Here Comes "Net Neutrality"...and my comment

Because we have socialists and communists running the Presidency and the Senate, the attempt to shut down the FCCs rules for so-called net neutrality failed and the 30-day comment period on the burden the new rules might place on ISPs (conforming to the Paperwork Reducation Act, or PRA) has begun. So, I set about to register my extreme dissatisfaction. I can only pray that legal experts will mount an all-out attack in the courts once the rules become law 60 days later. Below was the email I submitted to the Office of Management & Budget:

Regarding: OMB Control Number:3060-XXXX; Title:Disclosure of Network Management Practices, Preserving the Open Internet and Broadband Industry Practices, Report and Order, GN Docket No. 09-191 and WC Docket No. 07-52.

I want to lodge my complaint against the FCC and its ill-informed, socialistic and misguided effort to stifle business in the form of Internet Service Providers (ISPs) via the “Disclosure of Network Management Practices” rules submitted for implementation. I am a consumer. I am a consumer who primarily uses wired internet services for personal use but I do have a business-class service because part of the time I do use it for business purposes. I also use wireless internet services through AT&T. My complaint is that the rules you are proposing to put into place provide NO BENEFIT TO THE CONSUMER and, at the same time, INFLICT ADDITIONAL AND UNEQUAL BURDEN upon businesses that provide internet services. As a taxpayer, as a consumer, THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE and I demand you rescind your proposal. Once again, you are exhibiting an example of gross and negligent misuse of the “commerce clause” of our Constitution.

Contrary to the clearly liberal-leaning attitudes the FCC and our federal government demonstrates, internet service is NOT a public right. It is a commodity. PERIOD, end of that line of discussion. It does not matter how much you think our economy, our society “depend upon” it. It is still a service provided at a cost by companies that must make profit to continue to be an ongoing concern. You are interfering with that right of businesses to conduct their affairs, and you are doing so unfairly with no real justification for your actions. I remain convinced that you are NOT acting in the best interests of the consumer but, rather, are acting in the best interests of certain, well-paying lobbyists. Market forces are the best determinant of whether a business—of any type—is providing value to the customer. If you wish to create a “public utility” version of the internet, then I suggest you try to get taxes or bonds passed to create a separate internet that operates that way. Ultimately, every single premise you are basing the so-called “net neutrality” rules and philosophy on are false, and are firmly rootedin a socialist/communist mindset. This, too, is unacceptable.

We already have many rules in place—burdensome enough to business operations—that provide for a fair degree of transparency. Aside from that, consumers don’t take long to determine if an ISP (or any business, for that matter) is providing the service they expected for the price they paid. As a result, consumer choice and Voice Of the Customer (VOC) is spread and said business lives or dies by what customer perceptions are. You are creating a burden through the reporting rules and related that achieve no value to ME, and force ISPs to incur even more expense just to operate and satisfy your ignorant and misplaced sense of service to the public. As for prohibiting blocking, again, you create an unequal and unfair difference, between fixed-line ISPs and wireless carriers. Even if I agreed with the premise of no-blocking, your implementation is unethical and unacceptable. As it is, you insist on treating the internet and, more specifically, ISPs as if they are a right. They are NOT. Each company must manage its resources as it best sees fit. If they have certain limitations, implemented as a network management philosophy, in order to continue to provide service to the most profitable consumer base while still provided a level of service the consumer is satisfied with, then you do not have the right to interfere. Finally, regarding the idea of unreasonable discrimination, I refer you to market forces being the preferred method again. I was just as disgusted when satellite service companies were forced to carry so-called “local television stations”. This was unethical. Value is NOT determined by the government. It is determined by ME. I do not wish to pay for local TV stations. In fact, in my case, there ARE no local TV stations, and the stations the sat providers were forced to carry --- and me to pay for --- were for a city 150 miles away. And every last one of those stations were stations you could not PAY ME to carry, yet I’m forced to pay for them. So, if and ISP determines that it’s reasonable to discriminate against certain applications, etc., and the consumer disagrees, then it won’t be long before consumer choose to spend their money elsewhere. When an ISP has to make network access and bandwidth decisions in order to maintain a certain level of service, discrimination is a matter of course. Until someone comes up with a new paradigm in communications, we will always run into some degree of limitations within which companies must engage management philosophies that balance their ability to provide the service, make a profit, and keep consumers happy. It is NOT your place to interfere.

