Thought for the Day

What kind of society protects its trees, small owls and insignificant minnows, but murders its children with impunity?

Let's Use Some Common Sense

It's been a while since I listened closely enough to the news to have something really tick me off. However, with the senseless events of Saturday in Tucson, and what has followed in the media and political arena, there's a lot to irritate me.

When did we become a people who started pointing fingers at those we don't like before there are any facts available? When did we start assigning blame and guilt to those who disagree with us? I can't believe this is the United States!

Tonight, I heard the absolutely stupidest thing ever, and another thing right behind it, stepping on its heels. Not only are people building careers on rhetoric which closes the barn door after the horse has galloped off, but they are also suggesting things which make absolutely NO sense whatsoever!

I've heard any number of new laws proposed which would 'prevent this kind of thing' from happening. Hello? Is anyone out there paying attention? We HAVE laws! It is illegal, completely, to shoot another person in cold blood, let alone to shoot nineteen and kill six, no matter who they are! It doesn't matter who the victims are, or who the shooter is, or what problems he has, or what his beliefs are, it's a crime!

So, Republican Peter King's proposal that we pass a law making it a crime to carry a weapon within 1000 ft. of high level officials and judges is ridiculous! Raise your hand if you thing that law would have kept this mentally unstable young man at home on Saturday. Would he have said, "Oh, no, I can't go within a thousand feet of the congresswoman with a gun! Darn!" Not bloody likely.

The thing these people always miss is that a criminal doesn't CARE what the law says. The law is for the law abiding to have recourse AFTER a crime is committed. You and I aren't going to go shooting up politicians, no matter how much we dislike them, and no matter how many guns we own, or how big the magazines are, or how fast the trigger can be pulled. We wouldn't do it if there WEREN'T a law forbidding it.

So Ms McCarthy's proposed law to limit the size of the gun magazine is equally ridiculous. Do you think this shooter would have said, "How am I going to shoot 19 people when I can only have six cartridges in my magazine?" No, of course not! He would simply have taken the same gun he took and shot the same number of people.

And I was totally disgusted when she said that lawmakers who feel the need to arm themselves should perhaps think about another line of work (not an exact quote, but close). Good grief! Even a lawmaker is an American citizen and has the right to keep and bear arms and to defend him or herself against violence directed at them.

Let's take a look at Saturday from another point of view. What if the congresswoman and all of her aides had been armed on Saturday? What if they were all crack shots? How many people would be injured and dead today if they had been capable of defending themselves and the innocents around them? Would that darling little 9-year-old girl have gone home healthy with no more than emotional trauma? Something to think about.

Something to Think About

A friend's journal post.

JoshLaw Journal

What Are We Entitled To?

My friend and co-author, Brandon Alt, sent an e-mail last week asking that question. It went out to a large group of his friends, and I wish I had saved my answer, but I didn't. In my mind, the only thing God gave us was life, and the opportunity to do something with that gift. We have a country which was founded by people who believed that God granted us the right to choose for ourselves, to be free to choose for ourselves. We have a country preserved by the blood of people who agreed with them. And today we have a country where a small group of people are trying to force on the rest of us their idea of a government. That government does not allow us to choose for ourselves, does not even trust us to choose for ourselves.

In the same week, someone pointed out to me that if people made their own choices, without the government forcing things, that women would not be equal citizens, that civil rights would not have worked, and that other groups, such as the disabled, would be under-employed (whatever that means). I disagree entirely! All of those things came about, not because the government forced them, but because people stood up for themselves.

The government didn't *give* women the vote, they took it. The government didn't *give* the black people, the Indians and others, civil rights, they took them. The government didn't *give* jobs to the blacks, the disabled, and other minorities, or *give* equal pay to women for equal work. They took it. They stood up for themselves, and *then* the government passed amendments to the Constitution or laws which changed the way business was done.

I don't believe government had to pass the laws, because I believe the people standing up for themselves were changing things already. Making amendments to the Constitution - that's a fine way to change our government. It's the way the Constitution is designed to work. Passing laws on top of laws, none of which really changes society or the attitudes of society, is not the most efficient way to work. You can *force* people to do something, but you can't force them to change their attitudes and opinions, and true reform requires a change of attitude and opinion. That is not the same thing as being politically correct.

So, what do you think you are entitled to? For one side of the argument, the side with which I totally agree, see Brandon's Feb. 28 post.

Muslim Terrorist

Veteran's Day has rolled around again. This year, more than ever before, we've seen the mission of our veterans broaden to include all of their job - to defend the country against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. Earlier this year, outside a recruiting station, a home-grown Muslim jihadist gunned down a fine young soldier. In this last week, another home-grown Muslim jihadist and terrorist gunned down over 40 people, 13 of whom died.

Only 60% of Americans, in one of those polls we've become so fond of, think this should be investigated as an act of terror by the US Military. 27% think it should be investigated by civilian authorities as a criminal act. 13% aren't sure. Way to take a stand. I'm in the 60%, and I don't understand how every American isn't. An officer of the US Military has gunned down his fellow soldiers, screaming the Muslim Jihadist favorite words, "Allah Akbar", and this isn't an act of both terror and treason?

