Punditry from the Great One

Is our political primary system in need of repair?

2012-01-13T12:37:00.000-05:00

In case you have not yet noticed, the Presidential primary election system is upon us. Up to this point, only 2 states have voted (and one of them was a caucus, not a primary). There has been much emphasis put on winning the caucus in Iowa and the primary in New Hampshire. But why is that? I have a hard time understanding why we put so much emphasis on winning these 2 states, when Iowa only has 6 electoral votes and New Hampshire has 4. (Granted, the primary races are for delegates at the convention, not for electoral votes, but the electoral vote count gives us an idea of how big the state is compared to the entire country.)

This is not to say that their votes should count any differently than mine or yours. I guess my problem is that their votes seem to count more, since there is so much emphasis put on those 2 states. After all, the Republican winner of those 2 states this year has been declared the front-runner and people are basically handing him the nomination for the fall Presidential election. Yes, winning definitely provides momentum, but is it too early to declare a winner, after only 2 states?

The next state having a primary election is South Carolina (9 electoral votes). Then it will be on to Florida, with 29 electoral votes. Certainly, after these 2 primaries, we will have a definitive front-runner. Or will we? Will it be too late for someone else to move to the front of the race? Probably, but it would not be impossible.

As I have thought about this over the last several weeks, and months, I have come to the conclusion that the primary system in America needs to be fixed. And to avoid being one of those whiners that only complains and offers no solutions, I have several ideas that I believe would help fix the system that we use to elect a party's candidate for political office.

So without further adieu, here we go.

Close the primaries for both parties. The Republican primary should only be for registered Republicans and the Democrat primary should only be for registered Democrats. I have no interest in voting for a Democrat nominee, and I surely do not want the Democrats picking the Republican nominee (heaven knows we have enough liberal Republicans voting in the primary). To me, this is akin to people from New Jersey or New York coming to PA to vote for our governor or representative, or me going to their state to vote for their governor or representative. I am not a citizen (i.e. member) of that state, so I should not be voting in their election. Likewise, if you are an independent, you have no right to vote for a nominee of either party.
Political parties should not endorse any candidate. I have never made a decision to vote for someone simply because the talking heads of the Republican party endorsed a candidate. Once the party does endorse a candidate, they throw the weight of the party (and the money) behind that particular candidate. Personally, I do not care who the talking heads want as the nominee. And I do not believe that many other people out there care about the opinion of the talking heads. However, once the talking heads make an endorsement, it makes it much more difficult for other candidates to have their voices heard and get their message out to the electorate.
Politicians should not endorse any candidate. Celebrities often make political endorsements. They just do not realize that most people could care less about their political leanings and beliefs. Politicians often feel as though they are celebrities, so they think we care about who they are going to endorse for office. This will often hurt them more than it will help them. For instance, this hurt Rick Santorum in 2006, and was part of the reason he was not re-elected. In 2004, Santorum endorsed the re-election of that Senatorial turncoat, Arlen Specter. Many conservatives were extremely unhappy about this, and they did not vote for Santorum in the 2006 election (they most likely did not vote for Sen. Casey either, most likely choosing a 3rd party candidate, or not voting for that office at all). So my message to politicians is this - keep your nose out of the primaries and stop endorsing candidates.
There should be a limited number of caucus/primary dates on the calendar. The primary/caucus season started on 1/3/12 for this election cycle, and will not be over for several months. That is just too long for an election cycle. I believe that we should have 7 dates for primaries/caucuses. There would be 7 primaries on each date, except for the first one, which would have 8 states voting that day. These primaries should start on the first Tuesday in April, and proceed for the next 6 weeks after that. That way, they will not be strung out for months. Also, it would shorten the political season, as most of us are too tired of the whole thing by the time the conventions roll around.
Large states should be the last to hold primaries/caucuses. In conjunction with the truncated primary season, I contend that the primaries and caucuses should be held in reverse order of electoral votes. This way, the big states would come last. This would cause the candidates to have to go to the smaller states in order to win elections and get an advantage over their competitors. This should also keep more candidates in the race longer, as these smaller states would probably be won by several of the candidates. This should also lead to an exciting finish of the primary season, instead of having the primary season over by mid-March, with half the nation still having not voted in a primary and basically being disenfranchised in the primary process. No particular candidate would be able to win enough delegates until the final couple of weeks of the primary season, therefore allowing candidates to stay in the race longer and making it more competitive. Also, it would keep states from arguing with each other and trying to move their primary dates so they can be earlier in the whole process. (In case you were wondering, being from Pennsylvania, we would vote on the last primary day under this proposed plan of mine.)
If you are going to run for higher political office, you need to resign from your current elected office. This is a pet peeve of mine. The people voted a politician into office to do a particular job. The people did not vote someone into office in order for that person to run for a higher office and forsake the job they were elected to do. If that person is running for higher office, he is not doing what he was elected to do, thus giving those who elected him a raw deal. We should have expectations of our elected officials to do the job they were elected to do. If they do not do it, they should not hold that office. Also, this would allow us to see who is really serious about running for office. If they are willing to give up their current elected office instead of using it something to "fall back on" should they lose, then we know that the person will be a serious candidate for office.
The political season needs to be shorter. Once Wednesday, November 7 rolls around, the 2016 Presidential race will start. Thankfully, many of us will to tired of politics to care. But that does not mean that the networks will not try to shove it down our throats. The Presidential election process should not start until January of the election year. This year, by the time January 1 had rolled around, the Republicans had already had numerous debates. This is happening too early, and it continues to get earlier each election cycle. Right now, unless your state is having a primary, not many people are paying attention to the process and the candidates. It is time to shorten the election season.

I am sure that if I sat here long enough, I could come up with more areas that need to be fixed in the primary process. However, I believe that I have encapsulated most of the major problems in the 7 items outlined above. We need to take steps to fix the process, not tinker with it and actually make it worse.

Happy 1st Birthday, Hannah!

2011-11-30T11:46:00.001-05:00

It's hard to believe that Hannah will be 1 yr. old tomorrow. It seems as though it was just last week that we brought her home from the hospital. Although we did not really know what to expect a year ago, I must say that we have been blessed in so many ways over the last year to have Hannah in our family. In fact, there are many days after work, when I just want to go home and get away from everyone, that I walk in the door and Hannah sees me and gets a big grin on her face because she is happy to see me. What more could I ask for?

As many people already know, Hannah was diagnosed with Down Syndrome. We were told within hours of her birth that she had several symptoms of Down Syndrome, but they would have to do further tests to confirm the initial diagnosis. After a couple of weeks, the diagnosis was confirmed. We started the new year not knowing what to expect, not knowing how Hannah would grow and progress, not knowing what we were going to go through, not knowing how to react to this situation, not knowing how her brothers would react to her.

Honestly, we started the year out with fear of the unknown. We did not personally know anyone with Down Syndrome. We did not know much about Down Syndrome. No one was able to tell us how mild or serious Hannah's condition would be. We just did not know where this road was going to lead us.

We did know her heart was fine. Heart problems are somewhat common amongst people with Down Syndrome, but the tests that they ran on her in the hospital showed that her heart was in good condition.

Hannah did not pass her hearing test in the hospital, and she also did not do well in some follow up hearing tests. However, as time passed by, and her hearing was tested again, the tests indicated that her hearing was getting better. I guess the inner workings of the ear just needed time to develop better. She will be getting tubes in her ears next week to help drain the fluid that is currently puddling in her ears. This should also help to improve some of the balance issues that she has.

Hannah had her eyes checked, and she needed to get glasses. I am still not quite sure how they figured this out, but once she got her glasses, we noticed that they really did help her out. She was better able to grab toys (and other things she should not have been able to get her hands on). In addition, she looks so cute in her glasses.

We have had the opportunity to have 2 different therapists come into our home and work with Hannah on various developmental aspects. She has received good reviews from them on her development this far. She is able to crawl all over the house, and she is doing her best to pull herself up to a standing position. Hopefully, in the next few weeks, she will be able to do this without our help.

Also, starting this Sunday, she will 'graduate' from the baby nursery to the crawler nursery at church. This is a big step for her, as she will now be in a nursery with mobile children who are not necessarily that gentle with things (and people) that they come into contact with. Pam, as well as some of the other ladies in the church, will be in there with her to help her out as she grows accustomed to this new environment.

Through all of this, I must say that I have been impressed with how her brothers have treated her and how they interact with her. I was fearful that they would treat her like another toy (or worse yet, like they treat each other), but they have been very good with her and to her. They all play with her. While they may not completely understand Down Syndrome, they do understand that she is their sister and that they need to take good care of her. And they do.

As far as Pam and I are concerned, we have our good days and bad days. At first, the bad days definitely outnumbered the good days. But that seems to have changed, and our good days outnumber the bad ones now. We still have a lot to learn, but one thing we do know is that she is our daughter and we love her very much.

I must admit that I still find myself asking why this happened to us. Why was such a beautiful, innocent child born with Down Syndrome? I am not sure I will ever get the answer to that question. But one thing I do know is that Hannah has taught me so much over the last year. I have found that I need to be more patient, not just with her, but with the boys (something I am not always good at). I have learned that I need to watch what I say, because I now see how some of the idiotic things I have said before about people's mental capacity can hurt those around me.

In my freshman year of college, the theme for that year was "God is great. God is good. Let us thank Him." Indeed, God is good to us. While we may not see it at the time, as we look back to see what He has done for us, we can see His goodness and His providence in our lives. As I look back on the last year and reflect on what we have been through as a family, I can be thankful for the words written by Ron Hamilton to a song that he wrote after having one of his eyes removed: "Now I can see testing comes from above. God strengthens His children and purges in love. My Father knows best, and I trust in His care. Through purging, more fruit I will bear. O rejoice in the Lord, He makes no mistakes."

The Ongoing Debacle at Penn State

2011-11-22T12:49:00.000-05:00

Unless you have been hiding under a rock for the last several weeks, you are probably well aware of the Jerry Sandusky sexual abuse case that is playing out in State College, PA. Over the course of several years, Sandusky is accused of preying on young boys and engaging in inappropriate behavior (some of which is sexual) with these boys. The grand jury indictment stated that there were 8 boys making these claims (though as time goes on, this list will probably grow). Sandusky will probably spend the rest of his life in prison because of this scandal.

Before I go any further, I just want to say that the acts that Sandusky is being accused of are grotesque and heinous acts. If he is found guilty, he deserves whatever punishment he gets, and then some more on top of that. To be in his position and take advantage of young boys the way he did is repulsive and predatory, and there is absolutely no reason that any court or any judge should show him any leniency. Sandusky is the predator, the criminal, the monster.

Now that a few weeks have gone by and the overall anger seems to have subsided a bit, I want to look back at how this all unraveled after the grand jury indicted Sandusky. There are many things that annoyed and frustrated me as this all played out in public, in the press, and on TV. And it seemed as though almost all of the anger was directed at Joe Paterno.

Paterno is a legend in collegiate athletics. He was a football player, who became an assistant coach, and ultimately came to be known as the winningest coach in major college football. He has been a leader to those he coached, a mentor, someone who wanted his players to succeed, not just on the field, but off of it. Penn State has a high graduation rate amongst its football players. In fact, of all of the buildings at Penn State that could be named after Paterno, it is the library that bears his name.

Yet, after all that Paterno has done for Penn State and for college football, people were yelling for Paterno's head as this scandal was breaking. They treated Paterno as if he was the one who was taking advantage of these children and molesting them. You rarely heard Sandusky's name in the days following the breaking of this story. People wanted to hold Paterno accountable for everything that happened, as though Sandusky had given him every intimate detail of what happened and Paterno was trying to cover the story up for his good friend and former assistant coach.

We know from the grand jury report that Paterno was aware of one incident that was reported to him by Mike McQueary. Paterno reported the incident to the proper two people on campus: the athletic director (it happened in an athletic facility) and the head of campus security and police. Most colleges have their own security and police and do not necessarily need to rely on the police from the surrounding towns/cities. Perhaps Paterno could have pushed them harder to investigate this more fully. I don't know if he did or not. Maybe Paterno should have gone to the police. What we do no know is that, according to the New York Times, the information was given to the DA, but he did nothing with it.

Now, how is that Paterno's fault that the DA chose not to take it further? It's not. But apparently there are some out there that think that no matter what Paterno did, it was not enough. The bigger issue here is McQueary. If he saw this happening, why didn't he do anything to stop it? Why did he choose to leave? Why didn't he report what he saw immediately? Again, the anger was directed at Paterno, who was not even an eye witness.

After a few days of public outcry, Paterno announced he would retire, effective at the end of the 2011 season. For the Board of Trustees, this was not good enough. They decided that Paterno had to go. But instead of meeting with him, in person, they decided to fire him over the phone. How cowardly is that? If you are going to fire the guy, at least do it in person. I do not believe that Paterno should have been fired. He should have been allowed to finish out the year. However, if they would have met with him in person to fire him, I could at least have some respect for the Board of Trustees.

Then there was the piling on. The Big Ten would remove his name from the championship trophy. The 2 senators from PA would withdraw his name for the Presidential Medal of Freedom. The rumors of his statue being removed from in front of the stadium (this proved not to be true).

After Paterno was fired, the talking heads on TV then turned their attention to McQueary's inaction based on what he saw. They also started to remember again that this is all happening due to the reported actions of Sandusky. It was as though their goal was Paterno getting fired. Now that he was gone, they could go back to focusing on the real story.

Now we will have endless investigations. First, the PA AG will continue the ongoing investigation. The State of PA is going to look into it. The Feds are going to look into it. And the NCAA does not want to be left out (although this is not part of their charter, as this does not have to do with the athletic program, it just happens to involve someone who used to be part of the athletic program).

Through all of this, there are still several questions that I need to have answered.

What was Jerry Sandusky thinking? First, you ruined your credibility and character. I am not sure it is capable of being repaired. But due to you actions and your inability to control yourself, you have also torn down a great coach with a great legacy, you have dispirited a football team, and you have tarnished the legacy of an entire university.
Why didn't Mike McQueary stop the actions of Jerry Sandusky? Why did he choose to leave, going first to his father, then to Joe Paterno, instead of the police?
When the athletic director told Sandusky that he would be barred from campus and the athletic facilities, why did Sandusky still have an office on campus and have the ability to use the athletic facilities? Was he not actually able to enforce this? If not, then why hand it down as punishment in the first place?
Is all of this fair to Paterno? Was he the one who was taking advantage of the kids? Other than the one occasion that McQueary told him about, was he even aware that Sandusky was a child predator?
Why did the DA choose not to press charges? Did he not have enough evidence?
Why does the media have a feeding frenzy with stories like this? When did they become the moral arbiters of society? Is the media hypocritical for going after Paterno, who was not an accomplice in this story and has done nothing illegal, while protecting Hollywood types like Roman Polanski who stand accused of sex/rape of a minor? Or showing hypocrisy by going after Paterno, yet continually praising a late Senator who also killed a woman via drowning her?

We need to keep in mind that there has not been a trial yet. As this goes on, we will find out more details, and it is very likely that there will be more victims coming out as this case moves forward. But we need to remember that Sandusky does deserve a fair trial, which is guaranteed to him by our Constitution. And I want him to have that fair trial, so at the end of the day, everyone can look on this and say that justice was served. And if he is found guilty of these heinous acts, he needs to rot in prison for the rest of his life.

As for Joe Paterno, if he did know more about Sandusky's actions, then he will need to live with that for the rest of his life. It is probably hard enough knowing that he was aware of one child being abused and that nothing was done to stop that abuse. The guilt he has to live with will be a burden on him for the rest of his life, and perhaps that is punishment enough for him.

As for the school, and the football program in particular, life goes on. It has to. You cannot let it stop here. There are some who have said that PSU needs to forfeit the rest of the season, and perhaps just go ahead and forfeit next year, too. This is not necessary. Penn State needs to get back on the field and show that they can overcome this. The football players are not guilty of anything. They should not be punished for this.

For Jerry Sandusky, he needs to pay the price for what he did. However, he can still have some hope in all of this. He can know that Jesus died for his sins, too. He can still ask forgiveness of God, who will grant him that forgiveness should he ask for it. That does not mean that Sandusky should be set free. If he would do this, it would mean that his punishment would stop at his death on this earth. It would not carry over into an eternity in hell. If God could forgive a man like Jerry Sandusky, perhaps we need to find it in our hearts to forgive him (and others), too.

9/11/01 - 10 Years Later

2011-09-10T13:39:00.000-04:00

Those of us who are old enough to remember 9/11/01 are able to vividly remember where we were when we heard of the events of that frightful morning. I remember I did not have to work that week. Business was slow, and we were on rotating, mandatory furloughs. This happened to be my week to be off of work. I was in bed when the attacks started. When I awoke, about 9:00 am, I made a phone call to a credit card company (we were having a huge disagreement about a payment). While I was on hold, I heard Tom Brokaw on what was supposed to be the "Hold" music. I was confused. He talked of planes hitting the World Trade Center. Was this for real? I turned on the TV and could not believe what I saw. The World Trade Center was collapsing. What was going on?

It was a beautiful morning with hardly a cloud in the sky in the eastern U.S. Then news started to break of an airplane that flew into the World Trade Center. Was it an accident? Was it terrorism? No one really knew what was going on at the time of the attacks. Then, several minutes later, another plane flew into the other World Trade Center tower. This time, it was captured on camera by many of the news organizations, who were there to cover the first plane. Not long after that, we heard of a plane that flew into the Pentagon. The World Trade Center buildings, under the intense heat, crumbled. Debris is everywhere on the south end of Manhattan. Then we hear of a plane crashing in western Pennsylvania. People started putting the pieces together. We were under attack. But who was doing this? And why did they do this?

In the hours, days, and months that followed, we learned that this attack was made by Al-Qaeda. Osama bin Laden was now Public Enemy #1. We heard stories of the brave men and women who rushed to the World Trade Center and the Pentagon to help save the lives of those who were caught up in the attacks. Many of these first responders perished in the World Trade Center collapse, as they were giving of their life to help others. We heard of the story of Todd Beamer and those on Flight 93 that rushed the terrorists, and forced the plane to crash in Shanksville, PA. We saw Americans of all different ideologies come together in unity to decry the terrorist attacks and celebrate the greatness that is America. We saw what it was like to have a President who would take a stand and tell the enemy that we will find them and deal with them and show them how we, as Americans, deal with our enemies.

For a while, Americans were all but united in our resolve to deal with the enemies that had done this to us. Flags were flying everywhere. Prayer services were being held at church. Members of Congress were able to agree (at that time) on how to deal with terrorists and terrorism. And Congress and the President were able to come to an agreement on how to unite our intelligence agencies, as well as get them to talk to each other. When we invaded Afghanistan to remove the Taliban from power and to break up the Al-Qaeda network, Americans were all but united behind the effort. Even when troops were initially sent into Iraq, the vast majority of Americans were behind the effort.

But what has happened since then? Americans seemed to have come up short in their resolve to defeat the terrorists (which is something that the terrorists had anticipated). As time went on, Americans did not seem to support this effort for the long haul (as if the terrorists were just going to wave the white flag and give up). Americans started to question the effort against terrorists. It is taking too long. There are too many deaths. It costs too much. There are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. America is doing this for oil. Some even went so far as to say that this was an inside job, engineered by the government for some sort of political gain.

Sure, there were speed bumps along the way. The abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib was definitely not a high point. But let's remember that those who participated in those actions were held accountable. Then there was the lack of understanding of our mission for the detainment facility at Guantanamo Bay. The prisoners were treated well, allowed to read the Koran, pray their daily prayers, and fed 3 meals a day (which is much better than their life overseas).

There was the issue of enhanced interrogation, used on only the most dangerous prisoners that we had in custody. People said we lost the moral high ground for using these techniques, because this is not how America treats its prisoners. Well, I have a very big problem with that line of thinking. First and foremost, terrorists are not covered under the Geneva Convention, or more importantly, under our Constitution. Therefore, the rules are different. In order to protect the lives of American citizens, we needed to get as much information as we could about potential terrorist attacks. If that means making the lives of some dangerous Al-Qaeda leaders uncomfortable in the process, then we needed to do this. The moral high ground was to protect the lives of the American people. After all, this is the primary role of the government in the first place.

We've learned that Americans have short attention spans. While there was a tremendous unity in the months after the attacks, that gradually started to wear off. There was a segment in America that thought we had caused the attacks, because we thought we were so much better than any one else on earth. There is a segment that thinks we actually planned and carried out that attacks. Many liberals started to question the Republican President. They did not like what they felt was American Imperialism. Who were we to force our beliefs on the world? Many Americans have moved on with life, stopping to remember that attacks every year on 9/11, then putting those thoughts in the back of their mind until the next 9/11 rolls around.

Some Americans became embarrassed by our role as the sole superpower. Who are we to police the world? Had they forgotten it was the U.S.A. that was attacked and we have a right to defend ourselves? They were embarrassed by a President that set out a clear missions on how the U.S. would try to defeat terrorism. He had a firm grasp of right and wrong, good and evil, and he knew that evil needed to be defeated in this war. Unfortunately, there were many collegiate professors who thought it was their duty to try to indoctrinate students and teach them that America repressed the poor and needy in this world, that we mistreat the Islamic people of this world. It was the likes of these intellectual elites, liberals in Congress, and a growing portion of the media that it was the U.S. that was responsible for these attacks, because we have created a hostile environment, ripe for terrorist attacks against us.

Due to the abuses at Abu Ghraib, and the prisoners being held in Guantanamo Bay, we were told that we were encouraging attacks on the U.S. However, this line of thinking has always confused me. There was no Abu Ghraib when terrorists attacked the USS Cole. Those places were not in existence when we were attacked on 9/11. So what egregious act had the U.S. committed in order to solicit such a serious attack on 9/11?

We were told that Islam is a peaceful religion. This could not be further from the truth. Their goal is world domination. Sure, when they are trying to get a foothold in a community or in a country, they do their best to blend in. But eventually, they become stronger in their resolve. They become more dominant. Why is that people who feel like outcasts and become angry at the country (and at the world) convert to Islam? It is because that religion offers what they want - a chance to act aggressively against their enemies. Sure, there may be peaceful Muslims who want no part of this intifada against freedom. But the terrorists that we face espouse the religion of Islam and its teachings. They celebrated on the days of the terrorist attacks. Imams around the globe teach hatred in their mosques. This religion is not peaceful.

We are told that we need to allow a mosque to be built close to the World Trade Center sight. If we do not agree, then we are Islamaphobes and intolerant. The intolerance is really with those who want to build this mosque so close to the World Trade Center sight. Yes, we have freedom of religion and you are free to worship as you see fit. But that does not mean a mosque needs to be built so close to Ground Zero. This is not the place to build a "monument" to a religion whose beliefs led some of its adherents to kill so many people on that fateful morning.

Evil exists in this world. There will be a constant struggle between right and wrong, good and evil, until the end of this world. Many people fail to grasp this concept. In the age of secular humanism, people believe in a truth that is relative - who are we to tell people that their beliefs are right or wrong (after all, there are still people on this earth who will not declare that Hitler was evil for killing as many Jews as he did). Much of this is due to the secular humanist doing his best to take God out of society. They will tell you that if there was a God, why did He allow the 9/11 attacks to happen? If God was good, He would have stopped it.

Well, I cannot say why God allowed the attacks to happen. I know that He did not cause them to happen. Our God does not celebrate when we kill other people (as Islam teaches). Our God has explicitly told us not to kill others. I do know that it is a belief in God that has allowed many, many people to cope with this tragedy over the last 10 years. It is their faith and trust in an all-wise, all-knowing, all-caring God that has comforted them and given them the strength that they need on a daily basis.

So, where do we go from here? We, as a nation, need to turn back to God. That may not be easy, but that is what we need to do. We need to humble ourselves, and pray, and seek His face, and turn from our wicked, self-serving ways (II Chronicles 7:14). We cannot defeat evil without God's help.

Let us find some comforts in the words of President Bush, which were delivered to a joint session of Congress, and to a large national audience, on 9/20/11.

"Terrorists attacked a symbol of American prosperity; they did not touch its source. America is successful because of the hard work and creativity and enterprise of our people. These were the true strengths of our economy before September 11th, and they are our strengths today. And finally, please continue praying for the victims of terror and their families, for those in uniform and for our great country. Prayer has comforted us in sorrow and will strengthen us for the journey ahead.....Freedom and fear are at war. The advance of human freedom, the great achievement of our time and the great hope of every time, now depends on us. Our nation, this generation, will lift the dark threat of violence from our people and our future. We will rally the world to this cause by our efforts, by our courage. We will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail.....The course of this conflict is not known, yet its outcome is certain. Freedom and fear, justice and cruelty, have always been at war, and we know that God is not neutral between them.....In all that lies before us, may God grant us wisdom, and may He watch over the United States of America."

"In My Seat" - A Powerful Testimony

2011-09-07T16:12:00.000-04:00

Which of these occupations does not belong: Pastor, Conference Speaker, Counsellor, Commercial Pilot? Well, Dr. Steve Scheibner is all of the above. This past Sunday, he spoke at Faith Baptist Church in Lebanon, PA. He shared with us his story of 9/11. We all have stories of that tragic day, but his is different. Dr. Scheibner's story is different because of events that transpired the day preceding 9/11.

He was scheduled to fly American Airlines Flight 11. However, he was bumped by another pilot. What he did not know at that time is that Flight 11 would the first plane to fly into the World Trade Center on that serene, sunny, almost cloudless 9/11 morning. He knows that he could have been, and possibly should have been, the pilot of the plane on that day. Can you imagine what that must be like to know that someone took your place on a plane that was attacked by terrorists? That they would force their way into the cockpit and fly the plane into the World Trade Center? I think that would haunt me for the rest of my days.

However, Dr. Scheibner has turned his thoughts and feelings from that day into a tremendously powerful message. He is able to speak about his knowledge of the plane that flew into the World Trade Center, for he had actually flown that plane before. He talks of one of the Flight Attendants, who he knew and had worked with. He talks of the pilot that bumped him from that flight, who he knew, but not all that well. And he is able to relate all of this to our spiritual life - how that someone died for us in our place.

His son, Peter, produced this video of Dr. Steve Scheibner telling his story of the events that happened on 9/10 & 9/11, titled "In My Seat."

Impact of the Current Recession

2011-06-27T16:30:00.000-04:00

I wish I could claim this as my own, but I cannot. I received this in an e-mail from a friend. But it is rather funny.

The recession is getting so bad...

My neighbor got a pre-declined credit card in the mail.
CEOs are now playing miniature golf.
Exxon-Mobil laid off 25 Congressmen.
I saw a Mormon with only one wife.
If the bank returns your check marked "Insufficient Funds," you call them and ask if they meant you or them.
McDonald's is selling the 1/4 ouncer.
Angelina Jolie adopted a child from America.
Parents in Beverly Hills fired their nannies and learned their children's names.
My cousin had an exorcism but couldn't afford to pay for it, and they re-possessed her!
A truckload of Americans was caught sneaking into Mexico.
A picture is now only worth 200 words.
Thousand Oaks, California has been renamed as 900 Oaks.
The Treasure Island casino in Las Vegas is now managed by Somali pirates.
I was so depressed last night thinking about the economy, wars, jobs, my savings, Social Security, retirement funds, etc., I called the Suicide Hotline. I got a call center in Pakistan, and when I told them I was suicidal, they got all excited, and asked if I could drive a truck.

The True Meaning Behind the Easter Story

2011-04-21T11:46:00.000-04:00

If you are in the Lebanon, PA area on Sunday, April 24, I would like to invite you to attend the Easter drama, titled "My Promise to You" at Faith Baptist Church. There will be 3 services that day, at 8:30 am, 10:30 am, and 6:30 pm. In this service you will be presented with the real meaning of Easter (and it is not the Easter Bunny or Easter Eggs). You will be presented with the events surrounding the death of Jesus Christ, which happened 2000 years ago, and what this means for us today. I look forward to seeing you there.

My March Madness Favorite - The University of Kentucky

2011-03-28T12:03:00.001-04:00

I have decided that since my bracket selections have all been booted from the tournament, I am going to spend the last week of the tournament cheering for the University of Kentucky. This seems like an odd choice, since I am usually a Duke Blue Devils fan.

There are many reasons that someone will choose to cheer for a certain college sports team. It could be that it was the school that they went to. Or it could be the school that they cheered for while they were growing up. Or maybe they know someone that went to that school and played for one of the sports teams. Like I said, there are a variety of reasons.

My reason in cheering for Kentucky is slightly different. Actually, it is kind of an oddball reason to cheer for a team. It actually has nothing to do with the University of Kentucky. It has nothing to do with the state of Kentucky. It actually has nothing to do with collegiate athletics. Instead, I am cheering for the University of Kentucky because I am a New York Yankees fan.

You may be have just read that previous sentence and said to yourself, "What does pro baseball have to do with college basketball?" Well, let me explain. You see, the last 6 times that the University of Kentucky Wildcats have won the NCAA men's basketball championship, the Yankees went on to win the World Series later in that same year. Yes, you read that right. When the Wildcats win the championship, so do the Yankees. This happened in 1949, 1951, 1958, 1978, 1996, and 1998.

This is quite the obscure statistic, but it does bode well for the Yankees (should the Wildcats win the tournament). You may say that just because a correlation exists does not mean that one event causes the other, and this is a true statement. However, I choose to look at this historically, and I do not want to mess with a winning formula.

