Space Coast Conservative

Freedom Does Not Trump GOD

2012-01-20T16:36:00.005-05:00

I have recently been involved in a discussion about “freedom” and what it includes. It didn’t start out that way, it just went that way due to the main sticking point my “opponent” was trying to create against my stance. My opponent was defending his support of homosexual marriage. In his efforts to do so, he tried to assert that, “maybe allowing people to practice homosexuality [i.e. homosexual “marriage”] even though some believe it is sin is a more conservative use of government.”

He went on to say, quote: “Therefore, as I look at the upcoming election and evaluate how I want to vote there is one thing in particular that I hold as an irrefutable value: Freedom may not be free, but it is always worth the price. Even if that price means other people are allowed to do things I think are stupid (like smoke cigarettes). Even if that means other countries are allowed to do things we think are stupid (like have nuclear weapons [even if we only think it’s stupid when they want them]). While granting sovereign rights will always be fraught with potential calamity, taking those rights away will always result in the greater calamity of dictatorship.” Unquote.

His stance in support of homosexual marriage is unique if nothing else. Standing against laws that allow homosexual marriage is less government and therefore something Conservatives should support. Never thought of it that way before. Putting the number of laws on the books ahead of right and wrong is novel to say the least. But more about this later.

I argued against his idea and was astonished at the persistence in my opponent’s defense of such a stance. Smaller government = more freedom = homosexual marriage should be allowed purely on the basis of smaller government, therefore Conservatives should support it! Well, there’s a problem with that line of thinking.

A few for instances: I live on a corner lot. When we first moved into our house the yard was unfenced. Our boys were small and we put the boundary on them that they could not go into the street. The street was not safe for them. We loved them so we set that boundary. Sometimes they pushed the boundary and went into the street, for which they got reprimanded (sometimes a swat on their bottoms), and that helped teach them to stay out of the street.

If we love someone we put boundaries up to protect them. Some of those boundaries are physical, some we set up are spiritual, some emotional. If love includes boundaries then not all boundaries are bad. A boundary that keeps people from walking on the “third rail” of an electric train is going to keep a person alive is a good boundary. The same thing is true with emotional boundaries: don’t give your heart to a married man because it’s going to cause someone to get hurt (the wife, the mistress, the children of the married man, etc.). Don’t get involved in drugs, voodoo, etc., are examples of things that a majority of people think of as “good boundaries” parents set for their children.

Freedom comes from GOD (the Declaration of Independence confirms this) and, even though we are free, with freedom comes certain responsibilities. As Rick Santorum so astutely pointed out at a Lexington, SC, restaurant (the “Flight Deck”)recently,“[W]e were founded as a country that had God-given rights that the government had to respect. And with those rights come responsibilities, right? God did not just give us rights. He gave us a moral code by which to exercise them.” Mr. Santorum’s excellent reminder for folks is that just because you have freedom declared in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, that doesn’t mean that there is a “free for all” and we can run, helter-skelter, to do whatever we wish, whenever we wish, with/to whomever we wish, however we wish.

With freedom – which the Declaration itself states comes from GOD – comes the boundaries GOD believes in and tried to teach us via His relationship with His people (Israel), via His Son, Jesus Christ and via His Word, the Holy Bible. Does that mean that America should be a Baptist country (Baptist is a for instance, it could be Greek Orthodox, Catholic, or Lutheran)? No. It means that if we are going to tout our freedoms that come from GOD as our Founding Fathers reiterated in their writings, the Congressional record (read the earliest Congressional records and you’ll be amazed at how often GOD and His providential guidance are referenced), and elsewhere, then we also must act as though our freedoms come from a moral, loving, wise, Creator who knows us better than we know ourselves.

Freedom means we have the personal rights that come from being intelligent enough to act as though we know right from wrong, good from bad and moral from immoral. We have the right to feel whatever we feel (even feeling homosexual), but we do not have the right to engage in “marriage” (per se) because marriage is a conscript from GOD. He established it and it was He who decided – via establishing Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve (cliché but true) – what a marriage was going to be. It is in Genesis Chapter 2:24, that marriage is established as, “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” One flesh: one person: one child or children (one flesh) from two people. That is not possible with homosexuality.

When GOD created marriage He created what He wanted us to live. He gave us the rules regarding homosexuality:
• Leviticus 18:22: “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”
• Leviticus 20:13: “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”
• I Timothy 1:10 (read the first portion of that in 1:9: “Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient,”): “the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine,”
• I Corinthians 6:9: “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,”

Remember that GOD gave us freedom, but that also means that we must include within that freedom what GOD says is freedom: living by the rules He set down. Otherwise, the law is made for those who are “lawless and disobedient”.

Now I’ll return to the previous paragraph that talked about the number of laws on the books being a reason to not outlaw homosexual marriage: the “too many laws” thing.

Until 1993 it was not even considered a possibility for homosexuals to marry. Not that there were any laws on the books against it, just because the homosexuals who had tried and been refused had decided not to make a fuss about it. There were no laws preventing homosexual marriage in effect in any of our fifty states (fifty-seven in obamination’s America) until 1995. When they started pushing for the “right to marry”, that’s when man’s traditional views on marriage were tested and new laws created. Thus, the biblical reminder that “the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient…”. We cannot fight GOD. If we do, we lose. The laws that are now being created against homosexual marriage are just the laws of GOD coming into effect. So the number of laws on the books is inconsequential in regards to this. (If we can write laws mandating punishment for feelings -- “Hate Crimes” -- then we can have laws based on actions.)

America, as a Christian nation (founded by Christians, GOD mentioned throughout our founding documents, in our earliest Congressional records, prayer being established at our first Congressional meeting and practiced within our Congressional meetings as the starting point of every meeting and effort of Congress’s guiding America, etc., etc., etc. [and like it or not]), is based upon GOD’s Word. We looked for His guidance. We looked for His Providential protection. We looked for – and a majority of us still look for – His truth.

Now, are we as a nation so far from GOD that we will turn our backs on Him for the convenience, the emotions of, the “freedoms” of a very few people who have started down the road toward perdition? Should we not, instead of allowing this and stepping aside to let the slide continue, love homosexuals enough to stand up and say, “No. This far and no further!”? If we, as Christians and a Christian nation, should love our neighbor enough to try to bring them to Christ (GOD’s command in the “Great Commission” in Matthew 28), should we at the same time hate them enough to support them wallowing in and spreading their sin, adopting and raising children in the belief that it is acceptable? What GOD calls an “abomination” we should support in order to prevent there being another law on the books?

Is that what my opponent thinks GOD would condone? Is His Love going to be considered so all-encompassing that He will be seen as accepting every sin instead of just every sinner? GOD judges our actions as well as our hearts. If we are to emulate Jesus Christ, we must stand up for what GOD says is right. In Matthew 21:12 we see Jesus Christ take action against what was considered wrong by GOD. In 15:6) we see the Pharisees using the same idea as my opponent is espousing, “Jesus replied, ‘And why do you, by your traditions, violate the direct commandments of God?’” Jesus then went on to call the Pharisees and scribes “hypocrites” and “blind guides” for doing so! Read Matthew 23 and you’ll see what happens when Jesus sees people who are giving lip service to right, while all the while doing wrong.

Is that what my opponent wants? Should we give lip service to “freedom” so that we can leave man enslaved to sin while touting "fewer laws"? Should we give lip service to GOD’s LOVE while all the while condemning homosexuals to damnation because of their sin? If we are to do nothing contrary to the desires of those in sin because we want to demonstrate our love of the sinner, then are we not enabling the sin? Is that what GOD wants? Is that what Jesus demonstrated with His own actions? If Christ were to do so, the money changers’ tables would never have been overturned and the practice would have continued. If Christ were to do so the “teachers of the law and Pharisees” would never have been called out in Matthew 23. Instead Jesus would have simply loved them into the Kingdom of GOD, and not have called them a “brood of vipers” (vs. 33).

If you see a junkie on the street who says, “Give me ten dollars so I can go get some more meth, man. I’m dying here, man, I need more meth.” Do you give the junkie the money? If you do not, will he like you? If not, will he think you love him? If not, will he be angry at you? If you do not give the junkie money to get more meth, you are demonstrating love. If you do not condone sin, you are demonstrating love.

The bottom line for me is that GOD set boundaries for us when He gave us freedom. Look at the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. There was one rule: “Don’t eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil” (Genesis 2:17). Only one rule to live by: now that’s freedom! When Eve and Adam (in that order) broke that one rule there was a price to pay. Adam worked for a living, Eve bore children in pain, the serpent crawled on his belly and there was enmity between the serpent and man, and Adam and Eve were removed from the Garden. A preventive measure was also taken in that GOD set a guard at the Tree of Life, just in case (Genesis 3:24).

If we are to be Christ-like and try to “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect” (Matthew 5:48), then should we not also emulate Christ and His Father and their love of the sinner as much as we can? Remember, loving the sinner is not loving their sin. If it were, there would be no condemnation at all, nor would there have been reason to punish Adam and Eve and no reason for a Redeemer.

A Christmas Tribute to Our Troops

2011-12-20T02:19:00.006-05:00

Christmas Tree Boots

© 2011 Linda McKinney All Rights Reserved

Filled with dirt,
Frozen through,
It started there,
In WW two.
Tradition: it starts somewhere.

A friend had died,
Though not alone,
And given up
His boots to Jones.
Christmas: it started there.

Jones took the boots
And dug the dirt,
And carried it
Wrapped in his shirt.
Stacking: starting with Jones’.

And from there
It all began,
Tradition passed
From Man to Man.
Trees: from shoes one owns.

In the circle,
Toes pointing out,
Recall the names
That it’s about.
Filling: support to give.

Ten to eight,
Eight to six,
Six to four,
Soon it’s fixed.
Single: from one who lives.

A soldier’s boot
Now stands tall
For Christmas-time
Has come to all.
Tree: dirt-filled soldiers’ boots.

In frozen snow,
Or sandy desert,
It helps to ease
A soldier’s hurt
Normalcy: our own roots.

When next you see
A soldier brave
Remember thank them,
Salute their grave.
Freedom: won day by day.

Even on Christmas
They gave their all,
Served our country,
Answered the call.
Sacrifice: the price they pay.

Imagine now
The soldiers’ boots,
Stacked up tall,
First owners mute.
Blood: red and green contrast.

American Community Survey: AN UPDATE

2011-12-19T17:50:00.004-05:00

The doorbell rang about thirty minutes ago. My hubby went to find out what the man at the door wanted. Turns out he worked for the Census Bureau. The guy asked if we had received the ACS and hubby said that we had. Hubby told the Census worker why we had not returned the questionnaire: too invasive. Hubby also asked the Census worker if the Census worker had ever read the questions and the answer was no. The Census worker had a computer that showed how many times they had called us and all of that information. Census worker said that if you don't want to answer the questions you don't have to all they needed was our name.

Excuse me?! What about the written threat that is printed ON the ACS that it is required by law that we respond? What happened to that? Back in 1962, a guy named Rickenbacker was convicted of not answering the questions. But nowadays, with the Tea Party and people becoming more aware of the liberties they have been losing over the last forty years, people have started standing up to the government and refusing to cooperate with the government's invasion of our privacy, property rights and religious freedoms. In other words, the people learning their rights and the U.S. Constitution is doing the people some good! That frightens the government.

I also think that it's very telling that the Census worker told hubby that he's also working a government survey that asks the citizens how much they spend on groceries!! Can you imagine the government actually needing that information? I won't respond to that one, either!

I'll let you know if there is any further action taken by the Census Bureau. I don't trust them.

Biblically Speaking, Women CAN Be President!

2011-12-16T14:35:00.005-05:00

During the John “Reach Across the Aisle” McCain/Sarah Palin candidacy I heard many reasons why people would not vote for the ticket, but mainly would not vote for her. Some didn’t like the fact that she was so sure of herself (lame excuse). Some didn’t like the fact that she was so Conservative (lame). Some didn’t like the fact that she was “inexperienced” (want “inexperienced” look at who is president now). But of all the lame excuses I heard – on election night, no less – was when my friend told me that he – or some men he knew – could not make themselves vote for McCain/Palin because of the Bible.

Excuse me?

The Bible, they said. The Bible!

What was explained to me, utterly to my surprise and disgust, was that men could not vote for Sarah Palin because women should not “have authority over men”. That was their argument. That was their defense. That was the part of the Bible they threw out there for me to pounce upon. I say “pounce upon” advisedly. All they did was to throw me a ball to knock out of the park.

In I Timothy, Chapter 2: “9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;

“10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.

“11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

“12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

“13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

“14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in transgression.

“15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing. If they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.”

In my Bible, “The Holy Bible” KJV, Reference Edition by Thomas Nelson Publishers, © 1989 Thomas Nelson, Inc., the above passage appears on page 993 in the second column and is headed, “Women in Public Worship”. I want you to pay attention to that heading.

The book is written by Paul to Timothy and it covers everything from the conduct of a minister to the correct way to do prayer in a public worship. It talks about how we should not “give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith”. It talks about qualifications for Bishops, Deacons and how to treat your elders, what a false teacher is, how to treat widows and it talks about how to behave yourself in the House of GOD. Oh, yes. It also has the above statements about women.

Now, I ask you to recall the subject header over the section starting with verse nine: “Women in Public Worship”. I ask that you keep that in mind; “public worship”. For it is in Judges 4, we see that GOD ordained a woman to be a Judge over all the people. See Judges 4:3-5:

4:3 “And the children of Israel cried unto the Lord: for he had nine hundred chariots of iron; and twenty years he mightily oppressed the children of Israel.

4:4 “And Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, she judged Israel at that time.

4:5 “And she dwelt under the palm tree of Deborah between Ramah and Beth-el in mount Ephraim; and the children of Israel came up to her for judgment. [my bolding]”

Deborah was a judge! She made decisions for the people based upon the Word of GOD. She had no restrictions on her about whether she was supposed to have “authority” over men. Why? There were no restrictions because she was not making her judgments in the temple, but rather, in the gates. She took GOD’s word outside of the temple where the priests were, and she decided what was what. We are allowed to do that, even in the Old Testament, and yet nowadays some people – men and women – believe that women should not be in any position of authority over any man. I beg to differ.

Deborah’s judgments were apparently fair and even-handed because she was a judge of the people until they were carried away into slavery in Midian.

Let us also not forget that she was a prophetess, and as such, used by GOD to tell Israel what was going to happen. She was consulted by regular people as well as by the king, Barak, and even went into battle with him because he was afraid of his enemy.

Sound to you as if GOD thought women should not have any authority over men? Was she not the one who decided issues that men brought to her as well as women? It does say she judged “Israel” and Israel is made up of more than just women.

Look at Proverbs 31:10-31: “Who can find a virtuous woman? For her price is far above rubies.” That’s how it starts. In this segment, it says that woman “seeketh wool, and flax, and worketh willingly with her hands” (13), so we know she is involved in making their clothes and the buying of the supplies for such things. She cooks (15), she buys land with what she makes and plants vineyards (16), she is strong (17), she knows the worth of her merchandise so that she doesn’t get ripped off by unscrupulous people and she works through the night (18). A virtuous woman also gives to the poor and needy (20), has made sure that her household is clothed in warmth during the winter (21), she wears nice clothes (22) and all of this allows her husband to sit among the elders and relax (23). She participates in other business deals (24), is honorable (25), and wise and kind (26), is not idle (27), her children and husband call her blessed (28), she fears the Lord (30), and her works shall “praise her in the gates” (31).

In the Old Testament it’s okay for a woman to be a judge and prophetess, and it’s apparently expected that “virtuous” women be involved in all kinds of business. This sounds to me as if a woman is considered the equal to a man outside of the temple.

Women are a big part of the Bible (Eve, Hannah, Ruth, Esther, Rachel, Mary, Mary Magdalene and others), and are given major parts to play, not just in the roles of mother and wife, but also in the protection of and saving of the people of GOD, the Nation of Israel. If women were considered second rate citizens by GOD, why would He use them for so much of His work? Why even bother allowing them to be mentioned in the Bible? Why would Jesus Christ’s female followers have been mentioned so frequently and used so much in His ministry? Females were the first to see Him after His resurrection and they told the male members of the group of followers: even the eleven main male disciples that were left (remember Judas Iscariot hanged himself).

In the New Testament, women are treated as equals outside of the temple. Women are prophetesses (see note 1) and they are used by GOD to set forth His will. In the case of Anna, in Luke 2:36-38, she is mentioned as being in the temple and “departed not from the temple, but served GOD with fastings and prayers night and day.” She is mentioned as being in the temple serving GOD, but it does not say that she was anyone with authority over anyone else. She is said to have recognized Christ when she saw him and of witnessing of Him thereafter (38). It never states that Anna had any kind of authority over anyone within the temple. She fasted and prayed.

Now back to that heading: “Women in Public Worship”.

When Paul writes in I Timothy of the role of women in the church, he writes (2:12), “But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.” Notice that word, “usurp”. In the Easton Bible Dictionary definition of “usurp” we have the definition: “1. (v. t.) To seize, and hold by force, or without right; as, to usurp a throne; to usurp power; to usurp the right of a patron is to oust or dispossess him.” Paul is writing that women in the church should not be teaching nor usurping – seizing – authority over men. Women should not teach men nor boss them around in the church!

Paul was not saying that women outside the church cannot have authority (witness Deborah, the prophetesses and the “virtuous woman” defined in Proverbs 31). He was saying that inside the church – as GOD set up in the family – the men should be the head and not the tail (31:13-14). Women are allowed to be a big part of the church. Women are allowed to teach inside the church, just not teach men. Women are used by GOD all the time and throughout history. Paul was just saying that inside a church they are to be modestly arrayed (I think it helps prevent others from coveting and being jealous, cutting back on cattiness), they are to do good works (playing the piano, singing in choir, helping clean the church, etc.), should learn from men instead of teaching men (they can teach children and other women, just not men), and that’s all. Women should not be bossy female dogs in church. That’s what Paul was saying.

As to a female president? According to the Bible – witness Deborah and others – women are on equal footing throughout the Bible as political leaders, in business, in ability, strength, wisdom, integrity, courage (Esther), kindness (Ruth), favor (Mary, mother of Christ), and all other ways. For men to not vote for Sarah Palin because of her gender is not just wrong, it’s wrong in GOD’s eyes, too! Sarah Palin was not asking you to allow her to teach you your religion, to be your pastor, she was asking you if you would trust her to govern – as did Deborah – the country fairly, justly and wisely, with strength and courage, with discernment and with guidance from GOD as the prophetesses of the Bible demonstrated women can have. That’s what Sarah Palin was asking. She was not asking to be your intercessor with GOD, she was asking simply if you would trust the next four years of the leadership of this country – not your souls – to her care.

The same is being asked of you by Michele Bachman. Do not allow one very small section in the Bible – seven verses only – that speak of what a woman’s place is (according to the heading and Paul’s own words) in public worship prevent you from voting for someone in whose hands the country would be better off. Sarah Palin and John McCain (although I am no fan of McCain) would have been better than obamination, yes? Those men and women who would not vote for the ticket because of Sarah Palin’s gender distorted the teachings of the Holy Bible in order to justify their vote for someone else – and their helping obamination get into office.

Public worship is not public office. Public office rules the land; public worship has to do with GOD’s house and the two are not to be compared nor are they to be used as excuses for twisting GOD’s word. Do not be deceived this election. If Michele Bachman is the best person, she’s the best person, period. If she won’t be teaching in your church and usurping – seizing power from – men, then don’t worry about her gender! Vote for her – or if Sarah Palin gets back into the race, Sarah – based upon your views of her politics, her steadfastness, her integrity, her plans for the future of the country. This is truly the one place where “separation of Church and State” is correct!

(1.) For “prophetess” see also Miriam in Exodus 15:20-21; Huldah in II Kings 22:14, Isaiah 8:3; Anna in Luke 2:36; Acts 21:8-9.

Why obamination Is NOT Impeached

2011-12-06T03:22:00.015-05:00

A friend of mine sent me an e-mail that supports my Birther-ism. I know obamination is ineligible, the e-mail just proved it again. When responding I chose to look into a few things that would result from proof that obamination is an illegal president.

• Executive orders he has signed: nullified.
• Laws an ineligible president signed: negated.
• Appointments of federal judges: unseated; rulings nullified; cases retried.
• Lawsuits the administration filed against the states : over ballot issues, over illegal immigration, and more issues resulting in more law suits the administration has filed: dismissed.
• Czars he has appointed: fired.
• Jobs within the bureaucracy: gone!
• International treaties signed: unenforceable.
• Vacations he and his family have taken: must be reimbursed.
• Presidential salary and pension plan: reimbursed and revoked.
• He would, of course be jailed.
• Thousands of voter fraud cases investigated and prosecuted.
• Staff of ms obamination: fired.
• Etc. Etc. Etc.

The thing will be a holy terror to straighten out. Unemployment numbers would skyrocket.

This is the biggest reason the administration thinks the House and Senate cannot do anything. The administration can't imagine the House and Senate dealing with the implications and ramifications. And, in actuality, it's the truth. It's fear freezing feet when it should be right making righteous indignation act and strength against weakness making them bold. Too bad our House and Senate are men with "feet of clay" (Daniel 2:33).

Oh! I forgot one thing:
• Status within the Dem./Wrongie party: GOD! For pulling the biggest fraud in history on the American people.

It’s Xmas in the Red House

2011-12-02T16:10:00.004-05:00

The obaminations have decorated the Red House(used to be White until Commies moved in) with their vision of Xmas. Thirty-seven trees decked out with what they think is appropriate for Xmas decorations, garlands draped over everything horizontal, Bo idols strategically placed.

One tree has Bo all over it. One has more traditional ornaments. One has Purple Hearts, military medals, etc. One has … Wait. What? Purple Hearts? Purple hearts as in papier-mâché, painted glass, or something like that? No. As in the medal, Purple Heart, given to those members of the military who “are wounded by an instrument of war in the hands of the enemy and posthumously to the next of kin in the name of those who are killed in action or die of wounds received in action. It is specifically a combat decoration.” Notice it doesn’t mention hanging on a tree? Check the website. Notice it doesn’t say that it’s appropriate to use as a Xmas decoration? Notice it doesn’t say that it can be used helter-skelter, willy-nilly however anyone wishes? It states that it is to be awarded to those who “are wounded by an instrument of war”. When did that tree get “wounded by an instrument of war”? If the tree did not fight and get wounded, it should not be decorated with a Purple Heart, much less with multiple Purple Hearts.

For the obaminations to use a Purple Heart, the military medal, as a decoration for their Xmas tree is not just wrong, it’s a slap in the face of all Purple Heart honorees worldwide. That tree could have been just as much of a tribute to our military men and women without denigrating one of the most revered awards the military has. For obaminations to use a Purple Heart as a tree decoration says to those who have been awarded it that their valor, their sacrifice, their heroism is just as valuable to the obaminations – and because it’s in the “People’s House”, the (used to be White now-) Red House – and that the nation as a whole, that their sacrifice is cheap, like a souvenir we bought while in Aruba, Alaska, or Madrid. The nation as a whole is now attributed to the denigration of the Purple Heart, to slapping the honorees in the face and making their Purple Heart worth as much as a glass ornament, a popcorn string, or paper chain.

That’s just wrong and I, for one, resent the obaminations denigrating the Purple Heart’s vaunted place in the lexicon of military history and honor. From now on, every Purple Heart honoree will be so proud to know that the award is so special that it also hung on a Xmas tree. Won’t that make the medal on his/her chest even more revered?

Then there’s the whole thing about the Xmas decorations being a witness to the obaminations’ extravagance in times of want. They put up thirty-seven trees, decked every horizontal surface, had a different decoration for every tree, and a different designer for each room, a whole slew of folks in there to volunteer to help with the decorations. Question: did those volunteers get time with the obaminations? (How valuable is the ear of the president even if he’s an ACORNed president?) Did they get fed at taxpayer expense? Did the decorations get purchased by the taxpayers? Did the trees get donated or were they purchased by the taxpayers? How about all those decorations? Were they donated? The lights and the electricity they use, were/are they donated?

In years past previous presidents reused some of the ornaments of past Christmases, or decorated their own tree (and here near the bottom of the page). Yes, Laura Bush had more trees (“nearly fifty”), than the current family, but when reusing ornaments, it’s cheaper to do so. The current “first” family seems to think that they are royalty and that we, the taxpayers, should pay for their every whim, no matter how difficult it is for us to pay our own bills, feed our own family, keep our own house!

Then there’s the whole idea of Christmas and where it is represented in their decorations. Obamination has long said he’s a Christian (well, at least since it became convenient and he had to hide his hatred of America and his Islamism). Anyone see a nativity? Anyone see a manger? Anyone see Christ? See an angel even as a tree topper? I see stars, but they’re the “regular” stars, not one that is considered the traditional representation of the Northern Star that led the Wise Men to Jesus in the manger. Anyone see anything even remotely resembling a Christian symbol at all? I see Bo, the family’s dog. I do not see Jesus. I do not see a Nativity scene. I wonder what kind of Christian celebrates Christmas – Xmas in this case – without a Nativity? To me, that is what Christmas is all about. No Christ, no Christmas. Where is the Christ in their Christmas? Thus, the “Xmas” designation is more appropriate for the obaminations’ décor.

The Bo thing gets to me, too. I see a tree there that has Bo all over it. I see Bo in almost every room: on tables, in marzipan in front of the gingerbread White House, and in buttons, hanging by his neck on a tree (in the bottom video). Yes, they love the family pet. If they wish to celebrate this way, why not change the name of their celebration to “Bo-mas”? After all, that seems to be who they are celebrating instead of Christ. Having that many Bo-icons (pronounced Bow-ih-cons) as the focus of the decorations seems to indicate what is most important in the family’s celebration of the season. So they are having “Bo-mas” instead of a Christmas, are they not? After all, Christ can’t be mentioned unless He’s convenient and necessary for the hiding of the truth. This assertion is proven every time obamination drops the name of Jesus. It’s only there to hide the truth, to distort the facts, to be a convenient touch point. Obamination’s actions speak louder than his words even in his un-Christmas decorations.

In my family – and I would venture to guess, in yours – when Christmas comes around there is a Nativity scene, as well as a few Holy Family representations around. There are ornaments that remind us, as well as traditions that remind us, about what Christmas is all about. We read the story of Christ’s birth in Luke every Christmas Eve, and we remember Him on Christmas day with thanksgiving, “For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, which is Christ the Lord”. Anyone see a Christian Bible in those pictures? I don't. What does that tell you?

American Community Survey: AN UPDATE

2011-11-23T01:47:00.003-05:00

Well, it's been a while since I posted the American Community Survey info and now it's time for an update. Since then, we've received up to four calls in one day from the Census Bureau. We have also received mail from them "asking" us to respond.

I wonder if it's okay for the U.S. Census Bureau to harass the public. I wonder how long they'll continue with their program of harassment and intimidation? I also wonder if they'll do anything more than harassment?

Either way, it's ridiculous that they're having people WE PAY harass the people who PAY THEM! I think it's high time someone took on the U.S. Census Bureau and make them leave us alone after the initial contact in which they ask us to respond. If we choose not to -- there is NO LAW that states we have to, it's a regulation: something a bureaucracy made up for us to obey. There is no reason for us to obey the people we PAY who should be OBEYING US. After all, we are their BOSSES, are we not? They are the "public servants"; not vice versa.

A Veterans' Day Poem: SHE SERVES

2011-11-11T12:18:00.001-05:00

Sometimes during the night hours
She sits watch and thinks about
The loved ones back at home
Those she’s doing without
And when in sadness, weary,
She feels so all alone,
She looks back at her squadron
And lonely no longer bemoans.

Sometimes on patrol
Within the danger zone
She worries about her safety
But not for hers alone
She wonders how her family
Without her there would fare
And her fellow soldiers
Would do without her there.

She knows it’s not her presence
That ensures their safety, success
It’s just that when she’s with them
She’s their Momma Bear Princess.
She listens to their problems,
And comforts their fears and doubts
And sometimes, lends a shoulder
For them to cry them out.

For when she made the Army
Her home, her family,
She knew the sacrifices
Enormous, hard would be.
Yet, worth it all she counts them
With all the worries, cares,
When in harm’s way she enters
She knows her brothers there

Have got her back and always
Will watch out for her here.
Here where harm surrounds her
She keeps her “brothers” near
Sometimes safety rides in numbers,
But here danger lurks in secrets
The enemy whisper soft
And moments are divided by
Escaping danger oft.

‘Tis eighty days till home
Will greet her weary eyes
A daughter, a son, a husband
Await her to arrive.
A memory will haunt her
At home with family’s love
A brother soldier died
While cradled in her arms.

He was her “little brother”
Her laughter when depressed,
He kept them all together
When anger was trumped by jest.
His smile was contagious
And never did it fail
To bring about the unit
That needed laughter’s hail.

His mother she did contact
And tell the sad, sad news
And wept as long as she did
For her heart was broken, too.
When home she sees at last,
She’ll call her once again,
Go visit grave of “brother” passed.
So now she sits and watches
And keeps her squadron safe
And thinks about her loved ones
Back home she’s keeping free.
She knows it’s all been worth it,
Her country more secure,
Because she chose to serve us
America’s Freedom will endure.

So now we thank our soldiers
On this, their Veterans’ Day,
We thank them for their service
And for the price they pay.
We thank their friends and family
For their own sacrifice
Of time without their soldier
And too oft, for their lives.

© 2011 Linda McKinney

American Community Survey: I WILL NOT RESPOND

2011-11-07T14:04:00.024-05:00

Prior to the U.S. Census an employee of the U.S. Census process came around and asked us from what group of people we were descended: European, Oriental, African-American, American Indian, etc.? I said that I refused to participate in a racist question except to answer that I was an “American Mutt: a bit of everything”. That’s all I would tell them. And I was right to do so.

When we received the U.S. Census papers, our family obeyed the U.S. Constitution and told the government how many people lived at this address. Not a problem. We did not tell them anything else, but we did tell them the number of people who live here.

A few weeks ago, we were “chosen” to be participants in “The American Community Survey” (ACS). Not happy with the intrusiveness of the questions (all listed below so you can judge for yourselves), we chose to respond by not responding. We have not – and will not – send them our information.

