Anti-Tax Tennessee

The Tennessean reported that there is a move afoot by Republicans in the General Assembly to create an amendment to the state constitution that will ban state income and payroll taxes. For details, go to http://www.tennessean.com/article/20081212/NEWS0201/812120408/1009/NEWS01. In reading some of the posted responses to the article, some people are for this ban, and some are against it.

For those who are against the ban, or see no need for it, there is something you need to know. As someone who originally hails from a state with a very backward tax policy (Alabama), I know first-hand the hardships an onerous taxation policy can create. In Alabama, not only did you have your usual sales taxes and property taxes, they had income taxes, and some cities also had an occupational tax (Birmingham was sued over it's occupational tax). Ad valorem/sales taxes were the favorite vehicles for politicians seeking to raise money instead of reigning in budgets. The thing of it is, life-long residents of a state that holds such backward taxation policies often don't even realize how enslaved they are to the state plantation. Hard work is not rewarded- it is taxed, and often no good use of the taxes is ever realized by the hard working tax payer.

If a state ban on income and payroll taxes is passed, the residents of Tennessee will hopefully never know the burden such a tax would bring to their way of life. The Assembly will be accountable because they will have to raise taxes in a very visible manner, chiefly by one of two means: one, through a very visible sales tax, or two, through a higher property tax. For mortgage holders paying taxes through an escrow account, they will be rather angry with the Assemblymen raising their mortgage payments without permission. Mortgage escrow accounts are often set to rise when taxed amounts rise in order to pay the taxes. Often the monthly payment will rise by just a few dollars a month, but that isn't the point. Someone raised it without the mortgage holder's direct approval. If the house is paid for, then the yearly taxes paid go up by a single lump amount, to be paid in full by the tax payer. Either way, politicians do not care for public bitterness over such a course of action as raising property taxes. In a state with payroll taxes, often the tax is raised, and people chalk it up to higher taxes as usual, and politicians often get away with it. They expect a payroll tax, but they do not expect a higher property tax. Likewise, paying more for groceries will raise the ire of citizens, so pols can't go that route and expect easy relationships with their constituents.

So you see, banning income and payroll taxes does several things. It keeps politicians honest in regard to budgeting, it reigns in budgets (thus controlling spending), and it frees the money of the working citizen, spurring more spending or saving, which ever the worker chooses to do.

Bravo to the Tennessee Republicans seeking to preserve the rights of citizens to keep their hard-earned money!

Another Way to Save the State Some Money

Court Officers Not Expected to Work Full Day
(From http://www.newschannel5.com/global/story.asp?s=9408755)

Rather than closing the alleged family-business tax "loophole", why not look for wasteful spending, Mr. Bredesen? According to News 5, court officers don't have to work the full day they are paid for. At another point in the report, one court officer said he "worked for the Davidson County taxpayers".

Here is a nice quote from the report:

"Altogether, the price tag for the 22 court officers in General Sessions Court comes to $1.2 million -- yet no one keeps track of how much they work or how much they're off."

Whether these part-time workers with full time salaries work for the state or county, here is one area of waste that seriously needs to be evaluated.

The Danger of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child

Have you ever watched a common mole? You know, the kind that pushes up mounds and trails in your yard? Of course not- it is underground. You do not know the mole is nearby until after the damage is done. Well, there is a mole of a story lurking just out of plain sight that must be eradicated, and the media seems uninterested in giving this story more air time and print space. To be fair, there is so much news to cover it is impossible for all news affecting us to be aired/printed, and even harder for one person to absorb it all. One such story that should be uncovered and brought above ground is the story of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Michael Farris, an attorney, wrote a column for ChristianNewsWire in May of this year. He addresses the legal impact that U.S. ratification of this seemingly nice sounding convention could have on parents in raising their children. (Michael Farris, is not "just" an attorney, he is also president and Co-founder of the Home School Legal Defense Association, and is current Chancellor of Patrick Henry College.) He wrote this bit of information that would raise the hackles of any parent I know:

"For starters, Obama supports the ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, a treaty that would have disastrous consequences for the American family. This treaty would be, according to our Constitution, part of the Supreme law of the land. And in the U.S. international treaties override state law.

The Committee on the Rights of the Child is the official UN tribunal granted the authority to interpret and enforce the Children's Convention, which sets forth an exhaustive index of children's rights, many at odds with the rights of parents. The tribunal has held, for instance, that the United Kingdom violated children's rights in Wales by allowing parents to withdraw their children from public school programs without first considering the child's wishes.

What this means in plain English is that the UN has determined that the government will decide for all what is best for our children. The government has authority to intervene in decisions regarding a child's education. The government will choose whether the child's wishes or the parent's wishes are the best for children.

This is the ultimate dream of elitists: they get to decide for all of us what is best for our own children.

Obama has clearly demonstrated his elitist core values. He has recently stated that people who believe in the Bible and who exercise their Second Amendment rights are driven by bitterness. It is not their fault, he says in a paternal voice, that they hold such regressive attitudes; an unjust society has led them to this unfortunate set of views and practices.

This very brand of elitist, statist thinking lies at the heart of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. No parent can be trusted to make decisions for their children without the government having the power to intervene in every case.

from: http://christiannewswire.com/news/486236590.html, David Halbrook

This underground mole, however, is about to break ground, and when it does, it will be too late. If the Senate consents to this treaty (signed by Clinton in 1995), we could/will likely be tried for not considering our children's "wishes" in our decision making.

My children's wishes do matter to me. However, they are too young to fully formulate the opinions and decisions regarding their lives. Therefore, I have to make decisions that would be contrary to their wishes. For me to abdicate my responsibility as a parent to my own child would cause chaos in my home. Abdicating it to the government would be disastrous as well. Parental rights and authority would be undermined, and the ensuing anarchy that follows from such a law would destroy a fabric of society already weakened by moral relativism, pluralism, gay rights, gay "marriage", and the like.

I am not talking about abstract, academic implications here. It is feasible that a liberal application of this Convention would include the rights of the parents to "force" children to attend church with the family, the rights of parents to choose their children's education (public, private, or home school), and the means of disciplining their children. As a homeschool dad, I don't relish the thought of living in a country where the governemnt can tell me that homeschooling is not in the best interests of my children. Can't happen? Tell that to the German parents being harrassed, questioned, forced to undergo psychiatric evaluation, or are even in jail because they are fighting for their right to homeschool. Many homeschool families are fleeing the country because of the pressure of the government to keep their children in government run schools.

According to U.S. Law, treaties must be consented to by the Senate. Please write, email and call your Senators and Congressmen today and tell them to vote "no" should a consent vote to this treaty come up. Once in office, contact President-elect Obama and ask him to repeal the presidential signature (not likely, as he fully supports this convention, as you can see at http://debate.waldenu.edu/video/question-12/#content).

Bredesen Wants to Close Family Business Tax "Loophole"

http://www.wsmv.com/news/18044353/detail.html?rss=nash&psp=news#SLANTLY_commentformheight::292

It appears Governor Bredesen just doesn’t get it. The last thing you want to do in an economic downturn is raise taxes or implement new ones, which is just what Bredesen wants to do. He claims that the $45 million “loophole” is outrageous. I am of the opinion that government has never seen a hard-earned dollar it didn't like, so it is out to claim more. No doubt, he feels it is the family business’ “patriotic duty” to pay these duties, to quote Joe Biden.

It is quite disingenuous for Gov. Bredesen to call this loophole “sinful”, especially when the state government is not looking to cut spending in the cold decisive manner my household does when we go over our budget.

Here’s an idea for the governor: cut each department that is not essential to the direct function of government first (the department, not the funds). See how much money you have left over, then get back to the honest and hardworking family businesses paying their fair share of taxes in the state. What the governor is trying to do is he is trying to create an income tax on a certain class of businesses, and this is just plain wrong. Tennessee taxpayers need to acknowledge the evil of this plan, and kill the idea again this year, as it was last year.

The most important YouTube Video I have ever watched

This is the most important video I have ever watched. Please watch it and post it whereever you can, Email it to your friends- it is that important.

This video does three things:
Explains the cause of the crisis
Offers easily understood proof of who/what caused it
Proves Bush and McCain tried to stop this from happening, but the Democrats stopped it.



Site: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIVvvoDbCV0

CBS Considers Alaska 'Tiny'

Did you know Alaska was tiny? No? I didn't either! CBS thinks so, though. Notice what they said on the caption of photograph 7 of their Palin photo essay at http://www.cbsnews.com/elements/2008/08/29/in_depth_politics/photoessay4395795.shtml:


 

Hmm, let me see if I can research this...

