Tulare Blog

Kangaroo Constitution

2012-01-30T14:59:00.000-08:00

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

John Adams

If I don't like the rule that says no gum chewing in class, and I come to class with gum in my mouth, and the teacher doesn't do anything to me, I will assume the rule is worthless and will enjoy gum whenever I want during that class. That's not a great comparison to the recent test Obama has given the Senate in making a recess appointment to his administration when the Senate is not in recess. But it illustrates the fact that if an elected leader does not follow the Constitution and no one demands that he do so, the Constitution is useless. Therefore we can not predict how we should behave or trust our fellow citizens and elected leaders to do what we understand them to be obligated to do. The government will be capricious in how it enforces laws and how it limits itself or doesn't. That sounds more like a Third World country than the United States of America. If there is no outcry against the President to withdraw the appointment and await the required advice and consent from the U.S. Senate we will face that very scenario. He is testing us like a toddler pushing the limits of his parents' boundaries.

The whole episode reveals the true colors of Barak Hussein Obama. He doesn't want to be constrained by the Constitution. He doesn't want input from other leaders or any checks on his power because he alone knows what to do and what is best for all of us. He has a worldview that hopes to see America the Third World nation he's pushing us toward. Equality for the world requires bringing the most prosperous nation down. Some blind Senators can only see the nasty obstructionist Republicans getting the shaft. They get satisfaction in a turn of events that will come back to bite them. Our integrity as a nation of laws, not men, is more important than a political victory. If a Republican were pulling these shenanigans, you can be sure every Senator would be up in arms. As it is, it's only old news and quickly blowing over. We can't let it.

Are Mormons Christians?

2012-01-30T12:52:00.000-08:00

If I say I am a professional singer, does that require you to book me for a concert tour? Of course that claim redefines professional singer to mean I have been paid to sing at a wedding. If someone assumes I have recorded albums or am enthusiastically sought out to perform concerts in major cities, well then, what's wrong with that? I'm a nice person. Only a bigot would challenge me on it.

Mitt Romney's candidacy has stirred up the controversy between Mormons and those who would say they are not Christians. I heard a perplexed caller on the Rush Limbaugh wondering how any could believe that. After all, Mormons are followers of Jesus Christ; He is the main focus of their religion, and that is technically what a Christian is. And if we just knew a Mormon, we would change our minds. Dick Morris states flatly that those who would not vote for a Mormon are bigots, implying that there is no thoughtful or rational reason to oppose Romney with regard to his religion.

First of all, while there is no religious test allowed in qualifying a candidate for office, voters are free to use whatever judgment they wish to discriminate among candidates for whom they will vote. If someone adheres to a religion that is false, then one could rationally assume that person might be vulnerable to other deceitful schemes that are always floating around in the political sphere. And the religion itself is specious in its doctrine whether the everyday Latter Day Saint is aware of it or not. The major contention point is redefining who Christ is. Mainline Christianity holds that Jesus Christ is God Himself, Mormons do not. They believe that Jesus was a mere man. Now that in itself is a chasm of difference in the implications of what Christ accomplished on the cross and through His resurrection. The man Jesus the Mormons follow is not the same God that Christians rely on for their salvation. This redefinition of terms is the reason Christians are unwilling to accept Mormons as Christians, however nice and morally upright individuals may be. And it proves that we should delve more deeply into the claims of those who would aspire to hold our loyalty.

Mamas Don't Let Your Babies Grow Up to Be Lion Bait

2012-01-03T19:47:00.000-08:00

I have been working on the writing of a book. Isn't everyone? Unfortunately, I can't motivate myself to finish it, because the cause seems hopeless. Everywhere I turn, women who I think get it are doing the very opposite of what I see as the most important job in their life, raising their children.

First of all, we need to establish that raising children is a career. Teachers have to get a bachelor's degree in order to be licensed, even preschool teachers need an associate's degree to be considered for employment. Babysitters in some states have to have CPR training. I'm not saying a mother needs training, just that people spend time and money preparing for aspects of the job, which they are paid for. Children can't be left alone, so someone must supervise them. They are constantly learning about the world as they grow, so someone is teaching them. Even latch key children are learning about you and the world by the responsibility you don't take. The question is, then, to whom will we give the responsibility and are they trustworthy? Do we even care what our children experience and what they believe as they mature? Do we realize that children grow into adults and their attitudes toward parents, authorities, themselves, and their neighbors will affect your lives in later years? The amount of input from you, the parent, will be reflected in the output you receive; in other words, you reap what you sow.

Let's take a look at the public school. Society has made it so common and acceptable you automatically assume that's where to send your child when he turns five. But school is not the place it was when your mamma grew up. In California, it should be obvious that not only God has been rejected, but moral standards as well. Homosexuality is now protected and even celebrated. Some conservative districts use Character Counts, but who can live up to them without knowing Jesus? And why should they? By themselves, they are hollow. Clearly, a responsible parent must spend an inordinate amount of time reeducating a child, if you even know exactly what he learned that day. According to the Supreme Court, you have no say in the matter, anyway. You might say, "But I don't live in California," or, "My child attends a good school." But I recently talked to a friend from Tennessee, where as in most of the South, all the students are expected to behave in a moral and upright manner, and they do. Maybe that makes parents too complacent, because it makes no difference in their hearts. Both my friend's children have rejected the Lord. A child's heart must be rescued from sin nature, and it takes a parent, who has an eternal stake in the outcome. It takes time and effort. Teachers have a student for a year or maybe two. They can make light of the outcome, it probably won't affect them long term; good riddance to a troublemaker. And their hands are tied from pointing youngsters to Christ, if they even want to. Parents, however, if they do it right, have twenty some odd years to persevere at making a difference. Their influence is long lasting.

What makes a woman choose to work outside the home, even after having children? Why does she even want to? I submit the biggest reason is pressure from our culture, which has invaded the church and our closest friends. From before the sixties, feminists have been attacking the family and have jealously regarded the role of men to be superior to women. They have worked to promote contraception and abortion to free women to enter the work force and attacked the authority of men to help women become independent of them in so many ways. No fault divorce, welfare, the Family Leave Act, everywhere you turn laws and policies promote women to reject the joy of affecting the next generation. Corporations and employers love the extra competition in the labor force, it expands the pool from which they can choose, and makes it cheaper by the law of supply and demand. So they might even open day cares on the premises, sounding altruistic and helpful when, in fact, they are encouraging the separation. What woman can not feel the subtle approval when asked what she does and she replies she is an engineer or doctor? Or the disapproval when her answer is a stay at home mom. And we all do it. Do we ever acknowledge a Woman of the Year who just does an awesome job of raising her children?

Societal pressure reaches down to say it's boring and unfulfilling to stay home with babies, a trivial job. How many times have I heard, "I just don't think I could stay home all day." Who says you have to stay home all day? There are so many ministries to get involved with that you can bring children along and teach them to serve others. Nursing homes, food kitchens, orphanages, make up your own ministry that suits your interests and talents. You can plan all kinds of adventures into your day if your children don't surprise you with their own. You get out of it whatever you put into it.

Unfortunately, the men have joined the parade in pressuring wives to work. They kind of like the extra paycheck and the relief of some responsibility of their own to provide for the family. The larger income can mean a luxurious home with two brand new cars sitting in the driveway. The sixty inch television hooked up to a satellite dish is sure handy to watch all the football games. Not that women don't appreciate luxuries, too, they do. But at what price? This mind set has caused some men to completely abdicate their role as head of the home and expect the wife to support the family. Feminists efforts at emasculating men have succeeded in confusing the God-given roles He designed from creation.

Most women are involved in commendable careers that make a difference in others' lives. But aren't the children God put right into your lap your primary responsibility? When the Israelites turned away from God, it was usually a generation or two after God had rescued them from their previous disobedience. They had neglected to do what God commanded: diligently teach their children all He had commanded them, when they sat down, when they rose up, and when they walked by the way. It takes time and intentional effort, which a career woman has very little of. Doesn't it seem backward to put so much effort outside the home and save the leftovers for your husband and children?

I can tell you by experience, the rewards in family relationships of a mother who stays home are awesome. There can be no guarantee, because each child makes his own decisions regarding life his relationship with the Lord. But you can make his path easier and more likely to make the right choice if you put forth the effort and sacrifice that counters what this world would choose for you. The world is a battlefield with Satan on the prowl for whom he can devour. Our children need to be equipped with a full set of armor before we send them out or they will be at his mercy. Don't think he's not working to change our country and our world to be a miserable place and singling out the weakest among us to carry out his schemes.

Bread and Circus America

2012-01-03T14:59:00.000-08:00

It has been a while ago since I was educated in the public schools, although even then the district I attended had a wonderful reputation for excellence. I remember learning some Roman history, probably in my sophomore English class, where we were required to paraphrase the entire Shakespeare play, Julius Caesar and memorize lengthy passages. We looked on the Roman citizens with scorn as they succumbed to the politicians' and emperors' bread and circus tactics to manipulate the masses. We had pity, though, because back then it was a survival culture, without the abundance and luxury we enjoy today. They could be forgiven for wanting to ward off hunger.

We are hardly faced with such a consequence in America today. 'Poor' people are more often than not obese and own cars, cell phones, and television sets. The word itself has been redefined. Yet Americans are still so easily brought to heel by giveaways and are willing to give up freedom to hold on to them for life. A mother receiving food stamps or other government assistance will turn down new job offers or offers of more hours because it would threaten the aid. A felon who has served his time and is back in society figures he only needs to earn $300 a month because he can count on food stamps to feed him. He won't discipline himself or devote himself to productive pastimes. But it doesn't stop there. Wealthy farmers accept government money to subsidize dairy production or to refrain from growing certain oversupplied crops. Many industries, unions, students, all covet and even lobby for government money to come their way. Seniors, at the ripe old age of 62 to 65, after acquiring a lifetime of wealth, and because of fraudulent promises by American politicians emulating the Romans, expect struggling young families to subsidize their retirements.

This is why John Adams and other Founding Fathers declared that our Republican form of government could only endure with a moral and religious people. Greed, envy and laziness are all ingrained in the nature of man and they manifest themselves as soon as restraints slip away. Instead of following Biblical mandates for individuals to help the widows and the orphans, care for our parents, the sick and imprisoned, we let the government with all its fraud and corruption pick and choose who gets help as we legally steal from our neighbors and fight and quarrel to be first in the handout line. Unfortunately, Christians are no different. We have come to depend on government rather than God for our provision. The only way out of this Roman Empire is to vote for candidates in favor of reducing the size of our government, reducing the jaw-dropping expenditures it only wants to expand, and putting our faith back in the God who loved us enough to come to earth and sacrifice Himself for us. We must reacquaint ourselves and our children with the wisdom He gave us in His word, the Bible, on how to live, be responsible for ourselves, and serve others. But we must begin now. Another four years of bread and circus living will result in the same fate that befell Rome. Life could be an unimaginable horror for our children and grandchildren, if any survive, and an unforgivable loss to our ancestors who gave up so much for our benefit.

Hawkeye Spotlight--Keep Your Heads

2011-12-30T22:38:00.000-08:00

Well, Iowa, my home state, you're up. You've had a looong time to look over the candidates and decide who will make the best Republican nominee. All the pundits are having their say, and some are asking candidates to bow out before a vote has even been cast. Occasionally a star has emerged only to fade away or be obliterated. But the task falls to you to give one or two candidates a jump start in the marathon race ahead. It is a privilege to be the ones who get so much attention from the candidates, the media, the nation. All I ask is that you fairly evaluate them. Some of them have spent more time there than others. That is not a reason to vote for them. You have been able to look into a couple of their faces and maybe spoken with them personally. That is not the qualification for a nominee, either. Your responsibility is to look at all the issues, look at all the records, listen to what they say and do. Don't be influenced by who the media wants picked. We need a conservative face that will stand up to the establishment and articulate and persuade voters to the rightness of the cause. Choose carefully and choose well. If I still lived there, I would vote for Rick Santorum. We'll see if he's still in by the time California votes in June. But almost any of them will be better than what we have now!

Conservatism is the Solution

2011-12-15T09:00:00.000-08:00

The winner of the argument over which candidate best represents the Republican Party versus which candidate can win will determine the fate of our country. Conventional wisdom says the nominee must be in the center in order to capture the independent vote. In spite of the fact that 'center' establishment candidates Gerald Ford, Bob Dole, and John McCain lost their respective elections resoundingly, and George H. W. Bush when he compromised on tax increases, pundits and their followers cling to that philosophy and are backing Mitt Romney.

First of all, who defines where the center is? They are left wing news media personalities or powerful members of the Republican Party who enjoy the perks of committee chairmanships, including attentions from media and lobbyists, power over others, campaign donations, and job security for life. They don't like ideological battles, they want to keep a peaceful status quo. Politics is a lucrative game to them.

Unfortunately, the current administration consists of extreme radicals who are successfully implementing schemes that will be difficult to reverse. They threaten our freedom and way of life for years to come. For example, the CAFE standards for auto makers that take effect in 2016 call for all vehicles to conform to a 35 miles per gallon standard. That includes pickup trucks. These rubes who idolize Europe and the Eastern seaboard don't seem to understand the geography of the United States and the necessity of powerful, heavy duty vehicles for farming, construction, or other important uses, impossible to manufacture within such specifications. But that isn't even the end of the regulations; they become stricter in subsequent years.

This administration, and Democrats in general, are moving this country backward to Third World status using fraudulent junk science and theories developed in academic dreamworlds. They don't want us to use cars or be freely mobile and independent of government. There is no 'center' that will put the brakes on this mindset. The 'center' will only slow down the process with much compromising and deal making. Conservatives need to win the argument. They need to persuade the independent voters, not appeal to them. There is no man made global warming to justify CAFE standards. There is no reason to do anything but fight Agenda 21, a U.N. guideline being implemented everywhere at the local level, designed to herd populations into dense centers and take away private property rights. There is no justification to deny oil companies the right to drill in America, refine the oil, and make a profit from it. The left is tying our hands from becoming prosperous and lifting others out of poverty.

Conservatives know history and understand what works economically. Have you ever had an argument with a liberal? They usually resort to name-calling, ridicule, or intimidation because they can't justify their stand. Or they will stick to absurd ideas regardless of the evidence to the contrary. Let's find a candidate who is a true conservative, who can articulate his or her agenda persuasively and adequately defend it without caving under pressure or political correctness. Our goal should not be to 'reach out' to independents but convince them to become conservative.

That strategy will win. The battle is in persevering. Like the widow seeking justice from a sleepy judge, telling the truth once just won't cut it. As Obama is traveling the country pushing tax increases for the rich, so conservatives must always be repeating over and over their message, because the conservative worldview is right, it works, and when understood and portrayed honestly, it is mainstream.

Look Who's Calling Rich Guys Greedy

2011-11-01T16:47:00.000-07:00

A lot of talk about greed has triggered protests in the streets against bankers and evil corporate entities all over the United States. If they can be taken at their face value, which is debatable, protesters display the utmost ignorance and laziness of thought. Greed is one of the seven deadly sins discussed in the Bible. At least, for once, a faction of citizens agrees with the Holy Scriptures that there is sin in the world. Unfortunately, like everyone else on earth, these caricatures of the sixties are pointing fingers at others rather than looking at themselves. It doesn't take a rich person to be infected by the green monster. Greed is wanting more than you need or are willing to work for. I dare to say the protesters, as they communicate on their iphones, consult their ipads, and live in the dorm at the expense of Mommy and Daddy (or taxpayers), have all they need and more. Greed can be applied equally to those who grasp for what others have as to those who hold on tightly to their own acquired wealth. The lust for more without the hard work required to get it, and hatred for those whose efforts and risks highlight the irresponsibility and immaturity of the agitators, fuel these tantrums. And if they can't have what they want, nobody else can either, even if it takes bringing down the social order of civilization and throwing the nation back to Third World status. That is the height of greed, maliciously damaging those who are successful and blaming them for your own self-imposed plight. Sympathize with them if you must, but only for their pathetic flabbiness and intellectual vacancy.

Did I Say That? What Was I Thinking?!

2011-09-11T19:58:00.000-07:00

So much angst in politics these days is devoted to outrage over the choice of words used to express our ideas and thoughts. If anyone is compared to Hitler or if we use words like "target" or "war" we are ostracized and ordered to apologize. What if the analogy used is true? What if we need the emotion these words exude to persuade others to our point of view, or into needed action?

Our lexicon is rich with words that have specific meanings. Our experiences, especially our common ones, are rife with lessons that teach, warn, and confirm. We use them to effectively communicate ideas and increase understanding. Not all analogies are accurate or apropos and some use excessive hyperbole to make the point. So what? Correct the errors and go on.

Politicians and pundits make a career by becoming offended and demanding apologies--and not just over race. Now, Nikki Haley has called a reporter a "little girl" and of course, she has had to apologize. The specifics of the situation are not the issue--the reporter was investigating Governor Haley and the South Carolina chief may well have been trying to divert attention and minimize her own offense--I'll leave that to the reporter. But to blow up such a comment all out of proportion and call it sexist and demand an apology is the paradigm of political discourse today. It reminds me of the first grade classes in which I substitute teach. The children are constantly tattling and worried about everyone else's conformance to civil behavior. If women are tough enough to be in politics or the news industry or anywhere else in a man's world, they darn well need to develop thick skin like the men, and men need to lose their feminine side in that regard as well. If you can't take the hostility that comes from disagreements and political battles, get back in the kitchen and bake cookies.

When you are speaking with passion about issues you care about, don't apologize. If you need to use an analogy that completely illustrates your ideas in a way that promotes better understanding, speak up. And if someone calls you a name in the process or makes a cutting remark, respond with wit and grace and come out on top. But don't curl up in a corner and cry uncontrollably like the Democratic party leader in Tulare County who met with disagreement during a meeting and felt "personal vilification". And don't file charges or a restraining order like she did, which puts her on the level of the first graders who cry, "Teacher! He stuck out his tongue at me!" Don't faint or become sick to your stomach as one of the female professors did when Larry Summers suggested men might have more natural abilities at some subjects like math and science.

We all have a right to speak our minds and though we should try to be civil, we cannot expect that everyone will be so. Rather than looking for ways to be offended, we should be seeking to listen and learn. Stop demanding apologies when people say what they think and stop giving apologies when you do the same. Save them for real offenses.

Farmers--Reconsider Allegiance

2011-08-17T09:39:00.000-07:00

I don't know how many of you farmers out there are Democrats, but you should take notice of how your people want to run this country. Besides the government withholding water from you for the sake of an insignificant fish, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration recently considered mandating anyone driving farm equipment to obtain a Commercial Driver's License, the same required for a semi-trailer truck. This requires extensive training and the driver must maintain a log and report all his activity, among other inconveniences. I grew up in Iowa and I know that besides massively burdening the farmer with this requirement, it would cripple his ability to use his teenage children working the family farm. Fortunately, enough people heard this coming down the pike and objected strongly. For now, the regulations have been dropped. But this is the kind of interference Barak Obama and his government run by liberals and progressives think is wise and necessary. Democrats love Big Government and believe we can't survive without its protective care. They bribe and schmooze people with promised goodies so they can increase their power. We blithely accept and close our eyes to injustice and oppression until one of their power grabs affects us personally. It's time to wake up and refuse the greased bait and work to return to limited government. Americans can take care of themselves. You may have to change parties, and even then you must be vigilant. The time to be lazy and trust Big Daddy to take care of us is over.

Now Is the Time!

2011-08-01T21:07:00.000-07:00

California's Presidential primary is scheduled for June 5, 2012. It will be among the last few states to register their votes as to who they wish to nominate for President of the United States. For the Republicans in the last Presidential election, the candidate was already decided by the time our primary rolled around. Contrary to what the liberal media would like you to think, this year's Republican field is rich with conservative candidates who could win. What any one of them needs is money to get their name and ideas out there and word of mouth among neighbors and friends to persuade voters to get involved and support their favorite. If you plan on waiting until May to do your research and make your choice, the decision will once again be made for us by the Republican establishment.

Our country is in position to change course. The mood of the citizens is to resist the relentless growth of government that is eating away our liberty. The spark that the Tea Party ignited could be fanned into a flame of revival, a renewal of the original intent of our Constitution, that of limited government. Likely, there will be only one chance. If we miss it we may have another, but it will be more difficult and painful the longer we slide down the path we are headed. If anyone doubted that Barack Obama would spend this country into financial ruin if no one resisted, they have been proven wrong by these three years he has held the office. However, he didn't do it alone, and we were already firmly on the same path before he was inaugurated.

Our responsibility then, is to choose now which candidate best represents our values and desires for the direction of our country and to send him or her financial support, debate and defend the issues, persuade our families and friends, and volunteer to help walk precincts or man phones or other form of service. Our forefathers pledged their lives, their fortunes and their honor to the cause of freedom and many paid those sacrifices so that we could live free from an oppressive government. Let us not squander their offering and treat flippantly the great privilege they provided at such cost. Such a small sacrifice of time or money to preserve that freedom for our children and grandchildren cannot be too much to ask!

Nonpartisan Fairness: An Oxymoron

2011-08-01T20:04:00.000-07:00

Well, all my suspicions have been confirmed. There is no such thing as nonpartisan. Californians, starry-eyed and hopeful, voted in last election a proposition that authorizes a nonpartisan commission to redraw district lines after the census for U.S. representation in Congress. All expectations were that the process would finally be impartial. Now the deed is done and guess which party gains seats. Here's a clue: it's not the Republicans. Districts still have that gerrymandered look to them, with long skinny appendages designed to include or exclude whatever voting block achieves the desired result. Now the Democrats are talking about finally being able to get things done after being stalled for a decade. They expect a two-thirds majority that will easily raise the taxes we also just voted to make more difficult.