When are we going to stop being politically correct? I do not care a fig if this man had a troubled childhood. Most of us do, and we aren't running around killing the soldiers who defend us. I don't care if his co-workers stressed him out. Mine always did, and I didn't shoot them. I don't care if he felt dissed as a Muslim. I get dissed as a Christian. So freakin' what? It's life. Grow up!

No, what I care about is that he killed 13 people and wounded dozens more. One of the 13 he killed was a newlywed who was two months pregnant, so in my mind, he killed 14 people. He was a jihadist, a terrorist, and he performed acts of treason. He needs to be investigated, questioned, tried and then punished. Forget alleged acts. He was caught actually committing the acts in question.

Copenhagen CO2 Treaty

Yes, folks, negotiations going on to make America pay reparations to the rest of the world, based on the fact that we are causing global warming.

Lord Christopher Monckton, an expert in this area, pointed out today that right now, we have 30 billion tons of CO2 emissions world-wide now, per year. 2 parts per million, makes 15 billion ppm per year.

With me so far?

When you do the math for the predictions for the next 100 years, according to those working on the treaty, we will be looking at 7 trillion tons per year in 100 years. Their math is wrong, but they say that equates to 7 F. degrees warmer. (Lord Monckton showed that the true number would be only 1 F. warmer, and nothing to concern ourselves with, if the globe warms at all.)

In order to reduce that result by 1 trillion tons and 1 degree, the entire world would have to spend 33 years with no electricity, no cars, nothing at all that gives off CO2 emissions. So after 33 years of *no* energy, we reduce 1 of the 7 degrees predicted.

What is wrong with us? Are we so stupid we will take Al Gore's word for anything if he makes enough noise and ignores all opposition? And when did we begin to apologize for everything we've ever accomplished, and feel that we need to pay *reparations* to those who haven't bothered to build the life that they envy? When did we begin to help our enemies dismantle our lives brick by brick?

DO THE MATH!

My Forehead is Sore

Yes, I've been pounding my head against the wall. I had an ah-ha moment this afternoon during Glenn Beck. I've known for some time that the progressives in Washington were working on more than "health care reform." Otherwise, why would they keep submitting bill after bill that covers so much more than health care?

Today, Glenn talked about the new health studies being done about the health care issues involved in *gun ownership*. What? As near as I can tell, it should be an obvious benefit - less stress if you own one and can defend yourself against both domestic criminals and the government.

It suddenly dawned on me why the "health care reform" is so important to the progressives. If they don't get it, they can't keep pushing us and pushing us on issues like gun ownership, smoking, and other things the government wants and the people don't. The health care bill is an umbrella disguise for Sunstein and other progressives to "nudge" us into the progressive lifestyle we conservatives don't want.

If not so, then why is the original excuse of covering all Americans now down to a bill that still leaves almost 20,000,000 Americans uninsured?

A Little Bit Pregnant?

Have you ever heard of an ethics waiver? Apparently, it means when the president wants someone to do a particular job, and there's an ethical reason why that person shouldn't, a waiver is granted to allow them to do so.

This is not something new to the White House, though it's a foreign concept to me. How can there exist such a thing as an ethics waiver? How can you say that it doesn't matter that there's a conflict of interest, or a past association or behavior that is no longer important in light of the fact that we want you to do this job?

A person, a government, a nation is either ethical or it isn't. It's like being pregnant. You either are, or you aren't. You can't waive a person's ethics! And yet, this White House has done that 16 times in the last 9 months. It was pointed out, by the person the president appointed to be in charge of ethics for the White House, that this is less than 1% of the 1890 jobs awarded. That makes it okay?

I don't know how these numbers stack up against previous administrations, and it doesn't matter. I didn't realize this was going on, and now I do. The previous administrations are over. This one is ongoing. They can make the argument that it is fewer waviers, though I don't know that it is or isn't, but that is a specious argument. There shouldn't be any waivers of ethics ever! A thing is either wrong or right.

You can't be a little bit pregnant or a little bit unethical.

Read the Sept. 4, 2009 article on The Hill website.

By Their Fruits

Forget the school lesson plan. This is more important.

Let's keep it simple.

Iran is being led by a man who is a Twelver. That is, he is part of the Muslim population who believes that the 12th Imam is the Messiah and will appear after blood and violence and chaos and bring peace to the world. They believe they can hasten his coming by causing the blood and violence and chaos. They believe that Jesus will come introduce him as the Messiah and will be his aide, more or less.

So, on the one hand we have a Muslim sect in power which has many, many followers and believes that death and destruction and chaos must take place in order for their Messiah to come.

On the other hand, we believe, as stated in Matthew 24:14 - "And this gospel of the kingdom shall ve preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come." So Jesus preached that in spite of wars and desolation, that when all the earth had been taught the principles of love and redemption, the Messiah would come and bring peace. This is the foundation of Missionary Work.

