The New Patrick Henry

Grandma O'Grady is Apparently a Threat to Arizona

2010-05-02T19:42:00.000-04:00

Excuse me, sir? Uh...Madam; can I ask you a question please? America......can I ask just one, simple, question?

Of what ethnicity are 99.9% of all illegal immigrants who cross the border in southern Arizona?

HISPANIC!!!!!!

They are not German, British, Chinese, Bulgarian, Latvian, Romanian, French, Russian, Korean, Vietnamese, Australian, Canadian, Dutch, African, Egyptian, Israeli, Polish, Scottish, Slovakian, Belgian, Peruvian, Portuguese, Finnish, or Martian. They are Hispanics from Mexico or points south. Am I right?

Of course.

So please tell me why on earth anyone is surprised that Arizona's new immigration law will lead to racial profiling. And while you're at it, please tell me why on earth that is so wrong. Have we lost our collective minds in these United States of Amnesia? Have we forgotten the fact that Mexico is our neighbor to the South and the vast majority of illegals crossing in Arizona, Texas, and California are Mexican? Are we really this stupid!!?

Today, none other than our very own Secretary of State, Ms. Hillary Clinton, joined the chorus of politicians with no moral fortitude in denouncing the Arizona law due to its propensity to suggest racial profiling. A few days ago, Arizona's governor signed into law a set of "fixes" for the new statute guaranteeing that racial profiling won't be used to the enforce the law.

So what is the point of the law then?

We are such a bunch of namby-pamby, snot-nosed, little cry babies that we cannot stand to be a little bit harsh about upholding the law. And by the way, if the Feds would get off their high-and-mighty thrones and actually fulfill their constitutional obligation to protect the borders, Arizona wouldn't have to do this themselves. Instead, all they do is pompously condemn the citizens of the Grand Canyon State because they've had enough rancher murders, assaults, drug houses, and an ever-rising tax burden to pay the way for all these illegals.

To all of you morons who have nothing better to do than boycott the state of Arizona, let me ask you a question, and f you're embarrassed to answer then maybe you should buy a one-way ticket to Cuba. Anyway, here's the question:

If you awoke in the middle of the night to find a group of rowdy young men outside your house, with one man in particular wielding an ax and threatening to break in and kill you, would the appropriate response by the police be to come to the scene and blindly and randomly pick just anyone out of the crowd to see if he's a maniac with an ax? I hope you have the brains to say, "No. They should look for the guy with the ax!"

So tell me why things are any different in Arizona. Tell me why, when an overseas flight arrives from an Arab country in the Middle East airport security must randomly select passengers to screen, even if one ends up being an old white lady with a an Irish accent? When was the last time Grandma O'Grady hijacked an airplane and flew it into a skyscraper? When was the last time a middle-aged Chinese guy with a limp stuffed a rental car with explosives and tried to detonate it in a parking garage in lower Manhattan?

The real truth about this whole issue is that you do-gooders don't really care about stopping illegal immigration. You don't really care about putting an end to global terrorism. If you did care, you'd be willing to do whatever it takes to secure our borders and other entry points.

And another thing, why on earth do you have a problem with requiring a photo ID to vote? You don't seem to have a problem slapping down your ID to cash a check, obtain a visa, get a job, apply for medical benefits, et al. Why is it just the voting booth that ticks you off? Is it because you're afraid an ID requirement would prohibit someone from voting? And if so, who, except illegal aliens, would be prevented from voting because of a lack of ID? There are so many methods of getting a photo ID in this country, that any legal citizen who doesn't have one has only himself to blame. As for the rest of us, why should our elections be compromised very single November by non-citizens who are being used as pawns by power-hungry politicians just trying to hold on to their offices?

It's time we grew a backbone and stood up for our constitutional right to a safe and secure border. To hell with political correctness; to hell with the Mexican government and what they think of us. Mexico isn't the one footing the bill for this, be it financial, criminal, or anything else.

Hillary....please sit down and shut up.

And that goes double for you, Obama.

Why Are Conservatives Angry at the GOP?

2010-04-13T15:46:00.000-04:00

I've been a big supporter of conservative talk radio for the better part of twenty years, finding much to agree with in listening to Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Mark Davis, and others. But lately I find myself more and more getting frustrated, and even angry at times, with some of these broadcasters who seem to defend indefensible positions on key issues. One of those issues is the failure of the Republican party over the last twenty-five years.

Before I continue, let me say that I have been registered as either a Republican or a Conservative since I was 19 years old. Given the choice between the GOP and the Democrat party, I will almost always side with the GOP. Yet I am very angry with the Republican party across the board, as are millions of my conservative brethren, and we believe our anger is quite appropriately aimed at the right people.

Some of the aforementioned conservative talkers question our anger, some even challenging us on the airwaves. Mr. Limbaugh for example, used his program on several occasions during the protracted health care debate to insist that conservative anger at the Republican party was misplaced. He was at times both sarcastic and insulting in his remarks, as though his listeners are too stupid to understand the nuances of politics. With all due respect, we fully understand the nuances and we are sick and tired of it!

If you want to know why conservatives are angry at the Republican party one need look no further than the likes of Mitt Romney, former Republican governor of Massachusetts. He graced the stage of Bill O'Reilly's program on FOX News last night, and was grilled by the host about his position on the health care overhaul. At issue was the fact that while governor, Romney supported and signed into law his state's version of health care reform which incidentally, was the model for the federal legislation. O'Reilly challenged Romney on the fact that he supported it at the state level but opposes it at the federal level. Romney's reasoning was that the feds are prohibited by the Constitution to enact such a sweeping law while the states are not.

I could live with Romney's position IF...the legislation proved to be successful in Massachusetts. Unfortunately, it has proven to be an abysmal failure; to the extent that the three health insurance providers in the state are losing billions each year and have been forced to impose a blackout on any new policies. The legislation, despite all the hype, was not able to bring costs down, quality of care up, and cover 100% of all state residents. In short, it was a bust in Massachusetts and it will be a bust at the federal level.

As O'Reilly continued to grill Mr. Romney, it was apparent that the former governor was very uncomfortable. Finally, he let slip the real reason he signed health care reform into law when he admitted that his state received federal incentives to "encourage" enactment of the reform. Romney more or less said, "Hey, if the feds are gonna offer my state some goodies, as governor you'd better believe I'm going to take it."

That, Mr. Limbaugh, is why so many conservatives are angry at the Republican party. At they end of the day Mitt Romney is just another politician who will sell out his state in order to advance his own agenda. It is the antithesis of conservatism which believes that if something is bad for the general public, like health care reform, you stay away from it no matter how many sweet deals you are offered. Are we now supposed to trust Mitt Romney as the Republican candidate for president? Are we supposed to believe him when he says he'll sign a repeal of the health care reform law? What happens if the Democrats offer him a sweet deal?

The thing is, we expect this dirty behavior from liberal Democrats and RINO Republicans. But for GOP members to go on TV and proclaim the depths of their conservatism, only to turn around and give the enemy what he wants, is a betrayal of the highest order! Think of it in terms of a marriage. If your neighbor's husband cheats on his wife you may be a little ticked at his behavior, but nowhere near the anger you would feel toward your own spouse if he or she cheated on you. Sure, we're angry at Democrats, but we expect betrayal from them - they never promised us loyalty. The Republican party has plunged the knife into our backs time and again with Bush Sr.'s new taxes; Bush Jr.'s prescription drug program and porkulus bill; McCain's gang of fourteen and his now infamous McCain-Feingold bill.

And that brings me to another point of anger - Sarah Palin.

Dear Lord, I hate to have to write this because I was a huge Palin supporter; I still think she might be the strongest Republican to go after the 2012 nomination, but Mrs. Palin turned the knife on us when she went to Arizona to stump for Sen. McCain. I know, all you conservative talk show hosts will scream, "But she had to do that in order to keep peace in the Republican party!"

Bingo!

Once again, this is why so many of us are angry. Conservatives believe in principles; we believe in right and wrong; we believe in sticking to our guns even if it means we go down in defeat. We don't believe in keeping the establishment happy merely because we need their support in the future. To hell with their support!

John McCain is a RINO and will always be a RINO. Why on earth do you think the liberal press wanted so badly for him to be the Republican candidate in '08? They knew he couldn't win among conservatives which would guarantee an Obama victory. They outfoxed us, kids. Yet this very day we are supposed to be okay with Mrs. Palin endorsing and stumping fro the guy who gave us the unconstitutional campaign finance reform, who stabbed his party and nation in the back during the Supreme Court fight a few years back, and who strangely enough, seems to favor amnesty for illegals despite the havoc in his own home state. How on earth can that be justified?

One last point before my eyes shoot out of their sockets and my head explodes...

We now have some yellow-bellied Republicans in the Senate who are saying, "Maybe we don't need to repeal Obamacare. Maybe we can just fix it." Oh really? Talk about Democrat lite!

In one of his anti-anger tirades Mr. Limbaugh asked if Republicans, any of them, would be doing the same things with health care reform as the Democrats were doing. The answer is a resounding YES!!!! Mr. Limbaugh, let me add to your list of undeniable truths of life:

"Unless forced to do otherwise by conservative voters, the Republican Party will continue to offer up "lite" versions of Democrat proposals in order to appear as though they care just as much. The enactment of these proposals will lead us to the same end, it's just that it will take longer."

Case in point: Mitt Romney's position on creating jobs. He told O'Reilly that the government must "create jobs" by enacting tax cuts. He referenced money that employers would be spending on new hires and equipment and gave a scenario in which the federal government would "let" (Romney's word, not mine) businesses take tax credits in order to help create jobs. The problem here is two-fold:

First, the government "letting" business take tax credits is insulting. It isn't their money for crying out loud. Second, the government does not, cannot, and will not ever create a single job in the private sector! Tax credits are an idiotic smokescreen designed to make people think the benevolent federal government can do something good. Instead, they need to get their fat butts out of the way and let business alone to do what it does. All Romney is offering is a band-aid.

Time and again the republican party allows the Democrats to set the table, then they respond with their own version of what's been set before the American people. If the GOP really wants to win back the hearts and minds of conservatives, they need to step up and start setting the table themselves. Start pushing and agenda of rolling back government, cutting spending legitimately, drilling for domestic oil, and so on. They need to push aggressively and force the Democrats to respond instead of the other way around. Until then, we will continue to get the same old garbage from those allegedly on our side.

Still wonder why we're angry?

Washington: Out of Control Brats In Need of a Spanking

2010-03-22T15:10:00.002-04:00

"He knows not how to rule a kingdome, that cannot manage a Province; nor can he wield a Province, that cannot order a City; nor he order a City, that knows not how to regulate a Viallage; nor he a Village that cannot guide a Family; nor can that man Govern well a Family that knows not how to Govern himselfe; neither can any Govern himselfe unless reason be Lord, Will and Apetitie her Vassals; nor can Reason rule unless herselfe be ruled by God, and (wholy) be obedient to Him."

Hugo Grotius (1583-1645)
Dutch jurist, statesman, theologian
Founder of the science of International Law

In light of what transpired on Capitol Hill last night (the House approving the Senate health care bill), as well as what has gone on in Washington over the last several years, I constantly hear people ask, "How can they (the politicians) be so stupid? Don't they know they're destroying the country?" The uncomfortable but truthful answer is that they are not stupid, and they know full well what they're doing. They are purposely following the socialist blueprint of dumbing down minds, making hearts obsessed with sex, and overwhelming the economic system to a point of eventual failure at which time they will swoop in and seize total control. And by the way, this plan has been in motion since the late 1800s. Obama just happens to be the final piece of the puzzle.

As Mr. Grotius so eloquently explained, the behavior of our leaders is traceable back to the very foundations of their source of reason. We may wonder what the heck Pelosi and Reid are thinking; we may question the motives behind Obama's agenda; but all we need do is look at the way they reason. They think what they think because their reasoning is not founded on faith in, and obedience to, the Creator. It is founded on the selfish human principles of lust, greed, power, and pleasure. That being the case, will and appetite are not the vassals of reasoning, as Grotius put it; instead they are out front, leading the charge as Pelosi, Reid, and Obama strive to make them happy.

These three leaders (I use the term very loosely) cannot even govern themselves and their own lust for power, let alone a village, city, province, or nation. They are slaves to their own passions with no thought of the damage they leave in their wake.

Citizen's of America: Do you still believe character doesn't matter? Do you still believe the idiocy that what a man does in his personal life has no bearing on his ability to serve in public office?

It has everything to do with it!

If our leaders cannot control their own self-will for the good of their families and themselves, how in God's holy name are they going to control themselves for the good of a nation? What a man is in the privacy of his own home is what he truly is at his core. And no man, apart of the controlling Spirit of God through His Word can fight the core of who he is. If he is dishonest as a factory worker, he will be even more so as city council member, state legislator, or Speaker of the House. Yet the foolish blind mice of the American Electorate don't seem to think character flaws will rear their ugly heads after a man wins an election. We are abject fools while Washington is full of out-of-control brats in need of a spanking.

I was reading several blogs this morning discussing the possibility of an armed revolution in the U.S. (something I am fully in favor of if done correctly) and as part of that discussion one of the bloggers suggested the Constitution needs to be amended or re-written to prevent future government abuses. One of the readers commented on the fact that changing the Constitution will be completely ineffective in it's endeavor due to the "broken" state of man. This adept reader nailed it right on the head.

Our Constitution is not the problem here, folks. The politicians are the problem. Our Constitution was framed as a document which limits the powers of the federal government. If the feds decide not to honor the Constitution it's no more valuable than the paper it's written on. And if the current federal government can ignore the current Constitution, a future government can certainly ignore a future Constitution. The problem is that men are broken. The only thing that will keep the broken man on the right track is the Christian faith which, by the power of God, intervenes and changes the human heart.

We can continue to live in denial and claim that a society free of Biblical Christianity would solve our problems, or we can live in reality and accept the fact that those in Washington are already devoid of any religion to the harm of the whole nation. We can close our eyes to the fact that the Soviet Union was anti-Christian as was Nazi Germany and the Greek and Roman Empires. We can ignore today's reality that Cuba, the Middle East, much of Europe, Red China, India, Pakistan, and parts of south America and Canada are all anti-Christian. Yet, would most American's ever want to live in one of those other nations?

My friends, let common sense prevail - it does wonders for the human mind and heart.

In closing let me say that because of what has transpired I now find myself in great conflict. Obama will sign the Senate bill into law which will then potentially make me a criminal in 2013 when this fully kicks in. The law mandates that almost every American citizen purchase health insurance, an idea that is blatantly unconstitutional. The government has no authority to mandate how people spend their money, or what they do and do not legally purchase. If I obey the law I am part and parcel with the Constitutional breach yet if I disobey, I will be in violation of the law. I know what I must do but I know I will be putting my family and myself at risk.

Such is the price of liberty.

I'm glad that I'm 44 years old instead of 24. I fear for my children and grandchildren who will have to endure the consequences of this mess for generations to come.

For all you Obama voters I have but one question: how's that hope and change working for you?

We the People are Responsible for They the Congress

2010-03-15T17:52:00.000-04:00

"Now more than ever before, the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless, and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness, and corruption. If it be intelligent, brave, and pure, it is because the people demand these high qualities to represent them in the national legislature..."

James A. Garfield
from his speech given at the Republican Convention in 1880

As the House of Representatives enters what will hopefully be the final week of trying to ram health care legislation down the throats of the American citizenry, Mr. Garfield's words should be a wake-up call to every one of us in this Land of the Free. Polling numbers clearly show the approval rating of Congress to be at an all-time low; so low in fact, it's a surprise to this writer that more of them are not bailing out to head for the hills. Clearly the anti-health care sentiment, combined with the unprecedented deficit spending and power grabbing of Washington are driving these low poll numbers. America has said in no uncertain terms it wants no part of what our current federal government is trying to get done. The poll numbers are the good news.

But.... there is bad news to go along with it: The American people seem as yet unwilling to take the blame for the mess we find ourselves in. Ultimately it rests at our feet; the voters who year-in and year-out continue to vote for men and women known to be corrupt. We allow Barney Frank to remain in office even after his gay lover was busted for running a prostitute ring out of his Washington apartment. We gloss over Ted Kennedy's likely drunken accident which killed Mary Jo Kopechne; Charlie Rangel's financial fraud; John Ensign's extra-marital affair; Hillary Clinton's campaign fraud which has resulted in jail time for several of her associates; the jail sentence earned by the lovely and gracious Monica Conyers for a bribery conviction (her husband, Rep. John Conyers claims ignorance of the whole matter despite being charged with ethic violations of is own); and on, and on it goes.

Does this make any logical sense?

When we elect men and women who have a weak moral compass, if they have one at all, they govern with that same moral compass. They will not suddenly decide one day they need to change their ways because they now are members of Congress. Quite to the contrary, many of them view their Congressional jobs as a license to be even more corrupt than they previously were. And we tolerate it.

Garfield's first description of an undesirable Congress fits our current national legislative body like a tailor-made glove. They are ignorant. Ignorant of what the Constitution says and how it limits their authority; ignorant of the history of other nations who have gone down the same path we are headed for; ignorant, and unbelievably so I might add, of what's contained in the very legislation they vote on. Just for the record, last summer's Senate committee meetings exposed one Senator and Representative after another who never read the text of the health care bill they were voting on. How can that be?

Our Congress is also reckless. Reckless to the point that they are racking up trillion dollar deficits which are neither sustainable nor able to ever be paid off. With no thought of their posterity three and four generations away, members of Congress are willing to spend unlimited amounts of money in order to purchase the ballot box; fiscal responsibility be damned.

They are reckless with our national security when they attempt to restrict the war effort or launch a media attack to create negative public opinion against a President who is working to keep us safe. Equally reckless are those members of Congress who travel to foreign lands on behalf of the United States when they have no constitutional authority to do so, undermining the foreign policy initiatives that are the domain of the White House.

As for being corrupt, does that need further explanation? I do not remember a time in my forty-four plus years when government at all levels was as corrupt as it is today. I used to get frustrated at my friends and family twenty years ago who believed all politicians are corrupt, yet I must admit I am much closer to joining their camp today. While I am smart enough to know there are still a handful of Washington politicians who remain clean, even that "cleanliness" comes with a caveat. If they know of the corruption of their fellow politicians and do nothing in an attempt to have them removed and/or prosecuted, they are part and parcel to the corruption. It is unfathomable to me that there are no Representatives with the courage to force corruption charges against Charlie Rangel; tax fraud charges against Timothy Geithner; or campaign finance charges against Hillary Clinton.

When all is said and done I agree with Mr. Garfield's assessment that our Congress is a reflection of us. The days of honesty, integrity, and a good name are long gone it seems. Selfishness at levels once deemed unreachable have turned our nation into a morally relativistic society that cares little about honesty unless it can be used to our advantage. Oh, how far we have fallen since the days of Patrick Henry's "give me liberty" mentality.

The most disturbing part of this whole issue is the blindness of the general population. We believe we have progressed in our liberty and freedom when in reality, we have willfully stretched out our hands to the shackles of moral depravity. To satisfy an unending sexual appetite we are chained to abortion, aids, and the break-up of the family. To satisfy the lust for pleasure and drown the resulting guilt we have sold our souls to drugs, alcohol, and any number of other addictions. To keep up with the Joneses we have shackled our future to prison of debt from which there is no parole. In short, we are giving away our liberty in exchange for the temporary pleasures of self.

And we wonder why government behaves the same way?

If our Congress is ever to return to the once noble and honorable institution of two centuries ago, we the citizens must make a change at home. Not until our character changes will our leaders feel a need to change themselves. Not until we stop tolerating ignorance, recklessness, and corruption at home will we be able to see intelligence, bravery, and purity return to our government institutions.

I hope and pray we will change course soon.

Sources:
America's God and Country Encyclopedia of Quotations, William J. Federer, FAME Publishing, Inc.; pgs. 256-257

ID Check, Anyone?

2010-03-09T15:50:00.000-05:00

Have you heard the one where the man walks into a factory to apply for job, only to be turned down because he didn't possess a valid national ID card proving his citizenship?

National ID cards - sounds a little like something Adolph Hitler did in the early stages of his rise to power. Yes, indeed dear readers; yes, indeed. And by the way, old Adolph isn't the only dictator to control his citizens through a national ID system. The Soviets did it for generations; the Chinese, N. Koreans, Cubans, and a bunch of other socialist/communist countries still do it to this day. It's a method of tracking people and controlling where they go and what they do.

And it could be coming to a state near you in the immediate future.

That's because of a bill currently working its way through the hallowed halls of Congress, a place where the benevolent members only have our best interests at heart, which will include the mandate for every American citizen to possess a national ID card in order to take and hold a job. And that's not all, folks. If this passes as it currently stands, those ID cards won't be the simple paper card like the one your Social Security number is on. Oh, no...they will be biometric cards. If you don't know what "biometric" means you should probably Google it and get up to speed. Suffice it to say, these national ID cards will contain a bunch of your vital (and personal I might add) information, along with a computer chip which will allow your movements and activities to be tracked.

This measure is part of an immigration reform bill, ostensibly to prevent illegals from taking jobs in the U.S., but c'mon....who here is really that dumb? Please..raise your hands so I can count them.

First of all, if there's one thing illegals have demonstrated so well in the last twenty years its the fact that they know how to overcome the system. Illegal aliens are by definition, illegal; and by extension, criminals. How many times does it have to be said that criminals don't obey the law? In fact, how many times do we have to watch the news or read the paper to understand that criminals know how to beat the system to get what they want? Only a fool or a willingly ignorant mental midget would believe a national ID system can prevent illegals from working.

As it is, plenty of employers already break the law by hiring illegals because the financial payoff is worth the risk. That won't change simply because we force law-abiding citizens to get ID cards. Furthermore, have you ever seen the two words "fraud" and "government" linked together in the same sentence? Are we to believe that everyone who will eventually be involved in overseeing this monstrosity will be honest enough to keep the system clean? Don't make me laugh; it hurts too much.

Folks, I hate to be alarmist but once again we're dealing with people who have a sinister motive. The heads in Washington are not morons. They know full well a national ID system won't prevent illegals from working. That's okay though, because that's not the purpose of the mandate. What they are really trying to do is put a system in place whereby Washington can exert more control over the citizenry. They won't tell you that of course, because they know you won't go for it. Instead, they disguise it under the pretense of helping to fix the immigration issue.

Care to argue with me about it? Fine. Explain to me why, if this system has such grand prospects for success, why is it necessary to come out with a new ID system when our current Social Security system would suffice? One must have a social security number to get paid in this country, so why not simply force employers to produce copies of social security cards and prosecute the ones who can't? Oh...because social security cards can be faked? So can biometric ID cards, Einstein!

The key to this fraud being passed of as immigration reform is the fact that the new ID card is computerized! It can be used not only to identify you as a citizen able to legally work, but in the future to control access to bank accounts; enroll children in schools (indoctrination centers); access health care; travel from state to state (don't think that can't happen); and any other number of things Uncle Sam wants to control.

No...if they really wanted to reform immigration they could do so without trampling on our privacy and liberty. All they need to do is build a fence on both our northern and southern borders, beef up the Coast Guard, and arm both the Guard and the Border Patrol with the weapons and authority to keep people out. But of course, we don't have the will and the stomach to protect our borders. Instead, it's just easier to make our citizens prisoners in their own country. A lot like Stalin did.

I never thought I'd live to see they day when the Land of the Free was on the verge of becoming the Land of the Complacent Prisoners. The fact remains however, that the majority if people who read this will think I'm overreacting, or that the threat isn't real, or that government would never do such a thing. But history teaches us otherwise. The march to dictatorship is generally more secure and sustainable when it is taken very slowly. That way, the citizens don't recognize what's happening to them. This is called the incremental approach. It's the approach that's been used by the left since the late 19th century. And it's working.

I wonder how long it will be before we have riots in the streets, if they ever happen at all? Unfortunately, Washington is a cheap whore that knows how to catch the eye of America. She stands in the doorway in her sexy little outfit and a sultry look of desire, beckoning her victim to come enjoy all she has to offer. Like the fool heading up the staircase, America is allowing itself to be seduced by the promises of Washington. It will continue until we are so drunk with her handouts we'll allow her to rob us blind of our freedom and skip out the back.

Don't go up the stairs, mate. See Washington for the whore she is and throw her out of the building. Stand up to your Senators and Representatives and refuse to sit and take this garbage any more. If you won't, your neighbor won't. Then no one on your street will; nor your city, county, state, or nation. My friends, change does not start at the top and work down. It starts at the bottom and works up. You and I have the responsibility to force the change or live with the consequences of letting it go. I know which choice I prefer.

I Agree With Nancy Pelosi.....Almost

2010-03-01T19:47:00.000-05:00

Is it possible for Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi to say something I agree with? Forgive me, but yes. The lovely and gracious Ms. Pelosi appeared on CNN's State of the Union yesterday and was grilled on health care reform by Candy Crawley. At one point Pelosi threw her Democrat buddies overboard and suggested they support a compromise health care bill even if it meant the end of their Congressional careers. Then came the comment heretofore referenced in which she said:

"The American people need it. Why are we here? We're not here just to self-perpetuate our service in Congress. We're here to do the job for the American people, to get them results that gives them not only health security but economic security because the health issue is an economic issue for -- for America's families."

Ms. Pelosi, for once in your long and dubious political career you got it almost right! Except for the phrase, "the American people need it," you hit a home run with that sentence. You are correct that your role in Washington is not to self-perpetuate your careers. You are correct in your assertion that you owe it to us to insure both economic and health security. But then that begs the following question: If you really believe what you said, why are you trying to ram this health care down our throats?

It is precisely the perpetuation of your careers that is driving this whole charade. You may think we're stupid, madame, but we're not. You are a socialist, and socialists perpetuate their careers by seizing and maintaining as much power over the populace as possible. The whole point of this health care scam is to make as many people dependent on Washington's out-stretched hand as possible, thereby increasing your chances of being re-elected by voters who can't bear the thought of having to pay for their own doctor visits. C'mon Pelosi, stop lying to us.

As far as our economic security goes, the obvious stupidity of your statement makes Yogi Berra look downright genius! What is so economically secure about running up trillions of dollars in debt and straddling our grandchildren with deficits that are unsustainable? This plan, just like last year's porkulus and this year's jobs bill (porkulus II) are nothing short of irresponsible behavior by those of you who claim to be looking out for us. Call it what you want Ms. Pelosi, but in the real world you cannot spend money you don't have and still end up in prosperity. When I was young this principle was part of 2nd grade math!

And health security......the most secure thing you can do for my health is keep your nose out of my business! What the hay; you guys cannot even run a White House dinner without fraudulent party crashers getting their pic with POTUS; how in the heck are you going to insure I get the health care I need, when I need it, at an affordable cost? You in Washington are so inept at everything you do, you are the antithesis of the Midas touch. Old Midas was not too bright for sure, but at least he got gold out of the deal. You? Everything you touch turns to rust.

Ms. Pelosi, you spoke on Sunday about the "courage" it took to vote for Social Security back in the day. You likened that historic period to what we are facing now and implied it will take courage to vote for passage of health care. Once again madame, your obtuse nature betrays you. Real courage will be displayed by those members of Congress who stand up to you, Reid, and Obama, and refuse to go along with your little socialist scheme. Doing so will almost certainly result in the wrath of those who lead your party, as well as the Union thugs who will fight tooth and nail to destroy their careers.

You want courage? How about leading the nation based on the founding principles of individual liberty and responsibility? If you want courage you could try legitimately cutting the budget and telling all the special interest whiners to go work for their money. You can cut welfare and force people to actually go get jobs. You could get off your spending addiction cold-turkey and let us average American's keep the money we earn. If you want courage you could try telling the SEIU, AFL-CIO, and AFSCME to go take a long walk off a short pier. You might consider actually prosecuting and shutting down ACORN. You might try opening up domestic oil drilling and new coal and nuclear plants. Lady, I could go on and on with hundreds of courageous decisions you could make.

But I won't.

I won't because I know at the end of the day you are nothing more than a cowardly lion in the fantasy land of infantile citizens. Doing the right thing escapes you because the wrong thing is so firmly rooted in everything you are. So next time you're blathering on to CNN reporters just do me one favor; spare us the lectures on courage, integrity, and morality. Of all people, Ms. Pelosi, you need to keep your pious pie-hole shut.

Obama: It's the Ideas, Not the Communication

2010-02-22T16:28:00.000-05:00

This morning I read, with both amusement and incredulity, a news report detailing how some Democrats are wary of President Obama's track record after one year in office. On the one hand I say, "Good. You ought to be wary because his track record stinks." Yet on the other hand, I shake my fist at these people when I hear the inane logic behind their thinking. As a case in point, several well known Democrat governors were interviewed at a national governors gathering over the weekend, opining about all the trouble at the White House - from the stalled health care debate to the public dissatisfaction with last year's so-called stimulus bill. The one thing all these governors had in common was putting forth the notion that the President's problems lie in his failure to "connect" with the American people. My friends, that would be laughable if it weren't so absurd.

In claiming Obama hasn't connected, they are saying that he hasn't effectively communicated his vision and plan for America. As proof, I offer you several quotes from the weekend's blather:

"We fought back only sporadically and pretty ineffectively.....right out of the box, we lost the spin war on the $787 billion economic stimulus bill passed in 2009." - PA Gov. Ed Rendell

"If there was a communications issue," he said, "it was, perhaps, over the pace at which jobs would come back." CO Gov. Bill Ritter

"If you don't know what happens at the point where policy touches people, you've got a problem." MA Gov. Deval Patrick.

And again, in accordance with the Administration's pre-written script, former President George Bush took a hit because the whining Democrats have been unable to fix a broken economy. According to Gov. Mike Beebe of Arkansas, ""Now, in fairness, he [Obama] didn't create this problem, but they want to see him fix it."

