Obama's Legacy Question

Written: 10/30/13

 I started to put this on FB but decided against it. After watching FOX News and listening to Obama and his coven smirk, twist, and lie their way through interviews, I had to vent. Here goes. If you can’t follow my “chess” analogy, don’t worry, it was hard for me too. Please critique.

O’Reilly missed it today. He’s giving Obama the benefit of the doubt as to whether he lied to America when he promised “if you like your insurance plan, you can keep it......” Bill said that Obama has a legacy to think about, and that he would know that if he got caught in a lie it would tarnish it. Therefore, he wouldn’t lie. O’Reilly said his ego won’t allow him to risk the embarrassment of impeachment. Uh, I don’t think so. I think Obama is a pawn in this chess game of power politics. Pawns can reach the other side of the board and become more powerful by replacing themselves with a piece taken by the opponent. Or, he can be sacrificed in order that the other pieces move into more strategic positions to bring victory. Two different outcomes for the pawn but one goal, to put the opponent in checkmate. Either way he’s an important piece (player). In other words, if by lying Obama can buy time and continue the process until it is securely embedded, then being impeached for lying is no biggie.

I believe that there is such a swell of powerful folks determined not to let this opportunity slip through their fingers that they or any of their “players,” including the president, will lie, distort truths, or demonize anyone that gets in the way. Massive control of our lives through healthcare is a prize worth risking all for. Yes, I think our president is capable of just about anything to hold onto this claim to fame. And, even if it could be proven that he lied, I don’t believe conservatives are going to be capable of breaking his hold on power. The press, Hollywood, left organizations, unions, and groups that won’t bite the hand that feeds them have insulated and protected him from the voters and from congress. He is as they say “Teflon" and nothing seems to stick either on him or any of his fellow travelers. He is a pawn that can be played either way which is why I don’t think that Bill’s assessment is correct. His legacy will be intact whether he is impeached or gets to fulfill his presidency. And, he, like any of the others in his circle, would be tickled to be thrown under the bus for this prize—transforming America into a socialist nation. That is the legacy he is interested in and will be remembered for. Presidents come and go and get their pictures hung in the rotunda, but to be THE ONE to achieve socialized medicine, well, ….that’s his and the socialists’ “dream.”

As far as his presidential legacy goes, as long as Obamacare survives, his legacy will be elevated by the left. As America’s position and wealth slip from the top to lesser positions in the world, the left will celebrate having placed freedom and personal sovereignty in “checkmate.” They will joyously announce to the proletariat class, “Now, everyone get in line for your handouts.” Your healthcare will become a handout at the pleasure of politicians and bureaucrats. It will take its place on the list of items to be budgeted for every year, and every year we the people will worry about cuts and new regs—another uncertainty.

Pray the Anchors Still Hold

Do The Anchors Still Hold?

Our music minister, Scott Glass, sang one of my favorites last Sunday morning, "The Anchor Holds." I have often thought about the concept of anchors and how they affect our lives.

Among others, two important anchors are our faith in a living God and our allegiance to upholding the precepts of governing as outlined in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. We have willingly tethered our culture to these anchors. Anchors are "a reliable or principal support, a mainstay, or something that serves to hold an object firmly" (Webster’s) in place.

Anchors protect families. Without a faith anchor, families are tossed about in a sea of competing ideologies and godless philosophies. For several centuries most Americans held the Bible and its wisdom as a high standard for behavior, and, thus, it served as a cultural anchor. Not all citizens were dedicated church-goers or strict in their observance of Biblical guidelines, but most recognized that the wisdom of the Bible was an anchor in people’s lives; it offered absolutes and values that were necessary for a growing nation to survive. It defined personal integrity, and it inspired our forefathers.

Today, faith in Jesus Christ is still an anchor for many people. The anchor of faith in God and His Word keeps us tethered to truth and helps us ride out the storms of life and throw a life-preserver to others who have no anchor. In addition to our faith, the Constitution and Bill of Rights serve as anchors and a protection against unrelenting winds that pressure us to change the course of our nation. Without the anchor of a national commitment to a strict interpretation of our founding documents, our country is at risk of being washed onto the "rocks of internationalism and globalism"–producing a diluted form of government guided only by the whims of the elite and powerful of any nation.

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights documents tether us to a solid foundation of government. Our form of government, though not perfect, is definitely superior to the vast collection of systems around the world. This anchor is being gradually pulled in. There are those among us who no longer see the need for a sovereign America with its own exemplary system. They are willing to pull anchor and allow America to drift into a churning whirlpool of systems, no longer distinct in culture, faith, or vision. We talk of the need for assimilating new immigrants into our culture; they think in terms of assimilating America into the global community where conformity is the ultimate goal. God forbid!

