Saturday, May 30, 2009



To more accurately visualize that, go to:

The present total The United States' obligations is $63.8 trillion.

According to USA Today, the United States taxpayer is now on the hook for $546,668.00 per household. (Leap in U.S. debt hits taxpayers with 12% more red ink.)

That’s four times what the average household owes for all mortgages, car loans, credit cards and other debt put together.

Are we supposed to sit back and say, "Oh...$546,668.00 per household! Well, I guess if we have to spend it, we have to spend it. After all, the government knows best? Guess the wife and I will just have to work three jobs each."

Look, there will come a time, and it is virtually upon us, when the government will simply take 100% of everything we earn and "give" to each of us what it thinks we should have, based on its perception of our value to society.

There is historical precedence for this kind of thinking.

Are you smart enough to remember what it is called?

At the risk of using a triple entendre, that has me seeing red.

Friday, May 29, 2009


I went to lunch with a good friend yesterday and the subject turned to AIG and the other miscreants, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

My friend was angry because the CEOs of these outfits made so much money.

"Nobody," he maintained, "is worth more than a million dollars."

Well, I live in The United States of America, land of the used to be free and home of the once brave.

It is my humble, but correct, opinion, that anybody should be able to earn whatever he/she wants to earn without governmental encumbrances AS LONG AS THEY DO IT LEGALLY.

But you can't be rich without hurting other people, right?


Witness Truett Cathy.

"Who?" I hear you asking.

Truett Cathy founded Chick-Fil-A in 1960. His son, Dan, is CEO today.

Chick-Fil-A does an annual business of over $2.9 billion...and they do it in only six days per week, since they are closed on Sundays to allow their employees a day of worship or family time.

They have enjoyed 41 years of continuous sales growth.

One of their passions is their people...not exploiting them, providing for them.

Chick-Fil-A provides scholarships for their "team-members," character building classes for children, an extensive foster care program and are very involved in community events.

I am not here to tout Chick-Fil-A...I like their food, but then I like ALL food.

My point is, it is neither immoral nor impossible to make as much money as you want to and to do it right.

Contrary to popular belief, it is not necessary to cheat, steal, lie and mistreat people to become wealthy in this country. It is easier, for a season, but not necessary.

In fact, it is likely that if you cheat, steal, lie and mistreat people to rise in the ranks of industry, sooner or later it will come back to bite you where you don't want to be bitten.

How about Franklin Raines and Daniel Mudd, former leaders at Fannie Mae? Consider David Kellerman and David Moffett of Freddie Mac (Kellerman committed suicide).

How would like to be like Edward Liddy, former head of AIG?

Worst of all, how would you like to be like Barney Frank, Maxine Waters, Chris Dodd, Harry Reid, et. al., who think nothing of deliberately and blatantly stealing from ALL Americans by taking their hard earned money and squandering it daily?

"Well, ALL politicians are dishonest," you object.


I've never seen any evidence that Connie Mack is dishonest. Milk toast, yes, dishonest, no.

(I plan to vote him out of office - or at least do my part - because of his lack of fortitude, but I see no evidence of dishonesty...yet.)

But the fact each of these makes money causes me no concern whatever.

I do not believe that Truett and Dan Cathy are "winners of life's lottery," or that they got where they are by ill gotten gain.

They worked their ever-lovin'-blue-eyed posteriors off to achieve their success, and helped tens-of-thousands along the way.

Furthermore, I don't think I (or you) have any right whatsoever, by any stretch of anybody's imagination, to tell company owners or corporate stockholders what they should pay their people.

The truth is, if you were willing to do what it takes to get to their positions of leadership by the honest route: get educated in the field; work long hard hours daily; get better at your job every day; live up to your potential; sacrifice "fun" once in a while and all the other stuff, you could be there, too.

Of course you could choose to get there by the political, "who you know" and "whose anatomical parts you kiss" route, too.

Then you would always have the likes of Frank Raines or David Kellerman in the back of your mind, figuring how to scam the system.

I'll becha ol' Frank and David never thought their methods would come back to haunt them.

If you are dishonest, hurt people and mess up like the afore-mentioned group, corporate and political, you belong in jail.

Otherwise, go ahead. Make all you want or need to make.

In a truly capitalistic system (the only system in which ANYBODY can get ahead with enough effort), who cares how much you make?

If I want to, I can do it too!

Thursday, May 28, 2009


President BO said, "...(Sotomayor) would bring more experience on the bench than anyone currently serving on the Supreme Court when appointed."

Well, let's look at that.

Name: John G. Roberts, Jr.,

Education: A.B. from Harvard College in 1976 and a J.D. from Harvard Law School in 1979

Service: (1979 - 2009) He served as a law clerk for Judge Henry J.Friendly of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit from 1979–1980 and as a law clerk for then-Associate Justice William H. Rehnquist of the Supreme Court of the United States during the 1980 Term. He was Special Assistant to the Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice from 1981–1982, Associate Counsel to President Ronald Reagan, White House Counsel’s Office from 1982–1986, and Principal Deputy Solicitor General, U.S. Department of Justice from 1989–1993. From 1986–1989 and 1993–2003, he practiced law in Washington, D.C. He was appointed to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 2003

Nominated President George W. Bush as Chief Justice of the United States, and he took his seat on September 29, 2005.

Name: John Paul Stevens, Associate Justice,

Education: A.B. from the University of Chicago, and a J.D. from Northwestern University School of Law.

Service: (1947 - 2009) (United States Navy from 1942–1945) Law clerk to Justice Wiley Rutledge of the Supreme Court of the United States during the 1947 Term. He was admitted to law practice in Illinois in 1949. He was Associate Counsel to the Subcommittee on the Study of Monopoly Power of the Judiciary Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives, 1951–1952, and a member of the Attorney General’s National Committee to Study Antitrust Law, 1953–1955. He was Second Vice President of the Chicago Bar Association in 1970. From 1970–1975, he served as a Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. President Ford nominated him as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and he took his seat December 19, 1975.

Name: Antonin Scalia, Associate Justice

Education: A.B. from Georgetown University and the University of Fribourg, Switzerland, and his LL.B. from Harvard Law School, and was a Sheldon Fellow of Harvard University from 1960–1961.

Service: (1962 - 2009) Private practice in Cleveland, Ohio from 1961–1967, a Professor of Law at the University of Virginia from 1967–1971, and a Professor of Law at the University of Chicago from 1977–1982, and a Visiting Professor of Law at Georgetown University and Stanford University. He was chairman of the American Bar Association’s Section of Administrative Law, 1981–1982, and its Conference of Section Chairmen, 1982–1983. He served the federal government as General Counsel of the Office of Telecommunications Policy from 1971–1972, Chairman of the Administrative Conference of the United States from 1972–1974, and Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel from 1974–1977. He was appointed Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 1982. President Reagan nominated him as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and he took his seat September 26, 1986.

Name: Anthony M. Kennedy, Associate Justice

Education: B.A. from Stanford University and the London School of Economics, and his LL.B. from Harvard Law School.

