Common Sense Revisited

Happy Anniversary to Common Sense Revisited!

2012-05-28T12:39:00.002-04:00

Happy Anniversary to Common Sense Revisited!

Well, it’s been a year since I started writing this blog. I started out with the idea that I was getting too political on Face Book. That and my Dad put the idea in my head that I could make a couple bucks with AdSense. The grand total sum of $1.87 sits in my Google account – so much for the making a buck!

Seriously, over the last year we as Americans have seen several significant changes happen in our government and in our society. Some were good, others not so good. Unfortunately, I think our nation is suffering from the not so good things more than it is growing from the good.

The conservative, traditional values system is under attack in our country. Political polarization has reached an all time high. The press too is polarized. It would almost be appropriate for journalists to identify themselves by only wearing blue in public. If not for bloggers, talk radio hosts, and Fox News, the Right would have no media presence at all.

Year two of this blog will bear witness to what is going to be one of the most pivotal presidential elections in history. This election is more than just whether or not Mr. Obama will retain his 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue address. It is more than whether or the Left or Right will have political control of the government. It is a question of values, and of the future of these United States.

History shows a very similar pattern of events during the late 1840’s and into the 1850’s. The subjects were different, but the rhetoric and partisan polarity were not that different than what we see today. This government seeks to control individual liberty with the same intensity and fury as the government of the 1850’s sought to control the rights of states to govern themselves. Folks, I do not say lightly that if we as a republic continue on the path of bigger government, socialist ideology, and liberal values against the will of the people, we too will be facing civil war in our lifetime.

I know, the knee-jerk reaction is that Mike is going off the cliff with this, but take a look at something interesting. National political polls say the majority of Americans favor same-sex marriage yet every state where a public vote has been taken to ban same-sex marriage, it is banned. Why the disconnect? Simple. The majority voice of the people is not being heard by the pollsters. The people paying for the polls don’t want the truth to become a headline. It discredits them, and takes momentum away from their objective.

And who are the people running these polls? They aren’t the corporate elite, Wall Street bankers or independently wealthy which are targeted by groups like Occupy. The big money is found with uber-liberals like Arianna Huffington and George Sorros, who collectively control the majority of the news media in the United States today. Time to realize that the socialist movement is highly funded, highly structured, and highly organized and seeks to eliminate individual liberty in this country. It will stop at nothing until it is successful, even if the majority of people are against it. That my friends is the objective of the Left today.

Feel differently? Please leave a comment! Opposing thoughts and viewpoints are always welcome!

Hey - bring me more wine! But hang the baker first!

2012-05-10T10:11:00.000-04:00

The Book of Genesis recounts an event where Joseph interpreted the dreams of Pharaoh’s chief baker and chief cupbearer. Both the baker and the cupbearer had offended Pharaoh and were put into jail. The Bible says both men had dreams during their first night in prison, and woke upset by these dreams the next day. Joseph interpreted their dreams, and the Bible goes on to say the interpretations both came to pass. The cupbearer was restored to his position and the baker was executed.

I don’t normally spend much time discussing theology or Biblical interpretation in this blog, but really felt this relevant in our current state as a nation. The chief cupbearer was responsible for bringing Pharaoh’s wine, and making sure it was good wine and not poisoned. The chief baker was responsible for baking Pharaoh’s bread. Three days had passed from the time of their jailing until the release of the cupbearer and the execution of the baker. The third day also happened to be Pharaoh’s birthday, and of course there was going to be a celebration. Apparently, Pharaoh had more need for wine at his celebration than bread, or at least it would appear that way from the outcome of the story.

I have heard many different theologians talk about events in the Bible as being “types and shadows” of events in our modern lives. To better explain this concept, consider the word “type” as a representation of an object or concept and “shadow” as a representation of an environment. Wine is described as a “type” of the Spirit and bread is described as a “type” of God’s word. Pharaoh kept the cupbearer who brought his wine, and killed the baker who brought his bread. In the natural world, he wanted his party more than he did the bread. Theologically the example is he preferred the happiness and joy found in the Spirit than he did the responsibility and accountability found in the Word.

The majority of people in the United States today - regardless of what political party affiliation claimed - prefer the quick, easy and fun way more than they prefer what takes hard work or comes with any form of accountability or individual responsibility. Take off your political glasses for a moment and take a good look at what has been achieved politically in the last three years. What have we as a nation done to empower individuals? We want the wine more than the bread, especially when it comes to God’s Word, but it shows in our politics, our economy, our foreign policy and defense. We want to feel good. We want to get something for nothing, regardless of what it means for tomorrow.

The American church (to include every Christian denomination) has become apathetic. Surveys suggest about three-quarters of Americans claim to be Christian yet our media would suggest we are a nation of atheists. The church has allowed itself to be painted as ridiculous, irrelevant and dogmatic by the minority that controls the liberal media. Why? Because the church shifted its focus off the bread and onto the wine. The church has offered the world a version of Jesus that is all spirit and no truth. The Bible is mocked, questioned, parsed for convenience and sometimes completely ignored so as not to offend those who are doing wrong in their lives.

We lost sight of our first love and what He considers important. We would rather say God is love rather than realize that He is holy, and He has standard for our lives which we choose to reject. The evidence is found in the growing number of Christians who do not agree the Bible is completely accurate or completely relevant to our world today. It is found in the number of Christian churches that reject the existence of Hell and refuse to preach about it.

It is found in the growing acceptance of liberal Scripture interpretation by Left leaning churches that seek to please their congregations rather than preach the whole gospel and condemn what God calls unholy. Yes, the Bible does say the greatest commandment is love but it also says homosexuality is an abomination to God. We want the first part to be true, but anyone who says the second part is equally true is a bigot, or not a real Christian, or is homophobic...and the insults go on and on.

Take a good look at what has been playing out on the world’s political stage over the last few days. France and Greece have rejected austerity – meaning they have rejected sound financial planning in favor of reckless spending on social programs that are bankrupting their countries. Russia has re-elected Vladimir Putin on a quest to return to socialism. Russia is also issuing large amounts of anti-American rhetoric to include threats of military action against our NATO positions in Europe. Our President is now supporting same sex marriage, which is something that is illegal under current Federal Law (DOMA). All five of these actions suggest a “keep the wine and toss the bread” mentality is pervasive in our world today.

Politicians will do and say anything to stay popular in the eyes of their constituents – even in non-democratic countries! Any hint of individual responsibility or accountability is gone from their remarks and actions. All that remains is the feel good spirit. Bring the wine, keep the cupbearer, make everyone happy - but don’t bring any truth about consequences or accountability. In short – don’t be a party pooper.

As always, your comments and thoughts are invited!

A new minority?

2012-05-06T19:11:00.000-04:00

I start with a little bit of a disclaimer: I am writing on a topic that is probably one of the most controversial issues of our time. I am probably going to either gain a few or lose a few readers with this article. In my life I have had several friends, mentors and relatives who are gay, many of whom are very dear to me. I am not homophobic and do not write this with any form of hatred or poor intent. Nevertheless, I think it is important to stand on what one believes, and I am glad we still have freedom of speech to do so! There seems to be a trend toward a new minority: the Christian, American, heterosexually married father.

Vice President Biden (best known for his gaffes) went on the record today stating he is “absolutely comfortable” with same sex marriage. Biden went so far as to say NBC’s now retired sitcom “Will and Grace” was a great source of education on the subject. As a huge fan of irony, I find it amusing that the VP would choose fiction as the source of education for a new social policy viewpoint. (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/06/biden-says-absolutely-comfortable-with-gay-marriage-rights-cites-will-and-grace/)

This is noteworthy because it goes far beyond what POTUS has said in the past about supporting same sex marriage. I think Mr. Obama most likely feels exactly as his number two does, but does not want the lightening rod attached to him directly at this point in the election cycle. What better way to reach out to the base than to send Old Joe to drop it out there! We all know he will say anything – and does!

I have no issue with anyone who finds love and joy in their mate, regardless of their sexual choice. I totally agree with the right to pursue happiness, even if that happiness is different than what would make me happy. However, I am very curious how comfortable Old Joe would be with accepting my worldview, as it does not reach out to his political base.

I watched George Takei make some comments shortly after Kirk Cameron made his recent remarks on homosexuality. Mr. Takei made a great, valid point. We are a society based in Civil Law and there are differences in issues of Faith versus issues of Civil Law. In the perfect society, there would not be any different civil rights for one person or people than another regardless of their political, sexual, racial, socio-economic, or ethnic orientation. I completely agree with Mr. Takei and civil rights should be afforded to everyone, regardless of their choices and lifestyles. I even think there should be parity in the tax codes and other legal aspects of marriage that same sex couples are excluded from under marriage as defined by DOMA (which is Federal Law that Mr. Obama and Mr. Biden are not faithfully executing by making such comments, but that’s another discussion). However, that does not mean what is sacred to one group should be blasphemed for the sake of another.

Marriage is not a civil institution. Civil law recognized marriage with its recognition and acceptance of religious laws as the basis of Civil Law. So that means marriage is something sacred under religious law; it is therefore a religious institution. Civil Law has reduced marriage to nothing more than a contractual agreement and a status in the tax codes. It does not recognize the value marriage has in religion, Christian or otherwise. Just a side note, if the United States were an Islamic nation, homosexuals would be killed for their practices just the same as Christians would for believing in Christ.

In the Book of Genesis the Bible says marriage is the separating of a son from his mother and a daughter from her home, with the two becoming one flesh in marriage. Despite any attempt to remove gender from the Bible, this passage clearly (even in the original Hebrew codex) specifies marriage is between a man and a woman. The Bible never records a marriage between members of the same sex. I could more easily fabricate a Biblically supported argument for polygamy than I could same sex marriage, although it would be a false argument. This means even the most liberal of Biblical interpretations cannot suggest a Biblical support of same sex marriage exists.