Dear governors and others who think like you, it comes down to this: The President did a very good job of communicating his vision and plan for America through his actions. I'm sure you're all smart enough to know the old maxim that actions speak louder than words, right? Well Obama's actions since taking office have been clear, consistent, and unwavering. He wants to control 1/7 of the American economy through an unconstitutional takeover of the health care industry; his "stimulus" package was nothing more than a "porkulus" package to repay political favors; the only jobs he has saved or created with his stellar economic recovery plan are those of government employees and union workers. In short, the American people have heard loudly and clearly the President's plans and they want no part of it.

His approval ratings are plummeting because he is a socialist loser. Congressional approval ratings are at an all-time low because they are largely socialist losers. Politicians may view their chosen line of work as a game to be won through verbal attacks and spin machines, but we the people see it as the future of our nation to be determined by the ideas and values implemented in Washington. Personally, I don't much care about spin; I care about the truth. If the politicians view their jobs as simply a matter of spin, they need to find another line of work. If the pundits and news organizations view things the same way, they need to go back to grammar school and re-learn American history.

Now, as I've said on many previous occasions in the past, all of this makes me wonder if these governors from the weekend interviews are really as dumb as they sound. And again, I must conclude that nobody can be that dumb and still win a state office. That leaves me with only one conclusion. These governors, and their allies on Capital Hill don't believe a word of what they're saying, but they think we do. They think we are too stupid to know what's really good for us. They think if they lay the blame on a communication problem they can convince us that our dissatisfaction with Obama & Co. is just a misunderstanding; that if we just relent and trust them everything will work out fine.

It's a fine plan, except....we aren't buying it.

Double-digit unemployment is not a mere misunderstanding. Sweetheart deals to Nebraska, Louisiana, and Florida aren't a communication issue. We are smart enough to know when the health insurance plans of union bosses are exempted from health care "reform", it's not a matter of Obama not connecting. We understand completely what's going on and we are fed up, not ignorant fools.

The President has called for a bi-partisan health care summit scheduled to take place in Washington this week. He is purported to have written a draft of his proposed legislation which borrows heavily from the bill the Senate passed last year, and will supposedly use this as a framework to gain a compromise. When the summit fails (and I hope and pray it does) he'll then go to the microphone and blame the Republicans for being the "party of no"; the latest and greatest Democrat talking point. He'll be followed on the nightly news by anchors and anchorettes again clamoring over the President's inability to properly communicate. To which I must ask them, "What happened to this supposedly great communicator in the past year? Did he forget how to communicate?

Sometimes I wonder if all of this is just an incredibly surreal dream. I wonder if I will wake up in a few minutes only to discover that the 2008 election hasn't really occurred yet. But alas, I may pinch myself until I bleed but the march to socialism continues. Maybe when Obama leaves office we should elect Ed Rendell as his replacement. Perhaps a little better job at spinning and I would be able to live in ignorant bliss.

Thank God for Bi-Partisanship

2010-02-15T16:28:00.000-05:00

Senator Evan Bayh (D)-IN today joined the ranks of those in Congress not running for re-election this fall, saying that he loves serving his constituents but doesn't love Congress. Mr. Bayh cited the partisan atmosphere in Washington as a big factor in his decision to retire. His thoughts on partisanship would be laughable if they weren't so frighteningly foolish, and yet so many people have fallen into the trap that Washington needs bi-partisanship. My friends, that's the last thing Washington needs!

For those of you who might not know what bi-partisanship is, it simply means both the Democrat and Republican parties compromising and working peacefully together in order to get things done. In a perfect world bi-partisanship would be a wonderful thing that would transform America into the political promised land, while in reality, bi-partisanship would be the mother of all government disasters.

Curious to know why?

It's because our system has produced career politicians who are so self-absorbed and obsessed with their own power and legacy, they don't know how to compromise properly. Bi-partisanship today means nothing more than "my way or the highway." Both parties have been guilty of this attitude in the past, but since the Democrats have taken total control in Washington, they've turned it into an art form. From "Mad" Max Baucus shutting down debate during committee hearings last summer to President Obama now proposing a health care summit at the end of February, the Democrats are not interested in any Republican ideas for health care. They care only about a photo-op and a setup which will allow them to blame the other side for failure. They come to the microphone and preach against the evils of partisanship, yet they are completely unwilling to consider proposals that differ significantly from their own. So I say, thank God for bi-partisanship.

Do you realize what would happen if just a handful of Republican Senators and Representatives caved and crossed the aisle? The health care bill would be passed and sent to Obama's desk so fast you'd think it was an Olympic Alpine event. The Democrats control the White House and both Congressional Chambers, as well as most federal courts yet they cannot agree among themselves how to get health care done because it's an extremely bad idea. Thank God for the bi-partisanship that's fending off the health care bill, cap and trade, a new porkulus bill, and on and on. Without it we'd be marching toward socialism at blinding speed with nothing to stop us but the arms of revolution.

I remember when George W. Bush ran for President the first time, one of his campaign points was the fact that he brought Democrats and Republicans together in Texas for the good of the people. I said back then that the accomplishment was indeed impressive, but Washington is a far different place. I voted for him twice because his two opponents would have been far worse, yet I was never supportive of his "extend the hand of peace to Democrats" approach. Every time he did they bit him; and they bit him hard. The Democrats never gave an inch during Bush's eight years, but they took and took and took, everything the Republicans compromised on. It was a bad plan then. It is still a bad plan today.

I agree whole-heartedly with the notion that bi-partisan gridlock has tended to stall any real legislative efforts for the last several years, and I think that's a good thing. I live in New York, home the most dysfunctional state legislature in the country; a legislative body that makes Washington look downright efficient. I'm glad for gridlock because it prevents these political fools from maximizing their damage potential. Be it at the state or federal level, the less legislation that comes out of the government, the better off we are.

So I say again, thank God for bi-partisanship. Until such time as our elected officials learn what their oaths of office really mean, until thy demonstrate a genuine desire to SERVE their constituents rather than being served, until they gain the common sense of the average American, I say let 'em remain gridlocked. At least no more damage can be done that way.

Tebow Opposition Reveals Truth About Abortion Supporters

2010-02-09T15:05:00.000-05:00

In the weeks leading up to this past Sunday's Superbowl, I was keeping an eye on the controversy surrounding the Tim Tebow ad put together by James Dobson's Focus on the Family organization. I wasn't surprised by the opposition from some women's groups and left-leaning news outlets, since the ad was to have a pro-life message; after all, abortion rights are the holy grail of the left-wing. Sadly, I was also not surprised by the venom spewed against Mr. Tebow and his mother from people who had never met them. From calling Tebow's faith into question, to calling him a "Jesus Freak" as though that's something to be ashamed of, and accusing Pam Tebow of trying to tell other women what to do, the hate-filled abortionists who preach tolerance have none of it themselves.

Then I saw the ad; both versions of it. (There were two versions, the second was the only one shown.)

I must admit to being very surprised to see how mild and innocuous they both were. In fact, I openly wondered what all the fuss was about. The ads were so laid-back that some in the anti-abortion movement might even be offended at their lack of a more pointed message. (That's an argument I won't go near.) The point is, the left-wing abortion proponents came out of this looking like the biggest bunch of petty-minded losers to have ever graced the American political scene. To criticize these ads while demanding CBS not air one of them reveals the truth about the abortion agenda.

If they are so convinced that their position is the correct one and that the majority of Americans support their view, what on earth are they afraid of? Why attempt to silence an ad that simply shows what happened when a Christian mother decided to have her baby rather than abort him? Isn't the "pro-choice" movement about choice? The reaction by the left to this ad proves beyond doubt, at least in my mind, that the pro-choice movement isn't really about "choice" at all. It's about propping up the business and ideology of abortion at any cost.

One of the main tenets of tyrannical rule is that the truth must be squelched at all costs. Nazi Germany regulated speech, so did Communist Russia. Today countries like China, Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, Libya, Pakistan, the Sudan, and Liberia all restrict public speech severely. Dozens of other nations, including some of our allies, restrict speech to a lesser degree. Why? Because truth will always prevail if it is allowed to freely flow through a society. The abortion industry knows this all too well.

Back in the 70s, when the issue hit the fore-front of the American political landscape, abortion proponents were much more willing to refer to themselves as "pro-abortion". Yet with the advent of ultrasound and other technologies it became apparent that medical science was on the brink of proving the baby in the womb was indeed a living human being. Shifting gears to avoid the "life" issue, the abortion lobby changed it's approach to "pro-choice" vs. "anti-choice". Unfortunately for millions of unborn babies, we have allowed abortion supporters to set the terms of the debate.

Modern medical technology has come a long way since the early days of ultrasound, so much so that it is nearly impossible for pro-abortion activists to justify their position from the perspective of a human life existing in the womb. Instead, they claim that what's in the womb isn't a living human being unless the mother decides it is; another convenient "choice." They continue to preach the absurd notion of a "woman's right to choose" what to do with her own body while denying the rights of the unborn baby.

But medical technology doesn't lie....

Modern technology is so successful in proving the life in the womb, that crisis pregnancy centers who can afford such technology have an extremely high rate of preventing abortion. The technology is to the anti-abortion movement today what the placards showing a mutilated body were just twenty years ago. When a pregnant woman sees that the baby in her womb is a living human being, the chances of her carrying that child to term increase dramatically. And thus the need for the abortionists to silence the truth.

As laid-back as the Tebow ad might have been, the message was clear, powerful, and true. Pam's decision to carry her baby despite the medical risk provided the world with another human being who has the potential for great things. That message is maddening to abortionists who are faced with question of their own existence. What would the world be if their mothers had aborted them? For that matter, what if Jonas Salk, Susan B. Anthony, and Abe Lincoln had all been aborted? Even from this perspective abortion is completely indefensible.

The only solution for the abortionists is to silence the truth; to shut down anyone or any organization which attempts to tell the truth about human life. If that means they trash someone's reputation, destroy a career, shut down a business...no matter. Abortion must prevail to those who believe in it. And if they cannot succeed through the media, the abortionist will resort to the court system: preventing anti-abortion protests, sidewalk counseling services, and the like. What the heck, they'll even convince a judge to use the RICOH statues against those who oppose their position.

Pro-choice, you say?

Pam Tebow made her choice and wishes to tell others about it. She's no different than a woman who chooses abortion and then tells her story, except that Pam Tebow's message supports the truth. And the abortionists cannot handle the truth.

As we succumb to more and more political correctness, more and more limited speech, more and prosecution of the truth, we are also headed for ruin. When the day finally arrives that sees the government monitoring every thing we hear and say, Americans will be angry and disillusioned. But by then it will be too late. Today is the day to stand up and say, "No more political correctness, no more lies, no more denying reality." Today is the day to begin a relentless pursuit of the truth in every area of your life. At the end of the day it's the truth that makes us free.

9/11 Trials: A Three-Ring Circus

2010-02-01T16:52:00.000-05:00

The circus surrounding the planned trial of Khalid Sheik Mohammed and four 9/11 co-conspirators continues unabated, with Administration officials and members of Congress lining up to to get their acts into the three rings. Quotes flow from Washington on a daily basis like raw sewage from the burst pipe of Andy Dufresne's Shawshank Prison escape, meanwhile the rest of us inmates sleep on, oblivious to what's happening in Washington.

Having originally planned to try these five men in a Manhattan courthouse just blocks from the former World Trade Center site, the President and Justice Department have backed off while exploring options for a new trial location. Apparently, New York's Mayor Bloomberg has raised enough objection to the plan to cause second thoughts. Or perhaps not; perhaps it's just the administration looking for the best political option in the midst of growing discontent among the American people. Regardless of the motivation, the federal government is at all levels, along with their media messengers, missing the point here entirely. Before I explain what I'm talking about, let me offer you the following quotes from a Fox News story dated January 31, 2010:

"The president believes that we need to take into consideration what the local authorities are saying, but he also believes ... that we ought to bring Khalid Sheikh Mohammad and all others who are involved in terrorist acts to justice swift and sure." - David Axelrod, White House Senior Adviser

"Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is going to meet justice and he's going to meet his maker. He will be brought to justice and he's likely to be executed for the heinous crimes that he committed in killing and masterminding the killing of 3,000 Americans. That you can be sure of." - Robert Gibbs, White House Press Secretary

"We need to deny these people a show trial." - Sen. Mitch McConnell (R) KY

"If there's somewhere we can try them without spending that money, why spend the money? We've got a lot of other fiscal problems." - Sen. Evan Bayh, (D) IN

"We have to make a distinction between a kid who breaks into a sandwich shop in Detroit and a Nigerian terrorist who wants to blow up an airplane flying into Detroit." - Sen. Lamar Alexander (R) TN

"I don't think that we should decide -- make the very important judgment of whether it's a military commission or a federal court based on dollars and cents." - Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D) MD

I could continue filling up page after page with the mind-numbing words of politicians and pundits, but in the interest of my own sanity I must stop at some point. What makes all this talk so frustratingly insane is the apparent lack of understanding among our leaders regarding the U.S. Constitution. Messrs.. Axelrod, Gibbs, McConnell, Bayh, Alexander, Van Hollen, Obama, and all the rest of you inside the Beltway...do you have even a basic understanding of the nation and Constitution you swore to defend? It appears you do not; for if you did, this national conversation wouldn't even be happening! As a responsible citizen and one of your millions of bosses, I'd like to help all of you do your jobs; please allow me to give you an introductory lesson in American governance. (To my readers, I apologize if my constant Constitutional references are beginning to annoy you.)

The U.S. Constitution is a document that was intended to codify the limitations placed on the federal government by our founding fathers. It was not intended to spell out the individual rights of citizens. Though the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution in 1791, many of the writers and signers of the original 1787 document were less than enthusiastic due to concerns that putting these "rights" on paper might eventually lead to the belief they were granted to the citizenry by the authority of the U.S. government, when in fact our founding fathers believed they were granted by God. They intended the document only to be a limit on government authority. Viewed from that perspective, the Bill of Rights further clarifies government limits in the areas addressed.

With all that said, let me tie this in to Khalid Sheik Mohammed and his merry band of terrorists: they are not U.S. citizens and therefore have no Constitutional protections or rights. That includes the right to trial, the right to a lawyer, etc., etc. The Constitution by it's very nature is a document that applies ONLY to the U.S. government and the citizens of this country from whom said government derives its powers. Allow me to quote for you the preamble of this great document:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Just in case you didn't notice, read the preamble again, paying special attention to the phrases "We the People of the United States" and " to ourselves and our Posterity." The founding fathers created the Constitution for the benefit of the citizens of the United Sates and their posterity, not for every human being on the face of the planet. The Constitution's powers and limits apply only to the U.S. government which by default has no authority or control over the citizens of any other nation. Therefore, as far as I can tell, unless the 9/11 terrorists can prove U.S. citizenship our federal government has no controlling civil authority over them.

But....the U.S. military can deal with them.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, his co-conspirators, the Christmas Day underwear bomber, the shoe bomber, and all the rest of these Muslim fanatics have in one way or another participated in or planned violent attacks against the U.S. At any other time in our pre-WWII history we would have considered their actions to be acts of war rather than mere crimes. Indeed, if one understands the design of the Constitution he also understands that it is impossible for these men to be criminals in an American court because U.S. law doesn't apply to them. Anyone who comes to this country with the intention of disrupting the justice, domestic tranquility, or common defence of the Constitution's preamble is an enemy of this nation and needs to be dealt with accordingly.

The only real solution to this problem which is both effective and Constitutionally sound, is to send these men to Gitmo and allow the U.S. military to do with them as they please. This is a military issue, not a civil one. As far as the rest of the world is concerned, it matters not what they might think of us. Our nation does not exist for the purpose of pleasing everyone else. We did not become the great nation we once were by playing paddy-cake with the British, bowing to the French, or appeasing cold-war Russia. We became great by honoring the God-given principles of justice for our citizens and destruction of those foreign powers or individuals who would attempt to attack us.

Maintaining freedom and liberty requires due diligence. But it also requires doing things that we as a society sometimes find distasteful or even reprehensible, including military action. I do not subscribe to the 60s mantra of "better Red than dead"; I do not subscribe to the notion that executing our enemies means we have sunk to their level; I do not subscribe to the liberal notion that if we just play nice the fanatics of the wolrd will suddenly become peace-loving hippies with tie-dyed shirts and flowers in their hair.

Certainly, throughout our history the federal government has at times meddled in foreign affairs where it had no business being, but we have never attacked another nation without provocation. When we have been forced to go to war we have re-built those whom we have destroyed and though not perfectly, we have endeavored to help those we defeated return to a life of normalcy after the warring has ceased. These things cannot be said about most other nations of the world.

Because of our long-standing traditions of freedom and liberty, we by nature desire our enemies to enjoy the same. That makes us different. Though things are changing as the federal government expands, historically we have not attempted to control every aspect of citizen's lives as Muslim governments do; we have not followed a plan of imperialism and world domination as so many others have done; we have not attempted to deny any other nation its own freedom unless it has threatened ours.

We are different because our values are different. Those values need to be protected from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. Those domestic can be dealt with in a civil court according to the laws of the land which apply to all American citizens and legal residents. Those foreign must be dealt with by the military as enemies of the state. To do otherwise endangers the very liberty we hold so dear.

Sources:
FOXNews.com - With New York All But Ruled Out, Lawmakers Look for Cheap, Safe Spot for 9/11 Trials - http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/31/new-york-ruled-lawmakers-look-cheap-safe-spot-trials/

Text of the U.S. Constitution

If America Ever Ceases to be Good...

2010-01-26T16:35:00.000-05:00

"I sought for the key to the greatness and genius of America in her harbors...; in her fertile fields and boundless forests; in her rich mines and vast world commerce; in her public school system and institutions of learning. I sought for it in her democratic Congress and in her matchless Constitution.

Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits flame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power.

America is great because America is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great." - (Alexis de Tocqueville - from Democracy in America)

Alexis de Tocqueville was a French statesman and philosopher who toured the United States with Gustave de Beaumont in the 1830s, observing America's culture and institutions. His two-volume work entitled Democracy in America paints a stunning picture of the greatness of our country through the eyes of two Europeans who had never experienced a true democratic republic. de Tocqueville's writings are filled to overflowing with references to America's morality and decidedly Christian basis as being the reason for her greatness.

These two Frenchmen knew, as did our founding fathers, that no government or social system can exist in perpetuity without the guide of moral restraint in the lives of the citizenry. They knew the truth of Proverbs 14:34 which states, "Righteousness exalts a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people." They saw in America a greatness which was the direct result of a people who believed in moral responsibility and righteous living; indeed, they saw an America that barely exists in 2010. de Tocqueville was correct in his assessment that America would cease to be great if she ceased to be good.

When a nation decides to be free from religion as the U.S. has done, it brings upon itself consequences that were never imagined. It's a nice thought to believe that a society devoid of religious standards is one where all people are tolerant and everyone gets along just fine, but reality bites. Where there is no religious standard of moral conduct, every man is left to fend for himself, and every man then does what he thinks is best regardless of how it affects those around him. As morally bankrupt attitudes invade, and then pervade a society, the inevitable result is social, cultural, and political decay.

Can anyone cite an example in all of word history to the contrary?

What de Tocqueville and Beaumont recognized is that our democracy was held together by the common belief among citizens that each one had the responsibility to live a life or moral righteousness. Such well-known religious principles as honesty, integrity, kindness, charity, and benevolence held together a melting pot of people from different lands and cultures. The common belief in individual liberty as well the principles of decency, justice, and honor held together government institutions which believed their authority was given them by God.

And America was great.

America was to the modern world what Solomon's Israel was to the ancient Middle East. Kings and princes came to our shores as the Queen of Sheba visited Jerusalem, only to depart in awe and wonder at the observation of God's extensive blessing upon our land. I do believe the finest days of our country are in its past, yet I also believe still finer days could be in our future if we returned to what made us great.

Can America survive if her foundational institutions of marriage, family, and community continue down the primrose path of destruction? Can a nation of ever increasing welfare rolls and government dependence ever regain the lost greatness of its "pull yourself up by the bootstraps" ancestors? Will a nation which condones perversion, murder, greed, moral relativism, and humanism exist for more than a few hundred years? No, no, and no.

This once great nation is faltering in her greatness because she is lacking in her goodness. We, as a society, have allowed a small minority of morally bankrupt individuals to set the national agenda since the turn of the 20th century. And now we find ourselves in a free-fall, ever spiraling downward to a most certain destruction. Friends, we MUST return to what's right and good on a personal level. We MUST demand a return to what's right and good on a local, state, and national level. We MUST return to what made us great or greatness will be forever lost in the wasteland of socialism and humanism.

I challenge you this very day to be honest with yourself; be honest about the condition of your own life as well as the nation as a whole. The first step to fixing the problem is admitting the problem exists. Look at your own commitment to goodness and righteousness; examine your own moral standards and ask from where they come; be willing to admit where you have fallen down and determine to bring an end to it. If you need help, seek out a Bible believing church where the truth of God's Word is the yardstick of moral measurement. You can never go wrong when you submit to the Divine Revelation.

The United States can indeed return to the place where Alexis de Tocqueville found her almost two hundred years ago. That is my sincere hope for the country I love; it is my sincere prayer daily. I don't know how long I have left in this life or how long our nation or world has remaining, but I want to be sure to leave a legacy of greatness to my kids and grandkids. So I will strive for goodness and righteousness as long as I live. Will you do your part?

Will Dems do the Right Thing if Scott Brown Wins?

2010-01-18T19:49:00.000-05:00

On the eve of the Massachusetts special election to fill the Senate seat vacated by the death of Ted Kennedy, polls and pundits alike are bracing for what seemed an impossible outcome just a few weeks ago: a Republican win. With state legislator Scott Brown up against the Democrat candidate, state Attorney General Martha Coakley, and looking like he might just pull off the victory, the kings and princes of the national Democrat party are circling the wagons. They are blaming Coakley for running a poor campaign, not being out in public more often, and the standard liberal excuse of not getting the message out clearly enough. As usual, they are not assigning the blame where it really belongs: Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, and Max Baucus.

This election is not about Ted Kennedy's legacy in Massachusetts, nor is it about holding on to a Democrat seat in a state that hasn't elected a Republican to federal office since 1972. This election is about buyer's remorse and a terrible distaste for the current Washington agenda. Those who deny the health care debate has any material weight in this campaign obviously don't pay attention to Massachusetts or are too proud to admit the truth, but the fact remains, the federal health care overhaul bill is nearly identical in principle with the Massachusetts health care law enacted in 2006. The Bay State is now on the verge of bankruptcy due in large part to their health care overhaul, and the citizens of Massachusetts want no part of seeing it go national.

So if Brown wins tomorrow, what happens to the health care bill? Is it dead in the water?

Conventional wisdom says it is, but let's be frank about this: we're not dealing with your grandfather's Democrat party. Already there are rumors swirling around that the state of Massachusetts will delay certification of the election in order to allow Congress to put together a final bill that will pass. Republican lawyers contend that Massachusetts state law strips interim Sen. Paul Kirk of his office once the race concludes, regardless of whether or not it's been certified, but good luck getting that case heard by a state court.

Another possibility the Dems are working on is trying to twist enough arms in the House of Representatives to pass the Senate bill without any changes, thus negating the need for a new vote in the Senate chamber. This seems unlikely due to the fact that the Senate bill has no real equivalent to the House's Stupak amendment and the fact that most house members oppose the "Cadillac" Tax. But truth be told, Washington politics is about as predictable these days as the Dallas Cowboys. One week they seem invincible while the next they look like they forgot how to win.

Getting back to the Coakley/Brown race and the possibility of delaying certification of a Brown win, the right thing to do is to complete certification as quickly as legally allowed while delaying a final health care vote until after Brown is sworn in. But since when are the health care fan-boys interested in doing what's right? When health care poster child Ted Kennedy himself knew he was on his last legs, he wrote a letter to the Massachusetts state legislature urging them to enact a change in the law which would allow Democrat Gov. Deval Patrick to appoint his replacement. This same body changed the law just a few years earlier to prevent then Republican governor Mitt Romney from appointing a successor to John Kerry, had Mr. Kerry won the White House. Clearly, doing the right thing is foreign to liberal Democrats whose sole objective is to gain and then never surrender power.

As long as we're talking about doing the right thing, how about the very idea of health care reform to begin with? The federal government has no Constitutional authority to enact such a sweeping piece of legislation, particularly with a mandate requiring nearly every U.S. citizen to obtain "government approved" health insurance. I've detailed this Constitutional issue in several other blogs, so I won't go through it here; suffice it to say that the whole idea is the "wrong thing" for America.

What is most disturbing about the health care debate is the fact that so very few of our citizens, and our elected officials too by the way, have even a fundamental understanding of the U.S. Constitution. Around the country last summer we saw Senators and Representatives being asked to define the Constitutional authority for health care reform. Not a single proponent could answer the question. Yet it appears "we the people" are so ignorant of the issue ourselves we are willing to give our leaders a pass on this. Instead, our opposition to health care reform is based on the higher taxes, potential loss of jobs, economic fallout, etc., etc. All these arguments are good, and they're correct as well, but even if none of them existed the Constitutional question is still in play.

At some point we as a free society must demand a return to our Constitutional government. That means we must read and study the founding documents for ourselves; we must force the education system to once again diligently teach the truth of our nation; we must rise up and clean house in Washington. Only then will we be able to stop the runaway train that is our current federal and state governments.

The state of Massachusetts, liberal as it might be, finally understands the consequences of unbridled liberalism. At least for now, they are standing up and saying they have had enough. Will the rest of the United States join them? Only time will tell.

Bloomberg: Cut the Salt or We'll Cut it For You!

2010-01-12T15:58:00.000-05:00

Excuse me, uhhhh Mr. Mayor....?? Is it possible that you think you're much bigger than you really are, or do you just have way too much time on your hands?

I doubt New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg reads my blog but I would love to strap him in a chair and have a face-to-face chat with the RINO head of NY politics. You see, regulating trans-fats in the Big Apple wasn't enough for the mayor who thwarted city law and managed to get another term after he had reached his limit. Now the mayor wants to regulate salt use in city foods.

Boy, is this great country or what? Where on earth would us lowly morons be without the watchful and benevolent eye of government looking out for us? We are obviously too stupid to decide what to eat so we need Bloomberg, who is known for putting salt on his saltine crackers and eating bacon and peanut butter sandwiches, to protect us from the evils of table salt.

As the argument goes, table salt can cause high blood pressure which, in turn, can cause heart disease. Heart disease is the number one killer in America, according to some experts, so reducing salt intake is supposed to help reduce the number of deaths caused by it. Advocates of salt regulation cite Great Britain's success in reducing the number of annual deaths by 6,000.

Yeah, right.

I wonder if the rocket scientists across the Pond understand they haven't really prevented 6,000 annual deaths. I doubt it. It has probably failed to dawn on them, and the rest of the table salt police, that all they've done is delay the inevitable. News flash to all you do-gooders: PEOPLE DIE! They will keep dying as long as men live and there's not a darn thing you can do about it!

Mayor Bloomberg thinks it's his responsibility to make sure the little people don't foolishly contribute to their own deaths by eating too much table salt. Nutritionists support the salt regulation based on the false assumption that the American people can't decide whether or not to consume a food because they don't know how much salt is in it. I wonder if these people have ever visited New York City. I really doubt that I'd ever see Vinny and Angelo walking up to the counter at the local Brooklyn deli, only to walk out in frustration because the menu doesn't list any low-sodium alternatives.

C'mon folks, don't we have better things to do than try to force everyone into a "healthy diet?" If you are not intelligent enough, as an adult, to decide what goes in your mouth, you have much bigger issues than your daily salt intake. You need to see a professional as soon as possible. For the rest of us who can manage, salt regulation is just another liberal assault on our individual freedom.

Where's the Constitutional authority, either at the federal, state, or local level, for Mayor Bloomberg or the city of NY to mandate how much salt is in the food we buy? Just once I'd like to see a group of people whose businesses are affected by this garbage band together and simply refuse to obey. Let it go to court! Then challenge the jurisdiction of the idiot government entity that imposed the regulation. If people understood the fact that our government at all levels exceeds its authority only because we allow it to, the country would be a different place.

Mr. Bloomberg, for his part, needs to take an extended vacation along with the city council, the governor, and the state legislature; they need to go find something else to do and stop interjected themselves into our lives. Really folks, we could stand to have a few years with empty executive offices and legislative chambers. The country would continue to hum along just fine without any new legislation. In fact, we'd probably be much better off.

For now, all you New Yorkers had better hit the streets and gorge yourself in food that tastes good....while you still can. If the Mayor gets his way you'll eventually be reduced to rice cakes and soy milk. Won't that be special?

New Airport Security Measures Just Another Knee-Jerk Reaction

2010-01-04T13:00:00.001-05:00

On Sunday, Jan. 3rd (yesterday), a man thwarted security at Newark Liberty International Airport by walking through a terminal exit into a secure area of the airport. The facility was subsequently locked down for hours, stranding passengers and forcing them to go through re-screening while authorities searched for the man.

They never found him.

Today the news outlets are awash in reports of further security measures put in place at airports around the world in places deemed "sponsors of terrorism and countries of interest", according to a Fox News Report, including body scans and pat-downs. All of this comes on the heals of the Nigerian man who attempted to blow up a Detroit-bound flight on Christmas Day.

Pardon my apparent ignorance in this matter, but is further screening really going to do anything? The obvious answer is no, but that doesn't stop government geniuses all around the globe from implementing more and more measures that supposedly make us more secure. It is both maddening and absolute foolishness.

According to the previously mentioned Fox News report, a woman who endured the Newark lock down was asked her opinion on the mater, to which she responded, "I'm not angry that this is happening, but I'm angry that there was a lack of organization."

She's not angry it happened? Why not? Why are more people not outraged by the fact that we are becoming prisoners in our own country while terrorists continue to find new and creative ways to attack us? It is absolutely obscene to think that our nation's intelligence organizations, once the best in the world, knew about the possible Nigerian threat, had received warnings for the terrorist's father in face-to-face meeting with U.S. officials, and knew this man fit the profile of a potential threat almost to a "T". How on earth was he still allowed to board a U.S.-bound plane? If we cannot stop these individual threats, how can we ever expect to defeat our enemies in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere?