Service: (1961-2009) Private practice in San Francisco, California from 1961–1963, as well as in Sacramento, California from 1963–1975. From 1965 to 1988, he was a Professor of Constitutional Law at the McGeorge School of Law, University of the Pacific. California Army National Guard in 1961, the board of the Federal Judicial Center from 1987–1988, and two committees of the Judicial Conference of the United States: the Advisory Panel on Financial Disclosure Reports and Judicial Activities, subsequently renamed the Advisory Committee on Codes of Conduct, from 1979–1987, and the Committee on Pacific Territories from 1979–1990, which he chaired from 1982–1990. He was appointed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in 1975. President Reagan nominated him as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and he took his seat February 18, 1988.

Name: David Hackett Souter, Associate Justice

Education: Graduated from Harvard College, from which he received his A.B. Rhodes Scholar at Magdalen College, Oxford. A.B. in Jurisprudence from Oxford University and an M.A. in 1989. LL.B. from Harvard Law School

Service: (1966 - 2009) Associate at Orr and Reno in Concord, New Hampshire from 1966 to 1968, when he became an Assistant Attorney General of New Hampshire. In 1971, he became Deputy Attorney General and in 1976, Attorney General of New Hampshire. In 1978, he was named an Associate Justice of the Superior Court of New Hampshire, and was appointed to the Supreme Court of New Hampshire as an Associate Justice in 1983. He became a Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on May 25, 1990. President Bush nominated him as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and he took his seat October 9, 1990.

Name: Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice

Education: Conception Seminary and received an A.B., cum laude, from Holy Cross College, and a J.D. from Yale Law School in 1974.

Service: (1974 - 2009) Admitted to law practice in Missouri in 1974. Assistant Attorney General of Missouri from 1974–1977, an attorney with the Monsanto Company from 1977–1979, and Legislative Assistant to Senator John Danforth from 1979–1981. From 1981–1982, he served as Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Education, and as Chairman of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission from 1982–1990. He became a Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuitin 1990. President Bush nominated him as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and he took his seat October 23, 1991.

Name: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Associate Justice

Education: B.A. from Cornell University, attended Harvard Law School, and received her LL.B. from Columbia Law School.

Service: (1959 - 2009) Law clerk to the Honorable Edmund L. Palmieri, Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, from 1959–1961. From 1961–1963, she was a research associate and then associate director of the Columbia Law School Project on International Procedure. She was a Professor of Law at Rutgers University School of Law from 1963–1972, and Columbia Law School from 1972–1980, and a fellow at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences in Stanford, California from 1977–1978. In 1971, she was instrumental in launching the Women’s Rights Project of the American Civil Liberties Union, and served as the ACLU’s General Counsel from 1973–1980, and on the National Board of Directors from 1974–1980. She was appointed a Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 1980. President Clinton nominated her as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and she took her seat August 10, 1993.

Name: Stephen G. Breyer, Associate Justice

Education: A.B. from Stanford University, a B.A. from Magdalen College, Oxford, and an LL.B. from Harvard Law School.

Service (1964 - 2009) Law clerk to Justice Arthur Goldberg of the Supreme Court of the United States during the 1964 Term, as a Special Assistant to the Assistant U.S. Attorney General for Antitrust, 1965–1967, as an Assistant Special Prosecutor of the Watergate Special Prosecution Force, 1973, as Special Counsel of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, 1974–1975, and as Chief Counsel of the committee, 1979–1980. He was an Assistant Professor, Professor of Law, and Lecturer at Harvard Law School, 1967–1994, a Professor at the Harvard University Kennedy School of Government, 1977–1980, and a Visiting Professor at the College of Law, Sydney, Australia and at the University of Rome. From 1980–1990, he served as a Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, and as its Chief Judge, 1990–1994. He also served as a member of the Judicial Conference of the United States, 1990–1994, and of the United States Sentencing Commission, 1985–1989. President Clinton nominated him as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and he took his seat August 3, 1994.

Name: Samuel Anthony Alito, Jr., Associate Justice

Education: A graduate of Princeton University and Yale Law School (where he served as editor of the Yale Law Journal)

Service: (1976 - 2009) Law clerk for Leonard I. Garth of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit from 1976–1977. He was Assistant U.S. Attorney, District of New Jersey, 1977–1981, Assistant to the Solicitor General, U.S. Department of Justice, 1981–1985, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, 1985–1987, and U.S. Attorney, District of New Jersey, 1987–1990. He was appointed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in 1990. President George W. Bush nominated him as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and he took his seat on January 31, 2006.


Name: Sonia Sotomayor

Eduction: A.B. from Princeton University, graduating summa cum laude in 1976. Obtained her J.D. from Yale Law School in 1979. Served as editor of the Yale Law Journal.

Service: (1979 - 2009). Assistant district attorney, New York County District Attorney's Office, 1979-1984Private practice, New York City, 1984-1992Judge, U. S. District Court, Southern District of New York Nominated by George H.W. Bush on November 27, 1991, to a seat vacated by John M. Walker, Jr.; Confirmed by the Senate on August 11, 1992, and received commission on August 12, 1992. Service terminated on October 13, 1998, due to appointment to another judicial position. Judge, U. S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Nominated by William J. Clinton on June 25, 1997, to a seat vacated by J. Daniel Mahoney; Confirmed by the Senate on October 2, 1998, and received commission on October 7, 1998.

I have no doubt that Sonia Sotomayor is judicially qualified to sit on the Supreme Court (even though I recognize that her record as a judge is poor, her rulings having been overturned up to 60% of the time).

But "...more experience on the bench than anyone currently serving on the Supreme Court when appointed."

That is at least hyperbole and, in my humble, but correct, opinion is a bald faced lie.

But then we have come to expect even to like for President BO to lie. It make us feel like he is one of us.

After all, how we feel is far more important than what we think or know.

Wednesday, May 27, 2009


It was Monday afternoon.

I had just finished lunch and was watching the Noon news as I continued recovery from my recent heart episode.

A reporterette was describing a gathering at a VFW section of a local cemetery in observance of Memorial Day.

Said she, "There are many different ethnic groups represented here today, including some men in uniform, but the emphasis seems to be weighted an awful lot toward the dead."

Memorial Day? Emphasis on the dead?

Do tell.

As the holiday seems to have become more about a day off from work, a back yard cook-out and a day at the park, its actual meaning seems to have been lost, having even become confused with another special day: Veterans Day.

I don't know what on earth they are teaching in our government run schools about these two holidays...not too much good I would guess, but couldn't they at least teach future reporterettes the difference?

Memorial Day is a day to remember those who gave their lives (for those of you who attended government school: died) in service to our freedom through the military.

Veterans Day is a day to honor those who fought for our freedoms in a war and are still around to tell about it and/or who served in the military for a portion of their lives.

There are hospitals for veterans.

There are no hospitals for those who died...only grave sites.

