Tuesday, October 28, 2008


The Christian radio station at which I work is holding its Fall Sharathon 2008.

This is the time we try to get our listeners to support the station with their financial gifts.

The station is Kingdom FM Christian Radio . Sharathon will be on the air from 6:00 AM to 6:00 PM beginning tomorrow.

You can listen online at the above link.

If you'd like to contribute, you can go to www.kingdom.fm and make a donation there.

Keep the information flowing! We gotta win this one.

See you Friday evening.

Monday, October 27, 2008


"I think we can say that the Constitution reflected an enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day, and that the framers had that same blind spot. I don't think the two views are contradictory. It was a remarkable political document that paved the way for where we are now and to say that it also reflected a fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day."

"If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples so that, uh, I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and -- and as long as I could pay for it I'd be okay. But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society."

"As radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it has been interpreted -- and Warren Court interpreted it in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you. But it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn't shifted, and one of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused, uh, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change. And, uh, in some ways we still suffer from that."

Each of the above quotes were from the mouth of Barack Obama.

Here is what he will say if he is elected president:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

You will be asking a man to defend the Constitution of the United States who believes is is a flawed document.

If it is flawed, why would he swear to defend it?

If it is not flawed, why did he say that it is?


I will be out of pocket for a few days, as the Christian radio station at which I work (Kingdom FM Christian Radio , where I can be heard on the air from 9AM until Noon weekdays) will be holding our Sharathon. That means 12 hour days.

I'll be back Friday...I think.

You may or may not miss me.

Go McCain/Palin!

Saturday, October 25, 2008


Contrary to what many people may believe, the Second Amendment to the Constitution does NOT guarantee you the right to wear short-sleeved shirts.

It's the right to BEAR arms, not the right to BARE arms.

Here is the text of Amendment II:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

This sentence has been scrutinized by many, and misunderstood by many more.

Its first phrase: A well regulated militia, has been misapplied to mean a citizen being a part of the country's regular military, such as the Army, Air Force, Navy, Marines, National Guard or Coast Guard.

However, the term "militia", is commonly used to refer to a military force composed of ordinary citizens to provide defense, emergency law enforcement or paramilitary service in times of emergency without being paid a regular salary or being committed to a fixed term of service.

It's guys and gals like you and me.

When we were seeking release from the political bonds of Great Britain, we formed various militia (militias?), to fight them.

We were out manned, out gunned, out flanked and out trained. We could not possibly have won that war.

But we did.

Today, people scoff at the idea that regular citizens could go up against the United States government. We would be out manned, out gunned, out flanked and out trained.

But if we had to...

In fact, in the Declaration of Independence we find this sentence:

"That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."

Such a thing was against British law, and we were clearly in violation of that law when we sought our independence.

Yet our founders saw that there were circumstances when the established government could go too far in its governance, requiring action on the part of the citizenry.

Such a thing seem so repulsive as to make it nearly impossible to imagine, had it not happened to us before.

But our forefathers were wise enough to provide for such an eventuality in our Constitution.

You and I have the right to keep firearms. No type of restriction is placed on what kind of fire arm we may own. No limit is suggested as to our reason for holding such fire arm(s).

The stated purpose for the recognition of that right is "...the security of a free state..."

Freedom is the ability of a people to pursue their ambitions without undue interference from the government.

When the government becomes too restrictive, it is the right of the people to try by peaceful means to change it.

If that fails, it is the right of the citizenry to take up arms against the oppressors and take the country back, forcefully, if necessary.

Such a right comes with a very heavy responsibility, the responsibility to properly weigh the matters involved and to react with prudence.

Notice this very important phrase: "...the right of the people..."

The constitution does not confer rights upon us. Rather it recognizes rights that we already have and restricts the federal government from usurping those rights.

This is given credence by the following phrase: "...shall not be infringed..."

A right given by a Constitution can be take away by that same Constitution. A right given by God cannot be taken away by any entity.

I have been trained to use an M1 rifle (one of the sorriest pieces of fire arm ever invented, but the one used in almost all of the battles of WWII). I have also been trained in the use of a 45 automatic pistol.

I don't own a gun, although I have seriously considered obtaining one recently.

Contrary to what some would teach, restricting the sale of guns of any type to law abiding citizens would not reduce crime. Criminals are called "criminals" because they do not obey the law.

When the average, law abiding citizen is prevented from owning a fire arm, the only people left in possession of them will be the police, the military and criminals.

Early in his career, Barack Obama was active in not only restricting ownership of fire arms, but in the active confiscation of fire arms.

He continues to support infringing upon the right of citizens to bear arms.

Is that the ideology of a person you want to be the president of The United States of America?

Friday, October 24, 2008


When Sarah Palin was first introduced as John McCain's Vice Presidential running mate, much was made of her Down Syndrome child.

Here is a story that will touch your heart, if you have one.

It is about 18 year old, John Garlock, whose high school student body overwhelmingly elected him to be their Homecoming King.

Go ahead and click on the link and read the story...I'll wait.


Welcome back.

Let me tell you about some of the Down Syndrome people I've known and loved.

To a person, they have been happy, cheerful, fun, full of life, ambitious and very, very loving.