Pray that our anchors hold.

I started this post in Sept. of 2007. I'm still working on it. Please excuse my clumsy attempt at using an analogy.

Greed - Envy: Flip Sides of the Same Coin

The flip side of greed is envy. Wish someone would point that out to those who want a percentage of what other folks have earned. Real greed is at work in our culture, but it isn't necessarily evident in all successful companies or in the lives of the wealthy. Real envy is more at work and is a more destructive force. It pits people against each other. Wish someone would explain to me why taxing folks at the top much more than those at the bottom is "FAIR." Fair is taking two apples from the guy with twelve and two from the guy with seven. Whose business is it how many apples a person has? We have lost the meaning of the word fair. Fair means treating people equally no matter what their station in life. Now you may support soaking the rich to support the rest of us, but, please, don't refer to it as "fair." Call it something else--perhaps socialism.

Pelosi Thinks We're Stupid

The most insulting and demeaning statement that a legislator has, in my memory, ever said about the intelligence of their constituency is, (paraphrasing) "We'll just have to pass it so we can know what's in it." Recognize it? That's a N. Pelosi comment in re to the 2400 pg. Obamacare bill. That comment should have resulted in voters demanding a "recall" vote. Every citizen voter she represents should have been enraged at her assumption of their total ignorance and willingness to be deceived. You should be embarrassed. She really does think you are stupid. Are you? Actually, she thinks the rest of us are stupid, too. But...we didn't vote for her; you did.

Welfare vs Charity

Liberal politicians desperately want the electorate to believe that welfare legislation is a moral policy. But, I believe that their true intention is to “buy” votes. If you promise handouts to a group of voters, you are apt to create a “block vote.” Libs fend off any criticism of their proposed legislation by reminding critics of the Christian concept of giving; if the person claims to be a Christian and doesn’t support their views, that person is a hypocrite.  This argument is suppose to disarm all attacks from the conservative-right.

The real hypocrisy lies in the fact that liberals insist on strict adherence to the concept of separation of church and state and, yet, will justify welfare by using the Biblical concept of giving to the needy. They have just crossed their own line. They are promoting a state supported program using Christ or the church as the authority.

Christians, on the other hand, actually comply with the Biblical concept by supporting charitable giving outside of governmental programs.

Welfare enslaves; Charity liberates. Welfare is forcibly taken from the giver-the taxpayer-and given to the recipient with few requirements. Charity is willingly offered by the giver and lovingly given to a needy person or family.  It is without any governmental restrictions or additional involvement on the part of the giver or the recipient.

Charity cannot come through a government office; it must come directly and voluntarily through a person or private organization. Charity may or may not require behavior modifications or counseling in order to receive assistance. Charity may choose to remain anonymous or it may choose to become involved, something that remains the option of the giver.

Are you assaulting our form of government?

Government is the responsibility of every legal citizen. It is our responsibility to protect it from all assaults, both domestic and foreign. If you remain uninformed, you are assaulting it. There is no excuse for ignorance. To get informed start with the founding fathers and learn how much they sacrificed to give us this republic. Many gave the ultimate sacrifice—their lives and fortunes. What have you given? What are you willing to give?

For starters, give your country the time it takes to become an informed citizen. Gaining knowledge of our country's history and the struggles of the founding fathers to create this more excellent form of government is vital. Until you understand clearly what separates us from the rest of the world and what makes our system superior, you aren't ready to make your contribution to preserve it. You've got to know what you are preserving and why it is so important. Do your homework; then join a group. If you don't you may join the wrong one.

National Conventions and Campaigns

(I started this blog the day after the DNC 2008. Finally finished it April 2010. You have to give me something for perseverance.  And here it is 2016 and this still fits.)

My son called last night to see if I was watching the DNC extravaganza. I told him that his dad wouldn't let me. We were back on the history channel bombing the Japanese and Germans. I can see why Don would prefer to watch our country winning a world war than losing a culture war and our country at the hands of the liberals and progressives.

I told him I'd be up til two watching the speeches on C-Span, which I did. Which brings me to this point--both conventions are a total waste of money and should cease to exist. They are Hollywood specials. I'm surprised that they are not part of the Oscars--you know: awards for make-up, weird hair styles, costuming, technical or special effects, best-written-speech-for-a-candidate or supporter. You get the idea.

I am amazed when I think of the percentage of folks who actually tune in and make a decision on whom to vote based on this Hollywood production. What sane person does not see through all of the contrivances, the staged-for-dumb-voters events, the fake, the phony, the glitz, the glamour, the waste of zillions of dollars. Are the "undecideds" totally uninformed; have they never paid attention to government until the last three months before an election? Or, are they willingly being duped?