Friday, Nov. 4, 2011, in the afternoon we received a phone call from an ACS surveyor asking if we had received the ACS, and if we had, did we fill it out and send it back yet? I said we had received it, had not sent it back, and that our response was to not respond. She said that not responding was not a choice. She asked if I wanted to answer the questions while I was on the line with her. I said no. She also said that we were required by law to respond (pay attention to that: we will revisit it in a moment). I said, “So sue us.” She said she would call back and ask us again to respond. I said I looked forward to it.

When I hung up, I checked my caller identification feature on my phone and wrote the number on the fridge’s white board. We agreed that we won’t be answering any calls from anyone who calls with a number that starts with the first six of those numbers (area code and first three of the number), which means no numbers from that building will be answered. That problem was solved.

My husband got curious as to what will happen when we don’t comply. He looked up the ACS noncompliance punishment on the internet and said that the most we could face is a $100 fine. Other places said up to $5,000, but the comments on that one said that it is highly unlikely and that the regulation said up to $100. So, that’s probably the max, but it will be difficult for the government to get it out of us.

When we checked the accompanying literature, we found that it states that the ACS will help, “decide where to locate new highways, schools, hospitals, and community centers; to show a large corporation that a town has the workforce the company needs; and in many other ways.” Wonderful. Our information will be used against us because it will be used to “measure the performance of programs” (and then I’m sure those programs would be given more of our money if they’re not performing up to the already low standards currently in use). I will not benefit from any of those programs, but I will be taxed more for things that I do not use (like senior citizens paying for the public schools via property taxes). Isn’t that grand?

The literature goes on to state, “Your response to this survey is required by law (Title 13, U.S. Code, Sections 141 and 193). Title 13, as changed by Title 18, imposes a penalty for not responding. We estimate this survey will take about 38 minutes to complete.” Excuse me? I got curious and did an internet search for the legal authority for the American Community Survey, and found that according to this Government Accounting Office response to U.S. Congressman, Bob Barr,

“While Census clearly has authority to conduct the ACS, we found no public laws, committee reports, or other congressional actions in which Congress has required the Bureau to develop and implement the ACS.”

According to the GAO, the government has “no public laws, committee reports or other congressional actions in which Congress has required the Bureau to develop and implement the ACS. [my bolding and italics]” So according to the GAO, there is nothing that legally requires us to participate because it is Congress and the Senate that writes the laws that we are supposed to be subject to. Other things are regulations, not law. There is a difference. Also note,

“It is clear that Census was not reacting to congressional direction in developing the ACS but acting on its own initiative to address the costs associated with the collection of data in the decennial census and the timeliness of that data.”

So the U.S. Census Bureau, an entity not established as a separate government office within the U.S. Constitution, but instead, only as a process, an activity, is now acting on its own to invade our privacy. It is taking it upon itself to ask you personal questions. Not only that, but it is costing us more to do the ACS than the regular census the U.S. Constitution delineates – counting us but not asking personal questions (read the questions below) -- and the Census Bureau is saying it is addressing costs? I don’t think so. I think they are perpetuating their own jobs and trying to preserve them, making their existence more secure via the time needed to develop, promote, gather, correlate and write reports on all the information requested on the ACS. This is not about doing what is delineated in the U.S. Constitution. It is about job preservation for the Census Bureau!

If you don’t believe me, look the questions – and the sheer number of questions -- that will command many, many people to analyze and organize the answers into some sort of government report – and tell me that the questionnaire (all twenty-eight pages of it!) is not a way to ensure Census Bureau jobs for a very long time.

Considering how intrusive the questions are, I’m surprised they didn’t ask when the last time was that Person 1 used a public library, watched NPR, or flushed the toilet. This is a ridiculously intrusive survey. It is also not what our Founding Fathers had in mind when it came to a census (they wanted a count of the people for districting only). It is what the liberals/Wrongies/progressives are using to try to manipulate us and trying to tax us more and trying to enforce more regulation on us. If, for example, there aren’t enough people using public transport the government will now know and use more of our taxpayer dollars to make more taxpayers take public transport. It’s not a good thing, folks.

I would advise you to not cooperate with the invasion of your own privacy. I would advise you to not return the ACS, or to return it with the U.S. Constitution’s delineation of the census,

“Article I, Section 2:

“Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. [my bolding and italics]”

“Article I, Section 9:

“No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.”

There are two keys there:

1) "By Law" -- Remember the GAO states, "we found no public laws". Therefore the ACS is totally unconstitutional -- BY LAW.

2) Notice that word, “Enumeration” which means: “1. To count off or name one by one; list:”. The U.S. Census says that the U.S. government has the right to COUNT us in a manner “as they shall by Law direct. [my bolding]” Considering that the Government Accounting Office states in their own look into the authority of the Census Bureau to do the ACS, they found “no public law” that gave them or anyone else the authority to do so. Therefore, in their own words, and in the words of the U.S. Constitution, I am not obligated to comply. Nor can they compel me to comply because the government has no subpoena to compel me to do so, nor am I – even under oath – forced to answer questions due to the Free Speech Clause and the Fifth Amendment.

I’d love to see the obamination administration try to make me comply with their intrusive questionnaire. I’d love to see them try.

The following questions are in the ACS:

(NOTE: For each question, there is a box to mark your answers in, but I did not write “box” for each box that is present in the questionnaire. For those that appeared in out of the norm places, I did delineate.)

QUOTE:

Person #
1. What is Person 1’s name? (First and Last)

2. How is this person related to Person 1? (It has “Person 1” marked for you.)

3. What is Person 1’s sex? (Male, Female)

4. What is Person 1’s age and what is Person 1’s date of birth?
(Please report babies as age 0 when the child is less than 1 year old.)

Note: Please answer BOTH Question 5 about Hispanic origin and Quesiton 6 about race. For this survey, Hispanic origins are not races.

5. Is Person 1 of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin?

No, not of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin
Yes, Mexican, Mexican Am., Chicano
Yes, Puerto Rican
Yes, Cuban
Yes, another Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin – Print origin, for example, Argentinean, Colombian, Dominican, Nicaraguan, Salvadoran, Spaniard, and so on.

6. What is Person 1’s race?
White
Black, African Am., or Negro
American Indian or Alaska Native – Print name of enrolled or principal tribe.
Asian Indian
Chinese
Filipino
Japanese
Korean
Vietnamese
Native Hawaiian
Guamanian or Chamorro
Samoan
Other Asian – Print race, for example, Hmong, Laotian, Thai, Pakistani, Cambodian, and so on.
Other Pacific Islander – Print race, for example, Figian, Tongan, and so on.
Some other race – Print race.

Person 2

1. What is Person 2’s name? (First and Last)

2. How is this person related to Person 1?
Husband or wife
Biological son or daughter
Adopted son or daughter
Stepson or stepdaughter
Brother or sister
Father or mother
Grandchild
Parent-in-law
Son-in-law or daughter-in-law
Other relative
Roomer or boarder
Housemate or roommate
Unmarried partner
Foster child
Other nonrelative

3. What is Person 2’s sex?

(NOTE: It goes on from there with the same questions as Person 1’s questions and repeats for Person 3 through Person 5.)

Housing:

Please answer the following questions about the house, apartment, or mobile home at the address on the mailing label.

1. Which best describes this building?
A mobile home
A one-family house attached to one or more houses
A one-family house attached to one or more houses
A building with 2 apartments
A building with 3 or 4 apartments
A building with 5 to 9 apartments
A building with 10 to 19 apartments
A building with 20 to 49 apartments
A building with 50 or more apartments
Boat, RV, van, etc.

2. About when was this building first built?
2000 or later – Specify year
1990 to 1999
1980 to 1989
1970 to 1979
1960 to 1969
1950 to 1959
1940 to 1949
1939 or earlier

3. When did Person 1 (listed on page 2) move into this house, apartment, or mobile home? (Month, Year)

Answer questions 4-6 if this is a HOUSE OR A MOBILE HOME; otherwise, skip to question 7a.

A

4. How many acres is this house or mobile home on?
Less than 1 acre – SKIP to question 6
1 to 9.9 acres
10 or more acres

5. IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS, what were the actual sales of all agricultural products from this property?
None
$1 to $999
$1,000 to $2,499

6. Is there a business (such as a store or barber shop) or a medical office on this property? (Yes, No)

7.a. How many separate rooms are in this house, apartment, or mobile home? Rooms must be separated by built-in archways or walls that extend out at least 6 inches and go from floor to ceiling. (INCLUDE bedrooms, kitchens, etc. EXCLUDE bathrooms, porches, balconies, foyers, halls, or unfinished basements.)
Number of rooms

b. How many of these rooms are bedrooms? Count as bedrooms those rooms you would list if this house, apartment, or mobile home were for sale or rent. If this is an efficiency/studio apartment, print “0”.
Number of bedrooms

8. Does this house, apartment, or mobile home have – (Yes, No answers)
a. hot and cold running water?
b. a flush toilet?
c. a bathtub or shower
d. a sink with a faucet
e. a stove or range
f. a refrigerator
g. telephone service from which you can both make and receive calls? Include cell phones.

9. How many automobiles, vans, and trucks of one-ton capacity or less are kept at home for use by members of this household?
None
1
2
3
4
5
6 or more

10. Which FUEL is use MOST for heating this house, apartment, or mobile home?
Gas: from underground pipes serving the neighborhood
Gas: bottled, tank, or LP
Electricity
Fuel oil, kerosene, etc.
Coal or coke
Wood
Solar energy
Other fuel
No fuel used

11. a. LAST MONTH, what was the cost of electricity for this house, apartment, or mobile home?
Last month’s cost – Dollars
OR
Included in rent or condominium fee
No charge or electricity not used

b. LAST MONTH, what was the cost of gas for this house, apartment, or mobile home?
Last month’s cost - Dollars
OR
Included in rent or condominium fee
Included in electricity payment entered above
No charge or gas not used

c. IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS, what was the cost of water and sewer for this house, apartment, or mobile home? If you have lived here less than 12 month, estimate the cost.
Past 12 months’ cost – Dollars
OR
Included in rent or condominium fee
No charge

d. IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS, what was the cost of oil, coal, kerosene, wood, etc., for this house, apartment, or mobile home? If you have lived here less than 12 months, estimate the cost.
Past 12 months’ cost – Dollars
OR
Included in rent or condominium fee
No charge or these fuels not used

12. IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS, did anyone in this household receive Food Stamps or a Food Stamp benefit card? Include government benefits from Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Do NOT include WIC or the National School Lunch Program. (Yes, No)

13. Is this house, apartment, or mobile home part of a condominium?
Yes – What is the monthly condominium fee? For renteres, answer only if you pay the condominium fee in addition to your rent; otherwise, mark the “None” box.
Monthly amount – Dollars
OR
None
No

14. Is this house, apartment, or mobile home – (Mark ONE box)
Owned by you or someone in this household with a mortgage or loan? Include home equity loans.
Owned by you or someone in this household free and clear (without a mortgage or loan)?
Rented?
Occupied without payment of rent? – SKIP to C.

B

Answer questions 15a and b if this house, apartment, or mobile home is RENTED. Otherwise SKIP to question 16.

15.a. What is the monthly rent for this house, apartment, or mobile home?
Monthly amount – Dollars

b. Does this monthly rent include any meals? (Yes, No)

C

Answer questions 16-20 if you or someone else in this household OWNS or IS BUYING this house, apartment, or mobile home. Otherwise, SKIP to E on the next page.

16. About how much do you think this house and lot, apartment, or mobile home (and lot, if owned) would sell for if it were for sale?
Amount – Dollars

17. What are the annual real estate taxes on THIS property?
Annual amount - Dollars

18. What is the annual payment for fire, hazard, and flood insurance on THIS property?
Annual amount – Dollars
OR
None

19. a. Do you or any member of this household have a mortgage, deed of trust, contract to purchase, or similar debt on THIS property?
Yes, mortgage, deed of trust, or similar debt
Yes, contract to purchase
No – SKIP to question 20a

b. How much is the regular monthly mortgage payment on THIS property? Include payment only on FIRST mortgage or contract ot purchase
Monthly amount – Dollars
OR
No regular payment required – SKIP to question 20a

c. Does the regular monthly mortgage payment include payments for real estate taxes on THIS property?
Yes, taxes included in mortgage payment
No, taxes paid separately or taxes not required

d. Does the regular monthly mortgage payment include payments for fire, hazard, or flood insurance on THIS property?
Yes, insurance included in mortgage payment
No, insurance paid separately or no insurance

20.a. Do you or any member of this household have a second mortgage or a home equity loan on THIS property?
Yes, home equity loan
Yes, second mortgage
Yes, second mortgage and home equity loan
No – SKIP to D

b. How much is the regular monthly payment on all second or junior mortgages and all home equity loans on THIS property?
Monthly amount – Dollars
OR
No regular payment required

D

Answer question 21 if this is a MOBILE HOME. Otherwise, SKIP to E.

21. What are the total annual costs for personal property taxes, site rent, registration fees, and license fees on THIS mobile home and its site? Exclude real estate taxes.
Annual Costs – Dollars

E

Answer questions about PERSON 1 on the next page if you listed at least one person on page 2. Otherwise, SKIP to page 28 for the mailing instructions.

Person 1

Please copy the name of Person 1 from page 2, then continue answering questions below.
(Last name, first name, MI)

7. Where was this person born?
In the United States – Print name of state
Outside the United States – Print name of foreign country, or Puerto Rico, Guam, etc.

8. Is this person a citizen of the United States?
Yes, born in the United States – SKIP to 10a
Yes, born in Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, or Northern Marianas
Yes, born abroad of U.S. citizen parent or parents
Yes, U.S. citizen by naturalization - Print year of naturalization (box)
No, not a U.S. citizen

9. When did this person come to live in the United States? Print numbers in boxes. (Year)

10.a. At any time IN THE LAST 3 MONTHS, has this person attended school or college? Include only nursery or preschool, kindergarten, elementary school, home school, and schooling which leads to a high school diploma or a college degree.
No, has not attended in the last 3 months – SKIP to question 11
Yes, public school, public college
Yes, private school, private college, home school

b. What grade level was this person attending? Mark ONE box.
Nursery school, preschool
Kindergarten
Grade1 through 12 – Specify grade 1-12
College undergraduate years (freshman to senior)
Graduate or professional school beyond a bachelor’s degree (for example: MA or Ph.D. program, or medical or law school)

11. What is the highest degree or level of school this person has COMPLETED? Mark ONE box. If currently enrolled, mark the previous grade or highest degree received.
No Schooling Completed
No Schooling Completed
Nursery or Preschool Through Grade 12
Nursery school
Kindergarten
Grade 1 through 11 – Specify grade 1 – 11
High School Graduate
Regular high school diploma
GED or alternative credential
College or Some College
Some college credit, but less than 1 year of college credit
1 or more years of college credit, no degree
Associate’s degree (for example: AA, AS)
Bachelor’s degree (for example: BA, BS)
After Bachelor’s Degree
Master’s degree (for example: MA, MS, MEng, Med, MSW, MBA)
Professional degree beyond a bachelor’s degree (for example: MD, DDS, DVM, LLB, JD)
Doctorate degree (for example: PhD, EdD)

F

Answer question 12 if this person has a bachelor’s degree or higher. Otherwise, SKIP to question 13.

12. This question focuses on this person’s BACHELOR’S DEGREE. Please print below the specific major(s) of any BACHELOR’S DEGREES this person has received. (For example: chemical engineering, elementary teacher education, organizational psychology)

13. What is this person’s ancestry or ethnic origin?
(For example: Italian, Jamaican, African Am., Cambodian, Cape Verdean, Norwegian, Dominican, French Canadian, Haitian, Korean, Lebanese, Polish, Nigerian, Mexican, Taiwanese, Ukrainian, and so on)

14.a. Does this person speak a language other than English at home?
Yes
No – SKIP to question 15a.

b. What is this language? For example: Korean, Italian, Spanish, Vietnamese

c. How well does this person speak English?
Very well
Well
Not well
Not at all

15. a. Did this person live in this house or apartment 1 year ago?
Person is under 1 year old – SKIP to question 16
Yes, this house – SKIP to question 16
No, outside the United States and Puerto Rico – Print name of foreign country, or U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, etc., below; then SKIP to question 16.
No, different house in the United States or Puerto Rico

b. Where did this person live 1 year ago?
Address, Number and street name
Name of city, town or post office
Name of U.S. county or municipio in Puerto Rico
Name of U.S. state or Puerto Rico
ZIP Code
16. Is this person CURRENTLY covered by any of the following types of health insurance or health coverage plans? Mark “Yes” or “No” for EACH type of coverage in items a-h.
a. Insurance through a current or former employer or union (of this person or another family member)
b. Insurance purchased directly from an insurance company (by this person or another family member)
c. Medicare, for people 65 and older, or people with certain disabilities
d. Medicaid, Medical Assistance, or any kind of government assistance plan for those with low incomes or a disability
e. TRICARE or other military health care
f. VA (including those who have never used or enrolled for VA health care)
g. Indian Health Service
h. Any other type of health insurance – Specify

17. a. Is this person deaf or does he/she have serious difficulty hearing? (Yes, No)

b. Is this person blind or does he/she have serious difficulty seeing even when wearing glasses? (Yes, No)

G

Answer question 18.a – c if this person is 5 years old or over. Otherwise, SKIP to the questions for Person 2 on page 12.

18.a. Because of a physical, mental, or emotional condition, does this person have serious difficulty concentrating, remembering, or making decisions? (Yes, No)

b. Does this person have serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs? (Yes, No)

c. Does this person have difficulty dressing or bathing? (Yes, No)

H

Answer question 19 if this person is 15 years old or over. Otherwise, SKIP to the questions for Person 2 on page 12.

19. Because of a physical, mental, or emotional condition does this person have difficulty doing errands alone such as visiting a doctor’s office or shopping? (Yes, No)

20. What is this person’s marital status?
Now married
Widowed
Divorced
Separated
Never married – SKIP to I

21. In the PAST 12 MONTHS did this person get –
a. Married? (Yes, No)
b. Widowed? (Yes, No)
c. Divorced? (Yes, No)

22. How many times has this person been married?

23. In what year did this person last get married? (Year)

I

Answer question 24 if this person is female and 15 – 50 years old. Otherwise, SKIP to question 25a.

24. Has this person given birth to any children in the past 12 months? (Yes, No)

25. a. Does this person have any of his/her own grandchildren under the age of 18 living in this house or apartment?
Yes
No – SKIP to question 26

b. Is this grandparent currently responsible for most of the basic needs of any grandchildren under the age of 18 who lives in this house or apartment?
Yes
No – SKIP to question 26

c. How long has this grandparent been responsible for these grandchildren? If the grandparent is financially responsible for more than one grandchild, answer the question for the grandchild for whom the grandparent has been responsible the longest period of time.
Less than 6 months
6 to 11 months
1 or 2 years
3 or 4 years
5 or more years

26. Has this person ever served on active duty in the U.S. Armed Forces, military Reserves, or National Guard? Active duty does not include training for the Reserves or National Guard, but DOES include activation, for example, for the Persian Gulf War.
Yes, now on active duty
Yes, on active duty during the last 12 months, but not now
Yes, on active duty in the past, but not during the last 12 months
No, training for Reserves or National Guard only – SKIP to question 28a
No, never served in the military – SKIP to question 29a

27. When did this person serve on active duty in the U.S. Armed Forces? Mark a box for EACH period in which this person served, even if just for part of the period.
September 2001 or later
August 1990 to August 2001 (including Persian Gulf War)
September 1980 to July 1990
May 1975 to August 1980
Vietnam Era (August 1964 to April 1975)
March 1961 to July 1964
February 1955 to February 1961
Korean War (July 1950 to January 1955)
January 1947 to June 1950
World War II (December 1941 to December 1946)
November 1941 or earlier

28.a. Does this person have a VA service-connected disability rating?
Yes (such as 0%, 20%, …, 100%)
No – SKIP to question 29a

b. What is this person’s service-connected disability rating?
0 percent
10 to 20 percent
30 to 40 percent
50 to 60 percent
70 percent or higher

29.a. LAST WEEK, did this person work for pay at a job (or business)?
Yes – SKIP to question 30
No – Did not work (or retired)

b. LAST WEEK, did this person do ANY work for pay, even for as little as one hour?
Yes
No – SKIP to question 35a

30. At what location did this person work LAST WEEK? If this person worked at more than one location, print where he or she worked most last week.
a. Address (Number and street name) If the exact address is not known, give a description of the location such as the building name or the nearest street or intersection.
b. Name of city, town, or post office
c. Is the work location inside the limits of that city or town?
Yes
No, outside the city/town limits
d. Name of county
e. Name of U.S. state or foreign country
f. ZIP code

31. How did this person usually get to work LAST WEEK? If this person usually used more than one method of transportation during the trip, mark the box of the one used for most of the distance.
Car, truck, or van
Bus or trolley bus
Streetcar or trolley car
Subway or elevated
Railroad
Ferryboat
Taxicab
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Walked
Worked at home – SKIP to question 39a
Other method

J

Answer question 32 if you marked “Car, truck, or van” in question 31. Otherwise, SKIP to question 33.

32. How many people, including this person, usually rode to work in the car, truck, or van LAST WEEK?
Person(s)

33. What time did this person usually leave home to go to work LAST WEEK?
Hour
Minute a.m. p.m.

34. How many minutes did it usually take this person to get from home to work LAST WEEK?
Minutes

K

Answer questions 35 – 38 if this person did NOT work last week. Otherwise, SKIP to question 39a.

35.a. LAST WEEK, was this person on layoff from a job?
Yes – SKIP to question 35c.
No

b. LAST WEEK, was this person temporarily absent from a job or business?
Yes, on vacation, temporary illness, maternity leave, other family/personal reasons, bad weather, etc. – SKIP to question 38
No – SKIP to question 36

c. Has this person been informed that he or she will be recalled to work within the next 6 months OR been given a date to return to work?
Yes – SKIP to question 37
No

36. During the LAST 4 WEEKS, has this person been ACTIVELY looking for work?
Yes
No – SKIP to question 38

37. LAST WEEK, could this person have started a job if offered on, or returned to work if recalled?
Yes, could have gone to work
No, because of own temporary illness
No, because of all other reasons (in school, etc.)

38. When did this person last work, even for a few days?
Within the past 12 months
1 to 5 years ago – SKIP to L
Over 5 years ago or never worked – SKIP to question 47

39. a. During the PAST 12 MONTHS (52 weeks), did this person work 50 or more weeks? Count paid time off as work.
Yes – SKIP to question 40
No

b. How many weeks DID this person work, even for a few hours, including paid vacation, paid sick leave, and military service?
50 to 52 weeks
48 to 49 weeks
40 to 47 weeks
27 to 39 weeks
14 to 26 weeks
13 weeks or less

40. During the PAST 12 MONTHS, in the WEEKS WORKED, how many hours did this person usually work each WEEK?
Usual hours worked each week

L

Answer questions 41 – 46 if this person worked in the past 5 years. Otherwise, SKIP to question 47.

41-46 Current or most recent job activity. Describe clearly this person’s chief job activity or business last week. If this person had more than one job, describe the one at which this person worked the most hours. If this person had no job or business last week, give information for his/her last job or business.

41. Was this person – (Mark ONE box.)
An employee of a PRIVATE FOR-PROFIT company or business, or of an individual, for wages, salary, or commissions?
An employee of a PRIVATE NOT-FOR-PROFIT, tax-exempt, or charitable organization?
A local GOVERNMENT employee?
A Federal GOVERNMENT employee?
SELF-EMPLOYED in own NOT INCORPORATED business, professional practice, or farm?
SELF-EMPLOYED in own INCORPORATED business, professional practice, or farm?
Working WITHOUT PAY in family business or farm?

42. For whom did this person work?
If now on active duty in the Armed Forces, mark this box -- (box) and print the branch of the Armed Forces.
Name of company, business, or other employer

43. What kind of business or industry was this? Describe the activity at the location where employed. (For example: hospital, newspaper publishing, mail order house, auto engine manufacturing, bank)

44. Is this mainly (Mark ONE box)
Manufacturing?
Wholesale trade?
Retail trade?
Other (agriculture, construction, service, government, etc.)?

45. What kind of work was this person doing? (For example: registered nurse, personal manager, supervisor of order department, secretary, accountant)

46. What were this person’s most important activities or duties? (For example: patient care, directing hiring policies, supervising order clerks, typing and filing, reconciling financial records)

47. INCOME IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS Mark the “Yes” box for each type of income this person received, and give your best estimate of the TOTAL AMOUNT during the PAST 12 MONTHS. (NOTE: The “past 12 months” is the period from today’s date one year ago up through today.)

Mark the “No” box to show types of income NOT received.

If net income was a loss, mark the “Loss” box to the right of the dollar amount.

For income received jointly, report the appropriate share for each person – or, if that’s not possible, report the whole amount for only one person and mark the “No” box for the other person.
a. Wages, salary, commissions, bonuses, or tips from all jobs. Report amount before deductions for taxes, bonds, dues, or other items.
Yes -- $ ____________ (TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 months)
No
b. Self-employed income from own nonfarm businesses or farm businesses, including proprietorships and partnerships. Report NET income after business expenses.
Yes -- $ _____________ (TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 months)
No
c. Interest, dividends, net rental income, royalty income, or income from estates and trusts. Report even small amounts credited to an account.
Yes -- $ _____________ (TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 months)
No
d. Social Security or Railroad Retirement
Yes -- $ _____________ (TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 months)
No
e. Supplemental Security Income (SSI).
Yes -- $ _____________ (TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 months)
No
f. Any public assistance or welfare payments from the state or local welfare office.
Yes -- $ _____________ (TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 months)
No
g. Retirement, survivor, or disability pensions.
Yes -- $ _____________ (TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 months)
No
h. Any other source of income received regularly such as Veterans’ (VA) payments, unemployment compensation, child support or alimony. Do NOT include lump sum payments such as money from an inheritance or the sale of a home.
Yes -- $ _____________ (TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 months)
No

48. What was this person’s total income during the PAST 12 MONTHS? Add entries in questions 47a to 47h; subtract any losses. If net income was a loss, enter the amount and mark the “Loss” box next to the dollar amount.
None OR $ _______________ (TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 months)
(box) Loss

Continue with the questions for Person 2 on the next page. If no one is listed as person 2 on page 2 SKIP to page 28 for mailing instructions.

END QUOTE

(NOTE: I found out that they send out the American Community Survey annually to different households. Check out this ACS page and see if I'm telling the truth. Also, Check out the actual form in .pdf format. Now tell me why they need to get this info from everyone in America?)

IMHO: Mother Hatred Leads Obama to Hate America

2011-09-17T15:07:00.007-04:00

I was considering the way that Obama is treating America and I got to wondering about the question above. Does Obama hate his mother and is that why he is so dead set on making America, a nation perceived by most as a Caucasian majority country, pay for the hurts of his past? With a sad history of bigotry, did America reflect the actions of his mother in Obama’s eyes as a child? The following is my opinion on what happened to make Barack Hussein Obama so desire to destroy America. Consider:

Obama’s parents supposedly met in HI when his mom was eighteen (page 9 of “Dreams”), first her parents were said to have been “won over by his [father’s] charm” (pg. 9) then on page twelve, his grandparents – the white ones – said yes to the marriage of his parents “no matter how grudgingly” (pg. 12). Although the question of their “marriage” still is up for grabs, as admitted to on page 22 of “Dreams”. “There’s no record of a real wedding” he says. If there was no real wedding, there was no marriage. Considering the words of Michelle Obama, his mother was “very young and very single when she had him” so the marriage is even more in question. No marriage equals his birth out of wedlock and thus, he was a bastard child.

His mother took him from HI within two weeks of giving birth to Obama to attend college classes in Seattle, WA. She took him away from his father after only fifteen days with him in HI, not even giving them the chance to bond.

Supposedly they stayed in Seattle until sometime in 1963 when Obama and Momma returned to Hawaii. Obama would have been just a little one at the time, so no real resentment would have resulted from that. However, it was not too long until Momma found someone else to love. March 15, 1965, Stanley Ann Dunham married Lolo Soetoro, when Obama was three. Or did she? Stanley Ann gives two different dates for their wedding: March 5, 1964 and March 15, 1965 (read the whole thing and the commentary on it – very interesting).

A year or two after the wedding on whichever date, she dragged little boy Obama to another country where he had to adjust to new food, new customs, a new language, new people. After a while he also had to adjust to a new little half-sister, Maya, Stanley Ann had with Soetoro. As all this conspired against him, his mother’s attentions were elsewhere: school (she was still studying for her degree in Mathematics), husband (newlywed husband at that) and then little sister (cute, cuddly and doted upon no doubt): all this change and no room for Obama.

Stanley Ann used that math degree to fit her career choice: International Banking. She travelled extensively while he was young and that meant even less time for her little boy. She was gone and he was with nannies and saw that he was no longer her first priority. Everything else came first: her new husband, her new daughter, her new career. (BTW, Stanley Ann participated in a similar program as did her son years later, a program to give loans to people with bad credit and low incomes; think ACORN). Obama saw his mother as having more time for people she didn’t know, who didn’t love her, didn’t need her, who didn’t want her to love them than she had time for him. He saw the distance between himself and his mother growing and realized that she had no more time for him. Is this when resentment began to build?

In Indonesia, Obama’s Kindergarten year was repeated. He had done one Kindergarten year in Hawaii, and apparently they insisted he do another in Indonesia, learning their ways and their beliefs. So his first year of school was repeated. The boy was always a year older than his classmates while he was in Indonesia because of this repeated Kindergarten year. Did he resent this? Was he embarrassed that he had to repeat? Didn’t he want his mother to stand up for him and tell the school that he had been to Kindergarten already?

(While there, Obama studied “mengaji” (read about it under “Quranic Studies” and I do mean READ IT and “Mates”. Proves me right again.)

Then, lo and behold, Stanley Ann does the unthinkable. She took Obama as a ten-year old back to Hawaii to live with her parents. The ultimate rejection, she left him there and went back to live with his step-father and their daughter. The ultimate betrayal, she chose to keep the daughter with her, but the son got sent away. A white woman chose her “white” daughter (although the daughter had Indonesian blood in her) and denied, left, abandoned her half-black son.

