Wednesday, December 22, 2010

Shoot the Lame Duck!

When a horse goes lame, we shoot it and put it out of its misery.  Why?  Because it is understood that a lame horse cannot be fixed and is no longer good for any practical purpose. 

Here in the U.S.A. we treat fowl better than we do the much loved horse.  Why?  There is no logical reason or good answer to explain why we would ever put up with a lame duck.  What good is a lame duck, or for that matter, what good is a duck that still waddles?

For a country full of citizens who have a great deal of pride in being Americans, we have somehow accepted something that is completely stupid!  Who ever came up with the idea of having the U.S. Legislature hold sessions during the lame duck period?

"Lame Duck" defined:  "an elected official or group continuing to hold political office during the period between the election and the inauguration of a successor" -

Our current situation could not be a better example as to why these sessions should never be allowed.  Our system of government has three branches with the design being that each has checks and balances on each other but none holding power above the other.  In other words, none of the three branches of government are responsible to either of the other two.  When we elect Senators and Representatives, they are supposed to be accountable to us - we the people back home.  How do we hold them accountable?  Elections.  When they stray from the positions and standards that we expect them to hold, our main recourse is to replace them in the next election.  Remember, they work for us and are elected to serve us (at least, that is the way it is supposed to function).

What is wrong with these fine men and women holding session during a lame duck period?  Once the election is over, there are those who have been holding office who have now been replaced by the voters exercising their right to hold them accountable.  But, they do not lose their position until January 3rd.  They have two months during which they are back at work, voting and passing legislation for which they have no accountability.  The citizens have lost their right to leverage any influence over a lame duck politician.  These men and women have already lost their re-election bid and are on their way out of office.  There is nothing anyone can do to stop them from passing bills which the people back home do not want.

This process needs to be abandoned!  Our Legislature needs to learn to do all of it's business before the election, in the light of day, when they can still be held accountable.  If it does not get done by the first Tuesday in November, then it should have to wait until January when the newly elected men and women will be starting work.  We cannot afford unaccountable politicians.  The accountable ones are bad enough!

Wednesday, December 1, 2010


If I hear one more politician tell me that some proposal to cut government waste and over-spending is only "symbolic", I believe I will pull my hair out.  As you know, I cannot afford that.

We have been told that the new Speaker of the House (R) will not use Pelosi's private jet, but will fly commercial, but that is symbolic.  If he did not make that choice, there would have been a mass uprising in the conservative ranks.

We are told that freezing government wages, no matter how limited that might be, is symbolic.  Our government has been out of control with spending for years.  Sure, these will not make a huge difference, only because the whole picture is so massive.  But, don't tell us that when you stop wasting a billion dollars, it is just symbolic.  For us back home, a billion dollars is still worth saving.

Then we were told that that vote by House Republicans to prohibit port-barrel spending amendments from being added to bills, is only symbolic.  Do they think we have forgotten that they have added hundreds of millions of dollars on some individual bills for their favorite projects back home?

I say, do all of these "symbolic" cuts and then do a bunch of those you view as not just symbolic.  We'll appreciate each and every million you stop wasting. 

Tuesday, November 30, 2010

The "Bone Yard"

I like to go to my parents home to see how I might be able to help them around the house and yard.  They live in a 50 year old home and have a fairly large yard to maintain.  Typically, there are some chores that need to be done and something that may require minor repair.  Behind the house is a small workshop where my dad works on his various projects.

My parents had their home built and have lived in it all of these years.  During that time, my dad has accumulated a stock pile of odd-and-end pieces of material that just might come in handy some day.  Besides all of the wood material stored in the rafters of the workshop, or those that bulge from the shelves and from behind most every stationary tool in the place, there is a pile out in the yard, near the back fence, that is special.

This is the "bone yard"!  It has a little bit of just about anything you can imagine.  Over the years, as I have worked with him on fixing things, it seems that we always need some part to replace what is broken.  I used to automatically think that we will have to run to the hardware store, but I have learned better.  Whether it is a piece of wire, conduit, screen, sheet metal, drip flashing, hinge, latch, piece of pipe (of just about any diameter, lead or plastic), elbow, joint, "T", junction box, piece of steel, etc.; that we need, he always suggests that we first check the "bone yard".  Over and over again, to my amazement, we will go out to that pile of junk and after scavenging around for a few minutes, we find either exactly what we are looking for or something else that we can "make work".  It may take some elbow grease with a wire brush before we can use that old, lead elbow, but we eventually have just what we wanted. 

Most of the stuff in that pile, most of us would have thrown away years ago.  But not him!  He keeps teaching me how some old piece of junk, saved for 20 years, will save me a buck and a trip to the store.  But, it is more than the dollar saved, it is a lesson in being thrifty and using imagination.  Every time we walk away from that pile with something in our hands, there is a smile on our faces and a sense of satisfaction - even victory, as we have just conquered a problem without spending a cent.  I think that to him, it is a personal challenge to fix things without leaving the back yard.  He also enjoys the look on my face as we pull out of the dirt just what we went to find.

Some of the lessons have begun to catch-on, over the years.  Now, in each corner of my garage I have an assortment of various items (junk to most eyes).  I have shelves and an old dresser full of the miscellaneous things that I just might "need" some day.  In the crawl space, under my home, is my lumber "bone yard".  I have lived in this house for almost five years since having it built and am still using the left-overs from construction for my projects.

I just hope that some day I graduate to a level where my "bone yard" is anywhere close to my dad's.  I will be using it to teach my kids and grandkids some familiar lessons on life. 

Thursday, November 18, 2010

Solution to TSA's Crotch Grabbing Policies

Airport security measures have become a hot issue over the past few days.  There are heated arguments on both sides of this issue.  Do we want the best airport security and passenger scrutiny or do we want our privacy protected?  When listening to each side make it's points, you would think that it must be one extreme or the other - either we have safety on airlines or we enjoy light security measures and more privacy.

I believe there is a simple solution which accomplishes both goals.

First, you have to analyze the basic goal of our current policies used by TSA to manage airport security.  Our government has established a priority in the goal of finding each and every item and/or tool which has the potential to be used by a terrorist to take over a plane or bring damage to the plane and it's passengers.  This approach becomes very difficult as the list of potentially dangerous items is constantly changing.  This leaves TSA with an almost impossible responsibility of catching and stopping each and every item before it gets onto an airliner. 

It was not long ago that you could bring, in your carry-on luggage, bottles and tubes of liquids and gels of any size.  When it was determined that dangerous liquids and gels could easily be brought aboard, the public was restricted to very small containers which must be in a small, clear plastic bag.  Not long ago, no one considered shoes as weapons of mass destruction.  Now, since some guy tried to use his shoe as a tool, we all have to take our shoes off and have our them scanned.  More recently, underwear has become a weapon to be used against the passengers.  So, now the TSA has resorted to hand searches of the underwear and areas adjacent to underwear.

Can you see where this is going?  The government is always one step behind the terrorists.  What will be the security measure when someone boards a plane with a fake, false tooth that is filled with nitro, etc.?  Will TSA resort to dental x-ray exams in the airport?  What if the bad guys found a way to make a non-toxic fluid which could be exploded?  A terrorist could drink the fluid prior to passing through security and once on the plane, detonate his stomach.  Would TSA then require pumping of stomachs before flying?

We cannot play this game, their way.  The problem is not that TSA has airports full of incompetent employees or people who enjoy grabbing the private areas of passenger's bodies.  The real problem is in the goal set by TSA and Homeland Security.  We will never be able to keep all instruments and tools, which have dangerous potential, off of planes.  To make this the goal is automatically a losing proposition.

The goal must shift from tools to terrorists.  The list of items we are no longer allowed to bring onto an airliner is extensive and constantly growing.  We are dealing with an enemy who is crafty and has the advantage of imagination.  On our side, we cannot take all necessary steps to make us secure from anything they may dream up.  We must change our approach to something more realistic and secure.

The object of the goal must change to stopping the person who poses the risk from ever getting onto the plane.  Once we accomplish this goal, we do not have to worry about nail clippers, etc.  The people on the planes will have been determined to not be security risks.  We will not care if they need to have a quart bottle of shampoo in their bag, they are no threat to anyone.

If we focus on the potential passengers and reach a comfort level with each one, this will be easier and more successful than always trying to second guess the imagination of the enemy and never quite catching up with their latest plan. 

Why would anyone believe this changed approach could work?  Because there is a country that does just this and has been very successful.  When you fly out of Israel on EL AL airlines, the airport security consists of very well trained individuals who are using intelligence data to screen the passenger list and determine which individuals should be questioned.  Their agents will keep you there until you have convinced them that you pose no risk. 