With all that said, these rules add insult to injury by placing unnecessary addition burden and cost upon ISPs and, therefore, transfer it to me, the consumer. This is unacceptable. I demand you rescind these rules. I am the Voice Of the Customer.

I guess let's see what happens. If nothing else, I am exercising my duty as a citizen to stop the oppression of an ever-overbearing federal government. So, what have YOU done lately?

Casey Anthony: The Good Mother?

Sean Hannity is an idiot. There, I said it. He can't understand why many of us are "beating up the jury". I can't believe he watched the same trial. He actually said the closing comments by the defense were masterful. I couldn't disagree more vehemently. What angers and frustrates me is that he and all those who think the jury got it right just don't get the concept of circumstantial evidence. When you can't produce witnesses, when you have a body so horribly decomposed and otherwise destroyed by the environment it was disposed of in, you must resort to building a circumstantial case. There are levels of certainty that simply cannot be reached with circumstantial evidence compared to a case with eyewitnesses and typical physical evidence.

Sean---and the rest of you---it's not enough to feel that Casey's behavior was "deplorable". That doesn't serve justice. Juror number 3 claimed that they couldn't prove that Cayley was even murdered. As I said, when you don't have enough physical evidence all you have left is evidence that weighs heavily on the circumstance. The probability that the circumstances could point to anything other than a murder is so miniscule that I'm convinced that the jurors were all mentally deficient. Or morally bankrupt.

Sean Hannity lamely argued that some new types of forensics, non-peer-reviewed area of study were easily discounted. The problem with this is that every new type of evidence gets used for the first time somewhere. Sean---and the rest of you---you are a foolish, ignorant person.

What disgusts me more about this is what Casey Anthony has demonstrated is how anyone can get away with the perfect murder. It's a simple recipe. Murder the victim with any method that will not leave evidence on the bones; dispose of the body in a swamp-like area where there is plenty of heat & moisture and wildlife to decompose and consume the body down to the bones; lie with sufficient believability to allow several months to pass.

Finally, the most horrible aspect is that Casey is going completely free and will profit considerably from this. Why? Because she's a sociopath and because there are so many people and businesses who will be morally bereft enough to offer her money. As for me, I will attack and boycott anyone who does offer her money for anything. I am disgusted with every one of those jurors, and I'm disgusted with Baez and the entire defense team.

But what about the continued contention that Casey was a good mother? Clearly she is evil and has not a shred of morality. Anyone like that can pretend for the cameras...and they frequently do. Casey clearly craved attention, of any type. When the cameras roll she puts on the show. When she has an audience--family or not--the facade is brought out. But the bottom line for Casey is that she is shallow and selfish. And we will see more evidence of that in the coming months, mark my words. Nobody who is a good mother goes out partying all the time when they have a child. Nobody who is a good mother chooses not to contact authorities immediately if an alleged accident happens. Nobody who is a good mother goes out and parties with abandon knowing their child is dead.

I hope I never meet any of you who actually think that Casey was a loving mother. And I shudder that you might have children. I will pray for them.

Ignorance On Weath From Liberals

I was watching a Frank Luntz focus group on Fox News and the topic moved to how can we fix the debt issue. The perceptions and philosophy between liberals and conservatives couldn't have been more stark. The consistent argument liberals gave was that we had to increase revenues to the federal government in order to fix the debt issue. Oh, sure, they gave some lip service to making cuts. But I nearly went through the roof when one woman said that she didn't understand why we keep talking about cuts when we also have to increase the money coming in, and that if the top 1% are making so much why they can't give back a little more. Give back? Excuse me? Give back to whom?

