Tuesday, December 10, 2013
I know the title alone will get people already reacting saying, you can't take that away. It is "Un-American."
I say the founding fathers didn't think so. When the country was founded, the only people who were allowed to vote were white landowning males. All other groups were considered too ignorant to vote.
Before you get on your high horse and start saying that was racist, sexist, and whatever other -ist you can think of, understand the time. In those days only white males were allowed to go to school. If you owned land, you obviously knew a little more than someone less successful. Therefore, you had a better idea of who to vote for. It was also motivation for those who were less successful to work harder so they could vote. So based on that, it was appropriate at the time.
I am not saying there weren't imperfections in the mentality. Women and minorities were discriminated against and I do commend all who fought for those changes that were needed. Because the Founding Fathers set it up that way, there have been four amendments that have dealt with voting rights. They were all justified amendments.
The 15th amendment gave voting rights to all races and prohibited the restriction based on previous condition of servitude. Then came the 19th amendment which gave women the right to vote. Next was the 24th amendment which did away with poll taxes which was a dirty tactic. Finally the 26th amendment prohibited states from making the voting age higher than 18.
What all that means is that we can't take away the right to vote based on gender, race, or age. That is great because it should never be taken away because of those reasons. However, none of those amendments say that we can't restrict voting rights due to other factors.
Should a high school drop out be allowed to vote? I don't think so. He or she couldn't even finish high school which is not that hard in this day and age. How can we honestly trust that person to make an intelligent and informed vote?
Should a person on Welfare, Food Stamps, or any other kind of assistance be allowed to vote. I don't think so. He or she cannot make it on his or her own abilities and ambitions without being a burden to the taxpayers. How can we honestly expect that person to make a vote that is objective and not self-serving?
What about a person with a criminal record a mile long? Some states do restrict for this reason, but how can we expect such a person to make a vote based on any kind of morality? I am not saying people don't change , but still the risk is too big.
I know democrats will never go for this. They live off the uninformed vote and Obama never would have got elected twice without it.
Tuesday, December 3, 2013
I really don't like the direction this country is going. It seems that liberal ideology is just taking everything over. We have reached a point in our society where the Ten Commandments and the Bible get removed from everything because they could offend those who do not believe. Yet atheists are allowed to post signs such as this.
How is that fair? That is the most blatantly offensive sign I have ever seen. Yet Christians can't post signs that offend people but atheists can.
Atheists are not alone though. Why is it okay to post this billboard?
That is just nonsense. So it is not about offending people, it is about who is being offended. So what that means is that we can offend Christians but nobody else.
How did our society get to this point?
It is real simple. We started electing Democrats. It is time to call a spade a spade. The Democrats are the party of the devil. In fact the letters actually stand for Devil enjoys making own crazy rules all the time (DEMOCRAT). I am in no way saying that I agree with everything the Republicans do, but at least they don't blatantly disrespect God.
The Democrats are exactly what the devil is. They give you a message that seems so appealing. If you make a mistake and get pregnant, that mistake should not hurt you so go ahead and kill that baby. It is okay to love who you want and marry who you want. They give all these government assistance programs like welfare, food stamps, child support, etc. Now the latest is this Obamacare crap. Contrary to what they say, it is not about helping the poor. It is about controlling the people. That is why they demonize the wealthy and successful. They can't control them.
They sell their message in a way that makes it seem like the people are gaining freedom when in fact they are losing it. The harsh reality and this will be an inconvenient truth for many is that every time we elect a democrat, we fall further from God.
I know that so many people don't want to go against their unions, but at some point they need to realize that God can do more for them than their union can. But somehow liberals have convinced people not to use Christian values as a basis for voting. And people seem to think that faith and politics should be separate. Did we ask Jesus for his opinion on that?
The only way to get this country going again is to stop electing Democrats. That is the cold hard truth.
