I have no intention of signing up for what is commonly known as Obamacare. It would literally be signing away my life, my freedom and ultimately my ability to receive healthcare; I’m talking death panels. Further I could lose my very identity considering the Internet security issues. It is a human beings duty to refuse to submit to unjust laws as the founding fathers of our great nation made clear in word and deed.
Some eight years ago when I lost my full time job, healthcare for my wife and I would have cost us approximately $1,400/mth. (we both have pre-existing conditions of some kind) In other words, we are the Obamacare target demographic. We could not afford it then and cannot now. Since then prices have gone up drastically. But since we are in an older group of healthcare consumers let us assume that we would be some of the few who would see reductions in healthcare costs, at least in premiums. I have not gone on the site but I have heard many testimonies of the costs from others.
So if we stick with the old figure of $1,400/mth (which if I am wrong it is on the low side) and include a doctor’s visit once a year for my wife and I, part of the deductible, I need approximately $18,000/yr for healthcare. That is more than 50% of our income. As we stand, with expendable income and the money saved if we pay off our house (many many years away) freeing up $2,000 a year in interest, we would have at most $700/mth, or $8,400/yr for healthcare; about 25% of our income. So we would have to be subsidized nearly $10,000/yr (not going to happen) and would have no money for going to movies, out to dinner, bowling or even activities like cycling. We would also have to go back to one car and have no money for home repairs. In other words, Obamacare means less economic stimulus and more lost jobs. Whatever one’s income simply drawing thousands upon thousands of dollars out of each family budget itself will bring financial disaster. My numbers are low if anything. It makes one question what a living wage would be in the Obamacare universe.
Now if I truly get seriously ill and my deductible is $5,000 (again low side) it will cost me $22,000/yr.; nearly two-thirds of our income, year after year until I die, before I get a penny in insurance. That is two-thirds of our income if I am able to continue to work. Best just give me a pain pill.
If I am going to be denied treatment for an illness and must accept death, as an American and free man, I will do it on my terms. I will not turn myself over to the government, in the name of healthcare, and allow them to control every aspect of my life by controlling all my hard earned money, and your as taxpayers who would have to subsidize my healthcare, housing, and food stamps. Currently we take no form of assistance and take the risk of not having healthcare in the hopes to achieve the American dream and break through to prosperity.
I will not conform to this law and not simply because it is economically impossible for me and my wife to afford. Any politician who supports this law is a traitor to this nation and the people, especially those who know better. It is unworkable and financial slavery. It is not difficult to see, for even the lowest information voter. In 2014 no quarter can be given in regards to Obamacare. We must all fight with everything we have to repeal this law.
Or perhaps I could title this one “The End Times, Phil Robertson 5 of 4” as the topics he raised remain front and center; the social degradation of society, particularly concerning sexual morals. A topic Phil Robertson has proven to be a master communicator on.
This last Sunday at church one gentleman brought up billboards put up by a certain Christian denomination embracing homosexuality. To quote the gentleman second hand, though I have seen these billboards myself some time back, the billboard read ‘We don’t care who you love, we still love you.’ If you really believe in Christian teachings the sign really says, “We don’t care if you’re going to hell, we still love you.”
These contrasting phenomenon of mankind coming to a point where the priceless value of each individual is recognized, and the near complete loss of all values or sense of right and wrong, the ability to recognize what is true or not as far as that can be accomplished with a mature educated discerning mind, may appear confusing. It may be called a sign of the end times. Consider with this all the under covered wide-spread infections of HIV, drug resistant bacteria and potentially deadly new forms of the flu, natural disasters and weapons of mass destruction in the hands of extremists, and one may think the world is coming to an end.
Isaac Asimov, in his “Foundation Trilogy”, portrays society collapsing when the foundational base knowledge of the advanced technologies that all civilization is built upon is lost. The ability to repair or reproduce these advanced technologies degrades as this foundational knowledge is lost and eventual the technology becomes unsustainable..
But if we look at the Obamacare website, that has become front and center in the news, as an example it is not loss of base technical knowledge that is bringing down our civilization but a lack of moral knowledge and fortitude. The software developer, CGI Group, was not chosen based on ability. They failed in previous projects of great but lesser magnitude. The private sector offered to do the site for free. Others said they could have done it better for a small fraction of what was and is being charged. Most likely we will be overpaying for updates to this site in perpetuity. Like Solyndra, and other green companies, I suspect much of the fees paid for the healthcare site are being funneled into liberal political causes including the democrat party in the tens of millions of dollars if not more. That is why CGI Group was chosen, for political gain, power, and not for true ability.
And it is not just the government. Yahoo, that takes a liberal political view in total contradiction to the views of its users is sharing the same fate. Whether on guns, homosexuality or politics remarks are ‘liked’ hundreds to even thousands to one in contradiction to Yahoo’s liberal views. Yahoo recently updated their free ‘groups’ function. Included is a new database that does not collate by date. So I put the year first in my 700+ fitness entries (i.e. 13/12/25) and that seemed to work until I went to add a new entry. You cannot simply add a new entry like before. You must edit the entire file. All the entries were scrambled when editing the file. So if I see a problem with one entry and want to edit it and press “edit file” who knows where I’ll find it. The most basic of functions for a database no longer exists on Yahoo.
While the large number of contentious issues may appear confusing it is not confusing at all if you have the right perspective. Let’s take Yahoo for example. I read a Yahoo news article this past weekend, though I have been unable to find it again. The writer for Yahoo was explaining why Phil Robertson’s comments were hate. His reasoning was, because there is no God and homosexuality is a natural activity among species. And it is not a imperfection, which any man of common sense would call it since it hinders reproduction of the species, but a product of evolution; supposed sound science. I still have seen no science in support of homosexuality as a biological reality.
There is the godless, on one side, where there is no right or wrong because there is no God, but only the evolutionary struggles of the survival of the fittest. The ends justify the means, morals that would hinder that are weakness. Plato, in “The Republic” some 2,400 years ago argued ‘in the name of Socrates’ that a government must lie to its people for the greater good, censor all arts and information and control who reproduces and doesn’t. Such ideas inspire the oppressor and have developed into the communism of today.
Then there are the Christians on the other side, where God is an absolute reality. All this confusion is simply the war of ideas and world views, between those who deny God and those who believe in God. Those who deny God have fruits that are rotten and sicken our inner cities. They are wrong and fail because their world view is based on lies. The fruits of Christianity have brought goodness and prosperity to all, embodied in the United States as it was founded.
Christianity has answers to the accusations from the left. Christians profess absolute love especially for one’s enemy and the sinner. So why has Christianity been powerless to defeat the communist/liberal cause? I would suggest because Christianity is wrong on some point where communism is right. I am not talking about homosexuality as a sin. The ideas I will present are not new to the Judeo-Christian tradition but have been rejected by most.
Socialism professes an ideal on this earth. In Christianity there is no ideal until the last day when this world is destroyed. There are always those who will be left behind. What if that is wrong? What if the second coming and the descriptions of the end of the world are simply the end of the evil world and Christ will establish an eternal kingdom on this earth as was intended from the beginning? These are age old teachings that fell out of favor.
It is interesting how revisiting these rejected ideas concerning the end times are taboo to Christians while so many Christians seem willing to reconsider whether homosexuality is a sin or not, though it has never been considered anything but a sin. (Now that is confusing) Where socialism fails enormously for its’ enormous flaws, perhaps Christianity has lost its influence and power for its’ mistaken understandings of where this world is headed. Perhaps the liberals are right on that one point and that is where their power comes from. That is the singular point where liberalism rings true in the hearts of all.
Phil Robertson of “Duck Dynasty” fame has suffered discrimination for what is being called by many hateful words. Rather, he clearly gave the word of God calling sin sin, and lost his job, momentarily, with A&E for it. I claim his words and actions do not come out of any hate or fear, but from love.
Is life eternal? Every civilization that has advanced mankind has had some understanding that life continues for eternity after life on this earth, even those that believed in a multitude of gods. Judaism stood for the one true God amidst these cultures of polytheism and is the foundation for all of western civilization with its prosperity and advancements. Out of that soil rose Christianity which achieved its greatest manifestation in the United States, a nation that has uplifted the entire world whether they are willing to admit it or not. And sin is still sin whether one wants to admit it or not.
The wages of sin is death; eternal damnation. What that means may vary from denomination to denomination but the belief in the eternal nature of life does not vary. It is a perspective that should permeate all of our society, because if life is ultimately eternal it does matter how you live. Respecting such commonly shared truths, apparent in all denominations, is what creates a Judeo-Christian society without establishing a national religion. It is the foundation of a society that respects all religions. It is the foundation of a free society.
When I was a child the idea of being a teenager seemed an eternity away. I never imagined reaching the age of The Monkees and now when I see them on TV I hardly remember what it was like being that young. Something I thought happened five years ago I find is ten or even fifteen years in the past. How will this life be perceived after ten-thousand years in the life after this one? A mere flash. Obviously we should be far more concerned with the eternal nature of our spirits than what recognition one can gain in this world.