Ahh, found it. Here is a really good site to investigate this for yourself: http://www.uaf.edu/asgp/k12/birds_eye_view/ch2/story2-3.htm

I snapped an image from the site to save CBS some trouble:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you go to this site, you can compare Alaska to Texas (Alaska is 2.4 times larger), California (4.0 times larger), Illionois (11.3 times larger), and Delaware (263.7 times larger!) Wow, if Alaska is so tiny, then these other states must be microscopic! Alaska is tiny? Hmm, I think I will call this the "CBS Doctrine".

Defending Sarah Palin, Round One

We knew the time was coming, and it is here. The first real attack on Sarah Palin has arrived.

Being the conservatarian that I am, I am voting for McCain/Palin, but I must say that stumbling on the definition of the Bush Doctrine is definitely a fair issue to bring up. I thought her response definitely left a bad impression because she did not know what this doctrine was. I knew that slip up would be hammered by the Obama side (and quite honestly, she should be examined on her readiness).

However, being willing to defend in principle the fact that "doing whatever it takes" is always on the table shows that she is a proponent of the doctrine, because it is common sense. 'Strike them first before they kill us', which is the essence of the Bush Doctrine, is completely proper and common sense. Even if she did not know what the term itself meant, she still possesses the right perpsective when it comes to protecting our country. Any intellectual can spout definitions, but it takes having well defined principles within yourself to know what to do 'without blinking'.

Obama is willing to sit down with terrorists without preconditions. I am sure Obama knows what the Bush Doctrine is, but because of the way he responds in principle to defending our country, he is all wrong for the safety and security of this country. He knows what the Bush Doctrine is. Sarah Palin did not. But she had it in her heart, in principle. Therefore, I still feel better about Sarah Palin than I do about Barak Obama and Joe Biden any day.

addendum: The UPI has a very good article regarding the double standard between Palin and Obama/Biden at http://www.upi.com/news/issueoftheday/2008/09/12/ABCs_Gibson_grilled_Palin_hard_but_it_may_backfire/UPI-81241221234472/

Palin, Politics, and Punditry

After my family and I got home from church Wednesday night, we flipped on the TV and watched the Republican National Convention (RNC). I missed Huckabee’s speech, and part of Giuliani’s speech, but that was ok. I wanted to hear Governor Sarah Palin, the VP nominee and Republican governor of Alaska. Like most Americans outside our most northerly state, I had not heard of Sarah Palin (and I consider myself to be fairly well informed). Before I heard her speak, I thought McCain was resorting to extreme pandering to the female/feminist/Hillary vote, and just picking Palin for the veep position simply because she was a woman. I was wrong. And boy, am I glad I was wrong.
 

First of all, let us make no mistake about it: this was politics, pure and simple. But it was a brilliant piece of political maneuvering. Sun Tzu, writer of the definitive book on war strategy and management, The Art of War, says this: “In battle, there are not more than two methods of attack–the direct and the indirect; yet these two in combination give rise to an endless series of maneuvers.” (Art of War, 5:10) This maneuver was shrewd, and was both direct toward Obama, and indirect, toward the rest of the beltway status quo.
 

You see, McCain struggles a bit with perception in the eyes of America. He is perceived as old, which he is; he is perceived as mean and hotheaded, but who isn’t at times? He was perceived as “McSame”, as the one who will continue the incorrectly assumed “failed” war strategies of the Bush administration. He is perceived as soft on some conservative hot-button issues, such as abortion. We now know that Palin is anything but soft on abortion. Then here comes Palin on Wednesday night of the RNC, whose relative obscurity stoked much of America’s curiosity, and then her charisma, charm, and poise knocked everyone, liberals included, for a proverbial loop. She is a woman, a mother of five, the wife of a professional snowmobiler and oil rigger. Oh, she is a governor, too. She was a mayor. She is a corruption buster, a cross-party unifier, and she is the manager, politically speaking, of 20% of America’s domestic oil production. She hunts. She even smoked marijuana once, but she didn’t like it.
 

But why do these things make her so great a choice? It is simply a result of McCain’s expert use of political maneuvers. Does Obama dare speak to Palin’s “inexperience”? He only opens up the door for his own inexperience to be probed. Does he then call her experience as a low population state governor or small town mayor “petty”? What, and then alienate the millions of small town Americans? Does he dare criticize her marijuana experimentation, only to expose himself to his own words about drug use? Oh yes, Obama, you wrote of your own drug use in your 1996 book, “Dreams From My Father”, and I quote: “Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it. Not smack, though.” Nope, can’t talk about Palin’s one-time drug use. He might say, “She is a Republican, and as such she is against the American worker.” Are you kidding me? Her husband is a union worker, so that won’t wash. Criticize her lack of interest in the Iraq war? Nope, can’t go there, her son is shipping out this week. That’s a pretty vested interest, in my opinion. “I know”, said the liberals, “since we can’t attack her record, let’s attack her family. Bristol is Trig’s mother, not Sarah!” Well, we see how that turned out. Sadly for Bristol, she is the most famous 17 year old, unwed, expectant mother in the world right now. No, Sarah did not drag Bristol into this-the liberal e-rags like DailyKos did that. But Obama took the high road on that issue. Why wouldn’t he? If he didn’t, wouldn’t he be disparaging his own mother’s pre-marital motherhood? Will Obama or Biden knock her stance on abortion? Ok, do that Obama/Biden, and even other conservatives, and look at that woman in the eye and say Trig, who has Down Syndrome, didn’t deserve to live in utero.

 Ah, and then we have the pundits. Pundits are the social commentators who through education or connections are somehow qualified to make observations of the political sort, and disseminate these observations to a thirsty public. The right wing pundits are going nuts over her, and the left-wing-nut pundits are running scared. So even pundits cannot do anything other than drool foolishly or babble incessantly on useless points (such as her family issues and even her hairstyle).

 So, what did John McCain’s choice really do? It empowered the American conservative voter to listen with excitement to a politician and the real issues for the first time in a long while (probably for the first time since Reagan). It forced many liberal voters to listen and actually recognize the soundness of conservativism. In other words, it re-invigorated the American voter, which in my opinion, truly was John McCain’s greatest maneuver of all.

Why Palin’s Speech Worked

My friends at City-Journal.org have permitted me to re-post this here. It is an excellent piece by Lisa Schiffren. The original article can be found at http://www.city-journal.org/2008/eon0904ls.html.

Lisa Schiffren
Why Palin’s Speech Worked
A former vice-presidential speechwriter breaks it down.
4 September 2008
Last night, Sarah Palin, the previously obscure governor of Alaska, demonstrated before a national audience that she has an extraordinary ability to communicate with Americans. As someone who used to make her living writing political speeches, I can say that Palin certainly knows how to deliver one. She is talented at properly inflecting words to maximize dramatic punch, and she doesn’t stumble over timing. These skills, and not the writing, are what make it possible for an audience to really hear a speech.

Consider that the man who wrote Palin’s speech, Matthew Scully, also wrote speeches for Vice President Dan Quayle (as did I), Vice President Dick Cheney, and President George W. Bush. Scully has produced many excellent speeches over the years. Yet despite their various virtues, none of those men ever electrified a room the way Palin did last night. They had the words, but not the music—and absent compelling delivery, words are easily ignored in our media age. Dramatic delivery is a critical political skill that few Republican leaders have had since Ronald Reagan.

In a nutshell, Palin did the four things that she had to do. She offered repeated endorsements of John McCain and a comprehensive rationale for supporting him. She provided sharp criticism of the Democratic presidential candidate. As a newcomer, she demonstrated intelligence, ease with substantive matters, humor, and natural talent sufficient to explain why McCain chose her as his running mate. And she introduced herself and her family on her terms.

Introducing oneself should be a no-brainer for a candidate. But Palin had been through the wringer in the five days since her introduction as McCain’s surprise V.P. pick. Given the media attacks on her as a nobody, a distraction, an obviously bad mother running for office with a newborn at home, and a failed mother of a pregnant teenage daughter—as well as crass attacks on that daughter—taking back her story was an important, if delicate, task. (At the Democratic Convention, the Obamas had to reclaim their own story for the opposite reason: the press had treated them so gingerly that they seemed alien.)

