I saw two movies this weekend depicting the life of Christ, Christopher Spencer's Son of God and Johnny Cash's Gospel Road.  I found Gospel Road to be the most moving,  It portrayed Jesus as fully man, joyfully experiencing the glory that is life on earth.  He and his crew of merry men jest and laugh and joke as they travel the dusty roads of the Holy Land.  He builds sand castles with children and blows blurpie bubbles on their bellies and makes them laugh.  We sense the joy he experiences while fishing, sharing a meal, loving his companions..  By contrast, the Jesus in Son of God is removed, ethereal throughout.  . He watches with detached amusement as Peter hauls in the fish, The film fails to capture the joy Jesus must have felt, the love he felt for those who walked with him. The cinematography of the Son of God was stunning, the sweeping panoramas of the Holy Land, the Sea of Galilee, The Sermon on the Mount made me once again ache to visit Israel,  I liked the intense close ups that draws the viewer into the scene.....until the end.  Those final Crucifixion scenes were much to graphic to be spiritually moving. The mind can imagine a horror more vividly than the bloodiest picture, The imagined whip, the sound of the hammer hitting the nail, the suggested torture is much more moving than the gory details Spencer incorporated into his film. The viewer walks away repulsed rather than uplifted.   

Condoleezza Rice: A negative roll model?

            The faculty council  at Rutgers university passed a resolution that would prevent  Condoleezza Rice from speaking at commencement.  Their reason?  She mislead the American people about the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and  condoned waterboarding as an interrogation technique. 
          But  they would accept Hillary Clinton.  Apparently blasting suspected enemies with drones, taking out the "enemy" and accepting additional deaths as unavoidable collateral damage, is more humane than scaring them by pouring water over their faces.
          "Being  a commencement speaker both conveys honor on her service and offers her as a role model for our students. Rutgers can do better."  Besides   "Condolezza Rice has no office."    
             Shouldn't Hillary's misleading the American people about Benghazi give them pause?  "We're historians.  We wait two to three hundred years to pass judgment." 

McCain Embarrassed Again.

       I have long admired Senator John McCain, his service, his survival, his dedication to country, but more often than not, lately I just want to spank him.  I watched the CSPAN discussion yesterday about a  House appropriations bill that would provide  a billion dollars of economic assistance to Ukraine. The problem in the Senate is that the White House tacked on a measure that would reform the International Monetary Fund. Republicans say the measure decreases U.S. influence with the IMF.  They also object because part of the cost of implementing the IMF measures would further cut U.S. military accounts.

       Senator Rubio said, "I won’t support flawed legislation that is divisive and actually undermines our efforts to provide quick support to the Ukrainian people in their hour of need." Rubio is right. Bills should be clean and purposeful, but they often become an amorphous glob of tacked on agendas as they work their way through committees and congress.

       Senator McCain issued a long tirade, refused to address the IMF issue at the core of the argument and  made it sound as though his colleagues were refusing to come to the aid of the Ukraine. "I will say to my friends….You can call yourself Republicans. That's fine, because that's your voter registration.   Don't call yourself Reagan Republicans. Ronald Reagan would never, would never let this kind of aggression go unresponded to by the American people."

       Now I know nothing about the IMF issue and understand little about what’s happening in the Ukraine, but I understand words and their meanings, and for McCain to dishonestly warp the discussion to make it seem as though Rubio and Cruz are the ones at fault is offensive.  Pass a clean, honest bill for a change.

       McCain once again says he has “never before been so embarrassed by members of his own party.”  I could say I have never before been so embarrassed by my dear senator, but then I remember how he lambasted Senator Cruz for shutting down the government. 

      It was, of course, the  Democrats and our president who shut down the government.  Republicans offered compromise after compromise.  Democrats refused to move an inch, and now look at the mess they left us. 

          The pièce de la résistance of the McCain tirade was his announcement that would leave the chambers after his speech because he already knew what the “gentleman from Georgia” would say and he wasn’t inclined to listen to him.  He tossed a bomb and left the room.  Democrats do that to me all the time.  Go figure.  Maybe he’s a Democrat. 

       Congratulations to the Freedom Library. The time we spend with Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry was delightfully entertaining and instructive. And the debate rages on. How do we create a more perfect union, a system of self-governance for people who, although “noble in reason, infinite in faculties,” are so wretchedly imperfect? Our founders faced a challenge that no other leaders had ever cared to face.
         “Patrick Henry” and Bill Bubbert argued for a return to the Articles of Confederation.  They admired it for its inefficiency.  I was quite convinced.   A federal government so loosely held together could not have become the behemoth that threatens us today at every juncture.
          In the end, I was swayed by arguments made by “Thomas Jefferson” and Mark Greenough defending the constitution.  Jefferson’s pivotal claim?  The Articles were “Godless.” The fact that our rights are endowed by our creator makes all the difference.  Abraham Lincoln’s arguments for emancipation would not have had teeth or legs under the Articles of Confederation.
           The other fault of the Articles is that they are based on a faulty idea, that man is essentially good and did not need much government to manage affairs. Jefferson understood that man was not essentially good, and that given a chance, given the power, given the opportunity, he would walk all over the rights of others.
          The balance of powers built into the constitution was devised to prevent that from happening.  No one can be trusted with power, so one’s ambition must be held in check by another’s ambition. Likewise, the ambitions of each branch of government were to be held in check by the other branches.  It was ingenious, a delicate balance.  The only problem with the constitution is that we have not been vigilant.  And you say, “Oh no!  Not that again.”
             But it has to be said again.  Jefferson and Madison and Franklin and Washington and Mason and Wythe, all of them,  gave us a government by the people, and they hoped that we would remain an informed and attentive people.  They kept it simple because they knew that a “country swimming in laws would be drowning in corruption.” They wrote 2 pages of laws.  Now the EPA codicil alone numbers 25,000 pages of laws.
         We have been much too involved in bread and circuses and have let their carefully crafted vision nearly drown in excrement.
It was great fun.  Thanks.