Some have had pretty lofty goals, given their supposed restrictions, but one I know, who started as a floor sweeper at a local McDonalds, is now an assistant to the Manager.

Having a sharp brain for figures, she is able to give him information about the day's receipts without the use of a calculator.

And she still loves to sweep the floors and talk with every customer who will take the time for her.

She is a fixture and customers absolutely love her.

In fact, many people who use the drive-through in other McDonalds, make it a point to come inside of this one to talk to Rosie.

But, according to some, Rosie's parents probably should have given serious consideration of aborting her.

In your heartless, mindless dreams!

She's of more use to society than you will ever be.

I'll betcha John's parents don't wish they had aborted him.

Wednesday, October 22, 2008


The game was coming to an end.

There were only 53 seconds left to play.

The score was Miami 14, the Colts 21.

Miami had the ball on the Colts' 25 yard line.

It was third and ten.

The ball was snapped.

Pennington dropped back to pass.

Suddenly the head official blew his whistle and came running into the middle of the fray.

Play stopped.

"OK!" yelled the official. "No more forward passes."

Pennington turned in amazement, "Say what!?"

"You heard what I said...NO MORE FORWARD PASSES. If you want to play this game, you'll have to run the ball."

"You can't do that!" Pennington was really frustrated.

"Oh yes I can! The NFL has given me the power to change whatever rule I want to, any time I want to. All I have to do is to issue a decree. And I'm issuing one now: NO MORE FORWARD PASSES!"

Wouldn't that just get your goat?

Imagine changing the rules in the middle of the game.

There is a process for changing the rules. But it's not done by the officials on the field.

It's done by the NFL Rules Committee during the off season.

In our country, The United States of America, there is a rule book. It's called The Constitution of the United States of America.

In it there is are four provisions for changing it, two of which have never been used.

They are:
1) Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state conventions (never used)
2) Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state legislatures (never used)
3) Proposal by Congress, ratification by state conventions (used once)
4) Proposal by Congress, ratification by state legislatures (used all other times)

There is a reason numbers one and two have never been used: they are considered radical and potentially dangerous, as they could be used to change the very nature of the Constitution.

Holding a Constitutional Convention would usually be reserved for the purpose of completely altering the fabric of American society and jurisprudence, and reforming it as a new country.

There are those who consider the Constitution a "living document," subject to change at the whim of the nine members of the Supreme Court.

Like the errant football official, they have sought, and in many cases have, changed the rules in the middle of the game, by judicial decree.

They are considered the "liberal" members of the Supreme Court. For them, the Constitution is a "living," "breathing" document that can be changed on the fly, like the breathing of a marathon runner after the race.

The more conservative members of the Court, see the Constitution as "living" and "breathing," but doing so slowly, like the breathing of a Yoga practitioner.

John McCain promises, if elected, to nominate judges to the Supreme Court who understand the intent of the writers of the Constitution, and who would work through the amendment process if changes are needed.

Barack Obama has stated his intent to nominate to the Supreme Court, judges who are activists, who believe they have the power to change what they see as needing change whenever they see the need for change, without going through the process of allowing citizens to have a voice in that change.

Some of you like the latter approach...so you think.

Wait until some activist judges start messing with one of YOUR "sacred cows."

You'll see.

Tuesday, October 21, 2008



The Bill of Rights is made up of the first ten amendments to The Constitution of the United States of America.

Here is the first amendment:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Notice, first of all, that it is all one sentence.

Every sentence must express a complete thought and must have a subject and a verb (predicate or predicate phrase).

The subject is "Congress."

Right from the get-go we are told about whom we are writing.

We are writing about Congress, the federal law making branch of our government, referred to as the legislative branch.

This does not reference store managers, high school principals, county commissioners, or the like. It references Congress.

So, what about Congress?

Congress "...shall make no law."

It does not say, "Congress shall not make too many laws," or "Congress can only make laws that it deems beneficial to the people."

It very clearly says what its writers intended to say, "Congress shall make NO law...".

Then it tell us what kinds of laws Congress cannot make.

Now there could be some question about the first law Congress cannot make:

It can not make a law that establishes a religion or a law affecting an establishment of religion.

Establishing a religion would mean forming one.

An establishment of religion is a place where religion is practiced, (much as a business establishment is a place where business is performed) or a religion that has been established.

That's an important distinction.

The Supreme Court (the Judicial Branch of our government) has ruled differently at different times in our history.

Today, this imaginary separation of church and state seems to be all the rage.

Only there is no separation of church and state in the Constitution.

We are only told that Congress can't make a law about it.

Nor can Congress prohibit the free exercise of religion.

It can't tell you what to believe, how to practice your belief or whether to practice your belief.

This business of prayer in "public" school, for instance, is a major league red herring.

Constitutionally, Congress has no right to rule on such an issue.

Schools, you see, are supposed to be owned and operated by the public, traditionally by the public local to the school in question, not by the federal government.

But, like the frog in cold water over the stove's burner, we have let them become government schools. That happened when we started taking federal dollars to help run them

As Barack Obama has said, "If the government puts money into something, the government is going to have a say in how it is run."

In the same sentence we are told that Congress cannot make a law that abridges freedom of speech or the press.