Wednesday, October 23, 2013
Proponents of so called Marriage Equality have been really diluting the word of God by claiming that his greatest Commandment is love. Therefore, love everybody and let them live. Even some pastors are saying that which puzzles me. The problem here is that they are confusing love with acceptance. It is true that God wants us to love our neighbors and the greatest commandment is love. But does that mean we just accept things that God says are wrong because they say this is who I am and I can't change.
Leviticus 20:13, If a man has sexual relations as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. That is very clear that that is not an acceptable behavior in God's eyes. The idea that we should just accept this because of love really doesn't hold water.
Imagine this.A father loves his son unconditionally. But one day he finds drugs in his room. He tells his son that he is welcome any time but the drugs are not. So if you are going to have drugs you are not and you have to leave if you have drugs. Get rid of the drugs and you are welcome to come back any time but drugs are not welcome in my house.
Is that a lack of love? I don't think so. He is not accepting his sons lifestyle but will welcome him back when he changes it. That is tough unconditional love. Yet, he did not accept a lifestyle choice that God says is wrong.
Let me ask this. What if the son were to look at his dad and say, "But Dad, this is who I am and I can't change." Would that fly? Of course not. What if pedophiles start using that argument? It is not an acceptable answer for any of them. So why is it acceptable for homosexuals to use it? I don't get it.
Friday, October 11, 2013
Since the government has been shut down, Mr. Obama, I still refuse to call him President, has repeatedly blamed one small faction of the Republican party. He has also repeatedly referred to them as extremists. He is talking about the Tea Party. Let me start with his first inaccuracy. The Tea Party is not a branch of the Republican party. They hold both parties accountable for following the Constitution and being fiscally responsible. Nobody should be against that.
Now, for the extremist part. Compare the picture above with the one below.
Can you really compare the Tea Party with this? Give me a break!
When is the last time you heard of the Tea Party doing this?
One last thought, if Mr. Obama is so against the people at the top, why is he not against any of these people below.
Tuesday, October 1, 2013
As we all know, the government has partially shutdown for the first time in 17 years. Like many other issues, the Republican party will be blamed for it. Not because it is right, but because it is what CNN, MSNBC, PBS, ABC, CBS, and pretty much all other news sources except FOX will tell the public.
They will choose to ignore the fact that Mr. Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid refused to compromise and come up with a plan that is acceptable to all parties. They will not ask the tough question that if this is such a great law, then why are all those who passed it exempting themselves from it.
The reality is that it is the Democrats who are leading the country towards Socialism and ultimately communism. It is also a sad reality that the media and the public will choose to ignore it.
God help us.
Wednesday, September 11, 2013
We all remember where we were 12 years ago today. That was the day that America got a new enemy. This was one unlike any other. It was not a war against one country but against one ideology. That is terrorism. Since that time, the United States has removed two dictators in Saddam Husssein and Osama Bin Laden. Supposedly, the troops will be out of both Iraq and Afghanistan soon.
But now another threat has emerged as there is a new threat as there is evidence that Syrian President Basar al Assad used chemical weapons against Syrian rebels. Those rebels might actually have links to al Quaida. That would lead you to the question why would we get involved a help the same people who attacked us?
The only explanation I can think of is if somehow Syria is also a threat to the United States or one of it's allies like Israel. It does say it the books of Isiah and Jeremiah that there will be a war with Syria and they will be wiped out. That prophecy has not been fulfilled as of yet.
One thing we have to understand as citizens is that our government does have access to information that the rest of us don't. When I was a screener at TSA, I knew things I ordinarily wouldn't and I was only a screener. The elected officials have a much higher clearance than that. Therefore, we have to understand that they have more information than we do.
That means they would have a better idea if Assad is a threat to the United States or allies.This decision has to be about whether or not this is a threat to us or not. It can't be about politics. Obama can't do this for political gain and House Republicans cannot oppose just because Obama wants to. The decision has to be about National Security.
From what I understand, Obama doesn't want to send in any ground troops but just wants to do air strikes to Assad's places where the chemical weapons are. That is not a good plan because one Assad already knows the plan and has probably already moved the weapons.
Two, Obama is delusional if he believes that doing such a thing won't cause a reaction from Syria. If somebody punches you in the nose, you are going react and hit him back.