The only way to be fairly divide the state into districts would be by city and county lines or as close as possible to them. People choose to live in predictable areas by city or county and that's how they should vote as well. Each section must have the required number of people without regard to race, religion, sex, or any other characteristic than location. If I live in Fresno, I should be included with all other Fresnoans in deciding who will represent us, in Bakersfield with my fellow citizens there, those in Los Angeles or San Francisco the same. The idea that each race can only be represented by a member of that race is ridiculous. Political and moral ideas are universal and apply equally to all people. Favoritism of any group causes resentment, envy, and strife, jockeying for more favor and power. Informed people vote for the person who has the right ideas, not the right gender or skin color and they vote with their neighbors who live in the same city, town, or county. I guess we'll have to propose a Constitutional amendment that forces the lines to be drawn as near to those boundaries as possible. Good luck with that.

America's Pastime: National Envy, Laziness, and Theft

2011-06-26T23:18:00.000-07:00

Here's the battle. We are dragged away and enticed by our own lusts. When we say men have an evil nature, we don't mean we're all thugs and murderers, although I guess we could be. To accomplish the downfall of a nation, Satan only needs to massage the "acceptable" sins, those that we let escape our diligence or overlook because they're legal.

Politics in all ages have played to mankind's basest motives, and today is no exception. The nation started out well, but has degraded as it has become more and more acceptable to shirk responsibility and assume rights that can only be fulfilled by plundering an unseen neighbor. Envy is one of the most difficult shortcomings to resist and politicians play it to the hilt. They question why should some guy become rich just because he spent wads of money on equipment and wages and risked his money venturing into oil, or gold, or silver, or whatever? He has worked his tail off all his life, or maybe his father or grandfather did. We think we should be the judge of how much he should keep. Walter Williams explains it well, that men make money serving their neighbor. Both parties are happy with an exchange of goods or services for money. Money is the proof that someone has served his neighbor in some way. We have no rights to spend it for them or take it ourselves. We need to serve our neighbor and earn our own.

But we demonize the successful, not only because it accentuates our lack, but they have a nice car, or even a private jet. They vacation in exotic places we can't afford. So we are jealous, we want to bring them down so they won't look better than we do. We think no one should have more than what we are satisfied with. I hate to tell you, but if it weren't for those willing to work harder than ever, we would not have the pleasant life God has blessed this nation with. Rich people hire maids, they patronize beauty salons, they need gardeners, the cruises they vacation on need crews, they purchase items from stores that have clerks, and generally provide more opportunities for jobs, not earning money on anyone's back like some politicians that play to our evil nature would have you believe.

If we make the rich the bad guys, then we don't feel guilty making them pay for our health care, our retirement, our unemployment benefits that last 99 months, our food stamps, our college education, our children's elementary education, or good grief, their breakfast and lunch. Unfortunately, it isn't only the wealthy who are affected anymore, which doesn't make it any worse, just chickens coming home to roost.

This is a spiritual battle, like the Bible says. It is within each one of us to forsake our sin, trust the Lord, and work for our living. If we retire (and who says that's a given?) it should be due to our own wise choices and investments that we have provided for ourselves, not at the expense of others. Raising godly children who will love you in your old age and have mercy on you will be an advantage. Another is to work diligently as to the Lord and follow His precepts regarding financial matters, remembering that riches fly away on eagles' wings.

Most politicians are in it for a powerful, prestigious job and know how to cater to the masses and generously give your neighbor's money away to your favorite cause. If we plan our lives around trusting God and working hard, we won't need to steal to survive. We can provide for our own education, entertainment, news, health care, and old age, and I guarantee we will be more careful with our own money!

Sarah Palin: Legitimate Candidate

2011-06-03T14:40:00.000-07:00

I like Sarah Palin. I don't know all that she believes and I mistrust her a little just because she ran with John McCain. She is loyal to people she campaigned with, for example Carly Fiorina, who was not necessarily a conservative in some important areas. Now loyalty is a commendable characteristic, but the problem comes when you are loyal to people over principle. When you are leading a country, consistency to law and to the ideas that made our nation great are what count. I don't know if I would choose Sarah Palin in the primaries, I am actually excited about some of the possible candidates for the Republican nomination. However, I am frustrated by the way conservatives let the media disqualify a perfectly capable woman and come to the conclusion she is not electable. Her bus tour and the manipulation of the media into a tizzy is a brilliant move on her part. She has taken control of the story from them which must be the first step in turning this country around. The media would decide the next election without any help from the unwashed if they could.

Then we have a supposed conservative spokesman, Charles Krauthammer, telling us she is not educated enough, just doesn't know the issues. That's interesting. Every time I have heard her interviewed, her answers have been as knowledgeable as any other candidate. Like Herman Cain observed, no one can know everything. Surround yourself with experts with the right worldview and you have the makings of great leadership. That's what Obama has done, only his expert advisers have anti Constitutional leanings and a worldview that relies on government to do for individuals what they should be doing for themselves. The trouble is, the old Republican guard (Krauthammer was a speech writer for Walter Mondale, a Democrat) doesn't actually believe the new conservatives are legitimate; they were useful to get Republicans back in the House majority, but now back to business as usual. We can't afford to be swayed by the opinions of those who anoint themselves as leaders. We must be informed and choose our own.

Straight Talk About Unions

2011-03-10T12:44:00.000-08:00

I was once a member of a teachers' union. When I first graduated from college where I had been indoctrinated slightly in the liberal mindset, I got a teaching position in the school district where I had grown up. All I knew of unions was the battle between my dad, a management level engineer at a farm implement manufacturing company and my older brother, a union steward. In those days, I of course was much wiser than my father and vulnerable to my brother's influence, who wouldn't cross a picket line regardless of any knowledge of details of the grievance. Besides that, a fellow teacher in the school was not a union member and was openly regarded with scorn as a freeloader. Wanting to be loved, I joined readily. All I remember of that year about the union was the difficulty I had paying my rent and living expenses, being single at the time. There was a baby shower for one of the teachers where I could only donate a couple of dollars to go in on a gift. My meager beginning salary prevented me from paying the $10 to attend the school Christmas party. I would rather have had those union dues and my life insurance and health insurance benefits converted to cash to live on. But the unions had negotiated for the package offered, I certainly couldn't individualize what I needed.

After seeing what the unions did to my brother's position--the company folded because they could not make a profit--I began to wake up about the effects unions had on private business. There may have been a time in our history when unions benefited workers, but like many good ideas, they have gone rogue and instead do much damage.

One side effect has been an overinflated opinion by workers of their own importance. As a small business owner, I know that the reason companies go into business is to earn money. The owner is pursing happiness in liberty, founding principles of our country. Businesses can only do that by providing something people need or want in exchange for money. If that good or service is popular and the company is successful, it may require more help to expand to meet the demand. The employer hires workers, who voluntarily agree to a wage and benefit package. It is a mutually beneficial arrangement. But be clear about who owns the business and who is merely the hired help.

I was astounded by the attitude of a Christian friend of mine who became a teacher later in life and was bothered by the fact that her engineer son made more money than she. She was adamant that her worth was at least equal to or greater and her salary should reflect that fact. She was also having back problems and felt that her employer should be responsible to pay her wages, even though she wasn't working. Unions have made us misunderstand how basic economics works. Prices for goods, services, and labor are all dependent on supply and demand. If you want to know how much teaching is worth, you need to look at what teachers are paid in the private sector, not what other professionals are paid. Labor prices can only be what the market will bear, and unions, especially government unions not limited by profits but unlimited by virtue of politicians' ability to raise taxes while avoiding accountability, distort that. Teaching may be a valuable service, but salaries must be limited to what parents are willing to pay. It is also affected by how many teachers are in the market for a job, which is the reason unions favor teacher licensing--to restrict competition by limiting alternatives. I have taught in the private school, where much more freedom is available in hiring and in teacher qualifications and testing scores affirm that the education offered there is equal to and usually greater than the public schools where unions prevail. Home schools, where the teachers are often mothers with only high school diplomas, do even better.

My point is, employees should be thankful they have jobs, they should be reasonable and realistic about what their compensation should be, and focus on how they can bless the business they work for and make it prosperous. Everyone will benefit.

A Voice Calling in the Wilderness

2011-03-07T17:28:00.000-08:00

Last night I listened to Chris Wallace's interview of the daughter of the pastor of the Westboro Baptist Church that just won the ruling to allow picketing of funerals. They display despicably insensitive signs celebrating the deaths of soldiers or homosexuals in order to make the point that God is intensely displeased with our country because we have allowed homosexuals legitimacy. She was very articulate and accurate about the reasons God would be angry with us. Her remarks reminded me of the statement made by Jerry Falwell after 9/11 that God was judging our nation by allowing the attack. It immediately caused an uproar and demands for retraction. I think he did apologize. But was he wrong? And is the Westboro Baptist Church wrong?

The same God that rescued Israel out of Egypt, testing them and teaching them in the desert, and bringing them to the Promised land where milk and honey flowed and abundant resources were available, warned them, "When you have eaten and are satisfied, you shall bless the Lord your God for the good land He has given you. Beware that you do not forget the Lord your God by not keeping His commandments and His ordinances and His statutes which I am commanding you today; otherwise, when you have eaten and are satisfied, and have built good houses and lived in them, and when your herds and your flocks multiply, and your silver and gold multiply, and all that you have multiplies, then your heart will become proud and you will forget the Lord your God who brought you out from the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery....It shall come about if you ever forget the Lord your God and go after other gods and serve them and worship them, I testify against you today that you will surely perish. Like the nations that the Lord makes to perish before you, so you shall perish; because you would not listen to the voice of the Lord your God." (Deuteronomy 8: 10-14, 19-20)

God is an unchanging God and requires no more and no less from the United States of America than He did from His chosen people, Israel and nations throughout history. The Westboro Baptist Church is not disarming the nation with diplomacy and tact and I heard nothing of the grace of Jesus offered during the interview, but repentance comes first and there were definitely calls for that. I wonder what Jeremiah sounded like to the Israelites and what he may have written on his picketing signs. I wonder what the two witnesses in Revelation will sound like to the world. Will the followers of political correctness approve?

What Your Neighbor Believes Matters

2011-03-06T20:32:00.000-08:00

We are in a war of worldviews and the one that prevails will decide the fate of our country. Thomas Sowell calls it a conflict of visions where an elite group of "intellectuals" crown themselves the arbiter of who rules and who knows best over the "masses" who would rather let people govern themselves. For some strange reason, the same groups usually oppose each other on whatever the current issue. We try to say God doesn't take sides in our political disputes, but there are issues where He has made His precepts perfectly clear. We are reluctant to claim God's blessing, number one, because history has noted several instances where nations or people have falsely asserted it, number two, the media is quick to ridicule those who do as fanatics and equate them with those in error, and number three, our Christian brothers who want to appear reasonable to the world and yearn for the respect of men will betray them as well.

How do we apply the wisdom of God to political issues? We have to acknowledge there is truth to be found and search for it diligently, being ready to accept and act on what we find. The most important dispute involves who we are and where we come from. If we realize we have been created by God with responsibility for our own choices and as author Daniel Akst puts it, "If you believe your life is largely the result of your own discipline and decisions, you're going to feel very differently about taxes, regulation, and redistribution than if you believe your life is largely the sum of your genes and your environment." You will want to reap the rewards of your own labor and let others do the same. Sharing with those in need would be strictly voluntary, not government coerced. The helpless victims of life, on the other hand, will want those well endowed to be forced to share, since their wealth is an undeserved accident. Politicians cultivate envy and resentment to promote that outlook and gain power for themselves.

If you believe that man as a race is fallen with evil hearts, you will not trust "experts" unilaterally, knowing with professor of politics Walter Russell Mead that they are not "angels descending immaculately from heaven bearing infallible revelations from God. They [are] fallible human beings with mortgages to pay and funds to raise. They [disagree] with one another and they [collude] with their friends and supporters like everyone else." When "science" demands draconian adjustments in businesses and private lives because the earth is allegedly warming, we can question their motives and honesty. However, those who trust scientists or teachers or anyone as altruistic seekers of truth will be easily duped.

Unfortunately, the "intellectuals" who bask in the glory of their own intelligence find plenty of willing accomplices in promoting their views: school teachers, journalists, behind the scenes staffers and volunteers for politicians and judges. Their ideas become universally accepted and it is discouraging even to argue with them. The pressure to fall in line with them is immense. Edward Bernays, nephew of Sigmund Freud and the father of propaganda, reveals the truth of what many only dismiss as conspiracy theory, that our generation is being successfully manipulated: "The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate the unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country." That is the reality we face and what we have to fight against.

Our weapons in this battle are questioning assumptions, proclaiming truth and persuading our family, friends, and neighbors. To sit down and shut up is to surrender our country, our children and grandchildren to the the father of lies. We have to be willing to put ourselves on the front line, insisting on truth and exposing all lies, sacrificing our comfort and leisure to stay informed and risking our reputations to speak up. I don't know if we have it in us.

Government Union Collective Bargaining 101

2011-03-05T18:01:00.000-08:00

Union Reform or Bust!

2011-02-28T17:51:00.000-08:00

If you just hear the headlines and don't have time to investigate the recent showdown in Wisconsin, Ohio, Indiana, and other states, you might think the government is cracking down on all unions. The protesters certainly make it sound like that. The controversy is actually over public sector unions, those that organize government employees only. The benefits and retirement plans promised to them by politicians eager to be reelected are breaking many state budgets.

There's a big difference between private unions and public sector unions. Private unions were organized to protect themselves from the capitalist. If the employer promised too much, he went out of business. Who do public unions protect the government worker from? The taxpayer? There is a conflict of interest here. The public sector unions capture control of the legislature by using union dues to get their politicians elected, who then vote for their compensation packages. They aren't bound by profits or any other concern a normal business has. The employee pays his union dues which are then recirculated back to the politicians through political donations. Even Franklin D. Roosevelt said unions do not belong in the public sector. The states are not trying to bust all unions, but reform the ones which directly affect the state budget. Should taxpayers be held responsible for the reckless promises of politicians trying to stay in office? California is about to go bankrupt because the public sector union members have been promised benefits and pension packages that cannot be paid. There is no money. And I don't blame the individuals. Who's going to turn down a wonderful retirement plan? The trouble is, it literally is too good to be true.

I am not a big fan of private unions, I think they have run many businesses out of business, but they are in no danger from the present controversy.

Update: The Wisconsin governor is only asking for his state what is already law for the federal workers thanks to President Jimmy Carter and his Democratic Congress. They are already severely limited in what they can bargain for collectively because of the Civil Reform Act of 1978, celebrated by the Democrats as one of Carter's signature achievements. It prohibits compulsory dues and allows bargaining only for certain personnel matters, not wages or benefits.

It's You and Me, Baby

2011-02-16T11:23:00.000-08:00

Here's who will prevent Republicans carrying out the voters' mandate to stem the tide of big government: you and I. The governor of Wisconsin has alerted the National Guard in anticipation of the reaction to his scaling back of government union power. In order to close a $137 million deficit he has proposed that public employee unions only be allowed to negotiate wages and that they contribute half of the cost of their retirement and health benefits. The teachers have already "called in sick" to meet and discuss how to repel this "attack". In New Jersey, teacher unions have hyperventilated over Governor Chris Christie's asking for a one year pay freeze and contributing 1 1/2% of their salaries to their health benefits, calling it, "The greatest assault on public education in the history of the state."

We have all become accustomed to the free spending largess of our federal and state governments, one of which can print money at will, stealing everyone's purchasing power, and the other puffed up in its assurance the feds will bail them out. We have ordered our lives on the promises made to us by politicians currying favor who had no thought of future consequences or knew they would be out of sight, out of mind by then. We have trusted in men and riches and not in God, nor lived by His wisdom. It is hard to take cuts and see dreams and wealth fly away on eagle's wings. But to those who would trust in God and His wisdom, hard work and diligence can get them by. We are not the first generation to have to change our plans and we won't be the last.

Medicare is one of the biggest problems we face. It has no limits or guidelines on the total budget but is skyrocketing out of control and is funded first along with Social Security, Medicaid, and other so-called entitlements. It pays for the minutest expense, although it hardly reimburses the doctor for his costs, and patients will not go to a doctor that won't accept Medicare, even if it is low cost. Most seniors have money to pay for routine visits, but if someone else will, why not? They forget that it is not some vague entity paying the bills, but their neighbors and their own children and grandchildren. We are all forgetting that.

I have no problem helping the true poor and seniors who actually can't afford care, but we have long since morphed that goal into helping everybody. And Obamacare is attempting to do just that. Health care is not a right, it is a responsibility, and we don't want to face it. Families and friends providing help is God's way, and believe me, I understand why it's easier to say, "Let the government do it." It shields us from thorny moral issues as well, such as what is a person's life worth, and are we willing to go into enormous private debt to pay for another year of life?

So, when the necessary cuts come, will we allow the debate to hyperventilate, and demand that our special entitlements be exempted, or will we step up to the plate and boldly be a part of the solution? Will we be swayed by the hysterical arguments of those unwilling to do so? It's your call.

What Kind of People Are We?

2011-02-14T12:41:00.000-08:00

We have no government armed in power capable of contending in human passions unbridled by morality and religion....Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. -- John Adams

A person who ignores a law usually faces unpleasant consequences but if no one is willing to enforce the law, he goes unpunished. The law is worthless in such an instance, at least to the society involved. Worse yet, if lawless behavior is endorsed by the government, there would be a free fall of immorality. And, of course, there is.

Christians easily see abortion as a grievous wrong, no matter if politicians have made it legal. We stand out against it; we assemble in protest, we donate money to organizations combating it. It is murder of horrendous degree. Are we as vigilant about legalized theft? Do we accept stealing from our neighbor, our children and grandchildren, so we can have things we should be paying for ourselves: Education, health care, food, retirement?

Whoa! you say. A little radical. But only because we have lived with the philosophy for two or three generations now. It wasn't always this way. By appealing to the proper concern for the poor among them as well as more basic selfish desires and laziness, our grandparents were suckered into a system that developed into a dependency on government from which it is almost impossible to break free. Unionized government employees expect spectacular retirement benefits that were negotiated by politicians who assumed the money supply from taxpayers was endless or who wouldn't be around to take the heat once the Ponzi scheme was exposed.

Before government became our nanny, people made plans for their own retirement, either through savings, investments, or lovingly raising children who would honor them in their old age. Some even worked productively their entire lives. They paid for doctor visits and school teacher salaries out of their own pockets. They actually sacrificed nonessentials so they could pay for necessities. They knew the difference. You could buy insurance if you wanted someone else to assume the risks that are inherent in future plans. Sometimes well laid plans failed and they had to readjust their lives accordingly. Those who applied God's wisdom to their lives fared better than fools. Yes, some suffered, but suffering taught them lessons nothing else could, and brought many to the Lord's feet by means of private charity, who were free to share Christ along with food and clothing.

So what kind of people are we; those who take advantage of legal theft and turn stone hearts to our children's future? Will we continue to wink at the Constitution and shift our private responsibilities onto the government? This generation must shake off the deliberate appeal to our fleshly nature. If it appears foolish to the world to refuse to participate in government immorality, so what? God has made the wisdom of the world foolish in order to display His glory. Depending on government instead of God has proven to be folly. It's time to readjust and cling to the wisdom that brings life. Nothing will change until we change ourselves.

Her Majesty, Barbara Boxer

2010-10-26T16:39:00.000-07:00

Time for change: Vote for Carly Fiorina

Jerry Brown Exposing Himself

2010-10-26T16:04:00.000-07:00

Nothing more need be said except vote for Meg Whitman.

The November Ballot: Let's Change California

2010-10-17T21:43:00.000-07:00

Governor: Meg Whitman
I absolutely do not like her stand on abortion. She believes California taxpayers should fund them. Unfortunately, the alternative is Jerry Brown who I'm sure believes the same and more. The time to find a better candidate was in the primary. There was one, but he didn't win. If you must vote against Meg Whitman, the American Independent candidate, Chelene Nightingale, sounds like a classic Tea Party candidate, but she does not state her views on abortion. It is better to go with Whitman this time and get involved earlier four years from now.

Lieutenant Governor: Update: Write In Karen England
The quandary is whether to vote for Abel Maldonado as the winner of the Republican nomination but a cohort of Arnold Schwarzeneger, or write in the conservative Karen England and risk Gavin Newsom getting the job. What does a lieutenant governor do? Nothing except wait in line for the governorship which doesn't make one a shoo-in for the governor next election anyway. The danger would be if Jerry Brown wins the governor race, he's a senior citizen and life becomes more uncertain at his age. I say it is worth the risk. If we don't take advantage of the tea party atmosphere we will never pull off an upset of the good ole boys' network.

Secretary of State: Damon Dunn
Awesome candidate!

Controller: Tony Strickland
Treasurer: Mimi Walters
Attorney General: Steve Cooley
Insurance Commissioner: Mike Villines
State Board of Equalization: George Runner

U.S. Senator: Carly Fiorina
U.S. Representative, 21st District: Devin Nunes
State Senator, 18th District: Jean Fuller
State Assembly, 34th District: Connie Conway

Chief Justice, California Supreme Court, Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye: NO
Associate Justice, Ming W. Chin: NO
Associate Justice, Carlos R. Moreno: NO
5th Appellate Court, Brad R. Hill : Update: YES
5th Appellate Court, Jennifer Detjen: Update: YES
5th Appellate Court, Chuck Poochigian: YES
5th Appellate Court, Bert Levy, YES

State Superintendent of Public Instruction: Write in--Diane Lenning
Both candidates on the ballot are Democrats because of the nonpartisan public office deal. This is what we can look forward to with our new open primary voters thought wise to bless us with.
College of the Sequoias Ward 2: Kenneth Nunes
Tulare Joint Union High School Board:   Steven Lessley
                                                                    Laura Fonseca
                                                                    Craig Hamilton
Sundale Union Elementary School Board: Judy Coble
                                                                        Fred Brown
                                                                        Judy Jameson
(I'm going by Tulare County Republican recommendations as I have no idea about who these three are or what they believe.)
Tulare Memorial District: I am not voting for anyone here, I'll leave that for the people who know and care. I don't even know what they have control over, just that they are veterans, though this position says it's a non veteran seat.
Click on each proposition to read an explanation:
Proposition 19: NO
Proposition 20: YES
Proposition 21: NO
Proposition 22: NO
Proposition 23: YES
Proposition 24: NO
Proposition 25: NO
Proposition 26: YES
Proposition 27: NO

I don't get the pleasure of voting for Tulare City Council because we don't live in the city limits and even though our business is located there. But I definitely have my opinion (I hope someone caught you when you fell over in shock). David Macedo and Skip Barwick are my choices were I able to vote. They both have reasonable and conservative views about how to run the city. They have not sold their souls to the wonderfulness of a racetrack coming to our town. It may or may not be a good idea but we needn't get so caught up in it that we blindly allow a developer to steal a million taxpayer dollars or agree to almost anything to get one here.

