Monday, October 28, 2013

I Fight


In Mark 14:44-50, at the time of his betrayal by Judas Iscariot and subsequent seizure, Jesus was surrounded by his disciples.  Get the picture.  The Living Word was betrayed while His followers not only stood by and allowed it but they fled. They ran. The scripture says, “Then they all forsook Him and fled.”

Similarly today, the Living Word is under attack.  Although it’s not a news flash, the irreligious fight to seize Christianity, lock it up, and nail it to the cross of public shame.  They strive to implant on the culture that being a Christian is silly and unpopular.

Now the question is do you believe that?  Will you run as the disciples did?  Is there any fight in you to defend what you say you believe?

I wrote the Prodigal Republican as a form of my own stand for my values.  I’ve been asked, why do you continue to scream into a culture that’s not listening?  No one cares about values anymore.  Moral Relativism is the order of the day, they say.  It has also been said, Revelation tells what the end will be-so why fight?  Well, I’m afraid to be found fleeing from my convictions. I’m afraid to allow encroachment of immorality on my watch. I’m afraid to not stand for the One who died for the remission of my sins.  I’m afraid to sit this one out. 

So in my fear to be counted a coward, I fight!

How do we fight, you ask?  As spoken to Solomon, the Lord says, “If my people who are called by my name would humble themselves and pray and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land.”[1]

We must return to being a nation of repentance and prayer.  Where Judeo-Christian values are undermined and under attack we must stand against it wherever we find it: in the public square, in the courthouse, in the city council chambers, in the state capital, and even in our own homes.  We must first pray, seek His face, then stand and fight.  Don’t flee.



[1] /              2 Chronicles 7:14 (NKJ)

Thursday, October 24, 2013

Its Bigger Than a Website Stupid


Photo Courtesy of www.thegatewaypundit.com
The grand wizard, President Obama, who repeatedly reminds the country that the Affordable Care Act is the law of the land, and it is, for some reason continues to market it as if he has to convince the American people to take his brand of socialized medicine.

Specifically, the Administration engaged the Baltimore Ravens on September 9, 2013 for the grand sum of $130,000 of taxpayer money to help market this fiasco in Maryland on TV, radio, and the social media.  It’s of note that the NFL declined to be a part of this marketing scheme.  Stay tuned for more taxpayer schemes from state to state to get Americans to sign up for what they should be screaming to sign up for-so we’re to believe.

Recall the Administration said 20+ million uninsured or underinsured Americans were screaming for affordable health insurance.  It’s a wonder why they have to do so much to convince Americans to buy it.  Could it be that Americans really don’t want socialized medicine and they see that such a system has failed in comparable societies around the globe?

To date, more than two weeks since the launch of the government website with a price tag in excess of $300 million, the AP only projects less than 500,000[1] by the end of October when the Administration needs about 7 million total enrollments (including 2.7 million healthy young people) by March 31, 2014 to carry the new paradigm. (By the way, this group of healthy young people is likely to bear the fine instead of paying the premium required by the ObamaCare plans. Good luck with that.).  The White House itself only boasts of 500,000 applications (not enrollments). So far, enrollment has been a colossal failure.   I’m not happy about that for those who want it and cannot register for it; the fact is the Administration has failed those who need government health insurance.

What’s more, there is currently no legislation, or more incorrectly, there is no executive order, to suspend the individual mandate and concomitant fine Americans will experience if they don’t register by the January 2014 date.  Once again, our president won’t negotiate on what should be common sense.  If you can’t enroll, delay the mandate.  (In case you haven’t paid attention the employer mandate has been suspended by executive order.  Yes, legislation has been delayed by the president, the executive branch, not the Congress.  For clarity, the president doesn’t have Constitutional authority to make or change laws he doesn’t like.)


Maybe some Americans heard what Pastor Rafael Cruz (Ted Cruz’ father) so passionately told me and an audience in Washington, DC recently.  He said, and I paraphrase, I supported Fidel Castro when he began the revolution in Cuba.  At that time, Castro ran on Hope and Change and I supported that.  At that time we had the best hospitals anywhere.  I ultimately fled Cuba for freedom after seeing what Hope and Change became and thank God I did.  Castro very quickly brought socialized medicine to Cuba and now you can’t even find an aspirin in those same hospitals.  The United States is going in the same direction and Americans don’t understand what is happening before their very eyes.  This country is the last place for freedom.  If we lose freedom here, there is nowhere else to go.  We must stop this!
My fellow Americans, don’t get hung up on a website that won’t yet work; understand the bigger picture.  Our president intends to move us to a single payer system (socialized medicine) with every single American in the government healthcare system. When that happens, the government will control your life.  That’s the plan; pay attention.  This is a utopia for those who are government entitlement-minded; it’s anathema for everyone else.
  