That is not license to say what you want, when you want, where you want, for whatever reason you want, that is saying that the federal government cannot make a law about it.

My boss can make a rule about what I say at the office.

There are certain things I had better NOT say, or he would fire me...and he is not prohibited by the Constitution from doing so.

Congress is the only one mentioned in the Constitution that cannot make a law preventing you from saying or publishing what you want.

The single sentence First Amendment also says that Congress cannot abridge the right of people to assemble peacefully.

You can gather together any where you want to (except on private property from which you have been asked to leave, which is covered in another part of the Constitution), without interference from the federal government.

Local governments are not prohibited from policing your assembly or of disbursing it, if they see fit, but the feds must keep hands off, unless the assembly threatens the security of the nation, also covered in another part of the Constitution.

Your right to redress your grievances (tell the feds how you feel about something) is the last part of that sentence.

If you have half a brain, you can understand why it is that the federal government is prohibited from making laws about these things while local authorities are not.

Only, inch by publicly allowed inch, the federal government has usurped each of these right, until it is not hard to see their dissolution in the near future.

Barack Obama has already addressed how certain of these rights must be set aside or at least moved over a little, for the good (of course) of the citizens.

Do you really want this guy to be your leader?


Monday, October 20, 2008


During the confirmation proceedings for Supreme Court Justice, Clarence Thomas, he was asked where rights come from.

I have to admit, I was somewhat disappointed with his answer, which I thought was a bit vague and maybe a little evasive.

So, where do rights come from?

The writer of The Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, thought he knew.

He wrote: "When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Look at what he said.

"...the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them..."

Did you notice his reference to nature's God?

He went on to say:

"...all men are created equal..."

According to Thomas Jefferson, men are created.

Nothing can be created without a creator.

If I build a model airplane, I have not created anything, I have only rearranged what already existed; ie: balsa wood, wire, covering, etc.

Then Jefferson said, "...that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights..."

He did not believe that rights come from government, but from the creator.

Jefferson made clear, "...governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

For several generations, now, our government has gotten it wrong.

Our government cannot confer rights upon us, we give our consent to the government as to what it can and cannot do.

Barack Obama was asked whether he thought health care was a right or a privilege.

BO stated that in America, health care is a right.


Neither he, nor anybody else, can establish a right simply by declaration.

Rights come from God.

They do not come from Congress, from the Senate, from the Executive branch or the Judicial branch of our government, they come from our creator.

The first right mentioned by Thomas Jefferson is the right to life.

Science has a working definition of life:

Living organisms are made up of one or more cells, can grow and develop, reproduce, respond to stimuli, and have a metabolism. This list of characteristics was made by scientists after carefully considering what would be included, and excluded, by these characteristics. Using this list, viruses are not defined as living organisms.

When a child is conceived, he/she begins to grow, develop, cells reproduce, he/she responds to stimuli, takes on nourishment and gives off waste (has a metabolism).

At conception, the developing baby has all of the scientific characteristics of life.

He/she is also distinctly human.

When you check his/her DNA, you find that it is unique.

It is neither the same as his/her mother's DNA nor his/her father's, rather it is his/her own, identifiable in the DNA laboratory as belonging to this child and none other.

The developing baby floats in his/her mother's womb like an astronaut in space, connected to the mother by an umbilical chord which allows nutrients to get to the baby, but prevents the baby's blood from mixing with his/her mother's blood.

He/she is a marvelous creation given the right to life, that same right to life that is mentioned in Jefferson's Declaration.

In our abortion oriented society, about 15% of abortions fail, resulting in the baby being alive at the procedure's end.

In Illinois an abortionist faced with this situation could (and usually did) simply leave the child on a cold, steel table or in a closet bin and allow it to die.

Twice, as an Illinois State Senator, Barack Obama voted NOT to disallow this practice, once because it did not have the same language as a proposed similar federal law, and once because he did not want to "subject the mother to unnecessary stress!"

Once, as a United States Senator, Barack Obama voted "present" when a bill to stop this practice came up, which is the same as voting against it, that is, in favor of allowing doctors to continue allowing babies to die on the table after a failed abortion.

Do you really want a person with this level of disregard for life to sit in the nation's highest office?

The second of Jefferson's list of rights is liberty.

Liberty comes from the creator.

All mankind craves liberty.

Liberty is the freedom to reach one's potential without undue interference from the government.

The Constitution of the United States of America is written and designed to limit the scope and power of the federal government.

It is not written to limit your rights.

It can't do that. Your rights do not come from the Constitution, they come from God.

The federal government may not abridge your right to speech, religion, assembly or the press.

Liberty has always come with a price.

Sometimes that price is death, sometimes it is sacrifice, and sometimes it is diligence and perseverance, but there is always a price to liberty.

Barack Obama believes that the federal government may, at its whim and without the consent of the governed, usurp your right to liberty if the situation warrants it.

For instance, the Constitution protects your right to own a firearm. Barack Obama would restrict that right.

Do you want a person to serve as president if he believes he can, by virtue of his office, recommend the removal of certain of your rights?

The final right listed by Jefferson is the pursuit of happiness.

Not happiness, but its pursuit.

Our is a land of opportunity.

Many believe ours is a land of entitlement, but it is not.