Do they not possess core values or any fundamental knowledge on which to base their choices? Do they not know the difference between a welfare state/socialism and individual charity/free market, capitalism? Do they not realize that we are a republic, not a democracy? Do they not understand that every human suffering or hardship is not a rationale or justification for moving toward the welfare state. Yes, sad conditions exist for some people economically and physically, but as we seek solutions we need to keep our eyes focused on our Constitution and protecting our representative form of government.

Tactical Maneuvers to Discredit Glenn Beck

I've been watching Glenn Beck for over a year now, and I cannot find anything extreme or alarming about his presentation style. What is alarming are the facts he presents and that no other journalists are joining him in the search for truth on the issues he addresses. The left and liberal media have painted him as a right-wing dangerous lunatic. If you have repeated these slurs and have not watched his program on FOX News channel then you are as guilty of character assassination as they are.

Beck does his homework and presents the results of his research so that viewers can make their own evaluations. He repeatedly encourages viewers to do their own homework, not to take his word for anything, and to question everything he presents. How radical is that? How extreme?

Beck connects the dots for us. He lets the people he is critical of speak for themselves either by reading quotes or playing videos of their speeches. He exposes their political positions and philosophies of governing by looking at their associations and affiliations. He tracks the progress of people who are leading our country as they move from organization to organization, from positions of leadership in radical groups to positions in other radical groups and finds the common denominator that links them to each other and, more importantly, to the White House.

He regularly invites people in high positions in our government to call the program to expose any error in his presentations. The phone never rings. He admits to receiving one complaint last year, and he corrected that mistake. He preaches against violence, he reminds viewers of Constitutional concepts, and he pleads with the electorate to solve our problems by exercising their right to vote. Extreme? Seditious? Radical?

I would bet that the people he is critical of are watching or listening. But, the administration's tactic is to ignore Beck publicly and rely on the likes of Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann, Dave Letterman, and Chris Matthews, to name a few, to discredit Beck by labeling him as some sort of nut. Maddow and Olbermann are just about the two most rabid attack dogs I've ever listened to. I expect either one to start frothing at the mouth while letting loose with their slimy, sneering insults. And, yes, unlike some of Beck's detractors, I listen to the opposition, i.e., MSNBC, CNN, and other liberal media. What is glaringly obvious is that the attacks are rarely about specific pieces of information that Beck has revealed and are exclusively attacks on his person. That's a classic tactic--distract from the real issues by discrediting the person.

Beck may be the Paul Revere of our day, and he's not crying "wolf." He's pleading with Americans to wake up before it's too late. You may decide after doing your research that his "alerts" are unfounded, but you have a duty to yourself and to your family and country to examine the information he presents with an unbiased eye. When reading world history you wonder sometimes, "where were the German people/citizens when Hitler was setting up a system for Jewish annihilation, coercing children to spy on their parents, etc.; didn't they see what was happening?" Maybe they were just too busy; maybe we are, too.

"The Anchors Hold"

Do The Anchors Still Hold?

Our music minister, Scott Glass, sang one of my favorites last Sunday morning, "The Anchor Holds." I have often thought about the concept of anchors and how they affect our lives.

Among others, two important anchors are our faith in a living God and our allegiance to upholding the precepts of governing as outlined in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. We have willingly tethered our culture to these anchors. Anchors are "a reliable or principal support, a mainstay, or something that serves to hold an object firmly" (Webster’s) in place.

Anchors protect families. Without a faith anchor, families are tossed about in a sea of competing ideologies and godless philosophies. For several centuries most Americans held the Bible and its wisdom as a high standard for behavior, and, thus, it served as a cultural anchor. Not all citizens were dedicated church-goers or strict in their observance of Biblical guidelines, but most recognized that the wisdom of the Bible was an anchor in people’s lives; it offered absolutes and values that were necessary for a growing nation to survive. It defined personal integrity, and it inspired our forefathers.

Today, faith in Jesus Christ is still an anchor for many people. The anchor of faith in God and His Word keeps us tethered to truth and helps us ride out the storms of life and throw a life-preserver to others who have no anchor. In addition to our faith, the Constitution and Bill of Rights serve as anchors and a protection against unrelenting winds that pressure us to change the course of our nation. Without the anchor of a national commitment to a strict interpretation of our founding documents, our country is at risk of being washed onto the "rocks of internationalism and globalism"–producing a diluted form of government guided only by the whims of the elite and powerful of any nation.