It would be years before the two were reunited, and only then for relatively short periods of time. That’s when the resentment, the anger, the feelings of betrayal, abandonment, hatred and resentment began to build. Every time she would leave him, she would take the daughter she loved more than her half-black son with her. Maya got to go; Barry stayed with Grandma and Grandpa. Mom chose Maya.

According to his first “auto”-biography, on page xv, he states, “I ceased to advertise my mother’s race at the age of twelve or thirteen, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites”. He was no longer happy with his mother being white, so he stopped saying her race – half of himself – was white. He didn’t like her being white, or he would have continued telling others. Notice also, he calls himself “the tragic mulatto”. It is a “tragedy” that the world is the way it is and he is “trapped between two worlds”. All this thanks to his mother: the one responsible for his existence and his mixed race. The one responsible for abandoning him and treating him so shabbily, his mother’s white blood made her choose the way she did and he hated her for it.

To make a rather long, self-absorbed, too utterly artistic, melodramatic, self-loathing story shorter than a millennium, or just his double “auto”-biographies, I will shorten it to a few key instances in “Dreams”. He says that his parents met in HI when his mom was eighteen (page 9 of “Dreams”). First her parents were said to have been “won over by his [father’s] charm” (pg. 9) then on page twelve, his grandparents – the white ones – said yes to the marriage of his parents “no matter how grudgingly” (pg. 12). According to Obama his great-grandmother – mom’s mom’s mom – was rumored to have been such a bigot that she was even embarrassed of her Cherokee blood. (He even says that his grandfather would probably say something bigoted and not even realize it when they met his father for the first time. [pg. 17] Sweet. But I digress.)

So in his own words when he wrote the book, his grandparents who raised him were bigots. He also tells of an instance when his grandmother was scared by a black panhandler and he heard her tell the story of what happened that day and got angry. While writing the book, he focuses on race. He uses it as both a violin to make you weep and as a whip to make you bleed. If you are a white person, you are partially responsible for the things that personally happened to him; whatever he experienced, you did. If you are black, you are supposed to identify with him for you are in the same position. Either way, race is at the core – the epicenter – of everything that happens in life.

If your mother leaves you to be raised by someone else even though she may think it was the best thing to do for you, it was because of your race. If your grandmother was scared by someone of your race, it’s because of his race. It wasn’t their actions or attitudes it was race; pure, plain and simple. White folks did all of this. They caused Barry to be miserable. They were responsible for his being raised by old folks (cool old folks, for the most part, but old folks nonetheless).

Because of this, Obama punishes white America. Everything that happened to him as a child was a white woman’s fault. Everything that happened to him as a teen was a white person’s fault (teachers, neighbors, whomever). Everyone must pay because his mom treated him poorly. As president, he can do something to make them all miserable. He can make them all feel his pain. He can make them all sorry for treating him that way. Even the memory of his mother’s love and desire to do what was best for him cannot stop him from making the white world pay.

This truth is evident in everything he does. From his failure to prosecute the New Black Panther Party to his statement that police acted “stupidly” in the Professor Gates incident, Obama can always be counted on to – without knowing the full facts of the case, or sometimes in spite of knowing the full facts of the case – take whichever side has a black person in it. The problem is, he hates his black side just as much and makes the blacks of America pay dearly, too.

It also shows in the way he treats the women of his administration.

So the truth is, Obama hates his white side because of his mother’s abandonment (see “Punahou”), and he wants to make America pay the price for that. But he also must punish the black side as well because he perceives that as being the cause of her abandonment. Thus, America pays because Obama’s mother played.

(NOTE: I have "Dreams From My Father", Three Rivers Press, © 1995, 2004 by Barack Obama, Paperback edition, ISBN 978-1-4000-8277-3)

Millage Rates, Tax Increases that Aren't, and Assessed Values

2011-09-12T10:43:00.010-04:00

In a local cage liner named "Happenings", a writer wrote an article called "Good Day!" I found a few flaws in the article and decided to write a few things against to straghten it out.

September 7, 2011: 6:32 a.m. For those of you who are subjected to the local pooper paper, you may have read rupester's article starting on page four of this month's rag. To which I must respond publicly, as rupester wrote publicly. I wrote a letter in response to the owner of the pooper paper, but I seriously doubt it will appear. So, I publish it here for the benefit of all:

"Randy,

"You're publishing Rupe's rantings against Infantini where it concerns money and figures? Really? Consider:

Trudie Infantini:

Trudie's Bio

"[E]arned her Bachelor's in Business Administration with an emphasis in Accounting from Florida International University. Trudie became a Certified Public Accountant and earned a Master's degree in Accounting from Florida Atlantic University.

"Within a year of moving to Brevard County, Trudie became a licensed financial planner. She worked for various Wall Street brokerage firms for five years and has even earned her Principal's license, which enabled her to run her own firm. She has maintained her membership in both the Florida Institute of CPAs and the American Institute of CPAs since 1983.

"In 2001, Trudie began work at Space Coast Credit Union as an Internal Audit Manager (Chief Audit Executive). In this role she was responsible for preparing and carrying out the annual audit plan, risk assessment, and coordinating efforts for the annual audit. She was also tasked with comparing budgeted to actual financial statements, analyzing tax laws and regulations to verify that SCCU was in compliance with such laws.

"Trudie worked as an Internal Auditor for the Brevard County Clerk of Courts, where she has seen first hand the waste and inefficiency in many County departments, and has allowed her the opportunity to analyze and question agenda items presented to the Board of County Commissioners. Currently, Trudie is a Professor of Accounting at Florida Institute of Technology.

Maureen Rupe:

Rupe's old campaign site with "Education and Experience.

"My education was over 40 years ago, and the education system at that time cannot be compared to the present day United Kingdom Education System. I attended an innovative school that concentrated on the technical aspects of various subjects. All students were required to pass a rigorous scholarship test to be allowed to attend this school. The Kettering Central Technical School was highly regarded and respected. Latin and French were taught routinely, along with many advanced courses, not included in schools today.

"At that time, Britain started education earlier in childhood (I started at 3) and 15 was the age to leave school nationwide, unless you attended grammar school or a technical school, as did I. The Kettering school has since closed and the education system reorganized to what it is today. All this is documented and can be verified.

"(NOTE: To see more on Technical Schools in England, you may wish to visit The History of Education in England.)

"Considering the facts, I think I'd take a CPA's word on financial things more than a person who left school at 15 and wrote on her "What qualifies me to run for County Commissioner?" page prior to reworking it, (initial page retrieved April 14, 2008), "When I was 17 and stubbornly refused to go to college" (her previous words for her educational background). Remember, "college" in England (where she was born, raised and schooled) is the equivalent to our 11th and 12th grades. According to (her own resume) she received no further formal education.

"Bachelor's Degree, Master's Degree, licensed financial planner, CPA and internal auditor or someone who left technical school at 15? Hmmm....

"Linda McKinney"
I have searched the BOCC website and cannot find anything that says there was a meeting on August 11, 2011. I have found one for August 2nd and 16th, but not August 11th. Therefore I can neither confirm nor deny the alleged words of Mary Bolin.

However, I would ask you to consider the following:
Andy Anderson, NOT A CPA: he has an A.A., in what it doesn't state.
Mary Bolin, NOT A CPA: she has a B.A. in Education. (Difficult info to find: it's not on her BOCC website Bio.)
Chuck Nelson, NOT A CPA: his degree is (Shock! Surprise!) Phys. Ed.!
Robin Fisher, NOT A CPA: he's a Public Relations major.

So, considering the studies and backgrounds of the other four Commissioners, I think it's reasonable to follow Commissioner Infantini's lead - especially when it comes to money matters -- and go with her recommendations. CPA v rupester and the four Commies? Yeah. Bachelor's Degree, Master's Degree, licensed financial planner, CPA and internal auditor Infantini every time!

September 7, 2022: 4:00 p.m. NOTE: I wrote to the County asking for a copy of the minutes of the August 11, 2011 meeting rupester quotes in her article. The response is below:

"Good morning Ms. McKinney,

"I was forwarded your request for the minutes of the August 11, 2011 Board of County Commissioners meeting. There was no Board meeting held August 11, 2011, however there were three regular meetings in the month of August. If there is particular subject or item you are interested in, we would be happy to research that for you.

"All completed minutes of the Board of County Commissioners meetings are posted on the Brevard County Government webpage, as well as the Clerk of Courts webpage.

"If you need anything further, feel free to contact me.

"Best regards,

"Tammy Etheridge
"Clerk to the Board"

So, I sent a request to the pooper paper's owner/publisher/editor that he print a correction in next month's pooper paper. We'll see if he actually does anything about it.

Update: I received the meeting notes from the County for a meeting that happened AUGUST 9, 2011. Contrary to what rupester asserts in her article, Infantini is not accused of the mentioned "sins". Read the meeting notes here. Notice that when Comm. Bolin is speaking, she does NOT mention Comm. Infantini at all. She never mentions any names. She just states that there is misinformation out there. rupester assigning words to Bolin in order to make Infantini look as bad as possible. This, to me, is NOT reporting. rupester is creating a misimpression and is trying to influence people to her way of thinking (as if she actually thinks?).

I have written to the pooper paper's owner and reminded him of rupester's history of proven plagiarism, possible copyright infringement, her assigning words to Bolin and errors in dates and facts. I have asked that from this date forward he label rupester's writings as "OPINION" instead of allowing them to stand as reporting. I have taken journalism and I know the difference between a fact, rhetoric and a hit piece. rupester's every mention of Comm. Infantini is a hit piece filled with rhetoric. I think it's time the pooper paper be held accountable. If you agree with me, write to Happenings and tell them it's time their writer be held accountable to the rules of journalism or have her writing labeled "OPINION". It's time.

*******************

That didn't do the job well enough, I thought. So I did a
whole page on the same subject. I hope you like the truth because there it is in cold, hard facts.

A Soldier's Grace

2011-07-20T17:06:00.001-04:00

A Soldier’s Grace
© 2011 Linda McKinney
All Rights Reserved

I

A soldier’s grace
Always resides
Inside his soul and faith.

In danger’s face
Or sorrow’s place
He stands upon one thing:

His fellow soldiers,
His spirit d’ corps,
His training, his confidence,

All reside
Inside his soul
And from it eternally spring.

His country relies
Upon his grace
To stand and take the call

To defend us all
And go to fall
If need requires it.

A soldier’s grace
Gives his call
A higher calling still.

And when in war
He’ll go before
Face the brunt of it.

Harm and loss
He faces,
Answer to the call

And some do fall
And others hurt
Our stead they give it all.

Let none deny
The soldier’s cry
“Freedom lives if I die.”

A soldier’s grace
always resides
inside his soul and faith.

II

A soldier bowed his head
To bless the MRE
He sighed and calmed
And quietly said these words to GOD:

“Dear Lord, I’m here
In this desert place.
I came to defend my country,
to keep my family safe.

I pray you watch o’er them,
Keep Jenny and Brandon brave,
Keep my beloved wife
Having faith in me
Don’t let them want
For any little thing.

Keep them all healthy,
Lord, keep them healthy,
So I can return
And see them all.

Don’t let them hurt,
Don’t let them fear,
Don’t let them cry
From things idiots say
About their dad serving
To keep terrorists at bay.

Lord, bless them, keep them,
In your loving arms,
And keep my buddies,
Here, Lord, safe from desert harm.
If I have to fall, Lord,
Pray let it be to serve,
Those who are here with me,
As well as those who “don’t deserve”
Who say that I am wrong, Lord,
For being here in answer
To my country’s call
To protect them from those
Who would see freedom fall.

Lord, I pray for my president,
Let him see Your path, Lord,
To do as You would have him,
And if not guided by
Your loving arms and sight,
Let our president do no harm
To those who fight for what’s right.

Lord, guide me, also,
And don’t let me do wrong.
If I wander near it, Lord,
Stop me, make me strong.

Lord, bless this food now,
Bless this MRE.
Make it nourish me,
Make me grateful,
Remind me that others have less,
And with it I am truly blessed.

GOD I bless and thank You,
For all You say and do,
Your guidance, Lord,
Is what I crave,
Your wisdom, I desire, too.
Let me please You, Lord.
Let me make You proud
Of having a son, Lord,
A humble son like me.

I ask all this in Jesus’ name,
And for Him I thank you more,
Than anything I can think of
His book has my name.

So, thank you, Lord,
For this food,
And for my buddies, too,
Who help me through this desert place,
And who thank You, too.”

With these words,
And another sigh,
Soldier raised his head.
Upward looking,
Soldier smiled
and whispered, “Amen”.

III

“Excuse me, Ma’am,” the grieving widow heard,
“It’s about your husband, Bird.”

The widow said, “What is it?” her heart beat out her fears.
The blonde soldier in Class As wiped away a tear.

“I want to tell you that I loved him,” she covered her mouth in dismay,
“No, not like that! I’m sorry, Ma’am. I meant a different way.”

“You see, he was my sergeant, but he was more as well:
My friend, my shoulder, my rely-upon, my laughter when life was hell.

He kept an eye out for me, he lifted my spirits tall.
He made my two years over there into my life’s call.

He told me to remember why we served in sand.
To keep in mind my loved ones: my sis, my mom, my dad.

He showed me pictures of his kids, of you and Bucky, too,
And told me of the reason he lives: it all went back to you.

He told me that you brought him to the Lord when he was twenty-two,
And that he was always thankful for the Lord giving him to you.

He loved you very much, you see, and with that love his eyes shone
And with your memory he said that he was never alone.

He saw you as his shining star that led him from afar
His thoughts of you kept his head high and took him from the war.

He loved to talk about you, his children and his dog;
But mostly you, Ma’am. You made him all agog.”

Blonde soldier held out her hand, within it a letter, tattered, torn,
“He asked me to give this to you, if he should never make it home.”

Soldier’s widow tried to smile, a small “Thank you” was all she said,
A quick salute, blonde soldier left her, at the grave of husband dead.

The letter, tattered, torn, was dated a year or so ago,
And as she read it, her tears fell softly upon its indigo.

“My dearest Catherine I love you.” the letter started there,
The words took her away; of others she was not aware.

Blonde soldier made it to the car, collapsed inside,
Pain’s burden weighed her down, but from loss blonde soldier cried.

She wished her friend had survived to return to those he loved.
She knew he died to save others and herself, to safety she was shoved.

Blonde soldier finally sat upright, and wiped the tears away,
And, looking at the sight where her best friend’s body lay,

She said aloud, “I promise you I’ll ne’er forget the lessons you taught me, Sir.
Nor will I ever go back to what I once was, because you’ve made me better.”

She nodded to the friend who had brought her to the grave,
And hoped she had handled things with poise and with some grace.

July 4, 2011: Independence Day Redux

2011-07-04T03:13:00.008-04:00

This is the day we celebrate our independence from King George III; his tyranny, taxes, arbitrary rules and fickle finger of fate. We celebrate our sovereignty, our opportunity, our liberties – or do we?

In 1776 it was a dream, a plan, a yearning, beating within the hearts of men in a land that offered the choice of freedom or continued servitude. In 1776 the monarch of England had done so much wrong that the Colonists had had enough. They wanted out. They could no longer take the king’s control – distant though it was – and wanted to rule their own destinies and find out what their own decisions could do for them: for their futures, their opportunities, their children’s futures. They wanted to see if they could truly make it on their own without the help nor interference of a distant ruler. Their heartbeats kept time to the drums of liberty beating deep inside and getting louder within their breasts with every passing day, each usurpation, each arbitrary breaking of the king’s previous agreements and decisions. It was freedom that called them, spurred them on, fought to be heard, to be dreamed of, aspired to, worked toward, planned for. Liberty beckoned to them like a far off voice and they had to listen. It was this drumbeat, this sweet, sweet voice that made them act, and – thankfully -- made America. It was to this call, sweet and lusty, that the Founding Fathers answered and answer to still.

“When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among them the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.” – U.S. Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776.

The Founding Fathers said, “You’ve given us enough cause.” They were fed up. They’d had enough. They were tired of the games, the whims and fancies of a fickle king and they would no longer tolerate it. Not only were they tired of King George’s fancies, but they declared that GOD Himself was tired of King G’s fickleness: “the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them… [my italics]” They were saying that GOD says they are entitled to be free, to be self-ruling, to have the liberties they delineated in their Declaration of Independence. They were not only fed up with King G., they were basically saying that GOD was fed up with King G., as well. They were saying that they were ready to answer not only to GOD but to posterity as well; they’d answer to us, to their future and their progeny.

They answer still today; although, to a different set of questions. While yesterday’s questions were things like, “How may I get to America and – with hard work and perseverance – make a lot of money and make my own and my grandchildren’s futures bright?” or “When I make enough money to open my own shop, will I be able to build that house and bring Momma over, too?” Or sometimes the questions were more esoteric: “Why in America and nowhere else in the whole world can I work hard and make a lot of money and live like a rich person when elsewhere in the world it’s always prevented?” Where is it written that the Founding Fathers no longer answer to those who wished for a brighter future in 1776, instead of just us?
The Founding Fathers would be appalled at today’s questions, “When does the government check come for this month’s groceries and when does the check come for the rent, car payment, and the medical care?” Oh, and if you’re paying attention, “Why did America’s Founding Fathers make such a mistake as to make America a Representative Republic instead of a Communist country?” or “Why is America such a horrible country, why is it so evil?”

These questions are being asked of the Founding Fathers by people who have been taught inside-out lies: right is wrong, death is life, prison is freedom, tyranny is good, want is plenty and servitude is the natural yearning of every human heart. It’s not that the Founding Fathers never foresaw the possibility of such a thing. I’m sure there were those in 1776 who were being told the same thing by those who wished to perpetuate King G’s reign and who would benefit from America being under his thumb for years to come. “The Federalist Papers” were written to cover just such attacks and idiocies, to educate the people in the truth, in the correctness of the journey to freedom, to help them hear the beating of the drum of freedom as did the Founding Fathers.

However, since “The Federalist Papers” are no longer taught in schools – public, private, nor home schools, for the most part – it is up to each of us individually, to look at the truth without the distortions that tell us that servitude is freedom and want is plenty. It is up to us to look at the truth, to read the Founding Fathers’ writings, to read their own words in individual correspondences, in public writings to find out the truth about our country’s founding and the Founders’ beliefs, desires for our country and their goals and satisfaction in setting up such a radical experiment.

If it is found that Jefferson wanted every person to be able to prosper off of their own work and not to have to hand over most of what they worked hard to earn to someone other than themselves (government or private individual), then that must be taken into consideration in the reader’s evaluation of our Founding. Whether Jefferson actually had slaves or no is not the question. The question is rather, “What is it he wanted for the country – for America, for her future – as a whole?” If the answer is that Jefferson wanted everyone to own slaves and thought that America as a whole would have been better off if everyone everywhere owned slaves, then so be it. If not, however – and there is no evidence to even suggest such a thing -- that must be taken into account when you look at the person. Yet, those who would teach us that America is bad – those with the inside-out “truth”: wrong is right, death is life, etc. -- would teach us that it was okay to consider one portion of Jefferson’s life and not the whole. That’s like saying a lasagna is just the noodles!

America is the greatest country on earth, but the liberals, progressives, Wrongies, wish to have America be labeled as a failure so that they can get it into the thought processes, beliefs and ideals of Americans that we are bad people who need -- nay, deserve --- to be punished. Whether they punish us via restricting our words (political correctness, anyone?), our deeds (airport security?), or our right to self-defense (gun control?), it is still a just and deserved punishment in their own minds. Remember, wrong is right, servitude is freedom: to people who believe that, our punishment is just strictly based upon the fact that we believe in the U.S. Constitution and we wish our lawmakers to abide by it.

The inside-out lies form the basis of a vast amount of our neighbors and those who are in places of power: george soros, obama, nancy pelosi, (I only cap the names of people I respect). Their lies are the foundation of our current dire circumstances. Their inside-out beliefs, twisted as they are, form the foundation of their actions, their votes, their speeches. They have nothing more to base their ideals on than a belief that they were somehow wronged by those who are not themselves. There is no evidence that they were somehow mistreated by others: obama was in an elite school in Hawaii instead of a school that had no running water, peeling leaded paint, and teachers who drank themselves into stupors during the third hour of the school day. Yet his inside-out lies lead him to believe that he was mistreated, somehow wronged, by those of another skin tone. Based upon what facts does he make this assumption, this enormous jump to fantasy land, is what I want to know. Read his two “autobiographies” and see if he was mistreated by the white man. Yet, it’s this kind of thing that he bases his hatred of America upon. Where did he learn to believe the inside-out lies? He learned it from a drugged up Communist/Marxist. He swallowed it all, hook, line and sinker: greedily drinking in the hatred, disdain, venom of his teacher and the inside-out lies became his. He owned them and he loved them. As a normal man’s heart loves freedom, obama’s heart now loved the hatred of America and Americans. It all went against what GOD had ordained, what the Founding Fathers established, fought and -- all or most – lost to establish, nurture, preserve.

This Independence Day, King G. would be dancing in his grave and grinning ear to ear because we are now a nation more foolish than wise, more mislead than informed, more inside-out than true to the truth. It is time for those of us who wish to change things for the better to make a choice and to contemplate that awful position to be in, “When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among them the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.” Is it time for us to do the same type of thing? Is it time for those of you in the Republican Party to leave that party in order to form a “more perfect union” and to align yourselves with a more important cause than political party – the “R” label after your name?

I propose a three point questionnaire for you to ask yourselves and your representatives in order for you to make an informed decision regarding leaving the Republican Party. Here are the questions:

1) Is the Republican Party leadership showing inside-out leadership – as in are their ideals, policies and practices along the same lines as the Founding Fathers would have them be, or are they somewhere else?

2) Are you happy with the direction the Republican leadership of America is trying to take the country, and if not, what is the political party you are affiliated with doing to prevent it from going in that direction?

3) Will your children’s futures be positively or negatively affected by the Republican leadership’s direction?

If the answer to all three is a negative answer, then either you are happy living in an inside-out world and look forward to fully joining the inside-out cause celeb of the moment, or you are on the wrong side – part of the problem and not the solution – and you need to change that. If the answer to two of three are negatives you are dangerously close to being in an inside-out world and you need to step away from the “lies are reality” fairy tale and avoid being sucked in completely If the answer is one of three, you are just on the edge of the easy slippery slope to the inside-out world and you should swallow hard and be sure that it won’t pull you back again. Yes, we need you in this fight out here, but we also need someone with a good enough head on their shoulders to recognize “inside-out world” when they see it.

America, look at where we are. Look at who our leadership is. Look at what your neighbors want and what they believe. Is this where, twenty years ago, you actually thought we would be? If not, turn off your inside-out glasses and look around. Who got us here? Who allowed it to happen (besides ourselves) and how can we fix what has already gone wrong? Is it fixable within the Republican Party, both parties, or is there another way to fix it? What options do we have to be able to make America the vision of the Founding Fathers as it should have been instead of leaving it the upside-down, inside-out world of obama’s lies?

Would not a good place to start be in a third party political candidate who would be the vision of the Founding Fathers and who sees America as it should be, and not twisted into an evil empire of the progressive left’s lies? Let us not pledge allegiance to a political party. Instead let us pledge allegiance to America – as she should be and can be once again.

God bless America today, tomorrow and forever with a people who will stand up for her, who will stand up for election, facing the arrows and rocks sure to be thrown as the inside-out lies are hurled at the candidate who will say, “Enough! America as the Founding Fathers envisioned her is our future, our basis, our greatest gift as a nation. Let us now go forward as a people who refuse to listen to the lies of our enemies – internal and external – and let us re-found America as the land our Founding Fathers intended. Let us work together to make America into the land of opportunity – a land of hard work and integrity leading to prosperity and a heritage for our children’s children’s children. Let us stop looking to progress into change, and instead regress into our biblical foundations, into our constitutional principles, into our Founders’ cry of freedom for our nation, our lives and our posterity!”

Soldier Dad & Soldier Son

2011-05-31T00:21:00.001-04:00

It started with a calling; a simple, patriotic tug,
Inside a heart so willing; enlisting, a bit too young.
Through sweat, tears and struggles, first stripes hard efforts won.
When Sergeant, the call was given to go off to a war,
And when -- bags packed, gun cleaned, boots polished - the plane landed, shots fired: it had begun.

Three months of sleeping sparsely in dirt, sand and dust,
No pillow 'cept a helmet, no relief from summer sun,
No sweet, sweet smile from mom back home, or hugs from the "Hon".
And sometimes, when alone and tired, and no one was around,
It seemed - bags lost, gun old, boots sand-filled - that none at home remembered: forgetting had begun.

That day started no differently, than all the others there.
Awake, and go, perimeter control: but something stirred within the air.
An hour later, a sudden shock, searing pain and buzzing ears,
A cry, a look, confusion; no feeling in his legs,
Blood flowed - into sand, into sun, into blown apart gun - medic's frantic efforts, "Stay with us" the Corporal repeats, repeats, rep-e-a---t----s…

...

"It's for the Sergeant," the Corporal said, as he walked into the room.
"It's nothing much," Corporal blushed, "but maybe it will do."
"It's fine," said the Colonel, and patted Corporal's back,
As Corporal's crutches carried him to the casket; flag draped and ebony black.
"For you, Sarge," Corporal balanced and struggled to salute, "You saved my life and lost your own, and I will not forget…
"In Memory, in Honor, in deepest Thanks," he laid Purple Heart on Sergeant's flag, "because I think that you served best,
"The day you sat and reminded me
"'Twas not just courage that set me free,
"But the history of the men before,
"Who served our country's military lore,
"Who fought and died, are nevermore,
"On dessert sands, or Iwo Jima's shores.
"We build upon their bravery,
"And through their foundation, we've been kept free."

"So, Sarge, I thank you, for all you've done.
"Before your final battle had begun,
"You won the war within my soul
"And kept me there when leaving was my goal,
"From dishonoring my unit, my mom, myself,
"And taught me how to face my fears…"

And here he wiped away his tears,
"You taught me, Sarge, to remember more
"Than what my service there stood for,
"And that - with all who've gone before -
"It's what we do instead.

"Instead of running, we stand still,
"Instead of hiding, we climb the hill,
"Instead of ducking, we rise and go,
"Instead of leaving, we all should know,
"It's not a matter of no fear at all,
"It's just a matter of answering their call.
"The call of those who served before,
"They call unto us:
   'Forward now, forward go,
   'For we are with you and we all know,
   'That fear is hard, but shared with all,
   'So stand you now on shoulders tall.
   'You're more than just a single one,
   'You're on their shoulders,
   'You're their Soldier Son.'

"Sarge" said Corporal, "I must admit
"From that day I wanted only to make you glad,
"That you, Sarge, were my Soldier Dad."

Corporal again balanced, and snapped salute,
Then turned and thanked Sarge's Mom.
He thanked his Dad and his wife,
He shook the hand of the Sarge's son.

His left leg gone above the knee,
His right leg dragged behind,
He used one eye to see the seat,
One hand to straighten his tie.

Corporal's heart was breaking hard,
But in his chest still swelled,
That message of his Soldier Dad,
Of shoulders' of soldiers' felled.

As the others left the grave,
Corporal lagged behind,
"Your shoulders, Sarge, are rather large,
"And many shall stand upon,
"The shoulders you brought to the field,
"You'll be Dad of Soldier Sons!"

© 2011 Linda McKinney All Rights Reserved

America, HYK!

2011-04-02T03:25:00.002-04:00

When I was a child and learning about the U.S. Constitution and the Founding Fathers, I also watched my Dad go off to work in Air Force blues, in those awful green fatigues that I learned very early to starch so stiff that they almost stood up by themselves. I knew other kids whose dads also went to work for our country: day or night, “scrambled” out to make sure that the airplanes the Air Force needed were ready to go. He worked on the bombers, mostly, and they were his babies. I have been all over a B-52 – top, bottom, pilot’s seat to tail gunner’s, bombardier to navigator. I was rolled around in a B-52’s tires and I thought it was wonderful that the nation I grew up in and loved had such wonderful things to protect itself.

That was before I ever realized that anyone who could be elected President of the United States of America could actually hate America at the same time as taking advantage of our capitalist system, our civil rights and our election process. I never dreamed back then that the United States would have to fight for our own survival due to forces from within. On top of those B-52’s I always thought attacks would be from forces outside of America. If anything would bring us to the brink of destruction, it would be the Soviet Union, or China, or the Communists who hated America and all we stand for, but lived elsewhere.

Today, we have an economy that is tanking, putting America on the ledge of a financial cliff made of debt, profligate spending and ridiculous compromises made by the party that is supposed to be more Conservative – supposed to pull us back from the brink with their strength and principalled leadership.

Today, we have forces from within our own country – unions, George Soros (evil incarnate), progressives, power brokers – who are doing all they can to create chaos, disorder, hatred: make neighbor hate neighbor. While it’s apparent why they are doing this, it’s not apparent why they hate America – the country that made it possible for them to have all they have and still, they hate her.

Today, we have a President (I hate calling him that) who refuses to be transparent about anything except what he likes to eat, who hates America more than anything else in the world, who kowtows to enemies foreign and has none domestic except honest, hard working, conservatives who love the country that is paying for his lifestyle in the White House and his vacations, transportation, security, health care, children’s protection and his wife’s whims. All the while, in other countries they complain and moan about how bad America is, how rotten she is, how evil her people – some of them at least – are.

Today, we have a Federal Reserve that is working with the current administration to try to destroy America, again the land that blessed him with his position of authority, his wealth, his opportunities. Our Congresses and Senates – U.S. and States – are battling over the direction our country and our states should go. Some wish to go totally, progressively, toward Communism: everyone has everything that anyone else has at the expense of those who will work and those who don’t work get all the same things as those who do – at the working person’s expense, of course. Want food, health care, housing, a car, a big screen 3D television, a designer wardrobe, and the latest cell phone, iPod and computer? No worries. Those who work will be forced to pay for them for you. You sit down and relax; no need for those who will vote for us to do anything to earn their own way except vote for us, progressive Communist Congressmen and Senators say.

Today, the backs and patience of those who are willing to earn their own way, pay for their own houses, cars, televisions, are being broken under the burden of higher taxes, more regulations, more paperwork from every layer of government – city, township, county, state, federal – they all have to have their reasons for employing more of those constituents who want to work, but don’t want to work unless they have a union supporting their desires for an easier life, benefits and pensions guaranteed due to the threat of striking and the power of the unions. It’s not that the union wants to actually help those workers, it is that they want to keep their power, so they placate the worker to keep the unions getting the votes – and to keep their members voting for the political candidates who will support the unions’ power.

