The Housetop Proclamations

CULTURAL TRADITIONS - Honor Killings in America

2012-02-12T03:33:00.000-07:00

CULTURAL TRADITIONS

Honor Killings in America

As more Islamists come to America, more of their cultural traditions are being manifested in the public forum. Many of these traditions bring with them concepts that are as foreign to many citizens as is their traditional mode of female attire. America has always been a “melting pot”, probably more so than just about any nation on Earth. Apart from the Native American tribes, everyone else has roots to other nations.

It is to be expected that with the immigrants from each part of the earth, many customs and traditions accompany them on their relocation. This mixture has resulted in a wide variety of races, religions and backgrounds.

For the past 300 years America has offered something that has attracted people from every corner of the Earth and it was not always a decision to immigrate for the sake of an easier life. In the beginning, coming to America involved considerable risk; but offered considerable opportunity for reward. Also, in the beginning, it was not always the purpose in obtaining greater freedom in reaching the New World. The colonies were under the rule of England until 1776.

There were so many who desired to relocate to America that it became necessary to establish quotas in order to have an organized and controlled influx. This country has welcomed the rich and the poor, the strong and the weak, the brilliant and the ignorant. We held out open arms to the Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Protestants, Catholics and even the atheists; as well as people from any other religious background. With the arrival of multitudes from various races and religions, there naturally formed areas where those who were like-minded would gather.

In general, there seems to have been a common motive for most immigrants - the desire to have a better life and future for themselves and their families. To those around the world, “the American dream” offered opportunity in a variety of areas. Regardless of one’s origin, they were free to enjoy rights only dreamed about back home. One right has existed as the main purpose for many coming to America, the right to freely exercise the practice and worship of their chosen religion.

Once here, whether your religion blended into the community or attracted attention, you were free to practice it as long as your enjoyment of your right did not infringe on the right of others to enjoy their rights. This has contributed to cultural and religious clusters, whether a neighborhood or a community. Traditionally, as those who practice a religion gained dominance in particular areas, it became more convenient and easier to not infringe on the rights of non-believers. This held true to a great extent until recently when Muslims have not only desired to freely enjoy their religious practice, but have gone beyond that to expecting to also operate under their prior legal system.

America has worked as the “Great Experiment” partly because one thing was commonly accepted by the masses of immigrants. When you get to America, you become an American. You are free to enjoy your family traditions, bring aspects of your culture with you and practice your religion of choice; but, you were always expected to assimilate into the American culture in public and to operate under the laws of our nation. It is the operation of the country, under this framework, which provides equal opportunity for anyone who works hard. It is this opportunity which was the attraction.

When one group not only brings with them their traditions, culture and religion; but also expects to be treated under laws different than everyone else, the system begins to break down. America was founded as a nation of laws. Within the practice of your religion, follow those laws and you will also enjoy the protection of those who enforce those laws. Expect special rules and unequal enforcement of the laws and society will fracture.

Not all Arabs are Muslims and not all Muslims are Arabs. Probably not all Muslims expect to live and operate in America under Sharia law, but many do. We have been instructed that Sharia is just a part of the Muslim religion and we cannot deny them their Sharia practices. It could be said that Sharia practice is only the desire of extremist Muslims; but, nevertheless it is here and gaining ground in various parts of our country.

There are communities where city councils are dominated by Muslims. There are areas where the police have been instructed to respect Sharia law when dealing with Muslims. There have been instances where non-Muslims have been detained by police because they were doing something in a Muslim dominated area which Muslims find offensive but would otherwise be normal in the rest of the country. One state recently passed a law forbidding the judges in that state from considering Sharia law when rendering their legal opinions and judgments. That law was struck down by a court as being unconstitutional. As the extremist Muslims have achieved victory and continue to gain ground in their self-proclaimed “right” to operate under Sharia law and be exempt from the laws of America, some of their practices have become more public and newsworthy.

Americans have been exposed to stories in the news that many of us never expected to take place within our borders. One of the most extreme situations falls under the concept of “honor killings”. To most of us, that is an oxymoron. As most of the “honor killings” take place with members of a family murdering another member of the same family, we have difficulty finding how any civilized people or religion could consider that a matter of honor.

The following are summaries of some recent “honor killings” which took place in America:

· A father of two teenage girls shot both of them to death in the back seat of his taxi. He believed that they were causing dishonor to him and his family because they had become too westernized. They were dressing like typical teenage girls and at least one had found a boyfriend.

· The father of a grown daughter used his vehicle to run over his daughter and a female friend of his daughter in the parking lot of a store. His daughter died of her injuries. Her crime was also that of acting like an American.

· A father, his son and his second wife have recently been accused of murdering the first wife along with his three daughters. They appear to have been murdered by being drowned and then placed in a car and driving the car into a lake to make it appear that they had drowned in an auto accident. The father believed the daughters were not respecting his strict religious beliefs and the first wife had failed to provide him with a son.

· A current story reports that a mother has been arrested for the beating of her daughter. The news states that the police are still investigating and there may be further arrests of other family members. When arrested, the mother was at the hospital to see her daughter. It is reported that she admitted to participating in the beating and understood that it was against the law in America, but that it was not against Sharia law. The beating was the result of the grown daughter finding a boyfriend and talking to him on the phone. When the police informed the mother that she would be arrested, she was shocked and did not believe she had done anything wrong. Additional police were called to help subdue her in order to place her under arrest.

· There are others just as unbelievable as these.

In our society, not only do most of us not see any form of honor in the murder of your own child, but we cannot even comprehend how this could be an acceptable practice by those who claim to be Americans.

Make no mistake when you hear someone promoting Sharia as an acceptable addition to Muslims living in our country. These practices and beliefs are opposed to the American way of life and our legal system. This extends beyond, by a considerable amount, a cultural difference or tradition. Americans are fascinated by various cultures and traditions, but repulsed by aspects of Sharia and their so-called “honor killings”.

POLITICAL SUICIDE

2011-12-30T00:31:00.000-07:00

“Political Suicide - the concept that a politician or political party would lose widespread support and confidence from the voting public by proposing actions that are seen as unfavourable or that might threaten the status quo... Cynics may blame this concept as a reason for a lack of real change or progress in society and that actions described as political suicide are usually sound intentions shot down by reactionism and fear of change.” Wikipedia

On a regular basis we hear that someone has or has almost committed “political suicide”. It is common to then hear a follow-up comment about those who only came close to this fatal mistake, “We cannot expect them to follow through as that would be political suicide.”

Just what does that comment imply? We are being told that it would be unreasonable for us to expect that politician to actually do what they said they would do because the result would likely end their political career. To take that one step further, it means; keeping a promise made or taking a bold step, which may be a career ending move, is not something we can honestly expect a politician to do. Why? Because we have to realize that their careers are more important than doing what is best for the country as a whole.

Sometimes, doing what is right and best for America is not the same as what might be best for the person who has to do the hard work or make the tough decision. Doing what is best for the long-term stability of our nation may be very unpopular with the masses marching down the streets of our cities. Doing what is right, when circumstances demand hard choices, can very well end a political career. It might even launch a recall election. But, that should not be the determining factor! Their careers are not more important to the people back home than saving our country.

We sent a new crop of representatives and senators to Washington a year ago. There was a loud and clear message at that time. We demand a change to what has been going on. We demand you go and make the tough decisions and do what it takes to stop the out-of-control spending. We demand that you go and reign in the Administration who has a standard practice of stomping on the Constitution. We demand that you repeal or defund Obamacare. We do not want you to go there to try to “get along” with the other side of the aisle. “Compromise” is not your job description.

We elected new faces for a specific purpose and those who gained our trust campaigned on being different from their predecessors. We gave the House a majority position with the mandate of stopping what was going on until we could change who occupied the White House in 2012. There were specific marching orders and we expected them to be followed!

Instead of doing the dirty work, we are finding a Republican majority in the House caving into Democrat and media pressure. They have spent much of the time, especially the leadership, trying to reach a compromise that both chambers will pass and the President will sign. Sorry, but I do not find that process in the campaign speeches we listened to or in the instructions we issued to the winners in the last election.

As I recall, we expected one of two things: either get passed what will save America or stop what will harm America. In either case, give us two years where no more harm can be done. We were reasonable and did not expect you to get a conservative agenda passed and signed into law with the limited position the Republicans held, but we did not expect one compromise and cave-in after another to a point where two years later we will find that the Left has just about got their way on most issues and a lot more harm has been done.

The financial well-being of the USA is on life-support. We cannot afford another year like the last one. For me, I would rather have a stalemate and a “government shutdown” over the differences of the life and death of our country, than a continual string of losses in one bill after another. We are told by the Republican leadership that “We have to get something passed!” NO, YOU DON’T! The Republicans CONTROL the House, act like it! Spending bills have to originate in the House. That is a very powerful position to hold. You may be outnumbered by two-to-one, but you hold the Hilltop. Stop firing a couple shots, letting out a few yells, and then waiving the white flag! We are not impressed!

We want men and women with backbone. We want you to stand on the principles that made this country great and then keep standing there. We demand that our government be brought back under the limits of the Constitution. We insist that spending be reduced, not just the increase slowed down a little. We will fight for our rights and we expect you to do the same for our rights.

Stop worrying about the media. You have the ability to communicate directly with us back home. Make the hard decisions, do what is right, begin the process of restoring limited government, cut spending; and then tell us directly what you did and why you did it. Remember, we are the ones who sent you there, you only have to answer to us. We expect you to commit political suicide if that is what it takes. If I see you doing the hard and unpopular work, voting to save America for future generations, I will vote for you again.

Back to the definition at the top, do what the masses see as “unfavorable”, upset the “status quo”. “Cynics may blame this concept (political suicide) as a reason for a lack of real change or progress…” It is not the cynics that voted for you. This is not a mob-ruled democracy and will never endure as such. Follow the rule of law (Constitution) and give our grandchildren a country where freedom still means something.

The Miracle of Conversion

2011-10-11T22:20:00.000-07:00

Last night my wife and I were watching the movie "Fireproof" on TV. If you have not seen it, make sure you find a way as it is good.

During the movie the father of the man who is the main character is used by the Holy Spirit to lead his son to Christ. To me, it was an amazingly powerful moment. Sure, it is just a movie and those are just actors following a script; but that scene seemed so real that I had the sensation of witnessing a miracle.

Imagine yourself sitting in front of someone, looking into their eyes at the very moment that God changes the direction, for eternity, of their soul! The miracle of birth just happened in front of you. Heaven and hell just changed, forever! You just gained a new spiritual sibling. The body of Christ just became stronger and more complete. The angels just set off in singing praises to God.

Now, remember when you were born (again). It was a miracle of God working on your sinful heart to make it clean and pure. It was your soul being snatched from the grasp of damnation and in an instant your life was changed.

Want to see a miracle? Do you really? Reach out to the lost, with the love of Christ, and let the Holy Spirit work through you. One of these days, you will be sitting there looking into the blind eyes at the instant they are opened to see the Light for the very first time.

Have you seen the recent video, online, of the young woman who had just received the implant of a hearing device and was able to hear for the very first time in her life? Go watch it here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjU9U81O1n8

That is very moving and exciting to watch. Someone who hears her own voice for the first time. As great as that is, it does not compare to the spiritually blind having their eyes and hearts opened to see the truth of Jesus, for the very first time.

Showing the love of God can put you in the place of witnessing the ultimate miracle. WOW!

What Just Happened? - A Financial Meltdown!

2011-08-07T01:18:00.001-07:00

Barely one week ago; Washington was in a frenzy over the debate about the national budget and the national debt, Wall Street ratings firms were threatening to downgrade the credit rating for the United States, stock prices were on the way up, gold was at record levels, Republican House members were showing some spine, and the imposed doomsday deadline of August 2 was only days away.

What Just Happened? – Some Background -

The United States Government has been on a spending spree for several years. It is not all the fault of any one party or president - all are guilty! We have managed to rack up a record debt and continue to approve budgets with trillion dollar deficits. (The deficit is the amount of annual spending that exceeds annual revenue or income.) Since President Obama took office, we have been adding to our record debt faster than at any time since at least World War II. (The debt is the accumulation of all of the excess spending, or deficits and represents the amount of money the Government has borrowed in order to keep up the spending levels. The debt is the amount of money the USA owes from borrowing.) Politicians have been using our tax money for pet projects and political favors. Government has added more entitlement programs and expanded the coverage for existing programs. (Entitlement programs include: SNAP (food stamps - now with 45,000,000 receiving benefits, which is around 15% of the population), unemployment benefits (with 9.1% of the workforce unemployed and receiving benefits), social security, Medicare, Medicare prescription program, Medicaid, housing or rent assistance, Pell Grants, free lunches at school, cash for clunkers, rebates for insulation, Earned Income Credit, Child Care credit, and many others.) (Side note: every one of these entitlement programs is unconstitutional.)

Besides all of the spending for these programs; we were told in 2008 that they must pass TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) in order to avert, not only a national but an international financial collapse. This bailout bill had a price tag of $700,000,000,000. In order to help sell this massive bailout bill to the public, we were told that a large part of the money would be used to buy troubled assets from financial institutions. A troubled asset was a foreclosed home (REO). The plan was for the Government to buy thousands of foreclosed homes and get these assets off of the books of the various lenders and agencies. This would improve the lender's bottom lines, make the banks more stable and help the general economy weather the real estate meltdown. The homes would be held until the real estate market recovered and then sold a little at a time, not flooding the market with REOs. We were even told that in the long run, we should make a profit off of these home purchases due to selling them after a recovery. The bill passed and no homes were bought. Many banks went under and the $700 billion was used to bailout Wall Street firms - banks, insurance companies, etc.

Around that same time we were also called on to bail out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. We also purchased controlling interest in major corporations such as General Motors and Chrysler. Remember, we had to, the sky was falling and they were "to big to fail".

As soon as Obama became president, he insisted on a stimulus bill, the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009". This had a price tag of $787,000,000,000. He promised us that if this passed, it would be used for "shovel ready jobs" and that the unemployment rate would not go above 8%. Again, if it did not pass, the sky would fall. Earlier this year, Obama had to admit that "The shovel ready jobs weren't so shovel ready after all." That statement got him a big laugh. The trouble is that the stimulus did not stimulate the economy. Instead, we wasted the money, much of it going to organizations or projects that had a political benefit for Obama and the Democrats. It also only took a few months for the unemployment to exceed 8% and it has stayed near or above 9% since then.

During the campaign leading up to the last election, Republicans were just about as conservative sounding as anyone you have ever heard. If we just elected them, they would go and do the dirty work to get our financial house heading back in the right direction. Also, during the last election cycle, neither the President nor the Democrat controlled Congress put forth the required budget for the 2011 fiscal year. Why? Because the spending was out of control and they did not want to expose just how much was being spent prior to an election.

In November of 2010, the Republicans won numerous elections and gained numbers in the Senate and took majority position in the House of Representatives. Not only did Republicans win big, but many of them were Conservatives who promised to tend to the business of limiting deficit spending, getting control of rising debt and basically attempting to stall the Obama agenda until he has to run for re-election in 2012. The power the Republicans hold in the House amounts to their Constitutional mandate to have primary responsibility for financial matters and the ability to vote "NO" on other items in Obama's agenda. They hold the power to stop what was going on in Washington.

Almost immediately, after the election and even before the new Representatives were sworn into office, the effect of the mandate in the elections began to take root in Washington. All of a sudden the Republicans had a seat at the table, after being ignored for two years. First on the agenda was the extension of the Bush Tax Cuts. As Obama could see the writing on the wall, he began making speeches about how "we" had to get the country's finances in order. We had to deal with the deficit spending, etc. He was stumping as a fiscal conservative. Obama said that we cannot raise taxes on Americans during a recession. In conjunction with a two-year extension of the tax cuts, the Democrats and the President went along with some spending cuts. Republicans promised us that we would get $100 billion in spending cuts for the current year where there was no budget. Then we heard that it would be around $65 billion in cuts. The explanation was that the $100 billion was being pro-rated to reflect the fact that part of the fiscal year was already over. By the time the negotiations ended and an agreement was signed into law, we were told that we had a major victory and achieved large spending cuts during the next decade, but only small cuts for this year. There is just one small problem. A current Congress cannot bind a future Congress to their agreed upon cuts to a future budget. So, future cuts rarely happen.

The debt ceiling for Government borrowing of $14.3 trillion was going to be reached in late April. We watched in anticipation of a debt duel. Without Congress voting to raise the limit, the government would be prohibited from borrowing more money. As the average monthly spending includes over $100,000,000,000 ($100 billion) in borrowed money, this presented a showdown over fiscal policy and responsibility.

Miracle of miracles, the Treasury Secretary "found" a bunch of money that would tie us over until August 2, 2011. That became the new, drop-dead date by which the debt ceiling must be raised to avoid defaulting on our national debt and the downgrading of our national credit rating (which was AAA - the highest possible and it had been at that level since World War I).

What Just Happened? – Recently -

With about one month remaining before the deadline, the discussions took on the highest level of importance in Washington. The rating agencies warned that the credit rating might be lowered if the right steps were not taken. The "right steps" were to be a serious plan to lower the deficit, control spending and begin dealing with the massive debt. However, the Democrats got in front of the TV cameras and told the public that we could lose our credit rating if the debt ceiling were not raised.

We were constantly warned by the Democrats that the Republicans would cause our first ever default on our loans if they did not "compromise" and raise the debt ceiling. At first, the Republicans appeared to be holding strong. Conservatives were reminding them as to why we sent them there and encouraging them to be strong and hold the line. They kept reassuring us that they would not give-in to the wishes of the Progressives.

President Obama never presented a plan to deal with the financial problems. The Democrat controlled Senate never presented a plan until the final few days. The Republican controlled House presented several plans and budgets, all of which were summarily rejected by Senator Reed and President Obama. The Democrats kept telling the Republicans that they have to compromise and come up with a better plan. So, the Republicans kept compromising with their own plans and continued to give a little here and a lot there. The result, each time, was rejection and another order to go back and compromise some more. In the mean time, Obama and Reed made speeches as to how the Republicans were on the verge of causing the first ever default on our debt and downgrade of our credit rating.

Obama insisted that any deal must expand the debt limit enough to cover deficit spending past the 2012 elections. He also insisted that any deal include tax increases. He made speeches about the outrageous deficits, even though much of the deficits are the result of his policies and programs.

The Republicans insisted on a shorter term deal for raising the debt limit, one which would cover around eight months of spending. During this time, they wanted more serious debate over limiting spending. They also insisted that any plan be tied with a vote on passing a Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA). They insisted that any deal would not raise any taxes.

Two weeks ago, the House passed a bill to deal with national finances and get a BBA passed in Congress. The Senate never even voted on the bill, but tabled it so it would have no debate. At the last minute, Harry Reed proposes a Democrat plan. On Monday, August 1, the House voted and passed the Democrat plan. Later, the Senate voted and passed the same bill, which Obama signed into law on August 2. We were told that the "Tea Party" conservatives won a major victory in this deal. We heard how the Left was upset with Obama and the Democrats for giving the Republicans too much. We were told that the deal has no tax increases.

The "deal" immediately raises the debt ceiling nearly one trillion dollars. It includes spending cuts of around one trillion dollars over the next decade. The actual cuts, we were told, in the 2012 budget are around $25 billion. The rest, we are assured, we will get in the future. (Remember, future cuts almost never happen as this Congress cannot bind a future Congress.) The deal also sets up a Super Committee made up of six (three from each party) from the Senate and six from the House. The tie-breaker is Obama. This committee has been given the responsibility that belongs to the House, to come up with another trillion in spending cuts over the next decade. When a majority of this committee (7 out of the 12, or 6 + Obama) has a plan, each house of Congress gets a straight up or down vote. (That means there will be no changes, no amendments, etc.) If this process results in the trillion of agreed cuts in the future, Obama gets another trillion dollar increase to the debt ceiling. If they cannot reach agreement on spending cuts, the current new law includes a "trigger" to enact a trillion in cuts with half being in the Department of Defense. Then Obama gets another, immediate trillion dollars in debt increase.

Republicans do not want cuts to Defense, so this puts them in a tough spot with one Republican possibly having to go along with the Democrats choices of where spending will potentially happen in the future. The Democrats have no pressure to go along with Republicans as they do not mind the trigger cuts to Defense.

As soon as we were told that there would be "no new taxes" in the new law, Reed announced that the only way the Super Committee will be successful is for there to be tax increases equal to spending cuts. So, not only will the Left insist on more taxes, but the Bush tax cuts are already scheduled to expire in less than 18 months. That alone will amount to the largest tax increase in American history.

So, this big victory for the Republicans boils down to a debt limit increase of over two trillion (to a total of $16.4 trillion within two years), unhindered spending for Obama until after the next election, more taxes on Americans; but, a promise of future cuts in spending.

A large group of Republican House members gave up the fight and voted for the Democrat’s plan when it came down to the deadline. One of the main excuses we are being told is, "The Republicans only control one half of one third of the Government." In other words, we have only the House in the Legislative branch of the three branches of government. Sorry, but that is no excuse! The Constitution gives the responsibility for determining spending and revenue measures to the House. Neither the Senate nor the President can force the House to pass anything and they cannot pass anything without the House going along. If they had stayed strong and said NO, at some point the Left would have actually had to consider a "compromise". That did not happen and the Left got just what they wanted.

On Tuesday, August 2, 2011; Obama signed into law the bipartisan deal. The media is busy trying to convince the country that the Tea Party conservatives were the big winners.

What Just Happened? – The Reaction -

Wall Street - Dow Jones Industrial Average plunged over 500 points in one day.
The Federal Reserve begins talking about QE-3, the printing of more dollars to inject into the economy, which will cause inflation.
The Treasury sells a large chunk of the debt allowed by the new debt ceiling increase and almost brings national debt to as much as our GDP - Gross Domestic Product (the total amount of goods and services produced in American in a year).
The Dollar continues to decline in purchasing power (inflation).
Standard and Poor's downgrades the national credit rating from AAA to AA+. That may not look like a big deal, but it is. It is the first time ever for America's credit rating to be downgraded. This is likely to result in higher interest rates for Americans. As the announcement did not happen until after the markets closed on Friday, it is not clear as to how they will react on Monday. There could be another, massive sell-off of stock.
As confidence in the U.S. and international economy falters, early market selling of gold has pushed the price per ounce to above $1,700.

Reed's reaction to the S&P announcement: It just proves that the Democrat plan is right and we need to raise taxes.
The White House reaction: “This was a hasty decision based on faulty math.”

Free and Independent States

2011-08-06T18:50:00.004-07:00

On July 4, 1776; Abraham Clark, a delegate from New Jersey to the Continental Congress, wrote "Our Congress Resolved to Declare the United Colonies Free and independent States."

Of course, this is the same day that this group of men issued the Declaration of Independence. The day before; on July 3, 1776: John Adams wrote to his wife, Abigail Adams,

“Yesterday the greatest question was decided which ever was debated in America, and a greater perhaps never was nor will be decided among men. A resolution was passed, without one dissenting Colony, ‘that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States….’ You will see, in a few days, a Declaration setting forth the causes which have impelled us to this mighty revolution, and the reasons which will justify it in the sight of God and man.”

Can you imagine what it would have been like to be an observer to the Continental Congress?

This room, in Philadelphia, was full of men with a vision for a nation. After repeated attempts to reconcile with the British King and Parliament; they, collectively, chose independence for the Colonies. They declared the 13 Colonies to be Free and Independent States.

The enormity of the decision was recognized by those men who had labored over the decision and the wording for the Declaration of Independence (DOI). They were under no illusion that Britain would accept the loss of rule over the Colonies without a war. The last sentence in the Declaration reveals the commitment each accepted:

"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

Then 56 delegates signed their names to the document.