I have watched so many say Christians are bigots for standing on what the Bible says and for not agreeing with same sex marriage. Christians are publically decried and persecuted in the media for their views, regardless of the fact that the Bible gives over 6,000 years of consistent historically proven support of their views. Being a Christian has become the target of satirical comedy, and the subject of extreme scrutiny. Christians are judged as hypocrites when they do wrong, and are torn down by critics who would do the same things without any moral remorse.

So if marriage is a well established, well documented, ancient religious institution that predates today’s Civil Law, then by what right does Civil Law get to infringe upon that institution? What is the greater bigotry? A Christian holding firm in their support of something that has not changed for 6,000 years? Or the forcing an opposing values system on those that hold the former dear?

Before answering that rhetorical question, let me go on to pose another. The United States of America was founded by God fearing (yes Christian) men who lived within one generation of leaders who would stone and burn women accused of witchcraft and strictly enforced the attendance of church on Sunday. They had the foresight to make sure freedom of religion was constitutionally guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. However, they never once penned a law that said the separation of church and state required the destruction of Christian beliefs. So, if by the same constitutionally guaranteed freedom of belief and speech the LGBT community is using to force same sex marriage into existence, what recourse do I as a Christian have to protect my religious heritage from blasphemy?

I will answer the later question before I close and let you answer the former. I have none. Despite the fact of there being no law allowing the destruction of Christian beliefs in the United States today, courts at every level have established enough stare decisis to promise my beliefs will not be well defended. Not just that, but the resulting court decisions given by those courts becomes non-litigated law. If you disagree, with a little research I am sure I could fill the content of this blog with case law citations showing rulings against churches or Christian organizations for trying to remain true to their beliefs.

Thus, if not already, in time the Christian, American, heterosexually married father will become the new minority. We are already branded as bigots, homophobes and culturally intolerant. The media (news, movies, television shows, commercial advertisements, etc) portrays the American father and husband as stupid, weak, insensitive, adulterous, or is completely absent from view in family settings. Is that something we see Mr. Biden or Mr. Obama decrying or condemning? No. We see the exact opposite, which could be construed as support.

Again, this was not written to attack any individual or even with the intent of attacking homosexuality. However, I will not apologize for standing on what is historically and Biblically proven with respect to same sex marriage. My marriage is a part of my faith, it is a covenant between God and my wife, and by its definition has no place for members of the same sex. I challenge anyone to show me how my marriage is improved by disregarding its status as a holy institution.

As always, opposing viewpoints, thoughts and comments are welcome.

Tennessee becomes the second state to allow Creationism debates in the classroom

2012-04-20T23:59:00.002-04:00

Tonight at dinner one of my sons brought up a recent Tennessee law which allows students to discuss creationism or intelligent design in the classroom during instruction about evolution. The law provides protections for teachers who engage in debates with students about non-scientific origin theories. Governor Haslam did not sign the legislation, but did permit the bill to become law without his signature last week.

I found the discussion between my older sons to be very interesting. My older boys are 15 and 13, with the older being a high school freshman studying for his Biology finals and the younger being a seventh grader. My younger son started the conversation, and said he was happy about the law because now he could talk about his belief in creation as the Bible describes it. My older son immediately replied that evolution, or more specifically the theory of natural selection, was the best explanation for the origin of life. He went on to say the Bible doesn’t give enough information.

Being a graduate of Liberty University (a Christian university that teaches creation studies), I took Biology taught with a balanced comparison of evolution theory versus creation as described by the Bible. I countered my older son and challenged him to tell me what information the Bible was deficient in giving. He cited carbon dating disproves the Bibles timing and how natural selection proves that the stronger species survive and get to reproduce. Without going into gross detail, I was able to counter his claims by asking where the fossil evidence was to prove the claims of macro evolution, or why the animals which stronger species came from still exist and are able to continue reproducing.

My response to him is the same I want to bring up here about this new law. True academic debate about metaphysical issues such as origin theories should not be one sided. Science in its purist form cannot use its own methodology to prove the theory of evolution using repeatable experiments. Hypothesis’s regarding evolution theories require presuppositions, just as creation based theories do. In short, one needs some sort of faith to believe either theory. Teaching only evolution theory in the classroom does not support open education. In my humble opinion, teaching only evolution serves to eliminate faith from the minds of the next generation.

Quoting Reuters, “Brenda Ekwurzel of the Union of Concerned Scientists saw a risk to education: ‘We need to keep kids' curiosity about science alive and not limit their ability to understand the world around them by exposing them to misinformation.’” Ironically, children are taught evolution theory as an absolute truth, despite the fact that it has never been accepted by the scientific community as anything more than an unproven theory. Which is the greater misinformation? Turning a blind eye and muting the valid metaphysical arguments presented by intelligent design and creationism, or touting evolution as the only true and valid explanation for creation?

I am Christian, as I have said in this blog several times before, so perhaps I am biased. The theories of evolution are less than 200 or so years old. They were created by scientists and philosophers whose main goal was to disprove the existence of God. These same scientists and philosophers were also largely responsible for the rise of existential secular humanistic thinking in the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries. These theories remain almost completely unproven, and use what a court of law would call circumstantial evidence to support their assertions.

To accept these theories as fact, to teach them to our children without explaining the complete history of the people behind the theories, to not teach the shortcomings of the research needed to prove them into scientific law, and to not discuss alternative possibilities is an abuse of the educational system. I think it further proves the goal of modern public education is not to teach young minds to think, but to push a one-sided liberal agenda onto them with as little resistance as possible.

The history recorded in the Bible spans approximately 6,000 years. It was written under divine inspiration by 40 different men and women, across a period of 1,500 years and at least several thousand miles of physical terrain. The oldest written copies of the Bible confirm the words we read today in our modern Bibles are largely the same as those written in those old codices. The story hasn’t changed. It stands up to the strongest academic research for veracity and historical integrity. Its information is credible and holds up in strong debate.

What is the purpose of denying our children the right to learn alternatives to a man made theory? Simple – if the Bible is true then secular humanity can be proven wrong. Situational ethics must give way to morality and the presuppositions of the enlightened, liberal agendas would be questioned. It is much easier to control a people if you control the information they are given, and their ability to process that information.

All this said, I think our teachers do a great job teaching children. Most teachers I know have only the best of intentions in their hearts with respect to helping young minds learn and grow. I applaud this new law because I think it gives teachers the ability to really teach children, without being hampered in what they can and cannot talk about in the classroom. I just sincerely hope free debate occurs in all of our nation’s classrooms, before it is too late.

As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome!

Are all gun owners "old white guys?"

2012-04-17T16:12:00.001-04:00

I was listening to a conservative radio talk show this afternoon (The Wilkow Majority). The topic being discussed was gun control and how liberal groups tend to create stereotypes about the people who own guns. Mr. Wilkow stated liberal groups try to make gun ownership rights an issue exclusively endorsed by conservative white men. He went on to say owning a gun is not something that is for “old white guys” but is a civil right for all law abiding citizens and should concern everyone, including liberals.

The 2^nd Amendment reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” (By the way, the term well regulated has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to mean well trained, not be an excuse for increased government regulation of firearms.) In 1789 when the Bill of Rights was written, America was a vastly different place, and had a very different worldview than the United States we live in today. There are several scholarly and historical arguments that can be made based upon the writings of Jefferson, Washington, and even Payne (for whom the name of this Blog is attributed) to support just how different we are.

The early United States government was not concerned with its citizens having weapons. Every home had a gun because it was needed for hunting and general protection. The country was also just born, and freed from a tyrannical government which was trying to control every aspect of life – taxes, commerce, property ownership, etc. (Does this sound vaguely familiar?) The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution to make sure the basic rights they just got done fighting England to secure were protected by law.

As history moves forward, so does philosophy and technology. The pistol became more technologically advanced and specialized for close proximity personal defense, or offense as needed. The rifle took the place of the musket, offering better accuracy and increased lethality. Law enforcement, general commerce, and the industrial revolution changed the basic need for firearms. People no longer needed to hunt as commerce created convenient access to food. Basic self defense was no longer a question of having a firearm because police were available to enforce laws and keep cities relatively safe.

The popular pervasive philosophical paradigm of a utopian society was proliferated by the Industrial Revolution and continues to some extent today. The basic idea that society is evolving into something better, that advancements will bring about a perfect world, and world peace will soon be in hand. Today we can watch the evening news and know we are not anywhere near world peace, but our government would have us believe that we don’t need guns because we are safe. Our government claims it is not tyrannical, and that people have no need to defend themselves against tyranny, or foreign invasion, or to protect personal property, or to ensure a fair trade, or to… and the list goes on.

Several states, especially coastal states which tend to be more liberal, have strict laws that control a citizen’s ability to acquire or carry firearms. Liberals will cite every case of violent crime involving a fire arm as a reason why guns are bad, and the need for strict government control. Unfortunately for the liberals, the constitution prohibits infringing the rights of citizens to own and bear arms. While the amount of violent crime is sad, law abiding citizens who own guns are not going to increase the amount of violent crime. Criminals do, and criminals (convicted felons) are not permitted to own fire arms legally.

A few thoughts:

First, the liberal stereotype is wrong. Gun owners are not just white men. They are single college-aged women looking to protect themselves from would be rapists. They are black men and women making sure their children are protected against home invasions. They are hunters who were the first environmentalists, contributing significantly to the maintenance of our forests and waterways. They are average everyday citizens who own them just because they can.