In deference to the passenger at Newark and the many other Americans who believe we need more restrictive airport security, I understand where you're coming from but I would ask you to stop and really think about this for a minute. Terrorists are not criminals, they are enemy combatants who have declared war on the United States. They employ their tactics of terror rather than an all out assault on our shores because they know it's the only way they can get away with it. But make no mistake, their actions are acts of war.

No amount of security screening, dog-sniffing, body-scanning, patting-down, questioning, etc. will ever stop the terrorists from doing what they do. It's simply is not possible. In fact, have you noticed that with the increase in airport security the number of attempted attacks has increased? There's a good reason for this that many people, especially government officials, don't seem to get.

Any computer programmer, home builder, or car manufacturer can tell you that when building any kind of system, the more complicated the system becomes the more easily that system can be thwarted. It's also true that as systems become more complex their failures are just as complex and extremely costly in both lost production and cost of repair. Airport security is no different.

Every time a new layer of security is added, more people are added to the mix as are more rules, guidelines, and potential mistakes. The only ones who are really affected by this lunacy are the honest travelers just trying to get from point A to point B, yet find their movements restricted by a government that's supposed to stand for individual liberty.

I've heard many a pundit and news correspondent ask the question, "At what price, liberty?" In other words, how far are we willing to go to protect the individual freedom and liberty which are the hallmark of our nation? Are we willing to deal with terrorists in a method that will defeat them and protect our liberty, or will we surrender that liberty and allow the terrorists to dictate the terms of our travel? I say we effectively deal with the terrorists.

But how?

Death!

The Nigerian underwear bomber should have had his travel visa revoked before he ever left his homeland, and had he managed to try and get on the plane anyway, he should have been made familiar with the business end of a semi-automatic rifle. Any potential terrorists currently on our soil should be immediately rounded up and deported, and if they re-enter they should be executed without question. Our intelligence agencies already know who these people are and where they can be found; it's time to stop playing games and deal with it. By the way, have you noticed a glaring lack of terrorist threats at Israeli airports? I wonder why.....

Furthermore, the President and his war council need to step up to the plate and finally conduct this war as war should be conducted. They ought to be making plans to turn any nation that willingly allows terrorist activity into rubble, regardless of whether or not it effects "innocent people." When a nation conducts war, it does so against another nation, not against individual citizens. In the current circumstance Al-Qaeda my not be a nation, but it exists and trains with the knowledge and approval of several different governments. As far as I'm concerned, that makes those governments and their corresponding nations culpable; they are the enemy.

Bleeding hearts will say it's unjust to cause pain and suffering for the individual citizens. I say they need to look at some of the pictures from WWII; Germany laid waste, Hiroshima obliterated, and so on. You win a war by destroying your enemy completely, not by playing paddy-cake through selective fighting. And this, by the way, is how American liberty is preserved for our children and grandchildren. Put the fear of God in the enemy and he will stop attacking you.

You may wonder how a Christian man like me could advocate such a strategy. Its actually very simple. When God sent Israel off to war He almost always instructed them to completely wipe out every man, woman, child, and animal of the enemy. God is smart enough to know if you don't fully wipe out your enemy his kids will grow up to haunt you. If God has no problem with total annihilation, neither do I. As far as I'm concerned there is no better war strategist than the Creator.

In the meantime, I won't be flying anytime soon; the hassle is not worth the trouble in most cases. I'm sure I'm not alone either. Many of us refuse to allow terrorists to dictate our travel so we'll drive our cars instead. My liberty is worth the extra time behind the wheel. As far as I'm concerned, the airports can continue this blind-leading-the-blind foolishness and they'll all fall in the ditch together.

Forefather's Quotes Prove our Christian Heritage

2009-12-28T15:43:00.000-05:00

To all those who still hold on to the myth of church/state separation which continues to be propagated in our public schools; to those who continue to believe the likes of Madalyn Murray O'Hair and other atheists who claim the United States was formed as a secular nation; to all those who believe the vast majority of our founding fathers were religiously neutral, asserting faith has no business in politics; let me slap you upside your ignorant head with a dose of reality. I offer you the following quotes for your consideration which, by the way, are a matter of public record; you may look them up yourself if you don't believe me. Anyway, here they are:

"Whereupon, Resolved, That the United States in Congress assembled...recommend this edition of the Bible to the inhabitants of the United States, and hereby authorize [Robert Aitken] to publish this recommendation in the manner he shall think proper." (The Congress of the Confederation's endorsement subsequently printed on the 1st page of the Bible of the Revolution, 09/10/1782)

"I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth-that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?

We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that "except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it." I firmly believe this; I also firmly believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel..." (Benjamin Franklin in his address to the squabbling Constitutional Convention, 6/28/1787)

"We ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained; and since the preservation of the sacred fire of liberty and the destiny of the republican model of government are justly considered as deeply, perhaps finally, staked on the experiment..." (Pres. George Washington, in his Inaugural Speech to Congress, 4/30/1789)

"Article III Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools, and the means of education shall be forever encouraged." (From the Northwest Ordinance; passed by Congress and signed by Pres. Washington, 08/04/1789)

"Day of Thanksgiving. Resolved. That a joint committee of both Houses be directed to wait upon the President of the United States to request that he recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the many signal favors of Almighty God...." (U.S. Congress, in a resolution to establish a National Day of Thanksgiving, 9/25/1789 [just 2 weeks after the 1st amendment to the Constitution was approved by Congress])

"The great vital and conservative element in our system is the belief of our people in the pure doctrines and divine truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ." (U.S. Congressional Resolution passed in May, 1854)

Friends, I could go on and on with the quotes, filling hundreds of pages if not thousands. You get the point, I'm sure. But let me just bring one more thing to your attention in order to clarify this church/state separation myth. The original draft of the Constitution's "establishment clause" stated:

"The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, be infringed."

This original draft went through dozens of revisions and counter-proposals as many of our founding fathers feared it gave government far too much latitude to regulate religion, the common belief being that as long as government doesn't establish and enforce a national religion it was free to otherwise regulate it. The final wording of the establishment clause was Divinely inspired, I believe, to be so broad in scope as to deny the government from making or enforcing any laws that pertain to, affect, support, or suppress religious belief and practice. In other words, the final wording of the establishment clause says to the government: "Hands off in any and all matters of religion. You cannot make any laws, either for or against, in any manner."

What this means is that government has no jurisdiction to determine anything in regard to religious belief and practice; that jurisdiction is left entirely up to the people. To believe otherwise is to then assume our founding fathers, having acted contrary to the language of the establishment clause before it was written, then changed their mind while constructing the Bill of Rights, then changed their mind again, violating the very language they wrote just weeks after it was written.

C'mon folks, are we so stupid as to believe that?

The founding fathers did not intend for the establishment clause to purge the government or our society of religious influence. Rather, it was intended to limit the government's jurisdiction in regulating religious thought and practice. They demonstrated through their own words and actions the importance of faith in the lives of the citizenry and its elected officials, education systems, public institutions, and the like. Only a willfully ignorant or intellectually dishonest person could read the words of our founding fathers and still deny the reality.

I for one will proudly stand on our rich Judeo-Christian heritage. I will proclaim the blessings of the Almighty God on our land while admonishing our people to be grave and sober, seeking God's forgiveness, protection, guidance, and continued favor. I know with whom the security of my life and soul rest even if the rest of the nation does not.

Have a Merry Health Care Christmas

2009-12-21T14:58:00.000-05:00

Merry Christmas dear readers, and a Happy New Year.

Enjoy the holiday season this year, in fact, relish it as it might be the last pleasant one for a long time. Thanks to the U.S. Senate, which now has the 60 votes needed to pass the health care legislation, our taxes are about to go through the ceiling while the economy goes into free fall. Those among us who still have jobs at this time next year might find they cannot afford to celebrate Christmas the way they are accustomed to; those without jobs will have very little to enjoy at all. How's that hope and change working for you?

In the wee hours of Monday morning Harry Reid called for a test vote to secure allegiances to the Democrat health care plan. All 58 members of his party, along with the Senate's 2 "independents", voted in favor of the legislation. All 40 Republicans voted against it.

Surprised? I'm not.

While the neophytes were talking about Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, and some of the other hold-outs, I knew it was just a matter of time before their votes were secured. You see, in Washington everything is for sale. Mr. Nelson for example, knows full well the abortion restriction concessions he was able to get out of Reid will not stand up when the House and Senate bills are reconciled. For him the issue was never about abortion as such. He held out for two reasons: first, to be able to go back to his district next fall and claim he took a stand against federally funded abortion and second, to win millions of dollars and perks for his state. In other words, he sold his vote to Harry Reid and the Democrat party like Judas sold his allegiance to the high priests of old.

Mr. Nelson, do you betray us with a kiss?

And the rest of you so-called "leaders" on Capitol Hill, dare you continue to stand behind the bully pulpit claiming to work for the people? I am not politically correct, I don't care what the rest of the world thinks, I will say it like it is: YOU ARE DESPICABLE, FILTHY, LIARS! You will mortgage the future of your children and grandchildren just to secure your own power and legacy. You will plunder an already weak economy, violate the Constitution and your oaths of office, strip Americans of their liberty, and do so with an arrogance and condescension that makes Karl Marx look like an altar boy.

I can say this much to you people in Washington, you owe your recent triumphs to Thomas Dewey and the National Education Association. You ought to send the NEA a nice big "thank you" for successfully dumbing down American students since the turn of the 20th century, to the point that the majority of adults and young adults are too constitutionally illiterate to understand what you are doing. Come to think of it, knowing how you work I'm sure the NEA has a ton of pork-barrel spending headed their way.

Nice job.

For the rest of us ordinary, Main St. citizens now is not the time to panic or quit. Now is the time to start working on next year's mid-term elections with the goal of cleaning out the House and Senate completely. If you have ever thought about running for federal office now is the time to do so, on a platform of rolling back what the current Congress and Administration have done. The rest of us need to turn off the idiot box, say no the all the foolish, time-wasting leisure activities, and start working our tails off to get morally and ethically sound candidates elected.

Now is the time for the Rush Limbaughs, Sean Hannitys, and Bill O'Reillys of the world to do more than just talk about the problems in Washington. You guys and your friends have the financial resources and clout we lack to lead a national conservative revolt. I'm a capitalist; I'm thrilled for you in your achievements and the financial reward that comes from them. But what good is your wealth going to be when tax rates once again hit 70%? If you're going to lose your wealth anyway, why not use it to fund a conservative revolution? If the revolution succeeds you'll regain it all again in a rebounding economy.

Now is the time for politically apathetic Americans to wake up to the fact that the mess we find ourselves in has indeed been caused by voter apathy. I have been encouraging people to vote every year since I was in my teens, and you know what the most common reason is I hear for people not voting? They believe their vote won't change anything. That's only true if enough people share your opinion or if you vote but then don't hold your elected officials accountable. If every eligible American voted, followed by phone calls and letters to their representatives, finished by a willingness to vote bad politicians out of office, we would see such a quick transformation it would make your head spin. Ultimately, the government does what it does because we the people allow them to do it.

It's time for Christian pastors and Bible teachers to throw off the political correctness and adopt the attitudes of Jeremiah, Isaiah, and Hosea. For all the "love" preaching we have endured since the 60s, the Christian Church in America has lost its way in being the moral guidepost it is supposed to be. If we will not actively stand up and oppose wickedness in high places, how can we expect the government or the citizenry do behave any differently? As a full-time pastor myself, I do believe in the love and grace of God, and I speak about it regularly, but I also believe in the holiness and righteousness of God. He does expect a certain type of behavior from his people; a life that shines the brilliant light of Jesus rather than following the dim flashes of the world. One thing we Christians seem to have forgotten is that Jesus did always those things that were pleasing to his Father. How can we claim to followers of Jesus when we live like pagans?

It is time the mainstream media is put out of business. Not by legislation or Presidential fiat, but by the American people refusing to purchase their products. It's time to cancel newspaper subscriptions, turn off the nightly news, and start looking to the alternative media for the truth. The mainstream media has long since abandoned traditional journalism in favor of the yellow variety, and the problem is so pervasive at the institutional level, reforming the industry would be nearly impossible. Putting them out of business is the only way to silence their partisan voice.

Friends, there's a lot more we can do to take back our country. What I've written today is just enough to get us started. My question to you is this: do you care enough about the future of this nation, your posterity, the legacy you leave the next generation, to get busy and help save it? I sincerely hope so.

Hey Al, How About That Inconvenient Truth?

2009-12-15T15:40:00.000-05:00

Just in time for Christmas the self-appointed environmental savior of the world, Mr. Albert Gore, has blessed humanity by attempting to scare world leaders into adopting radical climate change goals in Copenhagen. Yesterday (Dec. 14th) our beleaguered former Vice President told the incredibly gullible crowd that, "Some of the models suggest to Dr. [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years."

Mr. Gore was speaking of research done by Dr. Maslowski several years ago in which Maslowski gave the five to seven year projection as a ball-park figure. Here's the problem: the ball-park figure was not official and was only related to Gore in a casual conversation with him. It was not published as scientific finding or opinion, just uttered during the course of a normal shoot-the-bull session. When Dr. Maslowski heard about Gore's remarks he responded with,

"It's unclear to me how this figure was arrived at," Dr. Maslowski said. "I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this."

Faced with such an inconvenient truth, Al's office had to admit later in the day that the boss's remarks were completely made up. Is that a surprise to anyone? Not to me.

The whole global warming idea has been a fairy tale to begin with; no matter how many politicians, tree-huggers, and celebs claim the science is irrefutable. One only need to pay attention to temperature data supplied by their local weather forecast to know that the so-called science behind global warming is bunk. In fact, the truth is that global temperatures have decreased over the last ten years, not increased to dangerous levels as the doomsdays were predicting twenty years ago.

The inconvenient truth about Al Gore is that the data in his famous movie was partially made up; something he admitted himself on Larry King Live. Remember the now infamous "hockey stick" graph? It was a total fabrication. In fact, the movie was so blatantly false in many area that Great Britain banned its screening in their public school system. That says something coming from a European state that has embraced the global warming nonsense.

Now, a question: Why would Mr. Gore deliberately lie about Dr. Malinowski's data and give the impression that the Arctic Circle is on the precipice of destruction?

Here's the answer: They've been found out.

The recent leak of emails from so-called "scientists" at the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit has shown the world at the very least, that these people purposely engaged in deception, censorship, obfuscation, and outright lying in order to advance their global warming agenda. They cannot produce the raw data from years worth of climate study because they have destroyed it. Instead, when asking for the data we are told to simply trust their synopsis. Sounds kind of fishy, huh?

They've also been caught red-handed using a computer program rigged to give the data they want. Ever hear of the so-called "models" Mr. Gore spoke of? These models are generated by weather and climate data fed into a computer program which then calculates and projects weather patterns for the future. But lo and behold, a software engineer managed to get hold of the CRU's software and when he took a look at the code, he discovered the program was rigged. If a given model did not produce the data the CRU wanted, it had a built-in adjustment that would change the results to meet the "scientists" agenda.

Real scientific.

Have you noticed, by the way, this temperature scare is no longer being called "global warming?" Now they're calling it "climate change" instead. They've been forced to accept the reality that more and more people don't buy their lies anymore. Changing the term gives them a broader scope to then say stupid things like, "the warmer-than-normal December we've seen in the Northeast this year is part of the cycle that has developed as part of phenomenon resulting from man-made carbon emissions."

Now that the world is catching on, Al Gore and his pals have decided to double down on the scare tactics. They are facing the end of perhaps the only opportunity to get global climate change agreements cemented while President Obama still holds the White House. Without U.S. participation there will be no agreements and Obama is losing worldwide credibility on a daily basis. The environmental fascists are facing a do-or-die scenario in Copenhagen.

Friends, if this weren't so serious it would be laughable. I mentioned earlier that the global warming idea has been a hoax from the beginning. But what's the point? Why perpetrate a hoax for so long which can be disproved so easily? Because the stakes are high my friends, very high. You see, this has never been about saving the planet or being environmentally responsible. It's always been about destroying the world's economies and establishing worldwide socialism. The truth is, people all over the world are beginning to wake up to this and they don't like it. So now that the truth about climate change is coming out, Al Gore and his bunch need to scare the daylights out of moron politicians in order to get what they want.

Be prepared for the nightmare scenarios to continue hot and heavy, at least in the short-term. They won't get what they want out of Copenhagen, but that will only cause the climate change nuts to come up with even more terrifying predictions. Don't believe a word of it. Don't accept this nonsense until a real scientific debate is conducted, based on real scientific data, and with no politicians involved.

To The Ghost of Christmas Present: A Humbug

2009-11-30T15:42:00.001-05:00

Last night I accompanied my lovely wife and our youngest daughter to see Disney's A Christmas Carol in 3D. It was quite an experience on many levels; from watching a fast-moving 3D movie while suffering from vertigo, to trying to enjoy one of my all-time favorite Christmas stories despite Jim Carry playing the main character. Overall though, it was a good film which I heartily enjoyed. The creators stayed mostly true to the original yet added a few "Disney-like" interpretations which were good for the ride.

Unfortunately, I can't say the film was perfect. I took issue with one small portion of the story and while it would probably be a minor thing to most people, it seems to me Disney inserted one particular scene for no other purpose than to take a back-handed slap against Biblical Christianity. I find that to be maddening.

The issue revolves around a scene where Ebeneezer Scrooge, accompanied by the Ghost of Christmas Present, stands over a local bakery and observes as customers are busy preparing for their Christmas dinner. Scrooge turns to the ghost and accuses him and his brethren of being cruel to the poor by forcing this bakery to be closed every seventh day. Scrooge says it's the baker's livelihood and the only way for the people to get their food, thus it should remain open seven days a week.

The ghost responds by saying there are men in the world who claim to know him and his brethren but in fact, do not. These "men of the cloth", as the ghost puts it, are responsible for shutting the bakery. He tells Scrooge to blame them, not him and his fellow ghosts.

Now I admit, maybe I'm over reacting a bit, but I found this scene to be troubling on several levels. First of all, the closing of the bakery every seventh day is clearly a reference to stores and businesses being closed on Sundays; an old religious custom that is no longer practiced in most places. The fact the ghost references men of the cloth as being responsible is further proof that he's blaming the Christian tradition of keeping businesses shut on Sunday for alleged hardships it might cause the poor.

Second, it was completely unnecessary to the story and as far as I know, is not even part of Dickens original writing. I've seen every version of A Christmas Carol and don't recall this scene in any of them (if I'm wrong, I apologize here and now), so why insert it in Disney's story?

Third, and probably the thing that makes this whole scene offensive, is the implication by the ghost that the religion he represents (necromancy) is somehow superior to Christianity because ghosts would allow a business to remain open on Sunday. This is preposterous! I will gladly stack up the merits of Christianity against those of necromancy any day; Christianity will always come out the clear winner. But that's a different blog for a different day.

But getting back to the idea of businesses being closed on Sundays, do you remember when America used to observe that tradition? I do. When I was young my parents made sure all the grocery shopping was done on Friday night, the gas tank was filled Saturday afternoon, and on Sunday the city was a ghost town except for the churches filled with worshipers. After church we would go home to await the arrival of my grandparents or even pile in the car and go to Buffalo to visit them. Sunday was a day of peace, rest, and family.

I also remember when our city and state leaders began discussing the idea of businesses opening on Sunday. Being that I was so young I don't know which businesses were closed voluntarily and which were regulated, but I do know there was a lot of controversy when the shops and stores began opening on Sunday. One the one hand I'm glad government regulation doesn't prohibit Sunday business; we all could use less government. But on the other hand, would it kill us to honor the idea of the sabbath and voluntarily refrain from business just one day a week?

Stephen Grover Cleveland, the former President, NY governor, and mayor of Buffalo once wrote:

"The citizen is a better business man if he is a Christian gentleman, and, surely, business is not the less prosperous and successful if conducted on Christian principles..."

According to Cleveland, business is better off for both the business man and the consumer when it's conducted according to Christian principles, an idea with which I couldn't agree more. When God remains Supreme and all business is subject to his authority, he will direct things to be done that will benefit all of mankind, across the board. But when business becomes supreme it acts in its own self-interests without regard for those whom it may negatively impact. To me, the choice is clear.

If I could speak to the fictional Scrooge and Ghost of Christmas Present, I would challenge them both to provide historical evidence to support the idea that business must be conducted seven days a week. Did we as a nation suffer significantly back in the early seventies when we couldn't buy gas on Sunday? Are the poor any better off now that they can purchase goods and services on Sunday? The obvious answer to these questions is "no' and I would dare say we were all better off when the nation observed its sabbath of sorts in days past.

I am a capitalist indeed, but I am a God-fearing man first and a family man second. To me, God and family out weigh any perceived benefits of a seven day business week regardless of the economic benefits. When business was closed on Sundays it was a built-in day when everyone was guaranteed to have free time to spend in worship and with family oriented activities. But now, even though most Americans still normally work only five days, having businesses open every day of the week presents boundless opportunities for conflicting schedules. Worship and family time are not planned for or depended upon any more, so these things fall by the way side.

I have owned several businesses in my life time, and although I was always my only employee, I still committed to not working on Sundays. Every once in a while an emergency would come up that would change my plans, but for the most part I remained faithful to the day of rest. I can say with complete confidence that none of my businesses suffered from taking Sundays off. Even if they had, the time spent with my family at church and doing other things together is more precious to me than any amount of silver and gold. So I didn't make a few extra bucks; so I sacrificed a bit of luxury in order to benefit my immediate family as well as my Christian one. Isn't that the precious lesson Ebeneezer Scrooge was supposed to learn from his frightening Christmas Eve experience?

Dickens ended his story on that glorious Christmas morning by saying his grouchy old hero went on to be a man of his word and one who kept Christmas throughout the year. If I could write a sequel it would include Scrooge spending his Sundays with the Cratchit family while the bakery and his own counting house remained dark for the day. The day of rest was God's invention; he will take care of those who willingly honor it, for in so doing we are honoring him.

So God bless us, everyone!

Forging Our Fetters Link by Link

2009-11-24T14:12:00.003-05:00

Edmund Burke, the brilliant 18th century British author at the time of the American revolution once wrote:

"Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon will and the appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters."

The weight and truth of that statement cannot be adequately addressed without the willingness to be honest about the natural state of the human condition, which is to say, men are not inherently good, we are inherently evil. The daily reality of life proves to us beyond all doubt that a man left to his own devices, without internal or external restraint, will default to the most aberrant behavior possible. Anyone who would deny it is not being intellectually honest.

In a nutshell Mr. Burke's statement means the natural man must be restrained from his natural tendency to evil by some sort of control placed on his human appetites. Without that control a society plunges into chaos and anarchy and eventually, self-destruction. Indeed, as Burke stated so profoundly, the less an internal control exists in the hearts and minds of men, the more an external control is required. Any parent knows this to be true.

Consider then, the last sentence of the Burke quote which clearly states that the passions of men forge their fetters. In other words, we create the need for external controls by refusing to control our own passions and lusts from within. Most of those controls come via federal or state governments in the form of lost freedom and liberty, as in the case of the pending health care reform. Today's government health care scheme is nothing more than a power grab by socialists who wish to control every phase of our life, but that power grab is not where the issue began. Instead, it began when the American Christian Church turned its back on the Biblical mandate of charity and benevolence.

Up until the turn of the 20th century, the Church honored its God-given responsibility to be the conduit for the common welfare of society. It was the individual local churches who fed the hungry, cared for the widows, helped the sick and infirmed, and so on. Yet with the industrial age came increased wealth and prosperity, which in turn, led to a greater appetite for material things. The once charitable church embraced this materialism without restraint and before long local congregations no longer had the resources to continue being charitable. The government stepped in and gladly took the reins.

Now, don't misunderstand; I'm not an anti-capitalist. I fully embrace the capitalist system and the prosperity and blessing it brings. But with every blessing comes responsibility. With prosperity comes the responsibility of individuals to still practice benevolence in the midst of increased materialism. In other words, accrue material possessions in moderation while still using wealth to provide for those in need.

The United States has long been the wealthiest nation in the world (though I'm not sure if it's still the case) and the American Church is part of that wealth. Yet despite the handful of mega-churches in the country, the vast majority of small and medium-sized congregations are barely hanging on financially. If we true believers honored the Biblical example of giving out of our need rather than our abundance, if we applied the proper self-control to our material prosperity, our churches would be overflowing with the resources that would enable us to take back the welfare responsibilities from the federal government. Until that happens government welfare will continue, making things like health care reform possible.

My friends, consider for a moment the grand and glorious history of the United States. Some of our earliest settlers came to the New World as missionaries desiring to spread the gospel message to those who had never heard the name of Jesus. Despite what the atheists claim, the tens of thousands of documents written by the founding fathers and their children and grandchildren prove our nation was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, including the most important one, individual liberty.

In just 100 short years the United States rose to become the bastion of freedom beckoning the oppressed of the world to her shores. Fifty years later America was the world's strongest Super Power where the promise of freedom continued to call men by the millions. During those first 150 years of her existence, the United States understood that her freedom was granted by the Creator and carried with it the responsibility of temperance.

For generations we taught a love for God and country in the schools; we taught the importance of morality, virtue, kindness, and self-sacrifice; we were not afraid to call sin what it was; we had the courage to live according to the principles of right and wrong. And what was the result?

The Heavenly blessing of untold liberty and freedom.

Today our freedoms are being taken away from us one by one. I believe with all my heart it's due to the fact we can no longer be trusted with them. We have ceased to exercise internal control of our passions, forcing our Creator to allow external controls to be put in place. Unfortunately, those same devices of external control are being used by our government to lead us further down the path of wickedness and eventual destruction.

My friends, America's liberty was once a shining example to the rest of the world that all human life is valuable and precious. In times past, and in many parts of the world, people were not individually valued, they were used by governments as tools to advance personal agendas of power and lust. One tribe or nation conquered and enslaved another, a King would use the people of his domain as slave labor to build monuments to himself, generals would lead their armies into battle for the sole purpose of making a name for themselves. But here, in the United States of America, things were different.

Though it took us a while to get rid of slavery, once it was gone there were no longer any barriers to individual liberty. People came to our shores by the millions, so much so that almost all of us can trace our ancestral roots back to some other country. And though the U.S. does not by any means have a spotless record, she is still the best chance at freedom anywhere in the world.

But this leads me to a question: Can America truly remain free when we do not extend that freedom to all our citizens?

Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal and all have inalienable rights including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The nation's framers willingly signed that document and I would dare say most Americans today would agree with every word of it. Yet how can we be trusted with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness when we murder millions of babies at abortion mills? Did God grant us those inalienable rights so we could deny them to babies in the womb?

The abortion debate is framed as an issue of "choice" rather than an issue of life. That's by design, dear readers. Modern technology has proved without a doubt that the baby in the womb is a living being; to frame the issue as one based on life would mean the abortionist has lost the argument and the case is closed. Even when the Roe vs. Wade ruling came down legalizing abortion, the court knew the un-born baby was a living human being. In their ruling they described the issue in terms of a woman's right to choose based upon the fundamental right to privacy, language that was chosen to keep the argument out of the domain of life vs. death. As a result we have used the court's decision as permission to give in to our passions and appetites for sex; we have sacrificed millions of lives on the altar of convenience; we dare to call those human beings inviable masses of tissue!

My friends, abortion is not the only problem here either. Health care, gay rights, free speech, environmental extremism, et al; no matter what the issue, each has its roots in some sort of deeper, moral decay. Because we refuse to deal with the moral decay and apply some internal controls, we are forging the chains of our own oppression link by link.

The chain is almost complete.

I know this isn't the popular message of Ronald Reagan, who is one of my heroes by the way, but it is the truth. Conservatism and capitalism without morality are just another means of feeding our passions; liberty without restraint is a sure and quick path to chaos and destruction.

At some point morality and virtue must return to our shores or Lady Liberty will run away to find a new home.

It is the natural law of the Creator.

EPA: No Free Speech for Our Employees

2009-11-19T12:31:00.000-05:00

"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." - The 1st amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified 12/15/1791

Do you believe the Constitution protects the rights of individual citizens to exercise free speech? Do you believe free speech rights include speech that is critical of the federal government? Do you believe government attempts to suppress speech which it views as critical to be a danger to our democratic republic?

If you answered "yes" to these questions, I have one more:

Do you honestly believe the federal government is largely harmless and would never attempt to take away our constitutional freedoms? If so, read on.

Husband and wife team Alan Zabeln and Laurie Williams produced a ten minute video to express their concerns with White House plans for cap-and-trade legislation. The couple contends the proposed legislation might be unconstitutional, not to mention a boon to investors, which does little to help environmental protection. Cap-and-trade essentially limits the output of emissions the government deems harmful to the environment (the "cap portion), then allows companies the ability to buy or sell emissions credits depending on their emissions (the "trade" portion.)

Now, I don't want to get into the legislation itself or the whole climate change argument, because its all a smokescreen for further government control of our lives. What I do want to talk about is the fact that Zabeln and Williams were silenced by the EPA. The reason? They are both EPA lawyers who have worked in the agency's San Fransisco office for more than twenty years and they disagree with government plans.

The couple, who stated very clearly in their video they were speaking as private citizens and their views did not reflect those of the EPA, initially were cleared by their bosses in San Fransisco. However, when an editorial piece they wrote was published in the Washington Post, EPA Director Lisa Jackson ordered the video taken down while threatening the pair with disciplinary action. The EPA contends the video is in violation of EPA policy.

May I ask what policy?

Ms. Jackson claims the pair is not allowed to cite their history as EPA employees, especially their experience studying the climate change issue, in any medium that contradicts government policy. In other words, they are not allowed to say they work for the EPA if, as private citizens, they publicly disagree with the agency. To that I say, Ms. Jackson, pull out the policy manual and prove it. If the policy truly does exist, and I doubt it does, it is plainly unconstitutional.

