One hundred fifty years ago today at 4:30 a.m. Lt. Henry Farley fired a 10-inch mortar round from Ft. Johnson on the south side of Charleston Harbor, South Carolina. The shell arched high over Ft. Sumpter and exploded directly above the Union troops in the fort. From across the harbor, Edmund Ruffin, an irascible, ardent secessionist from Virginia, fired the first shot directly at the fort, a 64-pound shell, from the Iron Battery at Cummings Point. The American Civil War was on.
Major Robert Anderson, in command of the fort, waited for daylight to return fire, partly because having been under siege since December, his supplies and ammunition were low. Although the fort had 60 guns, more than their Confederate attackers had available, only a few were actually manned and used. In the next 34 hours, 3,000 rounds hit the fort, fires broke out and smoke was so thick the defenders could scarcely breathe. When the flagpole was knocked down at 1 p.m. on the 13th, Anderson finally asked for terms.
The battle ended with no casualties. Major Anderson upon surrender asked to be able to fire a 100-gun salute to honor the American flag. During the salute a spark set off a pile of cartridges and the explosion killed Private Daniel Hough instantly. Several others were injured and one, Private Edward Gallway, died a few days later, the first two of what would become over 620,000 within four years.
The Civil War, along with the American Revolution are the two most defining moments in American history. The Revolution gave us a country, but the Civil War determined what kind of country it would be.
The Revolution united thirteen colonies under one Constitution in a government ruled by the people, an experiment in freedom that was unprecedented in world history. A Bill of Rights guaranteed not only the rights of free citizens, but in the Tenth Amendment, the rights of the individual States to rule themselves in any area not specifically covered by the Constitution. From this came the Doctrine of Nullification, the right of the States to overturn any law the Federal government passed that infringed upon the Tenth Amendment rights of the States.
The issue of nullification usually reared its head in the debate over slavery, and the rights of the Southern States to continue the slave trade. By 1860 the issue had grown to include the right of secession from the Union. When South Carolina fired on Ft. Sumpter they very clearly expressed their intention of going to war in order to secede.
What followed was the greatest war in terms of loss of life that the United States has ever fought. It was a war shocking in the level of violence and hatred that ofttimes brothers, cousins, and even fathers and sons hurled at each other. While 20th century wars with machine guns, tanks, and airplanes would kill many times the numbers of the Civil War, most of the deaths in those later wars came from a distance; artillery shells or bombs accounted for 90% of combat deaths in World War II. In the Civil War, 90% of the deaths were from rifles, small arms, bayonets and hand-to-hand combat. For sheer, wanton destruction, the Civil War was the most violent war America ever fought.
The end result, however, was that the right of secession was denied. The United States would remain one nation. The healing of the rift would be slow, and the recognition of equal rights to all races long in coming, but America would continue as one people and be a stronger presence in the world for it.
Today we are at another defining moment. It's not that there haven't been struggles along the way since 1865. There have been corrupt administrations, usurpation of non-designated constitutional powers by certain branches of government, and derelict leadership in the White House. Most of these have been held up, turned back, or overcome through the ballot box every four years. The wisdom of our Founders in creating this system was never more evident than in the 2000 elections.
But through every crisis we've faced, every monstrous growth of government, every burden of added taxes, every failure of leadership, we have always remained a free society. Our free enterprise economic system, the envy of the world, has always recovered when sensible people recognizing the necessity of limited government return to power in Washington. This time things are different.
We are facing a crisis of monumental proportions, a kind not seen since the Civil War, and one more egregious than any issue we have faced since that day. The danger in our time is not of states seceding, but of an entire overthrow of our constitutional system of government and our freedom in favor of a socialist welfare state run by an uncontrolled dictator. Nullification is again a watch word as many states are seeking to undo the overreaching agenda of the Obama administration.
Many, including some from his own political party, are beginning to call for Obama's impeachment. Their complaints among others include:
* Implementing the unconstitutional Obamacare even though a Federal Court has ordered it stopped.
* Ordering the EPA to bypass Congress and enact Cap and Trade even though Congress rejected it.
* A pathetic foreign policy that overlooks the abuses of Iran and Syria while encouraging the overthrow of Mubarak in Egypt, who had been our best Arab ally in the region, and sending military forces into battle in Libya without authorization from, or even consulting with Congress. It was not too long ago Obama joined the band wagon calling for President Bush's impeachment for what they claimed was the same thing.
* Preventing oil drilling even though a Federal Court lifted his ban, all the while telling the public he is encouraging oil companies to drill.
* Preventing Arizona from protecting its border with Mexico from drug cartel armies that are killing Americans while he refuses to do anything to protect the border.
* Usurping the position of the US Supreme Court by declaring the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional even though it was passed overwhelmingly by Congress and signed by Clinton.
* His refusal to provide a legitimate birth certificate to prove his eligibility for the office he holds.
Obama promised change, and he's bringing it all right, but the change he's bringing is a revolution. It's an attempted overthrow of our free society and constitutional government in favor of socialist slavery and dictatorial rule. It has brought us to a defining moment in our history.
When the South surrendered in 1865, poor old Edmund Ruffin could not bear the thought of living in a restored Union and committed suicide. The question for us is, are we going to commit national suicide by surrendering to an illegitimate dictator, or will we put a stop to this arrogant, potential tyrant, and restore constitutional law? What will history say about this defining moment for America?
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Saturday, April 9, 2011
One Year On
One year ago today, at the suggestion of a friend, I started American Flyer. I have occasionally written political commentary on e-mail in the past, mostly to blow off steam, but in 2009 there was so much going on politically that I ramped it up and turned out many more articles than normal, so keeping this blog seemed like a good way to catalogue what I was writing. It has done a couple of things for me personally.
For one, I became a little more consistent in composing articles. At first I thought I might write one every week. It didn't quite turn out that way. Sometimes I went two or three weeks without writing, and other times I'd turn out two or three columns a week. Still, by the end of the year I'd submitted 49 articles, so the average is almost one a week, and I have found it to be an invigorating mental exercise.
Secondly, the blog allowed me to add some of my other writings on separate pages so there is some variety on the main page. Having it all there on the screen when I log on gives me a challenge to keep working on other things as well. I haven't done nearly as much as I would like to. Administrating a college and pastoring a church, even though the college is small and the church on the plantation is low maintenance, takes a lot of time, and I could probably think of other excuses too. I usually send a weekly update of our ministry and one person recommended I start another blog to publish my sermons. The problem is my sermons are mostly outlines and not written out. I'm not sure an outline is what you would want to see, but if I ever start writing the messages out, it may be a good idea.
Third, keeping this blog has been a challenge to me to try and stay actively involved in some way in America's political scene. Since my college days when I joined a Young Republicans club, and my campaigning for a conservative candidate for governor of Colorado in 1979, I've always had a desire to somehow be involved in the political process. Military service and being overseas was a hindrance to being very active, but I did get elected by my precinct to be a delegate to our Republican county convention in Texas in 1988. But besides voting absentee most of the time and continually writing to my congressmen and women, this blog gives me the most opportunity to try and stay involved by speaking my mind about what's going on.
The frustrating thing about being in Kenya is that I can't be there to be pro-active in events that are happening. I would dearly love to have a greater part, and as much as I love to write I sometimes wonder if being a political columnist wouldn't be a good career change in the future. Of course, at my age another career change may not be too realistic, but you never know how the Lord will lead.
My audience is still rather small extending just to my mailing list and my Facebook friends list, and a few others that people have forwarded some of my postings too. There have been 102 comments to my articles, a few of those have been me thanking others, or expounding more on my thoughts. I've received probably as many comments by e-mail that are not posted, so there are some who are reading regularly and I thank all of you.
It would be nice if there were more than ten followers, but several people have e-mailed that they've been unable to get on. I don't know what to tell you, but if someone who has joined knows the secret to getting hooked up, please let me know so I can pass it on.
It has been an interesting year and I wish I had commented on more issues, but sometimes there is so much going on day after day that by the time I sit down to write about a thought I had yesterday, the news is already passed. It has also been a critical year and hopefully the elections last November have started to put the brakes on the downward spiral America has been skidding on. But the fight for our country is just beginning, and just now it doesn't appear to be beginning well.
The Republican leadership in the House is already caving to Obama - Reid liberal pressure. The promise of 100 billion in spending cuts to pass a continuing resolution to fund the government wound up being only 61 billion, and in a midnight deal last night the Speaker of the House, John Boehner, agreed to only 38.5 billion in cuts, which allows the funding of Obamacare to continue, and the defunding of Planned Parenthood, which was a major issue, was put off for a later debate.
We can cry all we want about the chicken leadership coming from the White House, but the Republican leader just proved himself to be a gutless, cackling hen. Shutting the government down was a winning hand for Republicans. The majority of the country wants the out of control spending stopped. The majority wants Planned Parenthood defunded. The majority wants Obamacare repealed. Obama's approval rating is 42%, the lowest it's ever been.
Republicans were in a position to force some common sense back into the government, but rather than fight for it, they didn't even come out for the 12th round. They've just given Obama, who has been an abject failure on the economy, jobs creation, the military, immigration, foreign policy and everything else, a major victory. He was on the ropes looking like the dunce that he is. Now he's going to be more smug and arrogant than ever, and the socialist power grab will go on because light-headed, spineless Republicans have once again snatched defeat out of the jaws of victory. They still haven't figured out the mood of the country.
Two years ago I made a short comment about a Harris Poll of the country's top ten favorite movie stars. Harris started this poll in 1994. Since that time only one actor has been in the top ten every year. He was in it again in 2010, moving up from seventh place in 2009 to third. Since 1994 he's never been lower than seventh, was first in 1995, second five other times and now third for the fourth time. His closest competitor, Clint Eastwood, has made the top ten 16 times in 17 years, twice being number one.
Of course you know I'm talking about John Wayne. The question is this: if the movie going public still holds a conservative icon in such regard 32 years after his death, when his movies obviously aren't in theaters anymore, what does it say about the mood of the country? The pendulum of political thought is swinging back to the right. The country is looking for a leader who believes in American exceptionalism; who will declare America's greatness; who will unapologetically stand for the Constitution and the rule of law; who will defend America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; who has the courage to say, "enough is enough, stop spending like a bunch of immature children." Where is the man who will stand up and fill these shoes?
One year on American Flyer intends to continue on. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Today, more than ever, if we want to keep our freedoms and see our country restored to its rightful greatness, we must be vigilant.
For one, I became a little more consistent in composing articles. At first I thought I might write one every week. It didn't quite turn out that way. Sometimes I went two or three weeks without writing, and other times I'd turn out two or three columns a week. Still, by the end of the year I'd submitted 49 articles, so the average is almost one a week, and I have found it to be an invigorating mental exercise.
Secondly, the blog allowed me to add some of my other writings on separate pages so there is some variety on the main page. Having it all there on the screen when I log on gives me a challenge to keep working on other things as well. I haven't done nearly as much as I would like to. Administrating a college and pastoring a church, even though the college is small and the church on the plantation is low maintenance, takes a lot of time, and I could probably think of other excuses too. I usually send a weekly update of our ministry and one person recommended I start another blog to publish my sermons. The problem is my sermons are mostly outlines and not written out. I'm not sure an outline is what you would want to see, but if I ever start writing the messages out, it may be a good idea.
