Wednesday, 22 August 2012 00:00

Government and Religion

It is striking that in our Founder's era, the arguments over religion and government were either 1) Government should use religion as a way of securing natural liberty (given by "nature's God"), or 2) Government shouldn't mandate one set of religious beliefs over another.

NOTE: They *never* suggested doing away with Religion in government altogether. In fact, that idea never entered their thinking.

You'll find quotes by most, if not all, of the Founders acknowledging that the only way for their self-governance concept to survive was with a moral population. That's why they never talked about doing away with religion, even if they weren't the most religious person. From the beginning, they recognized that "nature's law" and "nature's God" formed the essential foundation and framework for freedom and a free society.

The idea has only surfaced in the last few decades that we should not be religious as a country.

  • Thomas Jefferson (most often cited as the closest anti-religion Founder and used by the left as a source for their interpretation of "separation of church and state") is the one that opened up Federal government buildings to be used for church meetings? During his administration (1801-1809), many different churches used government buildings as their primary meeting place. The practice continued for nearly a century afterward. When he founded the publicly-funded University of Virginia in 1819, he set aside space in the Rotunda for chapel services. Look it up.
  • It was in 1814 that Francis Scott Key penned the words of the Star Spangled Banner, but it was not until 1931 that the Star Spangled Banner (with the words, "And this be our motto: 'In God is our trust'." in its fourth stanza) was adopted as our national anthem. For much of the 19th century, our de facto national anthem was "My Country, Tis of Thee" (The "Thee" referring to God, of course).
  • So lefties would have us believe that religious thought in this country was confined to 1776? Think again.
  • It was in 1952 that the National Day of Prayer was made official (though the Continental Congress proclaimed a "day of publick [sic] humiliation, fasting, and prayer" in 1775 and a day of prayer was traditionally observed ever since).
  • It was in 1954 that the words "under God" were added to our pledge of allegiance.
  • In a 2007 comprehensive survey, Pew found that only 4% of Americans were Atheist or Agnostic. In fact, over 80% subscribe to a Judeo-Christian faith. Of the remainder, 4% are Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu, and the like and a 12% don't claim a particular denomination.
The fact is, we are clearly and convincingly a Christian nation - even after 5 decades of assault starting with kicking God out of schools in 1962.

You may not have known that we were such a religious nation. We don't act like one much these days, but I think it's just because we're starting to believe our own press!

What the left has done to pull the wool over our eyes is to convince us that when our Founders were arguing about religion (what kind, to what extent), they were arguing *over* religion (to be or not to be, that is the question). Don't believe their lies!

Now take these facts, find some more of your own, and go educate folks!
Wednesday, 15 August 2012 00:00

2012 Judicial Candidates


Please take a moment to "plug in" with some of our Judicial Candidates. Judges are the most overlooked section of the ballot. Please help these conservative judges get elected!

Go to their pages below, LIKE them, and make sure everyone you know knows their NAMES. On the ballot, it will NOT tell whether they are Republican or Democrat, so your friends will need to specifically know the NAME of the judge they need to vote for!


Paul Newby - Supreme Court

David Robinson - Court of Appeals

Dan Nagle - District Court Judge (District 10)

Charles Gilliam - District Court Judge (District 10)
NC Experienced Conservative Judge Facebook Page

Well, that's where Obama started his political career for one reason. Where would we be today if the good folks of Illinois had weeded him out in '96? Instead they were worried about Bob Dole and Slick Willie. People were concerned about making a "principled" vote for Ross Perot because "Dole would be just as bad as Clinton", and most of them didn't even know who else was running for anything that year.

Now, don't get me wrong. I think it's important to make the right decision on the President, but I think it's just as important to know the rest of your ballot like the back of your hand! In the history of this great country, we've only had three Presidents that held no prior political office (note I didn't say they had no political experience). They were Zachary Taylor, Ulysses S. Grant, and Dwight D. Eisenhower. Each one of them were previously military Generals. That means every other President could have had their Executive aspirations squashed by a more local group of people who would have (should have) known them best. Other than a few of our first Presidents who served in the Continental Congress, the rest filtered up through a state political system with several even starting in municipal government.