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights documents tether us to a solid foundation of government. Our form of government, though not perfect, is definitely superior to the vast collection of systems around the world. This anchor is being gradually pulled in. There are those among us who no longer see the need for a sovereign America with its own exemplary system. They are willing to pull anchor and allow America to drift into a churning whirlpool of systems, no longer distinct in culture, faith, or vision. We talk of the need for assimilating new immigrants into our culture; they think in terms of assimilating America into the global community where conformity is the ultimate goal. God forbid!

Pray that our anchors hold.

I started this post in Sept. of 2007. I'm still working on it. Please excuse my clumsy attempt at using an analogy.

George Will - Stand-up Comedian at CPAC

The following link is to one of the best and funniest speeches I've heard in a long while. George Will is a longtime Washington insider and journalist. His stoic expressions while delivering hilarious political punch is entertaining and informative.

This video should be shown on the late night talk shows as an example of great stand-up comedy. It won't because the message is too clear and vital to the health of our country. Will's command of innuendo and satire cuts to the heart of the current problems in America's governing class. He presents the differences between conservative and liberal philosophies and goals in a manner you can understand and laugh at. ENJOY!

cut & paste link:
http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/4830692

Obamacare Smells

The Obama administration's urgency to get healthcare reform done ASAP smells of deceit and shenanigans. There is an underlying agenda at stake—grow the federal government.

Drop the current legislation on healthcare reform. It is too lengthy, has too many points that are being challenged by people with no other motive than love of country.  And, it addresses issues of personal healthcare that are not the business of the government. In reality who ever gave the federal government the permission to address my/our healthcare; I agree with those who say that healthcare legislation is unconstitutional.

There are several things that should have been done much prior to this late date: tort/liability reforms that will reduce the necessity of providers carrying expensive liability insurance the cost of which is passed on to patients, hospitals, and other related providers and competition across state lines for less expensive insurance. Some suggest that this administration is beholden or indebted to trial lawyers' groups; that could account for the absence of tort reform in Obama's bill.

Some of the reforms in the Obama plan are punitive against insurance companies and will eventually put them out of business. Obama's insistence of mandating that insurance companies insure everyone, even those with pre-existing catastrophic illnesses, ignores the reality of the actuarial tables designed as a formula to assign premiums based on projected payouts. What a formula for destroying the insurance industry. But then, isn't that his intent. That would certainly move us right into a single payer system. We all agree that the issue of pre-existing conditions and those who cannot afford insurance needs to be addressed. Surely we can do that without destroying the best healthcare system in the world.

The bottom-line is that in addressing the plight of the under or uninsured, Obama has created a panic among the greater population of folks who have taken care of their business and made sure that they have adequate insurance. His plan thrusts the government's fingers deeply into the private affairs of many responsible people. Medicare has effectively desensitized Americans to the movement toward a total welfare state; it set us up to move toward dependency on the government.

The massive amount of language in the bill leaves massive holes of opportunity for undisclosed or unwanted legislation to be attached without the general public's awareness or understanding of long-term consequences.

This attempt at a “comprehensive” bill is really an attempt to slide every left-leaning, socialistic, fatter government piece of legislation past a “dull of understanding” public's eye. I include myself in this category. I looked through the bill and didn't have a clue as to what most of it meant or of its implications. The language is legal and most of us don't know how to sift through anything this massive and decide how it is going to affect the rest of our lives and the lives of our off-springs. When legislation is being debated that will change the nature of how we will experience healthcare and that will affect a huge portion of the economic health of our country, we should be able to understand it. For that reason, and many others, instead of trying to rush this through as Obama, Pelosi, and Reid have been trying to do since the first day of his presidency, the current bill should be scrapped. Much smaller pieces of legislation should be crafted that both sides can debate in front of the public. Timetables to move bills of this import through Congress should not exist.

I repeat: The Obama administration's urgency to get healthcare reform done ASAP smells of deceit and shenanigans.

Caution before Jumping

We've got enough liberal Republicans in Congress that I'm not confident actually got the right message from the Mass. victory. I'm afraid that they will continue to play "nice" with the Dems and get sucked into dragging out the healthcare legislation for "tweaking." It doesn't need to be tweaked; it needs to be trashed. From what I've read from those who have read the entire bill, there would be too many "hooks" hidden to have any confidence in the final version. Until they get serious about tort reform/liability limits, they need to forget moving forward with any other legislation. And, quit talking about 30 to 40 million of uninsured or under-insured. It's been pointed out that the number is considerably less when you remove the illegals, those who choose not to purchase insurance, and those who can afford healthcare without insurance.

Remember, Scott Brown said he voted for healthcare legislation that insures everyone in Mass. He has said that he is for insuring all. What does that mean legislatively? Conservatives need to be careful before jumping on just anyone's bandwagon. Brown may be for real. We don't know yet. Proceed with caution!