Third, keeping this blog has been a challenge to me to try and stay actively involved in some way in America's political scene. Since my college days when I joined a Young Republicans club, and my campaigning for a conservative candidate for governor of Colorado in 1979, I've always had a desire to somehow be involved in the political process. Military service and being overseas was a hindrance to being very active, but I did get elected by my precinct to be a delegate to our Republican county convention in Texas in 1988. But besides voting absentee most of the time and continually writing to my congressmen and women, this blog gives me the most opportunity to try and stay involved by speaking my mind about what's going on.
The frustrating thing about being in Kenya is that I can't be there to be pro-active in events that are happening. I would dearly love to have a greater part, and as much as I love to write I sometimes wonder if being a political columnist wouldn't be a good career change in the future. Of course, at my age another career change may not be too realistic, but you never know how the Lord will lead.
My audience is still rather small extending just to my mailing list and my Facebook friends list, and a few others that people have forwarded some of my postings too. There have been 102 comments to my articles, a few of those have been me thanking others, or expounding more on my thoughts. I've received probably as many comments by e-mail that are not posted, so there are some who are reading regularly and I thank all of you.
It would be nice if there were more than ten followers, but several people have e-mailed that they've been unable to get on. I don't know what to tell you, but if someone who has joined knows the secret to getting hooked up, please let me know so I can pass it on.
It has been an interesting year and I wish I had commented on more issues, but sometimes there is so much going on day after day that by the time I sit down to write about a thought I had yesterday, the news is already passed. It has also been a critical year and hopefully the elections last November have started to put the brakes on the downward spiral America has been skidding on. But the fight for our country is just beginning, and just now it doesn't appear to be beginning well.
The Republican leadership in the House is already caving to Obama - Reid liberal pressure. The promise of 100 billion in spending cuts to pass a continuing resolution to fund the government wound up being only 61 billion, and in a midnight deal last night the Speaker of the House, John Boehner, agreed to only 38.5 billion in cuts, which allows the funding of Obamacare to continue, and the defunding of Planned Parenthood, which was a major issue, was put off for a later debate.
We can cry all we want about the chicken leadership coming from the White House, but the Republican leader just proved himself to be a gutless, cackling hen. Shutting the government down was a winning hand for Republicans. The majority of the country wants the out of control spending stopped. The majority wants Planned Parenthood defunded. The majority wants Obamacare repealed. Obama's approval rating is 42%, the lowest it's ever been.
Republicans were in a position to force some common sense back into the government, but rather than fight for it, they didn't even come out for the 12th round. They've just given Obama, who has been an abject failure on the economy, jobs creation, the military, immigration, foreign policy and everything else, a major victory. He was on the ropes looking like the dunce that he is. Now he's going to be more smug and arrogant than ever, and the socialist power grab will go on because light-headed, spineless Republicans have once again snatched defeat out of the jaws of victory. They still haven't figured out the mood of the country.
Two years ago I made a short comment about a Harris Poll of the country's top ten favorite movie stars. Harris started this poll in 1994. Since that time only one actor has been in the top ten every year. He was in it again in 2010, moving up from seventh place in 2009 to third. Since 1994 he's never been lower than seventh, was first in 1995, second five other times and now third for the fourth time. His closest competitor, Clint Eastwood, has made the top ten 16 times in 17 years, twice being number one.
Of course you know I'm talking about John Wayne. The question is this: if the movie going public still holds a conservative icon in such regard 32 years after his death, when his movies obviously aren't in theaters anymore, what does it say about the mood of the country? The pendulum of political thought is swinging back to the right. The country is looking for a leader who believes in American exceptionalism; who will declare America's greatness; who will unapologetically stand for the Constitution and the rule of law; who will defend America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; who has the courage to say, "enough is enough, stop spending like a bunch of immature children." Where is the man who will stand up and fill these shoes?
One year on American Flyer intends to continue on. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Today, more than ever, if we want to keep our freedoms and see our country restored to its rightful greatness, we must be vigilant.
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Repealing Obamacare
Liberal propaganda tends to follow a mantra that is handed down by the White House or the DNC, and once put into circulation is repeated by every Democrat in the government and liberal in the news media until it is so overused it becomes meaningless. A good example from a few years ago is "mean-spirited." A current example is going to be "extremist."
On the health care front, a common tactic is to trash the American medical system in favor of Canada's or England's socialized medical systems, which are paraded as the greatest in the world. It may look that way to a socialist, but when you realize that everyone in Canada who can afford it, comes to America for treatment, it begins to paint a different picture. The inefficiency of the Canadian system is clearly seen in the death of Actress Natasha Richardson, whose injury need not have been life threatening, but only became so because she couldn't get immediate help.
Another example from England is Margaret Hutchon, who was a former National Health Service director. She had been waiting since last June for a follow-up stomach operation at a hospital where she was a member of the board of directors. The surgery had been put off four times until she became so weak that when she finally had the surgery she died. Even her position on the board couldn't help speed up her treatment.
I recently sent a letter to Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill concerning repealing Obamacare. In response I received the e-mail below. It illustrates just how out of touch with reality liberals really are, and how deceptive they are in their explanations. When McCaskill claims that repealing Obamacare would kick "young people" off their parent's health coverage, she fails to point out that she's not talking about teenagers. No, she's talking about 25 year-olds who should have their own jobs and their own healthcare plans. When she complains that repealing Obamacare would cause the already insured to cover the costs of the uninsured who show up in emergency rooms, she fails to explain that Obamacare will do the same thing. Where do you think the government gets the money to cover the costs of the uninsured? From the insured!
My reply to the Senator's explanation of her position is at the bottom. It is not lengthy, neither does it address every issue she raises, nor does it need to. Liberal agendas are easily defeated by the truth, and the cost of Obamacare alone is enough to relegate it to a garbage scow headed out to sea.
April 1, 2011
Dear Reverend Patterson,
Thank you for contacting me regarding the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. I appreciate hearing from you and welcome the opportunity to respond.
As you may know, on January 5th, 2011, Representative Eric Cantor introduced H.R. 2, the "Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act". The bill would completely repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (H.R. 3590), which was signed into law by the President last year. The House passed H.R. 2 and Senator Mitch McConnell offered the bill in the Senate as an amendment to the Federal Aviation Administration authorization bill. The amendment failed to win passage.
I opposed this amendment. Repealing the Affordable Care Act would, among many other things: significantly increase our federal deficit; allow health insurance companies to once again have free rein to deny Missourians coverage based on pre-existing conditions; kick young people off their parent's health coverage; leave those already insured to shoulder the costs of "free riders" who show up in emergency rooms without healthcare coverage; and let healthcare costs continue to skyrocket in a way that bankrupts families, businesses and our government alike.
You should know, however, that I am and always have been open to making improvements to the Affordable Care Act, a bill that was produced after hundreds of hours of debate and that incorporated ideas from both sides of the aisle. In fact, moments before the vote on the healthcare repeal amendment, I joined my Republican and Democratic colleagues in passing an amendment to remove a burdensome 1099 tax reporting requirement included in the healthcare law. I am also open to proposals to remove what is commonly referred to as the "mandate" in the health reform bill, so long as those proposals would produce a system that retains the ability to end discrimination by health insurance companies against persons with pre-existing conditions, increases coverage of uninsured Americans, won't drive up premiums, and addresses the vexing problem of free riders. In addition to having an open mind on how laws can be improved, I also know that many Missourians do not like the "mandate" and I therefore feel I have a duty to them to consider alternatives.
The fact of the matter is that there will be more improvements made to the Affordable Care Act. As with all legislation, we learn in time what works and what does not, as well as how to make them better. I am pleased that the President recently endorsed one bipartisan proposal that would allow states to opt out of parts of the bill, including the mandate, before the requirements go into effect in 2014. States would be able to retain a "waiver" if the state can demonstrate that it has developed its own system to expand coverage for its citizens, hold down health costs, provide important safeguards to health insurance consumers, and not add to the federal deficit. I will continue to work with my Democratic and Republican colleagues alike who bring forward good ideas to make the original legislation better.
Most Missourians support the goals of driving down costs, increasing access, and banning the egregious practices of insurance companies. You can learn more about the changes brought about through the new law by visiting a non-partisan website like the one sponsored by the Kaiser Family Foundation (http://www.kff.org/). Individuals and families who are interested in learning more about their insurance options can visit www.healthcare.gov, which provides a consolidated, personalized list of all of the public and private coverage options in Missouri and the details of these plans. In addition, I have included with this letter some important information dispelling several widespread myths and clarifying facts about the healthcare law. You can also view this information on my websitehttp://www.mccaskill.senate.gov/?p=issue&id=313.
Again, thank you for contacting me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of further assistance to you on this or any other issue.
Sincerely,
Claire McCaskill
United States Senator
April 6, 2011
Dear Senator McCaskill,
Thank you for your response. I am surprised that you could write something like this with a straight face.
You state that repealing Obamacare would increase the deficit "significantly," yet with the bill not even fully implemented it will add 105 billion to the debt, and the CBO projects it will add a trillion dollars to the deficit over the next ten years. I suggest to you that these figures are significantly higher than what they would be if the bill is repealed. All you are doing is adding another useless federal bureaucracy requiring thousands of jobs which will be another monumental drain on the economy and will only red tape services, making the entire health care system slower and less available than it is now.
That scores of organizations, mostly unions, and even some states have applied and been given waivers to get out of Obamacare should give you some clue as to the disaster that the bill really is. That many states have filed law suits challenging the constitutionality of the bill should be another clue. That a majority of the people were opposed to the bill when it was passed with your vote, and at least 59% are in favor of repealing it now, suggests that you care less about the concerns and needs of your constituents than your own political agenda.
I have no doubt that a majority of Missourians are in favor of driving down costs and making health care more accessible. Obamacare does neither. In fact, it does just the opposite, and is more "egregious" than the current system. Ultimately Obamacare will destroy the best medical care in the world.
It makes me wonder if you do any independent thinking or if you are just another mouthpiece for failed liberal socialist causes. If you really want to help, repeal Obamacare and lift the ban on interstate insurance services. Make the system competitive and you will drive the costs down and make medical care more accessible.
Sincerely,
Lance Patterson
On the health care front, a common tactic is to trash the American medical system in favor of Canada's or England's socialized medical systems, which are paraded as the greatest in the world. It may look that way to a socialist, but when you realize that everyone in Canada who can afford it, comes to America for treatment, it begins to paint a different picture. The inefficiency of the Canadian system is clearly seen in the death of Actress Natasha Richardson, whose injury need not have been life threatening, but only became so because she couldn't get immediate help.
Another example from England is Margaret Hutchon, who was a former National Health Service director. She had been waiting since last June for a follow-up stomach operation at a hospital where she was a member of the board of directors. The surgery had been put off four times until she became so weak that when she finally had the surgery she died. Even her position on the board couldn't help speed up her treatment.