Second, a word about tyranny. The dictionary defines tyranny as the arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power. The current administration and previous administrations have issued presidential directives which run contrary to the separation of powers – meaning they have asserted unrestrained power according to our Constitution. Our current president has gone so far as to recently attempt to intimidate the Supreme Court. A little known fact is our president has the authority to have the military to arrest citizens of the United States. This power comes by an extension of a now eleven year old “state of emergency” which started September 14, 2001. Several other constitutional safeguards and federal laws are superseded by presidential authority in the event of a “national emergency.” While our current politicians are for the most part benevolent and would only use these powers for good, there is no congressional oversight or balance of power to protect the public from a president using the National Emergencies Act. The notion that the average citizen has no need to fear tyranny is naive at best.

One of the show’s callers brought a very good point. She said to take a look at what is happening in Syria today, and asked if there was any better example to show why citizens should be able to bear arms. The Syrian government is killing its citizens in the streets as they protest tyranny and government oppression. She pointed out news reports of Syrian people begging for guns in front of Western television cameras. She also pointed out how our government found it convenient to arm rebels in Libya (against Gaddafi), Afghanistan (against the Taliban) and Iraq (Kurds against Hussien in the 90’s); but our president wants to make it harder for the average American to have access to weapons. Am I the only one who sees a correlation here?

Last, a rhetorical question based upon a caller to Mr. Wilkow’s show. If guns are so bad, when was the last time there was a massacre at a gun show? Think about it this way – a small concentrated area filled with guns and people who love them. Wouldn’t the liberal concept of guns being a major cause of violence suggest that such an area would be prone to increased violence? Or is the liberal stereotype a smoke screen for a much larger agenda?

As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome!

Guess What! Stay-at-home Moms DO Understand the Economy!

2012-04-13T00:03:00.001-04:00

Hilary Rosen’s attack of Ann Romney on CNN Wednesday night was in a word, appalling. Her apology lacked sincerity and smacked of a sort of ‘I’m still right about what I said.’ My wife is a stay at home mom and has been for almost our entire marriage. We have seven children and we make many sacrifices by being a one income household. In all our years of marriage, whenever I am asked if my wife works, my reply has been “harder than I do – she stays home with our children.” Not once in 18 years have I ever heard anyone reply with the undertones I heard in Rosen’s apparent disdain of stay at home mothers. Interestingly, Rosen was hired by the Democratic National Committee to coach unbridled speakers such as Debbie Wasserman-Shultz who are known for making faux pa’s while speaking in public.

CNN brought Rosen back today for a chance to redeem herself. She said (and I paraphrase) that she respects Ann Romney, and she might have had a choice to be a stay at home mom but some waitress in Nevada with two kids doesn’t have a choice to be a stay at home mom and the Romney-Ryan budget is cutting funding to her kid’s daycare. I’d like to break that statement down a little bit.

First: deflection. She squarely and intentionally attacked Ann Romney in her first set of comments. The spirit of her statement had nothing to do with the plight of women who can't be stay at home moms. After the rest of the DNC and President Obama distanced themselves from her, she was left clawing at the air. It was sort of like running out into Times Square naked and yelling – hey, look over there! I think a real, heartfelt apology would have been a little more appropriate than throwing off on some hypothetical single mom waitress.

Second: the choice to be a stay at home mom is a sacred decision to be made by moms without any sort of political or social pressure. The Left repeatedly accuses the Right of waging “war on women.” Taking a swipe at stay at home moms is…not an attack on women? What was illustrated in Rosen’s tirade is the Left’s drive to attack anyone and anything that does not follow their ideology. It seems to me they might have been a little bit misguided this time! I think the proof of this is the amount of distance and disagreement from the mainstream Left.

Third: what Romney-Ryan budget? This administration has now gone over 1,000 days without a budget. In its first two years it enjoyed full control of both the House and the Senate. They got the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) passed. The President has handed down several Executive Orders that could be considered an overstep of his executive authority. But they never actually got around to passing an actual budget. But somehow, Rosen’s hypothetical waitress is losing her childcare entitlement because of a Romney-Ryan budget. Really?

The best set of comments I heard about Rosen came from President Obama. He said “candidates' families should be off-limits in campaigns:"I don't have a lot of patience for commentary about the spouses of political candidates.” I think I may have just found one of the few things Mr. Obama has said that I can agree with.

As always, your comments are welcomed!

October Baby - Two Thumbs UP!!!

2012-04-07T22:14:00.002-04:00

My undergraduate humanities professor had a saying – “we paint what we value.” He was referring to how we as humans use art to express what is important to us. The word paint can be substituted for act, sculpt, sing, write and so forth. It is true - only the things that matter to us make it into our literature, music, etc.

In today’s world it is sometimes hard to determine what we as humans value through our art. Literature is shallow and full of stock characters and undeveloped plots. Movies are often full of violence and music is often little bit more than a few lines mixed around a chanted chorus. Marketing and other business functions determine what movies and music will be published. Many artists are never heard, and many values are hushed away.

This week I had a chance to see the movie October Baby. Sadly, I read many reviews where the critics did not favor the film. It is the story of a girl who grows up and finds out she was adopted from a failed abortion. The girl is 19 years old when she finds out, and is a college student. The movie shows her reaction, and her quest to find her biological mother and find out why she tried to abort her. Not to give the whole movie away, but in the end she finds the real answers are found in forgiving herself, her parents and her biological mother. I found the movie to be very positive, inspiring and encouraging.

So many times I have seen movies that justify or apologize for abortion. If we paint what we value, then it would seem that we value abortion. A Pew Research Center poll in 2009 would support that assumption, as it found only an average of 44% of Americans think abortion should be completely illegal. I think this is where statistics can be deceiving. The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life says about 79% of the current US population is Christian (all denominations together). I personally have not yet found a professing Christian who knowingly supports abortion. I think it begs the question: if more than three-quarters of us are Christians who don’t support abortion, then who values it? My answer: the same marketing and business groups which determine what is hip and what isn’t.

Interestingly, I think the liberal bean counters misjudged this film. In the weekend it made a limited national release, it placed eight in overall revenues. If the film's revenue is adjusted for the number of screens it was released on, the film actually would have placed second.

It was very refreshing for me to see a film that made it past the liberal gatekeepers and presented some of the values I embrace. It was also really refreshing to enjoy a film that did not have some hidden apology or excuse for a liberal agenda – except for the rented Toyota Prius! Seriously, it’s time for the 79% of Americans who are Christian to stop accepting what the other 21% deem as valuable in our media choices. There should be many more films like October Baby available in the mainstream market.

Personally, I feel abortion is wrong in almost all cases and if we are a society that is based upon civil law, then it should not be long before abortion is no longer legally justifiable regardless of the circumstances. The courts are already recognizing unborn children as people. If a pregnant woman is killed, in most states the assailant is charged with two counts of murder - a count for both the mother and the unborn child.

In a society based upon civil law, court rulings establish precedence. If an unborn child’s life is ended by an act of senseless violence (murder) then what is the difference if that child’s life is ended by an intentional act of medical violence (abortion)? Once the precedence is set by a murder conviction for an unborn child, then the question I just posed must be answered. Further, medical advances are making it possible for a child to be born early all the time. It seems rather obvious to me that society in general (including the courts and medicine) values life more than it does abortion. If we paint what we value, then we better start painting more pictures like October Baby.

As always, your comments are welcomed and encouraged!

Mary Brown - still a champion of individual liberty!

2012-03-14T22:20:00.000-04:00

I read an editorial in the Los Angeles Times the other day about Mary Brown. Brown is one of the plaintiffs whose case against Obamacare’s Individual Mandate is being appealed to the Supreme Court. The suit maintains the government should not be able to force Brown (and the other plaintiffs in the suit) to purchase health insurance coverage, and that the Individual Mandate is a violation of her individual liberty.

Mary Brown, since filing the suit, has filed for bankruptcy protection as the auto repair business she ran with her husband has failed. I am assuming the couple set this business up as a sole proprietorship, which does not afford their personal assets any protection against the business’s loss.

I am not a lawyer, but as a business major I offer an explanation of a few basic concepts. Bankruptcy is the legal tool used to help dissolve assets and release liabilities. It is designed to be a “fresh start” for those who need a financial reset. Bankruptcy petitions and records are public court records.

The Brown’s had some medical bills they could not pay, and included approximately $4,500 in medical expenses in their bankruptcy. The media found what the author of the editorial called “political gold for the Obama administration, transforming Brown from a champion of individual liberty into an exemplar of the problem the new law was designed to address.”

I think there are a few things to point out here. In order to not be fraudulent, every debt must be disclosed during the bankruptcy process. I don’t know the Brown’s personally, but I don’t think they wanted to not pay their bills. They owned a business and were taking part of the great American dream and did not want their government forcing them to buy something they would not otherwise purchase. They are suffering under the same economic conditions as the rest of us, and those conditions collapsed their business.

Today the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office released an analysis of Obamacare and found it will cost more than double its original price tag (almost $750 Billion more), and will cover 4 million fewer people than originally projected. If Mary Brown’s $4,500 in medical bills listed in bankruptcy is gold for the Obama administration…then what do they call the CBO report? I couldn’t find a response from the White House on their website or in the news, so I’m not really sure what they call it!

But why is Mary Brown and her case important anyway? Simple. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) was written without a severability clause. Severability is the legal mechanism which allows for parts of laws to be separated from other parts of the law, in the event of something like the Supreme Court declaring it unconstitutional. Congress generally writes legislation with severability clauses because we don’t want entire pieces of legislation taken down because a small part of it is deemed defective or unconstitutional.

In the case of Obamacare, Congress specifically did not use a severability clause because if the Individual Mandate fell, then the whole point of the law would be lost. The point of Obamacare is not to give insurance to uninsured Americans; It is the precursor to a single payer system of healthcare. Before you say I’m reaching – consider this.