Palin introduced her family in a straightforward, proud-mother way, with no hint of defensiveness. She referred to her daughters as “strong and good-hearted,” a rebuke to her pregnant daughter’s detractors. She touched hearts by noting the unique challenges that accompany having a special-needs baby—her newborn son has Down syndrome. Pronouncing herself an advocate in the White House for all parents in similar situations turned her maternal protectiveness into a political asset. Similarly, in presenting herself as the mother of an Iraq-bound soldier, she personalized her endorsement of McCain as commander in chief. Her counterpart in the Democratic Party, Joe Biden, has an Iraq-bound son, too, but he did no such thing for his running mate. She called herself a hockey mom, and her deft joke—“They say the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull: lipstick!”—conveyed willingness to fight hard in a feminine context. Any female would-be leader must present herself as simultaneously tough and feminine; since those qualities often undercut one another, the line was brilliant.

Palin also turned the Obama campaign’s derision of her experience as mayor of Wasilla, Alaska into a plus. She rooted herself in a hometown (where is Barack Obama rooted?). Her drawling explanation that “a small town mayor is sort of like a community organizer, except that that you have actual responsibilities,” had the crowd laughing with her, and set up a direct contrast between the GOP’s vice-presidential candidate and the Democrats’ presidential candidate on the key matter of experience. (She wins, and McCain rises above both.) And her small-town riff—“We tend to prefer candidates who don’t talk one way in Scranton and another way in San Francisco”—allowed her to swipe at Obama’s remark about rural dwellers who cling to religion and guns. It made the job of Scranton native Biden, assigned to win back the working class, harder.

Palin discussed her career as a reformer, her commitment to ethics, and, centrally, her efforts to restore government to “the people.” One of these—giving Alaskans back their money by selling the state jet (on eBay, no less), was funny, memorable, and spoke to one of the central planks of the McCain platform: fiscal responsibility. Palin also described putting ethics reform into law and reminded the audience that Senator Obama had no laws to his credit. Further, she attacked Obama’s “tax and grow the government” ethos, inviting working-class citizens to question how higher taxes would help them. Those working-class voters, not feminists, are the constituency she is targeting.

Most impressively, Palin, the foreign-policy novice, used her genuine expertise on energy issues, and her history of pushing back against oil companies, to deliver a brief but sophisticated discussion of how America’s energy vulnerability affects its dealings with various adversaries, connecting it to Vladimir Putin’s efforts to control the Georgia pipeline. That was sharp writing, enabling Palin to share foreign-policy substance without making it look forced. On energy policy, she offered concrete solutions: “Starting in January . . . we’re going to lay pipelines.”

Palin articulated her points so that average citizens could insert themselves into the pictures she painted. She concluded by making the case for John McCain’s character, experience, leadership, and readiness to be commander in chief in a dangerous world. Her performance helped validate McCain’s own political judgment in selecting her. And she spoke straight to the American people throughout. That is an astonishing amount for one speech to accomplish.

Lisa Schiffren was a speechwriter for Vice President Dan Quayle and contributes to The Corner at National Review Online.

Proof of Evolution!

Well, I was an ardent creationist- until I noticed these pictures:



I created this to show the world I was indeed in error. Thanks,

The Conservatarian

http://theconservatarian.blogivists.com/

Abomination in America, No Pun Intended

Normally, I do not post overtly religious content on this blog, but I feel compelled to do so today. I do it without apology, because as a Christian, I feel I need to make a stand for right and wrong, and declare the standards our God has laid before us.

 

The Sin:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/Hanuman_idol_for_Obama/articleshow/3160730.cms 

NEW DELHI: With Democrat senator Barack Obama busy in the run-up to the US presidential polls, a group of well-wishers in the capital have decided to send him a symbol of his lucky charm, Lord Hanuman, to help him emerge victorious.
Obama's representative Carolyn Sauvage-Mar on Tuesday received a gold-plated two-feet-high idol which she will pass it on to the (sic) Obama after it is sanctified. The idol is being presented to Obama as he is reported to be a Lord Hanuman devotee and carries with him a locket of the monkey god along with other good luck charms. An hour-long prayer meeting to sanctify the idol was earlier organised at Sankat Mochan Dham and by Congress leader Brijmohan Bhama, Balmiki Samaj and the temple's priests. "Obama has deep faith in Lord Hanuman and that is why we are presenting an idol of Hanuman to him," said Bhama (bolded emphasis mine-TC).
Accepting the souvenir, Sauvage-Mar, who is chairperson of Democrats Abroad-India, said, "Obama has extended his thanks for the support."
However, questions on Obama's religious beliefs elicited just a smile from Sauvage-Mar, apparently to avoid controversy back home where the Democrat senator is pitted against the Republican Party's John McCain in the Presidential polls. The idol will be kept at the temple for 11 more days and then sent to US. "We will perform the prayers for 11 days and then hand the idol to Carolyn who will send it to Obama," said the temple priest.

The Penalty:

We are seeing the direct result of idolatry in America- an outright idolater is running for president, and may likely win the office. However, America has had so many idols, the fact she is bringing an idolater into office should come as no surprise. America has gone after the false gods of materialism, pluralism, and relativism. We have relegated and demeaned God to be just another god among many, rather than acknowledging Him as the One true God, before whom all shall stand in judgment. The scripture teaches there is no god beside Him, so why is Obama a Lord Hanuman devotee? It is because Obama is religious, a little too religious, because he is following any god who can give him his passport to power. Unless he repents, it will be the damnation of his soul, and the undoing of this nation. Notice what the scriptures say:

 

 Psalm 33:12-22 12  ¶Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD; and the people whom he hath chosen for his own inheritance. 13 The LORD looketh from heaven; he beholdeth all the sons of men. 14  From the place of his habitation he looketh upon all the inhabitants of the earth. 15  He fashioneth their hearts alike; he considereth all their works. 16 There is no king saved by the multitude of an host: a mighty man is not delivered by much strength. 17 An horse is a vain thing for safety: neither shall he deliver any by his great strength. 18 Behold, the eye of the LORD is upon them that fear him, upon them that hope in his mercy; 19 To deliver their soul from death, and to keep them alive in famine. 20 Our soul waiteth for the LORD: he is our help and our shield. 21  For our heart shall rejoice in him, because we have trusted in his holy name. 22 Let thy mercy, O LORD, be upon us, according as we hope in thee.

 The Warning:

If this unrepentant Obama is elected, it will be an abomination, and the people will bring God’s wrath upon themselves. However, God is right in His judgments, and He does all things well. Perhaps God will use this foolish man to bring about a restoration of the country to Him. However, if He does, it will take a long time, and we will suffer for a while, but may He receive glory for it. God desires righteousness, and He tells us that “righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people” (Proverbs 14:34). It isn’t unreasonable to believe probably half, and likely more than half, of the voting population in this country supports Obama. If so, then as a nation we are guilty of the same thing the church at Galatia was guilty of- returning to false gods and going back to bondage. The Apostle Paul said this:

 ¶Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods.  But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? (Galatians 4:8,9).

We will be turned to bondage very shortly. God tapped us on the shoulder with 9/11, and he is tapping us on the shoulder again with the floods in the Midwest, fires in Florida, fires in California, earthquakes everywhere, droughts last year, high fuel costs, high food costs, and economic woes. Tolerance is preached, but Christians are persecuted in other countries. Soon, American preachers will be sent to jail over the words they preach, and it will be under the guise of hate crime legislation. Globally, we are having volcanic activity, earthquakes, and tsunamis. Plague and pestilence are making a return with antibiotic resistant drugs, just to name a few things. Gaiaism (earth worship) in the form of global warming/climate change legislation is upon us. The fools of this world err, not knowing the scriptures which tell us “For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.” (Romans 8:22). 

The Hope:

 

God’s people must continue to be lights in this fallen world. Let us proclaim the message of freedom and hope that is found in the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. All the things I have written here are already written in the scriptures. Keep in mind, however, that God gives grace to His people. Let us stand in the hope of the glory of God, for Christ is soon returning. We would do well to realize it is most likely, and almost certainly going to get rough before He does. Remember the words of our Savior- when you see these things beginning, look up, for your redemption draws near!

Let us keep in mind, however, our responsibility as believers in Christ, that we have an obligation to pray for our leaders. If Mr. Obama is elected President, I will pray for God to grant him wisdom to lead our country. I pray he will be turned to Christ in the real sense of faith and repentance of his sin, and be redeemed. I will also pray that this idol that is being sent to him will somehow be lost or destoyed. Let us also pray that through all these things, we can see the hand of God move in our country, and that He will be glorified. Keep your heads held high, fellow believers, for God is still in control!