I recently sent a letter to Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill concerning repealing Obamacare. In response I received the e-mail below. It illustrates just how out of touch with reality liberals really are, and how deceptive they are in their explanations. When McCaskill claims that repealing Obamacare would kick "young people" off their parent's health coverage, she fails to point out that she's not talking about teenagers. No, she's talking about 25 year-olds who should have their own jobs and their own healthcare plans. When she complains that repealing Obamacare would cause the already insured to cover the costs of the uninsured who show up in emergency rooms, she fails to explain that Obamacare will do the same thing. Where do you think the government gets the money to cover the costs of the uninsured? From the insured!
My reply to the Senator's explanation of her position is at the bottom. It is not lengthy, neither does it address every issue she raises, nor does it need to. Liberal agendas are easily defeated by the truth, and the cost of Obamacare alone is enough to relegate it to a garbage scow headed out to sea.
April 1, 2011
Dear Reverend Patterson,
Thank you for contacting me regarding the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. I appreciate hearing from you and welcome the opportunity to respond.
As you may know, on January 5th, 2011, Representative Eric Cantor introduced H.R. 2, the "Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act". The bill would completely repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (H.R. 3590), which was signed into law by the President last year. The House passed H.R. 2 and Senator Mitch McConnell offered the bill in the Senate as an amendment to the Federal Aviation Administration authorization bill. The amendment failed to win passage.
I opposed this amendment. Repealing the Affordable Care Act would, among many other things: significantly increase our federal deficit; allow health insurance companies to once again have free rein to deny Missourians coverage based on pre-existing conditions; kick young people off their parent's health coverage; leave those already insured to shoulder the costs of "free riders" who show up in emergency rooms without healthcare coverage; and let healthcare costs continue to skyrocket in a way that bankrupts families, businesses and our government alike.
You should know, however, that I am and always have been open to making improvements to the Affordable Care Act, a bill that was produced after hundreds of hours of debate and that incorporated ideas from both sides of the aisle. In fact, moments before the vote on the healthcare repeal amendment, I joined my Republican and Democratic colleagues in passing an amendment to remove a burdensome 1099 tax reporting requirement included in the healthcare law. I am also open to proposals to remove what is commonly referred to as the "mandate" in the health reform bill, so long as those proposals would produce a system that retains the ability to end discrimination by health insurance companies against persons with pre-existing conditions, increases coverage of uninsured Americans, won't drive up premiums, and addresses the vexing problem of free riders. In addition to having an open mind on how laws can be improved, I also know that many Missourians do not like the "mandate" and I therefore feel I have a duty to them to consider alternatives.
The fact of the matter is that there will be more improvements made to the Affordable Care Act. As with all legislation, we learn in time what works and what does not, as well as how to make them better. I am pleased that the President recently endorsed one bipartisan proposal that would allow states to opt out of parts of the bill, including the mandate, before the requirements go into effect in 2014. States would be able to retain a "waiver" if the state can demonstrate that it has developed its own system to expand coverage for its citizens, hold down health costs, provide important safeguards to health insurance consumers, and not add to the federal deficit. I will continue to work with my Democratic and Republican colleagues alike who bring forward good ideas to make the original legislation better.
Most Missourians support the goals of driving down costs, increasing access, and banning the egregious practices of insurance companies. You can learn more about the changes brought about through the new law by visiting a non-partisan website like the one sponsored by the Kaiser Family Foundation (http://www.kff.org/). Individuals and families who are interested in learning more about their insurance options can visit www.healthcare.gov, which provides a consolidated, personalized list of all of the public and private coverage options in Missouri and the details of these plans. In addition, I have included with this letter some important information dispelling several widespread myths and clarifying facts about the healthcare law. You can also view this information on my websitehttp://www.mccaskill.senate.gov/?p=issue&id=313.
Again, thank you for contacting me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of further assistance to you on this or any other issue.
Sincerely,
Claire McCaskill
United States Senator
April 6, 2011
Dear Senator McCaskill,
Thank you for your response. I am surprised that you could write something like this with a straight face.
You state that repealing Obamacare would increase the deficit "significantly," yet with the bill not even fully implemented it will add 105 billion to the debt, and the CBO projects it will add a trillion dollars to the deficit over the next ten years. I suggest to you that these figures are significantly higher than what they would be if the bill is repealed. All you are doing is adding another useless federal bureaucracy requiring thousands of jobs which will be another monumental drain on the economy and will only red tape services, making the entire health care system slower and less available than it is now.
That scores of organizations, mostly unions, and even some states have applied and been given waivers to get out of Obamacare should give you some clue as to the disaster that the bill really is. That many states have filed law suits challenging the constitutionality of the bill should be another clue. That a majority of the people were opposed to the bill when it was passed with your vote, and at least 59% are in favor of repealing it now, suggests that you care less about the concerns and needs of your constituents than your own political agenda.
I have no doubt that a majority of Missourians are in favor of driving down costs and making health care more accessible. Obamacare does neither. In fact, it does just the opposite, and is more "egregious" than the current system. Ultimately Obamacare will destroy the best medical care in the world.
It makes me wonder if you do any independent thinking or if you are just another mouthpiece for failed liberal socialist causes. If you really want to help, repeal Obamacare and lift the ban on interstate insurance services. Make the system competitive and you will drive the costs down and make medical care more accessible.
Sincerely,
Lance Patterson
Sunday, March 27, 2011
The Real American Nazis
Whenever conservatives speak out against a liberal sacred cow such as abortion, illegal alien amnesty, gun control, social welfare or the like, some whiney Democrat will start comparing them to Nazis. When Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker and the Republican controlled legislature, trying to save their state from bankruptcy, ended the collective bargaining power of government unions, Ohio Democrat Senator, Sherrod Brown, claiming to have studied history, stooped to the same old blather and compared them with Hitler and Stalin, accusing them of being anti-union.
The line of thinking goes, Hitler was opposed to trade unions, therefore Scott Walker is a Hitler because he wants to destroy unions. The fact that Governor Walker is trying to save the union members' jobs which will be lost if Wisconsin defaults on its debt is lost on the poor, ignorant souls rioting in the streets.
As always, truth has no meaning for a liberal. Hitler may well have hated unions, but he had a personal army, a band of well organized and trained thugs called the SA, or the Brown Shirts, that terrorized innocent civilians, disrupted government assemblies, and basically bullied the country into accepting the Nazi Party. Kind of like what's going on in Wisconsin.
In Wisconsin well organized union members, backed by no less that the president himself, stormed and vandalized the State Capitol building, caused mayhem, disturbed the peace, and threatened to kill Governor Walker and other Republican lawmakers.
The Nazis were infamous for murdering innocent people, mostly Jews, and experimenting with body parts for their own sadistic purposes. To a liberal, the most sacred right is a woman's "right to choose." What that really means is the right to end through the most sadistic means the life of innocent babies, which they have done to the tune of over 50 million since 1973. Then they justify the practice by experimenting with stem-cell research to supposedly fight disease, a practice that has been proven over and over to be fruitless and also unnecessary, because adult stem-cell research has already been successfully used.
So who is actually more akin to the Nazis? Conservatives stand for the Constitution and the rule of law. Everything liberals stand for and do is Nazi - esque in nature, and hypocritical in practice.
Liberals preach tolerance, but they are only tolerant of those who agree with them. Anyone opposed is shouted down, bullied, threatened and compared to Nazis.
Liberals preach equality for all including feminists, minorities, illegal aliens and gays. Conservatives and babies, however, are undeserving.
Liberals preach the redistribution of wealth to level the playing field and give everyone equal opportunity, as long as their own wealth is not touched in the process.
Liberals preach that war is illegal without congressional approval and condemn conservative efforts to end tyranny around the world, but when they gain power they deploy troops relentlessly to fight illegal wars without congressional approval. Take Libya for example.
Liberals sanctimoniously intone that we cannot police the world when conservatives control the government, but then boldly declare that we are the world's policeman when they are in charge.
Liberals piously preach "separation of church and state" whenever anything Christian is mentioned in public schools or allowed on government property (something the Founding Fathers would most gladly have approved of), but are silent or even approving when Islamic practices or sharia law are taught in the same public schools or promoted in government facilities.
Liberals demand gun control laws in order to overturn the 2nd Amendment, but like liberal columnist Carl Rowan, keep a gun for their own security just in case.
Liberals abhor hate speech and violence until they can't get their own way, and then like a gang of unfed cry-babies they spew the most hateful vitriol and promote violent action against conservatives.
You get the picture. The real American Nazis are not Governor Scott Walker or conservative politicians or pundits, they are Sherrod Brown, Michael Moore, and the government union workers who have taken to the streets and broken the law in order to try and force their way on the State of Wisconsin. Their agenda, of course, will lead to bankruptcy and the eventual loss of their own jobs. How insanely blind liberals, the real American Nazis, really are.
The line of thinking goes, Hitler was opposed to trade unions, therefore Scott Walker is a Hitler because he wants to destroy unions. The fact that Governor Walker is trying to save the union members' jobs which will be lost if Wisconsin defaults on its debt is lost on the poor, ignorant souls rioting in the streets.
As always, truth has no meaning for a liberal. Hitler may well have hated unions, but he had a personal army, a band of well organized and trained thugs called the SA, or the Brown Shirts, that terrorized innocent civilians, disrupted government assemblies, and basically bullied the country into accepting the Nazi Party. Kind of like what's going on in Wisconsin.
In Wisconsin well organized union members, backed by no less that the president himself, stormed and vandalized the State Capitol building, caused mayhem, disturbed the peace, and threatened to kill Governor Walker and other Republican lawmakers.
The Nazis were infamous for murdering innocent people, mostly Jews, and experimenting with body parts for their own sadistic purposes. To a liberal, the most sacred right is a woman's "right to choose." What that really means is the right to end through the most sadistic means the life of innocent babies, which they have done to the tune of over 50 million since 1973. Then they justify the practice by experimenting with stem-cell research to supposedly fight disease, a practice that has been proven over and over to be fruitless and also unnecessary, because adult stem-cell research has already been successfully used.
So who is actually more akin to the Nazis? Conservatives stand for the Constitution and the rule of law. Everything liberals stand for and do is Nazi - esque in nature, and hypocritical in practice.
Liberals preach tolerance, but they are only tolerant of those who agree with them. Anyone opposed is shouted down, bullied, threatened and compared to Nazis.
Liberals preach equality for all including feminists, minorities, illegal aliens and gays. Conservatives and babies, however, are undeserving.
Liberals preach the redistribution of wealth to level the playing field and give everyone equal opportunity, as long as their own wealth is not touched in the process.
Liberals preach that war is illegal without congressional approval and condemn conservative efforts to end tyranny around the world, but when they gain power they deploy troops relentlessly to fight illegal wars without congressional approval. Take Libya for example.
Liberals sanctimoniously intone that we cannot police the world when conservatives control the government, but then boldly declare that we are the world's policeman when they are in charge.