May 16, 2012

The UN the UNmoral Authority

       On September 3, 2013, group of United Nations “independent experts” called on the United State to finalize the ongoing review of the Trayvon Martin case citing us for discrimination and racial profiling, violating the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.

          Are you kidding me? What other nation in the world has done more than the United States to protect and defend the rights of minorities?  The UN is certainly not calling Assad to account not for slaughtering a thousand of his own people?  Are they calling Egypt to account for slaughtering Coptic Christians, burning and looting their churches?  Look at the abuses across the globe, in Nigeria, North Korea, China, Vietnam, and Pakistan.

         In ignoring genocide in all corners of the world, 2,000,000 in Cambodia, another million in Darfur, hundreds of thousands in Communist China and millions under Stalin’s hammer in the Soviet Union, the UN long ago lost its moral authority to interfere in our affairs.     

       When our leaders talk about “The New World Order” or “One World Government,” I am chilled to the bone considering the consequences.

September 3, 2013

Politicized Global Warming

             Two articles in The Yuma Sun this week suggest that the winds of change might be brewing.  The first was Wednesday’s story about the Dutch king’s sayonara to the 20^th century welfare society.  He’s looking toward a “participation society” where people take responsibility for their own future and create safety nets at a local level responding more realistically to the needs of the people.  Sounds like what our founders intended, doesn’t it?

               The Dutch have faced two truths, first that the classic welfare state is unsustainable.  More importantly, they discovered what the Romans learned all too late:  that dependence on government empties the body politic of its soul, its spirit. 

               On September 20, The Sun reported that the climate change theists at the UN are wrestling with disconcerting data.  Although we are pumping exponentially more “greenhouse gases” into the atmosphere, the earth has been experiencing a cooling trend since 1998.  (“Is global warming slowing down?”)

               The “scientists” managed to overlook Vice President Gore’s fake hockey stick trick, but this information cannot be ignored.  The fact that the dilemma was reported by the Associated Press suggests that conventional wisdom may finally catch up with real science. 

               Ten years ago Israeli astrophysicist Nir Shaviv mapped the path that our solar system travels through the spiral arms of the galaxy, and Canadian geologist Jan Veizer plotted 500 years of climate change. The pair of scientists discovered an exact correlation.  Apparently the inflow of cosmic rays affects variations in earth’s temperatures. 

               American Thinker columnist Raymond Richman suggests that an anthrocentric view of the universe appeals to man’s vanity, so it takes a long time for academia and the general public to come to terms with another explanation.  Galileo was under house arrest for the rest of his life for his disrupting the notion that earth was the center of the universe. 

               I guess we can be thankful that Shaviv and Veizer were not imprisoned or executed for publishing their heretical findings.  You might remember, however, that Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell did threaten to ostracize climate skeptics in her department.  When science is politicized, government becomes a dangerous force.

               Maybe we are awakening from the fog after all. 

September 21, 2013

Prayer, the Most Radical Act of the Tea Party

            I didn’t think the Vincenzo Torrecelli’s letter (“IRS should pay attention to organizations,” Yuma Sun, May 27, 2013) merited a response.  His “what are they hiding” comment showed that he has absolutely no understanding of the IRS issue. The IRS exerted partisan pressures to stifle voices of the opposition.  No thinking American would applaud their actions, not one.  

               His suggesting it’s Tea Party members who “scream nonsense and disrupt meetings” shows that he’s not paying attention.  The screamers and the burners and the bombers are the progressive groups like Occupy Wall Street and Code Pink.  The most disruptive, radical activity at Tea Party meetings is prayer.

               The most radical concern of the nation’s Tea Parties is the national debt.  Every child in this country is born chained to a $60,000 debt before it takes its first breath.  Our national debt increases by $3,000,000,000 every day.  Our legislators have betrayed the American people.  They buy votes with the blood of the next generation.  It’s criminal.  They make promises that my little Reia Ann will have to keep.    

               Because I recognized that Vincenzo, proud American that he is, understands very little about the idea of America, I wasn’t going to respond to his diatribe.  However, my friend Marlene nagged me about it, so here it is.

               What is “juvenile,” Mr. Torrecelli, is that we have contented ourselves with our toys and distractions while Washington sells us down the river.  What is juvenile is that we fall prey to their hypnotic mantras about much they care, hoping we’ll be content with their crumbs while they feather their Dachau nests,  sip Pernod-Ricard Perrier-Jouet and nibble on Italian truffles.   What’s juvenile is to accept the generosity of thieves, and that is what we’ve wrought among the criminal classes in Washington D.C.

               Thanks, Marlene.  That was therapeutic

May 29, 20103

Biblical Capitalism

               The message of so many cartoons, like the December 6, 2013’s  “The Mighty Pen,” feed into blatant falsehoods about liberals.  It suggests, first of all that liberal public policies are more Christ-like because they “care about the poor.”  If liberals cared about the poor, they would give more of their personal income to help them.  Every study shows that as a percentage of income conservatives contribute 3 times as much to charitable causes.  Liberals want to take our money to contribute to their causes, but they are shamefully reluctant to contribute their own. A classic example:  Joe Biden gives 1.3 per cent of his income to charity; Mitt Romney gives 29 per cent. 

               The cartoon also uses the image of Christ on the cross to suggest that socialism is Biblical.  The truth is that capitalism is Biblical.  It is true that love of money is condemned, but over and over again the gathering of wealth is applauded.  Jesus himself praised the servant who profitably invested his money and called the one who didn’t profit wicked and lazy.   Hundreds of passages in the Bible reflect capitalist principles like Proverbs 13:4: “The sluggard craves and gets nothing, while the diligent are richly supplied.”        

