views and seeing if maybe I went too far with some and not far enough with others. We can never allow anyone on this planet to change the way we feel about something just to make them happy, but what we can do is use that what motivates others to learn more and more everyday about what we feel strongly about. It is never about changing someone or even trying to look at them in a different light to meet our own needs, but more about learning about others and how they feel and what they think and transferring that into something much more.

We, as humans, are capable of more complex thought than we give ourselves credit for. We are able to do great things with very little. We are able to stand up above the pack and lead, or we can stand back and follow. It is the leaders that will rule the day in this nation while the followers choose sides. It would seem by that statement the followers are more important than the leaders, but the leaders shape the mindset of the individual follower, so the leader is always the most important in the group.

My point being is that sometimes we look at people and see something that is not true at all, and then we get to know these people and we not necessarily start to question ourselves or what we believe but begin to question what we have done and why we have done it.

I am nearing the age of 30 and almost every single day I look back at what I have done, how I got here, and where I am going. I have had conversations with friends and those close to me about this as well, since they also think about the same thing. There are many times in all our lives where we find that we could have done something else, something better, or just something totally different that would have changed our path. We are on the path we are on right now because of decisions. We make choices that effect our lives, and because of those choices we are where we are today.

There is one person that I can thank for making me see much more than what I have seen in a very long time. I am more open, more upbeat, and much more ready to fight in the arena of ideas than I was just a few short months ago when I thought Conservative T & T would be gone for good and the fate of the next book might fall into the trash bin of history. It is so odd that we, as humans, have the ability to one day believe that all might be lost and then the next day KNOW that there is still more fighting to do. What I do here on the blog and with the podcast may not be the biggest thrill for others, and it may not be what some would consider normal for someone my age. But it is great to know that there is someone standing behind you, when you make the decision to take one more stab at it, that will support you and actually enjoy and listen to what you have to say no matter how strange it might be sometimes. It is more true now than ever, I believe, that having that one person who you can say anything to and they will never judge you is more important than any silver or gold in the world...more important than any riches large or small.

Conservative T & T is back, but I would not thank me for that. Thank yourself, and I will thank that one in my life who in this very short time has shown me that a little hard work, no matter what for, really does make a difference somewhere.

It is kind of odd, really. Almost a year ago, the T & T family lost a dear listener in Beachbum. Some of you remember him if you listened to the show or came to my blogs, but he was much more than a listener to a podcast or a visitor to a website. He helped me with the show when times got tough. He was there every night to listen to the show and maybe even learn something new here and there. When I did not do a show, sometimes he was the only one I heard from asking me why, asking how the date went that night if I had one, and asking if I needed anything else for the show.

We have a small part of Beach in all of us. The part that does the right thing, helps others when they need it, and will listen to even the most boring of stories about blind dates and the terrible nights that led to them. Beach will always be number one as far as Conservative T & T goes, and the show owes him more than I could ever put into words. Later in the month I will write something else about him in much greater detail, but for now I will leave it at that.

My point in bringing that up is that we do not know where that true friend will come from. We never know what is behind the next door, but if we do not open it to find out then we will never know. 

Friday, March 1, 2013

North Carolina Bill Would Add Bible Courses For Students As Electives

North Carolina bill would add Bible study at public schools (Fox News)

I know the anti-religious cults and those who make it their mission in life to deny any kind of higher power are going to be flipping out over this one, but at some point our side has to stick it back in their face and actually have an argument about this kind of thing. This legislation would allow kids to choose if they wanted to take a course in the Old Testament, New Testament, or a combination of the two. It would be considered an elective, which means the students that did not want to take the course would not have to take the course at all. They could find another elective elsewhere, and no other elective would be cut in place of this one so the argument that students may be forced to choose this elective is far-fetched.

Any mention of the Bible in schools sends the Left going nuts! To be fair, it sends some on the right even more nuts but that is for another day and another blog. What we are talking about here is allowing students who want to take a course in the Bible to do so. The argument from the ALCU seems to be that it will be difficult to teach something like this and not be one sided toward that specific religion, but in theory the person teaching the course would not have to be impartial at all. How many science teachers out there are partial to Darwin's theory of evolution and stand by that theory? To say a course in the Bible would have to be dumbed down because it might offend someone who did not have to take the class in the first place is ridiculous!