The EPA derives its authority from Congress and is therefore an arm thereof. The agency was established by Congress and signed into law by President Nixon in 1970. The EPA's mission is to enforce laws created by Congress regarding health and the environment, through regulatory control. As an arm of Congress the EPA is restricted by the Constitution from abridging the right of free speech. While courts have upheld the right of employers to limit speech in the workplace, a right extended to the EPA, the Constitution prohibits regulating the free speech by the EPA outside of the workplace. Clearly, if Zabeln and Williams had produced their video on EPA time, representing EPA viewpoints and policies, the agency would be within their rights to demand the video be taken down; such is not the case, however.

Instead, what we have here are two individuals who know more about the climate change argument than most politicians, including President Obama himself, and who are being censored because they dare to disagree with the White House. Isn't the ability to speak out against government the whole idea behind the 1st amendment? In a country where citizens and businesses are not allowed to publicly criticize their government you end up with tragic events like the Tiananmen Square massacre of 1989. We may not be at that point yet, but actions like the EPA's are gradually moving us in that direction.

Do you remember the health care story just a few months ago regarding Humana being censored by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services? If not, read my blog here. What happened was that Humana, a Louisville-based health insurance provider, contacted some of its older clients to inform them of the dangers of the pending health care legislation. The government didn't appreciate the company criticizing it or telling the truth, so they sent a "cease and desist" letter barring Humana from speaking out. Another example of a government agency suppressing free speech.

There are other numerous examples of these types of things all over the legitimate news world; far too many to document in this space. What's troubling is the fact that there seems to be a very clear pattern developing. Anyone who is employed by the federal government or derives some sort of benefit through grants, contracts, etc., is being bullied into towing the Obama line. Dissent is not allowed or tolerated even when such dissent is the truth. It is the stuff of Karl Marx and Joseph Stalin.

What's next?

How about the hate crimes legislation that squeaked through Congress attached to the back of an October defense spending bill? Many conservatives, myself included, fear this new law could be used to limit public criticism of homosexuality. While it is true that the law doesn't specifically restrict free speech, it is so broadly written that if the ACLU-types could convince a court that preachers are inciting "hateful" behavior from the pulpit, the next logical step is to outlaw pastors from preaching against homosexuality.

Think I'm nuts? It's already being done in Canada.

According to a WorldNetDaily report from 2008, an evangelical pastor was ordered by the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal (AHRT) to cease making any remarks that would be perceived as disparaging to homosexuality, and to write a letter of apology to a gay rights activist who complained about his speech. The AHRT ruling essentially requires the pastor to renounce his faith and silences him from speaking in the future.

The threat is real my friends, very real. Today it's health care and cap-and-trade; tomorrow it might me the stimulus nonsense, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, or any other part of the liberty-killing agenda currently being pursued by the federal government.

America needs to stand up and show its outrage over government censorship. If we don't we are giving them permission to continue as they please.

Grow up America, Hasan is a Terrorist!

2009-11-16T07:56:00.000-05:00

It is with much sadness and frustration that I follow the developing story of the Fort Hood murders down in Texas. Every time one of these senseless massacres happens I ask myself the question, "Will we ever learn?", and every time the answer is sadly, "No." With 14 dead and nearly 30 wounded it frustrates me more than I can express to know this could have been averted if our society would once and for all, learn the lessons of the past and stop worrying about offending people.

As the story unfolds it is becoming increasingly clear that the shooter, Maj. Nial Malik Hasan, was known to the military and the FBI as a potentially violent threat. Former med school classmates have told reporters stories of Hasan's anti-American, pro-Muslim tirades during class time. He was known to have dealings with radical Imam Anwar al-Awlaki, who told journalists after the attack that Hasan's actions were completely justified. Furthermore he sent emails to Al Qaeda members and even carried business cards which identified him as a "Soldier of Allah" and contained the letters "SWT" (Subhanahu Wa Ta'all), which is shorthand for "glory to God". All of this was known about the army psychiatrist who followed some of his wounded victims through a parking lot in order to finish them off. Yet the army didn't have the courage to do anything about it.

And now, we don't have the courage to call it terrorism.

The authorities who knew this man was a threat did nothing about it because they were afraid of lawsuits from pro-Muslim groups. So in order to avoid offending Muslims in this country and around the world, we have sacrificed the lives of innocent people; sacrificed them on the altar of political correctness. This in a nation that supposedly values free speech and individual liberty.

My friends, in the war against liberty the first casualty is always the truth, for without it, a society cannot truly be free. When we are chained to the lie that Islam is a peaceful religion we are also chained to the inevitable reality that men like Hasan will massacre our citizens. Those who persist in this lie are the very same people who blame Christianity for the deaths of untold millions throughout history. I won't argue the accusations against Christianity because it requires a spiritual mind to understand, but let me ask the pro-Muslim groups a question: who was it that went to the aid of Indonesia after the 2005 tsunami? Was it Muslim nations? How about Muslim missionaries? Were there any large-scale Muslim humanitarian groups on the ground? No. It was the Christians helping out largely Muslim and Hindu people because they needed help.

Conversely, who was it that bombed the World Trade Center back in the 90s, who flew planes into them in 2001? Who sets off roadside bombs in Israel, Iraq, and Afghanistan? What religious group's "holy book" promises eternal life to disciples who kill infidels or die in Jihad? Muslims, my dear readers, Muslims. At some point we need to grow up and face reality: the Islamic religion is one that evangelizes and purges its enemies through violence. If that's offensive to you, too bad.

I'm not interested in protecting someone's feelings, I'm interested in saving American lives. I'm sure the families of the Fort Hood victims couldn't care less about the feelings of Muslims worldwide as they wonder what they'll do without their loved ones around anymore. As far as I'm concerned Mr. Hasan is not a criminal, he is an enemy combatant who doesn't deserve a trial. He deserves to be stood up in a field and riddled with bullets by the same U.S.military that he so disdained. And the same goes for any and all Muslim terrorists wherever they are, including our native soil.

Have you wondered why, after eight years in Afghanistan and Iraq, our military is still over there fighting? For crying out loud, compared to our military force these two countries are peanuts. We should have had this over and done with in a matter of weeks, yet day by day we plod along with victory eluding us while at the same time, Muslim terrorists from all over the Middle East pour into those countries in support of the fellow jihadists.

The answer to my question by the way, is the fact that we refuse to fight the war like its a war. We continue this idiotic "police action" mentality that was born in our military leaders during the Korean "conflict". We refuse to throw everything we have at the enemy for fear that innocent people might die, meanwhile they don't care who they kill. That's the reason these Muslim nations remain relatively secure today. They conduct war, they don't play around with police actions.

While we continue to play pat-a-cake with our Muslim enemies they continue to plot their next attack. I wonder how many more people will have to die before our leaders will grow up. Unfortunately, I see no end in sight with the spineless cowards filling the hallowed halls of Washington. I will do my duty at the ballot box and pray for the families of the victims.

May God have mercy.

House Democrats to America: Kiss Off!

2009-11-08T15:36:00.002-05:00

(Note: My apologies for being away so long. I've been bogged down with some work-related difficulties that have kept me from writing. I'm back now, hopefully without interruption.)

Well, there you have it.

Last night the House Democrats stated loudly and clearly they don't give a hoot about We the People. Under the Stalinist rule of Nancy Pelosi the House voted 220-215 to pass the health care legislation and force a government takeover on the nation. Despite the summer's tea parties and town hall protests, the protest in Washington last week, and poll after poll indicating the majority of Americans are against the legislation, the House knows better than the rest of us and was bound and determined to do what it wanted. Asked about the public sentiment Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, had the audacity to claim House Democrats were merely respecting the wishes of voters who booted the Republicans out of office last year.

Mr. Van Hollen, with all due respect sir, put a sock in it.

You and I both know full well you don't care anything about the voters you so piously profess your love for. No one who truly respects the American people and their liberty signs on to a bill that mandates every citizen purchase health insurance or face a government penalty. Pardon my French, but who the hell are you and the rest of you Washington jackasses to tell the rest of us what we must spend our money on? (To my readers, I do humbly apologize for my language, but I am absolutely furious right now.)

The U.S. Constitution, which apparently is a document the Congress doesn't believe they need to follow, gives the following authority to the House and Senate:

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States...;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia...;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States....;

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

Do you see anything in that language the allows the Congress to mandate a universal Federal law regarding health care insurance? There is none, and no matter of tweaking the Constitution changes that. Proponents of universal health care claim Congressional authority to regulate interstate commerce allows them, to which I say, BULL PUCKY. Regulating interstate commerce only applies to businesses and how they conduct themselves. It is not authority to force people to purchase something they would otherwise not. It is a gross and immoral "interpretation" (and I use that word reluctantly) of the Constitution to claim Congress has the authority they have assumed upon themselves.

If that's not enough, the Constitution's 10th amendment limits Congress as follows:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

It doesn't seem to matter what the law is anymore, those in our halls of government have manipulated the average American to the extent that the vast majority of them don't even know the government is operating illegally in many areas. Thus, Washington is free to do whatever it wants without consequence.

Personally, what's most frustrating about this for me is the fact that I spent the better part of a year warning people before the election we were headed this way, yet people refused to believe their government would abuse its power to this extent. Even my fellow Christian believers, who ought to know better about the sin nature of man, were so enamored by the possibility of having the first black president they completely ignored the history of Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Frank, and the rest of them.

What has happened to this once great nation and the time when people used to care enough to stay informed, get involved, and hold their elected officials accountable? Are we so pathetic that we'll let them do whatever they want as long as we get to watch American Idol? Have we become so apathetic that we'll mortgage our children and bankrupt our grandchildren just so we won't have to suffer any inconvenience?

America, SHAME ON YOU!!!

I for one, have had enough. I don't know how or what to do next, but you'd better believe I'm going to start looking for every possible opportunity to put a stop to this garbage. The founding fathers wrote in the Declaration of Independence something that stirs my heart and mind every time I read it. It says:

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown 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." (emphasis mine)

My fiends, we have long since passed the point of mere inconvenience or burdensome regulation. With this health care fiasco we are dooming the future of this country to Socialism and a government nanny-state. This is not what this country was founded on or was ever intended to be. Our future security, and that of our children, is now at stake and it is our DUTY to throw of this government immediately!

This nation can return to its former glory if We the People stand up and take it back. We can return to the days when Congress kept its collective nose out of our business; when they went to Washington for a few years only to return to civilian life and the real world; the days when the Supreme Court understood that God was the final authority, not them; the days when the President led by principle and integrity rather than a monster ego. We can do it if we really want to.

Yet that's the lingering question that bothers me tremendously. Do we really want to? Are we willing to lay everything on the line to gain back our liberty? Would we march in the streets, contribute our financial resources, even pick up the rifle if it were necessary? If the answer is no, then we might just as well give up now and let the statists have their way; think of it in terms of the Borg: resistance is futile. But if the answer is yes, then let's get busy and stop talking about it!

I will volunteer to lead the charge if you will volunteer to join me.

Mr. Limbaugh, This Time You're Wrong

2009-10-30T21:25:00.000-04:00

Dear Mr. Limbaugh,

I've been a regular listener of your radio program since 1989 and I know you're almost always right more than 99% of the time. We must have similar intellectual abilities since I could count on one hand the number of times you and I have disagreed over the last twenty years. Unfortunately sir, when it comes to NY-23, this is one of the rare times you are wrong.

For years you have stated your opposition to third party candidates under the blanket assessment that they will always lose elections. You've cited Ross Perot among others, reminding your listeners of the low number of votes they draw in the general election. In that you are absolutely correct. But where you miss the boat is the reason why third party candidates don't draw well. It's not their party status, it's their message. Ross Perot, Ralph Nader, et al, are nut cases whose message only resonates with other nut cases.

In the 23rd NY district we now have a third-party candidate who is preaching a conservative message and well on the way to victory next week. You insist he's not a third-party candidate because he's a registered Republican, but come on Rush, that's semantics. He's running on the Conservative line not the Republican line, and that makes him a third-party candidate. What's more, he will win the election because voters believe in his message, his ideology, and his principles. If voters are really as smart as we would like to believe, Doug Hoffman could win even with a (D) or (L) next to his name.

If Hoffman can get his message out in NY, why can't other conservatives around the country do the same? Is there something magical about the Cuomotose state of NY that doesn't apply anywhere else? I Don't think so. If a majority of conservative politicians bailed on the GOP and joined the Conservative party, and the majority of conservative voters did the same, the Republican party would be out of business overnight. The Conservative party would take over the number two slot on the ballot and we wouldn't miss a beat.

Mr. Limbaugh, you stated on today's program that somebody has to do something; I couldn't agree with you more. How about our elected officials who claim to be conservative finding the guts to stand up and walk out on a party that abandoned conservatism twenty years ago. How about influential media people who have great sway standing up and throwing their support behind the Conservative party; the party that bears our name and stands for the things we stand for?! What is so grand about the Grand Old Party that we continue to hang on to the name and affiliation?

You had a caller today who asked you why we shouldn't panic. I agree with your answer by the way, panic doesn't accomplish anything. But the caller made an excellent point when he said the Republicans who took back the house in '94 didn't have the "balls" (his word, not mine) to make it stick. Your caller was absolutely right.

Like you Mr Limbaugh, I am mad as hell! Since I have been old enough to remember there has been only one true conservative with the courage to stand up to the left: Ronald Reagan. The rest of the Republicans have been nothing but embarrassing wussies who were willing to cave when the pressure was on. Newt Gingrich, Trent Lott, Rick Santorum, the list goes on and on.

What makes anyone seriously believe winning back the house and/or Senate is really going to change anything? As long as the party leadership is made up of the John McCains and Olympia Snowes, history will continue to replay itself over and over. The only way out is to make a clean break and build up the Conservative Party. If we could ostensibly re-build the almost dead GOP, then we could use that same energy to successfully build a different party.

There is historical proof for what I'm proposing, Mr. Limbaugh. Take a look at Abraham Lincoln and the birth of the Republican Party. The party didn't exist until 1854; prior to that the two dominant parties were the Democrats and the Whigs. The GOP gained national support because of its anti-slavery, pro-freedom, and pro-business messages, and in just six short years put a former Whig, Mr. Lincoln, in the White House.

Surely sir, if the Republicans can get their message out and succeed as quickly as they did in the 19th century, we could at least do the same with our modern technology in the current information age. It just takes the courage to admit the hopelessness of the GOP and the willingness to let it die the slow, agonizing death it seems to want so badly.

It's time for the Conservative Party to do to the GOP what they did to the Whigs. If Lincoln could do it, so can Palin or any body else. Think about it, Rush.

From a lifetime Republican (but only until next Wednesday),
Matt Gerwitz
Rochester, NY

Time to Learn a Lesson From Reagan

2009-10-28T23:49:00.000-04:00

In case you haven't figured it out by now politics is a passion of mine. But unlike some others, I don't see it as a sport or hobby merely to be followed for it's entertainment value. For me, politics is one of the most powerful tools that shapes the destiny of the body politic; whether it's at the local, state, or federal level. What happens in the halls of our government will shape the future for our children and grandchildren just as what happened in the past has shaped our current reality. Politics therefore, is serious business.

It is in this vein then, that I believe the National Republican Party and an assortment of conservative pundits can learn a great lesson from former President Ronald Regan. In 1964 Mr. Reagan made a speech at the Republican National Convention which forever defined what true conservatism really is. It is one of the most exceptional speeches I have heard from start to finish, but one specific statement stands out to me above the rest. Mr. Reagan said:

"You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man's age-old dream-the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism."

Stop and ponder the statement for just a minute, then ask yourself if there's any real significance in party names and affiliations. When we speak of left or right it is always in relation to the so-called "center", yet any student of politics knows that being "center" really means you have no convictions you believe are worth fighting for. It is the consummate compromise position that leads down the road to nowhere. The problem with being right or left of center is in viewing oneself as such, so when it comes time to run a political campaign, both the left and right are trying to win over those in the center. This always leads to watered down principles and a platform of pandering.

In the case of the Republican party we have seen a shift toward the center since the days of Bush 41. Coming off the two terms of Reagan, Mr. Bush abandoned Reagan conservatism because he was not a true conservative. Bush was a compromiser whose political strategy was not to separate himself from his opponents through delineating clear ideological differences, but to offer a "Democrat Lite" alternative. The same strategy is still at work today in almost every area of government policy.

Take the health care debate for instance.

We all know what the liberal Democrat position is on health care. They believe our health care system is broken, too many people are uninsured, and a government takeover is the solution. What is the Republican response? Our health care system is broken, too many people are uninsured, and government assistance is the solution. The only difference between what the Democrats are offering and what the Republicans would offer if they had the chance, is the speed at which we would experience a complete government takeover of the health care system. But make no mistake, as long as the debate is framed as Republican vs. Democrat we will eventually arrive at a full government takeover.

I agree with Ronald Reagan that there is no left or right, because there really is no center. The debate is one of up or down; up or down on the principle of individual liberty and freedom. The fact is, you are either for it or against it with no middle ground. You cannot be for partial liberty, for partial liberty is no liberty at all. Instead, is it government permission for certain "approved behaviors under certain circumstances and government prohibition of everything else.

It is high time conservatives and patriots stop viewing politicians through the lens of party affiliation. Rather, we need to start viewing them through the lens of liberty. In other words, do they have a verifiable track record of defending individual liberty? Do their speeches, policy positions, past decisions, and personal lives demonstrate they believe in and will protect liberty? If so, we ought to support them in every way humanly possible. If not, we should be pouring that same energy and passion into securing their defeat.

What good does it do in my home state of N.Y. to put a Republican on the ballot in the 23rd Confessional district, if that candidate has a proven ultra-liberal track record? Her party affiliation means nothing! Yet night after night I hear the pundits questioning Sarah Palin and other conservatives because they have abandoned the Republican candidate in favor of the Conservative one. My friends, listen to Ronald Reagan! It's not about left or right, Democrat or Republican; it's not even about liberal or conservative.

IT IS ABOUT FREEDOM VS. TYRANNY!!!!

As far as I'm concerned it is time to throw the Republican party over board unless they can prove to us that they are dedicated to individual liberty and freedom. I have no more patience for "Democrat Lite". I have no more patience for the stupidity that clings to the RINO party under the false assumption that third-party candidates are losers. Abraham Lincoln was a third-party candidate who was elected because people believed in his message. Ronald Reagan still would have won two landslide elections as a third-party candidate because people believed in his message.

The message of individual liberty and freedom, if spoken with passion and conviction, will always win the day in any political debate. Freedom is born in the heart and soul of men as evidenced by the universal yearning to be free. It is an ideal and message the main political parties stopped talking about generations ago. It is the Reagan ideal and message.

Never forget.....it is also the ideal and message of the common man.

And the Beat Goes On....

2009-10-21T17:41:00.000-04:00

And the beat goes on.....

News from Troy, N.Y. hit the wire yesterday via a story about voter fraud in this medium-sized city of 49,000. Apparently, at least 38 fraudulent absentee ballots were discovered being cast in the Working Families Party (WFP) primary on Sept. 15th. Perpetrators of the scheme went door-to-door in the city seeking people to sign ballot applications without clearly explaining what victims were signing. They then took these signatures and cast votes for Democrat candidates in the WFP primary, taking advantage of the fact that candidates in N.Y. State can run on multiple party lines. By all accounts, it was an attempt to help insure a Democrat victory in November by getting Democrat candidates on the additional line.

If you think that's amazing...it gets better.

Guess what two people co-founded the Working Families Party and sat together on the Board? Bertha Lewis, the now infamous CEO of ACORN, and Patrick Gaspard, who is the White House political director and a former ACORN supporter. I suppose the nuts don't fall far from the tree, do they? Does anyone in the world still believe ACORN is just an innocent social justice group working for the cause of minorities and the disadvantaged?

It should come as no surprise that the Troy voter fraud story is linked to the WFP and ACORN. Stealing elections is the only way leftist organizations know how to win; they certainly can't do it the arena of ideas. For the WFP to do what they did is par for the course for a group of radicals who don't believe in the rule of law unless it benefits them. I wouldn't be at all surprised if Ms. Lewis herself was involved with the Troy incident, either directly or indirectly. But I suppose I shouldn't say that for fear I'll be sued, just like the two film makers who exposed ACORN's illegal activity.

My question is whether or not there will be an honest investigation, prosecution, and punishment of the perpetrators of this fraud. If the WFP follows ACORN's lead, they'll bend over backwards to protect the guilty parties and maybe, just maybe, throw us a bone by terminating their employment. Here's hoping the DA gets angry enough to prosecute to the law's fullest extent.

And the beat goes on...

Meanwhile, in North Carolina the Department of Justice has overruled the good citizens of the city of Kinston, saying they are not allowed to change their election laws because doing so would mean black candidates would have to actually earn votes. We can't have that in Kinston, now can we? I've written a column on this story for Associated Content which should be published in a few days. If you're interested in reading it, follow the link and keep watching till it's posted (I'm expecting it should be up by Fri. or Sat.). But enough of the shameless self promotion.

Elections in this country are on dangerous ground, my friends, dangerous ground. In the months leading up to last year's presidential election there was talk among some of the intellectual elite of having U.N. inspectors monitor the voting. When I heard that I just about died laughing! This is not Afghanistan or Iran, for Pete's sake, this is the United States of America. I'm still not in favor of the U.N. monitoring our polls, but I find myself being more and more suspicious about the legitimacy of past elections; from Kennedy's victory over Nixon to Clinton's second term, to last year's Obama victory. I'm even beginning to wonder if 2010 will be legit. I hope and pray it will but I'm not oozing confidence.

I'm just glad that I'm a born-again believer in Christ, because He is my helper in time of need. Regardless of what occurs in our nation I have the Creator of the Universe on my side. He's my Savior, friend, shelter, rock, etc., etc. Come what may I know I am safe in his arms.

And the beat goes on...

Obama vs. Fox News: A First Amendment Trial Balloon

2009-10-19T15:46:00.002-04:00

With wars raging in Afghanistan and Iraq, political unrest in Honduras, and Iran and North Korea quickly becoming nuclear threats, the White house has decided to wage a new war at home against a rather odd enemy: Fox News. Over the last few weeks Administration officials have made the rounds on the Sunday talk shows to attack Fox as being a partisan organization that only presents a conservative point of view. To me, this is both laughable and alarming.

It's laughable when one considers NBC and its cable daughters, MSNBC and CNBC. If ever there existed a news outlet that departed from unbiased news in favor of carrying the government water, it's these three. It started way back during the campaign when NBC reporter Brian Williams admitted on Jan. 20, 2008 it was difficult to cover Mr. Obama objectively. The lack of objectivity continued right through the election and inauguration and is still going strong today. From selling Barack Obama dolls, coins, and collectibles in its on-line store, to refusing to air commercials critical of health care reform, NBC clearly and unashamedly has left responsible journalism on the garbage heap of the past.MSNBC fan-boy Chris Matthews, who doesn't even appear to know the definition of hardball, is especially offensive to those who believe in responsible journalism. Every time Obama is mentioned on his show Matthews acts like a young school girl in love, pining away over his beloved Barack Obama.

It's also laughable if you consider ABC's extended health care infomercial last June, during which they promised tough questions and an open debate with the President. Tough questions and an open debate? Give me a break. I read the transcript. It was carefully planned and choreographed to allow Obama to shine as brightly as possible.

Count CNN, CBS, the Washington Post, the New York Times, and hundreds of other news outlets among those in the bag for the Administration and then ask, "Why is the White House so consumed with Fox News?"

The answer is three-fold: Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, and Sean Hannity. Fox News is consistently one of the most watched news network in the world, and their three heavy hitters are one of the biggest reasons why. The Obama camp cannot tolerate those who disagree with them, especially if those people have a public voice and a lot of followers. It was demonstrated this past spring and summer when the White House used the mainstream media to launch an all out offensive against radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh. That attack failed, though the Obama thugs are still holding out hopes of winning, so now the attack is being re-directed at Fox.

The alarming thing about this whole issue is the extent to which the White House will go in order to stifle dissent. This attack on Fox news may seem to be a small matter, but I suggest there's a lot more to it than meets the eye. With Obama and company nothing is done accidentally; nothing is done that could potentially harm Obama in a manner that is irreparable. In this case it seems the White House is heading somewhere specific. But where?

Earlier this year a few Democrats in Congress started talking about reviving the so-called "fairness doctrine"; an old government regulation used by liberals to control public airwaves which was terminated under the Reagan Administration. Reviving this unconstitutional regulation was seen as a way to get Limbaugh, Beck, and O'Reilly off the air by forcing broadcasters to offer equal time. The effort failed when Democrats realized bringing it back would be political suicide. But....

....they don't quit so easily.

In early summer the conversation shifted to using the FCC and its regulatory power to accomplish the same thing without Congress having to be directly involved. Rather than legislate against free speech, Congress intends to have the FCC claim broadcasters are using the airwaves irresponsibly and not for the common good, then regulate the content of all non-news programming.

Did you notice I specifically said "non-news programming?" Have you figured out where this whole Fox News thing might be going?

It should be plainly apparent to anyone who's paying attention that Barack Obama and his advisors are Jedi Masters in the use of trial-balloon politics. Whenever they want to make a move that might upset voters, they do a small-scale test run. If it fails they back pedal and claim they were never going to do what we ignorant voters thought they were. If the trial is successful they go for it full throttle.

In the case of Fox News, I'm willing to bet they are floating a trial balloon to see if they can get the public to agree Fox News is not a legitimate news outlet. If they attack Fox as editorial and opinion rather than hard news, and the public seems to agree, they have laid the groundwork for using the FCC to shut them up. To the credit of Fox News they are not backing down one inch. Mike Wallace, who started the argument by deciding to fact-check an Obama official who appeared on his show, stands firm in his position that a journalist is supposed to report the truth. The White House never complained about the facts Wallace checked, or the proof he offered of Administration lies, they simply were angry that he fact-checked them at all. I agree with Wallace; isn't that the job of a news outlet?

It's long been understood that one of the purposes of the press is to hold government accountable by reporting its activity to the general populace. Our forefathers believed this and codified it in the Constitution's first amendment. Yet in Obama's Utopia the press is a tool to promote him and his agenda. Anyone who disagrees and dares to voice opposition must be destroyed. It might be that the attack on Fox News is a precursor of things to come.

Be Careful What Your Boy Scouts Take to School, They Might Get Suspended

2009-10-14T18:05:00.000-04:00

I'm beginning to think our country has lost its collective mind, or at least those making the decisions in public institutions have. My latest assessment comes on the heels of a high school senior in upstate N.Y. who was suspended for 45 days for having a two-inch pocket knife locked in the glove compartment of his car, while the car was parked on school grounds. Just a few days earlier a six year-old from Delaware was suspended and ordered to attend a reform school for carrying an eating utensil designed for camping in his lunch box. In both cases the boys had exemplary reputations in their respective schools and were also part of a scouting program; the 17 year-old is an Eagle Scout while the six year-old is a Cub Scout.

So now the knee-jerk, panic ridden, do-gooders in the public school system have a problem with things considered normal for the Boy Scouts of America? What have we become?

In the case of the younger boy, he had received a camping utensil and was eager to try it out, thus he put it in his lunch box with the intention of using it to eat his meal. School officials apparently decided the utensil was a dangerous weapon deserving of the maximum punishment allowed by school policy: a 5-day suspension and an order to attend reform school with older students who were charged with serious weapons violations. That the boy's parents actually had to protest the whole episode is amazing to me.

What's most absurd about this nonsense is not the fact that the boy was suspended and ordered to attend reform school, though that's bad enough, but rather that we even have these stupid rules in place to begin with. The same can be said about the N.Y. teenager whose two-inch pocket knife isn't even legally considered a weapon in N.Y. State.

These foolish rules and regulations are not only in the public school mind you, they are also put in place by employers, businesses, youth sports groups, churches, and many other organizations, ostensibly to protect citizens from harm. They are an irrational response to tragedies like the Columbine and Virginia Tech shootings, which ironically, would not have been prevented by today's tough standards. By definition criminals don't obey the rules. Instead, innocent citizens are denied their freedoms when obeying the regulations or they are made criminals when disobeying. There is something drastically wrong with this picture.

Limiting what kids can carry into school or what adults can carry into the workplace will not prevent violence, just like the Brady Bill that arose from the assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan did not reduce gun violence by one iota. If these regulations really worked our prisons would be the safest place on the planet, yet we know how dangerous they really are. Inmates can make a weapon out of a paper plate for crying out loud. Regulations never prevent crime, they simply provide a vehicle by which criminals can be prosecuted. Those regulations that limit constitutional freedoms are especially egregious because they go against everything our nation stands on.

So how do we prevent violence without trampling on individual freedom? There are two methods: employing a strategy of swift and severe punishment against those who commit crimes and encouraging citizens to arm and protect themselves.

The greatest deterrent to crime has always been, and always will be, the threat of consequences that so outweigh any perceived benefits that the perpetrator will not even attempt the criminal activity. For example, let's for sake of argument say that the punishment for armed robbery was the confiscation of all personal property which would be sold and the proceeds given to the victim, who then also had the right to claim the perpetrator for ten years of involuntary servitude. Would it be worth it for someone to try and stick up the local convenience store? Not if justice were swift and sure. And by the way, swiftness is an essential part of the program.

We need to eliminate the years-long court cycles that bring American justice to a standstill. Endless appeals, tactical moves by lawyers to delay, the obnoxious rules for the gathering and admission of evidence, and so on. I'm not in favor of the communist court system by any means, but I'm also smart enough to know that if a man is caught red-handed his trial should be brought and concluded in a matter of weeks, not years. If a criminal believes he can outlast and out maneuver the court system, and many career criminals can, then there is no fear of consequences.

As for arming our citizens, I am amazed that so many Americans think it's a bad idea. I have been the victim of violent crime on two occasions and I can tell you this, I regret the fact that in neither case did I have a weapon to defend myself. Many people have said to me, "What's the big deal, they only got some money and personal belongings. Are those things worth dying for?" Absolutely.