They felt it necessary to explain to Britain and the world, the reasons for such a decision. The first sentence introduced all readers, foreign and domestic, to one of the most powerful documents ever written by man:

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

Following the first sentence of the DOI, is the preamble; which is also referred to as the "right of revolution":

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Some have argued that the "right of revolution" implies that it must fall within the "rights" in existing laws. As this would not allow for a positive outcome against the grievances resulting from the acts of a government, it has been taken further to state that it is not only the right of the people to overthrow tyranny and despotism, but it is the duty of the people to do so.

What happens when a group of people decide that it is time to dissolve political bands with the government which, up until that point, has been their government? What brings those people to that point? In other words, what is the cause and effect?

Our young country already has two examples of this very situation: the American Revolution with the War of Independence and the War of Secession between the States. In both cases, the party doing the dissolving believed that the government was infringing upon their rights and had done so to such an extent that it was no longer tolerable. As stated in the DOI, "...that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves..." We will tolerate abuse up to a breaking (dissolving) point. The effect of a dissolution of this magnitude is typically war. That, along with the rights being trampled, are the two common aspects of these two examples.

"Free and independent States" - Are we still free and are the States still independent? From the beginning of the United States of America, there has been an erosion of liberty and independence. Instead of the People being sovereign over the government, the Government now rules the citizens. Instead of the States exercising broad and innumerable powers and the Federal Government being restricted and limited in the powers granted to them by the People, we now have the States subject to the Federal Government and Washington dictating to the States what they are allowed to do.

How did this happen and why have we not stopped the trampling of our rights by our own Government which is supposed to be subject to us and the Constitution? There are multiple answers. First is the statement quoted above, "...more disposed to suffer..." We are basically a peace loving people and want government to just do its job and leave us alone to pursue happiness. Second, too many in our country do not realize or understand how our rights have been restricted, often with our own blessing. Many are ignorant of the unalienable rights they possess and are willing for government to infringe upon those rights and destroy the boundary which was designed to limit government. And third, a large portion of our population has been bought. They are on the dole of the Government. They either work directly or indirectly for the government or are on the receiving end of some benefit bestowed by Washington. They have become "single-issue" voters and protest against any move by any person or party to withdraw the hand that is feeding them.

"They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

Will there be a breaking point or a time of dissolution for the American People? Or, will we remain "disposed to suffer" right into slavery?

The "Fix" is Out of Focus

2011-07-30T22:20:00.000-07:00

What prompted the Republican win in the last national election? What was it that drove tens of thousands of individuals to become the "Tea Party"? What message were we looking for in a self-professed, conservative candidate?

There are numerous answers to those questions; but, they all focus around one major theme. Our Government is out of control! We wanted to send individuals to Washington to begin the process of reigning in, not only President Obama, but also the establishment. The main-stream politician in Washington has lost touch with the main-stream American! Actually, that is not only giving them the benefit of the doubt; it is not accurate. We are considerably past the point of politicians losing touch with the people, they have embarked on a path to transition our country from a Republic to a socialist mecca. We the people of the United States of America are witnessing the "change" that a minority had been "hoping" for over the past few decades.

The last election provided an opportunity; not a solution; yet. The conservative contingency sent to the House is sufficient in number to make a difference in "business as usual". The majority shifted to the Republicans, but not to the conservatives. Though we have a strong conservative base in the House, they only hold the limited position of power to obstruct, delay, deny and basically be a thorn in the flesh. Between the Democrats and the moderate Republicans (the establishment), there is an effort to continue in the same direction after applying some icing to a toxic cake. We've been graced with one speech after another from one politician after another about the "crisis". They preach to us, we who seem to understand the situation better than they, how bad things are and how it needs to be solved. Yet, there is not under serious consideration; one single plan, proposal, or budget which takes us in the direction of actually solving the problem. Not one of them reverses the free-fall of the country, they just debate about the adjustment to the rate of decline.

Washington's solution, which they expect us to be happy with; consists of applying some Bactine and a Bandaid to a body which is missing it's guts and backbone. Last November, there was talk as to how the freshmen Republicans would be able to stop some of the nonsense. We seemed to understand that their numbers were insufficient to actually solve the problem through passing legislation; but, they were sufficient to stop the funding of various programs, have an effect on the budget, focus the finances in more proper directions, etc. We knew that the newbies would not run the place, but would be able to apply the emergency brake to a run-away train.

Remember all of the talk about defunding Obamacare? How long has it been since you heard of that effort? Isn't the budget discussion the exact time to deal with that issue? How about the 6,000 new IRS agents needed to enforce the health care law? Is anyone limiting the IRS funding to prohibit this? We are dealing with Administrative departments that are running amok. How about cutting some of their funding?

This Congress has been in office for about seven months. During that time, the focus has changed from being concentrated and targeted on accomplishing specific goals of limiting the Administration in their ability to proceed with their destructive agenda; to passing a BBA (which will do nothing for several years). Yes, they are fighting to hold down the debt and reduce some spending; but no one appears to be concentrating on where the money will be spent, who will spend it, and what it will accomplish? All we hear about is the total amount to be spent.

Where is the detailed analysis of the proposed budget? Someone needs to get out the red marker and scissors! This is a multi-front assault. We must limit overall spending, we must stop deficit budgets, we must hold down taxes, we must restrict government borrowing and get some control of the outlandish debt; but, we must also pay attention to just how and where the President plans to spend whatever amount is approved. We cannot proceed with taxpayer funded organizations such as Acorn (that is just an example we are familiar with).

While all of the major negotiations are dealing with the overall numbers; there needs to be some group of conservatives, in some corner of the Capital, going over the proposed budget, line-by-line. They need to be getting down to the specifics. We can afford no less than this process. Cut the crap out of the budget while there is an opportunity to do so! So what if they get a 2012 budget passed with a savings of $25 billion; but Obama cuts that amount out of the Department of Defense and proceeds with all of the rest of his dream programs?

If, when this all settles down, our only victory has been the reduction of the amount to be spent next year by several billion dollars and we have made no attempt to defund any of Obama's agenda; we will have failed! It is not just about the amount of spending, but also about the direction of that spending.

The OPM of the Masses

2011-07-26T23:20:00.000-07:00

America, it is time for an intervention!

Karl Marx, in 1843, wrote a phrase concerning religion being the “opium of the masses” (translated from German). Today, we have a new opium for the masses in America. The government’s drug of choice for the people is OPM – other people’s money.
The apparent goal is to have a majority of the population, especially those of voting age, receiving financial benefits from the federal government. That monthly check in the mail, from the United States Treasury, is very addictive. Once dependent upon a regular check for normal subsistence; the recipient, in the financial area, tends to become more of a single-issue voter. “Don’t mess with my benefits!”
To make this point: how many people that you know voluntarily quit a government program where they are receiving financial help; or, how many government programs can you name that have been scaled back or eliminated after there is a large group of the public receiving regular financial benefits? It just does not happen and when anyone proposes to do something that will affect those checks, they can expect rioting in the streets; or as recently witnessed in Wisconsin, in the capitol building.
Politicians have been using OPM to addict voters for generations. During some periods of our political history, it has been a race by both major parties to see which one could cause the most to be addicted.
This is not an issue that has to do with race, religion, ethnicity, or any preference one may have. It crosses just about every line in our society. From the rich to the poor, the east to the west; we have a society dependent upon regular financial help from government. We have been tempted and we have succumbed. We may tell ourselves that just one check will not make us addicted. To some, that is true; but with many, the lure is too great to ever want to go back to a life of independent, self-responsibility. Why do all the hard stuff when government will just give me OPM?
Here are some current statistics: the number of people currently receiving unemployment benefits is 14,100,000; there are over 43,000,000 on the food stamp program; etc. Then there are these programs: pell grants for college, medicare, medicaid, subsidized housing, rental assistance, help with utilities, school lunch program, free milk for mothers, free cheese to the needy, farm subsidy program, disability, government sponsored retirement benefits, federal grants to states and cities, federal highway money; and the list goes on and on. This does not include the millions who are in government employment or the financial bailouts to banks, insurance companies, etc.
In some form or another, most of us receive some form of financial benefit from the government. To many, it may be something we do not even notice. To others, it is their livelihood.
All of this has one thing in common; probably none of these programs are Constitutional. For decades we the people have been the enablers to permit this growing addiction to continue. Now, without a serious intervention and treatment, the system will surely die. We cannot continue on this same path and expect to be healthy – ever!
To the co-dependent politicians, we are arranging help for each of you. We are going to send you back home and make you face the reality of your disease. To the addicts, the path is unsustainable that you are currently following. The crops of OPM must be shut down and you must take the steps necessary to recover.

The BBA is Not the Answer

2011-07-17T14:42:00.000-07:00

Brian Darling of The Heritage Foundation, wrote a report which they published on 7/14/2011; called, "The House and Senate Balanced Budget Amendments: Not All Balanced Budget Amendments Are Created Equal". He states that each house of Congress is planning on taking up discussion on their respective versions of a BBA during the week of 7/18/2011. The Senate appears to be leaning towards S.J. Res. 23. The House appears to be leaning towards H.J. Res. 1. With there being multiple versions of BBAs in each house, at least they each appear to be picking one to discuss. This step lets us be more specific, also.

The report compares these two versions and prints the content of each. It can be found here:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2011/07/The-House-and-Sena...

After reading both proposals, it is clear the House version is less specific and in some instances it has less restrictions.

Each contains provisions for the BBA to not apply in specific years: when both houses vote to to exclude a year, when war is declared, or when the US is engaged in a military conflict that poses an imminent and serious threat to national security. In the House version, during a time of military conflict, (with a majority vote) the amendment would be waived; including Section 5, which requires a 2/3 vote to increase revenues (taxes).

This means, since the US is involved in a military conflict just about each and every year (if the House version were to be ratified); a simple majority vote would stop there from being a requirement for a balanced budget and would allow excess spending in unrestricted areas of government (not just the military conflict), and it would allow for tax increases without the higher threshold of a 2/3 vote. Witnessing the high moral standard of our government over the past several years, does anyone believe that it is beyond them to actually send our troops to fight on some distant soil so that they can spend more at home?

It is noted that the BBA is being held out by conservatives in Congress as one of the main issues they demand in order to vote to rasie the debt ceiling. They make it sound like this will solve our problems if they each vote to pass a compromised bill. Even if both pass the same bill, it is then sent to the 50 states to see if 3/4 will vote to ratify this as an amendment to the Constitution. When and if it ever takes effect would depend on that being accomplished.

The very earliest that either version could take effect is for the fiscal year of 2017, and it is very probable it would be later than that. Neither one would accomplish anything to help us right now. If both houses of Congress passed the Senate version of a BBA this year and the states were given the typical seven years to debate and ratify the proposed amendment, the BBA states it would take effect in the fifth fiscal year following ratification. 2011+7+5=2023.

What are they thinking? How is that going to help us here and now? How is trading the Congress passing on a BBA, which will not take effect until 2017-2023; in excange for raising the debt ceiling now, going to make things better? We have $14.4 trillion in national debt, right now. Obama’s proposed budget for 2012 adds another $1.6 trillion. At this rate, by the time any BBA could do anything, we will be looking at a debt of around $20 trillion.

There are many constitutional issues raised concerning the BBA by Publius Huldah in her articles on Canada Free Press: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/37954 and also here: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/33670

Both the Senate and House versions include the provision that the president must submit a budget. Up until now, the Constitution places the obligation to determine spending on the House, not the president. This would fundamentally transfer the responsibility over from the House to the president. They are also worded in a way that seems to make the only issue being the limited amount of total expenditures. There are no provisions dealing with spending on unconstitution programs, etc. It makes it sound like, as long as the president proposes a budget which he claims is not over 18% of our economy and that he claims that he has revenue to meet that level of spending, we should all be very happy.

I believe that Congress will pass some version of a BBA. The Right and Left will each use it as a political accomplishment during the upcoming campaign. We will have to take up the fight on the state level. We will have to learn the facts and be able to teach those to others. We will have to do the work to stop this BBA monster window dressing from becoming an amendment.

Remember, if Congress was so concerned about having a balanced budget, they could just write one right now. The Constitution already gives the House the power to deal with this issue. Stop meeting with the President to get his approval. Stop seeking his leadership. Do not compromise or give-in. Just do your job and cut spending, drastically, now. Just go back to the hill and pass a reasonable budget in the House, now. And, do not trade raising the debt limit as a trade-off for passing a BBA.

As to the rest of us, do not be fooled by the great sounding title – Balanced Budget Amendment. We would all love to have an actual budget that is balanced, that is not the issue. We want to use our current Constitution, where the House is responsible for spending measures, to get the hard work done NOW!

A Republic, If...

2011-07-04T23:20:00.000-07:00

As Benjamin Franklin emerged, after the completion of the writing of the Constitution; a woman asked of him, “Sir, what have you given us?” He responded, “A Republic, ma’am if you can keep it.”

“A Republic…” What is a Republic? Is it the same as a Democracy? If not, how are they different? Which form of government do we the people have for the United States? Is one form of government better than the other?

Those are the questions I had and maybe some of you have wondered the same things. Rarely do you hear that the U.S. is a Republic. Most people refer to it and believe it to be a Democracy. Actually, we may have heard that we are a Republic more than we realize but it has mostly gone unnoticed:

“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands…"

“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government…” U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 4.

To begin with, whether we are a Republic or a Democracy has nothing to do with the political parties of the Republicans or Democrats.

A Republic Form of Government:

Republic defined (Noah Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary):
“A… state in which the exercise of the sovereign power is lodged in representatives elected by the people. In modern usage, it differs from a democracy or democratic state, in which the people exercise the powers of sovereignty in person.”

A Republic is a nation where the people, individually retain the sovereign power. These individuals elect representatives to exercise that power in the operation of government. These representatives are responsible to those people whom they represent and must govern according to and within in the limits of the law.

Key components are that the individuals retain the power and the law restricts the representatives running the government. The government must operate according to the law; and in our case, the supreme law of the land – the Constitution.

A Democracy:

Democracy defined (Noah Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary):
“Government by the people; a form of government, in which the supreme power is lodged in the hands of the people collectively, or in which the people exercise the powers of legislation.”

A Democracy is a nation where the people, collectively, rule. Note that the definition does not include the word “law”. In a Democracy the majority rules. As the majority changes, so do the rules.

Our Status:

As mentioned above, Benjamin Franklin proclaimed that the Founding Fathers had formed a Republic as the form of government for the United States. They had written a Constitution as the “law” under which this Republic would function. They expressed grave concern over the country letting the Republic slip away into becoming a Democracy. They actually referred to a democracy as a “mobocracy”.

The Founders did not want our country to be controlled by “majority rule”. They wanted the Constitution to be the set of rules which controlled the government and the country.

Some in America do not want to be bound by the restrictions in the Constitution and that is precisely why they promote the idea that the Constitution is a “living document”. The phrase, “living document”, does not sound bad if you mean that the Constitution is alive and well and still keeping watch over zealous politicians. But, that is not what they mean. “Living document” means that it is flowing and ever-changing to meet the current needs and desires of the country. In other words, they do not want the Constitution to impose restrictions on their agenda for America.

“A Republic, if…”

Why was Mr. Franklin and other Founders concerned about the Republic remaining a Republic? In order for society to function under the umbrella of a limited government, there must be a rule of law. This law must be set and difficult to alter. It cannot be that a majority can upset the law on a whim. A civil order is required for the people to exist with the God-given rights of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Where the current majority of the citizens make all the rules, the rights of the minority will not be protected. Equal rights require steady laws. In his First Inaugural Address (1801), Thomas Jefferson said: “All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable: that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.”

Within a Republic the individual people retain sovereignty. We, as individuals, exercise our sovereignty as we elect representatives to go to Washington for the purpose of running the government according to the law – Constitution. We expect our representatives to only function in a manner which protects the individual’s natural rights. They are “natural rights” as they were bestowed on us by our Creator. These rights do not come to us from government and were not established by the Constitution. Natural rights predate the Constitution. This document was written to protect those rights and to restrict the government from infringing upon those rights.

With the Constitution being the supreme law of the land and written to limit what government can do, mere logic insists that the Constitution must have a fixed meaning and firm boundaries. If it were otherwise, such as a “living document”, where the very government it seeks to limit, decides where those changing lines will be drawn; it gravitates to a set of flexible rules where those who rule choose the degree of flexibility. In other words, it ceases to protect natural rights and is no longer the law of a Republic. That is why the Constitution was written with a specific list of what the government is permitted to do – enumerated powers.

In a Republic the people are not obligated to the government, but the government is obligated to the people. The people chose to form the government for specific duties and that creation of the people is subject to those creators and must abide within the limits of the Constitution.

In a Democracy, the power lies in the whole body of the citizens and the majority controls power. The citizens become obligated to the government to do as it determines. At any given time, the group that finds itself in a minority position will only have those privileges which the majority grants. Those granted privileges to the minority are referred to as civil rights. They will change as the will of the majority shifts back and forth. There is no line in the sand, no boundaries on government, and no law restricting the rulers from imposing their desires on those in the minority. A Democracy is where the majority rules as a dictator and whatever they decide becomes mandatory. The Founders knew this and this is why they called a Democracy, a “mobocracy”.

In a Republic, the people own the government and its agencies. In a Democracy, the government and its agencies own the people. When the people established the Constitution they did not give up their natural rights. America was founded based on the concept of self-government. We elect representatives to perform specific tasks on our behalf, not to control us and strip us of our rights. The representatives, the government and its agencies were established by the people to act as our agents, on our behalf, for our protection and benefit. They are to represent us, not rule us.

Republic – The People live with and enjoy the natural rights given to us by God.
Democracy – The Citizens live with the civil rights granted to them by their government.

A Republic is a government which functions within the framework of the law (fixed principles), in our case the Constitution. It protects the rights of the individual and respects property rights. This law restricts the government from violating the individual’s rights and prevents the majority from doing the same.

Both forms of government can have voting by the people. The main differences lie in whether sovereignty lies with the individual or with the majority, and whether there is rule by law or rule by majority.

This is the reason We the People require our representatives to take and oath to defend and protect the Constitution. It is too bad that many of those same people, once they have sworn that oath, completely ignore the same. A Republic only continues to function as long as the representatives, elected by the individuals, exercise their duties within the express limits and restrictions spelled out in the Constitution. When the allegiance of the elected is swayed by polls and pleasing the majority in order to win the next election, the Republic dies and the Democracy begins the inevitable slide towards despotism.

The Founders chose to give us a Republic form of government as it was the best, of all of the choices, in securing the rights of the individual and controlling the majority.

Can we keep it?

The 20' Tall Wall of Debt

2011-06-19T01:47:00.000-07:00

This article is for the "numbers people" out there. I have written that our national debt would make a 20 foot tall wall, around the world at the equator, of dollar bills (laid end-to-end and stacked flat). As unbelievable as this sounds, I have decided to prove the numbers.

The equator is 24,902 miles long. With 5,280 feet in a mile, this equals 131,482,560' around the world.

A dollar bill is 6.1" long and .0043" thick. 1.97 dollar bills reach a foot in length. 233 stacked dollar bills are one inch thick.

1.97 (dollar bills) X 131,482,560' (around the world) = $259,020,643 for one lap.

$259,020,643 X 233 (number to equal 1" thick stack) = $60,351,809,120 for a 1" high wall.

$14,437,648,300,000 (U.S. debt on 6/18/11) ÷ $60,351,809,120 = 239.22"

239.22" ÷ 12" = 19.94' (rounded to 20')

Our current U.S. national debt is equal to a wall of stacked dollar bills that would stretch around the world, at the equator, twenty feet tall!

President Obama has proposed his next budget which has an estimated deficit of $1,600,000,000,000. If passed, this amount of spending would add another 2.2' to that 20' tall wall.

As Janet Napolitano has made her infamous statement concerning her resistance to a border wall between Arizona and Mexico, "You show me a 50-foot wall and I'll show you a 51-foot ladder at the border." Well, to the Leftists in our country, no wall is too tall for them.

If you are having trouble wrapping your head around the 20' tall wall, maybe this will help you grasp the enormity of the debt crisis:

1,000,000 (million) seconds = 11.57 days
1,000,000,000 (billion) seconds = 31.71 years
1,000,000,000,000 (trillion) seconds = 31,710 years

If our national debt were paid off $1 per second (without any more increases and no interest), it would take 457,797 years. But, instead of paying it off, we are adding over $1,000 per second to the total (and that is 24x7).

Folks, WE have a problem!

The Garbage Can - Updated

2011-06-18T01:03:00.000-07:00

Based on the past, I have been fairly quiet lately as far as posting blog entries about political issues. It is not that there was nothing to write about; more accurately, it is that there was so much to write about that it literally became somewhat overwhelming. Well, I opened a new bottle of ink and am ready to write again.

1. Remember "Climategate" from last year? This is where the British scientist was humiliated when some email account was hacked and he and others were exposed for fabricating statements and stretching the findings in order to further support the hoax of man-made global warming.

Well, he is back in the news. It seems that after being embarrassed and demoted, he has found Jesus (not literally). After just one year of additional data added to what he had last year, he now finds that the "true" evidence is over-whelming that man-made global warming is in fact a reality that must be solved.

A year ago, his data did not support this strong of a conclusion and the 15 years of data showed a 90% probability. But, adding year 16 to the data, now the average is 95%, which is the needed minimum for scientists to label a theory as a fact. I find one thing that does not seem to add up right. If you have 15 years with a 90% average of certainty and you add one more year to the mix and it raises the average certainty to the desired 95%; that 16th year would have needed 170% of all measures to agree in order to change the average by 5% for the prior 15 years. Basically, that is impossible as you cannot have more than all - 100% in any year.

So, in order to redeem his name in his circle of experts and to attempt to regain his position of authority at his university, he has toed the line.

2. The more that we observe BO and what he does concerning the Middle East, not counting the things he is doing and saying behind the scenes; I say that he needs a good dose of Grecian Formula. His Muslim roots are showing. It is time to add a level of disguise to his true intentions.

BO has issued an ultimatum to Israel. He has told them that they have 30 days to accept the terms he laid out in his speech a couple weeks ago. You remember, that is when he laid the foundation for a lasting peace between Israel and Palestine. He is demanding that Israel go back to the 1967 borders and begin negotiations from that point. He is also in favor of the new nation for Palestine having control of all of Jerusalem.

BO's plan would weaken the defense capability of Israel and prohibit Jews from visiting the Temple Mount. If Israel does not surrender to this plan, BO claims that the U.S. will not be able to help them during the U.N. meeting in September, as the rest of the united world calls for a nation of Palestine at the expense of Israel.

Israel is being set up by BO and his administration, as well as many other countries, to find themselves in a no-win situation. He seems to believe that they will have no choice but to agree to do whatever he has decided is best for them. There is just one problem, Israel seems to have a mind of their own and appears to believe that they are in best position to determine what is best for them and they do not like the BO plan.

When they refuse these terms, the U.N. will unite against Israel and use the same excuse as was used to attack Libya - "the need to protect". This will be the battle cry for the anti-Semites as they come against the Jews and support the Arabs.

Speaking of Arabs, did you hear that the Muslim Brotherhood has a new name? They are now the "Freedom and Justice Party". That makes me feel much better.

3. Do you remember a couple years ago when Washington was wanting to crack down on AZ and it's open gun laws. They claimed that because of our laws, people were buying guns in AZ and sending them to the drug gangs in Mexico. There, these guns were being used for violence. I wondered at the time just how it was that BO knew that the guns in Mexico came from AZ. Well, it turns out that he was right, the bad guys were openly buying guns in AZ and transporting them across the border. But, now we know the rest of the story. Our dear BO administration, through the BATF, was setting up the sells and fully aware of the illegal buyers and watching them take the guns to Mexico. They made no attempt to stop this crime, for some reason. Now, they are under investigation by Congress because one of these guns was used to kill a border patrol agent.