Give Glen a Chance

If you haven't been watching the Glen Beck show on Fox News at 4 p.m. every week day, then perhaps you don't have as clear an understanding of what is at stake in America today as you could--freedom and personal liberty. Glen is not the irrational, conspiracy theorist that the current supporters of President Obama's administration would have you believe. He, like other talk show hosts or news anchor personalities, has a slightly bizarre and energetic style; this style has been an attention-getter and an effective device for attracting viewers and critics. The urgency and importance of the information he brings to his audiences justifies this style; the more people who watch, whether admirers or those drawn by the lure of a side-show, the more people who will be exposed to another point of view on current events and, perhaps, truth that cannot be found on other networks.

If you have written him off as a little too radical, do yourself a favor and view with an open mind a video of his show from Friday, Jan. 8, 10. It is about 10 to 15 mins.; allow yourself some uninterrupted time to absorb what he is saying. Then make the judgment for yourself. Consider viewing several other of his videos from his evening show, especially the ones where he profiles the president's czars and the people he has surrounded himself with. To say it is scary is an understatement.


I tried to add a link to the site but was only able to copy and paste the web page:

http://video.foxnews.com/v/3963934/the-one-thing-18?playlist_id=87249

Socialized Medicine HB 3200 - No Biblical Support

Originally posted on Chattyb Thoughts on Tuesday, August 25, 2009 - see link at above of post

Dear Children and all others who read here, I cannot express enough the importance of reading this article. I received the link from the Allens in Texarkana. The author, Joe Crews, is a friend of theirs.

Without a doubt it is one of the clearest critiques of the nationalized health care reform from a Christian's viewpoint. The link will take you to the ChronWatch website where the article is posted. It will take about five minutes to read, but it is well worth the time. This articles directs the reader to the fundamentals behind the move to socialize the health care system and why it MUST be defeated. It does not go into the specifics of the bill but the basic philosophy of those pushing this reform on us and what their ultimate goal is--it isn't health care.

If you are not engaged in the battle to preserve our nation for our children and grandchildren, then perhaps this article will give you the incentive to get involved at some level. If you haven't contacted your legislators by phone, email, or snail mail, attended a town hall meeting or a tea party, or talked to people you know about the importance of resisting the passage of health care reform as designed by the liberal left, then it is probably time. (just my opinion; don't mean to be pushy)

There are areas in the health care system that need reforming starting with tort reform. These can be accomplished without completely demolishing the best health care system in the world.

Please get involved. After reading this article you will better understand what is at stake, IF you don't already. I know that many of you do. Thank the Lord!

Link: (copy and paste) I am sorry to say that tonight (11/11/11 at 11:00 p.m.) I tried to copy and paste the address noted below and was unable to find it. Chronwatch-America wasn't listed any longer. I have emailed Joe Crews to see where I might find his speech online. Hopefully he will supply a site. If not I will remove this post.

http://www.chronwatch-america.com/articles/5424/1/Socialized-Medicine--A-Prescription-for-Tyranny-of-Biblical-Proportions/Page1.html

Reflections

Just a little explanation on the "Reflections" title in some of my posts: I am distinguishing these posts as those that I transported from my "Chattyb Thoughts" blog. Since they did not receive much interest at that site, I decided to see if there was any interest out there in the politically interested community.

Any new posts here will not be entitled "Reflections." I welcome any comments or constructive criticisms that will broaden my understanding. Always be kind!

Reflections: Engineered Entitlements, written 2007

We are hearing the terms entitlement, entitled to, rights, and right to so often these days. I cringe everytime I hear them wondering what new entitlement or right has been discovered at taxpayers' expense. Should any entitlement/right be at the expense of another person. Should funding for an "e/r" demand the resources, money (taxes), talents, skills, services, etc. of other individuals? What do I really believe about rights?

Like other claims, these terms are used so often with the assumption that if the right or entitlement can be repeated often enough and loud enough and if it can be attached to a particular group, it can leapfrog right over the logic log into the Lake of Loosely Managed Legal Opportunism and onto a slippery, slimey lily pad of nebulous civic contracts. Gee, that was fun! Oh, come on now. Does it really have to make sense. Loosen up!