However, any person can become anything he/she wants to become if he/she is willing to do what it takes to become what he/she wants to become.

That includes both those "born with a silver spoon in his mouth," and those who are born in poverty.

American history is replete with examples of people from every strata of life working hard enough to achieve a part of The American Dream.

Nobody is entitled to The American Dream, but everybody is entitled to go after it with every fiber of his/her being.

Barack Obama believes that the government should take a portion of what successful people have worked to achieve and give it to those who have not spent the same effort of productivity.

Is that really what you want of your president?

If so, may God have mercy on you...you will need it.

Sunday, October 19, 2008



Stay with me...I'll get to the point.

One of my favorite pass-times is to go blog surfing.

I go to a blog and then visit as many of the blogs on that blog's blog-roll as possible.

You see some interesting things, some you might not have wanted to see, but on the whole, pretty interesting.

As I blog surfed along, I kept seing comments by one Satyavati devi dasi.

If you like unusual (and can take a blatantly liberal blog), you can visit her at her site called: The Road To Braj is Strewn With Thorns, http://roadtobraj.blogspot.com/.

I have visited her blog and was quite taken by it in many ways.
Recently, she showed up in the comments section of my post, "Important or Not?"

Her comment was: McCain is an old man. Should he keel over in office, God forbid, and Caribou Barbie have to take over, what military experience would she have that would qualify her?

If she has none, would that be as much a negative against her as you claim it is against Obama?

Just asking.

My response was: Satyavati devi dasi: "Just asking" my hind leg!

Why do you people stoop to such low levels?

You were not "just asking," and you know it.

That was a set-up born of your propensity to bash anything non-liberal.

Now Sarah Palin may not have been in the military, but she is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces of the State of Alaska, and has the power to call out these forces to execute the laws…

The governor may proclaim martial law when the public safety requires it…
Really would help if you knew what you were talking about instead of just smarting off on various blogs on which you wish to cause trouble.

Nevertheless, come back any time...if you think you can take it.
Check this link: http://www.akguard.com/

The reason I was so set off by her comment was her snide reference to Governor Sarah Palin as "Caribou Barbie."

If the content of Satyavati devi dasi's blog is any indication, she is a person of at least moderate intelligence, perhaps higher.

She also seems to have certain social skills and is in an honorable profession.
Why she can't speak of Governor Sarah Palin without resorting to sophomoric terminology, I can't say.

The only thing that comes to mind is that she is too emotional, too illiterate, or too closed minded to dare to show respect to a top State official.

I know she's not too illiterate, so that leaves too emotional or too closed minded.
She's of a liberal mind-set, so you KNOW she could not possibly be closed mined.

Liberals pride themselves on being OPEN minded, unless, of course, that open mindedness has to include people of the Chrsitian faith or those who are politically conservative.

So let's just say she's too emotional.

At any rate, it all gives me an opportunity to lament how uncivil we have become as a society.

Rather than involve ourselves in meaningful dialog, we would rather resort to cute little snidisms or name calling.

I would like to encourage you, Dear Reader, including, but not restricted to, Satyavati devi dasi, to try to stick to reason and logic, rather than emotionalism when the subject is the person who may be "second in command," and maybe even "in command" of the greatest nation in the universe, The United States of America.

To treat each other with dignity and respect will result in better dialog and even the possibility of minds being changed.

Editor's (that's me) note: It might rightly be pointed out that I routinely refer to Barack Obama as BO.

The reason for that is that (surprise!), those are his initials! Get it? Barack Obama...BO.

I am certain that he is as proud of his initials as he is of his middle name, don't you think?

Oh, and Satyavati devi dasi, please tell us how to pronounce your most unique name.

Saturday, October 18, 2008

Man with Great Name Gets Dissed

Count on the Mainstream Media to either be so stupid as to miss the point or so biased as to not want to see the point.

"Joe the Plumber's" (Joe Wurzelbacher) motives have been questioned.

His actual Plumbership has been questioned.

His business has been questioned.

His dream has been questioned (The View called it fantasy).

His education has been questioned.

His Americanism has been questioned.

His integrity has been questioned.

His honesty has been questioned.

His tax paying habits have been questioned.

His name has been questioned (he goes by his middle name, as do lots of folks...even folks in the MSM).

His planet of origin has been questioned.

The only thing the Main Stream Media has not questioned is:

THE WHOLE POINT! Which is not Joe the Plumber, but Barack Obama's statement that "I think that when you spread the wealth around it's good for everybody."

MSM! Ask Obama why he thinks spreading the wealth around (read: socialism) is good for everybody.

Every time that has been tried it has failed...big time.

So, MSM, are you too stupid to know what the point is, or are you so deceptive that you don't want to address it?


Friday, October 17, 2008


The reason I created this blog was not to list the facts about political candidates, good or bad, but to try to give some meaning, from my perspective, to those facts.

For instance, Why is it important to know that John McCain was a POW? Why is it important to know that BO hung around with a domestic terrorist?

Hopefully, it will help you make a wise, rather than just an emotional, decision come election day.

John McCain has extensive military service. He knows what the military is about, how to take and give orders, and how to endure extreme hardship as a POW.