For one thing, they took more than just material substance from me; they also took my sense of security and peace. The first instance happened when I was just a junior in high school and was so terrifying, I was paranoid for months afterward. The second incident was a few years ago in my own driveway. You can imagine the fear I had for my family in the weeks and months following. And then beyond that there's the principle of the matter. Crime is crime and should not be tolerated in any way, shape, or form. if I had been armed in both of those situations the outcome would have been much better, and I guarantee you the criminals would have never struck again.

Some of you might be old enough to remember the days before we had to lock our doors at night, or the days when it was safe to walk city streets alone, or when the biggest problem in school was chewing gum. For all of our supposed civilized methods of fighting crime, what have we gotten for it? More crime. Oh, and I almost forgot....more stupid rules in the public schools to protect us from Eagle Scouts. I sure feel safe now that these two boys have been dealt with.

APPF Frightens Small Montana Town - Should the Rest of us be Concerned?

2009-10-12T16:16:00.000-04:00

The quiet little town of Hardin, Montana was greeted by two very strange cars last week which have the town understandably on edge. Both the cars were black Mercedes Benz SUVs bearing decals that said City of Hardin Police Dept. There's only one problem: Hardin has no police department.

Apparently the vehicles belonged to American Private Police Force, a private security firm and para-military organization based in Santa Ana, California, which was set to take over the brand-new but unused federal prison built on the outskirts of town. APPF was to use the prison as a training center but those plans are on hold while the Montana State Attorney General investigates APPF, leaving the building still vacant. This is a curious set of circumstances which begs some questions: first, why would the security company be poking around the city of Hardin if the prison deal is not yet done, and second, even if it had been finalized why did the vehicles bear decals identifying them as the town police department?

In case you're wondering, these decals were not amateur cartoon art. They were designed to look professional and realistic as if Hardin really had a police department. Even more disturbing is the fact that the centerpiece of the APPF logo was, at least until last weekend, a near duplicate of the Serbian Coat of Arms. This has residents very concerned and rightly so, but should it have the rest of the country concerned?

After a little investigation I discovered that APPF is owned by Michael Hilton, a convicted felon who still faces legal trouble for a variety of things. In addition, Mr. Hilton was born and raised in Montenegro; a country that was once part of Yugoslavia but now is an independent nation bordering Serbia. I also discovered APPF's website claims the U.S. government has been contracting with the company for a long time, using it for Homeland Security purposes. Now think about that for a minute. If the claims are true, we a convicted felon hired by Homeland Security to help keep domestic order.

One other thing I found was that APPF has ties to two another questionable companies: Allied Defense Systems and Defense Logistics Services. Allied's owner and COO is a Mr. Mohammad Abdalla while the administrative contact for Defense Logistics Services is Edward Angelino, man who is currently named in several Federal lawsuits for activity relating to the supply of equipment to U.S. Troops and Iraqi police. Does something sound odd here? It does to me and I think America ought to be genuinely concerned.

Do you remember President Obama's call for a national security force which would be as large and strong as the U.S. military? In a July 2008 campaign speech in Colorado Springs, Mr. Obama departed from his written text regarding national voluntarism and said, "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

Since first hearing his comments I've wondered why the president needs a national security force, and who it is the country needs to be protected from. The military handles foreign enemies while the CIA, FBI, and state and local police forces take care of domestic threats. It seems to me that a national security force would only be needed to protect us from people or organizations that our current security forces would be unwilling to deal with. In my mind the only people who fit into that category are the average law-abiding American citizens.

Is it possible that President Obama wants a national security force to protect us from American citizens who might rebel against the government?

Think of it in terms of the U.S. Civil war back in the 1860s. Though the nation was divided between North & South, there were plenty of men who couldn't bear to take up arms against their countrymen. Among those that did there are widespread historical accounts of the anguish these soldiers went through because of it. Fast forward to 2010 and imagine the government abolishing the Constitution, declaring a Communist regime, and imposing martial law. I guarantee you that such a scenario would bring a new American revolution over night, yet the big question is whether or not the military and the local police departments would remain loyal to the government. I suspect a very large number of individuals would not. A private mercenary group that sells its services to the highest bidder would be the perfect organization to step in for a depleted military.

Enter APPF or something like it.

Now please don't misunderstand, I'm not stating this is all going on as I described, only that it is a possibility well within the reach of the Obama administration. Don't forget Obama's ties to domestic terrorist Bill Ayers. Remember his history along with that of David Axelrod, Rahm Emanuel, ACORN, Van Jones, Jeremiah Wright, and just about every other prominent figure associated with the President's past. Also keep in mind how the Administration has cozied up the Hugo Chavez and several leaders of Middle East; remember that he's taken the side of the ousted totalitarian dictator of Honduras; remember that he is not fond of the limits the U.S. Constitution places on the federal government.

Like it or not, there is enough information here to raise at least an eyebrow of concern for our future. History has proven through Hitler's SS, Russia's KGB, and Iraq's Fedayeen, that those who wish to be dictators must establish their own security force to keep control. History also proves that the citizens of the aforementioned countries were apathetic as their leaders plotted, schemed, and prepared for takeover. People didn't want to believe it could happen but it did, and it was too late once they figured it out.

The APPF action in Hardin might be just a poor decision by people who didn't take the time to think things through or even just a scam, but it also may be a harbinger of things to come. America needs to wake up and watch. The day Obama gets his national security force is the day we had better be prepared to fight. Hopefully that day will never come, but if it does, we need to be prepared.

From Mad Max Baucus to Barack Obama - Where Do We Go From Here?

2009-10-08T20:32:00.000-04:00

While Russ Feingold is trying to draw attention to the fact that President Obama may be engaging in an end-around of Congress with some of his czars, Mad Max Baucus is engaging in an end-around of his own. The chairman of the Senate Finance Committee has been doing literally whatever he has to in order to get his health care bill to the Senate floor. During the markup period of his bill, Baucus purposely and without shame cut off debate in committee hearings any time it was in opposition to his bill. If someone had any criticism of his proposal he simply didn't allow the person to speak. I watched some of the video coverage and was furious with the smug look and arrogant condescension from this guy. It's a good thing I'm a Christian man or I'd be yelling obscenities that would make a sailor sound like a nun!

Now we learn from Senate minority leader John Boehner about 75 phantom amendments which were added to the Baucus bill without informing the committee Republicans, AND after the vote was taken to approve the Baucus Bill draft. It's amazing, friends, absolutely amazing. It's getting almost impossible to keep up with all of this without a scorecard. Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Mad Max are hell-bent on ramming through health care whether we like it or not. Reid has stated there will be a vote on the merged Baucus/Harkin bill next Tuesday which, if passed, would then head to conference committee for reconciliation with the House bill. This is moving so fast it could be signed by Obama by the end of next week. And folks, this is not democracy.

So where do we go from here?

On his radio show today Rush Limbaugh referred to what's going on in Washington as a "bloodless coup", a "non military coup". I have to say I agree with him 100% but here's the thing: at some point we have to stop just talking about this stuff and rise up and do something about it. These people in Washington are finally at a point where they do not give a hoot about what the voters want; they will do what they want, when they want to do it. We've got a situation here that's almost completely out of control with no end in sight. I'm not even sure if the mid-term elections next year will make all that much difference.

What scares me the most is the fact that this whole health care debacle is one constitutional violation after another, yet our so-called elected representatives couldn't care less. If they are willing to shred the very documents that establish the rule of law for the United States, then is it not plausible for them to rig the mid-terms? What the heck, they could pull a Bloomberg and change the law to allow Obama, Reid, and Pelosi to reign for life. You may think that's far-fetched but I see it as the logical conclusion of all this.

We have a President who has openly criticized the U.S. Constitution because it limits government power. We have in Obama's chief advisor, David Axelrod, a man who's past is littered with leftist causes and Chicago machine politics. We have in Nancy Pelosi a woman is has clearly departed the world of reasoned thinking to embrace far-left socialism, while at the same time lying about it. And in good old Harry Reid, we have a spoiled brat Senator whose ego won't allow him to be second best in anything. He will kill if that's what it takes to keep Pelosi from being more powerful then him. Add to that the likes of Barney Frank, Charles Schumer, Rahm Emanuel, Chris Dodd, Arlen Specter, Olympia Snowe, and John McCain, and we've got real trouble folks.

So where do we go from here?

I hate to be the one to have to bring it up, but no one else has the courage to do so...so here it is. Those of us who value freedom and liberty need to start giving serious consideration to exercising our second amendment right to keep a bear arms. According to the framers, this right is "necessary to the security of a free State", which is to say in plain language, "citizens with guns keep a tyrannical government at bay." We are losing our freedom on a daily basis and if it continues unabated, we could lose them all before Obama finishes his first term. The mainstream media will not report the truth, the public schools are engaged in liberal indoctrination, and the courts are stacked to the hilt with activist judges who rarely uphold the Constitution.

I'm all for the ballot box my friends, but let me ask you some questions. When conservatism won back the House in 1996, were the Republicans able to repeal Social Security? Did the welfare reform that went through have any real, lasting effect? Did Washington make any fundamental changes to return the country to its original liberty-based roots?

NO-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O!!!

The only thing the Republican takeover of '96 accomplished was a slowing down of the socialist agenda. If conservatism wins the day next fall it will do no better unless there is a fundamental change in the attitudes of those who remain in Washington and those of us who put them there. What I'm afraid of is the possibility that we've reached the tipping point where education is not enough. As you read this blog for example, you are in the minority. As much as I would like to believe millions of people are reading conservative blogs and listening to conservative radio, the truth is most people can't be bothered. Most people have no idea what Mad Max Baucus is up to or even what his health care bill will mean for America, and you can't fundamentally change attitudes if people won't make the effort to be informed.

That leaves us with few options for protecting our personal liberty. As I see it there are only three: find a state or two willing to secede and move there, flee North America altogether to a country where the government will leave you alone, or bear arms and fight for your country. I know what my first preference is but I can't do it alone.

So where do we go from here?

That depends on us...and whether or not the citizens of this once great nation have the courage to do what's necessary.

Government is to Blame for High Cost of Health Care

2009-10-05T22:35:00.000-04:00

With all the fussing and fuming about health care reform and the alleged millions who want insurance but can't afford it, no one is discussing WHY the cost of health care has gone through the roof. It seems to me if the cause of the problem were brought out into the open and dealt with responsibly, it could be corrected. But as is always the case with government, finding a solution is not the goal. Propagating the problem for political gain is what it's all about in Washington. Well, since I'm not a politician I can tell you the truth; there are two reasons for the skyrocketing price of health care.

First is the sacred cow of HMOs which artificially inflate prices by putting business executives in charge of health care decisions instead of doctors. HMOs have been around since the early 1900s, but were never all that popular until the federal government got involved via the Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973. This law inserted government regulation into a system that had previously worked just fine under the self-regulation of free markets, introducing artificial influences that have led to where we are today.

This terrible piece of legislation which was championed by the odd-couple of Richard Nixon and Ted Kennedy mandated three things that proved to be detrimental: all members of an HMO had to be offered a federally approved list of benefits, all members were to be charged the same monthly premium regardless of circumstances, and all HMOs had to be structured as non-profit corporations. Any student of free market capitalism can easily deduce how HMOs under these regulations cause prices to rise. If you don't understand, don't worry. I'll explain.

First of all, when an HMO is required to offer every member a pre-determined list of benefits it ends up providing coverage for unnecessary things. For instance, why does a post menopausal woman or a woman who's had a hysterectomy need obstetrics and neonatal coverage? She obviously does not, but she's forced to pay for it under an HMO which doesn't take her age or physical condition into consideration.

Second, when the government dictates how a business sets its fee structure it always artificially inflates the price. In the case of health insurance, if an HMO is required to charge every member the same premium, they will by default structure that premium based on the worst case scenario. Where I live for example, we have a higher than average incidence of respiratory illness and certain kinds of cancers than the rest of the nation. That means our HMOs plan as though most people will develop asthma or cancer and set their rates accordingly. It is an artificial inflation of otherwise stable market conditions.

Third, requiring HMOs to be set up as non-profit corporations immediately removes all incentive to be responsible with the financial health of the company. If there is no profit motive the company can be run right to the edge without alienating stockholders; it can raise premiums arbitrarily without backlash from members who have no viable or competitive options; it can and does pay higher prices for goods and services which themselves are artificially inflated to make up for poor reimbursement rates the HMOs pay.

In addition to the three mandates of the HMO Act, the government interference also led to the establishment of the co-pay system; a system which takes the bill out of the hands of the consumer so he doesn't know what the cost of his care really is. Put that bill back in the hands of the average consumer and you can bet he'll shop around for the best deal. He has incentive.

Finally, the regulation of HMOs gave the insurance companies the power to regulate medical professionals through the manipulation of reimbursements. HMO organizations routinely set quotas for how many patients participating doctors must see in a day; they determine what tests and procedures are done for a particular set of symptoms; they take the medical decisions away from the doctors and force compliance by threatening to cut off or reduce compensation. All of this due to government regulation.

The other thing driving up the cost of health care costs is government waste. Medicare is the single largest customer of health care services due to the fact that its members are all senior citizens. As medical advances prolong the lives of individuals, the cost for keeping them healthy also increases. The problem is the costs are rising at a rate that well exceeds inflation and is unsustainable. Who's to blame? Ask your Congressional representatives.

According to a recent Fox News report, government auditors admit to Medicare paying exorbitant prices for medical devices and equipment. Among the list of items is an oxygen concentrator which can be purchased for $600; Medicare rents it for $7,215. How about the $4,000 wheelchair that retails for $1,000? There's also the $1,800 hospital bed, the $3,300 respiratory pump, and the $82 diabetic supply kit. The government routinely over pays for health care while Congress sits by and does nothing. And even when they do get involved, it's often a case of Congress stonewalling legislation that would bring real reform.

Case in point: according to Fox News report, last year the Department of Health and Human Services attempted to revamp an old fixed-price fee schedule and introduce competitive bidding for new fees. HHS believed it could cut costs an average of 29% for most devices on the fee schedule, but two Congressman intervened to stop it, introducing legislation that would delay any action on the proposal for eighteen months. By deferring the HHS request, these two Congressman have effectively killed it forever.

When government pays inflated prices it causes those prices to continue to climb; producers will charge whatever the government is willing to pay. As Medicare pricing increases, so does retail. It is the unavoidable result of an artificially produced price ceiling. It works in health care the same as it does with rent control, utility costs, and so on.

The lesson here: whenever Washington gets involved they break things. The skyrocketing price of health care can be laid squarely at the feed of the federal government. Can they really be trusted to fix it this time? I don't think so.

Health Care May be the Death of the Republic

2009-10-02T16:41:00.000-04:00

The death of our representative republic may be only days away.

Does that sound alarmist? Do you believe it might be true? Scary as it sounds, the death of our representative form of government may be at hand if some current rumors turn out to be true. According to radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh, who cites the Heritage Foundation and other unnamed sources, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D)-NV is planning an end-around to ram health care reform through the Senate and on to the President's desk.

The alleged scheme works like this:

Reid doesn't have 60 votes to get a straight up or down on any of the proposals set forth in the Senate, and he doesn't want to go through reconciliation because he knows once that gate is open it could be used by Republicans later on. The only way he can get this through is to attach it as an amendment to another bill the House has already sent over. He has such a bill in the TARP bonus bill passed by the House to limit executive pay at companies like AIG. The bill has been languishing without Senate action since the start of summer.

Rumor has it that Reid will take the proposals from Max Baucus & Tom Harkin and merge them; keeping what he likes while discarding the rest. He'll then attach this to the TARP bill which will be brought to the floor of the Senate for debate and vote. Any Republican attempt to filibuster would trigger a cloture vote to end debate and bring the bill to an up or down vote; a move that would succeed if fence-sitting Democrats believe they can hide behind the TARP bill and claim ignorance of the health care amendment. A successful cloture vote means the bill can pass with only 51 Senators in favor. That would send the bill back to the House and from there to the President, as long as the House made no changes.

They key to all of this is to craft a bill that will satisfy enough Democrat senators as well as Nancy Pelosi. If Reid can accomplish this then we may see the stroke of Obama's pen by the end of next week. That Presidential signature, if it plays out according to this scenario, would signal the death of the Republic as we know it.

Why?

If Congress is willing to pass health care reform in such a dirty, dishonest, and secretive manner, what will restrain them from doing anything they want? If this works they'll do the same for a new stimulus bill, Cap and Trade, the U.N. treaty on the "rights of a child", the homosexual marriage issue, hate crimes legislation aimed at shutting down churches, regulating the public airwaves to silence opposition, an on and on. The Federal government is like a spoiled child; you give him something once and you can never deprive him of it again.

The most infuriating thing about this is the fact that poll after poll clearly demonstrate the American people do not want any part of the health care reform this government is proposing. There are rules put in place to protect the American people from garbage legislation they don't want, like this bill. Right now quite a few senators are afraid to vote cloture on health care because it would most certainly mean the end of their political careers, and they don't want reconciliation for the same reason. So in essence, the Senate rules are effectively forcing the Senators to abide by the will of the people or lose their jobs.

What Reid is allegedly up to circumvents those rules, allowing him to get to cloture and an up or down vote without ever debating the health care bill. It is outrageous! That's why I say the death of the Republic is at hand. For all intents and purposes Reid is saying, "America be damned; we don't care what the voters want, we're going to do what we want." That, my friends, is not a representative republic; that is despotism. That is 536 individuals in Washington determined to do whatever they want without any regard to those they are supposed to be serving.

As I've stated before, although I am pretty ticked off with Obama and the Democrats, most of my political anger is with the Republican party. They claim to be the opposite of the Democrats in ideology, which may be true in principle, but in practice they are no different. If the likes of Cornyn, DeMint, Bunning, McConnell and Ensign truly believed this looming bureaucratic monster would be devastating to the American principles of Liberty and Freedom, they would be pulling out all the stops to prevent it from happening. Yet all they do is stand behind a mic and give us blathering political speech and platitudes fit for the peasants.

If the conservatives really want to, there is a way to stop all of this right now. It's not pretty, pleasant, or even my preference, but this is an emergency situation; it is a situation that requires drastic measures. The conservative Republicans end this by opening the flood gates to all the filth on Capital Hill. They live there and know the secrets well, so let's just start putting out the information and naming names. Tell the country about all the corruption, the Congressional perks, the legal but terribly unethical behavior, and even the illegal behavior that goes on every day. Embarrass and shame them until the American people rise up and run them out of town!

Sure it's risky, some of your own might get caught up in the firestorm, but corruption is what has led us to the brink of death. Isn't it time to weed out the corruption?

I look at it like a defibrillator; that little machine that jolts you with electricity to jump-start a failed heart. It's a drastic measure which one does not apply randomly for a minor illness. It is used when the heart has stopped and can't be revivied through CPR. Yes, it is drastic; yes, it can even be unsafe. But it's sometimes necessary to save a life.

Friends, we are so dangerously close to the death of liberty and freedom yet very few people take the threat seriously. A caller to Limbaugh's show earlier in the week asked what she could do in the current situation. Like many of us, she calls her elected representatives only to be politely patronized, then ignored. Rush's response was that she was already doing what she could. I would agree...but only half way. The logic put forth by Limbaugh is that we continue to speak out and convince people so that in 2010 we can clean the Congressional house and elect people who will repeal all this stuff. The problem with that thinking is assuming between now and then this bunch doesn't change the rules to make that impossible, which at this point doesn't seem like a stretch.

We need to do more. We need to take to the streets by the millions and force the Washington elites to step down and go away. I don't know how many readers I have, but whether many or few, I'm asking you to email everyone in your address book, call all your friends; do whatever it takes to get people out and into the streets. Let's shoot for next Saturday, Oct. 10th. If you live in Rochester and want to join me, send me an email at pastormatt@1wayjesus.org and I'll let you know place and time. Regardless of where you live, send me an email anyway to let me know you've contacted your friends. Let's get moving and let's take back our country!!

Nukes Without Ethics is a Bad Deal

2009-09-30T15:39:00.001-04:00

"We have grasped the mystery of the atom and rejected the Sermon on the Mount...The world has achieved brilliance without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants."

~ General Omar Bradley ~
Armistice Day Address of 1948

One the eve of Iran becoming a nuclear-armed threat to Israel and the U.S., General Bradley's words were never more poignant than they are today. His speech was delivered in light of the U.S. attack on Japan which saw the first use of the atom bomb and the horrible destruction that resulted. In somber reflection, Mr. Bradley knew the ominous course the world would take.

While I agree with the decision to use the atom bomb against Japan, I am also smart enough to know that once the cat's out of the bag, everyone else will try to follow suit; and so they have. Nuclear proliferation is part of the global reality and, for the most part, it's a good thing. Good because it has kept the earth's superpowers at peace for more than fifty years. But where there is a good side there is also a bad one. In this case, the bad side is that countries like Iran, Pakistan, and North Korea also have nuclear technology.

If General Bradley is to be listened to, and I think he is, the implication of his words warns us about the danger of nukes in the hands of those void of ethics. I would add to Mr. Bradley's comments by qualifying ethics as only valid if they are Judeo-Christian ethics. Say what you want about them, but the Judeo-Christian ethics our nation was founded on dictate military force is to be used only in defense of our nation or its allies. Islamic ethics on the other hand, dictate military power can and should be used to preemptively attack and destroy the enemy. Islam goes further in teaching that the destruction of Israel and the Great Satan is a religious requirement of the faithful. And by the way, before you accuse me of being an anti-Muslim bigot, I suggest you study the Koran and other writings of respected Muslim clerics. I did a several thousand word research paper on Islam and I know what I'm talking about.

Anyway...there are plenty of people in the world with all the greatest science and technology, yet without any moral compass to guide them in the use thereof. Herein is the great quandary of the "separation of church and state" myth. If our nation were ever to be completely devoid of Judeo-Christian religious practice, we would be as much a danger to the world as Iran. It is the fundamental teaching of Jesus that we love our neighbor as ourself; a principle taught to children since the founding of the nation; a principle not imagined in the minds of school teachers, but spoken by the very mouth of God himself. It is this principle, and others like it, that keep us from arbitrarily raining nukes down on Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

Can the same be said about them?

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad continues to beat his chest before the world while making veiled threats of a nuclear attack on Israel. Rather than stand up to him and beat him into submission, the rest of the world tries to reign him in with economic sanctions and isolation; the equivalent of trying to stop a serial killer by telling him he can't shop in our neighborhood and we won't be his friend anymore. Come on folks, Iran has oil; we need oil; no sanctions are going to cripple a nation whose economy is based on oil. Besides, Muslim extremists are fully on board with martyrdom. They would rather starve their own people to death than give in to the West. Iran will not give up her nukes without being forced to do so militarily.

What's even more scary for America is the possibility of a peace treaty between Iran and Venezuela. As I mentioned in an AC article published yesterday, Chavez and Ahmadinejad have been pretty cozy lately. If they end up signing an agreement it could mean nuclear missiles aimed at the U.S. and less than an hour away. For our own safety and liberty the U.S. needs to take action now. Just as we bombed Japan in order to bring the war to an end, we need to find a way to destroy Iran's nuclear capability. Even if that means we step aside and allow Israel to take care of it.

We have the technology, we have the skill, we have the intelligence.

We also have the moral imperative.

You may think the world would be better off if it were nuclear-free, and you may be right. But the reality is that it's not, nor will it ever be again. Reality dictates that we listen to and take heed of general Bradley's words. Where there is no moral compass that would stop the suicide bombing of a Jewish cafe, there is also nothing to stop a nuclear attack on Israel. She is our ally and friend; one that we need to protect at all costs.

If we don't protect her...none of us will be safe.

ACORN and Hsu - Two Small Victories for Liberty

2009-09-29T23:07:00.000-04:00

I believe in giving Kudos when earned, so today they go to the state of Nevada for having the courage to prosecute the ACORN organization rather than settling for just prosecuting individual employees. It may only be a small victory for liberty, but it's a victory nonetheless. As you might be aware, several ACORN employees have been arrested and prosecuted for voter registration fraud in Nevada, including two directors. But after ACORN offices in Las Vegas were raided, prosecutors believe they have evidence proving corruption goes far higher than the local foot soldiers who have taken the fall.

The raid apparently produced documents showing the ACORN organization had established quotas for its employees and even offered an additional financial incentive for exceeding the daily quota. That may seem harmless, but it's illegal. ACORN lawyers have responded by saying Nevada's prosecution is both unfair and targeted only at them, at the same time the organization's spokespersons continue to deny anything illegal has taken place. A preliminary hearing today has set the stage for a full prosecution of the group in Nevada.

I hope and pray the Nevada prosecution is successful as it will open the door for other states to do the same thing. As I stated in a post a few weeks ago, any tampering with the voting system, no matter how minor, corrupts the entire process and leaves us with election results that cannot be trusted. For those who see this as a registration issue rather than a ballot box one, I'll take the time to explain why integrity in registering voters is essential.

It would seem that registering the name Mickey Mouse would be foolish since no poll worker in his right mind would allow a voter to cast his ballot with that name. But Mickey Mouse has been used for years, along with an innumerable amount of names, to register fake voters. The point isn't to allow Mickey to vote, rather it is to overwhelm the registration process so individual counties cannot keep up with the work in the weeks leading up to an election. Without enough staff to process the registrations workers are prone to mistakes, corners are cut, and procedures are relaxed. Come election day those with evil intentions can gather a group of voters and shuttle them to multiple polling locations to vote. If officials become suspicious or the vote is challenged after the fact, the mess created by flooding the voter rolls makes it nearly impossible to determine what is legitimate and what is not. It's a perfect recipe for stealing an election.

In ACORN's case that's exactly what their game plan was. Now they've been caught and are being prosecuted one by one. It's about time. As soon as the government is finished with ACORN it needs to go after any and all others who engage in illegal activity that hampers our elections, including violations of campaign finance laws. That brings me to former Clinton fund raiser Norman Hsu who was sentenced today to 24 years for fraud.

Mr. Hsu pleaded guilty in 2007 of running a political Ponzi scheme in which he solicited more than $50 million in political contributions for several candidates, then laundered the money, skimmed some for himself, and donated the rest to various campaigns. I find it interesting that Bernie Madoff was more or less accused of being Satan himself, yet Hsu gets to fade quietly away from the collective conscience of American culture. I don't condone Madoff's activity, but at least he didn't corrupt the ballot box as Hsu did. As far as I'm concerned, Hsu committed the more serious crime. He ought to be held in as much contempt as Bernie.

So anyway, two small victories for liberty today. It's been a good day; and now it's time for bed.

Refusing Illegal Aliens Health Care Benefits Is Unfair?

2009-09-28T16:14:00.001-04:00

Last week I accepted an assignment from Associated Content to write an opinion piece on health care reform and immigration. Among the many issues legislators are fighting over is whether or not to allow illegal immigrants access to federally funded and operated health care. To most thinking people the obvious answer is "no". The President himself has stated repeatedly that health care reform would not include coverage for illegal aliens (remember Joe Wilson's "you lie" statement), yet lo and behold, a handful of Democrats in the House announced over the weekend they would fight to keep coverage for illegals from being dropped from the final bill. Said California Democrat Rep. Michael M. Honda:

"Undocumented, if they can afford it, should be able to buy their own private plans. It keeps them out of the emergency room."

Those joining Honda on behalf of illegals said it's unfair to bar illegal immigrants from paying their own way in a government-sponsored exchange. Unfair? How on earth is it unfair to deny illegal aliens the benefits afforded to hard-working American taxpayers? The idiocy of some of our leaders is absolutely astounding, my friends. Illegal immigrants are by default, criminals living in, and off, the Untied States of America. We should be doing everything in our power to remove them from our soil, not encouraging them to stay and invite their friends. In addition, we ought not be so naive as to think illegals would purchase their own insurance through a health care exchange even if they could. They would be discovered and deported - they're not that stupid. What they'll do is continue what they already do; illegally access the Medicaid system which doesn't require proof of immigration status. The only way illegals would purchase their own insurance is if they could be guaranteed access with no questions asked.

Those who would argue on behalf of fairness for illegals are also the same people who believe the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay have Constitutional rights. It sickens me to see our government, as the Bush Administration did, cave to the mindless howlings of those who wanted Constitutional protections for enemy combatants. Since when does the U.S, Constitution apply to non-U.S. citizens? The founding fathers would roll over in their graves if they could see what was happening.

Guantanamo prisoners and illegal aliens do not have Constitutional rights according to the document itself which states:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Does the text anywhere indicate the framers intended to extend Constitutional rights to illegal aliens and POWs? No; the Constitution applies to "WE THE PEOPLE, OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" and no one else. As we start to apply Constitutional rights to non-citizens we are also beginning to de-value the document and all it stands for. You see, with Constitutional rights comes responsibility; the responsibility to live according to the laws of the land and to defend the nation against those who would seek its destruction. Our rights are not merely designed for our own consumption, as far too many people seem to believe.

Illegal aliens, by the very definition of the terms, are not obeying the law of the land. They are here without permission or consent, many of them working to send money back to their homeland in order to secure their own future, never intending to stay here. Others want a permanent residence in the U.S. but are unwilling to go through the procedure to do it lawfully. Why do these people deserve fairness? And, by the way, how is "fairness" defined? If it's defined as giving illegals Constitutional rights and protections it would also mean they should have the right to vote in American elections. If it's defined as making sure that have access to health care coverage then they must also have access to public education, welfare assistance, legal representation, unemployment insurance, worker's comp and disability insurance, and on and on. Where does it end? Are the left-wing extremists defining fairness as giving illegals full citizen status without actually being citizens? I think so.

As for the prisoners at Guantanamo, here's a newsflash for the Congress, the White House, and the Federal Judiciary: they are not criminals, they are prisoners of war. What the U.S. military decides to do with/for/to them is their business, not that of the Congress or the courts. The Constitution without question gives jurisdiction in military matters to the White House; why presidents have acquiesced to Congressional or Judiciary pressure since Korea is beyond me. We have separation of powers for a reason.

But back to health care and illegal immigration.

Why would the President and assorted members of Congress want to give illegals access to health care coverage under their so-called "reform"? To buy votes. In other words, they have immigration reform on their agenda as well, and if all goes a planned illegals currently in the country will be automatic citizens when they push that reform through. Even if illegals never access the health care system, they'll remember who gave them the opportunity and will cast their votes accordingly once they become citizens. It is politics to the extreme.