They do not use the methods we use because they are not focused on items.  They do not feel (pun intended) the need to do open handed breast exams in the airport lobby.  They do not grab the crotch of teenage girls and boys just to randomly make sure this 13-year-old girl, who is already self-conscious of the changes taking place in her body, is not hiding a bomb between her legs.  They are not subjecting random passengers to radiation in the full-body scanners which basically undress the person in the images being watched on monitors by various TSA employees.  They are not engaging in government sponsored sexual assault on innocent people who are just wanting to get from Phoenix to Boise for a family visit.

The security in Israel is focused on people.  They do not allow anyone who they are not comfortable with, aboard the plane.  Once you have been allowed to board, they are not very concerned with items you may have because they already believe you pose no risk.  They do not have to stay one step ahead of the terrorist's latest trick gadget.  They just have to use their brain and common sense to screen the people.  They do not waste time on random passengers who clearly pose no danger, but focus on those who raise a level of suspicion. 

Let's change from an impossible goal to a realistic approach that has been proven to be effective. 

Sunday, October 31, 2010

Well, I Swear! But to Who?

“I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic..."

On 9/11, of 2010, I wrote an article with the title, "Domestic Enemies of the Constitution", which was published on Canada Free Press here:  This article discussed the various oaths that our elected officials and military personnel swear upon entering their new positions. 

I recently considered another article, based on the oath that those swear who are becoming citizens through the immigration process.  These new citizens swear to support and defend the Constitution.  It dawned on me that so many in our country swear an oath to protect and defend the Constitution; yet, the ordinary citizen never does.  It raised a question, why are we the people not required to pledge a similar oath?  Should we swear an oath? 

It sounded like a good idea.  I wrote the article, came up with an oath, and then sought advice before submitting it to CFP.  What I thought was a good idea became a learning experience for me.  There actually is a reason that we ordinary citizens do not swear an oath.

Though I have listened to people take the "oath" and have written about it, there was a question that I had never asked.  When a soldier, officer, senator, representative, president, judge, immigrant, etc. swear their oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic; to whom are they pledging their oath?

We watch on TV as a new president swears to...  Who is he talking to; the Justice holding the Bible, God, or no one in particular?  None of the above.  Each one of those standing there with their hand on the Bible and other hand raised, are swearing an oath to you and me. 

Even though I have understood that we hire them to do their job and even though they are called public servants, etc.; it hit me that we really are the top of the line - you and I are the head of this government.  When a president stands there swearing to do those things, it is him promising to you and me that he will obey this requirement that we have set on him.  It is the common people who instituted this government and established this Constitution.  They only serve at our pleasure!  It is the regular people, across this land, that pick and choose who we will allow to fill the seats in Washington.  It is to us that each of those chosen must swear to abide by our rules.  We established the oath as a promise that they must make in order for us to allow them to serve us. 

"We the people", is not just a mental concept or good sounding phrase, it is the basic foundation that all the rest resides upon.  WE are the boss!  What happens in Washington is our responsibility.  Either we approve and allow it to continue or we disapprove and take the steps necessary to make the needed changes. 

The reason that the common citizen does not swear an oath, as all the others do, is that there is no one to swear to higher than us.  To whom would we make the promise?  WE are the head of all of this - it is our government.  We are not the subjects of the government, we are it's rulers.  It is not about the politician who considers him or herself to be the head of the nation or who thinks they are smarter than those in the fly-over states.  It is about you and me.  WE make the rules and WE are to insure that the rules are followed.  They swear an oath to us and when they break their promise, we must take quick and decisive action to remove them.  If we neglect our duty, they will become arrogant and tend toward being dictators, rather than servants. 

You have a responsibility to VOTE.  Do not neglect your duty.  It is "pink slip" time. 

Thursday, October 28, 2010

VOTE - No Citizenship Required

In 2004, Arizona voters passed Proposition 200, the Arizona Voter Identification Laws.  What we attempted to accomplish was to help insure that only legal citizens of the U.S. would be voting in our elections.  The law required anyone who registered to vote to provide a valid Arizona driver's license, or an Identification Card, or other form of record with a digitized signature on file with AZ Motor Vehicle Department (MVD). 

It also required that a voter provide ID at the polling place in order to verify that they are who they claim to be.  We have all heard the stories of voter fraud, such as people voting under a dead person's name, etc.  This requirement would be satisfied by meeting the following (which has been copied from the AZ Secretary of State website):
Every qualified elector is required to show proof of identity at the polling place before receiving a ballot. The following lists show acceptable forms of identification at the polling place.

You may bring:
1.) Any one form of ID from list 1, OR ;
2.) Any two forms of ID from list 2, OR ;
3.) Two forms of ID as presented in list 3.

LIST# 1 - Sufficient Photo ID including name and address (1 required)*:
· Valid Arizona driver license
· Valid Arizona non-operating identification license
· Tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification
· Valid United States federal, state, or local government issued identification

LIST# 2 - Sufficient ID without photograph bearing name and address (2 required)*:
· Utility bill of the elector that is dated within 90 days of the date of the election. A utility bill may be for electric, gas, water, solid waste, sewer, telephone, cellular phone, or cable television
· Bank or credit union statement that is dated within 90 days of the date of the election
· Valid Arizona Vehicle Registration
· Indian census card
· Property tax statement of the elector's residence
· Tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification
· Arizona vehicle insurance card
· Recorder's Certificate
· Valid United States federal, state, or local government issued identification, including a voter registration card issued by the County Recorder
· Any mailing to the elector marked "Official Election Material"

LIST# 3 - MIX & MATCH from Lists# 1 & 2 (2 required)*:
· Any valid photo identification from List 1 in which the address does not reasonably match the precinct register accompanied by a non-photo identification from List 2 in which the address does reasonably match the precinct register
· U.S. Passport without address and one valid item from List 2
· U.S. Military identification without address and one valid item from List 2

* An identification is "valid" unless it can be determined on its face that it has expired.
Notice that last line, an ID is "valid" unless it is expired - not if it is fake.

To summarize, a person could register to vote in AZ by producing a form of ID with a digital signature that has been submitted to be on file with AZ DMV, or a driver's license (DL).  But, remember, this process can be completed without ever showing the DL to a person.  It can be done online by supplying, on the form, your DL number.  Everyone knows that no one can get a driver's license unless they have proved to be a legal citizen...or wait, don't we hear of people obtaining these documents, illegally, all the time?  In fact, wasn't there a push to give a DL to an illegal alien "in order to make our streets safer"?  So, even though AZ passed a voter ID law, registering was not too difficult.

As to producing ID at the polls, it is not necessary to have a photo ID to prove who you are.  If you do not have an ID in the first list (such as a DL), you can show up with a cell phone bill and your garbage bill (both in your name and showing the same address on record for that voter).  These definitely prohibit any voter fraud being possible.  After all, you must prove citizenship in order to have your trash hauled away from the house you rent.  No illegal aliens can get cell phones so it is proof of citizenship if they have a cell phone.  Or maybe it is a bank statement.  Didn't Bank of America launch a program to get illegal aliens signed up with bank accounts a couple years ago?

When we voted and passed Proposition 200, we were taking a step to limit voting to only those who are legal citizens.  The politicians on the left got involved in defining the types of ID required and we ended up with the above, watered-down list.  But, even though it would still be easy to register and vote and not be a legal citizen, we had some restrictions in place.  Well, that was the case until this week.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit (9thCOA) struck down Arizona's voter ID law.  The reason that this could not be allowed to stand any longer was that this law went further than the federal voter registration law.  The 9thCOA declared AZ's law that required a resident to provide proof of citizenship in order to register to vote, illegal.  Yes, even though voting is a right of citizenship, we cannot require anyone to actually prove they qualify.  (This sounds familiar - seems like the same issue has arisen as to someone becoming president without proving qualification.)

It seems that AZ's law required the very basic level of proof, but that was still to difficult of an obstacle for many people.  If that is too hard, what are the federal requirements?  The federal form for voter registration does not require any form of ID be presented and does not ask for a DL number.  But, just in case someone who is here illegally tries to register, there is one way that we stop them in their tracks.  The form requires them to sign, attesting that they are a legal citizen.  If an illegal signs this, they could be found guilty of perjury.  Since no one who would break the law to get here would be willing to break the law to vote, we can rest knowing their signatures are our guarantee to clean elections and no voter fraud.  Whew, that was close!

The 9thCOA made the ruling 2-1, with retired Supreme Court Justice, Sandra Day O'Connor sitting in for a sick judge and casting the deciding vote.  Yes, she is from Arizona and yes, since retiring, she has been outspoken in promotion of her favorite political agenda issues (no, they are not conservative).