Al Gore, Hypocrite Extraordinaire

Well, Tennessee's most famous (infamous?) treehugger has once again proven that eco-activists are not only wrong, most of them are hypocrites as well. According to the Tennessee Center for Policy Research, Al's energy consumption rose 10%. And that is WITH the energy conservation renovations he made to his home. At Snopes.com, one can also consider the inconvenient truth of Al's energy hungry and decidedly enviromentally UNfriendly home, vs the alledgedly oil-crazed George W. Bush:

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

LOOK OVER THE DESCRIPTIONS OF THE FOLLOWING TWO HOUSES AND SEE IF YOU CAN TELL WHICH BELONGS TO AN ENVIRONMENTALIST:

House # 1

A 20-room mansion (not including 8 bathrooms) heated by natural gas. Add on a pool (and a pool house) and a separate guest house all heated by gas. In ONE MONTH ALONE this mansion consumes more energy than the average American household in an ENTIRE YEAR. The average bill for electricity and
natural gas runs over $2,400.00 per month. In natural gas alone (which last time we checked was a fossil fuel), this property consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home. This house is not in a northern or Midwestern "snow belt," either. It's in the South.

HOUSE # 2:

Designed by an architecture professor at a leading national university, this house incorporates every "green" feature current home construction can provide. The house contains only 4,000 square feet (4 bedrooms and is nestled on arid high prairie in the American southwest. A central closet in the house holds geothermal heat pumps drawing ground water through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground. The water (usually 67 degrees F.) heats the house in winter and cools it in summer. The system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas, and it consumes 25% of the electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling system. Rainwater from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000 gallon underground cistern. Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into underground purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The collected water then irrigates the land surrounding the house. Flowers and shrubs native to the area blend the property into the surrounding rural landscape.

HOUSE # 1 (20 room energy guzzling mansion) is outside of Nashville, Tennessee. It is the abode of that renowned environmentalist (and filmmaker) Al Gore.

HOUSE # 2 (model eco-friendly house) is on a ranch near Crawford, Texas. Also known as "the Texas White House," it is the private residence of the President of the United States, George W. Bush.

So whose house is gentler on the environment? Yet another story you WON'T hear on CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC or read about in the New York Times or the Washington Post. Indeed, for Mr. Gore, it's truly "an inconvenient truth."

Sources:

http://tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=764

http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

Now, what should the average American think of these facts? Well, for starters, he should immediately recognize the environmental agenda for what it is: it is a means of enslaving and impoverishing the populace through guilt and misinformation. The environmental agenda is DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE for rising oil prices (because we cannot drill or build refineries), high food prices, and starvation in many areas of the world. It has crippled the freedom to dissent on global warming views, causing many scientists to become pariahs within their fields of study. It has created a sham industry of trading carbon credits, which actually allows companies to POLLUTE MORE if they buy credits from a company that has not polluted as much. One dare not blaspheme the name of Gaia, for her followers will see to it you are labeled as uncaring, unsymapthetic, and get this, even dangerous.

Don't get me wrong. I do not litter, I am going to try to start a campaign to recycle aluminum cans at work, and I try to conserve whenever I can. However, I do it because it is common sense. The left's version of doing the right thing ultimately leads to a point where the eco-elite have rule over the people, and place unfair and heavy burdens on them. Instead of each person doing the right thing because they want to, they are taxed into submission until they cannot afford to buy anything they can pollute with. Pretty nifty plan, huh? Oh, and get this, tax the evil corporations until they have to raise their prices, or go out of business. If they raise prices, tax them more so they pay for environmental evils their company has brought upon the earth. And then, when they shut down, the former employees will have to create fires (ooh, that is evil) to stay warm, because they have no other means and cannot afford anything else.

So much for leadership, Al. You are the finest example of the difference between leadership and eco-elitism, and quite frankly we could do much better without your hypocritical bully pulpiting.

Texas group sues to stop border fence

From the UPI:

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2008/05/18/texas_group_sues_to_stop_border_fence/1766/

 WASHINGTON, May 18 (UPI) -- The Texas Border Coalition, which includes a number of cities along the U.S.-Mexico border has filed a lawsuit against the border fence.
In court papers filed Friday in Washington, the group asked a court to block the construction of the fence in the Rio Grande Valley.
The coalition, which also includes business groups, charges that the Department of Homeland Security did not consult landowners in the area. DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff denied that in a news conference Friday.
Eagle Pass Mayor Chad Foster, who chairs the coalition, called the fence "an antiquated solution for a 21st century problem."

____________________________________________________________________

Hmm, it is funny how people think a fence is antiquated or won't work. It seems that I remember the Great Communicator Ronald Reagan saying, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall." If a wall doesn't work, then why bother asking to tear it down? It wasn't just to remove a symbol of communism, because symbols alone don't do squat. Walls are more than symbols, they are obstacles designed to impede mobility and keep undesirables out. Yes, I said illegal immigrants are undesirable. If that offends someone's liberal senstitivities, oh well.

Bush Signs Bill To Take All Newborns' DNA

It was with quite a bit of alarm that I read this article at inforwars.net today. I was not alarmed because of what was being done in the name of security, I was alarmed by the deafening silence of it. The government is now legally able, within six months, to get a DNA sample from every child born in the United States. Be it from a cheek swab or heel-stick blood sample, the parents will have no right or say whatsoever in the matter of submitting their children's genetic samples to the government (at least that is how I am reading this).

Let us step back and look at the implications of this genetic data collection:

1. Unconstitutional collection of your or my child's DNA 


2. Unwilling experimentation on my child's DNA 


3. Insurance companies datamining to see who is or is not "insurable" based on the genetic predisposition toward certain diseases (cancer, sickle cell anemia, Tay-Sach's, diabetes)


4. The outright lack of neccessity of such a program as this

And America is uttering not a word- no, not even a peep.

It is too late to block it by calling your senator, congressman, or the Oval Office. This act was created right under the noses of the American public. I consider myself pretty well plugged into the media, but I have not heard of the Newborn Screening Saves Lives Act of 2007. Two thousand SEVEN. Last year! And it was signed on May 2nd. We have two options in my opinion: the individual states will refuse to participate (which is unlikely) or we the people can take it to court. Thus far I have read the act, and I can find of no religious or conscientious objection clause in it (if someone knows of one, please point it out to me). This is indeed a frightening thing that has come upon us. I believe Big Brother is trying to become a little god.

Entire aticle at: http://infowars.net/articles/may2008/020507DNA.htm and excerpted below:

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

Bush Signs Bill To Take All Newborns' DNA
Health Council, Congressman Ron Paul warn new law could pave the way for a national DNA database
Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Friday, May 2, 2008

President Bush last week signed into law a bill which will see the federal government begin to screen the DNA of all newborn babies in the U.S. within six months, a move critics have described as the first step towards the establishment of a national DNA database.
Described as a "national contingency plan" the justification for the new law S. 1858, known as The Newborn Screening Saves Lives Act of 2007, is that it represents preparation for any sort of "public health emergency."

The bill states that the federal government should "continue to carry out, coordinate, and expand research in newborn screening" and "maintain a central clearinghouse of current information on newborn screening... ensuring that the clearinghouse is available on the Internet and is updated at least quarterly".

Sections of the bill also make it clear that DNA may be used in genetic experiments and tests.

Read the full bill here (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s110-1858).

One health care expert and prominent critic of DNA screening is Twila Brase, president of the Citizens' Council on Health Care who has written a detailed analysis (PDF; http://www.cchconline.org/pdf/S_1858_NBS-DNAWarehouseFINAL.pdf) of the new law in which she warns that it represents the first program of populationwide genetic testing.

Brase states that S.1858 and H.R. 3825, the House version of the bill, will:

Establish a national list of genetic conditions for which newborns and children are to be tested.
Establish protocols for the linking and sharing of genetic test results nationwide.
Build surveillance systems for tracking the health status and health outcomes of individuals diagnosed at birth with a genetic defect or trait.
Use the newborn screening program as an opportunity for government agencies to identify, list, and study "secondary conditions" of individuals and their families.
Subject citizens to genetic research without their knowledge or consent.

"Soon, under this bill, the DNA of all citizens will be housed in government genomic biobanks and considered governmental property for government research," Brase writes. "The DNA taken at birth from every citizen is essentially owned by the government, and every citizen becomes a potential subject of government-sponsored genetic research."

"The public is clueless. S. 1858 imposes a federal agenda of DNA databanking and population-wide genetic research. It does not require consent and there are no requirements to fully inform parents about the warehousing of their child's DNA for the purpose of genetic research."