Don't worry. Our vets have too much honor to get upset, and our honored dead won't.

Tuesday, May 26, 2009


Former Secretary of State Colin Powell Sunday defended his "credentials" as a Republican. It seems that he did not like what Rush Limbaugh and former Vice President Dick Cheney had to say about his so-called "moderate" stance.

So I would ask, "Who gets to define what "credentials" are necessary to be considered a Republican?

Does one become a Republican simply by saying so?

In one sense, at least, that is so.

When one registers to vote, one can register as whatever he/she wants to, regardless of the stance he/she takes on major issues.

But there is more to being a member of one Party or the other in terms of political philosophy than just a statement that one is a Democrat, a Republican, an Independent or some other brand of Partyism.

Colin Powell and I could not stand together on the same platform with a similar view of what The United States of America should look like. We are diametrically opposed to one another.

So does that make him a Republican and me something else?

He was here five years.

Does that mean he gets to choose?

If we were to chart the history of the Republican Party in terms of philosophies and platforms, how many more or fewer would there be taking stands similar to mine, and which would be stances lining up with Colin Powells'?

In fact, that sounds like a good project for one of my "scholarly" investigations.

Look for it in the near or distant future.

In the mean time, I agree with Limbaugh and Cheney: Powell does not look like, talk like or walk like any Republican I've ever seen.

If it doesn't look like a duck, quack like a duck, or walk like a duck, it probably is not a duck.

Monday, May 25, 2009



I happened to watch Bill Moyers' Journal, today.

I don't usually watch him very long at a time, because he is smug, arrogant, supercilious and all sorts of other negative adjectives.

He believes himself to be very intelligent. He is sure of it. He is confident of it.

Moyers may be well educated, but he has the wisdom of dead grass.

As he closed his show, he began one of his patented snidely worded leftist commentaries about the purpose of Memorial Day, which he proclaimed was for us to remember war.

What a stupid, hair-brained, mindless, tasteless, insensitive and irresponsible thing to say.

Hey Bill! News Flash for you!

Memorial Day is to remember PEOPLE, you know: the ones who gave their lives in service to our country in the United States Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, National Guard, Coast Guard and Merchant Marines.

What a total fool Bill Moyers is. Total fool.

My father served 31 years in the United States Air Force (actually the Army Air Corps, which later became the Air Force).

He was a man who HATED war, but understood when and why it was necessary.

Most people today like the HATE WAR part, but are too stupid to know when or why is necessary.

President BO is one of those.

Colonel Joseph E. Scoggins was a man of honor, integrity and deep conviction. He was a man of superior skill at his job, and a patriot extraordinaire.

Pappy, as everybody called him, even his superior officers, was a man of faith and a deacon at Central Baptist Church, Miami, Florida.

He served during World War II in the South Atlantic Corridor between South America and Africa.

My father became the Deputy Commander of the last two bases on which he served, Robins Air Force Base in Warner Robins, Georgia and Westover Air Force Base in Massachusetts.

Because of hundreds of thousands of men like him, you live in a country which, up to now, has had more freedom than any other in the history of the universe.

And so today I honor my father and all of the men who served with him in both the Atlantic and the Pacific theaters, as well as all of those who have given either their very lives or their lives of service to this country in all of its wars, past and present.


Sunday, May 24, 2009


I came home Thursday from the world's ritziest hospital, following my heart attacks (two of Monday and one at the hospital Thursday morning - three stents in several coronary arteries).

It had wall to wall polished wood cabinets, a built in desk, draperies/sheers/verticles on the windows, high def. TV, a great staff and beds worse than an old Army cot.

I was sent there because none of the local hospitals had a surgeon who could do the proceedure STAT.

The least little activities leaves me breathless and worn out, so with your permission I will continue NOT blogging for a day or so (this one does not count...OK?).

I will, however, read yours and comment as strength permits, so keep on writing.

Thanks for all of your patience, prayers and well-wishes. I really DO appreciate it.

ADDENDUM: I am feeling quite a bit better tonight and should be back to blogging...perhaps by tomorrow. Come by if you are so inclined.

Thursday, May 21, 2009


I had prepared the previous three posts and was going to finish them, had already scheduled them but had not editied them when I had a strong heart attack.

I have since had three stents put in (Tuesday, May 19) and am not able to spend any time with my blog.

I hope you understand & I'll be back as soon as possible to finish those three.

Saturday, May 16, 2009


President BO does not understand what the United States of America is, why it is what it is and where we need to go as a nation.

He speaks fluently, clearly, somewhat eloquently and sometimes even humorously, as long as he has his trusty Teleprompter in front of him.

Yet he is taking us down paths we dare not tread, all the while moving us closer and closer to becoming a government run society.

(Yes, I know this trend has been going on for decades, ever since and even before FDR.)

His ideas are so wacky, although I think he really believes in them.

Let’s take a recent example.

Trinity Structural Towers Manufacturing Plant, Newton, Iowa

"My budget also invests $15 billion each year for 10 years to develop clean energy including wind power and solar power, geothermal energy and clean coal technology.

"And today I'm announcing that my administration is taking another historic step.

"Through the Department of Interior, we are establishing a program to authorize -- for the very first time -- the leasing of federal waters for projects to generate electricity from wind as well as from ocean currents and other renewable sources. And this will open the door to major investments in offshore clean energy. For example, there is enormous interest in wind projects off the coasts of New Jersey and Delaware, and today's announcement will enable these projects to move forward.

"It's estimated that if we fully pursue our potential for wind energy on land and offshore, wind can generate as much as 20 percent of our electricity by 2030 and create a quarter-million jobs in the process -- 250,000 jobs in the process, jobs that pay well and provide good benefits. It's a win-win: It's good for the environment; it's great for the economy."

One of the models President BO uses to justify this plan is the system of "green" jobs established by Spain.

So how’s that working for them?

According to a study from King Juan Carlos University in Madrid, Spain, for every "green" job created trying to generate energy from windmills and solar panels, 2.2 jobs were lost.

Now I’m no math whiz, having only studied arithmetic, algebra 1 & 2; solid and plane geometry and trigonometry, but even I can see that Spain’s model is a losing situation.

So, for every 250,000 jobs that are created in green energy, 550,000 jobs are being lost.

Now, which is larger: 550,000 or 250,000? (Hint: 550,000 is 300,000 larger than 250,000)

Do you think we need to lose an additional 300,000 jobs in the name of "clean" energy?

Would you rather our country emulate a successful energy model or a failing one?

Look, I favor green energy.

I think we should have cars that don’t pollute, factories that don’t poison the air around us and airplanes that don’t run on fossil fuels.

But we aren’t there. We don’t know how to do it.

Besides, the same people who object to having oil wells in their personal scenery will object to fields of windmills…ugly at best…and will sue to keep them out or to have them removed.

Have you seen solar powered airplanes?

They are light, flimsy, and have a payload of a skinny man and one fruit fly.