Meanwhile the average American citizen becomes a hostage to ever increasing taxes and a system that harms them in order to satisfy people from other countries. Is this the sort of thing our forefathers gave their lives for? Would George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, two men at opposite sides of the political spectrum, ever damn the future of their own fellow citizens in order to buy votes or pacify foreign governments? I seriously doubt it.

Illegal immigration and health care reform will be the final nail in the coffin of this country if they are ever enacted and combined. We simply cannot sustain them financially and once the system collapses, we'll be at the mercy of the government. That's what they want; that's what they're working toward; that's what they'll get if we don't stop it.

Thank You Lord...For Liberty

2009-09-25T16:18:00.000-04:00

As I was preparing for Sunday's Bible Study I came upon some Scripture references that reminded me of God's goodness to our country, despite the attacks being currently waged against her. One in particular that caught my attention was Acts chapter 7; the text of Stephen's "sermon" to the religious leaders in Jerusalem. This first martyr of the Christian church was chosen among the deacons, yet so powerful was his conviction, he didn't limit his ministry to the needs of his fellow church members. He also hit the streets and preached the good news of Christ; a decision that would cost him his life.

Stephen was stoned to death for telling the religious leaders the truth. Peter, Andrew, James, Paul, Barnabas, Silas, and countless others in Bible times were imprisoned for their faith. Others were tortured and even killed for proclaiming the name of Christ. Still more have been killed throughout the ages, including those written about in Foxes Book of Martyrs.

Today Christianity is outright illegal in many places including China and North Korea. In other places like India and Sudan Christianity is technically legal, but open practice of it could easily get a person killed. And in still other places like Iraq, Cuba, and Russia, Christianity is allowed but heavily discriminated against.

Here in the United States we are free to worship and speak as we please without fear of arrest, imprisonment, torture, or death; at least for now. While the Christian Church is regularly discriminated against it's no big deal when compared to other places, and certainly no excuse for us to live in fear or intimidation. What a glorious blessing from Above that allows us to gather three times a week for Bible Study; once a month for extended worship time; every Saturday to pray. What Divine liberty that gives us the freedom to stand in the street and pass out Bible tracts, or hold a VBS, or open the church doors for a fall harvest party.

We are a blessed nation, a blessed people...under God.

William McGuffey, publisher of the now famous McGuffey's Reader and considered by many to be the "Schoolmaster of the Nation", wrote in the forward of that reader:

"The Christian religion is the religion of our country. From it are derived our prevalent notions of the character of God, the great moral governor of the universe. On its doctrines are founded the peculiarities of our free institutions."

What a tremendously profound statement by Mr. McGuffey regarding our "free institutions". Freedom and liberty are Divinely authored; they are not the invention of the human mind, nor are they the domain of men to dispense or withhold. They are solely the domain of the Creator. In that sense therefore, we are a Christian nation. I know some of my fellow believers would disagree on the basis that so few people practice true Biblical Christianity. But because few practicing Christians give serious time to personal Bible study, would it be logical for me to conclude that the Holy Scriptures are not the foundation of our faith? Of course not. Likewise, the Christian foundations of our nation remain our foundations regardless of how many people practice Biblical Christianity.

Furthermore, we are a free country because we are a Christian one; founded on the Biblical principles of free will, personal responsibility, morality, charity, justice, and law. As long as these principles continue to be the bedrock of the nation's vision and mission, we will continue to enjoy the liberty we so freely do today. But if these things continue to be eroded, so will our freedom.

I am honored and humbled to have been chosen by God to be a citizen of this great nation; and equally honored and humbled to have been placed here, in this time. While the culture and society around us have been endangered by our government, I must admit to clinging to my God even tighter than before, and in so doing, I have been made so much more aware of the grace, freedom, liberty, and love found in Him.

The government may someday soon take away my freedom of speech, freedom to worship, freedom to peaceably assemble with my fellow believers. They may even take away my Bible and throw me in prison. But they can never take away the love of Christ Jesus, the faith in the gospel that saved me, and the Holy Ghost who has sealed me until Jesus' return. Regardless of what happens in America I have the liberty in Christ that will never fail.

For that, I am truly and eternally grateful.

Government Censorship and Praise Songs for Obama

2009-09-24T13:32:00.000-04:00

I did not blog yesterday, and I almost didn't today because quite frankly, I need to step back for a minute and take a break. There's so much happening right now, and at such a lightning speed, my mind is being overloaded. I suspect that's part of the left's plan; overload the American people with so much they'll just throw up their hands and go watch American Idol.

Any way, duty calls and so on I blog. Today's topic: Government censorship of those who disagree.

Humana, a Louisville based health insurance provider contracted to manage the federal government's Medicare Advantage program, recently sent a letter to some of its customers warning them of possible fallout from the Baucus health care bill. The customers were subscribers to Humana's Medicare Advantage coverage which, the letter asserts, could be damaged by the President's health care reform agenda. The letter specifically warns that benefits could be cut if the health care reform goes through in it's current form.

Seems like a responsible thing for an insurance company to do, right? I mean, if your policy is eliminated due to new legislation you'll have to chose another option. Humana needs to inform its customers of possible changes coming their way. Well, apparently Mr. Baucus doesn't feel the same way about it, because he contacted The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) which in turn sent a "cease and desist" order to Humana and then launched an investigation of the company. All because they oppose the Baucus bill and H.R. 3200.

The CMS cease & desist order, which covers all mailings until further notice, claims Humana's letter was misleading and falsely representing health care reform. Misleading? False representation? I have read both H.R. 3200 and the Baucus Bill in full for other articles I've written (click the Associated Content Link to the right), and I can state categorically that both bills cut funding for Medicare Advantage. What is misleading or false about Humana's statement that "millions of seniors and disabled individuals ... could lose many of the important benefits and services that make Medicare Advantage health plans so valuable."?

If funding is cut, services and benefits are also cut. It's simple math. Even the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office agrees with Humana's assessment.

Personally, I don't care all that much for Medicare Advantage or any other government subsidized health insurance. If we canceled Medicare, Medicaid, and the myriad of other government programs today, I would be delighted. What galls me about this is the fact that Humana is telling the absolute truth here, and Baucus calls the CMS dogs on them to shut them up.

Is this America or Red China?

Senator Mitch McConnell blasted Baucus and the CMS over their Stalinist gag order to which the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee responding by saying, "If there was ever any doubt who Republicans are looking out for in the health care debate, Mitch McConnell has offered conclusive proof: the insurance companies. Republicans jeopardize their own credibility when they choose to defend big insurance companies trying to make false claims about senior citizens,".

The gall of these people is both amazing and indefensible!

Congress is trying to convince us of the immorality and unethical behavior of health insurance companies; just like they've done with oil, tobacco, and auto companies. Whether you agree with them or not, since when is Washington a vast reservoir of morality and virtue capable of cleaning up what it thinks is dirty? What is ethically and morally pure about the CMS violating the first Amendment of the U.S. Constitution?

If this short of blatant statist speech control continues unabated, I'm expecting to get a notice from blogspot pretty soon telling me to cease & desist in my criticism of Washington. This is scary stuff folks, scary stuff. This is the stuff that led to the American Revolution; it is the very reason our free speech rights were codified in our founding documents. America ought to be shaking in its collective boots.

Well that's all for this topic, but in concluding this blog I want to give you an update on what I wrote a few days ago. In my previous entry titled The Obama Youth is Well on its Way, I wrote about the NEA being in bed with the Administration to use the arts as an influence in supporting Barack Obama's agenda. I suspect that blog raised a lot of eyebrows and caused some to think I've finally lost it. We don't like to believe that our President and/or his supporters are following in the mind-control footsteps of Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin, yet they are.

Here's more proof that I'm not losing my mind; the lyrics of two songs that are reported by Fox News as being taught to kids at B. Bernice Young Elementary School in Burlington, N.J. Read these and then tell me with a straight face this isn't Hitleresk!

Song 1:
Mm, mmm, mm! Barack Hussein Obama

He said that all must lend a hand, To make this country strong again
Mmm, mmm, mm! Barack Hussein Obama

He said we must be fair today, Equal work means equal pay
Mmm, mmm, mm! Barack Hussein Obama

He said that we must take a stand, To make sure everyone gets a chance
Mmm, mmm, mm! Barack Hussein Obama

He said red, yellow, black or white, All are equal in his sight
Mmm, mmm, mm! Barack Hussein Obama

Yes!
Mmm, mmm, mm
Barack Hussein Obama

Song 2:
Hello, Mr. President we honor you today!
For all your great accomplishments, we all doth say "hooray!"

Hooray, Mr. President! You're number one!
The first black American to lead this great nation!

Hooray, Mr. President we honor your great plans
To make this country's economy number one again!

Hooray Mr. President, we're really proud of you!
And we stand for all Americans under the great Red, White, and Blue!

So continue ---- Mr. President we know you'll do the trick
So here's a hearty hip-hooray ----

Hip, hip hooray! Hip, hip hooray! Hip, hip hooray!

The Obama Youth is Well on its Way

2009-09-22T16:34:00.000-04:00

I hate to have to keep banging the same drum day after day, but every time I read the news Washington gives me another reason to be gravely concerned for liberty. Today's tidbit:

BigGovernment.com posted a 44-page transcript on Monday which details an August conference call led by the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), the White House Office of Public Engagement, and President Obama's volunteer recruiting organization, United We Serve. The hour-long call was used to press various artists who receive NEA grants to begin using their art to support the President's agenda. According to the transcript, White House Office of Public Engagement Deputy Director Buffy Wicks addressed the artists at the start of the call.

"We're going to need your help, and we're going to come at you with some specific 'asks' here," she said, "but we know that you guys are ready for it and eager to participate, so one we want to thank you, and two, I hope you guys are ready."

The transcript goes on to reveal how Wicks, along with along NEA Director of Communications Yosi Sergant and music industry political advisor Michael Skolnik pressed artists to focus their work on efforts to push the Administration's health care, environmental, energy, and education agendas. At one point Sergant (who was curiously removed from the NEA and assigned elsewhere) is heard specifically asking artists to chose an issue to get involved with.

Sergant said, "Pick -- I would encourage you to pick something, whether it's health care, education, the environment, you know, there's four key areas that the corporation has identified as the areas of service. My ask would be to apply artistic, you know, your artistic creative communities' utilities and bring them to the table."

In yesterday's post I asked whether or not there was anything going on in this country that Obama doesn't have his hands in. I also talked about the cult following that brought him to power in the same way it has done for so many other eventual dictators. This NEA story is proof of the phenomenon at work for Barack Obama.

We already know that the President used the technology of the information age to run his campaign last year. He utilized websites, YouTube, bloggers, and a host of other things geared toward the youth and young adults. He did the talk show circuit as well, putting forth the appearance that he was just as ordinary guy like you and me. And as for help he received from the arts and entertainment industry, one of the participants of the conference call, Patrick Courrieleche, admitted in a blog that Shepard Fairey's "Hope" poster and will.i.am's song "Yes We Can" had a strong influence on Obama's election victory. Add to the mix the endorsements of almost every major film, television, and music celebrity, it's no wonder the Senator from Chicago won.

Well, now that Mr. Obama is in office one would think the publicity campaign would be over, but it's not. Last night's appearance with David Letterman is a continuation of the President's goal of building a loyal following among young adults; middle-aged folks and seniors don't stay up late to watch Letterman. The President continues to take advantage of the internet, social networking, and now the NEA to endear him to the hearts of the young.

This ought to alarm you.

It is reminiscent of the Hitler Youth, Mussolini's Italian Fascists youth movement, and Stalin's youth movement which has recently been re-ignited by Vladamir Putin. Get control of the young skulls of mush and in just a few years you will own the country. That's Obama's plan and we are seeing the early stages of it right now.

Never before has a sitting President enjoyed such friendly press coverage while at the same time showing up any time a camera is rolling. The country is so over-exposed to Mr. Obama that it's become unbearable to most older Americans, but that's how you win the younger ones. Just engage in a constant media blitz until you own their minds. That's how Obama won the White House, that's how he intends to never have to leave.

Is there anything he doesn't have his hand in? I doubt it. Even if there is, it's very little...and only a matter of time. We need to take heed to what the Bible says in II Chron. 7:14:

"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land."

Friends, some of you think I'm obsessed and off my rocker. You may be right....but what if you're wrong? What if we don't get our collective act together and fight to save our nation? What if we don't seek the God of heaven and beg for his help? If I'm wrong, all you lose is a little of your time. If I'm right and we do nothing, you will be selling your children into socialism. Is that really what you want?

Jimmy Carter, Help - NY Needs You!!

2009-09-21T16:01:00.000-04:00

Does anybody have former President Carter's phone number? I want to give him a call.

I want to call him because I have a brand new assignment for the self-appointed national caretaker of racial unity. I need him to hit the network news and start accusing the opponents of N.Y. Governor David Pattersen of racism. That's right, racism.

Apparently, Gov. Pattersen has been taking a lot of heat for his decision to run for office in 2010 despite his dismal approval ratings. New York's first black governor inherited the job from disgraced former governor Elliot Spitzer, who resigned in the midst of a prostitution scandal, but has been unable to hold on to the initial favor he received from N.Y. voters. As a result, there are those in the Democrat party who are trying to persuade Pattersen to bow out of the 2010 race.

Who are these people, you might ask? Well, well, well, I am so glad you brought it up.

As it turns out, President Obama and/or members of his staff have been in quiet contact with their fellow Democrat to dissuade him from seeking a new term. They know he'll probably lose to any Republican candidate regardless of who it is, yet they can't run a primary against him and still come out looking good. The party machine wants Andrew Cuomo on the ballot because his star power would be tough to defeat in the downstate area, whereas Pattersen will have a difficult time winning anywhere.

What's most amazing about this story is that ideologically speaking, Pattersen and Cuomo are almost identical. If ever there was a case of opposing a sitting politician based on reasons other than ideology and performance, this is it. The fact is, Governor Pattersen is towing the Democrat line to perfection; he has presided over the biggest and most deficit-laden budget in N.Y. history, he has proposed and supported massive tax increases, overtures to the homosexual agenda, continued legislative secrecy in Albany, and liberal cause after liberal cause. He has been the perfect left-wing governor.

So what's the party beef?

Could it possibly be the fact that Pattersen is black and Cuomo is white? Maybe the Democrats in Washington and Albany are convinced a black man can't win in N.Y. State. Perhaps they feel the need to pander to white interests in order to keep the Governor's Mansion.

Jimmy Carter, we need you!! We need your cat-calls of racism to stop this injustice against our beloved Governor Pattersen!!

I'm being sarcastic, of course. Pattersen is not being opposed because of the color of his skin but because he is not well favored in his state. Just as the first priority of the individual politician is to get re-elected, the first priority of a political party is to keep all the seats it currently occupies. It's far more important to President Obama and the Democrat machine to keep the N.Y. Governor's Mansion in party hands than it is to promote the state's first black governor. In a very subtle way, the White House is proving the truth that these races are never about the color of a candidate's skin. At least that is, unless Pattersen does stay in the race and face a Republican challenger.

If that happens I can guarantee the left will ratchet up the racism speech, the same way they've been doing recently in the health care debate. If Pattersen wants the job, and that's the only way to make sure he gets it, that's what the party will do. For now though, Jimmy Carter sits on the sidelines waiting to see what happens.

To Gov. Pattersen's credit he has so far not caved to Obama and Cuomo. He announced over the weekend that he fully intends to run in 2010 despite what the national party wants. Good for him. It will be my pleasure to vote for his opponent when the time comes. As for the pressure being brought to bear by thew White House, I have but one question. Is there anything going on in this country that Obama doesn't have his fingers in? Everywhere we look it's Obama this, Obama that. He's going on David Letterman this week, for crying out loud!

Go ahead and accuse me of just being anti-Obama; accuse me of just wanting to oppose anything this man does because I'm a racist, bigot, homophobe, and right-wing conservative. Sticks and stones may break my bones...

The truth is, any student of history knows that all past dictators of any length and stature have one thing in common: a cult-like following that initially propelled them to power. From the Roman emperors who were thought to be gods, to Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini, to Saddam Hussein and Iran's President Ahmadinejad; they all played the pied-piper song of hope to the masses only to turn on them after taking control. What's happening with the current Administration is no different.

Be careful dear Land of the Free. History will not look kindly on a nation that replaces the One True God with a mere mortal who makes himself out to be god-like. The statists are on the march.....and they have their hands in everything. Be careful dear Land of the Free, do be careful.

Deval Patrick: No John Quincy Adams

2009-09-19T15:44:00.000-04:00

I've been doing a lot of reading about our nation's forefathers recently, including a book by William J. Federer entitled America's God and Country - Encyclopedia of Quotations; a book containing over 700 pages of quotes from various statesmen, politicians, authors, and documents from America's past. While I've found just about all the quotes to be very good so far, the ones that strike me the most are those from the men and women who were instrumental in the American Revolution and the founding of our Republic. I find I can only read a few pages at a time before I am overwhelmed and must close the book.

Especially stirring to my soul have been the pages referencing John Adams, his wife Abigail, son John Quincy Adams, and cousin Samuel. This family had a Supernatural understanding of the connection between the Christian principles of their faith and the establishment of our constitutional government. There was no question in their minds that the United States of America was a Divine project; no "Great Experiment" conjured up in the imaginations of mere men, but the will of the Creator birthed by the Holy Ghost in hearts longing for liberty.

In light of that understanding, and with the travesty now taking place in the halls of the Massachusetts state legislature, I would challenge current Governor Deval Patrick to listen to a quote by another former Massachusetts governor, Samuel Adams, who said:

"He therefore is the truest friend to the liberty of this country who tries to promote its virtue, and who, so far as his power and influence extend, will not suffer a man to be chosen into any office of power and trust who is not a wise and virtuous man...The sum of all is, if we would most truly enjoy this gift of Heaven, let us become a virtuous people."

I am not surprised to see the state legislature of Massachusetts on the verge of changing their succession laws to once again favor the Democrat party in the Senate. They did it once before when it appeared John Kerry might vacate his seat, and now with the death of Senator Kennedy, they are poised to do it again to protect the filibuster-proof Senate in the wake of the pending health care vote.

I'm also not surprised to hear that the White House has been pressing hard for a change in the law, despite the previous assertions that the issue was strictly a state issue. The White House was intimately involved in appointing the replacement for President Obama's seat; why wouldn't they be involved in replacing one of their staunchest allies in the Senate?

What does surprise me though is the arrogance and brashness being shown throughout the whole process. It used to be that such an obvious case of dirty politics was hidden from the public eye. Middle-of-the-night votes and back-door politics would carry out the plans of the the crooks, with no one being the wiser until the next day when it was a done deal. But oh, how times have changed my friends!

Now the government of the people, by the people, and for the people, for all intents and purposes says, "To hell with the people!" The White House, the U.S. Senate, and the Massachusetts legislature and Governor can no longer stand behind the microphone and claim any moral high ground. They have flushed it down the toilet in their openly brazen maneuvering to steal yet another position of power.

The original bill, in case you didn't know, included a provision that would have required Governor Patrick to appoint a Democrat to fill Kennedy's seat. Why that provision was dropped, I don't know. But since this whole process has been crooked from the start, they might just as well go for it and go all the way. Hardly the stuff of wise and virtuous men, wouldn't you say?

To those who would criticize me for only going after the Democrat party let me say, you're wrong. This issue is not about Democrat vs. Republican, it's about tyranny vs. liberty. This type of thing is wrong no matter who does it, it's just that the Democrats control everything and they're the ones pulling the garbage right now. But whether it's changing succession laws, gerrymandering, manipulating the census, re-writing primary rules, or whatever. Changing the law for the sole purpose of benefiting a particular political party or agenda is just plain immoral. It's not what this country was founded on and it certainly won't work for the benefit of the nation.

So Governor Patrick - the bill may temporarily be stalled by a procedural maneuver, but you will have the opportunity to sign it next week. Will you heed the advice of Samuel Adams and promote virtue by vetoing the bill? Probably not. Once it's signed will you heed Mr. Adam's advice by committing to only appoint a Kennedy successor who is a wise and virtuous person? Do you have the courage to follow the example of our nation's forefathers, or will you cave to the Chicago-thug politics of Barack Obama, Rahm Emanuel, and David Axelrod?

If I were a betting man...

When the Facts Fail, Play the Race Card

2009-09-17T10:33:00.000-04:00

A little more than a week has gone by since Rep. Joe Wilson interrupted President Obama's healthcare speech with cries of, "You Lie!", during a joint session of Congress. In the midst of all the political wrangling that quickly ensued, former President Jimmy Carter, who is arguably the worst president this nation has ever had, once again showed his true colors by accusing Wilson of racism. That's right out of the old Democrat play book. Don't talk about the substance of the criticism, don't consider the fact the Wilson was right; instead just impugn his character by calling him a racist.

While the debate over healthcare reform has prompted cries of racism against those who oppose it, so has criticism of every initiative put forth by this Administration simply because of the color of the President's skin. But what about the truth? Why can't those on the left ever discuss anything of substance based on the relevant facts? Why can't they honestly assess the policies and programs they put forth and then prove their value, worth, and integrity in a manner that is intellectually honest? They can't because doing so would mean certain defeat in the public arena.

Let's take the President's stimulus package passed earlier this year as an example. Many, many fiscal conservatives voiced opposition to the plan as nothing but political payback that would do nothing for the economy in either the short or long-term. These voices were soundly criticized by leftists in Washington, the mainstream media, and the internet; usually by either calling them out-and-out racists, or implying they were partisan hacks trying to deny the first black President any victory whatsoever. No attempt was made to analyze the stimulus bill based on its own merits; just character assassination by the left. As always though, if we wait long enough the truth eventually comes out.

Speaking of the truth....

Yesterday, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano put the brakes on any new border security building projects until her department has done a full review of how their portion of the stimulus money is being doled out. At the center of the issue is the fact that millions of dollars have been spent on small projects that benefit the Administration's friends, while larger and more important projects are passed over. Interestingly enough, it's a complaint being raised by some members of the President's own party.

North Dakota's Democrat Senator Byron Dorgan has voiced his displeasure, accusing Homeland Security of treating the stimulus package as a "bottomless pit" of money. Mr. Dorgan stated in a Wednesday interview that, "there's no common sense at all to a requirement that says you've got to put up a $15 million facility for a small port of entry that's host to about five vehicles an hour"; referring to a project in Whitetail, Montana where the daily number of border crossings averages three. Dorgan went on to say he didn't think the Whitetail project was a wise use of money while the nation is in such debt.

While the good Senator is correct in his assessment, I'm not going to let him off the hook so easily. Truth be known, his objections about the Whitetail project are not really based upon principles of sound fiscal management. He's unhappy because the $128 million in Homeland Security money designated for his state hasn't flowed as quickly has he would like. You see, Mr. Dorgan sits on the Senate Appropriations Committee. This committee is the pork barrel clearing house for the U.S. Senate and is responsible for all the money that leaves Washington to buy political favors in the Senator's individual districts. For Dorgan to criticize how Homeland Security is spending stimulus money is laughable.

All that aside, where are Jimmy Carter's accusations of racism against Senator Dorgan? Where is the outrage from Chris Matthews, Jon Stewart, and the New York Times? There is none, and there will be none, because the left only plays that card against its enemies. Let Joe Wilson, Rush Limbaugh, or Carl Rove make those complaints and you'll see the hair stand up on the back of Carter's neck.

In all of this there's an important lesson to be learned about liberty. The preservation of individual liberty requires honest debate that's based on truth and relevant facts. The truth is President Obama spent most of his speech last week lying to the nation; all of us who have read the bill know. The truth is the stimulus package is indeed nothing more than political payback to the Administration's friends; those of us who are following where the money is spent know.

If we continue to allow debate in this country to be based on emotion, partisanship, and name-calling, we will continue to see our liberties being eroded. In a name-calling contest the one who shouts the loudest and is most clever in his insults is usually the winner. Conservatism cannot win the name-calling debate because we don't engage in it, we debate facts. But if we don't actively and aggressively hold the left accountable for the things they say, our facts will be drowned out by a loud chorus of racism, bigotry, or whatever the talking-points of the day dictate.

I am encouraged by the tea parties, the town hall meetings, the astronomically high ratings that responsible news outlets are receiving; it tells me the citizens of this great nation are starting to pay attention. They understand that the current Washington establishment is getting dangerously out of hand, threatening our liberty, and they will not put up with it. I am hoping this continues like a wildfire in California. With every wind of leftist name-calling the flames will be fanned to burn hotter. With every lie that comes out of the White House and the Capitol more political acreage is ignited. Hopefully this fire will burn hotter, larger, and more swiftly until all of the leftists and their agenda are consumed at the ballot box.

So go ahead, Mr. Carter; go ahead all you leftists in the media; keep playing the race card every time someone criticizes the Administration. The vast majority of thinking Americans aren't buying it. In fact, it just makes you look like whining, bratty, three-year-olds who don't ever like being corrected. Oh, and Mr. Carter....since your stellar record in Washington gives you access to the bully pulpit, you might want to tone down your critical remarks of Joe Wilson and those like him. It's beginning to sound like you hate white folks.

Is the Senate Reading my Blog?

2009-09-15T15:21:00.000-04:00

Today is one of those rare occasions when I need to commend the U.S. Senate for doing something right; albeit for the wrong reason. What did they do to earn Kudos?

Well, a few days ago I wrote about the illegal activities of left-wing activist group ACORN, suggesting it was time to dismantle the organization and prosecute the criminals within it. The Senate, perhaps after reading my blog (yeah, right) took the first step in the process by voting to prohibit ACORN from receiving any future HUD money. The vote was pretty impressive by the way, 83 to 7.

This comes on the heels of yet another videotaped conversation in which ACORN employees in Brooklyn were approached by the same two people who busted the Baltimore and D.C. offices, with the same story, the same proposition, and the same results. As ACORN spokesperson Bertha Lewis continues to lash out at Mr. O'Keefe and Fox news, one wonders how many more tapes are waiting to be released. It also begs the question of Ms. Lewis, are you really that naive or do you just have no moral foundation?

As for ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, and all the left-wing newspapers, radio stations, and internet news outlets, you are once again proving you care nothing about journalistic integrity and honest reporting. The news media is supposed to be the harbinger of truth which allows a people to stay informed about what their government is doing, or in this case, not doing. The right to free speech, which is God-given and Constitutionally recognized, is designed to allow you the freedom of exposing corruption like that on display in ACORN. Yet you use that freedom to selectively feed your audience, turning them into the ignorant masses your heroes can control. Nice job, guys. You ought to be so proud....

Anyway, kudos to the Senate for cutting off at least this portion of ACORN's funding and also raising the possibility of future investigation. It would take a minor miracle to see the organization completely shut down and its leaders jailed, but I've witnessed miracles before. Let's hope and pray for the sake of liberty that God gives us one here.

Now, in regards to the reason the Senate undertook this action; don't kid yourself and think they suddenly received a small measure of virtue. They did it because the truth about ACORN is finally getting out to the general public. This group of community organizers has been crooked from day one and everyone in the Senate knows it. But up until now the mainstream media has managed to bury the issue and keep people in the dark. Local newspapers and TV stations have reported individual incidents with ACORN, but the news has never made it nationally. Thank the Good Lord for YouTube, Fox News, the internet, and the bloggers who have finally forced this issue out into the open.

Senators on both sides of the isle pay close attention to what's reported on Fox News because they know it's one of the sources the majority of average Americans get their information. So once Fox picked up the story and began to follow it, the Senators knew their constituents would be mad as hell, putting their jobs on the line. 2010 is already looking perilous for most of Washington incumbents; angry constituents don't make re-election any easier.

So off to the bully pulpit went the Senate to condemn the crooks at ACORN, cut them off at the bankroll, and begin whispers of investigation. But will they actually follow it through to the end? Only time will tell. In the meantime, we the American people need to keep the heat on. It's working.

Over the weekend the White House and some members of Congress got a lot closer to admitting the public option for healthcare reform is dead. They are smart enough to know that David Axelrod doesn't really mean what he said about Saturday's Tea Party protesters not being in agreement with the majority of Americans. Congress and Axelrod both know full well that most of us don't want anything to do with a government takeover of healthcare, but they've got to spin in order to placate their left-wing base. They also know they have to get something to Obama's desk before the session ends or all hopes for ramming through the rest of their agenda are lost.

That's the good news.

The bad news is that while the public option may be off the table for now, it will not be completely abandoned. In one of the viral videos of Obama that made the rounds in August, the President is heard speaking about his ultimate goal of government run healthcare. In this speech he talked about an incremental approach that may take tens years or so to complete, but that could eventually achieve his goal. Rep. Barney Frank echoed the very same sentiments over the summer, expressing the idea that he would support a bill that would pave the way for a future government takeover if it couldn't be achieved right now. There are plenty of other radicals in Congress who feel the same way.

So keep up the heat fellow patriots, don't let 'em rest for one moment. Oh, and Mr. O'Keefe....do you have any more of those tapes lying around?

Usama bin Laden is Right?

2009-09-14T15:41:00.002-04:00

Every year the world's most famous terrorist, Usama bin Laden, takes the occasion of the 9/11 anniversary to excoriate the United States of America. Typically he'll record a videotaped speech in which he opines about the evil of Israel, the hardship of his people, and the fact that America got what was coming to her. This annual blathering-on is usually filled with the sophomoric idiocies of a man who is so brainwashed by the philosophy of jihad that he can't think rationally. This year's offering was no exception. That being said however, the great Islamic guru did say two things that America would do well to wake up and consider.

The first is one of those things where someone makes a point which is correct, but for the wrong reasons. Such was the case when bin Laden stated President Obama is powerless to end the war in Afghanistan. He is absolutely correct in that, but not in his assessment that Obama's lack of power is the result of carrying on the policies of George Bush. Quite the contrary, the Administration is looking for any way to get out of the Middle East and still save face. If they could find a politically effective way to abandon the war on terror today, you can bet they would.