Those consumed with pleasures of the flesh generally have little foresight. They can rationalize away and justify any criticism, especially in the light of a free society. They insist that they are in the right and all need to agree with them, and those who disagree are not just wrong but haters. It sounds to me, a simple man hardly perfect myself but one who has kept his face turned towards the one God, that these are the intellectual gymnastics of one trying to override a guilty conscience. That is my perspective gained from a life of personal reflection.
If one views life from the eternal perspective and truly loves his fellow man, all mankind, than how can he not warn those walking the path of sin? Phil Robertson’s words can only be seen as a work of love and concern for his fellow man. If his words make some people feel guilty my advise would be to listen to your conscience and not the one who seeks to drag you to hell, whose words always appear more pleasing.
In the controversy over the words of Phil Robertson few have given him 100% support. Even many who have supported him whole heartedly have taken small steps back for the supposed crude and rude nature of his remarks. The graphic language of homosexuals and liberals on TV have been clearly overlooked in the past. Such language can easily be call crude and rude, not to mention offensive. So… how is one supposed to describe the topic or the actions of the reproductive process of humankind? What terms do we use, to get straight to the point?
Yes, the reproductive process. The most basic drive of all life that keeps the species going. This perspective alone should be enough to put the question to rest over the issue of homosexuality. To date there has been no scientific evidence that homosexuality is natural. Do you want to point to penguins, that reproduce once a year in the harshest environment in the world, where if one male can’t compete and win a female his uncontrollable surging hormones lead him to bang anything dead or alive? A pretty crude topic I would say. Outside of human beings, the reproduction of species is completely driven by biology. (this suggests a design to me) There is no decision making and no difficulty explaining confusions among the animal kingdom for those armed with common sense. No abnormalities, outside of perhaps being inferior to other males, have been documented to explain any actions that would be described as outside the norms. Yes, the norms.
What descriptive language is used in our schools, given to your children in sex ed? The government now wants to start sexual education in kindergarten. What terms are to be used for kindergarteners? How many of us are even aware of the words and descriptions that are being used in our schools? Since homosexuality has been recognized as normal by many local governments and their corresponding school districts, what is the language they are using to an ever younger audience to describe such relationships? What kind of language do they use when distributing condemns and explaining there use?
When I was a child, just past initial puberty (is that word to crude?) my mind was focused one one thing. What is a man to do with a women. Which words were used to describe the proper relationship of man and women, clearly described as confined to marriage, were immaterial. Clearly understanding the workings and purposes were the only thing that would put my mind at ease. Any words, …any words accomplishing that end were neither crude or rude but appreciated.
Phil Robertson was communicating important realities in words that went straight to the point with absolute clarity. His words were neither crude nor rude but informative. These topics need to be addressed, the issues confronted, and there is only one way to do it; in the clearest words possible.
The homosexual movement, by whatever acronyms they want to identify themselves by, wants to claim that the scriptures do not condemn homosexuality. They have been successful in converting many religious denominations to their opinions, making them doctrine. They want to claim that people like Phil Robertson are not being Christian in their words and beliefs. That Christ, Jesus, would never act in such a fashion.
I heard a debate on FOX news over the religious aspect of homosexuality and a Biblical scholar pointed out very clearly how Jesus’ words clearly defined the relationships of one man to one woman as being ordained by God; how things were created to be.
But those who want to convince us that traditional beliefs, built around the realities of sin and how to overcome it, are archaic, decry such beliefs as judgmental and not in line with the spirit and life of Jesus. Somehow Jesus understands and would never condemn anyone, they claim, though all must be aware of Jesus’ words that He came to cast judgment. If you are not aware of such words you have no standing in this debate.
Sin is an affirmative response to temptation, and temptation in the Judeo-Christian sphere originates from Lucifer, or Satan who seeks to put himself above God, laying claim over we His children. Jesus went into the wilderness and fasted for forty days where he was confronted by Satan. He was tempted in hunger with food. He was offered all the pleasures of the world and the world itself, but he rejected all such temptations, upholding God’s dignity and rightful position. And what did He reject all this for? In the end He would face complete betrayal by those he loved and die a horrible death for the sins of mankind.
Jesus is no wall-flower with nothing but sweetness and understanding to bestow on any and all, attributes many want to attribute to Pope Francis. He is a man of iron will who puts God’s word above all else. It is a word that judges, that decides who belongs to God and who belongs to Satan. In listening to those who want to preach anything goes, there is no contention over the spirit of man. There is no accuser, supposed god of this world, who seeks to drag one to hell. Jesus’ three temptations clearly prove otherwise.
And what of Jesus fashioning a whip and driving the money changers out of the temple. Jesus was not only a man of absolute conviction but of great power. I can’t imagine any circumstance where He would not have been stopped if someone could have stopped Him. Jesus did not tolerate perversions of what is meant to be holy and devoted to God. And isn’t that how the majority has institutionalized marriage, as an act of consecrating the union of man and woman as holy and devoted to God?
Where Phil Robertson submits to the word of God, those who would deny its relevance, desiring to alter its meaning, want to point to Jesus as their proof. The reality is, not only Jesus’ words, but His very nature as portrayed in the actions of His life testify against this supposed enlightenment, this pseudo social evolution that would suggest that homosexuality is not a sin.
“Duck Dynasty” is the highest rated show on cable with 12 million viewers, outside of sporting events. The highest rated show on network television is “The Black List” (my favorite broadcast show) with 17 million viewers; just around 5% of the population.
In this war of ideas against this country of the United States, and the Judeo-Christian ethics on which it was founded, the front line is the airwaves. Outside of talk radio, we conservatives continually lament that liberals control the media, AKA mainstream media, sock puppet press, etc. etc.The liberal media in all entertainment mediums continues to put forth a valueless pop culture world view that is undermining the foundations of this nation and ultimately freedom itself.
In this modern age of so many choices, a station can have a hit show with as little as 3% of the population and claim the ideals it professes are representative of the majority. So the minority becomes the majority as long as no one of prominence on the airwaves, in all its various entertainment mediums of talk, song and story (including the news), will tell the public, the low information voter, otherwise.
When I consider “Duck Dynasty” and hear that each family member has an individual contract I wonder if all this was by design; if this controversy over Phil Robertson was preordained. At any rate, many are suggesting that “Duck Dynasty” change networks. I would suggest that they go over to broadcast television. Broadcast television is where the battle for the soul of this nation can be won and let me try to explain why.
If there is any technology that must be declared outdated it is AM radio. Yet AM radio is booming due to conservative talk radio; content that is in demand. Would conservative talk be as populace if one needed to purchase a subscription to listen to it? Radio is available to everyone, every car has one. Most homes still have radios, though some of those may be decades old now.
What happened to “Monday Night Football”? I am sure it gets great ratings but not as high as when they were on broadcast. Now “Sunday Night Football” is growing as the premiere game for the masses.
Further, in this economy, many are and will be ending their cable and satellite service contracts. If the choice is between keeping the cable TV or Internet service, Internet will always win. And now you can get TV over the Internet.
We had no paid television for a long time. As our situation improved and I saw the great variety broadcast TV offered with HD broadcasting I saw no reason to consider cable. Every HD broadcaster now can claim five or more digital stations within their band. There is all the old TV shows one can imagine available for free. We have at least three stations here in Milwaukee that broadcast only movies. PBS has a large variety over five channels, of documentary, British TV, cooking shows, home improvement, news and education programming among other things.
So I looked into TiVo, so I could pick and choose from this great variety and watch on demand. On demand is the trend of the future. TiVo was very expensive in comparison to an Internet TV box. We went with Roku for Internet TV. Now FOX and PBS have their shows available on demand for some time period after broadcast through Roku. All the networks have all their news shows available on demand after broadcast. If every broadcast network provides all their content for on demand viewing via Internet TV devices they will return to dominance and end paid TV as we know it. But… did they ever lose dominance?
Yes, there are many Internet TV stations, or apps as they are called, but there are too many, too amateur and too slipshod. People will revert to what they know and choose all the broadcast network apps along with a handful of Internet station apps that fit their viewing desires. Broadcast television will hold its’ dominant position and then grow in dominance.
What if “Duck Dynasty” went to broadcast? Could it achieve 10%, 20% or even 25% or greater viewership? What if some brave network took up the conservative and/or moral cause and started producing shows that represent the God loving people of this nation and gained 20% plus ratings on a regular basis. No words of others could deny what represents American culture.
Glenn Beck has produced his own network, available for a fee on Roku. Sarah Palin and others have found spots on cable to create their own shows that I am sure will get great ratings. My family, and many others, will never have the opportunity to watch them from our homes. There is a lot of such programming being produced, programming that could reach ratings not seen in forty years if they could be put on broadcast prime time.
Yes, there are many barriers perhaps even with the FCC, but these are fights that need to be fought. Right now Phil Robertson and his hit show “Duck Dynasty” have captured the attentions of the nation. It is time to make a move, to take the offensive.