Today’s electric cars, including hybrids, require a greater "carbon footprint" to produce, counting the manufacturing of batteries and materials, than my old 1995 Saturn SL 2 does to keep running.

I favor the development of hydrogen fuel cells, since hydrogen is the most abundant element in our universe.

But we don’t yet know how to effectively or economically produce it or distribute it.

Maybe nuclear energy is in our future.

One of our aircraft carriers runs safely on it and is expected to do so for years without refueling.

Maybe "cold fusion" will come along. What a change that would make in everything!

Actually, I have no objection to "going green," but we’re looking at 75-100 years, not ten or twenty.

In the mean time, President BO seems perfectly willing to further bankrupt us on this wild, breakneck plunge into economic oblivion.

May God help us, before it is too late.

Thursday, May 14, 2009


Above is a document signed by Samuel Chase on February 1, 1794. This document is Chase certifying Barnard Lafon's "Declaration of his belief in the Christian religion and the Oath required by the Act of Assembly of this State entitled 'An Act for Naturalization'."

President BO has said that we don't think of ourselves as a Christian nation, but as a nation of citizens.

Maybe (but I don't really think so), but it was not always so.

In his 1796 farewell address, First President, George Washington wrote: "It is impossible to govern the world without God and the Bible. Of all the dispositions and habits that lead to political prosperity, our religion and morality are the indispensable supporters. Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that our national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

Signer of the Declaration and second President of the United States, John Adams, wrote in his diary on February 22, 1756: “Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their only law book and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited.... What a Eutopia, what a Paradise would this region be”

From James Madison, the fourth president, we read: "I have sometimes thought there could not be a stronger testimony in favor of religion or against temporal enjoyments, even the most rational and manly, than for men who occupy the most honorable and gainful departments and [who] are rising in reputation and wealth, publicly to declare their unsatisfactoriness by becoming fervent advocates in the cause of Christ; and I wish you may give in your evidence in this way."

John Quincy Adams, our sixth president, closed his inaugural address with these words: “Knowing that ‘except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain,’ with fervent supplications for His favor, to His overruling providence I commit, with humble, but fearless confidence, my own fate, and the future destinies of my country.”

"Give me liberty or give me death," Patrick Henry wrote: "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists but by Christians, not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ."

First Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Jay wrote: "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of a Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."

Constitution signer and Secretary of War under the first two Presidents, James McHenry, insisted: "The Holy Scriptures...can alone secure to society, order and peace, and to our courts of justice and constitutions of government, purity, stability, and usefulness. In vain, without the Bible, we increase penal laws and draw entrenchments around our institutions. Bibles are strong entrenchments. Where they abound, men cannot pursue wicked courses."

Noah Webster asserted: “Citizens should early understand that the genuine source of correct republican principles is the Bible, particularly the New Testament, or the Christian religion”

Webster also insisted that “The Bible is the chief moral cause of all that is good and the best corrector of all that is evil in human society; the best book for regulating the temporal concerns of men”

Constitution signer, Gouverneur Morris, wrote: “The reflection and experience of many years have led me to consider the holy writings not only as the most authentic and instructive in themselves, but as the clue to all other history. They tell us what man is, and they alone tell us why he is what he is”

John Adams wrote: “The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity."

Declaration of Independence signer, Dr. Benjamin Rush, declared that the Bible “should be read in our schools in preference to all other books from its containing the greatest portion of that kind of knowledge which is calculated to produce private and public temporal happiness”

Samuel Adams, Father of the American Revolution, Signer of the Declaration of Independence:
"I . . . recommend my Soul to that Almighty Being who gave it, and my body I commit to the dust, relying upon the merits of Jesus Christ for a pardon of all my sins."

Charles Carroll, Signer of the Declaration of Independence: "On the mercy of my Redeemer I rely for salvation and on His merits; not on the works I have done in obedience to His precepts."

William Cushing, First Associate Justice Appointed by George Washington to the Supreme Court: "Sensible of my mortality, but being of sound mind, after recommending my soul to Almighty God through the merits of my Redeemer and my body to the earth . . ."

John Dickinson, Signer of the Constitution: "Rendering thanks to my Creator for my existence and station among His works, for my birth in a country enlightened by the Gospel and enjoying freedom, and for all His other kindnesses, to Him I resign myself, humbly confiding in His goodness and in His mercy through Jesus Christ for the events of eternity."

The Framers of the first state constitution of Massachusetts emphasized the necessity of Christian teaching in its third article: "Article III. As the happiness of a people, and the good order and preservation of civil government, essentially depend upon piety, religion and morality; and as these cannot be generally diffused through a community, but by the institution of the public worship of God, and of public instructions in piety, religion and morality: Therefore, to promote their happiness and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic, or religious societies, to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of...teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily..."

By a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court of the United States, in Holy Trinity Church v. U.S., 143 U.S. 457 (1892) declared in the Opinion written for the Court by Mr. Justice Brewer, that "These and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation."

We will no doubt argue whether it was the intent of the majority of our founders to make this nation specifically Christian, it is absolutely clear that the majority of them were avowed Christians and that their Christianity influenced their decisions and their life-styles.

If nothing else, I hope you found this post both interesting and encouraging.

I hope it was not too long for your particular reading ability.


I have asserted in previous posts my belief that the basic tenets of the founding fathers was that of Christianity.

Included in those posts was the inclusion of Thomas Jefferson as one of those Christians.

I came under some considerable scrutiny and not a little ridicule for my position, which I will endeavor to defend in this rather lengthy, but I believe significant, post.

Thomas Jefferson was the third President of the United States.

He, of course, was the principle writer of the Declaration of Independence, in which he used the phrase, "...that they are endowed by their Creator..."

What did he mean by that?

The reason that is an important question is that is defines where our rights as citizens come from and precludes that they come from government.

Much has been made about Jefferson's religious beliefs, some calling him a Deist, others a Unitarian, while some evangelicals have tried to make him into one of them.

In a practical sense, classifying Jefferson as a "Deist" with regards to religious affiliation is misleading and meaningless. Jefferson was never affiliated with any organized Deist movement.

He considered himself a Christian, but one of a particular sort.

While he loved the teachings of Jesus, from an ethical, and moral standpoint, Jefferson rejected the divinity of Christ. He believed that Christ was a deeply interesting and profoundly important moral or ethical teacher and it was in Christ's moral and ethical teachings that Jefferson was particularly interested, and to which he held.

And so that's what attracted him to the figure of Christ: the moral and ethical teachings as described in the New Testament. But he was not an evangelical and he was not a deeply pious individual.

In the minds of many, particularly evangelicals, this would exclude him from being regarded as "Christian."

But there are many today who claim Christianity whom I would in no wise call Christian, including some evangelicals.

Nevertheless, they are not atheists, agnostics, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhists, Confucians, etc., so the only designation they see as be left to be is Christian...and in that sense, I suppose, they are.

It is important to note, though that the principal Founding Fathers--Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin--were in fact deeply suspicious of a European pattern of governmental involvement in religion.