The reason President Obama is powerless to end the war is because he has no moral compass or core beliefs guiding his actions. Since the Declaration of Independence was signed, at the core of U.S. foreign policy has always been America's commitment to do the right thing whatever the cost. Many U.S. Presidents have not been faithful to that commitment in terms of foreign policy, but most have. The ideal of doing what's right is what led the U.S. to fight against Germany in WWII even though she had never attacked us. It was the right thing to do to defend South Korea and South Vietnam from the advancement of communism. It was the right thing to do when we attacked Iraq on behalf of Kuwait and then again to take down Saddam Hussein. And while I strongly disagree with how both President Bushes conducted their respective wars, they both did the morally right thing in getting involved.

By contrast, President Obama's only guiding principle is to do whatever it takes to amass and retain political power. If he were to take up the war where George Bush left off and do what Bush wouldn't (pull out all the stops to win decisively in Afghanistan and Iraq), his own party would abandon him, leaving him a lame duck for the remainder of his first term. He would have no shot at re-election either, thus his legacy would have him nothing more than a piece of garbage on the Washington trash heap. President Obama, like his previous three predecessors, doesn't have the moral fortitude and courage to risk his own political future to insure a swift and complete victory.

Unfortunately, that has been the sad tale of American military operations since the end of WWII. We lost in Korea and Vietnam because of a lack of a moral and ethical guideline. We failed to stand up for what's right in Somalia; we failed to finish the job we started in the first Gulf war; and after nearly eight years in Iraq and Afghanistan we are still fighting a war against opponents we should have destroyed in a matter of months. All because our leaders think of war in terms of political expediency rather than moral obligation. Islamic Jihad has no such problem. That's why a handful of zealots who are out numbered and inferior can continue to hold off against the world's strongest military force.

It is an insult to our men and women in uniform and to the founding fathers who gave their lives for liberty.

The second thing bin Laden stated was the fact that the 9/11 attacks were carried out because of America's support for Israel. Those of us who deal in reality knew that to be true all the while President Bush was claiming we were attacked because of our freedom and way of life. Days after the attack the President took the stage with several clerics of different faiths including a Muslim Imam, proclaiming that Islam is a religion of peace and we should not think otherwise. I'm not interested in arguing that point on it's face since al-Qaida by its own admission is engaged in jihad, a "holy war", whose only goal is the complete destruction of Israel. To say we were attacked because we are a free and open society is to betray one's ignorance of the reality of the Middle East.

Israel is an ally of the United States, and rightly so, but as long that's the case the U.S. will be the enemy of Iraq, Iran, Syria, Jordan, Libya, the PLO, and Saudi Arabia; by their choice, not ours. The sooner we understand that and stop playing patty-cake with the Arab world, the safer we will be. The Arabs claim Israel is the root of all the world's evil including the suffering of their own people; Adolf Hitler claimed the same thing, as did Nero and so many others who've attempted to wipe out the Jews.

But let's be honest.

Is it Israel's fault that Iraq denies its people economic prosperity while at the same time their neighbors in Kuwait are doing just fine economically? Was it the Israeli parliament that decided Afghani girls were not allowed to attend school, be seen out in public alone, or vote when they became adults? Which Jewish law threatened the safety and well-being of protesters after the Iranian elections?

The fact is, most of the Arab world exists under the totalitarian rule of Islamic law which, just like any other form of totalitarianism, requires absolute control of the populace in order to maintain power. Israel has nothing to do with the poverty of the Palestinians; it is the totalitarian Palestinian leadership that keeps its people in poverty and then blames Israel in order to foment hate among the faithful who will engage in jihad. No amount of negotiating and land cessation will end this cycle. The Arabs will not rest until Israel is wiped off the face of the earth, and any friend of hers will also be in the cross hairs of the Arab guns. Therefore, our foreign policy as it relates to the Arab world ought to be the same commitment of our founding fathers: we will do what's rights regardless of what anyone else thinks or does. In this case it means defending Israel to the death.

So Mr. bin Laden, despite all your moronic drivel you did get a couple things right. Thanks. It's unfortunate our government will not learn a lesson and destroy you where you stand.

It's Time Dismantle ACORN - Now!

2009-09-12T21:40:00.002-04:00

Just when I think I've reached the limits of incredulity something hits the news cycle and I'm once again in disbelief. This past Thursday video footage was released showing employees of the Baltimore office of ACORN offering assistance to a couple who claimed they wanted to open a brothel with underage illegals and needed help evading taxes. Of course, ACORN officials claimed the behavior was isolated, blaming the film maker for manufacturing a story. They also claimed while the couple succeeding in filming the improper behavior in Maryland, they failed in all the other attempts made at several additional offices. The film maker countered by releasing a second tape on Friday in which D.C. ACORN employees offered the exact same assistance to the couple.

Amazing...

The story itself isn't what has me incredulous, by the way; it's the fact that the only result has been the firing of four ACORN employees and the Census Bureau deciding to no longer allow ACORN to participate in the 2010 census.

HELLO AMERICA!!!

These Acorn employees gave illegal advice and offered to materially aid in setting up a brothel staffed by underage illegal immigrants. What on earth does this group have to do before they are investigated at the highest level and shut down? Does it matter to anyone in the Justice Department that earlier in the week a handful of ACORN workers in Florida were arrested for voter fraud? Does it matter that during last year's election ACORN workers all over the country were investigated and prosecuted for voter fraud? How about the two ACORN directors arrested in Vegas back in May; one of them pleaded guilty and will testify against the other. Does it matter that ACORN's main office is located in a former funeral home which is now owned by SIEU and which supposedly houses more than 270 entities?

ACORN is so blatantly corrupt and criminal in its activities that only a person with no ethical standards whatsoever could defend it. And what do the Feds do about it? They defend ACORN while announcing pending investigations of the CIA interrogators during the Gulf War. The Federal government is itself so blatantly corrupt they will not raise a finger against an organization who helped them steal both Congress and the White House. Is there any reason why we as citizens should trust anything they tell us?

I don't mean to continue beating this drum, but folks, this is reality. How can anyone in Washington be trusted to tell us the honest truth? Rep. Joe Wilson is a great example of my point. In my last blog I wrote about Mr. Wilson calling President Obama a liar during the healthcare speech on Wednesday night. The House, led by the blatantly corrupt Nancy Pelosi, is planning to discipline Wilson for breaking House rules of decorum, yet refuses to deal with the reality that the President was indeed lying. On national television no less!!

My friends, if ACORN is allowed to continue its operations unabated along with organizations like the SEIU, Code Pink, and others, forget about ever having a legitimate Federal election in this country again. Votes will be purchased with favors from the Federal gov't. in the form of free healthcare, mortgage bailouts, government subsidies for car purchases. The media will ignore scandal after scandal in favor of continuing the endless persecution of former Pres. Bush and former Vice-Pres. Cheney. Day after day Mr. Gibbs will take the podium and lie through his teeth in promoting Obama's agenda.

Oh wait a minute....those things are already happening.

Yes, they are - and the nation is in a big heap of trouble. We are on the verge of losing our country to a bunch of left-wing radicals who want to turn it into the United Socialist States of America. Everything they're doing is purposeful, pre-meditated, calculated, and ruthless; designed to destroy the institutions of liberty, capitalism, and justice in order to remake the country in their own image. And you know what the funny thing about it is? The radicals have been using Obama as a tool since his days in the Senate but that's all he is: a tool. Axelrod and Emanuel don't give a hoot about Obama or what will happen to him when he leaves office. In fact, if they found it politically expedient they would have no problem "arranging" for him to leave office early.

America needs to wake up and take to the streets; and we need to do it now. It's time we demand the prosecution and dismantling of ACORN and any like-minded organizations. Our country can be saved if we fight back, but it will be lost if we do nothing.

You Lie!!

2009-09-10T15:25:00.001-04:00

"You lie!", came the outburst from South Carolina Rep. Joe Wilson during President Obama's healthcare speech on Wednesday night, at a point were Mr. Obama stated illegal immigrants would not be insured by the proposed healthcare reform bill. Soon after the speech Mr. Wilson called the President an offered his apology for being out of line, and to his credit, Obama accepted it graciously and commented on it publicly. Yet today the Democrats are calling for censure of Rep. Wilson for breaking the rules of House decorum.

Bah, humbug!

Party affiliation aside, it is my humble opinion that decorum has stifled honest debate in the halls of Congress. I'm all for being polite and following basic guidelines, but a House rule stating that a Representative is not allowed to call the President a liar is absurd. If the shoe fits, wear it! And by the way, where were all the catcalls from the decorum police when Congress was calling George Bush a liar? Nowhere, of course, because they are allowed to do as they please. But I digress....

The House and Senate rules of debate were originally established to maintain order in the chambers when business was being conducted. It was not necessarily a bad idea at first, but like anything politicians do, the Washington crowd figured out how to expand, tweak, and apply the rules in order to squelch honest debate. Anyone who has watched C-SPAN during Congressional debates knows how boring and meaningless those debates are.The current rules of debate don't allow for robust, passionate, and tell-it-like-it-is speech, so the pompous men and women of Congress get to play the bully pulpit with lie after lie.

I say it's time we flushed the rules of decorum and opened it up a bit. Sort of the way they do in the British and Canadian Parliaments. I would love to see Joe Wilson stand up and challenge Nancy Pelosi in a passionate debate about the facts. Let him call her a liar and make her prove her honesty. If Pelosi wants to counter-charge, so be it; as long as the rules dictated that the charges had to be answered with facts and not a political runaround.

I know.. it'll never happen in the hallowed halls of the U.S. Capitol. Our spineless, yellow-bellied, arrogant Congressional leaders don't have the courage to stand up to real debate. Instead they speak in veiled words of the "politico"; a Washington language with it's own definitions, syntax, and sentence structure; a language the average American doesn't understand. And in the end, both sides of the isle work together to ultimately get what they want.

I would love to see a presidential candidate hit the campaign trail without a single speech writer. Just say what's on your mind, man! We're normal people and we want to know what you think in your own words, not the words of an Ivy League English Major. If you think your opponent "sucks", just say so; if it hurts his feelings maybe he shouldn't be running for office. For crying out loud, the media used some of the harshest language against Sarah Palin I have ever witnessed during the campaign last year. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Now, don't misunderstand...I'm not proposing we be crude, rude, and disrespectful. I'm simply saying our leaders need to start speaking honestly, clearly, and in a straight-forward manner. They need to suck it up and find the courage to have real debate, use truthful facts, and not try to squelch public opinion.

Will I ever see that in my lifetime?

A guy can dream, can't he?

Liberty, Virtue, and Morality

2009-09-08T15:30:00.006-04:00

On June 21, 1776, John Adams (the future 2nd President of the U.S.) wrote:

"Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand.

The only foundation of a free Constitution is pure Virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People in a greater Measure, than they have it now, they may change their Rulers and the forms of Government, but they will not obtain a lasting liberty."

From where does liberty come? Is it granted to men by human government or some other external source? The Declaration of Independence reveals the Founding Father's belief that it is ordained to every man by his Creator; the God of the Bible. It's no wonder that John Adams wrote what he did then, as virtue and morality are part of one's obligation to God. What the above quote reveals is the nature of liberty - the fact that while it is ordained by God, it is also conditional upon man's response in virtue and morality. To help you understand, let me use the crude but sufficient example of the criminal justice system.

We have courts and prisons for the express purpose of punishing and correcting those who break the law. In a sense, our law guarantees us freedom from the criminal justice system as long as we obey the laws of the land. Upon breaking the law we are no longer free from the system; if we are caught we will be prosecuted and if found guilty, punished. The more serious the crime, the more serious the punishment.

Liberty works much the same, though from a positive perspective as compared to the negative perspective of criminal justice. God has bestowed upon mankind the liberty to live freely and make his own choices, but with the responsibility to do so based on morality and virtue. As a nation begins to turn its back on morality and virtue, liberty begins to diminish in direct proportion. In a society completely void of morality and virtue the political end result is always despotism.

"Why is that?", you might ask. Well, it's due to the selfish nature of the human heart. Where selfishness is allowed to override morality and virtue, individuals begin to make decisions based not on what's best for the nation as a whole, but on what's best for themselves. Judgment is often clouded when we think this way; what we think is best for us is more likely to actually be what's worst in a given situation.

Take the drug user for example.

There are millions of Americans who smoke pot on a regular basis and think that it ought to be made legal in the United States. Their judgment is clouded by their own desire to get high, so they are unable to rationally acknowledge the scientific and empirical evidence proving that smoking dope is destructive to a society. Without the moral virtue dictating that dope smoking is wrong, eventually all drug use will become socially acceptable, if not legal. This leads to a slippery slope of supporting politicians who will legalize drug use.

When a society upholds the basics of morality and virtue, those fundamental beliefs guide the individual in understanding that his neighbor's liberty is just as important as his. He will not support a politician who would grant him his desires while denying the liberty of someone else. Morality and virtue will not allow for it. In contrast, a man who is void of morality and virtue cares nothing about the liberty of his neighbor as long as he gets what he wants. Politicians use this to play one constituency against another, creating the environment in which the voter asks, "What's in it for me?"

Have you ever noticed modern politicians never echo the famous words of John F. Kennedy's "ask not" speech? Instead, American politics has become a popularity contest based on what each candidate promises to give the people. They do that because they understand where we are as a culture and society. They understand we have digressed to a society largely void of morality and virtue, and operating on the selfish principles of individual desire.

It is indeed tragic.

The way out of this mess is to return to morality and virtue, which must begin in the pulpits of America. If liberty is ordained and bestowed by God, only he can give back what we have squandered. He will do so, but only if his people return to holiness. Pastors, preachers, and teachers must stand up for righteousness behind their pulpits come hell or high water. They must call sin what it is and call men to repentance. God promises in II Chron. that he will hear the genuine cry of repentance and heal a nation.

Next, we need to fundamentally change education in this country by pulling our children out of the public school system and teaching them ourselves. The fact of the matter is the public school system is no longer concentrating on teaching the "three R's" of years gone by. They have become government indoctrination centers designed to produce a generation of comrades loyal to the government system. Most Americans deny this truth but the proof is in the pudding. Just compare an American History textbook from 1909 with one from 2009; it's all there for anyone who will be intellectually honest.

Morality and virtue must also be restored to the daily education of kids. If education is really supposed to be about preparing our kids to take their place in society, how can we rationally exclude morality and virtue? They are a part of everyday life; every human relationship, plans for the future, making past wrongs right, and so on. We do our kids and our country a great disservice by excluding morality and liberty from their education.

John Adams got it right, my friends. The liberty ordained by God is conditional on man's willingness to practice and hold dear the principles of morality and virtue. We can argue about it all day long, but our liberty continues to slip away on a daily basis. if we don't stop arguing and start changing, it will soon be gone forever.

What's the Healthcare Issue Really About?

2009-09-05T14:23:00.004-04:00

Like most Americans, I've been keenly aware of the healthcare debate and all the so-called "reforms" being bandied about in Washington. I've talked to countless people, read article after article, listened to political pundits in the media, and even attended a town hall meeting that my Congressional representative was too scared to attend. All these things are certainly good, but there's still something missing in the whole discussion.

Toward the end of the town hall meeting, an older man stood up and encouraged all of the attendees to do more than just talk about the healthcare issue; he said that we needed to start writing letters to our Senators and Congresspersons because they really do listen. A point I agree with...but only to a certain extent. Letters and phone calls may help slow down, or even stop, the current healthcare legislation being debated in Congress, but this issue is only the tip of the iceberg.

What's so conspicuously missing in this entire discussion is that the struggle is really not about healthcare reform at all. Sure, it's part of the equation, but only a small part. The real issue is government control over the lives of the American public. This Administration is hell-bent on destroying our economy, social institutions, communications, infrastructure, and American traditions in order to turn this nation into an oligarchy; a nation ruled by a small aristocracy with very limited individual freedom.

Perhaps you think I'm out of my mind? Well let me offer three pieces of evidence as proof.

First, we'll use the aforementioned healthcare bill currently in the halls of Congress. Page 16 of H.R. 3200 speaks about what will be deemed "acceptable coverage" should this bill become law. By "acceptable coverage" Congress means that which is allowed by law to exist. A careful reading of the language reveals there are only two types of acceptable coverage: the government's public plan and any private plan that is not changed in any way once the law kicks in. If you think that's OK, think again.

EVERY private health insurance plan changes on an annual basis, that's why employees have to determine their enrollment every January. The mere act of holding open enrollment constitutes a change in policy; so does a change in premium, the amount of coverage offered, new services being covered, etc., etc. The fact is, under this bill private insurance will be completely eliminated within two enrollment cycles - IT HAS TO BY LAW!!!!

Now why would the government want to implement this? Because they want total control over every aspect of the citizen's lives. They want to eliminate any freedom of choice in any area of life in order to produce a people that is completely dependent on them for everything. It's exactly what the Nazis did with Germany's healthcare long before the Holocaust began; they used it to gain control of the hearts and minds of the citizenry in order to further their cause later on.

Second, we'll use the Cap and Trade bill that's also working its way through Washington. The bill allegedly aims to reduce green house gases and stop global warming by requiring manufacturers and other "dirty" industries to purchase pollution credits. Individual companies could only release pollutants into the air in proportion to the number of credits they have, and could purchase additional credits from those who have extra. Again, you may think this is OK but stop and give it some serious thought.

First and foremost, global warming is one of the biggest political hoaxes ever perpetrated by the left in the history of this country. But even setting that aside, one needs to ask the question, "Who will be in charge of selling the credits and determining how many a company can have?" You guessed it, the Federal government. If the real goal was to eliminate green house gases, why not just put limits on emissions all across the board? That would achieve the goal without any money changing hands.

The answer lies in the fact that the power to tax is the power to control. Call them whatever you like, the government's "carbon credits" are nothing more than a tax with a catchy name. By issuing the credits the Federal government has the power to shut down or boost any company it so desires. Common sense dictates they will be friendly to union-run businesses and others who support their causes with donations, and unfriendly to those they deem to be enemies. How is global warming helped by this? It's not. That's OK in Washington because the goal is not to reduce greenhouse gases; the goal is to control American business to the benefit of the aristocracy.

Finally, a little gem that hasn't gotten much media attention: Jay Rockefeller's bill designed to give the President power to seize and control private computer networks and internet access in the United States should he decide a cyber-emergency exists. Rockefeller insists that his bill is similar to the power the President had to ground all air traffic after the 9/11 attacks in N.Y. and Washington. The comparison however, is apples and oranges.

An air attack is easily defined and defended against in the mind of any sane individual. Clear parameters exist as to what a valid threat is, how to avoid it, and when to clear the airlines to begin flying again. Furthermore, grounding all air traffic in no way stifles political opposition to the President and his agenda.

By contrast, the average American doesn't know enough about computer systems and networks to understand what constitutes a legitimate cyber threat. There is no evidence of a threat that people can comprehend in the same way they can when seeing planes crashing into buildings. The president could claim any threat he wanted and no one would know the difference. There is also no imminent physical danger to the populace in the case of a cyber attack; at worst it's a severe inconvenience if computer networks go down. And as for stifling political opposition, that's exactly why the Administration wants this power.

The internet is a vast source of knowledge and communication that is enabling people to finally leave behind the network news and think for themselves. For example, if it weren't for the internet how many Americans would have read the healthcare bill? Very few, I suspect. One would need to contact Congress, request a copy, send a payment, and then sit and wait for it to arrive in the mail. With government as inefficient as it is that could take months, if not years. But with the internet the bill can be downloaded in under two minutes; anyone with internet access can find out the truth about Washington if they want to look. By simply announcing a possible cyber threat, the Administration can deny the American citizens access to any information that opposes their agenda. Pretty sneaky, huh?

With these examples I've outlined three major areas the government wants to control: individual health, the sustaining of private business, and the ability to freely communicate. Now, put on your thinking cap and ask the question, "What will happen if the government gains control of all three of these things?"

Oligarchy. A nation ruled and controlled by a small aristocracy; a nation that will eventually be ripe for total Communism. A country where life & death, the economy, and free speech all lie in the hands of government. Sound scary?

Friends, it may be time to write letters to our elected officials, but even if we defeat the healthcare bill the radical left will not stop. They have been working patiently at this for over a hundred years and they'll keep working at it until they succeed or we defeat them. It's time we take to the streets; thousands upon thousands of people in every city across this country demanding the government put the brakes on. Then come November we vote out every single incumbent, repeating the process every November until term-limits become law.

We must totally crush the enemy on the left. If we don't, they will continue their slow and methodical march to total power. Maybe they won't succeed in our lifetime, but they will succeed if we don't stop them.

Need a Senate Seat? Change The Rules!

2009-09-03T13:08:00.007-04:00

With the recent death of Massachusetts senator Ted Kennedy, the question of how his replacement is chosen looms over the state and to a lesser degree, the nation as well. Senators and Representatives come and go on a regular basis and states have different ways of selecting successors. What makes the Massachusetts case so compelling and important is Senator Kennedy himself.

Back when John Kerry was running for president in 2004, Republican Mitt Romney held the governor's office and would have had the legal state authority to name a Kerry replacement should he win the White House. Senator Kennedy, concerned about having another Senate seat go to the opposition, pressed the Massachusetts legislature to change the law to require a special election for choosing replacements for empty Congressional seats. Mister Kennedy opined about how Congressional representation was far too important to be left to the choice of a single man; the state legislature acquiesced and the law was changed.

Fast forward to August of 2009 as the senator was facing his own mortality, and lo and behold, he had a miraculous change of heart. Suddenly the special election was not a good thing with his passing on the horizon, Congressional representation was far too important to allow his seat to remain vacant for a few months. Once again Kennedy asked the Massachusetts legislature to change the law to allow Democrat governor Deval Patrick to fill the seat.

And the beat goes on...

The beat of career politicians who care more about power and legacy than they do about doing what's right. To Gov. Patrick's credit he has set primaries for December and a special election for January. But as far as good news from the Governor's office on this issue, that's as far as it goes. Mr. Patrick has decided he agrees with Senator Kennedy and is now pressing the legislature to once again change the law. If they indeed decide to do so it will prove once again that our government at all levels is corrupt beyond hope.

Massachusetts House Republican Leader Brad Jones said something a few days ago that I whole-heartedly agree with: "The game has started if you will, and changing the rules in the middle of the game isn't agreeable to anybody and shouldn't be agreeable to anybody." Right on Mr. Jones!! The Massachusetts legislature changed the rules once when they feared they could lose Kerry's seat, and now they want to do it again to keep the U.S. Senate filibuster-proof.

To the legislators and Governor of the Bay State: Just how dumb do you think we are? We know this is nothing more than a political game being played with the healthcare debate as the backdrop. I would suggest to you folks that if the healthcare debate hinges on a single vote in the Senate, it's probably a bill that should be put off until after the special election. What's the rush? Can't Congress wait until the new 2010 term? What are they afraid of that they must do this now?

This controversy of Kennedy's seat reminds me an awful lot of the Florida fiasco which resulted from the Gore/Bush election in 2000. No matter how the votes were counted, in the end George Bush won Florida fair and square. Even two years after the election various newspaper, media, and private organizations that were allowed to count ballots on their own came to the same conclusion: Bush won. Yet in the weeks immediately following the vote, Gore lawyers and supporters petitioned the state courts time and again to change the ballot counting rules so they would favor Mr. Gore. Of course they didn't admit their intent, but we all knew what it was. Finally, thank the Good Lord above, the Supreme Court put a stop to the whole matter by essentially throwing the case back to Florida on the basis that election law cannot be changed in the middle of vote counting.

Despite the political catcalls from the left, it was the correct decision. There is simply no justification for petitioning a court to allow election procedures to be changed in the middle of the counting or certifying process. If the Supreme Court had allowed that to happen no subsequent election could be determined to be legitimate. Rules could be changed at the discretion of the party with whom certification resides, resulting in the ruling party always winning. That's not an election, that's despotism!

Likewise, if the Massachusetts legislature changes their laws again they signal to the other states that the voice of the people no longer needs to be heard when filling vacant seats. This begs the question, "What next?" Will state legislatures start meddling in primary races? Will they begin interfering in general elections, state elections, and even local ones? Don't laugh, this is entirely possible in the current political climate!

The ballot box is our only legal tool for controlling who gains public office and who doesn't. I don't much care how the left paints the Kennedy seat issue, changing the rules again is wrong. I hope those in power recognize this and let the seat remain empty until a legitimate special election is held. But knowing the way politics works, I'm not holding my breath.

The Constitution is Fine, Thank You

2009-09-02T15:10:00.000-04:00

I was visiting the dentist this morning for a cavity and a temporary crown, and was lucky enough to be entertained by a rather fascinating exchange between the doctor and his assistant. Little did they know their words would be fodder for a blog!!

Anyway, the dentist was relaying a conversation he'd had with some friends the previous evening. As they talked about government, and more specifically the current healthcare debate, he found he was among a group of six who were opposed to the plan while one man, whom the dentist described as being "an older gentleman", was the sole defender of nationalized healthcare. Somehow the idea U.S. Constitution entered the discussion to which this older man made a remarkable statement. He said something along the lines of the Constitution, being written so long ago, needs to be changed because things have changed dramatically since the 1770s; that some of the Constitutional limits placed on government should be removed to adapt to current conditions.

The good doctor remarked how he was surprised to hear that point of view, especially from an older person. With a mouthful of cotton and Novocaine, and unable to speak, I thought to myself, "That's really not so unusual." You see, the doc and I are about the same age so this "older" man was more than likely part of the Baby Boom generation. The generation that brought us Timothy Leary, the drug culture, and "free love"; the generation that adopted and institutionalized the entitlement mentality. Unfortunately, they are the generation that believes, by-and-large, in the government's responsibility to behave like a national mother.

I would love to ask those who think this way what has changed so dramatically in the last 250 years as to require the government to be less restricted.

"Oh, the current economic crisis. The government needs more power and authority to fix it!"

Oh, really? Who do you think caused the current economic crisis? It was the Federal government, my friends.

Back during the Carter years a handful of do-gooders in Congress decided it was unfair that some folks could afford to buy a house while others couldn't. That decision in itself was idiotic, since life is unfair and no amount of legislation can change it, but to make matters worse they decided legislation was needed allowing lower income families the ability to get mortgages. Well, the Carter economy was so bad the legislation didn't get much traction then, but it was revived under Bush Sr. and took off under Clinton. Congress asked the banks to lend money to people who couldn't afford it and they (the government) would guarantee the loans.

Most banks refused so the Fed "encouraged them" to go along by threatening the cash supply. Eventually the banks compromised, agreeing to make the loans if Congress made it legal for them to bundle the bad mortgages with other investments and sell them to investment banks after a year. Congress said, "Done and done", and millions of Americans who couldn't afford a house bought one.

In the early 2000s bank regulators appeared before Congress on numerous occasions to warn the housing market was indeed a house of cards, ready to topple at the least amount of disturbance. Rather than sit up and pay attention, powerful Congresspersons including the honorable and trustworthy Barney Frank, scolded the regulators and claimed everything was fine. Well, you know the rest of the story.

The current economic mess was fueled by the housing problem; a problem that never would have occurred had the government kept its nose out of the mortgage banking business. And we need to change the Constitution to give these people more power and authority? I don't think so. The Constitution is just fine, thank you.

I won't belabor the point here, but I could go through the historical evidence and show you how the current price of healthcare and the millions of uninsured in this country are a direct result of continued government intervention since the 1970s. The government has given us Medicare and Medicaid, HMOs, Bush's prescription drug coverage for Seniors, and countless other mandates and entitlements which have caused the price of healthcare to go through the roof. If they would sit down, shut up, and let the American people take care of themselves, the prices would come down and the number of insured go up.

Folks, you name the crisis and it can be proven that government has a large role to play in it. We don't need more of the same. Whenever government gets involved we lose more liberty and freedom, more economic prosperity, more security, and more stature on the world stage. Think about it for a minute; government really has only three purposes: to protect the citizenry from its enemies, to represent us to foreign governments, and to maintain civil order. Anything beyond these three is bad news for the common man.

The U.S. Constitution is a document designed to limit the power of government, not define the rights of the people. We don't need to change it, giving our elected officials more power to allegedly solve all our problems. Instead we need to limit government power, take personal responsibility for ourselves and our nation, and fix the problems on our own.

To that older man my dentist mentioned this morning, I have only this to say:

The Constitution is fine, thank you.

Separation of Church and State: A NH Court Violates the Constitution

2009-08-31T13:53:00.002-04:00

How often do we hear the anti-religion crowd cry foul over prayer at a public meeting; the reference to God in the Pledge and on our currency; the singing of real Christmas songs in a public school? The cry is always the same: "Separation of church and state!", they scream, contending that any form of religious display in a government or public sanctioned event is a violation of the Constitution. Yet where is the outrage from these people now that a New Hampshire court has ruled that a 10 year-old girl is not entitled to her religious beliefs?

For those who don't know, a family court in New Hampshire was forced to intervene when a divorced couple could not come to agreement regarding their daughter's education. The mother, who has primary custody of the child, has been homeschooling her daughter since kindergarten while her father believes she ought to attend public school. The court decided, depending heavily on the advice of the child's court-appointed guardian, that the girl must attend public school. On what was this decision based? Not on the academic achievment of the girl; she is an excellent student whose educational progress has never been questioned. Instead, it was based on the religious views of the girl and her mother, both born-again Christians.

This is a classic case of Patrick Henry's cause: the individual liberties of American citizens being trampled on by the government that is supposed to be protecting them. The case in question here is one of individual liberty and the ruling is just plain wrong on so many levels.

First and foremost, whether or not you believe in religious freedom and separation of church and state, consider the issue of jurisdiction. What I mean by this is the fact that American courts, regardless of the level, only have jurisdiction in matters of law. That is, they can only hear a case, let alone rule on one, as it pertains to existing law. The court has no jurisdiction to create law, violate law, circumvent law, or "fine tune" it to serve its own agenda.