Liberals piously preach "separation of church and state" whenever anything Christian is mentioned in public schools or allowed on government property (something the Founding Fathers would most gladly have approved of), but are silent or even approving when Islamic practices or sharia law are taught in the same public schools or promoted in government facilities.
Liberals demand gun control laws in order to overturn the 2nd Amendment, but like liberal columnist Carl Rowan, keep a gun for their own security just in case.
Liberals abhor hate speech and violence until they can't get their own way, and then like a gang of unfed cry-babies they spew the most hateful vitriol and promote violent action against conservatives.
You get the picture. The real American Nazis are not Governor Scott Walker or conservative politicians or pundits, they are Sherrod Brown, Michael Moore, and the government union workers who have taken to the streets and broken the law in order to try and force their way on the State of Wisconsin. Their agenda, of course, will lead to bankruptcy and the eventual loss of their own jobs. How insanely blind liberals, the real American Nazis, really are.
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Liberty or Death
On this date in 1775 one of the great patriotic speeches in all history was given. The speaker is sometimes overlooked because of his opposition to the Constitution many years later, but until the rise of George Washington, there was no greater patriot, or outspoken colonial leader than Patrick Henry. Henry was a firebrand, an early leader of the colonists seeking independence from Great Britain.
Independence was his theme long before other revolutionary leaders came on board. When the Stamp Act was passed in Britain taxing the colonies to pay for her wars, the colonists objected. But while most of the colonists were hoping to work out their differences with the mother country, Henry, in the Virginia House of Burgesses on May 30, 1765, warned the tyrant King George III that "Caesar had his Brutus and Charles had his Cromwell." But the notion that the King should be assassinated was too much for many and when several cried out, "Treason!", Henry wisely backed off and said, "and King George ... may profit by their example. If this be treason, make the most of it."
He had nearly hung his neck in the collar, but he wasn't about to be deterred. Ten years later Henry arrived at the St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia. All 61 counties of Virginia were represented in the church. A howling March wind blew and a light snow fell on the church steps. The Convention was opened by the Speaker of the House, Peyton Randolph. Randolph was a former King's Attorney, and a hardy opponent of Patrick Henry.
Henry sat impatiently while the Convention waffled and passed some meaningless resolutions that addressed none of the issues at hand. On the third day he proposed legislation to establish a militia and to arm the people for their own defense. It was a call to arms, a challenge for those who were timid to stand up and join the struggle. He spoke of "Liberty" with an emphasis no one had heard before. He stood straight and tall, his face radiating defiance, his voice strong and sure.
Mr. President, no man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed this house.
He was respectful of all those with differing opinions, but his purpose was to elevate their thinking to a higher plane. He would consider himself guilty of treason to his country and disloyal to "the majesty of Heaven," if he did not speak out.
He challenged the representatives to see the "painful truth," making reference to Isaiah chapter six. Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes see not, and having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? He then declares that he is "willing to know the whole truth. . . ."
He reviews the history of the colonists and their struggle against tyranny and concludes that there is no room for any hope of reconciliation. An appeal to arms and to the God of Hosts is all that is left us.
Henry was a devout Christian, a member of the Presbyterian Church. References to God were common in his speeches and writing. Here he appeals to Americans to trust the Highest for help in the battle that will come. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave.
One listener reported that Henry's "voice, countenance and gestures gave irresistible force to his words...." Henry's passion grew as he declared, "The war is inevitable - and let it come! I repeat sir, let it come!" He rebuked those who cried for peace when there was no peace, and challenged them not to sit idle when their brothers were already at arms.
Then with his arms extended high, his brow thrown back, and every sinew of his being exposing the burden of his soul, he proclaimed the words that have become immortal.
Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
The speech was a trumpet call that electrified the colonies. It stirred the hearts of all those who loved Liberty. It was the spark that moved the Continental Congress to declare Independence.
I wonder where are the Patrick Henrys of today? Where is the one man in our government who will stand on principle rather than entrenchment, and say he would prefer death to enslavement? Where is the man who will stand up to the liberal Democrat political machine that is taking us into tyranny? Where is the man who will stand up to the weak-kneed Republicans and tell them to get some backbone?
The sad irony is that today we don't need someone to say "Liberty or Death" to a foreign king, we need someone to say it to our own Congress. And if we don't stand up and say it now, someday soon we won't be able to stand up or say it at all. Liberty or death was the battle cry of freedom for patriots 235 years ago. It needs to be our battle cry now. "Give me liberty or give me death."
Independence was his theme long before other revolutionary leaders came on board. When the Stamp Act was passed in Britain taxing the colonies to pay for her wars, the colonists objected. But while most of the colonists were hoping to work out their differences with the mother country, Henry, in the Virginia House of Burgesses on May 30, 1765, warned the tyrant King George III that "Caesar had his Brutus and Charles had his Cromwell." But the notion that the King should be assassinated was too much for many and when several cried out, "Treason!", Henry wisely backed off and said, "and King George ... may profit by their example. If this be treason, make the most of it."
He had nearly hung his neck in the collar, but he wasn't about to be deterred. Ten years later Henry arrived at the St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia. All 61 counties of Virginia were represented in the church. A howling March wind blew and a light snow fell on the church steps. The Convention was opened by the Speaker of the House, Peyton Randolph. Randolph was a former King's Attorney, and a hardy opponent of Patrick Henry.
Henry sat impatiently while the Convention waffled and passed some meaningless resolutions that addressed none of the issues at hand. On the third day he proposed legislation to establish a militia and to arm the people for their own defense. It was a call to arms, a challenge for those who were timid to stand up and join the struggle. He spoke of "Liberty" with an emphasis no one had heard before. He stood straight and tall, his face radiating defiance, his voice strong and sure.
Mr. President, no man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed this house.
He was respectful of all those with differing opinions, but his purpose was to elevate their thinking to a higher plane. He would consider himself guilty of treason to his country and disloyal to "the majesty of Heaven," if he did not speak out.
He challenged the representatives to see the "painful truth," making reference to Isaiah chapter six. Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes see not, and having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? He then declares that he is "willing to know the whole truth. . . ."
He reviews the history of the colonists and their struggle against tyranny and concludes that there is no room for any hope of reconciliation. An appeal to arms and to the God of Hosts is all that is left us.
Henry was a devout Christian, a member of the Presbyterian Church. References to God were common in his speeches and writing. Here he appeals to Americans to trust the Highest for help in the battle that will come. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave.
One listener reported that Henry's "voice, countenance and gestures gave irresistible force to his words...." Henry's passion grew as he declared, "The war is inevitable - and let it come! I repeat sir, let it come!" He rebuked those who cried for peace when there was no peace, and challenged them not to sit idle when their brothers were already at arms.
Then with his arms extended high, his brow thrown back, and every sinew of his being exposing the burden of his soul, he proclaimed the words that have become immortal.
Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
The speech was a trumpet call that electrified the colonies. It stirred the hearts of all those who loved Liberty. It was the spark that moved the Continental Congress to declare Independence.
I wonder where are the Patrick Henrys of today? Where is the one man in our government who will stand on principle rather than entrenchment, and say he would prefer death to enslavement? Where is the man who will stand up to the liberal Democrat political machine that is taking us into tyranny? Where is the man who will stand up to the weak-kneed Republicans and tell them to get some backbone?
The sad irony is that today we don't need someone to say "Liberty or Death" to a foreign king, we need someone to say it to our own Congress. And if we don't stand up and say it now, someday soon we won't be able to stand up or say it at all. Liberty or death was the battle cry of freedom for patriots 235 years ago. It needs to be our battle cry now. "Give me liberty or give me death."
Saturday, March 5, 2011
My People
While I was at the Marine Corps Basic School in Quantico, Virginia, in 1982, a black colleague of mine accused me one day in front of our entire platoon of being a racist because I had graduated from Bob Jones University. He knew nothing else about me, but he hated me because he was sure I was a racist.
I hope the evidence of my life tells a different story. I am interracially married to a woman I met in the Philippines, and together in the mid-90's, we worked with black kids in an inner-city ministry through our church in Denver, Colorado. Then we came here to Kenya twelve years ago this month to work as missionaries among black African people. Last September our guard at our house, Ezekiel, who had worked for us the entire time we've been here suddenly died, leaving three orphaned girls in our care. (His wife had died three years earlier.) We paid for the funeral, and then put the girls in schools and are caring for their needs at this moment.
Racism is a two way street and there are many influences that may cause someone to be racist. I was in the ninth grade when desegregation came to my school in Denver. We had a welcome day for the fifty or so kids that came over, and I made it a point to try and make friends with them. One boy in particular, named Larry, was friendly to me and we often did things together at lunch, until one day as we were walking across the playground another black kid came up and Larry said to him, "Let's go hit some white boys on the chest." I stopped and looked at him with my mouth agape. They looked at me and then took off, got a little gang of eight or ten together and started terrorizing white kids across the playground. They didn't come after me and the only thing I can think is that I had tried to be friends with Larry so they left me alone.
Later that summer I was playing baseball. Our team had just beaten a team from a black neighborhood. After the game we sat down to watch the next game being played. While we watched the black kids from the team we had beaten came over and started harassing us and then started hitting some of our players. Our coach told us at first to ignore them, but when we couldn't we went to our cars and left. Interestingly enough, we had two black kids on our team. The confrontation started with the losing players calling those two boys the n-word.
Two years later in 1971, at South High School over two hundred black kids were bussed in to our school. Tensions were high and only two weeks into the school year they rioted, going down the hallways, breaking out windows and causing general mayhem. Police cars were out in the parking lot for about four days before everything got back to normal. Of course, normal was never the same after that, but I had plenty of negative influence in my life about black people, and it all came from black people.
And now I'm in Kenya taking care of three orphaned girls along with the rest of our work because no one in their large extended family is either willing or able to take the girls in. Let the "wazungu" (white people) do it is the attitude.
I lay this foundation because I am fed up with a society that will lay a charge of racism against any white person for anything they do or say with or about a black person that is not deemed to be "politically correct." I am tired of hearing the MSM accusing the Tea Party movement of racism simply because they favor conservative causes. I'm tired of a president, pandering to small minds, accusing anybody who opposes his agenda of racism while he violates the law and his oath of office and systematically destroys the Constitution.
This president, who was going to bring the people together and heal the racial divide among us, has done more to promote racism and drive a wedge between the races than any president in our history.
This past week Attorney General Eric Holder defended his decision not to prosecute the New Black Panthers, who had illegally intimidated people at polling places in Philadelphia during the 2008 elections trying to prevent them from voting for Republican candidates. You know the people they were intimidating, of course, were white. Holder's excuse was that to prosecute these thugs after black people had to fight for their own right to vote in the 60's would be a disservice to "my people."
My people? Is he talking about a different people than the American people? Whatever happened to the melting pot? What about e pluribus unum, "out of the many, one?" Out of the many that have come to our shores we are supposed to be one people. Apparently, Al Gore's ignorantly redefined version, "out of the one, many," is what we are now. And it has nothing to do with white people being racist.