The Electoral College, Explained

The other day I was having a conversation with some friends about the electoral college system. It appears that both of my friends feel that this system is antiquated and unfair to the voting populace. I thought I would write a short article about one aspect of the electoral college: balance popular votes with state populations.

The electoral college system was started for two reasons. One, back in the horse and buggy days, it was difficult for people to travel to vote, so this system of vote representation was devised to represent the vote. Secondly, the system was created in order to balance the sheer number of the majority vote with the ability of the the less populated states to have representation.

In the electoral system, each state has a number of electors equivalent to its total Congressional representation, with the District of Columbia receiving three electors. The reason for this is simple. Let me list some major cities for you:

1	New York City, New York	8,143,197
2	Los Angeles, California	4,324,526
3	Chicago, Illinois	3,158,790
4	Houston, Texas	2,016,582
5	Philadelphia, Pennsylvania	1,463,281
6	Phoenix, Arizona	1,461,575
7	San Antonio, Texas	1,256,509
8	San Diego, California	1,255,540
9	Dallas, Texas	1,213,825
10	San Jose, California	953,679

(Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Us_population)

The population of the top 10 cities in the United States is 25,247,504 (if I punched the numbers in correctly). Now, let us consider that this is 8.4% of the population of 300 million. This does not sound like a big deal, but numbers like this sway the vote. Why else do politicians focus their energies in highly populated areas? Not just for numbers, but electoral votes- they need both. This graphic illustrates this quite well:





These maps show the amount of attention given to each state by the Bush and Kerry campaigns during the final five weeks of the 2004 election. At left, each waving hand represents a visit from a presidential or vice-presidential candidate during the final five weeks. At right, each dollar sign represents one million dollars spent on TV advertising by the campaigns during the same time period. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_%28United_States%29)

Let's imagine for a minute, for the sake of mathematical simplicity, that there are only 1 million people in the United States. The population is concentrated in two cities, and sparse in the rest of the U.S. Suppose 550 thousand people lived in two cities, New York and Los Angeles. The rest of the population (450 thousand) lived in the rest of the country, evenly distributed in each state, for a total of 9,375 votes per state. Based on this ficitious country's rules of representation, the 48 states would each get three electoral college votes, for a total of 144 electoral votes. The other two states would get 61 votes each, for a total of 122 electoral votes (again, I am trying to prove a point by having close numbers between the states- this is not how numbers are allocated in real life). Now, the balance of power has shifted away from two highly populated areas to a more evenly distributed balance across the nation. The two cities can not decide the president on their own- it takes other smaller states to decide. These two large city-states have their own special interests, good or bad, that may be different from the smaller states. The city-states are still influential, but they are not all-powerful. Plus, the candidates have to give time to the other states to get elected.

In this very simplified form of the electoral college system, one can see the wisdom of our founding fathers in that the electoral system provides equity and protection to the less populated states from the whims of highly populated states. Our founders were intent on preventing tyranny in any form, whether it was the tyranny of the crown or the tyranny of the states.

No Restrooms Available, unless the government makes me???

A bill called "The Restroom Access Act" may soon bring some relief to 30,000 Tennesseans who suffer from inflammatory bowel diseases. I am opposed to this for quite a few reasons:

1) I'm sorry, but it is not the government's problem to provide facilities for the bowel afflicted.

2) This adds to the slippery slope of government instrusion into private areas.

3) If government can force these businesses to provide this sort of service to people with bowel problems, when will the far stretch to providing quarter to soldiers be forced upon us?

Here is the whole story:

Restroom act would bring Tennesseans relief

http://www.wkrn.com/Global/story.asp?S=8205205

A bill called "The Restroom Access Act" may soon bring some relief to 30,000 Tennesseans who suffer from inflammatory bowel diseases. Those who suffer from inflammatory bowel diseases often need to instantly find a bathroom, or face an embarrassing consequence. Finding a restroom can be an issue for people like local bank executive Vickie Storm. "My daughter had been diagnosed three years earlier and for me to be diagnosed two years later, I was in denial," the senior vice-president at Avenue Bank told News 2. Their condition was diagnosed as Crohn's disease. Both control it through medication, but Storm said so many others out there need help. That is one of the reasons for "The Restroom Access Act." The measure would provide entry to private restrooms, like those in small businesses without public facilities, for sufferers of inflammatory bowel disease. "We are a society and we all have to live together and sometimes we have to reach out and do things for citizens that have special needs and that is what we have done here," said Sen. Doug Jackson, a sponsor of the bill. Storm thinks eventually it might mean that she would carry a card informing the business of facility of her disease. "Without having to go into an uncomfortable or embarrassing explanation, just the fact you have this card would allow you to present it so that you would have access to the restroom facility you so desperately need," she said. The need appears to be heard on Capitol Hill. "The Restroom Access Act" is expected to pass both Houses and signed by Governor Phil Bredesen. 

The Case of the Missing Candidate

Has Ron Paul pulled out of the race? No. But the media would have you think so. He is not missing, he has just been dismissed from the attention of the media. From the debates to the primaries and caucuses, the media has had an extremely effective blackout on Dr. Paul. His voice has not been heard in the media, and I think I know why.

The Media is afraid. The fourth estate, which is predicated upon the freedoms of speech and press, is suppressing this man's voice. He did not have the CEO good looks of Romney. In truth, he looks more like someone's grandfather than anything else (actually he reminds me of John Mahoney, who plays the elder Crane on the television sitcom "Frasier"). He is only a year and a few days older than John McCain, so age should not be a factor for him, if it isn't for McCain. He is not the eloquent speaker that Obama is, but at least Dr. Paul speaks on facts, and not emotion. And compared to Hillary, well, enough said there.

America, do you want change? Write in the name of Dr. Paul if he is not on the November Ballot. Vote for him if there is a caucus or primary in your area. I agree with Obama that we need change, but not the kind of change Obama espouses. We need a change back to the gold standard of currency to keep governmental powers and inflation in check. We need a change back to the form of goverment that ensures that states oversee the central government, and not the other way around. We need a military presence on our on shores to stem the tide of illegal immigration. We need to change back to the philosophy of less governement, and more personal reliance. Yes, we need a change to move from the socialistic policies of today to the independence driven, non-government-dependent value system of our forefathers.

You want a vote for change? Vote for Ron Paul.

Ron Paul writes about gold, silver, and competitive currency

by Ron Paul, Dr.   February 13, 2008

Madam Speaker, 

I rise to speak on the concept of competing currencies.  Currency, or money, is what allows civilization to flourish.  In the absence of money, barter is the name of the game; if the farmer needs shoes, he must trade his eggs and milk to the cobbler and hope that the cobbler needs eggs and milk.  Money makes the transaction process far easier.  Rather than having to search for someone with reciprocal wants, the farmer can exchange his milk and eggs for an agreed-upon medium of exchange with which he can then purchase shoes. 

This medium of exchange should satisfy certain properties:  it should be durable, that is to say, it does not wear out easily; it should be portable, that is, easily carried; it should be divisible into units usable for every-day transactions; it should be recognizable and uniform, so that one unit of money has the same properties as every other unit; it should be scarce, in the economic sense, so that the extant supply does not satisfy the wants of everyone demanding it; it should be stable, so that the value of its purchasing power does not fluctuate wildly; and it should be reproducible, so that enough units of money can be created to satisfy the needs of exchange.

Over millennia of human history, gold and silver have been the two metals that have most often satisfied these conditions, survived the market process, and gained the trust of billions of people.  Gold and silver are difficult to counterfeit, a property which ensures they will always be accepted in commerce.  It is precisely for this reason that gold and silver are anathema to governments.  A supply of gold and silver that is limited in supply by nature cannot be inflated, and thus serves as a check on the growth of government.  Without the ability to inflate the currency, governments find themselves constrained in their actions, unable to carry on wars of aggression or to appease their overtaxed citizens with bread and circuses.

At this country's founding, there was no government controlled national currency.  While the Constitution established the Congressional power of minting coins, it was not until 1792 that the US Mint was formally established.  In the meantime, Americans made do with foreign silver and gold coins.  Even after the Mint's operations got underway, foreign coins continued to circulate within the United States, and did so for several decades. 

On the desk in my office I have a sign that says: “Don't steal – the government hates competition.”  Indeed, any power a government arrogates to itself, it is loathe to give back to the people.  Just as we have gone from a constitutionally-instituted national defense consisting of a limited army and navy bolstered by militias and letters of marque and reprisal, we have moved from a system of competing currencies to a government-instituted banking cartel that monopolizes the issuance of currency.  In order to introduce a system of competing currencies, there are three steps that must be taken to produce a legal climate favorable to competition.