4. I have previously written about our national debt. If you read those posts, you might remember that I compared the debt ($14.3 trillion) to a wall of $1 bills, end-to-end, circling the earth at the equator. This wall of dollars would be 20 feet tall. Yes, it would stretch all the way around the world and be a wall of flat dollar bills that would be 20 feet tall! The current budget being debated in Congress, which was proposed by BO, has an additional deficit which would add another two feet to the top of that wall.

5. I have also written about monetizing the debt. That is where the Federal Reserve prints money and uses it to buy Treasury Bonds. The Fed refers to this policy as QE-quantitative easing. We have had QE1 and at the end of this month QE2 will end. QE2 was where the Fed bought about $600 billion of our debt over the past several months. They say that they are not going to do that again, right now.

China is trying to sell off a lot of the debt that they previously purchased from us as they appear to believe that it may become worthless or at least be paid back with highly inflated dollars. Actually, there is a very good reason for them to worry about this. When a country gets in debt like we are (actually, no country has ever been in debt like we are), with Washington continuing on an out-of-control spending spree and adding more debt each year (lately at least one trillion each year); there are two very possible results: first is that we would default on paying our debt; and second, we would intentionally inflate our dollar so that we would pay back the lenders with worth-less paper money. The later appears to be the path we are taking.

Every time the Fed prints more money and adds it to the money supply, our dollar loses part of its value. Recently, they have been printing gross amounts of extra cash which was used for QE2.

If the Fed sticks to their statement of no QE3 and when China has decided that they want out from being our lender, what will happen? Our government is frequently selling bonds in order to get more money to spend. Remember, a bond is just an IOU. They cannot control their spending and stay within a budget where expenses do not exceed income, so they print another bond and sell it to an investor. When the Fed and China are not going to buy more bonds, who will the investor be for our next bonds? As with any financial risk, the more the risk, the higher the interest rate. In order for the government to sell bonds, they will have to offer them at higher rates of return for the investor.

So, our choices are: 1. default on our national debt; 2. stop spending more than we take in; 3. sell more bonds at higher interest rates. We will not take door number 1 and default and Washington is addicted to spending money they do not have so we can rule out door number 2. That means that we will issue and sell more bonds, increasing our national debt and pay the investors a higher rate in order to attract those with the money.

When this happens and these bonds have higher interest rates, that will have an effect on mortgage interest rates in the U.S. The record low rates we have been experiencing recently will be gone and in order for the secondary mortgage market to be able to attract investors in mortgage backed securities, they will have to have a higher interest rate for a better return. If mortgage rates do not go up, investors will tend to buy Treasury bonds with the higher rate of return. So, either mortgage lending will dry up or rates will go up. When the rates go up, fewer potential buyers will be able to buy a home and it will be harder to refinance your existing house. This will further slow down the real estate industry, will slow down home construction, and will cause another wave of foreclosures. These will tend to further drive down market values.

About the only thing that will delay the above from happening real soon is if the Fed changes their mind and does QE3. This act will tend to hold mortgage rates down but will be an additional pumping of extra cash into the money supply, causing further inflation. This move will also only delay the inevitable. At some point in time, the Fed will not buy more debt, rates will go up and the economy will be further repressed. On this part, our choice is now or later. With BO looking to get re-elected, I would expect there to be some arm-twisting with the Fed. BO can write off four more years if interest rates jump up, causing a more depressed economy, killing the housing industry and driving more into unemployment. So, our economy will probably be artificially propped up for a brief time so that BO has a chance of winning in 2012. But, after the election, as the saying goes, "all hell will break lose".

In the near future, we will either have higher interest rates hurting the economy; or we will continue with a very weak economy and have accelerated inflation, making everything cost more.

6. This good news leads to my last part. Take heed! Do what you can to prepare your family for an economy that will continue a downward spiral. We have all witnessed higher food prices. Gas prices have been much higher this year. BO promised that under his plan, "utility rates would necessarily skyrocket." We are heading into harder times. Nationally and internationally, there are signs that could lead to food shortages. We are flooding our farm lands and those will not return to production next year. Other countries are already having food shortages. If you can, stock up on non-perishable food. Try to have a supply of items you may need in case of an emergency.

If the U.S. got to a point where there were some food shortages, there would be a run on the stores and riots in the streets. During a situation like that, you should not expect the government to be there to supply your needs. There will be many with no extra food on hand. If you have more than enough for you and your family, then you will be able to help others who are desperate.

What's the worst that can happen? You did not do what was needed to prepare. What's the best that can happen? You prepared and we averted an emergency, setting you up to have food that you can eat without making a trip to the store to buy higher priced items.

One last thing - Who is in charge?
God is in charge! That does not mean that we will not suffer hard times, but it does mean that He will help you. Be a light on a hill for those in darkness. Many in our country have forsaken God. If things get really bad, some will be seeking a source of hope. Be ready to point them to God.

Steal My Soul

2011-05-28T23:06:00.000-07:00

Steal My Soul

Lord, how will you create the day, the one which steals my soul away?

And how will it begin and end, the day like no other has been?

Will sleep rapture away from me, as light draws to eternity?

Or will I wake and sense you near, with a peace over all my fear?

Will angels catch me when I fall? Will others know I’m gone at all?

Before the dawn will I see, the eyes of Glory at peace with me?

This special day, how will it be when the Son of Man calls for me?

Mike Foil

May 29, 2011

A Solution

2011-04-24T21:37:00.000-07:00

"A Solution"

(This article is a response to a comment made following the recent CFP article "The Shaft")

I appreciate your response to the article on CFP "The Shaft". If you read the other comments, both before and after you posted your response; you will see, as I am sure you are well aware, that your frustration is felt by many. As I was not sure whether your challenge was issued to me personally or in general, I accepted it as a personal challenge to offer some solutions. I thought about your question, "What can we do about it?"

Last night I sat down and began writing a follow-up article, "The Solution". As the problem has many aspects, so the answer will also need to have many approaches and directions of attack. I began by introducing one problem and then offered what I felt like was a solution to that problem. I have said before that we must be willing to endure short-term pain in order to have long-term gain. The solutions to many of our problems will probably make the economy worse before it gets better; but, in the long run, if we did the hard things now, we would be better off. Be mindful that I am well aware of my shortcomings and limited understanding of these issues, but on the other hand, some of this is just old fashioned, common sense.

As I wrote about several issues I began to notice a trend, which is exactly the opposite of what you are looking for. Our problems are with our government and in order to have fast solutions to some old problems, it would take our government taking action against what it has previously done. Our frustration is largely due to this dilemma. We keep trying to send people to Washington to fix the problems and we continue to see nothing being fixed.

It seems that we the people have two choices; either we can continue to attempt to make change through elections and keeping pressure on those elected, or we can take to the streets.

The first option is peaceable and the widely accepted method of making change. Promote candidates who are conservative and not just Republican. Find some who are not professional politicians and actually want to go get the job done and then come back home. Under normal circumstances, where there is a difference of opinion as to the direction our country should take, this has worked in the past. But, we are not under normal circumstances, in my opinion. This method of change is slow and unsure, based on past history. We have to ask the question; do we, as a nation, even have that much time before much of this mess becomes irreversible. Maybe not!

The other obvious option is for the people to rise up and take the government back, by force, if necessary. This clearly has many drawbacks as it would likely either result in a civil war with extensive bloodshed in the streets of our cities or those who actually take the first steps out of the shadows to rise up would quickly be put back down through force or arrest. Who knows, it may actually take some patriots sacrificing themselves as the first targets of the Leftist government in order to generate a widespread uprising. This option is not only very bloody but also very likely to fail. Our Founding Fathers warned us against such a situation as we find ourselves. They told us that if and when our government ceases to act as our representatives and our servants (our creation) and instead acts as our lords and kings who dictate how we are to behave; that the time would come when the people need to take back the government and establish, once again, a system of the people, by the people and for the people.

The trillion dollar question is whether or not the People have reached the point where they believe the only solution is to retake the headship by force? As the Left has been at war with America much longer than we were awake to their actions, the Right is far behind. The Left has been successful at indoctrination of the youth for decades and establishing a broad base of voters who feel entitled to other people's money. I believe that there is a portion of our population who is willing and able to take up arms against the socialists (and worse) who are quickly destroying our country. But, I also believe that they are in a great minority as far as action and not just words or emotions. Is there a similar minority as there was for the first Revolution, approximately one third of the population? I doubt it because most people are not educated to the point of understanding the harm being done and how it will not be corrected by the next election.

The Left had all their ducks in a row and were ready to hit the water when the perfect storm arrived. This all came about with the election of Obama. That is why they were ready to hit us with multi-thousand page bills that were too urgent to have time to read. These bills were not written after the last presidential election, they were ready to go. The first two years of Obama were like a whirlwind of bills, with the Left intentionally not giving us a chance to see what they were doing or have time to respond or catch our breath.

There are other things that we can do without having to wait for another one or two elections and hoping things improve and also without taking to the streets. If you are not familiar with the articles written by Publius Huldah and posted on Canada Free Press, take the time to read them. They are excellent documents of constitutional education. Especially, take notice of the articles on Nullification. The following link will take you to the archive of her articles:

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/members/1/Publius%20Huldah/

Maybe option three is, instead of physical warfare or just waiting for elections, we educate the population. We win the battle of ideas and work on our states to each nullify the unconstitutional laws and regulations being dumped on us from Washington. We double-down on the pressure on our Representatives and Senators to actually make progress in reducing the size of government and reign in spending. We take to the streets, not in violence, but in promotion of solid conservative candidates for an election that is just next year. The 2012 election can further strengthen the conservative position in the House, can gain Republican control of the Senate and I pray will dethrone Obama and replace him with a servant of the people who loves the Constitution.

The Shaft

2011-04-23T00:31:00.000-07:00

THE SHAFT

One republican politician after another, when asked “Will you vote to raise the debt ceiling?” has the same answer, “I am against raising the debt ceiling, unless we get something major as a concession.”

So, what is a major concession, in their eyes? To many it consists of the same prize, a balanced budget amendment (BBA). “If we could attach the vote on raising the debt ceiling to a vote on the BBA, then I would vote in favor.”

Let’s weigh what we give up for what we get. First, what we give up. We will concede that the debt ceiling will be raised. Currently the U.S. debt limit is $14,294,000,000,000 ($14.294 trillion, or $46,000 per citizen). It was last increased from $12.394 trillion effective in February 2010. At the time of this writing (the evening of 4/22/2011), the current national debt, subject to this limit, stands at $14.245+ trillion. During the next few days we will reach the debt limit.

For every $1 trillion added in debt each citizen will owe an additional $3,200. For some additional perspective, our current national debt number, measured in seconds, would equal approximately 450,000 years. If our current debt were dollars laid flat, end-to-end around the equator, it would make a wall twenty feet tall. Yet, Washington does not appear to grasp the severity of the situation.

So, for each of us to assume an additional chunk of national debt, what will we be receiving in return? Our gift will be a “proposed amendment to the Constitution”. That’s right, we would not be unwrapping an actual law prohibiting the government from spending more than the national revenue; no, we would find in our package a proposed amendment being sent to all of the states for possible ratification. Yippee!

In order for a proposed amendment to become part of the Constitution, three fourths of the states (38 of the 50) must vote to ratify. So, even if the legislature were to pass this measure and it be sent to the states, there is a chance that it would not receive the required number of state approvals. Typically, the states are given seven years to complete the debate and voting for ratification.

If at least 38 states ratified the BBA and it took seven years to do so, the new amendment would take effect the beginning of the second fiscal year following its ratification. If it went to the states for consideration this summer and took seven years to ratify. The BBA would take effect in the fall of 2019. If all of the required states ratified the BBA within the first six months, it would still not take effect until the fall of 2017 (according to the wording of the document – House Joint Resolution – HJR).

There are actually multiple versions of a BBA existing as HJR. The two with the most support are HJR-1 (130 cosponsors) and HJR-2 (219 cosponsors). The two are very similar with one major difference; HJR-1 would limit outlays to 20% of GDP (Gross Domestic Product, which is the total market value of all goods and services produced in the country during one year).

Ignoring the potential for 38 states to fail to ratify the BBA and also the fact that it would not take effect for several years, at the very earliest; what would the BBA accomplish if it did become part of the U.S. Constitution? In my opinion, almost nothing!

The BBA is full of loopholes that the government will use to exempt one year after another from falling under its limits. For instance:

Section 1 – the budget must be balanced unless 60% of the legislature votes to exceed revenue,
Section 2 – the debt limit shall not be increased unless 60% of the legislature votes to raise the debt limit,
Section 4 – bills to increase revenue (taxes) require a majority of each house,
Section 5 – Congress may waive the BBA in any year in which we are at war or when the U.S. is engaged in a military conflict causing an imminent and serious military threat to national security,
Section 7 – total receipts used in the BBA do not include amounts from borrowing and total outlays do not include repayment of debt.

In summary, we will be taking the very serious step of changing our Constitution by adding an amendment that will rarely take effect in any given year. If Congress does not vote to increase spending or raise the debt limit in some year, they can exempt that year due to a serious military conflict somewhere in the world. If the President cannot get Congress to vote to authorize increased spending in one year, all he needs to do is send our troops off to fight and get the spending increased through the back door.

We would still need to continue to borrow and increase our debt due to Section 7. Our government will spend what it brings in through revenue and need to borrow money to pay the debt.

We are trading a present increase in national debt for a potential limit in spending years from now. Note that even if the BBA had been in effect for the past ten years, we would have been exempt from its limits each and every year due to military conflict.

Do not be fooled. The BBA is not the solution to our fiscal problems. If our representatives were serious about stopping the out-of-control spending, they could do it without an amendment to the Constitution. Spending bills must originate in the House. If the republicans in the House would draw a line in the sand and refuse to cross it, they could control spending. No increase in the debt limit and no bill to raise taxes and no spending bill can ever become law without republican approval in the House.

WDJS

2011-03-14T18:46:00.000-07:00

What did Jesus see?

After nearly being whipped to death, after the lose of blood and the agony of physical pain, after having the crown of thorns pressed upon his head, after being forced to carry a heavy beam through the streets, following the ridicule and rejection; Jesus was thrown down onto the ground, across the same beam.

Even though He knew what to expect, still the adrenaline was pumping through his veins. The Roman soldiers were pulling on his arms and preparing to pound steel spikes through his wrists. Others were pulling on his garment and striping him bare. Some in the crowd were still yelling at Him, cursing and laughing. Others, including his mother, were crying.

The prior night’s prayer was over and the thoughts had progressed past whether or not there might be another way to accomplish the Father’s will. Resolve had not only set in, it was steadfast!

Lying there on his bloody back, which had the skin ripped open and splinters poking the raw wounds; Jesus, through eyes crusted with dry blood and salty sweat, looked upward. Immediately in front of him were the images of Roman faces, some with whiskers, all showing an indifference to His situation. To them, He was just another guilty Jew that they had to deal with before they got off duty.

Beyond their empty eyes were the helmets of dull metal and leather straps. He glimpsed the hammer being passed from one soldier to another holding down his right hand. At the exact time of hearing the metal-on-metal contact, a pain shot through his whole body and a cry rang out from his dry mouth.

After several seconds of wincing, His eyes opened again, this time to see beyond the bounds of Earth. The soldiers and crowds were a blur to His sight. The sounds were fading into the background of His conscience. Now, He was looking into the Heavens where His Father waited for Him and the angels were ministering to Him. The God-man repeated the thought, “Thy will be done!”

Beware of the Balanced Budget Amendment

2011-02-09T01:04:00.000-07:00

Currently, there are multiple Joint Resolutions in the House - 112th Congress, for a balanced budget amendment. There appears to be two which have the most support, H.J.Res.1 with 109 cosponsors and H.J.Res.2 with 178 cosponsors. They are basically the same but do have a few minor differences. HJR1 includes a Section about limiting spending to 20% of GDP (Gross Domestic Product - the sum of the production for the country in a given year) unless 2/3 vote for increase. #2 does not have this section. #1 requires 3/5 vote to increase taxes where #2 requires a majority. Other sections appear to be identical.

Many are pushing to get one of these through Congress and passed onto the States for ratification. Although it all sounds good, let's make sure we are doing the right thing before we add to the Constitution. Here are some of my concerns:
1. Most all sections of the amendment can be made of no effect by a vote of Congress. So, as tricky (or deceitful) as they have shown themselves to be, I would imagine they would find some way around the amendment when they wanted.

2. HJR1 limits spending to 1/5 of GDP. Just as the official inflation rate has been manipulated to look better by excluding fuel and food prices, and as the unemployment rate is massaged by excluding those not receiving jobless benefits, I would expect some sort of manipulation in the GDP number, also.

3. It still allows for a 3/5 vote to increase the debt limit. So, there is nothing that would stop Washington from borrowing more.

4. The President is to submit a balanced budget based on proposed revenues. We already see gross distortion in estimating income and expenses for the things they want.

5. The whole amendment can be waived in any year when war is declared, or when there is a military conflict which causes a serious military threat to national security. So, if this had been in effect for the past nine years, it could have been waived each year as we are at war. It would have done nothing to control the excess spending we are experiencing.

6. The real kicker - the revenue and outlay numbers for the "balanced budget" do not include limiting the borrowing of more money and do not include the payments on debt (interest). So, we could and probably would continually go further in debt each year; in fact, we would almost have to because they would be doing a budget where all tax revenue is spent on budget items, exclusive of the debt repayment. So, where do we get the money to pay the interest and principle for the debt? We would have to borrow it.

7. None of this would take effect until at least 2017. So, from now until then, if ratified, spending could continue out of control. Debt would continue to be increased.

I would love limits on government spending but for some reason, I do not trust this to actually work or do us any good for the next few years. It does not seem right to add an Amendment to the Constitution which is full of exceptions and built-in over-ride allowances. What we need are people filling the seats who will do the job we sent them there to do. Stop spending, NOW.

Congress controls the purse strings. There is nothing to stop them from demanding a balanced budget, right now. If getting control of spending is something they believe is good, "just do it!" NO waiting and NO excuses!

The Garbage Can - Again

2011-02-01T23:25:00.000-07:00

It has been quite awhile since the last "Garbage Can" posting so I thought I should do a catch-up. For those of you who do not know, these are conglomerations of various subjects (all political) rolled up neatly into one blog article.

1. The USA is fast approaching it's authorized debt limit of $14.3 trillion ($14,300,000,000,000.). Within the next few weeks one of two things will happen: either the government will have to stop borrowing more money and begin to control their spending, or Congress will have to vote to increase the debt ceiling. Who can be the first to guess which one will happen? tic toc tic toc - buzz!! We have a winner! Yes, Congress will vote to authorize additional borrowing. When President Obama gave his State of the Union (SOTU) speech last week, he talked about the necessity to control spending and get our debt under control. The very next day, the administration (that is Obama's branch of government) sent to Congress their next budget. This budget projects an additional $1.5 trillion deficit for this coming fiscal year. Guess what BO used as the title for the budget - "A New Era of Responsibility: Renewing America's Promise". Makes me glad they did not decide to go the irresponsible route. BO also predicts, in the budget, that OUR debt will reach $20 trillion by the year 2015 and will equal the gross domestic product (GDP) by 2020. He is definitely on track to reach his 2015 goal. He has mastered the art of massive spending, tripling and quadrupling what President Bush did in his record breaking, highest year; his first two years in office.

2. Congress (the "R"s and many of the Tea Party darlings and even a handful of "D"s) has proposed a Balanced Budget Amendment. This is referred to as "House Joint Resolution 1" (HJR1). What they are considering is passing in the House and Senate this resolution and presenting it to the States for ratification. If enough States ratify the amendment within seven years, it would become another Amendment to the Constitution. When you take a look at what it is called - "Balanced Budget Amendment", you have got to agree that it sounds mighty good. But, I have to be just a tad pessimistic. Basically, every aspect that would restrict government spending has a built-in loop-hole that can be used, by them, to exempt one year after another. It limits spending to 20% of GDP, unless they vote (66%) to override that in certain years. Expenses cannot exceed income, unless they vote (60%) different. The national debt cannot be increased, unless they vote (60%) to do so. The annual budget submitted by the President mush show that the projected income will cover the planned expenses (we all know they would not fudge the projected income numbers). Bills to increase taxes would have to pass by 60% of the votes.

Here is one I really like: Congress may waive (50% vote) having to abide by the amendment in any year war is declared or there is a serious military situation. (So, if we had this as an existing amendment, it would have been waived for the last nine years while we were at war and all the spending we are dealing with could have still happened.)

Now the real kicker: when calculating the projected income and planned expenses, which have to be balanced, these numbers do not include additional borrowing or payments of interest on our debt. So, it will establish a system whereby all projected income will be spent on expenses, without paying interest. This will mean that each year we would, at least, have to borrow an amount equal to our interest expense. So, it builds in an ever-increasing national debt into the system. The 2010 budget included $164 billion to pay interest (over $500 per person in the country), which was 18% more than the prior year. Since that time we have borrowed more money (trillions) so this number will continue to increase each year. And, as far as this amendment being the solution to our current, out-of-control spending in Washington, even if passed and ratified, it would not take effect before 2016 at the earliest.

3. New York is one of the examples of states that is in serious trouble, financially. NYC is just as bad. Still, Mayor Bloomberg just spent $100,000 of New York taxpayer money to send undercover investigators to Arizona to see if they could buy guns at a gun show. Money well spent - they came, we sold them guns. Now, for some reason, he is claiming some big victory for this venture. AZ is exposed! Individuals sold other individuals guns without a background check - Oh My Gosh! Just one problem with the "big" announcement, it is all legal.

4. Cannot forget about Egypt. The President of Egypt (Mubarak) announced that he will not seek, nor would he accept his parties nomination for re-election next September. This follows over a week of mass protesting in the streets of the main cities. There are so many people protesting that it amounts to 1 out of every 250+-, yes, about 0.3 percent of the population. It is another case of the squeaky wheel. The masses are demanding he leave, now. The country is in crisis - looting, robbery, burning, injuries, over 100 dead... Whether or not this began as an uprising by the real people in Egypt, it is being co-opted by Muslim extremists. They have learned what the Left in this country knows, "Never let a good crisis go to waste!"

The Muslim Brotherhood has muscled themselves into position as a "player" when the seat of government becomes vacant, which will probably be very soon. "Brotherhood" what can I find wrong with that? Well, they are already issuing a statement to get the Egyptian people ready for a war with Israel. The are a very radical faction of Muslims who vow that Jihad (holy war) is their way to get things done. They want Sharia Law to govern the world. If Egypt falls into radical control, they will control the Suez Canal, through which much of the oil headed to Western nations passes. Most of the rest passes through a narrow channel that can easily be controlled by Iran. If you think gas prices are high now, just wait.

4. Egypt is not the only Arab country in turmoil. Today, the King of Jordan dismissed his government. His country has also been experiencing protests over the past few days. These two countries (Jordan and Egypt) have been among the few in the region who have had decent relationships with the USA. The Middle East is in a state of transition, several nations are on fire and the direction they appear to be headed is even more radical. These two countries are the only border nations with Israel which have not been actively seeking the destruction of the Jews.

5. The BO administration keeps telling us the economy is in recovery mode. This, while unemployment remains well above 9%, gas prices are on their way up, food prices are increasing, many states are facing bankruptcy, banks prepare to release some of their "shadow inventory" of foreclosed homes onto the market, personal bankruptcies are high, more foreclosures are planned for this year, and our Federal Government cannot stop borrowing and spending more and more money. In spite of what they tell us, it appears that everything they are doing is geared at bringing our economy to it's knees.

Now the good news...

God is still in control!
Sleep well!