State Superintendent of Public Instruction--The "Non Partisan" Office

2010-10-07T19:44:00.000-07:00

Not much choice here, neither candidate fits my ideal of the state public school czar. Tom Torlakson is a declared Democrat and former legislator who has the backing of the CTA. No offense to my dear teacher friends, but that is not a draw. Both candidates want to bring in more money to the schools. According to state law, 40 % of the budget must go to education. The problem lies not in inadequate funding but in prioritizing how it is spent, trimming lofty desires to fit. I'm convinced neither prospect has in mind to reform finances. This is an argument for getting involved a few months before the primary, in order to help the best candidate succeed. By primary election day, there is no chance left to talk him or her up or change any minds. In a "nonpartisan" race we end up with two like minded choices. Larry Aceves claims to be a political outsider and has experience as a supervisor in his role as school superintendent. He wants the legislature to let him suspend some provisions of labor contracts that "interfere with learning." That shows he has some reform mindedness. Unions must give in some or be forced to. California resources have run dry and it is time for politicians to put the brakes on rash promises and get a grip on reality. We must keep the pressure on no matter who wins. As far as I can tell, Larry Aceves is the better pick.

Update: There is a Republican option-- write in Diane Lenning.

5th Apellate District: Your Guess Is as Good as Mine

2010-10-07T17:24:00.000-07:00

As difficult as it was to get information on the supreme court justices on the ballot, it was impossible to find anything beyond education credentials and judicial experience for the apellate court justices. Chuck Poochigian has been a conservative legislator in the past but not in my district so I don't have specific work I can cite that guarantees his credentials. He was rated as unqualified when first nominated to the court but Jerry Brown was on the commission that rated him. I ran across an article that reported his strong support of the nomination of Bert Levy to the bench, so the two are like minded, if that helps. I could find no clues about Jennifer Detjen's judicial philosophy, nor Brad Hill's, not even endorsements from conservative sources I would trust. They all say they would follow the U.S. Constitution and the state constitution, whatever that means in their own minds. So good luck with your decisions here. Click on the links and see the info provided. A good rule of thumb is, if you don't know and can't find out, don't vote. Leave it to the people who are in the know. I'd hate to inadvertently vote out a good judge. I'll probably vote YES on Poochigian and Levy but leave the others blank unless I find out more later.

Update: I have discovered that the Fresno Lincoln Club, a Republican organization, has endorsed both Brad Hill and Jennifer Detjen. Also, the electionforum.com, which is a Christian conservative election site, has identified Brad Hill as a conservative and has recommended him as well as Jennifer Detjen, otherwise agreeing with my other selections. I have changed my voting recommendation accordingly and apologize to those who voted early.

Supreme Court: Those Mysterious Justices

2010-10-07T14:40:00.000-07:00

My judicial philosophy is that justices must rule on how the law already given is to be interpreted in light of the intent of the authors. This insures that we have laws on which we can plan and organize our lives, knowing whether or not we are abiding by them. It is government by consent of the governed. Like the federal government, in California there are legal means with which voters or elected officials can change the constitution if they wish. Judges do not have the authority to do this. Of course, they have the power to do so and often do. The adherence to duty and authority is always voluntary, that is why our founders strongly admonished the people to elect Christian leaders and educate children in the Christian faith. The Republic can only survive in a nation where people obey the law and leaders respect the limits of their authority. Individuals with those qualities are rarely found outside the Christian faith.

In California, we have the opportunity to check the governor's nomination and hold judges accountable by voting to retain or reject them. It would help to know a little bit about their philosophies and rulings, which is difficult to find. Admittedly, I must base my recommendations on very little information. While sometimes only very little is needed, other times we have to project what is reasonable to expect and go with it. If you have any other information to add, please feel free.

With that in mind, Carlos Morenos, associate justice of the supreme court of California, voted to overturn Proposition 8, a legal amendment to the California constitution which defines marriage as between one man and one woman. He has also ruled that California law recognizes same sex relationships as legal parents. He has been recommended to the Obama administration as a replacement for David Souter should the need arise by Dianne Feinstein. He is willing to overstep his authority in order to achieve the results he desires and California voters need to resoundingly speak. Vote NO for Carlos Morenos.

Ming Chin was appointed by Pete Wilson as a strict constructionist who supports the death penalty and abortion rights. He dissented in the first overturning of the gay marriage ban and voted with the majority in upholding Proposition 8, but he voted with Chief Justice Ron George to overturn the requirement for minor children to obtain parental consent to get an abortion. I'm sorry about his abortion opinions and I doubt if Meg Whitman, were she to be elected, would nominate an anti abortion judge; Governor Moonbeam certainly wouldn't. But I am compelled to vote NO anyway. There's just something wrong with abortion having the approval of the law and any judge administering it.

Governor Schwarzenegger recently nominated Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye to be the chief justice to replace retiring Ron George. She is considered by legal sources to be mainstream, which usually means liberal on social issues. She admits to performing a gay marriage ceremony during the brief time it was legal according to the LA Times, a good indicator that she has no moral objections to it, though she says she will follow precedent in her rulings. More tellingly, the gay community is happy with the choice. She has been quoted as saying, "There is no one truth, only versions of it." Some people say she is as good as we can expect for California, but I want to aim higher. I will still vote NO.

Proposition 26: C'mon Guys, You Know Fees Are Taxes

2010-09-29T17:29:00.000-07:00

This Constitutional amendment requires certain state and local fees be treated like the taxes they are and only be enacted by a 2/3 vote of both houses of the legislature or the people. Since this includes fees that are assessed due to a supposed adverse impact on society or the environment, the anti Big Oil and Big Business crowd is opposed and insinuates that supporters are "pollution protecters". Businesses are the good guys unless they collude with government, which is the one who can and does oppress us. We should not buy the rhetoric that demonizes them.

As I have explained before in previous posts, a tax is taking away money someone has earned honestly by their own hard work or wise investments. Reducing or eliminating a tax is not a "cost" to the state, but rather a loss of income. The cost is to the taxpayer. We deserve to have a say if taxes can be assessed or not and if projects are worthy to be funded by the public. We have already established a 2/3 requirement for taxes; now we are having to specify exactly what we mean for the sake of the sneaky politicians who tax us through "fees" instead. We shouldn't have to do this but the legislators bend themselves out of shape trying to get around the restriction the citizens have imposed. Fees may indeed need to be assessed. If so, let there be a 2/3 agreement. That guarantees a bipartisan effort and less likely to be aimed at particular groups out of favor politically. We have to keep a sharp eye on this legislature that refuses to do the hard work to reduce its spending. We also have to be willing to give up the perks that the state has been providing and live within our means. Vote YES on Proposition 26.

Proposition 25: Watch Me Pull a Rabbit out of My Hat

2010-09-29T16:15:00.000-07:00

Proposition 25 changes the vote requirement for passing a state budget from 2/3 ( in place since 1933) to a simple majority. It also stops the pay of legislators every day after the deadline of June 15th if they haven't passed the annual budget. This is a Constitutional Amendment initiative, so it will preempt any earlier initiatives. In the declaration of intent the wording states that this bill has no intention of changing the 2/3 requirement set for raising taxes.

Legislators have had trouble agreeing on a budget and 2/3 majority is an unusual requirement for state governments, Arkansas and Rhode Island being the only other states with one. However, I tend to like the difficulty the majority has in profligate spending since they do not seem to have a grip on where California is financially. A 2/3 majority vote should ensure that the two sides must come to some agreement. Unfortunately, that didn't happen this year. One cynical assemblyman, Kevin Jeffries, R, San Diego, suggests that may have been deliberate to inflame voters and make them receptive to the proposition, according to the San Diego Union Tribune.

Cutting off the pay of legislators is one of those ideas that sounds good until you think about where it might lead. What if there are important issues to be decided but the deadline is approaching? Instead of deliberating, everyone will be eager to just get it over with. Kind of like some jurors in a long trial that is interrupting their busy life. Budget issues that affect so many people's lives deserve better than that. And I can just imagine all the horse trading going on to purchase votes. We have to think of some other way to force them to comply with the deadline. Maybe no other bill can be considered between April and June until the budget is passed. Actually, we have enough laws on the books to last a lifetime. Let that be their only task. That and repealing bad laws.

Opponents believe the legislators will be free to expand their expense accounts with a simple majority, and because of the ambiguous language of the bill, "appropriations in the budget bill and in other bills providing for appropriations related to the budget bill" the politicians will be able to sneak in tax increases with only fifty-one percent. Though they assure us that is not the intent of this Constitutional Amendment, we all know how weighty "intent" is in today's courtroom.

Another argument opponents have against this proposition is that the voters would lose their referendum ability to repeal bad law and hidden taxes by the ballot box. I'm not sure how that would be unless it is because the taxes would be hidden in a bill that wasn't directly a tax bill, just an amendment to a budget bill. I don't think we ever vote on amendments to bills.

Frankly, I like the gridlock the 2/3 requirement causes in the legislature. Since it's a pipe dream to think politics will become more conservative in the near future, it is our only weapon to hold back the special interest spending and promises that California can no longer support. If both sides are at all being reasonable and honest, they should be able to come together (Don't laugh!). The trouble with trying to regulate lawmakers' behavior is the rules are only as good as the people elected. Making the politician's pay dependent on a budget resolution is another hocus pocus device to entice voters support and it duplicates all the other shady goings on in Sacramento. Also, knowing those in charge at the state capitol, I wouldn't put it past them to dance around the language of the bill and raise our taxes through a loophole. On November 2, I will be voting NO on Proposition 25.

Proposition 24: Economics 101

2010-09-29T12:56:00.000-07:00

One of the many problems in politics today is we get emotionally involved in the issue of the day and don't stop to ponder logically what it all means. Do you ever wonder? If you were to start a business, why would you do it? Would you think to yourself, "Hmmm... I want to create a business so I can hire employees and pay taxes to the government."? Most people start businesses to make money. They dream of living a prosperous life, doing things profitably that they love and are good at. They love the independence of being their own boss. If things work out, they supply something valuable to the consumer, who is willing to pay the price for the good or service. Supply and demand determines this price and if it is not enough to make a profit for the company, they won't stay in business.

There are many costs to running a business. Aside from taxes, there are employee costs, material costs, gas and electricity costs, transportation, etc. The company includes these costs in the asking price. If taxes cut into their profit, they simply raise the price of the good or service to cover it. If people won't pay the higher price, the business will go under. Either way, the consumer loses. The government likes the deep pockets businesses seem to have, but all that happens is the average taxpayer gets double duty. Other states that have less burdensome tax laws will be more inviting to businesses and they will relocate there.

Now the issue. Proposition 24 would repeal a law passed previously that allows a business residing in more states than just California to base their income tax on sales from California alone rather than their total income. Many other states have gone to this to keep their states business friendly. California is losing businesses steadily because of the oppressive taxes and repealing this law would probably expedite more losses. I understand that politicians can hear the ka ching of more money to their coffers at a time when they are desperate for revenue, but cheating businesses, driving them out of business or out of state is not the answer to California's problems.

Don't get caught up in the "businesses are evil" mentality. It is nothing but hard core envy. They serve us. Some may be bad and some collude with the government to protect themselves from competition. If so, don't patronize them. Get active in politics and change the laws that unfairly favor established businesses over new entrepreneurs. Prosecute criminal behavior when you find it but don't punish them all or begrudge them their success. You only hurt yourself. Businesses are the lifeblood of our cities and state.

The financial woes of California can only be solved when its citizens wake up and stop expecting the taxpayers to fund every innovation under the sun, including picking up the tab for people who should be providing for themselves. Just like our personal budgets, when we can't afford something, we do without it. When we revise our own expectations, maybe we will change the candidates we support. Don't bite the hands that feed us. Vote NO on Proposition 24.

Sin: Are We Fooling Ourselves?

2010-09-28T16:12:00.000-07:00

"The heart is more deceitful than all else and is desperately sick, who can understand it?" So says Jeremiah, the prophet admonishing the people to trust in the Lord and not men. Why is our heart so deceitful? We have a nature that delights in sin. Revenge is satisfying. We enjoy indulging our appetites for pleasure, significance, and material things. We seek admiration of our beauty, brains, and talent. That is why Paul told Timothy that in the end times, people would seek pastors who will tickle their ears and tell them what they want to hear, an easy gospel. We cling to our sin and revel in it.

When we can even acknowledge we are in sin, we don't want to risk our popularity standing for the truth and acting on it. We don't want to work hard holding our leaders accountable or challenging deception and traditions of men. Comfort, luxury, and convenience have become our goals in life.

The Ten Commandments give us the big picture of what sin is. Most of us have understood from childhood that the essence of sin is breaking these commandments. Jesus gave a more succinct version, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength. And love your neighbor as yourself." But as in the summary of them, the commandments are just a skeleton outline of what obedience encompasses. I like the term author Mark Buchanan uses to describe them: synecdochic. Each command is a conglomeration of all possible applications, we are to obey with Zaccheus-like extravagance. If there is a gray area, we should err on the side of obedience if for no other reason than we love God, and want to please Him.

What about wisdom, how does that fit in? Is it a sin to be a fool? The Proverbs are full of wisdom and Solomon comes down pretty hard on folly. What if you know the wise course in a situation but you choose the foolish one, is that sin? What if you don't know the wise course? Or, you deliberately avoid searching for it so you don't have to do what you're afraid God has planned for you, can you then claim ignorance? Is it possible to disobey without your specific circumstances laid out as a command in the Bible? Being a Christian is more than obeying the letter of the law. It is walking with God in a relationship of complete surrender and obedience. "Therefore, to one who knows the right thing to do and does not do it, to him it is sin." (James 4:17)

Fortunately for us, Jesus has taken all our guilt away, praise His name! We have the luxury of doing our best to obey with His help and without the pressure of eternal death lurking over us. But the obligation remains. We will still reap what we sow here on earth.

"So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure." Philippians 2:12-13

Proposition 23: Time to Chill Out

2010-09-23T15:28:00.000-07:00

Proposition 23 stops the implementation of AB32 which requires big emitters of air pollution (supposedly the cause of global warming) to report and reduce green house gas emissions. It will halt enforcement until such time as unemployment in the state drops to 5.5% or less for a full year.

Global warming has lost its sparkle since the email scandal that exposed the fraudulent gathering and manipulating of data. Measuring the temperature of the earth is pretty hard to do and if you knew where some of the thermometers were, you would be as suspicious I am. The environmentalist movement is the new foundation for former communists, looking for a more popular way to rule by dictate. Ironically, the reported average global temperature has cooled for the last twelve years or so. It hasn't seemed to faze Al "The Debate Is Over" Gore, that facts are catching up to the hysteria. If the world is not warming, we are the biggest fools to be swept up in the pointless effort to stop it. If it is warming, it is most probably a natural cycle related to activity on the sun. Isn't it a strange coincidence that the warming attributed to earth during the height of the movement was also happening on Mars?

I love clean air and miss seeing the mountains every day, but I also like my car, electricity, running water and other conveniences without which we would return to Third World status, where poverty and disease run rampant. The fact is, it takes oil to run the world today and all the solar panels and windmills in the world cannot replace the economy and reliability of oil as energy producer. I am willing to exchange a little dirty air which is regularly cleaned up by rain and wind (a process providentially designed by God) for health, prosperity, and freedom of travel. Actually, science has already improved the air quality since the 70's by cleaning up the oil burning process. Windmills are only operational when the wind blows, solar panels only when the sun shines and both are cost prohibitive.

Opponents complain this proposition will kill competition for alternative energy producers. That's a laugh. Without government (taxpayer) money, those companies could not exist. If they are such sound alternatives, let them stand on their own. The real killer is AB32, which kills jobs, restricts freedom, burdens businesses, and props up companies that can't support themselves. California has taken the lead in caving to environmentalist propaganda, it's time to champion the right causes. Having the burden of reporting their "carbon footprint" and reducing it to impossible levels will put companies out of business and finish off our floundering economy. We should not only vote YES on Proposition 23 but also pressure the state legislature to make this permanent and not dependent on the unemployment rate. If it is good for now, it is good for the future.

Proposition 22: Tie 'Em Up and Gag 'Em

2010-09-20T17:14:00.000-07:00

I am torn by Proposition 22. The current state government of California needs to be knocked silly. I don't want any of their ideas passed. I don't want them promising or spending one more cent. They have proven themselves untrustworthy with our tax dollars. We are on a path to destruction I'm not sure can be reversed. Proposition 22 would tie legislators' dirty hands and keep them out of the coffers of local governments and their projects. How did they get them in there in the first place? My property tax check is mailed to the Tulare County Tax Collector/Treasurer, not Sacramento.

The drama on both sides of this issue makes me suspicious. Proponents and opponents alike claim we will lose vital services if we don't vote their way, a bogus threat to scare the electorate into rising up in righteous indignation without knowing all the facts. Local governments have just as much fat to trim as the state government. Fire fighters and police officers do not have to be the first to go. I get even angrier when I read the proposed text and see words I can't even find in the dictionary, words like subvene and ad valorem. Clearly the powers that be do not want the average joe to understand the laws of the land.

Here's why this proposition should not pass. Whether we like it or not, we formed and elected this government to do a job. They have to have funds. If they are not spending responsibly, if they are obligating us immorally, if they are corrupting themselves in the desperate pursuit of more and more money, we need to throw them out, not tie the government in knots by designating where it must go or where it must come from. Voters have already mandated 40% of the state's budget to education and though education is a worthy cause, such inflexibility hinders legislators from getting a grip on the state's financial situation.

We definitely need a change, but it's not by proposition, it's by a political philosophy that California has not seen in control for a long time, conservatism. We need a different government, not a more complicated one. That will take a major revolution in the land of fruits and nuts. Vote NO on Proposition 22.

Proposition 21: The Bambi Act

2010-09-14T15:22:00.000-07:00

We have a problem in California. It is not that we don't give enough money in taxes to our government. The problem is they spend it like it grows on trees. Proposition 21 raises taxes on our cars to fund state parks and wildlife programs. Those are commendable targets for funding; I love to visit state recreation areas and I love our bears and deer. However, we need to pay our bills and figure out how to return sanity to our spending spree before we add the superfluous luxuries. And that will take fiscal discipline that doesn't start by sucking more money from the taxpayer. It comes when politicians bite the bullet and cut areas that may make them unpopular. We need to examine promises made to government workers that we just can't keep and which never should have been made in the first place. Citizens who benefit from government giveaways must become responsible for their own lives and pay their own way. It will prove better than grasping the goodies and bankrupting the state. (Bankrupt= the state will not honor its debts or promises) In this instance, it may mean letting a private industry takeover the parks. State legislators are not the only ones who love nature. Many capable private companies (which are made up of private individuals) could run our state parks much more efficiently and whoever uses them should pay the real cost of using them. I don't doubt it would be a reasonable price if the enterprise were left alone to make a profit and thus have incentive to do it well.

No more "fees" or "surcharges" to our car licensing process--a good reason to consider another proposition, coming soon. Get your house in order, California! NO on Proposition 21.

Propositions 20 and 27: Get Your Crayons, It's Time to Draw

2010-09-14T14:01:00.000-07:00

It's important to note that Propositions 20 and 27 are related and you should choose one or the other or vote no on both. In 2008 voters passed Proposition 11 which created a citizen commission to redistrict the state as required each 10 years, instead of leaving it to the legislature. The idea was that legislators gerrymandered districts to their advantage for reelection and this commission, consisting of five Democrats, five Republicans, and four people not associated with any party, would be more fair. All their meetings must be public and open for any citizen's comments. These districts were only for the state government. Proposition 20 would extend the commission's responsibility to California Congressional districts, taking away that responsibility from the state legislature.

Ideally, this should have waited until we see the results of this year's redistricting of the state. It sounds good, but what other issues will arise from it, I don't know. Of course, the legislature is fighting this, they want to maintain control. It's interesting to view for yourself how the lines are drawn for the state assembly, state senate, and Congress. Somebody had reasons for making those lengthy tails and wrap around areas. I would like to see how a nonpartisan commission would draw those lines. The argument against it berates the fact that the commission is not elected and we would lose our say in holding them accountable. There is a website to view the progress of forming this commission. The panel doing the choosing is made up of three CPAs from the state auditor's office and their bios are available there. I think this experiment is worth a try.

In the opposite corner, Proposition 27 would basically repeal Proposition 11 before it has even been tried and restore all redistricting responsibilies to the state legislature. Since we have already spent money on this commission, still in the application process, and since it seems like a reasonable alternative to the ridiculous way lines are usually drawn, I plan to vote YES on Proposition 20, and NO on Proposition 27. If you want to wait and see how the plan works on the state districts before you decide on Congressional ones, vote NO on both. If both propositions pass, the one with the most votes will be implemented.

