Tuesday, December 14, 2010

A Star Is Born (The Reason for the Season)

Paul Brandt – “A Star Is Born”

(Click the link above for the audio)

There is so much to write about that is supposed to remind us all the Jesus is the reason for the season. But instead of boring you with another long blog, I figured I’d send this song out and provide the lyrics so you could read/sing along.

All Glory to Christ our Lord and Savior!

A Star Is Born by Paul Brandt (1999)

Christmas time again
The perfect end, to a not-so-perfect year
At last it's here
Hustle bustle to and fro
From store to store, to get one more
Of whatever is in style this year

On the marquis sign at 5 and 9
The latest movie shows, and it starts to snow
Children look into the sky
To see if reindeer really fly
Who knows
But when it comes down to the season
Above it all there's still a reason
To just look up

A star is born tonight
Come to make things right
Angels singing, anthems ringing
Glory to the King
A star is born tonight

Silent holy night, heaven's sacred light
Shines all around
And joy resounds
In manger hay the baby Jesus came to seek
And save the lost
Until they're found
Peace on earth a new beginning
He's the gift that keeps on giving
To all of us

A star is born tonight
(Glory hallelujah, glory to the King of Kings)
Come to make things right
(Merry Christmas to you all the joy the season brings)
Angels singing, anthems ringing
Glory to the King
A star is born tonight

Angels singing, anthems ringing
Glory to the King
A star is born tonight

MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Tuesday, November 2, 2010


As you head to the polls today...

Here comes the REAL change!

November 2010



The U.S. Constitution,
The Bill of Rights


We the people are coming!


Tuesday, October 5, 2010

Pro Choice Progressive = Anti Life Aggressive!

In the following article, the hatred of God comes through loud and clear in this ill-guided woman. She speaks of caring for a suffering baby or child, but it seems more likely that she, as well as most abortion advocates, is more interested in putting babies out of HER misery.

For a fair perspective on the truth in the abortion debate, click here


UK Pundit to Shocked TV Host: Suffering Children Should Be Smothered
Posted on October 4, 2010 at 8:17am by Scott Baker at TheBlaze.com

Advice columnists in Britain are known as “agony aunts” (or uncles). Virginia Ironside is one. Her latest bit of advice has drawn outraged reaction from television viewers who caught her comments on the BBC yesterday. She appeared during a segment called, “Can abortion be a kindness?” Here’s the Daily Mail account of her Comments

-Miss Ironside said: ‘If a baby’s going to be born severely disabled or totally unwanted, surely an abortion is the act of a loving mother.’ She added: ‘If I were the mother of a suffering child – I mean a deeply suffering child – I would be the first to want to put a pillow over its face… If it was a child I really loved, who was in agony, I think any good mother would.’-

Disability rights advocates called her pro-eugenics approach “despicable.” Even the host seemed stunned

-Programme host Susanna Reid appeared visibly shocked by her comments during the live debate, gasping: ‘That’s a pretty horrifying thing to say, that you would put a pillow over a suffering child.’-

In the past, Ironside has said she believes doctors should not try to save the lives of “very premature babies.”

Saturday, July 3, 2010

Letter to L. A. by Joe Ely - A Genius Piece of Music!

This song has been one of my favorites for years! It’s one of those nighttime highway cruising songs that just seem to make the night rock that much harder! I just found this video and love the fact that it has one of the greatest rock and roll saxmen of all time – Bobby Keys! I categorize this one as a perfectly constructed song! And for sure, David Grissom’s fretwork makes that guitar an incendiary of emotion. I hope you enjoy it as much as I.

Wednesday, June 16, 2010

It’s Not About Speeches Any More. It’s About Leadership!

Everyone has been talking about how this current BP oil spill is Obama’s Katrina. The similarities involved are not practical but geographical. But I want to avoid that particular comparison.

The point I’d like to make is one about someone elected to lead. Obama has NOT been that person… especially in this crisis.

As of today’s date, June 16, 2010, it has been 58 days since this whole thing started. Our government has been doing nothing but offering platitudes. 58 days is just ridiculous.

NO, I don’t think Obama caused the disaster.
NO, I don’t think Obama could physically plug the leak himself.
NO, I don’t think Obama should hold blame for the disaster.

But, 58 days?!!?!??!!?!?!!

The Cuban Missile Crisis lasted from October 15, 1962 to October 28, 1962. That's just 13 days!!!!

When America faced its most tense moment in the Cold War, and many were sure that a nuclear conflict was inevitable, President Kennedy LED to a FAST resolution that not only protected Americans, but also established to the world that we were not going to take any crap from ANYONE!

Can we say that about America today based on what Obama has done and is doing?

Why hasn’t he accepted the help from the various nations, corporations and entrepreneurs who have come forward with plans and equipment? Why has he continued to talk about this and how much of a victim we are of big oil?

Look at what this president has done in the face of disaster, tragedy, and even matters of locality.

He wants to have BP divert funds away from fixing this leak by positioning the Attorney General to file lawsuit after lawsuit against BP and the other companies involved.

He wants to blindly throw money our government doesn’t have to bring into fruition something that is neither practical or cost-worthy, while disrupting the lives of millions in America and the world involved in an industry that has been a VITAL part of the American economy and way or life for over 100 years.

He wants to have very unrealistic “shiny-happy people” relationships with countries who want nothing more than to destroy us or at the very least want us to ignore their atrocities against their own people and/or the people of other nations.

He wants to make vocal judgments on state laws without reading them.

He wants to criticize local authorities without knowing all the facts.

Ask yourself… How would Barack Hussein Obama lead America in situations like Shay’s Rebellion, The Mexican-American War, Assisting the Republic of Texas, The Civil War, the Gadsden Purchase, The Spanish-American War, The San Francisco Earthquake, WWI, The Depression, WWII, Dropping the Atomic bombs on Japan, The Korean War, The Space Race, The Cuban Missile Crisis, Viet Nam, Apollo 13, The Iran Hostage Crisis, Three Mile Island, Beirut Bombings, Libya, Grenada, The Challenger disaster, Noriega and Panama, Desert Storm, The collapses of the Soviet Union, Somalia, the Balkans, Katrina, and any terrorist attack?

I was willing to give the guy a shot as there are great American leaders who were involved in almost all those situations mentioned. But more importantly, there were leaders of action, for right or wrong.

Mr. President, there is an old saying – Lead or follow, just get out of the way! And right now, you are in the way of American prosperity and greatness.

There is another old saying – If you ain’t the lead sled dog, the scenery never changes. Man am I tired of the lead dog right now.

Friday, June 11, 2010

Are The Vegetarians Right?

I’ve seen some debate among some of you about vegetarians and meat eaters. SO, before this gets out of hand, let try to avoid a holy war about vegetarianism. And, as a grateful eater of meat, I find myself needing to help clear up some things.