The Things I Value(d)

2011-01-26T01:01:00.000-07:00

As I sit here thinking about what was important to me at various stages of life, I have to smile. I will give you a brief summary of the progression of my early "things of value":

Some of my very first memories include a homemade, wooden stool (painted white) with two steps. This was specially made for me (around age 2-3) by my Dad so that I could reach the sink in the bathroom. We had the stool for several years. Why was a stool valuable? Well, first of all, it was mine. Second, it was important for many years as I was too short to reach very many things. It also came in handy when I was around seven. I stood on that stool to wash dishes. Yes, I did wash dishes around that age. Without that stool I would not have been at that sink washing dishes exactly when one of Santa's helpers peeked in the kitchen window to see who was being good. Luckily, it was me!

When I was around three we rented a house while our next home was being built. We had to rent because my Dad had sold our prior house (the "flat-top house") all of a sudden. It seems that if a good deal came along, it was a sign to sell. While in the rent house, the two things I remember being important had to do with the next-door neighbors, the Whipples. Pete and Bryan Whipple were close in age to my brother and I. We spent quite a bit of time climbing in their apple trees, playing in the drainage ditch next to their home, and watching the hogs get slopped. The other thing was when Mrs. Whipple invited me in to have fresh, homemade bread. As they had their own cows behind the house, the bread was served with fresh cow milk - which never quite seemed as good or safe as the milk that came from the milkman.

During the years when I was between four and eight, we lived in "the 2-story house". We moved into this new house when it was just Mom, Dad, Ron (pronounced Wonnie-my older brother), Sharon (pronounced Shawon-my younger sister) and me. During these years two more sisters (Carolyn and Paula) were born and we will not get into whether or not either or both of them were "accidents". It was while we lived in this house that I was rewarded with the exceptional Christmas that was mentioned above.

These years were what I would refer to now, as a boy's dream. Ron and I had freedom to explore the general area, which included an old pit which had been used as a dump many years before and had old, rusty cars plus the normal items a boy would enjoy from the local dump (such as bottles to shoot with our BB guns). There was a small rodeo grounds nearby where Albert and I attempted to extinguish a small forest fire with our army shovels and canteens full of water. (No, we did not set the fire.)

To the south of our small subdivision (two square blocks) was the city park which consisted of a pavilion with it's large stone fireplace and the town's little league baseball park. The baseball field was dirt, it had no bleachers and above-ground dug-outs. People sat around the home and visitor sides on the hoods of their cars. If something really good happened, such as getting someone out at first, several horns would honk several times. I still remember that George's mom was really loud, all of the time - always finding something to scream about. It was at this field that Ron set the homerun record for Show Low. It was not surprising that he could do this because, from my perspective, he was a little short from being a giant for his age. Even though there were only two and a half years between us, there were several feet of elevation. He grew tall fast and I grew short slowly. Our Dad was the manager of the Cardinals so that is where Ron played and I was batboy and score keeper. Don't get me wrong, I did get chances to play. Whenever one of these opportunities came along, it made me more than a little nervous. I was afraid of the ball and consequently played right field - the safest place to put me if the team wanted to win. (At that time teams kept score and there were winners and losers.) Rarely did anyone hit the ball to right field, so I could stand out there in my over-sized white and red uniform and pray. Yes, I did have to bat. But I had an advantage that helped hide the fact that my eyes were usually closed while the pitch was being delivered. (If you close your eyes, the ball won't hit you in the face.) I was so short that my strike zone was only about six inches tall. In little league, the pitchers were not that good and I typically walked without having to ever swing the bat.

We each had our friends - one of mine I mentioned above - Albert. He lived across the street and was the son of the doctor in town. Albert and I got along pretty good. Maybe it was because we each had our own issues. His issue was that he had a wooden leg. There is not a lot of things that make a boy more curious than a friend's leg that comes off at night.

There were five other boys near the ages of Ron and I in the neighborhood. We would ride bikes, shoot our guns, explore the woods to the west and north, hunt for pottery and arrowheads, shoot frogs in the cow pond, catch polliwogs and watch them grow into frogs in jars on our carport. We had dogs and cats that had litters in the wood shed behind the house. We made ant farms in large jars and had the usual, small turtles which only lasted a few weeks after Easter. We dug foxholes and made tunnels in the field to the east of our home. We camped out in the lean-to we made from small pine trees and explored the two old log cabins in the forest. We were in Cub Scouts together, where we learned about how far a skunk can squirt.

There were no paved streets and when you crashed on your bike, you went home with cinders in your knees and elbows. This happened to me several times as my bike was a 24 incher and that is a little taller than I was at the time. In order to get started, I pulled my bike behind my Dad's green and black Dodge pickup and climbed on the bumper. It being a boy's bike, stopping was a delicate matter and required planning - or crashing.

We had all we could need and want. BB guns with a "block" of shells in the top of the coat closet, bows and arrows (both were fiberglass bows - Ron's was 35# and mine 25# - with $0.25 arrows from A&A Sporting Goods), pocket knives, army shovels, canteens, bikes, a hatchet, Ron's electric train set, and a bunch of friends. As I have previously written about the cross-bows Dad made for us, the afternoon naps for a wide-awake boy, and the daily enemas for a brief period, we will not go into those again, here.

I will bring up one story that includes the doctor mentioned above. One day Sharon stuck a BB up her nose. (Don't ask me why.) When Mom could not remove it, she loaded Sharon, Ron and I into our Ford station wagon and we headed to the doctor's office. Mom took Sharon inside and Ron and I waited in the car. (At that time you were not concerned about every passerby calling the cops on the parents due to leaving a kid in the car unattended.) As boys will get bored, somehow or another, by the time they returned to the car, a cinder had been placed in one of Ron's ears. Mom was excited that it was such a convenient situation, being still in front of the doctor's office - so excited that, as I remember, I was on the receiving end of a spanking when we got home. I still do not understand why I was to blame without a through investigation.

Sorry girls, but I don't really remember when Mom and Dad brought Carolyn and Paula home, but I do remember when they came home one night after trading in the '55 Ford blue station wagon for a "57 Ford blue and white station wagon. I also remember that around the time I was seven or eight, we got our first TV - black and white (of course). It had a converter box that sat on top which was used to fine tune the signal for the one station we received from Tucson, off of Porter Mountain, by way of the TV antenna mounted to the top of the house. I remember the crank telephone being replaced with a dial phone. Things were good!

Then, again, Dad came home one day after receiving another good offer. We were moving, but only to a house to rent in the same neighborhood.

Now, I have trouble remembering names of people, but our five friends were: Bobby Knox, Albert Armstrong, Kent Bunger, Mike Birdno, and Jimmy Welkner. Mrs. Birdno and Mrs. Welkner each had Den Mother duties at different times. It seems that the "short-term" memory is a factor but the long-term memories are priceless.

Does God Know Your Name?

2011-01-24T00:43:00.001-07:00

Where do you stand in your walk with the Lord? Are you one of the people in line to hear, (Mat 25:23 KJV) "Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord." Or, do you feel like you might just be in the line that hears, (Mat 7:23 KJV) "I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

From the context, it appears that the later group is surprised to hear that they are not being welcomed into Eternity with God. These people not only express shock, but back up their appeal with an argument claiming to have worked miracles in the name of Jesus. The preceding verse reads as follows: (Mat 7:22 KJV) "Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?" Jesus responds by telling them that He never knew them.

It is passages such as this that should get our attention. I, for one, believe that many "Christian" churches in America have a large number of members sitting in their pews, believing they are "saved", when they are in great danger of spending eternity in hell.

In the past week I have been asked by two different believers, "Do you think I am going to heaven?" and "Do you ever question whether or not you are a Christian?" Maybe you have recently thought something similar. Maybe you have had your thoughts turned to eternity and forced yourself to refocus due to the uncomfortable feeling that followed a sense of insecurity. For a person to actually verbalize one of the above questions is a positive step in the right direction. Too many will not let themselves go that far.

If I may make a general statement (acknowledging beforehand that it does not apply to everyone), Americans have grown complacent. Is it that we are lazy, ignorant, deceived or just plain indifferent? The following is a definition of complacency, from Dictionary.com: "Self-satisfaction especially when accompanied by unawareness of actual dangers or deficiencies."

The glove fits many of our hands perfectly! Many Americans, regardless of the size of their bank accounts, feel fairly self-sufficient. This past week, I was talking to a minister who is leaving this week to work in Columbia. He told me that in areas of Colombia, where the people are generally poor and have no financial security, they are praying all of the time. They do not feel self-sufficient at all. They openly acknowledge their need and helplessness, accompanied with a dependence upon God.

This scenario seems to fit a situation where Jesus might come up with a parable to make His point, without actually stating the obvious. Between the poor Colombians who are praying always to God for deliverance and the comparatively rich Americans who rarely pray because they basically have all of their needs met by their own labors or the programs of government, which will be first in the kingdom of God? To make sure you are not confused, the answer to the parable is not for you to become poor and destitute on purpose.

In America, most of us who want them, have jobs with decent incomes. We have the ability to drive to the grocery store and buy what we want for supper. In fact, we can purchase the food our family will need for the next week and store it in our refrigerators. In those cases where Americans are unable to buy the groceries for their family, our government will step in and supply free food. If you lose your job, our government will step up and write you weekly checks. If you are sick, our government will see to it that you get necessary health care.

Many within our borders have become worshipers of government and it's welfare programs. It is Washington D.C. and the politicians who usurped a position where they have become idols in the hearts and minds of many citizens.

We, as a nation, are complacent, in general. We are too self-sufficient and self-satisfied. Why pray for needs when we have none? This brings up the last part of the above definition, "...unawareness of actual dangers or deficiencies." I am no expert on theology, but from my perspective it would appear that many of us fall into the category of "unknowns" to God. We sit in our usual seats in churches on Sunday mornings, halfway listening to the sermon and halfway considering where to go for lunch (worried that if the pastor talks too long, the Baptists will get to the restaurants before we can). We stand and sing along with the songs, maybe even raise a hand while we sing. The bold ones will say an occasional "amen". We quickly shake a few hands in the front of the church and head to the parking lot, not to think about any of this again until it is time to set the alarm clock on the next Saturday evening.

When this pattern becomes our "Christian" experience, do we really believe that we will hear "well done, good and faithful servant..."? Somehow, I doubt that is in our future. These "beat-the-Baptists-to-lunch-Christians" would probably all (each and every one) claim to be a believer in Jesus. They, at some point in their lives, may have "walked the aisle" in response to an "invitation" and repeated "the prayer". After which, they were assured that they were now Christians, on their way to heaven, "once-saved-always-saved".

Sitting in the same churches, many times, are found those who will hear "well done" and "enter thou into the joy of the Lord". What is the difference? Where is the line drawn that divides the two groups? Theologians could preach a series of sermons on this subject, but let me offer a summary opinion. When we turn to God and accept Jesus, acknowledging our belief that He is the Son of God who died on the cross in order to offer Himself as the sacrifice for our sins, He comes as a package deal.

The complacent believer accepts Jesus as their personal Saviour and uses Him as their "get out of hell free" card. On the other side of the line are those who have fallen in love with Jesus the Saviour and welcomed Him as Jesus the Lord. The trouble is that Jesus is not divisible, you either have Him as Saviour and Lord or you do not have Him at all.

What does it mean for Jesus to be our Lord? Maybe it would help to think of Him as our King. If you lived in an earthly kingdom, you would be expected to obey the king and serve him however he commanded. So, with Jesus our King and Lord, he expects us to follow Him as he leads each of us.

Two other verses from the same passage as quoted above (one just preceding and one just following) are as follows: (Mat 7:21 KJV) "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." (Mat 7:24 KJV) "Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock".

If you believe in Jesus and have accepted Him as your Saviour, it is time to accept the rest of Him - LORD! "All hail King Jesus"! We will never regret anything that we gave up, lost, or sacrificed in this life in order to be invited to step across the welcome mat into heaven.

If you are one who has been thinking a question about your place in eternity, good! That shows that the Holy Spirit is working on you. Yield to the Spirit of God and submit your life to serve Him. That is where you will find assurance.

How Much Do YOU Owe?

2011-01-04T23:56:00.001-07:00

If you like numbers, you will love this posting... This is a snapshot of the United States and where we stand, financially.

For the first time ever, last Friday, on 12/31/2010, the U.S. national debt passed $14,000,000,000,000. That is $14 Trillion. With a U.S. population of 310,586,200; the debt equates to $45,000 per person - every man, women and child in the country. If you are paying attention to current events in Washington, one issue is an upcoming vote as to increasing the debt ceiling for the government. Currently, the law limits the national debt to $14,294,000,000,000. That is expected to be reached in three months.

The national debt was at $5,774,546,000,000 eleven years ago. That is a 143% increase since 2000. We increased the debt by one trillion dollars since June 1, 2010. Three years ago it was at $9,249,122,300,000. That is a 50% increase in three years.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects the debt to be $16,971,879,000,000 in four years. But, based on the current rate of spending, it would be $22,037,502,000,000.

The official number of unemployed is 15,450,000. The is 5% of the total population and 10% of workforce. We have 20,500,000 government employees. Almost 45,000,000 are on food stamps.

The GDP - Gross Domestic Product stands at $14,672,543,000,000. The debt to GDP ratio is 95.45%. As the economy continues to suffer and the government spending remains out of control, before long, our debt will surpass our GDP. This means that the U.S. will owe more than the gross amount of everything produced in the country for a year.

Currently, $4.4 trillion of our debt is held by foreign countries. The estimated unfunded liabilities for the country add up to $112 trillion, which equates to $1,012,648 per U.S. taxpayer (110,587,000 taxpayers).

This is not just a national problem. Many of our States are facing a similar crisis. Many foreign countries are also in a financial crisis. The price of a barrel of oil has just passed $90 and is heading up. The average price of a gallon of gas is over $3.00 and rising. The price of gold has passed $1,400 per ounce and silver has passed $30 per ounce.

Now for a little perspective. The current national debt of $14,005,232,800,000 amounts to a stack of dollar bills, laid flat and end-to-end, extending around the world at the equator, being 229 inches or 19 feet high.

A million seconds is 12 days. A billion seconds is 32 years. A trillion seconds is 32,000 years. If we stopped borrowing and began paying back our debt, interest free (which it is not), one dollar per second; it would take 448,000 years.

(Some of the above numbers were found on USdebtclock.org)

Paul Revere - My Story

2011-01-04T01:35:00.000-07:00

Paul Revere – My Story

Introduction

For some reason, Boston just seemed to attract controversy. It is not that we wanted to be the center of attention, knowing it would bring the wrath of the King upon the people and our little town. But, nonetheless, trouble continued to find us and the center of a revolution is where we found ourselves.

I, though politically minded, was just a businessman. Living right in Boston in a three-story home, I operated a silversmith shop that was only a couple blocks from my home. Being somewhat of a perfectionist, my wares were sought after and I was able to make a decent living for the support of my family.

It may have been that my business being prosperous was one of the reasons I envisioned the unlimited potential that existed in the Colonies if only His Majesty would allow us to pursue our dreams less hindered. And, it was not just me, many of my friends and acquaintances were also growing restless concerning a steady barrage of regulations, restrictions and taxes being levied on the Colonies by England.

Several of us would routinely meet over a meal or drink and the subject would inevitably resort to politics and liberty. Most of us; including John Hancock (merchant), John Adams (lawyer), Benjamin Edes (journalist), and Sam Adams (a natural leader of protesters); were middle-class people. We, and many others at the time, were experiencing a surge in the concept of independence for the Colonies. This wave was spreading throughout most of the thirteen regions and the restlessness was growing among the common people.

Don’t get me wrong, everyone was not in agreement as to the direction that should be taken. Looking back, it seems that around one third wanted to leave well-enough alone and let England rule. Another third were so busy surviving and tending to their business that they chose to remain neutral in the controversy. It was just that the last third of us were keen on the idea of an experiment in freedom that was foreign to the modern world.

There were many “what ifs” running through our minds and bouncing across the tavern tables. What if the Colonies were to break away from England and declare their independence? What if we actually chose our leaders and they were responsible to answer back to us? What if England took all of her soldiers home? What if the burden of taxation was lifted and the level of regulation was gone so that we could prosper according to our ability and hard work?

It seemed that the more we shared ideas, the bigger the dreams became. Once the fire of freedom is set in the hearts of men, there is no happy retreat back into any form of slavery. The amazing thing is that if the King had recognized the direction England’s subjects were taking, he could have compromised and both sides could have been content. It was not a hatred of England that drove us, but a desire for freedom and self-rule. If he had let us have more say in the selection of our governors, more input concerning our laws, less burden under taxes, and a general level of respect from across the Atlantic; war probably would have been prevented. He would still have his colonies as the widespread support would not have grown for separation and we would have enjoyed an increased level of liberty. But, “win-win” was not in the cards being dealt.

Background

For you to better understand my story, it would be prudent to understand who I am and how I came to be the one telling you this portion of our history.

I am a man of average size and possess what is slowly turning from brown to gray hair. My father was sent from France in 1715, at the age of 13 and arrived at Boston in 1716. Back then, he still used his French name of Apollos Rivoire. Being a young man in a new land, he found work with John Coney, a local goldsmith. Upon the death of Mr. Coney in 1722, my father set up his own shop in Dock Square.

Sometime during the 1720’s he took on, what he later described as his “American name”, Paul Revere. My father was proud to live in the New World and learned, early on, that the limits as to what he could do would only be established by he, himself.

In 1729, he married my Mother, Deborah Hitchbourn. They both worked hard, enjoyed each other’s company and soon started a family. The first-born was my sister, Deborah, born in 1732. I was next in line, born in December of 1734. Yes, both of us were named after our parents as that was customary then and still is now. There ended up being seven more children born into the family, but only seven of us lived to become adults.

Another custom was for the children, as they reached sufficient age, to begin helping the parents – girls at home and boys either in their father’s business or on his farm, etc. My family was no exception and as a teenager I began working in the shop, learning the trade of being a goldsmith and silversmith. I also attended school at North Writing School.

When I was 19, my father passed away. This left me, the oldest son, to be the main support for the family. I took over the family business and continued to operate as a silversmith. I not only learned the value of being a hard worker from my father, but I learned to follow the character he demonstrated in his life. He, being Protestant by faith, saw that we attended church and I continued this practice with my family.

In 1756, a couple years after the death of my father, I volunteered to fight the French in the French and Indian War. Being a man of character and being a hard worker, my superiors offered me a commission and I served as a second lieutenant in the colonial artillery. We entered battle at Lake George, New York.

Soon, I was back home to Boston and married Sarah Orne in 1757. Prior to her passing in May of 1773, our eighth child (Isannah, who also died in September of 1773) was born. One other had also passed away in her first year.

Being a widower and having six children, the oldest being 15 (Deborah) and the next 13 (Paul); I married Rachel Walker in October of the same year (1773). Rachel and I also had eight children. Only the oldest (Joshua) was born prior to the beginning of the war. Later on, as we had the other seven children, three died while very young. I was determined to have a son named John. Two of the babies who died young were each named John and it was not until 1787 that I had a son who lived and carried that name. Another son was named after one of my dear friends and co-patriots here in Boston, Joseph Warren.

While married to Sarah, we moved from a small home along Clark’s Wharf to a two-story home with a three-story addition. The frame home was near my shop on the North End, over-looking North Square. Not only was this convenient but it was also a home that would house a large family. This home was near the water of the harbor.

As my reputation improved, my business grew and I soon employed help. We produced a quality product for a fair price. I also took up printing in my shop. One of the most important times for this ability was right after the Boston Massacre. I printed a flyer showing an engraving of the scene where the British soldiers fired on the residents of Boston gathered to protest the actions of England. Five of my countrymen, most of which I knew very well, died as a result. We distributed the flyers around the general area and they helped to convince the colonists to take sides against the occupying army. This event took place on March 5, 1770. Over the next few years the tension grew, not only in Boston, but in the colonies, in general.

(The above mentioned flyer showing the Boston Massacre, which I printed and sold, brought a shadow upon my character. One, Henry Pelham, had drawn the same scene and presented it to me. While I studied the drawing, I became aware of the potential this scene held for uniting the people behind the resistance. Based on Mr. Pelham’s drawing, I did another etching which I could use for making the prints and proceeded to use them as intended. When Mr. Pelham discovered that I was distributing the flyers, he became upset and accused me of taking advantage of him and his work.)

You are probably well aware that this same tension reached another point on December 16, 1773; when we held a little party for the tea-drinking British. We, the Sons of Liberty in Boston, had gathered at the Old South Meeting House earlier in the day to discuss the Tea Act and decide what to do about the three ships docked, full of bundles of tea. As we listened to speakers and had several discussions, we received a message from the Governor that the tea was to be unloaded. This was all we needed to determine our course of action. Samuel Adams delivered the line, “This meeting can do nothing more to save the country.” Some adorned Mohawk Indian attire and many of us proceeded to Griffin’s Wharf where the three ships were docked. We succeeded in tossing 342 chests of tea into Boston Harbor. You can imagine what the soldiers, who were camping at our Boston Commons, thought the next morning as they woke to find empty tea cases floating in the harbor.

I mentioned the “Son’s of Liberty”, which met at the Green Dragon Tavern. Sam Adams was instrumental in the organization of the men into this group. Our roles, as members, changed somewhat over time. The Boston group became only one, though the most famous, of many similar groups in other towns that served as an organization for action and a source for information. Sam Adams and John Hancock became two of the most vocal of the local men. Each of them also served on the Provincial Congress, with Hancock as the president, once it was organized in October of 1774. They began to gain unwanted attention of the British and the more things escalated, the more the officers wanted to silence them both.

We also formed the “Committee of Correspondence” which was responsible for disseminating written and verbal information, from Boston to patriots in other towns. I was not only a part of this committee, but had the job of being one of the riders who would deliver the information. William Dawes was another of the riders and we each had made several deliveries over a time span of a few years. I had been called on to make deliveries of letters to New York and Philadelphia, multiple times. I also took correspondence to Samuel Adams while he attended the Continental Congress in Massachusetts. There were several other rides that I made to various communities.

One message proved to be very important as later events unfolded. The British had ordered that there were to be no more shipments of gun powder or military stores to the colonies. England also had sent ships to reinforce Fort William and Mary at Portsmouth. As we learned of such events, I was sent to warn the patriots in that area of the need to storm the fort and seize the gun powder stored there, before the ships arrived with more troops. This trip produced the desired results and the men in the area were successful in obtaining a large quantity of gun powder. This proved very important as there were limited supplies, other than that, for use when the fighting broke out.

I mentioned that I named a son after a friend. Dr. Joseph Warren was another of our leaders here in Boston. On March 6, 1775; he delivered a speech to a gathering of men at the Old South Meeting House. The occasion was the fifth anniversary of the Boston Massacre. This event helped stir up the patriotism in our hearts and our countrymen, but also further upset the British command.

In early 1775, at the age of 40, I was one of thirty men who formed a committee and accepted the responsibility to secretly watch the British in Boston. In pairs, were would take turns watching the troops and patrolling the streets. We sought intelligence as to the plans of the enemy.

This finally paid off around midnight on Saturday, April 15th. It was noticed that various groups of soldiers were preparing for some sort of assignment. There was movement in some of their ships in the harbor and smaller boats were positioned near Boston Commons.

The Ride

The “ride” you are waiting to hear about was not the first made with similar warnings. On Sunday, April 16, 1775; Dr. Warren sent me to Lexington to deliver a message to Samuel Adams and John Hancock. At that time, they were both staying at the home of Rev. Jonas Clarke, who was married to a niece of John Hancock. Both were in that area due to attending meetings of the Provincial Congress that met in Concord, only a few miles further from Boston.