The first step consists of eliminating legal tender laws.  Article I Section 10 of the Constitution forbids the States from making anything but gold and silver a legal tender in payment of debts.  States are not required to enact legal tender laws, but should they choose to, the only acceptable legal tender is gold and silver, the two precious metals that individuals throughout history and across cultures have used as currency.  However, there is nothing in the Constitution that grants the Congress the power to enact legal tender laws.  We, the Congress, have the power to coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, but not to declare a legal tender.  Yet, there is a section of US Code, 31 USC 5103, that purports to establish US coins and currency, including Federal Reserve notes, as legal tender. 

Historically, legal tender laws have been used by governments to force their citizens to accept debased and devalued currency.  Gresham's Law describes this phenomenon, which can be summed up in one phrase:  bad money drives out good money.  An emperor, a king, or a dictator might mint coins with half an ounce of gold and force merchants, under pain of death, to accept them as though they contained one ounce of gold.  Each ounce of the king's gold could now be minted into two coins instead of one, so the king now had twice as much “money” to spend on building castles and raising armies.  As these legally overvalued coins circulated, the coins containing the full ounce of gold would be pulled out of circulation and hoarded.  We saw this same phenomenon happen in the mid-1960s when the US government began to mint subsidiary coinage out of copper and nickel rather than silver.  The copper and nickel coins were legally overvalued, the silver coins undervalued in relation, and silver coins vanished from circulation. 

These actions also give rise to the most pernicious effects of inflation.  Most of the merchants and peasants who received this devalued currency felt the full effects of inflation, the rise in prices and the lowered standard of living, before they received any of the new currency.  By the time they received the new currency, prices had long since doubled, and the new currency they received would give them no benefit.

In the absence of legal tender laws, Gresham's Law no longer holds.  If people are free to reject debased currency, and instead demand sound money, sound money will gradually return to use in society.  Merchants would have been free to reject the king's coin and accept only coins containing full metal weight.

The second step to reestablishing competing currencies is to eliminate laws that prohibit the operation of private mints.  One private enterprise which attempted to popularize the use of precious metal coins was Liberty Services, the creators of the Liberty Dollar.  Evidently the government felt threatened, as Liberty Dollars had all their precious metal coins seized by the FBI and Secret Service this past November.  Of course, not all of these coins were owned by Liberty Services, as many were held in trust as backing for silver and gold certificates which Liberty Services issued.  None of this matters, of course, to the government, who hates to see any competition.

The sections of US Code which Liberty Services is accused of violating are erroneously considered to be anti-counterfeiting statutes, when in fact their purpose was to shut down private mints that had been operating in California.  California was awash in gold in the aftermath of the 1849 gold rush, yet had no US Mint to mint coinage.  There was not enough foreign coinage circulating in California either, so private mints stepped into the breech to provide their own coins.  As was to become the case in other industries during the Progressive era, the private mints were eventually accused of circulating debased (substandard) coinage, and in the interest of providing government-sanctioned regulation and a government guarantee of purity, the 1864 Coinage Act was passed, which banned private mints from producing their own coins for circulation as currency. 

The final step to ensuring competing currencies is to eliminate capital gains and sales taxes on gold and silver coins.  Under current federal law, coins are considered collectibles, and are liable for capital gains taxes.  Short-term capital gains rates are at income tax levels, up to 35 percent, while long-term capital gains taxes are assessed at the collectibles rate of 28 percent.  Furthermore, these taxes actually tax monetary debasement.  As the dollar weakens, the nominal dollar value of gold increases.  The purchasing power of gold may remain relatively constant, but as the nominal dollar value increases, the federal government considers this an increase in wealth, and taxes accordingly.  Thus, the more the dollar is debased, the more capital gains taxes must be paid on holdings of gold and other precious metals.

Just as pernicious are the sales and use taxes which are assessed on gold and silver at the state level in many states.  Imagine having to pay sales tax at the bank every time you change a $10 bill for a roll of quarters to do laundry.  Inflation is a pernicious tax on the value of money, but even the official numbers, which are massaged downwards, are only on the order of 4% per year.  Sales taxes in many states can take away 8% or more on every single transaction in which consumers wish to convert their Federal Reserve Notes into gold or silver. 

In conclusion, Madam Speaker, allowing for competing currencies will allow market participants to choose a currency that suits their needs, rather than the needs of the government.  The prospect of American citizens turning away from the dollar towards alternate currencies will provide the necessary impetus to the US government to regain control of the dollar and halt its downward spiral.  Restoring soundness to the dollar will remove the government's ability and incentive to inflate the currency, and keep us from launching unconstitutional wars that burden our economy to excess.  With a sound currency, everyone is better off, not just those who control the monetary system.  I urge my colleagues to consider the redevelopment of a system of competing currencies.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/1057/statement-on-competing-currencies/

Straight or gay? U.S. court says Web site can't ask

Well, it appears the infamous Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled "that a roommate-finding site (Roommates.com)cannot require users to disclose their sexual orientation, a U.S. appeals court ruled on Thursday, in the latest skirmish over whether anti-discrimination rules apply to the Web." (quote from Reuters article, link below)

Now I don't know about you, but if I am looking for a roommate, I'd be looking for someone with similar tastes as mine. If I am a straight male, I want to board with another straight male. I'd want to know what kind of roommate I was getting. Heck, moral or not, if I was a straight male and wanted a gorgeous, straight, female to bunk with, I'd ask what her gender was and what her, um, proclivities for adventurousness was (that is the libertarian bent in me, I guess, because it is no one's business what I ask someone else. However, being a Christian, I myself would not do that). However, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has specified that asking such questions is now a no-no. Never mind that this is not Equal Housing Opportunity, nor is it discrimination of an UNPROTECTED class (gays), this court has went over and above it's lawful jurisdiction and said "No, you can not ask that question."

 So I have a question: does the person looking for a roomate have recourse because he/she suddenly finds out the new roommate is gay? What are other ramifications here? This ruling is a prime example of judicial activism of judges running amok.

For the full article, go to http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN0347688720080403?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true

Let The Dumbing Down Of Tennessee Begin (by Jay Period)

Jay Period has written an execllent piece at tenncva.com. Here is an excerpt:

The Tennessee legislature is actively working to reduce the grade point average, GPA, needed for lottery scholarship students to keep their free money.  Currently, the required GPA is 3.0.  That’s a middle B.  To get a 3.0, someone needs to show initiative and desire.  A little hard work and study, and that GPA is attainable.

Yet, our leaders don’t feel that students should study quite that hard.  They are working to reduce that requirement to 2.75, which would be a high C.  This is due to the fact that a large number of students are not able to maintain their scholarship.

Read the entire post at:

http://tenncva.com/2008/03/27/let-the-dumbing-down-of-tennessee-begin/

Now how many of us knew this was ever on the docket at the US Supreme Court?  Or perhaps knew that the justices were giving their ruling this week? I certainly didn't. Don't know what I am talking about? Read this excerpt:

States win over President on criminal law issue 

The Supreme Court, in a sweeping rejection of claims of power in the presidency, ruled 6-3 on Tuesday that the President does not have the authority to order states to relax their criminal procedures to obey a ruling of the World Court.  The decision came in the case of Medellin v. Texas (06-984).  Neither a World Court decision requiring U.S. states to provide new review of criminal cases involving foreign nationals, nor a memo by President Bush seeking to enforce the World Court ruling, preempts state law restrictions on challenges to convictions, the Court said in a ruling written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.

The Court explicitly, and with emphasis, rejected a presidential argument that the nation’s Chief Executive has power, on his own, to make an international treaty into binding law inside the U.S.  That can only be done by Congress, it stressed.

The decision, aside from its rebuff of presidential power, also treats the World Court ruling itself as not binding on U.S. states, when it contradicts those states’ criminal procedure rules.   The international treaty at issue in this dispute — the Vienna Convention that gives foreign nationals accused of crime a right to meet with diplomats from their home country — is not enforceable as a matter of U.S. law, the Roberts opinion said.  And the World Court ruling seeking to implement that treaty inside the U.S. is also not binding, and does not gain added legal effect merely because the President sought to tell the states to abide by the decision, the Court added. (For the full article, go to http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/states-win-over-president-on-criminal-law-issue/). Posted Tuesday, March 25th, 2008 10:10 am UPDATED 1:49 p.m. 