Insurance companies generally make money from good conservative investments of the premiums they collect. In the perfect model, an insurance carrier will collect the cost of claims plus the cost of business expenses and invest that money. Then, after claims and expenses are paid, it is expected that all of the money collected will be paid out. The profits come from the investments, not from the premiums. Of course we don’t live in a perfect world, and insurers make money from premiums too. In order to pay out only what they take in, they have to be selective about the risks they take. This practice is called underwriting, and is based upon trends found in claims experiences.

Obamacare all but neuters healthcare insurance underwriting, forcing insurers to take risks they would not have taken before the law was implemented. They also are going to be forced to take those risks for less money than it takes to sustain them. This means the health insurance company you purchase your policy from will eventually be unable to make money and need to stop operations.

And just who does our president expect will be there to “rescue” the people from those evil insurance companies? You got it – a government run social healthcare plan. So – just how much “political gold” is in Mary Brown’s $4,500 loss?

I say Mary Brown still has a very solid case, regardless of what she had to declare in her bankruptcy. The fact remains that Obamacare does take away an individual’s right to choose whether or not to purchase health insurance, thereby infringing individual liberty.

Your thoughts and comments are welcomed!

We are too entitled!

2012-03-08T21:38:00.000-05:00

Something occurred to me this morning on my way to work. I was listening to political commentary and noticed the Rush Limbaugh controversy was still making its way into the top five minutes of the commentary. It completely blows me away how much hang time this is getting, but I think it points to a bigger issue in today’s media complex.

If I have not previously stated anywhere in this blog, I have a real problem with the way information is transmitted to people from the media. No one tells a whole story, and everyone spins a story. Then, we the consumers of this broken and incomplete information engage in debates at water coolers or on social media websites based on the spin they heard in a thirty second sound bite. We get polarized and defend our positions, but never really get to talk about the root issue.

It seems the biggest tragedy of this controversy is the real message got lost. The message isn’t Rush calling a law student a slut. The message isn’t even about contraception or any supposed “war on women” being waged by the Right. The thing everyone in the media seemingly marched right over is this prevailing attitude of entitlement that is infiltrating our culture. Even Fox News spent little time talking about it.

We have changed from a country of hard working people into a country of people expecting hand outs. When my grandparents came to this country from Italy in the 1940’s there was no welfare. My grandmother came here and worked as a seamstress. The shop she worked was what we would call a sweatshop. She was paid by the piece. She lived with family and sent her earnings back to Italy to pay for my grandfather and uncles to come and join her. They worked hard for what they had. They endured ethnic stereotyping and poor working conditions. They did not complain, or put their hands out expecting Uncle Sam to give out food, shelter, clothing, medicine or any of the entitlements that we have seemingly become so dependent on today. Further, they were free to earn their own part of the American dream without the government telling them what they could and could not do, how to raise their children, or even what they should think.

Do I think we should immediately and unconditionally end the entitlement systems that are in place today? No. There are too many people who have become completely dependent on these programs and their lives would be destroyed if they were cut off. I think it is important for our government to help those who really need help. We are the richest country in the world, with the largest economy in the world and no child should be hungry and no one should go without medical care.

But – Uncle Sam can’t and shouldn’t be the primary care taker. Think of it this way – Uncle Sam is spending $1 out of every $4 we produce as a nation. (Government spending is 24.33% of Gross Domestic Product) Can we really afford to be as entitled as we have become?

The second point is individual liberty. Why should Uncle Sam have the right to tell any private business what they should and should not pay for? Further, what gives Uncle Sam the right to tell church based organizations they have to do something that is against their beliefs? Why do we think it is acceptable for any of this to take place in a country that was supposed to be founded on the pursuit of liberty?

I encourage us all to read past the headlines, past the mudslinging and decode what the media is hiding in plain sight. It’s not about birth control pills or Rush Limbaugh. It is about dressing up another entitlement program in a nice fuzzy 30-second sound bite so people will accept it.

Your thoughts and comments, as always, are welcome!

Super Tuesday is Tomorrow!!!

2012-03-05T22:15:00.003-05:00

Just a quick teaser post in advance of Super Tuesday elections. My wife and I support Rick Santorum and hope to see him finish well after tomorrow's primaries.

Regardless of who you support please, don't forget to go out and vote tomorrow. It is one of our most scared rights as citizens of this great country; a right paid for by the blood of our veterans!

Who else will POTUS call?

2012-03-03T23:37:00.000-05:00

This week Sandra Fluke, a Georgetown law student testified at a Congregational hearing on birth control. Georgetown is known to support liberal political views, despite its Jesuit heritage. Fluke told Congress the $3,000 she spent on contraceptives over three years was a hardship for her. This testimony was given in support of President Obama's decree that even religious institutions pay for birth control, even if it is against their religious views.

It should be noted that Georgetown's faculty reportedly donated more to Obama's 2008 campaign than the average donations of other university faculty. Can you spell "cronyism?"

Rush Limbaugh put this testimony into the national spotlight this week. Contraceptives aren't needed if you are not doing what causes pregnancy. In this light, Limbaugh asked why should anyone have to pay for what comes down to having sex. His exact words were, "What does it say about the college coed ... who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex.”

The drama grew even larger when President Obama called Ms. Fluke to see if she was OK. This fits our President's M.O. Remember a summer or so ago he was on vacation thinking up a really big jobs idea while unemployment was spiraling out of control? Today - gas prices are way out of control and Iran is becoming a serious issue for the world. But somehow he finds time to call his cronies!

Now, I'm not a fan of name calling. I do not think disparaging any one person or group of people is appropriate in anyway. As Fluke said Limbaugh's comments are "really outside the bounds of civil discourse." But a call from the President to see if she is OK? Really? I think that is outside the bounds of common sense. Of course she is OK.

Limbaugh issued an apology today, saying that his word choice was poor. I don't think he should have apologized. He is partially right. Calling her names was wrong, but why should anyone expect to have their sexual endeavors funded?

There are a few points to consider here. First, she knew she was attending an institution with Christian ties. Yes, Jesuits are Christians. My Bible says sex is reserved for marriage. Even before the whole Obamacare requirement for birth control debate came up,why would anyone think a Christian institution would in anyway condone sexual activity outside of marriage? Considering this, why would Fluke have ever expected the college to pay for birth control?

Second, Georgetown's law school tuition with room and board added is over $31,000 per year. I am a grad student and can tell you there are few to no grants available for higher degree programs. You either pay for your degree from wages or loans. $3,000 a year is a lot of money for anyone in school. But I go back to my first point. If you don't do what causes a baby - you don't need birth control!
Maybe Limbaugh was harsh, but I don't think he is wrong.

Speaking of babies...a nursing mom on her way home to Hawaii (Obama's home state) was harassed by TSA about her breast pump. The TSA agent "mistakenly" made her go into a public restroom and pump to prove the pump was what she said it was. She said the bathroom only had one electrical outlet, in front of mirror. So basically this mom had to stand half naked in front a mirror where everyone could watch what she was doing to make this TSA agent happy.

I wonder if she got, or will get, a call from the President asking if she is OK.

Your thoughts and comments, as always, are welcome!

Does anyone want truth, or just are we more interested in seeing who can smack the other down harder?

2011-09-18T15:34:00.001-04:00

It has been a few weeks since I last had a chance to sit down and write a post. So as I have a little time this afternoon, here I go!

The last few weeks have been filled with events that would have made great discussion on this blog. We have the ending of the space shuttle program, Libya's ousting of Col. Qaddafi, the invention of the Super Committee, the east coast earthquake, Hurricane Irene, the Tea Party painted as racist sons of [a not nice word referring to female dogs] that can go to hell by democratic lawmakers who cried for civility earlier this year, the leftist press and the President himself, who of course is going to save us all by spending another trillion dollars. I think my English teachers would shoot me for that run-on sentence! So where to jump back in?

Bill Maher on his HBO show saying that Christians hate charity and love killing. Thank you to my friend Steve Miller for sharing that on Facebook this morning.

I really love how the left can't really make a good argument against anything conservative. Instead of engaging an issue directly, they twist anything they can into a series of lies, distortions and insults. Of course if any conservative reporter or pundent was to do the same they would face a hail storm of criticism. This is because the press is mostly controlled by Sorros, Huffington and Turner. So liberal rants are allowed and even encouraged.

To set the record straight, Christianity does not in any way hate charity or love killing. In fact, the polar opposite is true. The greatest thing anyone can do is to lay down his or her life for a friend. Jesus said there is no greater love than this. Can anyone explain how this pivotal precept could in any way be confused for hatred?

If the source and cause of statements like Maher's are made because Christians do not agree with homosexuality, abortion or any other anti-Biblical worldview popularized by the liberal media then criticize us directly on those issues. Be honest enough in your rhetoric to acknowledge facts, and not distort them to a global audience by saying what is completely untrue.

Jay Leno attempted to deride Michelle Bachmann this week on a similar set of issues. As a guest on his show, Leno tried to get her to look bad about "praying the gay away" when she had her Christian Counseling practice. True Christianity follows the words of the Bible without equivocation. Several times throughout both the Old and New Testaments homosexuality is called sin. Sorry if anyone has a more liberal interpretation, but that is what the Bible says. Bachmann's prayer approach is valid and can be defended with Scripture.

Bachmann has not once changed her rhetoric. Anyone can tell you that she is unabashedly Christian, and lives out her Christian convictions. When Leno realized he could not change her mindset, he razzed her for it instead. I paraphrase here - "I have plenty of same-sex couple friends and why shouldn't they be happy in their marriages?" Leno couldn't engage her on the principle, so he went for the smear tactic.