By their fruits ye shall know them.

Speech Lesson Plan, Part 3

I had no objection to the president speaking to school children. Truthfully, not even to his doing it during school hours. I did object to some districts making the watching of it mandatory, and accompanying noncompliance with additional punitive work to be done. I did object to some districts telling parents they could not be there for the speech and discussions. I did object to the issuance from the Department of Education of a lesson plan to enhance the experience of listening to the president. I most strongly object to the lesson plan itself. Here is part 3 in my series about that plan.

After the Speech

1. Teachers could ask students to share the ideas they recorded, exchange sticky notes, or place notes on a butcher‐paper poster in the classroom to discuss main ideas from the speech, such as citizenship, personal responsibility, and civic duty.

2. Students could discuss their responses to the following questions:

• What do you think the president wants us to do?
• Does the speech make you want to do anything?
• Are we able to do what President Obama is asking of us?
• What would you like to tell the president?

I've probably said it all in the last two posts, but here we go again. There is nothing wrong with the first suggestion. As long as the teacher doesn't tell children what to think or how to think about the speech, as long as the ideas and discussions come from the students, this could be a great discussion. If children have not already been discussing these topics, it could be lame. If all their knowledge is drawn from this speech and teacher guidance, it will be one sided.

Let's look at these terms, which overlap considerably in the new political spectrum. Citizenship, civic duty, personal responsibility. Does that mean the same thing to the Obama White House as it does to an Independent or a Constitutionalist, or a Reagan Republican? I doubt it. If you read Charles M. Firestone's article on the Huffington Post website from last October, you will have a good idea of the current liberal meaning of citizenship. It starts by sounding fairly traditional and reasonable. By the end, it turns out we need financial, environmental, and cultural "literacies" in order to be a good citizen.

Even Wikipedia, with an unknown author, doesn't go that far: "'Active citizenship' is the philosophy that citizens should work towards the betterment of their community through economic participation, public service, volunteer work, and other such efforts to improve life for all citizens."

A more general definition: "Citizenship is membership in a political community. The term derives from membership of a city (as was the term citizen), but now normally refers to a nation. Citizenship carries with it rights of political participation; many also consider it brings duties to exercise those rights responsibly."

Founding Father quotes:

• Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state. ~ Thomas Jefferson
• It may be laid down as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every Citizen who enjoys the protection of a Free Government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defense of it. ~ George Washington
• Let each citizen remember at the moment he is offering his vote that he is not making a present or a compliment to please an individual—or at least that he ought not so to do; but that he is executing one of the most solemn trusts in human society for which he is accountable to God and his country.~ John Adams
• I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis. The great point is to bring them the real facts. ~ Abraham Lincoln (not a founding father)

Now let's look at the questions of part 2. The second and third ones are bad questions. They can be answered simply yes or no, therefore requiring little or no thought. The first one is a basic knowledge comprehension question. The last one would be okay, if the discussion were not guided toward telling the president that you are going to take his advice and do just what he tells you to do. Chances of that? Pretty slim.

Part 4 tomorrow. The extended activities, probably the most objectionable part.

During the Speech - Lesson Plan, Part 2

During the Speech

As the president speaks, teachers can ask students to write down key ideas or phrases that are important or personally meaningful. Students could use a note‐taking graphic organizer such as a “cluster web;” or, students could record their thoughts on sticky notes. Younger children could draw pictures and write as appropriate. As students listen to the speech, they could think about the following:

• What is the president trying to tell me?
• What is the president asking me to do?
• What new ideas and actions is the president challenging me to think about?

2. Students could record important parts of the speech where the president is asking them to do something. Students might think about the following:

• What specific job is he asking me to do?
• Is he asking anything of anyone else?
• Teachers? Principals? Parents? The American people?

3. Students could record questions they have while he is speaking and then discuss them after the speech. Younger children may need to dictate their questions.

On the surface of it, there would appear to be nothing wrong with any of this. Aren't those good comprehension questions? Isn't it helping students to focus on the main ideas of the president's speech? The answer to those questions, both of them, is yes. My concern, having watched Arbor Day turn from planting trees to saving the earth, is the discussion that will take place with these notes.

The youngest students are going to have trouble understanding, or caring about, the president's speech. That means someone will interpret for them, putting their own spin on the message, leading students in a particular direction. Older students will also be led in the direction that their particular teacher wants them led. Bearing in mind that a majority of teachers are liberals, the leading will be in directions I don't want to see happen.

The idea of *debate* will not be part of the lesson. Did you notice that there is nothing about "discussion" in these questions? Did you notice there is nothing about critically thinking? None of the questions asks, for instance, that students decide whether the president's message has a *valid* point. Nothing asks students to determine whether what the president suggests is something that will make a difference in their education.