They were deeply concerned about an involvement in religion because they saw government as corrupting religion.

Ministers who were paid by the state and paid by the government didn't pay any attention to their parishes. They didn't care about their parishioners. They sold their parishes.

It was common for them to sell jobs and bring in a hireling to do it and they wandered off to live somewhere else where they didn't need to pay attention to their parishioners because the parishioners weren't paying them.

The state was paying them.

This is the thinking behind the rather famous letter to the Danbury Baptist Church (see below), to which we have become accustomed to assigning the doctrine of the Separation of Church and State (which doctrine is mentioned in neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution of the United States of America).

Some evangelicals, have tried to make Jefferson out as an evangelical. He was not.

Jefferson actually was deeply interested in the question of religion and morals and it's why particularly in his later years, he developed a notebook of Jesus' sayings that he found morally and ethically interesting.

It's now long since been published and is sometimes called, "The Jefferson Bible."

It is not a Bible, but an abridgement of the Gospels created by Jefferson in 1804 for the benefit of the Indians.

But Jefferson did have real trouble with the Divinity of Christ and he had real trouble with the description of various events mentioned in both the New and the Old Testament so that he was an enlightened skeptic who was profoundly interested in the figure of Christ as a human being and as an ethical teacher.

He wrote: "Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others, again, of so much ignorance, of so much absurdity, so much untruth and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being. I separate, therefore, the gold from the dross, restore to him the former, and leave the latter to the stupidity of some and the roguery of others of his disciples"

This is a statement I, an evangelical, certainly agree with.

Lots of "preachers" take Scripture out of context, twist it around, use it to support their particular "Christian" philosophy, imbue it with superstition, try to force it to explain circumstances of natural cause or coincidence to the point that they do a major disservice to the Gospel.

Jefferson hated the priesthood and had very little regard for most non-Catholic preachers as well.

Here is Jefferson's estimate of priestcraft: "In every country and in every age the priest has been hostile to liberty; he is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own."

Writing to John Adams, July 5, 1814 -- he refers to this subject: "The Christian priesthood, finding the doctrines of Christ leveled to every understanding, and too plain to need explanation, saw in the mysticisms of Plato materials with which they might build up an artificial system, which might, from its indistinctness, admit everlasting controversy, give employment for their order and introduce it to profit, power and pre-eminence"

Passages of Thomas Jefferson are often quoted that seem to be antagonistic against Christianity itself. In their context, however, the really railed against proponents of irrational Christian beliefs, never negating what he saw as true Christianity...which today I might call not Christianity at all.

Ninety-seven percent of what passes as Christianity today is exactly what Jefferson found so distressing. So do I. I hope you do, too.

There is a document signed by Thomas Jefferson on September 24, 1807, permission for a ship called the Herschel to proceed on its journey to the port of London.

The interesting characteristic of this document is Jefferson's unique use of the phrase "in the year of our Lord Christ."

Many official documents say "in the year of our Lord," but we have found very few that include the word "Christ."

However, this is the explicitly Christian language that President Thomas Jefferson chose to use in official public presidential documents, the afore mentioned and many others.

Were he alive today, he would most likely be included with the Unitarians, although he affiliated with no particular denomination.

Unitarianism was different then than it is now. Today, it classifies itself as a different "religion" than Christianity.

Unitarianism in Jefferson's time was regarded as one liberal Protestant denomination among many other Protestant denominations extant in America. Virtually nobody thought of Jefferson as a non-Christian (or even non-Protestant) president.

Jefferson was never one to exclude reference to God. In the thick of party conflict in 1800, Thomas Jefferson wrote in a private letter, "I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."

When two separate parties, the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans, began to form, Jefferson gradually assumed leadership of the Republicans, who sympathized with the revolutionary cause in France.

Attacking Federalist policies, he opposed a strong centralized Government and championed the rights of states.

I like that. Don't you?

Now some Jefferson quotations that show his disdain for conventional Christianity, but indicate his particular stance toward it:

"By our own act of Assembly of 1705, c. 30, if a person brought up in the Christian religion denies the being of God, or the Trinity, or asserts there are more gods than one, or denies the Christian religion to be true, or the Scriptures to be of divine authority, he is punishable on the first offense by incapacity to hold any office or employment, ecclesiastical, civil, or military; on the second, by disability to sue, to take any gift or legacy, to be guardian, executor, or administrator, and by three years' imprisonment without bail. A fathers right to the custody of his own children being founded in law on his right of guardianship, this being taken away, they may of course be severed from him, and put by the authority of the court, into more orthodox hands..." "Notes on Virginia," (pp. 234-237,)

"I doubt whether the people of this country would suffer an execution for heresy, or a three months' imprisonment for not comprehending the mysteries of the Trinity. But is the spirit of the people infallible -- a permanent reliance? Is it government? Is this the kind of protection we receive in return for the rights we give up? Besides, the spirit of the times may alter -- will alter. Our rulers will become corrupt, our people careless. A single zealot may become persecutor, and better men become his victims." (Notes on Virginia, p. 269.)

"Jesus, taking for his type the best qualities of the human head and heart, wisdom, justice, goodness, and adding to them power, ascribed all of these, but in infinite perfection, to the Supreme Being, and formed him really worthy of their adoration." Letter of Thomas Jefferson to William Short, August 4, 1820.

"Jesus had to walk on the perilous confines of reason and religion: and a step to right or left might place him within the grip of the priests of the superstition, a blood thirsty race, as cruel and remorseless as the being whom they represented as the family God of Abraham, of Isaac and of Jacob, and the local God of Israel." Letter of Thomas Jefferson to William Short, August 4, 1820.

"His [Calvin's] religion was demonism. If ever man worshiped a false God, he did. The being described in his five points is ... a demon of malignant spirit. It would be more pardonable to believe in no God at all, than to blaspheme him by the atrocious attributes of Calvin"
Source: Thomas Jefferson, Works, Vol. IV, p. 363.

"In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills."
Source: Letter of Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, January 24, 1814.

"I never will by any word or act, bow to the shrine of intolerance. I never had an opinion in politics or religion which I was afraid to own; a reserve on these subjects might have procured me more esteem from some people, but less from myself." Source: Thomas Jefferson the Freethinker.

A short time before his death, Jefferson, in a letter to John Adams, after commending the morals of Jesus, wrote as follows concerning his philosophical belief: "It is not to be understood that I am with him in all his doctrines. I am a Materialist."

"The serious enemies are the priests of the different religious sects to whose spells on the human mind its improvement is ominous" (Works, Vol. iv., p. 322).

"No religious reading, instruction or exercise, shall be prescribed or practiced [in the elementary schools] inconsistent with the tenets of any religious sect or denomination." Source: Thomas Jefferson, Note to Elementary School Act, 1817

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State." Source: Letter of Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association, Connecticut, January 1, 1802.

"And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors." Source: Letter of Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, April 11, 1823.