The message dealt with the expected movement of British troops (Regulars) and the expected goal of arresting or killing both Adams and Hancock and/or seizing the arms and supplies in Concord. With this warning, a group of around ten armed men guarded the home where they were staying and notice was sent to Concord to move as much as possible out of town, which they proceeded to do over the next couple days.

On Tuesday, April 18, 1775; General Thomas Gage issued orders to his men to march to Concord and seize and destroy the arms and supplies stored there. As General Gage and his troops were stationed in Boston and camped at Boston Commons, the secrecy of the mission was overcome and word got out that the troops would be on the move very soon.

As a part of the Sons of Liberty and being riders for the Committee of Correspondence, William Dawes and I were contacted to ride and issue a warning. About ten o’clock, Dr. Joseph Warren sent a messenger who found me at home. My wife, Rachel, understood the urgency of the situation and knew that I was the main rider used for such purposes as what was ahead of me that night. She, along with the older children, also realized the seriousness of my assignment. As we said goodbye, we both understood that before the night was over, I could be arrested or killed.

When I arrived at the home of Dr. Warren, he told me the intelligence indicated the British possibly had two missions. First, march to Lexington and place Samuel Adams and John Hancock under arrest. Second, march to Concord to seize and destroy the weapons, ammunition and supplies hidden there for use by the Minutemen.

As we were not absolutely sure as to what avenue of departure the troops would use to exit Boston, I had earlier come up with a signal to be used to let various people know whether they would be taken by barge to Cambridge, over Back Bay or exit Boston by way of Boston Neck. Most of Boston is located on a peninsula with the “neck” being the isthmus connecting it to the mainland. If the troops were to be ferried across the water to Cambridge, to the west of Boston Commons, it would actually be faster than if they marched around to exit the town by Boston Neck. Since one of the reasons to leave during the night was the desire to have a surprise arrival at Lexington, not marching out of town was another reason we believed they would go by water. Late in the day it had been observed that many soldiers had been gathering near the lower end of Boston Commons. This was further indication that they were preparing to leave and would go by boat across Back Bay.

There were two friends designated to row me across the Charles River to Charlestown, where I would depart on horseback, I desired to know for sure, by the time I departed Charlestown, which avenue the troops were taking. Plus, others had been made aware of the signal so the warning could be issued if I were arrested before leaving Boston. William Dawes was riding with the same message from Boston, exiting town on the neck. In order to improve the odds that at least one of us would make it to Lexington, we were to take different paths.

My plan was for a signal to be made from the steeple of Christ Church (also called the North Church). Robert Newman would hold one lantern if the troops were marching out of Boston by way of Boston Neck or two lanterns if they were crossing by water. As I was being rowed to Charlestown, the signal was given, using two lanterns.

Once across Charles River, we landed near Charlestown Battery and I proceeded into town where I met up with Colonel Conant, along with others. I explained what was happening. A horse was supplied from Deacon Larkin’s barn for me to use. Richard Devens, who was on the Committee of Safety, told me that earlier in the evening, he had witnessed nine or ten mounted officers going towards Lexington. After he returned to Charlestown and saw the signal, he had already sent a messenger to warn various men, including Adams and Hancock.

By the time I was able to begin my ride, it was about 11 o’clock and the moon was bright. I set out for Menotomy and Lexington, which was about ten miles away.

When I was just about past Charlestown Common, heading towards Cambridge, I noticed two mounted soldiers under a tree. One headed my way and the other went to cut me off further up the road. Both of them were armed. I cut my horse short and turned about. I rode as fast as I could, the horse at a full gallop, for Mistick Road. One soldier followed me about 300 yards before giving up the chase.

I was able to ride on to Lexington, through Medford and Menotomy spreading the warning that the Regulars were coming. In Medford, about 11:30, I woke the captain of the Minutemen and then alarmed every house on the way to Lexington. I finally arrived at Lexington where I gave the alarm to Mr. Adams and Col. Hancock around midnight. About half an hour after arriving, William Dawes arrived. I learned that the British officers who had been seen earlier in the evening heading towards Lexington had passed through town around 10 o’clock and went towards Concord. Rev. Clark told me that three men, from Lexington, had been sent to watch the movements of the officers.

Mr. Dawes and I then set off for Concord, which was another nine or ten miles. Soon we met up with a young man named Dr. Samuel Prescott, who was a high Son of Liberty from Concord and was heading home. We decided to warn the inhabitants along the road. Dr. Prescott knew many of them and they believed the warning we issued. About half way to Concord both of the others stopped at a house to warn the occupants and I went ahead. About 200 yards down the road I saw two officers who were armed with pistols and swords. I called back to William and Dr. Prescott to hurry and come. At that time, I saw four officers who rode up to me with their pistols drawn. They ordered me to stop. One said, “If you go an inch further, you are a dead man.” When William Dawes saw what was happening he turned his horse and rode back towards Lexington. Dr. Prescott caught up and the two of us attempted to get past them, to no avail. They ordered us into a pasture and said that if we did not go, they would blow our brains out. We proceeded to go into the pasture, through the opening in the fence they had made by removing the rails. As soon as we entered, Dr. Prescott said, “Put On!” and he took to the left, jumped a stone wall and made his way to Concord. I took to the right. My plan was to make it to the edge of the woods and flee on foot into the trees. About the time I reached the bottom of the pasture, six mounted officers appeared, seized my bridle and put their pistols to my chest. They ordered me to dismount, which I did. One of them, I assumed him to be in command, in a gentlemanly manner asked me where I came from and I told him. He inquired as to when I left and I told him. He appeared to be very surprised I had made it that far that fast. He wanted to know my name, to which I answered, “Revere”. He questioned, “Paul Revere?” and I told him that I was. As the other officers began to abuse me, he reassured me that I would come to no harm. Feeling fairly bold, I responded that they would miss their aim. He, feeling in complete control, assured me that they would not miss.

He then told me that they were waiting for some deserters that they expected to be coming down the road. I told him that I knew better and that I had alarmed the people in the houses all along the road. I told him I would have 500 men there soon, to which one of them told me they would have 1,500 men. The one in charge rode off to the road and told the ones who stopped me what I had said. They came back at a full gallop and one of them (who I was to learn was Major Mitchel of the 5th Regiment) put the barrel of his pistol to my head. He informed me he would ask me some questions and if I did not tell the truth he would blow my brains out. I told him that I was a man of truth. I asked him what right they had to stop me and make me a prisoner. He proceeded to ask me his questions and I answered him the same way I had before. After they searched me for pistols, he had me mount my horse. Once mounted, the Major took the reins from my hand and gave them to an officer on my right. He then ordered four other men that they had stopped, which included the three men from Lexington sent to watch them, to come out of the woods and then all of us were ordered to march.

Once on the road, the officers surrounded the prisoners and we headed towards Lexington at a quick pace. After about one mile, the reins were given to a sergeant who was ordered to shoot me if I tried to run. About half a mile from the meeting house in Lexington, we heard a shot, which I told the Major was a warning shot. He ordered the other four prisoners to dismount. The saddles and bridles were cut from their horses and they were told they were free to leave after their horses had been chased off. I asked the Major to dismiss me, but he refused and ordered us to begin marching again.

When we were close enough to see the Meeting House, we heard a volley of guns fired, which I supposed to be from the tavern as an alarm. The Major ordered us to halt. He asked me the distance to Cambridge and other questions. He had me dismount, gave my horse to the sergeant to ride, cut the saddle off of the sergeant’s horse and then they rode off down the road. This was about two o’clock in the morning of the 19th of April.

I went across the burying ground and some pastures to the house where I had left Mr. Adams and Col. Hancock and told them what had happened. Their friends advised them to leave the area for their own safety. I and Mr. Lowell, who was a clerk to Mr. Hancock, went with them for about two miles where we reached the house where they intended to stay in Burlington. After resting, Mr. Lowell and I returned to Buckman’s Tavern at Lexington. At the tavern we were told by Thaddeus Bowman that the troops were within one half mile. We went into the tavern to get a trunk of papers belonging to Col. Hancock. From a window I saw the troops and we hurried down to leave with the trunk. While passing through the militia gathered on Lexington Green (which is a triangle of open area bounded by roads) behind the Meeting House, I observed what looked to be 50 to 60 Minutemen gathered. As I passed through them I heard their commanding officer, Captain John Parker order the men to let the troops pass by without molesting them and “Don’t fire unless you are fired on, but if they want a war, it may as well begin here.”

When the troops appeared behind the Meeting House, they halted and then formed lines for engagement. Major John Pitcairn shouted for the militia to “Lay down your arms, you damned rebels, and disperse!” I heard one gun fire, which has later been called the “shot heard ‘round the world”. Then a British officer shouted, “Fire, by God! Fire!” Almost immediately, I turned my head and saw smoke in front of the troops as they opened fire. Several of the Minutemen had scattered and some were taking positions behind a stone wall. The troops ran a few steps and then a large group fired again. Then there was irregular firing and then more as I supposed it was the platoons. By this time I was not able to see the militia as a house was between them and me.

I later found out that of approximately 7-800 British troops which had left Boston, the battle at Lexington was between the Minutemen and around 200 of the troops which were leading the way towards Concord. These troops were under the leadership of Major Pitcairn, who may have fired the first shot with his pistol. During this battle, which only lasted a few minutes, there was one wounded and there were no deaths of British but eight of the Minutemen were killed and ten were wounded, some by gunshot and some by bayonet. Among the dead was Captain John Parker, who was cut down while reloading. By the time the battle was over, the rest of the troops had reached Lexington and all of the British troops marched on to Concord, where they had their second battle of the day.

Samuel Adams and John Hancock were protected from arrest and were safely away from battle on that day. This success, along with the British failure to destroy most of the powder and supplies in Concord, was due to the work of several of us, not just my ride on that night. As the King’s troops made their way back to Boston, they proceeded to burn homes, destroy property, abuse residents and even kill some. The Minutemen continued to attack the troops throughout much of their march. The troops were reinforced near Lexington by about 1,000 additional soldiers. By the end of the day the British losses were 73 killed, 174 wounded, and 26 missing for a total of 273 casualties. The Americans lost 49 killed, 41 wounded and five missing for a total of 95 casualties.

Even though it was not safe for me to return to Boston, the next day Mr. Warren, the president of the Committee of Safety, hired me to be in charge of the outdoor business of that committee. I returned to Charlestown and sent message to Rachel for her to gather the important belongings and the children and join me in Charlestown. We resided there during the siege of Boston.

On June 17, 1775, the battle of Bunker Hill took place. In this battle, two of the notable men in the above story were killed. Dr. Joseph Warren, age 34, a Bostonian was shot through the face and his body mutilated by British bayonets. On the British side, Major John Pitcairn was killed.

The British evacuated Boston in March of 1776, after General Washington ordered an attack on the British ships in Boston Harbor. During these months I was employed to design and print money for the government. Soon afterwards, when we had moved back into our home in Boston, I was given a commission with the assignment of helping to protect Boston from enemy attack.

(By: Mike Foil, based on various sources and stories from books and found on the Internet)

Fight for Liberty?

2011-01-02T00:25:00.000-07:00

In the background on my computer screen is a World War II poster. It shows some contemporary soldiers marching in front of some colonial militiamen. The caption reads, "Americans Will Always Fight for Liberty". There are two words that stuck out to me. They are not "Americans" and "Liberty", but are "Will" and "Always". During WWII, there was no doubt that the saying on that poster was true.

Since the 1940's, it seems that every few years America has sent her young men and women to fight for someone's liberty. This is not to neglect the honor due to those prior to the 40's, but since that time, it has been one fight after another, in one country after another. American blood is mixed with the water in the oceans around the world and has soaked into the dirt and gravel of countless countries. There are white crosses that adorn green fields on multiple continents. One thing that has been for sure, is that America will send her best and brightest to answer the call of the weak to oppose the oppressor. When the work was done, we have come home, leaving freedom as our signature.

Why do you believe that we do that? I do not believe it is some ego trip that one president after another is riding. I do not believe that our citizens produce a superior human that cannot be matched by offspring in other countries. I believe it is because we, here in America, cherish freedom. We have been blessed to be a part of the most amazing experiment - the one where the people are free and the government works for the common citizen. With this rare perspective, we have not sought to be unique, but have fought to spread liberty around the world so that other people in other nations can enjoy what we have.

Even today, Americans are stationed around the world with the purpose of spreading freedom to some and protecting liberty for others. We are watching as one war winds down in a newly democratic country and one war continues on the soil of a neighbor of theirs. We are helping to guard the line between the north and south in Korea, as tensions mount.

But, even with all of this evidence, I am left with those same two words catching my attention, "Will" and "Always". Is it still true that "Americans Will Always Fight for Liberty"? Will we? Always? With a sadness in my heart I must admit that I do not believe that poster would be accepted as gospel in America, today.

I am not saying that all Americans fit into any one category, for sure, they do not. The diversity in Americans is becoming more clear and with wider chasms over the past several years. There are many who are now fighting and others who would fight for liberty. But there appears to be a growing number who would not. Our freedom has been taken for granted and the quality of our liberty has been under attack for several decades. Many of our current citizens do not recognize that what America now is, is not what America once was. Many of us still speak of our freedom, but a giant chunk of liberty has disappeared from right under our noses during the past 100 years.

America is still sending troops to fight in other nations for the liberty of others. We continue to produce men and women who volunteer to risk everything for the sake of some people they probably have never met and cannot even speak their language. Somehow, we find that the "Greatest Generation" keeps reproducing themselves.

But, what about here at home? Will Americans fight for liberty here? We seem to understand that gaining liberty for strangers is worth a fight and it's value is worth some blood. We spend hundreds of billions of dollars fighting wars in other lands. We bury thousands of our sons and daughters and watch many more come home with life changing wounds, physical and emotional. But securing our liberty, which was bought with much shedding of blood, does not seem to have the same importance with a growing number of Americans.

I believe this is partly due to an indoctrination being carried out by our government on the citizens and also, that the stripping away of our rights and freedoms has taken place in incremental stages. We are guilty of allowing the socialist foot to get in the door, just a little bit here and a little more there. Once they gained a foothold, there was a full-frontal assault against the Constitution and the freedom and rights we have valued so highly.

At the current time, all three branches of our Federal Government are heavily influenced by those who have a disdain, or even a hatred, for the principles of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. They are not only unwilling to fight for liberty, they appear to be fighting against it. We the People of America, over the past 100 years have allowed this to take place. They have been very good at distracting us with the right hand while the left hand is stealing from our bundle of rights. In some ways, we have been lazy, not willing to do the work of holding our politicians accountable. This they have viewed as weakness and they have exploited us.

Over the past few years, the grassroots Americans have been waking up. After rubbing our eyes for a brief period, we began to take stock in our situation. The more we saw, the madder we got. Now, they have stirred up a nest of hornets and we are just plain p----d o-f! It's too late to spend time asking, "how did this happen?" We must jump in with both feet and get busy. There is no time for retrospective contemplation. The longer we watch, the further behind we get.

As we begin 2011, we must not relax. All of us have to be vigilant and keep watch on Washington. Each and every one of them MUST be held accountable.

This American has not had to fight for freedom in the past, but I will now! I do not want to be a part of the last generation who set there in ignorance while liberty disappeared from the shores of America. The following generations, at least those who learn what America once was, rightly will look back with anger at this time and a shame will rightly fall on those who let liberty slip away without so much as a fight.

"This American Will Always Fight for Liberty". Will you?

Shoot the Lame Duck!

2010-12-22T00:27:00.000-07:00

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" - Merriam-Webster.com

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!

Symbolic???

2010-12-01T23:21:00.000-07:00

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.

The "Bone Yard"

2010-11-30T22:16:00.000-07:00

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.

Solution to TSA's Crotch Grabbing Policies

2010-11-18T22:40:00.000-07:00

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.

Well, I Swear! But to Who?

2010-10-31T01:04:00.000-07:00

“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: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/27574 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.

VOTE - No Citizenship Required

2010-10-28T00:58:00.000-07:00

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):

ID AT THE POLLS
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

OR
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"

OR
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.

Short Term Pain...

2010-10-26T01:26:00.000-07:00

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!

GOT ATTITUDE?

2010-10-22T01:04:00.000-07:00

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.

The Lone Military Superpower - China

2010-10-19T00:21:00.000-07:00

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 Chosun.com):

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?

Are We Free?

2010-10-17T01:56:00.000-07:00

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.

The Bastardization of the Oval Office

2010-10-09T23:26:00.000-07:00

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?

Life Cycle of a Crisis

2010-10-03T23:10:00.000-07:00

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!

Jack Ass Poop With Make-Up

2010-09-29T22:55:00.000-07:00

"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

2010-09-23T00:31:00.000-07:00

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

2010-09-21T00:25:00.000-07:00

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!

2010-09-15T23:18:00.000-07:00

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

2010-09-12T00:49:00.000-07:00

"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

2010-09-11T01:25:00.000-07:00

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!

2010-09-10T23:03:00.000-07:00

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?

2010-09-07T00:39:00.000-07:00

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.

The Color of the Soul

2010-08-28T23:53:00.000-07:00

"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.

Does Your Vote Count?

2010-08-27T23:26:00.001-07:00

America was at the crossroads two years ago. Americans voted Obama into office and gave the Democrats solid control of the House and Senate. That election determined which road we would travel upon. To my amazement and great disappointment, America chose socialism. The Liberals took complete control of Washington and began to launch a massive agenda to enlarge government, secure power, destroy capitalism, take over industry, control healthcare, increase dependency, and basically cement our future to a foundation of socialism.

Since the last general election, the balance in government has raced to the Left. They have run amok! As we have been reminded, "Elections have consequences!" We have the government that we the people voted into office. No, not all of us, but a majority did. You can blame the outcome on a lot of things (the desire for the first black president, the uninformed believing the media attacks, etc.), but it all boils down to most of the voters marking the (D) selection.

The Right has to look back and take responsibility for being unable to secure a better outcome. We were either ineffective at our argument or failed to install an urgency in the need to actually vote. In the past 18 months, it appears that the elephant in the room has been awakened. Americans are locked-in on the national situation to a greater degree than I can remember. We are paying better attention and demanding more accountability from our elected leaders than before. We do not like what they are doing!

Or, at least that is what I thought. Are we being deceived by ourselves and our own energy? Are we preaching to the choir, only? Sure, we are excited and demanding a change back to the Right, but are "we" the same people who voted to the Right the last time and the time before? Are we still ineffective at expanding our base with individuals who will actually care and vote? Taking a citizen who voted (R) the last time and getting them excited to vote (R) this time is not a gain.

We have to take the fight outside of the camp. The argument has to be won with people who did not vote before or who voted (D). We have to win the hearts and minds of the undecided and convince the Left-leaning to come back to the Right. We also have to do much better, after we win the argument, of getting our new-found conservatives to actually vote.

We have been facing a succession of elections that have been growing in vital importance over the past few cycles. November is the next in line. The general election can make the difference in the permanent establishment of the U.S.S.A. or the reemergence of a strong U.S.A. Losing in November could mean R.I.P. for the America we love. How can I put this stronger? Winning in November and taking control of the House and Senate by true conservatives is mandatory in order to put a stop to Obama. We cannot deal with another two years of amok.

I believe this so strongly and recognize the importance of passing on to my kids and grandkids an America I would want. I am constantly looking for another way to argue, in a convincing manner, the superiority of being conservative.

Following the primary election in Arizona, a few days ago, I see a hole in our plan. We are making the argument across the nation. The voter registration numbers are showing loses to the (D) ranks and increases in the (I) and (R) ranks. But, are our converts going to make a difference in November? There is only one way that the answer will be "yes". That outcome is dependent upon them voting.

We must have an outstanding turnout to the polls of those who are selecting the best conservative for the office. I was shocked, this week, as I heard the turnout numbers for the AZ primary. With all that is on the line and the considerable differences the outcome will hold, we had voter turnout of under 30%.

Do they not get it? No, they don't. That is now our number one job for the next two months. Make a compelling argument, win a convert, and get them to the polls. We cannot be lax or take anything for granted. Every vote is needed to win and every vote counts.

A Bridge to No One

2010-08-27T01:38:00.000-07:00

One of the best properties to own is Park Place. Most Americans know the significance of this property. Now, we find a double meaning. This is not a block on the Monopoly board, it is the proposed location for a mosque - New York City, USA. The address, 51 Park Place. This location is not two moves away from Boardwalk, but two short blocks from Ground Zero, the site of the former World Trade Center, twin towers.

9/11 - This day forever changed America. We are no longer removed from the acts of war, we find ourselves to be vulnerable on our own soil. A handful of radical Muslims, with jihad in their hearts, carried out a horrific attack on innocent civilians.

The old building at 51 Park Place is so close to Ground Zero that it sustained damage in the attack. A part of one of the airliners fell onto this building.

Nine years later, we are supposed to "get over it" and "move on". I, for one, will never get over it and I do not want to. I want those images as a reminder of the evil and danger that exists in the modern world.

The Muslim mosque, which has gained approval of the City of New York and the endorsement of Mayor Bloomburg, not to mention Obama, is to be intentionally located in close proximity to the site of the death of nearly 3,000 Americans. How do I know this? Three reasons: there are other mosques within a few blocks of this site, there are other sites available not so close to the WTC site, and the planners have rejected the appeal to move away from Ground Zero.

The Cordoba House, which was to be the name of this mosque, is the result of efforts by Muslim Imam, Feisal Abdul Rauf, the chairman of the Cordoba Inititive. He is also the Imam of another mosque that is only 12 blocks from Ground Zero, already. He has said that he wants this mosque to be a bridge between Muslims and Americans. Oh, really!

Let's dissect some of the issues, beginning with "Cordoba". Cordoba, Spain is a city that was conquered by Muslims, from the Romans, in 711 AD. As Muslims have done in various areas they have conquered, they built a mosque in Cordoba. This became the capital of Islamic caliphate in the middle ages. (Caliphate refers to the reign of a caliph, which is a title given to Islamic rulers that are believed to be the successors of Mohammad.) In other words, Cordoba became the center for Islamic rule and a symbol of their superiority over the conquered territory and people.

There are those who believe that the Cordoba House is another mosque to be built on the site of conquest, as a sign of Muslim dominance. From this mosque, the daily call to prayer will be heard at Ground Zero. As opposition grew, he suggested changing the name (not the location) to "Park 51". That sounds so much better! It will make swallowing of the bitter pill so much easier. It even sounds like a nice restaurant or club. Will it change the teaching of the Quran? Will it change how Muslims feel about us infidels? I feel the bridge building, already!

Feisal Abdul Rauf (FAR) has made notable statements. He said that Americans have more Muslim blood on their hands than al qaeda does. Maybe the news sources I watch have censored the events, but I am unaware of any non-Muslim Americans flying jet liners into Arab buildings or committing suicide by blowing themselves up on Arab streets. His web site has this heading, "Healing the Relationship between the Islamic World and the West". That sounds like a very sensitive goal. When it comes to putting sensitivity into practice, it seems to be missing from FAR. Many pleaded, that if he was going to build another mosque in NY, just do it somewhere else. FAR's sensitive response, "No". But, they pointed out, this area is sacred ground and he must be aware that it was Muslims who caused this damage and these deaths. FAR did not care about building a bridge based on sensitivity.

When you begin to search out FAR and the organizations he is involved with, or the leader of, you will find some great titles and descriptions. They talk about bringing Muslims together with those in the West and of other faiths. "(H)e directs projects that aim to heal conflict between Islamic and Western communities by...engaging Islamic legal scholars in addressing the implications of contemporary Islamic governance." "(H)e founded the American Society for Muslim Advancement".