A Message to Republicans - It's Time to Lead

2011-03-18T13:01:00.000-04:00

After the election of President Obama in 2008, the outlook for the Republican Party was not good. They had just lost the Presidential election. And to make it worse, they lost seats in both the House and the Senate. The Democrats had written them off. The media had written them off. The Republicans had written themselves off, thinking that they would be a permanent minority party. All they wanted to do was get along and maintain the seats in Congress that they already had.

Of course, with this attitude, there would be no hope. The conservatives of the Republican Party were already upset with the out-of-control government spending and lack of leadership that had taken place during the previous Republican majority in Congress. Because of their disenchantment with the National Republican Party, they either did not show up to vote in the 2008 Presidential election, or they chose to vote for a 3rd party candidate. The Republicans had lost their base. The elected Republicans thought it more prudent to compromise on principle rather than take a stand on it. They had basically compromised their way into a minority. In other words, they failed to lead.

Then, the President handed them a gift, and that gift was Obamacare. The President, along with a Democrat-controlled Congress, pushed through a universal health care plan that no one had read, was going to cost the U.S. a lot of money that it did not have, and it would eventually put control of health care into the hands of bureaucrats. This was not a popular bill, no matter what the media or politicians tried to tell us. While most people agree that there are aspects of our health care system that need to be addressed and fixed, they knew that a government run system was definitely not the way to go.

Anyway, this bill helped to propel the recrudescence of conservatism in the U.S. This conservatism was seen most prominently through the Tea Party. People were finally stepping and saying "We've had enough of this!" People were tired of the government stepping into their lives. They were tired of the government spending money they did not have. They were tired of the arrogance of elected officials telling them what is best for them. People came to realize once again that the government is "of the people, by the people, and for the people." They realized that we do not have to accept the status quo.

So the people began to act, and rally, and have their voice heard. They elected candidates in their primaries that carried the same values that they had. They elected people that had the same vision for America's future. They took on many of the incumbents, and they were successful in unseating many of them. The people were finally getting a chance to see real representation in Washington. The Republicans won a resounding victory in the House, and they made tremendous gains in the Senate.

Alas, it seems that the Republican leadership has started to fail us again. I realize that the leaders in the Senate are limited in what they can do, since they are the minority party in that chamber. However, the leaders in the House have no such excuse. They have a majority, yet they fail to lead. Why is that? Do they not know how to lead? Are they afraid of confrontation? Are they afraid that they might upset some people?

Well, this has frustrated me for some time now, so I have several suggestions for the Republican leadership to win back the people that voted for them. If they lose these people again, they may never get them back.

You won because of yor agenda. Now implement that agenda. The Republicans need to realize that people voted for them because of the agenda that they ran on. We voted for them because of that agenda. We expect them implement that agenda when they get into office.
Compromise is not something you should want, or expect. The Democrat idea of compromise is for the Republicans to agree to do things the Democrat way. They do not expect to meet in the middle. They want it their way, or nothing at all. That is how the Republicans should be. They won the election in an overwhelming manner. People wanted your agenda, which is why they voted for you. They did not vote for you so that you could compromise away the agenda.
You cannot make everyone happy. This should be obvious. There are people that did not vote for Republicans, and they never will vote for one. So why even try to appease them? No matter what you do, they will be against it. So, you need to do what the people put you there to do - implement the agenda.
Don't become moderates. This is what hurt the Republican party from about 1998-2009. After they took the nation by storm in 1994, they started to stray from their fiscally conservative ways. They started spending like the Democrats. They thought they were undefeatable. And because of that, they lost power. The Republicans nominated a moderate for President in 2008. If not for the conservative VP candidate that he picked, the Republicans would have lost by an even greater margin in the election. For some reason, the establishment Republicans think that the party needs to be more moderate in order to win elections. However, why would a Democrat vote for a Republican trying to be like a Democrat? The answer is that they will not do that. They already have a real Democrat running for their party.
Conservatism will win when it is tried. When Republicans try to be like moderates, they lose elections. However, when they run as conservatives, they win. There is not much more to say here. People want elected Republicans to be conservative. When they are not, people will not show up to vote them back into office.
Continue to listen to the people that voted you into office. This is something that no politician has been able to do. The Democrats don't listen to their constituents, either, but that is their problem. You are an elected official, put there by the people. You need to listen to them. You are to be there doing business for the people.
The seat belongs to the people, not the elected official. When Sen. Ted Kennedy passed away, the media wondered what would happen to Kennedy's seat on the Senate. The man that eventually took Kennedy's place (now Sen. Scott Brown) answered that (it is not Sen. Kennedy's seat. It is the people's seat.) Too often, elected officials forget that they are there to serve the people. The people are not there to serve them.
We want leaders. A leader makes tough decisions. They take responsibility. They take a stand on difficult issues. They risk losing popularity in order to do what is right, not politically expedient. All too often today, our elected officials make their decisions based on what is politically popular, not what is right. We want leaders who do what is right, not necessarily what is popular. One only needs to look at the state of Wisconsin. The Republican Governor and Legislature made the principled decision and stood tall in the midst of adversity in order to get difficult legislation passed. The were leaders, and they refused to be beaten down.
Democrats want the power that you now have. Don't give them an excuse to get it back. The Democrats will stop at nothing to get power back.
Don't start to look at the next election. One of my biggest pet peeves is people that start to run for office the day after the elections. These people need to leard that we elected you to enact an agenda, to pass bills that benefit the people. We did not elect you so that you could spend your time running for office again (and youa re getting paid by us to do that). People will vote for you if you do the right things while in office. Concentrate on doing what is right, and the elections will turn out fine.

Americans want strong leaders. They want people who can make the tough decisions, not just the popular ones. We do not like it when our leaders compromise on principle in order to get along with others. You were elected into office in order implement an agenda and represent the people. And we expect you to do just that.

Freedom of Speech and Fred Phelps

2011-03-14T12:59:00.000-04:00

A few weeks ago, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Westboro Baptist Church in its legal battle against Al Snyder, who sought to sue the church because of their protest at his son's (Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder) funeral. He was seeking damages due to emotional distress because of this church's complete lack of regard for him or the sacrifice that his son made for this country. I do not know of anybody that agrees with Fred Phelps and his family regarding their beliefs. However, many have come out to defend the Supreme Court's ruling on this matter.

As I paused to think about the decision, I tried to conclude in my own head whether this decision was the right decision to make. Our Constitution is to be applied to all Americans equally (even though the courts have not always applied it that way). Decisions from the court are to be based on laws, especially our Constitution. Court decisions should not be based on one's opinions or emotions. The more I struggled over this, the more I realized that the court, unfortunately, did get this decision correct. Just because I do not like what one person (or group) is saying or doing does not mean that they do not have the same freedoms that I have.

The Phelps family (probably emboldened by the recent Supreme Court decision) is now planning to protest at the funeral for 7 children of the Clouse family that died tragically in a fire last week. Here is a hardworking, blue-collar family who has just suffered such a great loss, and this despicable group of people wants to protest at the funeral. These people have no shame. I can't imagine the pain and agony and loss that the Clouse family is experiencing, and the Phelps family wants to make it even worse. However, just because I find these actions appalling does not necessarily make their actions illegal.

When the founders drafted the Constitution, they were keenly aware of what it was like for the government to stifle speech that they (the government) did not approve of. The founders did not want that kind of environment here in America. They understood the need for opposing ideas to be openly debated. They understood the importance of the ability of the masses to disagree with the elected officials. They understood the importance of elections, so that if the citizens thought that it was time to change the leadership, then they could make the change via elections. So they included the freedom of speech in the 1st Amendment.

Due to current events, we can see what it is like for governments to stifle the free speech of dissenters (just look at places like Libya and China). If these nations do not like what people are doing or saying, they arrest them and throw them in jail, sometimes even executing people who are trying to cause "trouble" for the government. If the government takes free speech rights away from people, it becomes easier to take away other rights, because the people are not able to speak against the government.

Let's think about this in the context of religion. The church that I go to preaches an evangelistic message. They preach right vs. wrong, holy vs. unholy, heaven vs. hell. Some will find this offensive. If these few are offended, they do not need to come to the church. They can choose to stay home. If the government starts to limit what can be preached based on what is offensive to some (and some would argue that they already do), then we, as Christians, would be offended by the government and their usurpation of religious freedoms. The church will then be severely limited in what they are able to legally preach. So, just because someone disagrees with what we say or we disagree with what someone else says does not mean that we should stifle their ability to speak freely. This becomes a Pandora's Box that should not be opened.

This freedom of speech has endured since the founding of our country, but there have also been limitations put on it over the years. You cannot say things in order to create a panic (this is the "You can't yell fire in a crowded theater" argument). You cannot knowingly lie about others with the intent to damage their reputation (libel and slander). These are, in my opinion, common sense measures to ensure that our freedom of speech does not allow us to ruin somebody else. In other words, along with the freedom of speech, we have the responsibility to use that freedom wisely.

If we decide that free speech rights apply to some and not to others, then we will become like some of these other nations we see today who are persecuting their own people. We cannot, and should not, stoop to the level of dictators and tyrants. For America to flourish, we need to be able to express our ideas and opinions about what would make this a better country, which will sometimes work for us and will sometimes work against us.

Now, with this being said, let me say that I in no way agree with the Westboro Baptist Church and what they are doing. These people are a despicable and appalling people. God told us through His Word to hate sin, but he did not tell us to hate the sinner. The Great Commission tells us to reach out to the lost, not to take condemnation and judgment into our own hands. I believe that these people are neither Baptist nor Christian. They are a cult. They do not preach the God of the Bible. One day, when the shoe is on the other foot, how will they react if, and when, they are treated in this same manner?

Missions Conference 2011

2011-03-09T09:26:00.000-05:00

Faith Baptist Church of Lebanon, PA is holding its annual Missions Conference from March 19 - March 23. This will be a tremendous opportunity to here from missionaries who are working in countries around the world. They will have exciting things to tell us about their ministry and how God is providing for them and working through them.

If you would like a list of speakers and events for the Missions Conference (as well as directions), please click here.

Please come and join us. I look forward to seeing you there.

When Down Syndrome Comes Home

2011-01-20T21:13:00.001-05:00

"I will praise Thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made..." - Psalm 139:14

"I think your daughter has Down Syndrome." This is what the Nurse Practitioner told us mere hours after Hannah was born. He told us that she had physical features that were consistent with Down Syndrome. However, this was not a sure sign that she did indeed have Down Syndrome. They would have to take some blood and send it out to be tested.

Needless to say, this is not what you want to here in the hours following the birth of your child. We didn't know what to think. We didn't know how to act. We had problems coming to grips with the fact that our child might have Down Syndrome. Obviously, if she were to have Down Syndrome, this would be a lifelong endeavor. It's not like it would just go away after a period of time.

We were told that we would have the results of the tests in a few days. We were hoping to know by the time we left the hospital what the prognosis would be. Well, that didn't happen. We waited, and waited, and waited. We had a Doctor appointment set for 2 weeks after her birth, hoping to find out the results - but that did not happen. As the time went on and we were not able to get results, I tried my best to be positive about this. Perhaps the physical similarities were just a coincidence - after all, she was born 2 weeks early. She definitely did not have all of the physical characteristics that would distinguish a Down Syndrome child. These were reasons for hope on my part.

However, we received a call from the doctor a couple of days after this appointment confirming what we knew in the back of our heads but did not want to really admit - Hannah has Down Syndrome. All optimism went right out the door. We had a couple of weeks to come to grips with this diagnosis, but I know that I still was not prepared to hear it. Where do we go from here? What will we need to do differently? Are they able to tell us how serious her diagnosis is?

In addition to the Down Syndrome diagnosis, we were also faced with the fact that Hannah had a hearing problem. The hearing test in the hospital revealed that Hannah cannot hear that well. In a subsequent hearing test, we found out that her ear canals are rather small and they were having difficulty finding out just how bad her hearing is at this time. Perhaps the small ear canals could be the cause of her diminished hearing. Perhaps once her ears and ear canals grow a little bit, her hearing will improve. We have another hearing test scheduled in mid-February to see to what extent her hearing is diminished and to hopefully find out if her growth will help to cause the hearing issues to go away.

In all of this, there was some good news. Many children with Down Syndrome have heart problems. While Hannah was still in the hospital, they did an EKG on her, and found that her heart is functioning properly, and that there are no abnormalities. While that does not diminish the overall diagnosis, we definitely needed some good news and this was cause for hope for us.

Hannah is getting bigger and gaining weight. She is eating well. Her digestive system is healthy. We found out yesterday that her physical development is almost on par with normal child development. Again, some much needed good news.

Through all of this, I had to learn to ask the right questions. Initially, all I wanted to ask was "Why?" Why did this happen to Hannah? Why is this happening to Pam and me? Why can't this happen to someone else? Why can't Hannah be normal? Instead of asking "Why?", I should have been asking "How?" How can I use this to be a better Christian? How can I use this to reach out to those who are not Christian? How can I use this to bring glory to God? While these seem like odd questions in the midst of this huge trial, I needed to realize that God allowed this to happen.

Please note that I said that God allowed this to happen. He did not cause it to happen. God can do what He pleases, and in His omniscience, He chose to allow us to go through this trial. We don't know why. We may never know why. But one thing that I do know - we can handle this with His help. In order to get through, we will need to rely on God, not on ourselves. He will give us the grace and the strength that we need to get through.

Several years ago, Ron Hamilton wrote a song after he had one of his eyes removed. It is a source of strength and encouragement for me. Here is a part of that song this really special to me: "God never moves without purpose or plan, when trying His servant or molding a man. Give thanks to the Lord though your testing seems long. In darkness, He giveth a song. O rejoice in the Lord, He makes no mistakes. He knoweth the end of each path that I take. For when I am tried and purified, I shall come forth as gold." It is very encouraging to know, and to be reminded, that God does not make mistakes and that He is in control.

I am so thankful for Hannah. She is the most beautiful girl to me. While she is special in that she has Down Syndrome, she is a gift from God to us. And because of that, we will do our very best to be the best parents that we can be to her. We have every intention of helping Hannah every way we can, so that she can grow up to be as 'normal' as possible. We have the help of family, friends, and a great church family to help us and to encourage us. We have received helpful information from many people we know, and several that we do not know. This has been a tremendous encouragement to us.

Through all of this, we still have some prayer requests.

For Hannah...please pray that her growth will continue to be as close to 'normal' as possible...pray for her upcoming hearing test...pray that her diagnosis would be on the mild side and not to the severe side

For Pam and me...please pray for grace, strength, and patience...please pray that we would have understanding, that we would continue to learn about Down Syndrome and how best to deal with it

For the boys...pray that they would understand that Hannah needs more attention because of the Down Syndrome, and that this means that we do not love them any less...pray that they would continue to be good to her and help her

Thank you for your prayers and your encouragement. They do not go unnoticed.

Remembering Ken Culver - 10 Years Later

2010-12-09T12:27:00.000-05:00

A couple of years ago, I posted a blog regarding Ken Culver, one of my best friends. It has now been 10 years since a tragic accident took his life. It is truly hard to believe that 10 years have gone by since this accident occurred.

I will remember Ken for his zeal for life, his friendship, his newsletter, his joy of Univ. of Kansas basketball, and his odd attraction for Taco Bell restaurants. Unfortunately, I never had a chance to eat at my local Taco Bell with him. I pass that Taco Bell almost daily. Many times that I pass that establishment, I am reminded of Ken and his friendship.

I still have trouble understanding why Ken was taken from us at such a young age. I don't have an answer for that. I may never have an answer for that. However, I continually remind myself that God knows what He is doing, and He obviously had a purpose for taking Ken. What I do know is that someday in the future, I will be able to see Ken again in heaven, because I know that he is there.

The upcoming elections and you - Some things to think about

2010-10-22T11:36:00.000-04:00

The 2010 mid-term elections are less than two weeks away. To me, it is not “just another election.” It is much more than that. We have federal government spending that is out of control, and has been for some time now. We are having morals foisted upon us that we do not like. In Pennsylvania, we are getting rid of a governor that has no clue of anything that is going on in the state outside of Philadelphia. We have seen several state officials brought up on charges of corruption. It is time for change both on a national and a state level.

As Abraham Lincoln noted, our government is “...of the people, by the people, and for the people…” Apparently, our officials in government have forgotten this little nugget of information. Over the past year or so, we have seen two elder Democrats in the Senate pass away. And in both instances, the response was the same – “Who is going to take over Senator Kennedy’s seat?” or “Who will take over Sen. Byrd’s seat?” Apparently, the media and party officials forgot that these seats were only filled by these men. The seats actually belong to the people of Massachusetts and West Virginia. Sen. Murkowski (R-AK) lost in the Republican primary in Alaska, but apparently she feels that this was an unjust loss, so she is running as a write-in candidate. She believes that the people in her party were wrong for voting her out of office, and she is trying to force herself on the people.

So what do we do with this type of arrogance? What do we do with officials that think we, as the electorate, the people who put them into office, are too stupid to know better? What do we do with officials that are constantly trying to pull the wool over our eyes? How do we make them understand that they do not dictate to us, but that since they work for us, we dictate to them?

The answer is that we vote them out of office. By our votes, we tell them that we need a change in direction. We need to get back to the fundamentals of good government – spend within your means, abide by the Constitution, allow religion to exist and be practiced freely. By our votes, we tell them that we do not agree with the direction that this country is going, that we do not want socialism in our government, that we believe the President is leading us in a direction that we believe is not good for this country.

Unfortunately, there are those who will vote to have the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Charlie Rangel back into Congress (and since they are in relatively safe districts, they will inevitably win). There are those who are happy with the status quo. They are happy with what the government is doing for them, as individuals. They fail, however, to see the big picture and where this path of destruction is taking us.

So, to that end, I have come up with a list of several different things that we, as voters, need to do on November 2.

1. VOTE. Don’t sit at home and think that your vote does not count or that the outcome is already decided, so your vote is not needed. I believe this is the reason that Steven reed is no longer the Mayor of Harrisburg – his voters became complacent, thinking that his re-election was inevitable. Your vote matters. Voting is a tremendous privilege, and unfortunately too many people do not care. The people of Iraq and Afghanistan face violence when they head to the polls, yet they go out and vote, because they understand its importance. Here in the U.S., they make it very easy for us to vote, yet so many people do not take advantage of the privilege afforded to us to vote for the people who are going to represent us. If you would take the thousands and thousands of people that use this excuse every year, and take them to the polls so that they can cast their vote, the outcomes of the elections might be quite different. I am reminded of a quote - "Bad politicians are sent to Washington by good people who don't vote." - William E. Simon. This says it all.

2. If you do not vote, then do not complain about the outcome of the election. If you did not think it was important enough to vote for the people that are going to represent you and make decisions that will affect you, then why did you decide it was important to care about the outcome of the election? Until you participate in the process, you had better not complain about the results of the process.

3. Don’t pay attention to polls. A couple of weeks ago, many pundits had the Republicans overtaking both the House and the Senate. Now, the pundits are showing polls that the Democrats are closing in on the Republicans. Keep in mind that polls are not news – they are a picture of public opinion at a certain point in time. Also, polls are misleading. They rarely reveal the questions that were asked. The pollsters know that if you ask a particular question in a certain way, then you can get a conditioned response. What they are doing is trying to manipulate the news and the election by suggesting to us what they think the public opinion is. Don’t pay attention to them.

4. Don’t pay attention to the media. Most of the media has 1 goal in mind – make sure the Democrats keep both majorities (the House and the Senate) to that the President can do whatever he wants. They have no real interest in minority or women candidates, unless they are running against Republicans. Their goal is to drive a wedge between as many groups as possible; after all, that is what makes good news programming. The media has a bias, and it shows. They will try to discourage you from voting for conservatives, and they will want to embarrass you into voting for a liberal Democrat. Ignore them.

5. Encourage others to participate. Our vote alone cannot get people elected. It takes a concerted effort by large group of people to get someone elected. Encourage others to vote. Go with them to the polls and give them moral support. Explain to them why their vote matters. Explain to them the importance of the elections and how it will affect them.

6. Do your homework. Don’t pay attention to political ads. They all contain some element of truth, but that element is probably taken out of context. This is done by all candidates, regardless of party. The internet is a wonderful thing. Look up the facts for yourself. Don’t take the ads at face value. Political voting guides are a good tool, but they can also be skewed, depending on what group distributes them and what that group’s goal happens to be. Don’t go to the voting booth, and tell yourself that you will make up your mind when you get there. Prepare in advance and know who you are going to vote for.

7. Pray for wisdom. This would apply to only those of you who would pray for guidance and wisdom. Elections are not a matter to take lightly. If you are struggling with who you think is the right candidate, pray about it.

8. Pray for our leaders, regardless of who wins. We need to pray for our leaders, that they make good, wise decisions. We are to do this whether or not ‘our candidate’ wins the election. Just because we are not happy with the results does not mean that we should forsake this duty that we have been given. After all, everyone needs wisdom, but many people are not praying for it. They are relying on themselves or people close to them for the necessary wisdom.

It is important that we vote, not just in this election, but in all elections. It is our responsibility to be a part of the political process. Just because I am a Christian does not mean that I cannot, or should not, take part in the political process. The elites may not like Christians to participate in the process, but we have just as much right to do so as they do. Let your voice be heard. Go out and vote!

Is this really freedom of religion?

2010-09-09T19:51:00.000-04:00

In case you have not been paying attention to the news for the last several weeks, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf plans to build an Islamic cultural center (i.e. Mosque) two blocks away from Ground Zero. As this news has gradually quieted, Rev. Terry Jones announced that he was going to have a Quran burning at his church in Florida. Now, the question I have through all of this is: Why are people bending over backwards to stand up for the rights of the mosque but not for the rights of the Pastor?

Please do not get me wrong. I do not believe that it is right to have a Quran-burning celebration. As Christians, we are not to provoke others to wrath. We are told to go out and be a witness to those who do not follow after Christ. By participating in such divisive acts, there is no possibility for testimony to the unsaved, Muslim or otherwise.

However, I am left struggling with the thought that we are told that we are Islamophobic if we do not support a mosque being built so close to the place where Islamic radicals took the lives of 3000 people. Why are we told to respect a religion that encourages its followers to either convert or kill those who disagree with them? Many say that Islam is a peaceful religion. This is just not true. Michelle Malkin has done a tremendous job outlining the radical nature of Islam and its followers. There are Muslims who are peaceful people. I do not deny that. But the teachings of Islam lead to the violence that we see outwardly manifested in the actions of radicals.

The liberals in the media and in Washington tell us that Muslims have the right to build this mosque, and according to our Constitution, that would be a true statement. However, I find it utterly contemptible that the same people who do not want any form of Christianity in the public square are now so willing and ready to stand up for the First Amendment when it applies to Islam. These people have no shame.

The Imam that wants to build this mosque has just returned from a fund-raising trip to the Middle East that was paid for by our tax dollars. This fact is completely repulsive. But what is even more repulsive is that he went to the Middle East to solicit funds from Islamic groups and nations that celebrated the fact that the US was attacked back on 9/11. I still vividly remember scenes from these countries where people were out in the streets cheering and celebrating the fact that we were attacked that fateful day.

This same Imam has also stated in the last couple of days that he will not find another location for the mosque. This is humorous, if not for the fact that he has said that he is seeking to build bridges to the non-Muslim world through this cultural center. Yeah, he sounds like a real bridge-builder to me. He has also said that if they move the mosque to another location, then this will provoke the Muslim world to violence. The last time I checked, they really needed no provocation to attack their enemies.

Now, we have self-righteous American politicians and media people telling us that we are no better than the terrorists if we do not let them build this mosque. Are you kidding me? When did these guys suddenly become religious people? If this were a Catholic church, or a synagogue, or a Baptist church, would they be this zealous in defending people's rights to build the church? I think not. Then why are these people defending a religion that seeks the destruction of those who are not in agreement with their religion?

The people who adhere to this peaceful religion attacked us on 9/11 because they hated us. There was no war in Iraq or Afghanistan when we were attacked. There was no Guantanamo Bay. We had done nothing to provoke them, but they still attacked. What this tells me is that they do not need a reason to attack us. They do not care who is in power. They attacked us under President Clinton and President Bush. They laugh at President Obama.

But the defenders of the mosque continue to pull out the freedom of religion card in this debate. This issue has nothing to do with freedom of religion. It has everything to do with a certain religion making inroads into a people's way of life. They seek to assimilate and get people on their side. Then they seek to dominate, and eventually annihilate. You may call this is Islamophobia. I call it the facts. This is what they do. Their goal is complete domination. Just read the Quran. This is what it teaches.

Now, compare the treatment that Islam is getting to the treatment that Rev. Jones is getting. Again, I do not condone what he wanted to do. However, does he not have first amendment rights also? Is he not free to express his religion in any way he sees fit, provided he does no harm to others in the process? His church has no more than fifty people in it. What harm can this small congregation do?

(As a side note, this is not the same as Hitler or Stalin burning books. Hitler and Stalin were the government. They were burning books to get rid of them, and as the government, that amounts to censorship. This guy is the Pastor of a small church. He is not censoring anything. There is no comparison, other than the fact it involved fire and books.)

To show what a peaceful religion Islam is, the adherents to this religion have been having global protests in anticipation of teh Quran-burning. To show their peaceful nature, they have been burning American flags and threatening violence should this Quran-burning take place. Yep, these are really peaceful people. They handle adversity and religious differences well.

And let us not call the Quran a 'holy' book. The only Holy book that we have today is the Bible. Holiness means purity, without sin, without blemish. The Quran does not fit this profile at all. Just because it is a religious book does not make it a holy book.

Does anyone besides me see hypocrisy in these two scenarios? The people who are in favor of freedom of religion when it comes to building a mosque are showing moral outrage at a man who wants to burn Qurans. If you are for freedom of religion in one case, then you should be for freedom of religion in the other one also. In contrast, those who oppose the mosque are also voicing their opposition to the Quran-burning. They understand that both are legal, but they also believe that both are inappropriate.

There is also the issue of violence. Those opposed to the mosque are demonstrating in a peaceful fashion. They are fighting the mosque plans they way that they should be - by letting their voices be heard and fighting the mosque in a legal way. Those opposed to the Quran-burning are displaying a more violent side - they are burning American flags and threatening violence. They do not know what civil discourse is, nor do they want to know.

So, why are people like Mayor Bloomberg standing up for the mosque? Are they afraid of the violence that may occur should the mosque not be built? Perhaps. Are they afraid to be labelled as an Islamophobe? Possibly. Are they attempting to buy votes? Definitely. Is it their goal to slowly remove God from the public debate and replace Him (not completely do away with a supreme being) with a religion that does not believe in this same God? Probably. Are we in danger if we do not return to God and follow Him? Most definitely.

A Proud Global Climate Change Denier

2010-07-29T12:34:00.000-04:00

I must admit, I am not much of a scientist. I was a decent science student in high school, but I did not choose to pursue anything in the field of science as my lifetime occupation. However, I have tried to follow the ongoing debate over climate change, because there are many people out there who are sounding the alarm over the demise of the earth.

Many of the so-called facts that the climate change proponents throw at us daily are not "the whole truth." They take information out of context and twist it to what they want it to say. This disturbs me greatly, but unfortunately we live in a society that does not see a problem with this. Nowhere is this more evident than in 2 separate editorials that I read in the 7/28/10 edition of the Harrisburg Patriot News. One of these articles is by the Patriot News Editorial Board, and the other was in an opinion piece by Paul Krugman.

The column by the Patriot News Editorial Board basically is telling the reader that "Climategate" is not a scandal. That even though e-mails were sent by scientists (to each other) talking about manipulating the data, that this does not disprove climate science as we have been told. We are told that no one tried to mislead the public. We are told that no one tried to delete information that could hurt the climate change cause. They then quote a British panel that said "E-mails are rarely definitive evidence of what actually occurred." So, if I understand this correctly, they were lying in their e-mails so as to create a diversion. I'm sorry, but this is not a viable explanation.

The column then goes on to say that "there is rigorous and healthy debate about how fast the planet is changing, and indeed a minority of scientists conclude the climate is not warming at all." They do not say that this is a growing minority who holds to this belief. But why would they? That would shoot down their argument. Also, there is not rigorous and healthy debate. Anytime that someone challenges them, they call names and take their ball and go home. They do not debate.

It all boils down to this - The Patriot News says that the answer is transparency. In other words, let people see what you are doing and all will be OK. I disagree with this conclusion. The answer is not in transparency - it is in the facts. You can only make up information for a certain length of time before people start to understand that you are not telling the truth.

The article by Paul Krugman only sent my blood pressure even higher. He is a socialist that thinks the President has not done enough to ruin our country. Our taxes are not high enough, we need more government stimulus, etc. He says that climate science points to an accelerated rise in global temperatures. He also states that the "Climategate" scandal is not a scandal at all. It was a plot by conservatives and big business to undermine climate legislation. While this is not the case, the legislation will definitely hurt our economy even more than we are hurting now.

According to Krugman, it was greed and cowardice that killed climate change legislation. According to Krugman, "Look at scientists who question the consensus on climate change; look at the organizations pushing fake scandals; look at the think tanks claiming that any effort to limit emissions would cripple the economy. Again and again, you'll find that they're on the receiving end of a pipeline of funding that starts with big energy companies, like Exxon Mobil or Koch Industries." Apparently, we are not to look at who is funding the climate change people, only those who are fighting against them.