So if this guy is a threat, we need to take him out altogether. Otherwise, we should stay completely out. We also have to be careful about trusting Mr. Putin from Russia. If he gets their weapons in diplomacy but sells them more, what is the point? I also would not trust Russia with weapons such as that.
Tuesday, September 3, 2013
A few days ago, Obama gave a speech honoring Martin Luther King on the 50th anniversary of his historic I Have a Dream speech. I found it disgusting to be honest. King was a great man who wanted equal opportunity for all citizens. He wanted people to be judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. He didn't want anybody to get anything handed to them. He just wanted the same opportunity for everybody to live the American dream. His ideas were about as opposite from Obama's as you get. That is why I do not believe for one minute that King would have supported Obamacare as Mr. Obama suggested.
Another part of King's legendary speech said that he dreams of a day when ancestors of former slaves and slave owners would sit down and eat together. That tells me that he really wanted unity among the races. Looking at the nation now, it has never been more divided over race. Obama's statement that if he had a son, he would look like Trayvon Martin. That right there meant that he was going to side with Martin because he was black regardless of what the evidence was. Since the verdict, there have been many black on white crimes claiming it was for Trayvon. Yet, Obama never once has told any of them to stop the violence. The fact is that we are very close to a black on white war and King would be disgusted by that.
Friday, July 5, 2013
I always love the 4th of July. It is a day to celebrate this great nation and to honor those who have served and protected it. It felt different this year though. With all the negative like Benghazi, IRS, and Obamacare being rammed down our throats, it is almost like celebrating what this country used to be. That is before we even mention the fact that the debt is continuing to grow by the trillions.
That makes me wonder if our nation can ever be great again. I am reminded of a speech I heard a couple of months back by a member of the Libertarian Party. Libertarians believe in freedom across the board. The Democrats believe that people should have freedom to marry who they want and get an abortion but want to limit freedoms for business. The Republicans on the other hand want freedoms for businesses but are not in favor of abortion or non-traditional marriage. The Libertarians believe that either you value freedom or you don't. You can't give one freedom and not the other.
I agree with that to a point. I personally feel that government should stay out of the marriage issue altogether and let the church decide. I don't agree with abortion because you are then taking away freedoms from an unborn who will never have that freedom.
Where I really agree with the Libertarians is their stance on small government. The speaker said, "If it moves privatize it and if it doesn't move privatize it." I think that is a great idea. The more that is privately owned the less government there is. The smaller the government the less spending.
They believe in government respecting and valuing people's freedoms. One thing the speaker said that really stood out was that freedom doesn't necessarily make us safer. Therefore, societies have to decide what is more valuable to them, freedom or safety.
My take on that whole idea is this. I think that with more freedom comes responsibility of the citizens. If you want the freedom to own a gun then you need to responsible with it. When people become less responsible with their freedoms, the government kind of has to do something.
When the country first started people were responsible with their freedoms and that is why it worked. This is where the Libertarians may disagree but I believe that the reason people were responsible with their freedoms is because they believed in and were obedient to God. I love the ideas of more freedom by the Libertarians. But the ironic thing is that they are a non-religious party and true freedom comes from obedience to God.
Wednesday, April 24, 2013
In the Old Testament, the prophet Samuel establishes the first monarchy in Israel much to his own apprehension. He felt that the only authority the people needed was God and that giving man that kind of authority would lead to corruption. He was right. The first king was Saul and followed by David. After David most of the Kings did evil in God's eyes and the result was being enslaved in Babylon.
So why would Samuel grant them a King when he had an idea what would happen? It was because God spoke to him and said that if they want a king, give them a king. That makes you wonder why would God do that? He had to know what would happen. My belief is that because God gave us free will and therefore we need to be held accountable for our actions. God knew the corruption that would come and being enslaved in Babylon was the only way for the people to realize that they had to follow God and not man. Only when they realized that did God set them free.