As I did this research, there began to grow within me a tendency to doubt my doubts of this Imam. But, about a half of a second later, I remembered how Islam teachings do not allow for a watering down of their religion. He has no intention of compromise or meeting half-way. He may be serious about "healing the conflict", but he plans on doing it with "Muslim Advancement". He is just like many Republicans who claim to be reaching across the aisle and working together. The compromise is all on the side of the maverick. Islamic law - Shariah - is enforced in some parts of the world by executing people who break parts of the law. Being an Imam, I have to hold onto my doubts that FAR is going to half-way convert to Judaism or Christianity.

If FAR were honestly desiring to mend fences, I can think of a few things he could do before forcing a 13-story mosque onto this site. It would be a good sign to yield to the objections and build it somewhere further away. He could openly and clearly pronounce his utter disgust and contempt for any Muslim who participated in any part of the 9/11 attacks. He could publicly stand against Muslims who murder in the name of Islam. He could explain, from the Quran, where the radical element of Islam is dead wrong and condemn their practices. He could show us, in the Quran, where they are supposed to love their neighbors and their enemies, instead of kill the infidels.

FAR could use the opportunity of the US taxpayer funded and State Department supported trip that he is currently on to the countries in the Middle East to denounce terrorism and anyone who supports it as a tool. He could condemn Iran and Hamas for their actions against Israel and the Jews. Is he doing any of those bridge building things? No, he is traveling around, at our expense, raising money to build the Cordoba House as a monument towering over the hole in the ground at Ground Zero.

It is us that he expects to cross the bridge he is building. In my opinion, this is just another bridge to nowhere and I hope to no one.

Who is a Christian?

2010-08-24T23:56:00.000-07:00

It has surprised me over the past months that the Left is attempting to convince Americans that BO is a Christian. I thought the Left adored BO??? Why would they want us to believe he is a believer, when for decades, they have been ridiculing Christians and portraying them as a bunch of idiots. They attack any form of Christian expression that they feel is too much in public view. Now, all of a sudden, they want us to see BO as being a main-stream Christian - and they believe that it would be a good thing for us to accept that description of him.

When did being a Christian become a popular position for the Left to support?

When BO claims to be a Christian, or when the Left try to convince us of such, what do they mean by "Christian"? When someone argues that BO is not a Christian or at least doubts whether or not he is, what do they mean?

The name "Christian" has become the term "christian". It is similar to the terms "conservative" or "liberal". They mean different things to different people. Your background and beliefs affect your understanding of each of these terms. Being a christian, to some, can mean no more than being an American, or being an occasional attender of church. But, what does being a Christian, really mean?

BO may be a christian, but if he is a Christian, then I am very confused as to what Christianity really is about.

I am asking each one of you, to please log onto the blog and leave your comments in answer to this question. What is a Christian? Please do not hesitate or worry that someone might find fault with what you say, this is an important issue. We need, very badly, to have a clear understanding of what it means to be a follower of Jesus the Christ.

Asking the Questions the Left Won't Ask

2010-08-24T00:21:00.000-07:00

As it appears that I have found myself to be a new-found subject to King Obama (KO), there are a few things I would like to know about him. If I am relegated to serve him and his big government, it would be nice to better understand just who our king is and what he thinks. Who knows, once we learned the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth; we just might find that we like this guy. But, once we have nothing but the truth, we might find out that we have been KO'd.

1. If you are the "smartest President" we have ever had, would you show us your college records?

Not to blindly doubt your loyal admirers, but I would like some proof that you are on a level above the rest of us.

2. In response to your claim that your election would stop the rising of the oceans and that you are the "one we have been waiting for", would you mind pointing out from the Holy Scripture where you were prophesied?

In answer, you cannot use the fact that the oceans are not rising as proof. We both know that they were not doing that beforehand.

3. Would you mind explaining your name?

In America, we have watched as numerous people who were not Muslims, changed to becoming Muslims. When they did this, they changed their names to Muslim names; such as: Cassius Clay to Muhammad Ali and Lou Alcindor to Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. But with you, you were born with a Muslim name (not your fault). You later had the name of Barry Soetoro, but then again, changed your name back to the Muslim name, though you claimed to not be a Muslim.

4. Just for the record, where in the world were you born? Or, were you immaculately dropped on a beach in Hawaii?

Inquiring minds want to know! I realize, that to you, this is a non-issue. You have said that we should not be concerned, but there is this little matter, called the Constitution. It has some pretty specific things to say about you being where you are. Pretty please?

5. Why does the Federal Election Commission not perform the most basic duty of government, concerning the presidential elections - that of verifying that the candidates actually meet the minimum qualifications laid out in the Constitution?

Sorry, I used the "C" word again. I know how you hate hearing about that document of "negative rights". (You have to admit, dear king, that you must of thought it pretty funny that someone could sidestep ever having to prove they are qualified to hold what is considered to be the most important office in the World.)

6. Does Jim Wallis, your "spiritual advisor" ever really give you Spiritual advice?

It seems to me that Rev. Wallis is more concerned with socialism than with true Christianity.

7. This begs the next question, would God consider Jeremiah Wright to be a true Christian?

It is very easy to tag ourselves with popular labels. But, when we apply the name card to our chest, with "Christian" written on it, that means a lot of things to a lot of people. The trouble is, with God, it has a very specific meaning that does not fit many of our definitions. So, what do you think, with JW preaching racism and hate from the pulpit, do you believe God is cheering him on or considering a bolt of lightning?

8. Related question, would the real KING consider you to be a true Christian?

You have claimed that JW led you to Jesus, but if JW did not know the way himself, how could he do that? Also, you have since claimed that you did not hear what JW preached in 20 years of Sunday sermons, so how is it that JW led you to Jesus? Was it by his example of humility, love and self-sacrifice?

9. How are those sanctions against Iran working for you?

It appears to us know-nothings that this plan may be off track.

10. And finally, has your handicap come down since becoming king?

If You Say It, They Will Believe

2010-08-21T23:48:00.000-07:00

Prior entries have dealt with some outrageous claims made by "scientists". We mortals, are just supposed to believe what they say without doing any thinking on our own.

Here is another example: This story comes from AOL News. It has the title: "The Incredible Shrinking Moon".

The author tells us that a recent scientific study revealed some faults in the surface of the moon. We had not noticed these up until the recent study. According to a geologist at the National Air and Space Museum, in Washington D.C., the faults were "caused by the internal cooling of the moon".

(My thought - how would we know the center of the moon is cooling? Does that mean that it used to be warm on the moon, without the aid of the sun?)

"We know it's shrinking by looking at these landforms...that kind of look like stairsteps..." "They are caused by thrust faults, which are generated when the lunar crust material is pushed together and pushed up, forming a cliff or scarp." said the geologist, Thomas Watters.

(My thought - if the crust of the moon is being "pushed up", how does that prove shrinkage?)

The AOL article goes on to tell us that this discovery was due to the camera used by NASA being able to have a resolution of .5-2.0 meters per pixel.

(The equates to each pixel covering a width of surface area approximately 20 inches to 6.5 feet. Remember that one MP (megapixel) is equal to 1,000,000 pixels. You probable have a digital camera that is rated anywhere from 3 to 12 MP resolution. So, one pixel is very, very small. When one pixel covers an area approximately three feet wide, we are not getting a tremendously sharp photo.)

(So, if these photos do show faults due to the surface being "pushed up", resulting in the moon shrinking, how much has it shrunk? Do we need to worry?)

"Overall, it's only about 100 meters in the past billion years..."

(100 meters is approximately 328 feet. If you divide that down to a time period that is a little easier to comprehend, rather than a 1,000,000,000 years, you will see the reason some are a little worried. Based on his numbers, the moon has shrunk .00394" in the past 1,000 years. That is 1.5 times the width of a human hair.

In my book, that is not something that could be measured, especially from Earth or using a camera from space. It boils down to the moon being stable in size due to lack of evidence to the contrary.)

Comment Moderation

2010-08-21T00:26:00.000-07:00

Recently, I added a posting that said I was needing to change the process for adding comments. I said that I had to set it up so all comments had to be approved prior to posting. This was due to some spam comments with advertising being added to the blog.

Since the posting, Blogger has added a new feature to try to catch spam comments and not let them get posted without approval. So, now the setting for this blog will allow immediate comments on articles up to seven days old. Older posts will still wait for approval. If you post and do not see it appear on a new article, Blogger may have set it aside as possible spam and I will see it and approve legitimate comments.

Thanks.

Closet Christian or Closet Muslim?

2010-08-19T23:41:00.000-07:00

There has been a lot of speculation as to whether BO is a Muslim. Recently, a poll of Americans indicated that approximately 1/4 believe he is Muslim, around 1/3 believe he is Christian and the rest have no idea. (Let me state, in the beginning, that the opinion of others is not the deciding factor as to our religion, and thankfully so.)

The question lingers, what religion is our President? True religion is not based on what we claim, but what we believe and how we live. BO claims, at least most of the time, to be a Christian. Over the past couple days, a video of BO doing an interview has been on TV. The interview was with ABC and was in 9/2008, during the last campaign. In answer to a question, BO states, "McCain has not made an issue of my Muslim faith." The interviewer interrupts to correct BO, "Christian faith". BO, then corrects himself and repeats, "Christian faith". Yes, I imagine it could have just been a mistake; but, I cannot imagine that I would ever, under any circumstances, claim that my faith was Muslim.

So, how does BO live - now and in the past? He was born to a Muslim father. Muslim law states that children of a Muslim father are Muslim. He completed some of his early education in Indonesia (a Muslim nation) in a Muslim school. As soon as he became President, his first interview was with Al Jazerra, a Muslim media outlet for the Middle East. He was very quick to make a trip, as President, to the Middle East and gave a speech, aimed at Muslims, from Egypt. In this speech, he apologized for America. He bowed to an Arab king.

BO has been very vocal of his differences with Israel, rude to the Israeli Prime Minister, threatened to have Israeli jets shot down if Israel attempts to bomb Iran, ordered Israel to stop building homes in Jerusalem because it upset the terrorist neighbors. He has taken millions of our tax dollars to pay for the resettlement of Arabs (possibly Hamas) from Gaza (and possibly moving them to the U.S.).

After moving to Chicago, BO and pre-FLO (first-lady Obama) joined Jeremiah Wright's (JW) church. Based on his own words, he was not a Christian prior to this. BO has said that it was JW who introduced him to Jesus. So, while attending this church, was true Christianity preached? Who knows what the typical Sunday sermon was like, but some notable clips have gained widespread publication. JW preached, at times, a hatred for America, a hatred for white Americans, black separatism, etc. He blamed the USA for causing the events that led to the attacks on 9/11. He cussed America and believed that God has damned this country for it's racism. BO, pre-FLO and little Os attended this church for 20 years. JW baptized the little Os and married the big Os (not necessarily in that order).

During the campaign, BO said that he could no more renounce JW than he could America. Soon after that, he renounced JW and claimed that he had not heard all those ugly things being spewn from the pulpit. Of course, this was a political move, but also indicated his level of allegiance to America. He demonstrated that his ties to close friends mean nothing if they come between him and his goals. After all, it was pre-FLO (or MO) who told us that up until the campaign, she had never been proud of America.

While in the White House, how is he living? BO's typical Sunday is too busy for attending any of the variety of churches in the D.C. area. This is understandable, after all he is the leader of the free(?) world. Do not let it be said that his religion ever kept him from his scheduled golf games on Sunday mornings.

How about his word? That is an easy one. BO is a liar! You cannot trust anything that comes out of his mouth. To back up this claim, see earlier blogs (such as "Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire" parts 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9...).

BO has claimed that he renounced his Muslim faith. First of all, it is an admission that he began as a Muslim. Second of all, I thought that a Muslim could not leave the faith without bringing upon himself a death penalty. So, having admitted that he was Muslim, how is it that other Muslims appear to accept him and greet him warmly, after leaving their religion? Do they know something we do not?

One thing we are left to assume, BO is a non-practicing religious follower. We are still left with the question, is BO a closet Christian or a closet Muslim? I am sure of this - BO is a tool of the one true God. God is in control and He does place kings on their thrones. Being a tool in the hands of God does not mean that BO is a Christian or even a leader for the good of our nation. It just means that the will of God will be fulfilled.

A final thought, there are no closet Christians!

No New Jobs!

2010-08-18T21:52:00.000-07:00

The latest employment numbers coming out of Washington indicate a higher rate of unemployment. Evidently, the census jobs must be winding down. From March through May, BO claimed rising employment, but much of the changes were due to the multiple thousands the government hired to perform census duties. In fact, some of these hirees were counted twice in order to boost the numbers. They were hired early on in the process, let go due to not enough to do, and then hired back within a few days. Now that they have gathered our personal information (which we are assured will only be used by individuals in various government agencies, as the administration sees fit), many of these are again joining the ranks of the unemployed.

The official unemployment rate of 9.6% only counts those collecting unemployment compensation. The estimated true number of unemployed is around 15-18% of the available workforce. Besides the census workers, much of the hiring done in the past six to nine months has also been government jobs. The private sector is sitting on their hands, waiting to see what BO will do next and how it will negatively affect them and their business. If business owners and managers had an optimistic outlook, they would be expanding and hiring. With numbers going in the wrong direction, it is proof that the providers of the real jobs are bracing for harder storms ahead.

BO keeps bragging about how the stimulus is working. He lays claim to hundreds of thousands of jobs "created or saved". Of course, he is claiming, as a fact, a result that is impossible to measure. This puts the skeptics in a position of only being able to doubt and rebuke the claim, but unable to prove, to a great degree, that it is totally bogus. The criticism has a basis of unimproving unemployment numbers and the lack of hiring in the private sector. What we seem to be missing is BO is not concerned about the private sector, he wants the public jobs numbers to increase. This adds to the portion of the population that is dependant upon government - which typically votes to the Left. After all, you don't want to bite the hand that feeds you.

Ann Coulter (one of my favorite ladies) was on the Hannity radio program today. She said something that needs to be remembered, "A new government job is worse than no new jobs." Think about it. When we add no new jobs, we remain even without adding harm to the workforce. But, when the government hires another person for a new job, BO claims it as a great achievement, but it is actually a negative. Now, instead of the private workers remaining even, we now have one more non-productive worker to support with our taxes.

It has been a hot issue over the past couple weeks that the average government worker makes about 1.4 times what the average private worker makes. Then you add the superior benefits the public employee receives and the result is that they have a gross package of almost double the average for the private sector worker. When you have half of the population that do not pay income taxes, that leaves a heavy burden on the remainder - the "evil rich" and "fat cats".

When you stop to think about it, the demonized wealthy are the ones paying the wages and benefits for those who want to tear them down. It goes to prove that we are not dealing with the smartest bunch of people.

I have not reminded you in awhile, but, remember: They were at war with us but we were not at war with them.

Garbage Can - Part 714

2010-08-18T01:02:00.000-07:00

Well, it may not be the 714th time for the "Garbage Can", but there have been several. The "Garbage Can" is a summary of various items in the news.

1. "Orphan" Pensions - Our dear Congress is considering a bill to deal with "orphan" pensions. These are pension plans for employees where the company can no longer afford to fund or pay for the benefits in the plans. They want to cover these "orphan" plans under the "Pension Guarantee" Fund, which is the use of taxpayer money to pay private individual's pensions. This, we are already doing, but the new bill is to add the Teamsters Unions to coverage under the Fund.

This is another Obama bailout of political supporters. Where, in the Constitution, does the Federal Government have the right to take your money and give it to someone else to pay their pension payments that were promised by a private company?

2. Remember when BO met with Gov. Brewer of AZ? He did not want to have to talk with her, but some athlete was unable to make it, so there was an opening that she forced her way into. BO promised her that within 20 days, there would be members of his team in AZ to deliver his plan to solve the border issues. About 30 days later, a few staff members showed up, met mostly with the Democrat running for governor (3 hours) and then went to see the real Governor - Brewer. They gave her a power-point presentation for a half hour and were unable to answer any of her questions and offered no details of any plans.

The people were not fooled or satisfied, so BO promised to have troops on the border by August 1. As of now, still no troops. We are being told that some will be there in October (amazing that this is right before the election), but they still need more training. These troops will have limited responsibilities. They are to extra eyes for the Border Patrol. They will have no authority to detain anyone.

So, my question is, what kind of training do these troops need in order to watch for illegal aliens? Why does this extensive training take months to complete?

3. You may have noticed that Congress passed and BO signed another Border Protection Law. This one promises to spend $600 million on protecting the southern border.

This is another pre-election stunt by the Left. This is all geared to make the gullible believe that the problem is being solved by our great leaders on the Left. Do not bet on the money actually being spent for border security. A good indication is that the new law does not take effect until next year, after the election.

4. During the recent process in Congress to extend the unemployment benefits another six months (which by my calculations, would make it last almost 2.5 years), Queen Pelosi made the statement that extending unemployment creates jobs, it is one of the best programs to stimulate the economy.

Be proud, folks, she is one of the best and brightest bulbs on Capitol Hill. (Remember when she said, with her cute little smile, that they need to pass Obamacare in order for us to find out what is in it.

5. A Palestinian man was found guilty of "rape by deception" and sentenced to 18 months in prison. It seems that in order for him to get close to a certain female, he (a Muslim) told her (a Jew) that he was a Jew.

6. Sharia law update - Did you hear about the dad who was dishonored by his daughter and took her to the front doorstep, where he proceeded to cut her head off in front of the public.

Or the young Afghan couple who were stoned to death for adultery, last week?

7. What a relief! The World Health Organization (WHO) has announced that the pandemic of the swine flu is now over. The millions of doses, unused, will be burnt.

8. You heard that the U.S. State Department (that means you and I) is paying for the trip to send a Muslim cleric around to various Arab countries to raise funds for the mosque he wants built at Ground-Zero in NYC. Don't worry, this is not just any Muslim. He is a "distinguished Muslim" according to the State Department.

9. And finally, we have the inside scoop from the White House: "Did you plug the hole yet, Daddy?" BO, "Let me be very clear about that, ah ah, if the hole is plugged, then I ah ah plugged it and you can be very ah proud of me. But, if it ah leaks again, then I will see whose a-- to ah kick, because someone ah ah is not doing his job."

Housing's Downward Spiral

2010-08-15T02:34:00.000-07:00

I can only speak for what I have observed on the local market, but I do believe that what I have witnessed is representative of much of the rest of the state and country. As a real estate appraiser, I had a front row seat for the bubble and burst in the real estate market.

Locally, market values began to increase late in 2004, at a rate above typical market cycles. During 2005, home prices in this part of Arizona increased approximately 50%. Heading into 2006, there continued to be some price appreciation but during the year they leveled off. The year 2007 began with fairly level prices but ended with the beginning of the burst already in the rearview mirror.

Since 2007, we have continued to experience declining market values and have not yet found the bottom. To date, it appears that the home and land prices in this area have not only lost the run-up in prices from 2004-2006, but are presently at levels of around 2000-2002, and still in a state of decline. We continue to have an over-supply of listings in almost all categories (land: vacant lots and acreage, homes: from small beginner houses to the large custom homes). Foreclosure activity is present at every level - price and size. Basic economics dictate that as long as there is an over-supply of listings, there will continue to be downward pressure on prices.

Where and when will this slide hit bottom? Under normal conditions, I believe that we already would have bottomed-out and would have begun a gradual recovery in the real estate market. We do not have "normal conditions".

We have a government that is altering just about every aspect of the process. They are offering tax credits, subsidized housing, refinance opportunities where homes are worth less than the loan balance, they are once again sponsoring loans with little to no down payment and accepting transactions where sellers pay the buyers' closing costs. The stated intention is to spur the housing market. The actual result has been a dismal failure.

We have reported unemployment around 9.5%, which represents only those filing unemployment claims, and real unemployment around 16%. We have consumer confidence at a very low level with a high degree of uncertainty as to the future economic outlook. We have national leaders intent on socializing various aspects of our economy and specific industries. The last two years of bailouts and stimulus plans, which have not worked, have the public in a state of confusion to some degree.

This negative atmosphere has dominated much of the housing market. Where there are buyers, they are expecting and receiving bargain prices. With the drastic reductions in home values, many homeowners find themselves upside-down (their home is worth less than the balance of their mortgage). Some are staying and hoping for better times ahead. Others are losing their homes. Some who are experiencing foreclosure have no options due to job loss, etc. Others have given up on a quick turnaround in values and have accepted, that financially, it does not make sense to keep making payments on a bad investment. They choose to walk-away and let the lender have the home back, even though they could continue to make the payments (this is referred to as a "strategic default").

The lenders and investors are encountering staggering losses. Many, if not almost all, properties that they take over in the foreclosure process, are being ultimately sold at a loss to the lender. It is not unusual for a REO property (real estate owned - foreclosure) to be sold by the lender for less than half of the mortgage balance.

That is the current picture of the housing crisis. This is my assessment of the situation.

In my opinion, the downward spiral in prices is self-perpetuating. Actions being taken are having the net effect of causing more actions to be taken. The banks (this will be an all-inclusive term to cover all lenders, investors and the secondary mortgage market - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, plus FHA and the VA) appear to be adopting a mindset of, "just deal with the loss and move the inventory". There is some pressure on the banks to sell the REO properties in their inventory in a short period of time. Holding these assets costs additional money each month. They do not see any advantage in being patient in finding a buyer as the value will be lower three months from now.

Additionally, there are numerous foreclosures needing to be moved by various banks. There are a limited number of buyers, even with historically low interest rates and bargain prices. The banks end up competing with each other for the next buyer to come along. As one bank lowers the asking price on an REO (and this is done on a routine basis - every few weeks), the other banks feel pressure to then lower their REO prices in order to compete. This creates a spiral that has resulted in prices for some properties that are lower than they have ever been in certain developments.

Investors have learned to be patient, the price will be lower, later. Banks have learned to be impatient and many are accepting very low offers. In many portions of the market, which have been heavily affected by foreclosures, lender activity is dominating the market and continues to re-establish new lows for market values. REO sales control the market in some price ranges. If a homeowner needs to sell their home, they are forced to compete with lender-owned properties. This results in non-REO homes being sold in the same price ranges as the REO homes.

Locally, the lowest priced homes appear to have decent activity. Homes that were $350,000 at the beginning of 2006, can be purchased under $200,000. Higher priced homes are rarely selling as there are a very limited number of potential buyers. As there is considerable REO activity in the higher price ranges, these REO listings are basically establishing the market. As the banks continue to drop their asking prices, the market collapses and everyone loses. Currently, there are luxury homes for sale as REO listings with asking prices less than one third of the last sale price for the home. Some vacant lots are less than one fourth of the last sale price. Still, very few takers.

The policy of a continual lowering of asking prices by the banks not only causes their losses to be larger, but also forces the taxpayers to absorb more of the losses as we continue to bail out the various players in the loan process. The competition and pressure among the banks to move inventory has established the unending, downward spiral in prices. The much lower market values, as a result of the REO activity, in turn, causes more people to be upside-down and to end up in foreclosure. The additional REO on the inventory adds more pressure to get it sold, even at more price reductions.

Currently, some of the major players in keeping the market from finding the bottom and leveling off, are the banks - some of the ones who have the most to lose. Until they decide that the prices are already too low and agree to hold steady, we will not see stability. They have the ability to help themselves and the rest of us at the same time. Will they learn patience? It truly is a virtue long forgotten in this market.

Fed to Purchase National Debt

2010-08-13T00:04:00.000-07:00

Some are saying that the step announced this week by the FED (Federal Reserve Board) is a measure of desperation. They believe that for the FED to announce that they will begin buying US securities and/or bonds (basically an IOU from the US Government), that it is a last-ditch effort to try to stimulate the US economy.

That may sound like a good plan to you. At this point, you may want anyone to do anything to get things going again. Let the FED buy the debt, after all, it will be bought by someone, it might as well be the Fed.