He end his article with this tidbit - "Greed, aided by cowardice, has triumphed. And the whole world will pay the price." Apparently, Krugman does not understand that people are no longer buying into this pseudo-science. He believes that government should force us to have something we do not want, something that will destroy the economy of this country.

So, after reading these 2 articles yesterday, I started to think about how to respond to this 'science.' Why is this issue so important to these people? Why are they pushing the government to mandate such draconian measures? What is the end-game? And how can we stop it?

First and foremost, God is in control. He has created an earth that is extremely durable. For centuries, even millenia, the earth has withstood natural disasters, such as hurricanes and volcano eruptions (which emit more hazardous substances than man can create) and we are still here. God created an earth that is capable of sustaining life and 'healing itself.' To think that mere, mortal man has the ability to wipe out the earth is ludicrous. We know that the earth will survive, until God destroys it in the tribulation period. Until then, there is nothing we can do to destroy it.
We should take care of our environment. That does not mean we should mistreat our environment. After all, we are stewards of the environment. God gave man dominion over nature. He did not tell us to surrender to it.
Weather is cyclical. We have hot spells. We have cold spells. This was a particularly cold winter in PA. Now, the summer is warmer than the past several summers. Why is it so difficult to understand that weather cycles just like everything else? If you remember, this issue to be about global cooling. Then they changed their tune to global warming. Now, it is all about global climate change. This way, when any change in temperature happens, these buffoons can say that it is a result of climate change. This fits their template much better. If you call it global warming, then a cold spell does not fit the template. So they needed a broader title for their cause.
Are we so arrogant to believe that we know what the correct temperature ought to be at all times? We have only kept records for the last hundred years or so. What about the centuries before that. Who kept the records then? It could very well have been hotter then, and we cooled off for a long time. Now we are getting back to those levels. We just don't know. The climate change people are trying to play God in decreeing that they know what the temperatures ought to be at all times and in all places.

It all boils down to this - Liberals do not like to be challenged. They do not like debate. They do not like a God that is in control. When you try to debate, they call you names and will not debate on the facts. So it is imperative that we know where we stand and why we stand there. There are people leaving the global climate change camp, including scientists who once held to this view.

The government is going to try to use this issue to tax us more and regulate business more. We cannot let this happen. It is up to us to go out and vote and elect people who are interested in the truth on this matter, not on the junk science.

LeBron James, ESPN, and Pop Culture

2010-07-07T12:25:00.001-04:00

I consider myself to be a sports fan, not just for one particular type of sport, but for many. I enjoy baseball and football, hockey and golf, NASCAR and soccer. You name the sport, I will probably watch it.

However, I have a growing disdain for professional basketball. I enjoy college basketball, because those guys, for the most part, know the fundamentals of the game. But professional basketball, in my opinion, has gone completely downhill in the last 10-15 years.

Growing up, I was a fan of the L.A. Lakers. With Magic Johnson leading the Showtime offense, they were just enjoyable to watch. They had great showdowns will Larry Bird and the Celtics, later with Isaiah Thomas and the Pistons. It was good basketball, played by people who were good at what they do.

My disdain of pro basketball began when the Charlotte Hornets drafted Kobe Bryant, who then refused to play for them. Coming out of high school, he thought he was entitled to play for one of the best teams in the history of the sport. It was at that point I stopped being a Lakers fan. I jumped on the Spurs bandwagon, because they had David Robinson, a fine player on the court, and fine person off of the court. But, as the years went on, my overall desire for pro basketball faded away.

I did not care for the players coming out of college and demanding the excessive contracts, even though they had never played a minute in the NBA. I did not like the style of basketball that was being played. The NBA turned into glorified street ball. It was no longer enjoyable to sit down and watch. And when you add to the fact that Bill Walton was an announcer, it became unwatchable.

The NBA became a 2nd tier sport in the late 90's and early 2000's. Television ratings diminished. There were not any marketable players to carry the NBA after the retirement of Michael Jordan.

Then along came LeBron James. He was going to save the NBA. And he came out of high school with a bang. He is tremendously blessed with size and skill that cannot be matched in today's game. He is an extraordinary player. The networks love him. Commentators will never have anything bad to say about him. Yet, I could care less. He has done nothing to bring me back to the NBA, even as a casual fan.

Now, Mr. James thinks he is so important and that everyone cares so much about where he is going to play that he has basically demanded that ESPN give him an hour of prime time television on Thursday night to announce to the world which city he will bless with his presence for the next several years. And ESPN did as he asked. They will dedicate an hour of prime time TV to LeBron and his announcement. This is an announcement that he could make in 2-3 minutes, but he is such an egomaniac that he thinks he deserves an entire hour.

Now, I am not convinced that he wants to sign with a team to win a championship, or multiple championships. It was not that long ago that players wanted to play for winners, teams that had a chance to win a championship. Some players would even take pay cuts in order to do that. There were also some players who chose to remain loyal to their teams for an entire career, but free agency has ended that. LeBron is motivated by money. He wants to go where he will get a big, fat paycheck and get endorsement deals. If he wins a championship, that can be a bonus, but I do not believe that the championship is his motivation.

I am not going to watch the spectacle on Thursday. There are other things that I could be doing at that time, and I am sure I will be able to find something to occupy my time. The sad thing, there will be many people who will fall into this trap that is LeBron James. ESPN will probably get good ratings for this 1-hour special. LeBron will get all the publicity that he desires. But the world will go on.

This is one of the main problems with our society today. People care so much about things that just do not matter. If you polled people on the street or in the mall or anywhere you go, you will find that many do not know the answers to basic questions about our government, about economics, about our nation's history, or about current events. Why is this? Because, as a society, we just don't care.

LeBron James will get more coverage in the news over the next several days than issues that are much more important. Our lives will not be affected by what team LeBron will play for next year, yet issues in the news that will affect us are cast aside for the LeBron circus. Issues such as nationalized health care, immigration, the oil spill, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are but a few of the issues that are much more important than the NBA, yet they will remain on the back burner.

While I was in college, I had a roommate who tried out for an intramural basketball team, but he did not make the team. After a day or so of pondering what happened, he came to the conclusion that "In the light of eternity, it just doesn't matter" that he did not make the team. This is a truth that we all need to come to terms with. Looking at the years to come, does it matter where LeBron plays basketball? Will it bring peace to the Middle East? Will it bring harmony between Democrats and Republicans? Will it end the oil spill in the Gulf? Of course, the answers to these questions is no, this decision will have no impact on these other things. Then why are we choosing to make such a big deal about it?

Vacation Bible School 2010

2010-06-29T12:18:00.000-04:00

It's that time of year again - time for Vacation Bible School. Many churches have an annual VBS. However, I am partial to the VBS that is being held at Faith Baptist Church in Lebanon. All children who are going into grades 1-6 are able and welcome to attend. VBS will be the week of July 12 - July 16, and it will be help from 9:00 am - Noon. We look forward to seeing you there.

What do the PA primary results tell us?

2010-05-20T11:46:00.000-04:00

I always find it quite humorous to watch the political pundits try to explain election results. They fall over each other trying to explain why things happened the way they did. They attempt to give the Washington view of the results instead of the Main Street view of the results. These pundits have no clue as to what those of us on Main Street are thinking, and it shows. They dismiss Tea Party protesters as a fringe, right-wing minority, full of bigots and homophobes. They do not understand why we, as citizens, would vote out long-time Washington insiders and replace them with fresh faces who care more about the people they represent instead of the office that they serve in.

This can be seen in the results of the primary elections from this past Tuesday, May 18. As I have watched pundits try to explain what happened, I decided that I would try to set the record straight and explain the results in a much more accurate way than the pundits ever could.

1. Conservatism still matters. In a race to determine who will get to fill out the term of long-time corrupt Congressman Jack Murtha, Mark Critz (D) defeated Tim Burns (R). And Critz should have won the race, given the fact that Democrats outnumber Republicans in that district by close to a 2:1 ratio. However, the race was much closer than that. In fact, it was so close that Critz did not want the President anywhere near the race. He even identified himself as pro-gun, anti-abortion, anti-health care bill. In fact, he made himself sound conservative. Why? He needed to do this in order to win (once in the House, he will not continue to hold these views – he will not be allowed to). He knew he could not be liberal (like Murtha) and win the race. In a day and age where the pundits tell Republicans that they have to move to the middle in order to win elections, we see that the opposite is indeed true. Conservatives should stay where they are to win. Democrats need to move toward the conservatives in order to keep seats. Conservatism wins elections. We just need to stick to conservative values.

2. Some people still do not get it. Why do I say this? Because 2 Pennsylvania officials won their primary elections while under indictment for using their offices for political gain. The law states that you are not allowed to use your state offices or state resources for re-election purposes. PA has several officials under indictment now for this very thing. Yet the people in the districts of Bill DeWeese and John Perzel voted for them and passed them through to run in the general election. Why? Because these guys bring home the bacon. They bring money back into the district. Basically, they buy the votes of their constituents. And as long as that happens, the people in their district could care less if the law is being broken, as long as they are bringing money back to the voters of the district.

3. We want our elected officials to believe in something. Sen. Arlen Specter lost in the primary to Joe Sestak. Several months ago, Specter changed parties in order to win his way back to the Senate for another term. He knew he had irritated too many Republicans to even stand a chance of winning the nomination. He changed his views on some key issues so as to agree with the Democrats and increase his chances of re-election. What is boiled down to was the Democrats did not trust him enough to vote for him. If he was willing to change parties so that he could be re-elected, what else would he do in order to save his political career? People want politicians that have the courage of their convictions, not politicians who go wherever the political headwinds blow them. The Democrats did not trust Specter and the Republicans knew better.

4. The myth of the Presidential coattails. It is said that a popular President should have coattails, that due to his election, many people running for lesser offices in that same party should be able to ride his coattails into office. And while that did happen in 2008, it does not look like it will happen in 2010. The President was highly popular when running for office in 2008, and still remains quite popular as a person now. However, trying to make that translate into electoral victories for the party is not that easy (and this has happened to many Presidents over the years, not just the current President). He has campaigned so far for 4 highly touted elections, and all of the candidates that he has supported have lost. Is that a reflection on the President? Or a reflection on a less-than-stellar candidate? Or is it backlash for policies that are not very popular? Or is it anti-incumbent sentiment? I would say it is a mix of all 4 of these factors. I am not a fan of political endorsements for primary elections. Let the people decide and the parties and elected officials need to stay out of the way. We are smart enough to make our own decisions. We do not need the President (or any other elected official) to tell us how to vote.

5. Presidential popularity does not necessarily benefit the entire party come election time. The President is still a fairly popular person in public opinion polls. Many do not like his policies, but like Clinton, he is viewed as a likeable person. However, this does not help his party’s candidates win. We can look back over history and see that many Presidents were popular but that they lost seats in Congress in the mid-term elections. The race for Murtha’s seat is an example of this. Critz did not want Obama campaigning for him because he knew it would hurt his chances. Usually, someone running for office would love the chance to have the President campaign for him. But given the President’s declining approval ratings and some unpopular legislation that he recently signed into law, there are some in his party who do not want to be associated with him (or the Democratic leadership in Congress) while they are running for office.

6. Stop putting so much stock in political pundits. The punditry exists because people allow them to exist. We put stock in what they say. We want to have that ‘spin’ put on events. We want them to think for us. However, pundits only see what they want to see. They only tell you the things that conform to their worldview. They never see themselves as being wrong on anything. I urge you to do your own research. I urge you to study things as they are, not how you would like them to be. You need to form your own opinions and stop repeating someone else’s opinion as though it were fact. We need to know more than what we believe. We need to know why we believe the way we do. No one can do that for you. If we all had a firmer grasp of what we believe, then we would not need to rely on other people to tell us what we should think and how to interpret the news of the day.

Am I missing something in the debate on illegal immigration?

2010-05-03T11:58:00.000-04:00

As I have pondered the illegal immigration debate over the last couple of weeks, I cannot help but be confused about the stance that many pro-amnesty Americans are taking.

On the one hand, they are mad at American companies for moving their manufacturing to places like Mexico and Asia because the cost to manufacture in the U.S. is too high (thanks, in most part, to the unions). Their arguments are aimed at these American companies, accusing them of supposedly putting the almighty dollar ahead of everything, including the people that they are putting out of jobs. (I am not going to take a stance on this issue, but I just intend to point out some inconsistencies in other people's thinking.)

However, many of these union groups and civil rights groups and all these other groups that protest the moving of jobs overseas are now complaining about Arizona trying to enforce immigration laws. In their line of thinking, these illegal immigrants are people, too, and we should accept them with open arms. We need them here, in order to keep the economy going.

Now, if we are mad at companies for moving jobs overseas and taking these jobs away from able-bodied Americans, why are we not as outraged about people coming from other countries and taking our jobs on our own soil? Am I missing something in all of this?

Illegal Immigration - The Next Political Battlefield

2010-04-29T12:32:00.001-04:00

In the ever-changing American political landscape, our politicians keep changing the 'Hot Button' issue. It is frustrating, in that they never stay on a topic long enough to actually have a legitimate dialogue and public debate about that particular issue. Instead, they would rather call people names, demagogue the issue, pass a resolution in Congress, and move on to the next thing - all in the hopes of finding a popular issue that will carry them to their re-election.

Over the past several years, we have seen many 'Hot Button' topics come and go, including: the 2000 Presidential election, Afghanistan, Iraq, WMD, National Security, 1st amendment rights (and the non-constitutional right to privacy), global warming, global climate change, bailouts, the economy, taxes, hope & change, and the list goes on and on. The latest and greatest issue is that of illegal immigration and how we should deal with it.

Supporters of the pro-amnesty cause do not like to use the term "illegal" when referring to this particular group of people. They will refer to these folks as immigrants (without the illegal moniker) or as undocumented workers. They refer to those who want tighter immigration measures as racists or xenophobes. They try to play to people's sympathies, because in a debate about the legalities, they have no leg to stand on.

Here is one of my problems with the whole amnesty thing. We are a nation of laws. If a nation chooses not to enforce some laws, then what moral authority do they have to enforce others? Laws are to be enforced equally, on all people, at all times. No man is to be above the law in this country. In essence, these people are putting themselves above the law, trying to make the case that the laws do not apply to them. However, this amnesty movement has become so brazen that not only do illegals gather in large groups to protest our laws, we have civil rights groups and the ACLU standing with them, protesting the nation's laws.

And these protests are not really that peaceful. While they may not be full-fledged riots, these are people who obviously have no problem with lawlessness (since they are already breaking the law in being here illegally). So they have no problem in tying up traffic and disrupting local businesses in order to try to get us to have sympathy for them. (Compare these illegal immigrant protests to Tea Party protests and see which ones are more civil). Yet the establishment applauds these lawless gatherings, while demeaning peaceful Tea Party rallies.

We ought to understand that it is called illegal immigration for a reason. We have immigration laws in this country. These people are not following the laws in place. Therefore, they are here illegally. It is not very difficult to understand. They say that this is a nation of immigrants and we should not be closing the door to immigration after all these years. True, we are a nation of immigrants. What they are not telling you is that we are a nation of legal immigrants who put emphasis on the rule of law. There are millions of immigrants here legally who followed the rules and did things the right way. If the government chooses to reward those who did not follow the rules, then we have slapped the face of those who are here legally.

Many illegal immigrants are here from Mexico. The Mexican government is mad at us for attempting to enforce immigration laws. Apparently, we are inhumane for trying to enforce laws. But one thing we do not hear about are Mexico's immigration laws. They put people in jail, fine them, deport them. They will have nothing to do with people who are in their country illegally. Yet, it is wrong for us to try to enforce our own laws by simply sending people back to their own country?

Also, this is a tremendous national security issue. If people can easily cross over our southern border, then the door is open for terrorists to get into our country the same way. The primary goal of the government is to protect the citizens who live under that government. How can this government protect its citizens when they selectively enforce the laws of the land, not caring who has come across our borders? Actually, by refusing to enforce immigration laws, they are endangering the citizens, not protecting them.

So, how do we deal with this? It has been estimated that we have between 10-15 million people in this country illegally? Can we send them all back to their home country and tell them to start over? That would be great, but it will be hard to do. How do we find them all? How do we keep up with it, since others will inevitably come and take their place? Does the federal government even care?

Arizona stepped up to the plate and decided that they would start to enforce the federal laws. Immigration laws are only supposed to be enforced by federal agencies. Arizona saw that the federal government was shirking their duties of upholding the law. They want the laws enforced, and if the federal government is not going to do it, then they saw that their only option is to take care of it on their own.

Now, we have the typical liberals out there decrying this move by the state of Arizona. Many are labelling them as racists. The President calls them misguided. Many liberals groups and politicians are lying about the bill, talking of the institutionalization of discrimination and profiling.

The federal government does not really want to do anything about this problem, because they are looking for any way possible to get re-elected. If we keep them in this country, then surely we can find a way to get them to vote. And if they find a way to vote, they are going to vote for the people who are letting them stay here.

The answer is simple. We need to vote for people in the upcoming elections that want to enforce our immigration laws. We need to hold our current leaders accountable for neglecting to enforce the existing laws. We need to hold businesses accountable that knowingly hire illegal workers. We need to tell our leaders that we expect them to do their Constitutional duty and protect this country. And if they do not do this, then we ought to show them the door.

That Great Day (an Easter Drama)

2010-04-02T13:14:00.000-04:00

You are invited to attend "That Great Day," an Easter drama, on Easter Sunday, April 4, at Faith Baptist Church in Lebanon, PA. This drama centers on the events surrounding the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. Though many are familiar with these events, to see them re-enacted helps us to understand what Jesus Christ went through for us, and what these events mean for us in light of eternity.

Make this Easter special. Join us Sunday at 8:30 AM, 10:30 AM, or 6:30 PM. We will provide a nursery for children ages three years old and younger. All of our guests are welcome to enjoy light refreshments and a small "Thank You" gift following the drama.

Will the Westboro Baptist Church please go away!!

2010-04-01T12:24:00.000-04:00

The Westboro Baptist Church from somewhere in Kansas continues to keep its name in the news headlines, even though everyone would like for them to just go away. This so-called church is led by the Rev. Fred Phelps. This church has made a name for itself by protesting everything you can possibly think of, blaming the ills of society on the fact that God does not like homosexuality. I am not sure how many people are in this church, but my personal feeling is that it is the Phelps family, and that is about it. These people even tote their kids around and have them protest also. To me, they are no better than the KKK, using a church as their cover.

Anyway, before I go further, I must say that I believe that the Bible condemns homosexuality, and this condemnation can be found in both the Old and New Testaments. However, people are able to be saved out of this lifestyle. This Easter season reminds us that the death of Jesus Christ on the cross was for all the sins of all mankind, homosexuality included. If you are a Christian, I do not believe that you can be homosexual. God is not the author of confusion. So if homosexuality is a sin, then He could not have made you into that lifestyle - it is a choice that one makes.

But I also believe that we are to reach out to those who do not know Christ. By holding up signs that say "God Hates Fags" or "Thank God for Dead Soldiers", this church is not trying to help anyone know Christ. Nor are they showing the same love that Jesus Christ showed to sinners. Jesus died for all of the sins of all mankind - not just for certain sins and certain sinners. If Jesus Christ showed this kind of love for sinners when He definitely did not need to do so, then why won't these people show that same sort of love for the lost? Mankind rejected Jesus Christ, yet He still gave His life for us. In showing them love, we do not accept their sinful behavior. Rather, we show a genuine interest in their lost soul and the fact that they need to accept Christ as their Savior.

Getting back to the Westboro Baptist Church (WBC), they have made the news here in Central PA. They were sued by a man by the name of Albert Snyder, who lost a son in the war in Iraq. The church decided that they would protest the funeral of Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder. Mr. Snyder sued the church over this, and won. However, an Appeals Court ruled that Mr. Snyder must pay the legal bills for the WBC, which amount to a little over $16,000, money he does not have. Many people, including Bill O'Reilly, are helping him with this bill. The case is now going to the Supreme Court. (I am not sure where the WBC gets their money to travel and protest, as they seem to only have 1 family in their church - the Phelps family.)

Here are some of my questions:

What does the WBC plan to accomplish?
Why do these people think that they are too good to share the Gospel with those who need it?
Do think that they are now God, deciding who should hear the Gospel and who should not?
Does God abhor homosexuality? Yes.
However, does God wish for all sinners to come to a saving knowledge of Him and spend an eternity in heaven? Yes, He does.
How did this church's vision for the lost become so distorted and perverted?
How can they be so full of hatred that they fail to see that what Jesus did for them, he also did for those that this church vehemently opposes and wishes death upon?
How can these people teach their children this kind of hatred?
Where do they get their funding?

The Great Commission tells us to go out and teach all people and all nations. The last time I checked, it did not say teach everyone but gay people. We are to teach ALL nations. By refusing to participate in this Biblical admonition, this church is just as guilty and just as sinful as those they condemn. They have a tremendous opportunity to reach out and tell others about the Gospel. Instead, they choose to turn their back on the Great Commission and make themselves God, condemning others to an eternity in hell without telling them how they can be saved.

While I was in college, one of the major things that Dr. Bob Jones III tried to drill into us is that "The most sobering reality in the world today is that people are dying and going to hell today." The fact that people are dying in their sin is not something we should find joy in. It is something that should burden us. It should cause us to want to reach out to them even more than what we may already be doing.

The WBC is shameful and appalling. Because they show no concerns for the souls of others, I must ask myself if they are truly saved. Do they truly know Christ? I doubt it, because if they did, they would not be acting this way.

The Death of Democracy?

2010-03-22T13:05:00.001-04:00

On Sunday, March 21, 2010, the U.S. House of Representatives voted on a 2000+ page bill (that no one in that body could have read, much less understand) and have bestowed upon the American public 'Health Care Reform.' This bill had nothing to do with granting health care to millions of uninsured Americans. This bill had nothing to do with reform. This bill had everything to do with the Democrats trying to buy their way into the hearts and minds of the American public. This bill had everything to do with the government trying to get a little more control over the every day lives of Americans. This bill had everything to do with a President in search of a legacy. This passing of this bill shines a bright light on Congress and why the American public has contempt for them.

Congress showed just how dirty they really are. There was a lot of vote buying that was going on, some of which we know about, much of which we will find out at a later time. If I would try to influence votes in this way, it would be bribery. If the Speaker of the House or the President does the same thing, then we call it politics. It seems that there were several Congressman that initially took a stand against the bill, but when push came to shove, and a nice offer was dangling in front of them, they forsook any shred of principle that they had and they sold their vote. We find others that may have voted against the bill, not because they believed in the cause, but rather because their political career depended on it. We may not know for sure, but at least they took a stand.

The President and the Speaker of the House are touting this as a win for democracy. I do not understand how they can say this. Democracy is based on majority rules. The majority of the American public was (and still is) against this bill. Democratic principles would say that this bill should not have passed. However, the Democrats (kind of an ironic name for them at this time) passed it anyway, even though Americans did not want it. Their philosophy was that once the Americans find out what is in the bill, they will then be for it. I am glad that they know what I want more than I know what I want. Also, they passed this bill at this time because they think that the American public is stupid, that we will forget that this happened and that their re-election in November would not be harmed by this bill. However, I have a feeling that the American people will not forget this anytime soon. In fact, it was Pelosi that said they should vote for it, even though they may lose their office come November. Arrogance? You bet it is.

I do not have the time to write down all of the things that I find wrong with this bill. However, I will share with you some of the major points that really disturb me. Actually, if this kind of action continues, it should scare us that we let Congress get away with this kind of chicanery.

Nancy Pelosi says that health care is now a right - it is no longer a privilege. I have read the U.S. Constitution, and I could not find where health care was granted to us as a right. I have read many of our Founding Fathers' writings and they never listed health care as a right. In fact, James Madison wrote that "Charity is no part of the legislative duty of government." Government's duty is not to provide health care, but rather to remove the barriers that exist in getting good quality health care. This is not an emotional issue, which the Democrats want it to be. It has everything to do with our Constitution and how some in our government want nothing to do with it.
The Democrats continued the talking point that the Republicans had nothing to offer on the health care front. This is nothing more than a lie, and they know it. The Republicans wanted the government to remove barriers to health care, such as tort reform and portability of insurance. They did not seek control. They wanted to fix the problem, not make it exponentially worse.
The Democrats also accused their opponents of using talking points and not engaging in substantive debate. The strange thing is that I have never heard the Democrats engaging in any kind of substantive debate on health care. The only thing they ever did was use talking points and fabricated letters from non-existing constituents concerning supposed lack of health care. This was debated in the media for months, but the debate on the House floor lasted for but a few hours. And this short of a debate on a bill that would change 1/6th of the American economy? On a bill that was over 2000 pages? Deliberative democracy? I don't think so.
Abortion is not health care. I am not sure why it was even part of the bill. Anyway, the alleged 'pro-life' Democrats voted for a bill that contains abortion as one of its provisions. The President says that he will sign an executive order removing this provision, but an executive order can be revoked by the President at any time. So what good is this? And if health care is now a right, what about life? Life is a right granted to us by the Constitution. Unlike health care, it is actually in the Constitution. So the Democrats want to take away the Constitutional right of an unborn child to live and replace it with something else? That ground that is shaking is not an earthquake - it is the Founding Fathers rolling over in their graves.
The Democrats and liberal media can complain all day that this was not a bi-partisan bill. The only bi-partisanship on this whole issue was the opposition.
The process is broken. In the days leading up to this vote, we did not know if the Democrats were going to try to use a maneuver called 'deem and pass.' In essence, they would vote on the reconciliation bill, and by doing so, it would be assumed that the underlying Senate health care bill would pass. Many people on both sides found this too egregious, so they voted this down. Still, the bill was over 2000 pages, and no one had a chance to read or understand the whole thing. It was not posted on the internet long enough for people to read and understand it. And they promised transparency and ethics? I'd like to know what happened.
The insurance companies are not the enemy. Could they do more when it comes to helping with pre-existing conditions and cost containment? Yes, they could. But let us keep in mind that insurance companies must remain profitable in order to remain in business and offer insurance. Instead of beating up the insurance companies, perhaps the federal government should benchmark the insurance companies to find out how to manage costs and be profitable.
In the past, children were covered until they were done with their education. Now, they will be covered until they are 26 yrs. old. This is a huge problem. These young adults need to go out and get jobs and get their own insurance, not stay at home and mooch from their parents. This is yet another attempt by liberals to make people more dependent on government and remove the motivation to go out and be productive.
People will now be mandated to carry health insurance. There are some who are out of work and cannot afford insurance. I feel bad for them, but this is not the job of the government to provide this service. There are some who choose not to carry health insurance - not because they cannot afford it, but because they view it as a bad investment of their money. We should be worried when the government tells us we have to do something. This is only a foot in the door. The liberals definitely believe that this bill does not go far enough. Pay attention, because there will be more on the way.
This health care provides the IRS with the money to hire an additional 16000+ workers. Now, why would the IRS need to have this many additional workers? The IRS will be in charge of enforcing mandatory insurance coverage. Scary? You bet it is.
Why do people think that the government can manage health care? Social Security is going broke. Welfare is out of control. Health care for veterans is not in a good state. The federal government is constantly failing at managing not only health care related programs, but they fail continually at managing all programs. The answer is not government control. The real answer is for the government to get out of the way, not to put up more roadblocks.
If we add more than 30 million people to a government-sponsored insurance plan, and we do nothing to increase the number of doctors, what is that going to do to the system? It will be that much more difficult to get in to see the doctor (especially if some stop practicing medicine like they said they would do). It will then lead to limited doctor's office visits, which will then lead to rationing, which is already a major problem in countries that have socialized medicine. It is nothing more than the law of supply-and-demand at work. If the supply of something remains constant, and the demand increases, then the cost will increase, and we will end up having a shortage of the service that people desire. This will be one of the unintended consequence of this reform.
This kind of congressional action now paves the way for more 'social reforms' that the liberals cherish, especially immigration reform. If the Democrats have no problem bending and breaking rules for health care, they will do the same, and possibly more, for immigration reform. After all, they may need the illegal immigrant community to vote for them in order to remain in office in November.
Elections have consequences. In 2008, people voted for change. The Republicans were spending more than the country had, and conservatives were unhappy with them. The liberals already didn't like the Republicans And the people who voted for the change are now seeing what change really means. In 2010, we will see change again. But that change is only as good as the people that we elect and the character and tenacity that they carry with them into office.

The list could go on-and-on. Anyway, this bill does nothing to further democracy. It actually stifles and inhibits growth. As an electorate, we must hold our representatives accountable for not standing up to the leadership and ignoring the very people who put them into office. We must tell them that this behavior is not acceptable, and that because of their actions, we will send them home, never to serve in office again.

Missions Conference 2010

2010-03-12T12:17:00.000-05:00

I would like to take this opportunity to invite you to attend the Annual Missions Conference at Faith Baptist Church in Lebanon, PA. This will be a tremendous opportunity to here from missionaries who are working in countries around the world. They will have exciting things to tell us about their ministry and how God is providing for them and working through them.

If you would like a list of speakers and events for the Missions Conference (as well as directions), please click here.

I look forward to seeing you there.

Does disagreement with the President constitute racism?

2010-03-03T12:20:00.001-05:00

This seems like an odd question to ask. After all, can't we disagree on issues without being labeled as some sort of societal misfit? If I disagree with my wife (which does happen on occasion), does that make me some sort of male chauvinist or wife-beater? No. It just means we disagree on something. So why can't I disagree with someone who is a different race than what I happen to be? After all, I am an adult, able to form my own opinions, and I am not so shallow as to base my thoughts, feelings, and opinions on race.