Let me explain something. When we work for a business we earn the money that the business is paying us. The business draws customers in to purchase---spending money THEY earned---the product or service the business sells. So, if I happen to be the business owner, making the top 1% of all wage-earners, exactly who does this ignorant liberal think I should be giving it back to? Certainly not the people who paid for my product or service. They wouldn't have paid the price I asked if they didn't believe it was worth it. So, where do we give this money "back" to? I would have loved to have asked that woman. I am convinced that she and most liberals believe that, as President Obama actually said, there comes a time when a person has made enough money, that anything above this magical threshold should go to the government to redistribute to those making less. In other words, redistribution of wealth.

This is disgusting and unacceptable. Government it too big because it's created a culture of entitlements and dependency. I maintain that most of government, particularly federal government, has grown to unconstitutional levels. Liberals have been allowed to abuse the commerce clause of the Constitution and the concept of "general welfare", stretching them well beyond what our founders had in mind. There is no way that we are entitled to all the things that liberals insist. Federal government was designed to only have the very limited and very specific responsibilities and authority granted it in the Constituion. Everything else goes to the states or the citizens.

"Give back"? You have no right to make that demand. Period.

Anthony Weiner Should Resign

It's that simple, folks. First off, shame on every single one of you who take that stance "well, it's his private business and we shouldn't care about what he does in his personal life". Let me tell you something: he's an elected official. ALL elected officials should be held to a much higher standard. To be honest, all of US should be held to a higher standard. I'm sick of people playing to the lowest common denominator. Someone tell me exactly what there is to be proud of when we behave this way? How does this kind of disgusting behavior better us? How can anyone put the future of this nation in the hands of people who can't even manage their own lives?

HE LIED, folks. He admist now that he lied from the start. He faked being all upset. It was all a show. There was absolutely no remorse there. What you saw was someone caught completely red handed and he's sorry he got caught. Now, to be fair, I absolutley do NOT give conservatives a pass when we discover their reprehensible behavior. But here's a major difference: liberals don't find anything wrong with it! In fact, liberals routinely parade and celebrate such behavior. Where is the shame in this nation? Even IF we overlooke the adultery (which, according to scripture, is exactly what Anthony Weiner participated in), the man LIED to EVERYONE. Exactly how is this someone we want running government?

Congressman Weiner is wrong. He DID do something to warrant his resignation. Anyone who thinks he shouldn't resign needs to re-examine their standards. What are you using as your moral compass -- Jersey Shore, Desperate Housewives?

Those That Curse You....

God's Word is pretty clear on treatment of His chosen people, the Jews. Genesis 12:3 "I will bless those who bless you, and curse those who curse you. In you all the peoples of the earth will be blessed." Now, our President has decided that Israel should give up a piece of the nation to terrorists. I have news for you, Mr. President. Check out the Bible and see what land God actually gave to them. It's a far cry larger space than they have now. And you dare to tell them to give up more? You are a foolish man. And ignorant. What makes this all the worse is that you, as leader of this nation, endanger our blessing AS a nation by making such an irresponsible statement. Please refrain from saying anything to or about Israel until you've have truly sought God out on the topic.

Now, in another example of blunders, "the most intelligent president" in our history decided he wanted to attack conservative criticism of his policies and actions so far. Of course, this took the form of joking about some of his challenges, like an oil spill and pirates. "You remember the pirates, right?" he laughed. "Thomas Jefferson had to deal with pirates." Why, yes, Mr. President, he did. John Adams had to deal with them first, and you might want to look up the history and context of the Treaty of Tripoli and the Barbary Coast. Perhaps you might recognize something about the pirates who terrorized our shipping for many years. What? You didn't study that in public school, you say? Oh, you'll love this, Mr. President. They were Muslim. That's right. The people who sailed those marauder ships, terrorizing our merchant ships, killing or enslaving their crews were Islamic terrorists. Oh, they were driven by greed and hatred, to be sure. But they used the excuse that they were targeting the infidels. Hence the reason for the first Treaty of Tripoli. It wasn't until we built a superior navy and kicked their little behinds that we renegotiated the treaty and put them in their place.