After flight training, McCain flew A-4 Skyhawk attack aircraft in the Vietnam war.

On his 23rd mission, an October 1967 attack on a Hanoi power plant, his plane was shot down, and McCain, with three broken bones, was imprisoned in the famous "Hanoi Hilton."

Of his more than five years in prisoner-of-war camps, nearly two of those years were spent in solitary confinement.

These experiences will be brought to bear in his role as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, one of his Constitutional responsibilities. He is an expert on matters military.

Barack Obama has had NO military service of any kind.

He is absolutely UNPREPARED, having had no training of any kind, or any experience of any kind to fulfill this most important Constitutional mandate.

If he is elected, he will be engaged in on the job training for a role he needs to be prepared for on day one of his presidency.

BO is mostly anti-war and presents that as a positive aspect of his campaign (a military word, by the way).

But we are in a war, and we need a leader who understands it and has experience with it.

BO is not qualified.

John McCain has personal experience being assaulted by terrorists, which experience he gained as a POW in the infamous HANOI HILTON.

He understands how terrifying terrorists are.

Barack Obama, on the other hand, has aligned himself with known terrorists, in the person of William Ayers and his wife.

While I do not mean that BO participated in any direct terrorist activity. As far as I know, he did not, but with association comes alliance and with alliance comes complicity.

BO comes closer to being more aware of how to commit terrorism than to combat it.

He is filled with philosophies of war and of terrorism, but absolutely NO training or experience dealing with how to combat them.

So, it is important that we know the background of the person we place in the White House.

What he/she IS has been formed by his/her life experiences.

The person most ready to fulfill the Constitutional duty of Commander in Chief of the Armed forces is John McCain.

Thursday, October 16, 2008


No doubt about it...if we're going to win this election we're going to have to fight hard.

Regarding "the debate" last night, I have several observations;

1. John McCain made many valid points that were left languishing in Never-Never Land by the "esteemed" moderator.

2. When John McCain made a point about the character of BO, he was accused of being negative.

When BO told McCain his tax plan was "silly," he wasn't being negative, just "factual."

3. Our local newscast "evaluated" the debate by inviting a room full of Democrats and a room full of Republicans to watch the debate and tell what they thought about it.

When it came time to let them tell what they thought about it, two Democrats were interviewed for their points of view, which were vague but pro BO.

No Republicans were interviewed.

4. Our newscasters faces were bright and smiling when they spoke of BO in the debate, but solemn and downcast when they spoke of McCain.

This election is winnable.

It's going to take every one of us working hard to show people why BO would be a president who will lead us down the road of socialism, taking from those of us who have worked hard for our resources and giving to those who refuse to work, and thus are mired in poverty.

Robin Hood took from the government and gave to the populace.

I liked that guy.

BO wants to take from the successful and give to the lazy.

Do your part.

Suffer whatever it takes to broadcast the news that lower taxes, smaller government and more freedom is the way to ensure that anybody who will work for it can take part in "The American Dream."

The closest we have to that outcome is John McCain.

Wednesday, October 15, 2008


When I was a little boy (a long, long time ago), my mother used to tell me that certain other little boys (and/or girls) were not the kind I wanted to play with. She said they would bring me down to their level.

My mother was a smart woman.

She realized that associations lead to alliances and that alliances lead to complicity.

A few years ago a gang shot and killed a local, well liked highschool band leader.

The whole gang was found guilty, even the guy who was only driving the car in which the others rode to the band leader's house.

He was seen as complicit in the crime.

If you aid and abet a gun crime resulting in a death, you are guilty, even if you are not the one who pulls the trigger.

So what if you teach for, encourage and give lots of money to ACORN?

Have you formed an alliance with them?

I say, "Yes."

Any clear thinking person would understand that.

Associations may or may not indicate complicity.

Allianced do.

BO has denied ANY involvement with ACORN (which group he proudly bragged on earlier in the campaign), which denial has been shown to be untrue.

Whatever they have done that is illegal, immoral, untoward, or scandalous, he is guilty of as well, not by association, but by alliance.

In my opinion, BO, Chris Dodd, Barney Frank and not a few others belong behind bars for what they have done to our country.

Woe unto us if BO is elected president...which is a real possibility if we don't get with it.

Tuesday, October 14, 2008


My favorite question in the universe is, "Where did you get that idea?"

For instance of a liberal I might ask:

Where did you get the idea that the government is capable of providing anything for anybody for free?

Where did you get the idea that raising their taxes makes families better able to provide for themselves?

Where did you get the idea that heavily taxing upper income entities makes them better able to provide jobs, etc. for those who need them?

Where did you get the idea that government has any ability to run anything as well as or better than the private sector?

Where did you get the idea that health care is a right (as your nominee, Barack Obama [BO] has said)?

Where did you get the idea that rights come from the government? Thomas Jefferson didn't think so. Ever read the Declaration of Independence?

Where did you get the idea that the Constitution of the United States of America breathes fast, by judicial decree, rather than slowly and deeply by the amendment process?

Where did you get the idea that something is true because you said it was true, rather than whether or not it actually happened?

Where did you get the idea that if you do something wrong it is excusable, but if the other party does the same wrong thing it is prosecutable?

Those are just some of the questions I would ask them.