Today, regulation and “global warming” are the name of the game. We must buy certain kinds of toilets, washing machines, light bulbs (I refuse) and our children are being taught the lie of “global warming” as gospel and worshipping “Mother Earth” is the only religion allowed in public schools and some religious schools have picked it up as well. Families are “guilted” into recycling, driving less, or driving a “green” car so that the child in the back seat won’t feel guilty about driving those eight long hours to get to grandma’s house because her family is polluting the planet and causing more greenhouse gasses as they travel. Heaven forbid the teachers tell the truth and teach the child that there is no such thing as “global warming” and man’s impact upon the earth is never as devastating as the earth’s impact upon man.

Today, we have to sit back and be silent as the PC Police will shut us up if we say anything they disagree with. We are not allowed to voice opposition to “gay marriage” because it may upset someone; heaven forbid we talk about faith in any god besides their secular humanism. If we wish to mention the real GOD, we are mocked, laughed at and their superiority for not believing in Him is thrown in our faces. Disallowed to be taught in schools until a lawsuit is brought to make it happen, the PC Police try their best to keep GOD out of schools, the public square, even out of our hearts if they could. GOD is anathema to them: they don’t wish to understand Him, want to hear about Him, get to know Him, or anything else to do with a good, loving, holy GOD. If they did acknowledge Him, they’d also have to acknowledge that He sets the rules of right and wrong and they have broken so many of them and will have to answer to Him one day, therefore they must disavow any knowledge of or acknowledgement of GOD, good and holy.

Today, the Tea Party, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Michele Bachman and any Conservatives are the enemy because we wish to restore America to what our Founding Fathers – enemies also – designed America to be, wrote our Constitution to keep her, and fought to make her. We shall never return to the Republic our Founding Fathers gave us, based upon godly principals and values. Heaven forbid we look to GOD for guidance and to the Founding Documents for our compass, true north. That is all verboten, disallowed and evil: even the mention of it causes those on the left – progressives, liberals, Democrats, Wrongies -- great anguish and heart ache.

Today, that will all start to change. America, HIT YOUR KNEES! (HYK!) Let’s make the year 2011 the year of the greatest spiritual awakening the world has ever seen. Let’s do what they cannot and will not stop. Take back our country through faith in GOD and prayer to Him. It says in the Bible, “If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.” (2 Chronicles 7:14)

Today, your prayers can “availeth much” because this is something they cannot prevent and have no way to fight. GOD is bigger, mightier, more capable than any of their plans, any of their schemers (even George Soros and Obama), any of their power hungry, money grabbing, Communist Manifesto toting, Rules for Radicals following, connected, enabled, high and mighty minions and they have no way to prevent us, stop us, or to stop GOD.

Today, we can start the America’s turn around, start a change in direction and we can make America the country she was supposed to be; Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and George Washington prayed she’d be. Today, all it takes is a little extra effort, a little extra time, a little energy to push yourself up from that kneeling position to make the difference. America’s 180 turn can begin today if you will start taking five minutes to pray for her in the morning when you get up. Take five minutes to pray for her at lunch time. Take five minutes to pray for her at bedtime. Put a pillow under your knees if you must (I do), but drop to your knees, go to the Lord in prayer and ask Him to protect America from those who will do evil to her, those who scheme against her, those who will tax the children who have not yet been born by spending way beyond our current means and borrowing away our futures.

Today, just in a few minutes, you can make a difference if you will, whenever you think of it, however you wish to do it, PRAY FOR AMERICA. Pray that GOD will turn us back from the direction our country has been going, that He will open eyes around the nation so that there will be no denying GOD and that He will bless our country with strong conservative leadership; leadership that will understand the Founding Fathers and all they believed, what they intended, and how much they must have loved America because they put such restraints upon the government and those who would undo what they did. Although, that has all been ignored for so long and we have been lied to and litigated into other ways of doing things for so long that most of us have forgotten the truth. Pray that GOD will touch hearts, give courage, and strengthen His people to stand and to make America AMERICA again!

Today, HYK! for your children’s futures, for the good of the nation, for the defeat of communism/liberalism/progressivism in America. HYK! so that you can ask GOD to change America, turn her back and bless her with a revival as no one has ever seen before. Then, “will [He] hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.” GOD says. And when He says something, whether any human believes it or not, GOD is correct and it is the truth. HYK! to heal our land.

Today, Obama, Soros, Andy Stern, et al, can be defeated with your simple act of obedience. Wouldn’t that be something worth the five minutes here and there?

Today, give Soros and Obama a kick in the pants. Hit Your Knees and pray.

Glenn Beck Blows It on a Personal Level

2011-02-21T12:26:00.006-05:00

(NOTE: Since I don't know how to do superscripts with this blog system, I put my footnotes in parenthesis at the appropriate spots: (#). Okay?)

Normally speaking, I trust Glenn Beck to be an accurate and reliable person when it comes to relating history, putting the pieces together (George Soros, Open Society, et al), and the dollars and dates. He’s very good at that and he’s almost always – 99% of the time – correct. He’s nearly infallible when it comes to that.

In personal matters, he is not necessarily so.

While reading Glenn Beck & Dr. Keith Ablow’s new book, “The 7 Wonders That Will Change Your Life(1)”, on my Kindle, I came across Locations 1572-1585. This Section relates the story of Glenn going to a Mormon church for the first time. He wound up in a class with other students (some new, some not so new), and he wanted out of there. He found out that questions could be asked and he decided to ask one he thought would get him out of there; one that wouldn’t fit his personal beliefs and give him a reason to leave. So, he asked, “Where’s Gandhi?” (as in is he in heaven, hell or somewhere else?).

To paraphrase the response a student gave (and the teacher did not refute), the answer went something like this:

A dad loves his son and wants him to be a good man. The son graduated high school and his dad told him to go to college. With no colleges in the area, the son applied at colleges outside of the area and no colleges would accept him – “he wasn’t the right ‘sort’”. The explanation went that a loving father would not condemn nor disown the son for not going to college.

When Glenn asked about Jesus being the only way to the Father (to GOD), the answer was, “Yes, that is true,” replied the student, “but…” The answerer expounds upon the subject by asking if it would be fair to condemn someone who never got the chance or opportunity to accept Christ? Would it be fair to send that person to hell?

That’s the first place in the book where Glenn – and the question answerer – blows it.

There are several problems with that answer. First, how can the answer be both “Yes” and “No”? It can’t be both: Jesus is the only way and Jesus isn’t the only way. One has to choose because Jesus can’t be both.

Second, GOD sets the rules, not man. GOD said Jesus is the only way. Man cannot change the standard GOD set.

Third, If GOD is a Holy GOD then He must have certain rules that are intractable. Remember how unfair you thought it was when your parent would set a rule for you and have another rule – or just break the rule – for one of your siblings? Remember how you automatically knew that it wasn’t right? Should GOD treat people who get into heaven in such a manner: one rule for some people and another rule for others? No. He is Holy and He must keep the same rules for everyone. Otherwise, why have rules in the first place?

Fourth, is the source of the answer. This answer is based on – as far as I can figure – a purely Mormon belief and practice: the Baptism for the Dead. In this practice, baptismal services are held for those who are already dead using a stand-in for the dead person. For instance, your great-grandma died in 1942. Mormon doctrine would have her genealogy done, her kin listed and they would baptize your great-grandma and her spouse(s) into their Church and into their heaven without your consent, without the consent of great-grandma and – according to their beliefs – great-grandma would then be in their heaven worshiping their god. This is done even for people who wanted nothing to do with the Mormon Church, who do not believe in their religion, who do not wish to have their own chosen religion “negated” by strangers. This doctrine, a construct of Joseph Smith, was first publicly pronounced at the funeral of Seymour Brunson in Naouvoo in August 1840(2).

This doctrine is supposedly based on I Corinthians 15:29 where it asks “Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them?(3)” Commentary suggests that a word translation is at fault. Taken in context, the word “for” should instead be “concerning”; since baptism does not save us, and if we do not rise again then any baptism is unnecessary(4).

“The Encyclopedia of Mormonism”, a five volume set of books that contains “The History, Scripture, Doctrine, and Procedure of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”, quotes I Peter 4:6 as another source for the belief: “For this reason the gospel was preached also to those who are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit."(5) However that was Jesus Christ in “paradise” during the three days he was “dead” after his crucifixion and prior to his rising again. Jesus is the only person in the Bible mentioned as “preaching to” the dead. I must mention this because nowhere in the Mormon doctrine does it state that the dead shall be offered the gospel message prior to being baptized. In fact, in the Doctrines and Covenants (D&C), 128 inclusive(6), nowhere does it say that the dead should be given the choice of being baptized into the Mormon Church, but instead, they are baptized into the Church under the guise of, Matthew 16:19 and 18:18, “whatsoever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven”(7). In other words, the dead have no say in the matter, which negates Glenn’s whole point of having a free will, a “gut feeling”, the opportunity to choose for ourselves which way to go: even with God. Even though that’s what his whole book is based upon, going with your gut feeling, yet he negates it in the ninth chapter of his book, “Isn’t There Anyone to Hate?” by believing in something that takes away the dead’s right to have chosen what their "gut feeling" told them.

Another problem with the teaching is that the Bible negates this teaching via Ecclesiastes 9:5-6: “For the living know that they will die: But the dead know nothing. And they have no more reward. For the memory of them is forgotten. Also their love, their hatred, and their envy have now perished: Nevermore will they have a share In anything done under the sun.”(8)

The doctrine of “Baptism for the Dead” is negated by Mormonism’s own teachings as well. For instance:

1) In “The Encyclopedia of Mormonism” book two, on page 741 included in the definition of the names of Christ, is the definition of one of His names, the name “Savior”: “Through agony and death suffered for others, Jesus is able to erase imperfections and bestow worthiness, on condition of repentance. Since imperfect beings cannot reside in God’s presence (D&C 1:31), Jesus saves believers from their imperfection, their sins, and their worst selves. [my italics](9)”

2) In the section on “Salvation” in book three of the set, beginning on page 1256, it states, “It is redemption from the bondage of sin and death, through the ATONEMENT OF JESUS CHRIST. [caps in the original](10)”

3) Page 1257 of the third book delineates the steps taken to gain “Salvation” as found in the “gospel of Jesus Christ” these ordinances “must be followed to obtain a fullness of salvation. The first steps are FAITH in the Lord Jesus Christ, REPENTANCE, BAPTISM by immersion for the remission of sins, and the LAYONG ON OF HANDS by one who is in authority for the gift of the HOLY GHOST. Additional ordinances are administered in the TEMPLE. And finally, ‘he only is saved who endureth to the end’ (D&C 53:7) [caps in the original](11)”.

In the book, “Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young”, the section on Salvation starts in this book on page 49. On page 50, Brigham Young talks about free will (“agency” in Mormonism): “ ‘But,’ says the Father, ‘that will not answer at all. I give each and every individual his agency; all must use that in order to gain exaltation in my kingdom; inasmuch as they have the attributes which you see in me are in my children and they must use their agency. If you undertake to save all, you must save them in unrighteousness and corruption’ [see Abraham 3:23-28; Moses 4:1-4] (BDY, 54-54). [my italics]”(12) They must choose for themselves is what Brigham Young is saying, not those who are doing the baptizing for them choosing.

The “gut feeling” that “inner truth” that Glenn talks about throughout the book is negated by his personal religious beliefs, even though those beliefs are at the same time supported by his religious beliefs. Mormonism has people coming and going, but they don’t have their ducks in a row. They negate their own teachings, and see no conflict in it.

Another place Glenn blew it was in location 2273-2296 in which he gives an example of following your “inner truth” by illustrating it with the story of an imaginary investment banker who decides that instead of wanting to be an investment banker, he wants to follow his boyhood dream of being an architect. His wife did not like the idea and would not support him. She wants the investment banker to continue being an investment banker and to give up this dream. Glenn’s advice: “Then, my friend, you may have to leave. If you were to do so, you would have to do it responsibly with as much love for all concerned – including your wife – as humanly possible. But your love for self would have to be served.(13)”

Excuse me?! Leave your wife, your children, your life as you know it so that “your love for self” would “be served”? I think that’s called selfishness by most people, and most people don’t consider it a good thing. The only Biblical reason to leave your spouse is infidelity (adultery; extra-marital sexual relations). I see nothing in the Bible that says anything about leaving your spouse so that you can be selfish. How about the same excuse being used for a twenty-year-old blonde bombshell who makes you feel twenty-three again? Your attraction to her is an “inner truth”. Mustn’t you love your “inner truth”, honor your “gut feeling” that is your attraction to this Little Miss Muffit, also? Glenn says (location 2291-2296), “Are you surprised to hear me say that? Does that sound like violating a covenant? It isn’t."(14) Excuse me?! Did that man and woman not vow – covenant – before GOD and man to be together “until death do us part”? If that is not a covenant – the second covenant ever given (the first between GOD and Adam and Eve) – then what is a covenant? And who gives Glenn Beck the right to advise people that leaving a spouse is an acceptable thing to do if their career goals are changing? How selfish is that?

In Mark 10:2-9 Jesus is questioned by the Pharisees about divorce. When Christ asked them, “What did Moses command you?” they said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce, and to dismiss her.” But Christ replied that it was from the “hardness of your heart” that it was permitted, but that GOD instituted marriage, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, ‘and the two shall become one flesh’: so they can no longer be two but one flesh. Therefore what GOD has joined together let not man separate."(15) Jesus – GOD’s Son – said “No” to divorce.

Glenn’s religion supposedly obeys and follows Jesus (they’ve even got His name in their name), and yet Glenn is spouting new age, temporarily feel good, claptrapisms about “inner truths” and “gut feelings” and a covenant with yourself? After all, according to Glenn, “Covenants are, by their nature, sacred agreements between two or more parties. If you promised to stay married to someone who would love you forever, then realize you are not loved at all by that person, and that there is no reasonable hope that you ever will be, and that the example of your broken relationship is a burden to your children, then you must accept this reality: There is no covenant. There is only your truth. And in the end, the truth always wins.” Beck is totally ignoring the truth that “The way, the truth and the life(16)” (John 14: 6), Jesus Christ, spoke about divorce while spouting claptrap about TRUTH!

Glenn’s assertion that marriage has to be between two people who have promised to love each other “forever”, then no marriage is based on truth. All marriages have difficult times. All marriages have things they go through. It’s those who honor their covenants, their vows made before GOD and man who stay with their spouses and who spend the rest of their lives together because they wish to honor GOD by doing so. That is what the Bible teaches about marriage, not this new age, claptrap about “inner truths”.

Maybe because Beck was once divorced he feels comfortable espousing divorce to others in order to prevent “your spiritual destruction”(17). Maybe it’s something else. But any “religious person” supporting divorce is not a good thing. Your spiritual life does not depend on your spouse supporting or denying your change of career. Your spiritual life depends on what you do with your relationship with Christ. Going through a tough time in your marriage? Spend more time with your Bible and with GOD. Your spouse isn’t the one who decides what your spiritual position with GOD is. It’s your effort, your dedication, your time with GOD that determines whether “your spiritual destruction” is eminent; not your spouse’s approval or disapproval of your career change. If your spouse says, “No. Let’s not do this,” it’s up to you to make the best of things and to honor your commitment to your spouse because that is what GOD says for you to do. He never says that divorce is okay if your spouse disagrees with you. Has your spouse committed adultery? If so, divorce is okay. If not, then stick with it and work it out and your spiritual life will be blessed if you put the effort into your spiritual life and into your marriage that needs to be put toward both.

In location 2652-57, Beck says that, “When your instincts run counter to common wisdom, then doing God’s work requires patience and compassion and courage and one other essential quality that really deserves a book of its own: endurance.(18)” If ignoring the truth of the Bible that Jesus Christ, by whom “No man cometh unto the Father except through [Him]”, or getting a divorce in order to follow your “inner truth” even though Jesus Christ spoke against it, is “doing God’s work”, then Beck must be following a different GOD than the Bible speaks of, and than I follow.

As I said earlier, when it comes to putting the puzzle pieces together regarding politics and the influences of others on political issues, of political ties, of history and learning from it or repeating it, of watching the events around the world and watching the ties that are made prior to things falling apart, Beck has it all over others. Beck is right most of the time there. Would I follow his teachings there? You bet. Would I follow Beck’s teachings on GOD or my personal life? No way.

(NOTE: There was another thing I saw in the book that I wanted to comment on, but I cannot remember it right now. I’ll post that later, I suppose.)

FOOTNOTES:
1) “The 7 Wonders That Will Change Your Life” Glenn Beck and Dr. Keith Ablow, Threshold Editions – Mercury Radio Arts, A Division of Simon & Schuster, Inc., © 2011 Mercury Radio Arts, Inc., Kindle Version. ISBN 978-1-4516-2564-6 (ebook)
2) “The Encyclopedia of Mormonism” Book 1, Edited by Daniel H. Ludlow, pp. 95-97, Macmillan Publishing Company, © 1992 Macmillan Publishing Company, ISBN 0-02-904040-X
3) “The Holy Bible” English Standard Version, Good News Publishers, ©2003 Crossway Bibles, English Standard Version © 2001 Crossway Bibles, Crossway Bibles a division of Good News Publishers, ISBN 1-58134-436-8
4) “The Believer’s Study Bible” Edited by W.A. Criswell, Ph.D., pg. 1644, Thomas Nelson Publishers, © 1991 Criswell Center for Biblical Studies, The Holy Bible New King James Version © 1982 Thomas Nelson, Inc. (No ISBN, No Library of Congress Catalog Number), 606BG
5) Ibid, page 1770
6) “Book of Mormon: Doctrine and Covenants: Pearl of Great Price” Translated by Joseph Smith, Jun., Doctrine and Covenants pp. 231-236, Published 1941 by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, © 1920 Heber J. Grant, Trustee-In-Trust, for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, No Library of Congress Catalog Number, No ISBN
7) “The Believer’s Study Bible” Edited by W.A. Criswell, Ph.D., Thomas Nelson Publishers, © 1991 Criswell Center for Biblical Studies, The Holy Bible New King James Version © 1982 Thomas Nelson, Inc. (No ISBN, No Library of Congress Catalog Number), 606BG
8) Ibid, pg. 902
9) “The Encyclopedia of Mormonism” Book 2, Edited by Daniel H. Ludlow, pg. 741, Macmillan Publishing Company, © 1992 Macmillan Publishing Company, ISBN 0-02-904040-X
10) “The Encyclopedia of Mormonism” Book 3, Edited by Daniel H. Ludlow, “Salvation, pg.1256, Macmillan Publishing Company, © 1992 Macmillan Publishing Company, ISBN 0-02-904040-X
11) Ibid, pp. 1257,
12) “The Teachings of the Presidents: Brigham Young” The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, © 1997 The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, (No ISBN No Library of Congress Catalog Number)
13) “The 7 Wonders That Will Change Your Life” Glenn Beck and Dr. Keith Ablow, Threshold Editions – Mercury Radio Arts, A Division of Simon & Schuster, Inc., © 2011 Mercury Radio Arts, Inc., Kindle Version. ISBN 978-1-4516-2564-6 (ebook)
14) Ibid, location 2291-2296
15) “The Believer’s Study Bible” Edited by W.A. Criswell, Ph.D., pg. 1413, Thomas Nelson Publishers, © 1991 Criswell Center for Biblical Studies, The Holy Bible New King James Version © 1982 Thomas Nelson, Inc. (No ISBN, No Library of Congress Catalog Number), 606BG
16) Ibid, pg. 1521
17) “The 7 Wonders That Will Change Your Life” Glenn Beck and Dr. Keith Ablow, location 2296-2302, Threshold Editions – Mercury Radio Arts, A Division of Simon & Schuster, Inc., © 2011 Mercury Radio Arts, Inc., Kindle Version. ISBN 978-1-4516-2564-6 (ebook)
18) Ibid, location 2652-57

No More Discrimination at Taxpayer Expense!

2011-02-12T22:11:00.003-05:00

I found a .pdf file that led to a website (http://www.brevardcounty.us/csw/) the other day that promoted something that I hate. I hate discrimination at taxpayer expense. No, not that kind of discrimination. The kind that is PC. I hate it so much I wrote to the Brevard County Board of County Commissioners, to Rick Scott, and posted a blurb on my website about it. This is a copy of what Rick Scott received and what is on my website:

"February 11, 2011 I just sent this e-mail to the Brevard County Commissioners. I'm so irritated with this that I can hardly see straight:

"Commissioners,

"I found this astonishing brochure (http://citagibson.com/images/Woman_of_the_Year_Newsletter_April2009.pdf) (in .pdf format) on the internet and I was wondering: DO WE ACTUALLY SPEND TAXPAYER DOLLARS ON THIS CLAPTRAP?!!!! If so, DEFUND it. Save us some money. Let women make their own way if they want to really make it. After all, we are as strong, smart, creative, driven, resourceful and well educated as men. Why should we need TAXPAYER dollars to give us a hand? IF there are ANY TAXPAYER DOLLARS being spent on this stupidity, DEFUND this atrocity immediately. Women do not need a hand out, hand up, hand over, or any other "hand...." besides a handbag. If they do, let them be creative enough to find a way to get the money they need, the RECOGNITION they desire, the CONGRATULATIONS they crave all by themselves. To spend taxpayer dollars on this is UNCONSTITUTIONAL to say the least!"

"I think you should also write to the BOCC and send the same message. We are women; not invalids. Whatever happened to the old Helen Reddy song, "I am woman, hear me roar"? Nowadays, if a woman roars, it's because she needs a handout or special recognition from a special board/panel/commission? I don't think so! If this is feminism, who wants it? Lilly-livered idiots and wimps it makes of women. Whatever happened to that frontier spirit? The spirit of WWII where women hung up their dresses and took off their heels and became welders, machinery operators, "Rosie the Riveter" is now gone. (My Great Aunt was in the Women's Air Corp, flying newly finished airplanes from the factory to the airfields.) Now women have to be coddled and have "special" treatment that men don't get because of what's between their legs? Come on! We are WOMEN! We are stronger than men (Ever see a man with a cold? I rest my case!), we have more stamina than men (they go to bed earlier than we and sleep in later than we on the weekends), and we are more determined than men. To have to have a stupid "Commission on the Status of Women" is patently absurd and ridiculous. Women across America should be outraged."

Gov. Scott, ANY taxpayer dollars being spent on this is Unconstitutional because if it can't benefit ALL taxpayers, you are playing favorites and discriminating against someone due to their gender. I call on you to stop this discrimination and to stop any funding that goes to a specific gender, race, creed, or nationality. If you do not, you are breaking the Constitution you swore to uphold. Defund all discriminatory Commissions, Panels, Boards, etc. or break the law. It's your choice and I'm holding you accountable."

I some of you will agree with me and contact both the BOCC and Gov. Scott and tell them to defund all discriminatory items that taxpayers pay for. It is unconstitutional and it is wrong.

Linda McKinney

Don't Put Your Christianity Away

2011-01-16T00:10:00.004-05:00

Today I started taking down my Christmas decorations (well, besides the live Christmas tree: we took it down already); usually, a two day process. I have a difficult time taking my Christmas decorations down. It’s a sad thing to me. I really don’t enjoy it. I have a lot of Christmas decorations and putting them up takes about three or four days on average. This year, with my health problems, it took longer. We didn’t get everything done that I wanted done this year until Christmas Eve. Now I am taking it all down.

All the decorated garlands, the ceramics I made over the years, the wooden decorations I made years ago, the table decorations, the Santa decorations, the ribbon of vintage to antique ornaments I hang down the hall and back annually: all coming down. It is the saddest day of the year for me.

As I started the process today, for whatever reason, I started remembering the times in my life when people have asked me to put my Christianity away. Those aren’t the words they have actually said, but it’s the same thing.

While I had my own desktop publishing business, I had a client who wanted me to produce and print his resume and to put info into it that was a lie. I refused to do so. He kept trying to cajole me into lying for him, but I refused and resigned. He was shocked, flabbergasted even. He couldn’t believe that I refused to lie for him. He even went so far as to say, "Huh. And you're a Christian." He thought – for whatever reason, after whatever contact he had with other Christians he knew – that I would cave. He thought that because I was a Christian I had to be compliant. I had to be nice and do whatever he wanted me to do because Christians are that way. They’re sweet and goody-two-shoes. They do as anyone wishes. They’re pushovers and they don’t argue with anyone. If someone demands something, that’s what the Christian shall do because God tells them to be nice. They're candy-coated Christians and will melt at the touch of anyone's hand.

The multiple attempts of a local Brit to get me to sit down, shut up and let her do as she wished without opposition because she was attacking my Christianity and Christians are not supposed to put up opposition to anything is another example. Christians are not supposed to state the facts, even though they can be verified and links are given to them. Christians are not supposed to worry about -- or be involved in -- politics. Christians are supposed to stay out of politics because they’re supposed to “render unto Caesar” and all of that. Christianity is not Caesar’s: and politics, well, that’s not God’s (or that’s what they think). So we are supposed to keep out of politics and make that a “no go zone” because it’s not within our purview. When the Brit writes, she writes to attack my Christianity. She tries to make me “stand down” by implying that because I am involved in politics and I am a strong opponent, unafraid to call her on anything she says, I must not be a Christian. Christians are supposed to be compliant and wimpy. I’m too mean to be a Christian.

The latest person to think that “Christian” equals “cave in” and “compliant” was a teenage boy who came around door to door to sell me some magazines I did not need, and even though I have a “No Soliciting” sign on my screen porch door. I talked to him and his female companion for a while, got them something cold to drink (it was a warmer November day) and then said “No” to their sales pitch. I didn’t want to buy any magazines for over-inflated prices, didn’t want to help them get money to start their own business (I need money for my family’s futures, not their future). I wanted them to understand what “No Soliciting” means and if they didn’t (public schooled, I’m sure), then they were going to spend some time here and not get a dime. When I told him “No” he asked how he was supposed to get money for his business. I said, “Work harder”. As they left, he said, “I thought you said you were a Christian.”

So, according to the people I have encountered in my life –- and apparently the Christians they had previously encountered in their lives -- Christians are supposed to be willing to let lies stand; even help a liar. Christians are supposed to be willing to let politician-want-to-bes say and do whatever they want to say and do, but not stand against it. Christians are supposed to be pushovers, spending whatever it takes to help anyone who comes to the door for whatever purpose. Christians are supposed to be sickly sweet and stand for nothing, fall for anything and be willing to do whatever it takes to make people love them. We have no moral code, no commandments from God, no delineation of right and wrong that we live by, according to what these people have apparently seen of other Christians.

I don’t know about those other Christians, those who roll over and want to be liked and will do whatever it takes for someone to have a good opinion of them; let a lie stand, stay out of politics in order to be liked, be unwise with the money God has given us. I only know about myself. I shall never want to be liked by people more than I shall want to be liked by God. That’s what the Christians who roll over are doing; wanting to be liked by humans more than they want to be liked by God. It’s the old “No man can serve two masters” (Matthew 6:24) thing. Christians who wish to be liked by people more than liked by God are trying to serve two masters: God and man. It’s not going to work (read all of Matthew 6:24), because people will not like you after they use you, chew you up and spit you out. God loves you all the time, even when you disobey Him.

“As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord” the Bible states in Joshua 24:15 and that is what I do, I shall do, and what I will never cease doing. When I read the Bible, I see Christ as a strong man, both in spirit and in obedience. Since Jesus Christ is our model of what we should be like, I see no problem in being like Him. (How strong was He to go to the cross although He was sweating drops of blood while asking if He could avoid it, "Yet not my will but thine."? [Luke 22:42]) Standing strong and standing my ground is what I am supposed to do. I am supposed to be “the salt of the earth” (Matthew 5:13) and if I lose my flavor, how shall the earth have any flavor? That’s the thing. How is it supposed to help the earth – the people of the earth – if Christians roll over and cave in just to be “liked” by people? What good will it be to anyone – other people, other Christians, the whole earth – if Christians stop acting like the Christians God intends us to be?

Answer: It won’t do anyone any good. It also won’t please God.

Any time a Christian decides to roll over, to play “Christianity dead” in order to be liked by others, you do God a disservice. You displease Him and you make Him ashamed of you. God expects you to stand tall for Him, to be strong, to focus on pleasing Him, not them. Yet, Christians all over the world roll over and do whatever it takes to be liked by people. Christians play at Christianity, talking the talk, but not walking the walk. They want to be liked, to be well thought of, to be considered “in”, part of “the gang”, one of “them.” It’s not that Christians intend to do so; they just like fitting in. They don’t want to be considered a hard-liner, hard-nosed, “more religious than thou” type. So they fit in. They work at being liked. They do what needs to be done in order to make people like them.

“Huh. And you’re a Christian” is what my ex-client said to me when I wouldn’t agree to allow him to lie to potential employers on the resume I was designing for him. To have people surprised by a Christian who takes a stand and won’t do the wrong thing that the non-Christian wishes to do tells you about the state of Christianity in the world today. A “one of” among Christians: someone telling the truth, taking a stand, not giving money away foolishly. The world apparently has so very little experience with that. Why?

When was the last time you, as a Christian, took a stand and didn’t give in – not to friends, relatives, coworkers, strangers – to their pressure, their requests, their whining? When was the last time you, as a Christian, made it a point to stand strong and not give in, not roll over? When was the last time you, as a Christian, didn’t kowtow to the demands of a non-Christian (or, yes, even a Christian) in order to be liked? If you did so, if you made it a point to do so, today, tomorrow, or this week sometime, would the world end? Would your friend, relative, coworker, the stranger on the street or at your door, hate you forever? What if they did? Would it hurt? What if it does? “I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me” (Philippians 4:13) means that you can handle the pain, the embarrassment, the shunning. You can handle it because He is with you, “The Lord is with me” (Psalm 118:6 & 7, etc.) and He will help you get through it. Besides, when God is pleased with you, who cares if people are unhappy with you? Don’t you think His pleasure is so much better, so much more, than having some person angry, disappointed, upset with you?