"Religion is well supported; of various kinds, indeed, but all good enough; all sufficient to preserve peace and order: or if a sect arises, whose tenets would subvert morals, good sense has fair play, and reasons and laughs it out of doors, without suffering the state to be troubled with it. They do not hang more malefactors than we do." Source: Thomas Jefferson, "Religion" in Notes on the State of Virginia (1782), p. 287.

Author's Note: I am quite aware of many Jefersonian quotations regarding "religion" and "Christianity" that are not included in this post. I tried to select the ones that are most representative of the bulk of his writing on the subject...having read all of them, or at least more than most college professors. But having been accused of writing posts that most liberals, having been taught in government schools, cannot endure due to their length, I have attempted to keep this post as short as possible, while fairly inclusive.

How did I do?

Not so well, I think.

Wednesday, May 13, 2009


"America is...uh, is no longer...uh, what it could be, what it once was. And I say to myself, 'I don't want that future for my children.'"

"I choose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students, the Marxist professors and structural feminists."

"We can't drive our SUVs as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times and then just expect that other countries are going to say, "OK."

(Writer's aside: Is there someone who CARES what other countries are going to say?)

"We've got to make sure that people who have more money help the people who have less money. If you had a whole pizza and your friend had no pizza, would you give him a slice?"

"What is more important is to find the means by which we can redistribute our economic gains to the benefit of all. This is the government's obligation."

"In Washington they call this the 'ownership society,' but what it really means is 'you're on your own.' It's time for us to change America."

"One of those tricks I had learned: People were satisfied as long as you were courteous and smiled and made no sudden moves."

Those statements were all made by Barack H. Obama.

I would call him a Socialist.

He had good company in his companion and wife:

"The truth is, in order to get things like universal health care and a re-vamped education system, someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more." (Michelle Obama)

Socialism: A system in which the government (not people like you and I) own all the major factories, farms, offices and other means of economic production.

Was it or was it not President BO who took the CEO-ship of General Motors?

Was it or was it not President BO who forced Chrysler into bankruptcy?

Is the government or is the government not expanding its control of economic institutions in the United States?

Is this or is this not the further development of Socialism in our country?

According to, a Socialist Party web site, October 1996, "Three N-P (New Party) members won Democratic primaries last spring and face off against Republican opponents on election day: Danny Davis (U.S. House); Barack Obama, (State Senate) and Patricia Martin (Cook County Judiciary)."

It turns out that Barack Obama evidently was not only a member of this Socialist Party, but he evidently had actively courted them.

In the Marxist theory, Socialism is the temporary economic system to put into place as a prelude to Communism - where the government owns and controls everything.

"They'll train you so good, you'll start believing what they tell you about equal opportunity and the American way and all that..." (Communist, Frank Marshall Davis - Barack Obama's mentor)

"We cannot expect the Americans to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can aid their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism until they suddenly awake to find they have Communism." (Nikita Khrushchev - former Secretary of the Soviet Communist Party)

"Freedom is never more than one generation from extinction." (Former President Ronald Reagan)

Do you have ANY quesions?

Tuesday, May 12, 2009


There is a blog I read every day for its thoughtful and well written content.

It's the The Oklahoma Patriot.

He has a post that I think is one of the most important reads I have seen in a long time:

White House wants Fed to be bank supercop.

This post uses quotes from former presidents who have commented on the dangers and results of a strong federal banking system.

It will open your eyes to some things you may never have heard before, or have not thought of in a long while.

I highly recommend this post to you, as it addresses an issue that we must deal with if we are to remain a free and economically viable country.

Please take the time to read it. Again it is: White House wants Fed to be bank supercop.

Monday, May 11, 2009


A blogger who calls herself "Z" (GeeeeeZ ) had this very special quote in her side bar:

If we abide by the principles taught in the Bible, our country will go on prospering and to prosper, but if we and our posterity neglect its instructions and authority, no man can tell how sudden a catastrophe may overwhelm us and bury our glory in profound obscurity.....Daniel Webster.

Whether you are "religious" or not (I'm not...I am a practicing Christian but I am not the least bit "religious."), it would serve you well to understand and apply this quote.

A large part of our country has come to believe that there are no moral absolutes, and that each of us must decide on our own what is "right" and what is "wrong."

This is blatantly false.

Like the professor who was asked, "Are there any absolutes in life." "None," he responded. "Are you sure?" the questioner inquired. The professor answered, "Absolutely."

A careful, and honest, reading of the works of George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, et. al., will lead you to understand their confidence in the need for the nation to be guided by God (who, in the true Christian perspective is one with Christ), and the principles laid out in the Holy bible.

President BO, has proclaimed that we do not consider ourselves to be a Christian nation.

He's wrong.

I consider our nation to be Christian, so that blanket statement is patently wrong on its face.

There are at least 400 members of my church who consider this nation to be Christian.

So, for President BO to make such a broad-brushed statement is just plain stupid.

Either that, or he has some ax to grind with Christianity, which during the campaign he claimed to embrace.

So what are we, then?

Are we a Muslim nation?

We have Muslims living here, but the answer to the question is, "No."

Are we a Buddhist nation?

We have Buddhists living here, but the answer to the question is, "No."

We are a nation founded on the Judeo-Christian ethic and we allow, indeed insist on freedom of religion.

The principles laid down by our founders came from the Bible.

Try the Ten Commandments on for size.

Which of them is not a good principle to live by?

(I'll bet you don't know more than four or five of them.)

The fact is, we were founded upon, lived by and practiced those principles for the majority of our existence.

We are turning from those principles through a corporate disinterest in those ideals and thus are suffering the consequences of divisiveness, national anger, and economic turmoil.

If we return to the basic tenets of the Judeo-Christian ethic, we will accommodate all of those segments of society that share a search for the goodness of mankind, even though they might not understand the Christian principles of "sin" and "God's forgiveness."

Our decision making processes will be made easier and more correctly, both nationally and internationally.

Those principles are laid out in the Bible.

Believe it or not...your choice.

Sunday, May 10, 2009

Saturday, May 9, 2009


Well, with the onehundrdayiversary behind us, it is time to answer the age old question: Have we found an honest politician?

Why is honesty important, anyway?

Is there some reason why truth telling should be expected from, of all things, politicians?

Here's the way I have always thought of it: If you lie to me about something, that means I can't trust you when you speak about whatever it was you were speaking about when you lied.

At this point it becomes difficult for me to know what things you say I can trust, and what things you say I can't trust.

So I just ask you to make me a list of things I can trust you on and what things I can't.

Now all I have to do is determine whether you made me an honest list.

Let's do a little examining of President BO's "list."

On March 24th, President BO gave a press conference at which he said, "Our assumptions are perfectly consistent with what Blue Chip forecasters out there are saying."

He was referring to the Blue Chip Economic Indicators, a survey of forecasts from 50 private economists.

Turns out, that was a false statement.

In fact a recent Blue Chip forecast was far more pessimistic than the administration’s budget projections.

That's important because a weaker economic performance will produce even larger federal deficits than the Obama budget already forecasts.