Now here we are in 2013 and we have a president whose ideals challenge the Constitution more than any president in history. He proclaimed that we are not a Christian nation when the whole ideology of our nation came from biblical ideals. Unfortunately, there are far too many good and moral people who have allowed the liberally biased media to brainwash them.
They think that Obama can do no wrong and that his failures are the Republicans fault for blocking him. I know my view on that but it won't matter because in 2016 the brainwashed masses will continue to point the fingers at the conservatives if they continue to block Obama's ideas.
That takes me back to Samuel. There was only one way then for the people to learn the danger of having a king. Here we are in that situation again. There is only one way for the people to understand that Obama's ideas are bad.
This pains me to say but like God had to make his people live with their choices, we have to do the same. Like it or not, the people chose Obama and so they have to live with that choice. The only way for them to see that it was a bad choice is for his ideas to be implemented. Then when everybody is broke, they might realize that conservative ideology might not be so bad.
Otherwise, we will end up with Hillary Clinton. That thought scares me.
Saturday, April 6, 2013
Recently, The History Channel put together a great mini-series The Bible. It was a five part series that told the story all the way from Genesis to Revelations. Anybody who watched it would have a hard time doubting the existence of God.
Being a Christian Republican, the part that stood out to me was that the people prospered when they were following God and would fall when they turned away from God. It started when Eve ate the forbidden fruit and soon paid the price.
Next it was Abraham who convinced his people to follow God's word to leave Mesopotamia and head to the land of Canaan. God promised Abraham that his people would be as numerous as the stars in Heaven. However, they would have to be enslaved for 400 years first. It was Moses who was able to free them through God's guidance.
As he set up his Kingdom in Israel, he made sure that God was Central to the people. It was after Moses died that the prophet Samuel reluctantly gave Israel a King at the insistence of the people. God told him that if they want a king, give them a king. Saul became the first king but the most well know was David. The Kings that followed David though would turn away from God and do their own thing. The result was that they were enslaved to the Babylonians.
It was not until the Prophet Daniel was able to get his people to once again have faith in God that they were freed.
Then Jesus was born and we all know the story of how he was crucified for all of our sins. Eventually all of his disciples except John suffered the same fate. The Roman Empire was known for persecuting Christians and they eventually fell.
Now, fast forward to the United States. The pilgrims came here on the Mayflower to escape being persecuted for their Christian beliefs. When they got their independence from England, the country was founded with Christian values based on the Bible. Both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution indicate that we are a nation under God.
It was as a Christian nation that the United States prospered. This was the country where people had freedoms that were enjoyed by no other nation. With these freedoms, people made great things like cars, planes, TVs, phones, computers, etc. Electricity was also created. People became wealthy from their own innovation. It was the founders and their faith in God that made all that possible.
Now fast forward to now. It is legal to murder unborn babies. Homosexual marriage will likely be legal in the near future. Politicians have gotten elected by telling people that all these great men who made great things are the bad guys. We have gotten so far away from God and wonder why we are $16 trillion in debt. If you read the Bible and get the DVD of the mini series, it won't be too difficult to figure out.
Ben Carson in 2016.
Sunday, March 17, 2013
Dr. Benjamin Carson went from relative obscurity to the national spotlight with his moving speech at the National Prayer Breakfast. His speech got so much attention that he was invited to speak at the CPAC this year where he delivered another powerful speech.
Carson started out by talking about common sense and how everybody needs to apply it. He also mentioned how he received nasty letters because he was a black man who critiqued the president. He asked,"When did we reach a point where the color of my skin meant how I had to believe politically?" He was also asked why he never talked about race and his reply was "because I am a neurosurgeon." That statement right there shows that he is not trying to use his race as an excuse to be a victim.
He also reiterated about how his mother always made sure he did his homework. They were poor but his mom did not allow that to be an excuse. Then he got into how too many people have not been involved in the government. They know football scores and Dancing With The Stars but they don't know what is happening in government. He stated that voting is done based on name recognition rather than issues. The approval rating for the legislators is 9% but they get reelected at a 90% rate. The country was supposed to be for the people and by the people and that if we turn it over to the government than we can't complain.