It has to do with different racial groups holding onto their ethnic backgrounds and cultures and refusing either to become or to be American. John Wayne said it well in a recording called, The Hyphen:
The Hyphen, Webster's Dictionary defines, Is a symbol used to divide a compound word or a single word. So it seems to me that when a man calls himself an "Afro-American," a "Mexican American," Italian-American," an "Irish-American," "Jewish-American," what he is saying is, "I'm a divided American."
That is the whole problem. Instead of people working together to build a stronger America, we have black racists in our government intentionally dividing the country in order to find some kind of advantage for "their people." If Eric Holder is the Attorney General for only "his people" and not for all Americans, he needs to go.
I'll tell you who my people are. My people are Americans. My maternal grandparents immigrated from the Netherlands. They were Americans of Dutch descent, but they became Americans. My wife immigrated from the Philippines. She is an American of Filipino descent, but she is an American. If the problems in our country are going to be fixed, they are going to be fixed because We the People are Americans, and We the American People work together to fix them. If we remain divided without a singular national identity America as a nation will not survive.
Duke Wayne ended his discourse on The Hyphen with this:
So you be wise in your decision, and that little line won't cause division. Let's join hands with one another, for in this land, each man's your brother. United we stand, divided we fall. We're Americans, and that says it all.
God bless America, and God bless all who are truly Americans, no matter what color or ethnicity they are. These are My People.
I hope the evidence of my life tells a different story. I am interracially married to a woman I met in the Philippines, and together in the mid-90's, we worked with black kids in an inner-city ministry through our church in Denver, Colorado. Then we came here to Kenya twelve years ago this month to work as missionaries among black African people. Last September our guard at our house, Ezekiel, who had worked for us the entire time we've been here suddenly died, leaving three orphaned girls in our care. (His wife had died three years earlier.) We paid for the funeral, and then put the girls in schools and are caring for their needs at this moment.
Racism is a two way street and there are many influences that may cause someone to be racist. I was in the ninth grade when desegregation came to my school in Denver. We had a welcome day for the fifty or so kids that came over, and I made it a point to try and make friends with them. One boy in particular, named Larry, was friendly to me and we often did things together at lunch, until one day as we were walking across the playground another black kid came up and Larry said to him, "Let's go hit some white boys on the chest." I stopped and looked at him with my mouth agape. They looked at me and then took off, got a little gang of eight or ten together and started terrorizing white kids across the playground. They didn't come after me and the only thing I can think is that I had tried to be friends with Larry so they left me alone.
Later that summer I was playing baseball. Our team had just beaten a team from a black neighborhood. After the game we sat down to watch the next game being played. While we watched the black kids from the team we had beaten came over and started harassing us and then started hitting some of our players. Our coach told us at first to ignore them, but when we couldn't we went to our cars and left. Interestingly enough, we had two black kids on our team. The confrontation started with the losing players calling those two boys the n-word.
Two years later in 1971, at South High School over two hundred black kids were bussed in to our school. Tensions were high and only two weeks into the school year they rioted, going down the hallways, breaking out windows and causing general mayhem. Police cars were out in the parking lot for about four days before everything got back to normal. Of course, normal was never the same after that, but I had plenty of negative influence in my life about black people, and it all came from black people.
And now I'm in Kenya taking care of three orphaned girls along with the rest of our work because no one in their large extended family is either willing or able to take the girls in. Let the "wazungu" (white people) do it is the attitude.
I lay this foundation because I am fed up with a society that will lay a charge of racism against any white person for anything they do or say with or about a black person that is not deemed to be "politically correct." I am tired of hearing the MSM accusing the Tea Party movement of racism simply because they favor conservative causes. I'm tired of a president, pandering to small minds, accusing anybody who opposes his agenda of racism while he violates the law and his oath of office and systematically destroys the Constitution.
This president, who was going to bring the people together and heal the racial divide among us, has done more to promote racism and drive a wedge between the races than any president in our history.
This past week Attorney General Eric Holder defended his decision not to prosecute the New Black Panthers, who had illegally intimidated people at polling places in Philadelphia during the 2008 elections trying to prevent them from voting for Republican candidates. You know the people they were intimidating, of course, were white. Holder's excuse was that to prosecute these thugs after black people had to fight for their own right to vote in the 60's would be a disservice to "my people."
My people? Is he talking about a different people than the American people? Whatever happened to the melting pot? What about e pluribus unum, "out of the many, one?" Out of the many that have come to our shores we are supposed to be one people. Apparently, Al Gore's ignorantly redefined version, "out of the one, many," is what we are now. And it has nothing to do with white people being racist.
It has to do with different racial groups holding onto their ethnic backgrounds and cultures and refusing either to become or to be American. John Wayne said it well in a recording called, The Hyphen:
The Hyphen, Webster's Dictionary defines, Is a symbol used to divide a compound word or a single word. So it seems to me that when a man calls himself an "Afro-American," a "Mexican American," Italian-American," an "Irish-American," "Jewish-American," what he is saying is, "I'm a divided American."
That is the whole problem. Instead of people working together to build a stronger America, we have black racists in our government intentionally dividing the country in order to find some kind of advantage for "their people." If Eric Holder is the Attorney General for only "his people" and not for all Americans, he needs to go.
I'll tell you who my people are. My people are Americans. My maternal grandparents immigrated from the Netherlands. They were Americans of Dutch descent, but they became Americans. My wife immigrated from the Philippines. She is an American of Filipino descent, but she is an American. If the problems in our country are going to be fixed, they are going to be fixed because We the People are Americans, and We the American People work together to fix them. If we remain divided without a singular national identity America as a nation will not survive.
Duke Wayne ended his discourse on The Hyphen with this:
So you be wise in your decision, and that little line won't cause division. Let's join hands with one another, for in this land, each man's your brother. United we stand, divided we fall. We're Americans, and that says it all.
God bless America, and God bless all who are truly Americans, no matter what color or ethnicity they are. These are My People.
Sunday, February 27, 2011
The Rule of Law
We often hear people refer to America as a democracy. In a pure democracy the people vote on every issue and the majority, no matter how slim, wins the day. The danger of democracy historically has been that it devolves in time into mob rule. When people don't get what they want they go to the streets and try to bully the opposition into surrendering. The result is chaos and civil war.
Our Founders, understanding the weakness of such a system, wisely created a republic, a representative government, to protect the rights of the minority. The people take part in a democratic process by electing from their peers someone to represent them in the government. The checks and balances built into the system with the Executive, the Legislative, and the Judicial branches of government ensure the rights of all the people, the minority included. This system has worked fairly well for over two centuries keeping the country operating peacefully and generally promoting the welfare of the people.
Obviously there are flaws because people are flawed, but this system of government by the people, a first in world history, has succeeded because the people have accepted the rule of law. We are not led by a monarchy with a divine right to act above the law. We are not enslaved by a tyrant with an iron fist who rules by the whims of his own deviant desires. Neither do we take to the streets with "people-power" revolutions whenever we are not satisfied with the leaders we have. The United States essentially has a revolution every four years where the people change the leadership, or determine to continue with the current leadership, by the ballot box.
While there have been many attempts to copy or reproduce something similar to our government, most nations fail to repeat the success of the United States because of corrupt, power hungry leadership that defies the system. These "banana republics" always degenerate into self-destruction because the people have no foundation or moral conviction to live by the rule of law. Chaos ensues.
The principle of self-government was a key factor in the deliberations over our Constitution. Free people can get by with limited government if they have the integrity to govern themselves. Basically, when people live by the Golden Rule there is less crime and less need for excessive laws or government intrusion. But as John Adams wrote, this kind of government can only work for a religious and moral people. It can work for none else.
The religion and morality he was referring to was the Christian religion and the principles found in the Bible. James Madison declared that the Founders had created a government based on the Ten Commandments and the New Testament. Self-government works when people love God and have the conviction to live by God's standards, and when they love their neighbors as themselves. The only place you find this kind of religious or moral teaching is in the Bible.
America today is facing a crisis more profound, I think, than even many conservatives realize. We have left our Bible foundation far behind. The love of God is forgotten and the love of neighbor, or the brotherhood of man which the liberals so piously intone, is rejected for the selfish greed of personal aggrandizement. A government usurping powers never intended for it by the Founders has created a welfare system that has made a generation of Americans not only dependent on the government, but demanding rights, privileges, and wealth the government cannot give.
Liberals infamously call the 1980's the decade of greed, but we are seeing greed in an unprecedented scale right now. For the last four years we have seen representative government callously mock the people it represents, passing legislation such as Obamacare that at least two-thirds or more of the country opposes. It is spending more money than even the world can afford to loan us, and surprise, when anyone suggests we have to cut back, the greedy, welfare dependent society that this government run amuck has created starts having a temper tantrum.
Further complicating the matter, we have a president who has declared he will no longer govern by the rule of law. The president has usurped the authority of the judicial branch to declare the Defense of Marriage Act, passed by Congress and signed by former president, Bill Clinton, unconstitutional. His government will no longer defend this law. In other words, he is presuming to do the Judiciary's job for it, while he reneges on doing his own job. The question that needs to be asked is, if he can get away with this, how many other laws will he also ignore? (For starters, how about his failure to defend the Arizona border and prosecute illegal aliens?)
The president is thumbing his nose at the Constitution. He is telling us that the law doesn't matter. His "Organizing for America" has made Wisconsin a battle ground and is instigating labor unions, which represent less than 13% of the total work force, and which poured hundreds of millions of their mandatory union dues into Democrat campaign coffers in the last election, to take to the streets and protest, to demand their rights, and to perpetuate their greed. The president is leading the country in a mad descent from constitutional government to mob rule. (Have we heard any more comparisons to Ronald Reagan lately?)
In Wisconsin, a budgetary crisis led newly elected Governor Scott Walker to take measures designed to save the state from bankruptcy. The state is 3.6 billion dollars in debt, even though it's previous Democrat governor received 4 billion dollars in stimulus money from Obama in the previous two years. Walker's attempt to save the state from going bankrupt resulted in a strike by the union cry-babies, which is spreading to other states.
Walker has an opportunity now to show himself truly Reaganesque. In 1981 when the air traffic controllers went on strike, President Reagan gave them 48 hours to return to work, then fired those who didn't and dissolved PATCO, their union organization. Walker ought to give Wisconsin state employees, including public school teachers, 48 hours to return to work, then sack those who don't. The strike will break up when the rent comes due and no paychecks are forth coming.
The nation is watching: Liberals to see if they can get away with defying the law and entrenching themselves in entitlements forever, or until the government declares bankruptcy; Conservatives to see if the rule of law will be upheld and some common sense returned to government. Conservatives are looking for another Ronald Reagan. If Scott Walker handles this crisis right he could be perceived to be the man to fill Reagan's shoes, and it could be the catalyst to propel him to the White House.
That will happen, by the way, not when the mobs rule the streets, but when the Constitution is followed and a new election is held according to the rule of law.
Our Founders, understanding the weakness of such a system, wisely created a republic, a representative government, to protect the rights of the minority. The people take part in a democratic process by electing from their peers someone to represent them in the government. The checks and balances built into the system with the Executive, the Legislative, and the Judicial branches of government ensure the rights of all the people, the minority included. This system has worked fairly well for over two centuries keeping the country operating peacefully and generally promoting the welfare of the people.