Really, what Leno, Maher and similar leftist mouthpieces cannot understand is that at the center of the Christian faith is a love for Christ that is absent in the secular humanistic worldview they are a part of. They cannot see that true love starts with love for the Creator who loved us first. They cannot understand that true charity is giving up selfish desires to do God's will. They cannot understand how precious life is, because without knowing who God is, life has no meaning.

Sadly, I doubt that we will ever see a real debate about any issue because it has become common place to win by smear and jeer. It happens everyday in our workplaces, in our schools, and on our televisions, laptops, Kindles and I-Phones. Our President does it too. Why be straightforward when you can blame circumstance or someone else for your shortcomings?

Does anyone want truth, or just are we more interested in seeing who can smack the other down harder?

As always, your comments and thoughts are invited!

Uncle Sam the Debt-aholic

2011-07-30T01:45:00.000-04:00

I think I just read the absolute best statement about raising the debt ceiling.

“Raising the debt ceiling is akin to an alcoholic having one last drink - sooner or later, the government needs to admit that it has a problem.” Matthew Melchiorre, Competitive Enterprise Institute

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/07/29/false-prophets-debt-ceiling-doom/#ixzz1TYtNyY5V

It is possible that some could be driven to drinking over this whole “debt ceiling” mess. I don’t think I could have ever thought of a better one line than Mr. Melchiorrre's! The imagery of the drunk looking for his last drink is exactly what I see when I look at this administration asking for its one last spending fix – the increase of the debt limit. The president seemingly whined to the American people the other day. He justified his pleas by telling us other presidents have raised the debt ceiling. I’ve heard Tim Geithner say raising the debt ceiling is not really a very big deal; Congress just needs do it. But tonight – more impasse despite all the whining and flying doomsday rhetoric.

Our friends in the Congress are gridlocked on party lines, again. And it looks like its back to square one, again. The more the rhetoric turns up, the more and more this seems like a huge “paper tiger” to me. The latest greatest doomsday saying out of the White House is that the entire financial system of the whole world – the financial welfare of every last man woman and child on the planet – will come to a screeching halt on Tuesday. Seriously – this is the rhetoric we see in the papers, on TV and here in the Internet. At least that’s what I’m seeing out of Jay Carney and almost all of the headlines I read tonight.

Mr. Melchiorre points out a few facts that should bolster some sense of stability in our minds. The annual cost of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid combined are well within the taxes that we collect each year. See the article linked above for the exact numbers he cites. He also says there is $400 Billion in revenue (tax money) left after paying out the whole cost of entitlements. Short version – the United States has no real reason it can’t pay its bills as long as we (specifically our Treasurer Mr. Geithner) prioritizes what has to be paid out.

Here’s the short list of things he can stop paying out. Corporate Bail Outs that are granted under the “Stimulus Package” that has failed to create jobs. He can stop accumulating money for Obamacare. What about delaying or ending foreign aid? How about getting out of the mortgage and banking business completely and letting the market reach some sort of natural equilibrium? He can also sell off assets – like gold. The debt ceiling has absolutely nothing with his choices to pay or not to pay the obligations of the United States of America! It simply stops him from borrowing more money – or specifically, issuing more government debt securities.

Just another interesting fact. The credit rating of the United States has already dropped with some rating agencies. These downgrades have occured over the last few weeks, and interest rates have not changed! Can anyone spell...grandstanding? How about exageration? Maybe deceit...ouch that one hurts huh? The facts seem to show a very differnt picture than what we are being fed from the administration, the left and the media. (Remember they are the ones looking out for the little guy because those Republicans are only for the rich.)

Again – I say all of our government representatives should be ashamed of themselves for making this issue greater than it is. The Democrats are guilty of attempting to motivate people to action by threatening seniors and disabled persons. They know the problem is caused by TOO MUCH SPENDING but refuse to admit it. Republicans are responding to the left's rhetoric and attempting to push through a conditional agreement to raise the debt ceiling to gain political advantage. They are trying to use this moment of fear to achieve long sought political goals like a Balanced Budget Amendment and a cap on the size and scope of government.

This is not the time for more divided, partison politics. It is time to say no more wild and uncontrolled deficit spending. It is time to become fiscally responsible to our grand children and great grand children. It is time for this government to stop attempting to nanny every last facet of life and shrink this government back down into a predictable and manageable entity. It is time to abandon political adjendas and put the welfare of the PEOPLE of the United States first.

As far as I can see, as a Bible believing Christian, there are no signs the world is coming to an end on Tuesday. Obviously, the Lord is well able to do His will at any point in time. That said, based upon what I see in the Bible, there are some signs that He gives us that have nothing to do with the amount of money the United States of America can borrow.

I am sure I can say une'quivocally that nothing will be fixed before Tuesday (at least not fixed well). I think it is also safe to say the sun will rise and people will go about their normal business on Tuesday too. Why not stop all the rhetoric about the world crashing down and find some real solutions?

Choose Love

2011-07-27T02:47:00.001-04:00

I normally write about the economy, or politics and things of the like. This post is not about any of that.

Today a very dear and close friend of ours lost her sister in a senseless act of domestic violence. Her sister, a young mother was shot and killed by her boyfriend in a park filled with children. Sadly, she was pregnant with their second child. Her three year old daughter, standing nearby, was orphaned as the carnage unfolded. Her father shot himself after realizing he shot her mom. As I read the headlines tonight, I found the loss we had close to home was not the only one today. Another mother, from Raleigh, NC was discovered dismembered by her ex and his wife. From this horror, two more children are without parents. The reality that there are most likely several more similar losses today hollows out my heart.

Tonight I felt convicted by a simple scripture that is read at so many weddings, and so quickly brushed over. 1 Corinthians 13:2, “…if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.” We live in a very complex world that is filled with sharp, jagged, conflicting viewpoints and opinions. It struck me that love gets overlooked too often, and the result is tragic loss like what we saw today.

Love is a choice; a decision we must make every day. It is not a feeling – it is a choice. Love is not sex, or romance, or anything that we see portrayed in dramas on television. We must decide to love our children, spouses, parents, friends, and even those we do not know. Love requires action and intent. Without love, without being able to make the decision to love someone…we are nothing.

Men, we are charged to love our wives as Christ loved the church. Ladies, you are charged with the same – I don’t see any difference in our responsibilities toward one another. Christ loved us all with a love that is incomparable. Men, for all our might, intellect, ability, and ego – if we can’t love our wives, then we are nothing.

Physical pleasure is not love. Attention is not love. Attraction is not love. Affection is not love. Abuse is not love. Don’t fall into the trap of thinking if a man or woman, or a boy or girl gives you any of these things that he or she loves you, no matter how long it lasts or how good it is. Follow the rest of the scripture in 1 Corinthians and see what love really is. Love is a choice to be patient, kind, and gentle. It does not brag. It is not jealous or arrogant. Love does not choose to hit or act unbecomingly towards one another. It is a choice to think of your mate and your children before yourself. Love is a choice to forgive and forget wrongs. Love is a choice to bear each other’s burdens, a choice to share dreams and hopes and a choice to endure the hard times together. Love is a choice to honor your mate, just as Christ honored us with His sacrifice.

Tonight the little counter at the top of my blog says I have been married for 16 years, 9 months, 2 weeks and 5 days. I sincerely hope, if the Lord is willing, there are at least double or more of those years and days ahead. Men and women, old and especially young, please hear the Wisdom of Solomon: If you are not willing to make the same commitment that I and others have – don’t wake love before its time. It may sound horribly old fashioned and out of style with culture today, and possibly even sound judgmental to those who find conviction in these words. Yes, I mean don’t have sex with someone out of wedlock. Don't rush into a relationship with someone you don't know. There is no way you can know who someone really is in a few days or weeks. It is certainly not possible to know if they will choose to love you in such a short amount of time.

In both cases I cited above, these men made a choice to not love their mates or their children. Their choices destroyed lives, and imperiled legacy. There are little children tonight without parents.

If you are in an abusive relationship – get help now. Seek out your parents, your pastor, a friend – anyone who can help you get to safety. If you have nowhere else to turn, call the National Domestic Violence Hotline at 1-800-799-SAFE (7233) or visit their website at www.thehotline.com. Your children need you to love them enough to protect them.

I pray this word speaks to someone’s heart and helps to prevent the loss one of my dearest friends suffered today.

Like my blog? Check out my Dad's blogs - he got me into this!

2011-07-23T00:08:00.000-04:00

Thanks for reading -

If you get a chance, stop by and check out a couple of my Dad's blogs...

http://www.affiliatemaketinginfo.com/find-marketing-information-that-works/

http://ladyshoestylesmonthlonline.blogspot.com/

http://howtomakemoneyathome-vinnyb.blogspot.com/

http://onlinemarketingresultsnow.blogspot.com/

Thanks!!!

Less Spending or More Revenue?

2011-07-22T22:30:00.000-04:00

Less Spending or More Revenue?

Today the President went on TV and poured out more scare tactics and rhetoric about how our economic crisis was here before his presidency began. In summary, it’s not his fault social security, federal pensions, Medicaid and Medicare payments or federal employee salaries can’t be paid. He blamed fighting two wars and the previous administration for the economic conditions we have today.

His Keynesian economic policies are not to blame. Neither did changing the “basket” of consumer goods in the Consumer Price Index to hide inflation. Creating a wildly unpredictable business environment by waiting until December 31 of each year to pass a tax code couldn’t have had anything to do with it. Intentionally supplanting the oil industry by not issuing drill permits to push up the cost of petroleum products didn’t put us here. Diluting the value of the dollar through quantitative easing isn’t a problem he created either. The problem is we don’t collect enough tax money to pay our bills – his words [paraphrased] today.