One controversial part of his speech was how he stated what he would do if he wanted to destroy the nation. First, he would divide the people because as Jesus once said,"a house divided cannot stand." Second, he would encourage a culture of ridicule for morality and values that made this country great. Then, I would drive the country so far into debt that it could not recover and weaken the military and destroy their morale. Carson concluded that it is too coincidental that that is happening now and it is exactly how all pinnacle nations have fallen.
Later Carson spoke about the roots of Socialism and how it was a reaction to America. You had guys like Ford and Rockefellor with all this money and many people have nothing. European countries felt that it can't work like that because the government needs to redistribute the money so it is fair. He asked if he have heard that before. What those countries failed to realize it was those wealthy private citizens and not the government who built things such as the Transcontinental Railroad that built our society. It was through their generosity that nobody went hungry because the wealthy was able to give enough to the churches.
That is why you give tax deductions to churches because they do help. Carson stated that 40 of the wealthiest families in America agreed to give half their wealth to charities. Where else in the world does that happen?
Then he reiterated his stance that the tax system should be based on God's idea of proportionality or 10%. If you have $10 Billion you pay $1 Billion. If you have $10 you pay $1. So one guy paid a billion times more but they got the same benefits. What is more fair than that?
Carson then stated that what is not fair is exempting a group that has less. He finds it insulting because he grew up poor and saw it as a way for the elite to keep them down and stay down.
Next, he got into health care. He mentioned his idea of a health savings accounts that could be passed down. His plan is in the book America The Beautiful.
He closed in saying that corporations should be treated as friends that create opportunities and not villains. He also said that he need to resist the war on Jesus. It is sad that in a country based on religious freedom it has become offensive to publicly acknowledge Jesus if you believe in him.
Carson is a guy that just makes way too much sense for the GOP to not use him as the next presidential candidate. Being that he is a black man who came from a poor background, it really sticks it to the left and the perception they gave created for the right in which we are nothing but a bunch of rich white guys born with silver spoons.
Monday, February 18, 2013
Recently, Dr. Benjamin Carson spoke at the national prayer breakfast and gave one of the most moving speeches. It was so moving that it began with Mr. Obama in smiles but it quickly became a very uncomfortable 25 minutes for him. Those who watched could tell in his facial expressions.
It started with biblical verses and he immediately transitioned into how he thought that political correctness is a horrible thing because it keeps people from discussing important issues. People are way too concerned with offending somebody so they don't discuss the tough issues. When I heard that, I immediately thought this is a man that I can follow. He spoke what was on his mind and didn't worry about offending anybody. We need leaders like that.
Carson also spoke about how the morality of this country is deteriorating and education has been dumbed down so much that college students could not pass an exit exam that was once required by sixth graders.
I liked his idea about health care in which a person would be able to get an HSA account at birth until death and then they can pass it on. He touched on the point that that way people would be able choose their own doctor still rather than put the money into the federal government. Obama did not look happy at all at this part.
As moving as the rest of the speech was his point on the deficit and taxes was just awesome. He said that if we started counting one number per second that it would take over 500 years to reach the deficit. He then said that his role model is Jesus and said he couldn't figure out why the politicians feel they have to outsmart God. God's system works. That is the tithe meaning everybody pays 10%. It doesn't say that you don't owe anything if your crops are failing or you owe triple if your crops are prospering. That means that if you have $10 billion you pay $1 billion and if you have $10 you pay $1.
Then Carson stated that the mindset against this system is that it doesn't hurt the guy who paid the billion as mush as it does the guy who paid the dollar. But he countered it with why do they feel they need to hurt somebody who just put a billion in the pool. Carson correctly asserts that it is that kind of thinking that has led to 602 of banks in the Caymen Islands and we need that money back here.
Everything he said just made so much sense. I was moved at the fact that he didn't let the fact that Obama was two chairs away from him and he still went off. One final thing that stood out was how Obama never applauded anything when the others did. That showed how uncomfortable the president was.