Have you considered what your basic rights are as a mere human on planet earth? The Bill of Rights enumerates a few for us as Americans.
#1 - freedom of religion (much diminished), speech (scratch this one, it's gone), press, assembly, & redress of grievances (overused-so many are grieved to the point of suing for $'s to soothe their little psychies);
#2 - freedom to keep and bear arms (under attack);
#3 - in peacetime military cannot take your home for housing without your permission (guess this one was a problem at sometime in our history);
#4 - protects against unreasonable search and seizure;
#5 - due process;
#6 - right to a speedy trial (really) and counsel (those speedy counsels are called ambulance chasers);
#7 - common law guidelines (don't really understand this one);
#8 - no excessive bail or fines nor cruel and unusual punishment (no problem there);
#9 - Constitutional rights do not deny or disparage other rights retained by the people (states); and
#10 - powers not delegated to the U.S. by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people (states rights - this one's in jeopardy).

Several years ago I heard a Republican couple claim on national t.v. that they had a "right" to good childcare. Oh, my gosh. I almost slid out of my chair. Republicans, no less. I always knew that Dems felt that if "they could name it, they could claim it" as a right. But a Republican. We are in dire straits, indeed. But then, I guess if it works for the dems....Nah. Can't go there.

So now in America we have a growing list of rights when my own personal list is soooo short. Here's my list: I have the right to:
#1 - live up to my potential limited only by my own initiative and choices, etc.;
#2 - work as hard as I want in order to obtain the kind of lifestyle I desire;
#3 - fellowship with God any time or place either aloud (some restrictions) or quietly;
#4 - commune with nature and enjoy the world around me any time or place;
#5 - love and appreciate my family and friends all the time;
#6 - * breathe natural air unpoluted by cigarette smoke and the obnoxious/dangerous fumes generated by corporations or the public who lack sensibilities or responsibility toward their fellow citizens (stop and take a deep breath-we're almost there) as long as it does not infringe on their ability to produce a product/service necessary for the continuation of the human race (necessary is the key word and sorry for the long sentence-are you okay?);
#7 - have as many children as I can afford;
#8 - starve to death if I decide not to work;
#9 - drop dead from an unhealthy lifestyle and too much Blue Bell;
#10 - control my own destiny and the destiny of my underage (17 yrs. & younger) children short of denying them food or shelter or imposing torture to their bodies (some is okay) or minds.

Well, I guess it is not so short. I may add to this list from time to time. These may not even be rights as much as they are personal responsibilities and consequences.

But, did you notice something about my list? None of my rights required your taxes to go up. None required you to help me out financially. And this is what makes my list totally out of the reach of the government and any intervention they might impose. There's nothing here that should require legislation for public funding.

The truth is that some of the rights I hold dear have actually been addressed in the halls of congress and some of those rights are being enjoyed now only until they are challenged in court. The one that comes to mind immediately is the right I claim to paddle my child (in theory only as my children are grown). Some state agencies want to eliminate paddling altogether. By virtue of the perceived threat of the state's intervention in this family matter, most parents feel compelled to relinquish this form of punishment rather than risk having their children taken from then while having to do battle in a courtroom to regain custody. The liberals have sold most state and federal agencies on the notion that paddling is a form of child abuse. This is, of course, contrary to Bible teaching, to good common sense, and the test of time. Generations of children were disciplined in this manner, suffered neither permanent damage to their posteriors or their personalities, and were safer in their environments than children of today. There is something to be said for a little healthy fear of pain.

The state has also sabotaged my parental authority in determining whether or not my child has the right to an abortion or the services of the local Planned Parenthood Clinic. I guess this is one of the most odious examples of the liberals move to take control of our families. We know that Planned Parenthood Clinics operate either on high school campuses across the country or very near the campuses in order to service their customers--our precious daughters and sons. All of this is done behind the backs of parents who would most likely refuse their services. School districts do not seem to protest this invasion of the home. The rationale for allowing this is the liberal argument that some girls would not seek their services because they would have to face an angry parent. Oh really! Being afraid of an angry parent has served for eons as a deterent to bad behavior.

Many of the rights proclaimed by groups and individuals are attached to a law or legislation that will require money from the national treasury for funding. For example, the right to: daycare and after-school care for children of working moms, summer school assistance plus daycare, health insurance for children of indigent parents, health insurance for all, etc. The list goes on.

I acknowledge that these "rights" highlight problem areas for folks in our communities who lack sufficient funds. My problem is that they are labelled "rights." They are not. One person, no matter what his/her plight, does not have a claim on another person's income or resources. We may, as a community or government, decide to assist people with problems, but not because they have a right to the assistance. They should get it out of our moral commitment to help those who need help.

It would seem that many today focus on what they can get from this country and not what they can give. Sounds like something President Kennedy once said, "Ask not ...." And, it is in the "getting" that the rights list grows longer and longer because folks have looked through the window of opportunism and not through the window of opportunity. Opportunism is the art, policy, or practice of taking advantage of opportunities or circumstances often with little regard for principles or consequences [Websters]. Opportunity exists when a person recognizes a good chance for advancement or progress when a favorable juncture of circumstances exists.