The federal act required states to make voting "widely available" by getting rid of those pesky obstacles to voter registration.  Those bringing the case against AZ claimed the ruling removed the unnecessary barriers to registration.  Those barriers would have required people, such as those who recently became citizens, to have to take extra steps, such as going to DMV and updating their DL to one that does not say that they are not a citizen.  I know, I know, it seems like that would be something they would be doing anyway, but now they do not have to hurry down there and wait in a line.

The Mexican American Legal Defense Fund appealed to the court in 2008, claiming that AZ's law was too onerous.  According to them, the law made people "jump through hoops".  (Does this make you wonder about Comprehensive Immigration Reform and how that proposed legislation is going to make illegals "jump through hoops" in order to become legal.  Will the courts strike down those hoops, also?)  One of the hoops listed has to do with a new citizen, whose registration has been rejected due to not taking the step to update their DL, actually having to photocopy their naturalization papers and this process is so difficult that they might give up and not become a voter.  Seems to me, that if being a citizen and voting has any importance to these non-hoopsters, they would be willing to stop by Kinko's on the way to register and solve the whole hoop problem.

The difficulty of the process does not appear to have hampered registration.  In 2004, AZ had 2.6 million voters.  Currently, there are over 3.1 million voters.  How could this be possible?  The requirements are just too onerous.

According to the Maricopa County Director of Elections, it takes 5-6 seconds to verify the status of anyone providing their naturalization certification number.  What!  You mean to say that they do not have to stop by Kinko's?  They just have to provide the number and all hoops will be removed?

According to the Secretary of State's office, if someone uses the federal form to register in AZ, which they are allowed to do, they do not even have to have a DL number, they can give the last four digits of their social security number, and, again, all hoops are removed.

This brings up another question.  Why can't AZ require stricter voter registration rules than federal rules in order to vote in state, county, city or school board elections?  Why does Washington get to decide what Arizona's rules are for voting in non-federal elections?  Sometimes it seems that some of these rulings only go one way.  In the news is San Francisco's ballot measure, which if approved, would allow illegal aliens to vote in local, school board elections.

Tuesday, October 26, 2010

Short Term Pain...

How do we get from where we are to where we want to be?  Be assured, this election is not going to solve the problems.  If we have any dreams of an America that are based on what America used to be, then we have to be realistic.  We are so far from where we started that we would not recognize our country if it were functioning strictly under the Constitution.

Our Founding Fathers began warning us about the evils of men's desires before the ink was dry on their signatures.  They understood that to keep a Republic form of government was going to be a challenge.  They labored to deliver a document that gave those who would follow a fighting chance to experience freedom.  The liberties that they passed on were not taken lightly.  These men had been fighting a war to secure the freedom they envisioned.  When they declared independence from England, they pledged "to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."  Over the next few years, their pledge would come due.  Lives and fortunes would be lost, but sacred honor would increase. 

Why would the residents of the colonies take such drastic action to increase their liberties?  Was it really so bad, the way they already existed?  Sure there was a King and they were subjects of the throne in the Mother country.  They endured regulations, invasion of privacy, taxes and more taxes, etc., but was it worth war and the very real potential of dying in order to be free?  After all, what good is freedom if you do not live to enjoy it's benefits?  If they fought and lost, what would be the consequences?  If the fought and won, would the victory be appreciated by the next generation and guarded with their lives?  These were real questions that real people had to wrestle with as they stood at the junction for the direction of America.  We can put up with England and her domination over us and live the best we can, or we can declare independence and face the consequences, which for sure will include a bloody war against a well-armed military.

The men of that period of our history were a rare breed when compared to many of our current leaders.  They were men of principle, virtue, and had a love for their Creator.  They were not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ and demonstrated their spiritual lives in public.  They believed that America was to be something special.  They had a vision and followed their dream. 

Special men (such as Washington, Hamilton, Franklin, Adams, Jefferson and Hancock), put their personal lives to the side and took on the task of establishing a new nation, one based on an experiment where the people would be the ultimate seat of power.  Their vision gave them the strength to be willing to suffer the cost and pain in order to potentially enjoy the benefits of Liberty.  They could see the future, where there existed a long-term gain and they were willing to suffer the short-term pain.

If we had leadership running the United States that had anywhere close to the character that these men had, we would not be in the ugly situation that we find ourselves.  This is not a Democrat problem and it is not a Republican problem.  This is a people problem.  Our people have lost their way and who will step up to lead them back home?

Is there a present day Jefferson who will step forward and plainly explain to us where we are, how we got here, where we need to get to, and how we are going to find our way?  Do we have such men and women, today?  Is there the honesty and integrity needed to gain the trust of the people in order to convince them that the hard choices will reap good results?  This will not happen if our elected leaders are worried about re-election politics, polls, and popularity.  This kind of leadership can only come from someone who sincerely puts America's future above his own ambition and career.  If she is afraid, she cannot be the leader we need.  If he wants another term in office, forget about him making the tough decisions, he is not our man.

Short-term pain will be the result of honest leadership.  There is no other way to recover from the abyss.  We cannot solve the World's financial crisis, in fact, we have shown to be extremely irresponsible about our own finances.  Before we can be a positive global influence, we must first get our own house in order.  We are responsible for over $13,000,000,000,000 in national debt and this does not include many unfunded mandates passed by our government. 

We cannot be a strong nation, again, without manufacturing and self-sufficiency.  We cannot be dependent on foreign oil and be a strong nation.  We cannot buy everything from other countries and exist as a consumer nation whose work force is involved in the "service" industry.

We live in a dangerous world.  There are others who are set on our destruction and some of them live within our borders.  We cannot blindly exist, on a side-by-side basis, with the radical enemy.  PC, Political Correctness, needs to transform into Power Concentrated.

We must determine what it would take to begin "in-sourcing jobs".  We have to put government, at all levels, on a diet.  They will have to learn to function in a much smaller fashion with a much reduced budget.  Entitlement and social programs will have to be reduced or eliminated.  Our present level of government "give-away" programs is not only idiotic but also suicidal.  They have robbed many productive individuals of their self-worth and destroyed an honest work ethic.

Our eduction system needs a drastic overhaul.  Washington should have nothing, NOTHING, to do with our local schools.  Every level of public existence needs to stop taking handouts from politicians.  We have to abandon the notion that everyone should chip in to help pay for what we want in our locality.  If we want it, we should be the ones that have to pay for it.  If we are not willing to pay for it, we can do without.

The concept that we all have a "right" to home ownership, a job, health care, etc.; must vanish from our vocabulary.  Those things are not "rights"!  When did we forget the idea of spending less than we make, saving the difference and one day being able to buy what we dream about?  Instant gratification is a sin.  Have you transferred your family from a credit system where you are slaves to the lenders, to one where you do without unless you have the money to purchase the desired product? 

Self-sufficiency is a concept we have heard about but very few of us actually experience.  It is time to simplify our lives and get back to basics.  What would be so bad about swings on the front porch, talking with your neighbors, helping to build that room addition for a friend, family and extended family gatherings, helping those in need, and getting back in good relationship with God?

If this sounds good to you and you would love to see this great country return to it's roots where the Constitution, as written and as intended, is the law of the land; where the three branches of government actually perform checks and balances on each other to make sure they only operate in the areas they have constitutional authority to do so, then what are you willing to give up in order to get there?  Getting there will be painful!  Arriving there will be joyful!

It all begins with a massive house cleaning in our nation's Capitol.  All levels need to be controlled by those who will seriously defend the Constitution.  We need to exercise the authority to impeach judges who have exceeded their legal limits and restore honor to the courts.  We need a president who loves this country and it's Constitution.  We need law makers who know and understand the boundaries set for their positions and who guard against exceeding them in any way. 

Can we restore Washington to a Constitutional government or do we the people need to exercise our right to replace our current government with one of our choosing?  There is no easy path of recovery.  We are addicted to socialism.  Detox and rehab will be painful.  It may take a generation or two to become a recovering-dependent, but we can do it!

No pain, no gain!

Friday, October 22, 2010


Do you have an attitude?  Sure you do.  Your mom didn't tell you to not have an attitude, she told you to "Watch your attitude!"  We all have an attitude.  So, the question should be, what attitude do you have?

At the same time, we can have multiple attitudes at work.  Our attitudes, some even conflicting with others, have an effect on our eventual outcome.  Each of us, from time-to-time, need to take "an attitude check."  It is very easy to drift into bad, harmful, or negative attitudes; if we are not paying attention. 