I have often touched on theological topics, all of Judeo-Christian origin but not always traditional, to show how what we believe, the origins of existence, of evil, and how and why we look to a last days, influences our perspectives. On one of my blogs directed specifically to faith issues, most notably my faith, I commented on the concept of absolute predestination. You can go there by clicking here if you like.
I have mused why historically individuals who have been blessed in their lives and greatly prosperous are apt to profess absolute predestination or in the least tend to focus on verses that suggest predestination as absolute. I have come to the conclusion that the most attractive attribute of absolute predestination is that it is not their fault. That is, as their power and influence holds drastic consequences over the lives of others for both good and bad, they are not responsible for the bad. It was predestined.
Many are asking now in relation to Obamacare, “How can our government do this to us?” Has President Obama no conscience, common sense or sense of duty to the people? Has he no sense of responsibility to rectify what everyone has recognized as a failure that will drive the entire population deeper into economic despair, not to mention the rising national debt that already has doomed the future for our children and grandchildren?
Economic ruin has been the norm in every communist/socialist system. Look at Greece, Italy, Spain and others. Remember why the communist block completely collapsed. So how do communists justify bringing this kind of ruin upon their populations?
Evolution. Evolution is their predestination. There is no creator, everything came about by mere chance, survival of the fittest. Any ideology that includes God, an intelligent source, therefore is blasphemy; the problem and needs to be censored. Those taking more than others is the origin of evil; poverty and oppression. Eugenics, the sacrament of abortion, is all part of the doctrine of the greater good in atheism. The new ruling class, such as Barrack Obama arisen from the oppressed masses (OK, not Obama), the victorious victims over the prosperous are the enlightened. They are the top of the evolutionary chain. Their policies are salvation, and if only all would believe and fall in line, submit, everything would work out.
Obama isn’t the problem. Communism isn’t the problem. The problem is religion, you and me, and all who believe in God, in the sanctity of life and that prosperity is created not taken. If only we would acquiesce to our superiors, the uber prosperous in government, everything would work out. Otherwise the communist doctrine of violent revolution may have to be enacted.
It’s not their fault which makes it absolute.
In regards to education, in many places they receive none and if they do they
risk being maimed or killed. I cannot support the Islamic view on woman. Though
some may point to the word to contradict me, actions speak louder.I am hardly an expert on South Africa though I have spent significant time with people from that nation both black and white. My experience in the Catholic Church and Jesuit institutions may give me a bit more of an insight into Pope Francis than Nelson Mandela. My regular readers may recognize my understanding and knowledge of communism and the Cold War era.
We have two prominent and influential figures, Pope Francis and Nelson Mandela, that embody reconciliation and goodness, never putting themselves above the laws they have committed themselves to. Yet both are a source of confusion. Pope Francis has created an atmosphere of, if not uncertainty surely murkiness around the topics of economics and sexuality.
Nelson Mandela has been an example of reconciliation in what some may rightly or wrongly call a saintly manner. He stood for the rule of law by committing himself to his nation’s Constitution and his understanding that his policies cannot be formed by ideology but by what will work for the people. Still he was a communist who contemplated terrorism before he was imprisoned. His party did commit acts of terror, follows the communist ideology and is poised, if they desire, to institute an oppressive communist regime in South Africa.
Both Pope Francis and Nelson Mandela seem to hold a low opinion of the United States. What is the source of this confusion and the dislike of the greatest nation the earth has ever seen, a nation that has been extremely beneficial to all in the world, by these two prominent individuals?
I would suggest it is communism, in both cases. Nelson Mandela was clearly aligned with the propagation of communism. Cuba worked devotedly in Africa to spread to the communist cause. I have heard tell of piles of literature propagated by North Korea and other nations directed to the leadership of many African nations. In the Popes case he has had to confront communism in South America and among his Jesuit brotherhood. How has communism shaped their views?
Communism professes that ‘this is the way the world is’. The world. Not Argentina or South Africa with their third world backgrounds but the entire world. And communists put forth what they claim are clear answers to solve the problems in this world. Most of Christianity believes the only final solution to the problems in this world is its ultimate destruction in the last days. In other words they don’t have a solution, there will always be those who are left behind. So when you have two people who feel called to address the problems of this world and have both been bombarded with communist propaganda most all their lives we find contradiction and confusion on some level. Why? Because communism is a false and failed ideology. Anything that takes it or any part into consideration in any form will not ring true.
Nelson Mandela, who knew communism clearly and rejected its failed policies, though he seemed committed to its ideals, may hold more credibility than the Pope who obviously is ignorant of communism’s seductive influences. Here in the United States we can see how misdirected and confused what is now being labeled the low information voter is in comparison.
The United States embodies, or did embody Christian ideals formed in a life and death struggle in pursuit of true freedom that comes from God and a vision that it is possible to create an ideal blessed world here on this earth, amidst the untainted wilderness, God’s creation, that spread out before our forefathers. Yet both these fore mentioned men who have great accomplishments for the betterment of humankind cannot conceive the reality of this nation’s goodness and potential.
They cannot perceive that the United States as founded, a Christian nation, stands in contradiction to all communism claims the world to be. Socialist and communist policies in this country are eroding these founding ideals and creating the image of the world communism espouses. Rather than continuous upward mobility by those of every class, a dynamic formerly associated with the United States, socialist policies are creating a permanent underclass of dependence and removing the hope of upward mobility for all but the few; an elite ruling class. The practical reality of all communist nations.
Communism’s ultimate goal is to destroy this nation of the United States as it was founded. That in itself should make communism’s origins clear.
My wife and I have no interest in listening to anything Miley Cyrus sings or may say. We change the station when she comes on the radio and skip her over when watching music videos on the internet. This is all in reaction to her twerking performance on national broadcast television and we didn’t even watch the show. I didn’t seek out any coverage, uninterested in the mob like hype over her perverse actions.
But what should we expect? When we have a society where no one can be judged, no matter how perverse their actions, where there is no right or wrong, why wouldn’t such acts be portrayed on broadcast television? When we don’t standup against such perversions we as a society give tacit permission to all such acts. Expect more exploits and expect it to get worse. Do not be surprised, as many have warned, that soon pedophilia will be defended by people of ever greater supposed standing in society.
And it all began when we stopped discerning between good and evil, right and wrong, and what is happiness or unhappiness. That is the reason I treated Taylor Swift so harshly in a previous post, though she is a very remarkable young lady. This world has become dominated with the idea that physical experience and stimulation is happiness, ignoring the internal state of the spirit.
I saw news coverage on twerking on a local station. A long line of high school girls were leaning with their hands against the wall, all smiling. They were all engaged in this action, that I will refrain from describing here. Adults, male teachers, walked up and down the line watching. Fifty years ago we would have describe this scene as a vision from hell. The teachers would have been fired.
The United Sates at one time was a Christian society. It is no longer. I have joined a site called Good Reads and started following a Christian author. I received a notice that one of her books, Kindle version, was being offered free until midnight. I found myself out that evening and had forgotten to download the book. I couldn’t remember the authors name or the title of her book, but I had my Kindle and remembered it described as a Christian thriller. So I searched by genre and found her book “The Force.” There were many titles in the genre which was uplifting.
The book was a refresher for me of proper perspective. A story of Christians living Christian lives and dealing with an evil world from a Christian perspective. A spiritual view addressing spiritual realities far more relevant and time proven than tales of vampires, dwarfs or space aliens. The concept of dealing with the Muslim world by witnessing is an approach expressed in the book that I wish we would have taken on as a nation. Instead we currently have a policy of appeasement led by those who embody all the Islamic world decries as the evils of Western society, and yet somehow these two groups get along far too well.
Yes, relying on God and testifying to the world as a Christian society is what the United States used to be under minimal government. If not winning over the Muslim world, standing up for Christians we could have saved many Christian lives, strengthened many oppressed Christian communities worldwide and influenced or rather shamed Islam into modify their barbaric ways. Rather we have rulers who believe Christianity is the problem.
The twentieth century was a century of growing government and a growing denial of God. The fruits of these ideologies rotted on the vine. They have failed completely, yet these fruits still hold the gaze of the arrogant, foolish and weak minded. Such individuals most often embody all three attributes.
To some degree we have all been stained by this twentieth century trend. We can look at Thanksgiving as an example. Thanksgiving is a day to give thanks to God, something we too easily overlook. We come together as families and bow our heads before the Lord; at least that is the ideal..
Then Thanksgiving became associated with so many other concerns as our materialist society developed; innocent non-threatening things. It became a time for hunting as a natural time of the year for people to take advantage of the time off and we became a more urban society. As we became more affluent and materialistic, as transportation increased and families scattered it was one of the few times of the year families could actually get back together and share a meal. It further became a time for vacations in general. In the recent decades it has become a day to enjoy family, or not, while watching football. In the epitome of materialist commercial culture it has finally become a day of shopping. And, the government has asked us to also make it a day to propagandize its’ death panel policies to your fellow family members.