No, the questions are merely, once again, at the knowledge and possibly application levels on Bloom's Taxonomy. Will teachers guide students to be critical thinkers? Will they even ask questions such as, "What might the education system look like if everyone did what the president asks?" They won't. They will lead students like little sheep to jump over the fences they want jumped. No one will ask, "What happens if we do what the president asks?" If they did, it wouldn't involve critical speculation. It would only be a Kum-ba-yah moment around the campfire, warming ourselves at Obama's fundamental Change for America.

President Obama's Speech to School Children

What is all the hoopla about the president speaking to children in schools across America? Isn't it a good thing for the president to encourage children around the country to do their best in school?

Yes, and no. If it were a matter only of the president speaking to children in a televised speech, and if it were only that the president wants to encourage children in their educational efforts, I would have no problem with it. However, when you look at the lesson plan put out by the Department of Education, and you can find that plan here, you discover a few interesting things about it. A good lesson plan has a before, during and after, which this does. Let's see what's included.

Before the Speech

Teachers can build background knowledge about the President of the United States and his speech by reading books about presidents and Barack Obama. Teachers could motivate students by asking the following questions:

• Who is the President of the United States?
• What do you think it takes to be president?
• To whom do you think the president is going to be speaking?
• Why do you think he wants to speak to you?
• What do you think he will say to you?

Teachers can ask students to imagine that they are delivering a speech to all of the students in the United States.

• If you were the president, what would you tell students?
• What can students do to help in our schools?

Teachers can chart ideas about what students would say.

Why is it important that we listen to the president and other elected officials, like the mayor, senators, members of congress, or the governor? Why is what they say important?

Let's take this part of the plan apart. The motivation part - no problem. That's part of background building. Notice the last two questions. No problem with them in a classroom where students are taught to be critical thinkers. (Are there any such classrooms left in America? I hope so!) But, for the sake of argument, suppose that the teacher uses that question and answer time as a springboard to guide students' thinking in a direction she wants it to go?

Most teachers are liberals. Not all. I was a teacher. Many times I've guided my students' thinking, not on political issues, but on comparing one piece of literature to another, for instance. It's an ingrained thing to do. The question that really bothers me is the second one in the middle section of this before part of the lesson plan. This is where it really starts ringing a warning bell for me. Combine the president's progressive socialist agenda with the liberal educators and then throw in this question.

Now ask yourself this. What if little Johnny Jones has conservative parents who are well aware of this lesson plan, have downloaded it, and have dissected with little Johnny? And then, what if Johnny answers the question from that conservative point of view? What if Johnny brings up the idea that the president is trying to get the youth of the nation on his side and brainwash them to believe in political policies which are against the Constitution? How do you think the liberal teacher is going to deal with that situation?

Then move on to the last question. I don't think the answer is that we need to know what our government officials are thinking so that we can let them know whether we agree with them or not. I don't think the answer is that an informed citizenry is necessary to keep the Constitution in place. No, I surely don't think that at all. I think it's far more likely that the answer goes along with the idea of the nanny state government taking care of its population, and the need to listen and follow directions of the government authorities.

Stay tuned for the other two sections of this lesson plan.

National Debt

Wanna see how bad it is? Check out http://www.usdebtclock.org

Most especially, scroll down to the bottom to see the *unfunded* debt each of is owes. If your browser comes up with little f symbols, just click each one to get the numbers to appear. It has to do with your cookies setting.

If the free market were allowed to function, and we could restore our prosperity, then we might be able to handle it. But that's not happening.

Drill, Baby, Drill!

Remember that slogan? Well, Obama finally agrees with it!

Here's the problem. He believes in giving American taxpayer dollars, $2,000,000,000 of them, to a Brazillian company, Petrobras - in which George Soros is heavily invested, btw. That money is being loaned to them to drill off-shore for oil! Now bear in mind that Petrobras has $120 billion dollars in backing and earned $18,000,000,000 dollars in profits last year.

So why do they need any of our taxpayer dollars? After all, they signed a deal with China in February for 58,000,000,000 barrels of oil to be delivered.

So what is going on here? We have companies right here in our own country who have been pounding on the door to get permission to drill in and near America. So, Mr. Obama, what the hell are you thinking?

IT IS TIME

Below is something I want to share with you. I am frankly very angry, and have had enough. Don't talk to me about writing letters to "our congressmen" they are not ours, they belong to the evil that is destroying this country while we sit on our asses wringing our hands, it frankly is a waste of time, paper, and/or bandwidth. There is only one solution to this situation, and we need to follow the example of our founding fathers. I only know of 2 people brave enough to call for a revelation, let me add my name to the list. This elderly house wife is calling for a revelation. There I have said it.

Please pay particulate attention to the bold words of acting U.S. Attorney Michael Gunnison below in the body of the article.

I do not know about you but this "elderly people (person) who believe(s) in the Constitution and are (is) willing to resist an unlawful tax and refuse to immediately surrender to heavily-armed federal agents deserve to die in prison and are not fit to participate in our brave new "civil society." has no intention of dieing in prison for standing on my Constitutional rights.