Here are some Economics 101 principles that show where the real failures are causes of this mess are:

John Maynard Keynes was a British economist in the early part of the 20^th century. His basic philosophy was that jobs are created as a function of spending, not as a function of the cost of labor. In short, he believed that governments could stimulate the economy by spending lots of money. As massive spending occurred, the economy would shift toward full employment. It sounds good – especially if you are a liberal – but Keynes philosophy was proved wrong in the 1970s as England tried to spend its way out of a recession and unemployment increased dramatically despite the massive spending increase. This is because the Keynesian philosophy disregards inflation as unimportant. Prices went up and no one could pay them – hint: anyone remember this thing called the oil embargo?

So let’s talk about inflation. January 21, 2009 the price of a gallon of gasoline (averaged) was about $1.85. The price of sugar traded around $350 per ton. Today, gas is averaging about $3.62 a gallon and sugar trades around $850 per ton. Gasoline increased almost 200% in the last two years. Sugar increased almost 242% in the same time period. These are basic things every one of us buys, but ironically, sugar is not part of the CPI anymore. Why?

The government will tell you that inflation is flat. Translation – you aren’t paying any more today than you were when this presidency started. Go grocery shopping and you can debunk that one in minutes. I watched as pasta increased 8% seemingly overnight. My paycheck won’t grow at all for at least another 12 months. I tell you, inflation is rampant and very important to everyone.

The number of people on unemployment has increased since the inception of this administration despite massive amounts – $3 Trillion – of government spending. Is it clear yet that it is not possible to spend out of massive unemployment and recessed economies?

But spending isn’t the problem, remember? Those rich people have lots of money so they need to pay more taxes.

Let’s talk about taxes a moment too. A tax – any tax – is ultimately passed on to the end consumer as a price increase. Period. Argue that all you like, but it is true. Shareholders of companies are not invested for charity. They want profit – which is their income – and will not give it away to the government. Shareholders are not exclusively rich. Every one of us with a 401(k) owns shares of companies. Would you be willing to give up the growth of your 401(k) account because the company you are invested in has to pay more taxes? Of course not. You rely upon the income from profits, so you (as an investor) want the company to increase prices to cover the loss to your income that comes from the tax. The same thing applies to the executives that everyone likes to target as “being able to afford it.” They aren’t going to just happily give up their income. They will raise prices wherever possible. If they can’t, they will move their income source (companies) to environments that cost less to do business (overseas).

In the simplest terms, the cost of living is the same for everyone at any income level. By this I mean the basics – basic food, basic clothing and basic shelter – are the same for someone making $30,000 per year or $100,000 per year. The difference is that as income individual increases, those with higher income have the ability to choose something past the most basic options. They buy more or better because they can.

However, in economic comparisons, the term “all things equal” is applied and applies in this example. If the basic cost of living is $20,000 the person making $30,000 and the person making $100,000 can both afford to live. As prices inflate, the person making $30,000 cannot sustain the same amount of increase that the person making $100,000 can. If you add together inflation – the 242% increase in sugar prices – and a tax increase of any kind, the only person who gets hurt is the guy making $30,000 – the little guy.

To get to the point – Speaker Boehner walked out of the White House today and said he will no longer negotiate with the President. His reason is after a deal was almost complete, our president – very same who is threatening not to pay seniors, soldiers, the disabled or government workers next week – wanted more taxes.

The GOP says no to taxes and cut spending. They get branded as uncooperative and out to protect the rich. The Democrats say spending is not the issue, that cuts will undo the last half century of social progress, and drag us back to pre-Eisenhower days – so the rich need to pay more in taxes. I beg someone! Please explain to me who is going to be helped by a tax increase on anyone or anything, and just who is standing up for the little guy.

Government Control of Lemonade Stands...What's Next?

2011-07-15T23:39:00.000-04:00

Looks like government control isn't just coming down from the feds anymore...

Midway, Georgia: The police chief shut down a lemonade stand set up by three teenage girls trying to make some money to go to a water park. To paraphrase from the AP article, the police chief said he doesn't know what is in the lemonade, doesn’t know who made it, if it is safe, etc. And, here it is folks! The number one reason he shut them down - three teenage girls with an entrepreneurial spirit: No business license, no peddlers permit, and no food permit at the cost of $50 a day or $180 per year.

So you see three kids selling lemonade, probably the most iconic American childhood businesses. Rather than stop and buy a cup, you stop and shut them down? They could have been selling drugs, steeling something, or worse selling themselves. Come on! There was a really cool television commercial this year depicting a young girl building an empire from a lemonade stand. This is how kids learn the value of a dollar – by having to earn it themselves.

I submit to you that these are children. In most cases, children can’t obtain permits for anything on their own. They can’t be bonded or enter a contract. They had a lemonade stand. Not a restaurant. And they are kids, not a business like Starbucks or even a hot dog vendor. They probably would have sold a few gallons and stopped when they made the cash they needed for the water park.

When I was a teenager, I participated in two Junior Achievement program companies. I babysat and when I was old enough I worked waiting tables. I had to learn what it took to earn something.

What are we teaching these kids, and all kids, by shutting down their lemonade stand?

States Rights versus Federal Government 2011

2011-07-15T02:02:00.000-04:00

Santayana said "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

I hope my readers will discuss this - please ask questions and make comments. This is far too serious to just read and say nothing.

I grew up in the Northeast, and attended public schools. I graduated 12th in my class and was expected to attend college and become something. I became a father shortly after graduating and by God's providence I attended college later in life. My undergraduate degree comes from a Southern Christian university. The schools of thought between these two regions are vastly different. This is dangerous to those who will not explore what they are told or taught because much is learned from the other perspective.

Today, the rhetoric of our country is screaming about a few basic things. The economy, civil rights, and the rights of individual states. I submit to you this is nothing new, and it has happened before.

In the 1830's and 1840's political arguments were made regarding central banks. Andrew Jackson abhorred them, to the point of paying off the national debt and essentially bankrupting the credit market. That was 1835, and that was the last time the United States of America was free of any credit burden. Businesses were being starved of credit by the central grip on banking.

At that same moment in history, the Industrial Age was at its birth. The Northeast was the first geographic area to industrialize. The populations of New England and New York began to increase with immigrants coming to America for jobs and the promise of prosperity. State governments because more powerful, and the need for more capital to finance building projects in cities also increased. Money wasn't free flowing from the Government, and needed to come from somewhere.

The economy of the South was vastly different. Populations of immigrants also grew, but because of slave trade, not voluntary immigration. The agricultural plantations were wildly profitable because there was no payroll. Agricultural products like tobacco, cotton and other crops could be exported directly overseas. Credit wasn't as necessary, and money was in heavy supply in the Southern economy.

The north needed cash. The south had it. The industrial age made slave labor unnecessary, and gave rise to ethical debates about civil rights. The north didn't think slavery was right, the south needed it. And at the end of the argument was the right of states to govern themselves as they saw fit.

Well, all three of the items in our world today were in play back then too: The economy, civil rights and states rights. Today, our federal government doesn't feel that states have the right to govern themselves, and that the 10th Amendment has no effect. The government further feels it has the right to control business and govern capital by central monetary policy. Businesses are being told where they can locate, and being heavily taxed to shoulder the burdens of social programs.

Civil rights no longer surround slavery but sexual orientation, same sex marriage, the stripping of religion from culture and government, abortion and marijuana use. Governor Perry of Texas is being sued by a group from another state (from Wisconsin) for endorsing a day of prayer in his state of Texas. The basis of the suit: the civil rights of non-Christians and atheists are being violated by his personal endorsement of his beliefs.

The Civil War - the bloodiest war ever fought on home soil - started in 1861. Understand full well, the Civil War was not fought over slavery at all. It was fought over money and government control. It only took about twenty five years for the Southern states to get fed up with the Federal government’s raiding and plundering of their cash rich economies.

Fifteen states are already moving to coin their own currency. Twenty-seven states are suing the federal government to stop it from imposing centralized healthcare on their citizens. States are attempting to pass legislation confirming marriage as between a man and a woman. In South Carolina last year, the governor was sued for not add Federal stimulus dollars to the state budget, and lost. Our nation’s politics are split almost perfectly in half along party lines. Gridlock and blame are rampant in our nation’s capital and the states are getting tired of it.

If you don't think the nation could ever see another Civil War, you need to go back and read your history books and understand well the real precipitants of the war, and look critically at what is happening today. Business, politics, and public sentiment move much faster today than they did in the 1850’s. It would be shameful for our country to be torn in two because we couldn’t learn yesteryears lessons.

Debt Ceiling Bluff?

2011-07-13T21:29:00.000-04:00

So, it’s the fourth quarter, the ninth inning, the 18th hole. Uncle Sam has his back against the wall. No life lines left, the audience has been polled a few hundred times and is fed up and the million dollar question – is congress bluffing about not raising the debt ceiling. The White House seems to think they are.

“When you have $1 in obligations and you only have 60 cents in your pockets, you've got to borrow 40 cents in order to meet those obligations -- and your authority to borrow that 40 cents has been eliminated, you are then in a box. And you have to make choices about how and where to apply the 60 cents you have in your pocket," White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said in a statement.

“Carney repeatedly said he doesn't think the government will be in that situation because Congress will ultimately "do the right thing."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/07/13/lawmakers-urge-white-house-to-put-military-creditors-first-in-debt-crisis/#ixzz1S2NGfQ4X

The fact is the little guy – the one that the Democrats claim they exist to protect – is the one that understands this example the best. Almost everyone I know plays out the situation Jay Carney described so nonchalantly. Real people don’t have unlimited resources and prioritize spending all the time. We do have to face reality of paying our mortgage or utilities before paying for things that aren’t as necessary. Food, clothing, shelter are necessities. The newest, most best-est latest new fangled gotta have is not a necessity.