Okay, so now we're finding out that Obamacare---universal health care, paid for by forced participation---isn't quite so universal. We find the overwhelming majority of waivers for the mandate have been granted to liberals and liberal groups (e.g., unions, etc.). Oh, and to favorable districts like a LOT of those under Nancy Pelosi's jurisdiction. Oh, what lies we were told going into this scam. But that which is hidden in the dark will be brought into the light.

A History-making Deal? Seriously?

Like many of you, I stayed up watching the news as it followed the exploits of our elected officials and their struggel to avoid a government shutdown. The result? Something that Boehner, Reid and Obama all called historic in cuts. I would have laughed had I not been to completely disgusted. You see, we sent a whole bunch of new people to Congress to do a lot more than that. We wanted Obamacare defunded if it couldn't be repealed altogether. We wanted--for starters--$100 billion in cuts. We wanted NPR, Planned Parenthood and a number of other things defunded. What did we get? Over the course of several continuing resolutions and what is expected next week as a budget is $38 billion in cuts. Planned Parenthood will continue to receive MY tax dollars to murder more innocent babies. Obamacare will continue to move us away from freedom and force us toward socialist health care and rationing. John Boehner actually said there was "no daylight" between himself and the TEA party. Um....got a news flash for ya, there, John. You just opened up a gap big enough to let a supernova through. The Progressives will tell you "governing is the art of compromise". Oh, I suppose in some cases that might be true. But I maintain that there are plenty of instances where it is immoral to compromise. Let me refer you to a little incident involving King Solomon and two women to were arguing over a baby. Solomon offered a "compromise" on that deal, too. Had the women actually agreed to it, do you think it would have been right? Doubtful. No, this deal was not historical. It was a travesty. It was a sellout. It was unprincipled. I think we need to do some more housecleaning in 2012.

Of Unions and Lies

I am one hundred percent behind Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker. Let me state for the record that I also fully support the right of the teachers, etc. to protest and have their (whiny) voice heard. The fact is that Wisconsin is broke....just like most of the other states. What the state is trying to do is not eliminate collective bargain, which is the big lie that fools like the president of the AFL-CIO and the President are telling. The state is simply limited the bargaining to that of pay, not benefits, etc. Personally, I'm against unions in American. You simply cannot make the case in this country that unions are necessary. We have more than enough laws that favor labor over management. All unions do now is unnecessarily sap the life out of any business--or public sector--they exist in. If you look at most unions, the pay is often out of proportion and benefits packages are insanely out of touch with the private sector. And I say this as a federal employee, so I know what I'm talking about.

The public education system in this country is horrible. In some places teachers are way overpaid for the quality of work they do and way underpaid in others. It doesn't help that liberalism has bred a generation of parents who don't parent and wouldn't know discipline if it came at them with a paddle. But when I see that there is a choice between states firing teachers and other public employees by the droves or ask for modest reductions, I should think that teachers, above all people, would be smart enough to take the latter over the former. The downright outrage that teachers in Wisconsin are expressing gets under my craw. I can't help but say, "How DARE you?" I can say, without any reservation, that if federal cost-cutting measures resulted in a need to cut the pay of federal employees I'd be first in line to agree with having my pay cut. I could do, and would do, what's necessary to tighten my family's belt in turn.

When you see the interviews with a lot of those out there protesting they routinely are saying that they are willing to take reductions or shoulder a little higher portion of the health care benefits costs. What they get all rabid over is the limitation of collective bargaining power. This disgusts me. It disgusts me a lot. Even as a teenager I despised unions. I made it a point to never, ever submit job applications to any business that had a union (and back in those days if a union existed you had to join it if you went to work there). Even more so, I despise the TEA and most of the associated teachers' unions. And the fact that the AFL-CIO is right up front here in this Wisconsin fight shows you just how much in cahoots all the unions are. Then, of course, you have our socialist president chiming in and calling this an "assault on unions". Liar. You want to see "union busting"? Then put ME in charge of the fight. I'll SHOW you a blatant effort at union busting. Socialist.

