“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.” 

― Samuel Adams

Wow, what a week. It seems like tragedy just won't leave our country alone. The Boston bombings, the explosion of the fertilizer plant in Texas, the continuing trampling of our rights, and the conspiracies that seem to surround the men and woman of our government.
Anyway, what I want to talk about is the shutting down of Boston. It severely bothers me. I understand that the circumstances were extraordinary; however, those are the times when we, as the American people, need to be most cautious. Rights are not taken from people in a day. It takes time and usually a tragic event or extreme circumstance. In this case, it was a terrorist running loose in Boston. 
Now, I cannot say that I have answers at this moment. I simply am raising the red flag. We need to be careful of giving up any right to the government in exchange for security. When a right is given away, it is rarely given back. Do not misunderstand, I am not criticizing the citizens or police force of Boston. Especially, those with families and people for whom they are responsible. But, I would hope in the future that when something like this happens, because this is not the first and it won't be the last, that our police force and our citizens will demand to do right by the constitution. I pray that our rights, each and everyone of them, will be completely respected and that good will conquer over evil.
 We shouldn't have civilians locked in their homes. We shouldn't have people unable to go about their days as they wish. We shouldn't have police trespassing and searching private property. We shouldn't have guns pointed at innocent civilians as they are forced out of their homes. We shouldn't have it and we shouldn't stand for it. 
We need to formulate a better way to handle extreme circumstances such as this. At the moment I do not have a solid idea. I will continuing thinking about it, if you have any thoughts feel free to comment or to contact us.

I don't really have much to say about gun free zones because they seem to speak for themselves. What a stupid idea! Have we not noticed that all the places these mass shootings seem to take place are gun free areas? Is this a surprise to anyone? 
Let's be logical about this. Mass murder is planned. In the eyes of the shooter there is a purpose for it. Whether that purpose is fame or vengeance  the shooter is going to plan their "day of reckoning" carefully. Every detail they are going to think about, including where can they inflict the largest amount of damage. Well, let's, you and me, think about where this place could be together. 
"We could go to a park, but no their may by police nearby or a civilian with a CCW. Hmmm.... How about a restaurant? No, again their could be a cop or CCW carrier. I just don't want to take that chance... ...Oh I know! Let's go shoot everyone in a government building because they are all disarmed BY LAW! I don't have to worry about anyone retaliating! How convenient."
I could go on and on about this topic, but it would all just be repetitive. Everything points to this obvious fact: 
          Gun free zones are shooting-fish-in-a-barrel-zones. If you want to keep your children safe eliminate gun free zones.

One of the more recent focuses of attention in the political news realm is the "gay marriage" debate. The question that everyone seems to be asking is: "Is gay marriage constitutional?" I would like to take this moment to ask a different question. Is traditional marriage a constitutional right? The simple answer is no. No where in the constitution does it ever say that we have a right to be married. I think that we must first understand this very simple point. Marriage is not a constitutional right. 
However, it is a civil right--rights belonging to a person by reason of citizenship--as defined by the 14th amendment:

          "Amendment XIV - Section I: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
                                                                       -The Constitution of the United States of America

We, as Americans, have a right to life, liberty, and property. These things cannot be taken away from a citizen of the United States of America without due process of law. (Which, by the way they are being taken away from us...) Amongst our liberties, is the freedom to pursue love. 
This is where things can begin to get tricky. Before we can get into whether or not gays should be given the same tax benefits as traditionals , because that is what this whole debate is actually about, we need to first ask why can the government give the traditionals tax breaks? Or should the government give tax breaks? I would argue no, and I can't get into that here because this is already going to be long as it is. If I could have my way, the federal government would stay out of my churches, no matter what religion, and have no say or care of what a marriage is. After all  Separation of Church and State was put in place to protect the Church from being controlled by the government. It does not mean that religion cannot be a part of the State.
So, in my perfect world, people would be married at their respective churches under their own beliefs and definitions of marriage and no one else would care. If you are a traditional Christian then you can go to your traditional Christian Church and get married and the government doesn't care because it makes no difference to them. And the same would go for gays, who could go to their respective institute and get married.The only disclaimer on this would be that local governments such as State or Municipal could limit this. The idea being that cultures in different areas are different but are often subject to cultural change and the laws that reflect these need to be easily accessible to the people of the local area for change and should therefore be on the lowest form of government reasonably possible. I may write more on this later.