The twenty-first century must be an age of reversing the trends of the previous century. This is the time to turn our hearts back to God and his ways. It is a time for each of us, our families and our nation to embrace revival. A time to humble our hearts, turn from all distractions and devote ourselves to what is true. It is time to give thanks to God for the blessings He has bestowed upon us, no matter how unworthy, and recognize the blessings He wants us to extend, which our great nation had been extending, to the rest of the world. The twenty-first century must be a time of returning to God or a new dark ages will come.
Have a Happy Thanksgiving and God Bless.
Mark Levin in his latest most excellent work “The Liberty Amendments” addresses the dangers of the political class and a ruling oligarchy epitomized in what is called the ‘beltway culture’, those he call ‘statists’. One of eleven suggested Amendments in his book is to require terms limits for Congressional seats. In January of 2010 I made the case not for term limits but for raising the age requirements as being more in the spirit of our founding fathers. You can read that here, but I will further advance the idea in relation to Mark Levin’s arguments to the contrary. In today’s culture, the idea that raising age requirements is being ignored as an alternative to term limits can be taken as speaking to its merits.
First of all, if term limits is the only acceptable alternative considered by those of a conservative nature and necessary political prowess to get the amendment ratified Mark Levin’s suggestion of twelve years is simply too long. Twelve years is more than long enough for any individual to be indoctrinated into the political class or beltway culture. Then these individuals will return to their respective States to become lobbyists, and to populate our State Houses and City Halls in elected positions. Would this be beneficial? In Milwaukee our current Mayor is a former member of The House of Representatives. The kindest description I can give to his term as Mayor is reality challenged.
Mark Levin makes the case for raising the age requirements himself. He highlights in great detail the popularity and practice of term limits at the time of the Constitution. Then Mr. Levin explains how, with age requirements, for the first hundred years of this country the majority of elected officials in both the Senate and House held only two terms or even a single term of office.
Further, term limits do not break the power of the political class where the party, people whose entire life experience has been not in the private sector but confined to the world of politics, decides from their own ranks who will run, or in other words who will receive the financial backing. If the age requirements were raised twenty years across the board for Congress and the Presidency people will be presented a clear choice. Though the effect on Presidential candidates may be slight, in Congressional races an open seat may very well be contended between a profession politician versus the likes of Wisconsin’s standing Senator Ron Johnson, a manufacturer highly accomplished in the private sector who stands for true reform and a return to traditional values in our government. The public must decide between a professional politician with a life’s work and practice of decades that could be clearly scrutinized versus highly accomplished private sector individuals with their own finances; the likes of Donald Trump or even Bill Gates and the late Steve Jobs. Though the politics of the fore mentioned private sector giants may not all be conservative, even far from the fact, would such men tolerate an inefficient, irresponsible and dishonest system that crushes the American Dream?
Another suggested Amendment is term limits for the Supreme Court. It appears to me this would create large and continuous swings in the political makeup of the Court. Included in the Amendment is the ability of three-fifths of Congress or State Legislatures to expunge any Supreme Court decision. With these political swings caused by term limits I can imagine that our Congress and State Legislatures will become continuously involved in the decisions of the Court. I would question; Is this a separation of powers? The ability of State Legislatures to expunge a Supreme Court decision is sufficient as I perceive the issue. In light of the Obamacare ruling it may be the easiest of the amendments to be approved.
What Mark Levin has done, with great ability, knowledge and persuasion, is to present to the reader the dangers of tyranny under politics as usual and then present viable solutions. The dangers stem from statists who despise the Constitution to the point where it has been ignored and the avenues to rectify the problem, to demand the Constitution be upheld, have become intimidating and the processes deconstructed. He addresses all these problems with specific Constitutional Amendments. Some may argue, perhaps rightly, that you cannot legislate morality, that some of these Amendments are far too specific. I could easily be swayed to that opinion myself.
The reality is many of the issues Mark Levin addresses could be resolved if a few of the most critical amendments he proposes were ratified. The repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment that would designate that State Legislatures choose Senators, along with an amendment giving the States the ability to expunge a Supreme Court decision would be a drastic shift of power back to the States, in opposition to an overpowering tyrannical federal government. Senators assigned by their State Legislators could also resolve the issue of term limits (or raising age requirements) as the House is already characterized by powerful swings in relation to the will of the people.
A Balanced Budget Amendment limiting the taxing power of the government proposed by the Mr. Levin, though I find his limits too generous, would strike deep against an overbearing bureaucracy. In the allocation of funds, so important to a politician, the limits would put the parties at odds with each other rather than sharing in an unspoken agreement to run up an unlimited budget for mutual political and financial gain. Further, tying the budget to the GNP creates the dynamic where more economic prosperity equates to more money for the politician to allocate. This discourages the creation of overbearing laws and regulations that hinder economic growth.
These three amendments, the repeal of the seventeenth, a State override of Supreme Court decisions and for a balanced budget with limits to taxation, in something more than a decade may resolve up to ninety-percent of the dangers Mark Levin presented.
Mark Levin’s book is ultimately a call to action. It is the final warning to a nation swiftly declining into tyranny, a tyranny that is and will bring a new dark ages to the entire world. Mark Levin’s call for a ‘Convention to Amend the Constitution’ to be held by the States is the final opportunity for this country to be saved without reverting to more drastic measures such as States declaring the federal government illegitimate and/or secession; the final steps before taking up arms, if it should come to that, against a domestic tyranny as provided for in our Constitution.
Mark Levin has completed all the ground work for this convention to be held. He has presented all of the citizen’s grievances and proposed every possible solution in the form of amendments. He has put forth ever consideration such a convention should address. Now it is up to us and our representatives of common values to demand that the States of our great Union gather and convene A Convention to Amend the Constitution.
Raucous fanfare has been given over the purchase of the Washington Post by the founder of Amazon.com; Jeff Bezos. One would believe the messiah has come to the printed word. I am not sure what Mr. Bezos will do to revitalize ‘The Post’, and by association and imitation the the entire news print industry. I have expressed some of my insight on how to save newspapers in part, piecemeal over my various blogs. Let me tell you clearly how I think it should be done. If Mr. Bezos wants to steal my ideas, though I find it hard to believe they are beyond the perceptions of most men, there is nothing I can do about it. I would hope you would at least buy my book Mr. Bezos. Some of these ideas and concepts may be advancing in various newspapers but I have seen nothing that even closely resembles the totality of my vision.
It is painfully obvious to me why newspapers are failing every time I go to one of their websites; advertisements front and center and too much clutter. The painful part of the equation is that a good old fashioned newspaper is the very form of every website. You have the front page with just the highlights. When you read what is on the front page you are directed to another site for the conclusion of the article; a section and page. You serf through the rest of the paper to discover news of lesser significance or of more particular interest.
In the past, for some, one would snap a mass of large unruly layers of wood pulp, searching through the sheets, folding and snapping again to get to a story of interest or value front and center in a acceptably flat form trying to position one’s arms so as not to tire too quickly but still achieve proper lighting. On the Internet the stories are set before you on a flat backlit screen and with an insignificant slide of the mouse and a click one can navigate smoothly through an entire paper.
So why are web pages not modeled after the printed news page? No one wants an ad flashed in their face from the get go. Printed news is the masthead and headlines. The headlines are the attraction; the art of the draw. Advertisements come later. With the headlines one subsequently gets a good chunk of the story before having to turn a page. Now, on the Internet, you get maybe two sentences under a title, if any. In a paper their are a few choice number of stories on the front page. Internet papers list their entire content on their home page. I have come across several commentaries on designing web pages claiming that clutter kills a site. I went to many top newspapers webpages last night. The least cluttered design was ‘The Washington Examiner’ which I believe has no print version. Yahoo and Google customizable home pages look more like the printed newspaper than newspaper Internet sites and they provide many of the services people once turned to the newspaper for; TV and movie listings, weather etc. as well as news.
People will search through a newspaper. They will navigate to the sports or business sections. Some table of contexts are important on the bottom of the main page but Internet papers need fewer stories with more substance front and center.
How does one do advertisement? Small animated adds with no audio in a small box that run 3-5 seconds highlighting a companies familiar logo. It runs once and then sits inanimate. Then, according to the number of words in the story, it animates again when most people would be about to finish reading. For those who do not subscribe to the Internet newspaper, when they click to read the expanded story they get a 15 second full on commercial before they advance to the next page.
Why would people subscribe to an Internet newspaper? To get fewer commercials. Also to get services such as coupons they can print out. They can go to a page with the most popular coupons for that particular city. If the page holds eight coupons make six the most popular and add two, for a fee from the product promoter. A Sunday print version is a definite attraction for many.
The Internet provides many opportunities for newspapers to attract subscribers. Facebook is now a platform to login to other sites, such as Freedom Works, without having to remember or create another login and password. I do not see why newspapers cannot provide the same convenience for subscribers. It is an issue front and center for anyone who uses the Internet. Blogging services and a more local social media circle would be winners and a way to uncover news. Protected e-mail accounts are becoming more popular. If the NSA is illegally monitoring your e-mails wouldn’t you want a local paper standing behind you? Other services such as a monthly best selling free e-book can also be an attraction for subscribers.