It may even be easier to assume the position of being negative than to work at being positive.  We can look around and see problems and find those who are depressed, angry or even discouraged.  It isn't hard to find someone who will bring you "down".  If your common associations are with people who are negative, you will tend to gravitate in their direction.  You will become another one in the masses of disgruntled people who walk around with a chip on their shoulder.  This goes back to the natural man and the sinful nature born into mankind.  It takes a conscious act and a change of heart to pull away.

Who do we choose to have as role models?  Who inspires us to do and be better?  What have we defined as the person we most want to resemble?  What are we doing to get there?

This discussion, at this point, could head in two different directions; the area of the spirit or the realm of the soul.  The spiritual direction involves our submission to God and the leading of the Holy Spirit in our lives.  The other includes both believers and non-believers of Christianity - it relates to the choices each of us makes regardless of our spirituality.  Christians can have bad attitudes just like anyone else.  So, that is the area discussed in this article.

The attitude we have is the result of the choice we made.  Where ever you find yourself or what circumstances surround you, there are choices to be made.  Two people can respond to the same situation and take opposite positions.  An example is John Walsh, the founder of "America's Most Wanted" TV show.  He lost his young son to a brutal murder.  He could have done what others did in the same place, become bitter and vindictive and turn against people in general.  He chose to made a positive difference, instead. 

Our news is full of stories where some person has been harmed, physically and/or emotionally, and they permitted the evil done to them to become the seed that would grow, over time, to turn them into a picture of evil.  Someone, later, digs into their background to try to understand why they would do such awful things to others.  They find a wrong done and the resulting bad choices. 

We do not have to go down the road that leads to destruction.  Our lives encounter many crossroads and each one requires a decision to be made.  Some intersections are painful, some have no emotions tied to them at all.  But every choice we make leads to consequences, for good or for bad. 

Choose to walk through life carrying the attitudes that will lead you towards peace with others and having joy in yourself.  Take on a positive attitude, grounded on the knowledge that God is in charge. 

At work, be the best employee you can be, giving your best in exchange for the payment promised.  At play, recognize that winning is not everything, but the relationships you can build from your good attitude can change the lives of others.  When you believe you have been wronged, dwelling on how unfair it has been will make you miserable and that negative attitude will begin to be reflected in other areas of your life.  Be aware that others are watching you, maybe even more so, when they are aware that you have been hurt by someone.  Your response can push people away from you are draw them near to find out what is different about you.

Be quick to make attitude adjustments as needed.  Always be fine-tuning. 

Tuesday, October 19, 2010

The Lone Military Superpower - China

Through much of our adult lives we were told about the two, military Superpowers; the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R.  After the political and economical collapse of the U.S.S.R., we have heard that the U.S.A. is the "lone Superpower".  An analysis of military strength might show America to be on the top of the pile, but do not get too arrogant.  Based on the current trends, within the next few years, it appears that China will be the top dog. 

While America is scaling back on military spending and production; other countries are mass producing weapons, committing to enormous expenditures for technologically advanced systems and dedicating their counties to military superiority.  We hear about Iran and their agenda for nuclear systems, which are sure to lead to nuclear weapons.  We sat back and watched North Korea obtain nuclear weapons and now are threatened by unstable leaders with the power to wipe out large cities.

These small countries are proving to be large problems.  But, what about China?  This is no small country.  They basically have an unlimited pool of humans to use as tools of war.  Their economy is booming and they are using their opportunity to build up a military might inferior to none.  The following is a summary of just some of the recent news concerning China's military power (based on news stories on

1.  China is test-firing a new anti-ship missile - The Dong Feng 21D anti-ship ballistic missile has a range of 1,300 to 1,800 km and can carry six warheads.  It has a nickname, "aircraft carrier killer" due to the ability to sink an aircraft carrier instantly after penetrating the outer hull and exploding on the interior of the ship.  Along with the story was an artist's rendering of Dong Feng missiles heading towards a U.S. aircraft carrier. 

2.  China conducts a live-fire drill in the West Sea - Besides the Navy's North Sea Fleet, the exercise included the use of Fei Bao fighter jets (anti-ship attack aircraft), a 051C destroyer which can launch missiles, and new high-speed boats armed with stealth missiles.  At the same time, North Korea and China are strengthening their military cooperation.

3.  China now has more warships than the United States - Based on a recent report by the International Institute for Strategic Studies.  China is adding ships while the U.S. and Europe are reducing the size of their militaries.  As more time passes, the gap will widen.

4.  China may have developed a new stealth submarine - Submarines are detected by sonar, which locates the source of the noise they emit.  A quiet submarine is a huge advantage in naval warfare.  At the present rate of production, China will soon have more submarines than the U.S. Navy. 

5.  China demonstrates military might - During the recent, 60th anniversary of communist rule over China, a display of weapons was staged in Tiananmen Square.  The parade included 63 ultra-modern weapons.  These included long-range nuclear missiles such as the Dong Feng 31A intercontinental ballistic missile capable of hitting cities in the U.S., each with three warheads with the power of up to 150 kt (equals 150,000 million tons of TNT).  Also shown was the JL-2 submarine-launched ballistic missiles, which were among the 108 different missiles on display.  They showed off the J-10 fighter and the JH-7 fighter bomber. 

6.  China claims to have ability to intercept U.S. stealth fighters - The People's Liberation Army staged an exercise to intercept a mock F-22 Raptor, the latest stealth fighter jet for the United States. 

7.  China is working on the construction of it's first aircraft carrier - This is just a part of the build-up of China's navy.  The additional forces and armory are considered to be a threat to Japan and the U.S., who now dominate the Pacific. 

8.  China has stealth ability - China's navy has 80 high-speed, stealth vessels, each of the boats are capable of avoiding radar and infrared detection.  It is believed they have stealth bombers in existence.  The story credits China's ability to build stealth bombers to the apparent "leak" of the airframe design for the B-2 bomber.  It also appears that Chinese hackers obtained classified information from a Pentagon server in 2009.  China has a radar system CETC Y-27, capable of detecting our stealth planes. 

Robert Gates, U.S. Defense Secretary, said that China is investing in cyber- and anti-satellite warfare, anti-air and anti-ship weapons, and ballistic missiles which would threaten America's power and help for allies in the Pacific. 

Is the U.S. being appeased by China, just has England was by Germany in the 1930's, by the reassurance by China that all of this build-up is purely for self-protection and the defense of their own country?  I'm sure they would not lie to us!

War games, anyone?

Sunday, October 17, 2010

Are We Free?

Recently, there is much discussion over the concern of losing our liberties.  I, too, have written about the importance of the coming election in relation to protecting our freedom.  All of this is based on the assumption that we are, or at least have recently been, FREE.  Is this a correct base for our arguments and protests?

Are we free as Americans?  There are degrees of freedom and the answers would vary depending on what issue is being considered.  But, in general, we have long ago surrendered various aspects of being free.  At some point in the past, our elected officials usurped power over us and once they got away with it, additional attacks on our rights and liberties have been common place.  Based on the writings of our Founding Fathers, this was an issue from the very beginning.  Americans were warned about men in government lusting for more power and control.  Benjamin Franklin stated that we have a Republic, if we can keep it!

Well, we did not keep it pure for very long.  Americans have been guilty of sending people to Washington who had no desire to protect us from those who have gradually stripped away at our freedom.  The United States, presently, is so far from the freedom we started with that it would no longer be recognizable.  We ask government for permission to do just about everything that pertains to life and the pursuit of happiness.

We are required to have a social security number as individuals or a taxpayer identification number as a business.  We need a license to operate a business, get married, drive a car, hold a rally in a park, etc.  We ask permission from the building and zoning department to build a house or change the house we have.  We get fined if we do not wear a seatbelt.  We pay taxes for just about everything we do.  The government controls the airwaves, the waterways, the sky and highways.  They tell us where we are allowed to go in the national forests and parks.  We are charged fees to use public lands.  We are prohibited from using our own land if some rare insect is found there.  Our churches ask the IRS for permission to operate with tax favors.  Our leaders tell us what we can and cannot say.  The first two of the Bill of Rights have been trampled at every opportunity.  This list could go on and on, but you get the message.  We are controlled from cradle to grave. 

The master hoax has been to convince us that we are still free while our public servants have turned us into their servants.  They no longer represent us and humbly serve, they seek the prestige of power and authority.  Once they have a taste of being master, they are found doing whatever it takes to maintain their position.