               Capitalism is a founding principle in the Bible, especially as it relates to property rights.  In Genesis:  ”Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.“  In Exodus:  “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house … nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.”  Economic justice is best achieved when each person is accountable for his own actions.

               As I sit at my computer writing this I can hear James Sefcak:  “Pure capitalism produces greedy monopolies that bleed the poor.” But James, it’s the government that creates the monopolies.  The problem is caused by the government’s getting in bed with capital and forcing competition out of the market place, the government deciding which entrepreneurs should succeed. Left to itself, the free market neutralizes greed, balancing selfish desires with the needs of those with whom they wish to do business. Capitalism reaps benefits.  Government greed leads to debauchery.  

               The story of the Tower of Babel is a clear statement about God’s attitude toward big government.  In order to prevent the clans from gathering together under one government, God confused the languages of the people and caused them to scatter across the earth. That story, as well as many more throughout the Bible, support economic freedom for another reason, recognizing the strengths as well the weaknesses of human nature and the limits of human knowledge.  No one can know enough to know how to manage complex societies and economies, and those who think they do always, always, become tyrants.   Families and clans that gather in smaller groups tend to rely on one another and their faith in God, and they prosper. 

               But we don’t need to look at the Bible for answers regarding economic truths; the evidence is historical, empirical, indisputable, the freer the people the healthier the culture.  The classic example is the Roman republic.  Governed by their much lauded virtues, manliness, piety, and reverence, the country flourished.  Their representative democracy, like ours, was designed to be inefficient, incapable of interfering in domestic affairs.  But the natural order of things is for hard fought freedoms to yield and governments to grow.  They promise us beautiful things, perpetual peace, a fuller life, abundance for all, “by robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul.”  So the Roman Republic became an empire and imploded.

               Rudyard Kipling said it well:  “As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man. There are only four things certain since Social Progress began. That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire, and the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire.”

               Not this time.  This time we learn the lessons of Peter 2:16 and “Live as free men.”

December 13, 2013

Atheists Fear of Religious Symbols

             Once again the Freedom From Religion group is on the warpath.  They want “In God We Trust” eliminated from our coinage.  I have long pondered the attitude of atheists, thought that were I an atheist, crosses and creches would arouse my humor, not my gall.  I would smile and shake my head in wonder that so many people can believe in such hogwash, and I would go merrily on my way, safe in the knowledge that I had not been so duped.

           But Atheists cannot go merrily on their way.  They feel compelled to fight every symbol to the death, ban them from market place to hillside. It has always puzzled me.  Why do they care?   Why do they protest so vehemently.

           Then I read a meditation on Psalm 63 that served as something of an epiphany.  Perhaps the Psalmist speaks truth.  “O God, earnestly I seek you; my soul thirsts for you; my flesh faints for you, as a dry and weary land yearns for water.”  

        Perhaps the core of every cell in our bodies is imprinted with a thirst for God, a hunger to know the almighty.  Perhaps those cell walls are our intellect, our noble reason proudly resisting.  “Silly, how could Jonah have been swallowed by a whale and lived to tell the story?  How could the blare of Joshua’s trumpet have felled the walls of Jericho?”

            Perhaps reason manages to quiet that thirst to know God, but those religious symbols destroy the peace, reawaken that longing.  They must be banned lest the atheist fall into the humble pit of faith. 

Not So Newsy News Conference

       President Obama held a news conference.  And newsy it was.  He has already cut the deficit by 2.5 trillion dollars.  I am so relieved.  Not! 

The president assured the press club that he had done everything in his power to resolve the Sequester problem but that the recalcitrant Republicans refuse to have a serious discussion. He has offered serious spending cuts. “I’ve made a deal with certain numbers,”

       But he has not.  He has said he is willing to cut if the Republicans agree to more tax increases, but he has specified absolutely no cuts of his own.  He says he is willing to take on entitlement reform if the Republicans agree to more tax increases, but he has not offered a single entitlement reform plan. He confessed to the press club that he didn’t “want to make himself perfectly clear,” and that is true on a myriad of issues and certainly on the budget issue.  It was perhaps the only honest statement he made today.

       No.  That’s not true.  He did report that the Boehner had offered to cut tax loopholes two months ago, and that it true.  What he doesn’t tell you is that Boehner traded that deal for the biggest tax hike in 20 years and a promise to cut spending. President Obama has not, and will not offer a deal until the Republicans cave on more tax hikes, and I hope to God they will not.  Republicans have played Charlie Brown way to often on that empty promise.

       CNN Chief White House Correspondent Jessica Yellin smiled so charmingly as she asked the president why he didn’t just refuse to allow the Republicans to leave the room before they made a deal.  How cute was that?  Perhaps she should have asked why the Republicans didn’t refuse to let the President get on Air Force 1 yet again and again for another campaign trip unless he and the Democrats offered a serious deal. We’ve been waiting three years for them to propose a plan.

       He assured the press club that, setting aside the budget problems, he is making progress with congress.  They have passed the Violence Against Women Act. (Now I don’t know what that was all about, but I think we have thousands of laws regarding violence muddying up the congressional record as it is.)  

       He boasts that he is making progress with gun laws (most or all of which are unconstitutional), and is working on immigration legislation (his attempt to block Marco Rubio’s excellent proposal and destroy the possibility of resolving the problem.  It’s obvious the president doesn’t really want immigration reform.  He’s beholding to the unions.  He just wants to create a bluster and trick the Hispanics into further solidifying their vote.)

           He does have high hopes, however, that the Republicans will get over their partisan snit and kneel to kiss his ring.  

President Obama, Professor of Constitution? Which One?

             I long suspected that President Obama’s appointment as an adjunct professor of constitution was a sham, a staging prop for his political ambitions.  Now I am convinced.   His commencement speech at Ohio State is definite evidence of the fact that he does not understand, and perhaps has never read anything dealing with the founding.