In regard to this particular case, the issue is the education of a child. New Hampshire and Massachusetts both have very clear regulations defining what is an acceptable and legal education program for the children in their state. As it is in all 50 states, homeschooling is completely legal in both New Hampshire and Massachusetts as long as parents meet the state's minimum requirements; something the child's mother has always done without question. The only ruling the court had jurisdiction to make then, was the issue of custody and decision-making power. It has no authority to rule on whether or not the child's education is sufficient. State law already defines a sufficient education and the child's mother has always met the legal requirements.

Second, the Constitution makes it abundantly clear that state education law must be completely free from any religious mandate. The religious views of a student and his parents are never to be considered when determining whether or not a child's education is satisfactory; it is not the public school's domain to determine religious views. It is their domain to teach reading, math, history, science, etc. Therefore, the court-appointed guardian in this case over-stepped her boundaries when considering the child's religious beliefs in relation to her education. By ruling as it did, the court has given the public education system the role of being the counter-balance to religious view; something the court has no jurisdiction to do, and the public school system no authority to implement.

Third, and most disturbing, is the guardian's assessment combined with the court's ruling which stated the child "would be best served by exposure to different points of view at a time in her life when she must begin to critically evaluate multiple systems of belief and behavior."

In that statement the court decided that it alone was the final arbiter on what the child should and should not believe. Call it what you want, but that's a blatant violation of the U.S. Constitution. The court decided that the child's religious beliefs were only hers because they are all she had ever been exposed to; the implication being that those views are invalid because she wasn't exposed to the beliefs of other kids. That's also a blatant violation of the U.S. Constitution. The court has no more authority to make that ruling as it would to rule that a child couldn't make an informed choice about child pornography unless he is exposed to it first hand. It is patently absurd.

The guardian in this case ought to be fired for violating the first amendment rights of the child and both her parents. The judge should be immediately impeached for seizing and exercising authority not given him by the Constitution.

As for the parents, both of them need to be reprimanded and locked in a room until they can come to some sort of agreement. As long as we continue to act like children and force the courts to solve our disagreements, we will be surrendering more and more liberty to a government system that's all too happy to take it away.

Is Christian Patriotism Scripturally Justifiable?

2009-08-28T16:16:00.005-04:00

As long as the United States has existed there has also existed a debate among evangelical Christians as to whether or not Christian Patriotism is Scripturally justifiable. With the current political landscape as volatile as it is, this question is again making the rounds among Christian teachers and preachers. Having been asked about it several times myself, I felt it necessary to put down in writing my official position on the matter.

In order to get started we must define the word "patriotism" which, according to Webster's dictionary means, "Love of one's country; the passion which aims to serve one's country, either in defending it from invasion, or protecting its rights and maintaining its laws and institutions in vigor and purity. Patriotism is the characteristic of a good citizen, the noblest passion that animates a man in the character of a citizen."

Armed with this definition it must also be understood that the main questions of the argument are:

Should Christians hold and demonstrate a love for country?
Should Christians participate in civil disobedience?
Is there ever justifiable reason for Christians to engage in armed revolt?

The answers to these questions are of paramount importance in light of the fact that our forefathers wrote in the Declaration of Independence, "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."

If indeed their actions were Biblically unjustified, our entire nation was founded on the sin of rebellion and is therefore illegitimate in the eyes of God. If, on the other hand, their actions were Biblically justified, are we not now compelled to follow in their footsteps in throwing off the current tyrannical Washington Machine?

Let's begin with the question of holding and demonstrating a love for country. Critics of Christian Patriotism suggest that love for country is unbiblical in light of the Hebrews passage regarding Abraham's vision of a heavenly country. Scripture states:

"By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing where he went. By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise: for he looked for a city which has foundations, whose builder and maker is God." [Heb. 11:8-10]

The argument is made that since we are here only temporarily and the earth will eventually pass away, we should not be loyal or attached in any way to the United States; there is no room for love of country because we as Christians seek a heavenly country. That sounds reasonable if you throw away Old Testament History. While Abraham certainly looked for the heavenly country God was preparing, he also knew that God had promised him and his descendants a physical land on this earth. So much so that he gave very clear instructions that Isaac was not to return to his former homeland (Gen. 24).

We clearly see God repeating to Israel time and again the fact that he brought them into a "land flowing with milk and honey", thereby implying that it was superior to the land they came from. He reminded them at the time of the Babylonian captivity that he would restore them to their land while also promising to restore Israel to her former glory.

Furthermore, the prophets of God demonstrated a love for National Israel that God never rebuked or corrected. The book of Jeremiah was written by the prophet as he surveyed the destroyed city of Jerusalem. It is a bitter book of lament as Jeremiah mourned the destruction of his country. Was Jeremiah a patriot? You bet!

Likewise, Nehemiah wept in the king's castle when he learned his countrymen who had gone home to rebuild the temple were being oppressed. He mourned before God and pleaded with him to remember the covenant made with Moses, asking the Lord to help Israel. Because of his mourning, God raised up the heathen Artaxerxes to send Nehemiah home so he could oversee the rebuilding. Did Nehemiah love his country? Absolutely. Did God honor that? Absolutely.

To take the eternal promises of a heavenly country and twist them to say that Christians should not hold or demonstrate love of the United States is no different than taking the promise of the bride of Christ and saying men should not love their wives. It is absurd to say the least. Knowing we have an eternal destiny doesn't negate our current life on this earth.

The second question is whether or not Christians should participate in civil disobedience. The answer to this is obvious to anyone who has read the book of Acts. When challenged by the Jewish authority to cease preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ, Peter refused to obey.

"Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men. The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you slew and hanged on a tree. Him has God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Savior, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins. And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him." [Act 5:29-32]

"You shall walk after the LORD your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and you shall serve him, and cleave unto him." [Deut. 13:4]

I would hope that any thinking evangelical Christian would agree that we don't obey the government at the expense of our obedience to God. Any who would argue this point need not read any further. Instead, they need to get on their knees before the Lord and ask him to show them the truth.

The third question, which is really the most controversial, is whether or not Christians should ever take up arms against their own government. There are four Biblical passages used by the Christian Patriotism critics to prove their belief that we should not. The first two are found in Hebrews and Romans, and are used to imply that complete submission to governmental authority is the obligation of the Church.

"Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you." [Heb. 13:17 ]

"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whoever therefore resists the power, resists the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Will you then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and you shall have praise of the same: for he is the minister of God to you for good. But if you do that which is evil, be afraid; for he bears not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that does evil." [Rom. 13:1-4 ]

The point is also made by critics that Scripture clearly teaches God puts men in positions of authority as he sees fit; a point I do not disagree with, but one must take the entire context of Scriptural passages before making a judgment. In both the Hebrews and Romans references it is made clear that those in authority are put there for the good of those they rule. They are to watch for our souls; they are to be a terror to evil, not to good works; they are representatives of the ordinances of God. Will you dare say that legalized abortion is good for the soul, is a terror to evil works, and is an ordinance of God? Of course not! I completely agree that our current government officials were put in place by God for a reason; where I don't agree is the idea that they have been put there to lead our nation into wickedness.

The third and fourth passages are found in Matt. and I Tim.; it is implied by these verses that we are to pray for our leaders and not revolt against them.

"You have heard that it has been said, You shall love your neighbor, and hate your enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;" [Matt. 5:43+44]

"I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; for kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty." [1Tim. 2:1+2 ]

I most certainly agree that we are to pray for our leaders, but how are we to pray? Are we to pray for the success of their wicked devices, the defeat of those that stand against their wickedness, and continued wisdom be be wicked? No. We are to pray for the salvation of their souls, as the Bible tells us that God desires all men to be saved. By the same token however, David prays many times in the book of Psalms for the destruction of his enemies. How do we reconcile the two? I don't have the time or space here to go through the answer at length (it would take 20+ pages), but the long and short of it is the difference between individual souls and a group of people considered to be the enemy. We pray for the individual salvation of the soul but the destruction of the total group of wicked men that lead a nation into wickedness.

As it relates to Christian Patriotism we then must ask if there is justification for armed rebellion. The answer requires a diligent study of the Old Testament, but before I cite any OT references it must be clearly understood that war is an invention of God, not of men; therefore, if used properly it is a good thing. The book of Jude explains the purpose of war being to execute judgment and slow down the tide of evil.

"And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of his saints, to execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him." [Jud 1:14-15]

Israel was used to judge the Canaanites when the time of their iniquity was full; David was used to bring judgment to the Philistines; God raised up Persia against Babylon, Greece against Persia, and Rome against Greece. Furthermore, God himself raised up and trained King David to be a great warrior:

"He teaches my hands to war; so that a bow of steel is broken by mine arms. You have also given me the shield of your salvation: and your gentleness hath made me great. You have enlarged my steps under me; so that my feet did not slip. I have pursued my enemies, and destroyed them; and turned not again until I had consumed them. And I have consumed them, and wounded them, that they could not arise: yes, they are fallen under my feet. For you have girded me with strength to battle: them that rose up against me have you subdued under me. You have also given me the necks of my enemies, that I might destroy them that hate me." [II Sam. 22:35-41]

"Blessed be the LORD my strength, which teaches my hands to war, and my fingers to fight: my goodness, and my fortress; my high tower, and my deliverer; my shield, and he in whom I trust; who subdues my people under me." [Ps. 144:1+2]

Clearly there is Biblical justification for war, but how and when is that determined? It's determined by God at the time he deems it necessary. Throughout the Old Testament, particularly in the book of Judges, we see God's people being oppressed by by their enemies. Granted, the oppression is a direct result of their idolatrous lifestyle, but when the people repented God raised up judge to physically attack and destroy the oppressor. Read this passage from Numbers regarding the destruction of the oppressor, followed by a passage from Judges.

"And if you go to war in your land against the enemy that oppresses you, then you shall blow an alarm with the trumpets; and you shall be remembered before the LORD your God, and you shall be saved from your enemies." [Num. 10:9]

"Nevertheless the LORD raised up judges, which delivered them out of the hand of those that spoiled them. And yet they would not hearken unto their judges, but they went a whoring after other gods, and bowed themselves unto them: they turned quickly out of the way which their fathers walked in, obeying the commandments of the LORD; but they did not so. And when the LORD raised them up judges, then the LORD was with the judge, and delivered them out of the hand of their enemies all the days of the judge: for it repented the LORD because of their groanings by reason of them that oppressed them and vexed them." [Jdg. 2:16-18]

Clearly the United States is being oppressed by the Government at all levels and clearly it is the result of the Church of Christ living an idolatrous life, just as Israel did. But I have full confidence that a repenting people would trigger the promises of II Chron. 7:14 with God restoring our nation. I'm not sure if and when that point will be reached in the U.S., but I am confident that God would not hesitate to instigate a revolution if it became necessary.

The final argument against Christian Patriotism is that Israel was told by God not to fight against the Babylonian invaders. They were told that whoever resisted would be killed and those who complied would be spared. Through this prophecy it is suggested that we Christians are to simply roll over and submit to the oppression of Washington, yet once again proper Biblical scholarship is not practiced here. As with any position we take concerning Scripture, the whole Bible needs to be taken into account.

The command for Israel to submit to the Babylonian oppression was the exception to the rule. In fact, at no other time did God say this to his people. In previous times of oppression it was always a case of telling God's people to repent and he would deliver them from the enemy; a system that was repeated time and again. So what made this instance different? Read the words of Jeremiah:

"Then said the LORD unto me, Pray not for this people for their good. When they fast, I will not hear their cry; and when they offer burnt offering and an oblation, I will not accept them: but I will consume them by the sword, and by the famine, and by the pestilence. Then said I, Ah, Lord GOD! behold, the prophets say unto them, You shall not see the sword, neither shall you have famine; but I will give you assured peace in this place. Then the LORD said unto me, The prophets prophesy lies in my name: I sent them not, neither have I commanded them, neither spoke unto them: they prophesy unto you a false vision and divination, and a thing of naught, and the deceit of their heart. Therefore thus saith the LORD concerning the prophets that prophesy in my name, and I sent them not, yet they say, Sword and famine shall not be in this land; By sword and famine shall those prophets be consumed." [Jer. 14:11-15]

God specifically told Jeremiah to stop praying for the good of his people; they had crossed the line, they had gone too far, they had reached the point of no return. This message is abundantly clear in Jeremiah's prophecy as well as that of Hosea. They were not told to comply with the Babylonians because revolt was ungodly, they were told to comply because they had crossed the line and punishment could not be averted. Jeremiah's call to compliance does not wipe out hundreds of years of Jewish history where God raised up men to fight against the heathen enemies.

Now, to be fair, there is one point the critics of Christian Patriotism make that I agree with completely. It is wrong and a total violation of Scriptural integrity for Christian Patriotism supporters to twist and change Scripture to defend their cause. Equating Joshua's "choose you this day" speech with protecting the second amendment, through substituting the Bible's words for your own, is completely irresponsible. Do not tamper with God's Word to advance your own causes.

In conclusion, I would submit to you that Christian Patriotism is fully justifiable through God's Word, and in fact, to dismiss it is to be a poor steward of the gift of "democracy" God has given us. If we stand by and do nothing we will allow the nation to be turned into a Godless, heathen cesspool, worthy of Babylonian destruction. If we repent and seek God's face he will heal our land.

That may be through revolution. A revolution I am willing to join.

An Open Letter to America

2009-08-27T11:28:00.000-04:00

My first entry is an open letter written to America for a call to action. I sent it to various well known commentators hoping they would give it air time. I've not heard back from any of them, but if you agree with what's in it, pass it along. The future of our country is at stake, so please wake up and get involved. There's no longer an room for staying out of politics because it's too complicated.

_____________________

Dear Mr. Limbaugh, Mr. Beck, and Mr. Hannity;

I am writing you today as an angry, concerned, liberty-loving American citizen. I have heard some in the conservative movement talk about the need for a leader to emerge who can articulate conservatism and speak of a vision for the future of our country. A leader who can speak the truth and encourage in the elctorate the greatness that is America. I couldn't agree more.

I am writing to you because all of you have a public forum; a voice that is heard by millions of Americans every day. I am volunteering for the job and asking for your support. Now before you blow me off, please, please be intellectually honest and read this entire email. It is an open letter to the citizens of this great country. If after you read it, you think I'm a nut case not worthy of your time, so be it. I will have done what I believe to be right and I'll continue on. But if you agree, and are willing to give me your support and your voice, I am ready and willing to take on the challenge.

My only motivation is to preserve the Republic. Please do me the honor of reading to the end. Thank you.

Matthew Gerwitz

_____________________

My Fellow Americans, at home and abroad;

My Name is Matt Gerwitz. You don't know me but I'm from upstate New York and I'm just an ordinary American like you. I'm asking you to stop what you're doing right now and give me a few minutes of your time so that we can talk about something very near and dear to me. I want to speak to you today about liberty.

As defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary, liberty is "the quality or state of being free; the power to do as one pleases; freedom from physical restraint; freedom from arbitrary or despotic control; the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges; the power of choice."

I remember as a young boy attending the second grade at St. Patrick's Elementary School in Lockport, NY. Every day would begin with the class standing at attention, hands over our hearts, reciting the pledge of allegiance.

"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."

As a seven-year old in 1972 I didn't really understand the pledge and all it's significance, but we recited it because we were told it was the right thing to do; who were we to argue with the teacher? Yet even at that young age I knew there was something special, something important about that last phrase, "with liberty and justice for all."

Throughout the next several years I started learning about some of the stories and personalities of American history. I learned about the Pilgrims, the Jamestown settlement, the Boston Massacre, George Washington, the Declaration of Independence, and so on. But not until reading Johnny Tremaine in the seventh grade did I realize there was something unique about the United States; something that couldn't be explained by the land which we occupied. Certainly we have the majestic Rocky Mountains, the Great Lakes, Niagara Falls, and the Grand Canyon, but there are beautiful places everywhere on the earth. You can always get more land.

What I finally understood was that America is not about the land, it's about the principle of liberty. Individual liberty that set the United States apart from the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, and even most of Europe. "Wow", I thought, "that's the answer!" But it was only part of the answer. I soon wanted to know why liberty was so important. Why couldn't our forefathers simply learn to be obedient to England and get on with it? What's the big deal about taxation? The questions mounted and while I knew liberty was essential, I did not know why.

Until a few years ago.

I was studying the Biblical book of Genesis and I came to chapter one, verses twenty-six and twenty-seven which state: "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

I began to wonder about the difference between man and animal when I arrived at the seventh verse of chapter two: "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. "

That's when it hit me.

Mankind was created with a soul! With that soul came a free will; the ability to chose right or wrong; the freedom to chart one's own course; the liberty for each individual to live as he choses. Animals don't have that ability. Neither to rocks, trees, oceans etc. I have liberty granted to me by the One who created me, and in fact, that liberty is the very essence of the human soul! And then I knew why the founding fathers wrote in the Declaration of Independence,

"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."

Our liberty is not granted us by any government entity, it was given to us by the Creator as an integral part of what makes up the human soul. When men are denied liberty, a natural yearning develops in the soul compelling them to do extraordinary things. The longing for liberty is what compelled men and women to forsake their homeland and risk their lives to sail to the New World. It gave aristocrats the courage to pick up a musket and face the enemy dressed in red. The yearning to be free was the fuel behind the Boston Tea Party, the crossing of the Delaware, and the shot heard 'round the world.

Today the human yearning for liberty still compels Cuban refugees to risk their lives on makeshift rafts, hoping to arrive on the free soil of America. It is the love of liberty that motivates our brave soldiers to lay down their lives for the rest of us; that draws political refugees form all over the world to our shores; that sustains those who work tirelessly to bring the ones left behind here to America. Liberty is the essence of the human soul and the very heart and soul of these United States of America.

When was the last time your neighbor packed up his belongings and took the wife and kids to start a new life in Iran? How many people do you know who have risked life and limb to make it to the shores of China? What other nation in the world has a 300 ft. statue standing in harbor of a major city beckoning to the world:

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

My friends, the United States of America has been called the "Great Experiment", but may I suggest to you that it was no experiment that led the founding fathers to establish our country in the manner they did. Our forefathers framed our country based on the fear of Almighty God and the understanding of the tendency of the human heart to be corrupted by power. They understood from experience that a government whose power is not limited will be a government that will eventually grow out of control. It will be a government that robs its citizens of their God-given liberty.

The United States is the single greatest nation ever to have existed in all of world history. It is not great because of our wealth, our politics, our technology, our celebrities. It is great because of our liberty. Furthermore, our country was not made great by politicians, political parties, special interest groups, or even our founding documents. It was made great by the Creator who honored our forefathers' commitment to liberty.

Yet now our liberty is daily under assault from an enemy that many refuse to believe is real. Our own government. Five hundred and forty-four individuals who are supposed to serve the United States as civil servants, yet instead they are gradually making slaves out of the citizenry. A group of five hundred and forty-four individuals who are plainly demonstrating that their policies and actions are purposeful, pre-meditated, and specifically designed to bring the American people completely under their control. No...they are not merely ignorant or misguided individuals, they know full well what they are doing and they do not intend to stop.

In addition we see the hand of the Creator, which at one time honored our commitment to liberty, being withdrawn because we have begun to turn away from that commitment You see folks, liberty comes with responsibility. The responsibility to be good stewards of what we've been given, to protect our liberty and defeat those individuals and institutions that would seek to steal it away. In fact we have not only the right, but also the duty according to the Declaration of Independence, to throw off a government that stands in opposition to our Liberty. I quote:

"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."

The time has come for us to stand up and throw of the tyrannical governments of the United States of America at all levels; federal, state, and local. To those who would disagree, citing the the "long train of abuses" phrase of the founding fathers, let me say this to you, and please pay attention. What we are experiencing today with our current government is not new. It didn't just begin with Carter, Clinton, or Obama. This move towards tyranny is a very long train of abuses that began in the fading years of the nineteenth century when John Dewey, known as the "Father of Modern Education", began to lay out his vision for the public education system. In 1897 John Dewey said,

"There is no God and no soul. Hence, there are no needs for props of traditional religion. With dogma and creed excluded, then immutable truth is also dead and buried. There is no room for fixed, natural law or permanent absolutes …. Teaching children to read is a great perversion and a high literacy rate breeds destructive individualism … the child does not go to school to develop individual talents but rather are prepared as "units" in an organic society …. The change in the moral school atmosphere ... are not mere accidents, they are the necessities of the larger social evolution."

Those words from the man who developed our modern educational system are chilling, especially the phrase, "Teaching children to read is a great perversion and a high literacy rate breeds destructive individualism". Socialism has long been the goal of the American public education system and they do not try to hide that fact. It is no coincidence that public education in America continues to produce graduates who, generation after generation, know less about our history, constitution, and liberty than their parents did. With each successive generation they get closer and closer to their objective because the resistance is weaker and weaker. This is indeed a long train of abuses.

I liken the course of our nation to a passenger train barreling down the track toward a ravine where there is no bridge. No one noticed when Dewey switched the train off the main track in the 1890s, and it has plodded along slowly while the passengers have been unaware of the doom that awaits. The train picked up speed when the government got into the business of social services at the turn of the century. Still faster it went with Roosevelt's New Deal in the 1930s, yet the train's speed was within the normal range of operation and no one suspected a problem. Through the years the train continued to gain speed as the government became more over reaching, until January 2009, when a new engineer threw it into overdrive. Now, under the current crop of "conductors" and "engineers" in Washington, the train is moving fast enough to be alarming. Now we have finally realized the disaster that awaits us and many are justifiably fearful.

My friends, there is still hope, we can still avert disaster if we act. We need to put the brakes on this speeding train and bring it to a complete stop; only when it's stopped can we reverse it and get it back on the right track. Doing so will require a multi-faceted approach, and it will require all of us as citizens to set aside the trivial things in our lives and join the cause.

First and foremost, liberty-loving Americans need keep up the protests; keep them hot and heavy. Town hall meetings are good when they are available but we need to go even further. We need to be out in the streets every single day, marching in front of our local government offices with signs, banners, and bull horns. Thousands of Americans in the streets of thousands of cities across the nation equals millions of citizens refusing to allow the U.S. government to steal our liberty. Can you spare an hour of TV time every day to fight for your freedom?

We need to flood the offices of our elected officials every day with phone calls, letters, and emails. We need to set one-on-one appointments and lobby our representatives until they're sick of seeing us, then go see them again. We need to flood the local newspapers with letters to the editor whether they print them or not. Friends, we need to learn a lesson from Chinese dissidents who gave their lives for liberty in Tienanmen Square in 1989. We need to follow their example of being relentless, unwavering, and without fear until either we defeat socialism or there's no one left standing!

Yes, it will take time and effort. It will cost us something. But isn't it worth it? If you were diagnosed with a deadly and highly contagious disease, wouldn't you be willing to seek treatment and voluntarily submit to quarantine so your children and grandchildren did not contract the disease? Of course, you would. So isn't it worth it to temporarily give up our leisure time and protect our liberty so that our children and grandchildren don't have to suffer under socialism?

Second, we need to vote out every single incumbent in every office for the next several election cycles. That means EVERYONE. And please spare me the argument about those in public office who are supposedly doing a good job. Listen to me people, the Continental Army gave their very lives for the cause of liberty. Any modern elected official who is not willing to sacrifice everything he has for the same cause is part of the problem. There may indeed be some elected officials willing to sacrifice their careers and reputations for liberty, but if they exist, let them stand up and be known. Otherwise they are as damaging to the cause as those who are openly socialist, and they need to be shown the door. There is no longer any room for quiet timidity among the ranks of so-called conservative leaders.

Third, we need to replace these officials with leaders. Real leaders, not politicians. I have heard comments from some who have a public forum that America needs a leader who can stand up and articulate conservatism; someone who can talk about what makes America great; someone who can project a vision for restoring the greatness that we have lost.

My friends, I am volunteering for the job. I am not a politician; I have no political experience and no name recognition. But before you dismiss me, let me ask you a question. We've been electing experienced politicians with plenty of name recognition for generations, yet what has it gotten us? I'll tell what it's gotten us...

It's gotten us career politicians who don't care a bit about destroying the foundations of this country in order to preserve their own careers and legacy. It's led to government officials who know how to play the game to get what they want. Politicians from all parties who've learned to scratch each other's backs to advance their own interests. To that I say ENOUGH!!! It's time we send leaders to our halls of government who will stand up and do the right thing, politics be damned! And if the rest of the world doesn't like it, too bad!

I've had enough of the Trent Lotts, Newt Gingriches, and George Bushes who talk tough but then cave in to their political enemies. I've had enough of the Barney Franks, Chuck Schumers, and Nancy Pelosis who brazenly lie to the American people on a daily basis. I HAVE HAD ENOUGH OF POLITICIANS!

George Washington was no career politician, in fact he didn't even want the job of President. Patrick Henry was a failed farmer who turned successful lawyer; Thomas Paine an author and inventor; John Adams a teacher and lawyer; Ben Franklin a printer, editor, merchant, and inventor. These men were thrust into politics when a tyrannical throne in England became too much for their hearts and minds to bear. By contrast, Barack Obama was trained form his youth for a singular purpose: politics. Congressional leaders like Robert Byrd (56 years in Congress), John Dingle (53 years), the late Strom Thurmond (47 years), and Ted Kennedy (46 years) have never known anything outside of politics. As they see it, their first and most important task is to keep their job along with all the accompanying perks. That makes for a breeding ground of corruption and a cesspool of power hungry, arrogant, self-serving politicians.

As for me, I am an average American male. I pastor a small church in upstate New York and work two other jobs to make ends meet. I have been happily married to the same woman for twenty years. Together we have three children; two are adults and the third is in her mid-teens. I have a nice house with a mortgage. I pay my bills, obey the law, help my neighbors, and volunteer in my community. And I, along with the millions of Americans like me, could do a far better job of leading the country than career politicians. I am not interested in a life-long career in Washington. I am interested in saving the Republic and then returning home just as Washington did. And I have a plan; a plan that can be summed up in one single sentence.

Stop the train!

"You're a simpleton", you might say. "Our problems are far too complex to just stop the train." Again, allow me to ask a question.

If you were on a real, live, speeding train headed for a ravine, would you care about the complexities of the problem? Would you care about how the train got on the wrong track, why the engineer allowed it to go so fast, or who planned the lousy dinner menu? Of course not. You would be focused on one thing. Cutting the engine and hitting the brakes. Friends, we need to stop the train first, then we can ask all the questions and fix the problems that got us where we are.

So how do we stop a moving train?

We stop it by refusing to give an inch to the enemies of liberty. That means no more pork barrel spending and no more entitlement programs, no matter how much it hurts. It means a president who refuses to sign a single piece of legislation if it contains even one provision hostile to liberty. It means congressional leaders and White House officials who will hold daily press conferences to call out the enemies of liberty. It means impeaching judges who operate outside of their constitutionally imposed limits. It means term limits on all public officials AND THEIR PAID STAFFS, including Senators, Representatives, Judges, and bureaucrats. If term limits are important to keep the Executive Branch in check, they are exponentially more important to keep the Legislative and Judicial Branches in check.

Stopping the train means absolutely no more taxes; whether they are openly divulged income taxes or secret taxes hidden as fees. The government is a money junkie, addicted to spending, and the only way to effectively cure a junkie is to cut off his supply.

Stopping the train involves standing up and speaking the truth when the enemy lies. When he claims that the House healthcare bill doesn't eliminate private insurance, our genuine liberty-loving leaders need to mount an aggressive media blitz using the bill itself as proof of the truth. No more soft pedaling and political speech. We need to take a page from Ross Perot and print the dangerous provisions of the bill on large charts, so that TV viewers can see what we're talking about as we destroy the lies of our opponents.

Finally, the last portion of this multi-faceted approach is to throw the Republican party overboard. Again, before you dismiss this idea take the time to hear me out. And once again, let me ask another question. What do we call ourselves in regard to the political spectrum? We call ourselves conservatives, do we not? Why in the name of all that's good and holy do we claim to be conservatives yet still cling to a party that hasn't been conservative in nearly twenty years? How long are we going to continue to entertain the John McCains and Colon Powells? We need to exit the Republican Party and we need to do it quickly.

Now, please don't assume I am advocating a new, third party. I'm not. Instead, there is already a fully established party that we can join right away. Interestingly enough, they call themselves the Conservative Party. They already believe many of the same things we do, they fight for the same causes, they have the same hopes for this country. Folks, if every American who calls himself a conservative would have the courage to leave their current party affiliation and join the Conservative party, it would instantly surpass the size of both the Democrat and Republican Parties. Why on earth do we want to continue to cling to the GOP? What's so important about that name that we can't dispose of it?

There are critics who claim leaving the GOP would not work. They believe there isn't enough muscle in the Conservative Party or a new third party to make a difference. My friends, I would respectfully disagree and challenge you to read your history books. The Republican party did not exist in the United States until 1854. Prior to that the two major parties were the Democrats and the Whigs. But a man named Abraham Lincoln took the abolitionist cry of the Republicans and won the White House in 1860, all but dooming the Whigs to oblivion.

If our cause of liberty is indeed right; if our belief in freedom and individuality is truly the only morally correct option, then our cause will win the day regardless of party affiliation if we stand and fight! Since most Americans now believe their is no real difference between Democrat and Republican we have a moral and ethical obligation to separate ourselves and draw a distinct difference. We do not accomplish that by a time-consuming and resource-wasting attempt to win back the Republican party. Even if we did succeed it would take another generation to win back the trust of the American people. Far better to make a clean break now, even if it is painful.

My friends. I love my country and am prepared to give my very life for it. I am asking you today to commit yourselves to the cause of liberty. If not for yourselves, then for your families. Do it for your children and grandchildren who will be forced to live with the consequences if we fail. Ladies and gentlemen, we can no longer afford to sit by as our government swallows us whole. I applaud those who have already gotten involved, yet I plead with those who haven't to do so today.

I will close with a quote from Patrick Henry, whose words I cannot improve on: "I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"

With a sincerity and truth,

Matthew B. Gerwitz
Pastor - OneWay, Rochester, NY
pastormatt@1wayjesus.org
www.1wayjesus.org