However, as I read yesterday's Harrisburg Patriot News, my attention was drawn to an editorial written by a registered nurse by the name of Elizabeth A.K. Williams. Basically, what she is saying is that people are opposed to President Obama simply because he is a minority. In her words, "Halting anything and everything proposed by President Obama, is in major part, based on race and borders on being a crime against all American citizens." Excuse me, but under President Bush, it was our right to disagree with our leaders. Now, we are not allowed to? I thought the ability to disagree with our elected leaders was the hallmark of our democracy? I guess that only applies when Republicans are in charge.

As if this statement was not outrageous enough, she goes on to say: "Oppression of President Obama, along with other minorities, continues as an accepted practice in our society. It’s called institutionalized racism." If I disagree with the President, how am I oppressing him? It is the government that oppresses the citizens, not the citizens who oppress the government.

She then goes on to say: "With that said, I will now be accused of playing the race card. I do not accept that accusation, but rather pass it on to a large segment of our society whose hatred for minorities is being provoked by right-wing radio and TV show hosts." So let me get this straight - she accuses those who disagree with the President of doing so because they are racist, without ever providing any facts that might even come close to proving her point, yet she says she is not playing the race card. I would love to know, then, what it means to play the race card. And then, as all liberals do, they blame talk radio and network news (most likely, she is referring to Fox News).

She then goes on to insult the local talk radio station because they put talk show hosts on the air that foment racism towards minorities (her words, not mine). Without naming any talk show in particular, she is talking about Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity. Most likely, she has never listened to any of these men (and in the interest of full disclosure, the only one I listen to with any regularity is Limbaugh - the other 2 get on my nerves). However, I have never heard any of them say anything racist about Obama (or anyone, for that matter). Their disagreements with the President are all based on policy, not on Obama as a person. Sure, words are taken out of context and insults are hurled at them, but they have no validity. Let's remember that Democrats insulted George Bush for 8 years on a personal level. They were extremely cruel in some of their personal attacks. Yet conservatives keep the debate on a policy level and they are somehow extremely mean and racist. Go figure.

So, if I am a racist for disagreeing with the President, was Gov. Ed Rendell a racist for running against Lynn Swann for Governor of PA? Were the white people of PA racist for voting against Swann? Where was Ms. Williams when the pasty, white Senators in New England, as well as our current Vice President, were opposing Justice Clarence Thomas? Where was Ms. Williams in defending Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell for serving in President Bush's Cabinet? Why didn't she speak out when Jesse Jackson said that President Obama was not black enough? And, which of the national parties actually has a minority leading the party? That would be the Republican Party. The Democrats had the opportunity, but selected a rather pasty white guy from Vermont, instead. Apparently, it only suits her to bring out the race card at certain points in time. And of course, she only needs to make the accusation, because that is all that matters. She does not need to actually give any evidence.

I do not doubt that there are a few people in this country who do not like the President because of his skin color. I would be naive to think otherwise. However, the vast majority of those who disagree with the President are very concerned citizens who do not like the direction that this country is headed. We want fiscal restraint. We want to get rid of the government entitlements. We want to get rid of the socialism that is creeping into our lives. We are tired of being called names or being labeled because we disagree. We are not the ones who are dwelling on the President's skin color. It is his supporters who are constantly talking of his race. Those who are against him draw attention to his policies. And that is the difference between the two groups. The supporters are concerned about symbolism, while those who are standing up against him are concerned about substance.

The Health Care Summit - Does it really matter?

2010-02-25T12:21:00.000-05:00

I am sure we all have our own separate views on the necessity of health care reform - how we go about it, what needs to be reformed, should the government be involved, should it be the priority, etc. So, in order to show the American people that he truly wishes for a bipartisan bill, the President has called a summit of Republicans and Democrats, Senators and Representatives, to try to devise a bill that everyone can agree with.

First, almost everyone can see through this charade. The President is trying to regain political capital, which he has lost over the past several months. The President, widely seen as a failing leader, needs to garner any momentum that he can muster in order to help his party have any chance of staying in power come the mid-term elections in November. Besides, the administration has already developed a bill. They are just trying to get everyone to agree with them now.

Second, the Democrats will not accept any Republican changes. They want nothing to do with tort reform (after all, the lawyer community is one of their biggest supporters). They want nothing to do with insurance portability and increased competition (that process is too democratic for the Democrats, which is slightly amusing and ironic at the same time). They only want Republicans to sign on to this bill so that the Republicans can share in the blame when this passes and the American people reject it. After all, the Democrats could have passed this already without any Republicans. They could not get members of their own party to support some of the measures in the bill.

Third, why do we need a bipartisan bill? What is so magical about bipartisanship? Our elected officials should be more interested in doing what is right for America, not what is best for them and their cronies. They should focus on bills that pass the muster of Constitutionality, not on bills that effectively attempt to re-write the Constitution. When you get right down to the basics, constituents on both sides do not want bipartisanship. We vote on people, not based on how well they compromise, but rather based on the issues that they stand for. I do not want someone I voted for who is currently serving in office to go back on a campaign promise and do something he said he would not do, just so he could be bipartisan. There is no character in that. Character is standing up for what you believe in, regardless of the political climate. Bipartisanship is a sign of weakness, a coward's way out of a tough decision.

Fourth, the Senate is proposing the use of reconciliation to pass health care. This is a controversial maneuver, where only 51 votes are needed to end debate and to bring a bill up for a vote. The only time, according to Senate rules, that this is used is in the budget process, since money needs to be appropriated in order to keep the government running. Normally, 60 votes are needed to invoke cloture, which basically means to end debate and to send the bill for a final vote. When the final vote is cast, they only need 51 votes for passage (but the media does not clarify this - they allow the American people to think that the bill will pass only if 60 Senators vote for it).

If I can hearken back only a few years, the Republicans threatened to use this maneuver in approving judges that were nominated to the federal bench. However, McCain and his band of merry men (14 of them, in fact) did not want this to happen, because the reconciliation rule in the Senate was much more revered than even the Constitution.

Anyway, the Republicans should have used reconciliation at that point, as their role in approving judges was on an advise and consent basis. In other words, it is the President's job to nominate the judges, and the Senate's job to say yea or nay. The Democrats at that time were adamantly against it, from Sen. Obama to Sen. Clinton to Sen. Biden to Sen. Kerry, and most every Democrat Senator. They said that the Senate needs to remain the deliberative body and that rules should not be eased in order to ram things through for approval. They said that the Senate is not there to 'rubber stamp' what the President wants. A few years ago, debate was important. It needed to happen.

Now, the shoe is on the other foot. They want to pass this bill so bad that they can taste it. They seem to conveniently forget the stand on reconciliation that they took only 2 or 3 years ago. Now it is OK to use this maneuver. Alexis de Tocqueville termed this the 'Tyranny of the Majority.' In other words, if a majority party is in power, they can pass anything they want, breaking any rules they want, and force their will on anyone and everyone.

This is the problem with our elected officials today. They do what they want, when they want to, without a care for those they represent. We are finally starting to see a backlash. A recent poll shows that Congress has a 10% approval rating, and we know why. They do not listen to the people that they represent. Many entrenched Democrats (including Harry Reid), and some Republicans, will be losing their offices in November because the American voting public has had enough. And if they keep up these shenanigans, even more will be out office come election time. And that is not necessarily a bad thing.

Why are the liberals and media elites scared of Sarah Palin?

2010-02-17T11:52:00.002-05:00

I have been trying to figure out for some time why there is such hatred for Sarah Palin. This hatred comes from liberals, media elites, political know-nothings, and even from some inside the Republican party. The ironic thing here is that the same people that hate Sarah Palin are the same people who are telling us that partisanship is killing the country and that we should seek to find compromise.

Anyway, as I have tried to figure out this disdain and hatred, I kept coming up with the same answer - they are afraid of her. I know this does not seem to make sense at first, but after much deliberation in my own mind, this is the only conclusion that I could come to.

First, she is an attractive and successful woman, who is happily married with 5 children. She has not had an abortion, nor does she speak out for women's liberation groups. These are not characteristics that liberals admire in women. Also, I think liberals are jealous about her attractive nature. After all, who do they have on their side - Hillary Clinton and Barbara Streisand?

Second, she holds views that are popular amongst many Americans. The reason she connected with many Republicans and conservatives is that we share her views on many issues. She is sincere in her beliefs, and she does not change her views based on the political climate of the day. She holds the opinion that the government is not the answer to all of our problems, and this is something that resonates with many Americans of all different political persuasions.

Third, she says that she is a Christian. Granted, I can only go by what she says, because I do not know for sure. But she claims to be a Christian, and I will take her at her word. According to liberals, Christians need to discard their beliefs at the door and that their beliefs should have no impact on the decisions that are made legislatively. Sarah Palin is not going to do that, and this irritates the haters.

Fourth, she is popular, while the popularity of liberals is waning. This annoys the haters beyond measure. She is popular because her views resonate with the American people, while the liberals' views do not connect with the people. We are headed in the wrong direction, people know it, and Sarah Palin is not afraid to point that out. She is also not afraid to speak out against Republicans when they do something stupid (which is why some RINO's do not like her).

Fifth, she is not a Washington insider. Many liberals and media elite are upset that an outsider can come into the political scene and have this much of an impact. To them, there is no room for outsiders.

The haters continue to attack her, no matter what she does. They attacked her for making a speech with 4 or 5 different items written on the palm of her hand. Essentially, she had those topics written on her hand because those are the issues she wanted to speak about. And what do the haters do - they mock her. The President's press secretary mocked it. Liberal media elites mocked it. Yet, all she needed to make a speech was to make a list of the items she wanted to speak about and the passion with which to speak. She did not need a teleprompter (a la President Obama). She did not need a written speech. All she needed was a list of topics, and she was able to give an extemporaneous speech, and she did it passionately and eloquently. Should she have used an index card instead of her hand? Possibly. But if this is all that the haters can come up with, then they ought to be ashamed and embarrassed.

Liberals also insist that she is dumb, that she has no idea of how to be 'Presidential' (this from the same people that applaud our current President for being a big bully who lacks decorum). They underestimate her. 'We the people' are tired of these liberals and elites telling us what to think about people. We have enough information at our fingertips and are more than capable of making intelligent decisions on our own. Moreover, those of us who have an admiration for Palin are labeled is idiots or morons. This is another mark against the liberals. Rather than respect the opinions of a divergent viewpoint or have a debate on the merits, they resort to name-calling.

Because of all of this, I believe that it is a fear of Sarah Palin that causes these people to hate her. They are afraid that she will become popular and possibly win an election, and then their power over people will continue to diminish. If they did not fear her, then they would not ridicule her or mock her or continue to publish stories that try to bring her down. They would leave her alone, and she would just go away.

As for me, I do not know if she will run for President in 2012, and if she does, I do not know if I will vote for her. But I will give her consideration before I place my vote. Perhaps, many of these haters should stop hating and give her a chance to be heard.

President Obama vs. The Supreme Court

2010-01-28T11:50:00.003-05:00

I did not watch the State of the Union speech last night. I had several other priorities. First, I was at church, where I am taking a Theology class (it is a 9-week course on the Trinity). Then, once we got home, we had to get the kids ready and sent to bed. After that, I watched the 2nd half of NCIS: Los Angeles, as I had fallen asleep Tuesday evening before the end of the show. Then, the season premiere of Psych was on. So I did have many other important priorities to attend to.

As I watched the news this morning to find out some of the more interesting things that the President said, I found out that he is not happy with the Supreme Court decision from last week that allows businesses and unions to spend as much money on political advertising as they deem appropriate, provided they do not give it to a candidate. I think I can understand why he does not like this decision - it does nothing to help him.

Yes, this is all about him and his chances of being re-elected in 2012. It also has some relationship to the mid-term elections later this year, but ultimately, to the President, it is all about him. If he does not have a Democrat Congress to help him out, then he will definitely have trouble enacting his agenda.

Since most businesses tend to lean Republican, the thought is that most of the benefit will be directed toward Republican candidates. While this is probably true, we cannot be certain that it will indeed happen this way. However, Democrats will benefit from this decision, as unions will now enjoy the same privileges that corporations will have when it comes to political advertising. And the unions are probably at least 90% Democrat in their endorsements (if not closer to 100%).

The President sees this decision as a threat to him because he had the advantage when it came to the media coverage (as the media is very pro-Obama and pro-progressive), as well as 501(c)3 contributions and endorsements. No longer, now, will he be able to have this advantage. The way I see it, this decision by the Supreme Court levels the playing field, it does not give the Republicans an advantage.

Also, this decision can act as an economic stimulus. How could that possibly be? Well, corporations will advertise and endorse candidates who they think will benefit them. They will go out to marketing firms and spend money on these advertisements, meaning greater income for the ad firms. Then, companies will need to purchase ad time on television, which benefits the cable companies and the networks (ad time is not free). The free flow of money for goods and services will benefit tremendously under this, but the President definitely does not want that to happen.

President Obama states that companies will now be buying elections (it is funny how he only mentions the corporations in his speeches - this Supreme Court decision benefits the unions in the same way). I am not sure about you, but I have never decided to vote for a candidate because of an advertisement. I am not that shallow. In fact, I do not know anyone who has made up his/her mind about a candidate based on an advertisement. I could care less which companies spend money on ads - I will continue to choose the candidate who I believe holds to the same values and principles that I have.

The cameras caught Justice Samuel Alito mouthing the words "not true" when President Obama started insulting and attacking the Supreme Court. The President obviously has no idea about constitutional law and why the Supreme Court made the decision it did. Now, the media is going to rail on Justice Alito, instead of taking Obama to task about attacking the Supreme Court.

Liberals attacked conservatives for years about simply questioning activist decisions by the Supreme Court, and the judicial system as a whole. Now, the President attacks the Supreme Court like no one has since FDR. Since Obama now knows that the people do not want his agenda and that our elected representatives want to be re-elected, then he must have the courts on his side to enact laws, because legislation is not going to be enacted.

We have separation of powers in this country, for a reason. The founders knew that one branch could not become more powerful than the others. Now, the President wants to intimidate one of the other branches of government to govern as he wants them to. This man is small, weak, partisan, and mean. I understand that he is the President. I may not like that, but I must accept that. But he needs to start acting like a President. Instead, he is acting like a playground bully.

A re-birth of conservatism?

2010-01-21T12:01:00.004-05:00

The people of Massachusetts have finally awakened from their lengthy slumber. On Tuesday, Scott Brown was elected by the people of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to finish the Senatorial term of the now-deceased Ted Kennedy. This is quite a remarkable occurrence.

Ted Kennedy held this seat for 46 years. He was first elected in 1962, and the people of Massachusetts continued to send him back to the Senate every 6 years. He was a liberal stalwart in the Senate. Yet the people of Massachusetts chose to send a Republican to the Senate to take his place. In fact, his home town of Hyannis Port voted for Brown.

Kennedy was a spokesperson for many liberal ideas, including health care. Scott Brown spoke out against national health care in his campaign. It is almost a slap in the face to Ted Kennedy that the person taking his place campaigned against the main piece of legislation that he fought for over the last few years of his life. Also, it is worth noting that the people of Massachusetts, who have health care from the state, voted Brown into office. Are they now saying that they do not like (or want) government run insurance?

Anyway, there are a multitude of reasons that the Democrats lost this seat. 1) They took it for granted. Who would ever expect a Republican (much less one who is sort of conservative) to win in Massachusetts? 2) The Democrats chose a candidate that was not that remarkable and did not run a good campaign. She almost seemed not to care, as though she was going to win by default (see #1). 3) Democrats like to govern by polls, but still have no idea what the public sentiment actually is. They continued to push health care even though the majority of Americans do not want it. 4) Because of this, Democrats think that people do not really know what they want. The party insists on telling us that they know what we want.

But more than this, Democrats do not realize that when liberalism is up against conservatism in an election, conservatism will win. Whether it was Reagan, or Gingrich (The Contract With America), or George W. Bush (in 2000), conservatism wins when it faces liberalism. McCain's campaign was doing nothing against the Obama machine in 2008 until Sarah Palin got on board. Unfortunately, there were Republicans in the establishment that did not want Palin, because she was too conservative, so they tried to undercut her. They wanted the Republican party to be more moderate, to be more like Democrats and gain independent voters.

So, look what happened to the Republican Party: they became the minority party. People are not going to vote for Democrat-lite. Why bother voting to change parties in power when no real change will happen? It makes no sense. Conservatives did not show up to vote or they voted 3rd party because of the moderates that were nominated to represent the Republican party. Many of the Democrats in the house won because they were riding Obama's coattails, not necessarily because they were remarkable candidates. All people wanted was change - they did not care what it looked like.

Now, after a year in office, people are starting to see that Obama is not what he was built up to be. He made promises that he could not keep. In many cases, he lied. Unemployment is up. People are being taxed. The deficit is growing. Government is taking over businesses. And people are tired of all of this. They got their change, but it is not the type of change they wanted. And they are now suffering from buyer's remorse.

So, is the pendulum now swinging to the conservative side? In my opinion, it is too early to know for sure. But this election, along with the governor's race in New Jersey, are a good indicator that voter's sentiments seem to be in the middle of a paradigm shift right now.

We do know that when true conservatism is on the ballot, that it can, and usually does, win. People still do believe in conservative principles. However, I do caution conservative leaders to take nothing for granted. That is how the Democrats lost the Senate seat formerly held by Ted Kennedy. Conservatives cannot put the message on cruise control. They need to keep the foot on the accelerator and push their conservative agenda to the American people.

The Top Conservatives in America

2010-01-19T11:59:00.005-05:00

For those who know me, I am a Republican. But I am not just a Republican, I am a conservative Republican. Conservative is the key word. There are many Republicans in this country, but only a portion of them are conservative. Anyway, I came across a list last week of the 100 most influential conservative voices in America today. I found it fascinating that this list is from the UK Telegraph. I am not sure why the Brits feel the need to make this list, but I do find this list amusing, given some of the names that they put on the list.

Here is this list (along with some of my thoughts):

Dick Cheney
Rush Limbaugh
Matt Drudge - Internet gossip guy - Don't know about this one, but he should not be ranked this high
Sarah Palin
Robert Gates - Defense Secretary - I have no idea how he made this list
Glenn Beck
Roger Ailes
David Petraeus
Paul Ryan - Wisconsin Congressman
Tim Pawlenty - Minnesota Governor
Mitt Romey
George W. Bush
John Roberts - Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
Haley Barbour - Mississippi Governor and former head of the Republican Party
Eric Cantor - Virginia Congressman
John McCain - I cannot believe he is on this list, much less this high on the list. Where are his conservative credentials (in areas not associated with national defense)?
Mike Pence - Indiana Congressman
Bob McDonnell - Governor-elect of Virginia
Newt Gingrich - I don't think he should be this high on the list. He has strayed from true conservatism over the past couple of years.
Mike Huckabee - The Gomer Pyle of modern politics
Andrew Breitbart - Another internet news guy - He should be ranked above Drudge.
Bobby Jindal - Governor of Louisiana
Sean Hannity
Charles Krauthammer - Columnist and political commentator - He should be on the list, but this is too high of a ranking for him
David Brooks - NY Times columnist - He is the token Republican on the NY Times editorial staff. He is a Republican, not a conservative. He has no business being on this list.
Mark Levin - He should be rated much higher, especially after reading 2 of his books (Men in Black and Liberty and Tyranny) this past year.
Mitch McConnell - Senate Majority Leader
Laura Ingraham
Joe Lieberman - Conservative? Really? This is one reason the Brits are not a player on the world stage.
Antonin Scalia
John Boehner
Karl Rove
David Frum - Writer
Michael Steele
Edwin Feulner - President, Heritage Foundation
John Bolton - He should probably be higher up on this list
Tom Coburn - Oklahoma Senator
Rich Lowry - Editor, National Review Online
Mitch Daniels - Indiana Governor
John Thune - South Dakota Senator (and the guy who beat Tom Daschle)
Ron Paul - Texas Congressman - I do not believe he belongs on this list.
Michelle Malkin
George Will
Clarence Thomas
Grover Norquist - President, Americans for Tax Reform
Dick Morris - Strategist - I do not believe that Morris is a conservative. He is an excellent strategist with incredible insight and instincts, but not a conservative.
Michael Savage - This guy is an idiot.
Mary Matalin (the wife of James Carville, one of the most liberal idiots in the U.S.)
Richard Lugar - Indiana Senator - He is too friendly with liberals, including the current administration.
Carly Fiorina - Former head of HP and current contender for Barbara Boxer's senate seat - It is too early to tell on this one.
Rick Perry - Texas Governor
David Keene
Kevin McCarthy - California Congressman
Morton Blackwell
Arnold Schwarzenegger - Conservative? He threw out any and all conservatism a long time ago.
Alex Castellanos
Steve Schmidt
William Kristol
Rudy Giuliani - Conservative on national defense and fiscal areas, liberal on social issues.
Jon Voight - Actor
Jeff Flake - Arizona Congressman
Frank Luntz
Jim DeMint - South Carolina Senator
Chris Ruddy - Newsmax Founder and CEO
Erick Erickson
Victor Davis Hanson
Joe Scarborough - This guy is an insult to conservatives and Republicans. He has thrown us under the bus after joining MSNBC, and he tries to redefine conservatism in his book.
Paul Gigot
Olympia Snowe - This one is laughable. She is the most liberal Republican in the Senate. She is practically a Democrat vote.
Michael Barone - He has tremendous political insight. I do not think of him as a conservative, but rather a political wonk.
Dick Armey
Tucker Carlson
Judd Gregg - New Hampshire Senator
Ann Coulter
James Dobson
Jeb Bush
Joe Wilson - South Carolina Congressman, famous for the "You Lie!" comment (which, by the way, was right on target)
Meg Whitman - California gubernatorial candidate
Lou Dobbs - More of a populist than a conservative
Michelle Bachmann - Minnesota Congresswoman - She should probably be ranked higher, as she is one of the few Republicans who will actually stand up to the Democrat establishment.
Marco Rubio - Florida Senatorial candidate
Jack Keane
Lindsey Graham - South Carolina Senator - He has become very moderate, and he backs amnesty for illegal aliens. He should not be on this list.
Thomas Sowell
Bill O'Reilly - Like Lou Dobbs, he is a populist, not a conservative.
John Kasich - Ohio Gubernatorial candidate and former congressman
Eric Odom
Patriuck Ruffini
Fred Thompson
Tony Perkins
Peggy Noonan - She should not be on this list. Just because she was a speech writer for Reagan does not give her the credentials to be on this list.
Clifford May
Charlie Crist - Florida Governor - He is becoming too moderate in order to win Florida Governor race.
Jon Huntsman Jr.
Liz Cheney
R. Emmett Tyrrell
Mark Thiessen
Mike Murphy
Tom DeLay
Mark Sanford - South Carolina Governor - Really?

What should Harry Reid do?

2010-01-13T11:53:00.003-05:00

By now, everyone is most likely familiar with some words spoken last year by Sen. Harry Reid concerning then-candidate Barack Obama. To paraphrase, Sen. Reid indicated that Obama was a light-skinned person who spoke with no 'negro dialect.' Many Republicans are calling for him to resign, while many Democrats are standing behind him.

First and foremost, I find the hypocrisy in this whole situation to be a sad commentary on today's political climate. The same people standing behind Harry Reid are the same people who wanted Trent Lott's head on a platter. They are the same people who accuse anyone who disagrees with the President on matters of policy as a racist. The only thing consistent about them is their inconsistency. They stand behind racist comments by Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Bob Byrd, and Joe Biden. Where is their conscience? Why don't people see this hypocrisy?

Anyway, concerning Harry Reid, I think he is one of the most partisan, meanest, bitter people on earth. But given all that, I still do not want him to resign. I want the Democrats to hold up this guy as their leader. The more that the Democrats stand behind Reid and the longer he stays in office, the better off his opponent will be in trying to win the 2010 election for the seat that he currently holds. He is basically shooting himself in the foot the longer he stays in office.

To the Democrats, I say: Keep on doing what you are doing. That will only help to accelerate your way out of office.

Liberals need to learn how to think and stop letting other think for them

2009-12-31T13:18:00.005-05:00

In yesterday's (12/30/09) Harrisburg Patriot News, I was taken to task for an editorial that I submitted a few weeks ago. My editorial (which was extremely well-written and a work of conservative genius) was in response to an editorial by someone named Billy Carelock, a man I have never met. He basically called out conservatives and Republicans for disagreeing with the sitting President and that we should give him time to fix things. We should also stop being disrespectful (at least, that is how he saw disagreements with this President and his policies).

Anyway, in my response, I reminded everyone of how liberals treated President Bush throughout his Presidency. I asked if Mr. Carelock told liberals to stop disagreeing with Pres. Bush, because, after all, that would also be disrespectful. I reminded him that liberals always said that freedom of speech allows us to disagree with any elected official without fear of repercussion. Freedom of speech applies to one-and-all Americans, not just a certain ideological group, something liberals seem to forget. Also, even though this was not in the editorial, conservatives are nat attacking President Obama personally. They are attacking his ideology. This is not the same treatment that President Bush received.

Well, along comes Victor Peracchia (again, someone I have never met). He takes issue with my thoughts concerning liberals and their inconsistent (and somewhat hypocritical) approach to everything. He then asks a series of questions, which I will now rebut, quickly and efficiently.

He asks what I do not like about the President in several different areas.

His compassion for Americans without health care - Well, it is not the government's duty to supply health care to everyone. Let's get our emotions out of this argument and look to the U.S. Constitution. Health care is not an inalienable right. If anything, the government should be removing impediments to health care companies so that they can be competitive and affordable. The government should stop adding regulations and allowing frivolous lawsuits (which is something they never want to eliminate, for fear of angering the ABA). Government needs to get out of the way.
His success in averting a depression - Not sure where Mr. Peracchia is coming from on this one. We would have pulled out of this economic downturn months ago had Congress and the President allowed the business cycle to run its course. Government intervention is not a good thing. It only keeps perpetuating the problem. Now, the government owns a car company and is trying to control even more industries. This is not good for democracy (remember, this kind of control didn't work for the USSR, Eastern Europe, and it is not working in Venezuela or Cuba).
His efforts to restore credibility in the world - We are the world leader in almost everything. Even though other countries are jealous of that and want to see us fail, they know where to go when facing a crisis - the U.S.A. We provide relief, but are never thanked for it. We provide money and food, yet no one acknowledges us for it. We are taken for granted, and the President can't help but apologize enough for our greatness. Credibility in the world is very overrated. We will never get the credit from these 'friends', but they will have their hand in our pocket any chance they get.
His ideals on corporate greed - Corporate greed is a problem and it needs to be fixed. However, it is not a systemic problem. It is a person problem. Greed happens because there are corrupt people. The system itself is fine. So because of a perceived problem, the President needs to appoint all kinds of czars to control things? Who is the greedy one here? I believe that the President is the greedy one here, trying to seize as much power as possible.
His principles to redirect more equitably our nation's wealth to deserving workers - This is, by definition, Socialism. So now we have American citizens hoping and praying that socialism is instituted in our country. Redistribution of wealth is wrong. You punish hard-working people by taking from what they earn and giving it to people that do not work as hard or do not work at all. Are people really this stupid?
His concern for the poor and undereducated Americans - Whose fault is it that people are undereducated? We give them a free education in our public school system. Is it my fault they do not take advantage of it. Is it my fault that people do not avail themselves of this free education in order to study and get a better job? I don't think so. This is the problem with the government. The more money they sink into the public education system, the worse it gets. Yet, all these liberals are holding on, hoping it will get better someday. Oh, and by the way, this is why liberals exist today. The school systems of America are not doing their jobs, and they are teaching people what to think, not how to think.
His Nobel Prize award - This was purely political in nature, and it had nothing to do with his effectiveness in leading the country. This award marks the point where the Nobel Peace Prize jumped the proverbial shark.

I am not going to give this President 4 years to ruin our country. I will speak out against him and his policies (but not insult him personally, as liberals did to President Bush) when I do not agree with him, which will probably be most of the time (although, I may need to insult liberals as a group for their inability to think outside of their talking points). Liberals said that speaking out against our President (while Bush was President) was the hallmark of democracy. Well, the criticism goes both ways. Liberals need to stop being the thin-skinned, shallow, hypocritical fools and they need to start using the brain that God created them with.

My Beloved Son: A Christmas Drama

2009-12-14T11:32:00.002-05:00

This coming Sunday, December 20, Faith Baptist Church in Lebanon, PA, will be presenting a Christmas Drama titled My Beloved Son. This program will present the story of Christmas from the viewpoint of Joseph, the earthly father of Jesus. This drama will be presented at 8:30 am, 10:30 am, and 6:30 pm.

You are all invited to attend, and we would look forward to having you visit with us for this presentation of My Beloved Son. If you need directions, you can click here. I look forward to seeing you there.

Will Jon and Kate just go away?

2009-11-25T15:28:00.004-05:00

"They got what they wanted. But they lost what they had."

I first heard this uttered probably 25 years ago by a preacher by the name of Dr. Bud Bierman. He used this as a title of one of his sermons. I can't say I recall many sermons from that part of my life, but this one still rings out loud and clear. While I do not remember his specific examples, I still remember this line that he used multiple times, and the message that he meant to convey by it.