Proposition 19: Up in Smoke

2010-09-12T21:24:00.000-07:00

It's time to start looking at the choices we have for the November election so we can influence our friends and acquaintances on the issues. Before we start, I again want you to read the principles that I stand by to select candidates or decide issues. It is by these alone that we can be a country where citizens are free to pursue their hopes and dreams and pass them on to their children and grandchildren.

The first proposition, 19, is whether or not to legalize marijuana. There are many pie in the sky reasons why proponents believe we should do so. First of all, they say it will lower crime rates because it will kill the black market. Will it? It is still a federal crime, so the price will remain high, people will still steal to get enough money to purchase it, and the value of the crop will invite theft and shootings as evidenced by the recent episode in Fresno, where a person who was legally growing pot on his land defended it by shooting the suspect while he was fleeing.

Some want to equate weed with alcohol which actually makes a good point. However, you may get high on one smoke, but it takes deliberate overindulgence to become drunk. Who drinks a six pack of Pepsi? Let's face it, we were unsuccessful outlawing alcohol for whatever reason but we have outlawed marijuana and other drugs. Why would we uncuff one prisoner just because the other one got away? Legalizing marijuana is one step toward the declared goal of legalizing all recreational drugs. We need to keep control where we have some semblance of it.

Another rationalization is that it is the only way cancer victims can reduce nausea from the treatments. This plays on our natural sympathy for people suffering but there are so many prescription drugs that reduce nausea and even a derivative that contains the very ingredient in marijuana that effects that goal without smoking it. The main reason this is an issue is the pot heads want to smoke marijuana without restriction. It has been proven to be an addictive drug and a gateway to more dangerous drugs. Our society needs more morality and integrity, not less. If we are to change the direction of our state and nation, we need to be nudging people uphill, not down. The powers that look to control the population would like nothing better than they be doped up and drugged, contented with their selfish pleasures and pliable to believe whatever they are told. That's why you'll find so many leaders favoring decadence over truth and responsibility. I urge you strongly to vote NO on Proposition 19 and keep California from going over the edge.

To Build or Burn; That Is the Question

2010-09-09T15:54:00.001-07:00

Isn't it curious that the first words that come from the mouth of commentators about the mosque proposed at Ground Zero are that the Muslims have a First Amendment right to build a mosque on their own property, yet the first comments about the Florida Koran burnings are that they should not do it, they are inciting violence, there is nothing to be gained by such an act? I'm not interested in condoning or condemning either act but it is very revealing to see the reactions to each group. Don't Florida citizens have a First Amendment?

There is in fact something to be gained by the burning of the Koran, or just the threat of it, though it probably won't be the bringing of Muslims into the kingdom of God. First of all, it should be waking people up to the hypocrisy of the President for while he refuses to bless us with discussing the wisdom of building the mosque, he is quick and ready with condemnation of the Florida church. The hyperbolic warnings the administration has put out about heightened anti-Americanism in foreign travel due to this forty member church's activity is par for the course of a President who wants to use fear to intimidate and control citizens and to manipulate public opinion. And finally, to foresee violence breaking out at the burning of a book is telling of the fanaticism of the Muslim faith and the danger it presents to America. Not only is it a faith based on lies and leading to death, it is an irrational, tyrannical force with which we cannot coexist. This episode is an early act in the drama we face as Muslims continue to gain strongholds in our country.

If I Don't Get My Way, I'll Sue! Waaaah!

2010-09-08T13:19:00.000-07:00

An everyday event is taking place right here in Fresno, California. A police officer is suing the police department for $90,000 because he was assigned to a neighborhood where he didn't want to be. Now I don't know the facts here and I'm not going to say anyone is "acting stupidly" but I will comment in general terms on what is going on in our country. When anyone sues a city, they are suing its citizens. How is that fair? Obviously, the city has the deep pockets, thanks to its citizens, but we have to start applying the brakes to these kinds of situations. We can't afford them. Not only is there the possibility of being out $90,000 but certainly there will be lawyer and court fees, and in order to reduce those costs, often a city will settle and let its citizens be extorted.

The underlying problem is that we are a nation that no longer acknowledges God. To our shame, Glenn Beck is a lone voice calling in the wilderness. Where are our political leaders who claim to know God? Where are each one of us when we think we are wronged? Even we Christians think the world revolves around us and don't you mess with my rights! We need to be the ones to restore honor and integrity to our nation. It must start with us. Sadly, we are just as likely to sue at the drop of a hat as an unbeliever. Why is that? We have been trained by the enemy, the one in control of public schools, the media, and the arts to look for offenses against us. We are self-centered and unforgiving. We have not looked to the Scriptures to train ourselves and our children in truth, but first have entrusted our children to the government who has stealthily removed God and is filling the vacuum with humanism and egotism and lies. Then we have let the media and culture bombard us as adults with so many unanswered lies we don't recognize the truth anymore.

So what to do? We must be transformed by reading God's word, the truth, and applying it to real life. It's not just an interesting story, it is to be obeyed. We must be sober and alert, deliberately fighting against the lies or we will be taken captive by them. Paul was speaking to Christians in the letter to the Colossians 2:8 when he said, "See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ." We have become complacent and not taken that warning seriously.

Now what about suits? Life happens. We can take responsibility for what comes our way and let God work His good through it rather than take revenge and punish whoever has money. Don't sue your neighbor, rather be wronged. The courts are filled with judges who have no respect for God. Why would you seek justice there? Find a wise man you trust and go to him to help resolve the matter. That's what Paul told the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians 6. Suing a city is suing your neighbor. Suing a school likewise. Discourage your friends and acquaintances from suing. Social disapproval can dissuade injurious behavior. It worked for cigarette smoking. It can work for promiscuity and all kinds of activities we have shamefully come to accept. We see how it has worked the opposite way to persuade people to accept behavior abominable to God. Christians should be using it to influence for good rather than letting it corrupt us.

The bottom line is, do we trust God? Do we believe that He is real? If we really believe that, our actions would prove it. We can expect unbelievers to take offense at everything and file suits against anyone and everyone, but what about you? What about me? If we're no different, I question whether or not we know the living God. And a lot more issues than just lawsuits are probing the reality of our faith.

Those Evil Capitalists Must Pay

2010-09-07T14:36:00.001-07:00

Steam shoots from my ears when I hear a politician say they can't afford to give money to rich people in the form of tax cuts. Excuse me! It is not the government's money to give! No one in the government has created any wealth or any valuable thing to earn money. The "rich" person has educated and trained himself, has come up with a novel idea, has worked hard and wisely, and the money he has earned through his own creativity and sweat of his brow is all his. We can discuss what is reasonable for him to help support government services but the question is, what money will we allow the government to have and what limited functions will we allow them to spend it on?

Yeah, you say, but some rich folks don't work for it, they inherited it. So what? Somebody earned it, somebody worked for it, and if they were wise enough to save and invest in business ventures that continue to earn money what is that to you? If they leave it to provide for their children and grandchildren, why should you care? It is envy, pure and simple.

The love of money is the root of all sorts of evil, and envy is one. Christians fall for it as easily as those who don't know God. I hear all the time the phrases "Big Oil" or "Big Corporations" spoken with venom. I even get caught in that web myself if I'm not careful. We bite and devour one another because we do not have what we want. We let politicians deliberately poke our envy and stir it up without thinking. They make assumptive statements by referring to Wall Street's greed and we buy it, hook, line, and sinker.

What is going on? We are trying to use the oppressive government to control the lives of people we don't approve of. How dare they be blessed and enjoy it! If they are rich, they must have come by it dishonestly, on the backs of the poor. Stop and think about that. How can carrying on a business, paying employees what they agreed to work for, and earning a profit by selling to people who willingly buy it, hurt the poor? It doesn't. How can investing earned money into a business or stock or whatever take away from the poor?

Money gained dishonestly is a bad thing, and government has the authority to enforce contracts and make sure there is no cheating or theft. But there is no authority to redistribute wealth from those who work for it to those who won't. We all have equal opportunity but those who squander it must realize the consequences.

Our government has gone rogue. Members of the Congress in either party, the President and his minions, unelected bureaucrats, all believe tax revenue belongs to them. They expose themselves when they use terms like "giving money" when debating tax cuts. This November we must elect politicians who understand government's role is limited to the duties listed in the Constitution and that we hold the purse strings on them. If we don't, the government of the people, by the people, and for the people will soon perish from this earth.

Your Inner Wolf

2010-07-23T19:59:00.000-07:00

This tale came from a book called How Evil Works by David Kupelian. He got it from a "Scout Master Minute" by the Boy Scouts of America and I thought it was worth sharing.

An old Cherokee chief, speaking to his grandson, said:

"A fight is going on inside me. It is a terrible battle--between two wolves. One wolf represents fear, anger, pride, envy, lust greed, arrogance, self-pity, resentment, lies, cruelty.

"The other wolf stands for honesty, kindness, hope, sharing, serenity, humility, friendship, generosity, truth, compassion, and faith.

"This same fight is going on inside you, and inside every other person, too," he added.

The grandson reflected on these words for a minute and then asked his grandfather, "Which wolf will win?"

The old chief simply replied, "The one you feed."

Profiling Whites?

2010-07-05T21:15:00.000-07:00

So we were driving to the next town the other night to pick up a friend. We just pulled out of our driveway and headed to the corner stoplight to turn left, when my husband looked in the rear view mirror.

"Watch," he says. "This cop is going to pull us over because my left brake light and turn signal is out."

Sure enough, as we turned the corner the red lights flashed and soon the California Highway Patrolman was ambling up to the driver's window. I pulled the registration out of the glove compartment as my sweetheart dug in his back pocket.

"Well, well, well......(looks at driver's license).......Bruce. Have you had anything to drink this evening?"

"No, sir."

"No? Where you headed this evening?"

We exchange glances wondering what that has to do with anything.
"We're headed to Visalia to pick up a friend."

"A friend, huh?" Long pause. "You were sure having trouble back there deciding when to turn, weren't you?"

Huh? We both looked completely blank.

"You took about twenty seconds after the green arrow."

Another mutual glance, a little longer and more pointedly flabbergasted. I would have noticed if he hadn't turned when the light turned green.

Another long pause as my husband considered how to answer and still maintain a respectful attitude. Finally he shook his head with a grimace and flatly declared, "No...I turned at an appropriate amount of time."

The cop looked at us both, wrote a little note on his pad, handed Bruce his license and registration, said, "Be careful," and walked back to his car. What in the world?

Then we had to take off right in front of him without turning on our left turn signal again. He followed us until we reached the next stop light, about 5 miles down the road, which of course turned red. The missing left brake light announced itself again. We continued another 2 or 3 miles and he finally pulled a uturn and went back to harass someone else.

This is the best and the brightest of California?

We fixed the light today.

Oh Where, Oh Where Have Your Principles Gone?

2010-06-18T11:21:00.000-07:00

In my last post I suggested that if the Republicans don't know what they stand for yet, we're all in trouble. Well, guess what? Trouble is here.

I'll start by laying out what a Republican by definition should believe. They portray themselves as conservatives, which means preserving the Constitution and that form of government our Founders instigated. So they should believe in limited federal government and maximum freedom for private individuals. They should be on the alert against the natural course which expands government, especially in this administration which makes no bones about wanting to infiltrate every area of life. And yet, when one Congressman opines that the government is trying to seize on unfortunate circumstances to intimidate and "shakedown" a private corporation (which is made up of free citizens of the U.S.), he is chastised and denounced to the point of removing him from his top position on the Energy and Commerce Committee. These are the leaders who profess conservative values! No matter that the government is doing exactly that, we must never say it! These guys can sure talk big on television but evidently can't make practical application to real life.

But worse than that, when Rep. Joe Barton was confronted with such hysterical opposition, he faltered and apologized for his terminology. Even when somebody instinctively knows the right thing to do he can't take the heat. This typical behavior is why Republicans aren't gaining traction as they should considering current mood of the electorate.

I don't know who is at fault for the BP crisis, but I do know the Obama administration and both parties in Congress are stumbling over each other to abuse their power and see who can come out shining heroes to their constituents. Most of them have no principles but schmoozing the public and are not worthy of reelection. We need to work a little harder at making them understand or just change them out.

If anyone were actually concerned about the people and their way of living along the Gulf, we would see more cooperation and actual clean up and less putting BP on public trial. Needed effort and resources are wasted on theater rather than solving the problem.

God's Opinion Poll

2010-06-16T17:04:00.000-07:00

Do you ever get those surveys from your political party headquarters imploring you for your opinion on the issues? The questions are phrased in such a way that you know the answer they are looking for. As Cal Thomas said of the new America Speaks Out website, if Republicans don't know what to stand for by now, we're all in trouble. McCain kept sending me questionnaires when he was running for President and I ignored the multiple choice answers, writing out my opinions in no uncertain terms. I wonder if he or his staff ever read them. You know they are only interested in the final question: "How much money can you send us?" Since I never did my responses probably hit the circular file. They don't really want our opinions; they just want us to think we can make a difference. It keeps us mollified and loyal to them.

Life is kind of like that, though, isn't it? Whether you're on a church board, committee, in a personal conversation, or even writing a blog, we're all out to give our opinions without listening much to the other guy. And nobody especially wants to hear our opinions unless we concur with their own. You've watched the cable news when two opposing sides duke it out. Have you ever heard one of them say, "Wow! You make a lot of sense. I'm going to reconsider that."? I love to argue, but not so I will change my mind, only to persuade you to change yours!

We even treat God that way, the One who has complete knowledge of everything, but we're too full of what we have to say we can't hear it. We want our attitudes and behavior to be justified so we presume to tell God what we want Him to do. We're not willing to examine ourselves and change our minds to please Him. Is He telling us how to serve Him, or are we telling Him?

"Guard your steps as you go to the house of God and draw near to listen rather than to offer the sacrifice of fools; for they do not know they are doing evil. Do not be hasty in word or impulsive thought to bring up a matter in the presence of God. For God is in heaven and you are on the earth; therefore let your words be few. For the dream comes through much effort and the voice of a fool through many words." ....Ecclesiastes 5:1-3

Spiritual Food For Eating

2010-06-13T20:56:00.000-07:00

Wow! That was a great sermon! What are we having for lunch?

Have you ever marveled at what life-changing words God gives us through His servants? Not only do I appreciate challenging sermons, but I love to read great books by great authors. To have the insight of saints through the ages available to us is mind boggling. Deep thinkers like Richard Foster, Dallas Willard, and John Piper have inspired me personally and enhanced my walk with the Lord. Beth Moore has also touched me and changed my perspective on prayer and God Himself. But they are the exception. God speaks just as surely through every sermon preached if I am willing to listen. Every Sunday is a new opportunity to renounce my past failures and reach for the prize ahead. Not only that, but every day reading Scripture alone with God is opportunity for it to sit in judgment on my character and conduct. How often do I take seriously the words I hear, enough to change deeply ingrained behavior?

"But prove yourselves doers of the word, and not merely hearers who delude themselves. For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks at his natural face in a mirror; for once has has looked at himself and gone away, he has immediately forgotten what kind of a person he was. But one who looks intently at the perfect law, the law of liberty, and abides by it, not having become a forgetful hearer but an effectual doer, this man will be blessed in what he does." James 1:22-25

Thank You, Lord, for Your mercy and grace. Help us respond with joyful obedience, doing Your word.

Stop the Presses! Change your Vote for Sheriff!

2010-06-08T08:07:00.000-07:00

On my original post I said I would vote for Bill Wittman unless I heard something to change my mind. Well, I heard something.

A good friend of mine has been helping the homeless in Visalia and had some run ins with the Tulare County Sheriff. Along the St. John's riverbed a bunch of parolees and other homeless people were living in tents. Because of some of the parole laws, including they can't sleep within a small distance from a school ( I can't remember how far, but it is almost impossible to do in a city limit) they were staying there. The sheriff, Bill Wittman, gave them a short ultimatum to get out with no help as to where they could go. My friend tried to help them find places and asked for more time for some couples who were having difficulty finding a place. Wittman said he would give them time but he didn't. It was his plan to clear them all out and he didn't care where they went as long as they weren't in his jurisdiction. I know at least one of the men ended up back in jail because he had no place to stay that was not illegal for him. Several of them are at the men's mission here in Tulare and are really trying to straighten up their lives. The sheriff's disregard for their situation and his lack of keeping his word has changed my mind to vote instead for John Zapalac.

Need Joy? Count Your Blessings

2010-06-03T04:41:00.000-07:00

The second fruit of the Spirit; do you have it? Some days life weighs us down and keeps us from remembering all that God has given us: every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places. Still feeling let down by life? Let's count them.

1. God chose us in Him before the foundation of the world. He chose us. God chose us. He chose us before He even created the sun, moon and stars. He chose you personally.

2. We are holy and blameless before Him. Think about your attitudes and actions last week. Yet we are holy and blameless before God.

3. God predestined us to adoptions as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself. We are sons of God. (Yes, daughters, too, all you feminists out there who insist writers use awkward and superfluous words when the English language always included the feminine with the masculine!) He adopted us in when He already had a perfectly good Son...literally.

4. He freely, lavishly bestowed His grace on us in the Beloved Jesus Christ. Think about what Jesus did in order for that grace to be made available to us. He did it without reservation.

5. We have redemption through Jesus' blood. Redemption, meaning He regained by paying a huge price for what we stole from Him by rebelling against His perfect love.

6. We have forgiveness of our trespasses by grace. Our sins are as far from us as the east is from the west. You may remember them as clearly as day, but God has forgotten them.

7. God made known to us the mystery of His will, hidden from the ages and even from the angels--that the Gentiles, that's you and me unless you are Jewish, who were without God and without hope in the world, are now fellow heirs with Christ. Can you imagine being without God, without hope? Some people still are because they don't understand or actually refuse His grace. But now we are on the same standing as Christ because He sacrificed His own body so we could be.

8. We have an inheritance, that we would be to the praise of God's glory. How rich is an inheritance from the King of kings and Lord of Lords? Way better than from Bill Gates, or the king of Saudi Arabia!

9. We are sealed in God with the Holy Spirit as a pledge of what is to come. We are cemented in, baby! There is nothing that can pry us loose from God's love and promises.

10. We will be redeemed as God's own possession. Look forward to that blessed day when we meet our Lord. What joy will be ours forever and ever. Come Lord Jesus!

June 8 California Primary Summary Ballot

2010-05-31T15:41:00.000-07:00

Please read the posts leading up to my summary if you want explanations for each candidate and issue and you haven't already. You can also examine the conservative principles by which I am guided.

Governor: Steve Poizner or Ken Miller
Lieutenant Governor: Sam Aanestad
Secretary of State: Damon Dunn
Controller: David Evans
Treasurer: Mimi Walters (unopposed)
Attorney General: John Eastman
Insurance Commissioner: Mike Villines (plug your nose!)
State Board of Equalization, District 2: Alan Nakanishi
U.S. Senator: Chuck DeVore
U.S. Representative District 21: Devin Nunes (unopposed)
State Senator, District 18: Jean Fuller (unopposed)
State Assembly, District34: Connie Conway (unopposed)
State Superintendent of Public Instruction: Henry Williams, Jr.
County Superintendent of Schools: Jim Vidak (unopposed)
County Clerk: Roland P. Hill
Auditor-controller/Treasurer-Tax Collector: Rita A. Woodard (unopposed)
District Attorney: Write in or leave blank
Sheriff-Coroner: Bill Wittman

Proposition 13: Yes
Proposition 14: NO
Proposition 15: NO
Proposition 16: Yes
Proposition 17: Yes

Hold on to Your Teenage Sons: Tulare County District Attorney

2010-05-31T14:58:00.000-07:00

I don't know who the Democrat is who will run against Phillip J. Cline for Tulare County DA, I hope there is one, because I will be looking him over come November. Or it has suddenly occurred to me that this might be his election since it's a nonpartisan office. Does anybody out there know?

I don't want to dredge up a lot of muck that doesn't need revisiting, but last time Cline was up for reelection I wrote a letter to the editor concerning the power of the district attorney and how dangerous it can be in the wrong hands. His opponent at the time, Stephen Giradot complained how Cline used politics and concerns over his own image to decide whether to push for or drop prosecutions. He was not concerned with truth, but just putting another conviction under his belt. I saw personally what lengths his office would go to prosecute a young man unjustly. Cline through his secretary, refused to make an appointment to see me. Evidently he thinks he should be inaccessible to the public. If you want criminals prosecuted thoroughly, he may be the man, but if an innocent party stands accused before him and the office he directs, get a good lawyer!

Put 'Em up or I'll Shoot! Tulare County Sheriff

2010-05-31T14:26:00.000-07:00

I love the Valley Voice newspaper. It is so much more informative about news you should know in and around Tulare than the Advance Register. You have to scroll down to the bottom to see it, but there is a nice article comparing Bill Wittman and John Zapalac, both candidates for Tulare County Sheriff.

Bill Wittman, of course, is the incumbent who has been there for years. I'm sure there's a good ol' boy network surrounding him, he just looks like that kind of guy. But that is not a fair determinant of his value as sheriff. We've needed the sheriff a time or two out in the country where we live and our experiences have been fine. He's a home-grown graduate of Tulare Union High School and was active for years with the Visalia police. (Thankfully, not the Tulare police!) He has dealt with all the budget cuts and still managed to keep services level according to the Visalia Times Delta.

Zapalac says it is time for a change and the crime and gang problem is growing worse. I'm not sure you can lay more crime and gangs at the feet of the sheriff. His job is to catch them and jail them. But as police chief of Woodlake for 14 years he has been innovative and has improved the situation there. It's a very small force compared to the county's 550 officers, though. Both office-seekers are firm second amendment proponents and will continue to issue concealed carry permits to applicants with clean records.

I think I'll stick with Wittman unless I hear something to change my mind.

(I did hear something and I did change my mind! See my latest post, Stop the Presses!)