When a central bank (the FED in the US), which controls the money supply for a nation, buys the debt of the nation, it is called "monetizing the debt" (we will call it MTD). It is correct, that when the US issues IOUs, someone buys that debt in exchange for the stated interest rate they will earn during the term until the debt is paid in full. As the national debt has skyrocketed over the past two years to over $13.3 trillion (which equals over $40,000 for every man, woman and child in our country), the typical buyers of the debt are getting nervous about their investments.

Due to the out-of-control spending in Washington, along with the earmarks, bailouts, and stimulus plans; BO continues to need more cash to fund his agenda. That results in the government issuing more IOUs and needing someone to buy them. In other words, the government prints an IOU on a piece of paper and sells it for however large of a number they chose to write on the bond. The buyer pulls cash out of the money supply and uses it to purchase the IOU.

When the FED told us they would begin buying US debt (MTD), that was an admission that the previous buyers of our debt did not want to buy any more. In the current situation, in order for the US to have additional cash to continue to fund all the social programs, etc., the FED has found it necessary to MTD. This is bad news. To MTD is different than when someone else buys the debt. Others use existing cash to buy the IOUs. The FED prints additional cash to use to MTD. The result is the US prints the IOU on a piece of paper and trades it for a pile of case that the FED just printed on paper. The FED creates new cash. The US takes this cash (laughing about how easy it was to get a pile of money) and throws it into the US economy. This results in more cash in the money supply.

A cause of inflation is the over supply of cash in the money supply. As more cash is added to the supply, the result is that things of value (a home, a car, food, gas, etc.) end up costing more dollars = inflation. A larger supply of cash makes each dollar have less value. This, then, takes more of the dollars to buy the same thing.

As inflation takes root in our economic system, portions of the economy suffer. The more IOUs sold to the FED, the higher the money supply becomes. The FED just announced that they will buy the US debt. As this new policy takes effect, we will begin to see inflation. As inflation becomes more of an issue, the FED will adopt a policy to try to prevent hyper-inflation. Hyper-inflation is the situation where the prices are increasing at an alarming rate and the value of a dollar is dropping as you drive to the store. The FED policy will be that they must pull extra cash out of the money supply to try to lower the rate of inflation.

How will the FED decrease the money supply? They will sell to the public the IOUs they have been holding. With the economy in distress and the US government on the verge of bankruptcy, the FED will have to offer the IOUs at a much higher interest rate than they were getting from the US. When the interest rate gets high enough to attract buyers, it affects the other interest rates in the economy. The FED move will result in higher interest rates that directly affect you and I. The cash paid to buy the IOUs from the FED will be taken from the money supply.

MTD by the FED will lead to inflation and higher interest rates. Both of these will be hard on an already struggling economy.

Since the direction we are headed will lead to further economic crisis, what should we be doing, instead? The answer is, short-term pain will lead to long-term gain. We need the US Government to drastically reduce spending, cancel many social programs, stop pork-barrel projects, reduce the size of the government payroll, reduce burdensome regulations, stop raising taxes, adjust the pay and benefit packages of government employees to no higher than the private sector, stop redistributing the wealth, etc. These steps may cause some temporary pain as the public adjusts to less government benefits and more personal responsibility, but the long term benefits will be a more stable economy and healthy nation.

On Your Dime

2010-08-12T00:13:00.000-07:00

There are several issues in the news that affect your wallet.

1. First Lady Obama (FLO) just took one of her daughters and some close friends to Spain for a private vacation and some "mother-daughter time". Once the story began to gain scrutiny, the story changed to one of FLO needing to keep a promise with a close friend. It seems that FLO has a friend who recently lost a loved-one. FLO had promised her that they would get together for some personal-relationship time, since FLO was not able to attend the funeral. This trip was just the fulfillment of that promise to spend a little time together. (I don't guess she is aware of the corner coffee shop or even that the US has motels that need a little financial boost.)

As you probably know, whenever BO or FLO go somewhere, it is never a small thing. FLO, daughter and friends made the trip on Air Force Two, the Air Force version of a Boeing 757. You are probably, also aware that where either of them go, there is a small army of Secret Service agents that tag along. In this case, it is reported that 70 agents also made the trip to Spain (each of them get a nice per diem when they travel). FLO and the agents do not take tazis or the bus. That means that other planes also made the trip to take vehicles for the motorcade, the communication equipment for the agents, the weapons they would need for protection of FLO, etc.

You may have heard that FLO and party stayed at the "Casa 6" motel. Not so, they reserved 60, yes 60 rooms at a five-star resort, where each room can cost from $600 to $6,000 per night. Yes, they stayed several nights. Just my speculation, but I would imagine that FLO insisted on the cheap rooms and cold cuts and cereal for meals.

We have not been told how many friends went along. We have not been told what this trip cost. We have been assured that FLO would reimburse the government for the cost of two (her and her daughter's) airline tickets, since this was for pleasure and not official business. Whew! That's better, for a minute there, I thought this was probably going to be expensive on the taxpayers back home.

Don't worry about BO and the other daughter not being able to make that trip. As soon as FLO gets back, the whole family will then go on a family vacation.

2. Have you heard about the Imam from New York? This is the same Muslim cleric who has been pressing for building a mosque at "ground zero". Now that the 13-story mosque has gained official approval from New York City, there appears to just be two small issues to work out. The first appears to be that part of the property needed, they do not own. The second would be finding the $100,000,000 for the construction costs.

Since the BO administration (BOA) is pro-Muslim, they felt is was part their responsibility to help this poor man find the money. So, this week, the State Department revealed that the US (this means you and I) will be funding a multi-nation trip for this Imam to travel around the Middle East raising funds to build a mosque as a symbol of triumph over the USA on 9-11. The trip should be successful since this guy has experience raising funds for Hamas.

You ask, why do I say that BO is pro-Muslim? I would instruct you to go back and see who got the first interview with the new President. Whose side has he taken between Israel and Hamas? Who did he apologize to in his speech from Egypt? Where did he get his elementary education? What religion was his father?

Did you know that BO has instructed the head of NASA to make his number one priority the building-up of the Muslim people's self-image in the Middle East? NASA's most important mission is to make Arabs feel good about themselves. What happened to space flight? Oh, most of that has been canceled by the BOA.

3. On a related topic, it has also been revealed that the US (us) is also funding the construction of mosques in various Arab countries in other parts of the world. Isn't it amazing that the wall between church and state is very clear when it pertains to Christianity, but not so much so for Islam? We actually have our government paying to build places of worship for a religion. Not only that, but it is a religion that believes that all of us infidels should either convert to Islam or be killed.

4. The national debt is approximately $13.3 trillion. That equates to +-$40,000 per man, woman and child in the USA.

5. This week, Congress passed and BO signed another stimulus bill. This one "only" costs $26.1 billion. Much of the money will be used to bail out unions for teacher pensions in various states. This slush fund, with your money, is being used to buy votes for Democrats.

It sort of makes you wonder something. Why did they need another stimulus bill for this purpose? We have been told, repeatedly, over the past couple years, that if they do not pass various stimulus and bail-out bills that teachers will suffer. It's really just for the children! It is the children, single women, minorities and gays that get hit the hardest when they do not pass one of these. Also, why did they need another bail-out bill when there is still over $300 billion unspent from the first stimulus bill. Makes you wonder what they are saving that pot of cash for and which voter block will be rewarded next time?

Rest easy, Big Brother is in charge!

Comment Moderation

2010-08-10T23:49:00.000-07:00

Recently, this blog has been visited by some new readers. I appreciate that they have taken the time to read and comment. But, along with the sincere interest comes those who abuse the opportunity to post comments. Some have posted advertising and use the comment section to post links to their own web sites that have nothing to do with the subject. So, I have deleted their comments and changed the settings so that all new comments are viewed prior to showing up on the blog. I hope you understand and I apologize for the inconvenience of your comments showing up later, rather than immediately. Also, to the new readers, welcome, and I appreciate hearing from you as you feel led.

Live THAT Way!

2010-08-09T23:41:00.003-07:00

How now should I live?

To break that question down, further:

1. How? How are you living? Does your lifestyle demonstrate what is truly important to you? Would others understand what motivates you based on what they see in your life?

2. Now? Is there a priority for your life that you feel you will get around to, at some time in the future? Are your so-called priorities worth your time, now? Are they important enough to live for, now?

3. Should? Is there something you know you should do, or something you should change in what you are currently doing? What should you be doing now, that you are not?

4. I? Now it is hitting close to home and getting personal. It is not about what others should do and how and when they should do it. It is about you and me. Salvation is personal. Your walk with God and in this world is unique. "No one else can walk it for you, You have to walk it by yourself." from "The Reverend Mister Black".

5. Live? It is not enough to teach or tell others what is important to you. You have to live it! Your life demonstrates what is really important to you. As has been said, "Your life is an open book." Whether or not you realize it, others are reading your pages. What message is being transmitted?

Let me ask the question another way. Is there something or someone you would die for? Not hypothetically, literally! Is there anything that is so important to you that you would be willing to lay down your life in support of or in defense of? If not, I would have to ask, what is the meaning of your life? How have you found yourself in a position where there is nothing and no one worth your life? How has your life become so important and valuable that it should not and cannot be sacrificed for any cause or person? Or, maybe, you feel that it is your life that others should be willing to die for.

Our lives are but a vapor soon to be forgotten. We, physically, will return to where we came; ashes to ashes, dust to dust. In Gen. 18:27, Abraham acknowledges that he is but ashes and dust. If it were true of him, it is true of you and me. What will you do with your life that will survive your death? What difference will your having been here make to the future or to others?

Each day we gather a little closer to eternity. Some day, we will reach that destination. At that point, in the absence of time, how will your time spent on Earth measure up? Did you matter to anyone other than at the time you were here? Did you make a difference in the life of someone? What did you demonstrate, by your life, that will be an example for others to follow?

Will you die with regrets over those things you should have done, but did not? We have but one period of time in which to live to make a difference. That is right now! Tomorrow is not promised to you. The legacy you leave may be determined today.

Mankind has a history full of examples worthy of following. There are countless ones who gave up their lives for a cause or for the sake of others. This is not to say that your goal is to go out and die for something and hope someone notices how noble you were. Sometimes, when someone gives up their lives, death is not involved. They give up their life in order to serve others. Their sacrifice is a living sacrifice. (Rom 12:1 KJV) "I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service."

"Reasonable service"? Giving up my life as a sacrifice to God is a "reasonable" service? If that is reasonable, what would be unreasonable? Not doing that would be unreasonable.

If you do not already know what those things are that you would die for, examine your life and your priorities. If you do have an idea as to what is that important to you, make sure that they are of such that will have a lasting effect. When you are through with that self-examination, take a look at your present life. Are you living in such a way as your life-priorities are evident and effectual?

In other words, figure out what message you want others to read from your life and then live in such a manner that they cannot misconstrue that message. Find it and then live that way!

Have you asked, "What does it mean to follow Jesus?" The answer is one step beyond what is described above. Following Jesus is to make the self-examination to see if your life is reflecting God's priorities, not your own. This is where having a lasting effect makes a difference. Seek the Lord to know Him. Find Him and follow. Live THAT way!

Embryonic Stem Cell Research - New Link

2010-08-08T23:54:00.002-07:00

There is a breaking news story out of Australia. Scientists have been working on a DNA project for the past five years. They were able to extract a "really pure DNA" from embryonic stem cells. Their research is showing a direct link to the typical American Demo-cRat voters.

At first, it would appear that the link between the cRats and the stem cells is a stretch, but further analysis shows multi-connections between the two.

The typical cRat voter is sponging off of others in our country. It seems that a majority of cRats fall into one of the following categories: they are collecting welfare that is paid by taxpayers, they belong to a union that is being "bailed out" by taxpayers, they are in the country illegally and are receiving free healthcare and education which are being paid for by the taxpayers, etc. As a family unit becomes dependent upon government to meet their needs, they produce additional generations of sponges. The cRat sponges appear to be reproducing generations of bottom dwellers.

The embryonic stem cells, on the other hand, were extracted from sea sponges. (Yes, it appears that even sponges have embryos.) The scientists have found that the seaSponges share 70% of genes common to seaRats.

This study helps to also explain why so many seaRats seem to have retained too much water on the brain.

I Pledge Allegiance...

2010-08-03T23:14:00.005-07:00

How long has it been since you recited the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag? Without hesitation, could you recite it without error?

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

Citizens of the United States of America should be standing, right hand over heart, and reciting this pledge on a regular basis; just as it was done when some of us were young. It seems that much of the pride in our country has diminished over the past few decades, to the point where the Pledge is rarely heard or quoted.

Recently, a story made the news about a high school student's fight to get the Pledge back into the classrooms. He met resistance at every level. He was told that the school would have trouble finding teachers who knew the Pledge. When the controversy gained national attention, the school compromised by allowing the Pledge to be recited, by any students interested, in a hallway prior to the start of school.

What does the Pledge mean?

I, a citizen, make a solemn promise of loyalty (the opposite of treason or treachery) to the Flag (the emblem flown representing our nation) of the United States of America, and to the Republic (the form of government initiated by our Founding Fathers) for which the Flag represents, it is one nation made up of individual states united and not able to be divided, under the protection and guidance of God the Father, and which offers freedom and justice to all.

Did you notice that the Flag represents the Republic, specifically? The Flag has thirteen stripes, one for each of the thirteen colonies. It has 50 stars, one for each of the states. It stands for the individualism of the various states, which have joined together for mutual benefit and formed a Republic form of government. A Republic is a government where the people elect others to represent them and to make the laws whereby we are governed. A Democracy, on the other hand, is a government where the majority of the people rule. Another way it has been explained, a Republic is a nation with the rule of law and a Democracy is a nation with the rule of men.

So, what happens if our country is transformed into a democracy that no longer follows the laws, no longer desires to be under God, or protect the freedom of it's citizens on an equal basis, or meets out justice depending on politics or race? What about the "indivisible" part? When we are being led by people who have the desire to divide and conquer their opposition, who intentionally separate us into groups and classes, who play one race against another, etc.; do we have a united set of states forming one country, any longer?

Part of the problem is the lack of education existing in many of our people. Our enemy has been busy dumbing-down our country. As of this point in time, it is not too late to turn things around. It can begin by you doing what you can do to provide accurate education and information to those around you.

We have help on the way. There is a reader of this blog who has accepted the challenge to use his blog to teach us the Constitution and the period of history surrounding the founding of our country. At the present time, he is working on this project and as soon as he is ready, you will be notified of the address for his blog. As you can imagine, this is quite an undertaking.

The Inflation Bubble

2010-08-02T22:37:00.004-07:00

Remember the good ol' days when the value of your home actually increased with the passing of time? During bad economic periods, values remained fairly stagnant. The rest of the time appreciation put added net worth in your wallet.

The normal cycles gave way to the abnormal towards the end of 2004 and lasted into 2006. During that time frame, values went ballistic. There were "bidding wars" for homes where the asking price set the low end of the bids even though it was 50% higher than the same home one year earlier. The demand for homes caused a rapid, upward spiral in prices. Once this began, we were bombarded, on almost a daily basis, with the warnings of "the bubble is going to burst!"

"The bubble", what did they mean? The bubble was the artificially high home prices which were increasing at rates around 5% per month. This was not realistic or sustainable as to the rate of increase or the level of prices. Despite the warnings, the temptation to get in the game and make quick bucks off of flipping houses was irresistible for many. The ignoring of "unrealistic" and "unsustainable" bubble warnings fueled the hot air that continued to expand the bubble.

The bubble was the appearance of substance which did not exist. It took on a life of its own but all that was under it was vapor. In 2006, the artificial expansion popped and the substance vaporized. The bubble burst, just as prophesied. Now, for approaching four years, the balloon has been flying around the room, backwards. In many areas, we have not only lost the bubble appreciation, but we have landed in a crater. At the present time, we still cannot see the bottom.

In at least America, we have another bubble. As opposed to the housing bubble, where the numbers were growing by artificial means, this new bubble is suppressing the numbers by artificial means. We have an inflation bubble.

Our government is printing extra paper money by the trillions of dollars. They are preparing to print another trillion dollars that can be thrown into the economic system. To make matters even worse, we as a country are also borrowing trillions of dollars. What is the reason we are adding so much additional cash to the economy? The cash has become the new "hot air". We have an artificially propped-up economy. The more the Feds throw cash at the recession, the worse it seems to get. So; instead of stepping back and observing that if we keep doing what we have done, we will continue to get more of the same results, only worse; they devise another program to inject more cash into the system.

The real economy remains on a slippery slope, finding itself sinking ever deeper and deeper into the abyss. But, on the surface, even though things aren't real good we expect to cycle out of this recession just as we have done so many times in the past. This notion that we are walking on solid, economical ground and that things are beginning to recover, is truly only a pin-prick away from a bursting bubble.

We cannot inject trillions of paper dollars into a struggling economy without the ultimate, resulting inflation. The more money the Feds add to the money supply, the bigger the bubble and the louder the "pop" will be down the road. Paper dollars are being used to prop up an artificial floor in order to give the appearance that the platform is the actual economic picture of the country. It is not!

Based on recent and current policy, inflation must happen. Inflation will be the result of too much cash in the money supply. Each dollar will be worth less and less, and it will take more and more of them to buy the same item. This is inflation. Things will cost more than they do right now.

I believe that inflation is inevitable at this point. The only question is how bad will it be. There are those warning of "hyper-inflation". I don't know about you, but I do not like that sound of that! Other countries have experienced hyper-inflation. The loaf of bread that used to cost two dollars now requires a stack of money. Folks, we do not want to go there!

On a national level, we have to STOP pumping dollars down a black hole. Our country has taxed and spent, borrowed and spent, and just plain spent and spent. It seems that they do not know any other solution other than let's spend some more.

If the housing bubble had burst in March of 2005, the housing crisis would be a distant memory by now. Instead, it grew substantially larger prior to it's collapse. Our inflation bubble can be dealt with now with the pain that will accompany a burst of it's size, or we can continue to inflate the bubble with more dollars and let it burst later with even more drastic results.

You could look at the housing bubble as an inflation bubble, only on the scale where one industry was affected. It took more dollars to buy the same thing of value. Now take that same example and apply it across the board, affecting our whole economy and all industry.

Personally, prepare for inflation. You might want to reconsider your investments, if you have some. It might be wise to own some thing of value rather than paper value. Become as self-sufficient as you are able to accomplish. Prepare your personal finances for harder times. Be wise in your spending and purchases.

You might be thinking, if you are still reading this, "enough with the doomsday forecasts!" I hope I am wrong and that our wise government will lead us to the land of prosperity. But, there are no signs on the horizon to cause me to believe that is the direction they are taking us. Practically every thing they are doing has the strong potential to hurt our economy.

Just remember this warning, "The bubble is going to burst!"

When are Rights, Wrong? - Part 2

2010-07-31T22:25:00.003-07:00

1st Amendment to the Constitution:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Last night the issue was freedom of speech. Tonight, it is freedom of religion. The first amendment, as part of the Bill of Rights, addresses what Congress cannot do. Neither this one nor the following amendments were designed to give the citizens rights. It was understood that the citizens already had their rights - "...that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights." (Declaration of Independence). The Bill of Rights was deemed necessary as a way to spell out specific areas where the Federal Government cannot go. The list of rights, in the first eight amendments was also not meant to be all-inclusive. Amendment 9 - "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparge others retained by the people."

The Constitution gives the three branches of the Federal Government certain and specific responsibilities and authority. Whatever was not given, by the Constitution, to the Federal Government, was reserved to the various state governments or to the people.

The first amendment states that Congress cannot pass any law that has to do with the establishment of a religion. In other words, in the United States, there is not to be any specific religion that is sponsored by Congress. There can be no "National Religion". It goes on to instruct Congress that they cannot pass any law to prohibit the free exercise of religion, by the people.

The "wall of separation between religion and government" is not a part of the Constitution. The Constitution does not say that there can be no religious activities on public property or as a part of government functions. This notion of "the wall" was invented later in our history and has now grown to a point where only rarely is there any form of religion associated with any level of government or any other public entity, such as public schools.

Washington, the ACLU, atheist organizations and others have been busy over the past 50 years getting religion out of public view. We have heard of a church in Phoenix being prohibited from ringing their church bells. We have heard of cities prohibiting home Bible studies in residential neighborhoods. The trend has been more regulation to restrict the free exercise of religion. This is, of course, with some exceptions.

A notable exception, across the country, is found with the Islam religion. For some reason, it seems that Muslims are being granted more freedom and flexibility than the Christian churches. Have you ever heard of a Muslim gathering being cancelled due to city restrictions on their activities? Have you ever heard of Muslims being told that they cannot announce the daily calls to prayer over loud speakers? Why are Muslims being granted special rules as pertain to airport security screening? Would you ever think, for a second, that you could cover your face when your photo is being taken for your "photo ID" or your driver's license?

Why are so many trying so hard to bend over backwards to placate and appease the Muslims? Because, after all, aren't they "the religion of peace"? If you doubt that, just look at the middle east. See how well they play with their neighbors in Israel. Learn from their example of reaching across the aisle, between the tribes, in Iraq. Notice how, when they decide to blow people to pieces, how careful they are to not hurt fellow Muslims. Listen to how much love there is between Iran and the Jews. Peace, peace, as far as the eye can see!

Also, pay no attention to the things their leaders say, such as: wanting to wipe Israel off of the map, believing that all Christians should be killed, seeing the United States as the great Satan and Israel as the little Satan, cheering as they watched the twin towers crumble on 9/11, and their tremendous respect for the females in their society. Remember "honor killings"?

The Islam religion, along with their Sharia Law, is not conducive to co-mingling with Christian religions or the Jews. How many Islam religious leaders in the U.S. loudly and adamantly spoke out against the acts of terrorism conducted on American soil on 9/11, or any of the others since? When some Muslim does speak out, he is so rare that it gets a lot of attention.

Freedom of religion has close ties to freedom of speech. How tolerant should we be in the United States to a religion that promotes terrorist acts, preaches the elimination of Israel, believes that all Infidels (whoever does not receive the Islam faith) should be killed? As we discussed last night, how far can people go in what they say before they have crossed the line and left Constitutionally protected territory?

We, in America, appear to be granting special favors to a "religion" that favors the fundamental transformation of our country from the basics it was founded upon to an unrecognizable nation. They are anti-capitalists, anti-Christian promoters of violence. They view women as property. They prey on the poor and uneducated to entice them to become suicide bombers. Are you aware that leaving the religion of Islam is punishable by death? Why are they set on building a 13-story mosque next to "ground zero" in NY City? Why is NY City allowing them to proceed?

What about this religion fits into this country, the way it was founded? This kind of "peace" we do not need!

So, should we rewrite Amendment One? Is there a way to deal with the fastest growing religion in the world? No, the Bill of Rights are just fine, as written. We need to apply the same conclusion we reached last night. They are not free to promote the destruction of the United States. They cannot teach that non-believers should all be killed. They cannot get away with hate speech any more than anyone else. If they are found to be promoting or teaching the over-throw of America, the killing of those who disagree, etc.; they should be treated the same way a right-wing, black guy or left-wing white guy would be treated. It should be treated as criminal behavior. There should be arrests and prosecution and punishment.

If they want to be here, fine, just get along and fit in. If you believe different than me, fine, just respect my faith and actually be a religion of peace. Muslims have no right to diminish the rights of non-Muslims. If they promote doing so, then they must be stopped with the full force of the law, backed by our Constitution. They do not have a level of rights that supersedes mine!

When are Rights, Wrong?

2010-07-30T22:12:00.002-07:00

1st Amendment to the Constitution:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

When we claim to possess the right of "freedom of speech", are there limits as to what we can say? You have probably heard the same thing I have, "You do not have the right to yell 'Fire!' in a crowded theater." Sounds reasonable and makes sense.