Including limited or full online encyclopedia services would also be a plus. Why do we all need to depend on the questionable Wikipedia. An Encyclopedia Britannica subscription runs nineteen-cents a day. A newspaper could throw them nineteen-cents a year; they would have hundreds of thousands of encyclopedia subscribers versus maybe thousands without the paper and continue their prestigious public presence.
The Search Engine
Here is where the newspapers have failed. Search engines drive the Internet and the newspapers hold a gold mine. Most have well over one-hundred years of material and with text recognition technology it can all become easily accessible. I often search the Internet looking for references to the Cold War to relate with today’s issues. I cannot find anything reliable. The Internet’s potential was just becoming understood as the Cold War, in regards to the Soviet Union, ended.
I could search newspaper archives for ‘Senator Joseph McCarthy’ and select whether I want articles with his name or some variation thereof in the title only, or search all articles in which his name appears, once, twice or as many times as I would choose. I could access possibly thousands of articles and then could select or drag the articles I wish to read into a folder and then access them at my leisure. The search of my local papers archive gives me results that appear unrelated to my search and they want a fee to look at each link. Though the search goes back a few decades it did not look like they had any scanned sources.
In elementary school and high school we were taught how to use a library for research. We learned how to access microfilm and other sources. Many od these sources are not available on the Internet. A gold mine I say that requires a local touch to dig it up.
Some will say, and rightly so, that content makes the difference. Newspapers have mountains of past content but maybe it does not promote the mainstream’s modern views of the world. A simpler search application newspapers can offer is locally focused searches. How often do you look for a store, click on a link and find it is for a location in South Carolina? That’s fine if you live in south Carolina; I don’t. Where the Internet and sites such as Yahoo and Google offer a world stage, a more local and familiar platform has it’s own attractions and can be more potent; reaching out to a smaller but far more personable audience.
We are in what is being called the information age. Newspapers are in an ideal position to dominate. So why are they completely incompetent in taking advantage? Maybe it is all about content.
This last Monday my wife was free from her usual labor commitments. We thought for a whole week how we were going to spend this rare moment when we would both be free for an entire day from the assorted piecemeal jobs that we just get by on. It happened to be the day when our local botanical gardens are free for county residence. Our local Miller Brewery, just blocks away, also holds free tours and we had never been.
Between these two activities we went to the ‘Mad Rooster Café’ for lunch. We enjoyed the friendly Mexican atmosphere. The menu included Belgium waffles with bacon in the batter, and cinnamon French toast rolled in corn flakes and grilled. I had a blue cheese burger that had some great bacon (the patty was OK) and my wife had the salmon tacos which she described as great. They had a well priced soup and salad option. Homemade soups, cage free eggs and other quality ingredients were being featured. The prices were about those of a common fare neighborhood restaurant, somewhat more than an I-Hop. Anything beyond fast food is something we can rarely afford.
They serve only breakfast and lunch, and breakfast wasn’t that early. They had an attractive menu but not extensive. I had to wonder as we enter a part time economy driven by Obama-Care if limited hours and fare will become an ever increasing trend for restaurants. I-Hop has already made it known that they will be putting most of their workers on part time. Most franchise based restaurants are networking to cut their employees to two part time jobs under different franchises. So many will be working over fifty hours at a part time rate (no overtime) with twice the commutes.
The madness of the depressing influences of Obama-Care on the working people of this nation are well known and documented. Family’s health plans are becoming vastly more expensive and companies are dropping coverage for their employees. The government is incapable of, and in several instances unwilling to meet the laws requirements. Members of congress and their staffs are looking to exempt themselves from the law. Doctors are giving up their practices, a testament to the reality that if people cannot achieve self advancement they will not work. But someone has to fill the positions in the clinics being proposed in nations such as Belize and Costa Rica to service those who can afford to travel to enjoy a market driven system of high quality and low prices that is sure to arise. Medical tourism has long been a reality. I have a cousin in Alaska who goes to Thailand every Winter for his dental care.
Meanwhile most of the middle class, like myself, will be trapped in a failing system that will offer a pain pill when one gets really sick. The costs for coverage under Obama-Care will be so high that any advancement one may make will be claimed by the government because most of us will not be deemed carrying our fair share with the large subsidies we will be receiving, even with all other government aid available, which I am sure we will be forced to take.
Yes, under Obama-Care the rich are getting richer, and the poor poorer. Average incomes are dropping. The banks which were too big to fail, receiving our hard earned tax dollars are paying pennies on the thousand a year in interest while in many cases they are charging fees simply to have an account if you do not keep a certain balance limit. Wells Fargo, not even a willing participant in the bail outs, began charging us $12/mth for having a checking and savings and not keeping a total balance of at least $2,000. All the while they collect significant fees off every debit card exchange (21 cents per exchange, something a federal judge has recently determined too high and collusion between government and financial institutions) not to mention other untold multiple fees. The rich get richer and…
All the while the federal government prints, or digitally creates more money and feeds it into the stock market to expand the pockets of the moneyed population.
E-15 is being marketed though using it will void one’s auto warranty and will damage your engine. Ethanol actually creates far more greenhouse gases in its production and distribution than it supposedly saves. Adding it to gasoline simply reduces the efficiency of the engine on an equal basis. The Keystone Pipeline is still being stopped though it would create thousands of jobs and ease our fuel prices. The EPA is piling restrictions upon energy corporations driving up all our utility prices and threaten jobs in the coal industry; an industry Obama has determined to destroy costing countless jobs. Our fracking boom in oil and natural gas is occurring on private and State lands but not Federal lands, and the government is placing ever greater restrictions on the process.
Locally the powers to be in Milwaukee have been promoting any and all rail projects that will not be used but will place heavy tax burdens on all of us. My water bill is 600% higher than when we first bought our house some fifteen years ago. We pay for the city to plow our streets now through our water bill, among other things which were covered under our property tax in the past. Our electric bills are driven continuously higher to build wind mills required by the federal government. Sometimes they are even working as they destroy the property values of all those around and deplete our bird populations of endangered species or not. Our public schools produce few students who know how to read, rite or do rithmatic.
(Excuse my personal testimonies, democrats may be reading and they don’t understand anything else.)
All this and more, is more than simply mad. It is more than unethical or even immoral. It is criminal when framed in relation to the grievances our founding fathers put forth in the Declaration of Independence.
Are not the answers to these problems and more self evident? Are not the actions of this government openly and contemptuously in contradiction to the well being and will of the people? Even a dog will not look you straight in the eye when caught in wrong doing, yet our politicians, whether caught promoting policies that express contempt for the people, scandal or personal malfeasance look the public straight in the eye and rationalize, mischaracterize and outright lie without shame. They call scandals phony. As their policies depress our personal prosperity, as the middle class is driven into financial despair, as the future generations are being strapped with crushing government debt and their American Dream turns into a nightmare, politicians on both sides of the aisle, the political class take it all as evidence of the ineptitude of the common man and the need for even more government intervention.
Simply mad?
I am sure there are those much better informed and qualified than myself that could correlate the issues and misconduct surrounding our federal government with the grievances our founding fathers outlined in the Declaration of Independence. Let me begin here.
Simply mad?
What do these three nations have in common? Far too much. Yet one of these nations we treat far differently than the others.
Two of these nations require our presence to keep the Taliban, drug dealing blood thirsty radicals, from gaining power. In fact we sacrificed this nations best to overthrow the Taliban in Afghanistan. And we continue that sacrifice to keep the Taliban, Al Qaeda and other radical groups backed by Iran and powers in Pakistan, from taking control of Afghanistan and Iraq. Controlling the borders of these nations is vital in the war against terror and barbarism.
Mexico, on the other hand, is being ruled by drug dealing blood thirsty Cartels. Their murderous attacks on political figures who would challenge Cartel power is far more successful and effective. The torture and massacre of Mexican citizens is far more expansive, and done far more openly than in the nations we currently occupy under the premise of maintaining their political stability.
In this Sunday’s Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, right next to an article on the Gifford’s tours for gun control (Mexico has taken away their citizens guns) is an article on escalating election violence in Mexico. Seven candidates for elected office were attacked, six killed since February. In all cases many others were killed including family members of the candidates.
And the Mexican border? It is an open highway for any and all of the enemies of the United States to enter freely. Al Qaeda, Red Chinese nationals, many with dubious intent, are just a few of the dangers our nation refuses to recognize. Let us not forget the massive drug trade that benefits from a porous border and the violent murderous activities it produces on both sides.
Such corrupt, murderous, incompetent and ineffectual governing from our neighbor should not be tolerated; cannot be tolerated. Yet we cannot even get our Congress and President to close our border. It sometimes appears that they desire exactly the opposite.
Why do we tolerate, no endorse, such lawlessness and anarchy that directly threatens our nation? We shouldn’t.
Why is our southern border not only closed but militarized? If it were so, and a drone were to observe a group of armed men detain a bus, kill everyone on board and then ride off in a pickup, and then if the drone fires its’ hellfire and smokes the murderers, wouldn’t that be a good thing? If in Afghanistan or Iraq it certainly would be. Oh! The pickup was filled with Mexican military, or at least men dressed as Mexican military? Good!