In the same news conference, President BO proclaimed, “we are reducing non defense discretionary spending to its lowest level since the '60s.”

Well, President BO's own forecast puts this figure higher than in many years under Reagan, Clinton or either Bush.

On February 24th, the President told a joint session of Congress, "we import more oil today than ever before."

That wasn't true.

Oil imports hit their peak in 2005 and are lower today.

In a March 10 address on education, President BO said that the high school dropout rate has "tripled in the past 30 years."

In point of fact, the high school drop-out rate actually declined by one-third.

One of President BO's repeated boasts is that his stimulus bill will "create or save" 3.5 million jobs.

Since the President took office, however, the economy has been losing an average of 22,000 jobs per day.

On April 16, during his visit to Mexico, President BO said, "More than 90 percent of the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States."

In actuality, there's no way to know exactly how many come through the U.S., since Mexican officials don't ask the U.S. to trace the guns they recover. The 90% figure is just made up.

Let's go back to that March 25th speech again, in which the President proclaimed that he was “angry” about “inexcusable” bonuses paid to AIG executives.

The fact that his own aides watered down a Senate-passed amendment that was designed to prevent payment of such bonuses.

Speaking about the U.S. budget, President BO asserted that his budget will cut the federal deficit in half by the end of his term.

What he failed to say was that they would sky-rocket so high before the end of his term that cutting them in half by then would still leave them obscenely higher than they are today. And, deficits also are projected to shoot up again later unless big policy changes are made.

Our venerable President said, "...we must also address the crushing cost of health care. This is a cost that now causes a bankruptcy in America every 30 seconds."

Now there was a bankruptcy about every 30 seconds last year, but U.S. court data and a Harvard study both attribute only about half of those to health related issues.

Call it an honest case of ignorance, if you want to, but President BO, addressing the auto industry and its woes said, "I believe the nation that invented the automobile cannot walk away from it."

Uh, excuse me, Sir, but, ahem...the U.S. did not invent the automobile. That would be the French, German or Scotts, depending on what you classify as a legitimate automobile.

Not satisfied with limiting transportation issues to cars and trucks, the President stated, "In the midst of civil war, we laid railroad tracks from one coast to another that spurred commerce and industry."

Fact: Construction of the transcontinental railroad did not begin until after the Civil War.

The same President who visited 57 states during his campaign told us, "there are 57 police officers who are still on the streets of Minneapolis tonight because this plan prevented the layoffs their department was about to make." (Referencing the stimulus plan)

In truth, there had been no planned layoffs of police officers in Minneapolis.

I guess it could be said that the stimulus package helped Minneapolis not make plans to lay off 57 police officers, should they ever be inclined to do so.

I cannot tell you how many comments on other blogs I have read righteously proclaiming President BO's promise of a tax cut for "95 percent of working households."

Included in this figure is a little known inclusion of a tax refund to people who pay no taxes in the first place, because their income is so low.

That's like going to Sears and demanding a refund on a refrigerator I did not buy! (Try it and let me know how it worked out for you).

May I point out that all of this took place in just the first 100 days of President BO's presidency?

I can hardly wait to find out what the next hundred days brings.

I ask again, with regard to President BO...have we found an honest politician?

Writer's note: Don't bother telling me about Reagans' "lies," or Bush's "lies." I'm not referring to them. I am referring to President Barack H. Obama. Get it? This is NOT a comparison is made with the hope that we have finally found an honest president. Hint: The answer is, "No."

Friday, May 8, 2009


Timothy Geithner, former president and chief executive officer of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, now Treasury Secretary of The United States of America, is no doubt a brilliant man.

The depth of his knowledge and understanding of things fiduciary must be unparallelled, else he would not have been placed in such a high office of responsibility and integrity.

Geithner must have a stellar understanding of the tax code, which code he is charged with administering through the beloved Internal Revenue Service.

He must be above reproach, because he will be looked to for guidance on matters of economic importance to the very health of our economy.

To demonstrate his brilliance, integrity and trustworthiness, for five years Timothy Geithner...well let Anne M. McKinney tell us:

Don't you feel better now?

Thursday, May 7, 2009



Subject: A letter to the president

April 17, 2009

The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington , DC 20500

Mr. Obama:

I have had it with you and your administration, sir.

Your conduct on your recent trip overseas has convinced me that you are not an adequate representative of the United States of America collectively or of me personally.

You are so obsessed with appeasing the Europeans and the Muslim world that you have abdicated the responsibilities of the President of the United States of America .

You are responsible to the citizens of the United States .

You are not responsible to the peoples of any other country on earth.

I personally resent that you go around the world apologizing for the United States telling Europeans that we are arrogant and do not care about their status in the world.

Sir, what do you think the First World War and the Second World War were all about if not the consideration of the peoples of Europe? Are you brain dead?

What do you think the Marshall Plan was all about? Do you not understand or know the history of the 20th century?

Where do you get off telling a Muslim country that the United States does not consider itself a Christian country? Have you not read the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution of the United States ?

This country was founded on Judeo-Christian ethics and the principles governing this country, at least until you came along, come directly from this heritage. Do you not understand this?

Your bowing to the king of Saudi Arabia is an affront to all Americans. Our President does not bow down to anyone, let alone the king of Saudi Arabia .

You don't show Great Britain , our best and one of our oldest allies, the respect they deserve yet you bow down to the king of Saudi Arabia .

How dare you, sir!

How dare you!

You can't find the time to visit the graves of our greatest generation because you don't want to offend the Germans but make time to visit a mosque in Turkey .

You offended our dead and every veteran when you give the Germans more respect than the people who saved the German people from themselves. What's the matter with you?

I am convinced that you and the members of your administration have the historical and intellectual depth of a mud puddle and should be ashamed of yourselves, all of you.

You are so self-righteously offended by the big bankers and the American automobile manufacturers yet do nothing about the real thieves in this situation, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Frank, Franklin Raines, Jamie Gorelic, the Fannie Mae bonuses, and the Freddie Mac bonuses. What do you intend to do about them? Anything?

I seriously doubt it.

What about the U.S. House members passing out $9.1 million in bonuses to their staff members - on top of the $2.5 million in automatic pay raises that lawmakers gave themselves?

I understand the average House aide got a 17% bonus. I took a 75% cut in my pay because my employer is struggling so. You haven't said anything about that.

Who authorized that? I surely didn't!

Executives at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will be receiving $210 million in bonuses over an eighteen-month period, that's $45 million more than the AIG bonuses. In fact, Fannie and Freddie executives have already been awarded $51 million - not a bad take.

Who authorized that and why haven't you expressed your outrage at this group who are largely responsible for the economic mess we have right now?

I resent that you take me and my fellow citizens as brain-dead and not caring about what you idiots do.

We are watching what you are doing and we are getting increasingly fed up with all of you.

I also want you to know that I personally find just about everything you do and say to be offensive to every one of my sensibilities.