First of all, Vegetarianism is NOT a sin, nor is eating meat. I WILL NOT place any judgment on anyone based on their Godly directed eating habits.

The Bible actually says that up until after the great flood, all men and animals were vegetarian. God told Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden –

“I have provided all kinds of fruit and grain for you to eat. And I have given the green plants as food for everything else that breathes. These will be food for animals, both wild and tame, and for birds.” (Genesis 1:29-30)

However, after the flood –

“The fear and dread of you will fall on all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky, on every creature that moves along the ground, and on all the fish in the sea; they are given into your hands. Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.” (Genesis 9:2-3)

Some people wonder if it is sinful to eat meat. The Bible clearly states that we CAN eat meat. The prime example is –

“They gave Jesus a piece of fish that had been cooked and some honey. He took it and ate it…” (Luke 24:42-43)

Many vegetarians refrain from eating meat because some of the meat industry seems cruel and exploitive to animals. And yes, God gets very angry at this type of treatment of His creation. However, most of the meat industry is providing a service to customers that is no different than any other commercial industry. If your conscience haunts you about eating commercial industry meat, then don't eat it. However, if it doesn't bother you, eat without fear or guilt. And there should be no ill feelings among vegetarians and meat-eaters as each must do what he or she feels is best for them. The bible advises us in this, even specifically about this topic. (Please understand that even though it says that one who only eats vegetables is weak in faith, it doesn’t make them any less a guest at Christ’s table) –

“The faith of some people allows them to eat anything. But others eat only vegetables because their faith is weak. People who eat everything must not look down on those who do not. And people who don't eat everything must not judge those who do. God has accepted them.” (Romans 14:2-3)

Therefore, all you vegetarians should understand that we meat eaters are going to keep eating meat the way we always have and we should let you eat as you desire. Sending out those things from PETA and the like are only going to cause meat eaters to eat meat and really enjoy it even more.

Finally, if you are a Christian or are on a path seeking after God –

“God's kingdom has nothing to do with eating or drinking. It is a matter of being right with God. It brings the peace and joy the Holy Spirit gives." (Romans 14:17)

Monday, May 31, 2010

Who I like in South Cackalacky on Primary Day!

My Endorsements for the South Carolina GOP Primary Elections held June 8th.

Governor - Nikki Haley
Bauer means business as usual. Barrett is a progressive spender. And even though I personally like AG McMaster, I am not so sure he is right for the state’s highest seat.

Lt. Governor - Bill Connor
You can’t go wrong with this guy. He is a warrior through and through!

Adjutant General – Bob Livingston
The only conservative running…. AAAAANNDD, who wants a liberal in charge of the state’s military?

Attorney General - Alan Wilson
What’s not to like? This guy cuts ‘em and guts ‘em like an AG should.

Commissioner of Agriculture – Hugh Weathers
I tend to agree that the election of the ComAgri. Can interfere with goals of the Commissioner and Governor to truly promulgate, expand and make successful the agricultural needs of the state.

Comptroller General – Mike Meilinger
In this case, change would be good.

Secretary of State – Mark Hammond
The only conservative running has done an adequate job…if it ain’t broke…

Superintendent of Education – Kelly Payne
I am truly excited about Kellye Payne. Not only is she immensely qualified and loaded with experience for the position, I have also seen her personally take an opportunity to reach out to those who can’t vote for her but for whom it will be her job to protect and advance.

Treasurer – Curtis Loftis
In this time of government overspending, we need someone who will not lose track of Millions of dollars. Our current treasurer’s office is full of doofi!

Congressional Distrcit 2 – Joe Wilson
Even though it may not have been polite, the guy from SC was right about Obama’s denial of universal healthcare for criminal invaders.

Senate – Jim DeMint
Just plainly the right guy for this job. I pray he keeps up the good work!

Saturday, May 29, 2010

The History of American Founders and Patriots You Aren’t Supposed to Know About

The History of American Founders and Patriots You Aren’t Supposed to Know About

One of the things that has always hacked me off is when truth is hidden from those who can benefit from it the most. From religion to politics, this has happened time and again… especially in history. It is often said that the winners of battles and wars write the history books, and in the case of the topic of African-American history, it was the losers who have done the writing – to the shameful detriment of the truth.

How many of us have been taught in school about Frederick Douglas, Harriet Tubman and Booker T. Washington? And then nothing until Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King, Jr. (I didn’t even get Malcolm X when I was in school). And what’s worse is the VITAL role blacks have played in the founding of this nation has been denied or written out of American history. The only black’s name we hear from that period is Crispus Attucks. But do we Americans of all colors know who Benjamin Banneker, Richard Allen, Oliver Cromwell (not the British Lord Protector) or even Wentworth Cheswell were? Cheswell was a part of Paul Revere’s Midnight Ride, but you have to look long and hard to find a connecting reference when reading anything about Paul Revere.

Because I love American History, I have been able to learn the truth through various sources about those Americans of African ancestry who were fundamental in the founding and continuing prosperity of this great nation. Washington, Jefferson and Franklin are all important figures who contributed greatly to the birth and start of America. But it was Salem, Estabrook, Whipple, and Armistead who gives the founding of this nation its true character.

This revisionist history is virtually criminal to African-Americans, and ALL Americans for that matter. It denies something that has always been vital to the lifeblood of this country – TRUTH.

Of course we cannot remove or deny the horrible crime of slavery and involuntary servitude placed on blacks in our history. After all that is truth as well. But we have got to stop looking at our American history based on race or politics.

Below is the video from Glenn Beck’s May 28th “Founders’ Fridays” TV show. Whether you like him or not or whether you disagree with him or not, please watch. This show is not about politics, it’s about the truth.

At the bottom is included the aftershow Q&A that is really awesome!

Tuesday, May 18, 2010

The United States Constitution is Alive, But Not as a “Living, Breathing Document.”

The United States Constitution is Alive, But Not as a “Living, Breathing Document.”

“The debate between interpretivists and non-interpretivists over how to give meaning to the Constitution is often framed in the following terms: Is the Constitution a ‘living’ document, in which judges ‘update’ its provisions according to the ‘needs’ of the times? Or is the Constitution an enduring document, in which its original meanings and principles are permanently maintained, subject only to changes adopted in accordance with its amending clause? I believe that it is better described in the latter sense. It is beyond dispute, of course, that the principles of the Constitution must be applied to new circumstances over time — the Fourth Amendment on searches and seizures to electronic wiretaps, the First Amendment on freedom of speech to radio and television and the Internet, the interstate commerce clause to automobiles and planes, etc. However, that is distinct from allowing the words and principles themselves to be altered based upon the preferences of individual judges.

“Our Constitution would be an historical artifact—a genuinely dead letter—if its original sense became irrelevant, to be replaced by the views of successive waves of judges and justices intent on ‘updating’ it, or replacing what some judges view as the ‘dead hand of the past’ with contemporary moral theory. This is precisely what the Founders sought to avoid when they instituted a ‘government of laws, not of men.’