More Palin Derangement Syndrome

It would be nice to be surprised and find out the liberal loons from sites like Huffington Post, MoveOn.org read my little blog. Actually, I'm surprised if anyone does. Nevertheless, on the every-so-slight chance, I've got to throw the gauntlet down in front of those mental midgets. After the comments that those "brilliant minds" from Huffington Post, etc have made on the various interview shows, I am convinced that a prerequisite for becoming employees of those place is that you must have diminished mental faculties. Severely diminished. When they make comments like telling Sarah Palin that she just needs to "shut her mouth now", my immediate reaction is take your own advice. Have you smarmy self-important and unintelligent elitists ever heard "it's better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt"? Well, guess what. It's too late for you.

It's just too bad that someone like me doesn't have the opportunity to take people like you on in a national forum. But then I make a rule of not going into a battle of wits with someone who is unarmed.

Clearly, Sarah Palin stands for something. She stands for truly conservative principles and doesn't flinch when shallow malcontents attack her. Of course, her detractors, her haters, do as well. They stand for the lowest of moral standards, the highest level of selfishness....and all very poorly disguised as "altruistic compassion" for others. But if you watch their interviews, read their blogs, you see the truth. They hate. A lot. Period.

Quite Sick Of Liberal Hypocrites

Make no mistake, the senseless murder of 6 people, and other injured including Congresswoman Giffords by the evil that is Jared Lee Loughner is inexcusable. But almost as inexcusable is the almost immediate and unanimous filth that the New York Times, NBC, ABC, CNN, CBS, Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik and others. I watched the garbage, the lies that Sheriff Dupnik spewed and wanted to come through my TV set and debate him immediately. I can go through YouTube and show you so many examples of vitriolic liberalism that it would make your head spin. The outright hypocrisy of LIBERALS is amazing.

When the Fort Hood shooting happened the President and the lamestream media immediately cautioned everyone to not rush to judgment regarding the motives of the perpetrator, even though him shouting "Alla Ackbar" would give one a pretty clear indication. What do you get when you look at YouTube and MySpace entries by Jared Loughner? Incoherent babbling. In fact, contrary to the lies of the Left, when you examine in more detail what Loughner's rantings include, you would be more likely to believe HE IS A LIBERAL---his favorite books are Mein Kamf and Communist Manifesto, he hates God and he videotaped himself burning a flag. THESE are more indicative behaviors of liberal extremism, not conservative extremism. But as evil as I'm convinced liberalism is, as shallow as I believe progressives to be, there's no way that I would have pinned the blame on liberals for the actions of this insane man.

I have a few words for Sheriff Dupnik. First, you need to be fired. I hope you lose your job, because you do a disservice to Arizona. The irresponsibility you showed by spouting your ideological hyperbole in the performance of your duty should be enough to have you removed for dereliction of duty. You, sir, hate. You, sir, are part of the liberal mindset bent on finding every way, shape or form to pin anything violent upon conservatism. And you are, whether you know it or not, completely in league with the liberal elite, the liberal media.

I am sick of people like this getting away with kind of thing. When we should be sending out our prayers, our sympathies toward the families of those killed or injured, when we should be looking at calm, common-sense approaches to deal with these sorts of events, what we get is fear- and hate-mongering from the Left in the political and media realms.

How are you people on the Left able to live with yourselves? How do you not see what you are doing is wrong? Where is your soul? I am not some special case, some unique thinker, yet when I see you liberals behave this way, saying the things you say, lying at every turn just because you have the largest mouthpiece, I can't help but think there is something mentally deficient in your thought processes.

Look throughout our history, people. We have used, at every point of the political spectrum, all levels of rhetoric. "Militaristic metaphors" have often been a part of the dialogue. You cannot make any credible case that this is some sort of motivator for antisocial behavior. Evil is its own motivator. For liberals, who are just as guilty as conservatives--in fact, I'd be able to make the case they are MORE violent in speech--of making outrageous statements, to say that magically violence would be reduced by "toning down the rhetoric" is completely a myth.

We have the First Amendment. The freedoms protected from government intrusion has allowed some of the most disgusting, filthy, evil and violent things to be said about Sarah Palin and her family and you hear NONE of the lamestream standing up against it. They promote it. But as soon as MUCH less shocking illustrations are used by conservatives the liberals are at the ready to trash them. How dare you? Blaming Rush Limbaugh, Michele Bachmann and others, calling them "accessories to murder"? Anyone who makes that claim is clearly not all there. Certainly irresponsible.