He closed the speech with a message to Obama that they symbol of America is the bald eagle and it is able to fly because it has both a left and a right wing. If you haven't seen this speech yet, please check it out and pray this man runs for president in 2016.
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Mr. Obama was able to get himself re-elected by winning the hearts of many dedicated yet easily fooled voters. One issue he used was his ideas of taxing the rich heavily and making them pay a higher percent than the rest of the people. While that may sound good to many on the surface, if you really look at this technique you know that it just won't work.
The problem is that whether you believe it is right or wrong to do this, the problem is that the rich won't let it happen. You have to understand how a rich person thinks. While I am not rich, I know many who are and understand their mindset. They have a set amount in their mind of how much they need to survive. Is that an amount that many of us would to have half of? In many cases, the answer is yes. Nonetheless, they each have the amount they feel they need in their head and they will find a way to keep that amount whether there is a democrat or a republican in office.
Therefore if you try to tax them heavily, they will beat the system in ways that could hurt people. They may have to lay people off because they can't afford to pay them anymore. They could also hide assets somewhere else. Another technique is buying a space and doing nothing with it so they can write it off as a loss. That takes the opportunity away from a small business owner. Therefore, when Obama was boasting about how he would tax them, I guarantee most were laughing at him.
While middle class people might think that that mindset seems selfish, I ask "Is it really?"
Don't we all have a set amount we need to survive on and if we go under that amount we do what we have to to get it back? That amount we have in our heads is probably one that a homeless person would love to have half of. Does that sound familar? So is it our obligation to give to homeless and invite them into our home? I sometimes do give a homeless guy some cash to get something to eat because I know that is what God wants. Others do that too, but it is by their own free will to do so. Should the government make those middle class people who choose not to give to homeless do it? Of course not and I don't think too many middle class people would support that.
The problem is greed here and I will acknowledge that. However, the middle class is ignoring their own greed. Many of them want the rich to give to them but they won't give to homeless. Talk about hypocrisy.
Everybody thinks those who have more should give until it is your turn to give. That includes the middle class many of whom don't put a penny in the tithe and offering basket on Sunday. I have seen that.
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
As we prepare for four more long years of what David Barton calls the most anti-biblical president in history, it scares me to think of how much more the church can get isolated by 2016. Considering how this man who I refuse to call president has already stated that we are not a Christian nation although the founding fathers clearly intended us to be, I am afraid of what mandates the government will try and place on churches.
The sad part is that they removed the bible and Ten Commandments from schools saying that there was a separation of Church and State. The liberals have totally gone against what that term was supposed to mean. It was supposed to be that one could not be jailed or punished for his beliefs. It never was supposed to mean that prayer couldn't be part of public school or other public venues.
What Separation of Church and State means is that there are certain roles for the church and certain roles for the state. Mark 12:17 states
Give what is Caesar's to Caesar and what is God's to God.
The liberas cry about this being a violation of the separation of church and state, yet they fail to recognize how they violated this concept. There a couple I can think of that many will not call separation of church and state issues.
Marriage is clearly defined early in the bible in Genesis 2:22-24
Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. The man said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman, ' for she was taken out of man." For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.
Yet this liberal government has tried to redefine what marriage is. Marriage is a church issue, not a government one. Therefore, government needs to stay out of this altoghether. Why aren't there crys about separation of church and state here.
You may think that welfare is not a violation of the concept of church and state but it really is.
2 Corinthians 9:7 states
Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.
That means that providing for those who are less fortunate is a matter for the church, and not the state. That is the whole point of the 10 percent. If everyone gives a little nobody has to give a lot. But people can't be mandated to give, it needs to be on their own free will. Otherwise, it doesn't count.
Therefore, government assistance agencies such as welfare and child support never should have been created. In the state's defense here though, people did stop tithing like they did before. It is on the people to understand that the 10 percent makes sense and there is a purpose to it and start tithing like they used to. Then the government needs to do away with programs such as this which do nothing but create more debt.
We know where Obama stands on the idea of us being a Christian nation and it is just terrifying to think how much further away from that we will get over the next four years. God help us.