             He told the students to reject the voices that say that government is the source of the problems that beset us, voices that warm us that tyranny is just around the corner, voices that say "we cannot be trusted." 

              The founders all knew that tyranny is always just around the corner.  How could he not know that?  Did he read Thomas Paine? "Government is a necessary evil."  And “The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government."

              Did he read Benjamin Franklin:  "We've given you a Republic, if you can keep it."  Did he read George Washington: “Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. And force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." 

           Did he read John Adams?  "The jaws of power are always open to devour, and her arm is always stretched out, if possible, to destroy the freedom of thinking, speaking, and writing." And those powerful jaws are devouring us, taking “from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned” (Thomas Jefferson).  We can no longer call terrorism terrorism, but it is justifiable to all Christians “incredibly well funded gangs of fundamentalist monsters.” 

           Barack’s warnings were the absolute antitheses of philosophical foundations of The United States of America.  It is incumbent on our citizenry to always have a healthy distrust of government.  Now I am not suggesting armed rebellion, although Thomas Jefferson did say that without a revolution every twenty years we would be in danger of tyranny. 

             I am suggesting, however, that politicians who tell people to trust them and “reject other voices” are the most dangerous kind and should be greatly feared, politicians who think they are the only ones with the right answers, politicians who warn that if they can’t get their programs passed through congress they’ll do it through executive order.  Samuel Adams warned us of that.  "If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin."

                George Washington also envisioned a country in ruins, but his warnings were of a different stripe: that our government depended on a moral and religious citizenry.  He didn't specify a religion, but he said over and over again that when we lose the notion that our rights are given us by God, we are in danger of losing our liberty.  "I agree to this Constitution ... and I believe, further, that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other."  

Voter Fraud

               John Beisner (“Voter Laws don’t make sense” Yuma Sun, January 26, 2014) cites the Presidential Commission on Election Administration to substantiate his claim that the incidence of voter fraud in the United States is inconsequential.  What he fails to tell you is that it was not the intent of the commission to investigate such “partisan issues as voter fraud.”

                The Commission was responding to complaints about the antiquated and cumbersome voting process.  Their investigation hoped to bring “efficiency to voting and devise pragmatic solutions for better "customer service."

               Greg Abbot, the Attorney General of Texas has convicted 50 people voter fraud. At least 46 states have achieved such convictions. Now Mr. Beisner is scoffing:  “Fifty votes.  Big deal!”  However, Abbot points out that, because these cases are hard to detect, what few we manage to prosecute are just the “tip of the iceberg.”

               Most of us remember the Cincinnati woman who bragged on national television about voting 6 times. An investigation into that case showed that 19 other people in Harrison County had also voted several times, and when interviewed they insisted that it was not voter fraud.  Their attitude was “What’s the problem?  Of course we vote as many times as we can.” 

The Ohio Secretary of State concluded that many Ohio counties have more registered voters than residents. Close to 3 million Americans are registered to vote in more than one state. Many states have found selecting juries to be problematic because they find so many names drawn from voter registration rolls have to be disqualified for lack of citizenship. There are over 1.8 million dead people registered to vote in this country and Eric Holder has refused to let the states purge the rolls.

               I take Mr. Beisner’s assertion that voter laws will suppress the vote, “especially those who would tend to vote Democrat” as an admission that most voter fraud is perpetrated by those in his party.  I certainly remember the election of 1960.  Voter fraud in both Illinois and Texas was rampant and indisputable.  Few have much respect for Richard Nixon, but I respect him for refusing to “tear the country apart” by calling for the investigation that leaders of his party insisted on.

               Just as it is bigotry to hold minority children to less rigorous standards, it is bigotry to suggest that some citizens aren’t capable of managing the simple details required by voter identification laws.  One must have identification to do almost anything: get working papers, a marriage license, rent a dwelling, get a credit card, rent a post office box, get insurance.

                As Christopher Paslay says, those truly interested in helping people better their lives, ”navigate and participate in 21^st century society,”  would do everything to help them get proper identification.

Real Nation Debt Double the Wealth of the Entire World.

             James Sefcak, (Tea party to blame for shutdown, Yuma Sun, 10/8/) do you really think we should let our government continue to add another trillion dollars of debt every year?  How can anyone demonize a group of Americans intent on forcing our government to be more fiscally responsible?                      Perhaps you don’t understand the concept of 17 trillion dollars.  Think of it this way.  A million seconds ago was some time last Thursday.  A billion seconds ago was some time in 1971.  A trillion seconds ago was is some time in 32,000 B.C.  We have already left our grandchildren 17 trillion dollars in debt.  Counting unfunded mandates, we've left them $220,000,000,000,000.  The wealth of the entire world is estimated to be 110 trillion.

               How much are you willing to add to that debt before something is done? 

A Government that Takes Care of Us Shackles Us.

               I certainly agree with James Sefcak (“Government Responsible for People,” Yuma Sun, November 17, 2013) that our health care system has bogged us down in incredible debt and made health care exorbitantly expensive.  What he does not understand, however, is that the clumsy way in which the federal government inserted itself into the health care industry 65 years ago actually created the problem.  He is misguided in his belief that more government involvement would cure the ills that that the government created.  But that’s an argument for another day. 

               What is most disturbing about Mr. Sefcak’s letter is his assertion that it is the responsibility of the federal government to “take care of us.”  The founders of this country were astute students of history.  Their writings reflect that they knew The Bible and studied every great thinker from Herodotus and Liu Xiang to Thomas Aquinas, Voltaire, John Locke, and Iroquois Tribal Law. A key lesson they learned was that in order to protect the rights and freedoms of citizens, governmental powers must be severely limited. They knew that “the natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground,” an evolution that inevitably leads to tyranny.  When we depend on a government to take care of our needs, we become slaves to the ruling classes.