We are a nation of laws. These laws, for the most part, ARE based on Biblical principles. Regardless, people are expected to obey those laws. We have consequences for violating them. Prosecute those who do. Quit trying to make up a reason to extend your hate and invent violations of the law when there are none. The moment we are afraid to speak up is the moment we have given up our rights. Give no place to the Devil!

Finally An End To Anchor Babies?

Dear Lord, I hope so. The new Congress has introduced legislation to stop the decades old practice of "anchor babies". This complete misapplication of the 14th Amendment has allowed illegal immigrants (HAH! Take THAT, lamestream media!) to come over here and drop a litter just so they can claim citizenship-by-proxy. For the uninitiated, the 14th Amendment was added specifically to grant citizenship to freed slaves. It was NOT intended to be abused the way it has been. Groups like the deplorable La Raza -- a group of racists/ethnicists -- claim that this new legislation punishes children for the "sins of the father". Of course, to any intelligent being this is complete and utter rubbish. It's not a "punishment" at all. It's called respecting the laws and sovereignty of a nation and not using loopholes to circumvent due process. You see, early in our history we needed to bring in as many people as we could. We had the room, we had the resources. Eventually, however, we needed to regulate our borders for a number of reasons that seem to make sense to approximately half the country...I can't explain the ignorance of the other half. So, we developed a process. We created a path to citizenship -- apparently, again, half this nation is completely clueless that this pathway already exists. It is very obviously an intent to get around this when a woman of non-American nationality sneaks here in late-term in order to give birth while on our soil. You cannot tell me that's not the intent. Say any different and I'll call you a liar to your face. The bottom line is that this legislation is badly needed. It removes just one more reason for people not of this country to come here illegally. Now, if we can just get some real teeth and bite into every single business who hires illegal immigrants.

The New Congress

Here were are, friends, in 2011 with the 112^th Congress. Thankfully, two of the most disgusting words in recent years will begin to fade away: Speaker Pelosi. But is it all wine and roses now? Not by a long shot. Oh, to be sure, we have a number, albeit small, of freshman in the House of Representatives who carry the mantle of the TEA Party movement. There are, however, two strikes against them. First, they’re freshman. This means that while they may be the darlings of those of us who are true conservatives and want to turn down—way down—the squelch on government, they are the lowest of the low in seniority and, therefore, power. Second, they are the minority within the majority in the House and the minority within the minority in the Senate. You can paint it however you like, but the undeniable fact is that most of the Republicans who remained in power are part of the Old Guard, the elitists who got into power, got fat and lazy with the power and have simply become Democrat-Lite. They are the ones responsible for pretending not to care about the TEA Party movement and candidates, at best, or actively strove to hobble their efforts, at worst. As far as I’m concerned, they are more deplorable than a bald-faced progressive.

Having said all that, here are my thoughts on the Congress, old and new. A theme that constantly comes up with the President and the Democrats, as well as with MSNBC, CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS and all the rest of the lamestream media, is “look at all the progress in the last two years, look at all the accomplishments!” Well, I do NOT consider the garbage that got shoved down our throats to be “progress”. That’s like a man raping a woman and then saying, “I got lucky last night.” (Please refrain from the typical “You’re diminishing the crime of rape!” –if you aren’t intellectually honest enough to accept the analogy for what it is, then you are not qualified to enter the discussion) Anything that moves us toward more government control, less independence, less freedom, more debt, more socialism in general does not qualify as a positive accomplishment in my book. Sarah Palin’s wordplay notwithstanding, I’d like to apply a word that many of you may not have heard before: DEGRESSION – noun, 1. A downward movement; descent; decrease by stages. This is precisely how I would characterize our society and what progressives have been doing to it, and I’ll debate anyone, anytime on this. So, when the President puffs up his nicotine-and-tar-filled chest and proudly proclaim how successful he has been, it rings quite hollow with those of us who understand that what he qualifies as “success” is actually destructive to America.