How many Governors and Senators have run for President over the years? An even better question - how many of our local folks have run for Governor or Senator? Just in this primary for the Republican nomination, there have been six Governors and one Senator run. At the same time, we saw an uncharacteristic number of House members run (4 - Paul, Gingrich, Bachmann, and McCotter). Herman Cain flew the lone flag as a true political outsider.

So, here locally we're looking to elect George Holding to serve the 13th Congressional District. What if you knew he was planning to run for President in a few years? A total of 37,341 North Carolinians voted for him in the May 8 Republican primary. See where I'm going with this?

In relation to my previous post, there are folks who quit because they can't save the world and they forget to save their neighbor.

Don't give up because somebody running for President has become "political". Don't be surprised if they have powerful connections and you have absolutely no influence over them. That may be true, but there's more at stake than that.

By all means, make the right choice this November for President. But, remember they all start out somewhere. Find out who's running locally and get to know them. The life (and prosperity) you save may be your own!
Monday, 06 August 2012 00:00

Will Risk Be Outlawed?

I was flipping through the channels the other night and came across Bull-riding. I was shocked when the gate opened and out came the bull with something resembling the Michelin man riding on its back. 

After the rider fell off and the camera zoomed in, I realized that it really was a cowboy. He was wearing what looked like a motorcycle helmet, a set of football pads, and a bullet-proof vest. He was wearing "cowboy" boots, but even they had a toe protector on them.

Today, in the New York Post, George Will wrote a column entitled, "Football’s growing killer problem" (http://nyp.st/Tbz3oD), that examines the increasing risk of injury in football and postulates that it cannot be fixed.

Will, half serious, half tongue-in-cheek, points out the perils while appropriately identifying this "age of bubble-wrapped children". This topic just emphasizes the growing list of things that a free people choose to do, but are increasingly under attack.

Are we a free people, or aren't we?

New York Mayor Bloomberg would outlaw most freedom of choice if he were able and require the government to manage our lives. He's attacked salt, fatty foods, and soft drinks in the name of health.

Across this country, our personal choices are being increasingly limited if they have anything to do with risk. Risk of bad health, risk of a scuffed knee, or risk of any kind of loss. We have abandoned any personal responsibility whatsoever in every conceivable facet of life!

Look, I know that there are some things that are inherently risky like bull-riding, football, investing, and eating fatty foods. But what are we teaching our children?

First, if they should scuff a knee, get a stitch, lose a dollar, or put on some weight, it must be someone else's fault. Next, since it's someone else's fault, they should set us on financial easy street for the rest of our lives. Finally, we must remove all the risky items from each list of choices. That way only safe choices will be available for us.

Forget that the bunch in charge of deciding what's on or off the list are a bunch of morons.

As for me, I long for the days of risking injury in order to have some rough and tumble fun. I crave the opportunity to lose money on an investment if I also have the opportunity to profit from it. Finally, I like bacon, ice cream, fried foods, bread, and Mt. Dew. I've got my big-boy pants on, so I know that if I don't limit those things and throw some broccoli in there from time to time, I'll face an early death.

But I want the choice. That's liberty and freedom. The indescribable bliss that comes with an endless buffet of choices surely has its downsides, but running my own life outweighs them all!
Wednesday, 11 July 2012 00:00

Where Liberals Go Wrong

The way we want it to be and the way it will actually work are often opposing thoughts.

For example, I don't want there to be need or want anywhere in the world. I don't want children to go hungry or there to be dirty air or water. I could go on.

Wanting that to be the way it is is fine, but entrusting government to accomplish it is naive. The element of human nature is to be self-interested above all and isn't considered when people make their wish list.

The only way to accomplish all these things I (and you) want is if our society is structured to use human self-interest to meet the needs of others. That was achieved by our founding fathers. Liberals ignore that their "utopian" society can only be accomplished with "utopian" (perfect) people.