Christians need to be strong, adamant, belligerent even in order to please God, the One who has their eternity in hand. Pleasing people and not God – making God angry at you, ashamed of you – is so much easier here on earth, but it isn’t going to bode well for your future. God loves you more than those people who want to compromise your Christianity in order to please them and not have them angry at you. God’s love for you is endless, boundless, tireless, but that doesn’t mean that He cannot be disappointed in you. When you have taken the easy way out and you have made man happy, what does it do to your soul, your relationship with God, your self-respect?

Have you ever noticed that the word “compromise” is not in the Bible? The word doesn’t exist in the Bible because God does not compromise. God says it’s His way or damnation. Compromise is not to be made in order to have man’s pleasure. God’s Word is “the way, the truth and the life” (John 14:6), and I think that the truth is what God wishes. God does not wish Christians to compromise on the truth. God does not want Christians to lose their way. God does not wish Christians to lose their life because they choose not to follow Him.

God loves all of us: everyone ever conceived (even those aborted), God loves. He wants all of us to follow Him, to love Him, to serve Him. The “salt” comes in when we show others that our “salt” flavor is a good flavor. We cannot share that flavor when it is gone because it’s more important to have them happy with our answer, our compromise, our kowtowing. We can no more witness Christ when we do those things than we can tell them about God having a set of rules for people to follow if we compromise on those rules to start with.

I have a family member who was a professing Christian raised by Christian parents in a small town. Upon graduation this family member moved out of her parents’ house and moved in with a male without being married to him. On that day, she lost her Christian witness within that town. Whether the relationship was completely platonic or not, her Christian witness was totally worthless in that town, amongst those who knew her, among those who knew of her. The assumption was that sexual relations were happening, whether they were happening or not. After that, she lived with at least two other guys without the benefit of wedlock (although she married the last one). Christians do not do that sort of thing. That’s not something God would condone. Therefore, her Christian witness was worth as much as a wooden half-penny and she could no longer tell someone that being a Christian meant turning away from sin and toward God. No one would believe her while she was in that town and everyone knew of her lifestyle.

That’s what happens when Christians compromise on what God tells us to do, to be, to say. We are not supposed to help someone lie (nor lie ourselves) to be accepted, kowtow in order to be liked, nor waste our money in order to please someone. We are supposed to be like Christ, all aspects of Christ (driving out the money-changers to telling his own disciples that they shall not be great in heaven unless they are least [Mark 10:41-45]), not just the “sweet” part of Him.

Yes, He did forgive sins, heal the sick, raise the dead and prevent a woman being stoned. However, as we all know, He was strong, determined, obedient, acted upon His convictions (as does His Father) and He never, ever compromised. As Christians, if we are truly following Him, we should be willing and able to do the same.

As for me, I shall never compromise. I shall never put my Christianity away from me: not to be liked by someone, to fit in, to make life easier for someone else. I refuse to put my Christianity into a box, put it away and hide it from others so that their lives will be a little more comfortable. I won’t allow them to make me change my standards and accept theirs when theirs are lower than my own. My standards are those God has convicted me to set and I refuse to lower them for anyone. For a client, politician-want-to-be, or kid trying to get money out of me to expect me to change my standards (my principles) to make their lives easier is like expecting to see Hitler in heaven. It’s not going to happen.

How about you? As a Christian are you willing to compromise with man in order to be liked by him, accepted, to please them, even if they are family, friend, or coworker? Or is Christ your standard and you live to please Him? When was the last time you put your Christianity away as you do your Christmas decorations? I sincerely hope the answer is, "Never!"

Happy New Year!

2011-01-01T03:34:00.004-05:00

Just a note to say, "Happy New Year!" My wish for you this year is a very CONSERVATIVE New Year; the resignations of pelsoi, reid, rangle and obamination; a CONSERVATIVE Tea Party House and Senate and a bright, constant smile on your face because CONSERVATISM is best for America!

God bless you and yours this New Year and good health to you!

Merry Christmas

2010-12-25T01:05:00.003-05:00

Merry Christmas to you and yours,
and may true joy fill the hours...

And when the season 'tis full past,
and all the eggnog is gone at last,
and sugary sweet, cookies, cakes,
have gone and all their vengeance take,
may your New Year's Resolutions hold,
and make of resolutions truth you told.

Merry Christmas to you and yours,
and may true joy fill the hours...

Of family time and memories
to be recalled, and "jollily"
renew your laughter and lend a smile,
tying hearts together all the while,
as time flies by and leaves a sigh,
of contented thoughts of times gone by.

Merry Christmas to you and yours,
and may true joy fill the hours.

© 2010 Linda McKinney All Rights Reserved

E Pluribus Unum

2010-12-06T01:26:00.004-05:00

"E Pluribus Unum"
And so on they say,
"Out of many, one"
And believe what you may
It won’t be one from many,
It’s not built that way
Its shape changed years ago
When power corrupted, blinded, swayed.

"E Pluribus Unum"
The intent of the Fathers
No longer a factor,
Considered but not obeyed.
Discarded by those who wished,
Planned to take what they may.
And "Unum" no longer existed:
Dreams from the Fathers dismayed.

"E Pluribus" turned away
From what the Founders did say.
"Unum" lost, pulled apart, torn,
Ripped from the future as well as the past,
"Unum" trampled upon by those
Who rewrite history,
Destroy the future for their want:
Power is their drug.
And addiction rules those who have it too long;
Gathering possessions, influence,
In hope to belong,
They betray grandchildren’s hopes, rights --
Prosperity stumbles -- and grandma was in power.

"E Pluribus" and "Unum" no longer talk.
Freedom for "Pluribus" just a word,
"Unum" took it all away,
Ground it into dust, soft, silky powder,
Light, floating, blowing:
Disappeared in the wind of "Unum’s" rule.
"E Pluribus Unum" escapes the lips of rulers
(As they laugh behind their eyes) and speak
Of what they will do to help all,
Favoring only their voters, helpers,
Friends, supporters, and lie to "Pluribus" again.

"E Pluribus Unum" had its blood spilled
Long ago, slow trickle at first, then
Over the wooden benches of the House
And Senate, pumped steadily onto the sidewalk,
Down the pavement, Congress’s twinkling eyes,
Laughing, as they wrote more laws,
Favored more their own,
Making "Unum" of themselves;
The rest to be the servants of the one.
Fiefdom, serfdom, servitude:
Citizens shall obey.
Or face the wrath
Of government’s path
And of "E Pluribus Unum"
Our lives shall go the same way.

"Ashes to ashes, dust to dust"
"E Pluribus Unum" has gone that way.
Forever our future determined by "Unum" --
Until, sackcloth wrapped, "E Pluribus" discovers
Its voice again and stands against "Unum’s" full sway.

Consider the future and look to the past
For all things depend upon this:
Independence was won, not just with muskets --
‘Twas words first shot that fired --
When – if ever – our story shall change
And "E Pluribus Unum" takes long lost breath,
No blood need be let,
Nor bodies to bury,
But "wounds" shall be plenty;
And words start the story
Of "E Pluribus Unum’s" return!

© 2010 Linda McKinney All Rights Reserved

My Theory: All “Atheists” Believe in God

2010-11-27T12:29:00.006-05:00

Could all “atheists” actually believe in God? Could it be that all their posturing, lawsuits, speeches, science, press releases and Madalyn Murray O’Hairs really belie their true beliefs? Startling to think that this could be true, but consider the evidence.

First: their chosen designation: “atheist”. The term atheism originated from the Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning "without god". The “a” from the Greek meaning "without" or "not", and “theos” from God. So, an “a-theist” would be someone who is “not” God or “without” God (that “not” part is a given). If there is no God, then why include the idea of him in their name? Why not just say “pagan” (heathen: a person who does not acknowledge your god), why include the idea of a god within the label of someone who does not believe in nor accept gods? That’s like saying “I am anti-baseball, but my name is Baseball.”

Second: If they don’t believe in God, why do they spend so much effort, time, money and breath denying His existence? After all, you don’t see them fighting the idea of the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, or the existence of leprechauns, do you? They don’t believe in those entities so they don’t fight the idea of their existence. However, with God, they spend millions of dollars on lawsuits, thousands of man hours, print reams of paper in books and pamphlets, post hundreds of thousands of atheism pages on the internet, and put in appearances on television and radio shows in order to deny the existence of someone they don’t believe in. If they don’t believe in Him, why the effort? Why spend so much money on Him? The more they protest the more they show how much they are worried about Him and the more they prove their belief. Why not ignore the issue as they do with the existence of Sasquatch or Tinkerbell if they do not believe?

Third: If atheists believe in medicine and science (and only medicine and science) why do they not consider that belief in God? After all, they prove His existence, do they not? Consider that medical science is always making discoveries on how things work with our bodies, and how miraculous they really are, and that is a sign of God. Evolution goes simplest to most complex, and tries not to get complex. With our bodies, we can see evidence of God in how they work, what makes them tick and in the ways that – miraculously – we are healed. Medicine cannot account for the kinds of miracles seen in the human body’s recovery, spontaneous remission of diseases, or in other things that human bodies do. They can neither explain them, nor deny them. God in action in the atheist’s belief in medicine.

Fourth: Science – besides medical science -- is constantly making new discoveries, finding the answers to new questions. Quantum physics (as did other fields of study) led to new laws that science’s observation, testing and deducing proved to be there. Did their discovery make those rules’ existence come about? No. Their discovery – their finding – simply proved that they already existed. Somehow, those rules of quantum physics, chaos theory, and fluid dynamics already existed before they were found by scientists. Those rules didn’t just pop into existence out of nothing. Did they “evolve” or were they pre-programmed by an intelligent designer who knew how things work?

Atheists believe that science will disprove God and they believe in science, yet all of science’s work (whether they admit it or not) proves the existence of God. To wit: If the universe, solar system, life, "evolved", then what happened to make it "evolve"? Wouldn’t there be some sort of need for evolution, according to the atheistic ideal of Darwin’s theory of evolution? Survival of the fittest would not suffice in an universe of nothingness, void and without form. What would be the catalyst for evolution? If the universe developed purely out of randomness and these rules were not in play before the process started, then what put the rules into place? Was it the randomness that suddenly found order and the rules followed out of already existing order from randomness? Can that happen that without the rules in place the rules develop themselves? Fact is that chaos (randomness) can develop into some semblance of order, but the rules were there first to make it so, just as scientists finding those rules made the rules already there, and not the discovery of those rules birth the rules’ existence. Therefore, science has proven the rules – rules that make scientific and mathematical sense – were in existence prior to the formation of the universe. Therefore, intelligent design (it must be intelligent design for the rules to make sense) is responsible for the rules and thus, God existed prior to the universe’s existence.

Some of you would argue that last sentence, I know. But watch the videos here and and continued here and tell me that the rules were not there prior to scientific discovery. Science didn’t write the rules. Man didn’t come up with them and enforce them. If they weren’t done by man they had to have been done by God.

"But, wait!" some cry. "Nature could have done it itself!" The belief that there is no God demands the belief that nature had to have made all of the rules itself, but how did that come about? How did nature’s pre-universe (as we know it), pre-earth (as historically represented via Pangaea, etc.) pre-evolution (into humans) decide to write its own rules? Random atoms floating somewhere in darkness and tumult, banging into each other, floating without rules and without purpose, evolved order without outside interference? Random atoms chose of their own free will to cooperate, to lump together, to go in a certain direction at the same time, to change their physical and chemical characteristics and become something that – by chance and by random association – would become a universe, solar system, planet that would not only develop all of this out of nothingness, but also be capable of sustaining life as we know it? It not only sustains life, but it creates life out of non-life: a breathless (in any way, shape or form), non-eating, form without a heartbeat of any sort, without any sign of life whatsoever was created by this randomness and became suddenly alive. Alive in the sense of the scientific sense of the word: Life: (noun) "the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally." In the atheists’ world, randomness evolved into life, without interference of an intelligent being.

Fifth: Not only that, but all this randomness evolved into homo sapiens, humans as we know them. Just as Darwin described, atheists believe it to have been. Darwinism defies belief in God because we were not created, we evolved. Apes and protozoa and all of that; we came from nothing and to nothing we return. That’s all there is to it. Therefore there can be no God because there is no creation. That sort of thinking proves nothing. Saying that the existence of “X” always disproves the existence of “Y” is erroneous: they could co-exist, could they not? I do not believe in evolution as Darwin set it forth and others expounded upon. There are way too many problems with it and there is within the scientific community still disagreement on it. (Read more on that at Evolution Guy.) That being said, if any sort of evolution did occur, who is to say that God did not make that happen as well? The atheist’s insistence that God is not real because Darwin is, may just as well prove that God exists because things are happening in an orderly, intelligently designed fashion. Therefore, Darwin’s Theory – or a modified version thereof – may very well be a confirmation of God’s design and of His creative hand in the “evolution” of man. Atheists believe in God in that way, too.

Considering all of this, no matter which way you slice it, it seems to me that atheists are not atheists, but theists in disguise. They may profess that they do not believe in the God of the Bible, or the God of Islam, or in any particular god, but everything they profess faith in either proves the God of the Bible or at the very least does not disprove Him. Their own actions – which speak louder than their words – prove they are afraid of and don’t want God to exist. If I am correct and there is a God that we must answer to, then atheists have a lot to answer for as do Christians. The question is: Theists all, or just afraid of God?

© 2010 Linda McKinney All Rights Reserved

Delta 4 Heavy

2010-11-22T22:02:00.004-05:00

© 2010 Linda McKinney All Rights Reserved

My husband has been in the rocket launch business for years. He has launched almost everything that goes into outer space and he's got hands-on experience as a member of the last all "Blue Suit" launch team. "Blue Suit" meaning all U.S. Air Force. He has launched Thors, Atlases, Deltas, etc., mated a few satellites into the Space Shuttle; basically, done it all. This particular rocket he was a back-up guy for Danny. A little technical problem prevented it from launching on Friday evening, but they got that straightened out.

© 2010 Linda McKinney All Rights Reserved

For the first time, we left our backyard and went to watch the launch within six or seven miles (as the crow flies) of the actual launch pad. We were there for the first try on Friday, but to no avail. We went back on Sunday and watched as it lit up, and took a slow crawl into the sky. It went up without a hitch (as far as I know), but not quietly. The sound made some of us whoop and it just rumbled. It rumbles at our house, too, but not like this. As we watched it go up I hoped things worked properly, because I have seen enough not make it to know that it would not be a good thing if something happened.

© 2010 Linda McKinney All Rights Reserved

Nothing matches the feel of watching something that big and lumbering go into the sky. It makes one proud of being American to see that thing go up, to know that we made that happen. We have the technology to do such a thing, to make the satellites that fly on these lumbering behemoths, and the ability to do what few others can. My husband is part of that team. America's in safe hands.

Environmentalism: Establishing a Hereditary Theocracy

2010-10-31T01:14:00.003-04:00

Environmentalists worldwide believe that the earth is either “warming” or “cooling”. Depending, of course, upon to whom you are speaking, you may hear either answer. They also believe that man – specifically Americans – are having drastically deleterious effects on the earth’s environment and that we are responsible for some “really bad” stuff that’s either happened, happening, or shall definitely happen in the future. It’s all our fault, especially America’s, and the responsibility falls directly at our feet when it comes to making the earth so polluted, hurting and dangerous. It’s not the earth’s fault. It’s us. We are the demons. We are to blame.

Not only do they believe this, but they are teaching their offspring to believe the same thing as well. It’s Mommy and Daddy teaching Junior and Sally that if they do “X” that it’s bad for the planet. A deep guilt complex lays on the children’s breasts as they exhale and as they poop and pee; adding bad things to the atmosphere, the water, the earth. It’s wrong to throw things away, to drive an SUV or anything other than a little scooter car that has as much power as a roller skate. Deep sighs of regret break through as they fly over to Europe on their sixth European vacation in as many years; but it is not all guilt and regret. They shall be heading to Ethiopia after their European spa vacation to help feed the hungry, dig a new ditch for them to get dirty water to the village instead of the villagers walking six miles a day and to feel better about their travel because – after all – it is helping people. That makes it all okay.

Never mind that the children are exposed to disease, exposed to dangerous ideas that, if implemented at home, will endanger the welfare of their own children and grandchildren as well as the rest of the country. Never mind that even though they are “helping” people, there are organizations that are already there that – if given the proper support of the corrupt government the environmentalists support – would be able to solve the problems in that country with their own efforts without outside “help”. Never mind that – twenty-five years from now, the children of the environmentalists will be doing the same work, with the same groups, but with more power if we do not stand up to their parents now.

Fact of the matter is that environmentalists are building a power structure based upon their singular belief that the environment is part of their “god” and part of their god must be served, protected, obeyed and worshipped. If we do not do thus, we shall forever be screwed. The earth will fight back and we shall all perish because “we did it to ourselves.” That belief – as parents are wont to do – is passed on to their children, as is the parents’ positions in a lot of the organizations that support the environmentalists’ ideas. Junior becomes Chairman of the Board of “The Natural Conservatory Organization” after Dad has passed on. It means continuity of the pattern, continuity of the leadership ideal, continuity of the vision: Junior is more trustworthy than the VP because Junior has the same genes, was brought up with it, has it not just in his teaching, but in his blood. A birthright has been established and it shall not be denied.

I say “theocracy” because it’s a belief system that is based purely upon faith and the ideal that the environment is “god”. Faith that there is “global warming” or “global cooling”; man can have a lasting impact on the environment; that if we tried, we could equal God’s creation as to how destructive we can be, how much damage we can do to the earth (as compared to how much damage the earth can do to us), etc. Faith has it that the Exxon Valdez has so damaged the planet that it will never be the same (is that always such a bad thing?) and that if we don’t change now, we will never have the chance to make things right. Faith has it that it was our pollution that made the deserts bigger, hotter and more arid. Faith has it that man has to be responsible for every bad thing the earth has experienced since its creation. That’s true faith to think all of that. Faith takes things that one cannot see, cannot prove, cannot show physical evidence of and says it is true anyways. Such is environmentalism therefore a “theocracy” is established.

What harm can this “Hereditary Theocracy” of environmentalism do? If we do not resist environmentalism now, we can kiss our children’s futures goodbye. If we do not fight environmentalist teachings, laws (incandescent light bulbs are going away after 2011), school systems to indoctrinate our children, then we sign our own warrants.

Not only will there be more laws establishing “the environment” as the first and foremost consideration for everything, but it will also mean that we will be limited as to what types of jobs we can have, what types of appliances we can have, what building materials we can use for our personal property (homes and office buildings; sheds even), what kinds of cars we will drive, the fuel we put into them, the airplanes we can ride on and what types of fuel they can use, perhaps how often we can fly without special permission, or tracking our mileage as we use our personal vehicles and company cars. Those who are not “environmental wackos” will be made to kowtow to those who are because those who have been taught the mantra, the faith, will be those who have the power. That power will come via having more influence in D.C., having friends in the business, knowing the right folks to contact about “X”.

This will enable the noose that used to fit loosely around the necks of the American people to be slowly, steadily tightened and before they know it, Americans everywhere will be using a set number of electricity watts per day as prescribed by the federal government under the EPA, after studies done by the environmental group, “Citizens United for Environmental Freedom” (or some such nonsense) find that “it’s the only sustainable way.”

Junior’s legacy will be a single child’s adoption from a foreign country with too many live births per capita (deemed unsustainable via the U.N.) and that child’s parents were lucky to get rid of the child prior to their being punished severely with food rations cut in half because they had a pregnancy that was not approved beforehand. Junior’s single child will have the inherited position within the environmental groups that his adoptive daddy has prepared him to inherit. All those policies Junior discussed implementing, the child – heir – will now put into effect because it will honor his adoptive father. It’s like Obama trying to make sure his daddy’s hatred of America and England, those dreams of destruction, come true; with Junior’s child trying to please daddy just as Obama is trying. This shall be seen in the environmental circles as a laudable thing; while to the nonbelievers, it shall just be more pain, less freedom and fewer constitutional rights for us and our progeny.

As the environmentalists get more power, as their heirs get more power, we lose more of our freedoms, more of our choices, more of our futures and of our children’s futures. Yet, that is what the environmentalists wish: power at all costs, even freedom’s. Your future, your beliefs matter not, nor does your desire to “live long and prosper” in America. If you do that, you may drop a piece of paper down a drainage pipe and that piece of paper is going to end us all. Freedom’s loss will be the environmentalist’s gain; as seen with legislated washing machines, toilets, light bulbs and gas millage.

If environmentalists are not stopped here and now, and our freedom restored, then when and where will they be? What will it take to make sure that your children or grandchildren have as much freedom as you and I? Or will it happen that they go all the way and our children’s children shall be paying the price for our desire to ignore it, to get along, to not make waves? If so, what shall their futures look like besides so very limited?

Environmentalism screams that we are the cause of all bad things. Environmentalism has faith that we are harming the earth with our deeds. Theocratic beliefs or not, environmentalists have no right – constitutional or otherwise – to impose upon the rest of us their beliefs. Legislating environmentalism is just as wrong as legislating that the Baptist Church become the “official religion” of America. Yet, with environmentalism, because there is no god specified (although everyone knows what is being worshipped), it is hunky-dory with those who would scream bloody murder otherwise. As long as it’s not the God of the Christian Bible, than any other god is okay; environmental earth worship included. Without due diligence on our part, their children will have power to place limits over our children and thereby doom our children to be less than what they could be, to do less than what they could have done, to be less of who they could have been. Environmentalism needs to be stopped now, sanity and common sense smacked into the people who have been brainwashed into it, and a return to the Founding Father’s principles of freedom restored. Otherwise, the hereditary theocracy will rule and our children’s children are doomed.

An Open Letter to Elected Conservatives

2010-10-27T10:23:00.001-04:00

If Conservatives win the House and Senate this November 2nd – especially if they have a veto-proof majority – I have a list of things you need to do in order to be deemed to be worthy of the office. Others may or may not agree with my list, but these are the things I think you should make a priority in order to make your election – our hope and trust in you -- worthwhile.

1) De-fund every position that was created by the health care reform bill and revoke it immediately. This will ensure that the taxpayers’ money is not spent on administration of the bill that should have never passed because the vast majority of us did not want it anyways. Progressives love to talk about the “democracy” (i.e., majority rule) that they think is the law of the land, but when it comes to governing against the majority of the people with health care reform, they didn’t listen to the majority of the people. Remove the funding for every position created in this bill: every secretary, administrator, every computer person, every janitor.

2) De-fund every czar position that Obama has created. No more money should be given to people who have unconstitutional powers to create rules and regulations over us that we – without constitutional authority – have to obey. No internet czar, no food czar, no health care czar should receive a dime of taxpayer dollars after you are sworn in.

3) De-fund every bailout scheme. Any time the taxpayers of America are saddled with another bailout scheme – caulking windows to banks and car manufacturers – the taxpayer has no say in it and they are strapped with the debt that comes from it. Just stop that nonsense now. De-fund every scheme that the taxpayers are being made to pay. No more government involvement in business bailouts!

4) Do serious and complete investigations of the voter fraud that has happened during these 2010 elections as well as the 2008 elections – including this administration’s (and Eric Holder’s) decisions regarding the New Black Panther Party and their voter intimidation. Investigate every incident in Texas, Florida, Arizona, everywhere and anywhere in America there was voter fraud reported and make sure that there is someone held accountable. The American people no longer want their votes to be stolen from them, defrauded from them, their voices to be negated and silenced because – according to our Founding Fathers and the U.S. Constitution – we have the right to be heard. Those committing fraud have the right to go to jail! If George Soros is involved, the SEIU is involved, the ACORN people involved, throw them in jail! If Barney Frank is involved, Chris Dodd involved, Andy Stern or Obama himself involved, throw them in jail!

5) Revoke the incandescent light bulb law. We should be able to choose which kind of light bulb we have and the same goes for vehicles, washing machines, toilets, etc.! Get out of our wallets and out of our personal choices.

6) Remove Eric Holder as the U.S. Attorney General and stop all lawsuits of America vs. any U.S. state due to immigration laws. The States have the right to make their own laws. That’s set forth in the U.S. Constitution’s Article IV. The States have the right to make their own laws, to enforce those laws and to protect their residents – the U.S. Citizens – from anyone who will do them harm.

7) Make a law allowing America to find, drill for and refine its own natural resource oil, and any other natural resources that will enable America to build businesses here, make jobs here, be independent of other countries for our own resources and to be able to thumb our noses at OPEC nations, at Hugo Chavez, or anyone else who thinks that America should be kept dependent upon their country or company in order to have the resources we need to be able to function as a free and independent country.

8) Start impeachment proceedings against Barack Hussein Obama. He has broken his Oath of Office to “uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution” – not just once, but many, many times over with his socialist actions. Socialism is not part of the U.S. Constitution, yet Obama has made it his goal – nay, his life’s work – to destroy America and to tear down the very fabric of our lives and make America into a thing unrecognizable as a land of freedom and (dare I say it?) hope; a land where other aspire to come in order to live as only the freedom that America used to promise would allow. That dream, under Obama, has quickly become a distant memory and a whispered about “remember when”. That is not what he swore to do on his Inauguration Day. He swore – in front of the American people and the world – to uphold and defend America: America’s history, her freedoms, her promise, her goals as set forth by the Founding Father’s when he swore to “uphold and defend” our U.S. Constitution. He has not done that. He has done everything in his power – and some things that technically were NOT in his power – to remove America from its vaunted place in the world’s lexicon and to make America into a socialist third world power that is nothing like what we were set up to be. America used to be considered the best nation on earth and in less than two short years, Obama has changed that to America being considered the eighth freest country on earth. That’s not just wrong, that’s evil.

So, that’s my list so far. IF the new, Conservatives coming into public office will do these things, America’s freedoms will be restored, the faith of the American people will be renewed and your elections will be justified. You will have deserved being elected.

If, however, you go along and get along and do nothing of these eight suggestions, I see no reason to have elected you instead of any Obama kiss-ahem flunkie.

Do the right thing, Conservatives. Do the right thing and return freedom to America, return the purpose of America to the ideals of the Founding Fathers. Remember liberty and restore it.

Health Care Scam?

2010-10-07T01:35:00.005-04:00

Received a scanned image from a friend September 25, 2010. That image made me go webcrawling because it made me go, "Hmmm... That's not right." The image is of the letter my friend received from the
Research Triangle Institute and, to me, it's very questionable.

Why is it "very questionable"? First: Why on earth does the U.S. Government have to hire outside help to perform a U.S. Public Health Services survey? That's the header on the page; it's the U.S.P.H.S. letterhead. Why use an outside source to do this? After all, they have the resources and they have employees, or they could hire people to do the work without getting a third person involved. Why hire someone else to do this? And, why at this time (more on that later)?

Second: If you read the letter, they say that the people being interviewed are going to -- if qualified to participate in the actual survey (more on that later) -- receive thirty dollars each. There could be multiple people in the same household "chosen to participate", thus there could be almost one hundred dollars in the household given to people to answer questions regarding "health-related issues". So over 6 million taxpayer dollars are given to RTI to go house to house and ask "health-related issues" questions. Will you really be answering "health-related issues" questions, or will they be more related to something else?

Third: RTI states,
"Our activities both mirror and support national priorities and policies as well as diverse commercial, industrial, and academic endeavors." If they "both mirror and support" why choose them to give $6 million dollars walking around money to, when the administration could have and should have chosen an organization that is neutral. (BTW, was this contract put out to bid and if so, how many people/companies bid on this contract? What were the other bids? Who owns those other companies? What are the other companies' affiations [Soros?]?) Why choose an organization whose stated goals are "to mirror and support"? Why not choose a neutral organization unless there's a specific purpose to send the surveyors out to accomplish?

Fourth: Why the initial questions before you are "qualified" to participate? Are they looking for someone specific to give the money to? Someone, perhaps, who may be swayed by a little extra cash before they decide to vote for or against a certain person or idea? Why not just question everyone about their "health-related issues"? After all, we all have at least one thing to be thinking about, don't we? If we are healthy, we want to stay that way. If we are sick, we want to get treatment. If we are pregnant, we want a healthy baby and a good pregnancy and easy delivery. We all have "health-related issues" so why do they need to pre-screen the participants who will receive the thirty dollars? Is there another reason to do so?

Fifth: This survey is being conducted just prior to a mid-term election in which many of those who voted for shoving "health care reform" down our throats will be up for reelection. Where will these surveys be taking place: in whose districts? Will it be nationwide, no matter what? Or will it be only in those districts whose Senators/Congresspeople are facing defeat after voting in favor of "health care reform"? Isn't "healt care reform" a "health-related issue"? How many of those chosen to participate and receive that $30 will be those who will vote for the candidate up for reelection after they get that money? Congresswoman Suzanne Kosmas, is having a difficult time due to her support and vote in favor of "health care reform". Is it coincidence that the surveys are being conducted here?

Sixth: How accountable are the people walking around with this money going to be to the taxpayers? Will they be keeping copious records? Will they be getting identification, Social Security numbers, drivers' license numbers, or any other type of record-enabling thing? What is the surveyor's responsibility to the taxpayer since they already have the money? Or will it be something that they can go spend the money however they wish once they get out into the neighborhood and there will be no accounting?

Seventh: Will they be bonded, licensed, insured? Will they be vetted prior to them being given identification and told to enter people's homes under the auspices of the federal government program they are working for? Or will it be similar to the U.S. Census in which several Census workers were found to be sex offenders after they had been employed by the Census? Or will they be more careful this time?
Will you be safe? Will your children be safe?

Eighth: Why do people need to be cleared to answer questions? Is there a set of particular people they are trying to question: i.e., is the survey being weighted? For instance: If they are trying to get people who were not going to vote for Kosmas to participate in the survey and they ask questions like, "Congresswoman Suzanne Kosmas voted for the health care reform act. Does this tend to make you want to vote for Kosmas or against Kosmas?" Remember, it is a "health-related issues" survey. That question is related to health-related issues. After all, if it weren't for the people who voted for shoving the "Health Care Enslavement Act of 2010" we wouldn't have had that change and we wouldn't be facing the future difficulties we now are.

Ninth: If this information is being collected for "only for statistical purposes" why do the people need to be paid? And why screen people with initial questions? Why not ask the people in the household the questions, no matter their possible answers to the initial questions? Obviously, they are looking for a specific answer, a specific group of people, a specific result. So what result are they looking for? What statistic are they trying to secure: support for the "health care reform" supidity, or support for the candidate who supported it?