The Obama White House combined with an unchecked Democrat controlled House and Senate racked up several Trillion dollars in deficit spending on pet projects and idealistic social agendas. This huge spending binge was touted as economic recovery. The sky was falling so chicken little was given the government credit card! Uncle Sam was a bit illiterate when he couldn’t understand the word “debt limit” and figured he could push right on past the debt ceiling without anyone making a fuss.

The rest of us understand our limits. Our banks don’t give us unlimited credit – we have to prove we have the means to pay the bill. We can’t say, well let me borrow more and I’ll pay ya later. That’s like Wimpy’s “buy me a hamburger today and I’ll pay you on Tuesday.” Well, now the day of reckoning is fast approaching and fear is spreading, fueled by none other than the President himself.

Senior citizens are being threatened first – you might not get your social security checks because those Republicans won’t let us borrow more money to pay you with. Then the veterans who fought to make sure we have a free country to live in. Well, we might not have the money to pay your pension if those Republicans don’t act soon. And last, the disabled. We really want to take care of you, but those conservatives, well they don’t appreciate you enough to let us borrow more money. Remember, the Democrats take care of the little guy.

This kind of political jockeying is the worst kind of manipulation ever displayed by any public official I can remember. The reality is Uncle Sam still gets his paycheck every week. Payroll taxes aren’t going to suddenly be abated on 8/2. The IRS isn’t shutting down. Uncle Sam will still have cash flow, he just can’t do all of what he wants. So, let’s threaten those whose plight will tug the heartstrings of voters and we’ll blame the conservatives for it. WAKE UP AMERICA!!!

Jay, if you only have 60 cents with $1 worth of obligations, I guess it’s time you learn from those you claim to look out for. They have the same issue every day as they face rising costs in food, clothing, shelter, transportation and medical care, thanks largely in part to your administrations failed economic policy.

I don’t think Congress is bluffing – or at least I didn’t elect them to.

Freedom

2011-06-25T01:19:00.001-04:00

I don't get to watch much television these days with my work schedule. However, today I got a chance to catch about half of the Glenn Beck show. I don't watch much, but I will miss it when it goes off the air.

Glenn had author Chris Stewart on the show talking about his book The Miracle of Freedom: Seven Tipping Points That Saved the World. This book is now on my 'want to read' list. On the show, Glenn and Chris talked about some of the topics from the book. But one really stood out for me, and it became a dinner table discussion topic. I don't think we really pay attention to history, and how significant just a few sentences in the Bible can really be. No this is not a sermon, nor a "religious lecture" of any kind. This is a historical discussion.

They were talking about a particular battle between the Assyrians and Judah (approximately 700 BC). This is the battle talked about in the Bible, the book of 2 Kings, chapters 18 and 19. Assyria sent 185,000 troops to Jerusalem, with orders to decimate the city. King Sennacherib of Assyria was set to destroy Judah as he had Israel. The prophet Isaiah had told Hezekiah (the sitting king of Judah) that the Lord said His city will not fall. The Bible records in 2 Kings 19:35 that an Angel of the Lord came and slew the entire Assyrian camp by night, and Sennacherib retreated to Nineveh. While this seems illogical and inconceivable, and this is greatly debated in archeological circles - Sennacherib's Prism (an Assyrian historical document/artifact) does support the defeat, or at least the lack of a victory. That, and I am 100% sold out to the Bible's complete inerrancy. So, it happened!

A few things that really have to be understood here: First, Assyria was not just any random country. They were a super-power. Israel and Judah were two separate kingdoms, with separate kings. The children of Israel, the nation of Israel if you will, were divided after the death of King Solomon. Israel and Judah were the two resultant nations of that split. Israel was geographically north of Judah (Judah being regarded as the southern kingdom), and sat between Assyria and Egypt. Modern day geography would set these as Syria, Israel, and Egypt. Understand Assyria did not have the same political borders as Syria has today. It was much larger and included portions of modern day Turkey, Syria, Jordan, and Iraq.

So this also was no ordinary "I'm going to pick a fight" type battle. Assyria, the dominant military and political super power wanted more land and more power, and wanted to take out Egypt to get it. Israel already fell to Assyria, and its people were carried back to Assyria as slaves. Sennacherib was angered that Hezekiah would not bow to him, and join in rebellion against Egypt. It cost too much to launch an assault on Egypt over water, and Judah was in the way for an overland assault. Solution: Take out Judah.

Big deal, right? Come on Mike, what does this have to do with anything. Chris Stewart's big point here is that if Judah had fallen, western civilization as we know it would not exist.

Freedom is not a natural outgrowth of humanity. Take a good hard look at the rest of history, and tell me where you see a people being set free without someone making them. The fact is, there is no time in history, no place in this world, and no proof that mankind just gives up power and control. Man is not inherently good, and is not evolving into a better creature. If you think we are anywhere near a utopian society - take a good look at last night's news!

Assyria certainly wasn't a nice place to live, and there was no freedom for anyone. Persia enslaved its conquering. As did Greece, Rome, The Gaul’s, The Saxons. India has a millennia’s old caste system from which the only escape is death. China, Mongolia, Japan - all dynastic monarchies; no freedom. African tribal governments, South American civilizations, all the same. The concept of freedom came from one place: the Cross of Jesus Christ. But, how could the Lion of the Tribe of Judah, David's descendant, yes I mean Jesus, be such if Judah was destroyed?

I do not doubt that God would have found another way to bring his plan to pass, but if Judah had been destroyed in 700 BC, our history and the fate of our civilization would have been much different.

Here is a real eye opener – at least it was for me. Out of the estimated 106 billion people who have ever walked this earth (not my estimate, Google it) only about 5 billion have ever lived free for more than 50 years. And 3 of those 5 billion are alive now.

I implore all of us, as parents, as Christians and as free people to understand our freedom is not some random environmental condition that just magically occurred in some evolutionary scheme. Don’t give in to the new-aged ideas that say man is good. The Biblical truth is we are all sinners, separated from our God, and inherently evil. Study history. Teach it to your kids because it is not taught in school. Gather wisdom and understanding. Know where freedom comes from so that we are never again enslaved by a lack of knowledge.

As always, your thoughts and comments invited.

"Tolerance"

2011-06-24T01:35:00.000-04:00

I read some news tonight that simply disgusted me. Both national and local news.

1 - Cleveland, Ohio: A 53 year old man shoots an 11 year old girl who was playing on his front lawn.

2 - Spartanburg, South Carolina: A man tosses his girlfriend off the balcony while her toddler is in the apartment.

3 - Greenville, South Carolina: A man runs his car into a deputy sheriff who is blocking the street in front of a fallen tree, backs up and tries to run him over.

I mean - seriously! What is up people? It’s really disturbing how people treat each other - but not surprising.

Now, none of this hasn't been said by anyone - yet. But my crystal ball tells me that someone has already murmured the words "see, we need more gun control" or "look, more domestic violence in South Carolina." But I have a different take on it.

This is bound to irritate any of my readers that have even the slightest hint of a liberal philosophy. Just be warned!

The three things that really upset me from tonight's news are not going to be fixed by any government action. Uncle Sam and the "great nanny state" are the problem - not the solution. The problem starts because parents are systematically being pushed into the back seat of their children's upbringing.

My case in point - Dateline: Texas. A family court judge ruled this week that the law now states that spanking children is a crime. I am not a lawyer, law maker, nor a Texas citizen - but can someone tell me when the Texas legislature (or any state) passed a no spanking law? Has such a law been publically debated anywhere? Or was it crafted in the shadows, and stuffed on the end of some obscure bill.

Spanking a child is not abuse. Beating a child with intent to cause bodily harm is abuse. Yes, there are abused children, and yes I believe we should protect those children. But philosophically 'throwing the baby out with the bath water' and criminalizing corporal punishment is not the answer.

Schools are supposed to be a place where children learn knowledge - how to read and write, do math, and think critically. Instead, children are taught from an early age how to pass tests and are fed a politically spun history that sympathizes with liberal extremists. Further, they are taught how to supplant discipline in the home by calling child protective services or police if they feel threatened in any way. A child - whose physiological lack of ability to make a good decision (their brain is literally incapable of advance cognitive decision making and complex reason) - is encouraged to second guess their parent by our educators. Don't believe me, ask your third grader. Kids end up learning that limits don't exist, individual responsibility is not necessary, to assign blame onto anyone but themselves and to be 'tolerant' of others.

Adults learn the same things too. The media spoon feeds us a misguided social requirement to be politically correct and tolerant of other's. I totally agree with tolerance - I want my beliefs to be tolerated too. But tolerance has become the basis to excuse a myriad of immoral behaviors. Tolerance also is the basis by which my beliefs are publically belittled. It is in the name and spirit of tolerance that the mere public mention of Christianity sparks hateful scorn. Any suggestions at public Christian prayer are scoffed by special interest groups, atheists, or the members of any group that can't deal with the fact that the Bible's truth irradiates them with conviction for their immorality. It’s ok to preach secular humanism, atheism, or any existentialist philosophy. In the spirit of tolerance, we will change the millennia’s old definition of marriage, and even present legislation to force the acceptance of such. Tolerance is ok for and good for anything that attacks Christianity and traditional conservatism. Just be "tolerant."

Imagine this; it's easy if you try! (Thank you Mr. John Lennon) Mostly because it’s how a great deal of us were raised. And notice the complete lack of government in these solutions. I am really curious how tolerant any liberal would be of any of them.

First, allow parents to teach their kids simple priorities for life: God, Family, Country - and then self.
Second, allow parents to teach their children right from wrong - not leave it up to the schools to teach.
Third, let parents discipline their own children when they do wrong.

I submit these three very simple things would have the following outcomes: Adults talking to other adults - not shooting their kids, or running over police officers who are trying to keep you safe. Men loving women - not throwing them from balconies - because they were taught to do so by keeping simple priorities.