Obviously there are flaws because people are flawed, but this system of government by the people, a first in world history, has succeeded because the people have accepted the rule of law. We are not led by a monarchy with a divine right to act above the law. We are not enslaved by a tyrant with an iron fist who rules by the whims of his own deviant desires. Neither do we take to the streets with "people-power" revolutions whenever we are not satisfied with the leaders we have. The United States essentially has a revolution every four years where the people change the leadership, or determine to continue with the current leadership, by the ballot box.
While there have been many attempts to copy or reproduce something similar to our government, most nations fail to repeat the success of the United States because of corrupt, power hungry leadership that defies the system. These "banana republics" always degenerate into self-destruction because the people have no foundation or moral conviction to live by the rule of law. Chaos ensues.
The principle of self-government was a key factor in the deliberations over our Constitution. Free people can get by with limited government if they have the integrity to govern themselves. Basically, when people live by the Golden Rule there is less crime and less need for excessive laws or government intrusion. But as John Adams wrote, this kind of government can only work for a religious and moral people. It can work for none else.
The religion and morality he was referring to was the Christian religion and the principles found in the Bible. James Madison declared that the Founders had created a government based on the Ten Commandments and the New Testament. Self-government works when people love God and have the conviction to live by God's standards, and when they love their neighbors as themselves. The only place you find this kind of religious or moral teaching is in the Bible.
America today is facing a crisis more profound, I think, than even many conservatives realize. We have left our Bible foundation far behind. The love of God is forgotten and the love of neighbor, or the brotherhood of man which the liberals so piously intone, is rejected for the selfish greed of personal aggrandizement. A government usurping powers never intended for it by the Founders has created a welfare system that has made a generation of Americans not only dependent on the government, but demanding rights, privileges, and wealth the government cannot give.
Liberals infamously call the 1980's the decade of greed, but we are seeing greed in an unprecedented scale right now. For the last four years we have seen representative government callously mock the people it represents, passing legislation such as Obamacare that at least two-thirds or more of the country opposes. It is spending more money than even the world can afford to loan us, and surprise, when anyone suggests we have to cut back, the greedy, welfare dependent society that this government run amuck has created starts having a temper tantrum.
Further complicating the matter, we have a president who has declared he will no longer govern by the rule of law. The president has usurped the authority of the judicial branch to declare the Defense of Marriage Act, passed by Congress and signed by former president, Bill Clinton, unconstitutional. His government will no longer defend this law. In other words, he is presuming to do the Judiciary's job for it, while he reneges on doing his own job. The question that needs to be asked is, if he can get away with this, how many other laws will he also ignore? (For starters, how about his failure to defend the Arizona border and prosecute illegal aliens?)
The president is thumbing his nose at the Constitution. He is telling us that the law doesn't matter. His "Organizing for America" has made Wisconsin a battle ground and is instigating labor unions, which represent less than 13% of the total work force, and which poured hundreds of millions of their mandatory union dues into Democrat campaign coffers in the last election, to take to the streets and protest, to demand their rights, and to perpetuate their greed. The president is leading the country in a mad descent from constitutional government to mob rule. (Have we heard any more comparisons to Ronald Reagan lately?)
In Wisconsin, a budgetary crisis led newly elected Governor Scott Walker to take measures designed to save the state from bankruptcy. The state is 3.6 billion dollars in debt, even though it's previous Democrat governor received 4 billion dollars in stimulus money from Obama in the previous two years. Walker's attempt to save the state from going bankrupt resulted in a strike by the union cry-babies, which is spreading to other states.
Walker has an opportunity now to show himself truly Reaganesque. In 1981 when the air traffic controllers went on strike, President Reagan gave them 48 hours to return to work, then fired those who didn't and dissolved PATCO, their union organization. Walker ought to give Wisconsin state employees, including public school teachers, 48 hours to return to work, then sack those who don't. The strike will break up when the rent comes due and no paychecks are forth coming.
The nation is watching: Liberals to see if they can get away with defying the law and entrenching themselves in entitlements forever, or until the government declares bankruptcy; Conservatives to see if the rule of law will be upheld and some common sense returned to government. Conservatives are looking for another Ronald Reagan. If Scott Walker handles this crisis right he could be perceived to be the man to fill Reagan's shoes, and it could be the catalyst to propel him to the White House.
That will happen, by the way, not when the mobs rule the streets, but when the Constitution is followed and a new election is held according to the rule of law.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
The Disaster of Our Time
I always find it interesting to watch news media and pundits trying to outdo each other in predicting what political trends will happen next and how the world will be affected. A few years ago one author wrote a book to prove that the 2008 presidential election would be Hilary vs. Condoleeza Rice. Boy, did he get it wrong. It never seems to bother these people, they keep making their predictions and they usually keep missing the target. I'm not a prophet and I won't pretend to be as smart as these prophetic pundits, but it is pretty obvious that if some changes aren't made fast our country will be in big trouble.
We are beginning to see what could be a crisis of world-wide proportions across the Middle East. Tunisia, Algeria, and Bahrain are being crippled by strikes and rioters. In Egypt, Hosni Mubarrack has already been forced to resign, and in Libya, the longest ruling despot in the region, Moammar Khadaffi, is facing the test of his life to see whether he'll survive as ruler of that country. Libya's oil output has already declined by 20% since this uprising started, and as more foreign companies shut down operations in Libya it will only grow worse, driving up oil prices around the world.
A bigger problem is that the Muslim Brotherhood, a terrorist organization, appears to be behind some of these uprisings, and positioning themselves to take over. If this anti-American group gets control of the oil rich Arab nations and shuts off oil exports to the United States, our economy could be crippled over night. That's probably not likely to happen because these oil rich Arab nations depend almost solely on oil for their wealth. But they could tighten production like OPEC did three years ago and drive prices higher, possibly as high as the seven dollars a gallon candidate Obama told us we should get ready for.
This would plunge America into an unprecedented economic crisis. The country needs gasoline and diesel fuels to keep trucks on the road and freight trains on the rails. Not to mention the every day driver like you and me. When the price of fuel sky-rockets, the price of consumer goods follows, and when the prices get too high, people won't be buying, the economy will be falling, and unemployment will be rising again.
It has never been more clear why we need an energy policy that will make us independent of foreign oil. Forget the Department of Energy. That ugly monstrosity in 34 years has consumed hundreds of billions of dollars and to date hasn't produced one gallon of a feasible alternative fuel, neither has it made us independent of foreign oil, which is its whole purpose for existence. We use more foreign oil now than when the department was created.
Forget the environment. We've already taken better care of ours than all the rest of the world combined. We're not going to destroy anything by drilling for our own oil in our own territory, be it off shore or in Alaska.
The problem is we have a government filled with a bunch of cowards unwilling to stand up to the lunacy of special interest groups and tell them to go home. In 2003, President Bush tried to have the Alaskan wilderness opened for drilling. Republicans controlled the Congress and for the first time in decades had a chance to do something right for the country. Instead, a group of RINO's voted with the Democrats to block Bush's legislation.
Environmentalists argue that it would take at least ten years for newly found oil to be drilled, refined and finally put into production anyway, so why bother. Why bother? If drilling had begun in 2003, it would be available at local gas stations within another two years, and the current crisis would be curtailed. Oh wait, if gas prices were about to drop below a dollar a gallon by the 2012 election, Obama would take the credit for it and probably get re-elected. Maybe the environmentalists have done us a favor after all.
Now as we face an economic disaster, the president can't make up his mind what to do in the Middle East. He failed to support the recent popular uprising in Iran which could have removed an insane, tyrannical regime, but now supports the uprising in Egypt that overthrew our best ally in the Arab world. Worse than that, he is apparently supporting the union uprisings in Wisconsin and Indiana, ultimately promoting the same kind of chaos going on in the Middle East here in America. At a time when he should be using his bully pulpit to try and bring calm and unity to an increasingly divided nation, he is helping drive the wedge of division deeper into the heart of the country.
What we are seeing more and more is a president with no clue on foreign affairs, no clue on domestic policy, no clue on economics, and apparently only a plan to ignore the Constitution, to rule like a dictator, and to drive America into the poor house.
What a pathetic contrast to our first and greatest president, George Washington. How far the character of the most important office in the world has fallen. Washington was a man of such integrity that there was nothing anyone could point to that would have made him ashamed. Obama is a man whose best quality is duplicity for which he is unashamed.
We are sitting on the brink of an economic disaster of monumental proportions, yet the disaster of our time is more than just economic. It is a disaster of week-kneed leadership that will destroy this country if we do not vote out the current administration in the next election. More than that, the disaster of our time is a moral and spiritual disaster of a people that have forgotten the Christian principles and the God of their Founding Fathers, and that is illustrated no better than by the man sitting in the White House.
We are beginning to see what could be a crisis of world-wide proportions across the Middle East. Tunisia, Algeria, and Bahrain are being crippled by strikes and rioters. In Egypt, Hosni Mubarrack has already been forced to resign, and in Libya, the longest ruling despot in the region, Moammar Khadaffi, is facing the test of his life to see whether he'll survive as ruler of that country. Libya's oil output has already declined by 20% since this uprising started, and as more foreign companies shut down operations in Libya it will only grow worse, driving up oil prices around the world.
A bigger problem is that the Muslim Brotherhood, a terrorist organization, appears to be behind some of these uprisings, and positioning themselves to take over. If this anti-American group gets control of the oil rich Arab nations and shuts off oil exports to the United States, our economy could be crippled over night. That's probably not likely to happen because these oil rich Arab nations depend almost solely on oil for their wealth. But they could tighten production like OPEC did three years ago and drive prices higher, possibly as high as the seven dollars a gallon candidate Obama told us we should get ready for.
This would plunge America into an unprecedented economic crisis. The country needs gasoline and diesel fuels to keep trucks on the road and freight trains on the rails. Not to mention the every day driver like you and me. When the price of fuel sky-rockets, the price of consumer goods follows, and when the prices get too high, people won't be buying, the economy will be falling, and unemployment will be rising again.
It has never been more clear why we need an energy policy that will make us independent of foreign oil. Forget the Department of Energy. That ugly monstrosity in 34 years has consumed hundreds of billions of dollars and to date hasn't produced one gallon of a feasible alternative fuel, neither has it made us independent of foreign oil, which is its whole purpose for existence. We use more foreign oil now than when the department was created.
Forget the environment. We've already taken better care of ours than all the rest of the world combined. We're not going to destroy anything by drilling for our own oil in our own territory, be it off shore or in Alaska.
The problem is we have a government filled with a bunch of cowards unwilling to stand up to the lunacy of special interest groups and tell them to go home. In 2003, President Bush tried to have the Alaskan wilderness opened for drilling. Republicans controlled the Congress and for the first time in decades had a chance to do something right for the country. Instead, a group of RINO's voted with the Democrats to block Bush's legislation.