In America a favorable juncture of circumstances exists and has existed for several hundred years for most folks. Our culture has tried to right the wrongs of our history when various groups were denied access to those favorable circumstances. No culture is perfect; no governmental system is without flaws. To the credit of our founding fathers, a system to redress these injustices was written into our form of government, and the Bill of Rights took its rightful place beside the other important documents. Thus, with few exceptions, no person in America can say that they have been denied the right to follow his/her dreams and just maybe achieve them. Achieving them is not a right, only the attempt.

Bottom line: If a right requires that someone else pay, it isn't a right. Am I wrong? Whatever your feelings are on welfare or charity, the focus here is on the use of the term "rights." Check the Bill of Rights list. None require federal or state funding.

I welcome your comments. Would enjoy seeing your list of rights. There is so much more that can be said on this topic, but enough for now.

* On the national scale, types of air polution may require some legislation, but surely I should be able to suck oxygen in most places without someone's smoke drifting into my nose space. The exception-in your house or your space. I can leave.

Reflections: Hang In There! written prior to last election

Are you a Republican who is ready to throw in the towel, quit working in your local committee, and won't commit to give to any candidate? Well, cheer up and don't give up the fight--it is too important!


No party is perfect. No politician is without flaws. No campaign is without attacks on its opponents. If we have learned anything, it is that politicians are a reflection of the general population of fallible humans. It is our fault when we put people on pedestals--they are apt to fall off. We have to continue to look for the best among us to represent us.


Consider why you voted Republican in the first place. Surely it wasn’t because you thought they were perfect. You probably thought that their party platform most closely reflected your values on the economy and, more importantly, the culture. It was probably because you thought that they offered the most hope for pulling America back from the brink of socialism. You supported a Republican candidate because he/she professed values with which you agreed. Some actually hold to those values later as elected officials; others do not, and they disappoint us.


Without offering excuses for any mess-ups, either real or imagined, there is one overriding issue that should keep you working and involved: Supreme Court and lower court appointments. There may be several liberal Supremes who are waiting for a D president before they will retire. President Bush has appointed two very capable and, hopefully, conservative judges. The balance in the court still leans to the left too often to be considered conservative. If two more judges are appointed by the D’s, the balance will be decidedly liberal. This observation does not mean that the supremes always rule along party lines. They do not. Justice O’Connor has been a disappointment to some conservatives and was appointed by a R. But, the Warren court that ruled for decades took this country so far into the liberal zone, it will take decades more to find our way back to a "non activist court" and to a court that considers "original intent." Liberal judges down the line have so messed with the laws of our nation that they no longer make much sense. The concept of "original intent" offered an anchor to reason and consistency.


Thankfully, members of both parties worked to correct the glaring Consitutional inequities that allowed slavery/racial discrimination and denied women the vote, inequities that were a reflection of the cultural norm at the conception of our nation. These were destined to be corrected by a people who held the wisdom of the Bible in high regard and, occasionally, listened to their consciences.

Continue to be involved. You do it for your children and their children.

Comments by Daniel Hannan on YouTube

If you haven't seen this video of Daniel Hannan's speech directed at Gordon Brown, the acting Prime Minister of England, you must. Then follow the links to some of his other speeches. He says what needs to be shouted from every rooftop in America.

YouTube - News & Politics

Reflections: Capitalism Is Not A Dirty Word written June 13, 2008

The terms capitalism and socialism were commonly used and understood concepts when I was a youngster. Besides being taught their meanings at home in conversations with my folks, they were probably taught in the junior or highschool classroom. I always understood that America chose the former for its economic system over socialism, a system common to totalitarian governments where freedoms are denied. I understood why capitalism with all its "warts" offered individuals, communities, states, or countries the most freedoms, the freedom to achieve or fail. Note definitions at the end of this blog.

I am now wondering if younger generations possess that understanding. Probably, if you are reading my blog and I raised you, you do have this understanding. I made sure of that. I worry about the generations who have not been taught why it is so important to fight to preserve capitalism and the free enterprise system. I do not hear near enough political discourse/debate that clearly and boldly defines and defends these systems. Mostly I hear attacks.

The political rhetoric is so convulated in its explanations of issues and choices that it is hard to determine where capitalistic solutions can be found. Facts given as rationale for governmental action or programs or legislation have been replaced with feelings and twisted logic. If your intent is to stay committed to capitalism, you can become totally frustrated.