“There is no charter of government in the history of mankind that has more wisely set forth the proper relationship between the governed and their government than the American Constitution. For those of us who are committed to constitutional principles and fostering respect for that document, there is no better homage that we can pay it than to understand clearly its design and to take care in the manner in which we describe it.” – “Constitutional Myths and Realities (Myth or Misconception 8: The Constitution is a living document.)” by Michigan Supreme Court Associate Justice Stephen Markman, August, 2005 Inprimis

American Exceptionalism Is Humility, Not Arrogance!

American Exceptionalism Is Humility, Not Arrogance!

The influence of this work is from David Barton’s American Heritage Series: The Ideas That Birthed a Nation episode and ”We Hold These Truths” edited by Ray Notgrass.

American Exceptionalism is the theory that the United States of America occupies a special niche among the nations of the world in terms of its unifying national credo, historical evolution, political and religious institutions, and its being built by immigrants. The roots of the belief are attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville, who claimed, in his work, Democracy in America, that the United States held a special place among nations, because it was the first modern democracy.

But let’s carry this to today’s world and see if that belief hold’s true. Or is America merely an arrogant flash in the pan? We should start with the vocabulary:

What is exceptionalism?

Exceptionalism comes from the word exception which is rooted in the Latin word exceptionem, or in better etymology, exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis; "the exception proves the rule in cases not excepted;" The context of American Exceptionalism means that all other nations are not unique from each other. In Tocqueville’s time it was even truer. But even in today’s time The United States of America is still very much unique (at least for now).

The stability provided by the U.S. Constitution is most exceptional and politically stable when compared to other nations of the world today.

France, 10 years younger than the U.S., is governing with their FIFTEENTH Constitution.

Brazil has had SEVEN constitutions since 1822.

Russia has had FOUR constitutions since 1918.

Poland has had SIX constitutions since 1921.

Afghanistan has had FIVE constitutions since 1923.

America has had only two governing documents since its independence and only ONE constitution since its ratification in 1788. Our Constitution has been a solid rock of a governing document to withstand and make possible what no other nation in the history of the world has been able to do. If you pay attention to the membership of the United Nations, you will notice that the number of nations rises and falls each year. That is a distinction that promulgates American Exceptionalism when compared to the political instability of the rest of the world.

What is America’s unifying National Credo?

Credo is Latin for “I believe.” The English derivative is the word creed. Etymologically, this means a statement of belief. So, what is our national credo? Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address states it best. The United States of America is a nation "conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal". In this view, America is indistinguishably connected with liberty and equality. Yes, the struggle to live up to this credo has been hard fought and fraught with selfishness and even hatred. However, the thought processes from Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. have consistently espoused the self evident truth that all men are created equally.

Has American government had a Historical Evolution?

Evolution comes from the Latin term evolutionem which translates into “an opening of what was rolled up.” Evolution’s meaning even came to be known as a growth into maturity. But had our nation grown into maturity, governmentally speaking, by the time of “Democracy in America?” Or are we, as some will attest, never going to reach that maturity? The fact that our Constitution has endured for over 230 years, seems to promote the former above the latter.

Has American government had a Historical Evolution?

Evolution comes from the Latin term evolutionem which translates into “an opening of what was rolled up.” Evolution’s meaning even came to be known as a growth into maturity. But had our nation grown into maturity, governmentally speaking, by the time of “Democracy in America?” Or are we, as some will attest, never going to reach that maturity? That fact that our Constitution has endured for over 230 years, seems to promote the former above the latter.

When independence was declared in 1776, the Continental Congress struggled to create a form of government that would endure. The first national document of government was the Articles of Confederation. This was about as close to anarchy as a nation could have while still having a ruling government. It didn’t work and was replaced by the current Constitution of articles we know today.

Historically, America has politically, geographically, religiously and socially has collectively grown into a maturity that no other nation has been through. Politically is covered above. Geographically, from a small strip of land on the east coast, across a continent to lands separated by great distances, this nation has done nothing but physically grow in size. Religiously, America, with a foundation in Judeo-Christian principles has grown to so embrace the freedom of religion without physical conflict to include religions and faiths never known of thought of by the Founders. Yet they knew back then, the importance of that particular freedom. Socially, we have had our greatest growth. From the hard fought abolition of slavery, to the suffrage of women, minorities and young adults, to the struggle to ensure civil rights, America has long since come of age.

What is unique about America’s political and religious institutions?

No etymology here as there is no need to define the departments of government nor places of worship and philanthropy. Politically, this is where we are the most immature. Our Founders strived to create a government that had just enough power to fulfill the claims of the Constitution’s Preamble. Yet continually and consistently, American government has grown to where it has such an involvement in individuals’ lives, it has made the constitution about itself rather than “[w]e the people.” This is leading the nation into potential socialism and toward communism. The fact is that socialism/communism has been tried at least 44 times in the history of the world and has FAILED EVERY SINGLE TIME!!! A mature government is one that involves and adheres to the consent and importance of the governed. That includes the states as well as the people. Hopefully, the voters of this nation will realize how close they are to not being able to vote anymore.

America’s religious facets are the most unique in the world. This nation is full such a myriad of diverse beliefs and faiths that peacefully coexist and, in some cases, even work with each other to better the lives of many Americans. The influence that religion has had on ethics and morality in America has exponentially affected the society enough that laws are changed or created to match. Under our Constitution, America (not the government proper) has promoted the belief in religion (or the practice of not believing) that influences and affects the rest of the world more than any other entity (except God Almighty Himself).

Are immigrants the architects of America?

The land that is now America had no inhabitants until nomadic people – immigrants – from Asia migrated to the American continents so many years about. Over the generations, from the Inca in South America to the Mississippians in North America, the building of the western hemisphere started with immigrants. This tradition continued with European immigrants who brought their culture to build a free nation based on the Laws of “Nature’s God.” Even after the nation was founded, Immigrants (free and forced) from the rest of the world had a part in building this nation. Being a child of the Mayflower may hold social importance to some, but is has been immigrants and their descendants who have been the most influential pioneers in industry, agriculture and innovation. The peacefully coexisting ‘melting pot” of immigrants in this great country is the most unique and diverse in the world. Why? Because, as explained by Ronald Reagan in 1985 speaking of our forefathers who were immigrants or descendants of immigrants, “The idea of freedom impelled them; it intoxicated them. And it is freedom that impels us still.”

Does America reach the claim of American Exceptionalism? Yes! But again, as proud of that as we can be, we should absolutely be humbled by it. The one consistent proclamation among the Founding Fathers is that American Exceptionalism is exceptionalism credited to God Almighty and should bring Him honor and glory.