So, what of the new Congress? Well, a lot of the words sound good. But we’ve heard words before. Satan persuaded Adam and Eve to give up their birthright and plunge all future generations into the curse of sin and death, all by simply using words. Let’s look at a few of the initial movements. First, we have the temporary ban on earmarks. What is an earmark? It’s a ‘notation’, if you will, in a bill that allocates some of YOUR money to a pet project. In almost all cases these earmarks are never actually reviewed by Congress and in most cases they have nothing at all to do with the meat of the bill being passed. They are a way for your Representative to “bring money back home”. The initial thing that should anger everyone is that these are largely not even reviewed and that they are simply tacked onto another bill. I firmly believe that every bill should be self-contained and have integrity, meaning that the only ‘notations’ or amendments that should be allowed on a bill must be ones that directly affect the primary reason for the bill. If you want special funding to be approved for something, it darn well better be in its own bill or part of a specifically designated “slush bill” where all such pet projects are submitted. Also, for such “slush bills”, line item veto should be allowed. It disgusts me that such amendments as the repeal of so-called “don’t ask, don’t tell” were slapped onto the defense spending bill. And, you know what? I don’t care if that means it takes longer to get things through Congress! If we learned nothing at all after this last embarrassment of a Congress, it’s that ramming things through, though arguably legal, is not ethical and certainly not prudent. On the subject of earmarks, Texas Senator John Cornyn (whom I voted for while holding my nose), said, “Most people think we need earmark reform—not a ban; that’s why our conference voted for a moratorium.” Excuse me? Who is “most people”? Any true conservative is going to say they need to be permanently banned. Tennessee Senator Lamar Alexander cautioned against reading too much into recent actions as having spelled the death of earmarks. These are our so-called Republicans! Clearly, we still have some housecleaning to do. Now, the other piece of this that is one of those “forest for the trees” moments is the idea of “bringing it home”. I’d probably have to do some self-instruction on our history to find out, but I’m wondering exactly when it became a primary function of our elected representatives to bring money home back to the states? The original intent of state Representatives and Senators was to protect the sovereignty of the states, look after the interests of the state and people of that state. In fact, the only money that was supposed to be raised for the federal government was to support the VERY LIMITED (called “enumerated” in the Constitution) mandate of the federal government. To boil that down, it included national defense and making sure the proper infrastructure was in place and maintained to keep the states unified and “playing nice”. In fact, any notion that the federal government was responsible to do ANYTHING for the people was only where it applied to ALL people EQUALLY. That’s what “general welfare” applied to. But liberalism/progressivism has profaned this to mean that the federal government is the be-all-and-end-all, over even the states. We slowly morphed from the idea that Senators would concentrate on policies that affected the state as a whole and how each state faired with the others at a national level and the Representatives would be more directly responsive to the people within each state, expressing more dynamically the will of the people as federal policies might affect them…or, more importantly, infringe upon their rights. What we have now is a twisted collusion between Senators and Representatives bent on taxing the blazes out of everyone for the purposes of “evening the playing field”, and then lobbying to bring a chunk of that gluttony home to their states, their districts.