Conservatives are targeting the Liberals in this and coming elections, but our problems did not start with Obama, Pelosi and Reed.  We have been asleep for generations and only now are the masses beginning to awake and take notice that America no longer follows our Constitution.  We bought the lie that it is a "living document" whose meaning changes with the seasons.  We accepted "a wall of separation between church and state."  We were told that any form of gross behavior is protected as a freedom of expression, under the first amendment.  Yet, when political opponents speak out, they are at risk of being investigated by the FBI and IRS as intimidation.  When we buy a gun, Washington must give us permission.  Unborn babies are routinely murdered with no consequence, but if you shoot a spotted owl, you can go to jail.  Not only are you not allowed to enter our public forests and cut down a tree for firewood, without permission, but in many places you must get a permit to cut down a dead tree in your own yard. 

What is your definition of freedom?  As I look around, we have already lost freedom according to mine.  This election is not about keeping our freedom, it is about stopping the avalanche of attacks against the threads of liberty that still hang from our tattered flag.  We are no longer freemen, we are just a little more free than many in other nations.  As we are now watching, we recognize the blatant, full-frontal assault against what liberties that remain.  We are now told that we "must" purchase health insurance or be fined (unless you gain favor with Obama).  We are told that we "must" bail out banks, car companies, Fannie Mae, insurance companies, unions, pension plans, foreign counties and their banks; or the world economy will collapse.  When we say, "NO", they do not seem to hear and they vote "YES" anyway.  Their arrogance tells us that we cannot find out what is in the bills they are passing until it is too late.

The tail is wagging the dog!  Finally, the dog has begun to bark and bite.  On November 2, it will time to start chewing on that darn tail full of flees and blood sucking tics.  Turning this monster around is going to be very difficult, but it is possible.  We do it by winning over one disheartened Liberal at a time.  We do it by properly teaching the next generation the truth.  We do it by taking responsibility for ourselves and our families.  We stop looking for government to meet our needs and wants.  We hold Washington accountable to us.  America can once again become the land of opportunity.  The concept of the American dream can be revived.  Dig in and get to work!  It is time for the frog to jump out of the frying pan.

Saturday, October 9, 2010

The Bastardization of the Oval Office

Where does a baby come from?

Though it is a simple question, it has a profoundly complicated answer, especially when the one trying to explain where he came from appears to lack the evidence to support his claims.

Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution states:  "No person except a natural born Citizen...shall be eligible to the Office of President;..."  This is fairly straightforward.  You are not allowed to become the President of the United States of America if you are not a natural born citizen of this country (period).  There are no grey areas in this requirement.  The words "but" or "except" do not appear.  It is the most basic requirement, along with the necessary age, for someone to assume that high office.

Yet, with the rise of political correctness and the decline of common sense in our nation's Capitol, we are saddled with a sitting President who believes that he is above the Constitution (which he views as a document of negative rights).  President Obama sees no need to prove that he is actually eligible to hold the office he holds.  In fact, he has taken steps that are much more difficult, to withhold the proof.

We, the little people, have no right to have the question answered.  No one with governmental authority will step forward and demand that the man set on destroying our nation from within demonstrate that he should not be immediately removed from office and, in my opinion, charged with a felony.

Regardless of the demands for the production of an authentic "Birth Certificate", made by those who the Constitution established as the true rulers of the land - "We the People", nothing happens and the ones charged with this task have no backbone to take up the cause.  Well, wait a minute, one American hero has stepped forward and has drawn a serious line in the sand.

U. S. Army Lt. Colonel Terrence Lakin, Chief of Primary Care and Flight Surgeon has put his career and freedom on the line over this issue.  LTC Lakin is a veteran of 18 years of military service.  He has received numerous awards and decorations.  Currently he is facing court martial with a possible prison sentence and dishonorable discharge from the military.  What is his crime?

LTC Lakin has taken his oath, as an officer in the U. S. Army, serious.  He swore to defend the Constitution.  He also has been well trained in the danger of obeying illegal orders given by superiors.  Someone in the military is held responsible for the determination of the legality of the orders they are being made to obey.  They have an obligation to not obey an illegal order and if they do obey an illegal order, it is not a defense for them to claim that they were just obeying orders.  As you can imagine, this is a very tricky area to tread.

LTC Lakin was ordered to deploy to Afghanistan earlier this year.  In April, he informed the chain of command that he would not be able to obey that order on the grounds that he believes it would amount to obeying an illegal order.  He believes that an order issued by a Commander-in-Chief who holds the position illegally cannot be a legal order and he has an obligation to disobey the illegal order. 

Talk about guts, this officer has more than enough to go around!  In taking this stand, for the sake of our nation, he has put his career on the line.  If he is found guilty, there will be no military retirement, no promotion to Colonel, and no freedom.  He is charged with "missing movement" and refusing to obey orders.  As you can imagine, in the Army, each of these are taken very serious and he could be forced to spend several years in a military prison.

The official court martial will be taking place in just a few weeks.  Preliminary hearings have already taken place.  The presiding Army Judge, Colonel Denise Lind, has just cut the arms and legs off of the defense, according to defense attorney Paul Jensen.  She has issued a ruling that will prohibit the defense from presenting evidence or calling witnesses in relation the whether or not Obama is Constitutionally qualified to be Commander-in-Chief.  Her reason for such an unconstitutional restriction on the right to a fair trial and the right to present a defense is, those documents might prove "embarrassing" to the President. 

Let me see if I follow this right...  If Obama has a legitimate birth certificate, showing it to us would somehow be embarrassing...???  How?  We have to do it all the time.  In fact, LTC Lakin was required to produce his birth certificate as a normal step for his ordered deployment overseas.  He had to show it to become an officer in the Army.  But, for some reason, no one thinks it would be prudent for the person who assumes command over all of the military operations for the most powerful nation on the Earth, to have to show us a piece of paper.  There is only one reason why Judge Lind could imagine that solving this issue once and for all, would be embarrassing to the President, and that is that he would be exposed to be illegitimate. 

A child whose birth lacks legal legitimacy is called a bastard.  What would a man be called who's presidency lacks legal legitimacy?

Sunday, October 3, 2010

Life Cycle of a Crisis

Have you noticed, over the past twenty years, how most every potential crisis that any portion of the American public has faced, has been gobbled up by Washington and the main stream media, with each doing their assigned duties in transforming what may or may not be a legitimate news story into a doomsday scenario with predictions of apocalyptic destruction?

Government has changed from being an entity large enough to come to the aid of those facing and surviving disasters, making a positive difference, to being a monster seeking catastrophe and destruction as a means to accomplish their ends.  Rahm Emanuel, during November of 2008, the incoming Chief of Staff for Obama, said, "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste."

What would a crisis, which has gone to waste, look like?  What is a wasted crisis?  If I may, I believe the statement by Emanuel would have been more aptly stated as, "You never want a potential crisis to go to waste."  The answer can be found in the recent history and responses to potential crises.  It resembles a story many of us heard when we were young children. 

Chicken Little, while walking in the woods, felt something fall on her head and assumed that the sky was falling.  While running to give an official warning, she gathered Henny Penny and Ducky Lucky.  They met with Foxey Loxey, who offered to help in their cause.  It was Foxey Loxey who perceived an opportunity to take advantage of the citizens during a perceived crisis.  He led the three of them into his den where he proceeded to devour them. 

In this story, Chicken Little, Henny Penny and Ducky Lucky represent the segment of the population who looks to big government to constantly save them from potential harm.  Foxey Loxey, of course, is big government and is always ready to portray themselves as riding in on a white stallion to save the day.  But, instead of doing what is best for the people, they make sure that the crisis does not go to waste and they proceed to make the people more dependent for their needs and safety. 

For the nursery rhyme, have you noticed that the object used to cause the insecurity among the people, which results in their total loss of freedom, is the acorn.  Is that just a coincidence? 

A wasted crisis is one where the government has not gained in their position of control and power over the people.  It would be a situation where aid was rendered with absolutely no strings attached.  It would be one where the threat was not magnified in order to generate the perception that only government is big enough save the people.   If a potential crisis came and went without government gaining something from it, that would be a wasted crisis. 

Let's consider some recent "crises", the hype and outcome:

1.  Wall Street - Two years ago, right now, we had just watched big government (BG) take over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  Then we were told, by BG that Wall Street needed to be rescued because they were too big to fail.  If we did not pass TARP by Friday of that same week, the economies of the World would collapse (one big acorn was dropped).  Both sides of the aisle stood before the cameras and issued the dire warnings.  We were promised that these massive funds would be used to buy troubled assets from failing financial institutions, getting them off of the books of the investors, thus causing stability.  Those foreclosed homes, which were to be purchased, were going to be held and released slowly, so as to not cause an over supply of foreclosures on the market and help keep the housing industry from collapsing.  We were told that "we the people", who were the ones being required to fund the bailout, would actually make money off of the brilliant effort by the future sale of these houses at prices higher than what was paid to the banks.  Win-win!