There are so many things worth fighting for these days: The Bill of Rights (and the correct interpretation of it), the Constitution (and holding to original intent), and America's sovereignty (and teaching recent generations what that means and what it will mean if we lose it) are but a few. I have recently heard a talk radio show host declare that our democracy has sold us out. I don't know if he meant that literally or was acknowledging the truth in the quote of one of our founding-fathers. I don't have time to find the quote, but it suggested that the founding-fathers had given us a wonderful form of government and unless we elected sincere Christians to office, we would not be able to hold onto it. I would add to that the need to elect not only sincere Christians but people who are committed to a sovereign America with a capitalistic/free enterprise economic system, and a representative democracy with an informed and active electorate.

Capitalism is not a dirty word!

Capitalism: An economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.

Socialism: Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. A system of society or group living in which there is no private property. A system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state.

Ever hear the term "redistribution of wealth/property?" Our country today is in the process of socialization. We talk about socialized medicine; we have multiplying welfare programs; private ownership of land is falling under unjust application of "eminent domain" laws; the states are in a continual battle to maintain their states' rights. And, our national sovereignty is in jeopardy. It seems that every institution is under attack.

Reflections: On Immigration written on Sept. 11, 2007

While listening to debate regarding the immigration issue, I realized that I was not hearing an important rationale for preserving our long-standing immigration policy. I have no statistics to add weight to what I will suggest but will have to depend on my instincts and understanding based on 45 to 50 years of "paying attention" to political and civic chatter (I'm 67 yrs. old now).

I believe that what we are seeing in America today is a willingness to apply great leniency toward groups of folks who have shown a disregard for the laws of our land by entering illegally and who now want to stay. They and some American politicians and support agencies are promoting the notion that because they have worked here for a lengthy period of time, illegally, and have even borne children while here, their "desire to stay" legally should somehow trump our immigration laws. They will pay no real penalty, and they express their desires to stay in terms of "rights" due them. They even want us to refer to them not as illegals, but as undocumented workers or undocumented immigrants. I wonder how many Americans realize how politicians play games with words and how subtle word changes can support or undermine a plan.

There are many good common sense reasons why we should not travel the amnesty road. Amnesty is insulting to the great number of people who have plugged into the immigration process and have had to wait their turn. These folks have paid the full price for admission--time and money.

I won't bore you with the obvious reasons for rejecting the new immigration bill recently debated in America. But, have you considered this?

Let me start by asking what makes the U. S. unique and attractive? Why do so many people from every part of the world want to make America their home? What adjectives or phrases come to mind in describing America? Freedom, opportunity, open society, integrated society welcoming all newcomers, beautiful, productive, open to all faiths, tolerant, etc. The list could go on. Those are not things that are necessarily unique to America. You can put your finger on a world map and find places, countries, where some or all of the above attributes exist to some extent.

No, the thing that makes America desireable is her form of government. It is our representative democracy that makes all of her other attributes available to all of her people all of the time.

There is a real risk in allowing unchecked and illegal immigration. Illegals who want to bypass the naturalization process do not understand how our Republic came into being. What is even more discouraging is that more and more generations of Americans do not either. If they do not understand the sacrifice of our forefathers, the genius of the framers, the unrelenting desire for freedom of the early settlers and populace, then they cannot be expected to help us continue in our fight to preserve our form of government. If their desire to come here is simply to be able to take advantage of the opportunities, then at some point in our history we will no longer be able to sustain our form of government.

New immigrants who do not immerse themselves in "our" history, who openly defy any suggestion at assimilating and learning English and who fly the flag(s) of their former country will eventually dilute our culture. As new immigrants are steered into voting blocks, they will, because of their sheer numbers, be able to make the necessary adjustments to our Constitution that will make them more comfortable in their new homeland. At some point they will create a duplicate of the condition from which they left.

When the number of new immigrants is high, the process of assimilation is set back. Instead of looking for support in the existing communities of the major culture, they instead can find support among people who are experiencing the same challenges. This tends to set up sub-cultures and delays or restricts assimilation. Thus, the advantages they seek become illusive, and they become wards of the state and burdens to the taxpayers.

Mexico and the U. S. have a history of border disputes dating back to the land acquisitions from Mexico that became Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California. The dispute for most Americans was settled long ago. Evidently, for some Mexicans, the dispute is ongoing. They feel they are taking back what is rightfully theirs. Mexican President Felipe Calderone has been quoted as saying that wherever there is a Mexican, there is Mexico.

To sum up, our immigration policy should be mindful of the need for immigrants to be legal and limited to a quantity that can be assimilated into the major culture. It should also insist that new immigrants be well versed in the early history of America and how our form of government was developed. They should be required to learn English. They should be encouraged to appreciate and help preserve our Constitution and Bill of Rights.