And yet so many denounce American Exceptionalism as “self-serving and jingoistic” arrogance. However, our founding fathers knew and believed that their governance was something of humility rather than pride. This is mainly due to the founders’ acknowledgement of God as their Providence in government. And even though Tocqueville calls America a modern democracy, that word just doesn’t apply, even if he used it in a positive way.

When our political leaders apologize for America and proclaim arrogance, the damage they do isn’t just to our nation, but to the worldly perception of where that exceptionalism comes from. It is time again to see “morning in America again!"

It’s time to be Americans again! It’s time to lead the world again! It’s time to be that “shining city on a hill” again! It’s time! It’s time! It’s time!

During this election season, search your convictions as an American and vote accordingly. Cast your vote behind someone who will serve, yes SERVE, his or her constituents rather than continue to promote the current trend of governing without serving. Forget political party. Forget seniority. Forget ethnicity. REMEMBER AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM!!!

"Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord, the people whom he has chosen as his heritage!" - Psalm 33:12

Monday, May 10, 2010

Yes Christians Do Fail, And That Is Why Christ Is Perfect!

My wife forward Ten Ways Christians Tend to Fail at Being Christian by John Shore today and it took a while for the steam to settle, but Now I would like to deconstruct this guy liberal Christian babble.

He gives ten points that, on the surface, seem reasonable regarding the ways Christians fail. But when he elaborates, it is extremely clear that Mr. Shore doesn’t read the context when he surgically pulls verses to make his points. The ten are:

1) Too much money.
2) Too confident God thinks we're all that and a leather-bound gift Bible.
3) Too quick to believe that we know what God really means by what he says in the Bible.
4) Too action-oriented.
5) Too invasive of others generally.
6) Too invasive of others personally.
7) Too quick to abandon logic.
8) Too fixated on homosexuality.
9) Too insular.
10) Too uneducated about Christianity.

In point one, Mr. Shore uses Luke 12:33, Matthew 19:21; 6:24 to claim that Christians shouldn’t earn wealth. The context of those versus has NOTHING to do with money, other than the mention of it. The same ruler could have sold everything he had, given it to the poor, and yet dishonored his parents. Jesus’ point was to show the man how wretched he was in God’s eyes because he loves something more than God. If he would have looked further and read Matthew 19:24 (Mark 10:25; Luke 19:25), he would have discovered that a rich person CAN enter the kingdom of God. It’s just not as easy as if he were not wealthy. If we read Proverbs 3:9-10, we learn that God will bless us with wealth AS LONG AS we also understand Luke 12:34 in that our wealth must honor God first. While these verses do not quantify what wealth is, it recognizes that every individual has his own personal wealth in which God has blessed him and his stewardship. God doesn’t hate rich people; He hates what those rich people sometimes do.

I actually do agree with point two; hopefully for the same reasons. The first thing we Christians must understand is that we are wretched, filthy sinners because we have broken God’s Law (The Ten Commandments). Once we are humbled in knowing that we are doomed to an eternity in hell, we then can receive salvation by faith alone, through grace alone, in Jesus alone, God as man, had himself punished and killed to pay the price for our sins so that we wouldn’t have to. God is everything and we Christians are blessed to have a God that loves us so much, He would make the ultimate sacrifice.

In point three, Mr. Shore uses Luke 8:9-10 to convey how confusing the Word of God is and that we shouldn’t believe the literate words of the bible. Well, yes, there are mysteries that only God can know, i.e. Matthew 24:36; Mark 13:32, but the parables are easily understood if you read and study what Jesus says. The Parable of the Sower in Luke 8 wouldn’t still be a mystery if he READ ON THROUGH THE REST OF THE CHAPTER (in fact the exact answer starts only one verse further in v. 11. And if the bible should be so blindly followed, why does Mr. Shore bother to use any verses at all? 2 Timothy 3:16 settles the matter by using the world “ALL.”

In regards to point four, Mr. Shore seems to forget that Christians are commanded and commissioned to do things in the Name of Christ. But specifically, Matthew 5:16; John 3:21; 7:3; 8:39; 9:4; 10:37; Acts 2:11; and 2 Thessalonians 3:6 mention doing works. And these are to be done in God’s name. The Great Commission can’t be fulfilled if we are just sitting around being Christians.

The separation of church and state is brought up in point five. And while I agree that it is extremely dangerous for a state to tell people they have to worship a certain way, it is just as dangerous for the state to tell people not to worship at all. The concept of the separation of church and state wasn’t born in political circles, but in the Christian Reformation. During the Protestant Reformation of the 1500s-1600s, The Catholic Church had gained a great deal of political power and was promoting, allowing and commanding things contrary to biblical teaching. One of those was the concept of “Divine Right” which is the foundation of Monarchism. Monarchism allowed kings in Europe to maintain bloodline and totalitarian in their perception of power as given by God. However, once biblical understanding became prominent over obedience to church, it was the Reformation movement that came up with the concept of an authentic separation of church and state that still honored God. This is not the modern anti-religious argument being debated today, but a fundamental understanding of how God expects us to govern ourselves. If the Christians of the past had been less invasive of others and things, the world might still live under monarchies and even slavery!

In point six, it becomes clear that Mr. Shore doesn’t understand the key to salvation or the gospel itself. Christians are commanded to do one thing above all others that can be physically done and that is to evangelize by telling others about Jesus and the whos, whats, and whens involving His life and Sacrifice. And as a matter of note, this is where that parable from above comes into play. I pray that the seeds sown by Mr. Shore end up in good soil.

Again Mr. Shore is promulgating how unworthy the scriptures and their doctrine are for modern times. I challenge anyone to produce an archaeological or anthropological discovery that contradicts the bible. God offers logic that is the simplest to understand and follow. It’s when people create their own understanding of logic that clouds their desire to follow God’s.

Homosexuality is just a sore spot for non-Christians that it seems that point eight it true. The fact is that sin is sin and all sin is equally detestable in God’s eyes. But unlike theft, lying, and killing, which are committed in secret. Homosexuality is practiced openly. As Christians, we should be able to fixate on sin as sin when we share the gospel. And remember that God doesn’t want thieves, liars, and murderers or homosexuals. He wants sinner who have repented and trusted in Jesus as their salvation.

In point 9, Mr. Shore speaks of Christians spend time with only Christians. He says Christians stop doing that to spend time with non-Christians. This seems to contradict, one of many in his piece, points four and six. And while we should be spreading the gospel to unbelievers, the bible does command us to group together as Christians – 2 Corinthians 6:14. While it is fine to socialize with non-Christians, we should be willing, as Christians, to witness at a moments notice. If our focus is on the socializing alone, God doesn’t get glory unless we can witness or do works in His name.

On point ten, I can basically agree. However, not for the same reasons. Secular society, pop-culture, politics and several other factors have become such distractions that people don’t willingly pay much attention to the bible. And since neither the Great Schism nor the Diet of Worms have anything to do with the gospel, they don’t really matter when it comes to witnessing. And since Robert Duvall and a rock band have nothing to do with the gospel, they are irrelevant when it comes to talking about Jesus.