Convicted "tax protesters" to receive death sentence with new conviction

July 9, 2009—Ed Brown (67) and Elaine Brown (69) were convicted on all counts "of plotting to kill federal agents during a nine-month standoff at their fort-like rural home, where they had holed up to avoid arrest on tax evasion," the Associated Press reported.

In 2007, the Browns, a successful married couple from Plainfield, New Hampshire, who had dared to demand that the government show them the law before paying income taxes, were convicted of willful failure to pay them.

Ed Brown testified during the 2009 trial that the weapons in his home were for self-defense. The conviction is malicious. The Browns never intended to kill anyone; they just wanted to prove that the government had no lawful authority to directly tax the wages of people as if they were income. When the government court agreed that the government had the authority to collect an unconstitutional tax, the Browns just stayed home. When the government came to get them, a standoff ensued. People from all over the country came to be with them. Ed conducted interviews in which he said he believed the government planned to kill him and that he would rather die than go to prison. With some bravado, Ed reportedly also said that he would take a few feds with him.

The Brown’s concerns were well-founded. The U.S. government has killed a lot of Americans for greater and lesser reasons. Gordon Kahl was hunted down, shot and burned for his belief that government was not lawful; Sammy Weaver (14) and his mother Vickie were shot though they were not wanted in connection with any crime and the government mass murdered 114 innocent men, women and children at Mount Carmel near Waco, Texas.

The standoff, which began with their conviction January 18, 2007, ended peacefully nearly nine months later on October 4.

Though Ed had a conviction in 1960 at age 18 that was later pardoned, the Browns have no prior criminal history yet both face 30-years in prison for not surrendering to federal officials after being convicted on income tax related charges. For the Browns, this conviction is a death sentence.

"By rejecting the rule of the law and substituting a personal code involving weapons, explosives and threats, the defendants committed increasingly serious crimes," acting U.S. Attorney Michael Gunnison said. "Their conduct has no place in a civil society."

The "civil society" to which Gunnison refers is one that allows the government to lawlessly extort money from people at gunpoint, allows bankers to debauch the currency and loot an entire nation’s people and their assets while reinventing the Republic into a totalitarian technocracy that is in the final stages of force-vaccinating 300 million people with an experimental vaccine containing ingredients of known toxicity—and is planning to punish anyone who objects. According to Gunnison, elderly people who believe in the Constitution and are willing to resist an unlawful tax and refuse to immediately surrender to heavily-armed federal agents deserve to die in prison and are not fit to participate in our brave new "civil society."

The Browns, who were already serving five-year sentences for their original convictions, are scheduled to be effectively sentenced to death in prison on September 3, 2009.

Town Hall Meetings + My Response

There are town hall meetings being held around the country so that Senators and Congressmen can explain the health care plan to their constituents. According to one Texas Congressman, they were give a script they are supposed to follow. Bah, humbug, is what I'd say to that.

Many town hall meetings have erupted at the question and answer period, and if you watch Fox News, you've seen some of that footage.

"I look at this health care plan and I see nothing that is about health or about care. What I see is a bureaucratic nightmare, senator. Medicaid is broke, Medicare is broke, Social Security is broke and you want us to believe that a government that can't even run a cash for clunkers program is going to run one-seventh of our U.S. economy? No sir, no," she (a woman at the microphone to Specter and Sibelius in Philadelphia) said.

You can find some such events listed on Tea Party Patriots August events are toward the bottom, with September toward the top.

The constituents are being labeled, of course, as right wing nuts, and at least one person said that the protests were sponsored by the insurance companies. What a laugh. The insurance companies are in bed with the program! Those speaking out are being labeled "politically connected," whatever that means, and, once again, being dismissed.

One of the largest miscarriages of truth that the media has perpetrated recently is the one about the tea party in Columbus, Ohio, August 1, this past Saturday. The Columbus Tea Party, the Ohio Rally for State Sovereignty, was attended by, according to police estimates, 8,000-10,000 people. You can hear Keynote speaker, Judge Napolitano, on Ron Paul's site or YouTube. According to Napolitano (not Janet, BTW!), the temperatures were in the upper 80s and humidity to match, yet thousands of people stood for an hour and a half, before his speech even came up. They listened to what he had to say, and cheered him on.

The miscarriage of truth by the media? They reported 200-300 attendees. Disenfranchisement through being ignored? You decide. The people are rising up in larger and larger numbers, from all political parties, and both the media and the politicians are going to be surprised when the "right-wing nut jobs," take our country back, through the legally appointed means provided by the U S Constitution, and freedom becomes the rallying cry.

In some of the later townhall meetings, speakers who've learned from what happened at earlier ones, have told attendees they are not allowed to ask questions, they can only listen to what the speaker has to tell them about the plan. Here's my response to that.

As a body, all attendees get up and leave. The last person out the door, before turning out the light, turns to the speaker of the day and says, "You aren't listening to us; therefore, we aren't listening to you. But don't worry. We'll be back in touch next voting day." No shouting, no screaming, no protesting. Just a simple statement from our feet, exercising our God-given rights.