Property Tax Too High? Check with the County Assessor

2010-05-31T13:58:00.000-07:00

Roland P. Hill and Ron Medlock are competing for the county assessor/clerk-recorder position. Hill has been the assistant for five years and is endorsed by the retiring Gregory Hardcastle. An excellent friend of mine actually works in the office with both candidates and infinitely prefers working with Hill. Since public relations is an important part of the job, that should be a strong indicator. He wants to computerize the office and make it more accessible and promises to assess properties in a fair and equitable manner.

Ron Medlock sounds good on paper and neither are disparaging their predecessor or each other that I can tell. He has many of the same credentials as Hill, attending local schools and working years for the county. He was even born in Iowa! Since that's my childhood home I am tempted. But in one newspaper interview he sounds more concerned with hiring staff (which are government jobs with benefits and retirement courtesy of us taxpayers) than updating the office with computer technology that can save lots of money. I think I will stick with my conservative friend's recommendation.

Unopposed Tulare County Specific Candidates (Except District Attorney)

2010-05-31T12:53:00.000-07:00

Thankfully I can breeze through our U.S. Representative for the 21st District. Devin Nunes is running unopposed and is worthy of your vote. A staunch conservative who joined other brave Republicans in voting against Obamacare and other devious legislation, he is fighting against government-caused drought in the Central Valley. Likewise, for state senator, Jean Fuller is unopposed. She sounds great, proposing the legislature be part-time only and wanting to reduce environmental regulations.

Connie Conway is the incumbent state assembly member for the 34th District and is doing what she can in that hostile environment. She has no opposition in the primary, either. Jim Vidak has served for 20 years as our county superintendent of schools and has run unopposed the last four terms. I know nothing evil about him and he let my family home school our children in peace all those years. Rita Woodard, too, is all alone on the Republican ballot for auditor-controller/treasurer-tax collector. She has served one term already and I know nothing that would disqualify her for my vote. As for the incumbent Phil Cline running unopposed for District Attorney, I'm saving a special post just for him--wicked laugh--.

Who's Running Our School? State Superintendent of Public Instruction

2010-05-30T22:39:00.000-07:00

I'm going to simplify the office of Superintendent of Public Instruction by narrowing it down to the only two acceptable candidates. Many of them are Democrats but since it's a non partisan office you have to go over their views with a fine tooth comb to find out which ones. So much of their rhetoric is vague and ambiguous. That's why I hate non partisan ballots, because man is a political animal and can not remove his worldview from his actions in office. Let honesty prevail and at least label which party's principles fit the best.

Anyway, there are two excellent candidates, Lydia Gutierrez and Henry Williams, Jr.

Lydia Gutierrez taught in the public schools for 20 years. Some of her goals are to cut top heavy administration costs, provide vocational training as part of graduation requirements, include parents in an active role in decision making, and my favorite: restoring accuracy in our textbooks concerning the Founding Fathers, the Constitution, and U.S. sovereignty. If you've been watching the Texas controversy over textbooks and the victory of conservatives to do just that, you can understand how now would be a great time for California to catch that wave.

Henry Williams, Jr. also wants kids to be taught in the classroom and by counselors the reality of what abortion does to the child and mother. He wants creationism and intelligent design to be taught alongside evolution and let the students use critical thinking to decide which is true. The clincher for me is that he home schooled his own children for 12 years. He will be an advocate for more local and parental control, which is where it belongs.

Vote NO on Barbara Boxer: U.S. Senate

2010-05-30T22:22:00.000-07:00

Right off the bat we will eliminate Tom Campbell. I received a post card from the National Rifle Association that denounces Campbell's record on Second Amendment gun rights. I trust their judgement as they are not given to hyperbole but are honestly seeking candidates who will protect those rights. He is liberal on social issues like gay rights and abortion, as well.

Sarah Palin's endorsement of Carly Fiorina has made me look at her again and she's not bad. She has all the right views now. For example, she supported the first bailout but now opposes it. She only has had 12 months of political activity to trace and her turnabouts suggest she may not be acting on heartfelt principles.

But I really like Chuck DeVore. His blurb in the voter information guide speaks to almost every issue I'm concerned about: opposition to big government, high taxes, regulations, bailouts, stimulus, healthcare takeovers, amnesty, cap and trade, and every issue defying the Constitution. He is for drilling for America's oil, nuclear power, secure borders, rule of law, etc.
He signed the Manhattan Declaration, which is a call for Christians to adhere to the defense of the sanctity of life, traditional marriage, and religious liberty. He understands that humans take precedence over fish and he has a strict conservative track record in the California Assembly that backs up his talk. He also has an impressive array of endorsements including Mark Levine, Michelle Malkin, and others. I love Sarah Palin, but remember, she is backing John McCain, too. He's not the conservative candidate in his race, either.

Here again, you have to make a political choice. DeVore seems to be behind and a vote for him may help Tom Campbell. For me, I'm going to take the risk. He's too good of a candidate to pass up and I believe in this political climate, he could beat Boxer. Now is the time if ever!

The California IRS: Board of Equalization, District 2 (Sorry Districts 1,3,&4; You're on Your Own!)

2010-05-30T19:52:00.000-07:00

The Board of Equalization oversees the administration of tax and fee programs like sales tax, use, cigarette, tobacco, alcohol, and fuel taxes. It's the place to go to appeal California income and franchise tax cases, and it oversees the administration of property taxes. I guess in simple terms it's the state version of the IRS. What conservative would want that job?

Evidently, George Runner, Alan Nakanishi, Edward C. Streichman, and Barbara Alby do. They all have worthy goals for the board. They are all against more taxes and say they are pro small business. Of course they have to do the dirty job of collecting taxes and they want to do it more efficiently.

George Runner is the author of Jessica's law, which toughened sex predator laws. He also started Amber Alerts which rescued missing children. He claims kindred spirits with the Tea Party movement, but who doesn't these days? He did vote against the 10% extra withholding that the state decided to use to get extra money quickly. That passed with a simple majority because technically it didn't increase our tax obligation.

Alan Nakanishi wants to find missing taxes in the underground economy and improve awareness of new tax laws. Chuck DeVore has endorsed him, a favorable sign. (Chuck DeVore is the best conservative candidate for U.S. Senate for Barbara Boxer's seat, the subject of my next blog.)

Ed Streichman wants to promote honesty in the board. He wants to eliminate the top-down bureaucracy of the board, which he says 2/3 of the employees work at the headquarters rather than in the field where they belong. He wants to crack down on tax evaders. He also recommends that business people be required to take a test on tax collection before receiving a seller's permit.

Barbara Alby wants to simplify taxes and regulations. She wants to streamline compliance to the laws by making everything available online. She is the author of Megan's Law, wherein the public must be notified if sex predators move to your neighborhood. Alan Autry, the actor and former mayor of Fresno, has endorsed her.

Take your pick, here. Frankly, any one of these people would be a good choice. I'm going to let Chuck DeVore's endorsement influence me since I can't find any other reason to favor one.

Sick or Injured? Call the Insurance Commissioner

2010-05-30T17:20:00.000-07:00

California has a Department of Insurance which licenses, regulates and examines insurance companies. It also takes complaints and questions from the public, and enforces California's insurance laws and adopts regulations to implement the laws. Sounds like it comes with a little bit of power.

Two Republicans are vying for Insurance Commissioner, Mike Villines and Brian Fitzgerald.
You might remember the name Mike Villines--he was the Republican Assembly leader who joined the Democrats in voting for a $12 billion tax increase for the 2009 budget and won a "Profiles in Courage" award from Caroline Kennedy. Up until then he had been a pretty good conservative but I think he needs to pay a price for that action.

Brian Fitzgerald is an attorney who has worked with insurance enforcement and insurance defense. He only has a Facebook page and no other website and probably because he doesn't have any money, has said it shouldn't cost a lot of money to run for insurance commissioner. That could be a problem if he were nominated and needed to beat the Democrat. He also says he is ready to sue the federal government for our share of Obamacare. That doesn't sound promising to me, either. Whether we pay through federal income taxes or state, we are still paying. I would rather he would join the states that are suing to nullify the idiotic bill. (The best solution would be to eliminate the position altogether and let the insurance companies duke it out in the free market, but that is unlikely in California.)

As you can see, this is a difficult choice. I may have to plug my nose and vote for Villines because he will be better than the Democrats who are running. I don't see how anyone unwilling to spend money can beat a Democrat who is eager and able.

I'm glad God is really in control of who is in authority. He is in charge and His plan will be accomplished, even if we have a crummy insurance commissioner.

"It is He who changes the times and epochs; He removes kings and establishes kings; He gives wisdom to wise men and knowledge to men of understanding." Daniel 2:21

"The Lord nullifies the counsel of the nations; He frustrates the plans of the peoples. The counsel of the Lord stands forever, the plans of His heart from generation to generation."
Psalm 33: 10-11

"...My purpose will be established, and I will accomplish all My good pleasure...." Isaiah 46:10

Prosecutor in Chief, Attorney General

2010-05-29T20:48:00.000-07:00

I can immediately eliminate Steve Cooley who was opposed to Proposition 8, the Constitutional amendment to define marriage as only between a man and a woman. Later he supported Jerry Brown's decision as attorney general to not defend the proposition against the inevitable law suits.

That leaves Tom Harman and John Eastman. Both of them had a little problem with deceitfulness, trying to be listed on the ballot as a prosecutor and assistant attorney general respectively, when they only worked at those positions for a matter of weeks. Cooley filed suit and the judge ruled against them.

I recently got a letter from Andy Pugno, a state senator I believe, who is one of the major defenders and fund raisers for Prop 8, endorsing John Eastman. He said that Eastman has promised to vigorously defend it against the activists. That is a big plus for him. He outlines a conservative agenda: no new rights for criminals, defending landowners, small businesses, and churches from unfair zoning and regulations, protecting religious symbols in the public square, defending Boy Scouts' freedom of association, allowing businesses and groups to practice their free speech rights, supports your right to own firearms, 3 strikes and you're out, Jessica's law, and other relevant issues. I don't like that he wants the feds to pay for jailed illegals--that's our money, too. We need to deport illegal alien convicts. But overall, I think Eastman is a Tea Party style candidate.

Tom Harman is a state senator representing beachy areas in southern California. He has a lot of conservative views, but lists himself as a conservationist. I wish he would define that. I'm not against conservation, I love clean air and water like everyone else. Camping in the national forest is great fun. But we have to break the strangle hold the environmentalists have on California. Give them an inch and they'll take a million square miles. He is for swifter processing of death row convicts and claims to have voted to limit the size and scope of government while a senator so I won't be devastated if he wins, but I'm voting for Eastman.

Who's Guarding the Hen House? State Controller

2010-05-29T12:11:00.000-07:00

Do you ever wonder what in the world some of these elected officials do? Well, the controller is the state's accountant and bookkeeper of all public funds. He administers the state payroll system and unclaimed property laws. He audits state operations and sits on various boards. Sounds like a job for a CPA. There is a CPA running, David Evans, who sounds conservative. He lays out his philosophy as it will affect his job. Basically, he wants the government to live on what it has, grow smaller, and he promises to vigorously pursue waste and fraud. He believes he is the people's financial advocate.

Tony Strickland is a state senator and has been an assemblyman. In an interview with a tv station he sounds very good as well. I like that he turned down the use of a personal car that every other senator gets upon election. He is adamant about auditing every state agency, saying that the current Democrat controller promised he would and has not. Can you imagine a Democrat controller auditing all the liberal agencies in California? He is a Mitt Romney supporter if that helps you in your decision. One thing I don't like about Strickland is that he has bought into the green jobs agenda which will return our state (and country) into a Third world nation. That's a big issue with me and I will vote for David Evans. It is good to get fresh blood into government anyway.

Secretary of State

2010-05-29T11:26:00.000-07:00

This is an easy one for me. I attended the Tulare Tea Party event on April 15th and was privileged to hear Damon Dunn speak. He is a young black gentleman who grew up in a poor single parent home and became a football star. He espouses common sense conservative principles with purpose and conviction. He wants to require proof of identification in order to vote. Connie Conway and Devin Nunes both endorse him.

I looked into Orly Taitz briefly to be fair. I couldn't get on her website, it kept coming up with an error so I just googled her to find out what I could. She is one of the top lawyers suing for the release of President Obama's birth certificate. I'm not impressed with her attempts to disqualify Damon Dunn from the ballot and calling him a Democrat. If she ever listened to what he said, she would know that's not true. And she was suspiciously incorrect in her review of his history of voter registration, evidently not trying very hard to get her facts straight. I strongly recommend Damon Dunn and hope he someday seeks higher office.

Governor About Face

2010-05-29T09:30:00.001-07:00

It seems I have missed a couple of great candidates for governor, I just wonder where the Tea Party has been on these guys. Why haven't they devoted resources to promote one or both? Lawrence "Larry" Naritelli and Ken Miller, both pro life, are definite Tea Party picks with great web sites. I watched both their speeches to tea party gatherings and they are on fire to stop the relentless march toward global socialism by the federal government and environmentalists. Since I am determined to pick one I would say Ken Miller looks the best. Naritelli has building a new governor's mansion on his list of things to accomplish, and while he wants to use private donations only, that is one issue we shouldn't even be talking about right now. Ken Miller is ready to stand against the federal government and issue an executive order to turn on the water pumps and declare federal health care null and void for California. He will repeal the abusive and harmful taxes and regulations that strangle businesses here. Drilling for oil and developing nuclear plants along with solar and wind energy are all on his agenda. I hate it when two conservatives run against each other and split the vote. We have to figure this one out for next time and early enough to get the resources to the right person. There is still time if we get on the ball. Remember the Massachusetts election. Scott Brown surged over 30 points in the last couple of days. It will take giving money and spreading the word. The primary is the only chance we have to pick a true conservative, one who is completely pro life.

The Candidates, Part 2: Lieutenant Governor

2010-05-28T14:31:00.000-07:00

Only three candidates for lieutenant governor seem viable. I could find no information about Yvonne Girard, Bert Davis, and Dave Harris. Yvonne was on Facebook only and the other two just had a mailing address.

Abel Maldonado was recently confirmed to the lieutenant governorship due to John Garamendi vacating the post after election to Congress. That means Arnold picked him and the Democratic state senate approved him. He was a state senator who wants to secure the border, place a spending cap on the legislature, establish a rainy day reserve, and deport illegal felons. The NARAL Pro Choice of California organization scored him at 100 in 2009, which means he supports abortion friendly laws. To be fair, the score was not so high in previous years, but not low enough to be in his favor, either.

Scott Levitt sounds conservative on most issues. He says we have too much government and wants to cut social programs and public service employee pensions that have gotten out of control. He believes there is global warming but the cost of government action is not worth the price we must pay. He is pro life. I don't agree with him that education needs more funding or that we need to "study" illegal immigration problems.

Sam Aanestad has been endorsed by Tom McClintock, a known conservative who wants to recover conservative values in the Republican party. Sam supports pro growth policies, low taxes, limited government. He is pro life and pro 2nd Amendment. He promotes parental choice in education. Also a state senator, he has a record to back his angst for overspending government. I will be casting my vote for him this June 8.

Finally: The Candidates, Part 1: Governor of California

2010-05-28T11:36:00.000-07:00

I'm starting at the top of the ballot and working down and hope to complete my analysis by the weekend so those of you who mail in your ballots can see what I think, in case you care.

There are eight candidates for governor so to be fair I checked a few of the unknowns. Now I know why I never heard of them. It is a sad fact but it takes money, time, and commitment to run for governor and anyone unwilling to do that probably doesn't have what it takes to do the job. The battle to get elected is nothing compared to what he or she will face against the legislature.

Therefore, I will limit my scrutiny to Steve Poizner and Meg Whitman. They both sound conservative and I like qualities of each. They both want to reform the bureaucracy of hoops businesses must jump through to operate here, stop illegal immigration, reform prisons, cut taxes and spending, etc. Unfortunately, they both support a woman's right to an abortion with these differences: Meg Whitman believes it is morally imperative for the government to pay for them and Steve Poizner will work to outlaw public funding. Also, Poizner says he supports parental notification. This information was not volunteered by Meg Whitman's web site, she is mute on the issue there. I had to find it via the news media. At least Poizner is up front about his view.

Steve Poizner sounds firmer in his commitment to conservative views. His general belief that government should be limited is exemplified in his desire to restore local control to school boards and parents. He promises a showdown with the federal government if they continue to deny water to the Central Valley. California could enact laws similar to Arizona's new illegal immigration law under Poizner but Whitman opposes them. Poizner vows to repeal the newly passed ammunition law and opposes gun control. Whitman believes some gun control is necessary and says California's laws are adequate as is. Poizner outlines specific plans as to how he would enact his agenda and I believe he has the ability to engage the hostile legislature more ardently than Whitman. It will take a fighter to accomplish any conservative plan in California.

I can't forget that Arnold was full of conservative principles until he lost a battle. Then he joined the opposition rather than fight. My instincts tell me that Steve Poizner is the best choice to break us free from the death grip of liberal ideology. He will fight for us. The endorsement of Poizner by Tom McClintock, a staunch conservative, confirms my leanings.

(Since this post was published I have determined that there are more conservative candidates running. Please see the post entitled, "Governor About Face.")

Final Thoughts on California Propositions

2010-05-23T20:20:00.000-07:00

It troubles me when voters decide how to vote based on who is for or against a bill, the who being the latest victim of demonization by the media. If insurance companies sponsor a proposition, so what? That doesn't tell you what the text of the bill is designed to accomplish. The utility companies are often villains as well, along with lawyers, tobacco companies, and Wall Street. Who sponsors a bill is a definite clue to consider the bias, but a knee jerk vote for or against based on that alone can cut off your nose to spite your face. Whether a bill helps or hurts the little guy should be irrelevant.

Most people have a view about life, what's right, good, and true. Your vote should reflect your values and not the clever political ads or the arrows of hyperbole thrown against a candidate or issue. It should consider what is best for all people for all times. California is in real trouble because people often vote to promote their own welfare over what is right and fair. A recent caller to our local talk show host, Ray Appleton, told him as a die hard conservative, he would vote for Steve Poizner in the primary on June 8, but because his wife is a nurse working for the state, he will vote for Jerry Brown come November. He is afraid a Republican governor would cut the budget and she would be out of a job. Nobody wants to be on the receiving end of the cuts that must come. We have agreed to pay for more things than we ever had money for. We simply can't continue this way; something has to give.

In a previous post I espoused my conservative principles. I am committed to them because they promote truth, justice, and freedom. In advocating the conservative viewpoint, there is no need to disguise it in double speak, unlike many liberal causes promoted by Democrats today. It stands or falls on its own. Your job is to determine your own values and stick to them. Test each candidate and proposition accordingly and vote with integrity.

"Oh Lord, who may abide in Your tent? Who may dwell on Your holy hill? He who walks with integrity, and works righteousness, and speaks truth in his heart. He does not slander with his tongue, nor does evil to his neighbor, nor takes up a reproach against his friend; in whose eyes a reprobate is despised, but who honors those who fear the Lord; He swears to his own hurt and does not change; he does not put out his money at interest, nor does he take a bribe against the innocent. He who does these things will never be shaken." Psalm 15

In my next few posts, I will try to wade through all the candidates.

Proposition 17

2010-05-17T21:13:00.000-07:00

Deciding how to vote on Proposition 17 is tough. Every bone in my conservative body cries out against government interference in the insurance business. But here we are, compelled by government to buy it. I know my auto insurance company, All State, offers a discount for many things, including having been loyal customers for many years. That seems reasonable; Directv offers us occasional perks for staying with them over the years. But here's the unfairness, so say the authors of the law: a customer who wants to take that discount to a different insurance company can't. So they propose that insurers may offer discounts to new customers based on their continuous coverage from other companies. Evidently, discounts can be permitted, required, or prohibited and this one has been prohibited. Information from the official voter information guide has arguments for and against which are always filled with "Don't be fooled!" and "FACTS" which you have to read with discernment, challenging each statement carefully and considering hysterical language to promote their own biases. Since this measure would permit insurance companies to offer more, therefore giving them more freedom, I plan to vote yes. Opponents argue that it will raise rates for some people if they stop driving and start again over 90 days later, but who does that? Maybe military people but there is an exception for them in the bill. Besides, not receiving a discount is not the same as being hit with a surcharge. If it is more expensive to change insurance companies than remain with the one already giving you a discount, then don't change insurers. I hate all of this, the insurance companies should be totally free to offer whatever. The government's role should only be to enforce the contract. But that's a pipe dream only available if Californians wake up and vote out the liberals who are destroying the state.

So here's a summary of how to vote on the propostions if you trust my analysis:

Proposition 13, YES
Proposition 14, NO
Proposition 15, NO
Proposition 16, YES
Proposition 17, YES

It makes me pause that there are more yeses than nos. I don't like propositions because they usually complicate our government more. For example, the legislature's hands are tied by a proposition that mandated spending on education to a certain percentage of the budget, I think 40%. How can they reform anything that way? If they would just do their job and limit themselves to what they should be involved with we wouldn't feel compelled to go over their heads, but I'm pipe dreaming again. Vote at your own risk.

Proposition 15

2010-05-12T21:49:00.000-07:00

When I consider California propositions, my default position is to vote no. Most propositions are confusing and deceitful or a result of bad ideology. Proposition 15 fits the latter characteristic. It would repeal a ban on public funds given to state office candidates that voters put in place over 20 years ago. Taxpayer dollars have no business funding candidates. We have to get over the mindset that government should do everything for us, including run our elections. With the money would come many strings attached and much freedom lost. The proposition also sets up such a fund specifically for the Secretary of State. Evidently one of the duties of the Secretary of State is to monitor lobbyists' activities and proponents claim Prop 15 would limit corruption. Their big claim is that money spent on politics is outrageously excessive and corrupting. I hate to tell them, something as important as who has power over us deserves at least as much money as advertising for potato chips does. We need to take away government's ability to hand out money and favors to political cronies; that is what will limit corruption. I strongly recommend a no vote on Proposition 15.