Maybe a better question should be; Why are we not invading Mexico?
We are allied with Pakistan. We make military incursions and strikes into Pakistan when required. In relation to Bin Laden we didn’t even inform the Pakistanis. We make drone strikes all across the Middle-East and elsewhere as we please. Yet on a much more dangerous border, lined with greater enemies simply from the view of proximity if nothing else, we do less than nothing. Our President has instructed our border agents not to enforce the law.
The most obvious course of action is clear and simple; close the border. Still we have a gang of eight who cannot even grasp the reality of the problem. They are consumed with a pathway to citizenship, or in other words, buying votes over protecting the citizenry.
It had been quite a while, but just this past June 8th I received a call from an international number. Then, watching Dick Cheney on FOX News via our Roku, I heard him vehemently defend the data mining efforts of the NSA. He claimed it provides valuable information and is only employed in regards to international phone calls. (of course I am paraphrasing here)
A thought snapped into my mind. I felt a bit enraged. I went to the Internet and did a reverse number search on the number from the missed call I had received. It was from Morocco. The first of such calls I had received since I started with a regional cell phone provider about a year ago. Last night I tried to call the number and could not make a connection. I am not sure if it was because of my plan, but not being a wealthy man, having been underemployed some eight years, I did not try to track down the number by paying an Internet service, or make effort to call the other numbers I had dug up from over a year ago.
Yes, I was a Verizon customer and had received many such calls when I was with them. Some I answered and heard a foreign voice to whom I told they had the wrong number. It was clear these were individuals and not representatives of a company or some scammer or salesman.
I checked my old Verizon bills; no number listings. I pulled out my old phone and looked for days to find the old charger without success. Finally I went to a Verizon retailer and a salesman helped me charge my phone. My call history went back to 9/11/11. To the point, I received a call from this same Moroccan number in March of last year along with a call from Chandigarh India, near Pakistan. In months previous I received calls from three different Liberian numbers. Liberia was linked to a scandal concerning blood diamonds and Al Qaeda.
I sent all this information to my Senator. I also informed him that I had received many more calls than this from numbers of foreign origin and completely foreign to myself. In fact previous to one 9/11, I received so many calls from African nations that I felt compelled to go to the FBI website and inform them; providing them with the numbers. I received no response. I received no real response from Verizon when I had called them numerous times about these unusual activities.
Or could these be simple glitches in the system. After all these last couple weeks I have received calls from my wife and her from me that neither of us made. In fact One call I checked after the fact and was surprised it had been my wife because the ringtone had not been the one I have assigned to her number, or I would have answered the phone.
Could I be targeted by the NSA for errant phone calls? What of the privacy of those in international business and markets? Some are making a big fuss over Edward Snowden and his leaking of valuable information he had access to after working three months. Could terrorist elements have already intuited such tactics (have you seen the show ‘Person of Interest’) so they are sending out an assortment of bogus random calls to cover their true contact? Or in a most fearful scenario, could the NSA target U.S. citizens by instigating calls from foreign lands, and monitor them without warrant? Time to check your call histories and contact your Senators and representatives.
There is a common and well founded conception that this country of the United States will never impeach President Obama because he is the first black President.
There are suspicions of illegal fundraising through undocumented credit card donations from the very first Obama Presidential campaign. There is ‘Fast and Furious’ which lead to deaths of our own agents as well as multiple deaths in Mexico at the ends of guns supplied by the Eric Holder justice department. There are the illegal intimidation tactics against the media and their sources that go back to and begin with Obama’s first term. There is the use of the IRS and other Executive Branch institutions to target and harass conservative movements, donors to conservative causes and conservative businesses. Remember the closing of the GM franchises when the government gained control. Then we have Benghazi and a complete dereliction of duty. These are but a few and the major issues of malfeasance this administration has institutionalized in the Executive Branch.
Peggy Noonan on “Meet the Press” this last Sunday said concerning the IRS scandal; “If it doesn’t stop now it will never stop, …The only way it can stop is if, frankly, a price is paid.”
The reason to impeachment President Obama from the Republican perspective is that the law must be enforced evenly for all. The idea that some people are above the law, or that we should take exception because of race is considered unacceptable not only from the viewpoint of equal enforcement but from the view that it degrades the whole rule of law in society. This is especially serious in that the United States has been the beacon of righteousness for many in the world and the concept that no one is above the law has a great deal to do with this faith.
This perspective is all too clear to conservatives but not to all republicans. It rightly suggests that the very survival of this nation is at stake. But back to the opening conjecture; what are the reasons people believe Obama will never be impeached because he is black?
Racial riots are a distinct possibility. In defense of Obama a hate filled racial fervor could be stoked, tearing this nation apart. In the least any attempt to impeach Obama would bring down media ridicule and disgust upon the republicans on an unprecedented level. They would be labeled racists. Not only labeled akin to the KKK but believed to be, among what has come to be known as the low information voter. Why go through all this if the Senate would never convict the President because it is under democrat party control?
Could you ever dream that party would trump right and wrong in this nation, especially when there is (OK, will be) a complete overpowering case against Obama? Race, forced equality, has become the new value system of this nation. It is propagated in our schools and pounded into the public psyche by a partisan media day after day. Has political correctness finally replaced the Ten Commandments or the concept that our rights are inalienable; coming from God? The reality is, the public is well conditioned against opposing the first black President.
So why would I suggest that Obama will be impeached? …and convicted!? First, the democrats could care less about the black man. Look at our failing inner city schools after decades of democrat party municipal rule. Democrat policies destroyed the black family and then their youth. The eugenics movement known as Planned Parenthood, a democrat mainstay, is committing a genocide against the black race. Democrat Robert Byrd our longest living Senator, a former high ranking officer of the KKK who recently died, was hailed as a hero to the cause. A man who filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964 along with Al Gore Sr.. Yes, it was the republicans who freed the slaves and passed the Civil Rights Act that the democrats opposed, …in both cases.
Obama is the ideal ruler embodying the ideology and tactics of the left, highlighting racial divisions; divisions that the democrats have used very effectively. But what about 2016? Unless Obama is going to scrap the Constitution and proclaim himself ruler for life, ala Hugo Chevez, a distinct possibility, there must be an election.
As it stands now Obama cannot run again. Who do the democrats have to run? Michelle? Hillary Clinton is the only one with the name recognition, or gravitas, and the preparation to run. The problem? Benghazi! The blame has all been placed on Hillary. The answer to one question solves all of Hillary’s problems; Where was Obama during those nine hours our citizens were being murdered? All blame can be lifted from Hillary and placed on squarely Obama’s shoulders, not only for the nines hours but all the policy decisions that lead to the massacre. Hillary becomes the martyr, simply doing what she had been told and protecting Obama by taking all the blame. Poor Hillary.
I believe there is a strong possibility that the democrats will throw Obama under the bus, or at least into the back, to win in 2016. It is a double win because they can still accuse the republicans of being racist for impeaching Obama. There will be just enough votes from the democrats to convict.
Even if Obama is not impeached or forced to resign, he will be thrown under the bus at the end of his term. It is the only way Hillary has a chance. The only alternatives for the democrats is to go for it all by suspending elections, or simply criminalizing the republican party and all conservative causes, and taking authoritarian control of the media. Something completely in line with the administrations policies as they are now being reveled.
In fact, why not throw Obama under the bus, impeach and convict him? It would have to be after 2014 of course, when the tea party gains even more power. Hillary’s campaign, after capitalizing off Obama, can then run to vindicate Obama and bring to an end once and for all the evil conservative movement that plagues this nation. Lacks logic? Common sense? It is perfect logic to those who disdain the truth. Or in other words, …all according to plan.
But what Peggy Noonan said is true;“If it doesn’t stop now it will never stop, …The only way it can stop is if, frankly, a price is paid.”
For this nation to survive there is no choice as to whether we mercilessly convict all concerned parties and seek impeachment proceedings. But with everything coming out at once and the way the media is handling it are we being setup? I can only hope and pray that the lies and tyranny has grown so great that politics as usual have come to an end, and we will return to this nations founding principles.
No, the tea party is not on the decline as recent news stories have suggested. I am sorry for creating that impression by my lack of posts recently.
Just over a week ago here in Milwaukee three individuals were shot and killed by the Milwaukee Police Department. Two of the deaths are of particular note. In both cases the men were wielding knives.
The first man was off his medication. He was threatening others and himself. He had cut himself, including his wrists. He died in a literal hail of gunfire that lasted several seconds according to a cell phone video of the incident. Several police officers were there and he advanced on them.
The other was a man making serious threats against his family with two cleavers. According to the man’s father he had even cut the coat the father was wearing, from what I understood from the news interview. The man went out to talk to the police against his father’s advice, still holding the two cleavers. The police say he advanced on them. The father says he was standing in place. They shot him dead.
Both serious situations for the responding officers. Local news coverage covered the training officers receive and how fast distances can be closed. The officers need to make quick decisions to defend themselves.