What Unites Us?

From my friend, Johnny's, blog used with his permission:

Recently, I've realized that we ..... at least I .... spend more time on thinking about the things that separate me, that divide me, from others than I do about what unites me with others. A friend recommended I read Glenn Beck's Common Sense. It arrived in the mail today, and I started at the back, with Thomas Paine's original common sense text.

Listen to this, from Thomas Paine's introduction to his famous little booklet:

"Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages are not yet sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favor; a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises, at first, a formidable outcry in defense of custom. But tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason."

Knowing that he was referring to the government at the time, and it's long abuses of it's subjects in the colonies, and knowing that he speaks of rebellion against that government, do not blind me to the possibilities that go far beyond those issues. With this one quotation, I could examine everything in my life ..... my thoughts about God, about my lifestyle choices, about love ..... about almost anything.

Sticking to government, for this post, I realized that all of my life I have carried a certain picture of what America is, of who Americans are. We make mistakes, we are sometimes brash. As a nation, we tend to be more prudish than the old countries of Europe, and as a people, we tend to be generous. Perhaps we don't have the old world 'culture' and are considered by some to be rude and 'ugly' Americans. Maybe we resemble the prostitute with the heart of gold.

But there is a heart of gold. That's the important thing. We've shed our blood around the world for the rights of others, the freedom of others. Our soldiers are buried in the foreign soil of many a country which would not have the freedom to criticize us were it not so. Our dollars are spread throughout the world, as well. Over and over, as other countries have been hit by disasters, American dollars have flown food and medical supplies bought with other American dollars to the relief of those in need. Our government has done that, but so have our churches, our organizations, our volunteers, our people, out of our own pockets.

This is the America I know and love and grew up in. Today, I see the change that slightly more than half the country voted for coming to pass. And it isn't a change I like, or voted for. In fact, it isn't even a change at all, it's a transformation. I don't like what America is becoming. I don't like a president going around that same world we have saved and aided and negotiated for, apologizing for being who we are. I don't like my government turning into a controlling faction in business, banking, and especially health care.

The congress which bounced over 12,000 checks and caused the closure of it's own bank is now going to run the banks the American people use? The government that allocated money for 3 months of a "cash for clunkers" program and ran out in 4 days is going to run the automobile companies? The same people who have run Amtrak, the post office and Veteran's Administration hospitals into the ground is going to be in charge of my health care? I don't think so. I vote no.

The long habit of thinking that the government is right, that it has good intentions, that it will take care of me ..... that has come to an end. The habit of not thinking those things are wrong has come to an end. Bring on the outcry. Bring on the tumult. And then let us reason together to find a better way.

Universal Health Care

I can't stand it any more. I have to make some comments about this insane plan from the left wing nuts. (ha, take that you name callers!)

Is there any citizen in America who really thinks the president's plan is a good one? Yes, of course, there are. A lot of them are in Congress. Of course, those people have *their own* health care plan that won't be affected by the President's plan. If they think it's so great, why aren't they signing Congress up for it?

Recent polls, by Rasmussen, for instance, show that half of the citizens of the U. S. don't want this plan. When you add into the equation a tax increase to have it, the numbers rise against it significantly. So why aren't their representatives in both houses of Congress listening?

The news pundits seem to believe that the President wants Congress to hurry up and pass the bill before recess - and it's over 1000 pages again, folks. The reason? If they go home, they will hear from their constituents how much they do *not* want this bill, and it will never get passed. I don't know how accurate that reasoning is, since I think they are already having phone calls, letters and e-mails to that effect.

On the other hand, if that is Obama's reasoning, or his "advisors'" thinking, then I have a question. Why would the president be so desperate to have Congress pass something that the people don't want? It's no wonder that Obama's ratings are steadily falling. He's not listening to the citizens of the country.

Here's a quote from my son's letter yesterday. Bear in mind that this is a 32-year old man who is bright enough, but only has a GED, and he's a member of the North Carolina prison community for being stupid. If he gets this, why don't those highly educated Congress-persons get it?

"I was reading (the paper) about the proposed health care thing the Dems are pushing, calling it a right and a responsibility. I found it interesting that, as an employer or employee, if you don't use it, you can be penalized. Sounds like big Government Socialism/Communism to me. They aren't saying you have to use it, but if you don't there are penalties."

Yeah, think about that one for a minute.

We hear a lot about looking at the systems in Canada or England and wondering if that's what we want. There have been both doctors and patients from Canada on any number of news programs. Well, not the mainstream liberal news programs, of course.

Here's a thought for you. Why do we need to go outside our own country for an example of how bad an idea it is to have the government running our health care system? All we have to do is look at the one health care system in the country that is already run by the government -- the Veteran's Administration.