Mr. Shore has taken upon himself to desire ChINOs – Christians in name only. He wants Christians that suit his expectations and disregards the commands of God. His sketchy understanding of biblical context denotes his lack of Christian understanding. I pray that he will delve into the covenants of the bible and truly learn the love he should share with others because of the love God showed him.

Sunday, April 11, 2010

Wednesday, April 7, 2010

Health Care and the Constitution

Health Care and the Constitution

After a year of contentious debate, it became clear that the House intended to pass the health care bill by whatever means necessary, even if it required the use of a "deem and pass" procedure whereby Members would not vote directly on the bill. After a massive public outcry arose against that unconstitutional proposal (Article I, § 7, ¶ 2, and § 5, ¶ 3 direct that "the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays" on a measure rather than just "deeming" it passed), Rep. Chris Van Hollen (MD), head of the Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee, urged Democrat House Members to remain quiet and avoid talking about the unconstitutional process in an attempt to lessen the political backlash (1).

That procedure ultimately was not used, but once the health care bill passed, voters demanded of congressional leaders the constitutional provision that authorized the federal takeover of health care. In answering that question, Rep. John Conyers (MI) replied: "Under several clauses – the Good and Welfare Clause and a couple others. All the scholars – the constitutional scholars that I know (I'm chairman of the Judiciary committee, as you know) – they all say that there's nothing unconstitutional in this bill." (2)

Of course, there is no Good and Welfare Clause in the Constitution, but assuming that Conyers simply made an honest mistake, he likely was referring to the General Welfare Clause, which appears in two locations (emphasis added):
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, 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. - PREAMBLE TO THE CONSTITUTION

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and GENERAL WELFARE of the United States. - ART. 1, SEC. 8, PAR. 1
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (MD) agreed that "Congress has 'broad authority' to force Americans to purchase" health care "so long as it was trying to promote 'the general welfare'." (3)

(Rep. James Clyburn – the No. 3 ranking Democrat in the House – did not invoke the General Welfare Clause but instead candidly admitted, "Most of what we do down here is not authorized by the Constitution." (4)

The attempt by congressional leaders to invoke the General Welfare Clause as a cover for an unconstitutional act is nothing new. In 1792 when New England was suffering a crisis in one of its most important economic industries (fishing), some Congressmen proposed that federal funds be used to subsidize that troubled industry. James Madison quickly asserted that such a proposal was unconstitutional, explaining:
Those who proposed the Constitution knew, and those who ratified the Constitution also knew that this is... a limited government tied down to specified powers.... It was never supposed or suspected that the old Congress could give away the money of the states to encourage agriculture or for any other purpose they pleased (5).

Madison then warned about the consequences of allowing Congress to expand the narrow meaning of the "General Welfare Clause":
If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the "general welfare," and are the sole and supreme judges of the "general welfare," then they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every state, county, and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the United States; they may assume the provision for the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, everything from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police would be thrown under the power of Congress, for every object I have mentioned would admit of the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the "general welfare." (6)

According to Madison, if the original intent of the General Welfare Clause were ever expanded, then Congress would begin an unbridled intrusion into areas that were deliberately designed by the Constitution to be under the control of the state and local governments. Two specific aspects of the Constitution were intended to prohibit such federal encroachments: (1) the Enumerated Powers Doctrine, and (2) the Bill of Rights – specifically the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

Concerning the first, the Constitution authorizes Congress to address only eighteen specifically enumerated (that is, individually listed) areas and responsibilities; this is called the Enumerated Powers Doctrine. As affirmed by Thomas Jefferson:
Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare but is restrained to those specifically enumerated, and... it was never meant they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers (7).

Many other Founders were equally outspoken about Congress' limitations under the Enumerated Powers Doctrine. In fact, this doctrine was so well understood that in America's first several decades, presidents had only four cabinet level departments: the Secretary of State, the Secretary of War, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Attorney General (occasionally there was also a separate Secretary of the Navy, but many presidents often placed him under the Secretary of War). Today, however, there are almost four times as many cabinet level positions, including a Secretary of Agriculture, Labor, Commerce, Housing, Education, Transportation, Energy, and many others (8). Each of those areas was also very important two centuries ago, but because the Constitution had placed these areas under the jurisdiction of state governments, there was no federal presence involved in them.

Concerning the second point (the Bill of Rights), the Founding Fathers – dedicated students of history, government, and human nature that they were – knew that the federal government would invariably try to step beyond its enumerated powers; they therefore added the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution, directly stipulating that all areas not specifically listed in the Constitution were to remain under the jurisdiction of the states and local governments, which thus included areas such as education, criminal justice, energy, agriculture, and many others. As Thomas Jefferson affirmed:
I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: that "all powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states or to the people" [the Tenth Amendment].... To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition (9).

James Madison agreed:
I declare it as my opinion that [if] the power of Congress be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations... of the limited government established by the people of America (10).

Jefferson further explained:
Our country is too large to have all its affairs directed by a single government. Public servants at such a distance and from under the eye of their constituents... will invite the public agents to corruption, plunder, and waste.... What an augmentation of the field for jobbing, speculating, plundering, office-building, and office-hunting would be produced by an assumption of all the state powers into the hands of the federal government (11)!

As Jefferson summarized it:
The states can best govern our home concerns, and the [federal] government our foreign ones (12).

Significantly, health care issues often arose in early America – as when various dangerous fevers would periodically appear, ravaging American cities and killing scores of citizens. Concerning health care issues, the Founders specifically placed domestic health care into the hands of the state governments, leaving issues of international health care in the hands of the federal government. As Thomas Jefferson affirmed, the federal government was "to certify with exact truth, for every vessel sailing from a foreign port, the state of health respecting this fever which prevails at the place from which she sails," but that "the state authorities [are] charged with the care of the public health (13)." Under the Constitution, states were to handle domestic health care issues, and the federal government foreign ones.

– – – ♦ ♦ ♦ – – –

Notwithstanding the fact that a majority of Congressmen voted for the recent passage of the unconstitutional health care bill, there are many in Congress who do understand the constitutionally limited powers of Congress. Dozens of these Congressmen formed the Constitution Caucus, chaired by Rep. Scott Garrett (NJ), and many of its Members have made outstanding efforts to return Congress to its constitutional role; two such measures are highlighted below.

Rep. John Shadegg (AZ)

Every session since John has been in Congress, he has introduced "The Enumerated Powers Act" which would require "that all bills introduced in the U. S. Congress include a statement setting forth the specific constitutional authority under which the law is being enacted (14)." As Shadegg explains, "The Enumerated Powers Act will help slow the flood of unconstitutional legislation and force Congress to reexamine the proper role of the federal government (15)."