Well, sure enough, the politicians talked themselves into passing the TARP bill; but, low and behold, no houses were purchased.  No, instead, the money was just doled out to favorite corporations and unions.  The cost to us was just under a trillion dollars, once you consider all of the pork barrel projects added.  As to making money off of the bailout, well that is not going to happen because there are no houses to sell at a profit.

The crisis empowered BG within several corporations, insurance companies and financial institutions; plus aided the union buddies who helped secure the election of Obama.  The public (Little, Lucky, Penny) got devoured.

2.  Health Care - The crisis was the millions of uninsured citizens in America and the rising cost of health care and health insurance premiums.  BG and the media inflated the need to cover those actually uninsured and without choices.  They rammed through, against some of their own rules and against the will of "we the people", "Obamacare".  As Pelosi promised, once they passed it, we would begin to see what was in it.  Six months later, premiums are going up, employer plans are being dropped and no up-side can be found. 

The crisis empowered BG to gain control over various portions of our individual lives and the choices we used to be able to make with our doctors.  They built into the plan various revenue generating sources.  The un-wasted crisis has resulted in the people having less liberty and being saddled with the massive costs of the program (around one trillion dollars).

3.  BP oil leak - Though BG was big enough to step in and make a difference, almost immediately, they chose to ignore, blame and stall.  They did not want it fixed too soon as that would mean they had not taken full advantage of the crisis.  They rejected help from other countries and companies.  They talked in front of the TV cameras but did not talk with oil industry experts.  It took weeks before they met with anyone from BP. 

The crisis empowered BG to fleece BP out of a promise for $20 billion.  It gave them the opportunity to shut down U.S. oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico (at the same time we are funding drilling by Mexico in the same place).  They aided in the harm to the economy of several gulf states but are now looked to as the source of salvation. 

It seems that many crises have a life cycle:

1.  Conspire -  Work together with those who may be able to help you promote a potential crisis (media, unions, Acorn, etc.).  Define the desired ends and plan the means to get there.

2.  Manufacture - Run through the streets yelling "the sky is falling!".

3.  Blame - Use shock and disgust as you point fingers at those industries who are Capitalistic.  Instill an attitude in the people where a violent uprising is only a few steps away.

4.  Rescue - Government steps forward as the solution to the crisis that has been blown completely out of proportion.

5.  Take Over - "Solve" the problem by passing more legislation with higher taxes and fees, giving BG more control over our lives.

6.  Reward - Those who have aided in the process get rewarded according to the success of the growth of government and level of takeover of the victims rights, property, and finances.

Then the cycle begins all over again with the next potential crisis (Cap and Trade = global warming, Comprehensive Immigration Reform = broken borders, etc.).

That pitter-patter on your roof is not rain, it is acorns.  The sky is falling!

Wednesday, September 29, 2010

Jack Ass Poop With Make-Up

"Just Say NO!"  Why do Republican leaders believe that their job is to take the crap proposed by the Democrats and just try to make it somewhat better?

Over the past few years we have watched from a distance as those that we have sent to Washington failed miserably to represent "we the people" on the Right.  With few exceptions, the RINOs were more concerned about their image portrayed by the media and what the talking-heads were saying about them, reaching across the aisle, not actually doing a filibuster but suggesting that they might, going-along to get-along, and basically caving in on most every turn.  Their spineless behavior during the Bush years was pathetic!  They failed to lead with any real vision.  The result was defeat in 2006 and 2008.

As they lost power in the Congress, their excuses for having no principles to stand upon, had to do with the minority of their numbers.  They complained that the best they could do was to try to add amendments to crap bills in an attempt to dress them up a little. 

How did we Republicans end up with such a bunch of moderate leaders who find no line in the sand worth drawing.  And you know what I mean by "moderate" - much of the time siding with or co-writing bills with the Left.  Why is it so hard for them to see what is so clear to us?  The Left uses and abuses them like a jerk does to a girl with no self-esteem.  Then they come crawling back more pathetic than when they were rejected, promising this time that they will try harder to get along.

Again, there are some exceptions and over the past 18 months, there has been some improvement in the area of unity among the stance taken, but we are still dealing with the same individuals in many districts who undercut us and would stab us in the back while soliciting donations. 

We do not want an amnesty bill that has been powdered around the edges with a few more hoops for illegals to jump through.

We do not want crap and trade that has been modified to not kick in a little later.

We do not want another stimulus bill that has the lipstick of some pork barrel for us back home.

We do not want big government running the private sector but with a few of the penalties removed.

We do not want higher taxes after a chin-lift where dividends were left alone. 

We have heard that "politics is compromise".  Well, politician, we are sick and tired of your compromise and we are sending you back home.  We want someone who will stand up and "just say NO!"  Not, no, unless you give me a sweet deal.  Not, no, unless you help me raise support, etc.  Just NO because they have principles and ethics that will not allow them to support such garbage no matter how it has been prettied-up. 

Folks, we are only a few weeks away from an opportunity to send some of these problem Republicans home and replace them with honest conservatives.  Make sure that in your district, victory is secured.

Thursday, September 23, 2010

Liberals vs. Liberty

Freedom!  The word itself, can bring a tear to your eye and put a smile on your lips.  Our country has enjoyed a reputation of being "the land of the free".  Individuals from all around the world have sought ways to get to America.  Many have left all they had and even risked the loss of life in order to become a part of this great experiment.  I have never heard the phrase, "The Russian dream", or "The French dream", or "The Mexican dream".  But, most people know what you mean by "The American dream".

There has been something special about America and being an American.  Our country has never needed to entertain the possibility of fencing the border in order to keep us from escaping.  We have the opposite problem - maintaining a level of control over those attempting to enter our borders. 

The Declaration of Independence acknowledges that there is in the heart of man a desire to enjoy freedom.  But, as has been said, "Freedom is not free!"  Periodically, since the founding of our nation, Americans have found it necessary to fight for our freedom.  For some reason, there always seems to be someone who wants to rob us of our liberty.  The Declaration of Independence also reminds us that the life and liberty we enjoy are gifts from God.  So, if it is God who gives us liberty, who inspires those who try to take it away from us?

We, as a nation of free men, have been ready to defend our right to be free.  For the most part, the battles have been with foreign enemies.  Today, in America, we are faced with a new enemy, a domestic enemy - the Leftists who seek to transform the United States from the greatest nation on the Earth to a weak-kneed and spineless has-been. 

Within our own shores, we face a multitude of battles.  First and foremost is the spiritual battle.  If we as individuals expect God to render aid to the cause of liberty, we had better be in right relationship and fellowship with Him.  If we do not have God on our side, the other battles are already lost.  Second, we face a battle of ideology (a gathered set of ideas or doctrines).  Those on the Right have one body of thought and those on the Left have another.  They are constantly at odds with each other.  An example, the Right wants less government intrusion in their lives and the Left considers more government to be the solution to our problems.  This leads to the third battle - political.  It is the political power that controls the ideology expressed in how our government functions. 

There is a pathway to victory in these battles.  First, if we will humble ourselves, turn from our sin and seek God.  Pray that He will hear us and heal our land.  Second, as we enter the battle of ideas, we need to be educated and trained in the ability to made a reasonable argument that will help convince those with opposing ideas that our way is better.  Third, we must be doing whatever we can to gain political victory in November.  Find conservative and honest candidates and support them.  Then make sure that you vote.

Every generation must protect liberty. It is our turn to fight or it will be lost forever. 

Tuesday, September 21, 2010

Brush Fires of Spiritual Freedom

The Christian church in America, for too long, has been anemic. We have taken Sunday services and turned them into social gatherings where the congregation goes home no better informed than when they came. There is no message of urgency to walk close to God. Any mention of sin or disobedience, by a pastor, is weakly expressed and produces no shame or change. 

Church discipline is almost non-existent.  The pews are full of people living in open sin with no fear of confrontation from "spiritual" leaders.  The church members, to a great degree, are very uneducated in the things of the Bible.  Many do not even bring a Bible with them to church and even if they did, would not know where to find the references.
(Heb 5:11-14 KJV) Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing.  For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.  For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.  But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.
Where are the preachers who will proclaim the Word with convicting power?  Where are the Bible teachers who not only know the Word but are skilled in passing on that knowledge to the next generation?   How many "Christians" can adequately explain to a non-believer the message of the Bible and the plan of God? 

We attend churches where "milk" is preached and taught week after week.  It seems the sermons are geared to the weakest link, which always will prohibit the eating of "meat".  There needs to be a revamping of the mission of the church service.  Evangelism is for the Christians to do on a regular basis; on the street, in the homes, at the park, etc.  When the Sunday morning sermon is a message to the "lost", much of the time, the "found" sit there and starve. 