Dr. Bierman spoke of many examples of so-called Christians who gave into the excesses of life on this earth for personal pleasure, emotional pleasure, monetary gain, or some other selfish desire. They gave up up what they had, whether it was a good family life, a good job, a spiritual foundation in their life. They gave it away in order that they could have some kind of temporary gain, bringing pleasure to them in the flesh. However, in so-doing, they gave up the good things that they had in their own life. These pleasures, or lusts, took over their lives so that it basically destroyed them and what they had.

I see this same scenario now in the lives of Jon & Kate Gosselin. I understand that having children brings change to a family, much less having sextuplets. However, they decided to use this situation to bring fame and fortune to themselves. They have been on TV, now, for several years, making a name for themselves at the expense of the family unit.

What really bothers me is that both of these folks claimed (and may still claim) to be Christians. However, nothing in their actions would prove that to me. Yet, many Christians looked to these two people as heroes, as examples of what good parents should be like.

Why would we want these folks as examples for our families today? They gave up the privacy of their home for the sake of fame and fortune. They gave up family time with their kids so they could film a 'reality' TV show at their home basically every day. They had cameras following them everywhere. They were manipulative in their actions toward each other. They aired their dirty laundry on television rather than working out marital difficulties in private. Both were rumored to have affairs before they split up.

Is this really the example we want to put in front of our kids? Are we now telling our children that this is a desired outcome, something that we would like to attain? Is this even entertainment? What is so attractive about this family?

Now the show has come to an end. Jon does not want his kids being followed around by cameras anymore. He has now become the conscientious father, saying that this violates child labor laws. It is funny how he notices this now, since the network wanted to move ahead without him in the show. It is also ironic that he is playing the morally upright one in doing what is right for the kids while he has been out partying and dating younger women, even though he is not even yet divorced from Kate.

And speaking of Kate, she is not the innocent party here. From what I have read, she is difficult to live with, and to deal with. She had everything where she wanted it. She had the attention on her. She was getting pampered. She wanted everyone to think she was such a great mommy to her kids, while she had nannies doing the work for her. She was too busy travelling and doing the show to give the kids the attention that they needed and deserved.

So now, I say go away. You had your 15 minutes of fame. I hope you learned your lesson, but I doubt it. Jon seems to be content making tabloid headlines. Kate is trying to work out a deal for a new reality show. When are you guys going to realize that those kids are going to be adversely affected by all of this? Or have you forgotten them? If you are going to keep living this lifestyle, there is nothing we can do to stop them. The only thing I ask is that they stop claiming some sort of spirituality. They do not have any. It is all about them.

Perhaps they would be good to read and understand the words of Jim Elliot: "He is no fool, who gives what he cannot keep, to gain what he cannot lose."

It's Time To Get Rid of Salary Caps in Sports

2009-11-19T11:28:00.003-05:00

Even before the Yankees won their 27th World Series a few weeks ago, the cries were coming out from all corners of the U.S. that the Yankees bought their way to another World Series title. Apparently, money buys championships, talent will not win them for you.

I find it amusing that the Yankees had the highest payroll every year over the last decade, yet they did not win a World Series title. Many teams over the years have spent big money on high profile free agents, and they have not been successful, with the Yankees included in this group. Spending money does not win championships. The way your players perform on the field wins championships.

Many fans of baseball think that there ought to be a salary cap. They point to sports like football and basketball that already have salary caps as examples for how it should be done. These sports have parity. They are not dominated by big market teams that have more money to spend. Each team is only allowed to spend a certain dollar amount on players.

But these points look beyond the basic reason for the salary cap - to try to make the bad teams better and to try to make the good teams worse. The salary cap is basically forced mediocrity. By instituting a salary cap, the league is saying that they do not want teams to excel. They do not want franchises to excel.

I do not think that forced parity is a good thing. I think that the free market is a good thing. Salary caps in sports amount to socialism - an attempt by the league to put everyone on the same level playing field without allowing any one team to get too far ahead of the others. It does not allow for franchises to spend their revenue on making their team better. In fact, it forces teams that spend too much money to give money to lesser teams in order to help bring them up to a better level. However, there is nothing in place that forces those lesser teams to spend money on actually making their franchise better (kind of sounds like many government programs today).

Let us not forget that these franchises are businesses. The people that own the teams are looking to be profitable. They do not want to simply break even - that would not be a wise investment if this were their only goal. What would Wal-Mart do if they were forced to give some of their profit to the likes of K-Mart and Target? After all, Wal-Mart is the largest retailer, with K-Mart and Target coming in way behind them in total sales. If we used the logic many are using in sports, then we would need to reign in Wal-Mart, not allowing them to expand, and forcing them to give money to their competitors in order to help pull them up to Wal-Mart's level.

This is just ludicrous. And I doubt that any company out there would want to give their hard-earned profits over to their competition in order to level out the playing field. The government may want businesses to do this, but the businesses definitely want no part of this.

And why should be castigate teams like the Yankees (and to a lesser extent, teams like the Red Sox, Angels, and Dodgers) for spending money to make their teams better? I would much rather work for a company that is willing to invest in the people that work for them in order to make that company stronger, more viable in the marketplace, and successful against the competition. Maybe that is why players are willing to sign with the Yankees - because the Yankees understand what it takes to be successful. Yes, they are in the biggest market. Yes, they do make a lot of money. But they want their team to be the best.

And they also pay a very large amount to other teams in the form of a Luxury Tax. Why don't we go to the teams receiving that money to find out how they are spending it. Are they spending it on players to make their teams better? Or are they putting it in their pocket? My guess is the latter.

The argument is made that people will not attend games if the stars are not playing on those teams. While this may be true, one must look at why these teams have no stars. The Montreal Expos traded their stars away. The Pittsburgh Pirates seem to trade their stars away, as do other teams. They are not investing in high dollar contracts with their up-and-coming stars. They say they do not have the money, or they give some other lame excuse. Maybe if they did sign one or two of these stars, then people would come to games, which would enhance revenue. Maybe they would start winning, which would drive more people to come to games.

Small market teams can be successful. Teams like the Minnesota Twins and St. Louis Cardinals are good examples of this. They put competitive teams on the field and people attend their games. It can be done. Maybe other small market teams need to look at these franchises, take notes, and implement some of the same things to make their teams better.

One other thing that proponents of the salary cap point to as a benefit is parity. Why is this good? Why must different teams win the title each year? What is wrong with a dynasty? What is wrong with a team having continued success year-after-year-after-year? The ultimate goal is excellence, not mediocrity.

It all boils down to this - As a society, we have become so accustomed to our government always trying to level the playing field through government programs that we no longer view this as wrong. The government wants businesses to pay more because they are successful and profitable (e.g. oil companies). We see in society that successful people are being taxed more because they are supposed to be able to afford it. People who are not working and not trying to work are given a handout, without really ever being told how to be successful and make something out of their lives. We have created a society where class envy has reached the point that we want to take from the rich in order to give to the poor, and many people see nothing wrong with this. In fact, they encourage it.

And now sports is becoming a microcosm of society. We do not want to see the successful continue to be successful. We want the underachievers to succeed, but only at the expense of the successful. If teams are losing money and not being successful, why should they be bailed out? After all, weren't many people upset (and rightfully so) when our government bailed out financial institutions and automobile manufacturers? Where is that same anger now?

The Manifestation of Evil

2009-11-10T11:35:00.004-05:00

Last Thursday, we were reminded again that an ideology exists in this world that teaches people to hate someone so much that it drives them to the kill others. Because of one person's hatred for Americans, thirteen people were gunned down and killed, with many more wounded. Because of one person's hatred, many families are now left longing for loved ones, taken mercilessly and prematurely from them. Because of one person's hatred, there are children without fathers or mothers, parents without daughters or sons, husbands and wives without spouses.

Of course, the shooter was shot, but he still lives. Part of me wishes that the shot that wounded him would have taken his life. It serves him right to have his life taken for what he did. Why does this man, full of rage and hate, get to live, while innocent people have to die because of his hatred? Why do things happen this way? It's only right for him to die for this. But vengeance is not ours to give. Vengeance ultimately belongs to God. But the government is able to punish him for what he did, and his punishment should be to the fullest extent of the law.

In looking at all of this, from a distance, I see a man full of rage and hatred. But I must ask why he is this way. What is it about his beliefs that drove him to commit such heinous acts? How could one person reach this far into the depths of depravity to hate people to this extent? Did his religion play a part in this act? Were there any indications that he was going to act in this extreme way? Why was nothing done to stop him?

When an abortion provider was shot and killed a few months ago, he was killed by someone full of hate and rage. But the left, and the media, declared that this man was a right-wing religious person, and they attempted to show some sort of moral equivalency between conservatives and this nut job. Yet, when a Muslim kills others around him, in the name of Allah, we are not supposed to question the motives and beliefs of their religion? This is considered bigoted?

We have seen many incidents of terrorism over the last 15 years, committed in the name of Allah and the religion of Islam, and we should not question the religion and what they are teaching? We are not supposed to profile, so as not to upset people of the Muslim religion? The last time I checked, it was not Americans, or Chinese, or Africans, or Europeans that committed these acts. It was Muslims. It was their extreme beliefs that drove them to commit these acts.

The left, and the media, would have us believe that we caused these terrorist acts because of something that we did. Somehow, maybe we mistreated them or hindered them in some way, thus driving them to commit acts of terrorism. Maybe they are George Bush's fault (after all, isn't he the cause of everything wrong in this world today?). However, let us remember that they attacked us during the Clinton Administration. They continue to attack us during the Obama Administration, even though everybody is supposed to worship and adore the current President. These people need to realize that this has nothing to do with who is in office. Terrorists don't care. They hate us because of who we are, not who our President is. It has everything to do with their hatred for anything that does not agree with their religion. This is what the Koran teaches.

We do, however, need to be careful, not to lump all Muslims into this extremist group. I do not believe that they all hold these views. In fact, I believe it is the minority of them that hold to these extremist views. But we cannot be too vigilant in guarding against these kind of attacks in the future. Rather than being mad at us, the law-abiding Muslims ought to direct their anger to the extremists of their religion who hold to these views and seek to destroy those who do not agree.

We should not take it on ourselves to combat terrorism by ourselves. If we go out and kill someone for the cause of ridding the world of terrorists and in the name of vigilante justice, then we are no better than they are. Our government exists to fight terrorism. Our military is fighting terrorists and extremists overseas so we do not need to fear them here.

And we can help them. Some may choose to volunteer for military service. Some may work for companies that act as support for the military. We may choose to donate to military causes or help with families whose loved ones are overseas serving our country. But one thing we can all do is pray for them. They are fighting a dangerous battle so that we do not have to face the enemy here. They deserve our respect. They deserve the honor due to them. They deserve our thanks. And they definitely deserve and merit our prayers. Let us not forget them.

Rush Limbaugh and the NFL

2009-10-13T16:05:00.003-04:00

Over the past week or so, much has been made of a group of buyers making a bid to purchase the St. Louis Rams. The prominent name in this group is Rush Limbaugh. And now, the liberals are having a field day trying to discredit Rush and have the deal thrown out, even though there is no deal on the table at this time.

Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have come out and called Rush a racist, stating that he has no business being an owner in the NFL, especially since most of the players are black. They cite no evidence of racism. Rather, they only make a proclamation, knowing that just being called a racist is enough to harm anyone's reputation beyond imagination. I find this to be very ironic, coming from 2 of the most race-driven men in America today. These guys are an embarrassment to the human race.

Now, the owner of the Indianapolis Colts has come out against any Limbaugh ownership in the NFL. Why? I thought he ran a classy organization. I am not sure what kind of businessman makes this kind of decision based on no facts at all. The former coach of the Colts, Tony Dungy, has been on Rush's radio program to discuss the book that he wrote. This doesn't sound like a racist action to me. It does not sound divisive to me.

There are players out there who said that they would not play for a team owned by Limbaugh (I heard Chad Ochocinco say this, as if Rush would want this slacker on his team anyway). Well, good for them. I am sure that there are a lot of other players that would have no problem playing for Rush. He would have no problem getting good players on his team.

If Rush was a racist, why would he have Dungy on his program? Why would his chief call screener be black? Why would he even be interested in owning an NFL team, if the majority of players are black?

The man has a love for the NFL, as is quite apparent when you listen to his show. He is a Steelers fan, although I can't figure out why (Rooney is big-time Democrat who is now ambassador to Ireland, thanks to the President). And let's not forget the so-called Rooney rule, which wreaks of racism (as it does not guarantee that a job will go to the most qualified individual and it assumes that minorities cannot compete on a level playing field).

If Rush owned an NFL team, it would not be for the money that he would stand to make from it. It would be due to the fact that he likes football. He would buy a team because he wanted to win.

This whole thing has nothing to do with racism. The same people that are out there decrying divisiveness and discrimination now find themselves doing those exact same things in opposition to Limbaugh. Hypocrisy? You bet.

And where is the media? Are they reporting the facts? No, they are not. Rather, they are parroting the quotes that are attributed to Rush, but have been shown to be fabricated or taken extremely out of context.

As far as I am concerned, I think this would be good for the Rams and the NFL. Commsissioner Goodell - Don't be a coward and cave in to the hate-mongers. Don't buy into this. Prove to everyone that you have the moral courage to stand up to these haters and that you won't be bullied or strong-armed to make a bone-headed move for you and the league.

Also, the St. Louis Rams are a company. They should be able to sell to whoever they want. the league should have no say in this whatsoever. But since the NFL has a salary cap and revenue sharing, full-fledged socialism within the league is on its way. The Rams are not owned by the NFL or the other 31 owners, so the team is not theirs to sell.

When does education become indoctrination?

2009-09-24T11:51:00.004-04:00

Over the past 20-30 years, we have had our attention drawn to many instances of indoctrination in our school systems across this country. Rather than teaching our children how to think, our public education system has decided that they need to teach our children what to think. This has caused many people to choose alternative methods for their childrens' schooling, whether it be private school, home school, or charter school.

We used to send kids to school to learn reading, writing, and arithmetic. Those things don't matter now, because schools will automatically pass the students now. We now have teachers preaching ideologies in class. They are no longer teaching the basics that we send our kids to school to learn.

The latest example of this indoctrination comes from the B. Bernice Young Elementary School in Burlington, NJ. This event reportedly happened towards the end of the 2008-09 school year. The children sang a song about President Obama, praising him for what he is doing to build up the American economy. In excerpts from the article:

The video shows nearly 20 young children taught a song overflowing with campaign slogans and praise for "Barack Hussein Obama," repeatedly chanting the president's name and celebrating his accomplishments, including his "great plans" to "make this country's economy No. 1 again.
The song quotes directly from the spiritual "Jesus Loves the Little Children," though Jesus' name is replaced with Obama's: "He said red, yellow, black or white/All are equal in his sight. Barack Hussein Obama."
Among other lyrics, touting a fair-pay bill Obama signed in January: "He said we must be clear today/Equal work means equal pay."

I understand the need to teach children to respect authority figures, including the President of the United States, regardless of whether or not you voted for him. However, when a school teaches your children a song about the man and has them sing it in front of others (while recording it for an eventual post on YouTube), then the school has gone beyond education. This is quite simply indoctrination. All this has done is teach the kids to basically worship the President. Apparently, he can do no wrong.

Let's ignore the fact that if the school did this for a Republican, the outcry would be enormous. Lets throw out the fact that many teachers in the public school system are liberal. These facts are quite obvious, so we do not need to touch on them.

In elementary school, children are easily led one way or another. The ability to think in such a critical way has not completely developed, although it is a work in progress. At this level, the parents should be the ones to help the child develop political ideologies, not the schools. In many cases, the schools are doing this in opposition to what the parents are teaching their children. Did the school try to notify parents that they were going to do this? What was the goal of this exercise?

Now, what would have happened if the school had asked the children to learn a song about Jesus and sing it in front of the school? I think we all know the answer to that.

Race and America

2009-09-17T11:42:00.006-04:00

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

Of course, these are the words spoken by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. on August 28, 1963, in a massive march on Washington to protest the racial divide that existed in this country. His words were wise and well-spoken, and they came at the height of the Civil Rights Movement in America.

But how far have we come since then? Have we truly become a color-blind society? Do we judge people by their character as opposed to the color of their skin? Do we treat all people equally? Does racism exist? Can anyone be a racist? What constitutes racism?

To start with, racism is defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary as "1) a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race; 2) racial prejudice or discrimination." According to this definition, anyone is capable of being racist. By holding to the fact that one race is superior to another in some manner or form, you are, by definition, racist. Likewise, if you make decisions based solely on your own racial prejudices, then you are a racist.

It would be foolish of me to say that racism does not exist in America today. Is it as rampant as some would make it out to be? I would say no. But are there people out there who are motivated by race in their daily lives? I believe that this answer is 'yes'.

But why are these people motivated by race? Why do people cling to this idea that one race is better than another? How do they benefit by believing this way? How can people be so naive as to believe this way? How can people be so motivated by hate? Some people may not know better. This is the way that they were raised, and no one has been able to reach out to them and let them know the foolishness of this stance. Some may be motivated by something that happened in their own life that has caused them to feel resentment. There are no good reasons that can be given to justify these beliefs, but people still hold to them.

The problem I have is that people are now being falsely accused of being racists. To oppose someone based on ideas and principles is not racist. To oppose an administration because you do not like the principles that are being pushed is not racist. But these people who are opposing the President on health care, or cap-and-trade, or ACORN, or anything else that he stands for are now being accused of being racist, even though these protesters are opposing all elected representation in Washington, and not just the President.

Yet, it is never mentioned that many of these same people supported the likes of Lynn Swann in PA, Ken Blackwell in Ohio, or Michael Steele in Maryland. These same people supported the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court. Where were all of the Democrats then? They did not support Swann, or Blackwell, or Steele. They definitely did not support Thomas's nomination. Does this fact make those democrats racist? No, it doesn't. They were opposed because the nominees were not liberals/democrats.

Being called a racist can be very damaging to one's reputation, even though the charge is not true. That moniker can put the seeds of doubt in other people's mind about someone's character. It can ruin someone's credibility beyond measure. Just look at how the non-racial comments by Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) are being treated.

And all too often, it is thrown out at someone recklessly. We see cries of racism at the drop of a hat. It used to be that this was a ploy used only by Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. Now, it is being used by many prominent liberals and democrats, including the illustrious former President, Jimmy Carter. And it is usually used in times of political desperation.

The people that were in Washington this past Saturday protesting excessive government spending, universal health care, cap-and-trade, etc., were protesting not only the President. They were protesting the reckless way in which Congress passes laws and spends money like there is no tomorrow. Could there have been some people using this as a way to express their racist views? Yes, there could have been a few people there (maybe 5 or 6 of them) who were racists, and the media would go out of their way to find them. But the overwhelming majority were there to protest our government.

During the 2008 Presidential election, the media tried to turn everyone who opposed Obama into a racist. Forget about the fact that everything the Republican Party did and said was based on principle, not on race. Forget about the fact that the only people who ever brought race into the discussion were liberals/democrats. Conservatives are able to make decisions based on principle and do not have to bring race into the equation.

Just because people voted against Obama does not mean those people were racist. Many voted against him because of where he stood on the issues, because of who he called his friends (Rev. Wright, et al), because of what he stood for, because of what he wanted to do as President. How is it that voting against him based on principle is racist, but voting for him simply because he is black is not racist? Voting for someone based solely on his/her race is no more racist than voting against someone based solely on his/her race.

Let's be careful when throwing around the "racist" moniker. That is a scarlet letter that is thrown, not only at one's own character, but on their life, and on their family. And even in cases where it is not true, it can be a scar on one's life for many years.

Getting back to MLK's speech, where are we now? Have we reached that point in our society where we are judging others based on their character as opposed to their skin color? I would say that we have not reached that point. People continue to judge based on skin color. To me, it does not matter what skin color our President (or our Congressman, a football coach, a school teacher, etc.) has, but yet, we are often told of his skin color by our media. When we attempt to make a stand against someone based on character, then we are called racist.

I believe it is now time to take Dr. King's words and make them a realization, because, in my opinion, that has not happened yet. There are many who seem all to willing to erect that racial wall in today's society rather than eliminate it once and for all. I believe that Dr. King would be upset, were he alive today, at the way his dream is being taken out of context and twisted. It is time to finally honor him and make his dream come true.

9/11/09 - 8 Years Later

2009-09-11T11:40:00.003-04:00

There have been instances over the last several decades that we can say were momentous occasions where we make mental notes of our location and situation at the time history was being made. Many people remember where they were when hearing that Martin Luther King Jr. was shot. Or where they were when President Kennedy was shot. Or where they were when they found out Elvis died. Or when John Lennon died. Or where they were when man landed on the moon, and then stepped foot on the lunar surface. Or where they were when they heard of the Space Shuttle Challenger blowing up after liftoff. Not that all of these moments can be considered momentous occasions in the life of mankind, but we remember them and the affect that they have on our lives.

I am too young to remember MLK Jr. or JFK being shot. Nor can I remember man landing on the moon, as I was not yet here on this earth. The deaths of Elvis and Lennon happened when I was young, and even looking back on them now, I do not see significance in them. I remember the Challenger blowing up. We did not have school that day due to snow, but I did not necessarily understand if this had any effect on me, or if it was just another news story.

There is one significant event in history, though, that sticks out in my mind. That is what happened on the morning of 9/11/01. I remember that work was really slow at that point, and we had mandatory furloughs that we were taking. I just happened to be off that week. I was sleeping in that day (my wife and I only had 1 child at that point, so it was easy to keep quiet in the house). When I woke up, I got on the phone and made a call to a credit card company that I had an ongoing dispute with. While I was on hold, instead of hearing the normal elevator music, I heard news. It sounded like NBC. They were talking about the World Trade Centers falling down.

I quickly turned on the television to see what was going on, and I tuned in to see the aftermath of the 2nd tower falling. I had to ask myself what was happening. Is this real? Or is it just a really bad dream? I asked my wife why she did not wake me up. Her answer was that I needed the extra sleep and she did not want to disturb me. While I appreciated the sentiment, I thought that this was worthy enough to wake me up.

Then there was news that a plane had flown into the Pentagon. Not too much later, we heard about a plane that crash landed in western Pennsylvania. We all wondered what was happening. Are we under attack? Was anything else going to be targeted that day? Who would do something this heinous and despicable? What had these Americans done to be targets of such actions?

While there was a very small minority of people at that time who came out and said that America deserved this (and were possibly even involved in this), the overwhelming majority of Americans believed that these actions were unprovoked and that whoever committed these acts must be found and brought to justice. These attacks were not against any one man or any one belief. They were attacks on the United States of America. They were cowardly attacks on innocent Americans who were going about the course of their daily lives. There was a tremendous unity of mind amongst almost all Americans that we needed to put political differences aside in order to fight a common enemy.

In the coming days and weeks we found out that these were attacks brought on by Al Qaida, which had funding and support from Osama Bin laden. The questions then came about what we can do to keep this from helping again. What steps can we take in order to keep people from perpetuating this same kind of cowardly attack on the American people again? What is the best way to keep Americans safe, especially on their own soil?

People had differing views on what is the best way to keep Americans safe, but the debate was vigorous, and the debate was good. Our government officials knew that if America could not be safe, then it would only be a matter of time before America was no longer free.

Over time, as the debate continued, fringe groups started to plant the seeds of doubt in the mind's of some Americans. How could the Bush Administration not have known that this was going to happen? Perhaps they were involved. Perhaps they were privy to the plan and decided to do nothing about it. Maybe they planted explosives in the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in order to bring them down.

These ideas are preposterous. However, the longer they perpetuated these ideas, the more people started buying into these ideas. And over time, this idea that it was an 'inside job' was grown, maybe not to a majority of the American minds, but it still festers out there.

So, where are we now? How do we view the events that happened eight years ago? How do we honor the people who gave their lives on that day so that others could live? What are we doing so that these types events do not happen to us again?

First, we were attacked by Muslim extremists. We were not attacked by the Muslim religion. Rather, we were attacked by extremists who are members of that religion. It is a religion that clearly allows for this type of extremism and teaches that these actions will be rewarded in the afterlife. Today, however, by saying that these attacks were perpetuated by Muslim extremists, we are now said to be spreading hate against this 'great' religion. Well, the facts are the facts. We cannot change who attacked us. We cannot change or ignore who they were.

Second, they did not attack us because President Bush was the President. Nor did they attack the World Trade Centers in 1993 or the USS Cole because Bill Clinton was President. They attacked us because of who we were. They attacked us because we are Americans. They attacked us because we have freedom. They attacked us because we were free to worship however we please. They attacked us because they hated us for simply being Americans.

Third, we now have an administration that does not want to call this what it was: an act of terrorism. We have an administration that does not want to call our battle against these extremists a war on terror. They want to soften the language so as to show some goodwill to these extremists, as though this will help them understand that what they did was wrong. We have an administration that wants the American people to think that the real enemies are the conservatives in Congress, the insurance companies, talk radio, and Fox News. We have an administration that is more concerned about the global warming myth than they are about terrorists who are bent on destroying America. We have an administration the believes that America is the enemy, not the terrorists.

Fourth, we have lost our focus. Understandably, as we become more removed from an historic event, that event does not take the prominence that it once did. The administration is now touting 9/11 as a National Day of Service. Excuse me, but what in the world does this have to do with remembering what happened on that dreadful day? Why is the President trying to divert attention from what happened that day? I have nothing against service to others, but why choose 9/11 for this? The goal of this, in my opinion, is to remove the focus on fighting terrorists and the ideology that fuels them.

Fifth, the liberals in America are secular-progressive in their beliefs. They do not necessarily view things as right and wrong. Actions are relative in their minds. Many liberals view that what these terrorists did was justified because of America's greatness on the world scene and because of our support for the nation of Israel. They have tried to remove God from the public square and from any and all public discourse. They teach that we should be committed to the environment and community service, above all else. They teach that the government is the answer to all of our problems. In their minds, God is a figment of the imagination. Religion fills us with a false hope. Trust man, not God.

I am not saying that we should live our lives in continual fear of possible terrorism. We should continue with our lives as we always have done. However, we should be vigilant. We should be ready to stand up for America, to be proud of it, to proclaim to the world that America will not be beaten down by terrorists. We should be proud to live in the greatest country on earth, not ashamed of it. While we may not like our elected representatives and officials, we ought to be proud that we live in a country where we are free to vote for whoever we wish to vote for, without fear of intimidation and reprisal.

And on this 8th anniversary of 9/11, let us remember the words of President Abraham Lincoln when he spoke at Gettysburg:

"...we cannot dedicate—we cannot consecrate—we cannot hallow—this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom."

We should pray for other's salvation, not for their damnation

2009-09-01T11:32:00.004-04:00

I came across a news article online yesterday that really bugged me. It concerns a Pastor by the name of Steven Anderson. He pastors the Faithful Word Baptist Church in Tempe, AZ.

Recently, he preached a message titled "Why I Hate Barack Obama." He told the congregation that he prays for the death of the President, and he encourages the congregants to do likewise. He would like for the President to be stricken with brain cancer and die in a fashion similar to the late Sen. Ted Kennedy. Anderson does say, however, that he does not condone killing. I am not sure how he can say that, though, as he prays for the President to die and go to hell.

This is wrong on so many levels. First, in the interest of full disclosure, it must be said that I do not approve of the way the President is leading our country, nor do I approve of his policies. However, to disagree with another person, including the President, is fine. This is one of the hallmarks of democracy - that we have the freedom to disagree with the President without fear of reprisal or retribution. I do not wish ill-will, pain, injury, or death on the President. I would like to see someone different in that office, but this change should come through the electoral process and not through imprecatory prayers.

First, a pastor has no business preaching messages such as this. The pulpit is a place to preach the Bible, not a place to make political statements. The pulpit is place where the Bible is preached to show us how to live. The pulpit is a place to preach messages based on Biblical principles, not messages based on one's personal, earthly feelings.

Second, messages preached in churches should be based on the Bible. How many Biblical principles is this man breaching by preaching in this manner? I am sure that there are many more, but here is a small list that I came up with.

Proverbs 21:1 - The king's heart is in the hand of the Lord, as the rivers of water: He turneth it whithersoever He will. This passage tells us that God is in control. He knows what He is doing.
II Peter 3:9 - The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. God is telling us here that He wants all to be saved from eternity in hell to spend eternity with Him in heaven. Not everyone will get saved, but that is the goal that we are to strive for. So to pray for someone to die and go to hell is in direct violation of Scripture.
Romans 13:1-2 - Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Again, God is in control and He has set the earthly government in place. As long as they are not asking us to do anything against God, we are to be subject to them.
I John 2:10-11 - He that loveth his brother abideth in the light, and there is none occasion of stumbling in him. But he that hateth his brother is in darkness, and walketh in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth, because the darkness hath blinded his eyes. I think this one pretty much speaks for itself.
I John 3:15 - Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him. Can it get any more clear than this?

Unfortunately, this preacher does more to harm the cause of Christ than he does to help it out. It is people like this that hurt the witnessing opportunities of Christians. How is preaching this sort of message any different than preaching that sexual promiscuity is OK? How is it any different than preaching that stealing is permitted? or murder? or any other sin?

This man claims to be a Pastor. He is a leader, a shepherd. He should know these Bible passages. He should know that we are to pray for our leaders, that God would give them wisdom on how to lead this country, how to make wise decisions. He should know that anyone can be saved, regardless of the life they currently live.