Not surprisingly, leaders of Congress have not allowed this bill to move forward, nevertheless, what a refreshing idea that Congress should provide constitutional authority for the actions it takes and the bills it passes!

Rep. Mike Conaway (TX)

Federal law establishes September 17 (the day the Constitution was signed in 1787) as Constitution Day, requiring that on that day every school receiving federal funding spend time studying the Constitution. Despite the law, a recent survey found that the majority of high school students had never heard of Constitution Day, and only ten percent could recall any such school celebration the prior year (16).

However, Congressman Conaway believed that not just school students but also Members of Congress and their staff should also study the Constitution on that day, so he introduced a congressional resolution to that effect. When the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee heard the resolution, he told Mike, "That's the stupidest idea I've ever heard!" – an attitude far too common among many in Congress.

Nonetheless, Mike (and many other Congressmen like him) continues to study the Constitution regularly. In fact, Mike always carries a pocket Constitution with him and each time he reads through it, he writes the date on the flyleaf of the booklet – a practice he began even before he became a Member of Congress.

– – – ♦ ♦ ♦ – – –

Founding Father John Jay wisely advised:
Every member of the State ought diligently to read and to study the constitution of his country.... By knowing their rights, they will sooner perceive when they are violated and be the better prepared to defend and assert them (17).

The only way that more Congressmen will begin to study the Constitution is if "We The People" study it first and then, through the power of our voice, calls, letters, and votes, insist that our elected officials also know and observe it.

Credit goes to David Barton at Wallbuilders.com


1. "Van Hollen memo lays out time line and messaging," Politico.com, March 12, 2010

2. Kerry Picket, "Conyers fabricates constitutional law citing 'good and welfare' clause," Washington Times, March 23, 2010

3. Matt Cover, "Hoyer Says Constitution's General Welfare Clause Empowers Congress to Order Americans to Buy Health Insurance," CNSNews.com, October 21, 2009

4. David A. Patten, "Napolitano: Supreme Court to Strike Down Obamacare," Friday, 26 Mar 2010, Newsmax.com

5. Jonathan Elliott, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution (Washington: 1936), Vol. 4, pp. 428, James Madison on "The Cod Fishery Bill," February 7, 1792.

6. Jonathan Elliott, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution (Washington: 1936), Vol. 4, pp. 429, James Madison on "The Cod Fishery Bill," February 7, 1792.

7. Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Andrew A. Lipscomb, editor (Washington, D. C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. XV, p. 133, Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin, June 16, 1817.

8. "The Cabinet," WhiteHouse.gov (accessed March 30, 2010)
”Cabinet Level Departments," National Defense Industrial Association (accessed March 30, 2010)

9. Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Andrew A. Lipscomb, editor (Washington, D. C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1903), Vol. III, p. 146, Jefferson's opinion against the constitutionality of a National Bank, February 15, 1791.

10. Jonathan Elliott, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution (Washington: 1936), Vol. 4, p. 429, James Madison on "The Cod Fishery Bill," February 7, 1792.

11. Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Andrew A. Lipscomb, editor (Washington, D. C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1903), Vol. X, pp. 167-168, Thomas Jefferson to Gideon Granger, August 13, 1800.

12. Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Andrew A. Lipscomb, editor (Washington, D. C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. XV, pp. 450, Thomas Jefferson to Judge William Johnson, June 12, 1823.

13. Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, 1789-1873, Message by President Thomas Jefferson "To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America," on Tuesday, December 3, 1805.; see also, Thomas Jefferson, "Fifth Annual Message," The American Presidency Project, December 3, 1805

14. "Text of H.R. 450: Enumerated Powers Act," Govtrack.us, January 9, 2009

15. John Shadegg, "Enumerated Powers Act," JohnShadegg.com (accessed March 24, 2010).

16. David Yalof and Ken Dautrich, survey conductors, "New Constitution Day Survey," John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, September 20, 2007, (for the full survey, go to www.firstamendmentfuture.org).

17. John Jay, The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, Henry P. Johnston, editor (New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1890), Vol. I, pp. 163-164, from his Charge to the Grand Jury of Ulster County, September 9, 1777.

Friday, March 26, 2010

And Why Doesn't Universal Healthcare Cover Extra-Terrestrial Aliens???

Okay, so you finally got government involvement in the healthcare system. Congratulations! But did you know about this?

Ah…jungle gyms and child molesters… I guess the kids will need the jungle gyms to keep in shape to run from the molesters…. NOW it makes sense.

And why then can't we assume that Estra-terrestrials would get coverage as well?

And now, since AT&T is having to pay more for the healthcare coverate of its employees, my phone bill is going to go up!!!!

Thanks again, liberals!

Friday, March 19, 2010

More Proof That Obamacare Is Unconstitutional

This is interesting…

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1
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; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

U.S. Supreme Court - STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA v. U S, 199 U.S. 437 (1905)
199 U.S. 437 - Argued April 11, 1905. Decided December 4, 1905.

If the opinion of this ruling is still supposed to applied today in the context that the currently proposed healthcare payer reform will be taxed, wouldn't that mean that all of the kickbacks, bribes, exemptions, etc. would make it unconstitutional since: "When South Carolina embarked upon the business of dispensing alcoholic beverages, its agents were held to be subject to the national internal revenue tax, the ground of the holding being that in 1787 such a business was not regarded as one of the ordinary functions of government."

I support any state Attorney General and/or Governor who upholds the enumerated rights of each state by suing the Federal government and its tyrannical designs on our lives.

Sunday, February 21, 2010

Commitment Is About You, Surrender Is About HIM!

When I bow my head
Are the words I've said
Alive or dead

Do I surrender
To all the splendor
That His love does render

When He does forgive
To Him will I give
And begin to live

Do I live for God
Or is beneath a façade
Hiding a fraud

Yet beneath this doubt
Within and without
My heart does shout

To my God above
Who is the perfection of
Holy grace and love

Through Him I win
From my depths within
Victory over sin

I often do a lot of introspection regarding my relationship with God. And I have recently learned a lesson that has hit me very, very hard. I hope I can adequately express this to you to help you further strengthen your relationship with God.

I have taken the word commitment for granted. This word is a modern era word. It is almost a PC word.

During one of my men's bible study, we were working together in "The Incredible Power of Kingdom Authority" by Adrian Rogers. In his interviews with Romanian Evangelist Josef T'son, it is discussed that the word commitment didn't become regularly used until the 1960s. In fact, when a word becomes popular in society, it usually replaces and old word. Research shows that the word replaced by commitment is surrender.

What's the difference?

It's in the control and this has been where my personal conflict has been keenly focused in my past.

When you commit to something, great or small, you are still in control. You can very easily be committed to doing things. You can commit to praying, reading your bible, spending more time with your family, New Year's resolutions, etc. Being in control of them means that you can choose not to do them. YOU CAN CHOOSE! If you think about it, how many things that you commit to are actually fulfilled? Whether it's losing weight or giving more time, most people don't fully follow through on their commitments. And I am just as guilty.