When Paul was looking in to going there for his cataract surgery last year, we found that, between getting approved for VA itself, followed by getting an appointment with a primary care physician, followed by getting an appointment with a specialist, followed by getting approved to have the surgery, followed by waiting for the surgery, we were looking at 9 months or more. He would have been completely blind by then. So we borrowed the money and had it done, tightening our budget the last notch it can be tightened.

So, America, that's what you're probably going to have soon. Unless you can get yourself elected to Congress, of course.

Happy Birthday, America!

I don't think I can say it any better than Glenn Beck does in his newsletter from Friday:

"July 3, 2009

Hello America,

Here it is, another Fourth of July. Traditionally, this is a day to gather with friends, maybe fire up the barbeque and play with kids until the sun sets and the fireworks start. But in thinking back on the meaning behind this day, we must never forget that our nation was baptized in the blaze of a very different kind of "fireworks."

Yes, this is a day of rest and relaxation, as well it should be, but this year…I'd like to ask you a favor. At some point during the day, I hope you'll take time to think and reflect on what it is we're truly celebrating on the 4th of July -- our Independence Day. Of course the Declaration of Independence was signed on July 4th, 1776 but it's so much more than that. On this day, 233 short years ago, a small group of men dedicated themselves to a higher purpose, an ideal they believed in so greatly, they signed their name to its expression and in doing so put their very lives at risk.

Never has a simple act of signing one's name carried such weight, such a profound commitment. By signing the Declaration of Independence, 56 men stood in direct defiance of the British government. They became marked men, and willingly so. As I was doing some research on the significance of July 4th, I came across some interesting facts about these men. Today as we all enjoy the freedom our forefathers guaranteed us, join me in honoring the extraordinary sacrifice of 56 extraordinary Americans.

Of the 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence:

Five were captured by the British as traitors, and tortured before they died. Twelve had their homes burned to the ground. Two lost sons serving in the Revolutionary Army, and two more had sons captured. Nine fought and died in the Revolutionary War.

If you ever feel like your lone voice can never be heard, that the political system isn't set up for "regular" Americans to change the course of history, remember: The signers were flesh and blood, mortal men with a divinely-inspired aim.

Twenty-four were lawyers and jurists, eleven were merchants, and nine were farmers and large plantation owners. They were well educated, smart enough to know that by signing the Declaration of Independence, they were signing their own death warrants. They did it anyway, and God bless them for it.

As we enjoy our liberty on this 4th of July, or any day of any month, we must never take that liberty for granted. Too many have given too much. In the words of the Signers themselves, "For the support of this declaration, with firm reliance on the protection of the divine providence, we mutually pledge to each other, our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor."

Their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor -- I think that's a price paid worth a few minutes of reflection, don't you? But let's not be solemn in that reflection. I say rejoice and share this information with your friends and family, especially your kids. The Signers asked for nothing in return for their pledge, but I say that we show our thanks with a pledge of our own: To remember, to be grateful, and to carry on in their spirit. America is the greatest country this world has ever and will ever know, and it will stay that way so long as "we the people" remember that just like in 1776.

It's US that surrounds them, and we'll never back down.

Happy Independence Day, and God bless America.

Glenn"

Abusive Relationships

I'm going in a little different direction today, and this is aimed at abused men as well as women. No one ought to live a live as an abused partner. If one thinks about it, one might find a parallel of individual citizens and their government, but I'll leave you to make those connections, if there are any.

First, let me remind everyone that domestic abuse is a crime. Whether it is man on woman or woman on man, it is a crime. Don't ever forget that. If you are being abused by someone, they are committing a crime against you. Quit making excuses for them, because it is not your fault they are behaving this way. They bear the responsibility for being criminal, not you. You are powerless to control or change them, but you are not powerless to change your circumstances.

Not all abuse is physical. Mental abuse is just as bad, and perhaps worse. Bruises will heal, even broken bones will heal. A person's opinion of him-or-herself will be much harder to heal. What's done to a person's mind will never disappear. One learns to deal with it, but it doesn't ever go away. You may be wondering how I know. I have strong feelings about this from seeing two sisters be physically abused, to the point of broken bones and surgery, and seeing a child mentally abused.

What are some signs that your partner is abusive? How about these:

• Your partner is controlling and manipulative. That person may insist on choosing your clothing, your friends, your foods, your behavior. It's always for your own good, of course. There's always a plausible sounding reason. The bottom line is you are being trained to believe that the person knows what's best for you, and you are incompetent to make those decisions. He or she is saving you from being a disaster.



• Your partner has unpredictable mood swings. One minute you are being cuddled and the next, you are being pushed and shoved, emotionally or physically. You cannot ever come to depend on anything good that is going on, because it is always followed by something hurtful. This puts you in the position of being on edge at all times, never knowing what's coming next. Many people have mood swings, and that is not, in itself, the problem. The problem is when those mood swings are aimed at a partner, as described here.