Environmentalists argue that it would take at least ten years for newly found oil to be drilled, refined and finally put into production anyway, so why bother. Why bother? If drilling had begun in 2003, it would be available at local gas stations within another two years, and the current crisis would be curtailed. Oh wait, if gas prices were about to drop below a dollar a gallon by the 2012 election, Obama would take the credit for it and probably get re-elected. Maybe the environmentalists have done us a favor after all.
Now as we face an economic disaster, the president can't make up his mind what to do in the Middle East. He failed to support the recent popular uprising in Iran which could have removed an insane, tyrannical regime, but now supports the uprising in Egypt that overthrew our best ally in the Arab world. Worse than that, he is apparently supporting the union uprisings in Wisconsin and Indiana, ultimately promoting the same kind of chaos going on in the Middle East here in America. At a time when he should be using his bully pulpit to try and bring calm and unity to an increasingly divided nation, he is helping drive the wedge of division deeper into the heart of the country.
What we are seeing more and more is a president with no clue on foreign affairs, no clue on domestic policy, no clue on economics, and apparently only a plan to ignore the Constitution, to rule like a dictator, and to drive America into the poor house.
What a pathetic contrast to our first and greatest president, George Washington. How far the character of the most important office in the world has fallen. Washington was a man of such integrity that there was nothing anyone could point to that would have made him ashamed. Obama is a man whose best quality is duplicity for which he is unashamed.
We are sitting on the brink of an economic disaster of monumental proportions, yet the disaster of our time is more than just economic. It is a disaster of week-kneed leadership that will destroy this country if we do not vote out the current administration in the next election. More than that, the disaster of our time is a moral and spiritual disaster of a people that have forgotten the Christian principles and the God of their Founding Fathers, and that is illustrated no better than by the man sitting in the White House.
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Christian Atheists?
In a recent article political columnist Mike Adams writes about Two Kinds of Atheists. He describes one as being an "unbelieving" atheist. The unbeliever is generally a reasonable person who may have never had any religious influence on his life and has accepted the secular humanist view of life without God, that religion and logic don't mix. He is content in his belief and doesn't worry about what anyone thinks. He is reasonably and logically wrong, of course, but he is one who can discuss his belief, or lack of belief, rationally.
The other kind is the "evangelistic" atheist. This type belongs to the ACLU or any number of other atheist organizations, and is on a warpath to destroy everyone's belief in God. These people write books like The Da Vinci Code to deliberately slander and debunk the Bible. They are irrational in their hatred of God and unable to carry on a logical discussion of the issues. They would rather shout down their opponents than let their opponents have an opportunity to speak.
Interestingly enough, these atheists are not concerned about the gods of Islam, Hinduism, or any other religion. Their vitriol is focused on only one God. Their attempts to disprove what nature itself proves without doubt are only against Jesus Christ, which exposes their intent as being more than just a quest for the truth, but a concerted effort to destroy Christianity.
The unbelieving atheist is sometimes a political conservative. The evangelistic atheist is always a liberal. Adam's concludes that conservative atheists need to wake up, because "a godless conservatism is only one election away from extinction."
What I found even more interesting than the article was a comment in the debate section below by a man claiming to be a Christian atheist. He described himself as a conservative who believed the Bible, but quoted several passages from the prophet Isaiah which he claimed proved there is no God. His belief is in Christ the man, not Christ the Son of God. His denial of the deity of Christ puts him in the category of a Christian cult, much like the Jehovah's Witnesses or the Mormons. By misquoting and misinterpreting Scripture The Jehovah's Witnesses deny that Jesus Christ is God. Likewise, the Mormons, with an exceptionally twisted theology, believe that Christ became God just like you and I can become God. They do not believe in the eternal deity of Christ or the biblical doctrine of the Trinity.
This Christian atheist, however, is a first for me. It's not only a contradiction in terms, but is so illogical that it is hard to believe a reasonable person could hold the view. The man says he believes in the conservative values of family and brotherhood of man. He's for fiscal responsibility, reducing the debt and a free market economy over socialism. He wants to defund the pornographic National Endowment for the Arts because it is evil and bad morality.
But herein lies the problem. Without God there is no morality. There is no foundation for the family. There is no reason to assume there is a better way to live than the NEA's porno view of the world. True atheism seeks to destroy the family and all that is moral, because nothing is evil if there is not a Good Creator.
An atheist cannot be a Christian no matter how much of the Bible he may accept as true. At the heart of Christianity is belief and faith in the God-Man, Jesus Christ. The very name, Christian, means "one who is a follower of Christ." No one who denies His deity can be a true follower, and therefore cannot claim the title of Christian.
Furthermore, a true atheist, no matter how patriotic he may be, will never fully understand the nature of our Constitution or the intent of our Founding Fathers. He will never be able to come to grips with the fact that our American heritage is a Christian heritage, based on the providence of the Christian God. All that is good about America extends from that fact.
President John Adams wrote, "The doctrine of human equality is founded entirely in the Christian doctrine that we are all children of the same Father, all accountable to Him for our conduct to one another, all equally bound to respect each other's self love."
That America is the world's beneficiary nation comes from its faith in the Christian God and the doctrines of the Bible. Everywhere in our founding documents and in the writings of the Founders we find the same thing. On November 22, 1800, Congress convened in joint session in the new, not yet completed, capitol building in the new, not yet completed Washington, D.C. Adams stood to speak for the last time as president of the nation, and his first comment was this:
"It would be unbecoming the representatives of this nation to assemble for the first time in this solemn temple without looking up to the Supreme Ruler of the universe, and imploring His blessing."
An unbelieving politically conservative atheist, who thinks reasonably, needs to think his beliefs through logically and come to the understanding that the entire conservative movement is a reflection of the Christian beliefs of our Founders. Without a Christian base and a belief in God, conservatism has no foundation and cannot survive. Neither can there be such a person as a Christian atheist.
The other kind is the "evangelistic" atheist. This type belongs to the ACLU or any number of other atheist organizations, and is on a warpath to destroy everyone's belief in God. These people write books like The Da Vinci Code to deliberately slander and debunk the Bible. They are irrational in their hatred of God and unable to carry on a logical discussion of the issues. They would rather shout down their opponents than let their opponents have an opportunity to speak.
Interestingly enough, these atheists are not concerned about the gods of Islam, Hinduism, or any other religion. Their vitriol is focused on only one God. Their attempts to disprove what nature itself proves without doubt are only against Jesus Christ, which exposes their intent as being more than just a quest for the truth, but a concerted effort to destroy Christianity.
The unbelieving atheist is sometimes a political conservative. The evangelistic atheist is always a liberal. Adam's concludes that conservative atheists need to wake up, because "a godless conservatism is only one election away from extinction."
What I found even more interesting than the article was a comment in the debate section below by a man claiming to be a Christian atheist. He described himself as a conservative who believed the Bible, but quoted several passages from the prophet Isaiah which he claimed proved there is no God. His belief is in Christ the man, not Christ the Son of God. His denial of the deity of Christ puts him in the category of a Christian cult, much like the Jehovah's Witnesses or the Mormons. By misquoting and misinterpreting Scripture The Jehovah's Witnesses deny that Jesus Christ is God. Likewise, the Mormons, with an exceptionally twisted theology, believe that Christ became God just like you and I can become God. They do not believe in the eternal deity of Christ or the biblical doctrine of the Trinity.
This Christian atheist, however, is a first for me. It's not only a contradiction in terms, but is so illogical that it is hard to believe a reasonable person could hold the view. The man says he believes in the conservative values of family and brotherhood of man. He's for fiscal responsibility, reducing the debt and a free market economy over socialism. He wants to defund the pornographic National Endowment for the Arts because it is evil and bad morality.
But herein lies the problem. Without God there is no morality. There is no foundation for the family. There is no reason to assume there is a better way to live than the NEA's porno view of the world. True atheism seeks to destroy the family and all that is moral, because nothing is evil if there is not a Good Creator.
An atheist cannot be a Christian no matter how much of the Bible he may accept as true. At the heart of Christianity is belief and faith in the God-Man, Jesus Christ. The very name, Christian, means "one who is a follower of Christ." No one who denies His deity can be a true follower, and therefore cannot claim the title of Christian.
Furthermore, a true atheist, no matter how patriotic he may be, will never fully understand the nature of our Constitution or the intent of our Founding Fathers. He will never be able to come to grips with the fact that our American heritage is a Christian heritage, based on the providence of the Christian God. All that is good about America extends from that fact.
President John Adams wrote, "The doctrine of human equality is founded entirely in the Christian doctrine that we are all children of the same Father, all accountable to Him for our conduct to one another, all equally bound to respect each other's self love."
That America is the world's beneficiary nation comes from its faith in the Christian God and the doctrines of the Bible. Everywhere in our founding documents and in the writings of the Founders we find the same thing. On November 22, 1800, Congress convened in joint session in the new, not yet completed, capitol building in the new, not yet completed Washington, D.C. Adams stood to speak for the last time as president of the nation, and his first comment was this:
"It would be unbecoming the representatives of this nation to assemble for the first time in this solemn temple without looking up to the Supreme Ruler of the universe, and imploring His blessing."
An unbelieving politically conservative atheist, who thinks reasonably, needs to think his beliefs through logically and come to the understanding that the entire conservative movement is a reflection of the Christian beliefs of our Founders. Without a Christian base and a belief in God, conservatism has no foundation and cannot survive. Neither can there be such a person as a Christian atheist.
Sunday, February 6, 2011
Remembering Ronald Reagan
In the fall of 1996 I was working temporarily as a mail sorter for the US Post Office in Denver. The election was on the horizon and a representative of the Postal Union came around every night trying to encourage the workers to vote Democrat, because, he said, if Robert Dole wins the election the Republicans will change the Post Office and we will all lose our jobs. A Republican victory would take us back to the worst economy in fifty years like we had under Reagan.
First of all, I told him, I don't think that as a government union you are allowed to be partisan. Secondly, where did you hear the Republicans are going to change the Post Office? Last year the US Postal Service made a 6 billion dollar profit! Nobody in their right mind is going to change that, and there was nothing in the Republican platform about it. It is a flat out union lie. And third, what country were you living in during the 1980's. Reaganomics gave America its longest peacetime economic expansion in history. It was not the worst economy in fifty years, but the greatest economy we've ever had.
He looked at me dumbfounded and said, "I never heard that before."
"Of course you haven't," I replied, "because all you are is a Democrat union lackey and all you know is what your union boss tells you. If you'd take the time to study real history instead of swallowing liberal propaganda you might figure it out." He walked away in a fog, unable to give me a coherent answer, and never bothered me again.
That union representative's attitude was typical of Democrats and their left-wing media cohorts. For the last thirty years they have excoriated Reagan, calling him an "amiable dunce," claiming Nancy Reagan made all the decisions, accusing him of being senile or suffering from Alzheimer's long before he actually came down with the disease, and ridiculing him as the worst president we've ever had.
Then came Obama's State of the Union address two weeks ago. He was very "Reaganesque" the liberal media said. Really? What brought about the change? A month ago Reagan was the worst president in history. Now, all of a sudden, he was a man great enough for the media to compare their false "messiah" to. Except that, their false messiah doesn't begin to compare with the true man that Ronald Reagan was.