Surrender is a very different thing! Think about things that you would be obligated to surrender to: a burglar holding a gun to your head or a knife to your throat, an airplane you are on that plummets from the sky, or a surgical procedure being performed on you. In those cases, you have absolutely no choice but to surrender to their particular circumstances.

When I really looked at this, I began to ache. Even though there are things I have unconditionally surrendered to God, I found myself in an almost panic about the things that I have only committed to God. Yes, they may have been very noble and worthwhile things, but by only committing them, I maintained the control. Who am I to think that I actually have the right to control? ESPECIALLY ABOUT THE THINGS OF GOD!!!! I even arrogantly thanked God for leading me to commit things to Him!

I began to take inventory of my physical and spiritual life to see what I should be surrendering to God. My prayer life is improving, my marriage is improving, my relationships with family and friends are improving. I find it much more satisfying to be in His Holy Word. My desire to follow Jesus grows deeper and deeper every day

I am still taking inventory, still aching, and yet still praising and thanking God because even through all of this, He loves me unconditionally. To Him be all the honor and glory. Amen.

(revised from a previously posted blog of 5/30/2008)

Wednesday, February 17, 2010

Didn’t They Get The Clue the First Time???

This will probably be one of the least politically biased blogs I will ever write. It’s just that there is something really grating my nerves lately.

Even BEFORE Indiana Senator Evan Bayh announced that he would not seek reelection, there have been a lot of former office holders on both sides of the aisle that have declared their intention to run for their former office.

Now while I take the conservative position that the Liberal/Progressive Democrats from Obama on down have taken this nation to new low, I think it is potentially disastrous for the Republicans who lost their office in a fair election are seeking that office back. They had their chance to make this nation and its people a serious priority…AND THEY BLEW IT!

There is a reason they lost their office and I absolutely think that their former constituents would be very disappointed, and even disenchanted to have them right back in the office where they couldn’t perform their duty well enough to be reelected.

There is a movement ever growing to replace ALL of the incumbents in Congress COMPLETELY with new personnel. While I do see and appreciate the initiative behind it, I am personally not in total agreement with that because I do think there are a few member of Congress who ARE fulfilling their responsibilities to their constituents AND who have only been in for one term.

One of the priorities of the new Congress should be to institute term limits on themselves that will lead to the Constitution officially being amended to officially confirm that into law. The era of big government will never begin to be over until we can eliminate PROFESSIONAL POLITICIANS! And yes, I do include conservatives in that as well. When the people of this nation make it clear that one should not seek public office as a career, maybe those that do seek it will actually be of strong character that the people will be the ones who determine whether they go on to new or higher office.

On a somewhat unrelated side note, since Congress required corporate executives to take a salary of ONE DOLLAR per year without bonuses, why is it unreasonable for the American people to demand the same of their elected officials until this nation gets out of debt? Financial advantage should NEVER be a reason for ANY American to ascend to public office. Congress has so many benefits that any employee in the public sector would seriously envy.

One of the reasons that we look at our Founders with admiration is that they willingly and responsibly stepped down for their positions of power when they could have remained virtually indefinitely.

My charge to all of you is that when you look at your upcoming ballots in your various state and congressional primaries, whether you are Democrat, Republican or other, DO NOT vote to reelect someone who has lost an election for the same office and certainly DO NOT vote for an incumbent who has served a total of twelve years or more. This will be a responsible start at getting Washington to WORK FOR US rather than to go there to gain power, money and fame and RULE over us!

Come on wannabe professional politicians, GET A CLUE, right now they are free and untaxable!

Friday, February 5, 2010

Tim Tebow Could Have Been a "pedophile Rapist"...

And Joy Bejar could have just as easily been funny…

Check out this appalling piece of bloviating from The View’s most distorted and disturbed panelist:

If she doesn’t have a problem with the morality of murdering an unborn child, why should she have any moral authority to discuss the negativity of a “pedophile rapist?”

And if she is for killing babies BEFORE they have become pedophile rapists, is she for killing them after they become pedophile rapists?

Surely, being a Jew, she should understand how detestable genocide is. But I guess she isn’t a student of history, or truth for that matter.

The concept of abortion is not new. And, like it or not, the bible DOES speak of the evil that abortion is:

“Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb a reward.” – Psalm 127:3

Why would the “fruit of the womb” be potentially bad if God tells us to consider it a reward?

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.” – Jeremiah 1:5

God is speaking to and of Jeremiah. But it isn’t meant to be only about him. This is how God thinks of everybody in His Creation.

“Your hands fashioned and made me, and now you have destroyed me altogether.
Remember that you have made me like clay; and will you return me to the dust?
Did you not pour me out like milk and curdle me like cheese?
You clothed me with skin and flesh, and knit me together with bones and sinews.
You have granted me life and steadfast love, and your care has preserved my spirit.” – Job 10:8-12

When Job has asked “Why was I born,” he is able to elaborate with magnificent language signifying that life does begin at conception.

“Did not he who made me in the womb make him? And did not one fashion us in the womb?” – Job 31:15

Here, Job is reassuring those around him of his understanding of the value of life and Who creates that life.

“Thus says the Lord who made you, who formed you from the womb and will help you” – Isaiah 44:2a

Here God is reaffirming His complete commitment to His people by telling them that His commitment STARTED long before they were in to womb.

“But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace” – Galatians 1:15

In this verse, Paul is explaining that it is by God’s initiative that created Paul and placed him to be an apostle. It was not by anything Paul did. Furthermore, it signifies that Paul was chosen By God even before he was born.

The point of all of this is that LIFE is so valuable to God, who created it, that He even cherishes it before birth.

Miss Bejar, and others of her ilk, seems to only place value on life based on what that life contributes or removes from society. This is progressivism at its core.

Talk a look at the following from one of history’s most cited Supreme Court Judges:

BUCK v. BELL, Superintendent of State Colony Epileptics and Feeble Minded, 274 U.S. 200 (1927).
Supreme Court of the United States. (No. 292.) Argued April 22, 1927. Decided May 2, 1927.

Mr. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. delivered the opinion of the Court.

“…We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. ... Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”

Now, consider if it weren’t Justice Holmes, but Adolph Hitler writing about the Jews. Or Mao Tse Dung writing about political dissenters. Would your attitude be the same as saying that society is better off by killing potential drains on society? If it is, then you have some serious issues to deal with that should preclude you spending time of the web reading this blog.