The Ant and the Grasshopper

2010-05-12T17:05:00.001-07:00

I got this in an email and thought it was worth sharing.

Here is the ant and the grasshopper story

OLD VERSION

The ant works hard in the withering heat and the rain all summer long,
building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.

The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays
the summer away.

Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed.

The grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.

MORAL OF THE STORY: Be responsible for yourself!

MODERN VERSION

The ant works hard in the withering heat and the rain all summer long,
building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.

The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays
the summer away.

Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and
demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed
while he is cold and starving.

CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, and ABC show up to provide pictures of the shivering
grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a
table filled with food.

America is stunned by the sharp contrast. How can this be, that in a
country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so?

Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper and everybody
cries when they sing, 'It's Not Easy Being Green...'

ACORN stages a demonstration in front of the ant's house where the news
stations film the group singing, "We shall overcome." Then Rev..
Jeremiah Wright has the group kneel down to pray to God for the
grasshopper's sake.

President Obama condemns the ant and blames President Bush, President
Reagan, Christopher Columbus, and the Pope for the grasshopper's plight.

Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid exclaim in an interview with Larry King that
the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and both call
for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his fair share.

Finally, the EEOC drafts the Economic Equity & Anti-Grasshopper Act
retroactive to the beginning of the summer.

The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green
bugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is
confiscated by the Government Green Czar and given to the grasshopper.

The story ends as we see the grasshopper and his free-loading friends
finishing up the last bits of the ant's food while the government house
he is in, which, as you recall, just happens to be the ant's old house,
crumbles around them because the grasshopper doesn't maintain it.

The ant has disappeared in the snow, never to be seen again.

The grasshopper is found dead in a drug related incident, and the house,
now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders who terrorize the
ramshackle, once prosperous and once peaceful, neighborhood.

The entire Nation collapses bringing the rest of the free world with it.

MORAL OF THE STORY: Be careful how you vote in 2010.

Propositions 13 and 14

2010-05-10T20:39:00.000-07:00

Continuing my ambition to spell out local issues for my friends I looked carefully at Proposition 13 and 14. First of all, I am disgusted at all the lawyer language designed to discourage the lay person from tackling each issue. Half the words could be left out. I guess they want to sound intelligent and important. They do neither.

Basically, Proposition 13 fixes a few problems with the old Proposition 13 that froze property tax levels until you sell your house or make renovations that add value. Assuming it passes, if you make renovations to bring your house to code for earthquake readiness, fire sprinklers, or to accommodate a disabled person, your taxes will not be reassessed. Also, if you are 55 or older and buy a different house that is equal or lesser value you may be able to keep your base year assessment. Changing the property from one spouse to the other may also be protected. I didn't like all the references that the legislature 'may' allow this or that, but for the most part, it sounded reasonable. So far, no one has filed information to oppose the measure, that might be a good sign. So far, I think I will probably vote for it.

On the other hand, we have Proposition 14 which establishes an open primary system. I thought we went through this once already! Voters for state offices would not have to declare a party affiliation and could participate in any primary. The top two candidates would then go on to the regular election regardless of their party. This sounds ridiculously unfair without even having to read the rest of the bill. It would be possible, even probable, that two Democrats would run off at the regular election, completely excluding the Republican party or vice versa (not so probable). Unscrupulous voters could vote for an opposing party candidate to give advantage to their own. In addition, the office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction is designated a non partisan office. There is no such thing as non partisan and all that does is prevent voters from knowing the ideology of the candidates. Members of each party should have a right to select the best candidate to represent them. This proposition is so obviously unfair it should not even be considered and I definitely oppose it.

The Real Supreme Court Hearings

2010-05-10T18:53:00.000-07:00

In case you Republican leaders out there were planning to oppose Elena Kagan's nomination to the Supreme Court of the United States, time out. As a member of the Tea Party movement, therefore only speaking for myself but assuming that many are of the same mind, I have some advice for you. Lame excuses to filibuster or otherwise withhold your vote are unacceptable. I don't want to hear how she has no experience on the bench. Having a paid advisory position at Goldman Sachs is irrelevant. Stop combing through the records to find an 'aha' moment.

The one and only reason you should refuse to allow her to be confirmed is that she will not rule on Constitutional issues according to the original intent for which the Constitution was written. I know this first of all because Barak Obama nominated her. He has made candid statements saying the Constitution is ineffective and actually an obstacle to distributing the wealth and governing as he would like and has shown raw audacity in circumventing whatever roadblock the law throws in his way. He knows Kagan personally because they were together in the University of Chicago's law school. He has called her a friend. That tells me he knows everything he needs to know about how she will decide cases.

Then we can look at her record and understand her judicial philosophy. She supported and praised Stephen Breyer, one of the most extreme of the justices making law from the bench. She was a law clerk for Thurgood Marshall, another dependable liberal who sympathized with the "voiceless" over applying the law equally to both rich and poor, powerful and weak.

In her position as dean of Harvard Law School, she denied military recruiters access to the campus based on her disagreement with the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy. Free speech, anyone?

Liberals say it is a positive thing for conservatives that she supported President Bush in his quest for more executive power but I say, many past Presidents, Bush included, have seized way more power than the Constitution authorizes.

In her own words, she wants to be a voice for the "despised and disadvantaged." Despised by whom? As Rush Limbaugh pointed out on his radio program this morning, he is despised by the regime currently in power. Will that give him an advantage? Hardly. As a judge in any court, she is to be an arbiter of the law, to abide by its letter and spirit and apply it to present circumstances. She is not to change the law to fit her ideology. We have a legal process for that called Amendments. Sure they are difficult to ratify, but that's the whole point. Most people should be in agreement before the Constitution can be changed. We order our lives around the predictable rule of law and the capricious interpretation of it is tyranny.

In conclusion, you do not need to find some obscure reason to withhold support for Kagan's nomination. It time to stand and say 'no' to the misinterpretation by liberals of the Constitution's plain meaning. It is time to say 'no' to applying international law to decisions made for the United States. It is time to say 'no' to giving preference to the little guy instead of applying the law equally to all. It is time to say 'no' to a President who tries to parachute in when the law stands in the way of his agenda. That's what this Tea Party voter expects from U.S. Senators, whatever party.

CA Proposition 16

2010-05-04T13:26:00.001-07:00

Proposition 16 has received a lot of attention already. Both sides have made emotionally charged statements that make me skeptical of either of them. Big, bad PG & E (private company) gets to spend lots of money and the protagonist government agency can't spend a dime. Horror of horrors! Government entities that have the power to regulate your life are prevented from collecting money to increase their control. Hmmm...unfair? If that's true, how did opponents raise almost $50,000? Frankly, who spent what does not matter. The substance of the bill does.

PG & E says that this initiative will give voters opportunity to decide and not just some board to form a local municipal utility, aka Community Choice Aggregator (CCA). Opponents say voters already have that option, only not 2/3 as the proposition proffers, but a simple majority. The voter information guide provided by the government in its summary of the proposition belies that argument by the following statement: "A NO vote on this measure means: Local governments generally could continue to implement proposals involving the start-up or expansion of electricity service either through approval by a majority of voters or actions by governing boards. " (emphasis mine)

Based on my previously stated conservative principles, I am against publicly owned utilities. Why would the government be more expert at providing electricity and running a business than PG & E? How is this different than government-run health care? PG & E may control a lot of territory but they don't even control the entire state of California. There are other options, especially in sunny California, to secure electricity, solar power coming quickly to mind. PG & E does not have the power the government has to force you to do anything. I hear a lot of demonization of PG & E on the radio, but they are the least of our troubles in this state. They are a private company that made an investment to make a profit providing a service that customers like and are willing to pay for. We all benefit. We need to stop envying those who make money legitimately. If you want their success, emulate them, don't outlaw them or try to set up false competition. Government run agencies are not fair competion in that they do not need to make a profit and with no personal stake in the outcome, workers do not need to satisfy the customer. They can run a long time on losses and dissatisfaction, hence our imminent state bankruptcy.

Considering all this, I am prone to vote yes on Proposition 16. It is a good thing that the government would be discouraged to try to overcome the 2/3 voter requirement to establish a CCA should this measure pass. I believe private companies will do a better job.

Local Issues--Conservative Angle

2010-05-04T12:23:00.000-07:00

A while back I suggested that to begin change we need to pay attention to local government and issues. I toyed with the idea of running for office myself, but the offices I am eligible for already are held by conservatives, probably better suited than I to withstand criticism, pressure, and even downright hatred. I am a proven wimp when I held an office in my church, too easily willing to please others. I hate conflict and want everybody to love me!

However, being very opinionated (which I know my dear readers are shocked to hear), I would like to try my hand at being a resource for those not so interested in politics but desiring to vote intelligently. I am going to look at state and local candidates and propositions and weigh them against conservative and Christian principles which I will lay out here. Then I will let you know which way I plan to vote. I will welcome any comments to the contrary, because I know many issues are complicated and I don't pretend to know everything. You might even change my mind if you are persuasive enough.

Conservative principle #1

God is sovereign and His word is true. A nation (state, city) that acknowledges and honors God will be blessed.

Conservative principle #2

Government must be limited. The Constitution sets the standard. Man is depraved and cannot be trusted to do what is right. Power can and usually does corrupt him. The government consists of men and must be organized in such a way as to diffuse the power that can oppress its citizens. The Founding Fathers did an outstanding job of setting up the U.S. government to prevent it from overwhelming us. We must follow it and expect our leaders to obey it.

Conservative principle #3

Private property is a key to liberty. If we do not have a right to keep and control what we work for there is no freedom. Even if we inherit wealth, someone worked for it and should be able to direct where it goes without government interference.

Conservative principle #4

The free interchange of goods and services, aka the free market, is essential for the pursuit by citizens of their own happiness. Every restraint the government imposes must be examined carefully for its necessity and repealed whenever possible.

Conservative principle #5

With freedom comes personal responsibility. Everyone must provide for their own support and that of their family. Problems arise when individuals shirk their duties and hide from their own flesh. Churches or other charitable organizations are better equipped than government to discern true needs and act accordingly. Even they should not be burdened by those who could otherwise be helped by family.

These are not exhaustive but a point at which I will begin to analyze each proposition and candidate. I may add others along the way as they come to mind or are relevant to the question. I hope my conclusions will help you as you make up your own mind. Please keep informed and vote! The primaries are sometimes more important than the regular election.

Blackmail Lawsuits

2010-05-04T11:49:00.000-07:00

We recently were able to settle a lawsuit against us by a patient. Here's the racket: make a claim against someone, furnish no proof, but rely on the fact that legal costs will force the defendant to settle. Then pay for your wedding. We treated a hypochondriac at our office who later consulted another doctor. I don't know the motivation of the new doc, but he speculated that she had some condition and that we should never have treated her. So she sued. She undertook physical therapy, 106 visits, later inviting the therapist to her wedding. At first she wrote a nice letter to us requesting only a refund of the cost of treatment (and future treatments). She wasn't interested in a lawsuit. But when we wouldn't agree she sued. Her new doc would not stand by his earlier statements so she went to the Samsung clinic and they poked and prodded and found nothing wrong with her. Yet she had the audacity to ask for settlement anyway. Fortunately for her, she settled before our insurance company limit. Had she gone to court, she would have paid court costs and everything, but the settlement was less than what it would have cost us to let the jury decide. And you can't depend on a jury to not be swayed by sympathy for a pathetic story. They can be susceptible to the notion that since the insurance company has deep pockets, they should pay for the poor girl's bills."

We need tort reform. A person should at least have to prove to a judge that there is enough evidence to bring the suit. He should throw out such an obvious grab for money. And there should be a penalty against a lawyer who took such a case. But these lawyers are both happy; they were well paid.

News Flash: Mexicans Are Mexican

2010-04-28T20:29:00.000-07:00

When San Franciscans go hysterical you know you've hit on something very reasonable. The United States has a border problem with Mexico. Arizona is one of the several states that resides along the boundary. Mexican citizens dissatisfied enough with their own government to the degree that they are willing to move to another country are flooding across the border into the United States. The problem comes when they don't ask permission first.

When you put on a show on Broadway you want as many spectators as can come. They will prosper the drama troupe by buying tickets, encourage them by applauding their efforts, and increase the audience by referring others. There is only one problem, there are a limited number of seats and the theater can not accommodate everyone. If audience members sneak in, they cheat the honest ticketed people by taking up their space, eating their hors d'oeuvres, and using up all the toilet paper. Illegal entry into a country is a little worse than that.

Every action has consequences, and when illegal aliens come into a country undeterred they cause sudden changes in population, job availability, housing, education funding, medical care availability and costs to mention only a few. It is reasonable to limit the number who can enter at a time and the quality of person who is admitted.

Once the elected government establishes laws restricting immigration, it is sensible and necessary to enforce them. Arizona is part of the United States of America which has established such laws and therefore has a right and obligation to enforce them. The most hysterical objection is that it requires racial profiling. Hello!!! People who cross the border from Mexico are Mexicans. Do you think it is logical to stop and question the tow headed family walking down the street? Illegal Chinese are not swimming the Rio Grande to get here. This is like refusing to recognize the profile of people that commit terrorist acts against our country are young male Arab Muslims shouting, "Allah Akbar!"

Since we have many Hispanic American citizens we will have to ask them which is which. That's much better than throwing them to the ground, handcuffing them, and siezing their wallet for identification, isn't it? I just don't understand the big deal. When I get pulled over by a police officer, the first thing he asks is to see my id. Am I legally qualified to drive my car? I hand it to him. I'm sure I look like I can drive a car, but I don't threaten to sue him for doubting. It is not racist to wonder if someone is legal because they look Hispanic though the race hustlers would like you to think so. They have to stir up dissension and hatred to keep their influence relevant and the money coming in. Every Mexican I've ever known has looked Hispanic. How will you know if they are legal unless you ask? And if you won't ask, why do you bother with the laws, anyway?

Freedom!

2010-04-26T19:02:00.000-07:00

If you believe the Bible, our fortunes as a nation are tied to our treatment of God. "Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord," states the Psalmist. Proverbs 14:34 proclaims the obvious, "Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people." If God disciplined His own people and allowed them to be enslaved and oppressed for their choice to serve other gods, will He not do the same to us?

We do not honor God as a nation and there is a battle to even acknowledge His existence. Atheists and even well-meaning Christians successfully removed God and His history with our nation out of public education and filled it instead with the empty philosophies of men, men who profess to be wise but are fools. They have removed Him from the public square and intimidated us into silent submission.

Freedom is only possible for a moral and religious people. Way back when our nation was begun, the founders knew that to be true. As we see our nation turning away from God, we see our freedom slipping away as well. Laws only work when citizens willingly obey them. Contracts only work when the participants honor them. Free trade can only be successful when merchants use honest weights and measures. Justice can only be meted if jurors are unbiased and fair. Respect, obedience, honor, and honesty stem from knowledge of God, the Author and Creator of all things, and His Son, Jesus Christ. Without voluntary compliance to laws and principles stemming from that knowledge, government is forced to bear down, create more and more laws, and oppress us.

Why is our government so successful in stealing our freedom? Because husbands and wives do not keep their word and assume their responsibilities. Because citizens would rather take handouts than work for their own support. Because patients don't want to pay their own bills from the doctor, they'd rather go to Disneyland. Because it's easier and cheaper to send our children to a public school than to buck the system and educate them privately. Because we are so busy pursuing wealth and material things and we won't let anything interfere with indulging our every desire. We can be bribed with goodies to become slaves of government. We look to government to provide for us in old age and infirmity and not to God. And we have allowed a few to dictate to us how we should live out our faith by keeping it out of politics. We have not paid attention as evil has infiltrated the laws and wormed its deceit into our own attitudes.

It's time to break out of the chains we have forged and the government welded on. Speak out the Truth in the public square (you have to know it to speak it!). Teach school children about God and how His hand has thus far guided history and will continue until He comes again. Ask candidates what they believe about God and only vote for those who know Him and will seek His wisdom. If a leader is wrong about God, he is a fool and will be wrong about most everything. Support ministries that are making a difference in people's lives. Step up to the plate and accept your own responsibilities. Are you willing to do that? Am I? There may be unpleasant consequences from some of these actions. Do you want to be free? Or more importantly, do you really believe that what you believe is really real?

Common Sense Botany

2010-04-26T09:57:00.000-07:00

When I went to school, biology was required for graduation. Maybe because I home schooled my children I remember the content better than it seems some of our political friends do. The botany chapter was pretty boring compared to animal life, but I do remember something about plants needing carbon dioxide to live. And not only that, they take the carbon dioxide and through a miraculous process called photosynthesis, they expel oxygen as a waste product. Hmmm...we need oxygen to breathe and we expel carbon dioxide. Do you think there must be some kind of relationship there? The more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the better for plants. And the more plants on the earth, the more oxygen. The more oxygen, the better for us. This kind of information through public education is supposed to prevent the masses from being taken in by schemes to fleece their money and freedom like those enviro-frauds are trying to do. One more reason not to patronize government schools.

I heard a scientist interviewed recently who said carbon dioxide makes up a fraction of a percent of the total atmosphere and I confirmed that on Wikipedia, if you can trust that source. (I didn't remember that detail from school.) He also said the amount of that fraction of a percent of carbon dioxide created by human activity was a fraction of a percent. Now that's a pretty insignificant amount. Add that to the fact that God created the earth with all its symbiotic relationships specifically for man to dwell in, and you must doubt global warming and any other hysterical theory unbelievers frighten themselves with.

"Say among the nations, 'The Lord reigns; indeed the world is firmly established, it will not be moved; He will judge the peoples with equity.'
"Let the heavens be glad, and let the earth rejoice; let the sea roar and all it contains; let the field exult, and all that is in it. Then all the trees of the forest will sing for joy before the Lord, for He is coming, for He is coming to judge the earth. He will judge the world in righteousness and the peoples in His faithfulness." Psalm 96:10-13

This fallen world will not move until God is good and ready to judge it. And when He is ready, nothing we can do will stop Him.

Time to be a Daniel

2010-04-25T16:53:00.001-07:00

A judge ruling the National Day of Prayer is unConstitutional gives us a great opportunity to show solidarity. President Obama has graciously agreed to appeal the decision. Forgive my skepticism, but we'll see how aggressively that happens. And the judge allowed the nation to proceed with scheduled days until the appeals are exhausted. But if we lose this battle in the courts, we must still post signs and advertise and carry on as if the ruling didn't exist. When the king orders us not to pray to our God, we must not obey! Read the book of Daniel.

Biggest Ponzi Scheme Ever

2010-04-25T15:31:00.000-07:00

Bernie Madoff was sent to prison for tricking people to finance investments that were fake. He used the money later investors supplied to pay dividends to the original people and as long as new money kept coming in the system was safe. Participants should have been skeptical, because the rate of return was incredible, but when you're making money hand and foot, you're blind to everything else. When it all inevitably crashed, many people lost everything.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt undertook an identical operation at a time when the public was vulnerable to deceit, in the midst of a Great Depression. It is called Social Security. From the beginning it was not what FDR and his cronies sold it as. I remember my grandparents talking about it in the sixties. They had been promised they would retire rich, receiving $100 a month. Of course, in the sixties enough inflation had already occurred because of FDR's pulling the rug out of the dollar (gold standard) that they were actually poor. The inflation problem was fixed eventually (after my grandparents died), and as long as many workers supported each retiree, the program worked. People began depending on it for retirement and the fix was in. In all this time, not one penny of the taxes was saved but all that money coming in was a slush fund for whatever the politicians desired. Now, fewer and fewer workers are supporting more and more retirees. (We have bought into the notion that fewer children are better and they are not the blessings God promised, but that's the subject of another blog!)

The implications are that Social Security will not be there when you and I retire. No matter what politicians do, either the money in this Ponzi scheme will run out, unbearable taxes will consume us, or the Federal Reserve will print money to pay its debt, rendering our checks worthless. Unless they all of sudden become wise and provide a way to ease us off the federal largesse, we will be left high and dry.

So what's the answer? Give up your "right" to a Social Security check. Be prepared to work longer. We should have been doing that all along, depending on God to provide for us, not the government. Be willing to help your elderly parents. Ditto on our responsibility there. Raise your children wisely and teach them their own responsibilities instead of letting our lazy, entertainment, and materialistic culture brainwash them. Then you are more likely to have their support in your own old age. We reap what we sow. Most importantly, put your hope and trust in God, who will keep you alive in famine and deliver your soul from death.

Bueno, Arizona!

2010-04-24T17:41:00.000-07:00

Arizona has done what it must. Using legal means we must defy this irresponsible federal government. Advocates of allowing immigrants to invade our country illegally refuse to understand the problems it generates. I understand aliens may be in a sorry plight but there is a limit to the resources any country can offer and the amount of our national debt testifies that we are out of our depth.

The Federal Reserve, if it has not already, is poised to print money out of nothing in order to keep up with the staggering debt this administration has purposely run up by offering everything to everybody. In essence, it is a tax bill no one has to know about, because it is implemented by the authority of the Federal Reserve chairman and board, who are unelected and keep their actions top secret. Without our knowledge or consent, our money loses its purchasing power as more is printed, so we have less capital even before the illegal immigrant comes and depletes resources from our public schools, emergency rooms, and welfare agencies and adds to the unemployment figures by taking jobs from American citizens.

The bottom line is, neither the states nor the federal government has the money to provide for such an influx of people as those who promote amnesty would allow. The answer is to secure the border, stop benefits, and deport any that run afoul of the law. And quit foolishly granting American citizenship to babies born to immigrants who are citizens of another country. That is a gross misinterpretation of the U.S. Constitution. As we make it disadvantageous to come here, the flow will stop on its own. Where is the crowd that always says, "Well, we have to do something!"?

Any who cry, "Racist!" or "Civil rights violation!" are deliberately mischaracterizing the issue.

Wake Up, California!