Tenth: Is this another "jobs" scam, similar to the
U.S. Census jobs? Remember how the U.S. Census kept getting busted for hiring people, having them work slowly for a few days, firing them, then re-hiring them for another portion of the U.S. Census? Remember that ridiculousness that made the summer jobs numbers supposedly better? Remember how all of that worked out? How about this stuff? Will all those RTI "surveyors" be part of the federal jobs program? And, if so, how about those people who take the survey and receive government money for participating? Will this administration be counting the survey takers as "government employees" also? What will that do to jobs numbers?

Eleventh: What benefits will the government get -- or does someone else benefit -- from this information? Find out the questions these RTI employees are going to be asking: both the initial questions and the survey questions. That will tell you the truth about what this survey is going to be doing for the "statistical purposes" of this administration. What will it benefit the government: or who within the government will it benefit? If it's benefiting the government, shouldn't we also get some benefit? After all, it is your six million dollars that is being spent, shouldn't you get some benefit of some sort?

Twelth: If RTI's stated goals and purposes are to "both mirror and support national priorities and policies", and it's going to be for "statistical purposes" that this survey is done, why bother spending six million dollars on a survey to be done by a company that already "mirrors and supports" the administration anyways? Does this make sense to you? Isn't that a bit like paying for an outcome that is already predetermined? Why pay six million dollars for something that is going to get the expected results anyways? Does this make any sense to you? Or is this being done for other purposes? After all, we already have the government agency upon whose letterhead this letter is written. Why hire an outside agency and pay give them six million dollars of walking around money, not to mention paying the employees to do this survey, and the contract amount? Why?

Which leads me to the last question:

Thirteenth: Is this Obama sending taxpayer dollars to his friends via another shady deal? Take a look at who RTI is. See any connections with this administration? How about
the fact that they lobby in favor of the health care issue? (Be sure to check out all of the tabs there, especially the "Issues" and the information on the group's lobbyists and revolving door info.) Or maybe you should consider
Erskine Bowles, President of the University fo North Carolina, which is part of RTI. Remember him?
He's part of the Obama appointed "Debt Commission". Nah. Nothing to see there. Then consider this RTI brochure that includes the line: "Education Reform Support, Soros Foundation/Bulgarian Ministry of Education (1998–2000)". Soros? As in George Soros? Is Obama paying back Soros with millions of your taxpayer dollars for the support Soros gave Obama in getting elected? Just asking, folks. Just asking. One more to look at would be
page five of
this RTI brochure. It has Soros in the brochure, too, as well as an organization called "USAID". There were 1,610 Google® search results for "Research Triangle Institute USAID Soros". RTI is the organization whose employees (vetted employees?) will be entering your house to ask you "health-related issues" questions.
USAID is a U.S. government aid organization that spends billions of your taxpayer dollars worldwide to help other nations. RTI is connected to USAID, to George Soros and has a history -- according to their own website -- of "mirror[ing] and support[ing}" the Obama administration. How much of your taxpayer dollars should be spent on a frivolous survey that an existing organization could conduct instead of giving Obama's supporters over six million dollars of your money to do the job?

I got the letter from a longtime friend who legitimately received it in the mail. He wasn't expecting to receive this letter, but he was not surprised to see that this administration was doing something so blatantly wrong. Thanks to my friend, I sent this information to Glenn Beck. I am also making sure Michelle Bachman and others know about it. I hope that they -- and that you -- will ask hard questions of the Obama administration and demand some real answers. Remember, it's your money. It's your right to ask questions about it and it's your right to demand that the government answer those questions. Contact the USPHS (they're the ones whose letterhead the letter is on) and
ask the USPHS why this survey, why now, and why RTI? Ask them under the the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Demand answers. It's your right to know.

Then, when you've asked the USPHS,
ask Obama, too. Use the FOIA to your advantage and get answers. Don't accept, "It's just a survey" as an answer. Find the TRUTH!

Obama's Religion: You Will Know Him By His Fruit

2010-09-17T02:49:00.005-04:00

The question has recently arisen, "Is Obama a Muslim?" It's a fair and valid question. Knowing someone's religious beliefs -- true religious beliefs -- tells you something about that person.

In Matthew 7:16 we see these words, "You shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?" We see it elsewhere in the Bible as, "As the old saying goes, 'From evildoers come evil deeds,' so my hand will not touch you." (1 Samuel 24:13), or "My brothers, can a fig tree bear olives, or a grapevine bear figs? Neither can a salt spring produce fresh water." (James 3:12), and, "Even a child is known by his actions, by whether his conduct is pure and right." (Proverbs 20:11).

Say, for instance, your brother just announced he has recently become a Catholic. You believe he is sincere in his statement because he has been honest with you in every instance of conversation and written communication previously, so you believe his conversion to Catholicism to be genuine. You now know that he has accepted as important and -- hopefully -- factual, the teachings of the Catholic Church. That tells you that he will now be doing some predictable things: using a rosary, praying certain prayers, going to certain church services, eating certain things (or not eating them), etc. You know that he is now going to be crossing himself, wearing a Crucifix instead of an empty cross; he'll be praying to Saints and Martyrs instead of just God via Jesus Christ. You know what to expect. You're familiar with the signs and "symptoms" of being a Catholic. If your brother does not do those things, then you can seriously doubt his conversion statement as being legitimate and sincere.

Same holds true of Obama being a Christian. Obama says he is a Christian. Therefore, according to the Bible, we should see certain things from him as far as his actions and words are concerned. We should see him going to a church that teaches and preaches the Bible as the loving word of God. Instead, he spent twenty years as a member and regular attendee of the "Rev." Jeremiah Wright's, "Not God Bless America, but God d**n America!" and "America's chickens are coming home to roost!" Sitting under tutelage like that for twenty years, having the "Rev." Wright perform your marriage ceremony and baptise your daughters: Christian fruit, or hatred?

Considering that he has left Chicago and is now in the Red House (used to be the White House until a Marxist/Communist occupied it), his church going has changed. He no longer regularly attends any church. In fact, in his first year in office, he attended church only three times. So church attendance is not something that labels him a Christian. Of course, there is no truth to the fact that everyone who attends church is a Christian, nor that anyone who does not attend church is not a Christian. So with that, I will cut him some leeway. However, I must make two observations on the story linked above. 1) We are told that Obama "prays every day." So do Muslims, some Atheists, Druids, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. "[P]ray[ing] every day" proves nothing toward or against Christianity. 2) Obama supposedly gets his daily Christian lessons on his Blackberry (instead of from his Bible, but okay), but that does not mean that he reads them. Ever hear him spontaneously and accurately quote an appropriate Bible verse? Spontaneously, now, not in a scripted speech? No? Nor have I.

Let's look at some other indicators. In Malachi 3:10 we see that we are supposed to bring our tithes "into the storehouse" in obedience to God to further His kingdom. Leviticus 27:30 says for us to tithe of "everything from the land" and we are taught that one tenth of every bit of our income is supposed to go to God -- before deductions and "adjusted income" is figured. We're supposed to tithe our gross income. According to Obama's charitable donations, we see only $250 went to a church or Christian foundation/organization. The rest of his donations -- even the money from his Pulitzer Prize -- went to other kinds of non-Christian organizations. Is that being obedient to God's word? Is that how he demonstrates with the fruit he bears how much he loves the God of the Bible?

Another consideration is the story he tells of his conversion experience. What does he say about that first moment when God knocked on Obama's heart and called Obama to be His son? Where was he? How did it feel? Who else was there? What did God say? Who did Obama tell first? What happened next inside Obama's heart? How did Obama's heart change? How did Obama's actions change? What was Obama's first desire regarding Obama's service to God? How was Obama's life made different? Has anyone ever heard it and did it sound anything at all like the truth? It is in one of his books that "he wrote of it" (I put that in quotes because I am not sure it was he who wrote those books, there is evidence he did not). If it be someone else's words, then this testimony is not necessarily Obama's testimony and considering that it is not elsewhere mentioned within the book, in fact quickly forgotten, and not in evidence today, I think that the fruit of that testimony is lacking in freshness. Many have a "conversion" that lasts but a moment and no more. Many go forward in church and some even go so far as to be baptized (sometimes even to prove something to a girl within the church, or similar non-Christian motives), but unless that conversion experience changes your heart and life so that you are truly different -- and we've seen no evidence of that -- then it is not a conversion, but a show.

Does someone professing Christianity respect the Bible, quote it correctly, and follow its precepts? Or does he quote the Koran and claim it's part of the Bible, and mock the Bible? If the latter, then I would definitely say it's okay to doubt one's supposed Christianity because that person is mocking God. A true Christian does not mock God because a true Christian would be horrified at the idea of doing so, and would be too scared of the consequences. Someone who says they are a Christian would know better than to mock God. The fruit of that tree is total annhiliation via God's wrath, not the growth of God's kingdom. If the good fruit comes from the good tree, then the tree Obama is planting is a tree of death.

Questioning Obama's Christianity is legitimate because of the fact that he is hateful toward Christianity as a whole. Remember his quote, "it's not surprising that they cling to guns or religion"? Sorry, but a Christian would say that? Would a Christian say that it isn't surprising that people would be Christians? He said that it isn't "surprising that they cling to guns or religion". A Christian would down being a Christian? Is that the fruit of a good tree, or is that a thorn from a thorn tree?

Something else to take into consideration as a "fruit" is, if he is a Christian, does he preach what he supposedly practices? Does he tell others that it's good to be a Christian? Does he follow the Great Commission in Matthew 28:16-20 -- is Obama a witness for Christ? Or does Obama say he is still a Muslim and that the Islamic call to prayer is the one of the prettiest sounds on earth? Not every Christian is an evangelist, true, but there are things God calls us to do -- the things mentioned above, amongst others -- that are all witnesses of Christ. It's how we profess our Christianity in our daily walk, as well as with our mouths that speaks to others. If Obama is a Christian, why do so many Americans -- and others throughout the world -- believe him to be otherwise when they consider the way he lives, talks, treats others and governs? Where is the impression that he is a Christian for those who are closest to him, or furthest from him?

Another consideration is the people Obama is appointing as his advisors, czars and cabinet members. Does he appoint Christians, or does he appoint Communists, Marxists and other atheists? Does Obama surround himself with solid Christian counsel, or does he surround himself with those who hate the Lord? If he surrounds himself with those who hate the Lord, where are the converts Obama has made with his Christian witness? Where are the people saying that Obama's Christian leadership and godly counsel helped save their marriage, or that his prayer brought healing to their child's illness? Where is the "cloud of witnesses" to attest to Obama's Christianity? Who does he surround himself with and when do they become his "cloud of witnesses" to Obama's love of Jesus Christ, Obama's Lord and Savior?

When President Bush was in office, he attended a Christian church regularly and few doubted he was a Christian. He spontaneously prayed with people, he was approachable and people knew he cared. He quoted the Bible not just in prepared speeches, but in his everyday language. President Bush was a known entity and hated for being so outspoken a Christian. Do a Google® search for "George W. Bush Christian" and see how many sites come up that spew hatred for Bush and his Christianity. It amazed me. When you look at Obama's supposed Christianity, then it's we who have to take Obama's word for it, and -- even though he mocks us and he scorns us and denies America is a Christian nation -- we are supposed to take Obama's word that he is a Christian.

I beg to differ. When the Bible tells us what to look for, what facts to consider, what obedience is (tithing, praying, fasting, witnessing, etc.), and we see none of the fruit the Bible tells us to take into consideration, then we can make an educated -- and Biblical -- decision that Obama is not a Christian. After all, what true Christian would ever have the "slip up" of saying, "my Muslim faith"? I think that speaks volumes in and of itself.

So, is Obama a Christian? I think the Bible makes the final call on that. In Matthew 7:21 it says, "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." I think "Lord, Lord" is Obama's act: doing the will of God "which is in heaven" is Obama's failing.

You Have "The Dream", Just Pick It Up!

2010-09-01T02:58:00.005-04:00

After all of the fussing over the Glenn Beck “Restoring Honor” rally “stealing”, or “hijacking” the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., message, I read Dr. King’s “I Have A Dream” speech. What I saw in the speech surprised me. I have heard it several times, but by no means did I ever memorize it. A sentence or two stuck with me, but nothing close to the whole thing. Thus, reading it was something that would serve me well. A good idea and it was very interesting.

In that speech – whose message and idea were no more “hijacked” by Glenn Beck than the Lincoln Memorial was that day – I see that Glenn Beck was actually fulfilling that speech and Al Sharpton, et al, have no right to complain about it.

For instance, in his speech, Dr. King – who stood at the Lincoln Memorial but in a different spot than Beck – said this, “the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.” While there is no guarantee that former slaves and former slave holders were there or that if they were there, that they were together, there were both black and white at the rally and there was peace and brotherhood at the Restoring Honor rally.

Dr. King’s dream included the, “state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.” Mississippi is just that, as is the rest of America. And his dream included his “four little children” being judged “by the content of their character”, not the color of their skin. I think his four little children have been judged thusly. As has his niece, Dr. Alveda King, who spoke of her “Uncle Martin” at the Beck rally. Her character is impeccable and her voice for the Lord is loud and strong. “[I]n Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.” This has come true, as well; not just holding hands, but “mixed” marriages also have become accepted as a normal thing, instead of a shock and scandal, a shame to both families.

Dr. King’s dream, however, did not include government housing being a standard freebie for every person of color who wanted to sit idly at home and do nothing but watch soap operas or talk on their welfare check purchased cell phone. It did not include “free” health care for all because it is never “free” and someone will have to pay for it; that someone being those who do work and pay their taxes. Dr. King’s dream never mentioned food stamps, a “right” to a job, legalized drugs like crack cocaine or marijuana. Dr. King’s dream had none of the “give it to me, I want it” in it that permeates the Al Sharptons of this world.

Dr. King’s dream spoke of one thing: Freedom. Not freedom from want, freedom from envy, freedom from someone else having more, better, bigger, easier than you; freedom to strive and work for what it is that someone else has that you desire. Dr. King’s dream never said you would be given it because you deserve it – after all, you had it bad, your dad had a tough road, your great-grandfather was a slave so now you deserve everything you want and you deserve to have it given to you by the sweat of someone else’s brow. Freedom is none of that. Freedom is the right to work hard and make your own way and to keep the results of your labor, or to decide for yourself what to do with those results. That is freedom.

The right to work is not the same as a right to a job. The right to work means that you have the right – as a citizen of the United States of America – to try to get a job and to be paid equally for that job as someone else with the same qualifications, same experience, same education and same level of expertise. You have that right. If you have those criteria met and you and I are going up for the same position, you do not have the right to get the job because of the color of your skin, but you do have the right to get the job if you have worked harder than I, put in longer hours than I, learned more about the position we both want, than I know. That’s the same criteria used for me getting the position as well, though, so if I get the job, I deserved it; not the color of my skin deserved it. Thus, you have no “right” to a job, but you do have the right to work. No one should interfere with you trying to be hired somewhere at a job you are qualified to do. Just as no one should interfere with me being hired somewhere for a job I am qualified to do. The key word there being “qualified”: whoever is most qualified should get the job and skin color should be ignored.

For someone to say that it is their “right” to government housing, welfare, food stamps, health care, or any other thing besides the right – true right, not made up right – to “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” is just a lie. It means nothing legally and it should never have happened morally. Admittedly, America’s past did include racism and slavery; mostly due to the Democratic Party, but it was there. But does that past – and it is the past – give anyone the “right” to anything from those who had no part in that past? Do you pay for your grandfather’s sins, or just your own? Should you be jailed for your brother’s illegal activities, or just your own?

For anyone to claim “right” to what I have now because of someone else’s sins, is not just unfair, it is purely immoral. I had no part in slavery or in the racism of the sixties and earlier. I was not old enough to be part of either of those things, and my ancestors immigrated to America long after slavery was over, so my family had no part in that, either. Should I have to pay for the things that other people did when my family had no part whatsoever in the wrongs done by others? If so, is that not just another form of racism?

For Al Sharpton and the rally he led “reclaiming Dr. King’s message” was not just a falsehood, it was probably making Dr. King roll over in his grave. Considering the messages I heard when I watched the two hours or more of the Sharpton rally that I was able to stomach, I saw speakers demand that they be “given” this, they “deserve” that, I truly doubt they had read Dr. King’s famous words in light of how Dr. King meant them, instead of just trying to change the speech to their best advantage. They forgot the line, “Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred.” And they left out, “We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence.” They ignore his statement, “Let us not wallow in the valley of despair” and to that “despair” they add anger, resentment, envy, self-righteousness, a feeling of “being owed”, the demand of “give it to me and give it to me now!”

Sharpton’s event was not of the same kind as Dr. King would have had. Sharpton preached all that King decried. Sharpton wants those who follow him to be in that place Dr. King did not want people: kept down by their own desire to have it handed to them instead of paying for it with the money earned from their own labor, kept enslaved by their own desire to make someone else “pay” – both in monetary payments and in societal retribution – for their own lack, ignoring the fact that their lack was their own doing, not someone else’s fault.

Sharpton, et al, don’t want their followers to realize that the dream Dr. King spoke so eloquently of is already theirs. If that were not the case, how could there be have been U.S. Supreme Court Justices who were black, a president who is black, U.S. Senators and Congresspersons of color, millionaires in America who are descendants of slaves? If the dream is not already given, how is there a black television network, black advertising agencies, or black owners of a hair product line for black people; how is Don King rich¹? If the dream is not accomplished, if everyone does not have the equal right and equal chance to work hard, to seek their own legal path (illegal paths to riches are not part of the dream), then how are the accomplishments of so many black people explained away?

“Uncle Tom” will be cried; but it’s a false cry and they know it. It’s a convenient pejorative and nothing more. It helps keep black people “in their place” to have another black call them that. It’s a signal, “You better not step out of line, mister. You know we don’t want you doing that because it makes us look bad!” It’s not about the accomplishments of the achiever; it’s about the laziness and excuses of the non-achiever. It’s a slaver’s cry to trap someone who could achieve if given the support needed into the “Uncle Tom” crier’s own level of “under-achievement”. It is a leveler: none can do better than this because if one does, then we all can and we all don’t want to so you better not.

That false cry is their own jailer, their own limiter as are Sharpton and his words and demands. If the government and the people don’t do “X” for the black people, then it won’t get done because – according to Sharpton’s words – they can’t do it for themselves. Does this sound anything at all like the “I Have A Dream” speech of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., or does it sound like someone seeking to keep others down so he can be considered their spokesperson, helper, saint, rescuer? Sharpton no more wants people of his race to be capable achievers than he wants to be a nobody, ignored, overlooked, forgotten and that is why he must keep the lies going, the false accusations flowing, the hatred, despair and envy spewing from every mouth at every rally he leads, attends or feeds. It is not a “Dream” Sharpton has for the success and freedom of his people it is his worst nightmare for then he becomes nothing and vanishes into the dust from whence he came.

Sharpton and his ilk do not want people to realize that Dr. King’s dream has already been handed to them. Today they have the dream as Dr. King envisioned it. All they have to do is reach out and take it, pick it up. It’s that big, beautifully wrapped present over there. Go over and pick it up and see your name on it. Realize that with that present in hand you can do anything legal in America you dream of – go to school and get the education you desire, work at the job you are qualified to work at, save for your own retirement and pay your own way and live the life you want instead of watching and hating as others live the life you desire – as long as you believe in that dream and accept it for yourself. You see, there’s the rub. You must accept that dream for yourself, and no one else can do it for you.

That’s why those like Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and others will never tell you that the dream is already yours. They know that if you realize it, they will not be able to milk you for support – financial and political– for their own ideas, their own desire for the dream. Look at them, though, aren’t they living the dream while telling you that it isn’t available at all? Sharpton himself wears expensive suits, lives in an expensive house, flies all over the country and attends “the best” parties. If he’s living the dream while preaching that America has not yet delivered it, then who is he lying to? Considering that the answer to that question is “You”, don’t you think you need to sit down and figure out what the truth is?

1) http://www.buyingofthepresident.org/index.php/archives/2004/600/

Sam's House Grand Opening!

2010-08-15T14:06:00.003-04:00

Sam's House Grand Opening on Saturday, August 21st, at 10:30 a.m. on Merritt Island in the Pine Island Conservation Area at 6195 North Tropical Trail. Info on its location is here.

Although it IS a Parks & Recs/EELs project, it is no longer listed on the Brevard County Parks & Recs Central Area website page. Nor is it listed on the EELs Calendar Page. However, I do have a printout about it from an e-mail someone sent around. I wonder why?

In case you were wondering: Yes, this invitation is a bit facetious. I post it to let you know that it is happening, but I want you to know that you are being treated differently than those who would support this effort. Did you get an e-mail from them with the invitation? No? Your money was spent on this project. You paid for it, but you don't get invited to attend, or even have it posted somewhere for you to find? Is that "fair and equal treatment under the law"? I don't think so. If the people in the "Friends of Ulumay", "Audubon Society", "Space Coast Progressive Alliance", or any other progressive, leftists, tree hugging, Scrub Jay worshipping group gets notified to be there, why didn't you?

That's why I posted this invitation. I want you to know that it's happening so you can attend and ask them why you were not notified of the event and you were not allowed to find out about it without my spreading the word. Attend. Ask them. Hold their feet to the fire. It's your money. Hold them accountable.

Education: Prevention of Tyranny

2010-08-11T02:42:00.003-04:00

In reading the book, “The Coming Insurrection” by The Invisible Committee I found quite a few things that I saw happening here in America. Used as part of the evidence in an anti-terrorism case in France, this book tells us how the progressives think. They believe in anarchy, completely and totally: until they get what they want. Then everything changes. What is it they want? They want to be in charge.

They don’t want “equality”. That’s for the bourgeoisie. They don’t want “freedom”. That’s for those who think too small. They want anarchy: murder, mayhem, burning whole cities if necessary to put them in charge. They’ll do what they think is needed in order to get it. They will kill police forces, murder innocents (for they are the only innocents; everyone cooperating with the capitalists are guilty), burn, loot, break, steal. Anarchy helps put them in charge and you are the servants who will do as their bidding tells you. Their egos demand it. Their self-gratification, self-aggrandizement craves it; it’s the driving force and their raison d’être. Nothing shall stand in their way. If you think you are part of them – even though they have used you, met with you, applauded you, dined with you -- you are wrong. Not only are you wrong, but you are a useful puppet that is to be discarded and thrown away as soon as your usefulness is gone. Some credit Stalin or Lenin with the phrase, “Useful Idiots”. I don’t know who came up with it, but does it surprise anyone that it was either one of those two dictators who coined the phrase? They used people the same way then discarded them as their usefulness came to an end. Their “discarding” meant a bullet through the head, but let’s not get picky. This is, after all, the twenty-first century. No one kills someone just because they are no longer “useful”. Right?

On page 124 of this little blue book, it states, “The circulation of knowledge hierarchy; it equalizes by raising up.” The Committee is talking about planning insurrections, attacks, fires, anarchy, but they inadvertently tell you the truth about their whole philosophy. If you educate the “proletariat” (the working class people), you raise them up. Education equals a better life. The anarchists – the Stalinists and Leninists – don’t want you raised up, don’t want you educated. If you get a better education, then you can figure out what they are up to. You can see through their plans and think things through yourselves. You won’t have to rely on them to tell you what they are doing is “good for you”. You’ll be able to see for yourselves that what they are doing is not good for you, but bad for you and will keep you poor, dependent and without being able to have a future you wish to have unless they “give” it to you.

The Democrats have always hated the idea of allowing school vouchers for the poorest children in any school district. They have fought against a good education for years. If your child is in a failing school in a poor district, your child is stuck. They can no more move to a private school than I can be a quantum physics professor. I don’t know how to do that sort of math; my brain doesn’t work that way. But your child’s brain may, and without interference if given the chance, you could put your child into a private school via vouchers and your child would have a brighter, better future. This is something Democrats don’t want. The less education your child has, the more likely they are to vote for Democrats. Imagine Condoleeza Rice, Dr. Thomas Sowell, Justice Clarence Thomas, or Dr. Walter Williams voting for Democrats. It doesn’t happen because they are well educated and they have the ability to think for themselves.

A quick side note here: Some call the people above “Uncle Toms” because they don’t stay on the Democratic vote plantation and keep “Massah” in power via obedience, subservience and vote. This is not just nonsense, it is stupidity. Any person can be a dolt and vote for people who are going to keep them down, to keep them poor, subservient. It takes a smart person, someone with courage, strength and discernment to not vote for the “Massah”. If the Dr. Thomas Sowells of this world are “Uncle Toms”, then what does that make you: the idiot Uncle Toms? A quick recalling of the story reminds us that it’s a false moniker anyways. After all, an “Uncle Tom” label would mean to me that someone was a person of faith, for that was the main characteristic of Uncle Tom in Harriett Beecher Stowe’s book. So by saying that people are “Uncle Toms”, they are being accused of nothing more than faith in Christ? OOoohhhh. Bad people. Bad. Don’t a lot of you go to church and profess a belief in God, too? Enough of that side note: back to the real subject matter.

When someone – anyone -- wants you to stay uneducated, to not know the truth, to be ill informed, to not have all the facts, it’s not because they trust you to make your own choices. It’s not because they trust you to make the correct choice. It’s because they think you will choose something that does not benefit them if you do have all the information, all the facts, a better education. That’s how politicians stay in office. Teddy Kennedy didn’t want you to have a better education because he wanted you to not know how inept he was. Check out his voting record on education here: Ted Kennedy. I think that speaks volumes. Let’s check someone else’s record Barbara Boxer’s record is that she voted “NO” on School Vouchers and on Education Savings Accounts. Another Democrat? Okay, how about Harry Reid? He also voted against School Vouchers and Education Savings Accounts, so that people whose children were in poorly performing Washington D.C. schools would be unable to move their children out of those schools. Nancy Pelosi joined Reid, Boxer and Kennedy in voting against School Vouchers and Education Savings Accounts. Pete Stark voted "No" on School Vouchers, Maxine Waters ditto. Our current president doesn’t like School Vouchers, either. All Democrats.

In “The Coming Insurrection”, they write about the anarchy that is heading our way. They write openly and – one must suppose – honestly about how they want to destroy our current civilization and create a new civilization of communism; organization without government, just with themselves in charge. This is the talk of someone whose ego has gotten the better of them and who is a dangerous individual. That is why they are on trial in France: sedition is a crime in most countries. When those preaching this kind of anarchy – Bill Ayers, Saul Alinsky, Bernardine Dohrn, you know: Obama’s buddies, associates and closest friends – try to intimidate others with the idea of their inferiority – and lack of education is in their minds an “inferiority” – and they tell people that they – the “Ruling Class” – know best, know what is “good for you”, they are banking on your lack of knowledge, insight and street smarts. If you keep them in political power, you prove them correct about you. When you continue to vote for those who want to keep you on welfare, keep you on the government checks (W.I.C. program, food stamps, government housing; “free” this, that and the other), you are proving to them that you are capable of being bought. You are proving to them that you are disinterested in having more, being better, being smarter, having a brighter future. All you want is to be on “easy street” and have everything handed to you on a silver platter.

I’ve got news for you, “Silver Platter Boy/Girl”. It’s not free, there is no silver platter and your vote comes at too high a price. When the ultimate goal is reached and they are in power, you will be the first to go, the first “useful idiot” who will be out of their realm. Their eyes will be pained by seeing you and they will discard you as quickly as Marie Antoinette is rumored to have said, “Let them eat cake”. Your entire life will be nothing but dross for them and you will be forfeit. After all, if you are that stupid, you will be a drain on them, on their plans, on their power because they will be continually slowing down to bring you up with the other folks, those who are more educated and who think as they and are willing accomplices, not useful idiots. Your “government teat mentality” will then be hooked upon their “government teat” and they don’t want to feed you when it is their account that pays for it. Otherwise, how do you explain why conservatives give so much more to charitable causes than liberals? Conservatives give 30% more than liberals: don’t you think that trend will continue once they are controlling the world as well? Leopards don’t change their spots. Do you think that just because you are somehow “special” that you will be the exception rather than the rule, and they will enjoy taking care of you when they are in power? Look in that mirror again, “Silver Platter Boy/Girl”. You ain’t that special. After all, “People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.” If you are voting for those who believe in “social justice”, you are more than scre**d.

Stop and think, people. If you want to believe that those who are saying, “We’ll take care of you, vote Democratic” are actually going to take care of you, you are wrong. They want to keep you stupid, down, attached at the wallet to the government and to keep you subservient, therefore controlling you. After all, when someone is paying for everything you have because you’re too lazy, or inept to provide for yourself, if that’s not controlled – puppetted, your definition of “Uncle Tommed”, under their thumb – I don’t know what is.

Get a good education. Fight for it. Prepare for life via a real education. I don’t mean an education that will teach you the same things the Democrats are doing and telling you and controlling you with (preparing you to control others the same way: that’s tyranny, not leadership). I mean an education that will teach you to stand on your own two feet, think for yourselves, think critically, think logically (not circular logic; not illogic), and to be ready to argue with your betters for your point of view, beliefs and political stances: and win. If you can do that, you have a great education and you are ready for this world and ready to lead in it, not just sit back and allow others to dictate for whom you should vote.

Tyranny has many faces: the first shown is a lack of education, for tyranny will always use that as a whip against you. If someone is trying to prevent your education, you know their wishes for your future are not good and that, sooner or later, it will come down to tyranny with you on the receiving end.

Freedom's Indelible Ink

2010-07-29T23:35:00.001-04:00

Our Declaration of Independence written by our Founding Fathers and sent to King George III of Great Britain, states in part,

“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed.”

Our Founding Fathers were intelligent, thoughtful, insightful men to have understood (without psychiatrists or sociologists) that people, on the whole, will put up with a lot more than they should because people understand that it’s not easy, “prudent” or a “light and transient” (brief) thing to change a form of government for little matters. One doesn’t throw the baby out with the bath water.

Our Founding Fathers also realized that they had been putting up with a lot of guff – big guff -- and they made a list of all the grievances they had against King George III. That list is included within the Declaration of Independence. The list of grievances is twenty-nine items long: a lot of guff to tolerate from a tyrant so far away. One is left to wonder if King George III had been closer – say in Washington, D.C., for instance – if the Founding Fathers would have suffered evil so patiently. After all, if they had been near enough to go talk eye to eye, toe to toe with the man and make some demands of him, would they have tolerated those twenty-nine usurpations?