A bullet does not necessarily mean an assailant will be stopped. Though when Tasers were introduce the media covered them as well. They instantly drop a potential offender. The muscles lock up. Especially in the first shooting I described why wasn’t a Taser used as soon as the police arrived on the scene? The man had cut his own wrists. Haven’t we all seen you/tube or news coverage of police officers simply dropping a suspect with a Taser even when the suspect didn’t appear to be doing anything dangerous at the moment?In both cases the individuals were holding knives, not guns. In both situations more than one officer was on the scene. Could not one risk using the single shot Taser that would drop a man instantly?
I made a comment on our neighborhood site that my cousin-in-law, a police officer, had told me police policy was to shoot coyotes but by the time they get there long guns out the coyotes are already gone. This policy was told to me some ten years earlier. Another neighbor said the police chief said they were not animal control and he was indignant, stating his officers are too busy to shoot coyotes. OK, policies change (the point of this post if you are wondering) but certainly coyotes running around the city are a public safety issue. Then I made a more powerful point in response.
‘They sure are not shy about shooting peoples dogs’; was my own indignant response. I had heard several second hand accounts of people’s dogs being unduly shot by police officers. I heard first hand two accounts of people I know who’s dog were shot and killed. Both dogs were not vicious though one was a pit bull. They simply had escaped. I clearly recall a news report some years back where a couple accused the police of killing their dog. They said it was under control at their side when it was shot. I recently saw a news report of a standoff situation where the suspect was taken from his home and arrested. So prominent in the coverage was the suspect’s dog walking out into the crowd, tail between its leg, paying no attention to anyone, that the reporter had to mention that the police had to shoot the dog. They didn’t have to.
Are there litigation issues that Tasers have fallen out of use? Is it fiscally more responsible to use lethal force in the form of a firearm because there is a history recognized by the courts? Do we have just too many dogs that a policy of simply euthanizing them at any opportunity has become policy? Or is something more sinister afoot?
The Milwaukee police chief has been extremely critical of concealed carry and gun ownership in general. Comments in the past of what his officers would be instructed to do to law abiding gun owners if concealed carry passed (it did) could only be read as a threat. In the city of West Allis, especially when the concealed carry law was being formed, there were several cases of gun were confiscation brought to light. One man was open carrying while working in his yard. When guns are confiscated from law abiding citizens it is very difficult to get them back. In one recent case it took a man a year. In the West Allis case it came to light that the police often purposely damage confiscated guns making them unusable or permanently visually marred. These were guns of citizens in good standing. What is the goal of such policies?
This Winter the public became aware of some 2,000 armored vehicles being acquired by homeland security for domestic use. The idea shocked most Americans. Eventually while the government and Obama administration were being criticized the conclusion that dropped the issue from the minds of most was “Who could they ever get to man these vehicles?” With this, the idea that Obama could never inflict a police state even if he wanted to won the day.
The Obama administration and democrat politics in general are all about pitting one group against another whether by race, economic class, religion or the absence there of, whether one is a citizen or not, whether one is a man or a woman or some combination. I could go on. They manipulate the media, your children’s education and the moral and political foundations of the nation. They promote a faith like adherence to political correctness in our military. Is it a stretch to believe that policies would be put in place that would drive a wedge between the public and law enforcement? Policies that would create an us versus them atmosphere in our cities?
The idea on its face seems contradictory to common efforts made by local police departments to build relations with the public. This is conjecture based on observation and experience, but …who will man those armored vehicles?
My wife and I watched Taylor Swift’s music video “22” the other night. We met when we were 22. As I listened I became terribly disturbed, perhaps indignant is a better term, by the lyrics.
“We’re happy free confused and lonely at the same time, It’s miserable and magical oh yeah.”
Well Ms. Swift, you are far from happy let alone free if you are confused, lonely and miserable.
Civilization itself grew from addressing this very contradiction in man. The realization that a true happiness based on the spirit, beyond the temporary thrill one experiences from physical stimulation, could not be found in man’s fallen state turned man’s hearts toward a higher being and purpose codified in religion in the pursuit of an eternal lasting happiness. From religion arose morals and values through which man could create a more harmonious society capable of striving for greater and greater prosperity, happiness and upon that freedom to pursue one’s dreams.
Being a slave to sin, the pleasures of the flesh, has doomed man to a menial existence where one is always chained to seeking that next thrill to cover the emptiness in one’s heart. It is the same as a drug addict who lives from one fix to the next. Or as Taylor Swift would put it:
“Everything will be alright if you keep me next to you, You don’t know me, but I bet you want to, Everything will be alright, if we just keep dancing like we are 22…”
I have suffered my own tragedies and short comings in my life; some call it High School. Stress and confusion were, are commonplace for many in their youth. So I, like you my reader understand the relief and joy one can experience in a highly stimulative interaction with friends or family, how the strenuous physical exertion in sports can free one from all worries or how any other physical gratification can temporarily make one experience a certain level of temporary joy or happiness. Especially in one’s youth ones body is highly tuned to the wonders of this physical world and driven to interact. It is natural. It is how God created us to be, but it does not equate in whole to the happiness that mankind throughout history has determined we were created to experience. It does not free us from crime and sin, whether one is the victim or perpetrator.
The freedom mankind has sought throughout the ages is integral with responsibility. The enlightened founders of this nation recognized the laws of God and nature (or God’s design) and understood that they embody certain perimeters man must conform to. In this God’s blessings flow and mankind is prosperous and free; man attains dominion. Without dominion over the world around us we become reactive beings rather than the subjective beings “GOD” created us to be, capable of free thought and action to comprehend and dominate all of creation.
When we talk about civilization rising out ever increasing morals and values we can look to the most basic framework of societal foundations; the Ten Commandments. Depictions of the Ten Commandments are commonplace on most court houses, at least the older ones.
In the Ten Commandments we have respect for God and His ways, respect for ones parents and the institution of husband and wife, and general directions to do no harm to others. It implies that we are part of something greater and that the unseen is more important than what is seen.
Taylor Swift is an amazing individual who has accomplished incredible things from a very young age. The vapid nature of the song “22'” is a disappointment. Perhaps her parents are wiser and have a greater level of understanding in their later years than their daughter. Unfortunately we live in an era where God has been replaced by a supposed incorruptible virtue of children. And when you have a child of such caliber how could one say anything in opposition? But sometimes that is the role of the parent; grasping a teachable moment.
The United States however has become a society where there is no compulsion or sense of commitment to recognize any responsibility to honored age old institutions or the concept of a greater good. Our society has become all about the self.
“Everything will be alright, if we just keep dancing like we are 22…”
The Pope has resigned. Some may question whether he was forced to resign. The lightning strike of the Vatican shortly after the announcement made people stop and think. Then there is the association being with the last Popes that resigned 600 years ago, yet those Popes (at one point three different Popes claimed legitimacy at the same time) were deposed. Perhaps de-Poped would be a better term. It was not too far afterward that the reformation, a response to a corrupt religious hierarchy, brought reform to Christianity and forced reform in the Catholic Church.
Could the latest Pope have been force to resign? I don’t believe that likely. Could there have been looming and newly manifesting issues that the Pope felt he was not best suited to deal with at his age or that his opinions on stood in contradiction with other forces in the church? That is far more likely though the official line that the Pope is simply getting too old for the burdens of the position has not been competently contested.
The only previous Pope who ever legitimately resigned was Celestine V in 1294. He was imprisoned shortly afterward by the new Pope Boniface VIII. This illustrates an ever looming flaw with the Catholic Church; absolute authority. The flaw can also be a strength if that absolute authority is truly united with God’s will, at least the will for his time.
Pope John-Paul II was an example of one that led in this world and was a powerful force in the liberation of those imprisoned behind the Iron Curtain. Pope Benedict XVI was left with the task of dealing with pedophiles in the church. We could simply call them homosexuals but that would be a misrepresentation. The root of this problem, and most all historical problems in the Church, can be linked to absolute authority, including the holier than thou aura placed upon the Priesthood. How the church has handled this crisis is yet to be judged.
The conservative orthodox message of the church may appear to be in contradiction to the dark realities found in America, Ireland and other places around the world, but the conservative orthodox message is the Church’s position and its strength. It is where conservative views and orthodoxy reign that the Catholic church has grown and been most vibrant. These same views are held by the leading Cardinals in the United States.
Some have claimed that there is no hope that an American could be elected Pope. The logic is that a Pope from a superpower would be too much influence for a single nation. This logic does not stand under current circumstances.
The Catholic Church stands in stark opposition to the pop culture the United States embodies and propagates throughout the world. Abortion and now the homosexual agenda are just some of the false ideals that have become part of United States diplomacy. What better spokesman to confront worldwide depravity being endorsed by the most influential nation in the world than someone from that very same nation speaking the very same language representing and empowering the good and upright citizens thereof?
Even the former greatest threat to the world, the communist block, held its people to moral standards. They claimed moral superiority in the traditional sense. They supported family. They sowed the seeds of immorality here to destroy our society in the quest for world dominion. It is the Russian Republic, formerly the Soviet Union, that is the only free nation taking a stand against the homosexual agenda. Ironically as their strategy to destroy the United States and turn it into a communist state come to fruition, the fruits of their tactics threaten to plunge the whole world into social and economic collapse, including the Russian Republic.