2010-04-07T21:48:00.000-07:00

Wake up, California! The liberal, godless Democrat agenda has run us into the ground and it's time to pay the piper. You government employees who think your retirement is secure, think again. Like Social Security which was never real (employee contributions were never saved for retirement but spent on current retirees and whatever the spendthrift Congress desired) CalPERS is unfunded by $535 billion. Hmmm...I wonder where all your contributions went...maybe to political causes? Like the $211 million CTA spent to lobby for legislation to stop requiring public office holders to swear an oath of allegiance to the Constitution or disclaim membership in any party devoted to the overthrow of the United States or California? Union leaders are as irresponsible and corrupt as politicians. Why doesn't the rank and file stand against them?

California cannot remain solvent and continue to pay retired public employees the same salary or more than when they worked no matter how noble their profession or how risky. In one city, the teacher retirement liabilities account for 95% of the education budget. How can teachers expect that to continue? Government should divorce itself from education and let the private sector set teacher salaries and educational agenda. Unfortunately, remuneration is not based on what employees think they deserve, but only what the receiver of their services is willing and able to pay.

Firefighters, police officers, and prison officials are gaming the system to break our backs. They may not fully realize the predicament they place their fellow citizens in when they do so, but many retire at age 50, receive 95% of the compensation of their final and most lucrative year of work, and then go on to a similar job to receive additional benefits. Almost 80% of them claim some kind of disability in the last year so they will be exempt from income taxes as well. Do you really think 80% of the police force or fire fighters are disabled at the time they retire? Read the book Plunder by Steven Greenhut. It will open your eyes. We simply cannot afford such generous benefits however deserving.

Liberal ideology is breaking this state. It is a wonderful thought to lend a helping hand to the stranger in our midst or the helpless or the sick, we should all give out of our abundance, but that is not the job of the state. Individuals who see others in genuine need are obligated to help as they are able, but the state's business is to enforce the law and contracts made among citizens. It should not be in the business of charity. It should not guarantee services like food and shelter and health care which are the responsibility of individuals, families, and churches.

Wake up, California! It is time to reverse course, to timeless principles of responsibility, thrift, and hard work, of devotion to God. We need to put the truth back in our school texts and remove the lies and distortions of history. We must cut off the government and union stranglehold on education, businesses, individuals and churches. Individuals must step up to the plate and provide for themselves through their own hard work and wise investments. When anything is offered for free, there will always be a line at the door with hands outstretched. We need to think about who is paying the bill. It's not free and your fellow citizens resent your plundering the public coffers.

Change your political thinking! Reconsider your ideology and look for truth and honor. I'm not just saying vote Republican, because many of them have the same misguided notions, but change the thinking of the politicians by writing letters, contributing money to better ideas, running for office yourself, demanding they change their ways or get out. Change your own habits of living above your means and coveting everything you see. Make sure your children's education stresses truth, integrity and honor. Work as long as you can and contribute to your family's and society's well-being. Don't expect others to pay your way or take the brunt of your failures and mistakes. Wealth is not like manna from heaven to be redistributed to all equally. It is generated by individuals and private businesses who create something of value to sell by working hard and using ingenuity. If you want wealth, create it yourself, don't rob your neighbor!

Trust God and depend on Him. He has never let the righteous beg bread. There are some lessons only failure or hardship can teach and God takes them and works them for your good if you love and obey Him. Our provision is from Him and Him alone, not from a government check or handout. It's time, California, to return to God. However unbelievable, God would take us back if we did.

Where's My Chain Saw?

2010-03-19T07:07:00.000-07:00

I love trees. I want my house surrounded by them to provide shade in our long desert summers. But Tulare, California has again encroached on my right to control my property. The local paper, Tulare Voice, reports that a resident along Sycamore Street called the city about a sick street side tree but they informed him that the owner is responsible to maintain it. Okay, great. So he cut it down. No! No! You must have the city's permission to even trim a tree ten feet on either side of the street. Now he's facing a fine and so is the professional tree trimmer who did the job because, "he should have known better." Now I know where the Democratic Congress gets their lengthy bills because the paper reports the city ordinances pertaining to trees are twelve pages long! There are also trees designated as "heritage" trees and are protected even if they are in your backyard or damaging pavement or other property. A fine of up to $1000 can be levied for unauthorized removal of a tree. The tree committee turns down many such requests and for that the paper deems them faithful. Trees are given their "heritage" status by their size, their relationship to a person or event, or aesthetic qualities and owners of about twenty of those trees granted permission to the city for that designation. But beware if you own a Valley Oak! The paper listed all the known Valley Oaks, which are "heritage" trees, by their locations in Tulare and encouraged residents to report any other tree "that should be added to the list." This is just another example of nosing into our neighbor's business. If you want to control trees, buy the property. Here is another example of busy body government working for you. The sad thing is, some citizens agree with such laws unless one of them threatens their own property.

Ignoring Reality

2010-03-08T20:06:00.000-08:00

A while back I read a commentary by Walter E. Williams, a favorite of mine, in which he was fixated on the error most people were making in calling 2010 the beginning of a new decade. It reminded him of the year 2000 similarly being called the beginning of the 21st century when it actually was the last year of the 20th century. I understood his point but wondered why it was such a big deal to him. It really bothered him that when he corrected someone, they would acknowledge that he was right and continue to call it the new decade. After all, the numbers changed to look like a new decade and everyone else called it a new decade, where's the harm?

But when you stop to think about it, we continue to ignore reality, not just on little things but on big things that matter. Take health care. President Obama and the Democrats are ignoring the reality that the country doesn't want their bill passed. More than that, they ignore the fact that the Constitution doesn't authorize such action by the federal government.

The spending tsunami our government refuses to rein in defies the economic reality that the time to pay up will come. With the Federal Reserve essentially counterfeiting our money by printing as much as it needs, we will soon be needing much more of it to equal the current value.

However, the government is not the only guilty party. Citizens who took out mortgages that they knew were beyond their means but let themselves be convinced to do it anyway, were not facing reality. They wanted a home and hoped some miracle would deliver them from their foolish choices. The same is true of those who load up their credit cards to the limit and find themselves in over their heads.

But even more pressing realities exist that we don't want to believe. The public schools are influencing our kids to disrespect their parents and believe in secular ideas, some radical and revolutionary that could eventually deny us our freedom. They teach sexual attitudes that are not based in truth but give them over to promiscuity and immorality. These kids will keep these attitudes as they mature and take action on them. The reality is that in order to do something about it, we might have to give up our comfortable life of leaving the children's education to the "experts" and pursuing our own dreams of career and income, a difficult choice.

These are only examples of becoming complacent about what's happening in the world today. We need to guard our hearts and minds because of the glaring reality that Satan is still prowling around like a lion, seeking whom he may devour. Our daily walk with the Lord is vital to keep us on the right path, soaking in Scripture and meditating on the Word as our lifeline to righteous living. Only then, armed with His Spirit, can we know God and understand how His world works. But we might need to sacrifice our leisurely pursuits to do that effectively. What is stealing your time from equipping yourself to deal with reality?

Comfort in Tough Times

2010-03-08T08:27:00.000-08:00

In the very beginning of his second letter to the Corinthians, Paul discusses how his afflictions were for their comfort, that we use our troubles and God's gracious deliverance to give hope to others. It's frustrating to me that people often think that you can't empathize with their troubles unless you have gone through the same circumstance. In a sense that is true, you can't know exactly, but all troubles require trusting God for his provision or deliverance. To each individual, that comes in a variety of ways, but it does come for the believer. There are some things we can't learn unless we face trials. The Israelites were tested often in the wilderness after God rescued them from Egypt and they learned to trust God's provision. Imperfectly, I admit, and some never learned, but those focused on God, watching and waiting expectantly, were greatly blessed.

If you can call it suffering, which is a stretch, our family has faced financial uncertainty for the past two years now. I'm sure these days, more and more people are finding themselves without the security they once felt. But God has been so faithful to us, each month we have paid all our bills and sometimes the provision has come unexpectedly. He has provided temporary work at various times and shown creative ways to enjoy luxuries we might not otherwise have known.
Just yesterday we received a sizeable check in the mail refunding an overpayment to the doctor. Last year I had had an episode requiring an emergency room visit and the resulting doctor visits had added up. The clinic's billing is so confusing you can't tell what you've paid and what you still owe. But anyway, God used it to provide for us this month. Take comfort knowing that He feeds His beloved in time of famine. Experiencing it for yourself is the only way to truly believe it, but while you are going through it, watch expectantly. He who gave His only Son, how will He not also give you all things?

Government Rollback Begins at Home

2010-03-01T13:06:00.000-08:00

Anyone who has ever been involved in the building process is acutely aware we have already lost our freedom. We built our own home about fifteen years ago and had a crash course in building codes. It is reasonable to require reinforcement of concrete block walls since we live in an earthquake zone and I have no problems with codes that guarantee sound homes. However, the busy bodies can't quit there. We were required to have a fluorescent light in every bathroom and it had to be the first switch on the plate. The toilets had to be low flow; it takes three attempts to flush the waste down! The toilet has to be six feet from the wall in front of it. Who comes up with these ideas? Now our friends are in the process of building a church and the inspector is driving them crazy with precise measurement requirements. I don't understand all the engineering aspects but I know the requirements keep growing and changing and many have nothing to do with sound structure.

Of course, local government control is not limited to buildings. My father-in-law can't peddle an occasional car on his property without getting a car dealer's license. He can't rent out a warehouse for any purpose that is not agriculture related. We can't subdivide our property and allow our children to live on a parcel.

It's hard to expect the federal government to limit itself when our local government is just as intrusive, if not more. It's time to take a stand and put a stop to too much government right here in our own backyard. We need to lobby city and county officials to reduce burdens on individuals or businesses and to wean government out of our lives. Let's elect leaders willing to eschew federal money with its strings, including for our local schools. The rub is that might require a little self-denial. We like all the goodies our neighbor is taxed to provide for us.

Let the Tea Party start here!

Only Women Can Save Us

2010-02-08T09:07:00.000-08:00

Women are and have always been a powerful force. They marched for the right to vote and what man would oppose them? First, it was a reasonable idea, but more important, there is a mysterious relationship factor between the sexes that make men succumb to pressure that women apply. Men can intimidate women as well, but in our society the public role, anyway, has been reversed. No man would dare to oppose the feminist agenda that has gone far past equality and is destroying not only men, but women as well. Larry Summers lost his job at a major university because he dared suggest that women might possibly as a general rule be less talented in math and science than their male counterparts. Men understand the fury of a woman scorned if they acknowledge any difference between the sexes. They can't stand up to it and our leaders have become like hen-pecked husbands. Feminists, therefore, have become a corrupt, absolute power.

In some ways, men like the power women have. As far as their wives are concerned, a greater percentage of women are now the principal wager earner in the home. It goes back to my previous post on the love of money. Men like the greater income and the lesser responsibility. But this man-hating society of feminists is growing like a cancer. Women are pitted against men for jobs, money, and power, from adults all the way down to grade school. That's not the way God designed us, and until women who are unwittingly caught up in the feminist mindset are willing to stand against the tide and take the scorn, men will continue the trend of aspiring to lower and lower paying careers, families will continue to crumble, and the foundation of our society will give way. Unfortunately, pride in our ability to beat a man and our desire to grasp at equality with man will get in the way of obedience to God's design unless we take seriously Paul's admonition to the Philippians. "Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross." (Philippians 2:5-8, NASB)

We Can Be Bought

2010-02-06T17:32:00.000-08:00

A little self examination can uncover how attached we are to money. Of course, we need it to survive, but we have plenty to provide for our needs. It's just never enough. Traditionally, we think of rich people as undeserving money grubbers, but poor and middle class people love money just as much, they just don't have all they want. They spend their energy envying those who are successful and taking satisfaction in their failure instead of following their example of hard work and wise investing.

A union worker calling into a radio talk show illustrates my point. He doesn't like the politics of the union bosses and is uncomfortable where his dues are being spent, but the salary and benefits are much better than a non union job. Basically, he is compromising for the sake of money when he could probably live pretty well outside of the union. Unions reflect what many people believe about employers, that businesses exist to supply jobs rather than make a profit. Be thankful for the rich, they do offer jobs when they need help with their businesses as they expand and grow. They also patronize the enterprises where the less well-endowed people work.

Government money is another source of our addiction. We expect our neighbor to pay for our leisure after we turn 65. We expect him to pay for our visits to the doctor, our children's education, and anything else we can finagle. And if the government can't extort enough money from our neighbor, we are willing to rob our own children and grandchildren. Our freedom comes in a distant second to government money which always comes with strings attached.

We even expect private employers to provide retirement benefits for years. Just think about how that works. A company must make enough money to stay in business and make a profit, pay all its employees, and continue to pay for retirees who are doing nothing of value anymore. You were paid a fair wage for your work, leave it at that. Save your own money and provide for yourself or keep working. Where do we get off demanding payment for no work?

Privacy is another casualty in our quest to save some pennies. Grocery stores offer cards as incentives to reveal your shopping habits in return for discounts. We are so easily bought. It's no wonder politicians promise the moon to get elected and bring home the pork to gain loyalty. We fall for it every time, our love for money and all it provides leading the way.

We Didn't Mean Anything, But You Did!

2010-01-11T18:37:00.000-08:00

Outrageous. Racial Idiocy. Bigotry. Arrrrrrrgh! Stop the madness!!! All this eagerness to take offense at an opponent's words must stop! When we demand a person resign over something he says, especially when it is probably true, we hurt ourselves and stop conversation. This prevents our side from speaking truth as well.

First of all, Barack Obama is light brown, he does speak English well and is polite and calm as well. These characteristics did help him appear more acceptable to the public. An antagonistic angry black man who hates whites and has poor English would have a more difficult time.

Of course there's a double standard. Democrats only condemn Republicans who dare talk about Blacks. Rush Limbaugh was fired for making a similar statement about a Black quarterback. Trent Lott had to resign as Majority Leader for an innocuous comment that the left eagerly pounced on and tried to take offense over. We couldn't look at their past records, which were spotless. But Senator Robert Byrd used the 'n' word and was a grand poobah of the KKK. Oh! He is a member of the protected class. As for Harry Reid, we can tell from his past that he meant no harm. (Only don't look too closely!)

However, it could be said conservatives hold a double standard as well, who were willing to overlook such comments from their own and take them as intended, not as impugned. They are unwilling to do that for Harry Reid. There was nothing offensive in his estimation of Obama's chances to win, only to those who have chips on their shoulders. He needn't have even apologized. We would do better to defend his right to his opinions and his right to express them.

In any case, we fall into a snare that will enslave us all when we turn the unfairness back on our adversaries. It is not wise!

"Indeed there is not a righteous man on earth who continually does good and who never sins. Also, do not take seriously all words which are spoken, so that you will not hear your servant cursing you. For you also have realized that you likewise have many times cursed others." Ecclesiastes 7:20-22 (NASB)

Not that anyone's statements on either side were even close to cursing!

"But suppose instead, we devoted our time to inspiring and enabling Christians and others to be people who are not offendable and not angry and who are forgiving as a matter of course." --Dallas Willard

It Won't Be Easy!

2010-01-08T16:22:00.000-08:00

So I want to whine and complain, but we've been doing that ever since Obama was elected. Neither outrage nor words have affected the piece by piece dismantling of America's structure that guarantees individual freedom. Either information is not getting out or gaining information makes no difference. Most people don't understand the implications of government having so much power, only what benefits them short term. They don't want to think about it and maybe consequences will never come. Scarlett O'Hara's famous line, "I'll think about it tomorrow."

Now we have politicians resigning so they won't have to face their constituents. Did we win? Only to give them unhindered power for the rest of the year. That's twelve months of damage they will continue to inflict on the people of the United States of America. And even should we put the other party in power in November, what will they do but merely slow down the avalanche?

How did we get here? It has been a long historical process, filled with precedents and dependencies that will hinder escape. We need drastic, cut-off-a-limb type surgery to fix our problems, and who among the soft, public-school-educated American electorate will stand for that, much less vote for it? It will take stubborn resistance by refusal to submit to foolish unConstitutional laws. It will have to involve a lot of people willing to be jailed to make their point. It will take the tenacity of our founding fathers who risked their lives, property, and sacred honor. Frankly, I don't think we have it in us.

I think about a simple act like refusing to submit to a full body screen at an airport security station. My own loved ones would not risk the conflict. It's hard to say should the health care bill actually become law how my health care professional friends would respond, but I'm guessing they will comply with new regulations. Matters of faith may provoke a firmer response, I certainly hope so!

How long will we stand by and do nothing as the government barrels its way into cap and trade, based on a now proven fraudulent idea that the global climate is warming? The health care bill, cap and trade, treaties with other nations are all an excuse to raise taxes which the politicians will not even spend where designated and to gain power over our lives. They just want a giant slush fund to reward their donors. What do you think they will do with the tax money they raise the first four years before health care benefits kick in? I can assure you they will not secure it in a savings lock box!

It's time to disobey unConstitutional laws. It's time to impeach, recall, and raise holy hell. It's time to render the federal government powerless by refusing to take the money they don't have anyway. It's time for our governors and local governments to take control and stop being cowed by the threat of funds withdrawn. It's time for the people to step up to the plate and take responsibility for their own welfare and take care of their families. Stop looking for handouts and hitch up your bootstraps. Stop suing your neighbor when life happens to you. Stop expecting your neighbor to fund your every need. Stop expecting your employer to offer every benefit under the sun and be thankful you have a job. We have an unchecked love affair with money and possessions and I think it's a fatal attraction.

Do you see how hard it will be to turn things around? Our founding fathers had a populace that knew Jesus Christ and respected His teachings. We don't.

Grandma's Etiquette Rule#1: Don't Discuss Politics or Religion

2009-11-05T21:04:00.000-08:00

I have been booted off a friend's Facebook! Granted, it was a very remote acquaintance, a sister of a friend from high school, but I thought I was being very patient with her liberal remarks. She was voting in polls that Obama was doing a good job, she was a fan of the no gun club or some such entity, but the last straw came when she congratulated Obama for winning the Nobel Prize. I had to comment about his total lack of accomplishments and that the whole affair demeaned the previous winners, not that they were so hot either. I didn't notice at first but I finally missed seeing the latest comment and checked my friends list. She was gone! I'd been rejected! How rude! This is what liberals do who can't defend what they believe. They run and hide. I didn't think it would be off limits to express my opinion when she so often expressed hers and actually invited people to take the same poll. You'd think she would realize others might vote in opposition. But the light emanating from Obama's aura is blinding her eyes.
It's too bad. I'd love to understand the thinking of average Americans who fall for his smooth politics. Why are they so afraid of an honest discussion? Why can't we still be friends?

Facts Be D***ed!

2009-10-25T20:21:00.000-07:00

Global warming has stopped for about a decade. The New York Times admits it. When there was unusual solar activity over ten years ago, we experienced warmer temperatures. Now there is no solar activity detected by scientists and temperatures are the coolest in a decade. Imagine that! Dr. Richard Lindzen who is a foremost credentialed expert on weather just completed a 20 year study that shows measurably the global atmosphere temperatures have not changed over the years. So now all the green crowd are apologizing and withdrawing the agenda that supports taking us back to the primitive life of the 1800s, right? Wrong! They are trying to figure out how to prevent critics from believing the new 'trend.' The scientists say, "Do not look at those facts behind the curtain! They do not prove anything. We are still in danger of global warming catastrophe and even more so now that these darned facts contradict it!"

The Green agenda that hates oil and flush toilets want to take us back to an era where the dirt and filth were on the ground where we could walk in it. The reason there were epidemics that the government wants us to believe are happening again is that there was no way to stay clean. Keeping warm in winter was a struggle and life was not easy. There was no mass production to make the necessities of life more affordable. Travel was slow and uncomfortable. There was no refrigeration to keep food from spoiling or to make living in warm climates practical.

Those of you who want to ride your bikes to work, more power to you. But we don't have to live a life like that if we can hold on to the facts. There is no good reason to change our lifestyles for some do gooders who think they know what's good for us. Nor should we do it to commiserate with our Third World neighbors as Obama and his crowd evidently think. That won't help anyone except the elite know-it-alls who think they should run the world. Their ambition can be the only explanation for suppressing the evidence.

I'm a Hypocrite!

2009-10-23T21:03:00.000-07:00

Romans 12:9--"Let love be without hypocrisy."

Stop and let that soak in.

If this is the only fruit I ever work on it will take a lifetime to even remotely accomplish. How in my selfish world can I ever do it? Really, truly love someone without thought of self gain. Be actively interested in their activities and pursuits, their hopes and dreams. Ready to overlook their faults and idiosyncrasies. Ready to cheerfully drop what I am doing and lend a hand. How far I am from that state! I am all about my convenience, my loneliness, my responsibilities, my burdens, my excuses, my, my, my. I had originally included specific examples but I had to delete them because they revealed more of me than I could stand, more than I thought my reader friends could stand (or at least ever talk to me again). What God overlooks is too wonderful. His love is without hypocrisy. If you want love, look to God, because I can't do it! If you see any love in me, only God deserves the glory. I can only hope He's getting some.

Republicans Are Not Learning!

2009-10-22T11:24:00.000-07:00

This is why the Republicans lost big time last election and will continue to do so. They are Democrat lite, that is, they do whatever the Democrats do, just more gradually. The Republican leadership has endorsed for Congress some liberal wolfette hiding in Republican clothing in New York, passing over a perfectly good conservative candidate, Doug Hoffman. Seventeen House Republicans have written checks to her campaign including John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Pete Sessions, and Kevin McCarthy, according to Onenewsnow.com. This is an outrage and shows that Republicans have learned nothing about their constiutents. It is further evidence that we need to throw them all out in 2010 and start over. Everyone needs to send a contribution to Doug Hoffman for the special November 3 special election in the 23rd Congressional District in New York and defy the leaders who do not want their power challenged. We are sick and tired of being tied to losers. Only Vice President Dick Cheney has any guts to challenge the Democrats publicly and he did so today admirably, prodding President Obama to stop dithering on Afghanistan. That's the kind of leadership we're looking for! Where is it?