I want to eliminate hunger and poverty, but the way to do that is to create an environment where you are motivated by your own self interest to accomplish these things.
Friday, 06 July 2012 00:00

A Lesson in Irony

Emailed from a friend: A lesson in irony.

The Food Stamp Program, administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, is actually proud of the fact it is distributing the greatest amount of free meals and food stamps ever. 

Meanwhile, the National Park Service, administered by the U.S. Department of the Interior, asks us to "Please Do Not Feed the Animals." Their stated reason for the policy is because the animals will grow dependent on handouts and will not learn to take care of themselves.

This ends today's lesson.

Wednesday, 06 June 2012 00:00

Never Forget

On this day 68 years ago (D-Day - June 6, 1944), my great-uncle, Paul Redden, was stranded at low tide in an LST on a beach in Normandy. He was part of the crew that made innumerable trips back and forth from ship to beach that day delivering troops and equipment in one of the greatest land assaults in the history of war that ultimately turned the tide of World War II.

While waiting for the tide to return, the German guns began to zero in on the stranded landing craft, destroying many. Naval commanders sent "smokers" in to set up as much of a smoke screen as they could to veil the positions of landing craft and troops from German fire. Uncle Paul was among the fortunate ones that day who made it off the beach.

After 68 years, he still cannot talk about his experience there in any detail. What he does say is often through tearful eyes. The floating bodies of US servicemen clogged the beach and had to be pushed out of the way by the ships as they landed. By the second trip, they couldn't lower the ramps without hitting bodies. The water was crimson with the blood of our dead and wounded.

Don't forget.

The path to freedom has been a bloody one filled with sacrifice. Thank a WWII vet today for what they did for you and resolve that their sacrifice will not be wasted.
Thursday, 10 May 2012 00:00

Moving Forward

God. Family. Government. In that order.

The most powerful reasons that anyone could ever aspire to attempt something great on this earth are contained in the pictures of my Cover and Profile photos above. My family, friends (many new ones we met along the journey), and the leading of Almighty God are the only reasons I ever undertook this task to try to make a difference.

We cherish the friends we have made along the way. The course we had charted arrived at an early destination Tuesday night, but the journey continues. Until we truly return, as a nation, to government OF the people, BY the people, and FOR the people, we must not rest. The only way we will fundamentally change government is if we fundamentally change ourselves. Freedom is not free. It takes hard work, but the reward is worth dying for. Just ask the 56 signers of our Declaration of Independence. 

We must accept the responsibility that is ours in this Representative Republic. Do not shy away, but embrace it! To have leaders that act responsibly, we must hold them accountable. The reins of government were always meant to be in our hands. Somewhere along the way, we threw them to the horses and let them run. To save our nation, we must take them back. It is not easy, but it is required. The price of freedom is getting off the couch and doing something. Doing the right things for the right reasons.

May history judge this generation as the one that took our country back. Our present course has come to an end, but the journey continues. Will you join me?
Friday, 20 January 2012 00:00

Imperfect Presidential Candidates

All four are flawed candidates. (If you agree with "your guy" 100% of the time, you'd better check up. Reagan aptly pointed out that if you agreed with someone 75% of the time, you'd found a good friend)

I think we would all like to see the perfect candidate rise up and run, but the current societal climate illustrates why the "perfect" candidate has better things to do than subject themselves to this process.

To that end, we are left with less than perfect choices. Given this scenario, how should we best move forward? May I postulate the following:

While campaign rhetoric would suggest this one or that one is no better than Obama, a realistic assessment would show that all of the current Republican field would support the basic Republican platform far better than Obama. When problem solving, the priority is generally first to stop moving in the wrong direction, then start to swing around toward the right direction. If true, then any of the current candidates would, at the very least, be a step in the right direction.

So then, do we take a step in the right direction even if it's not with our preferred candidate, or is it better to continue spiraling in the wrong direction because we have the moral high ground to blame it on the Democrats and we'll just wait until the perfect candidate comes along?
Page 2 of 5
Find us on Facebook
Follow Us