• Your partner isolates you from friends and family. This is so insidious that at first many people don't realize what's happening. It can be very subtle, right up to the day you look around and realize that except for your partner, you are completely alone. This often causes a hopeless feeling, that there's no one who cares what's happened to you, or causes you, initially, to feel grateful that your partner has stayed with you and loves you. Your partner may have convinced you that you really aren't lovable and the only reason he or she has stayed with you is because of the partner's greatness, compassion and wonderful qualities.



• Your partner may use force against you. This starts with a push or a shove or a slap, usually, but may be a full out beating. Of course, the partner is always sorry, in the beginning. He or she may bring flowers, cook your favorite meal, give you jewelry, take you out on the town, and there are apologies all over, and promises that it will never happen again. The only way it will never happen again is if you escape that relationship, the majority of the time. In almost every case, unless a partner gets intervention and help, the first time will be the beginning of a life of abuse. Do not fall for the tears, the abject apologies and the gifts. Insist on counseling, or get out of the relationship.



• Your partner will almost certainly be verbally abusive. Initially, this may involve put downs and criticism, but it will escalate over time into much worse than belittling. You do not deserve this kind of treatment! People who love each other, normal people, do not do this to one another. This is not normal. I don't care where else you've seen it, or who else in your life has done it - parents, for example - it is not normal. It is abuse.



• Before the actual violence begins, there may be threats of violence. It's only a step away from the action of violence on you. Don't miss this warning sign. I'm not talking about when I say to my husband, "Stop that before I smack you." We both know I'm kidding. Neither of us would ever, ever, ever, hit the other. That is not the way to solve disputes. I'm talking about the menacing look, the raised hand or fist, the shove that either misses or pushes you into the wall. It isn't always accompanied by yelling and screaming. Some abusers are very calm as they tell you that if you ever look at another man/woman that way again they will slice you into pieces and throw the pieces in the trash can where a slut like you belongs. Yes, men can be referred to as sluts, or cheating, lying whores, too.

The bottom line is that an abuser tries to isolate the victim from all help, to be in total control, to frighten the victim into believing there is no one who would help someone as useless and worthless, to instill total dependence and hopelessness. Don't fall for it. There are things you can do. What are they?

• The very first thing you have to do is decide that you are going to do something. No, even before that, you have to admit that something needs to be done, then decide to do it.



• One place to start is the National Domestic Violence Hotline: 1-800-799-SAFE (7233) Memorize that number for the day you decide to use it.



• Make a safety plan. Most abusers are not going to let you just walk out the door. You must have a plan and a place to go, you must have resources to help you get there.



• Make a list of people you can trust for help, and their phone numbers. Be very careful with this list! Do not let it come to the attention of the abuser. Hide it as a list of things like the telephone numbers of people you would normally need to call, the school, the dry cleaner, the drug store. Don't just hide a list with names and numbers in a place you think the abuser will not find it. Abusers are very clever and they know their ownership of you depends on keeping you helpless. They will be looking for any clue that you plan to run. The safest thing is to memorize those names and numbers, or disguise them in plain sight.



• Make an emergency kit with money, medical cards, car keys, ID, medications, important papers, etc. Make sure it's somewhere you can get to quickly. Off the premises might be your safest bet, but wherever you put it, make sure your abuser isn't likely to stumble across it. Not in the tool box in your trunk if your abuser is likely to need to go in there to fix something. *Maybe* in the freezer wrapped in foil and labeled meatloaf. Be creative and think it through before you stow it somewhere.



• Above all, don't change your behavior! Once a decision is made, it tends to make us feel more secure, more in control, and this will show. Don't be nicer than you usually are. Don't be more sarcastic than you usually are. Try to change nothing about your behavior.

If your abuser becomes violent, there's a short list of things to do. It's better to run before the next time, but sometimes you can't. You may not be ready, you may not see it coming. Remember, the abuser is keeping you off balance at all times.

• Call the police or someone else, if you can. If you call the police, be ready to press charges. Some states now don't need the signed complaint from a victim in domestic violence. Pictures of the result of the abuse, or the testimony of the policeman who responds is enough in some states. They know that abused people are rarely able to sign a complaint after the emergency is over. The fear comes back and keeps an abused person from believing they can "get away" with signing a complaint. This is particularly true of men who are abused. They, even more than women, don't think anyone will believe them. They are typically much larger than the woman abusing them. Get over it. Call the police. Your life may depend on it.



• Grab your emergency kit and get out as soon as you can. Take your children with you. If they have not previously been abused, they will certainly be the target when you are gone.

Therein is the best reason to get out of an abusive relationship. If you have children, do you want them to grow up believing that all the abuse you have received is how a normal relationship progresses? Whether male or female, do you want them to believe that it is either okay to be abused, or it is okay to abuse someone else? Of course you don't!

The first time it happens, get out. Let it be the last time. Domestic Violence is a *pattern* of behavhior. Abusers are all clever liars, because they truly believe they will not do it again! For many of them, it is not a plan they have made. They think they are normal. They believe the things they say. This makes them the most dangerous kind of person. Let them go on believing. You get out and move on in your life.