               Now James will probably say, “Well, the founding fathers, and certainly those primordial ancients, know nothing about the modern world.”  True, they didn’t know about tweeting and twerking.  They did, however, have a unique understanding of some important truths about the human heart.  They knew the intrusive and arbitrary evils wrought by consolidation of power. They knew that all men were vulnerable to greed and an insatiable lust for power.  For this reason they carefully divided and limited the powers of the federal government.

               Apparently when Ben Franklin exited Constitution Hall after 116 days grueling days of intense debate, a woman asked him, “What kind of government did you give us?”  “A republic,” he said, “if you can keep it.”  He predicted our descent into despotism. He, like eighteenth century historian Alexander Tytler, understood the self-destructive cycle of democratic behavior: From bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back into bondage.

 Our politicians get us to vote for them promising to “care for us,” but every law they pass feathers their own nests at our expense.  .  We used to have a strong middle class.  It’s shrinking.  Soon we’ll be like other socialist nations, the ruling classes living in seclusion in their elaborate seaside dachas while the rest us, mobs of the underclass, huddle in crowded public housing developments grateful for the crumps left for us in our feeding troughs.   

               Norman Thomas said, “The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism.  But, under the name of 'Liberalism', they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation without knowing how it happened.  I no longer need to run as a Presidential Candidate for the Socialist Party.  The Democrat Party has adopted our platform.” 

               Is there a way we can derail this train?

The Founders and Religious Freedom

               Isaac Salutius (“Government can’t dictate religion,” Yuma Sun, March 27, 2013) is, of course, correct when he points out that the phrase “In God We Trust” first appeared on American coins late in the 19^th century. The United States Mint was an independent agency until that time when it became a part of the US Treasury.  He is wrong, however, in suggesting that those words run afoul of the Founding Fathers’ intent.  The one thing that the founders held in common was the belief that religion was a central component of the life of the republic.

               Thomas Jefferson said, “God who gave us life, gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God?” John Hancock: " Continue steadfast and, with a proper sense of your dependence on God, nobly defend those rights which heaven gave, and no man ought to take from us."  John Adams: “Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." George Washington: “Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly implore His protection and favor."

               I am not on “a crusade against atheists.” I absolutely respect the people’s right to worship or not worship as they please.  However, atheists do not have the right to limit our religious expression; and, as I previously said, I am confounded by their lack of tolerance.  Our constitution is dedicated to the notion that government “shall not prohibit the free exercise of religion.” We all should feel free to exercise our religious rights at all times and in all places.   

               I hold with Calvin Coolidge who said “Our government rests upon religion. It is from that source that we derive our reverence for truth and justice, for equality and liberality, and for the rights of mankind. There are only two main theories of government in our world. One rests on righteousness and the other on force. One appeals to reason, and the other appeals to the sword. One is exemplified in the republic; the other is represented by despotism.”

               Darrell Scott, who lost his daughter at Columbine, touched our hearts when he said, “What has happened to us as a nation? We have refused to honor God, and in so doing, we open the doors to hatred and violence.”

Democrats are Hypocrites

              Phillip Smith told William Hadley that Letters to the Editor were “not a good place to pontificate on 160 years of history.  However, most of the responses to Hadley’s article illustrate that we do need to get some lessons in history someplace. 

               Mr. Smith says that the “Lincoln Douglas debates give better insight into Lincoln’s beliefs” suggesting, I guess, that Lincoln was not the abolitionist we think.  A lot of college professors like to leave the impression that the Civil War was not about slavery, but about economics.  The Lincoln Douglas debates, however, are all about slavery, a continuation of the arguments posed by Thomas Jefferson in the original Declaration of Independence where he decried the Kings determination “to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold.”

               In one debate, Lincoln commented on the quote, “You work and toil and earn bread, and I’ll eat it,” saying “No matter what shape it comes, whether from the mouth of a king who seeks to bestride the people of his own nation and live by the fruit of their labor, or from one race of men as an apology for enslaving another race, it is the same tyrannical principle.”  In another, he said, “We think it wrong.”  In another: “We think it is a moral, and social and a political wrong.” In another:  “It as an evil.”  In no debate did Lincoln recoil from his abolitionist stand.

               Mr. Smith also criticizes Mr. Hadley for forgetting about the Blue Dog Democrats suggesting they played a role in the Civil Rights movement.  The Blue Dog coalition was formed in 1994 and their preamble describes their mission to be, like the present day Tea Parties’, dedicated to the financial stability and national security of the country.    

               And Yes, Mr. Zack, I do think Democrats are hypocrites.  Both Lyndon Johnson and John F. Kennedy fought tooth and nail against the Civil Rights act of 1954, but by 1962 they could see the writing on the wall.  They knew their cause was lost, so they finally took up the fight of the party of Lincoln and have since then pretended to be champions of minorities.  Lyndon Johnson famously said, “I’ll have those _____s voting Democratic for the next 200 years.”

               But the Democrats are not the champions of minorities; they are promoting a permanent underclass.  “Vote for us and we’ll give you everything you need, food, shelter, health care, mobile phones.  Enslave yourselves to your new masters and you’ll never again have to worry about taking care of yourselves.  We’ll do that for you.”

               Republicans know better.  We have respect for all men.  We truly believe that all men are created equal and have the right to the fruits of their labor.   We have compassion for the worker and his right to his wealth.  We also have compassion for the truly indigent.  Research shows that charitable contributions by conservatives almost doubles that of liberals.  Nicolas Kristoff admits, “We liberals are the nation’s compassionate tightwads.”  