While I was in college at Bob Jones University, Dr. Bob Jones III has a recurring statement in chapel to remind us of the plight of mankind should they choose not to accept Christ - "The most sobering reality in the world today is that people are dying and going to hell today." Someone dying and going to an eternity in hell is not something that should be cheered. This is something that we must address with others, regardless of who they are, so that they do not face a God-less eternity.

We should approach our elections seriously. We should avail ourselves of the opportunity to vote. Regardless of the outcome, we are to pray for those who are elected, whether or not we voted for them or agree with them. We are commanded to do this. They need our prayers. And while you are praying for them, remember to pray for their salvation. You never know what events may transpire that can lead to someone getting saved.

Let's stop blaming President Bush

2009-08-28T11:40:00.004-04:00

Thanks to the ongoing debate over health care, the American people are starting to become more aware of the way our government is spending our money. The American people are also aware of the fact that it is indeed their own money that is being spent, and they are becoming less content with that overspending each and every day, as they should be.

Well, the hardcore liberals are now doing what they do best: they are deflecting the blame to the previous President and taking no responsibility for their own actions. After all, it is much easier to deflect the blame on someone else than it is to actually take responsibility for one's own actions. Thankfully, there are not as many buying into this idea as before.

First, let me say that I am a supporter of former President George W. Bush. He did his best to protect this country from those who were bent on destroying it. As commander-in-chief, he took that responsibility seriously, and I am thankful for that. However, in his second term, along with a Republican-led Congress, he supported spending programs that were contrary to conservative principles and led us into a lot of debt. (Let's be clear: It is Congress that writes the checks. The President only signs the bills. However, President Bush did not veto these spending plans, which thus shows no disagreement with the bills he was signing.)

Many Bush supporters (and especially conservatives) were (and still are) unhappy about the out-of-control spending that took place during that second term. Many conservatives spoke out about it then, and they continue to speak out about it, so there is not hypocrisy happening. The Democrats, for the most part, were partakers in the spending under President Bush, but they separated themselves from it for electoral purposes only. They are the hypocrites in all of this.

And while the spending spree in the last few years of the Bush Administration was unwise and financially reckless, it pales in comparison to the spending that the Obama Administration is now partaking in. It is President Obama's contention that this spending is necessary to get us out of a recession. He believes that the government needs to spend this money in order to dig our country out of a financial hole that we now find ourselves. And, somehow, it is all President Bush's fault.

Blaming President Bush for anything has been commonplace for at least the last 8 years. It is almost comical the lengths that people go to in order to blame Bush. But why are they doing it?

First, I believe they are blaming President Bush in order to take attention off of the health care debate and the fact that they are losing the fight (at least, for right now). When you are losing the battle, blame someone else in order to draw the attention away from the fact that you are losing. It is a classic misdirection - try to get someone focused on something other than the main issue and you might be able to sneak it through.

Second, they need a bogeyman to hide their own shortcomings and failures. These guys have a Democrat controlled House and Senate (and the majorities are significant). There is nothing that the Republicans can do to stop legislation. Yet, they still cannot get some of their key issues through Congress.

Third, they are blaming President Bush because they do not like him. This, of course, is no secret. They hated this man. Many would have been happy if President Bush had just died, or been shot. Now, we have the Obama Administration trying to feed off of this perceived, supposedly still-lingering Bush Derangement Syndrome.

The Obama Administration is trying to sell the American people on the fact that this excessive spending (whether Cap-and -Trade, Cash for Clunkers, Health Care, TARP, etc) is necessary in order to bring this country back from a recession caused by the Bush Administration. I am having trouble trying to understand this concept. If it was wrong for the deficit to reach annual rates of $500,000,000,000, then how can it be OK for the government to go at least $1,500,000,000,000 in the hole this year alone in order to dig out of the hole?

This is a deficit at least 3x larger than any deficit we ever saw under the Bush Administration. In fact, there are some estimates now that show this year's deficit will be larger than all 8 years of budget deficits under George Bush, combined. And there is no end in sight to this madness. The liberals that are currently running the country are trying to find new and unique ways to spend our money. Instead of paring back government, they are trying to introduce government to new areas where they do not yet have a presence.

The founding fathers of this great country saw to it that the power of the government was to be limited. There were some basic areas where the government needed to be involved, but for the most part, powers were given to the states or to the people. The founding fathers did not want to see a government that was involved in every phase of our lives. Over the past 200+ years, government has slowly added to their power, while taking away the power of the state and the power of the people. Let us not forget the the role of the government is to protect our freedom and to clear the path so that Americans can chase their dreams and their goals without the fear of the government punishing them for being successful.

So my message to President Obama is this: Take responsibility for the decisions that you and your administration are making. We know that you do not want to admit to this, but this is what you have wanted to do. We know you wanted people to be dependent on government and not on themselves. Stop blaming others. Admit that these are your goals. Be proud of your achievements. And start packing, because if you continue down this path, you are destined for a one-term presidency.

Do we need another Declaration of Independence?

2009-08-07T12:11:00.003-04:00

For some reason, I pulled out a copy of the Declaration of Independence a couple of weeks ago and read it. Now, I am sure that I have read through it before, but I do not think that I paid attention to it like I did this time. I tried to absorb the words, to get an understanding of the situation that the Founding Fathers were confronted with. I would like to share some of my thoughts with you.

One of the first things that caught my eye is that our inalienable rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We are not guaranteed happiness, only the freedom to pursue it. I do not see health care as a right, a new car as a right, a house as a right. We have the freedom to pursue those things, ot the right to own them.

The following text I find interesting: "That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. 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."

I put the emphasis to the above sections. If these sections do not speak about today's government, then I do not know what does.

The writers of the Declaration then go on to list the many grievances that they had against the King of England, several of which apply to today's national leaders. Among them are:

"He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance."
"For imposing taxes on us without our consent."
"For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments."

The signers then go on to declare their independence from Great Britain due to these grievances. They did not do so flippantly. They did this with great solemnity. They then conclude the Declaration with this phrase: "...with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor."

Many of the men who signed this document eventually went on to fight for America's independence. Some of them lost their property and their wealth due to their stand. Some of them lost their lives in the Revolutionary War. These men took a stand, and our country is better for it today.

We do not face the same kind of persecution today. Thanks to our Constitution, we have the freedom to speak out when we believe the government is wrong. We can do this without fear of reprisal (for now). We can speak up without fear of being arrested. We do not have to go to war to fight for independence, because we already have it.

Since this is the case, then I only have one question to ask. Why are we so afraid to stand up for what we believe in? These men who signed the Declaration knew what was coming when they signed that Declaration. They know their lives were going to become more difficult. They know that they might lose everything they owned, possibly even their own lives. But they did it anyway.

We now have an opportunity for a revolution. No, not one that is fought with guns and swords. Rather, it is an ideological revolution, one for the hearts, minds, and values of the American people. It is time for us to stand up to our representatives, senators, and even the President to let them know the will of the people. If they do not listen, then we need to remove them. Even if they do listen, it may be time to remove them.

Our government is on that is "Of the people, By the people, For the people." It exists because of us, not in spite of us. It is time our government officials realized that.

Democrats complete disregard for the electorate

2009-08-07T11:39:00.002-04:00

Over the past week or two, there have been many news accounts of ordinary citizens attending town hall meetings, confronting their congressional representative with their objections to the Health Care Bill that Congress is trying to push on top of us. The complaints are many. It costs too much. It will do away with existing, private health care plans. It will give too much authority to the government. It will cause health care rationing. And the list goes on.

Now, all of these are very valid complaints. And after reading about this bill, as well as looking at examples of other countries that currently have this government-sponsored health care, these issues are very accurate.

Now we see that the Democrat leadership (both in Congress and the White House) is trying to fight back, to try to get a foothold in this debate, as they can now see that they are losing on this issue. They have done everything in their power to demean the people who are speaking out against this issue. They are trying to threaten those who speak out against them. They are being nothing more than playground bullies on this issue.

They have accused the 'protesters' of being organized by the Republican Party. I know this is not true. I would not give the Republican Party that much credit right now. Then, the liberals go to their playbook. They blame entities like Fox News and talk radio (esp. Rush Limbaugh).

Their argument goes something like this: Conservatives are too stupid to create their own opinions so they have to listen to Fox News and Rush Limbaugh in order to get the day's talking points. I find this viewpoint narrow-minded. Conservatives know what they believe and why they believe it. We do not like it when someone tells us what to think.

But there is an irony in all of this: Liberals can only argue in Democrat talking points. They do not have original thoughts of their own, as can be seen by their continual use of the Fox News/Rush Limbaugh argument. In fact, this argument is so popular amongst liberals that the President even uses it when he cannot get his way on something.

Now, the congressional leaders are saying that these protests are part of a small, lunatic fringe of the radical right. Barbara Boxer said that the protesters are too well dressed to be concerned citizens (as though, ordinary citizens do not dress neatly). Harry Reid said that these protesters are trying to destroy the democratic process. I am not sure how he arrives at that conclusion, as though speaking out on issues to your elected representative is a bad thing. I would think that trying to cram a bill through Congress that the overwhelming majority of Americans does not want and limiting debate on that bill is more responsible for the death of democracy. But who am I?

The same people that are decrying these opponents to the health care proposals are the same ones who spoke out against the Tea Parties earlier this year. They do not like that fact that we do not agree with them. To the elected representatives, power does not exist with the people. It exists with the government. They want the power for themselves, and they want to remove anyone that gets in their way, a la Hugo Chavez or Fidel Castro.

The administration is doing their best to strong-arm everyone in their own party to get behind this bill. They are trying to bully the American people into getting behind this bill. And now they are getting physical with some of the protesters at these town hall meetings around the country. They want to beat us into submission. If they were really intent on getting the American people behind them, they would try to persuade us, not beat us. That tactic is just turning more people against them.

It is time we stand up and tell our elected representatives that they work for us. We put them there. If they are not going to listen to us, then we will vote for someone who will. We should not be living in fear of what they may do to us. They ought to be afraid of us and not voting based on the will of the people.

Applying the Wisdom of Ronald Reagan in Today's Political Landscape

2009-08-01T09:56:00.003-04:00

Many people today know Ronald Reagan as an actor, who then went on to become Governor of California, and then the 40th President of the United States. He was a man who knew what he believed and actually stood up for those principles. He did not sell out his principles in order to gain political favor. He led us out of a brutal recession. He brought back a faith and trust in the American way of life at the height of the Cold War. He believed in Americans and America, even when they did not necessarily believe in themselves.

In the past couple of years, I have received Ronald Reagan calendars from the Reagan Ranch. These calendars are full of pictures of Ronald Reagan, both at work and at his ranch. They contain interesting factual nuggets. But more than anything else in this calendar, they contain many quotes from his speeches and his writings.

Today, politicians need speechwriters to come up with many of the pithy things that they say. This was not true with Reagan. While he did have speechwriters, many of these quotes belong to Reagan himself.

In reading these quotes, it is easy to see that Ronald Reagan believed that the problems that Americans face today are solvable. He believed that government intervention was not the way to solve these problems. Rather, Americans can solve these problems when the government steps out of the way, when we have a faith in God to get us through our trials, when we are free to help others in time of need.

He believed in a limited government; not an oppressive, overreaching government.
He believed in a government of, by, and for the people; not in a government in spite of the people.
He believed that people should have a freedom to worship as they please; not a freedom from worship and all things spiritual.
He believed that the founding fathers put together a document that could withstand the test of time; not a document that changes over time to whatever we want it to say.

As I read through these quotes, I am amazed at the things he believed and the way he governed. I marvel at a politician who governed as he said he would, something we do not really have today. Then I wonder, if we applied his wisdom to the way we are governed today (or allow ourselves to be governed), then how much better off would we be as a country?

I wish to share a few of these quotes in this post. I will occasionally share more of them as time goes on. But please take note of the things he says and how we could apply them to government today.

"You can't be for big government, big taxes, and big bureaucracy and still be for the little guy." Ronald Reagan - 1988
"Common sense told us that when you put a big tax on something, the people will product less of it. So, we cut the people's tax rates and the people produced more than ever before." Ronald Reagan - 1989
"We have long since discovered that nothing lasts longer than a temporary government program." Ronald Reagan - 1992
"All of us should remember that the federal government is not some mysterious institution comprised of buildings, files, and paper. The people are the government. What we create we ought to be able to control." Ronald Reagan - 1981

There are so many more quotes that I could post here, but I think you get the main idea. Reagan believed that government was not here to fix everyone's problem, to provide for everyone, to be a nanny to us.

Ponder these "Reagan-isms". Read them over and over again. Try to understand that the way that the government is leading us today is 180 degrees in the opposite direction of Reagan. Then ask yourself "Why?" What is it that today's government officials (in both parties) do not understand about the ideas and principles that Reagan espoused and lived by? Why can't they see that, under Reagan, this country prospered? Why can't they see that when you get government out of the way, Americans can prosper and live in the freedom that the founding fathers envisioned?

Why do today's elected government officials feel that we cannot make our own decisions on anything? Why do they feel that we need the government to hold us by our hands every day of our life? Why do they feel that we are not smart enough to make good decisions?

Remember, we have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Why do we vote for these knuckleheads who do not believe this? Why do we vote for people who do not care about the people they represent? Mid-term elections are coming up next year. It is about time we vote for people who represent us and the freedom we cherish. We do not need to elect people who represent government bureaucracy. Let's take our country back.

The Supreme Court is not about diversity

2009-07-21T18:19:00.003-04:00

I read with interest an opinion column by Cynthia Tucker, the editorial page editor of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. She uses the same liberal talking points concerning Judge Sotomayor's 'American success story' that we have heard from the beginning. Tucker speaks of Sotomayor's hard work, determination, sacrifice, poverty, personal tragedy, and ancestry. Apparently, Tucker is not familiar with Justice Clarence Thomas and his upbringing (if you have not read the book, My Grandfather's Son, I encourage you to read it). His story is just as (if not more) compelling. But that does nothing to qualify one to sit on the Supreme Court.

She then goes on to criticize Republicans who oppose Sotomayor's nomination because "she represents the activist-judge liberal-elite", according to Tucker. All you need to do is review the now infamous firefighter's case that the Supreme Court just overturned to see that she is an activist, liberal judge. In the past, she has also stated that law is made at the Federal Court level. I think she fits the definition of an activist judge.

Tucker states that many Republicans will oppose any judge that a Democrat President will nominate. This happened throughout the Bush Presidency with Democrats in the Senate - they opposed just about everyone, including Miguel Estrada. President Bush nominated Estrada to sit on the bench, but the Democrats filibustered his nomination any chance that they had. In fact, there were memos revealed that stated the Democrats were against him simply because he was Hispanic and nominated by Bush, and they thought a Democrat President should be the first person to nominate an Hispanic person to such a position. Racism? Yes, it is, but the Democrats actually had some Republican staffers fired for leaking the memos instead of answering for what the memos said.

Tucker then plays the race card, which is her expertise. She states that "there is a less articulated but equally intense reaction to Sotomayor on the right that has nothing to do with issues and everything to do with ethnicity." What? Is this woman serious? I have not seen anyone mention her ethnicity except for the liberal elites, whether in Congress or in the press. The Republicans have opposed this woman on ideological grounds. To them, it has been about her decisions and her judicial temperament. It has been about her legal beliefs and what her view of the role of the judiciary happens to be. It was Sotomayor who said that wise Latina women will make better decisions than men. No one made that up. She said it. It is the liberals that want race to become the issue.

Tucker then spouts off about Pat Buchanan and a column that he wrote. Buchanan, in my opinion, has some good things to say, but he is off his rocker in many things he says these days. Anyway, he compares Sotomayor and the positive treatment she gets vs. Sarah Palin, and the treatment that she has been prone to receive. This is definitely a legitimate comparison, as Sotomayor has been praised beyond belief, while Palin has been scorned and derided at every opportunity to do so. Tucker proves this point, and she did not even try to.

Tucker then closes her column with this:

"There's just one problem: That vision of America - a country run by and for God-fearing white people of smalltown heritage - is losing its appeal in a country that grows more diverse and more urban every day.

As long as the Republican Party is held hostage by a group of voters who refuse to let go of that image of America, it cannot hope to be a national party. Sonia Sotomayor, not Sarah Palin, represents the future."

This is nothing but race-bating on Tucker's part. Yes, we are more diverse, and I know no one on the conservative side of the aisle that has a problem with that. What we want is people to hold important positions who are qualified to be there. Race does not enter into the equation. One's ability to do the job correctly is what matters. It is the liberal establishment that is concerned about race and diversity, not the conservatives.

Where were the liberals when President Bush had the most diverse Cabinet in history? They were too busy saying that minorities sold out to conservatives. Where were they in supporting the Voting Rights Act and during the Civil Rights movement? They were trying to filibuster the legislation. Where were they in support of Lynn Swann? Or Ken Blackwell? Or Michael Steele? Oh, that's right, they were supporting the white guys that were running against them.

And I believe Sarah Palin has a lot of support. In the latest polls, she is only a few points behind the President in a theoretical 2012 head-to-head Presidential race. Palin is popular, and she also has a very compelling life story.

So, in summation, conservatives care about qualifications of those being appointed, not their race, not their life story. It is the liberals who are interested in diversity at the expense of qualifications and ability to do the job. Being a justice on the Supreme Court carries a lot of power and responsibility. It should only be those who have the qualifications who should serve on this most prestigious bench. All other characteristics should be cast aside.

Economics 101: Why Communism does not work

2009-07-17T15:04:00.004-04:00

I would like to share with you an e-mail that I received today regarding a very simple approach to economics and prosperity.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had once failed an entire class.

That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer. The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan". All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A.

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little. The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.

The scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It really doesn't get much simpler than this.

What has happened to our values? - Part 2

2009-07-07T11:54:00.003-04:00

A couple of weeks ago, on June 25, 2009, my wife had a birthday. We then went to the Harrisburg Hospital to see my younger brother's newest child. On the way, we heard about the passing of Michael Jackson, the so-called "King of Pop." We can also note that Farrah Fawcett died that day, but that was no longer news after the report of Michael Jackson hit the airwaves.

As I saw news coverage that night, I saw throngs of people headed to the hospital where Michael Jackson died. People flocked to the Neverland Ranch to pay their last respects. People camped out around his star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. We were flooded with images of people crying over his death. We were shown interviews with people who spoke of how much MJ had touched them with his music and his life, even though there was no personal contact between them. Congress is rushing to pass a resolution honoring the life of Jackson, but yet cannot pass any bill that would help out the average American.

But why are we treating him like this? His music had not been relevant to the pop music genre for at least 15 years. He had money troubles over the last few years (he was spending much more money than he had on hand). He definitely was in legal trouble. Why is their such a fuss about him?

I found it odd that 2 different ministers came out and spoke on his family's behalf: The Rev. Jesse Jackson and Rev. Al Sharpton. If these men were really men of God, then they would know that we should not idolize another fallible human being. Yet these two men did just that. Here they were, holding up a fallible man as if he had done no wrong throughout the course of his life, praising his accomplishments here on this earth.

Let us not forget that MJ was in all kinds of legal trouble for being a pervert, as he liked to have sleepovers with boys, even allowing them to sleep in his bed (in case you forgot, watch his interview with Martin Bashir from a few years ago). He was in trouble for molestation. Yes, he was acquitted, but who among us really believes that he is innocent of this? A lot of money changed hands in order for him to come away from these charges as not guilty.

The Staples Center held a lottery to see who would get tickets to his memorial service. From printed reports, approximately 1.4 million people registered online for 17000 available tickets. People are flying in from all over the country, from around the world, to be in L.A. for this service. Why? Do we really think that much of a singer what made a lot of money from singing songs, yet had not impact on us as people?

And then the media covers this spectacle as if nothing else is going on around us? We have war in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have a federal government that cannot control spending. We have a government that wants to push socialism on us. There are international issues with Korea and Honduras. The Democrats will have a filibuster-proof majority. Yet, the media is diverting our attention to the MJ service and away from these other much more important issues. Because the media knows that Americans have a short attention span and can pretty much be led around and told what to think.

As many people mourn the death of Michael Jackson today, I know of one person who is more than happy that this has happened: Gov. Mark Sanford. It got his name off of the front page. But what does this say about us? What have we become, that the death of an entertainer is the most important event on the earth?

What has happened to our values? - Part 1

2009-07-07T11:31:00.004-04:00

Several weeks ago, America waited with baited breath as Jon and Kate Gosselin had an important announcement to make concerning their marriage on their "hit" reality show. We all knew what was coming. You did not need to be a MENSA member to see that they were going to separate. That information was all over the tabloids for many weeks prior to the official announcement.

I had not watched the show prior to this big announcement, but yet I found myself being drawn into this show in order to see what this big announcement was all about. During the show, the interviews with both Jon and Kate (they were interviewed separately) told the sad story of a couple that had grown apart. The rigorous existence that they lived as "reality stars" was finally getting to them.

The part that saddened me the most, though, was the fact that they would rather separate from each other and share custody of the children, rather than stop the show and work out the problems in their marriage. I guess Kate summed it up best when, answering a question regarding the continuation of the show, she said "The show must go on."

I am sorry, but I cannot believe that these people would call themselves Christians after putting on this kind of selfish display. Forget the fact that Jon was cavorting with young women at bars. Forget the rumors that Kate was having an affair with one of her bodyguards. These two people are putting fame and fortune above family. They are putting their own fame and fortune in front of their children's well-being. They are sacrificing the permanent on the altar of the immediate. They are allowing the American public to become voyeurs into their own little world.

I would hope that any group claiming to be a Christian group has dropped either one of these people from any speaking engagement that they may have previously been booked for. As Christians, we have had to put up with many people in the past who have claimed to have spoken for Christianity, but instead have brought upon us a bad name. Christians, it is time to stand up for what is right and Biblical, not what is popular and worldly/un-Biblical.

Three different, high profile murders.....but with similar motives

2009-06-11T16:46:00.002-04:00

Within the past couple of weeks, our nation has had its attention turned to 3 different high profile murders, each of which has been committed by a different person, each of which had seemingly differing motives. However, all 3 of them have one thing in common: a built-up hatred for a certain group of people that drove them to commit the act of murder.

The first murder was that of Dr. George Tiller (aka Tiller the Killer). He was gunned down in a church by Scott Roeder. He was an abortion provider, specializing in late-term abortions, one of the few people in the country to offer this ‘service’. Tiller had aborted tens of thousands of innocent lives over his time in the abortion business. However, what Scott Roeder did was not right. It was not his position to take the life of another man. Though we may not like it, George Tiller was not breaking the law. Abortion is a legal activity, albeit a heinous act. Therefore, he could not have charges brought against him. To take justice into one’s own hand (i.e. vigilante justice) is just as bad as the sins that Tiller was committing. Tiller will be condemned to hell one day for the acts he committed. It is not up to other men to get him there sooner than his appointed time.

The second murder was that of Pvt. William Long, an Army recruiter. He was shot by Abdul Hakim Mujahid Muhammad (aka Carlos Bledsoe), a Muslim convert who had issues against the U.S. Military. He was mad at how the U.S. had treated Muslims in the past, though not specifying exactly what it was the U.S. did to mistreat Muslims. He then took his own self-defined idea of justice into his own hands and shot at 2 men outside the recruiting center, killing one of them (Pvt. Quinton Ezeagwula was also wounded). He later went on to say that he would have shot more recruiters had there been more of them there to shoot.

The last murder happened at the Holocaust Museum in Washington. It was there that James VonBrunn shot Mr. Stephen Johns, a security guard at the museum. Mr. VonBrunn was a white supremacist who, by all accounts, was growing more bitter and distressed daily. He did not like Jews or blacks. He often railed against the government. He had been jailed many years ago for 6½ for attempting to kidnap members of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. Once again, we see that someone took his own idea of justice into his own hands and took the life of another person.

Now, what do these men have in common? On the surface, nothing. When you look deeper, you have 3 murders, committed by 3 different people who obviously had anger management issues. They were all consumed by a hatred for another group in society. They all decided that they were going to act as judge, jury, and executioner in order to make things right (in their own eyes).

The press has been quick to denounce the killing of Tiller and the killing of Johns, painting the killers as ‘right-wing extremists.’ Why do they do this? All of the right-to-life groups have come out and condemned Scott Roeder, as that is not how these groups operate. They are out to change the hearts and minds of people. They do not participate in murder, the same act that the abortionists commit daily. So why do they need to try to put a label on Roeder, especially one that does not really apply?

VonBrunn was a white supremacist, who hated Jews and blacks. He hated President Bush and the so-called neo-cons. He was a 9/11 conspiracy loon. These are many of the same ideas that a lot of the left-wing groups hold dear. So why is he being called a right-wing extremist?

The only one not really condemned by the media (or the President, for that matter) was the killing of Pvt. Long by a Muslim. I guess we do not want to make them mad. However, his pattern of thinking is similar to those who committed the atrocities of 9/11. This is a pervasive ideology and must be stopped. But we cannot do so by committing the same types of vigilante justice that this man committed.

Also, all three of these crimes were committed with guns. And because of the high-profile nature of these crimes, many politicians and gun-control groups are jumping on the soap box and pushing for tighter gun controls. So their answer is to take the guns away from people that obey the law so that the law-abiders can be free game for those who are not interested in adhering to the law.

Through all of this, we can see that the Administration and the media want to paint conservatives as some sort of extremist group (even though conservatives have repudiated all of these acts). The conservatives, in their minds, need to be controlled and suppressed. That is the administration’s goal. They do not like political competition, so this is their way of stomping it out. It is time we start using these despicable acts as political propaganda and call them what they are: acts of murder. Simply put, these are all men who took away the life of another man. Why? Because they were consumed with enough hatred to kill another person.

The administration and the media need to realize that very few things that happen around us take place through the prism of politics. Murder is murder. Hate is hate. We do not need more gun control measures or hate crime legislation. All crimes are committed out of hate, whether it is hate for the government, hate for another person, hate for another race of people. The administration wanted to bring people together. They are doing so by eliminating the competition, only leaving those who agree with them.

I am tired of Republican pansies

2009-05-29T15:52:00.003-04:00

We live in an age where the Democrat Party runs roughshod over anyone in their way and will destroy anyone and everything in its path. They have no qualms about accusing people of racism and ruining the character of people in order to further their own political agenda.

And now the Republicans want to play nice when it comes to Sonia Sotomayor and the Supreme Court. I am not saying that they should treat her as the Democrats did to Clarence Thomas or Samuel Alito or John Roberts or Robert Bork. But they should not be afraid to come out against her and question her actions and her words. This is a legitimate time to do so. And it is part of their role in the nomination process.

However, the Republicans are afraid of offending the Hispanics in this country. They are afraid of offending women. They do not want a harsh tone. They want to be nice, as can be seen in this article on foxnews.com. However, they have short memories. Do they forget how the Democrats treated any Republican nominee to the courts, especially Miguel Estrada? The Democrats would not allow a vote on him because he was Hispanic. I guess the Hispanic community has a short memory.

The beltway Republicans are mad at Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich for speaking out against this nominee. These 2 men have backed up what they have said about her with facts. They are not making things up. They are passionate about their beliefs and what they think is right for this country. Yet, Republicans in Washington are pusillanimous, feckless, and useless. They would rather pick a fight with non-elected public figures than do battle over the direction of the high court.

The Republican establishment just wants to get along. They think that by being more like Democrats, they can regain power. Even one-time conservative stalwarts like Orrin Hatch and John Cornyn are being sucked up into this shameless approach to politics. I guess they have not figured out that Democrats do not want Republicans in office (no matter what their ideology might happen to be), and true conservative, core, grass-roots Republicans do not want Democrat Lite in office with a republican nameplate.

We want people who stand up for the values that we believe in. Let us not forget that we ran a candidate for President who tried to be a Democrat. And we lost big-time. This approach does not work. Just look at Arlen Specter. He had to change parties in order to have a chance to get elected, because the Republicans in Pennsylvania were tired of him selling us out.

According to Peggy Noonan, who was a speech writer for President Reagan and someone who fancies herself a conservative, conservatives like Limbaugh and Republicans like Gingrich should act like grownups. She called the Sotomayor pick 'a "brilliant political pick" because the GOP has struggled to attract and retain Hispanics and women, and because Sotomayor's rags-to-riches story is so moving.' (I note here that these issues have nothing to do with the makings of a Supreme Court Justice). What about Clarence Thomas's story? That did not impress the Democrats. That did not cause them to treat him better. Where was Peggy Noonan then?

She then goes on to say that '"Politically she's [Sotomayor] like a beautiful doll containing a canister of poison gas: Break her and you die," Noonan wrote.' Is Noonan for real? Did she forget what Reagan did and stood for in our once-great party?

She then sums it up like this: '"Excite the base? How about excite a moderate, or interest an independent?" she wrote. "How about gain the attention of people who aren't already on your side?"' Noonan makes me sick. She should be excommunicated from our party and should not be considered as a conservative by anyone (except, of course, by the New York Times, and MSNBC, who happen to love these stand-up-for-nothing Republicans).

This is just ludicrous. Without the base, the Republican Party will not win. Basically, she is saying to the base of the party, 'Hey, you don't matter any more. Go find your own party. We would rather be like Democrats and ruin this country and never win another election." As far as I am concerned, this woman is an embarrassment. I am sure Reagan is doing somersaults in his grave right now.