The Rich Young American Christian

2009-10-20T14:29:00.000-07:00

It's money. Easy money. Everyone wants it, rarely can anyone refuse it. We will do almost anything for money. We get a "special" discount card at the grocery store to get better prices. Do you want to know what's in it for the grocery store? Information. They want to know your shopping habits so they can tempt you to buy even more stuff and make more money. Or they can sell the results to another company for a juicy profit. We sign up for "free" giveaways such as new cars, vacation trips, or prizes for the privilege of listening to a presentation that is bent on selling us something. Our eyes glisten when we hear of get rich quick schemes that promise practically no work at all. State lotteries are thriving throughout the nation.

That's insignificant compared to the lengths we will go to get or save money.
Health care, Medicare, Social Security are all attached with strings to the government. You must see certain doctors, receive only approved care and there is no consistency on whether the provider is paid or not or whether the pay is fair. I know because my husband is a health care provider. Social Security was a fraud from the get go and is now taking money from struggling grandchildren to pay wealthy grandparents, in some cases. Children will deal dishonestly with elderly parents' homes in order to get the government to pay for nursing home care and avoid selling the home, saving it instead for their own inheritance. What is it about not wanting the responsibility to provide for your own?

Newspapers want tax exempt status or some kind of bailout because they are so filled with self-importance that the nation can not get along without them. Of course, now, they wouldn't mind being government censored since they already are voluntarily complying with the Obama administration's agenda, but what about if the Republicans regained control? Liberals and conservatives alike rarely look beyond the present tense.

Public education is a prime example of government tentacles controlling the stakes. Federal money is at stake for each absent child. Have you ever kept your student home from school and not called or sent a note? You'd better have a good excuse! Authorities at some schools encourage kids to come sick rather than lose that money. They even advise how to come for a time and then leave so as to qualify for the daily quota.

If you're ever prosecuted for a crime, look out. The district attorney will come at you full force with charges that bring in federal money. Our county gets federal money for each registered sex offender so if a college age boy has sex with an underage high school senior you can be sure the prosecution will do whatever he or she can to register him as a sex offender, whether the sex was consensual or not.

Christians are as bad as the world. Why are churches paralyzed from speaking out against various issues of the day? It's called tax exempt status for non profit organizations. Our pulpits are silent by order of the federal government, who can decide if they may retain that position. Have you ever broached your elder board with the possibility of relinquishing that privilege? We look at the money lost and sadly walk away like the rich young ruler, who could not bear to donate his riches to the poor. Do we trust God to provide for His own or not?

In our feminist culture, husbands' eyes light up with dollar signs when they think of the money their wives can earn if they are working instead of staying home with the children. Somehow, passing on Christian values takes a back seat to living high on the hog. We end up with competing interests instead of a submission style relationship that was made to model Christ and the Church.

We must give up our love affair with money and prioritize our lives so that the Truth comes first, above and beyond gain or loss. Like Paul, we must be content in every circumstance, whether with plenty or with none and be prepared for either. Only then can we save our country from government takeover and our freedom and integrity to obey and worship God.

Act Now to Preserve Parental Authority for Children

2009-10-20T13:39:00.000-07:00

All Is Vanity

2009-10-19T20:23:00.000-07:00

I am finding it harder and harder to blog these days. I guess I'm in an Ecclesiastes mood--all is vanity. I read wonderful blogs that I think must pierce the hardest heart and then I see the comments of untouched souls who have no intention of seeking truth. I watch the political discourse and no one listens to the other's arguments, they have all made up their minds and will not change course. Pride is the biggest stumbling block of all, but power is right up there. The abundance of bloggers overwhelms me and makes my own voice seem small and weak. Who is listening and what difference does it make? Our country is in a free fall and like the days of Noah, people are conducting business as usual. Our churches are absorbing the culture and accepting sin in their midst, no more resisting the tide that is deluging us. Only God can awaken us, He must fight the battle. In Him I place all my hope. He has promised to present the Church unblemished and He is faithful to do it, however, He has made no promises for our nation.

The Nobel Priss Prize

2009-10-09T18:06:00.000-07:00

So now, Barak Hussein Obama has joined the ranks of Nobel Peace Prize winner, along with the likes of Jimmy Carter and Al Gore. Even liberals are saying it's ridiculously premature. He wins on the promise of peace and diplomacy when he has accomplished absolutely nothing of consequence in his nine months of office. Oh, but it might be too late in three years in case his proven-to fail policies actually succeed!

Let's look at Jimmy Carter's premature award. Didn't it have something to do with Middle East peace talks? That has sure panned out, hasn't it?

And what about Al Gore? Saving the planet might get a little easier now that it has cooled off again, before any of his foolish plans have been implemented. Ever heard of the sun, you bright Nobel Prize committee people? Sometimes it gets warmer and sometimes cooler. Maybe that's why the Mars polar caps were melting at the same time the earth was experiencing a little toastiness. Did you get a little too much education there, guys? The Bible is right on when it says knowledge puffs up. It's dangerous when ignorant people believe they're smarter than everyone else!

The Nobel Peace Prize is not worth coveting. It has no prestige anymore; it's just an award for the most arrogant liberal on the planet. It's gone the way of inflation and high school diplomas. We'll have to put asterisks by these celebrities on the list of winners so as to not denigrate the worthy recipients of the past. What a joke!

So You Think God Is Immoral, Eh?

2009-10-09T10:16:00.000-07:00

I've been following Ray Comfort's blog, Atheists Central, that draws visceral atheist response. One thing about blogging that I hate is too many comments overwhelm the ability to discuss issues. But it's also very satisfying to be able to speak uninterrupted. You just have to be able to focus on what's important and refuse to chase red herrings. Anyway, I had to comment, because it is unfathomable that anyone could know anything about life and deny God. Only those who have been so persistent in their unbelief that God has given them over to their hard-heartedness can be so blind. For those who have not reached that point:

Just because you don't like God or agree with what He does, you do not disprove His existence. And if He exists, you must face Him one day, like it or not. You'd better find out who He is and what He wants from you. Merely paying attention to the world around you provides enough evidence to know Him. Anyone who considers his own body, for instance, must know that something created it. The complexity and interdependence of systems like circulatory, respiratory and digestive cry out intelligence. I don't need a doctorate in biology to figure that one out. And such scientists that atheists revere refuse to look at evidence for God to the point they deliberately choose to believe nonsense.

Take George Wald, a Nobel prize-winning biochemist who said the following in an article in the Scientific American: "Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing. I think a scientist has no choice but to approach the origin of life through a hypothesis of spontaneous generation." Did you hear that? He will believe a disproved hypothesis rather than consider there is a God!

Or Francis Crick, the codiscoverer of DNA, who told his students as they were observing a living cell through a microscope that though the cell looked designed, it was not. Talk about ignoring evidence! He also, like Richard Dawkins, subscribes to the scientific sounding theory, directed panspermia: the theory that the first living cell must have been transported to earth from some other planet outside our solar system. What is less preposterous about that than being created by a living God? Anyway, that theory just procrastinates finding the original source, it answers nothing.

Even as Paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould clung to evolution, he admitted, "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of the fossils." (Of Pandas and People) So there is no evidence, only presumption. Huh! Just like God. Evolution is a religion, not science.

Abandoning so-called science, which should actually be a search for truth wherever it leads, means coming face to face with God, an encounter that would send them (or you)to their (or your) knees, which is abhorrent to a proud, arrogant heart. You have to realize, some of these scientists invested their lives in evolution and atheism. It would be humiliating and mean a totally wasted lifetime if they were found to be wrong. Who wouldn't avoid that?

Don't let their proud hearts stop you from accepting the gift God has offered you: not just the costly payment by Himself for your failures and offenses toward Him, though that would be enough, but eternal life enjoying God's presence and favor. Follow the truth wherever it leads.

12 Questions for Today's Sheep

2009-10-07T06:24:00.000-07:00

The Bible calls people sheep. It's not really a compliment, either, because sheep go along with what everybody else does, they wander around without any purpose and pay little attention to danger. They are content as long as there is plenty of green grass to eat and the shepherd isn't mean to them. Though I don't think we can shake the term completely, we need to wise up, listen for the right voice to follow, and be willing to be uncomfortable or inconvenienced in order to do right.

So knowing our tendency, we must be diligent in following the right course. Don't just automatically do what everyone else is doing, even Christians. Some compliant actions we should question are:

1. Send your kid to school when he turns five, or even at all--Why should you turn your child over to the enemy to be trained?

2. Retire at age 65, or even at all--Be productive all your life.

3. Sue someone who wrongs you--Take responsibility for what happens to you.

4. Accept Social Security or Medicare payments from the government, especially if you have an independent income yourself--It stole the money from your neighbors and your children.

5. Vaccinate your children, or get a flu shot yourself--We have less disease today than in history because we have flush toilets, running water, clean food processing, and refrigerators.

6. Believe everything your doctor tells you--Half the time he's just guessing. You're guesses are more reliable.

7. Recycle--It costs more to process the trash than to fashion the new, and we're not running out of resources.

8. Believe only the experts should be handling your child, especially if he has special needs--You can learn what helps and apply it yourself. After all, you love him and experts are only doing a job.

9. Change all your light bulbs to compact fluorescent--They are actually more dangerous to the environment. Demand that we build more power plants. Why is France over 60% nuclear power while we haven't done anything to meet increasing demands?

10. Go green--Global warming hysteria is a hoax politicians use to gain power and energy companies use to make money.

11. Buy locally--Make producers compete for your dollar. It makes for better product and service. Why shouldn't you reward the person or company that can do it for less?

12. Believe the earth is billions of years old--There are plenty of PHD scientists who say otherwise, and what you believe affects your view of God and life in general.

Question everything. Know why you do what you do and not just because you're third grade teacher or your favorite politician encouraged it. Do a little investigation yourself on both sides of each issue. Don't just go with the flow.

Blind, Deaf, and Dumb

2009-10-06T20:54:00.000-07:00

How funny it is we are often blind to our own failings. Many of us have a false sense of our talent and abilities. My father, an 86-year-old man with his heart functioning at 10% or less, who can barely hobble around the house with the aid of a walker, thinks he can still get the big extension ladder off its hanger in the garage, set it up against the house, and climb up to clean out the gutters. No amount of reminding him of his infirmity can dissuade him. Fortunately, my mom has kept him from having to learn the hard way that he overestimates his strength and stamina, so his braggadocio is mostly entertaining.

However, it's not just a matter of age and denial of the passing of former talents. Look at American Idol, which I won't be doing anymore now that Ellen Degenerate sits on the judges' panel. If my friends let me think I could sing when in actuality I sounded like one of those tone deaf warblers who stormed off in tears spouting epithets, then I have no friends. It makes me downright insecure about all my own endeavors! It also explains how atheists can continue in unbelief and even Christians caught in the mire of immorality, pornography, homosexuality, or other entanglements stubbornly deny wrong doing. We believe what we want and refuse to examine our lives in the light of God's word.

The Bible tells us to not be wise in our own estimation but to think of ourselves with sound judgment. How can we do that unless we spend time comparing ourselves to God's standard by meditating on His word and by, as Dallas Willard put it, "Letting it sit in judgment on our conduct and character?" So turn off the television, and yes, even the computer and spend some time with God. Let Him be your entertainment this evening. And take what He tells you to heart.

Is the Bible True for You and Not for Me?

2009-10-05T21:53:00.000-07:00

A homosexual recently asked rhetorically why passages of the Bible concerning homosexuals are to be taken literally but those concerning women are explained away by cultural norms of the day. Unfortunately, he used the question as an 'aha' moment to justify his own 'contextualizing' of passages clearly condemning men who "abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error." (Romans 1:27)

First of all, no passage about women declares or implies that women who speak in church will not inherit the kingdom of God or that they are worthy of death as Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 6:9 clearly say about homosexuals. Paul was counseling Timothy on how to lead his church and what roles women and men should play. However, I am not saying that the church today should not listen to Paul's advice about women because he clearly reasoned with universal principles, not just ancient cultural practice. In 1 Timothy 2:11-15 Paul says, "A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint."

Paul is concerned that woman are more easily deceived than men, maybe because as a rule they are governed more by emotion than sound doctrine, proven by Eve being the one to be deceived during the fall. He may be right. Also, men were created first and women were created to be man's helpmate and companion, not competitor. But few men dare to say that because half the population would be outraged. Women in the church have fallen for the world's view that to submit to their husbands and listen to that passage of the Bible is to be demeaned. They think in practice it implies that men are superior creatures. They are unwilling to play the servant role that God intended for them and demand to have equal rights and responsibilities. They don't understand that playing the role God designed for them does not diminish their talents and abilities, nor their value or contribution to society. Instead they set out to prove that whatever men can do, women can do better. I love how Del Tackett of The Truth Project teaches about submission. He describes Jesus' role in the Trinity and asks if Jesus thinks submission is a demeaning thing or a beautiful thing. Christian women should emulate Jesus.

Now that I have established that Bible scholars should indeed scrutinize the passages about women with a more credulous eye, I will return to homosexuality. The Bible is so clear on that subject that honest homosexuals claiming to know Christ admit they must reach for context approbating their desires. So intent are they on justifying their ' love' that they will not listen to Scripture quoted. So all I will ask is this: If you were to become convinced that God actually hates homosexuality, even a loving, committed relationship, would you then give it up?

Big Greedy Capitalist Christians

2009-10-03T18:06:00.000-07:00

Americans are obsessed with consumerism. I can't deny it. And Obama's America seems to be the answer, doesn't it? Equally distribute income to all citizens; provide health care, food, clothing to all who are too poor to provide for themselves. It sounds so Christian, so loving. Capitalism is nothing but a bunch of greedy people grubbing around and stealing from innocent, hard working laborers. Freedom is a luxury we can't handle so it seems. Better that the angelic Obama control our assets and options, he knows best.

Well, the problem with Americans is in their hearts, not their pocketbooks. They can be forced by socialistic programs to share with their neighbors, but that doesn't deal with the greedy heart. And the citizens who vote to have themselves paid by the wealthy have the same greedy heart. You can be poor as a churchmouse but be as greedy as Scrooge. Having money or earning it is not the issue, it is the value you place on it and the priorities you establish as you pursue it. Somehow, I don't believe Obama's motives are any purer than yours and mine.

Capitalism or socialism, we still all have the same wickedness. It is not the style of government that saves us, and unarguably, Obamacare is socialism.

Freedom, which socialism precludes, is necessary to expose our evil hearts. We all choose evil when given the opportunity. I begin to think that's why God gave us free will from the beginning. If He had chosen to enslave us, we would have no hope, the evil would be trapped in us. Our hearts would rebel silently instead of openly. We might not realize our wickedness nor have opportunity to be saved. The decadent society that arises from the dark side of freedom is like a machine gun in a church service. It proves who is real. It tests the commitment of believers. It develops perseverance which proves character.

But freedom is also necessary to choose and practice good. When we admit our failure to be virtuous and fall on our knees before Jesus Christ, our only hope, then we can choose to do right and testify to the world what God can do through changed hearts.

So should the Christian choose capitalism or socialism? If he wants to prove his heart, he should do voluntarily what is right and let God lead his neighbor without interfering, only proclaiming truth. God wants only volunteers. Though the Bible speaks of the difficulty of the rich man to enter heaven, He also chooses to bless and prosper whomever He chooses, one being a diligent hand. When the government steps in and saves the poor, it often hides God's discipline that would lead to salvation, not listening for God's inspiration like individuals can and do. Socialism oversteps government's authority and should be rejected.

But I Repeat Myself

2009-09-17T15:39:00.000-07:00

Dear Senator Boxer:

I recently wrote about my concerns with the czars appointed by President Obama, including Van Jones, Mark Lloyd, and John Holdren. I used them as examples to underscore the radical nature of their views, many of which were not vetted by the Senate as the Constitution requires. I could include Cass Sunstein as well, but my arguments were in no way limited to one czar. Your response to me was that Van Jones had resigned and to you that seemed to end the matter. It does not. I ask you to take your responsibility seriously to advise and give consent to the President with regard to the people he chooses to wield the power of the government. Please investigate their backgrounds and beliefs and stop rubber stamping everything this President does. He is running circles around the Congress and Senate while you stand by.

I will repeat my questions: What part of the budget pays their salaries? What kind of security clearance do they enjoy? Did you know that the science czar, or advisor, or whatever his title, John Holdren, has chilling views about forced sterilization and abortion, saying that the Constitution would allow it if it were deemed necessary? Mark Lloyd, the FCC diversity officer, celebrated Hugo Chavez’s muzzling of the Venezuelan media and believes no air waves should be controlled by private entities. Do you agree with this radical denial of plain Constitutional language concerning free speech? Why would a President appoint advisors with these extreme views unless he shares them? Where are the Democrats who think for themselves and dare to challenge the President? Do you think liberty is unassailable and can’t be destroyed? Or do you agree with Nancy Pelosi who says safety must balance free speech? Do you trust President Obama and his advisors so blindly? Are you afraid to challenge them because they are black?

Please reply to the substance of my letter. Thank you.

Racism: The Cloak that Hides the True Agenda

2009-09-16T15:39:00.000-07:00

Racism--the notion that one's own ethnic stock is superior. (Webster's II New College Dictionary, copyright 2001)

I think race hustlers have added hatred as an implied part of that definition. In fact, we can't even rationally discuss race without inflaming passions. How is calling someone who is not telling the truth a liar, racist? Former President Jimmy Carter has injected that poisonous word into the discussion because he doesn't want Americans examining the health care proposal, he wants them to focus on its critics instead.

I am sick and tired of hearing the accusations of racism fly about the political arena with such carelessness. People have lost careers over the baseless charge. Show me the proof of it. My grandfather lived in Oklahoma and I remember visiting them one summer. A black man that my grandfather knew came to talk to him and instead of inviting him in the house, they sat on the porch to discuss their business. That could fairly be called racist, especially if in a similar situation he would invite a white person in. It was ironic that the Oklahoma football team had the first black quarterback, because my grandfather, who said once in my hearing that blacks were not smart enough to be quarterbacks (now that's racism), was a rabid fan of that team. His attitude was definitely wrong, but even then he expressed no hatred. He really believed it. My parents and others of their generation, due to societal pressure, raised their children to respect people of all races and nationalities. And I think they have succeeded in that regard.

What Mr. Wilson shouted during President Obama's speech to the joint session of Congress may have been rude, but it had nothing to do with racism. They call him racist because they can't call him a liar! What Obama's critics have against him are his ideas, his actions, and his radical agenda for this nation which, if given free rein, will destroy the freedom we now enjoy and make us slaves to the government (to which we are already indentured servants!). If the President tried to deceive the nation about his agenda in order to pass it, his is the greater sin.

Dear Boys and Girls

2009-08-31T12:40:00.000-07:00

Political revolutions don't happen overnight. You might think the sixties era was the turning point in American culture, but if you study history, you know it started further back than that, when ideological leaders took over instititutions like Harvard Law School and promoted ideas by Charles Darwin and others. Little by little, step by step, people accepted changes that they had no idea would affect them so radically. In some cases, politicians promised that feared results would not happen, notably the immigration reform done by Democrats in the sixties. Can we learn that just because politicians make promises and scoff at fearmongers, they can be dead wrong (and probably are)? Will it affect decisions we make in the present and promote fearless resoluteness in defending them?

I recently ran across a test for children in one of the local school districts copyrighted in 1998 and still in use. It is a booklet entitled, Dear Boys and Girls, with chapters and questions to assess comprehension and other skills. It is administered orally. The child reads a story about a class project some school children are involved with and how they interact with the school principal via letters and his visits to their classroom. Their project was studying the hole in the ozone layer. Now we haven't heard much about that hole lately, which several years ago was the terror of hysterical global warming adherents. That's because it wasn't a hole, merely a thinning of the ozone layer which thickened back up in a cycle that probably existed from the beginning of time. Now the kids in the story made a poster depicting the hole quite large near the inhabited continents when, in fact, it was over Antarctica. They also role played what would happen if the hole got bigger; they poured out fake ashes, spread dead plants and dry grass all over the room, and painted themselves as "toasted" by the sun's rays to understand that they needed to take care of the planet and not let that hole get bigger. This is just insidious propaganda to pump fear into children's minds and influence them to latch on to environmentalist wacko solutions.

You might say they're just children and this is a harmless story on an insignificant test. C.S. Lewis, in his book The Abolition of Man puts that assertion to rest. He tells us that the very power of text book writers, "depends on the fact that they are dealing with a boy: a boy who thinks he is 'doing' his 'English prep' [or a reading comprehension test] and has no notion that ethics, theology, and politics are all at stake. It is not a theory they put into his mind, but an assumption, which ten years hence, its origin forgotten and its presence unconscious, will condition him to take one side in a controversy which he has never recognized as a controversy at all." This is what the public schools do to children, and I would say text book writers do it quite deliberately. The teacher makes little difference unless he or she knows the controversy and is honest enough to discuss it. But which teacher has time when they have to test the whole class individually and orally? Only a very politically savvy one. Unfortunately, many of those would be glad to indoctrinate the child to the lies.

Rational people need to take control of public schools or they need to get their students out. This is just one example. I've written before how teachers, looking to teach about the rain forest, find free information readily from eco-web sites. How do you think that information is slanted? But it is easy access and teacher ready. Environmentalism is the new way to sieze control of American liberty. We see it in the global warming hysteria (which has not lessened even as warming has observably stopped) and the ensuing cap and tax bill even now being considered in Congress. Truth and the Constitution mean nothing to them except to manipulate the words beyond recognition by the founders to promote their agenda. They want to coerce citizens to behave as the elites think they should, and they will start as young as they can get.