What are some you would ask?

Monday, October 13, 2008

HAPPY COLUMBUS DAY! (Celebrated Monday)

Yesterday was the real Columbus Day.

Somehow, in order to lighten the workload on ourselves, we have decided to move it, along with most other holidays, to Monday, regardless of the real date we're celebrating.

I want to suggest that doing so diminishes the perceived significance of the purpose of the holiday and focuses too much on the "Day Off" aspect of it (long weekends, you know).

It also allows us to rewrite history with almost no challenge...which rewriting is regularly taking place.

I leave you with this quote:

"No one should be afraid to take on any enterprise in the name of our Savior if it is right and the purpose for His holy service." Christopher Columbus

Sunday, October 12, 2008


In 1964, I was a student at Stetson University in Deland, Florida, and worked at a print shop in St. Augustine while taking some time off from my studies.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. came to town to try to win meaningful concessions for local blacks.

Being a bit radical for my time, and believing in the cause he espoused, I joined him in the march.

This post, however, is not about me, or about Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., it is about a history lesson you need.

I urge you to read a very important post called On Racism and Republicans .

You may not realize just who did what for whom in this country.

Here is a little test you might want to take (if you don't want to take it, take it anyway...it will be informative and good for you).

1. What political Party fought to keep blacks in slavery and was the Party of the Ku Klux Klan?

2. From 1870 to 1930, what Party used fraud, whippings, lynchings, murder, intimidation and mutilation to get the black vote, and passed the Black Codes (most commonly associated with legislation passed by states after the Civil War in an attempt to control the labor, movements and activities of Blacks) and Jim Crow laws (Some examples of which are: the segregation of public schools; public places and public transportation; and the segregation of restrooms and restaurants for whites and blacks.) which legalized racial discrimination and denied blacks their rights as citizens?

3. What was the Party of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and President Harry Truman, who rejected anti-lynching laws and efforts to establish a permanent Civil Rights Commission?

4. Of what Party is current Senator Robert Byrd, who was a member of the Ku Klux Klan, Senator Fritz Hollings, who hoisted the Confederate flag over the state capitol in South Carolina when he was the governor, and Senator Ted Kennedy, who recently insulted black judicial nominees by calling them "Neanderthals" while blocking their appointments?

5. What was the Party of the president who sent troops to war in Bosnia and Kosovo without Congressional approval, vetoed the Welfare Reform law twice before being pressured to sign it, refused to comply with a court order to have shipping companies develop an Affirmative Action Plan, and failed to fight terroritsts after the first bombing of the World Trade Center (William Jefferson Clinton)?

6. What was the Party of Albert Arnold "Al" Gore, Sr., who voted against the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960s?

7. What Party opposes the faith based initiative, school vouchers, school prayers?

8. What Party refuses to acknowledge their racist past or to apologize for try to expand slavery, lynch blacks, and other despicable positions?

9. What Party is now trying to get elected the first black president (not counting W.J. Clinton), whose recent views have espoused the same kind of counter-productive thinking, only now toward the white race?

By now you know that the answer to every question above is THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.

Surprised? Don't believe it?

When you read, On Racism and Republicans , you will see some things you may never have seen before.

You will put into perspective some things you may never have understood before.

Some of you will react to this post as though it is somehow racist, in and of itself.

That's your problem, because it most assuredly is not.

If you will read, On Racism and Republicans , you will understand a lot of things.

Saturday, October 11, 2008


Let me be perfectly clear.

Our country is not designed to be one in which the government tells its citizens what they can and cannot do.

In this country, the citizens tell the government what it can and cannot do.

Our Constitution is the rule book that is supposed to limit the power of the government and place the bulk of it in the peoples' hands.

That's a problem, because most of the time we citizens are really content to let the government tell us what we can and cannot do.

The first time Congress tried to pass the "Bail-Out" package, the Congressional switchboard lit up with calls...tens of thousands of calls.

And guess what? It worked!

The bill did not pass.

Then lawmakers did an end run by letting the Senate bring up a similar, if more deceptive, bill.

They acted so fast that citizens, still recoiling from their victory over Congress, did not muster the phone-power to stop them.

I love blogging and reading conservative blogs. It is a great outlet for opinions of every ilk.

But blogging can only take us so far.

Contact with our lawmakers is imperative if we are going to make a real difference.

They respond to Emails, letters and phone calls.

If you really want your blog to make a difference, back it up with contact.

It does not take long. If you get through to your lawmaker of the opposite party, it will take even less time, 'cause they want to get rid of you as soon as possible.

But the guys (and gals) on your side want very much to hear from you.

It boosts their ego when you call.

It also influences them, when enough of us call.

So don't just spout off in your Internet Dayjournal, make some real noise. Let them know you're in charge, not them.

Always be civil, and be not provoked to wrath, but state your case clearly, concisely and politely.

Don't ramble. You will lose them.

Like a good Boy Scout, be prepared.

Now go out there and get 'em!

Do it!


Addendum: You are aware that Sarah Palin has been investigated for an inappropriate firing in Alaska.

Here is the final conclusion in a two part finding (page 8 of the report):

"Governor Palin's firing of Commissioner Monegan was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority to hire and fire executive branch department heads."