Remember, no one has to take this course if they do not want to. They can take another elective. There might be schools that find no one wants to take the courses so they will not even have them for a semester or two. It will all depend on the student and what they believe. Why would an Atheist take a course in the Bible to begin with? If they would, they should expect some kind of bias one way or another. But the argument of bias does not resonate with me. I went through high school and college and if I learned one thing it is that teachers have bias, schools have bias, and the way some classes are taught will differ from district to district. To say these classes should not be allowed because of bias should also mean we get rid of science courses and also history courses as well. Talk to someone in high school and see if their teacher ever gave their opinion on world events. Once the teacher does this, the class is biased in one direction instead of allowing the students to decide for themselves.

At the end o the day, people, any conversation about "separation of church and state" will not fly. Yes, these schools are government funded but the school nor the government of the state of North Carolina is forcing anyone into the courses. The state is not declaring its own religion, not sponsoring a religion, or telling people how to practice if they choose to be religious.

I like to add some background sometimes to show everyone where I am coming from. In 1962, the Supreme Court ruled in Engel v. Vitale that it was unconstitutional for a government entity (a public school) to compose a prayer and then have students recite that prayer. In other words, prayer in schools was a thing of the past after this ruling. Older Americans probably still remember going to school and reciting a prayer before the school day, and some may even remember being in school when this action by the High Court changed the game forever. A year later, all prayers, composed by the school or not, was found to be unconstitutional in Murray v. Curlett (1963).

in 1962, Sen. Sam Ervin of North Carolina said, "I should like to ask whether we would be far wrong in saying that in this decision the Supreme Court has held that God is unconstitutional and for that reason the public school must be segregated against Him?"

It is about time we called a spade a spade in this country and actually had people educated about what the Constitution says, not what some letter says. A letter to a church is not governing law in the United States, the Constitution is what the High Court looks at to make decisions that come in front of them. Our Constitution says nothing about the Bible, religion, or non-religion being in the schools. The only thing our Constitution states is that the CONGRESS shall not make law establishing a religion. Here it is, in black and white:

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.

Remember, it says that Congress shall make no law that ESTABLISHES OR PROHIBITS  religion. This basically means the government needs to stay away from the religious rights of others and allow them to practice how they see fit. The Warren Court did not decide based on this First Amendment wording but on the words of Jefferson and his letter to the Danbury Baptists. They take ONE LINE out of the letter and use it to force segregation of religion in the schools and other places. How many of you have actually ever read the letter? How many of you actually understand the context? Because if you have EVER used the letter in an argument against religious freedom in a public school, you may be making more of an ass out of yourself than normal.

The line that causes the stir is this: "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

Now, this WALL of separation that Jefferson writes about is very interesting, and also somewhat confusing for people who take it on its face. You have to understand the context, and that context is the First Amendment wording of having no law respecting or prohibiting religious freedom. Jefferson says religion should be between a man and his God, but his opinion is only that, an opinion, and does not go to the extent that the Constitution relies on. Jefferson is one man, and the Constitution was signed by many. That overrules anyone's opinion on the matter, even Jefferson in this case. His "wall" of separation is not explained further, either. Did he see the future and see government's running schools in the manner we run them today? If so, then maybe you are right in your conclusion but there is no way of telling that. Even if he did, even if his opinion was based solely on the fact that man and God should be separate from government, again, this piece is not law but an opinion from a man of high power. If Barack Obama wrote a letter to the church telling them they should not speak of religion outside the walls of the church, would the High Court use that to restrict religious freedom? Should the court use something like that to limit freedom? If so, then maybe even the Conservatives who argue for the "separation" are not as Conservative as they believe they are!

There is nothing on the books that says schools cannot offer these kinds of classes to students who want them. You know for a fact if this were to pass in North Carolina that the ACLU would be all over it. We will see what happens, but to try and argue separation when the student is not forced to do anything at all (not take the elective) then you are going down a dangerous road of not just re-interpreting the Constitution but using the opinion of one to shape a nation. If we wanted that kind of rule, we would have had a King!