Compromise does not win elections. Standing firm on what you believe will win elections. Conservatism wins when it is on the ballot. All we need to do is go back to Reagan, the Contract with America, and, to a certain degree, George W. Bush. We should not run from the conservative mantle. Rather, we should embrace it and be proud of it. Not like these pansies now who claim to represent us.

More Supreme Court thoughts....

2009-05-28T12:13:00.003-04:00

Well, it has been a few days since Sonia Sotomayor was nominated to be the next Supreme Court Justice. What have we learned since then?

Well, we learned that the President and his administration think that no one should oppose her. I guess this is due to the fact that we are to do exactly as the President tells us to do. He knows all and see all; and, therefore, we should just fall in line.

We cannot oppose her. If we do, then we are anti-Hispanic, anti-woman, anti-minority, anti-diabetes, anti-Obama. Basically, we are just a bunch of redneck bigots.

They like to tell us that she has a compelling life story, as if this was the first time this ever happened. This is not the case. I would like to urge you to read Clarence Thomas's book My Grandfather's Son. He had a very compelling life story, and look how he was treated, especially by the current V.P.

When the Democrats opposed Republican nominees, they never did so on grounds of character or judicial ability. They did so based on personal attacks and the fact that they were nominated by a Republican President. If the Democrats were so bent on minorities in judicial positions, then they would not have filibustered Miguel Estrada. They should have supported him simply because of his lineage. Now, they try to portray those against Sotomayor as racists? Is there a pot calling a kettle black somewhere? I am not quite sure what hypocrisy smells like, but I think this might be it.

I would like to see the best person be nominated to the Supreme Court. I do not want to see tokens on the court. If she is the best person for the job, then she should be there. If not, then she should not be there. It's that simple. However, I know it will not happen like this.

The Democrats do not need any Republicans to pass this nomination through, even though they will most likely pick up a few along the way. I would like to see Republicans, though, stand up for American and stand for what is right. They need to ask the serious kinds of questions that need to be asked of a nominee to the Supreme Court. Then we, as Americans, can judge whether or not this nominee is qualified.

Were Chrysler dealer closings politically motivated?

2009-05-28T11:51:00.003-04:00

There is much speculation of impropriety about the way in which Chrysler and the government chose which dealers would be closed and which would remain open. What did they use as a basis for their decision?

For me, the obvious way to close down dealerships would be to get rid of the dealers that were not performing well and not making money. Then, I would look to consolidate dealerships in the same market. If more dealerships needed to be closed, then maybe you would decide by sales volume. there are many business-savvy ways to do this.

However, many bloggers are looking a little deeper into this to see if there was any political payback involved. Were dealers that made contributions to Democrats rewarded? Were dealers that made contributions to Republicans punished?

We should withhold judgment until the facts are out. However, given this administration's penchant for political bullying, I must say I would not be surprised if there was politics involved. This could possibly be a case study in Chicago-style, thug politics. We will have to wait and see how this transpires. But please, do not expect the mainstream media (which is the spokesgroup for the Administration) to do any vigorous research into this. They want it to pass quietly.

But let us remember what happened after President Bush fired a few of the U.S. Attorneys a couple years back. Everyone was outraged that this was a politically motivated act. In fact, there are still hearings going on about this (Karl Rove had a meeting concerning this issue last week). Why was this issue of firing U.S. Attorneys such a big deal, but the possibility of the Administration closing hundreds of dealerships based on politics OK?

The U.S. Attorneys serve serve at the pleasure of the President. It is his prerogative to keep them or let them go. There was nothing illegal, immoral, or unethical about what happened to this small group of attorneys.

However, if the Administration is using politics as their basis for closing dealerships, then there is a tremendous problem. What it says is that you need to support us or we will put you out of business. In other words, "You need to pay in order to play" (just like the Illinois Senate seat that Rolland Burris sits in right now). These dealerships are not open for the pleasure of the President. These dealerships are open to serve the public. When the government starts to get involved and decide which businesses stay in business based on politics, then we have reached an awfully slippery slope. Where does it end?

What would have happened if President Bush tried something like this with any given industry? He would have been crucified for it, and rightfully so. Why, then, do we have a double standard when it comes to President Obama?

Now, there are going to be several hundreds of dealerships going out of business. many may stay open and continue selling used cars or remain in the auto repair business. But this is still going to lead to unemployment, affecting potentially thousands of people and families. This is sure to help the economy get better.

But don't worry. The President nominated someone to the Supreme Court who will have empathy for you..

Thoughts on the Supreme Court

2009-05-26T16:51:00.001-04:00

So, the President has made his nomination for the soon-to-be-vacant Supreme Court seat. His nominee is Sonia Sotomayor, an Hispanic-American woman from working class parents. She is a woman who came from an unremarkable background and worked hard to get where she is today.

It is not my intention here to debate the merits of her nomination and whether or not she is qualified. That information will become apparent in the weeks and months to come, and we can make up our minds on that issue as this process plays out in public.

I do find a few things to be quite interesting in this whole Supreme Court issue, though. First, we need to look at the type of person that the President wants on the Supreme Court. He never said that he wanted someone with a firm grasp of the Constitution and the fact that the Judicial Branch of government is to be impartial. He never said that he wanted someone who would base decisions on the law of the United States, not on laws that he/she wanted to see, or foreign law that has no application to us.

Rather, he wanted someone that could empathize with the less fortunate. I am not sure when this became the role of the judiciary. The empathizing role is played out by Congress. They are elected to represent us, and therefore, empathize with those who elected them. Judges, though, are to be impartial, not basing decisions on what is fair or unfair, but rather on what is legal or illegal. They are to rule on the law, not make new law because they view someone to be less fortunate than others.

The founders of our country were smart enough to know that these roles should be separate. However, as each generation goes by, and as slight changes are made and accepted with each generation, soon we forget what the original intent of the founders was. And sadly, many do not care. And these ‘leaders’ are smart enough to know that drastic changes at any given time or usually not welcome. However, they know that slight changes, over time, will have the same effect and that people are more willing to accept this kind of change.

Another thing I find quite interesting is the reaction of the mainstream media. NBC has come out and asked the question that can be summed up like this: Are Republicans dumb enough to object to an Hispanic woman being nominated to the court? Granted, I changed the wording of the question, but this is the point that they are trying to get across.

I do not know about you, but I view the job of Supreme Court Justice as being quite a prestigious position. Only 9 people can hold that position at any one time. It is a lifetime appointment. We should be interested in nominating the best person to that position. Political correctness has no business in the selection process.

I am not quite sure how being an Hispanic or being a woman has anything to do with being a Supreme Court Justice. It seems to me that if you are rendering opinions on legal cases based on existing laws, then gender and nationality should not need to play a part in the whole process. It should be knowledge of the law, as well as its application in the cases that are in front of you, that should be the guiding factor in who is worthy of a seat on the Supreme Court.

This is really where Presidential elections matter. Presidents are not able to sign their own bills into law without Congressional approval. Presidents are the beneficiaries of good economic times and the punching bags during bad economic times. However, the people that they appoint to the Supreme Court (and who are approved by the Senate) are there for a long time, much longer than the President that appointed them. They have the opportunity to rule on law or make new law.

The President has all the votes he needs to push this nomination through. My question is this: Will there be Democrats (and Republicans) who have the courage to stand up and ask the right questions to see if this candidate is truly worthy of being s Supreme Court justice? Will Democrats dare vote against the President? Will Republicans finally have the courage to stand up and do the right thing?

I am not saying that they should treat the nominee in the same manner the Judge Bork was treated, or in the same manner that Justices Thomas, Alito, and Roberts were treated. They can be fair, courteous, and still ask the hard questions. I encourage all Senators to do this.

Indian dad avoids washing for 35 years because......

2009-05-13T12:22:00.003-04:00

I came across this article yesterday concerning a man from India who had not washed in 35 years in an attempt to assure that his next child would be male. He already has seven daughters.

Some humorous excerpts from the article............

Kailash "Kalau" Singh replaces bathing and brushing his teeth with a "fire bath" every evening when he stands on one leg beside a bonfire, smokes marijuana and says prayers to Lord Shiva. My thoughts: Yet another reason not to legalize marijuana.
"It's just like using water to take a bath," Kalau was reported as saying. "A fire bath helps kill germs and infection in the body." My thoughts: He better hope he does not catch on fire from the stench surrounding him.
He refused to take the ritual plunge into the Ganges River, even after the death of his brother. My thoughts: You must really be filthy if dipping in the Ganges River will actually help clean you up.
Kalau's hygiene regime has taken its toll on his professional life. The grocery store that he used to own closed when customers stopped shopping there due to his "unhealthy personality."

First of all, the man is 63 years old, so why is he looking to have more children now? I hope his wife is not the same age. Second, what woman would want to have a child with a man who has not washed in 35 years? I am not sure that this would be healthy for her. Third, i just turned 36 a couple days ago. This man has not washed since I was 1 yr. old. That is truly disgusting.

Miss California: Much Ado About Nothing?

2009-05-13T11:51:00.003-04:00

By now, I am sure you are all aware of the events surrounding the Miss USA 2009 Pageant and the comments made by Miss California, Carrie Prejean. When asked by Perez Hilton regarding her views on homosexual marriage, she stated that, due to the way she was brought up and due to her Christian faith, she thinks that gay marriage is wrong. However, having the freedoms that we do in America, it is still somebody's choice to choose how they live.

Now, I am having a problem with seeing what the problem is with her statement. After all, it is consistent with the opinion that President Obama stated on the campaign trail. And, after all, he is all-wise. So if she agrees with the one who can do no wrong, then she should be applauded. Also, she never says that we should do away with gay people. All she is saying is that she believes they should not marry.

Well, the militant homosexual movement is doing everything they can to destroy this woman for having an opinion. And let's keep in mind that she did not come out and just offer her opinion. They asked her for it. I guess they were expecting a politically correct answer that you would expect to hear at a beauty pageant.

They are using the fact that she said she was a Christian to attack her. She must be some sort of bigot and gay-basher. Now, they are railing on her for posing for provocative photographs. Granted, these pictures should not have happened, and I am not going to defend the fact that she posed for the pictures. This is not the point of my posting. However, since the militants are unable to debate, in an educated manner, what she said concerning gay marriage, they are trying to attack her on a different front. They say that she is a hypocrite for not being consistent in her Christian beliefs. They are using this issue to destroy the person.

Also, why is she under attack for posing for these kinds of photos while Miss Rhode Island did that same thing, She is not being put under the microscope for this. Shouldn't there be equal treatment? To the militants, this does not matter, becasue they do not care about the fact she posed for the pictures. It is all about destroying the person that disagrees with them. This is typical Larry Flynt politics.

Now, I have several questions regarding this whole situation:

When did it start to matter what Miss USA contestants thought about social issues? We all know that this is a beauty pageant, not a philosophy round table. Let's face it, people who watch beauty pageants are not interested in the political leanings of the contestants. It is all about looks, not brains.
Why would they let someone like Perez Hilton be a judge? Surely, the organizers should have known something like this was going to happen.
Why would they allow such a politically charged question to be asked? Since they did not know what the answer was going to be, they should have known that this would cause controversy, no matter what the answer would be.
What happened to free speech? While George Bush was President, free speech was something that the militants were always in favor of, especially if it demeaned then-President Bush. If you disagree with them, you are basically guilty of hate speech. Now, where is the hypocrisy?
Are these pageants relevant? Should we be allowing a beauty pageant (and now the press) to set the tone on the national discourse? Do people actually even watch these pageants anymore?
Is Donald Trump using this situation to gain publicity for himself and the Miss USA Pageant? Of course, he is. And he is playing it for all it is worth.

I am sure that Carrie Prejean wishes that this would go away. I applaud her for standing by her views that gay marriage is wrong. She is not backing down from that. However, we all need to be aware of the situations we put ourselves in, because they could come back to bite us at some point in the future.

What is a moderate?

2009-05-01T16:31:00.003-04:00

To me, a moderate is someone who does not want to take a stance on a difficult issue. They wait to see how the majority decide, and they just jump in line with them. That is a moderate.

Too many of these people have infiltrated the Republican Party. Thankfully, one of them just left for the Democrat Party, and that would be Arlen Specter. In fact, he was a liberal. he passed by moderate a long time ago.

My problem now is that the Democrats are saying the Republican Party needs to be more moderate. They are too right-wing now. I would say that this is hypocrisy at its finest. When was the last time that the Democrats allowed a moderate to have a prominent position within their party? Does anyone remember what they did to Joe Lieberman? They do not want moderation in their party. They want strict adherence to a specific left-wing agenda.

However, the Democrats are on to something that the Republicans have not yet figured out: Moderates do not help you win elections. Rather, they will pull you down. That is the reason that they want the moderates on the Republican side. They know that moderates do not stand for anything, so they want them with the Republicans in order to split the party apart.

Look what has happened to the GOP when they allow moderates to lead: They lost control of the House, the lost control of the Senate, and John McCain was beaten handily in the 2008 Presidential election. Moderates do not help the Republican Party win. Rather, just the opposite is true.

Now, Republican leaders in Pennsylvania do not think Pat Toomey can beat Arlen Specter in a general election. While that may be true, now is the time to back the candidate and support him, not try to tear him down and throw another moderate into the front-runners spot. The leaders want former Gov. Tom Ridge to run for Senate. While he would be better than Specter, he still has his faults.

But a moderate is not the answer. We need a principled person that we can vote for. We need someone who will stand up for the constituents that voted him/her into office. We need someone who has the courage of his convictions. Now is the time to stand up for something, which would disqualify any moderate who is interested in the job.

ABC News: Helping out our enemies?

2009-05-01T15:56:00.002-04:00

Yesterday, ABC News revealed the identities of 2 men who were intimately involved in the so-called torturing of terrorist detainees. What were they thinking? What is their motivation here? Were they aware that they are endangering the safety of these men? Better yet, who in this administration is leaking this kind of information?

Waterboarding was last on the list of tactics to use when interrogating top-level terrorist suspects. I do not believe it is torture. Yes, it may scare the daylights out of them. Yes, they may be uncomfortable. But if this is what is necessary to get information from these people in order to save American lives, than that is what we need to do. Keep in mind, these are the same people that cut the hands off of people who steal, stone women who commit adultery, chop the heads off of their enemies, fly planes into buildings. However, if you listen to the spin machine of the administration (MSNBC), you would think that this is the worst thing that you could ever do to someone. Keep in mind, no one ever died during this (not even close). They want people's heads (figuratively) for waterboarding terrorists, but they think partial-birth abortion is OK? Explain the humanity of that one to me: You can't waterboard a terrorist, but you can suck the brains out of a halfway-born child? Who are the real thugs?

Anyway, by identifying these men, ABC News has put a target on the backs of these men and they have endangered their families. First of all, the media and Democrats in Congress are going to be after these guys. They would love nothing more than to have a show trial with these men. Also, by releasing names, they have helped our enemies know who was behind our plans and methods for getting enemy information. I am sure that they will not let this information go by the wayside and go on their merry way.

Why did ABC News do this? Is there any benefit to do doing this? Why do these news organizations find glory in revealing sensitive information that is related to national security? The media still wants to crucify members of the Bush administration for 'outing' Valerie Plame, the desk jockey analyst at the CIA who sent her husband on a political mission. There is now way on earth that Valerie Plame was more critical to the CIA than these men who were outed by ABC News. Plame was nothing. She just happens to fit a media template for the 'Blame Bush First' crowd, while these men are guilty of the worst sins that mankind could have ever committed. Keep in mind, the gentlemen that revealed her identity, Richard Armitage, has never been attacked and investigated by the major news outlets.

There is also the issue of how they got their hands on this sensitive information? Who in this administration leaked this one? If revealing Plame's name was so bad, then this one is 50 times worse. These men were critical in getting information from terrorists to keep us safe from attack. Whoever revealed the identities of these men should be put in jail for revealing top secret information about who was involved and what we were doing. Then to top if all off, this wonderful administration is going to release pictures of what was going on. This is political ineptitude, at its finest.

Plame is guilty of sending her husband on a politically driven CIA trip to try to undermine U.S. foreign policy. She is the traitor. The men who have been outed are patriots. When will the current President understand that his job is to provide protection for Americans. His job is not to be nice to terrorists, to apologize to them for being treated harshly, to give them Constitutional protections afforded to American citizens. Why is he more interested in protecting the rights of the terrorists than he is in protecting the lives of the American people? And he is using media outlets like ABC News to help him. And he has many people falling down at his feet and worshipping him. If this is his view of what is good for America, if this is the change we need, then we are in trouble.

Arlen Specter: It's about time you admitted your true allegiance

2009-04-28T16:55:00.002-04:00

Well, the inevitable happened today. Sen. Arlen Specter came out and said he was going to change over to the Democrat Party. Is this news? He has been in their camp for years. He has voted with them more than he has voted with his own party. The Democrats could rely on his vote more often than some in their own party. So no, this is not really news, as this is something we have known anyway.

Sen. Specter knew that this is what he needed to do in order to be re-elected next year. Basically, all of the polls had him running behind Pat Toomey for the Republican nomination. And given his recent voting record, he knew he had no chance of catching up to Toomey. So, instead of going through the Republican primary having a debate on ideas, he chose to take the cowardly way out.

He does not want to have the debate, because he knows he will lose on the issues. He has lost touch with those who voted for him and put him in office. He has been in the Senate for several terms, and what does he have to show for it? Nothing. How has he represented those of us in his state who have voted for him in the past? Only according to his own interests and not on the interests of those who voted for him.

Does he have a good chance of winning the Democrat primary? Yes, he does. Does he have a good chance of winning a general election? Yes, he does. Pennsylvania has a high liberal population in and around Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. Since most of these people are Democrats, they would not have been able to vote for him in the primary, which is why he would have lost.

I am happy to see him go. He does not stand for anything that the Republican base (i.e. Conservatives) stands for. He has thrown us under the bus too many times. After George Bush and Rick Santorum stuck their necks out to support him in 2004, he basically stabbed them in the back. For him, it is all about notoriety, re-election, and a legacy (that he is still searching for). It has nothing to do with principles and doing what is right.

* I am amused listening to and reading the commentary of the media and other politicians.
President Obama was glad to see him join the party and promises to campaign for him.
* Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) said that “Sen. Specter did not leave the Republican Party. The party left Sen. Specter.”
* I have read message boards where people said that this is another nail in the coffin of the Republican Party.
* Some have said that the Republican Party has no business saying it is a ‘big tent’ party after running Specter out.
* Others have derided the party for ‘caving in’ to the right-wing of the party.
* Moderates have applauded him for standing up to the right-wingers.
* Sen. Specter has said that the Republicans are no longer the Party of Reagan that he belonged to in the 80’s.

Let me see if I can answer these.
* Is it any surprise that President Obama would campaign for him? My question is this: Is this even a news story?
* Why would one of the most liberal Democrat senators make such a stupid statement? Specter was never on board with his core constituents in the party. He was always a loose cannon. He has been testing the Democrat waters for a long time.
* This is not a nail in the coffin for the Republicans. Rather, this is what needed to happen in order for them to have a recrudescence in the political world. In fact, there are several other senators and congressman that I would like to see go along with Specter. Conservatism wins when it is on the ballot. We need look no further than Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984, as well as the congressional elections of 1994. When conservatism runs, it wins.
* Where is it written that the Republican Party must be a big tent? When did someone ever say that the Democrat Party needs to have a big tent? The left wingers would not allow conservatives or Bible-believers or pro-national security types to be in their party (and I have no idea why those people would want to take part in the Democrat Party). In order to have a big tent, you must compromise on core principles. This is not something that you can do and survive.
* These people that are labeled as right-wingers are the core constituents in the party. We are the normal, ordinary people that go to work every day and pay our taxes (on time). We love America and the freedom we have as Americans. We cherish the rights granted to Americans under the Constitution. We are not embarrassed by the greatness and power of America. We love God (we actually believe in Him). We are not a group that is going to hurt America, as this administration would like to think.
* What are moderates? They are people who are too gutless to take a tough stand on anything. They would rather see what decision the majority makes, and then they will side with the majority. Who cares what moderates think? I certainly do not. I want people on my side who are principled, not like the chaff, driven with the wind and tossed to and fro.
* The problem with the party is that we are no longer a party that embraces the ideals of Ronald Reagan. We do need to be careful not to worship the man, but stand up for the ideals and principles that he held dear. The problem with the Republican Party is that we got rid of those principles and ideals and started to cater to people like Specter. That is why we are not a strong party right now. We let people like Specter in charge and they ran the party into the ground. So it is not the ‘right-wingers’ that hurt the party. It is the wishy-washy people like Specter that hurt the party.

I say ‘Good riddance. Don’t let the door hit you where the good Lord split you.’ Once we regain our footing and stand firm on the conservative principles that the party once stood for, then we will become a great party again.

In Memory of Mrs. Nancy Morris

2009-04-20T16:29:00.002-04:00

On Friday, April 17, Mrs. Nancy Morris went home to be with the Lord. A couple of years ago she was diagnosed with a form of cancer that could not be beaten, and she knew that. While they were able to treat it and extend her life here on earth for a few years, they were not able to beat it back into remission and remove it from her body.

Many, outside the world of Mt. Calvary, will not know Mrs. Morris. She was an elementary school teacher at Mt. Calvary Christian School in Elizabethtown, PA for several years and then she served as the elementary school principal for many more years. She served as my 2nd grade teacher. She was serving as the elementary school principal for my 2 oldest boys until her retirement at the end of the 2007-08 school year, so they had a chance to get to know her, too.

Robert and Nancy Morris did not have any children of their own, so she treated all of the students as her kids. She took an interest in them. She cared about them. She wanted to see them succeed. She was proud of them. She was everything that a parent could want in someone that teaches their children. You knew that your children were being taught properly when Mrs. Morris was teaching them. You knew that the teacher had a legitimate care and concern for your children.

For Mrs. Morris, teaching was not just a job. It was not just a way to earn a living or collect a paycheck. Rather, it was what God had called her to do. She took great joy in teaching children and watching them learn. She wanted to see the kids grow, whether physically, educationally, emotionally, and spiritually. That is what made teaching worthwhile to her. In fact, it was under her teaching that I made a reassurance of my own salvation.

From a student’s standpoint, I could see that she enjoyed what she was doing. I realize it was close to 30 years ago that she served as my teacher, but I can still remember her teaching with a zeal and enthusiasm that was real. She was excited about teaching, which made me want to learn. If the teacher was excited about it, then I, too, should be excited about it.

When my wife and I were looking at different Christian schools for our kids to attend, we attended and open house at Mt. Calvary. Mrs. Morris was at the information table that day. While she did not immediately recognize me (as I have very few similarities now to my 2nd grade appearance), once I introduced myself, she immediately remembered me. But it was not just a remembering of my name. Rather, she remembered things that only a teacher could remember. She remembered my parent’s names. She remembered my brothers’ names. What I was impressed with is that she remembered me. I was only one of many hundreds of students that she had taught over the years while she was a teacher. I was not just a name to her. Neither was any other student she had taught over the years.

As the principal, she was not teaching classes, but she still knew the names of the students at the school. As the principal, she wanted the students to know who she was, which was understandable. But more than that, she wanted to know them. She did not want her familiarity with the students to end with just knowing their names. She wanted them to know that she cared, that she was there to help. With Mrs. Morris, you were not merely a number or a name. You were a real person.

Mrs. Morris was a humble person. She did not seek attention for herself because of the position the she held. When she was first diagnosed with cancer and undergoing treatment, she would deflect from the attention she was getting due to this disease and want to know how you were doing. In conversations with her, she was more interested in you and what you were doing and how you were doing. She did not care to talk about herself. To her, life was about what she was doing for others, not what others were doing for her.

Physically, she was an unimposing figure. She was maybe 5’ tall on a good day (while standing on her toes). There was nothing about her, physically, that stood out. Rather, it was her character, her tremendous interest in those that she taught, and her love for her job, that stood out and make her larger than life to me. While diminutive in stature, her legacy looms large over the hearts of those that had the privilege of knowing her. She left tremendously large shoes to fill.

How can her life be summed up? That is hard to do. How can you encapsulate the life of someone who touched so many lives into just a few phrases. I think it can be summed up best, in words similar to those that the Apostle Paul wrote toward the end of his life: A fight well fought, a course well run, a faith well kept, a life lived right, a job well done, a crown well won.

Why Arlen Specter must lose in 2010

2009-04-15T15:21:00.001-04:00

As Sen. Arlen Specter is getting ready to run for the U.S. Senate (again), I can tell he is very nervous. The election is in November, 2010, yet he is already running ads in PA telling voters why they ought to vote for him and not for his opponents. This is not the sign of a confident candidate.

He is telling the Republican voter that they ought to nominate him (instead of one of the opponents) because he has a better chance of winning in a general election. He says that he can draw democrat votes. I will agree with him on this. He will draw an abundance of democrat votes, and he does stand a good chance of winning the general election if he makes it through the primary. He tells us that he has a better chance of keeping the democrats from winning a supermajority of the seats in the Senate (which would be 60 seats). This could be a very distinct possibility.

However, what Specter fails to realize is that the core conservative Republican is a principled person. He is not necessarily looking to vote simply for a political party so that the party can stay in power. This core conservative voter is looking to place his vote based on principle, based on those values that he holds dear. This is the very thing that has hurt the Republican Party over the last several elections. We became complacent and voted for people because of party affiliation and popularity, not based on what they stood for and what they were going to do once in office.

I am tired of prominent Republicans telling me that I should vote for someone simply due to party affiliation. I am tired of them telling me that we need Republicans willing to work with the other side. In other words, we need people in power who are willing to compromise on principle in order to remain in office. We are told by the leadership of our party, by the media, and by the other party that this is what we need to do in order to win elections.

But look where this line of thinking has taken the party. We ran a man for President in 2008 that shared very few conservative principles with those that he wanted to represent. He was more than willing to compromise principle for power. And he lost overwhelmingly. We have leaders in the House and Senate that have compromised their principles for some reason or another. And look where they are now. They are in a minority with no power to steer policy discussions away from the hard left.

Compromise of principles has not worked for our party. It never has, and it never will. It cannot change until we stand up and say that we have had enough. The leadership of the party is feckless. We need a recrudescence of conservative people, of conservative values, of American pride to lift this party out of the doldrums that we currently find ourselves sitting in.

Don’t listen to the media when they say conservatism cannot win. It has in the past, and it will win again. Look at Ronald Reagan. He had a very optimistic view of America with less government intervention in people’s lives. He won in a landslide. The Contract With America led to a conservative Republican revolution in the mid-90’s. Conservatism can win and will win, provided we send people out to run on those principles.

This is why Senator Specter must lose. He does not stand on conservative values. He does not cherish the right to life. He voted for the government overreach that we now call the bank bailouts. He will throw conservatives under the bus in order to advance his own progressive agenda. If he will not stand up for us, why should we vote for him?

Easter is not merely a 'Spring Break'

2009-04-11T11:56:00.003-04:00

We live within a society today that has a diminishing view of Christianity. Actually, there is a diminished view of religion in general. According to polls, more people identify themselves as atheists or non-religious than at any other time throughout our nation's history (and for that matter, the history of the world). These non-religious people seek to remove anything that has a religious overtone to it from the public square or from the public discussion.

We have seen many people try to remove the true meaning of Christmas, by not allowing nativity scenes in public places or allowing Christmas carols to be sung in the schools. The courts have ruled that prayer is not allowed in public schools, as it violates the non-Constitutional clause of separation of church and state. We have people suing the government to have the words 'one nation, under God' removed from the pledge of allegiance or the words 'In God We Trust' removed from our currency. There is an antagonism toward God in this country.

And now, we have Easter. Where I work, it is now referred to as Spring Break (as if we needed a break from spring only a couple of weeks into the season). There are many at work that are offended by calling this tiem of year Spring Break, even amongst those who are not very religious or do not go to church at all. However, this so-called 'Spring Break' happens to coincide with Easter (as it also does with many public schools today). We also celebrate 'Winter Break' (a mere 4 days into winter, when a break is not needed) at a time that coincidentally falls at the same time as Christmas.

Anyway, Easter is a season that now emphasizes baskets of candy and goodies, easter egg hunts, and easter bunnies (although I am still trying to figure out the connection between the bunny and the eggs). It is a time for new fashions in the stores, when women can wear white shoes, the unofficial beginning of spring.

Are these things bad? No, they are n ot. They are innocent things that have no evil or no malice attached to them. However, they are used by many to distract from the real meaning of Easter. Our focus becomes the giving and receiving of goodies from each other. For many, they have no understanding of why there actually is a holiday we call Easter.

Easter is a time when many people who are normally un-churched might actually go to church. Many churches today, though, water down the real reason behind Easter in favor of a feel good message about being kind to your fellowman, peace on earth, etc. These churches may give a cursory mention to the resurrection of Jesus Christ, but that is not their focus. They treat it as a nice story to go along with the holiday, not the reason for the holiday.

The ironic thing here, at least in my eyes, is that churches today are busy telling us to be kind to our fellowman, to help them out in times of need, to give of ourselves to those less fortunate. Yet, they fail to teach how Christ did that for us by coming to earth to die for us. They will give us examples of how we can help out each other. Yet they do not take the opportunity to tell others what Christ did to help us to avoid an eternity in hell.

I am not bemoaning the need to be kind to our fellowman and to help others out in times of need. As Christians, we are to do that. However, we are also told to tell others about the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ and what that means for our lives and where we will spend eternity.