What do you want to bet this part of the report never finds the light of day in the MSM? Only part one, which is contradictory.

Read about it at Insta Pundit .

Friday, October 10, 2008

Joseph Edward Scoggins, Jr.

That's what my mother used to call me when she wanted my full attention.

Sarah Palin came to Southwest Florida Tuesday.

She was scheduled at a moderately sized arena.

The venu had to be moved to the largest gathering place we have because so many people wanted to see her.

At the meeting, Gevernor Palin was introduced by our Sheriff, Mike Scott.

In his comments, Sheriff Scott said the following:

"Ladies and gentleman, there are three types of people in our country today. There are people that make things happen, there are people that watch things happen, and there are people that wonder what happened. On November 4th, on November 4th, let's leave Barack Hussein Obama wondering what happened."

Now he is catching flack for daring to mention BO's middle name.

As we now know, BO is deeply ashamed of his middle name, and does not want people to use it.

Conservative talk show host, Mark Lavin, has decided to call him Barack Milhouse Obama, using Richard Nixon's middle name.

Why do you suppose that such a highly skilled and experienced politician, a man qualified by his work as a "Community Organizer" (read: rabble rouser - seeking to get as many unqualified persons into houses they could not afford as possible), by his association with domestic terrorists, and by his ties to foreign and domestic hoodlums to be the next President of the United states is so very deeply ashamed of his middle name?

I'm proud of my middle name, "Edward."

Joseph Edward Scoggins, Jr.

Say it.

It kind of rolls naturally along.

It sounds almost aristocratic.

OK, maybe not aristocratic, but at least kind of official, doesn't it?

Now try that with BO.

Barack Hussein Obama.

How does it sound?

Yeah...now I get it.

Thursday, October 9, 2008


Testifying in Congress, the disgraced head of Lehman Brothers, Richard Fuld said he took full responsibility for his actions.

Is that right?

Well let me tell you about responsibility.

One day I was driving along a road with a 30 MPH speed limit.

My passenger, a type "A" personality, thought my 29 MPH was too slow.

"Joe," he said, "We'll never get there at this rate. Speed up!"

"No way, Dougie Doo," I answered. "I'm going the speed limit. We'll get there soon enough."

"Don't be a wimp, Man." He sounded irritated. "Just push the gas and let's go!"

"Oh, OK," I said.

I pushed the pedal and we approached 45 MPH.

As is usually my luck, little blue lights reflected in my rear view mirror.

I pulled over and this big, burly officer approached.

"Going to a fire, Buddy?" I couldn't believe he used such a worn cliche.

"Let me explain, Officer. My friend here was impatient and wanted us to get to our destination early. He told me to speed up. When I resisted, he insisted. So I sped up. It's all his fault."

Guess who got the ticket, me or my passenger.

Responsibility always comes with a price tag.


It does not necessarily take the form of money, it might mean a demotion, or maybe even jail time, but there is always a price to pay when responsibility is assumed.

Unless you are a politician.

Remember Janet Reno and the debackle in Texas?

She declared, "I take full responsibility for Waco."

Then President Bill Clinton, cried out, "No, no! Let me take it! I'll take full responsibility!"

It cost neither of them anything, therefore it is appropriate to conclude that neither took responsibility for anything.

Barney Frank assured us that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mace were sound...not good investments, but there was no reason to suspect that they were in any trouble.

Chris Dodd joined him in his calm assurances, as did a myriad of others.

In about two more breaths, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG, and Lehman Brothers began to colapse.

"Emergency! Emergency!" President Bush, Congress and the Senate all shouted.

"We've got to fix it NOW! If we don't we will all perish!"

So, being the honorable men and women that they are, they fixed it.

Why does it make me nervous that the very people who, in the final analysis, caused the problem are the ones we have chosen to fix it?

And who gets to take responsibility for the financial mess we're in?

In the political world...nobody. Absolutely nobody.

Nobody who had anything to do with it, that is.

Oh, yeah...let's pin it on President Bush.

While we are at it, let's pin it on Abraham Lincoln, Useless Grant, and Barney Fife.

Wednesday, October 8, 2008


Oh Joy!

Oh exultation!

We're saved, saved, SAVED!!!

Thank you Chris Dodd for encouraging us so much when you told us that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were sound!

Thank you Barney Frank for telling us that we had nothing to worry about with regard to the strength of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac!

And thank you! Thank you! Thank you! For leading us into a bailout of two entities that were sound and strong!

And let's not forget good ole AIG!

Thank you for taking $700,000,000,000.00 of government money and giving them the assistance they needed to cover the loans they made to people who were too poor to make monthly payments, let alone a down payment.

(By the way, oh revered leaders, how on earth did you manage to come up with that much money? You must be very industrious!)

We are awed! Awed, I say, awed!


What's that you say?

The stock market fell how much?

In one day?

But I thought...

I thought you said everything would be alright.

You DID say that didn't you?

Oh, please! Tell me you were telling us the truth when you promised to help the banks, the insurance companies and the big back-up companies.

Barney! Please tell us you've got it under control!

Barney, I've loved you for so long.

Why I used to watch you every day on TV, all decked out in purple and all.

You're what?