Heredia Slinging Mud about Voter Fraud

           With regard to Luis Heredia “Election Law Targets Democrats favors Republicans” (AZ Republic July 1, 2013) I don’t know how Arizona’s HB 2305 can favor Republicans.  It prohibits volunteers from any political organization, that’s both Republican and Democrat, from picking up early voter ballots and taking them to the polls.  I have worked the polls and know that members of political organizations drop over 50 ballots at a time in the box at the polls.  There is no record of where they came from or who is authorized to deliver them.  I would think that both Democrats and Republicans would be concerned about truing the vote, unless it’s an open admission that it’s only Democrats that do it.

             Heredia also accused Arizona of having antiquated precinct restriction.  In the last election, voters could vote at any precinct which is one of the reasons that lines were so long.  Poll workers had to have ballots from every precinct to be sure all comers could vote.  It was awkward, expensive, and time consuming, but there were certainly no restrictions.

               Heredia also sees the new law as evidence of Arizona’s “dark history of discrimination.”  It’s the Democratic Party that has the dark history of discrimination.  Republicans have been pushing for voter rights for generations while Democrats have insisted on all manner of restrictions like poll taxes and literacy tests in their attempt to deny the vote.

              As is true of so many pundits on the left, Luis Heredia turns out accusation after accusation, failing to cite evidence in support even one. He subscribes to the rhetorical camp that recommends, “Sling the mud.  Something might stick.”

Dick Durbin's lapse of memory

             Dick Durbin, U.S. Senator from Illinois, laid thick and heavy praise on Obama’s staff laying out a clear vision for conflict in Syria.  He said the distinction between the 2003 Iraq war and the case in Syria is clear.  There is a moral component in what President Obama is proposing. The use of biological weapons is a clear red line.  By comparison, he claims that in the 2003 war President Bush committed a “mortal political sin” by lying to the American people about the weapons of mass destruction. 

             Durbin credits himself with a long memory, but apparently he forgot that Saddam Hussein attempted genocide using biological weapons on the Kurdish populations in Iraq killing 5,000 and injuring another 10,000. According to the August 21^st report, perhaps 650 were killed in Syria.

             He probably also forgot Saddam Hussein violated the agreements he signed at the end of the 1991 Persian Gulf War. U.N. inspectors we supposed to periodically inspect sites suspected of concealing weapons of mass destruction.  For 12 years Saddam refused access.  What was he hiding? Apparently not weapons of mass destruction, but he clearly pretended to have them. 

           The “Mortal Sin” is that we keep sending people like Dick Durbin to Washington over and over again.  They lose sight of truth and honor.  They've forgotten how to work and produce. They have lost any sense of fairness and honesty. We have been stupid to scrimp and sacrifice in order to provide them with their luxurious life style, their sumptuous benefits, and their golden retirement parachute.  What were we thinking?  

          And it is absolutely dishonorable for them to expect or accept it.   

Being a Conservative Clarified

              Connie Burkhard (“Many differences between liberals and conservatives” Yuma Sun, February 2, 2013.) made some statements about being a conservative that need some elaboration. 

             “Pro-life”?  Most conservatives are probably pro-life, but most as well do not want the federal government interfering in the personal decisions of individuals or states. Conservatives fiercely defend the 10^th Amendment which leaves to the states all those powers not specified in Article I Section of 8 of the constitution. Basically, the federal government’s responsibility is to provide for the common defense and protect our borders. “Do your job.  Pass a budget and then go home and get a real job.” 

            “Equality takes a back seat”?  Absolutely not! That all men are created equal is at the core of conservative belief. Our individual gifts abound and for the federal government to interfere in our individual pursuit of happiness is abhorrent.

            “Patriarchal”?  Perhaps.  We certainly believe in family; and a family, like a ship, needs a captain.  The evidence is irrefutable that children raised by single parents are at a stark disadvantage, so we abhor government programs that encourage that life style.

            “No gun regulation“?  Somewhat true. I think most conservatives support thorough background checks for gun buyers.  Gunowners certainly do not want their names and addresses published in the local paper, though.

             “No social help.”? Absolutely false.  Conservatives believe in providing a safety net for those truly in need, but we believe that it should not be the responsibility of the federal government. Federal government largess simply leads to corruption.  We cannot let politicians buy votes with tax money.  State and county and municipal governments do a much better job of identifying and helping with those in need.  Conservatives give more to charity than any other political group.

              “Religion in the public schools”? No.  “The federal government will make no law regarding the establishment of religion.”  However, at the same time the federal government will make no law “prohibition the free exercise” of religion. We all should feel free to exercise our religious rights at all times and in all places.

             Thomas Jefferson is thought to be the most non-religious among the founders; but even he said,”God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?”  So we don’t establish a religion, but we must realize that if we don’t recognize that our rights are God given, we are in peril of losing them.  Washington, too, expressed many times, his belief about the importance of religion:  “Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports."

               Darrell Scott who lost his daughter at Columbine touched our hearts when he said, “What has happened to us as a nation? We have refused to honor God, and in so doing, we open the doors to hatred and violence.”

Choosing Happiness

             A friend of mine who dearly loved my mother just sent me an email saying our family reminded her of “Little House on the Prairie.”  That brought to mind a guy I used to teach with who called us the Flagstaff Waltons.  It causes me to reflect.  

             According to my mother’s count, we moved some 28 times into a series of 1 or 2 bedroom houses.  (Our Minot house had 4 bedrooms, but we rented out 3 of them to college students.)  \

     Once when reflecting on the “good old times,” a friend spoke of the pot under the bed.  Now we didn’t even have a pot under the bed.  If it was too cold to go out we used the slop bucket under the sink.  So when we say we didn’t have a pot to piss in, it was absolutely true. 

        Our life was not golden, but we were a very happy family, because we chose to be.  Listening to a lecture on Prageru.com got me thinking about this.  He says the pursuit of happiness is not a selfish pursuit, it’s an obligation.  We bathe and use deodorant so as not to offend others.  By the same token, we should take on a happy spirit so as not to infect others with our unhappiness. 