[1] /              http://www.forbes.com/sites/dandiamond/2013/10/20/can-white-house-hit-its-obamacare-goal-how-to-understand-new-data/

Friday, October 18, 2013

Shameful Loser Leads the Way



Photo courtesy of en.wikipedia.org
The aftermath of the McConnell-Reid debt ceiling face-off leaves the American people in shambles.  Screwed even.

The McConnell-Reid bill ends the government shutdown, gleefully funds the debacle of Obamacare and lifts the debt ceiling so the US can borrow itself further into debtor's hell.  We now learn that the bill also includes a $2 billion increase in the authorization for the Olmsted Lock and Dam project in Kentucky, Republican Senate Minority Leader McConnell’s home state.

Notwithstanding Mr. McConnell's years of advocacy to fund the dam project, he deflects criticism of this Kentucky Kickback and wants the American people to believe that his colleagues in the Senate, namely Feinstein and Alexander, are responsible for this coincidental gift to Kentucky that he claims is not connected to his vote to raise the debt ceiling.  Come on Mitch, you're for sale and now we all know it.

Is there no shame Loser McConnell?

Wednesday, October 16, 2013

Liar, Liar Pants on Fire!



Ordinary working Americans have to live within their financial means or risk defaulting on their debt.  Spending less than you earn is a basic principle except when you are spending taxpayer money it seems.

Congress disgusts me and the veil is falling from my eyes. Americans have allowed a class of elitists (Democrats and Republicans) to lord over us and to do back room deals for themselves to perpetuate their own largess while ignoring the American people.

Case in point.  A majority of the old guard Republican Party, Speaker John Boehner and Sen. John McCain included want us to believe they want to grow our economy, shrink the national debt and leave a better country for the next generation.  They talk a good game except when it comes to fighting for those ideas.  As soon as they come up against the Obama machine, they wilt and cave then they run for the hills while they pass on an already staggering debt to our children.

We now wait for our losers, I mean leaders to agree on giving this administration yet another trillion dollars to borrow from foreign nations so that our current national debt now in excess of $17 trillion can balloon even further.  This is insanity folks!   By every credible economist, this debt is unsustainable and they know it. 

Let’s read what a few of our liberal losers have said about raising the debt ceiling in times past (when they did not occupy the White House):

“If my Republican friends believe that increasing our debt by almost $800 billion today and more than $3 trillion over the last five years is the right thing to do, they should be upfront about it. They should explain why they think more debt is good for the economy. How can the Republican majority in this Congress explain to their constituents that trillions of dollars in new debt is good for our economy? How can they explain that they think it’s fair to force our children, our grandchildren, our great grandchildren to finance this debt through higher taxes. That’s what it will have to be. Why is it right to increase our nation’s dependence on foreign creditors?”


They should explain this. Maybe they can convince the public they’re right. I doubt it. Because most Americans know that increasing debt is the last thing we should be doing. After all, I repeat, the Baby Boomers are about to retire. Under the circumstances, any credible economist would tell you we should be reducing debt, not increasing it. Democrats won’t be making arguments to support this legislation, which will weaken our country. Weaken our county.”[1] (Sen. Harry Reid, 2006)


“We just can’t give a blank check over and over and over again to this administration.” (Rep. Nancy Pelosi, 2004)


“Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. Therefore I intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.”[2] (Sen. Barack Obama 2006)

Really?  Ok.  So now it’s clear.  This is just a game folks and we, the American people, are losing.  Be careful who you listen to; you might actually believe what you hear.   


[2] /              http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/10/09/obama_s_2006_debt_ceiling_speech.html

Monday, October 7, 2013

Prayer on the Chopping Block-Again


“Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country.” These few words uttered 51 years ago in an invocation approved by the New York State Board of Regents ignited the flame that now slowly burns away religious freedom in America today.