I saw Ronald Reagan in person one time. In 1980, on the campaign trail, he came to speak at Bob Jones University. I was sitting about ten seats over from the door where he entered the huge amphitorium on the campus. The seven thousand seat auditorium was filled to capacity with media representatives and dozens of cameras set up to one side of the stage. Reagan paused as he entered, taking in the enormity of the auditorium (I think his advance party failed to prepare him properly for the venue), and I had a chance to take a good look at him close up. He then moved to the platform and gave his stump speech.
I was already hooked, I'd been supporting him since the 1976 primaries, but if there had been any doubt, seeing him in person removed all questions. Reagan was my man, the man America needed. In fact, I believe he was the man God had prepared for the job.
Ronald Reagan grew up in Illinois, not poor, but probably lower middle class. His father was a drunk, his mother a Presbyterian, his best friend a black boy who had suffered from racial prejudices. With that humble beginning he lived the American dream, studying hard and excelling in high school, working his way through college, becoming a radio announcer, and finally eking out a living in Hollywood until he became a major star.
World War II interrupted his career. He joined the Army and was promoted to captain, but extremely poor eyesight prevented him from going into combat. Instead, because of his movie background, he was placed in the intelligence community where he examined photos and film, and where he became aware of the horrible, inhumane atrocities going on in Europe long before they were revealed to the public. It prepared him for the next stage of his life, a forty-five year personal war against communism.
It was not a war without casualties. His life was threatened. He slept with a gun under his pillow every night. It cost him his first marriage.
Reagan had been an FDR Democrat, but in the 1950's he began to see, as he traveled the country representing General Electric, the damage and hardship increasing taxes were putting on average Americans. He grew weary of the Cold War doctrine of appeasement that had us doing "duck and cover" drills in school and left the world in fear of nuclear holocaust.
He changed parties and his 1964 speech, A Time for Choosing, at the 1964 Republican convention started him on a political journey that would change the world. After two successful terms as governor of California, he set his eyes on the presidency and in 1981, at the age of 69, he took the oath of office.
America was in a deep recession, a "malaise," according to Jimmy Carter. Under Carter taxes went up, inflation went up, interest rates went up, and his only answer was we had to learn to live with it. Reagan had a greater vision for America and his tax cuts reversed the recession and led to six years of economic growth. And let us remember, the economic success of the Clinton years was not due to raising taxes and putting more burden on the American people. Bush I raised taxes and brought on a recession. It ended after the Republican Revolution of 1994 which forced Clinton to stop trying to socialize the economy and return to "Reaganomics."
Reagan restored a sense of honor to America. He formally welcomed home the forgotten Vietnam veterans, then built up the military in a pre-determined effort to defeat the Soviet Union by spending them to death. He had the courage to call the communist regime an "evil empire," and tell Gorbachev at the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin to "tear down this wall." His strategy worked. The Soviet economy collapsed, Eastern Europe was freed and threw out their communist leaders, and in 1991 the Soviet Union died. The Cold War was over. Reagan had changed the world.
More than his accomplishments, however, Reagan's greatness lies in his personality. He never forgot his humble origins. He never looked down upon anybody. He treated everyone with the same kindness and respect that he treated those he loved. Even his political enemies, such as Tip O'Neil, and media enemies like Sam Donaldson, found in him a gracious, likable man. He had the ability to make Americans feel good about themselves.
He connected with Americans because he was not an elitist who thought he was better than anyone else. He spoke what average, hard working Americans were thinking. He was not afraid to go against political correctness to tell the truth. Was he perfect? No. Did his administration have problems? Yes. But he understood better than any president since Washington the value of Washington's admonition that "honesty is the best policy."
Edmund Morris was Reagan's official biographer. His publication, Dutch, was not well received because of the style in which it was written, but Morris had the opportunity to sit in the oval office and interview Reagan on a regular basis for many months or years. After his book was published he said in an interview that Reagan was simply the most honest person he had ever known.
Ronald Reagan not only loved America, he believed in America. He never felt it necessary to apologize for our greatness. Rather, he understood what liberal politicians never will, that this country is God's gift to the world; that Americans have done more to bring about peace and a better world than any other people in history. In a televised speech on March 31, 1976, during his primary campaign against Gerald Ford, Reagan said the following:
We're Americans and we have a rendezvous with destiny.... No people who have ever lived on this earth have fought harder, paid a higher price for freedom, or done more to advance the dignity of man than the living Americans - the Americans living in this land today. There isn't any problem we can't solve if government will give us the facts. Tell us what needs to be done. Then, get out of the way and let us have at it.
Today is the 100th anniversary of Ronald Reagan's birth. We would do well to remember the truth about the man, his message, and his vision for America. Reagan was America's greatest president of the 20th century, and ranks with Washington and Lincoln as one of our greatest presidents of all.
Happy Birthday President Reagan. You are not forgotten. Your legacy will be remembered throughout all time.
First of all, I told him, I don't think that as a government union you are allowed to be partisan. Secondly, where did you hear the Republicans are going to change the Post Office? Last year the US Postal Service made a 6 billion dollar profit! Nobody in their right mind is going to change that, and there was nothing in the Republican platform about it. It is a flat out union lie. And third, what country were you living in during the 1980's. Reaganomics gave America its longest peacetime economic expansion in history. It was not the worst economy in fifty years, but the greatest economy we've ever had.
He looked at me dumbfounded and said, "I never heard that before."
"Of course you haven't," I replied, "because all you are is a Democrat union lackey and all you know is what your union boss tells you. If you'd take the time to study real history instead of swallowing liberal propaganda you might figure it out." He walked away in a fog, unable to give me a coherent answer, and never bothered me again.
That union representative's attitude was typical of Democrats and their left-wing media cohorts. For the last thirty years they have excoriated Reagan, calling him an "amiable dunce," claiming Nancy Reagan made all the decisions, accusing him of being senile or suffering from Alzheimer's long before he actually came down with the disease, and ridiculing him as the worst president we've ever had.
Then came Obama's State of the Union address two weeks ago. He was very "Reaganesque" the liberal media said. Really? What brought about the change? A month ago Reagan was the worst president in history. Now, all of a sudden, he was a man great enough for the media to compare their false "messiah" to. Except that, their false messiah doesn't begin to compare with the true man that Ronald Reagan was.
I saw Ronald Reagan in person one time. In 1980, on the campaign trail, he came to speak at Bob Jones University. I was sitting about ten seats over from the door where he entered the huge amphitorium on the campus. The seven thousand seat auditorium was filled to capacity with media representatives and dozens of cameras set up to one side of the stage. Reagan paused as he entered, taking in the enormity of the auditorium (I think his advance party failed to prepare him properly for the venue), and I had a chance to take a good look at him close up. He then moved to the platform and gave his stump speech.
I was already hooked, I'd been supporting him since the 1976 primaries, but if there had been any doubt, seeing him in person removed all questions. Reagan was my man, the man America needed. In fact, I believe he was the man God had prepared for the job.
Ronald Reagan grew up in Illinois, not poor, but probably lower middle class. His father was a drunk, his mother a Presbyterian, his best friend a black boy who had suffered from racial prejudices. With that humble beginning he lived the American dream, studying hard and excelling in high school, working his way through college, becoming a radio announcer, and finally eking out a living in Hollywood until he became a major star.
World War II interrupted his career. He joined the Army and was promoted to captain, but extremely poor eyesight prevented him from going into combat. Instead, because of his movie background, he was placed in the intelligence community where he examined photos and film, and where he became aware of the horrible, inhumane atrocities going on in Europe long before they were revealed to the public. It prepared him for the next stage of his life, a forty-five year personal war against communism.
It was not a war without casualties. His life was threatened. He slept with a gun under his pillow every night. It cost him his first marriage.
Reagan had been an FDR Democrat, but in the 1950's he began to see, as he traveled the country representing General Electric, the damage and hardship increasing taxes were putting on average Americans. He grew weary of the Cold War doctrine of appeasement that had us doing "duck and cover" drills in school and left the world in fear of nuclear holocaust.
He changed parties and his 1964 speech, A Time for Choosing, at the 1964 Republican convention started him on a political journey that would change the world. After two successful terms as governor of California, he set his eyes on the presidency and in 1981, at the age of 69, he took the oath of office.
America was in a deep recession, a "malaise," according to Jimmy Carter. Under Carter taxes went up, inflation went up, interest rates went up, and his only answer was we had to learn to live with it. Reagan had a greater vision for America and his tax cuts reversed the recession and led to six years of economic growth. And let us remember, the economic success of the Clinton years was not due to raising taxes and putting more burden on the American people. Bush I raised taxes and brought on a recession. It ended after the Republican Revolution of 1994 which forced Clinton to stop trying to socialize the economy and return to "Reaganomics."
Reagan restored a sense of honor to America. He formally welcomed home the forgotten Vietnam veterans, then built up the military in a pre-determined effort to defeat the Soviet Union by spending them to death. He had the courage to call the communist regime an "evil empire," and tell Gorbachev at the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin to "tear down this wall." His strategy worked. The Soviet economy collapsed, Eastern Europe was freed and threw out their communist leaders, and in 1991 the Soviet Union died. The Cold War was over. Reagan had changed the world.
More than his accomplishments, however, Reagan's greatness lies in his personality. He never forgot his humble origins. He never looked down upon anybody. He treated everyone with the same kindness and respect that he treated those he loved. Even his political enemies, such as Tip O'Neil, and media enemies like Sam Donaldson, found in him a gracious, likable man. He had the ability to make Americans feel good about themselves.
He connected with Americans because he was not an elitist who thought he was better than anyone else. He spoke what average, hard working Americans were thinking. He was not afraid to go against political correctness to tell the truth. Was he perfect? No. Did his administration have problems? Yes. But he understood better than any president since Washington the value of Washington's admonition that "honesty is the best policy."
Edmund Morris was Reagan's official biographer. His publication, Dutch, was not well received because of the style in which it was written, but Morris had the opportunity to sit in the oval office and interview Reagan on a regular basis for many months or years. After his book was published he said in an interview that Reagan was simply the most honest person he had ever known.
Ronald Reagan not only loved America, he believed in America. He never felt it necessary to apologize for our greatness. Rather, he understood what liberal politicians never will, that this country is God's gift to the world; that Americans have done more to bring about peace and a better world than any other people in history. In a televised speech on March 31, 1976, during his primary campaign against Gerald Ford, Reagan said the following:
We're Americans and we have a rendezvous with destiny.... No people who have ever lived on this earth have fought harder, paid a higher price for freedom, or done more to advance the dignity of man than the living Americans - the Americans living in this land today. There isn't any problem we can't solve if government will give us the facts. Tell us what needs to be done. Then, get out of the way and let us have at it.
Today is the 100th anniversary of Ronald Reagan's birth. We would do well to remember the truth about the man, his message, and his vision for America. Reagan was America's greatest president of the 20th century, and ranks with Washington and Lincoln as one of our greatest presidents of all.
Happy Birthday President Reagan. You are not forgotten. Your legacy will be remembered throughout all time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)