It also sounds reasonable to expect that some conversations would cross the line as to protected speech. If a group of people were planning a crime - say, killing someone; would law enforcement have to wait until they actually attempted to carry out the murder before they could step in and file charges? Is a discussion about an intent to commit a crime, a crime?

How about someone attempting to insight violence? Can you stand on your soapbox, on the street corner and preach to the crowd that they should go and commit crimes? How far can "hate speech" be taken before it crosses the line of becoming a criminal act?

Our country now has a category of criminal behavior categorized as "hate crimes". We have watched, at least on TV, someone burning the American flag. We have seen the photos of protesters at soldiers funerals with signs stating that God hates soldiers, etc. There are the "works of art" showing Jesus in sinful acts, etc. All of these, we are told, are protected under the first amendment as freedom of expression, which they say is a part of freedom of speech.

So, if a white guy promoted the murder of black people, what would that be called? Is it freedom of speech, a hate crime, or just plain criminal? Since "justice is blind" and does not see or weigh the color of skin of the accused or the victim, what is wrong for one race is also wrong for any other - right?

If I were a racist and openly encouraged the murder of people of another race, I believe that I would spend a long time behind bars; and, in my opinion, rightly so. So, how is it that the following statements could be made in public, filmed, and broadcast on national television; and nothing happens?

"I hate white people – all of them! Every last iota of a cracker, I hate 'em... You want freedom? You're gonna have to kill some crackers! You're gonna have to kill some of their babies!" yelled Minister King Samir Shabazz, aka Maurice Heath, the New Black Panther Party's Philadelphia leader.

Is this kind of rhetoric protected under freedom of speech? Is this just another one of those "expressions" that the rest of us have to put up with, or is this criminal behavior? When a black man stands on the street and yells to other black men that they need to go kill white people and their babies, in order for the black men to ever be free; that has crossed the line. This is not the expression of opinion, it is the promotion of murder. If I, as a white, did what he, as a black, did; the blacks would be marching in the streets demanding that I be punished. If he, as a black, did what he, as a black, did; and he were arrested, the blacks would be marching in the streets demanding that he not be punished.

Folks, we have a problem here! If a white person paints the "n" word on something in the public view, that is called a hate crime. But we have this angry, black man, who clearly has an aggressive nature, calling white people "crackers"; and no one seems to have an issue with that. How could that be racist or a hate crime? It was committed by a "black". We all know that only "whites" are racist. Everyone else of any other race is characterized as being a victim of the whites and it is understandable when they lash out.

Is the right, wrong? Should "freedom of speech" be restricted? The answer lies in another common sense saying, "Your rights end at the point where they would begin infringing upon someone else's rights." If we each have equal rights, then I do not have the right to trample on your rights - even if it is only in my speech.

Just as we do not have the right to promote the overthrow of our government by violent means, we should not have the right to promote the overthrow of another's life by violent means. If this man is not held accountable for this type of speech, the line will be pushed further. If you tell someone to go kill someone, and they do, you are also guilty of a crime. So, why would the same act, on your part, not be a crime if that person decided to ignore you and not kill someone. You committed the same offense either way.

Remember November!

2010-07-29T21:44:00.002-07:00

The next election is less than 100 days from now. Do not take it for granted that the cRats will be swept from office by a bunch of iCans riding in on white horses. (For any Libs that might read this, "white horses" is not a racial comment, that phrase refers to the "good guys", just as the good guy in the old western movie was usually wearing a white hat.)

Not only is it not a "lock" that the iCans will gain some level of power in D.C., it is not even sure they will win their individual seats. The problem lies with two issues: first, too many iCans are honestly iCan'ts. We seem to send to Washington people who are too timid or lack the backbone necessary to stand firm or lack the gumption for a good fight. Second, iCan'ts seem to attack their own harder than they do the enemy. We are known for political cannibalism.

The McCain and Hayworth primary in Arizona is a prime example of this. Many have commented that McCain might be President if the last campaign, against Obama, had of been fought as hard as he is fighting to defeat a Conservative. This primary has been down and dirty, no-punches-held! McCain, it is reported, has spent around $10,000,000 so far in this primary. Much of that money, it is also reported, has been transferred from his failed presidential campaign. Yep, the rough-and-tough Senator from AZ went through the last campaign saving up money, instead of using everything he had to defeat the foe.

Now is a call to action. If there is a way to help a true conservative win the primary and then the general, step up and do what you can. Not everyone can send money to a campaign, but most can do something. Call their offices and see how you can volunteer your time and service. Folks, this is important!

FENA - Fair Elections Now Act

2010-07-24T21:53:00.003-07:00

FENA - Fair Elections Now Act (S.752, H.R.1826)

A "bipartisan" bill in various committees in Congress. The sponsors and co-sponsors of the bill are 23 Senators (22-D, 1-I) and 154 Representatives (151-D, 3-R). You can rest assured that it will be good for the country if both parties are supporting these bills. Want to know who some of these co-sponsors are: Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.), Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.), Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I.), Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), etc.

Below is the partial list of organizations that have endorsed the legislation:
Campus Progress - Center for Lobbying in the Public Interest - Change Congress - Chesapeake Climate Change Action Network - Common Cause - Consumer Watchdog - Corporate Accountability International - DEMOS - Democracy Matters - Dolores Huerta Foundation -
Friends of the Earth - Greenpeace - Healthcare Now - Hip Hop Caucus - League of Conservation Voters - League of Young Voters - Mexican American Legal Defense & Educational Fund - MoveOn.org - NAACP - National Organization for Women - Natural Resources Defense Council - People For the American Way - Progressive Future - Rock the Vote - Sierra Club - SEIU.

It is being promoted as a way to fund political campaigns for the US Senate and US House of Representatives. The stated objective is to free up the incumbents to do the work of Congress instead of having to spend so much of their time raising money for the next fight.

Most of the above information comes from the website (as well as some of what is below):
http://www.fairelectionsnow.org/
A video that is against the bill:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZVQD0rAGkk&feature=related

So how would it work and what would it cost?
1. For a candidate for the House to qualify, they would have to raise contributions of $50,000 and from 1,500 supporters with each giving no more than $100. Senators would have to have 2,000 donations plus an additional 500 for each congressional district in their state, of $100 or less.
2. Qualified candidates for the House would each receive $900,000 (40% for primary and 60% for general elections). Senate candidates would each get $1,250,000 + $250,000 for each congressional district.
3. In addition to the above amounts, they would also receive matching funds for additional contributions of up to $100 each. For each dollar contributed, they would get $4 in matching funds. This amount is "strictly limited" to three times what they got for the primary and another three times what they got for the general. There appears to be a provision for additional matching funds to match what an opponent, who is not in public funding, is spending on their campaign.
4. Participating candidates will also receive a break on media advertising. They get a 20% reduction from the "lowest broadcast rates". Also, House candidates who win their primary will get a voucher for $100,000 to cover media expenses. Senate candidates would get $100,000 per legislative district. These vouchers can be exchanged for cash with their political parties.
5. Candidates could still set up PACs which could raise money.
6. The COST to fund this would come from "a small fee on large government contractors" for the Senate campaigns. For the House, the funds would come from 10% of revenue generated from the auction of "unused broadcast spectrum."
7. The estimated cost (apparently calculated by the politicians) would be $700,000,000 to $850,000,000 per year.

_________________

My thoughts and questions:

Three Republicans, in my opinion, do not make this extremely bipartisan. It is clearly a liberal agenda item. It is backed, almost exclusively, by Democrats in D.C. and left-wing groups. The two lists, above, have some familiar names - some that we on the Right are not particularly fond of - for some strange and biased reasons.

If the purpose was to let the elected politicians sit at their desk and work on running our lives, instead of going to fund raisers where they could get corrupted - heaven forbid, then why is the whole plan geared around how much they can personally raise in contributions? Doesn't that defeat the purpose? If the purpose was to keep special interest groups out of politics, then why are they each allowed to form PACs (political action committees) to raise more funds?

This also seems like a very expensive way of trying to get our leaders to stay on the job and lead. In the meantime, we would be funding everyone who could qualify to run against them. Is there another purpose of making sure these other guys don't do any fund-raising dinners, either?

Just a minor item - I thought that "matching" meant "one-for-one"? What is this, raise $1 and get another $4 of matching funds?

As to the discounts they would receive on advertising, how is that supposed to work? Will this law force the media to sell political ads for 20% less than their lowest ad prices? How can they do that? (That is a problem, unless by the time this would go into effect, the government has taken control of the media companies - then it should be no problem.) How can Big Brother force you to sell your product for 80% of your price? Will they make up the difference or just mandate that the media outlets absorb the loss? This would also set up a bias in advertising pricing between those qualified for 'Fair Elections"funding and those who are in Unfair Elections.

As to the cost, charging government contractors an additional fee, which would be used to fund the Senate campaigns is just a little deceitful! Think about it. A contractor bids on a project to do work or supply a product for the government. He knows that there will be "a small fee" tacked onto his bid to cover these Senate campaign costs. Does he just take the lumps or does he increase his bid to cover the added costs? I would think he would raise the bid amount. Then, when he is awarded the bid and gets the contract, the government pays him the awarded amount of the bid and he turns around and pays the government back for funding the campaigns. The contractor did not pay these costs, the government did. Do not forget that the government spends our money - yours and mine. In other words, we the taxpayers would be funding the Senate campaigns.

As to the House campaigns, no problemo here! This money will be generated from the government selling unused airwaves. What a racket! Makes you pity the poor sap who buys this air from the government. How could we be better off than to fund this from selling something that is just extra? Well, if this extra spectrum has value and the government has the authority to sell it, someone will buy it. So, is it that buyer who then funds the House campaigns? No, once again, it is you and I. How? If the government sells something that belongs to the government (you and I) but then gives the money to candidates in campaigns, instead of using the money for legitimate expenses of the government, they will have to turn around and collect that money from us to pay those bills. Candidates win, we lose, again!

Now, here is the grand deception. They are telling us that this will just be a little expensive and even though we now know better, someone else will be paying for the cost. Don't worry, nothing to see here! The total is expected to stay under $850,000,000 per year. In my book, that would take a lot of "small fees" and sold spectrum. But, as with most government estimates, you cannot trust them.

I ran the math, myself. These numbers are based on the following:
1. All of the politicians running for these offices qualify for these funds. That each Senator and Representative enters this program and that from each party (only two-Rep. and Dem.) that there are three candidates running in the primary who are in the program.
2. It is based on each candidate qualifying for the maximum in matching funds, excluding the extra funds to match some other politician's spending.
3. These numbers do not include the money each candidate raises during the campaign.
4. The "per year" numbers recognize that House races are every two years and 1/3 of the Senators run every two years.

For the House races, the total cost would be $8,961,000,000 for each election cycle. That is almost nine billion dollars. It equals $4,480,500,000 each year. It equals $10,300,000 per year, per House seat.

For the Senate races, the total cost would be $56,810,000,000 (over $56 billion) for each cycle of electing all 100 Senators. This equals $9,468,333,333 per year and $94,683,333 per year, per Senate seat.

When I add these two, annual figures together, I get $13,948,833,333 per year; not $850,000,000. For the total cost not to exceed this projected amount, offered by the government, there could only be approximately 100 candidates who qualify and use the public funding.

Remember, if all of the politicians qualified and used this plan, the average annual cost to the U.S. taxpayers would be almost $14 billion. Also, you would have to be a fool to believe that after footing this bill, the citizens would be getting open, fair elections not corrupted by special interests or big money contributors. I don't know about you, but if I ran for Senate and used this plan for "Fair Elections", I could run one fine campaign on $568,000,000 of your money.

The Continental Divide

2010-07-17T22:11:00.004-07:00

On April 25 of this year, I posted an article "Irreconcilable Differences". The current article is in follow-up to that posting. If you did not read the first part or do not remember it, here is a link that will take you directly to the earlier article:
http://thehousetop.blogspot.com/2010/04/irreconcilable-differences.html

Running north and south through North America and the United States is a line that is referred to as the Continental Divide. This is not a line arbitrarily drawn on a map, it is a line that designates the high point in elevation which separates, from east or west, which ocean rainfall will eventually flow towards. The Continental Divide runs up the Rocky Mountain range. Though it designates a physical divide in our nation, it could represent an image of the present political and social divide that grips the same country.

The United States has long endured issues and beliefs which have divided us as citizens. These could be our chosen religious beliefs, our unchosen race or gender, our financial status, slavery, volunteer or draft military, the war in Vietnam, our political affiliation, our stand on abortion, whether or not there should be a designated hitter, etc. These have ranged from trivial to serious, but we have survived as the UNITED States.

How did our forefathers hold us together? One answer to that question is, barely! The most serious fracture resulted in the Civil War. Prior to the breakout of war, the Southern States withdrew from the Union. The U.S. of A. was not just on the verge of falling apart, it was already falling apart. The seriousness of the situation led to four years of fighting among ourselves and death to around 620,000 Americans.

Prior to that war, Abraham Lincoln gave a speech as he was selected to be the Republican candidate for the Senate seat for Illinois in 1858. This speech has become known as the "House Divided" speech. The following is the first paragraph of that speech:

"If we could first know where we are, and whither we are tending, we could better judge what to do, and how to do it. We are now far into the fifth year since a policy was initiated with the avowed object and confident promise of putting an end to slavery agitation. Under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only not ceased, but has constantly augmented. In my opinion, it will not cease until a crisis shall have been reached and passed. "A house divided against itself cannot stand." I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved; I do not expect the house to fall; but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction, or its advocates will push it forward till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new, North as well as South."

Lincoln was not original in the use of the phrase, "A house divided against itself cannot stand." This is scriptural, from:
(Mat 12:25 KJV) "And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand".
Also, just eight years prior to Lincoln's speech, during Senate debate on the Compromise of 1850, Sam Houston said, "A nation divided against itself cannot stand."

So, are Houston, Lincoln and Jesus right? Can a nation, with serious division, continue to stand? I would have to take Lincoln's following comments as an appropriate answer to this question. His comments have been slightly altered to reflect our current divide:

"I believe this government cannot endure permanently half" (socialism, ignoring Constitutional limits on Federal Government, over spending, over taxation, dependency on government for daily needs [and some wants]) "and half" (desiring to be free men, with limited government, strictly following the Constitution, a nation of laws [not popular opinion], personal responsibility, capitalism, opportunity, free markets, and the basic liberties guaranteed by the Bill of Rights). "I do not expect the Union to be dissolved; I do not expect the house to fall; but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other."

Lincoln's wisdom proved to be correct. The Union survived, although with great loss and cost, and it became all one thing. I imagine that if Abraham Lincoln were making his speech today, he just might foresee another great divide on the horizon and attempt to warn us of such a national disaster.

I still believe what was written in the article "Irreconcilable Differences". Although the concept of actually splitting the nation was not meant to be taken totally serious, to some degree, I do believe that if it were feasible and the citizens were in agreement, it might be a solution to the problem. I honestly cannot see that ever happening, just as I cannot imagine the present two sides coming together with a compromise that makes both sides content.

So, where does that leave us? We can look forward and see several possible scenarios. Much hinges on the elections this November. If the Democrats maintain control of both Houses of Congress, along with the President; we, as a country, will continue sliding to the Left. The Socialist (if not Communist) agenda will continue to be rammed down the throat of the American public and by the time another election rolls around, it will be extremely difficult to reverse the damage done.

If Republicans gain control of at least the House of Representatives (assuming those same Republicans get and keep a backbone once they are submerged into the corruption and power of Washington) they should be able to put a stop (if only temporarily) to at least some of the Leftist agenda. While President Obama sits in the Oval Office, we are not safe and we cannot rest. This scenario only buys a small window of time to slow down the Leftists. The future would then rest on the following election and who ends up being President for the next term.

We have a continental divide - will we be socialists or will we be FREE? Where is there room for compromise? The two cannot co-exist, they are mutually exclusive.

Those of us on the Right have a narrow window of opportunity. If we fail to grab hold and take full advantage of November's election, our nation will (I am afraid) complete it's transformation into becoming a socialist country - the USSA - United Socialist States of America. The Leftists recognize what is at stake in this election - the rest of their agenda and pushing the country so far that recovery may be impossible. Failing to take control of the House will be unforgivable by the following generations.

Lincoln foresaw the looming crisis and that destiny hung in the balance. He understood that they too had irreconcilable differences that would not be solved by negotiation. We, too, are diametrically opposed.

How will our looming crisis play out?

Remember, they were at war with us but we were not at war with them!

BizarrObama World

2010-07-10T21:51:00.002-07:00

I cannot believe it, but things are actually getting more strange by the week. Every time I think that BO and his buddies have pulled the most outrageous thing so far, they take it further. Here are some of the items that hit some of the news sources this week:

1. BO wanted an extreme liberal to run the government's medicare system, which will include the new health care plan recently signed into law. The choice is so vocal about his beliefs and positions that the consensus was that he could not get confirmed by the Senate, even with cRat control. So, BO used a special power of the President. When Congress went home for a summer break, he just appointed the guy.

A president is allowed to appoint someone to a Federal position, if he deems it necessary to get the position filled and Congress is not in session. BO doing this is nothing new. What is bizarro about this appointment is the person appointed.

His positions about medicare and health care: he said, when asked about rationing being in the health care law (remember the accusation by Palin of there being "death panels"), "It is not a question of whether there will be rationing, it is only will we ration with our eyes open." When asked another question about the health care plan, he said, "Healthcare is redistribution." His view of our new and improved health care plan is basically a system to "spread the wealth around" (quoting BO).

2. You may remember seeing the video from the 2008 election cycle of two New Black Panther thugs standing in front of the doors to a polling place, dressed in black para-military uniforms, pounding police batons in their hands, and shouting racial things at white people who wanted to go in and vote. Their goal was to intimidate as many whites as possible to keep them from voting. It worked.

They were charged with voter intimidation, went to trial, were found guilty, and released. A Department of Justice lawyer who was prosecuting these two men and who had obtained a guilty verdict against them, recently quit his job and went public with the following story about how these two racists got away with their crimes. After the verdict, he said that he was told, from the very "top" (whether he meant BO or the Attorney General, I am not sure, but I would imagine the AG would have discussed such a controversial move with BO before making it happen), that the government's charges against these two were being dropped.

I thought that charges were typically dropped prior to court proceedings when it was determined that there was insufficient evidence to get a conviction, not after having a conviction.

The reason that charges were being dropped and these to thugs were being set free is that the DOJ will not prosecute blacks for such crimes.

One of these two New Black Panther members was also caught on video during a rally in 2009. In his talk, where he was yelling into a microphone on a street with many people around, he said, "I hate white people, all of them...if you want peace, you (meaning black men) will have to kill some crackers (white people) and some of their cracker babies."

Isn't it reassuring that our Department of Justice is more concerned about keeping this guy on the street than it is in honest voting or insuring that racial discrimination is not tolerated?

3. Have you heard about the spy swap? The U.S. captured around 11 spies from Russia. Well, since we would not want to make a big show about Russia getting caught spying on us and having trials, we made a deal. We traded the 11 spies back to Russia in exchange for Russia releasing four Russians that they held in prison, who they claim spied for us.

4. The US Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against Arizona. They want to stop our new anti-illegal immigration law from going into effect later this month. Their suit basically charges that AZ has no right to enforce a Federal law that they have chosen to ignore. They say that local law enforcement officers do not have a right to question anyone about their legal status, even when stopping them for other crimes.

Since bank robbery is also a Federal crime, maybe we should stop searching for the robbers and just let the FBI do the job. Also, what is the big deal about asking to see papers for non-citizens? It happens to be Federal law that they are required to carry papers at all times while they are in our country. The conclusion must be that even though they must carry papers, no one is allowed to ask to see those papers. If you ask, you are a racist!

As of today, AZ is fighting seven different legal challenges to our new law. All of this taking place even before the law has taken effect.

5. The last is not the least bizarro. The director of NASA gave an interview to Arab television while he was on a trip to Arab countries. When asked why the director of NASA was in Arab countries, he answered that the president had instructed him (the head of NASA!!!!) to make it his top priority to reach out to the Muslim nations and make them feel good about themselves for their past contribution to science and math.

First, what part of "Space" does Arabia fit into? Second, what part of "Space" involves physco-babel, self-esteem for foreigners? Third, what science and math contributions?

BO and his buddies are making the USA a laughing-stock to the rest of the world. They must be sitting back and having one belly-laugh after another at BO and his gross incompetence and even grosser arrogance.

How on earth (or space) did we get here? How could this guy ever get elected dog catcher, much less president. Just wondering, is there something wrong with his neck that makes his big nose stick up in the air whenever he is in public? How did we get here? We were asleep at the voter wheel for decades. We were negligent at PTA meetings. We were glad to let government take over some of our responsibilities. We accepted Federal money, which always came with strings attached. We were content to let others stand up and fight against the wrongs imposed upon us by our government. We did not fight when others had their rights stripped away. We were negligent in researching candidates pasts and positions. We believed what the media fed us on the nightly news. We were not diligent in checking out the public schools to make sure our children were not being indoctrinated. We let unions take too much control. We were shy when it came to making sure various races were treated equal and no race gained favor. We fell for the propaganda that divided and conquered us.

Also, we did not realize that while we were not at war with them, they were at war with us.

Free Men!

2010-07-03T21:55:00.003-07:00

"Our unalterable resolution would be to be free." Samuel Adams, 1776

"Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people..." John Adams, 1775

"To give to every citizen the information he needs for the transaction of his own business...To know his rights..." Thomas Jefferson, 1818

"No people will tamely surrender their Liberties, nor can any be easily subdued, when knowledge is diffused and Virtue is preserved. On the Contrary, when People are universally ignorant, and debauched in their Manners, they will sink under their own weight without the Aid of foreign Invaders." Samuel Adams, 1775

"Law and liberty cannot rationally become the objects of our love, unless they first become the objects of our knowledge." James Wilson, 1790

"The known propensity of a democracy is to licentiousness which the ambitious call, and ignorant believe to be liberty." Fisher Ames, 1788

"Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" Patrick Henry, 1775

(The above quotes were found on Founder's Quote Daily, published by the "PatriotPost.us".)

At what price is Liberty? That must be answered on an individual basis. Maybe the question would be best asked, at what price is your liberty, to you? This is not a flippant question and the answer should likewise be thought out, understood and heartfelt.

The question should be thought out as your future depends on your answer. Without proper and adequate understanding of Liberty, what it would mean to be without it and what it would take to preserve the same, you are not equipped to render a committed and intelligent response. Without your answer being from the heart, you will likely shrink back once opposition and difficulty must be overcome in order to be free.

What is your personal value of being free? As, free, I am referring to the freedoms expressed in the Declaration of Independence and guaranteed in the Constitution. The value others determined for themselves, in the past, is clear. To them, this was not an exercise in theory. They pledged themselves and all they had to the cause of obtaining and preserving freedom. They were not only willing to pay the ultimate price, they paid it down to their last drop of blood. For most, this was not a demonstration of glory, but a miserable ending in an isolated location.

Who, today, do you hear speak words about liberty like those written above? "Give me liberty or give me death!" That level of commitment resulted in liberty. If they had been any less committed, we would all still be speaking English. Oh, wait a second...anyway, you get the point.

Currently, "What is the price for your liberty?", is not an academic concept. Liberty is disappearing, step-by-step, in America on a daily basis. Your bondage is the object of your government's agenda. One of our founding fathers warned us that once we give up our liberty, we will not be able to get it back again.

Read, study, learn, seek to understand the concept of Liberty. You may ask, why is being free so important? Isn't living and living in peace more important than fighting all the time to attempt to be more free? Until you can answer those questions, you are not ready to be free. Another patriot told those who did not understand the value of freedom that he hopes that the chains of their bondage would rest lightly on them.