No, no...I didn't mean love you that way. I mean I loved to watch your program.


That wasn't you?

And here I thought the sweet, "I love you, you love me..." fairy tale had come to life.

We're going to need what?

We're going to need more money?

But I thought...I thought...

Where will you get more money?


The same place you got the last batch?

Barney...Chris...why are you chanting "tax-payers are suckers" under your breath?

I don't feel so good.

Tuesday, October 7, 2008


Ever said that?

I have.

I've made some doozies!

Some of my mistakes were just plain stupidity on my part.

Others were made because I depended on the integrity of others.

A very few were just slip-ups.

John McCain has been accused by the BO (Barack Obama...get it?) campaign of being part of the so-called "Keating Five."

John McCain has accused BO of palling around with William Ayers (self-proclaimed terrorist...well he didn't use the word, "terrorist," but he used the same tactics).

Both of the above are true.

So what sets them apart?

John McCain has been open and honest about the Keating matter.

The Democratic special counsel in charge recommended that Senator McCain be completely exonerated.

BO has not been honest about his relationship with William Ayers, Jeremiah Wright or any of the Chicago hoodlums, slum-lords or Mafioso (Re: Tony Rezko, convicted on bribery charges and who subsidized the purchase of Barack Obama’s home) with whom he has had documentable relationship.

Forgetting the score (BO-20; John McCain 1), just consider the depth of deception by BO compared to the openness of John McCain.

BO declares that his association with these people is not relevant to his election.
Somehow, though, John McCain's is.

Can you say, "Double Standard?"

Yet it looks very much like we're about to introduce BO to the White House.

Your bad.

Monday, October 6, 2008

Honorable Men All

My sister gave me the nearly perfect definition of "truth."

She says, "Truth is what actually happened."

There are occasions when something happens and it is hard to tell from a given vantage point just exactly what happened.

For all other occasions, my sister's definitions works very well.

A person who does not tell the truth about a single incident is a person who has told a lie.

A person who tells a lie is a liar, that is, one who tells at least one lie.

A lie can be blatant: "I saw John kill Sally," when, in fact, I did not see John kill Sally.

A lie can be one of omission: "I saw John and Sally," when, in fact, I actually saw John kill Sally."

Whether blatant, or by omission, an untruth is a lie and an untruth teller is a liar.

Barack Obama is a liar.

(Bring it on, BO. I have the sources of over 100 blatant lies you have told during your campaign...I can back up every one of them.)

On more than one occasion, he has told blatant lies about himself, about what he has done and about both John McCain and Sarah Palin.

On more than one occasion, he has told lies of omission about himself, about what he has done and about both John McCain and Sarah Palin.

Example: He recently commissioned an ad that ran on YouTube about Sarah Palin being a part of a member of the Alaskan Independence Party, an Anti-American separatist organization that wants Alaskans to vote on whether they wish to secede from the United States.

The truth is that she has never been a member of AIP.

That makes the YouTube ad a lie, paid for by Barack Obama through his friend, Ethan Winner, of the Publicis Groupe.

You may or may not have seen the ad.

It was pulled as soon as it was disclosed that it violated campaign laws by failing to include a disclaimer.

Federal Election Law requires that a disclaimer from those paying for campaign ads, "must appear on any "electioneering communication" and on any public communication by any person that expressly advocates the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate or solicits funds in connection with a federal election."

If you want to know more about this lie, as well as others, go to: http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/194057.php

Now, I don't expect politicians to be truthful all of the time. It's not in their nature.

But there are limits to how much we should endure and still consider a candidate viable.

To date the Obama campaign has lied continually about Sarah Palin, because they seem to fear her "truth-mongering."

They have gone so far as to suggest that her baby is really her daughter's baby.

That one was really stupid, because the daughter is admittedly pregnant now and the Downs syndrome baby's ultra-sound pictures were taken while he was in Sarah Palin's womb!

With every passing day, BO's image gets more and more tarnished as his literally hundreds of campaign lies come to light.

Then he defends himself by calling his lie exposers liars.

Yet, many of you, expecially liberal Democrats, just don't care.

All that is important is power through election.

That's all.

So you become one with the candidate.

Do you know what that makes you?

Saturday, October 4, 2008


This is my newest blog.

It is a political/eclectic blog about stuff that interests me (and hopefully you, too)

There are but a few rules to follow on this blog:

1. Absolutely no foul language. If you are not man or woman enough to control your language, you are not welcome here...go somewhere else.

2. I am not looking for strings of commenters arguing with each other, so confine your comments to the topic at hand and address your comments to me, unless you can be exceptionally gracious and polite.

3. Since this is my blog, I am the sole arbiter of what can be placed on this blog. My decisions are final and without recourse.

4. Within the scope of those rules, you may feel free to have fun here (I sure will). Sarcasm, wit, half-wit, nit-wit, parody, satire, puns (especially puns), etc. are encouraged.

I will be updating this blog anywhere from twice-a-day to every couple of days, so check back often...you never know what you'll find.

Want me to link to you? If your blog is interesting, half-way civil and decent, I will be happy to do so.

Bear in mind that I am a very conservative, very old, very patriotic, Christian blogger and this blog will reflect that world-view.

Thanks for coming by and have a great time!