I promise you that I will work tirelessly to see that you do not get a chance to spend two terms destroying my beautiful country.

Joe Scoggins
(I signed my name because it could well have come from me.)

Wednesday, May 6, 2009

Three New Navy Ships

Read the Ship Stats:

Seeing it next to the Arizona Memorial really puts its size into perspective... ENORMOUS!

When the Bridge pipes 'Man the Rail' there is a lot of rail to man on this monster: shoulder to shoulder, around 4.5 acres. Her displacement is about 100,000 tons with full complement.


Top speed exceeds 30 knots, powered by two nuclear reactors that can operate for more than 20 years without refueling

1. Expected to operate in the fleet for about 50 years

2. Carries over 80 combat aircraft 3. Three arresting cables can stop a 28-ton aircraft going 150 miles per hour in less than 400 feet Size1. Towers 20 stories above the waterline 2. 1092 feet long; nearly as long as the Empire State Building is tall

3. Flight deck covers 4.5 acres4. 4 bronze propellers, each 21 feet across, weighing 66,200 pounds5. 2 rudders, each 29 by 22 feet and weighing 50 tons6.

4 high speed aircraft elevators, each over 4,000 square feet


1. Home to about 6,000 Navy personnel

2. Carries enough food and supplies to operate for 90 days

3. 18,150 meals served daily

4. Distillation plants provide 400,000 gallons of fresh water from sea water daily, enough for 2,000 homes

5. Nearly 30,000 light fixtures and 1,325 miles of cable and wiring 1,400 telephones

6. 14,000 pillowcases and 28,000 sheets

7. Costs the Navy approximately $250,000 per day for pier side operation

8. Costs the Navy approximately $25 million per day for underway operations (Sailor's salaries included).

The USS William Jefferson Clinton (CVS1) set sail today from its home port of Vancouver , BC.

The ship is the first of its kind in the Navy and is a standing legacy to President Bill Clinton 'for his foresight in military budget cuts' and his conduct while holding the (formerly dignified) office of President.

The ship is constructed nearly entirely from recycled aluminum and is completely solar powered with a top speed of 5 knots.It boasts an arsenal comprised of one (unarmed) F14 Tomcat or one (unarmed) F18 Hornet aircraft which, although they cannot be launched on the 100 foot flight deck, form a very menacing presence

As a standing order there are no firearms allowed on board.

This crew, like the crew aboard the USS Jimmy Carter, is specially trained to avoid conflicts and appease any and all enemies of the United States at all costs.

In times of conflict, the USS Clinton has orders to seek refuge in Canada .


White House Press Secretary Jesse Jackson issued the following: " This technological wonder is powered by the newest model Briggs & Stratton three horsepower engine and environmentally friendly hand paddles. Extra large white flags are ready to deploy at a moments notice. Government scientists are also working on top secret 'retro sails' which will allow this ship to make the fastest retreat of any ship in history"

An onboard Type One DNC Universal Translator can send out messages of apology in any language to anyone who may find America offensive. The number of apologies are limitless and though some may seem hollow and disingenuous, the Navy advises all apologies will sound very sincere.

Tuesday, May 5, 2009

Monday, May 4, 2009


I am a Conservative.

When I was in college I hated labels.

I still don't like them very much, but I don't know how else to express my beliefs in a word that others can understand.

It is counter-productive to run through my belief sets every time I introduce myself and try to explain where I stand politically without some kind of label.

Do not misunderstand. I am NOT apologizing for being a conservative, only for having to use a label to describe myself.

Here's the thing: I hold a certain set of values that I believe constitute what a reasonable, thoughtful American who has a sense of history, economics, and social justice should subscribe to.

Having read many of the works of:

George Washington, who wrote: "Observe good faith and justice towards all nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct. And can it be that good policy does not equally enjoin it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and at no distant period a great nation to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence."

John Adams, who said, "It is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue."

Thomas Jefferson, when establishing the University of Virginia: "In conformity with the principles of our constitution which places all sects [denominations] of religion on an equal footing – with the jealousies of the different sects in guarding that equality from encroachment and surprise, and with the sentiments of the legislature in favor of freedom of religion manifested on former occasions [as in the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom]..."

Benjamin Franklin, responding to the writings of Thomas Paine, wrote: " strike at the foundations of all religion. For without the belief of a Providence, that takes cognizance of, guards, and guides, and may favor particular persons, there is no motive to worship a Deity, to fear his displeasure, or to pray for his protection."

I believe that our forefathers had a strong belief in God and in Jesus Christ in particular, and set out to establish a country where His influence would be part-and-parcel of its governance.

I am unashamedly Christian, believing that all men are sinners, that there is a penalty for sin that was paid at the cross of Calvary by my Savior, Jesus, Christ.

With regard to economics, I believe that the federal government should live within its means, spend less than it takes in and should be as small as possible. Furthermore, I believe that taxes, while a necessary evil, must not infringe upon the citizens' ability to live bountifully.

In terms of justice, I think that it must be equally applied to all citizens, be as swift as is prudent and must never exalt one category of people above another for any reason.

The term I use to describe those (and other beliefs that I hold) is "Conservative."

Now as I turn to the realm of politics, I must ask the question: Who will most nearly represent my beliefs in Washington D.C.? Will it be the Democrats or the Republicans?

My answer today is: neither.

The Party that used to represent my beliefs was the Republican Party.

But it has turned its back on me and on others who believe as I believe with regard to government.

Arlen Specter certainly didn't. That's why I do not weep over his defection.

Senator Olympia Snowe doesn't. She recently wailed, “You haven't certainly heard warm encouraging words about how [the GOP] views moderates.” She was really referring to the Conservative "wing" of the Republican Party.

She went on to say, “I happened to win with 74 percent of the vote in a blue-collar state, but no one asked me, 'How did you do it?' Seems to me that would have been the first question that would have come from the Republican Party to find out so we could avoid further losses."

Trouble is, we already know how she did it. She did it by appealing to those in Maine who do not hold Conservative views.

Then there's Sen. Lindsay Graham.

"I don't want to be a member of the Club for Growth,” said Graham. “I want to be a member of a vibrant national Republican party that can attract people from all corners of the country — and we can govern the country from a center-right perspective.

“As Republicans, we got a problem,” he said.

Yes, but I don't want to be represented by folks who don't subscribe to the things I believe in.

If you're just going to adopt the policies and practices of the Democrats, why pretend to be a Republican? Indeed, why have two Parties at all?

Specific issues that are important to me include: no government bail-outs; low taxes; small government; freedom of religion (not freedom from religion); a well balanced justice system; having the strongest military in the universe; the right to life; individual responsibility and freedom; a balanced budget; no deficit spending; fair and honest trade with other nations; no dependence on foreign oil; not rushing to produce cars people don't want that won't lessen their environmental impact anyway; real, honest earth science and so-forth and so-on.

These are issues I think of when I think of the word, "Conservative."

So the question remains:


BTW: Thanks to Ration Al for pointing out my spelling error.