         Our move to Arizona illustrates how we somehow knew that.  My four older brothers and sisters had followed their dreams, and my  Dad had always wanted to pursue distant horizons as well, so we packed up our car with what was left of our earthly possessions in the trunk and a carrier on top of our car and the remaining six of us headed for Arizona.   As we headed down Black Canyon Highway toward Phoenix mid-August we were all exuded excitement. We'd stuck our arms out the window of the our un-air-conditioned car and exclaimed “Oh, feel that heat.  Isn’t it wonderful?  Look at that cactus.  Isn’t it beautiful” 

       Some years later, my sister Diane and I were sitting on the couch in our Page trailer house and I said, “I’ve got to tell you, when we drove down that last stretch of highway toward Phoenix, I was appalled.  I could not believe we had done such a dumb thing.  It was God awful hot and ugly.”  Both Mom and Diane said, “Really?  Me too.”  We laughed hysterically at our mutual deceit. 

          How did my parents teach us to choose happiness, to not infect others with misery and gloom?

“All happiness depends on courage and work.” ― Honoré de Balzac

              The Colorado River Tea Party hosted a successful, very informative Meet the Candidates Forum at the Martin Luther King center Thursday evening.  We are fortunate to have such a fine slate of candidates.

             My parents were of America’s “Greatest Generation.”  Their contributions to the nation were enormous.  I’m afraid my generation has been the generation that, through complacency, bought the nation to its knees.  I am heartened to see a new generation that has accepted civic responsibility, that realizes that we have a government of “we the people,” and that “we the people” have to step up to the plate.

              The candidates all made strong statements with regard to creating a council that is committed to working harmoniously with the mayor to promote a fiscally responsible government that is business friendly, transparent and committed to public safety.

            One query in the Q and A session piqued my interest, a question that diminished the respectability of a minimum wage job.  I have respect for my nephews who went to college and became doctors and engineers and nurses.  But I have even more respect for my nephews who were not above washing dishes and slinging pizza and eventually landing a minimum wage job at Lowes or Home Depot.

             They saved and invested their money and worked their way up the ladder of success to become store managers and district managers. Yuma has the highest unemployment rate in the country.  Let’s build an attitude of respect for work, respect for minimum wage jobs that are the ladder to success. 

     One season, my grandson successfully juggled three minimum wage jobs in order to make ends meet.  He made me so proud I burst the buttons in my shirt.  Well, in truth, that may have been as a result of massive weight gain, but I was proud as punch.

             We need to take Ashton Kutchner’s attitude to heart.  At the Teen Choice Award he said, “I’ve never had a job in my life that I was better than….washing dishes, sweeping cereal flakes off the factory floor….  Every job was a stepping stone to the next job….  Sexy is being smart, thoughtful and generous.  Everything else is crap.”

Of course they are Socialists!

               Denial is a coping mechanism that prevents us from dealing with difficult problems.  I love my dog Cricket, partly because her lustrous black coat reminds me of the comfortable furry body of my late husband.   For months I denied her shedding problem, but I finally had to admit that she not only sheds, she molts, large tufts and scattering threads of hair, anathema to my house guests.

               John Beisner is in denial as well.  The Democrat agenda socialist?  “Hardly,” he says.  Norman Thomas, six-time Socialist Party candidate for president, said himself that we didn’t need a socialist party in America any more because the Democrats had so thoroughly adopted their platform. 

               According to Mr. Beisner,  I blame politicians of “the Democrat persuasion” for the shrinking of the middle class.  Actually, I respect Democrats for being forthright about their platform: raising taxes in order to increase the scope of government. The politicians for whom I have the least respect are Republicans who pretend to abhor large government waste but who, as one friend of mine says, “fall in love with the smell of marble” and abandon principle the moment get their first whiff.

               Beisner also fails to fully explain problems with with regard to income disparities.  It is probably true that incomes rose by 111 per cent between 1954 and 1982, but he fails to reckon with the fact that the cost of living rose by 300 per cent. The major reason the middle class has lost buying power is the grotesquely burgeoning cost of government regulations which have tripled in recent decades, strangling the middle class and suffocating entrepreneurship.

       President Obama scoffs at the notion that he supports socialist policies, but Newsweek magazine had it right.  “We are all socialists now.”  And history is undeniable.  Socialism is a kind of Dracula that feeds off the blood of its people, sapping them of strength and ingenuity. The ruling elite live lavishly in their seaside dachas, the rest of us stashed like worker bees in hive-like housing projects, carefully monitored, under constant surveillance, zoned out on alcohol or marijuana, or a daily ration of soma tablets.  

        Hello “Brave New World.”

Solar Power - Another burden on the back of the middle class.

                   The Yuma Sun article, (“Charges being added to APS electricity bills,” February 05, 2013) said that APS needed to raise their prices in order to cover fixed costs like infrastructure and power poles.

                 I think we need to look deeper into the real reason APS is raising its rates. There are other factors besides the fact that we aren’t buying enough power to maintain their infrastructure.

                 One factor is that the APS consumers are funding solar energy projects all over the state.  APS gives $2400 to $7000 rebates to every person who installs a solar energy unit.  They have to raise our rates in order to fund the generous rebates.  Does it make sense that those of us who are struggling to pay our power bills are expected to pick up the tab for generous rebates to people who are wealthy enough to afford solar panels?     

                  APS is also raising our rates in order to fund the huge megawatt renewable energy power plants they are building all over the state. That’s pretty expensive infrastructure and somebody has to pay for it.  Supposedly we’ll reap the benefits somewhere down the road, but I am not counting on it.

It’s another example of how government doesn’t solve problems; it creates problems.  In 2010 the Arizona Corporation Commission passed rules requiring utilities to cut their customers' annual energy use by at least 22 percent by 2020.  The federal government mandated green energy initiatives.