I have a great feeling about this Supreme Court. I believe they are going to be making rules according to the wording of the Constitution, and not make rulings based on the changing whims of societal mores. I especially liked this part:

The Court explicitly, and with emphasis, rejected a presidential argument that the nation’s Chief Executive has power, on his own, to make an international treaty into binding law inside the U.S.  That can only be done by Congress, it stressed.

Finally, checks and balances are being recognized by one branch of our government, at least! I just can't help but wonder why there was so much in the press last week about the Heller gun case than there ever was over this HUGE case regarding states rights and national sovereignty. Makes you wonder about the agenda of the fourth estate, doesn't it?

Paying Students Does Not Pay

It seems some members of our our esteemed Tennessee legislature want to pay students for good grades. From what I read, similar programs in other states appear to work. I have a few problems with this idea:

• This sets a precedent for children that if they want to do something well then they should get paid for it.


• The only people who should pay for good grades are parents. The state paying for good grades simply brings about another aspect of the nanny state.


• No one is saying where the money is coming from. Is it current lottery money? Is it current tax money? Will it be in the form of new taxes or bonds? If it is tax money, let me remind our legislature: It's not your money!


• If these rewards come from my tax dollars, will my home school students qualify (not that I would accept the money, out of principle)?

What are your thoughts on this? For more information, go to http://www.wkrn.com/Global/story.asp?S=8046201. There is a video there also.

 ________________________________________________________________________________________________

Here is the article:

State lawmakers are looking into paying Tennessee students for good grades.The "Education Pays" act is making its way through the General Assembly.12 states across the country have a similar measure it place that rewards students for good grades with cold hard cash."I think kids respond to cash," said Rep. Brian Kelsey.  "I think we all respond to cash and then we hope at that point they will also respond and appreciate learning."The proposal is for a pilot program in the top four counties with the highest number of "At Risk" students.For instance, in Memphis, 175 students, the top students in one grade in one high school would get $100.$100 would go to the top 50 students in one Hamilton County high school.In Knox County, the money would go to 50 elementary students and in Davidson County, it would apply to 50 middle school students.One advocate from Georgia, who testified before lawmakers in Tennessee, said why not give it a try.
     
Jackie Cushman, "Education Pays" advocate, said, "The real question is does it work and that's why you have a pilot program.  Does it actually work?  We know something's don't work.  The question is will this work and I think we won't know until we try it."Students wouldn't be the only ones making the grade moneywise, their parents would get $50 as well.Kim Chambers, parent, said, "I think that would be good.  I think it would give the kids incentives to work harder.Patty Brown, parent, said, "I think anything that can encourage kids to do better in school is very important."Sue Knowles, parent, said, "It would probably work for my kids but whether or not I agree with it? No, I don't think I agree with that one."The "Education Pays" act has now passed in the House Education Committee.  Its Senate counterpart may take it up next week.Texas is among the 12 states already trying some form of paying for grades at 10 schools in Dallas.Officials said they have seen a dramatic rise in the number of students passing advanced math and science exams, attending college and scoring higher on college entrance exams. 

Who Defines What Constitutes Evidence?

I received this article in an email the other day. Mr. DeMar lays down the law to a reader/critic who refuses to acknowledge the basic defining elements of his arguments: the "evidence" the reader presents (or not) to Mr. DeMar. This article is a great example of how to argue the JudeoChristian and moral foundations of our arguments of the Christian founding of our nation. Mr. deMar also refers to evidentiary arguments against Darwinism in his article. While this article is a bit long, it is very well written and I recommend that you read it.

By Gary DeMar  Have you ever been in a debate with someone who asks for evidence for this or that particular issue, and after giving the evidence it is dismissed as not being relevant? Facts do not speak for themselves. “Facts do not come with interpretation tags, telling us how to view them. . . . Both sides haggle over the facts. Both sides search for new facts to add to their arsenals. Both sides raise accusations, yet it’s a rare day indeed when both sides acknowledge that their differences stem from something much more basic than facts. Their differences are rooted in opposing worldviews, which in turn are permeated with philosophical assumptions and commitments.”1 Facts are always interpreted by an array of presuppositions. For example, when the NT is shown to offer eye-witness evidence of the death and subsequent resurrection of Jesus, the skeptic will claim that a resurrection of the dead is impossible, therefore, the evidence is suspect. Essentially, this comes to, “What my net doesn’t catch ain’t fish.”I’ve been answering some objections from a man who has rejected his Roman Catholic upbringing and is now questioning the existence of God. There is nothing new in his arguments, but I don’t want to dismiss him out of hand. I do, however, want to set the parameters of what constitutes a good debate. The proper use of evidence is important. When someone says, “There is no evidence for the existence of God,” my first response is, “What constitutes evidence, and who gets to decide?” After my initial answer to some of his historical comments relating to the founding of America, I wrote the following in response:Dear Dan,
Like you, I was raised Roman Catholic, and like you received no real theological or historical training other than, “the church says it, and you are to believe it.” So it’s not surprising to me that you are questioning the authority behind religious claims. In reality, you have rejected one faith and adopted another. You seem to be repeating the arguments of others: Robert Ingersoll, Karen Armstrong, and Bart Ehrman. (American Vision and Alpha and Omega Ministries will be conducting a debate between James White and Ehrman on January 21, 2009 in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. I’ve dealt with a few of Bart Ehrman’s arguments. For a NT scholar, he is not very well informed.) Your approach to this subject is not much different from the way you followed Roman Catholicism. Ingersoll, Armstrong, and Ehrman have become your new religious authorities. So why are they any better informed on issues of ultimate importance than Roman Catholic priests, bishops, and Popes? Why do you trust their evolved brains and the electrical impulses they displace that makes their lips move to say things? I sent you my brief evaluation of some of your arguments in an earlier article to see how you would respond. You answered just the way I thought you would. I needed to know how you would deal with evidence. I gave you evidence contrary to Ingersoll, and you dismissed it wanting to move on to the Bible. Until you respond to the evidence I supplied to you contrary to Ingersoll’s historical assertions, there is no sense in me attempting to answer your biblical objections. So let me repeat them for you with some additions:

You misunderstand the purpose of the Federal Constitution. At the time the Constitution was drafted, there were 13 individual colonies with 13 different constitutions. Each of them mentions God or providence. North Carolina required belief in the authority of the Old and New Testaments as a qualification for holding political office in the state. The First Amendment protected North Carolina’s right to do this. Notice the wording: “Congress shall make no law respecting and establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . . .” This prohibition was directed to Congress, the only national law-making body we have. The states were permitted to do what they regarded as proper regarding religion and politics. The Federal Constitution did not nullify the state constitutions. Even today, all 50 state constitutions mention God or providence. For you to say that our Founders separated religion and government is false. You dismissed the National Fast Days that were specifically Christian. I recommend that you actually take a look at original source documents rather than second-hand commentary on the period. A good place to start is with Benjamin F. Morris’ The Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States who uses original source documents to make his case. Until you and everyone else answers (not dismisses) the content of this thousand-page volume, there is no debate. Remember, it was you who cited Ingersoll who claimed that the Founders eliminated God and attempted to make this case by an appeal to the Declaration. This is not the case as the Declaration of Independence shows. Rights are an endowment from the Creator. If atheists had drafted the Declaration and Constitution, upon what would our rights be grounded so that they would always be fixed? The individual? The result would be anarchy. The State? Then we would have tyranny. God-ordained rights keep individuals and governments in check. The history of the 20th century has been described by Loren Eiseley as Darwin’s Century. Darwinism, as Charles Hodge made clear, is “atheism.”2 Have you calculated the carnage of the 20th century that can be laid at the feet of Darwin and his atheistic worldview? The Black Book of Communism puts the number of dead around 95,000,000.The Constitution’s use of “Done in the Year of our Lord” is very important, especially when someone says God is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution. In fact, the use of this dating marker a more direct reference to God since it singles out the Christian religion. To say that the use of “In the Year of Our Lord” was very common back then, only goes to prove my point. If it was the objective of the Founders to separate “religion and government,” then adding “In the Year of our Lord” makes absolutely no sense. Also, setting Sunday aside as a day of rest for the President doesn’t make any sense either (Art. 1, sec. 7) if the purpose of the Constitution was to create a government completely separated from religion. You would have to find something similar to what the French did during their late-18th century revolution. The revolutionaries eliminated the seven-day week and implemented a ten-day week. This eliminated the biblical creation model. The fact that Sunday is set aside as a day of rest is a funny way of separating religion and government. In addition, the French implemented a revolutionary calendar beginning with a new “Year One.” The French example is what Ingersoll and you would have to demonstrate from our nation’s Federal Constitution and subsequent official documents. So then, you can’t on one hand claim that the Founders wanted to separate religion and government and then on the other hand claim that they left two conventions of the Christian religion in the Constitution, the very document that you and others claim was specifically designed to secularize government.The result of the French rejection of Christianity resulted in a bloody political regime. Women knitted as they watched heads literally roll as Madame Guillotine did its secular religious work. So then, when you answer these specific arguments in answer to your initial response to me, I will be happy to answer your other queries.