Your thoughts and comments welcome, as always.

Rove: The ObamaCare Bad News Continues - WSJ.com

2011-06-17T03:02:00.000-04:00

Rove: The ObamaCare Bad News Continues - WSJ.com

I won't add a word - Mr. Rove puts it all perfectly in place. Here's the text incase the link to the WSJ stops working...:

A kerfuffle was stirred up last week by a devastating McKinsey & Company study that concluded up to 78 million Americans would lose their current health coverage as employers stopped offering insurance because of President Obama's Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

The report contradicted Mr. Obama's frequent pledge that under his reform, "if you like your health-care plan, you can keep your health-care plan." And McKinsey's was at least the fourth such analysis calling the president's promise into question.

In May 2010, former Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin concluded that employers would drop coverage for about 35 million Americans because of ObamaCare. A month later, in June 2010, the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) pegged the number between 87 million to 117 million. And last November, Allisa Meade, a McKinsey analyst, told health-insurance company executives that 80 million to 100 million people might lose their employer-provided health insurance.

Simple economics is the reason. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation's Employer Health Benefits 2010 Annual Survey, the annual premium for an average policy last year was $5,049 for a single worker, with the company picking up roughly $4,150 and the employee the rest. For a family of four, the total cost was $13,770, with the company picking up $9,773.

Yet under ObamaCare, businesses can stop providing health-care coverage, paying a $2,000 per-worker fine instead. For small businesses, the trade-off is even more attractive: They are given a pass on the first 50 workers.

Workers losing coverage will be moved into the "exchange," a government-run marketplace to buy health plans. Those whose insurance costs were more than a specified share of their income (9.5% in 2014) could get subsidies. The exchange starts in 2014 and is fully operational by 2016.
Perversely, ObamaCare both drives up the cost of insurance with mandates and rules while making it attractive for companies to dump the increasingly more expensive coverage and pay a lesser fine. There will be huge ramifications for the country's finances if more workers lose coverage than was estimated.

When Mr. Obama's health-care bill passed in March 2010, the CBO and the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation predicted that 24 million workers would be covered by the exchange. Of these, nine million to 11 million would lose their employer-provided coverage, offset by six million to seven million who would be getting employer-provided insurance, for a net of three million workers losing company-sponsored coverage. The CBO said the exchanges would cost $511 billion over ObamaCare's first decade.

But what if more people are dumped into the exchange than originally estimated? Costs from the increased subsidies will explode.

If Mr. Holtz-Eakin is correct that there will be 11 million more people in the exchange, then costs could be nearly 40% higher than the $511 billion price tag. If between 78 million and 87 million people are moved into the exchange, the tab could more than triple. And if NCPA's upper-range estimate is right and 117 million people were dumped into the exchange, ObamaCare would cost nearly $2 trillion more than expected in the first decade alone. Much of this extra expense would come from workers losing their employer-sponsored insurance.

Mr. Obama's health-care law has already put the country in bad financial shape. He claimed it reduced the deficit by $143 billion—but that was before the CBO added $115 billion to administer the legislation, including the hiring of bureaucrats and thousands of IRS agents to enforce the new mandates. This reduced Mr. Obama's claimed savings to $28 billion.

The deficit-reduction claim also came before House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan drew attention to the law's Ponzi scheme. It's funded by borrowing $521 billion from the Social Security Trust Fund, Medicare, and new long-term care insurance premiums, and by ignoring the $300 billion cost over 10 years of the annual inflation increases in reimbursements to hospitals and doctors. These gimmicks hide the fact that ObamaCare is really $701 billion in the red in its first decade.

ObamaCare's deficits in its second decade (2020 to 2029) will be even more horrendous as it continues borrowing from Social Security, Medicare and the long-term care insurance program to meet its much larger than anticipated expenses, including a much higher number of people who end up in the exchange.

On March 9, 2010, then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi famously told a meeting of county officials that "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy."

We are now, to our horror, finding out how harmful this measure is. More Americans are realizing that unless repealed, ObamaCare will sink America in a sea of red ink. This helps explain why the nation has turned so hard against it—and against its author whose slippery pledges so misled us.

Mr. Rove is the former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush.

What are the White House and the Federal Reserve Really Up to?

2011-06-15T00:17:00.000-04:00

What are the White House and the Federal Reserve Really Up to?

Check out this report. An email I got said Newsmax was denied when it asked to put it on a mainstream television network. The network said it was "too controversial."

Sadly, the controversy isn't in the work. It is in the truth that our government is destroying our economy and our future!

There is a video component (http://news.newsmax.com/?SKIvaNna2e1JuzTkgj2ix6J-GDrftfv1S&http://w3.newsmax.com/a/money_mischief/video2.cfm?s=al&promo_code=C6FE-1) to this that is a bit long, and more or less an infomercial to sell a book - but it does cover a lot of ground and gives facts, not just opinions, about the current state of our economy...

Your thoughts and comments invited as always!

Prayer Back on Trial in the Court of Public Opinion

2011-06-08T03:14:00.001-04:00

Today, Gov. Rick Perry of Texas was decried for calling for a day of prayer for "God’s guidance and wisdom in addressing the challenges that face our communities, states and nation."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/06/07/perrys-planned-prayer-event-draws-condemnation/#ixzz1OfCRqYKQ

These cries come from religious freedom groups and atheists who claim the governor overstepped his bounds, that he exclusively endorsed Christianity by praying in Christ’s name, and that he violated the separation of church and state.

I want to take a few minutes to talk about this issue, because I think we as Americans ignore a few things way too often.

First, like it or not, our country was founded by Christians. This fact is one that liberal historians would like to hide from today's educational process but none the less, it is a fact – a truth. The framers of the constitution did not envision an atheistic state when they crafted our constitution. No, they did not see religious freedom as we do today either, and they sure didn't see a government that completely excluded religion. The framers were God fearing men who all believed in God.

They wanted to prevent a theocratic government. They did not want any one church or religion imposed onto the people by the government. They saw how theocracies devastated governments throughout history, and did not want our country to fall into that path. Instead, they wanted a government that could be controlled by the people through a process of electing legislators and executives with a check and balance system effected by a central court. They wanted the people to be able to choose, not be ruled over.

Another interesting anecdote from history is that while the Executive Branch of the federal government was constitutionally restricted from enjoining religion, the Congress and the states were and still are not. One of the most poignant examples of this can be seen in Thomas Jefferson. As governor of Virginia, Jefferson called for days of prayer and fasting by gubernatorial decree. As a state senator, he wrote and voted for bills calling for the same. However, when Jefferson was president, he refrained from these decrees because he knew the president could not call for such days under the laws of the constitution.

The whole “separation of church and state thing” came from a Supreme Court ruling in the 1950’s – not from the constitution itself, nor from a legislative process. Basically, if you want to look at it this way, a bunch of lawyers argued and bullied their viewpoint into law via the court. There was no debate, no voting, no majority influence. The court’s decision became the “law” we live with today. Understand it came from the summation of arguments made before justices of the Supreme Court. As a result, the majority of citizens (and most people are religiously oriented, no matter what their religious viewpoint) now have no right to exercise their majority viewpoint because the court silenced them over 60 years ago. So this is “modern, progressive thought” resulted in minority rule, or stated in other terms - imposition.

I completely support Governor Perry’s call for prayer. Just what is so wrong with praying anyway? What happens if it gets answered!

As a Christian, I am glad to see a governor stand up for Christ. But more importantly, I am very glad to see a governor who is willing to acknowledge the need for people to center their hope in something more than just laws or governments. I believe the decay of our human society today is largely accelerated by hope’s assassination by science, technology, social trends, and biased (liberal) education. What hope can people find in the nothingness of atheism, or the greed and immorality of humanism?

If you don’t want to pray – don’t. If you don’t want to hear the governor’s prayer – don’t listen. But don’t denigrate people’s access to hope by imposing minority views.

Your thoughts and comments invited!

Cadillac Diplomacy

2011-06-01T21:45:00.001-04:00

So the government has increased its limo fleet by 78% since the current administration took office. According to CBS News, the government says the purchases are justified as “an enhanced effort to protect diplomats and other government officials in a dangerous world." I can understand that – this is a dangerous world and who would want our guests to be in danger while driving around in rental cars, or some privately operated livery service.

We go from 238 limos at the start of the administration to 412 at the end of last year – 174 new cars.

This fits in well with the Keynesian philosophy of our government. If Uncle Sam buys more cars, then it’s all good because racking up deficit spending helps restart our economy. Let’s think this out a second. 174 new cars, bought on credit, when you can’t pay the debts you already have… I’d love to see what my banks say to me buying a few new cars without having the income to pay for them!

The good news is most of these 174 cars are American cars – how patriotic! According to Fox News, the vehicle of choice: the Cadillac CTS. Nice choice for limo service – comfortable, classy, etc. Also quite convenient considering the government has a controlling interest in General Motors.

But my biggest curiosity is this: Why buy more limousines when the administration’s track record for hospitality has more dings in it than the limos in the fleet?

This past February, Mr. Obama’s staff escorted the Dalai Lama out the back door of the White House, past the trash pile to get to his car. In September of last year, the family of a Medal of Honor recipient was snubbed when it requested a tour of the White House. How about the rub given to the Canadian Prime Minister who was greeted by a deputy chief of protocol, instead of the President himself greeting him on the West Portico? I’m sure there are several more similar faux pas, but I figured this was enough to show my point.

The way I see it, driving guests around in nice cars is a nice thing, and probably something we should do for many reasons. I just think buying more cars should be the last consideration for this administration. Maybe the money would have been better spent on etiquette training for the White House staffers responsible for hosting our dignitaries. It seems to be needed.

Your thoughts and comments invited!