When Obama started out with all the promises of “Hope” and “Change”, it would have been nice to have had some sort of notification as to what sort of “Change” he would bring. Socialism and/or Marxism are not welcome entities within a free country: and America used to be free. When we have someone who is trying their darnedest to restrain freedom, to destroy our future, to tax us into oblivion -- Cloward and Piven and the Weatherman Underground plans being put into effect – we obviously have someone in the White House (now known as the “Red” House), we cannot trust. Obama is doing things similar to the things that King George III did that brought about the first Revolution, the first call to freedom.

Ronald Reagan once said, “You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and our children's children say of us we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done.”

I wonder what Reagan would say if he saw what our country has done to itself just twenty-one short years after he left the Presidency. We have gone from an icon of freedom, hope, strength and purpose -- whose strength brought down the Berlin Wall and brought the fresh breeze of freedom to a suffocating people -- to a Marxist who hates America and wants to make Reagan’s quote a success in the latter part of the second sentence: give our children “the first step into a thousand years of darkness.”

Considering the list of twenty-nine things King George III was doing wrong, we see that Obama is doing (at the very least) eleven of the same reasons that America’s Founding Fathers – and the people of the Colonies at the time – declared their independence from King George III and his tyranny. When the time was right for America, the people rebelled. In a long, hard fought war, we lost many battles, but in the end, freedom won and King George III was defeated. The cry of freedom rising in the hearts of many here determined that they would no longer live subject to anyone who would do the kinds of things King George III was doing.

The cry of freedom is rising again today. You can see it in the Tea Party movement: not just in their numbers, but in their diversity, their creativity, their strength of heart. When the human heart realizes it lost some of the freedom it had formerly known – via 9/11 and “Homeland Security” measures, or via a Marxist tyrant – every heart yearns to return to that former freedom. Once experienced, freedom leaves an indelible mark upon the human heart and that mark cannot be taken away, covered over, or ignored. It shines in the darkness like a beacon of hope, delight and energy that takes away our breath and makes us determined to recapture the freedoms that were lost. Freedom’s indelible ink remains upon us from the days of Ronald Reagan and from those days freedom’s mark beats within us: strong, proud, eternal.

As in the days of the Declaration of Independence when our Founding Fathers heard freedom’s cry and stood to give America that second-most precious gift, today our hearts cry out once more for that sweet, sweet taste, the lingering taste of freedom left by Ronald Reagan. It’s in the dedication, respect and memories we see reflected in the books we still buy about him, the posters we still hang, the quotes we still use. Those words -- so simple, so elegant, so true – that brought tears to our eyes, hope to our hearts, and stirred within us the determination to never let that spark of freedom – that unequalled light, that star so bright, that yearning of every human soul – leave this great land.

Our Founding Fathers gave us the tools, the example, the truth. Reagan gave those of us not alive in the time of our Founding Fathers the taste of indelible ink that branded every true American heart and burnt within us an embers’ glow of freedom’s eternal spark. Within the hearts of every true American beats that rhythm of freedom’s cry. The rhythm of patience, of belief that it won’t get worse, of desire to obey the law, but knowing that if it came to it, the law must be broken as our Founding Fathers showed us in the struggle to bring our America into existence and to let that spark burn into a new country, a new hope, a new beginning for freedom’s light.

Ronald Reagan said of America in his farewell address, “After 200 years, two centuries, she still stands strong and true to the granite ridge, and her glow has held no matter what storm. And she's still a beacon, still a magnet for all who must have freedom, for all the pilgrims from all the lost places who are hurtling through the darkness, toward home.”

As freedom’s indelible ink has left its mark, Ronald Reagan’s message was freedom’s true voice, its Liberty Bell cry of “Let Freedom Ring!” American hearts are now hearing that cry. They pull restlessly at the bit and paw anxiously at the ground, awaiting that time when we can stand no more and the Declaration of Independence’s phrase, “Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed” will give way to the very next sentence in that august document of liberty:

“But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.”

There are others out there who have freedom’s indelible ink upon their hearts. Others who know that “it is the Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government”. As long as we have that spark and are willing to stand up and fight for it, to fan it into a great, roaring flame that beckons once again to those throughout the earth who would be free, there will be no tyrant powerful enough, no “Change” permanent enough, no “Hope” strong enough, to prevent freedom from once again shining in this land.

Freedom calls and every human heart answers, whether in actions, words or just a silent, still desire because tyranny rules the land, every heart answers. It is the inborn cry that God planted and little experiences of the slightest kind – music that stirs the heart, a poem that lights the spark, a blog that rings the bell – bring that spark of freedom’s indelible ink to life and hope is born.

Indelible ink and freedom’s call delight the soul and mortal heart. For freedom comes from God and it is His desire that we live free, “You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free” (John 8:32), is the call of freedom straight from God’s own plan. That is why it calls so persistently to those who will listen, to those with indelible ink. Freedom’s call, freedom’s mark, freedom’s spark stirs and beckons and God smiles because He is the One who gave it.

We have suffered the evils of Marxism and tyranny’s plans being implemented long enough. Freedom’s indelible ink calls and an answer it demands!

Better a Beggar

2010-06-30T23:50:00.004-04:00

Parameters:

Beggar: presumably, a homeless person who begs others for money, having no job and no money of their own. This is what I am referring to as "I" in this argument. I am not referring to any particular person or group of people who have ever been, are now, or will be in the future, homeless and/or out of work, and begging for their subsistence.

Government program: a program established by a government entity (Fed., State, County, or City) that provides housing, food, health care, or other "services" to someone who meets a set requirement to qualify for the program[s].

Welfare state: the time when as many people as possible in the U.S.A. will be on a government program that would provide "X" for the person without their having done anything to earn that particular "X" except fill out a form, be a U.S. citizen, or otherwise meet "Requirement R".

***

Recently, I was thinking about the welfare state that obamination is trying to push all of us into. I thought about the cost of such a process, the degeneration of our society, the cost in human dignity, the people who would pay for the benefits of others. While thinking about all of this, I realized something. I realized that I would not cooperate with such a process in any way, shape, or form. I must pay my taxes or go to jail, yes. But when it comes to signing up for those "incentives" to buy houses, or new cars, oil spill benefits, or pantyhose (oh, they haven't done that one yet?), I would not participate. Anything that is voluntary, I'm not volunteering for.

Why not? Because when I think about the cost of my soul, it's worth so much more than that. I cannot be bought like a cheap car. I cannot be bought with promises of $8,000 for a house purchase. I cannot be bought with anything obamination has to offer. All of his "offers" are not truly not offers, after all, and I will not add to my neighbor's burden -- even if they make more money than my family.

In fact, I decided, that it would be better to be a beggar than to be on any or all of those programs that the government has so readily pushed onto the American taxpayer's wallet.

How can I make such an absurd statement? Consider:

If you sign up for a government food program, you are getting food that you have no pride in earning the right to purchase, to have, to eat. All you have done is fill out the forms and met the bare minimum -- or the utmost, whichever -- requirements of the program to qualify. When in government programs, the government decides who is going to give to you and how much they shall give. It is not an independent choice made by the giver. It's government mandated and government enforced; taking away the giver's right to choose whether to give and how much, if giving.

If you sign up for a government housing program, you live in a house that someone else is paying for altogether, or that someone else subsidized. If you want to have pride of ownership, you cannot do it there because you didn't work to get it. You signed up. You have your neighbors and those throughout the country who work and pay taxes to thank for your house. It is not truly yours; it is theirs because they are paying for it, or helped pay for it.

If you sign up for a government health care (or is that he11-care?) program, you have no control over what kind of care you receive, over who you see, over what medications you receive, or when you get seen. You are stuck on their time table, their prescription regulations, their doctor list and their idea of "good care". Your neighbors, again, are forced to pay for you and you have them to thank for the generic drug that made you healthy last time, the name brand drug that was prescribed this time, and the lack of complete hospital care that you will receive when you are diagnosed with cancer and there is no room to keep you, or there is not enough money to treat you. You have no choice but to leave and go home to die.

Your neighbors and the rest of the country would pay for everything you have, everything you get, everything you want. You would pick my pocket, the pocket of every relative you have who works and every stranger in America who pas taxes in order to get from "the government" -- "We, the People". We would have no say, we would have no way to stop it except to quit working. We would not have the option of holding you accountable for the way you spend our money and we would not be able to say, "No! You've taken enough."

All of the things you have would be received via government form and without doing more work on your part besides paperwork. That gives you no sense of pride, no sense of accomplishment, no self-confidence; unless you would be proud to take from others so that you can sit on your backside all day, every day and get as much from the rest of us as you possibly can.

There are those out there who do just that. Where their dignity is, their self-esteem, their pride, I don't know. I just know that there are people out there with the mentality that they "deserve" everything they can get from the government, even if they cheat (lie on their forms) to get it. That, to me, is not a human being; they are the human worms who suck the life out of any economy as long as "the government" will give to them and they can sit on their backsides and do nothing to earn it.

That is not my idea of a good life, not my idea of "acceptable".

While if a beggar, I would have to get up off my duff every day and go out and -- at the very least -- have a sign that would ask people for their support. Whether they supported me or not would be their choice. I would not be taking a set amount from them because how much they gave me would be their choice as well. "Beggars can't be choosers" and I could not choose who gave to me -- family, friend, or foe: whoever would, would be welcome.

As a beggar, I would have to use the money I received from the good hearts of my fellow humans until it ran out and I would have to go out and ask for more. This, in its turn, would teach me something about gratefulness, about humility, about shame and pride. It would teach me about being careful with the money strangers gave me and to use it wisely for the things I need; not whatever I wanted. A budget would be imperative and it would be followed to the strictest "nth" degree. Every penny pinched, every dime made a dollar, so that I would not have to face the empty pocket at the end of the week and go out and ask strangers for more.

As a beggar, I would be forced to do what I legally and morally could to entice people to give me some of their money. Whether that be smiling sweetly, looking as pitiful as I can, changing the wording of the sign I used, or washing their car, it would be up to me to get them to agree to give to me. I would have to be creative, resourceful and capable of getting people to agree to give me some of their hard earned cash. This would either allow me to continue begging, or teach me something about entrepreneurship and encourage me to do something besides begging.

As a beggar, my family and friends and total strangers would not be forced to give to me, to support someone they had no say in supporting, and they would not be forced to give whatever dollar amount the federal (or State, County, or City) government took from them via taxes to support me in my government program houses, food, health care, etc. It would be a free choice of compassion and mercy on their part, allowing them to reap the spiritual and emotional benefits. As a beggar, my gratitude may be the only reward they received, but it would be eternal.

As a beggar, finding a safe, comfortable place to sleep would be my job, my desire, nightly. It would be upon my head if I wound up sleeping where I got rained upon, or if I was uncomfortable nightly. This would lead to my trying harder to get enough money to eat and to either find a shelter for homeless people that would have space for me, or to be able to rent a room so that I could sleep in a bed and not on the street.

As a beggar, while it would not be a matter of pride, at least I would not be looking at my neighbor and thinking that there is another program I can sign up for in order to have "X" as they do, or to be able to have "Y" as someone else does. Government programs would not be my failsafe, my "go to" relief: it would be myself on whom I would have to rely and that would be so much better than stealing from all of you.

That's why I think it would be better to be a beggar than to be on welfare, living in government housing, on food stamps, W.I.C. and other food programs, while getting Medicare/Medicaid to get health care and to snarl that I don't have enough. I want more and the government, "We, the People", should -- better! -- provide it. At least, as a beggar, I would be able to look you in the eye and not feel like a thief.

Tea Party Suggestions: Please be proactive

2010-05-17T00:26:00.005-04:00

Many of my readers know that I have been what some would call “critical” of the Tea Party movement. While I support their cause wholeheartedly, I have never thought that getting together at a rally where nothing is actually done besides a support system and a lot of “feel good” speeches accomplished anything except emotional support. While emotional support for those who are in the Tea Party may be a good thing in keeping them from feeling alone, it does exclusively that: emotions. Emotions are not actions and that is what I have always thought the Tea Party should be about. After all, if your numbers have Congress and the MSM afraid of you, why waste that fear? Why not put that power into action and do something with it? However, I saw very few Tea Party activities besides rallies and speeches; and neither of those things accomplishes anything. Therefore, in order to encourage Tea Party members in their activities to make a difference, I have the following suggestions for getting active and doing something.

Please take these suggestions in the spirit they are offered: not as a criticism, but as a list of things people may have the time, be willing to make the effort, and have the wherewithal to do without having to do it all themselves, and without having to feel as though they weren’t cut out for one particular item that every Tea Party member is already doing because there are no other ideas put forth. I try to run the gamut of ideas that require differing amounts of effort, money, time, personal nerves and attendance. Not everyone will wish to do every suggestion; not every suggestion will be right for all. Pick one or more that you are comfortable with and do those. As the Bible says, “And he gave some, apostles, and some, prophets, and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry for the edifying of the body of Christ:” (Eph. 4:11-12). No one person is supposed to be everything. Choose which you will do and follow through with all your heart.

The list of possibilities:

GOVERNMENT:

• Start attending Brevard County Board of County Commission meetings and speak against items that would mean the BOCC voting to spend your money. This is a necessary step to help lower taxes at home. Remember, with the manned space program (so far just the manned) shut down, there will be fewer people to pay for the things the BOCC wants to spend money on. There will be fewer homes occupied and there will be fewer people paying property taxes in order to fund those BOCC votes. It’s your money; do something to protect it. There should be no fewer than forty or fifty Tea Party members at each BOCC meeting and at least that many at the Budget meetings.

• If you do not wish to attend BOCC meetings and speak on spending items, then attend smaller meetings: workshops, budget discussions, etc., and speak against the spending items there. Again, the car pool organizers would be vital here. If you do not wish to be involved in the BOCC or budget discussions because you “don’t do numbers”, then do something else in a County Committee or Board. Request that your County Commissioner appoint you to represent your area. If you get to vote on spending items, vote against them. If you do not get to vote on spending, then vote in the most conservative way possible. Boards and Committees are usually stepping stones for those wishing to become political candidates. Being assigned to Boards and Committees means making political connections. Keep your eyes open and find out who is trying to use it as a stepping stone and what their political bent is (progressive or Conservative). Inform the present of the possible future. (If you live in an incorporated city within Brevard County, do the same things as suggested above for the “County” section, but at your City Council meetings. That’s a given.)

• Become a candidate. If you are the right person for the job, you can do so and be elected, especially in today’s climate. I know it’s scary and that there are a lot of requirements and very little time left (if any) to qualify. But if that is what you are being called to do, go for it. Campaigning between now and August primaries is going to be difficult, but you can do it. Look at all of the people who went to the Tea Parties and request their help with getting you into office. If you have been at the Tea Parties, they may recognize you. If not, show them what you’re made of and stand for lower taxes at all times; before the election, and if you win, after the election.

• If you choose not to become a candidate, be sure to vote for the most CONSERVATIVE person on the ballot, no matter what the party designation is behind the candidate’s name. Conservative people are for smaller government and lower taxes, and that’s what the Tea Party is all about. We all know that there are way too many RINOs in the Republican Party nowadays to believe that the “R” party designation means that they won’t vote for higher taxes (think Mary Bolin and Chuck Nelson on the BOCC: both ran as Republicans).

• Contact your local representatives and tell them that you are forming a group of people who would like to meet with him/her on a regular basis to advise them on what the people are thinking. IF they agree to meet with you regularly, excellent! They’re interested in what their constituents think. IF they don’t agree to meet with you, get together with the group of people and talk about what this representative (BOCC member, Senator, whatever) is doing and discuss your reactions to what they are doing. Take notes on what was discussed and send those notes to the representative on a regular basis. This will let the representative know that they are being watched and whether you think they are doing a good job, a terrible job, or just middling.

• Visit your local representatives’ offices individually (just you and/or your family): BOCC, State and U.S. elected officials should become familiar with your face and with your name. This reminds them that their votes have an impact on individuals, not just groups. It makes it more personal when they see that you have a war injury and walk with a cane and that vote is going to affect your veteran’s benefits; or that your little boy has aspirations to be an astronaut and the space program is important to the future, too. Write to them, call them and visit them. Let them know that you are watching them and that you have the vote and you will use it. Don’t stalk them; just let them know that you are watching their every vote.

NEIGHBORHOOD:

• Start “Tuesday Teas” (use whichever title you wish for them) in which you gather a few of your neighbors (5-10) each Tuesday and talk politics and taxes. These do not have to be Tea Party members, just people who need the information. Have facts and figures ready. Have the information available. Get online and be ready to prove your assertions. Have your computer set up in a convenient location for questions to be looked into immediately. “Fingertip knowledge” is very handy in winning people over to the truth.

• Coordinate a bi-annual Block Party for your street and get Tea Party speakers to come speak at your event. This should not be an election event; it should be an educational event. Tea Party speakers should be from a different area than your neighborhood so that people don’t see it as a “get out the vote” event. This will help with participation and ease suspicions. The Tea Party speaker may get some good feedback and people will talk, but they won’t be able to vote for him/her.

• If you can afford the expense, order pamphlets and books from www.wallbuilders.com and other websites to teach the truth of how America was founded and who America is supposed to be. Wallbuilders.com has one particular pamphlet that talks about “Separation of Church and State” and covers that subject thoroughly (did you know that statement was written in a private letter and taken totally out of context?) that sells for 50¢ each. Twenty of those will cost you ten dollars plus shipping. If you have that to spare, order it and loan it to your neighbors and after they read it, discuss it with them. Then ask for it back and ask someone else to read it. Or, just let them keep it but ask them to promise to pass it on.

• If the Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, etc., have guest speakers, ask if you can come speak to their members and teach them about the Boston Tea Party for a merit badge event. Teach the members about the tax rebellion during our Founding and relate it to today’s Tea Party and what the governments (city, county, state and federal) are currently doing to us.

• Have a garage sale and have information about the Tea Party and what it stands for and what it is trying to accomplish ready to give to anyone who visits your garage sale. Some will not like it; some will not accept it; some will accept it and drop it on the ground right in front of you. Expect that, but at least you tried. With every purchase, have a plastic bag ready to put the purchases in; include your information on the Tea Party in the bag with purchase.

SCHOOLS:

• Get involved in your child’s or grandchild’s school. Volunteer and watch the way the classes are run; what they teach the children and how they teach the children. If you see that the progressive slant is being favored, make a fuss about it and contact the School Board after speaking to the principal if he/she will not make a change.

• Check your child’s/grandchild’s school text books. If they are teaching “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth”, excellent! If they are skewing the information and Ronald W. Reagan gets a short paragraph and Clinton and Obama get a few pages of praise, they’re doing it wrong. Make a fuss at the school and at the School Board about the book being skewed.

• Volunteer to teach a class on the Founding Fathers and what they actually believed and wanted for America. Resources are available on the internet – especially at www.wallbuilders.com , www.askheritage.org -- among others. Teach the children the truth about our Founding Fathers and the fact that they started this nation as a Christian nation.

OTHER:

• Start a phone bank and man it. Be the person who puts together a phone tree and be the person who is the person to contact in case there is an action item, important development, etc., that the Tea Party members need to know about or act upon.

• If you cannot attend BOCC meetings, be the person who organizes car pools and pick-ups for those who wish to attend but have no transportation. This would be a vital service to get the Tea Party voices to the BOCC meetings and keep your taxes down.

• If you are a member of Toast Masters, Kiwanis, Elks, etc., ask to do an informational speech on the Tea Party and on what it is trying to accomplish. Be sure to have facts and figures readily available and proof of any political assertions you may be making printed out.

• Write a blog about what is going on in government, about the waste and spending. Your writing is not like mine and your writing may reach someone that my writing will never touch. This is due to the differences in writing styles. While I hit people on the nose with the truth, some do not like that style, while others respond favorably to it. Your style will be different from mine and your style may reach your neighbor, your friend at church, or whomever that I would never be able to reach. Print “web cards” (like business cards, but with your blog info) and put them everywhere.

• Write letters to the editor about the issues facing us with high taxes, job losses and the impacts it will have on your children or grandchildren (or you). Write not just to Florida Today, but to every printed item in your neighborhood including HOA newsletters, your area freebies (Coffee News, Hometown News, Senior Life, etc.), and any Club newsletters you belong to that may have the slightest possibility of publishing the letter: ‘Tis better to try and fail than never to have tried.

• Something EVERYONE CAN AND SHOULD DO: Get a copy of the U.S. Constitution (even if it’s printed out on your own printer) and carry it with you after you have read it four or five times through. Know the U.S. Constitution. Remember that it protects you more than it does the government.

Why I HATE the Minimum Wage

2010-04-03T03:27:00.004-04:00

Why I Hate the Minimum Wage

(NOTE: All names used herein are fictional and do not refer to any known real life person.)

Back on October 24, 1938, when the Federal Government set the first minimum wage at twenty-five cents per hour people lost the right to negotiate for themselves how much their time and effort were worth. It was no longer an "experience counts" and hard working employees make more verses inexperienced, or lazy workers thing. It became "everyone starts at the same rate" and no choices were offered.

That amount rose steadilly and became a source of discrimination in 1961 when there were different categories of workers: "large retail and service enterprises as well as to local transit, construction, and gasoline service station employees" or employees of farms or "nonexempt" workers. Depending upon where you worked in 1968, you could be paid as much as forty-five cents more per hour because the minimum wage dictated so. Does that sound like a fair practice?

Nowadays, it's an exception between the nonexempt workers and the exempt workers and the federal government participates in age discrimination: "A subminimum wage -- $4.25 an hour -- is established for employees under 20 years of age during their first 90 consecutive calendar days of employment with an employer." If you are a day over twenty, you must be paid -- according to federal law -- $7.25 per hour. That's a three dollar difference decided by one day. Is that fair?

Did you know there were differences? There are.

The thing that minimum wage earners do not seem to understand is that they could be worth more if they negotiated on their own behalf. When people get high-powered, high paying jobs, it isn't because the federal govermnent was involved and decided what their wage was going to be. It was because they knew their education, their experiences, their insight, their qualifications made their services more valuable than a government set wage. They walk into a potential employer's office and know that they want $80,000 for their base pay, full benefits including medical coverage, vacation pay and flex time (or PTO). They get it there, or they move on to a company that will pay them what they think they are worth (or they have to re-evaluate their self-worth).

Let's say that Sam Smith went to Harvard and got his degree in Mechanical Engineering with secondary studies in Business Management. He graduated in the top twenty percent of his class and he has some work experience but it was working at a fast food restaurant and a paper route when he was in his teens. He's now twenty-four and he's going on his first job interview since he was sixteen. He walks into the "Manufacturing X" company in time for his appointment, gets shown in and shakes hands with the personnel manager and the department head he would be working under. They talk and the "Manufacturing X" company likes what they see. Do they offer Sam Smith minimum wage because this is his first job in years and he's basically starting over, and it is the government mandated wage? No. He gets to say what he is expecting to earn. They get to say, "Well, yes, we can do that," or, "Sorry. We could offer you fifty. Would you take that?" It's then up to Sam Smith to decide his own value.

Same holds true with someone just getting their first job at a fast food restaurant, a grocery store or a car wash. Ken Kirk is perpetually punctual, hardly ever gets sick, is good at making change, is driven to succeed and is shooting to be promoted at least once (preferably twice) within the next six months. Lenny Ladd walks into the same establishment, has a track record of working for a similar establishment, but has been sick often, has a history of putting nominal effort into his work and sometimes was as much as $5.50 off in his drawer count at the end of the day because he has a problem making change. There are two identical jobs available. Ken Kirk talks to the manager and impresses him very much. Lenny Ladd has experience and the manager needs experience. They both get hired and they both get paid minimum wage for the first six months of employment.

Problem is, the manager has to pay Lenny Ladd the same wage as he has to pay Ken Kirk when it is Ken Kirk who has made a huge difference in the first two weeks of his being employed and Lenny Ladd has done just about nothing extra. Due to the minimum wage, there is no money to give Ken Kirk a raise; nor can Lenny Ladd be fired because a second worker is definitely needed; even if it is a nominal worker. Ken Kirk has to wait until there can be more money in the budget for his raise. Six months pass. Ken Kirk has been noticed by other employers and he is being offered other jbos. Loyalty makes Ken Kirk want to stay; money makes him want to go. Ken Kirk makes a decision to stay for two more months, just in case things get better. Two months later, Ken Kirk is still making minimum wage and Lenny Ladd is getting lazier.

Even though Ken Kirk absolutely loves working there, and loves what he is doing he decides to leave the company because he can't see himself going further up the ladder due to Lenny Ladd's employment costing his employer equal pay for less work than Ken Kirk was putting into the job. Ken Kirk leaves his employer and makes two dollars more per hour at his new job because of his positive work attitude, drive and contribution to his employer. Lenny Ladd is still at the store and still making minimum wage with his boss trying to decide whether Lenny Ladd is worth it because the boss can't find anyone else to take the job.

Ken Kirk's decision was right for him only in the dollar and cents mode. Emotionally, Ken Kirk felt like a traitor because he respected his boss and had a fond attachment to him. He felt resentment toward Lenny Ladd for costing Kirk his dream job, and he considered his first job a failure because of his decision to leave and he carried that with him the rest of his life.

This isn't as far fetched as you might think. There are employers out there every day who have a similar situation: go-getters who cannot be given a raise due to minimum effort minimum wage employees who take up pay and space and do just about no work. Yes, they could be fired (as long as it's not a union job), but they would only be replaced by someone else making a minimum wage and the people who deserve more money wouldn't be receiving it because of that minimum wage being forced upon the employer. The employer is stuck with the inability to reward good workers for their effort; or to discipline bad employees for their lack thereof. Money is supposed to be a good motivator, but for some it is not. Firing those who do no work only begins the cycle again and means training another new worker and making the HR department work harder to do the processing out and in. Training time means down time and that means money lost; at least with the slacker he was already trained, even if he's producing 3/4 of what he could be doing.

Minimum wage is a trap for both the employer and the employee. There is no negotiating, no figuring out what you are worth, what the job is worth. It's here: take it or leave it because this is what the government says we have to pay. Minimum wage depletes creativity (who wants to be more creative and make more effort than the Lenny Ladds of this world and still receive the same pay?), depletes initiative, depletes drive. It's a job that will pay you no matter what as long as you show up and you can always get another job that will pay you that same amount as a newbie, so why bother with effort?

Minimum wage is a vacuum of despair. I heard so many people at my last job complain that they were "stuck" there because they couldn't get anything better (no matter what their pay was). I have heard so many people in other jobs decry their pay because they "couldn't do better". They never tried. They heard that the minimum wage job they were in was basically their only choice because if they changed jobs, it would just mean downtime and they'd be paid the same thing at the new job -- no matter how long it was between jobs -- and they are raising three children on that minimum wage job and it's hopeless.

Even though minimum wage is said to be ensuring a "living wage" for everyone, it is a farce. With gas, food, electricity, water, housing costs as high as they are, the "living wage" has never been a "living wage": never. In 1938, at twenty-five cents per hour, the minimum wage earner made $520 per year. The average cost to raise a family of four with food, shelter and clothing outstretched the minimum wage (see the chart on the third page) and it has every year since its inception.

The minimum wage is an useful tool, however. It keeps people believing that if they rely on the government to do things for them -- to "give" them health care, to "pay" for their car, to "demand" a living wage for them -- then all they have to do is show up at work and do minimal work. They don't have to meet standards and they don't have to work hard to get ahead. They will -- probably at the next big election cycle -- get a raise automatically when the minimum wage goes up to buy more votes for re-election. Very useful for those who are willing to keep people down and to keep them ignorant of the true price of their vote and of their own willingness to let others do things "for" them. Remember, it's not always "for" you. When it is a politician doing it, it's usually "to".

What I sent Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State -- at her request

2010-03-15T01:10:00.001-04:00

Secretary Clinton,

Your website and the article at CBS News (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/62698) said that "citizens" are allowed to write in and tell you what we think about America's human rights record. That I will do.

Since its inception and the U.S. Constitution, America's human rights record has been better than any other country on earth. We wrote laws that enabled people to benefit from the sweat of their own brow and to toil on their own land and keep the things they grew for themselves, or to sell what they grew for a profit; to manufacture and benefit from their labor and to create and benefit from their creativity. We tried to keep government out of the way of the people's prosperity and freedoms.

We have a record of standing up for the little guy -- domestically and abroad -- and always responded when asked for help. We respond when a country is attacked and requests assistance: whether the attack be from another country, or from "Mother Nature" and our help is always in the nature of trying to do what is right.

We have a record of admitting wrongs and righting them. When slavery was finally abolished (Thank you, President Lincoln, Republican.), we corrected a wrong that was a shorter duration here than in any other country on earth. In fact, there are still today countries that have slaves of one sort or another and America takes a stand against such a practice.

We have a record of helping the political prisoners and political targets of tyrants and dictators -- except of those currently running America: this administration -- and offering them a place of safety and political freedom to speak as they wish and to stand against their tyrannical government back home.

We have a record of standing strong for what is right, what is good, what is pure and what is best for the people and the people's freedoms.

Never overlook those things -- our actual record on human rights -- when you consider the history of America's human rights record. Until this administration, we were a good nation. We were a nation that tried to do what was best for its people and the people of other countries. We were sincere in our efforts to protect the weak and injured, to help those in need, to promote freedom within our borders and beyond. This administration does its best to reverse all of that. But I hope that it won't last for long. Four years is the most we can take: preferably less with impeachment possible soon.

America was founded on "the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" and that ideal has carried us thus far. Let us not now turn back from it and become a nation that follows Hitler's, Stalin's, Mao's and Che's example into that dark night of murder and starvation for the sake of the power of the administration. America -- this administration -- needs to return to its roots and return to our freedoms and turn away from the Marxist/Socialist/Communist hateful ideas of those who have already proven it doesn't work for the people. America's record was good. Remember that. America is a good nation as long as it has good leaders. This administration is not "good leaders": Ronald Reagan was.

Sincerely,

"Oad" to obamination

2010-01-07T11:58:00.001-05:00

In the year of our Lord, 2008,
In front of the world a man filled with hate
Began to run for President of the U.S.
And filled the land with words of excess.