Footnotes:

1 William D. Watkins, “Whose Facts Anyway?,” Christian Research Journal (24:2), 60.

2 Charles Hodge, What is Darwinism? (New York: Scribner, Armstrong, and Co., 1874), 177: “It is Atheism. This does not mean, as before said, that Mr. Darwin himself and all who adopt his views are atheists; but it means that his theory is atheistic.

 Gary DeMar is the President of American Vision. http://www.americanvision.org/

The Obama Phenomenon

This is adapted from an email I received today:

The Obama Tidal Wave

We are witnessing a political phenomenon with Barack Obama of rare magnitude.  His speeches have inspired millions and yet most of his followers have no idea of what he stands for except platitudes of 'Change' or that he says he will be a 'Uniter'. The power of speech from a charismatic person truly can be a powerful thing. Certainly Billy Graham has charisma and both his manner of speech and particularly the content changed millions. On the extreme other hand, the charisma of Adolph Hitler inspired millions and the results were catastrophic. Barack Obama certainly is no Hitler or a Billy Graham, but for many Americans out there feeling just like a surfer who might be ecstatic and euphoric while riding a tidal wave, the real story is what happens when it hits shore. Just Some of What Defines Barack Obama:

• He voted against banning partial birth abortion.


• He voted no on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions.


• Supports affirmative action in Colleges and Government.


• In 2001 he questioned harsh penalties for drug dealing. Says he will deal with street level drug dealing as a minimum wage affair.


• Admitted marijuana and cocaine use in high school and in college.


• His religious convictions are very murky.


• He is willing to meet with Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Kim Jung Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.


• Has said that one of his first goals after being elected would be to have a conference with all Muslim nations.


• Opposed the Patriot Act. (The writer of this blog also opposes many aspects of the Patriot Act.)


• First bill he signed that was passed was campaign finance reform.


• Voted No on prohibiting law suits against gun manufacturers.


• Supports universal health-care.


• Voted yes on providing habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees.


• Supports granting driver's licenses to illegal immigrants.


• Supports extending welfare to illegal immigrants.


• Voted NO to making English the official language of the USA.


• Voted yes on comprehensive immigration reform.


• Voted yes on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security.


• Wants to make the minimum wage a 'living wage'.


• Voted with Democratic Party 96 percent of 251 votes.


• Is a big believer in the separation of church and state.


• Opposed to any efforts to Privatize Social Security and instead supports increasing the amount of tax paid.


• He voted No on repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax.


• He voted No on repealing the 'Death' Tax.


• He wants to raise the Capital Gains Tax.


• Has repeatedly said the surge in Iraq has not succeeded.


• He is ranked as the most liberal Senator in the Senate today and that takes some doing.

I personally feel that if he is elected it will be an Obamanation.

The Root of Racism

            Not since 1991 has a single subject been so projected into mainstream discussion. If you recall, it was in 1991 that the confirmation hearings for Clarence Thomas brought sexual harassment to the fore of public consciousness. In much the same way, the comments and rhetoric of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the statements made by Geraldine Ferraro, and yesterday's (March 18) speech by Barack Obama have propelled the topic of racism to the forefront of American discussion.

            While most people will not argue with the fact that there is a huge racial divide in this country, no one truly wants to get to the root of the issue of racism. I want to remind the readers of a few things that are relative to this discussion:

• This country was torn apart by the question of whether or not states had the right to allow slavery. We bear the pain of slavery to this day, to wit the discussion going on right now.


• It is well established that American slaves were brought over from the African slave trade. West African tribes had a competitive and thriving slave trade. The operators of this slave trade were black tribal leaders.


• The Richards Sugarcane Plantation in Louisiana had 152 slaves. The Richards were free blacks.


• American slaves were very often physically beaten and tortured, and many slave families were torn apart by the selling of their family members.


• Slavery is not limited to blacks. Jews were enslaved many times in their history, most notably in Egypt. Some black historians believe that this Egypt was a black Egypt.


• Today, the slave trade is rich, especially in the Middle East, and in African nations like Sudan.

 I bring these facts up not to repudiate or excuse the white man’s role in slavery. If there had been no demand for slaves, slavery would not have existed. I do bring it up to show that blacks, and specifically, black plantation owners as well as black African tribal leaders, also played their part in slavery. The black tribal leaders are doubly implicit, however, because they sold their own people into slavery! 

So, we must now ask ourselves a very hard question: is slavery, and more particularly, racism, a “white” issue? Is it a “black” issue? I would submit to you it is both, and more. It is a red issue, a yellow issue. To capture everyone under this wide net, it is a heart issue. Because of the visible differences in color, culture, language and lifestyle, it is impossible, due to our human nature, to not differentiate between people of color. It is impossible for a white person not to do it, and it is equally impossible for a black person not to do it. This does not mean both sides always negatively discriminate, but both sides do differentiate between black and white by default. While the Bible I hold dear has been used in times past and present to justify racism and slavery, that very same Bible teaches us that God made all men out of one blood. We are literally descended from Adam and from Noah, and thus we should all treat each other with kindness and respect. But we don’t. Why? Because we are people that clue in on the differences between each other, and we cannot escape it.

I once saw a news documentary which showed how black people of lighter color discriminated against darker colored black people. I also saw an interview in which a young white college student disguised herself for a month as a black teenager at a high school. She was considerably dark, and lighter skinned black people were very hateful and discriminatory toward her. She also suffered taunts from white people as well. In short, it was a very horrendous experience for her. She went away convinced that racism is not a skin issue, it is a heart issue. People zero in on the differences, and naturally begin to use that as a reference point by which to distance themselves from those who are different.

           Today, we no longer have slavery in America. However, we are all enslaved, to some degree, to hate. We do not love people of our own color, let alone people of other colors. Blacks are killed by blacks more often than whites, and this phenomenon has led to the term “Black-on-Black Violence”. That is hate. If it was love, the crime wouldn’t occur! (For this reason we should do away with hate crime laws, and focus on the criminal action, and not the motive of the crime. All crime is hate crime, but I digress). Jesus said that in the last days, iniquity would abound, and because of it, the love of many would grow cold. What we see today is racism, but is due to the wickedness of the human heart, and not just the white one. Wickedness abounds in the black heart, white heart, red heart, and yellow heart. The racially charged N-word, the H-Word (you know the word, the one that rhymes with donkey), or whatever the word is merely an expression that seeks to dehumanize the other person. A friend of mine and I were having a discussion the other day about calling some one a fool. This term is a step toward dehumanization, and anytime we dehumanize someone, we are stepping closer toward hate. As we inch toward hate, it becomes easier and easier to deny that person the respect and dignity God grants them as an individual. Since racism stems from hate, it is no wonder we utter the N-word or the H-word under our collective breaths: we are attempting to dehumanize the person and justify our hate. Don’t think this is without historical precedent. Nazi Germany went to great lengths to dehumanize the Jews. Jews were given numbers, and were not called by their names. They were mostly untouched by guards and workers. The dead Jews were not handled by Germans-instead, Jewish camp workers handled the Jewish dead. When the time came to put the Jews to death, the Nazi henchmen did not release the gas-the Jews themselves were made to release it. And to top it off, the Nazis were very selective in the poison used to kill the Jews. Do you know what the poison was? Zyclon B. The poison was dropped in crystal form, through a small hole in the ceiling, into the gas chambers. The pellets turned into a lethal gas once in air. Previous to its use in gas chambers, Zyclon B was a common insecticide. The Nazis became so adept with their dehumanization of Jews that they did even acknowledge their fundamental humanity and they killed them with bug spray.

Please, let us address the issue of hate in every heart, and not dehumanize one another. Our survival as a country depends on it. Today, I had the opportunity to pray with a friend of mine that I attend church with. This man is in the middle of a separation and likely divorce. We stood in the parking lot, clasped hands together in an interlocking fisthandhold, and we prayed. I prayed for this black friend of mine, for him to be reconciled with his white wife, for the sake of their mixed children. When we finished praying, we hugged. In public. In a parking lot. See, this fellow church member is more than just another human being to me. "What is he?" you may ask? He is my brother. And that is the key to confronting racism.