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.

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. 

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! 

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. 

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!

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. 

NEVER, EVER WILL WE FORGET!

9-11

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.

WE WILL NEVER FORGET!

GOD BLESS THOSE WHO GAVE IT THEIR ALL!

ARE CHRISTIANS LEAST RELIGIOUS?

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.