Jesus instructed Peter to "feed my sheep".  Let the preachers proclaim the message of Christ from the rooftops, from the sidewalks, even from the pulpit as a part of the message of offering meat for food; but let the pastors feed the sheep.  What is a pastor?  "Pastor" means shepherd, one who is responsible for the sheep under his care.  It is no wonder that anemia is the norm and "going to church" has become irrelevant.  Why would someone want to give up sleeping in and the early football game on Sunday morning, just so they can say that they attended a church service that was utterly boring?
It does not have to be that way!  Church services do not have to be something that we dread having to attend, but feel obligated to make a showing.  There are many regular people who are hungry for the pure meat of the Word.  Transform the gathering of Christians from a social, milkfest, to a training center for building up the Body of Christ to do the work of the ministry.
Is it any wonder that many preachers reach a phase of burnout?  No, they feel all the pressure and weight on their own shoulders and see limited growth in their congregations.  Why?  Because the people are not growing.  Why?  Because they are not being properly fed.
There is a hunger in Christianity for meat!  If you are a church leader and are not prepared to feed meat to your sheep, step aside until you are ready.  If you are still drinking milk, you have no business being in a position of leadership.  If you are ready, create the opportunities and give it all you have.  When word gets out that the pure Word is being taught, it will attract those who are hungry.  It is these who will grow and become the next tools of transformation.  If your messages offend no one, they are anemic and worthless.  An unrepentant sinner should take offense to the pure Word. 
Sure, there are those in the field who are doing all they can to feed the sheep.  There are congregations that are eating multiple times each week and are growing.  These exceptions are doing what they can to restore a vital sense of life to the Christian church in America. 
To those pastors and teachers - you are the voices of church leadership who should be determined to set the brush fires of spiritual freedom in the hearts of men. A few who will be bold, speak the truth without watering it down, demonstrate the unconditional love of God, reveal to the lost Jesus' extended hand of mercy; but, at the same time provide intensive teaching, which will help those who participate as learners, to grow into additional voices of truth.
Start the fire and let it spread!  This nation is in desperate need of a revival! 

Wednesday, September 15, 2010

RINO John is Back!

Rambo John (R.J.) McCain showed up in the Republican primary in Arizona.  He launched an attack against his conservative opponent, with both barrels, before J.D. ever announced he was even in the race.  Bart and Bret Maverick would have been proud, in fact they probably would have adopted R.J. into the family, officially. 

R.J. never let up, it was full attack mode from day one.  A constant barrage of commercials and advertising.  He dug a hole six feet deep, getting all the dirt (real or perceived) that could be found to bury J.D.  He gambled with O.P.M. (other people's money) ($20+ million it is reported) on his ability to read the tells on the defensive face of his opponent.  It paid off.  J.D. did not appear to ever be able to get traction and quickly slipped into the hole.

The people in Arizona, wondered where R.J. came from.  Wasn't it just 24 months before when he was the guy claiming that Obama would be a fine president, if he were to win?  He (RINO John - r.J.) was the one who refused to have even a pansy level of attack mode in the most important race of his career.  He would not allow his campaign staff to make an issue of Obama's past, lack of experience, friends, citizenship, etc.  He was afraid of doing anything that might cause his friends in the media to call him a racist.

So, we have r.J. shooting blanks from a toy gun as he ran for president.  We find the same guy with a bazooka, after a foxhole conversion, now the ultimate conservative, attempting to out-Right J.D.  We watched him take J.D.'s stand on the border and try to make it his own.  Remember, "build the danged fence".  This he said with what appeared to be feigned emotion.  His inability to effectively run a major campaign is responsible for the U.S. having a socialist in the White House.

But, r.J. transformed into R.J. for the Senate republican primary.  He ended most every commercial with, "Character Matters!"  Yes, r.J., it does.  That is one of the reasons so many wanted you to find retirement.  Frankly, we do not want reruns of Maverick.

Now that he basically bought the primary, it is time to launch his R.J. attack dogs on the democrat opponent.  We are a few weeks past the primary and before the general and wondering where R.J. has gone.  He must have rode off into the sunset because there seems to be no evidence of a campaign underway.  I see no attack ads or commercials, we are not hearing him "approve of this message" - there are no messages out there! 

What appears to be happening is the resurgence of r.J.  No attacking the foe.  No digging the dirt.  No spending of millions.  No nothing.  The truth is coming back out of the shadow, there never was a R.J., that was just an illusion propped up the unspent contributions from the last campaign. 

Sunday, September 12, 2010

IRS Section 501(c)(3) vs Freedom of Speech

"Tax-Exempt Organization" - Sounds pretty good and sort of makes you wish you were one, doesn't it?  You must ask, whenever the government (IRS) tells you that you can keep some dollars in your right pocket, what are they taking out of your left pocket? 

When was the last time you heard of a church that was not approved by the IRS as a 501(c)(3), tax-exempt organization?  It seems that it is almost automatic that a church is approved by the IRS for this status.  What is the benefit to churches to be classified as a 501(c)(3) organization?  Receiving this status allows individuals who contribute to the church to deduct their contributions as an itemized deduction on their income taxes.  If a church did not meet the requirements of a 501(c)(3) organization, those contributions could not be deducted for income tax purposes. 

Sounds like a win-win situation!  Not so fast, the IRS is not Santa Claus.  It does not give away revenue out of the kindness of its heart.  Be skeptical anytime the government appears to be giving you something for nothing.  We accepted money from Washington for our public schools - now the Department of Education dictates some curriculum and mandates local spending on liberal agenda items.  We accepted highway money from Washington - now we are threatened with the loss of these on-going funds if we do not tow the line in other areas.

Why does the government let us deduct contributions to churches?  What do they get out of it?  When a church is approved as a 501(c)(3) organization, they forfeit part of their freedom of speech rights.  That is the payoff to the government.  From that point on, that church cannot risk being fined and the loss of their tax-exempt status by speaking out on political matters or passing out material for or against any political campaign. 

The government has just silenced organized religion when it comes to the affairs of politicians.  Churches are afraid that the loss of their IRS status would mean the loss of contributions. 

But, aren't all churches required by the IRS to file for 501(c)(3) approval?  No, they are not, based on the IRS tax guide for "Churches and Religious Organizations".  Quoted from page 3, "Churches that meet the requirements of IRC section 501(c)(3) are automatically considered tax exempt and are not required to apply for and obtain recognition of tax-exempt status from the IRS."  It goes on to say, "Although there is no requirement to do so, many churches seek recognition of tax-exempt status from the IRS because such recognition assures church leaders, members, and contributors that the church is recognized as exempt and qualifies for related tax benefits."

So, what are the "requirements of IRC section 501(c)(3)"?  There are several, but two of importance in this discussion are summarized as follows:  first, "no substantial part of its activity may be attempting to influence legislation," and, "the organization may not intervene in political campaigns".  They explain that intervening includes speaking out for or against any candidate, raising funds for political activities, passing out literature for or against any candidate, etc.

It was not always the case that the government restricted political speech in churches.  In the early part of this country, preachers speaking about political issues were not uncommon.  Four of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were preachers.  Most of the Founding Fathers were religious. 

The IRS web site has a link to a document, "Election Year Issues".  Within this article is contained some background to IRS 501(c)(3).  Page 336, "Prior to 1954, there was no statutory provision absolutely prohibiting organizations described in the antecedents of IRC 501(c)(3) from engaging in political campaign activities."  The Revenue Act of 1934 had established the lobbying (legislation) restriction of 501(c)(3), but the campaign activity restriction was not included.  In the Revenue Act of 1954, Lyndon Johnson had successfully added an amendment restricting 501(c)(3) organizations from campaign activity. 

As I am not an attorney or an accountant, there are other issues relating to whether or not a church should or should not apply with the IRS for 501(c)(3) status (consult your professional for legal advise).  But, the government has been successful, by offering tax benefits to those who comply, in closing America's pulpits to political speech.  Soon after the Revenue Act of 1954, with the preachers effectively silenced, government became more bold in its attack on religion and America became more lax in its morality.  By the 1960's, we were dealing with the removal of prayer in schools and the "free love" movement.  We also began to see the dismantling of the typical family unit and the "women's lib" movement. 

How has the trade-off worked for better?  The churches may have more contributions from their members, but probably have less members due to the decline in morality and the lack of interest in organized religion. 