Now consider that another hero of liberal feminists is Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood. But I will bet that most, if not all of those female activists will not coincide or reconcile that FACT that Margaret Sanger was one of the biggest racists in American history. This hero of “pro-choice” women everywhere was not interested in looking out for the rights of women. She was looking out for the “well-being” of society. She wanted to eliminate the human life that would eventually put a drain on society. Specifically, Sanger wanted to eliminate the ”negro race” from creating the undesirable ills of society. Before you call me crazy, look up where the abortion clinics are in your town. Are they in the upper-class, gated residential neighborhoods, or in the middle of the financial districts?


You will find virtually ALL Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion related services right in the inner city among those in or close to poverty. They were placed there by design to kill Black and Brown children under the guise of giving women a choice. The women under these living conditions will find it easy to make a “choice” to kill a child-to-be if it will save her, her family, and/or her community some hardships. Again, before you think I am crazy, ask yourself how many Pro-choice activists spend time among the wealthy to convince them that abortion is a choice?

Now, let’s take this back to Miss Bejar and her assertion that the argument FOR abortion is that a child can grow up to be a “pedophile rapist.”

One “choice” I am sure Joy is okay with is the choice that Ann Dunham made. After all, that choice led to a man becoming president.

But let’s look at choices. The following is from The Evidence Bible

An Interesting Quiz

How would you respond in these situations?
1. A preacher and his wife are very, very poor. They already have 14 kids. Now she finds out she’s pregnant with the 15th. They’re living in tremendous poverty. Considering their poverty and the excessive world population, would you consider recommending she get an abortion?

2. The father is sick with sniffles, the mother has TB. Of their four children, the first is blind, the second has died, the third is deaf, the fourth has TB. She finds she’s pregnant again. Given this extreme situation, would you consider recommending abortion?

3. A white man raped a 13-year-old black girl and she’s now pregnant. If you were her parents, would you consider recommending abortion?

4. A teenage girl is pregnant. She’s not married. Her fiancé is not the father of the baby, and he’s upset. Would you recommend abortion?

Based on these circumstances, Sanger, Holmes, and even Bejar would have advised abortion to prevent hardship and drain on society. But keep reading…

In the first case, you would have killed John Wesley, one of the great evangelists in the 19th century.
In the second case, you would have killed Ludwig van Beethoven.
In the third case, you would have killed Ethel Waters, the great black gospel, jazz and blues singer.
If you said yes to the fourth case, you would have declared the murder of Jesus Christ!

We do have a choice, Miss Bejar – The choice to murder innocents or not.

Tuesday, January 26, 2010

Tuesday, January 19, 2010

When You Vote, Remember That "We the People" Have the Power

I know, I know… I have been neglecting my blog, but do to various necessities; I just wasn’t able to post anything. So, I apologize to those few of you who actually pay attention to my tiny, insignificant corner of the world.

There has been SO much to write about, I feel like an idiot for not at least reposting stories and other blogs. But cest la vis…

So, what to write about…?

The political races that took place last year? Nah. The Christmas Terrorist Attempt? Nope. The New Year? No. Although I still wonder why people ask me if I had a great new year. Wouldn’t it be more logical to ask if I had a good Old Year? Anyway, I am not going to even really comment on the earthquake in Haiti or the Massachusetts (add another “e” for you Martha/Marsha Coakley fans) Senatorial race.

So, why even break my creative fast?

The one thing that has been occupying my thoughts lately is this following:

At what point in the history of our nation did the fourth, AND MOST IMPORTANT, branch of government lose its power?

It’s more of a rhetorical thought as there are just too many things that have been done by the other three branches to contribute to the loss of power by the fourth. And yet it shouldn’t be.

From the date forward after “We the people” was put to parchment, the three branches that were created by the fourth began to start seizing more and more self importance. I am not decrying the Constitution at all, because as it was intended and written by its framers, it is the best form of any government that has or will be established. But most of those who have pursued and been ELECTED to SERVE have treated their service as a job with a title and power.

Let me say that there are those out there who do pursue the service and yet don’t pursue power. But doesn’t the distinction between power and service say enough.

George Washington is probably the most famous leader whose career was more about service than power. And yes, there have been a few others. But if you look at the history of the politicians in this nation, the majority of them have done things to seize power rather that to keep the power with WE THE PEOPLE.

John Adams was the first with the Alien and Sedition Act to place the government as more important than the people. The others include Jackson, Taylor, Polk, Lincoln, Grant, Hayes, both Roosevelts, Taft, Wilson, LBJ, Carter, Clinton and “Dubya” Bush. In fact ALL presidents really belong on the list but none as much as Wilson, FDR, Johnson, and now Obama.

The next question is WHY? Well, the truth isn’t that all politicians pursue power, but that “We the people” have let them.

Yes, I have endorsed candidates before and will do so again, as long as they look to the Constitution and the rule of law. But, from this moment forward, any candidate who campaigns themselves or promotes a platform of larger government will not get my support. Look at it this way. If the only choices of food I have to eat for one day are rotten chicken or rotten pork, I will fast.

The Democrats have historically been the party whose elected have seized more power for men than support the powers of the Constitution and yet there are plenty of Republicans who, even though they campaign to “not increase the size of government,” do just that. These politicians all spend like crazy and write legislation that makes government more important than the people. Ronald Reagan was the last president to campaign and serve with the platform of reducing spending, taxation, AND bureaucracy.

The Obama/McCain race was very reminiscent of the FDR/Landon race in that the losers basically campaigned with the platform ideology of, “me too, just not as much.” Many conservative voters saw right through McCain and stayed home in 2008 giving Obama the win.

Well, no more! It stops now. The complacency of the people is waning after so many years of waxing. The deification of politicians is being scrutinized. The American Idol mentality will no longer be a part of political races. The people, nation and states will be the focus of politicians rather than the government.


The only way those factors will change if something VERY important happens:

Americans have got to once again realize that the only time to support a candidate is during an election with the premise that, once elected, the winner will SERVE the people rather than use the people to further the winner. One way to ensure this is to establish term limits for elected officials. Why is it that the president is restricted by term limits and the Congress is not? One reason is that the Congress writes the laws, but the main reason is that people who pursue power through service forget about the service and are not willing to give up that power.

It’s time again for Americans to understand the issues of the platforms and especially the NEEDS of the nation. Americans should take the chance to research the candidates’ history and opinions. And Americans should vote with the assurance that they have the most important power in politics – The ability to hire and fire those who are in politics.

So, as the election season comes near, get to know the candidates and the issues thoroughly. Do NOT vote because you like the R or the D, but vote because you believe the integrity of and desire to serve by a candidate match up with what the people NEED and not what you want. And, I cannot stress this enough, do NOT vote for any candidate who promises something tangible to you. That is called a bribe, or “buying a vote,” or political prostitution. They cannot guarantee what they promise to individuals. And be very weary of those who promise things to groups to get their support. The ONLY special interest concern a politician should have is for his or her individual constituents who he or she SERVES.

In closing, it’s time for the fourth branch of government – the people – to believe in itself again and put trust in the Constitution rather than the candidates.