Oftentimes, we will read a story, whether in the newspaper, on the internet, in a magazine, about a hero what risked his/her life to save another person. I remember hearing the stories immediately after 9/11 of the police and firefighters who went into the World Trade Centers in order to help others get out. Many of them did not get out alive. They gave of their lives so that other lives could be prolonged here on earth. These men are true heroes, and I am not trying to diminish by one iota the things that they did that day.

However, these men gave of their lives so that someone else could spend several more years here on this earth. These men laid down their lives so that others could live. That is noble and they should be honored for the sacrifice they made. We have no problem telling others about these heroes who gave of their lives. However, we have a Savior who died on the cross to save us from our sins. He died, not just so we could live a few years longer here on earth, but so that we could spend an eternity with Him in heaven, yet we are somehow afraid to share this others?

The Great Commission tells us to go out and tell others about Christ. We are not to keep it a secret and save it only for other Christians. Why would we do that, as they already know the reason for Christ's death? Why are we not out telling others that this time of year is not just for a break in our lives to take it easy for a few days? We should be out letting others know that Jesus Christ is the reason we celebrate Easter.

Thoughts on AIG and the government-sponsored bailout

2009-03-20T11:39:00.004-04:00

Over the course of the past few days, we, as taxpayers and Americans, have come to find out that a portion of the government bailout money that was given to AIG has been given out to some of their executives, to the tune of $165mm (give or take a few million). 73 of their executives stood to gain a bonus of at least $ 1mm.

Please don't get me wrong - I am not against bonuses. I believe that they should be paid to people when a business is profitable, when people are doing a good job, when it is deserved.

However, I do believer it was unwise for AIG to pay these bonuses to their executives. Was it illegal? No. Were they contractually obligated to pay them? From what I understand, yes they were. Could those executives have chosen to turn down the bonuses? Yes. Many things could have happened better. But, what other companies have also paid this same kind of bonus from the government bailout funds that they received? Apparently, they paid enough to Democrats over the years to keep it quiet. How many of Obama's advisors received bonuses in the past from firms that are now failing? Many of them.

My problem, though, is not necessarily with AIG. My problem is with the government officials that allowed for this to happen in the first place. The bailout, first and foremost, was wrong and should never have happened. It is not the government's role to underwrite industry. By handing out money (that they did not have), they opened themselves up for this kind of mismanagement. And let us not forget, they inserted the clause into the bill that allowed for these bonuses to be paid in the first place. Had Congress been allowed to read the bill, maybe more would have voted against it had they known this clause was inserted.

Consider some of the principle characters in Congress (and Washington) that helped lead the charge on this bailout: Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, Arlen Specter, and the Obama administration. It is my contention that they had this amendment inserted into the bailout bill in order to create this anger we are seeing right now. They now have the opprotunity to harness the anger of the American people and use it as an excuse to have more government intervention into places where it should not be. The faux outrage shown by Congress (mostly Democrats, with a few Republicans joining in) is nauseating. They knew this was going to happen when they passed the bill. They knew well before the bonuses were paid that these bonuses would become public, yet they allowed it to happen. They wanted a political football to kick around to try and make themselves look good.

My problem is that there are too many people out there who are too dense to see this. They are too lazy to think about it and put the puzzle pieces together. They cannot see it as a government ploy to give the government more power. They see it as being the fault of AIG with no government responsibility whatsoever. People are so reliant on government now that they think government is the cure to everything.

Now, Congress wants to tax the bonuses to the tune of 90%. I am not sure that this is even legal (and Congress knows that), but they are going to try. They want the outrage to be focused on AIG, not on them. After all, government is the one that is causing things to fall apart. They need a scapegoat. Magicians would call it slight-of-hand. In football, it is referred to as a misdirection. In the Democrat Party, it is called blaming someone else.

Barney 'Banking Queen' Frank said in committee the other day that since it is his money, the government's money, the taxpayer's money, that we ought to go in and take it back. He wants the names of those who received bonus money to be released, regardless of the safety of those involved. Many on the loony left are threatening violence against these people. He does not care about safety. He only wants people to think he is being heroic in getting this money back. Many are too caught up in the anger of the moment to realize that this fruitcake helped cause the whole crisis in the first place.

Ultimately, the money was given to AIG (and other companies) to help them continue to do business and remain afloat so as to avoid bankruptcy. However, the government wants to tell them how to run their business (as if the government knew what it was doing). This is the problem you have when you allow government to get involved. They are not content watching from the sidelines. They want to run the show. Since they are handing out the money, they want to tell you how to spend it. This leads to socialism, which is the ultimate goal of these people.

This is the reason some governors do not want to accept stimulus money. It comes with too many strings attached. The governors know that by accepting the money, they will then accept the federal government's power to come in and tell them how to spend it. Who would know better how to spend moeny for the benefit of the state? Would it be the states? Or would it be the federal government? The answer is obvious.

It is time that we, as Americans and as taxpayers, say that enough is enough. Bailouts do not work. While it is not good that companies go bankrupt or go out of business, it has to be allowed to happen. Government intervention will not fix things. The strange thing about a free market is that it has the ability to heal itself. That is what happened in the 80's. That is what happened in the years after 9/11. It can happen again. In an age of instant gratification, we are not willing to be patient and allow for the free market to fix itself. We want it now, and people are unfortunately willing to give the government more power to try to fix things. Once the government has that power, they are not going to give it back. It is up to us to get it back from the government.

So I say to you: Get out and nominate conservative candidates that know the power belongs to the Americans, not to the government. Vote those clowns out of office that think government is the answer. Do your part. I will surely do mine, starting with being active in campaigns to unseat my Congressman and my Senator. Remember, the Constitution starts out "We the people...". It does not say "We the government.."

Republicans and NASCAR: Are they heading down the same path?

2009-03-09T16:57:00.004-04:00

As I was reflecting on the current political climate that we find ourselves immersed in today, I started to ponder the future of the once-great (and hopefully soon-to-be-great again) Republican Party. It has been much to my chagrin that we have allowed others to define the party of Lincoln and Reagan. Some of these defining our party are (but not limited to) the moderates and liberals in our own party, the Democrat Party, and the media. I could not help but be drawn to several similarities between the Republican Party and one of my favorite sports: NASCAR.

The first thing that may come to your mind when seeing this is that they (Republicans and NASCAR fans alike) are all a bunch of southern, redneck, racist, uneducated, Bible-thumping fools. However, that is not the case. While there may be a couple in the ranks that have some of these traits, we do not espouse them. If you look into supporters of any cause, I am sure you can find some questionable characters.

However, as I thought about this more, I saw some striking similarities.

1. The NASCAR fan and the core, conservative Republican voter are greatly misunderstood. The NASCAR fan takes his sport seriously. He enjoys it. It is practically a way of life. To him, there is nothing wrong with a car using a lot of gas and going in circles to see who can get around the track the most times before the checkered flag falls. It is a race of man and machine vs. other men and their machines. It is the thrill of the race, not the yearning for crashes that motivate these core fans. The fact that others may disdain their sport is of no concern to them. Likewise, the core, conservative Republican takes his politics seriously. It is who we are. It is how we live. It is our personal beliefs that shape our ideology. It is not our party that shapes the way we believe. We are not motivated by power. Rather, our motivation is based on principles of right and wrong. The fact that others disagree with us does not bother us.

2. The NASCAR fan and the core, conservative Republican are passionate about what they believe. NASCAR fans are passionate about their favorite drivers, about car manufacturers, about the type of tracks they enjoy the most, about the rules and rule changes. They have a passion for their sport and they treat it with respect. Likewise, the core, conservative Republicans have a passion for their beliefs, whether it is lower taxes, no abortions, no gay marriage, less government in our daily lives. We do not compromise on these things in order to be liked.

3. The NASCAR fan and the core, conservative Republican are fiercely pro-American and extremely patriotic. I have only had the chance to attend one Nascar race in my life (Richmond, September 2006). What I saw at that time were not only Gordon fans or Tony Stewart fans or Dale Earnhardt Jr. fans. I saw fans of America. I saw people who were not only flying the flags of their favorite drivers, but they were flying American flags. When it came time for the national anthem, everyone stood up, almost everyone removed his hat, many sang along. These are folks who care about this country and honor those who fight for it. Likewise, the core, conservative Republican cherishes this country and the freedoms we enjoy because we live here. It is not our desire to see the government take over our lives. Rather, we enjoy the freedom that our founding fathers passed on to us. People in this country should have the freedom to becomes everything they want to be. We salute the flag, we salute those who fought for our country, we honor those who gave their lives so that we may continue to enjoy the freedoms that we have.

4. The NASCAR fan and the core, conservative Republican believe our problems lie in this fact: We have moved away from our roots and those things that put us where we are today. I have been frustrated with NASCAR over the past several years as they have been moving towards making NASCAR into a glorified IROC series. Everyone races basically the same car. There is no room for ingenuity. Everything has to be within certain specifications, so there is almost no room for someone to gain an advantage through the use of creative engineering. While I see the need for some basic guidelines, it is now out of hand. The other thing that NASCAR has done that has hurt (in my opinion) is their effort to reach out to people who do not like NASCAR and use gimmicks to bring them on board as fans. While there is nothing wrong with reaching out to the non-fan, don’t compromise your core principles in order to pull in these non-fans. You risk losing the core fan by doing so. NASCAR needs to remember where it came from. Likewise, the Republican Party has allowed non-members to come in and re-shape it. The leaders over the past several years have compromised on core beliefs (mainly government spending and growing the size of government) in order to reach out and bring more people into the fold. Look where it has taken the parts: into the toilet. The party no longer has control in Congress or in the White House. We ran a candidate for President in 2008 who was the ultimate compromiser, and it did not help out at all. We got away from our roots. We forgot what made the Republican Party a great party.

As a NASCAR fan and a Republican, I believe that we need to stop allowing others to define us. I do not define those who I do not agree with. They are able to define themselves. They don’t need my help. We have to go out and define ourselves and let others know what we believe. We need to let others know that we do not appreciate their efforts to re-define us. We also need to let them know how many of us there are out here that do not appreciate what they are trying to do to us. Having these beliefs is one thing. Standing up for them is another. It is time that we go from simply having these beliefs to standing up and fighting for them.

It is time for conservatives to stand up for what we believe

2009-03-03T16:57:00.001-05:00

Why do we, as Republicans and conservatives, allow the media and the liberal establishment to define us? They tell us who should lead us, what we should believe, who we should include, and the list goes on-and-on-and-on.

The latest chapter comes from the speech that Rush Limbaugh delivered at CPAC on Saturday evening. After reading the majority of his speech, I must say that I agree with him. We have allowed moderates to come into leadership roles within the Republican Party and tear us down. They have led us astray. They have tried to make the party into Democrat-lite.

The Republican Party, at its core, is conservative. The people who are the base of the party are conservative people. Moderates within the party have a hard time swallowing this bitter pill. They think we ought to reach out to more moderates and liberals and broaden the base of the party.

Well, that is what has put us in the position that we are in today. We ran a moderate for President in 2008, because we thought that is what was needed to win the election. It didn’t work. You cannot out-liberal a liberal. The liberals want people like McCain, Specter, Snowe, et al. running the party because that will guarantee that they stay in power for many years to come.

Conservatism came to prominence in the 80’s with Ronald Reagan, then in the 90’s with Newt Gingrich and the Contract with America. When conservatism is on the ticket, it wins. This is why liberals want the moderate wing of the Republican Party to win. They are scared of the masses that are conservative, and they know that if we have a conservative nominee, that he/she has a good chance of winning.

The mainstream media and the DNC are all over the Rush Limbaugh speech and his criticism of Michael Steele. They are trying to paint Rush Limbaugh as the problem with America. He is dividing us. He is mean-spirited. He is harming the bipartisanship that the President is trying to inflict us with. They want to make him the evil person in all this country, to help distract from the way that they are destroying this country. It is Rush Limbaugh that wants us to have the freedoms that the Founding Fathers intended us to have. With that freedom comes the ability to become whatever we want to be. The Democrats want us to rely on government for everything. They want us to be dependent on them, which will entrench them in power for years to come.

It is time to stand up against these liars, these divisive nutjobs that run the Democrat Party. They are the ones constantly playing the race card. They are the ones constantly trying to divide us (whether its based on class, gender, race, or anything else). They are the ones that want us to be totally reliant on the government. They are the ones who are held captive by the left-wing, anti-capitalism, anti-America fringe base that would rather see us live under the flag of the U.N than under the flag of the U.S.A.

An old adage (that some say comes from Alexis de Tocqueville) says that “America is great because she is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, she will cease to be great.” Those of us who are conservative understand that this goodness does not come from the government and politicians in Washington. Rather, it comes from the goodness of its people. It is not our concern what other countries think of us. If they disdain our greatness as a superpower, that is their problem (but they sure know who to come to when they are in need).

Anyway, it is time for us to fight back. It is time to fight for conservative causes, for conservative candidates, for conservatism in general. We have seen throughout our history as a country that conservatism can beat liberalism. We also know that there are a lot of conservatives that are fed up with the way we are defined by the liberal media establishment, and liberals in general. It is time to fight for what we believe in. I support Rush Limbaugh. I support conservative Republicans. But most of all, I support what is best for America. Liberalism is not good for us. It will lead to our defeat. We need to avoid it at all costs.

The effort to re-write recent history

2009-02-26T09:37:00.000-05:00

It is my contention that the education system that is in place in today’s public schools no longer teaches people how to think. Rather, they teach people what to think. The schools want to teach their own revised version of history instead of allowing people to find out for themselves the events that actually did happen.

Case in point is a letter-to-the-editor in today’s edition of the Patriot News. The paper contains a letter from some uninformed idiot concerning his view of how history has unfolded over the last 16 years. First, he claims that the Republicans squandered the Clinton budget surpluses of the late 90’s. If this dolt knew anything about history, he would know that it was not until 1994 and the Contract with America that these surpluses started to become a reality. Clinton did not want the budget that the Republicans passed. However, he did not have a choice. He signed it, the economy flourished, the Republican-controlled Congress actually controlled spending, and there were surpluses. Yet, Clinton takes the credit for something he did not really want and was basically forced to sign.

Next, this guy blames the federal budget deficit on Republicans, as if no Democrats helped out. After several years of being in control of Congress, many Republicans let the power go to their heads and started to govern like Democrats. They earmarked budget bills beyond comprehension. They did not look to control government spending. They sought out every chance to befriend Democrat ideas instead of standing up for conservative principles. Gov. Bobby Jindal was right when he said that the Republicans lost their way. They forgot the core principles that got them elected in the first place.

Then there was 9/11. While it may not be politically correct to point this out, that did change this country. It put an emphasis on defense and intelligence, which are 2 budget areas that had been decreased significantly over the years leading up to 2001. That was a time of pain for the airline industry. In fact, it hurt many areas of our immense industrial complex for quite some time.

When Congress passed a tax cut measure and President Bush signed it, a time of economic prosperity then followed. For the next several years, the economy flourished. In fact, even with lower tax rates, the revenues flowing into the federal treasury actually increased. But how can this be? It is due to the fact that people were able to keep more of their money and spend it as they saw fit. This spending allowed employers to hire more people given the higher consumer demand. Companies prospered and were able to pay their employees more. It was Reagan’s trickle-down economics at its finest.

However, the Republican leaders in Congress saw this influx of money to the treasury and couldn’t control themselves. They just had to go out and spend it. And the Democrats want to blame all of the deficit issues on the Republicans. Well, they did nothing to stop the spending. In fact, they helped out even more. They did not want to cut any federal program. They wanted to continue the spending orgy.

All of these excesses, combined with scandals but some top-tier Republicans, led to them being removed from power. Keep in mind, they were ousted mainly by Republicans, whether it was in a primary loss or Republicans not voting for them in general elections. We knew that the Democrats did the same things. They were just able to hide their corruption, with the willing help of many in the media.

Now, the few conservative Republicans in Congress are now speaking up and saying that we need to stop this spending spree. These conservatives were always there, they were just shut out of the process. It is amazing, though, that everyone says conservatives should lighten up and move to the middle in order to remain relevant. However, it is those moderates that are no longer serving in Congress. The conservatives are still there. So, to the chagrin of many, maybe it is the conservatives that are indeed the core of the Republican Party.

Democrats are now in power in Congress. They blame the Republicans for the budget deficit (and to a large degree, this is justified criticism). However, they should know that deficit spending is not a good thing. It does not work. If it was wrong for Republicans to ring up deficits year after year, how can they then justify ringing up much larger deficits in order to get us back on the right track? It makes no sense. Besides, government will not look to decrease spending in the future. Once they start the spending, they are not able or willing to decrease spending in the future.

This brings us full circle. How do people buy into this idea of larger deficits in the short-term (and they will continue into the future with the unrestrained spending we now face) being good for the economy? Are people this blind to what is going on? It is because they are being told what to think, not taught how to think.

Defeating Arlen Specter, Part II

2009-02-21T10:34:00.003-05:00

Arlen Specter is now on a save-my-face tour, defending his vote for the President's stimulus bill. I am astounded at his patent disregard for the people that voted for him. As conservatives, we knew we could not consistently rely on a good vote from him, but he did come through occasionally.

Many in the Republican Party are ready to throw this turncoat overboard. No longer does he stand for the things that made the Republican Party great. He wants bigger government, greater government intervention in all aspects of our life, the right to an abortion, and to be the new maverick of the U.S. Senate. He wants to be the center of attention.

On Monday, Specter will be at the White House, meeting with the President and members of the Cabinet. According to Specter, "...it's very good for Pennsylvania that I have a seat at the table. No doubt, I consider each issue on its own merits. I don't trade votes. And if you're willing to think about things, if you have no commitment to ideology, you're in demand. People want to talk to you....I have a seat at the table. It's a hot seat." (note: emphasis added by me)

While I have nothing against meeting with the President or members of the other party, to do so in order to identify more closely with them and to compromise your own personal beliefs in order to win their affection is wrong. And while I might agree that it is good to take each issue on its own merits and not trade votes, the fact that he has no commitment to ideology is difficult to comprehend. Basically, what he is saying to me is that he does not really believe in anything. He will do whatever is politically expedient for his own benefit. Forget making decisions based on what is right and wrong, it is all a matter of what it will take to be re-elected.

Arlen Specter is not placing his votes in the Senate with the best-interests of the people of Pennsylvania in mind. He is voting based on political expediency. That is not what we need. We need someone who cares about the people of Pennsylvania, that will vote the way the people of Pennsylvania want him to vote.

If Specter is defeated in the primary, Republicans and conservatives may lose the Senate seat to a Democrat. After all, Republicans are outnumbered by Democrats to the tune of about 1.2 million people in PA. However, we will not really have lost anything since we have had a wannabe Democrat in the Senate for over 20 years. I will actively continue to help any Republican defeat this man.

Defeat Arlen Specter in 2010

2009-02-20T11:46:00.002-05:00

Arlen Specter is the senior Senator from the state of Pennsylvania. He came to have that seat due to the untimely death of Sen. John Heinz in an airplane crash back in the 80's. Before that, we was a Congressman from the Philadelphia area.

Sen. Specter labels himself as a Republican. However, in practice, he is far from it. If you look up RINO in the dictionary, you will probably find his photo. He is pro-abortion. He was an opponent of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Anything that is conservative is everything that he is against.

The final straw for me was his backing of the President's stimulus package last week. He was one of the 3 Republicrat senators who helped to craft a 'compromise' bill. It did not matter to him how many of his constituents were against the bill (and we contacted him to let him know this). It did not matter to him that this is a bad bill and a bad idea. He was looking out for himself and what he thought he needed to do to be re-elected come November 2010.

Several months ago, it was rumored that Chris Matthews, the clown that hosts MSNBC's Hardball, would run against him for his Senate seat. However, Matthews chose not to do this. I think he knew he did not stand a chance, given Specter's liberal credentials.

In 2004, Specter was running for re-election. At that time, President Bush and Sen. Santorum (PA's junior Senator at the time) both stuck out their necks and supported him for re-election to the Senate, and he won. But at what cost? President Bush was not even sworn in for his second term when Senator Specter started taking shots at him. When Sen. Santorum ran for re-election in 2006, Specter did not support him with the same veracity that Santorum showed to Specter.

He continues to sell out the Republican Party (specifically, conservatives), as well as the people of Pennsylvania. Well, enough is enough. It is time for the Senator to be defeated by a conservative who has the best interests of the people of PA as his/her foremost priority. I do not care about bi-partisanship. I care about doing what is right. Should it happens that doing what is right is not politically correct or expedient, I do not care. I want someone who chooses to do what is right over what is expedient.

It is my hope and prayer that Pennsylvania has a good conservative candidate to run against Arlen Specter. In the coming months, we shall see who comes to the forefront of this race. I know that my energy will be spent trying to defeat our current Senator.

More thoughts on the so-called economic stimulus package

2009-02-07T11:25:00.002-05:00

Well, it looks like a few RINOs have caved in and made a deal with the Democrats in the Senate. They have reduced the $827 billion stimulus plan to $780 billion, a whopping $47 billion decrease for those of you who are not very good at simple subtraction.

This so-called compromise was reached last night. If this is not annoying enough, Senate Majority Leader (and the most partisan, hateful, spiteful, mean, bitter, ornery man in the Senate) Harry Reid wanted to bring it up for a vote last night, before anyone had a chance to look through it and scrutinize the spending. He says it is too important to wait. I am going to paraphrase the quote I heard on the news today, "We can tell who the people are that want to get work done around here."

Excuse me!?!?!? Is it wrong to want to read and review a bill that is going to cost the taxpayers (yes, it will cost us - it is not free) at least $ 780,000,000,000 (it will probably cost much more)? I don't think so. It would be irresponsible not to look at it.

He does not want people to read it for fear that we will find out what spending they want to attach to it. They want to fund all of their pet projects and basically buy votes in order to maintain their power base. This is sad and pathetic. It is immoral. In fact, it is almost criminal.

Many people are starting to see that government spending will not get us out of economic trouble. It will only dig us deeper. The public is generally against more government spending (as can be seen in recent polls), especially in the form of this so-called stimulus. So why are these poll-driven, self-serving, so-called public servants seeking to pass this bill anyway? It is very early in this congressional term, and they hope people forget it before the elections. They want it to be said of them that they did something about it. In their eyes, it is better to do something, even though it will be a colossal failure, than it would be to do nothing at all.

The same people that complained about excessive budget deficits during the Bush years are no where to be found now. Why? Because the deficit never really mattered to them in the first place. They only care about power and maintaining that power.

They do not want more tax cuts because they know tax cuts work. They worked in the 80's under Reagan and they worked in the early parts of this decade under Bush. Tax rates were decreased and revenue to the treasury increased. Tax cuts actually brought more money into the treasury because people had more money to spend, businesses had more money to spend, so more people were employed. People made more money. The government was not standing in the way of prosperity (at least, not as much as they are now).

When you have a chance, read the book Animal Farm by George Orwell. The Democrats are equivalent to the pigs. They ran the farmers out of town because the farmers were abusing the animals. The pigs took control of the farm and became the leaders. The people who support the Democrats are like the horse. They see the rules changing (there is never a massive change at any one time, only little changes). Over time, these changes became diametrically opposed to the original intent of the rules. However, over time, the pigs became just like the farmers that they ran out of town. It is sad to say that Orwell's thesis is coming true in today's society.

The Democrats do not want the electorate to have more power. Rather, they want us to dependent on government to get us out of this. They want us to be reliant on government in all aspects of our life, as that will keep them in power. This is not what the founding fathers intended. And we should not allow it.

Call your representatives and senators and let them know that you are against. Demand that they vote against this. Let them know we do not want socialism in this country. It has not worked anywhere else, and we want no part of it. Do not accept an answer from them that they are going to vote for this. They work for you.

Economic Ignorance of our President

2009-02-06T11:40:00.006-05:00

President Obama was speaking to the sycophantic Democrats that we call our Congressman and Senators (and the media) last night. News clips show him being full of angst at the slow path his economic recovery plan is taking through the U.S. Senate. He wants this bill to be passed swiftly and put into operation as soon as possible.

He showed faux outrage at the deficit, blaming it all in his predecessor. President Bush may not have been as fiscally responsible as I would have preferred him to be, but the budget deficit and the resulting national debt can be put squarely at the feet of Congress. It is this branch of the legislature that spends the government's money. It is not the President that pays the bills. Try to find a government program to cut or throw out completely. It is impossible. The Democrats will not allow it. This is the reason we run up deficits. So why were these Democrats cheering at the President's statements about inheriting a huge debt? These same people were responsible for that debt. Also, how can we do this thing debt free? If we are trillions in debt, how can we throw another trillion in the mix and not come out with more debt?

He criticizes his critics for calling this a spending bill. He says that a stimulus is spending. The problem is that a growth stimulus should allow for growth. This bill is only about government spending. It only creates government jobs, not free market jobs. It grows government. Therefore, it is a spending bill. It is not stimulating anything but Congressmen who see the pork barrel rolling towards their district.

He blames the prior administration for the economic woes. The last time I checked, we had 5 years of unprecedented prosperity under President Bush. His tax cuts lifted this economy after the 9/11 attacks. It was not government spending on social programs that lifted us economically. Rather, it was allowing people to keep their hard earned money and spending it they way they wanted to spend it. It did not come from more government programs and government spending (except for an increase in national defense spending).

Economic problems came along because banks were lending money to people who had no business getting money, they were extending credit to people who did not deserve it. Why did they do this? Because of Congress. The banks were basically forced to do this. This is what caused problems. It was government intervention into industry that caused the problem.

Why does this need to be approved now? Why does the President not want people to question this bill? It is because he does not want people to see what is in the bill. Then they will really be against it. If they can get it through quickly, then they can keep a lot of the earmarks out the news. Isn't it funny how debate and disagreement with the President were a good thing when Bush was in office, but it is now sacrilegious now that Obama is President?

One more thing: Where is the bipartisanship? I thought this President was going to take unprecedented steps to reach out. It did not sound that way last week. He sounded like a man who thought it was his God-given right to have everyone agree with him. He is the only one who can be right. he could get this passed without any Republicans voting for it. His problem is that people in his own party will not even vote for this. That's pretty bad.

So I say to the President: Grow Up and Act Presidential! Your predecessor never acted like this in 8 years, and it only took you 2 weeks. You are nothing but a Chicago thug, a politician who cannot get his way on the merits of his argument so he needs to try to bully others into agreeing with you. You say you were going to listen to opposing views (granted, you never said you would compromise, but you would at least listen). Now, you are taking absolutely no time to do that now. It must be your way and it must be now.

Our most colossal failures generally come when we act quickly and do not think about what we are doing. Our economic downfall as a country will not be failing to pass a stimulus package. Rather, it will come by being reckless and passing something so big we cannot get out from under it. Maybe the best course of action is for the government to do nothing and allow this current economic 'crisis' to fix itself. It has worked in the past. It will work now.

Who is using the politics of fear now?

2009-02-05T11:49:00.003-05:00

President Obama has an op-ed piece in today's Washington Post. He is looking to garner support for his economic stimulus bill. He looks for support by attempting to frighten the reader into supporting his economic plan. He says that every day that we fail to pass a stimulus plan, more people will lose their jobs, lose their savings, lose their homes, etc. (sounds like a country music song).

Anyway, he states that "...this recession might linger for years. Our economy will lose 5 million more jobs. Unemployment will approach double digits. Our nation will sink deeper into a crisis that, at some point, we may not be able to reverse." He also rejected the thought that additional tax cuts are needed, saying that he rejects "those theories, and so did the American people when they went to the polls in November and voted resoundingly for change."

The first thing that troubles me is that he has no faith in the people of this country. Ronald Reagan had faith in the people of America when he came into office, and the economic times then were worse than they are now. Guess what? We dug out of a recession. It did not take new government programs and close to a trillion dollars in government spending to do so. It took a tax rate cut. It took de-regulation. It took the government removing the obstacles that stood in front of Americans. When the obstacles were not there, Americans could prosper. It is the freedom we had as people that made this country great. It is not the country that made its people great.

Second, he is overestimating his mandate as President. Yes, he did receive a majority of the votes cast on November 4th. Nothing I say or do will change that. People voted for this mystical idea of change that President Obama talked about. They thought he would make things different, make them better. However, what we are seeing now is not the change that people were searching for. People do not see the economy getting better simply because we have a new President. Just because people voted for change does not mean they want Obama's kind of change. This is what happens when people do not stop to kick the tires on something before they buy into it. It may look good on the outside, but it is not what they wanted on the inside.

Third, why does he think reliance on the government and/or government control of everything is a good thing? If he would have studied history, he would see that this has not worked throughout history. It is not working now. Also, people are seeing that government control is not necessarily a good thing. It gives away freedoms that we cherish. After all, the liberals did complain a lot over the Terrorist Surveillance Program while Bush was President. Obama's policies will interfere in everyone's lives, not just the lives of terrorists, so there is much more danger with his policies.

Fourth, he does not know how to deal with the fact that his views are unpopular. This has not happened to him before. Everyone is supposed to accept his views, his policies, his opinions without question. When all else fails, blame Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, and talk radio. it can't be his fault.

Fifth, his stimulus plan is nothing more than a pork-laden spending bill. It will do nothing to stimulate job growth. People are seeing this now. Too bad they did not see if before November 4th.

Here is the problem: We, as a country, got what we wanted in the form of a new President who wanted change. However, these same people who voted for him did not realize the ramifications of his policies at the time they voted for him. They are starting to see it now. Now that we got what we wanted, we could very well lose what we had.