How were churches able to generate necessary funds prior to the IRS letting contributions be deductible?  That is easy, the members did not expect special tax benefits and gave out of love of the church or at least obedience to the Word.  If a church were to give up its 501(c)(3) status, gain back the free speech from the pulpit, but lose the tax benefits to the members; what would the members do?  Would they change churches or stop giving to their church?  I would hope not.  I believe that with the proper education the members would understand the importance of not having the preachers censored by the government and would appreciate the stand being taken by the church leaders.  God did not instruct us to give where we gained a financial benefit from the gift, He just told us to give.

Sometimes, the old-fashioned way of doing things was just better!

Saturday, September 11, 2010

Domestic Enemies of the Constitution

Listed below are the various oaths that are administered to the people entering each specific position:

The oath of enlistment for the military:
"I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

The oath for commissi0ned officers in the military:
"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God."

The oath taken by Congress and Senators:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."

The oath for the President of the United States:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

A common theme is contained in each oath, "defend the Constitution of the United States".  Whether it is an elected leader or a volunteer member of our military, they have each sworn to defend the Constitution.  With the exception of the oath for the President, they ALL have sworn that they will do what it takes to protect the Constitution "from ALL enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC."

This begs the question; where is the line, that once crossed, will transform a person from an ally to an enemy?  The Founding Fathers recognized that a citizen can become a domestic enemy of our country.  They even took it a step further, they understood the possibility of a political leader, a soldier, an officer in the military, or even the President could become an enemy of the Constitution.

Again, what defines a domestic enemy of the Constitution?  What would one have to do?  How far would one have to go in order for those in these sworn positions to invoke action to protect the Constitution?  What would that action look like?

To some degree, our country and our Constitution have been under assault, domestically, for decades.  It appears the progression of the attack has escalated over time to even include a total disregard of the law of the land.  We currently have elected officials who have taken the above oath and appear to have a disdain for the protections the Constitution provides to the people.  We have those in Congress who have stretched the meaning of certain phrases of the "living document" so that they no longer resemble the written word. 

Obama stated that the Constitution is a "document of negative liberties."  What perspective must you view the Constitution from, in order to have that opinion?  A majority of "we the people" would read the Bill of Rights, not as a list of negative liberties to each of us, but a list of stated restrictions upon the federal government.  The "Rights" enumerated do not restrict you and me, they limit what the politicians and bureaucrats do to or against us.  In order to view these as "negative liberties", you would have to be seeing them from the viewpoint of how they limit what you would want to do to the people.  To Obama, the Constitution is in his way.  If taken seriously, it would stand in his way from pushing his agenda.  Lucky for him, he does not care what it says.  It's full-steam ahead!

If the liberal Democrats can use the Constitution against the conservative Republicans, they will.  They will preach Rights with fervor.  But, if their desires run contrary to the document, it is easily ignored. 

With adversaries to the Constitution within the highest levels of our government, what are we to do?  What are the sworn defenders to do?  At what point is non-political action necessary?  If there was never intended to be action to defend the Constitution from those who are domestically attempting to destroy its power and authority, why would each oath require such? 

At the present time, with an election only days away, the action required is political.  Every measure must be taken to help elect protectors of the Constitution.  Conservative control of Congress is absolutely mandatory in order to begin to reverse the direction of the past two years.  Anything less than that will bring the nation to the point of having to answer the above questions.  God help us when the time comes to exercise those oaths. 

Friday, September 10, 2010



Two numbers that had no specific meaning, together, on 9-10-2001.  Now, just about everyone in the world associates 9-11 with one of the most terrible events in history.


Tuesday, September 7, 2010


Lately, we have been hearing questions about whether Barack Obama is a Christian or a Muslim, or none of the above. A recent poll conducted by Pew Research indicated that approximately one out of four adults in America believe he is a Muslim and one out of three believe he is Christian. The rest have no idea.

This has made me wonder why it is so difficult for average people to be able to discern the religion of the leader of their country. It appears to boil down to the actions or lack thereof where it relates to a specific religion being professed by our president.

What does Barack Obama say concerning his religion? He claims to be a Christian. Evidently, in the minds of 2/3 of Americans, that is not enough to convince them. Why aren’t we taking the man at his word? Even more so, why would so many believe him to be a Muslim when he claims that he is not? The answers lie in his actions. Most of us are familiar with the saying, “Actions speak louder than words.” We appear to be applying that truth to President Obama.

A majority of the public is not accepting the word of the president, but is watching his actions. His actions are telling them something different. Our experience has taught us that not everyone who claims to be something is what he claims. The actions of President Obama are leading more and more people to doubt his Christianity. He claims to have the “faith”; but, as we see, that will only take you so far:

(James 2:18-20 KJV) Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
Why is it so difficult to determine if a person is a Christian, especially a protestant Christian?

The Catholics are fairly open about their religion. They attend mass, many have shrines set up in or at their homes, some carry beads, they openly make the gesture of the cross, etc.

The Jews observe their special holidays, they attend the synagogue, they obey the priest, they cover their heads in prayer, etc.

The Mormans are very faithful concerning church attendance and tithing. They go on two-year missions for the church. They hold special ceremonies and weddings in their temples and work hard at living a life that aligns with their religion.

The Muslims hold prayer time several times each day, bowing toward Mecca. They have a strict set of rules or laws that they live under. The men dominate the society and the women are very restricted in dress and public interaction.

It is not that hard to recognize many followers of any of these religions. So, what is it about Christianity that is different? As Christians, we do not typically have special garments that we wear, there are no hats required, we make no signs when we pray and do not bow to Jerusalem. We do have a couple holidays, but they are basically celebrated as Americans and seem to have lost much of the religious meaning.

Christians attend a variety of denominational churches and do not have one set of doctrines that all follow. There are disagreements among Christians as to many teachings in the Bible and the current application of those concepts.

This is additionally confused by many people calling themselves Christians and having no understanding of what it really means to be such. Some believe that they must be a Christian simply because they are an American or because they attend church, sometimes.

A true Christian is one who has been changed, by the Spirit of God, on the inside. It is not manifest in uniforms and other outward displays, but should be demonstrated by a changed life. One is not a Christian just because they claim to be or even because they state that they believe in Jesus. As shown in the above verses, even the devils believe.

As we encounter those who claim to be a Christian, we are not able to demand to see their “papers” to demonstrate membership. It is prudent to accept their words; but, at the same time watch their lives to see if the life of Christ is being lived out through their daily walk. A real Christian is a follower of Jesus the Christ. We cannot repeat a prayer, live like the devil, and then expect open arms at the gate to heaven.

It is not our responsibility or expectation to just accept that Barack Obama is a Christian when we have difficulty seeing Christian virtues and principles in his life. We are right in doubting and withholding conclusion until we see the works to support the words. It is up to him to live as a Christian in order to be pleasing to God and in order to have those who believe his statement of faith.

So, since it does appear to be more difficult to determine if another person is a real Christian, is it because Christians are less religious? No, I believe it is because Christians are less legalistic. We are defined, not by ceremony or attire or scheduled prayers. We are set apart by a difference in heart and a lifestyle that follows a belief in a risen Savior.

Saturday, August 28, 2010

The Color of the Soul

"Red and yellow, black and white; they are precious in His sight."  Most of us know the children's chorus, but doesn't God have favorites?  Wouldn't it just seem "normal" to prefer some above others?  "Normal," yes; Godly, no!  God is not "normal" as defined by man.  (Rom 11:33 KJV) "O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!" 

As mere mortals, we fall far below the standard set by God.  We see color and we play favorites.  As long as we walk this earth, in these bodies, that will not go away, completely.  There is an old saying, "Beauty is only skin deep."  Well, so is color only skin deep!

(Gal 3:28 KJV) "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."  Could I add to the list, rich nor poor, black nor white, young nor old...  In God's eyes, we do not fall into any categories other than believer and unbeliever.
What lies beneath our various skin tones?  Living within these aging bodies are our eternal souls.  The Bible teaches that man's soul needs to be saved.  So, what is the soul?  First of all, it does not have various colors.  Heaven will not be segregated and there will be no discrimination.  It is the soul that will be taken to heaven or damned to hell.  We - you and I, the people who dwell in bodies - are souls.  The individual soul will not be set apart based on race, nationality or gender.  We will have a heavenly society that is colorless as to the distinction between the inhabitants.
That is why, in the now-time, we should be seeing our fellow brothers and sisters by their soul color, not their skin color.  Our skin does not make us who we are.  Behind our skin, we are equal souls.  Judge the man by who he is, not what he looks like.  There is no one who can measure up to perfection, physically. 
No matter what I look like to you or you look like to me, neither one of us are seeing the real person.  So, it is pretty amazing how much we judge based on appearance.  "You" are not what you look like, "you" are what your soul is, and "you" will live forever apart from your now-time appearance.