On June 25, 1962, the United States Supreme Court in Engel v. Vitale found that by using its public school system to encourage [voluntary] recitation of the Regents’ prayer, the State of New York adopted a practice wholly inconsistent with the Establishment Clause under the First Amendment and is therefore unconstitutional.
This decision ostensibly banned government-endorsed prayer from public schools and is the seminal case that has led this country to deny religious freedom at every turn and growls that where a religious expression offends a nonbeliever, “Silence it.”

Justice Potter Stewart wrote the dissent in the Engel case properly interpreting, in my opinion, the Framer’s intent behind the Establishment Clause which was that the federal government shall not make (establish) a state religion.  Stewart said, “I think to deny the wish of these school children to join in reciting this prayer is to deny them the opportunity of sharing in the spiritual heritage of our Nation.”

The fight for religious freedom (or separation of church and state as some call it) will continue as the Supreme Court takes up legislative prayer in its 2013-14 session commencing next week with Town of Greece v. Galloway.

Town of Greece is a big Establishment Clause case.  In this case, the city’s practice of opening its council meetings with ceremonial prayer offered by volunteer chaplains-Christian and non-Christian, scheduled on a first-come, first-served basis- is being challenged. It is the first to reach the court since Marsh v. Chambers.  This case could redefine the role or expression of religion in public including the constitutionality of the “In God We Trust” motto on the U.S. currency, prayers at presidential inaugurations, and the Supreme Court’s opening statement “God save the United States and this Honorable Court.”

In the Town of Greece case, Susan Galloway argues that the ceremonial (often Christian) prayers pressure participation and promote Christianity which then offends those who are not Christian.  The District Court sided with the Town of Greece finding no evidence that non-Christians were excluded or coerced to participate in the prayers.

On appeal, the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that the prayers were in fact unconstitutionally sectarian in nature (religious) and established Christian beliefs and religion in the town. The court of appeal applied the endorsement test;[1] the test asks whether a hypothetical reasonable observer would subjectively feel that government is endorsing religion.

In addition to the endorsement test, the Supreme Court uses The Lemon Test[2] and the coercion test[3] to determine whether there is a violation of the Establishment Clause from certain governmental actions. Many scholars believe that the endorsement test is alien to the original intent of the Establishment Clause and as such the coercion test should be applied in Town of Greece.

Most of the cases deciding the constitutionality of a law under the Establishment Clause are set in the context of public schools and have cut against religious expression.  The only legal precedent that exists for legislative prayer is Marsh v. Chambers.  

In Marsh v. Chambers (1983), legislative prayer in Congress [became] the touchstone of what the Establishment Clause allows, and [the court] held that legislative prayer is constitutional unless the prayer opportunity is exploited to proselytize one faith, intentionally aggressively advocate one faith, or disparage other faiths. There is no broad prohibition on effectively advancing religion, since all prayers by their very nature advance religion to some degree.” [4]

The contemporary, public opinion-led Supreme Court of today will have to decide whether or not it agrees with Chief Justice Burger who wrote in Marsh, “In light of the unambiguous and unbroken history of more than 200 years, there can be no doubt that the practice of opening legislative sessions with prayer has become part of the fabric of our society. To invoke Divine guidance on a public body entrusted with making the laws is not, in these circumstances, an "establishment" of religion or a step toward establishment; it is simply a tolerable acknowledgment of beliefs widely held among the people of this country.”

Let’s see if the court still holds this view so eloquently stated by Justice Burger.  If the court bans legislative prayer, the nation will move one step closer to annihilating the public expression of religious freedom.  If this happens and you are a person of faith who voted for President Obama, you may want to take a personal interest in the future of religious freedom that may hinge on future appointments to the Nation’s federal courts and think long and hard before you cast your vote in the 2016 presidential election.  Your vote matters.






[1] /              The endorsement test was derived in Lynch v. Donnelly (1984) by Justice O’Connor and supplanted the prior test derived in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971).
[2] /              The Lemon Test states for a law to be considered constitutional under the Establishment Clause, (1) the law must have a legitimate secular purpose, (2) must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion, and (3) also must not result in an excessive entanglement of government and religion.
[3] /         Formulated by Justice Kennedy in Lee v. Weisman (1992), the test finds coercion occurs when: (1) the government directs (2) a formal religious exercise (3) in such a way as to oblige the participation of objectors.
[4] /         http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/10/symposium-time-to-restore-longstanding-meaning-and-sanity-to-the-establishment-clause-in-town-of-greece-v-galloway/.