                    You will notice that the Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation District power costs are about 60 per cent of what ours are.  They are not members of the corporation commission.  They’re run by a local board of directors, so they are not bound by the demand to build expensive renewable energy plants.  Their customers pay for the energy they use.

                   We have to pay for the energy we use and a little more for the cost of building plants like the 100 acre 15 megawatt solar plant located at Luke Air force Base. It will be a couple of generations before the plants begin to pay for themselves and by then they’ll be broken down eyesores just like the hay bale drying plant on the north side of Highway 8 that was obsolete before it dried one bale.  

The Rent Control Disrease

         Angie Lopez’ letter speaks to the heart (“Candidates need to support all of Yuma,” August 25, 2013).  We certainly want candidates to have the welfare of all in mind.  But rent control, like so many wonderful sounding socialist programs, has disastrous consequences for the very people they purport to protect, and the wealthy always find ways to make it work for them. 

         It’s impossible to find an apartment in a city that has rent controls.  Vacancy rates in cities run at about 1 to 2 per cent.  No investor wants to build apartments in those markets.  If they can’t make a profit, there is no incentive.  In cities like Phoenix that do not have rent control, vacancy rates run as high as 15 per cent and the free market rules.  Landlords compete for tenants at lower rates and with seductive packages. 

          William Tucker (“How Rent Control Drives out Affordable Housing”) says that there is absolutely no disagreement among economists that rent control will reduce the quality and quantity of  available housing and cause rents to skyrocket every time.  

           In New York and San Francisco and Berkley and in a dozen other American cities, those who benefit from rent control legislation are upper and upper middle class professionals.  The poor and the elderly are pushed out of the market altogether.

         Many cities are trying to repeal rent control legislation, but it seems the more detrimental government programs are, the more difficult it is to get rid of them

           Rent control is a disease in search of a host.

               A lesson in the art of persuasion for Mr. James Sefcak.  (“Radical conservatives want an oligarchy,” Yuma Sun, January 4, 2014)

Every generalization needs to be supported by appropriate evidence: facts, quotes, examples or anecdotes.  So when you accuse us “radical conservatives” of calling liberals “bad” people, or “stupid,” or “uneducated” or “traitors” you must give evidence.  There is none.  We don’t think you stupid or bad people or uneducated or traitors.  Quite to the contrary.  I think you’re very smart.  I simply disagree with your politics. 

               Your letter does, however, illustrate quite clearly the propensity of those of your ilk to resort to character assignation, ad hominem attacks, name calling.  According to your letter we are “crazy,” “screaming… loonies,”  “liars.”  Give me an example of a lie, James.

               Oh, I have one.  You accuse the GOP of making “changes to the voting laws that restrict the voting rights of the poor.”  The only ones who passed laws restricting voting rights of the poor were Democrats. Republicans battled racist Democrats for 100 years. Even JFK and LBJ voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1957.  Johnson jumped ship in 1965 in order to garner the Black vote when he recognized the battle was lost, and even then he couldn’t talk many of his fellow Democrats to support his position. 

               Perhaps you didn’t lie, Mr. Sefcak. Perhaps you “misspoke” as Hillary Clinton did when she told the story about how she landed in Bosnia under sniper fire. Here is a better example of a lie:  “The Bosnia mayhem was a spontaneous reaction to a vilifying YouTube video.”  .

               And just to clarify: An oligarchy is a small group of people who together govern a nation or control an organization, often for their own purposes.  That’s what we have in Washington DC.  What we radical conservatives want is to restrict the power of the oligarchy. 

               I hope that helps.

"Just the facts, maam. Just the facts."

            Last week you ran another “news” story about the negative effecto f human activity on the earth’s climate.  What I didn’t see was a news story about Patrick Moore’s testimony before the Environmental and Public Works Committee on February 25. 

               Patrick Moore, Ph.D., an ecological scientist and one of the founders of Greenpeace stated before the committee that “There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth's atmosphere over the past 100 years.”  Moore left Greenpeace when he saw that they had “abandoned science and logic in favor of emotion and sensationalism.” 

               The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states: '”It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming' since the mid-20th century.” Professor Moore disputes that notion. "'Extremely likely' is not a scientific term.”

               Moore told the subcommittee: "Perhaps the simplest way to expose the fallacy of ‘extreme certainty’ is to look at the historical record. When modern life evolved over 500 million years ago, CO2 was more than 10 times higher than today, yet life flourished. Then an ice age occurred 450 million years ago when CO2 was 10 times higher than today.” The fact that both an ice age and a warming period occurred at high levels of CO2 should give a scientist pause about the fundamental contradiction.

               Moore also pointed out that temperature increases from 1910 to 1940 are identical to increases between 1970 and 2000, but the IPCC ignores that scientific data in order to support the agenda of their “doom and gloom scenarios.”

               Oscar Wilde said, “Conversation about the weather is the last refuge of the unimaginative.”  The “news” world apparently uses articles about the weather to distract readers from thinking about real news.  Who is responsible for the Benghazi lie?  Who urged the IRS to target conservative groups?  What is Charles Minn’s take on the Fast and Furious scandal? 

               How about doing an expose on the federal government’s ineptness as an investment banker? They flushed a trillion of our tax dollars down the toilet with investments in companies like Clinch River Breeder Reactor, Hydrogen Car, Synthetic Fuels Corporation, Fisker Motors, Ener 1, Spectra, Solyndra, Watt, Beacon Power, and A 123. For more local appeal, you could do a feature about Yumans whose lives have been disrupted by the havoc the Affordable Care Act.

               We can’t do much about the weather, but with your help we might be able to put the brakes on federal government spending and at least partially ameliorate the nightmare debt we’re bequeathing our grandchildren