He promised all everything and more than enough
To have what they wanted and with bellies stuffed
They would play on their toys in a house paid in full
By someone besides them; their neighbors would do.

He promised to give whatever was wanted
Including health care free - for his supporters, at least.
The others who opposed him would pay through their teeth
For his word was golden and delivered their dreams

Not exactly when, nor how, nor all;
Just the thimbleful of his word did he deliver,
But it was enough to placate and keep him in power
On their hopes and dreams, he had started to sour.

For now that he had tasted the ultimate power of the land
And been given the Prize from other hands,
He decided that was all that he wanted
His time was too precious to serve those who trusted

And when they cried loudly, he'd throw them a bone
A little thing, really, a single buffalo wing,
To make them shut up and leave him alone,
Quieting the masses became his full art

And when they'd start whining, he'd reply with this start,
"When I ran for office, I promised you this…"
And naming a thing he'd throw out the wing
That was their dream - or at least a small part.

It's a beginning, they'd sigh, and be contented again
With little, small things, beginning to end.
Until months later, when realize they would,
And it became clear (finally) that they didn't get their due.

Hue and cry would set forth and complaints they did rattle,
And on and on the leader had to prattle
About what he promised, though none could contend,
That deliver he had finished not one could amend

The list of unfinished promises and such
The leader had actually given all he had said
On any one thing - not a one - would be named
And there was the truth staring them straight in the face.

The leader had used them, and used them fair well,
For getting what he wanted and no one could tell
Anything he wanted more than the power
To do as he pleased and to waste 'way the hours

Consuming his high end food, wine and steaks,
Flying here, there and shopping trips did take,
So many - so many - that even his friends
Began to notice that their lives were in his hands

For if, in a battle, for one more hurrah!
Their lives were but fodder for the leader to draw
And to use and to discard as only leaders can do
And to ruin and lay waste to, just like you know who.

This leader refrained from doing what was right.
He insisted on doing just as he pleased,
He wasn't interested in laws, rules or promises;
Those were for others, not he, the great liege,

For in his own mind he was all that and more
And everyone must listen, bow and adore
And if they did not, he'd make sure to remember
And punish them later, come June or December.

Then in a fury the people of the land
Decided that enough of the leader was had.
They'd put up with all this, and more than they knew,
And it was time to give the "liege" his fair due.

To their House they did march, signs in their hands,
And demanded a return of their rights in their land.
From the window did look the leader with fascination
"What have I done?" Queried obamination.

"To bring out the ire in these little people?
To make them all hate me and want me to leave?
I've done all I wanted, they've nothing to grieve."
And stare he did nightly into the abyss
Of the people of the land he summarily dismissed.

A voice rang out from the people of the land,
"America is Freedom! Return to the Law!
Stop changing our nation to meet your desires.
We want nothing of your Socialist ways!
We want America in Founding Fathers' ways!"

"Oh!" Exclaimed obamination, now "understanding"
And he ran quickly to the laws and destroyed them completely
And declared himself King - Greatest and First.
And because "First" none dare call him the "Worst".
He'd rule until death and he'd be their Sovereign.
They'd learn to love him, whether like it or not,
And he'll leave to his successor the wealth of this nation,
The whole world would call him "King obamination".

The flaw in his plan, he saw not a one.
No inkling had he of the folly nor fun,
Others would now have at his expense
For Americans do not bow knees to a prince,
Nor curtsey to queens, kings and the like.

We take not to Duchess "Such and Such" or
"Baron So and So"; no. We prefer our Freedom
To bending and scraping and when obamination, the "King"
Revealed his new plan for our land,
We reeled him in tightly and took back our House,
Surrounding him closely with bars and a guard
Who would not listen to his foolish declarations,
For there was a greater, written for the Foundation.

The moral of the story, if one need it explained,
Is that with an ego as big and as plain,
As the one in obamination, the "King" in his head,
Ruining the country that is supposed to feed you,
Isn't the smartest plan and that you should heed to
Those "little people" who don't want to become
Something besides what our Forefathers had done.
We don't want to be ruled without being listened to at all.
We want our country to be as before;
greatest on earth and it we adore.

Now, obamination, "King" in your head,
The people say "No more taxes" if you wish to eat.
For taxing us more will lead to your defeat.
It may be earlier than you ever planned,
For we rebelled once, again if your plans demand.

America was built on rebels such as us.
Don't push us too hard, or soon you will dread
The things you have done and that went to your head
Will rise again in those "little people" a fire,
That will return to quench your desires.
So stop now, or else you'll learn the hard way
It's not to the "King's fiddle" the "little people" do play.
To the tune of Freedom is our favorite dance,
And dance it again hence we get the chance.
Take not for granted that "all's well" with your world.
It's more than a given that your flag is unfurled.

Soon you shall see the truth of these words,
"Give me liberty or give me death…"
And even if breathed with last breath,
Others will come and take up the banner
And more than enough will fill up the stage
To make the "King" in your head
understand that we rule the land.
Not one man, but many: "E Pluribus Unum",
Not Ruler, not "King", nor any such thing.
'Tis "We, the People" who Constitution brings
To make of this land what is supposed to be.
No room for an "organizer" who would be "King".

Be gone, obamination, to far off shores.
We want no more of your commies galore.
We want back our Freedom and take if we must
But you shall not rule us, nor of our land bust.
Our right, by God, is given to us,
Not from your hand, Alinsky's or Dohrn's;
And from ours it cannot be torn.
It's ours by birthright, not from Pelosi,
Reid cannot grant it, no Rahm can demand it.
God's own hand passed on to us
Our rights as Citizens of this great land,
Not a decree from someone else's hand.
So get not too comfortable in the chair as your "throne".
Your "kingdom" will not support you;
You'll be all alone.

Think now, obamination of the truth:
The "course of human events" not just Nation's youth,
We shall be here to hold you accountable for all of your wrongs
And not just one, there will be throngs,
To make sure you know that "We, the People"
Have finished with patience and wait for the sign
When we will rise up and take back our nation,
Returning her to the Founding Declaration
Of Freedom from tyranny, oppression and taxation
And bringing back our Rights that you can't deny.

'Tis true, it's an old song, an old truth, an old plan.
But more beautiful words were never spoken
Than, "We hold these truths…" and those that followed,
And live by them we shall, no "King" allowed.

Copyright 2010 Linda McKinney All Rights Reserved

Selfish is as Selfish Does

2009-11-11T01:23:00.006-05:00

When I was a kid, the most often heard phrase was, "I want a better world for my children." It was our parents' main goal to make sure that we had a great America in which to raise our children -- their grandchildren.

Nowadays, it's more likely to hear parents say something like, "I want health care. I want it now. I want the government to pay for it." The problem with that sort of thinking is that it's not good for your children to have to be burdened with the cost of your desires. That's like saying that you're horny so your child should have sex with you. Not a good idea.

Your children shouldn't be burdened with the cost of your desires. Not for health care, not for sexual satisfaction. And yet, more and more parents are demanding of their children the cost of the parents' desires. Whether those desires be for nationalized health care at an enormous cost to their children and grandchildren, or their parents' desire for "fullfilment" as the mother and father both trudge off to work daily as the child is raised by a multitude of babysitters and before- and after-school programs. If the parents' desire is to have "social justice", the child is stuck with a world in which he or she gets promoted even when not ready, leaving the child feeling panicked due to not understanding the work; or, on the other side, being not chosen for college due to another child's preferential treatment based on "social justice": the children pay the price, no matter which parent is dreaming of "social justice".

The children of today are paying the price of four decades' worth of parental selfishness. Since the sixties, parents have been into "peace, love and rock and roll", leaving the child to pay for the "peace" by not having a missile defense system or enough airplanes to defend them. The child paid first for the "love" because the child had no father in the home and it was "okay" to break social norms of the time and to raise a child without having a husband. "Okay for whom?" was never asked and the child grew up feeling different and intimidated, or followed Dear Ol' Mom and did the same thing and became sexually permissive and wound up presenting Mom with a grandchild to help raise because Mom put herself first, why shouldn't the daughter? Or, why shouldn't the son be sexually permissive, that's the way Mom and/or Dad were, so if it's good enough for them... They pay the price in rock and roll in learning what they live, not what they're told. If Mom and (or) Dad are into the kind of music that is infamous for the drug scene (Jimi Hendrix, etc. for the older generation; I don't know who for the younger), then that's the way the child will grow up. Don't expect your child to not impersonate you in most things, or at least in the big things. As long as they live it, they will learn it.

Nowadays, it's children having children because the parents are too busy working: parents putting their reputation for having nice things is more important to them than having a solid family where the child feels important and knows that Mom and Dad love them. I've heard parents say that they love their child and would do anything for them, but those same parents don't have time to sit and talk to the child who needs advice, who has a heart ache, who has been abused by someone -- all in the name of "I have to go to work, I'll see you later." What is more important? Your savings plan for your new car, or the fact that your daughter was just pressured into having sex with her boyfriend for the first time even though she's just thirteen?

Selfish parents think that a bigger, better, more world (bigger house, better car, more designer name fashions, etc.) is better for their children than a small house with an older car and Wal-Mart brands with Mom at home and Dad working to support all of them because they put their children first. It's no use blaming "the world we live in" because it wasn't the world who taught your children that it should be that way in the first place. It was you!

When you have children, it's your job to raise them, not someone else's. When you have children, it's your job to teach them right from wrong, not someone else's. When you have children, it's your job to teach them about sex, not someone else's. When you have children, it's your job to teach them about God and your belief system, not someone else's and it certainly isn't someone else's job to tell them that they can't believe, either!

Putting your children first in this world means not only putting off that BMW until you are retired, but it means having the patience, determination and courage to do what is right for your children and their future and your grandchildren's futures in every instance and every decision you make. That's being a parent. Thinking of the "here and now" and only the "here and now" will do no good for your children's futures because they will be the ones paying the price for you thinking of only the "here and now".

Consider the fact that with health care, it will currently cost the average American family of four almost twenty thousand dollars a year for Pelosi's HR 3962 if the Senate agrees with it and this thing goes all the way through. Think of how much it will cost your children's average family of four in twenty years from now. We all know that the costs of government plans always go one way: UP. So how much will it cost your children when they're thinking of having children? It's estimated at almost twenty thousand annually now, how much more will it be in twenty years? Thirty thousand a year? Do you even make thirty thousand a year? If your child does, what will your child live on, buy food with, do for their children what they want to if all of their money is going toward this nationalized health care plan? How will your child survive? Obama won't be in office in twenty years. Pelosi hopefully won't be in office in twenty years. Who will do for them? You? Will you then pay the price for your current selfishness? If not, then who?

Are we to provide everything for your child via a government program? Is that how selfish you want to be? If that be the case, then what will your child have to pay in taxes in order to be able to have everything from the government? Or, what will your child have to do for the government in order for the government to be so magnanimous toward your child? Do you want your child to do without because you wanted health care now? Sounds to me as though your child will not only do without, but your children's children will, too. If your children have to pay thirty thousand a year for the health care system you wanted now, then how much more will their children pay? Fifty thousand a year? Sixty? Does that sound like a loving thing to do to your grandchildren?

I thought you were supposed to love them, take care of them, prepare for them, protect them, not burden them with your desires. Plan for your children and your grandchildren, not just the "here and now" or your grandchildren will be paying the price for your selfishness.

What will they think of a grandparent who burdened them with so much government debt that their economy is ruined and the cost of bread is twenty-five dollars a loaf? What will they think of a grandparent who made it impossible for them to go on vacations because they can't take time off of work due to their tax burden and the resulting economy? What will your grandchildren think of how you treated them and their futures when it didn't have to be that way? What will they think of you then?

Will they think that you made a mistake? Will they think that you were misled? Will they think that it's all the government's fault, or will they wake up to the fact that it was you who helped push this thing through and it was you who made their lives a miserable, joyless, slavish burden because their freedoms were gone via Cap & Trade, their banks were gone via government takeover, their health care took most of their pay and what wasn't taken via health care was taken in other taxes to pay for vehicle production and unions? What will they think of you as they work fourteen hour days to pay for your desires?

It's not right to be a selfish parent. It's not right to think of only yourself when you are trying to get something from the government. It's not right to think of just the "here and now". You must think of the future for your children's sake and stop thinking only of yourself and your desires.

You consider nationalized health care good for your children's futures? Not when you look at the big picture and the money involved. Not when you look at it objectively and unemotionally. It cannot be. Any time you add a burden to future generations for the satisfaction of the present, you are putting that burden on your children and making their debt to the government bigger each time. There's a number out there that is about $38,000 and is the amount of taxes each child will owe thanks to this administration's plans and deeds. That's not a very auspicious beginning for your child's future. Add to that the health care plans and it's even more debt already owed. When will it end?

In today's America, your child has the option to be whatever he/she wants to be. There have been people all across this land who started with nothing and rose to power, prestige, leadership positions, riches even because of their God-given talents, determination, drive and intelligence. They didn't rely on the government to get them there; they relied upon themselves. If they needed help, they went to family, friends and -- if nowhere else could help them -- the government as a last resort. People who dream big and aspire to be something can accomplish their goals and dreams in today's America. In tomorrow's America -- with health care, Cap & Trade, etc. -- that won't be even remotely possible. Why? Because no matter what aspirations your child may have in your selfish tomorrow's America, the government will have to step in and take most of their money, delineate what they can and cannot do because of Cap & Trade emissions laws, prevent them from living where they wish to live because a gopher turtoise was just found on the property's border and work will be the focus of their taxpaying lives.

All of this is the result of your selfishness; your "here and now", live for today attitude. To think that it could have all been prevented if you had stopped, thought about the future and thought about how it will effect your children and your children's children. To think that your children could have lived in a FREE America, instead of one that is burdened with debt, extreme environmentalist laws, and no hope for making it better, or getting out of it, all thanks to your selfishness.

I think your children deserve better. That's why I have my website, write this blog and encourage parents to have Mom stay at home with their children during their school years. Because it's selfishness that will bring about a worse world for our children, not a better world. Selfishness is demanding health care reform now so that you can feel better about yourself later. How you can feel better about yourself bringing all of that upon your children and grandchildren, I do not comprehend. But you will. My question is, will you even see what you have done as your child works so hard for your desires?

How selfish are you? Will you think of your children? Or will you say, "I want it and I want it now!"?

It's simple. Think of their future tax burden. Think of their lives and how they must live them in order to pay for your desires. How long will they have to pay for you? Wouldn't it be better to have just said, "No. I'll find a better way. I don't have to do that now."?

Grandpa, Grandma, Mom, Dad and Aunts and Uncles: do not burden the younger generations with your desires. Have mercy. Have mercy.

Don't Call Me "White"

2009-10-15T14:17:00.006-04:00

Well, I've reached my limit. I'm so fed up with the idea that I have to kowtow to someone else regarding what words I can use in this "free" country, that I have decided to rebel. I will not use the term "African-American" unless and until I am given the same considerations.

If I have to use the terms that keep changing (used to be "negro", then it was "black", then "African-American" [even though born here, thus making people AMERICAN-AMERICAN), then others have to refer to me as the term I choose. Fair is fair, right?

So, I have decided that I shall from now on be referred to as being -- not white -- but "A person who is peach-toned with rosey highlights that used to be known as a 'white' person." If someone can't refer to my race as what I want them to refer to me, then they better not refer to me at all, or I'll take offense. It has to be my way, or the highway. After all, I have rights, too. I am going to take offense and be upset if anyone refers to me as anything besides, "A person who is peach-toned with rosey highlights that used to be known as a 'white' person."

Why, "A person who is peach-toned with rosey highlights that used to be known as a 'white' person."? Because I can. I can change it at my whim and I can make it known throughout the world (internet gives internationality, right?) and if someone screws up and calls me "white", then they're hate mongers. They're race baiters. They're racists because I'm not "white". I am, "A person who is peach-toned with rosey highlights that used to be known as a 'white' person."

Don't the rules apply equally to all of us? Isn't that what everyone wants: equal rights? Well, if that's going to be the rule, then why should I put up with someone using an erroneous color designation as my race delineation? I will no longer stand for that! I am not "white". Even my teeth are not "white" since I can apply a treatment that will make them "whiter". That means that they are not purely "white": off-white, maybe, not "white". So why should I be called "white"?

It's a racist thing to call me "white". It does not designate my race (there is no such thing as a "White" race), it doesn't designate my color (and we're all supposed to be color blind anyways), it doesn't designate anything about my origins since those formerly-known-as-"white" do not come from one particular place, just as those who designate themselves as "African-American" do not always come from (ancestrally speaking) Africa.

Strictly speaking, since ancestry is a supposed designation for others, then I should be called something besides "white" since I am part Cherokee. If I can consider that portion of me as others can consider their supposed ancestry out of Africa, then I should be called exactly what I requested, "A person who is peach-toned with rosey highlights that used to be known as a 'white' person.", anyways since "red" (as in American Indian: red man) and "white" make pink. Or perhaps I should go for my full great-grandparental designation. I would then be, "Bohemian-Cherokee-British-Irish-American". People can call me that and I would not be offended. After all, that's equal treatment, isn't it? Wouldn't you love to go around asking everyone their ancestry before referring to them?

So, if I can be internationally referred to as "white" even though it is not my desire and it is racist, inaccurate and offensive to me, then I can call others whatever designation I desire to call them. Therefore, I shall refer to whomever I wish as whatever I wish when it comes to race and color designation. If others can do so to me, and they want equal treatment under the law, then I can do so to them unless and until they call me, "A person who is peach-toned with rosey highlights that used to be known as a 'white' person."

Nobel Prize Very Revealing

2009-10-09T17:37:00.004-04:00

As obamination (cough cough) "won" the Nobel Peace Prize today, everyone except himself wondered "Why?" He didn't say, "What? What are you talking about?" when he was told. He said, "I am humbled," as though he thought of himself as worthy, or as though he wasn't totally surprised.

Speculation was rampant as to why the Norwegian Nobel Peace Prize committee would choose obamination. One of the most oft heard speculations was about obamination's apology tour and how he was so apologetic for "American arrogance." Actually, I have no problem with him apologizing for arrogance, but I do have a problem with him apologizing for the arrogance of anyone besides himself, his wife (on a scale of one to ten I'd giver her about a thirteen), and his ilk's arrogance. Those of his "bird" (as in "birds of a feather flock together") are as arrogant as anyone has ever been.

In fact, if you watch the video on my video page that is titled, "The History of Political Correctness" (and has anyone ever been more politically correct than obamination and his birds?), you will see the evidence that proves that the Progressive Leftie Liberals are arrogant from the get-go and learn even more arrogance as they progress up the ladder of power and corruption. And, yes, I say corruption because I believe that most are.

The supposed "arrogance" of America is not in thinking that we are right to defend ourselves against attacks -- external or internal -- any country has the right to do that and most (except the Norwegians, Swedes and perhaps France who usually refuse) would defend their own right to do so. That is not arrogance. The arrogance of America is in the Left's ideology and in their desire to have everyone agree with them, think like them, accept them, give in to them, etc. That is arrogance: arrogance cubed!

When your whole idea is to make others shut-up and not disagree with you because if they disagree, then they are the ones who are wrong, when your whole history shows that it is the mindset, the power point, the teaching of the Left since the 1920s, then the arrogance obamination is apologizing for is apparently his own and that of those birds like him.

Consider his Nobel Prize acceptance speech. He said that he views his win as, "an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations."

Sorry. Was that a slip of the tongue? Did he just say that it was an "affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people of all nations"? He did, didn't he? Is he saying that he views this Nobel Peace Prize as an affirmation that "people of all nations" want "American leadership", i.e. himself to lead them?

Well, my, oh, my.

The official press release of what obamination said quoted him as saying the Nobel Peace Prize was "an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations." So he's saying that he wants to rule the world. Right? That's what he said. People of all nations want American leadership. Who is the leader of America? B. Hussein O. is the leader of America. If "people of all nations" want "American leadership", then who would lead them if not the ACORNed president of America, B. Hussein O.? A boy scout? (Probably a better choice, but not what his arrogant ego is saying.)

So obamination wants to be the world leader? Or should I say he wants to rule the world, is that more appropriate? Considering his way of doing things, his arrogance and his ego (lifelong ego if you read his books), should it surprise us that he wants to rule the world?

It doesn't surprise me. I saw that in the obamination from day one. He has this enormous ego in him, reflected in his wife, and he has a constant need to feed it. Consider a July 30, 2008 article titled, "Obama Arrogance Watch" in which this is the first sentence, "The chorus of voices suggesting that Barack Obama might be getting ahead of himself and more than a little full of himself is growing louder." obamination is quoted as saying (not just a little arrogantly, I believe), "I have become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions."

Oh, my!

Even in July of 2008 there was an "arrogance watch" over obamination. Doesn't that speak volumes of his own hat size? The recent Olympics debacle as reported on Topix is another example of obamination's arrogance having a detrimental effect. The title of the article? "Danish News: Obama Arrogance Turned Off IOC". It's not just America who has taken notice of his uppity, self-aggrandized state. Other countries are not liking his arrogance and we are paying the price for it.

Do a Google® search for "obama arrogance" and you get about 2,220,000 results. If obamination were not perceived as being arrogant that number would not be that high. Yet, there it is in Google®, undeniably measured in the number of results for that combination of words. Shouldn't that tell people something?

Throughout the entire campaign "season" of last year (and 2007 since that's when "His Arrogance, THE obamination" announced; Feb. 2007), it has been reported that he is arrogant. Not my words, the words of reporters in regular newspapers and magazines. The "arrogant" label is still applied today as he accepts the Nobel Peace Prize for doing nothing.

It is proven when we look at his acceptance speech. We see that arrogance again in one single statement that his being given the prize is "an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations."

World leader, B. Hussein O.; His High and Mightiness, B. Hussein O.; Ruler of the World, B. Hussein O.; Supreme World Being, B. Hussein O. The Ego, B. Hussein O.

Mm-mm-mm.

A slip of an arrogant tongue that speaks volumes.

What the Left Has Forgotten

2009-09-30T04:16:00.003-04:00

The obamination's Czars, advisors, financial supporters, confidants and mentors are either writing books, have written books, or are planning on doing so in the future. All have one favorite theme: the overthrow of America as we know it. Between Bill Ayers, Wade Rathke, Rahm Emmanuel and the rest of the "Radicals for Obama" group, there must be fifty books either already in print, or soon to be.

(Wonderful. More trees taken down for their own glorification and so that they can get some more devalued American money coming into their own pockets. I thought they cared about the environment and they believe that the free enterprise system and profit in America was evil. Oh, sorry. That's all talk. Action is reserved for the destruction of America as we know it.)

One of the books, "Rules for Radicals" by Saul Alinksy, is one of those books I decided to read in order to "Know thy enemy". It's not fun, but it can be eye-opening. It's an astonishing look into the mind of a "revolutionary"; albeit a so-far unsuccessful revolutionary in thought and deed. So far, I have read the Prologue and have a few thoughts on it which I share here.

To start with, the Alinsky Prologue states:

(Page xix) "As an organizer I start from where the world is, as it is, not as I would like it to be. That we accept the world as it is does not in any sense weaken our desire to change it into what we believe it should be -- it is necessary to begin where the world is if we are going to change it to what we think it should be. That means working in the system."

He then says that Dostoevsky teaches that the vast majority of the people should feel lost, frustrated, alienated, powerless and defeated (I paraphrase, of course), that "they are willing to let go of the past and chance the future" with revolutionary change. Without this acceptance of the idea and desire for change -- without the lost and powerless, frustration -- people will not be willing to accept revolutionary change. He says that organizers (could this be "community organizers"?) need to work among those of the lowest income brackets to form alliances with them or "they will move to the right." In other words, if the Liberal Lefties don't court the poor and promise them the moon, stars, a personal son and a chauffeur, then the poor people are going to naturally become conservative. "If we fail to communicate with them, if we don't encourage them to form alliances with us, they will move to the right. Maybe they will anyways, but let's not let it happen by default." Does that tell you something?

Alinsky's point is that the Left should focus on the poorest of the poor, the disenfranchised in order to prevent them from becoming someone who wants to be able to keep what they have via hard work, get more via hard work, and stand on their own two feet. It is this realization -- that the Left acknowledges this reality -- that astonished me the most of all the words in the Prologue. Instead of wanting the poorest of the poor to learn to stand on their own two feet, he encourages radicals to court them, unite them with promises of power or whatever (that all-important "Change"!) and to use them as a united force to attack America's fundamental goodness.

Aren't you surprised that Alinsky acknowledges that the poor will become conservatives ("right") if not courted by the Left? He admits that the poor will become right-wingers if not courted by the welfare pushers! (What is it the Left is not willing to stoop to in order to have power?) Instead of encouraging people to stand on their own two feet, to work hard to get what they want, and to do it themselves, they get them "allied with" the Left in order to have a massive political hammer.

Another astonishing moment is when Alinsky acknowledges any fundamental goodness in America. Even though he acknowledges its fundamental goodness, it is apparently passed over by the radicals -- even Alinsky himself -- as he breaks what I think is the Leftist radical's first rule, "Nothing is good about America." in order to teach radicals how to go about taking away even that one "good thing" he mentions. Alinsky wrote on page xxi,

"Let us in the name of radical pragmatism not forget that in our system with all its repression we can still speak out and denounce the administration, attack its policies, work to build an opposition political base. True, there is government harassment, but there still is that relative freedom to fight. I can attack my government, try to organize to change it. That's more than I can do in Moscow, Peking, or Havana. Remember the reaction of the Red Guard to the 'cultural revolution' and the fate of the Chinese college students. Just a few of the violent episodes of the bombings or a courtroom shootout that we have experienced here would have resulted in a sweeping purge and mass executions in Russia, China, or Cuba. Let's keep some perspective."

Amazing. Admit that America is better than what you and your ilk are working toward changing America into, and then go on with the fight to change America into Russia, China, or Cuba. Isn't that smart?

The truth of the matter is, that it didn't matter to him -- Alinsky or any of the other radicals -- that he has to admit that America has offered himself and others that think like him the opportunity and freedom to do so. Alinsky didn't really want that freedom -- not for all Americans, at least. You and I would be hard pressed to have Alinsky or any other obamination supporter, cohort, advisor, financier, Czar who would stand up and support that right for us: the conservatives of America. Because the truth be known, they don't want to change America so that the underprivileged -- the poorest of the poor, the disenfranchised, the downtrodden -- will be able to have freedom of speech, or any other rights: the poor have those already. What the radicals surrounding obamination want is to use that power -- the power of the masses of the people who will turn right if not prevented from doing so -- to wield what they see as a "majority hammer" and get control of the country.

The Left truly believes that America should be run by themselves and no one conservative should have a voice in it, that none of the Founding Fathers' ideals, words, beliefs should remain in the American lexicon, and that in order to have the perfect world they all dream of that it has to be one in which every nation is part of all nations. We are not talking a U.N. situation here: we're talking one world currency, one world rule -- with the Left in charge.

What even the Left's DNA has forgotten is that the countries Alinsky mentioned above (Russia, China, Cuba) have been at this communist thing for so much longer than they or their grandfathers have even dreamed of and they -- the American Commies -- are such newbies to the game that they don't even rank when it comes to being a power player. China will just as soon kill them in front of their own mothers and children as allow them any rank in the power structure of their forever dreamed of, "New World Order". Russia will rape their wives, daughters and sons in front of them then kill them all in a horrible fire death before allowing them to be part of the ruling class. Their dreams of having a voice in the "revolutionary world" is so much bong smoke that they can't see the truth for the haze. They can't wake up for the ecstasies they envision while their delusions of grandeur fill their itty-bitty brains and their need to change their sheets in the morning is increased tenfold as their imaginings of their rise to the throne of power within the world to come enraptures them.

Well, lah-ti-dah.

It isn't going to happen, Lefties. The power structures you dream of are a bunch of smoke, mirrors, ego and sheet-changing dreams and will never come to pass. You will not rise to the thrones of communist power as you think you will. You will not be welcomed with open arms into the upper echelons of the ruling class as you desire. You will be a worthless worker bee, left to rot and starve because you are considered untrustworthy of the rulers of the new world you helped create. You'll be considered untrustworthy in their eyes because if you can betray your own country -- and in the process, your own mother, aunts and uncles, father, sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, cousins and friends and, finally, your own spouse -- how can they trust you?

Wake up and smell the coffee (or should that be borscht?), Lefties. You cannot give America's founding principles the heave-ho and make believe that it's all for the best that we become a world without boundaries and that we'll all sing, "Everything is Beautiful" as we hold hands around the globe with the communist countries that do not have the freedom of dissent even Alinsky touts is America then ignores, and expect anyone in the other countries to think you did something that should put you at the height of the ruling class.

If you think that, name me one -- one -- spy who was feted and glorified for anything longer than an introductory period of glory that made it look like that spy had achieved something wonderful, and who stayed at that vaunted glory place. Name me one spy who gave up America (or any other country for that matter) to the communist countries that was given a glorified position within the power structure, given a substantial living allowance, a wonderful house to live in, and all the respect of the leaders of that country and kept that place of prominence. One. If you cannot do so, then you have to acknowledge that the communist countries won't treat you any better if you try to deliver America to them, hook, line and sinker. You're more likely to be roasted over an open fire in front of the world as the first example of what happens to those who do things their way. We all know that after the glory and when the newspapers leave they take that traitor and fling him into the gulags and ignore his self-aggrandized plea of, "Look what I did for you!"

The rest of us will be left to be repulsed both by your actions and by your grisly death, but we will not mourn nor martyr you. You will have earned your place in history.

Alinsky wrote:
(Page xxiv) "Thus, the greatest enemy of individual freedom is the individual himself."

As it is with the Left's idea of conservatives, so it is with the truth about himself and others like him. Their fates, their places in history and their glory will be determined by their own actions and how they treat, adore, respect, or betray America. I do not think they realize that. I do not think they remember that. I do think they are so eaten up with their own egos that they think it will be different for them. They're special.

Alinsky quoted Alexis de Tocqueville's "Democracy in America", saying, "It must not be forgotten that it is especially dangerous to enslave men in the minor details of life." I suppose for the left, the truth of what Communism really is and what it really does is one of those "minor details".