Let me ask you something: WHY ARE WE LETTING THEM HAVE SO MUCH MONEY THAT THEY CAN EVEN LOBBY TO BRING CHUNKS HOME? Why are we allowing them to take more and more of the fruits of our labors only to then go begging to get some of it back? This is disgusting. I’ll give you a hint as to how we got here, two things. One was the liberal interpretation of the Constitution, particularly the “general welfare” and “commerce” clauses, to mean way more than our founders ever intended. The other was the expansion of what we call a “right”. We have reinterpreted things that were commodities to now be rights. The Declaration of Independence cites certain inalienable rights (these being given by God, specifically), to include life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And I could show you scriptures that support those very ideas. What I CANNOT show you, however, is anywhere in the Bible that says you have a right to health care or the internet or a car or a house. These are material things, created by people in a sinful world. In fact, I would argue that for devout, full-gospel, born-again Christians, that Jesus died to secure all three of those for us, completely separate from any need for a “benevolent and beneficent” government. He came so that we may have LIFE and have it more abundantly; He whom Christ has set free is free indeed; The joy of the Lord is our strength. These are all mainstays of a Christian walk, not dependent upon a government. Scripture says that if we seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness then ALL else will be added. I can’t find a translation that says “seek first the kingdom of God and/or a well-formed government and then all you need will be added to you”…..nope, not in there. And when Jesus felt compassion for the multitudes on more than one occasion of speaking to them, I don’t see any mention of telling the disciples to send representatives to Rome to lobby for fish and bread or agricultural subsidies in order to feed the multitudes. In fact, He didn’t even send them to the Jewish governing body…they just took care of themselves. Just because you recognize need doesn’t mean it’s a right. And just because you recognize a right doesn’t mean you should be relying on government to take care of it….you should be requiring government to NOT INFRINGE UPON it. One last observation. Just because the “conventional wisdom” of the time says that something is correct doesn’t make it so. Jesus was quite explicit on so many occasions to rebuke the Pharisees (the Jewish leaders of the day) for creating “doctrine of men” that departed from God’s Word. Yet an entire people had grown so use to accepting that what the Jewish leaders said was acceptable or not that they actually called Jesus—who WAS the Word of God made flesh—a heretic and blasphemer! I would say that Jesus was definitely in the minority opinion in that day, but it didn’t make the Jewish leaders right any more than it made Jesus wrong. I draw the same conclusion today in American society. We have walked away from the Truth of God’s Word and we have walked away from the truth and wisdom (God inspired, in my opinion) of our Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and embraced what I can only characterize as “the doctrine of men”.

We do not have a “religious test” for our elected officials…not legally or officially, anyway. But the prohibition against having such articulated as a part of the election process does NOT preclude or prohibit our INDIVIDUAL right to vote according to a set of principles that conform to a Biblical worldview. In fact, we are called to do that. Even if our elected officials aren’t Christian or live less than exemplary Christian lives (as is the case for all of us to one degree or another), if we seek out those who unashamedly and unwaveringly stand for those same principles then we are being good stewards of that which God has blessed us and we are doing well by the kingdom of God. We must support those people and we must encourage them to fight the good fight and not compromise when compromise means subjugating righteousness for unrighteousness. This goes as much for social issues as it does for fiscal ones. I am excited that we do have a stronger voice for these concerns in Congress now. But I’m under no delusion that they hold more influence on the behemoth that is our government than they actually do. We must not sit on our laurels, we must not fall back into reticence.

I watched the debate over the weekend between the candidates for Republican National Committee chair. For certain, Mr. Steele, the current chairman, has been a disaster and needs to leave. Nothing he said in the debate proved different to me. I was encouraged by some of the things some of the candidates said. Most used the right words, but I definitely got a sense in my spirit that some were genuine, some were not. Some let slip their true guiding principle, probably without even knowing it. Two things that concerned me? “We must raise more money” and “we must focus on winning”. Both of those dovetailed into a subtext of “we must win at all costs”. What most of you don’t realize is that means the Republican Party has been—and would continue to be—willing to support not-so-conservative candidates if only to get another “R” in the House or Senate. This is dead wrong. I don’t want a single person elected who is not fully conservative. In fact, I don’t want a single person elected who does not put Biblical principles first and the principles of the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution second. What I will “settle” for is someone who at least is a strict constructionist where our Constitution is concerned and who is quite familiar and in tune with the writings of our founders. If they are not conversant with such things as The Federalist Papers, then I will tend toward distrust of them.

There are hard times ahead if this Congress is in any way successful in turning the ship. There are millions who depend upon government---and this is horrible. We must partner with our newly-elected people to succeed. That means weaning ourselves of dependence on government programs and “entitlements” and rebuild our local community reliance. Before pushing for any sort of initiative, be it social or fiscal, seek out scripture on it and prayerfully consider it. Then act. Elect people wisely, but do not put your reliance in people, because we all have feet of clay and we all fall down. Hold them, each other and ourselves accountable. We can turn this around, but it will take getting back to what inspired this nation.