Despite the Church’s flaws they have not allowed those flaws to influence the true message. Where John-Paul II brought down atheistic communism starting with his own native land of Poland can a Pope from the United States bring an end to the mainstreaming of immorality in the world? Someone has to.
Africa is also very important to the Catholic Church and to the world. Human rights abuses are rampant on one hand and on the other good people are being besieged with the immorality of the Western World. Strong direct leadership on a continental scale is required. A native speaker of English, the International language, may hold some bond of familiarity with the people. French, the old International language, being widely spoken throughout Africa would be an argument for a French speaking Pope.
The world is entrapped in moral confusion. The simplest concepts of integrity and honesty are absent in our politics and secular culture. It will take far more than the Pope to turn this world around. It will take nothing short of a worldwide Christian revival. John-Paul II was far from solely responsible for the fall of communism but he was an integral, perhaps indispensible part. Where will the next Pope take the Church and what will he bring to the world?
Reverent - feeling or showing deep and solemn respect
Generally reverent, or reverence is restricted to God or some representation thereof, or to those who have made the ultimate sacrifice in defense of ideals we value to a similar degree; expressions of the divine or greatest good.
At least that is the implied definition that I was raised under when I was a child, and part of my childhood included being a member of the Boy Scouts. Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, Kind, Obedient, Cheerful, Thrifty, Brave, Clean, Reverent.
Attributes of the Boy Scouts considered valuable in making young men good and productive members of society. Important attributes; at least attributes that our society formed from the Christian tradition have considered important. Attributes best taught in disciplines and an environment that are free from sexual diversions. Now president Obama is encouraging the Boy Scouts to condone homosexuality as a right as part of what the Boy Scouts represent.
What is missing as we fight to regain the founding values and principles of this Christian nation? A recognition of what our society stands for and even more importantly how this society and at what cost was it established.
Now to set the tone of my piece; If one condones homosexuality, does not consider it a sin, a perversion, and if one allows the homosexual culture and agenda relevance in our society one, perhaps you, do not really believe in God.
This is an unnatural act that is clearly defined as a sin or perversion of the natural order in all religious traditions. And the advancement of all societies into civil, orderly and good societies are founded on these religions, and the ideals and laws codified therefrom.
In the Judea-Christian tradition in particular, it is the very sin of the angels that rebelled against God (Jude 6-7) Hence those Christian denominations that have embraced homosexuality do not truly believe in God. God is a concept to them at best. They bow to man, the fallen man and the father of fallen man, the devil, and their will is to do there father’s (the devil) desire. (John 8:44, Matt. 23:33…, Matt. 3:7) As Jesus said in Revelation to the Church of Sardis “You have the name of being alive but you are dead.”
How was this pinnacle of Judeo-Christian faith, the United States, a nation that has brought blessing and liberty to much of the world, established on this earth? It was established over generations upon generations of saints and martyrs who were tortured and murdered for their faith and the words that embodied that faith. They denied the flesh and set standards of discipline so the greater society could be liberated from base sexual desires which all understood Satan works through. They built a foundation upon which we could enjoy a good prosperous society, living as upright families as God intended. We hold these people in reverence, or we used to. How few among us, who enjoy the fruits of all those previous sacrifices, are willing, brave enough to speak out against this abomination of homosexuality and the moral decay of this nation?
As conservatives like myself fight to win back this nation, represented in many ways by talk radio and institutions of conservative values like The Heritage Foundation, none shy away from the fight against corruption, lies, the socialist/communist agenda in government and our schools, divorce and the break down of the family, or even abortion. But when it comes to homosexuality the conservative cause avoids the subject at best.
It is like the common caricature of the man with the devil on one shoulder and an angel on the other. Who will he listen to? Arguments are presented by the forces of evil and good and the man must judge which course of action is most beneficial to him. At some point after responding in the positive to one side several times in a row, the representative of the other side vanishes in a puff of smoke. In regards to homosexuality far too many of the spokespeople in religion politics and among those promoting the conservative cause have feared opposing the homosexual agenda and have accepted faulty premises to the point where their conscience, that small voice of God, has been defeated in this regard.
God created the act of love as a beautiful union which bears fruits of love beyond what any single individual consumed in the pursuit of self serving desire can ever imagine. Marriage between a man and a women encompasses the wonders of His love on every level all embodied in the traditional family.
Homosexuality is unnatural, perverse and serves only one purpose, self gratification. One takes this precious tool through which God empowers one to create life and sticks it up another’s butt hole. Oh crap! And then I have heard some talk of a train. I have come to some idea about what they means from the television, the same television your children watch.
Homosexual is not the way God made them. Homosexual parenting is not the same as a traditional family; it is detrimental. Studies that suggest otherwise claim the differences inconsequential not that there are not differences, though not all agree the the differences are inconsequential. And you know if they could have gotten away with claiming there were no differences they would have done so…
Homosexuality is far more of a choice than anyone wants to admit. Or perhaps a persuasion, as Eve was persuaded by the serpent who questioned the word of God; vilifying God’s intentions. Where’s the science to suggest that it is not a choice? It was being pursued, yet no one even asks what came of it. If homosexuality could truly be traced to genetics, epigenetics, hormones or some psychological cause it could be overcome; treated. What other causes could there be? …The choice to alter ones persona to fit the latest fad? Why does not anyone even ask anymore? But we all know the science of manmade global warming has been settled.
In our local talk show market here in Milwaukee I have not heard anyone take a stance against homosexuality. (the ones I hear the most are all single) Rather I have heard comments of acceptance. These local talk stars, like their national counterparts, associate the lies and misdeeds by Bill Clinton as President and others as the source of the profusion of lying, even under oath, and other deviant acts in society. How is it that the acceptance of homosexuality by them does not equate to similar negative consequences for our society?
Yes, some will boldly claim that they believe God created this world in six days. Then they will exalt themselves by testifying to the negative e-mails they will receive on the subject, as if that makes them special. I guess speaking out against the abomination of homosexuality and the reaction it would produce doesn’t make you feel special enough.
To all those talk show hosts and others, any who have accepted homosexuality as a reality, is it that you don’t believe in God, are spiritual morons or are you all just plain cowards. Oh! Have I offended some of you. Perhaps you have friends and acquaintances that are gay and know them to be good people. “How could I force my values on them?” you ask yourself. Well, if you believe in God which I question, if your friend doesn’t repent he’s going to rot in hell. What kind of friend are you?
The Christian culture has brought man to the point where we value every human life, including the unborn. People are no longer stoned and burned at the stake for their sins, or alleged sins, any longer in the Christian sphere. But that does not change the nature of good and evil. It does not mean that we can surrender to sin in some delusional vision of our own goodness as if it does not matter any longer. It is God and His ways we need to hold reverent, not the ways of man. …“What difference does it make?!” cannot be the new motto for the United States.
Neither does hypocrisy negate the truths of right and wrong. This scourge on our society all began with the sexual revolution. The baby boomer generation turned against the values and ideals of those who came before. They justified their deeds in many ways by pointing to the hypocrisy of the standard bearers; the propagators of traditional values. They engaged in free sex that divulged in lusts far beyond the weaknesses of their parents generation. They called those fighting for the freedom of peoples around the world murderers so they would not have to serve themselves. The result of their protests ultimately cost millions of lives and enslaved millions more. Now they call our brave men and women torturers. But that will all change when homosexuals, transgender and every other orientation the mind can imagine are accommodated for in the military, and we put women on the front line. Well, …at least we will have a military that wont think twice about taking our guns away.
Our society is in moral confusion. With the sexualization of our youth, the promotion of abortion, the acceptance of sex outside of marriage as the standard, the support of single parenthood, the acceptance of divorce, the destruction of the traditional family under the homosexual agenda and who among us can claim to be blameless. But bestowing acceptance upon what appears to be the greater sinner does not make ones own sin any less severe.
I do not advocate invading peoples bedrooms or forcing one’s values on another. The right of association is guaranteed in our nation and we cannot stop groups from their freedom of expression within reason. That does not mean we are required to legitimize their cause.
Homosexual marriage should be outlawed. Homosexuals, as well as single people in most cases, should not be allowed to adopt children. We should not have homosexual literature in our schools. Sexuality has no place in elementary schools and abstinence should be taught in middle and high school. Are we to allow our children to be indoctrinated in a minority view that the majority considers sinful and deviant? Are we to standby and do nothing while the values of this nation are being destroyed?
Is it right to outlaw homosexuality? I believe most everywhere in the United States the acts are already outlawed. Four States including Virginia and Florida have laws against co-habitation of men and women outside of marriage. Why are they looking to change the law? We have lost an understanding of how important values are to maintaining a society. We no longer hold God reverent.
I wrote in my last piece about the human rights violations of the Russian Republic. Now they are proposing laws to ban the teaching of homosexuality in schools and public demonstrations in support of gay rights. I say, “God Bless the Russian Republic!”
