FOR THOSE WHO SAY, “Shut Up Preachers and Stay Out of Politics”, I OFFER THIS…

BLOG POST 4 - Election Sermon

I cannot tell you how many people, including some of my fellow ministers of the gospel, seek to chastise me over any involvement in the political.  The argument usually comes to, “Separation of Church and State.”  That argument is one that I believe is based on a wrong interpretation of the Constitution and a failure to investigate the words, sentiments, statements, and actions of the early American politicians and the clergy.

I frequently consider the history of the nation of Israel and the American system of government.  No, I am not saying that we are or necessarily should be a Theocracy, but the principles God instituted in that nation’s governance, many are found in our American Constitution.  When God delivered Israel from Egyptian bondage after hundreds of years, He established them as an Independent nation.  He gave them some specific precepts and principles which included laws, rules, and regulations.  Initially, they remained faithful to those principles and directives, but over time they drifted and paid a severe price for disobedience.

In the process, God ordained and established that the roles of civil government (State) and the religious government (Church) were kept separate.  However, it cannot be ignored that He made provision for the two separate institutions to assist and benefit mutually for the influence of the other.  He did not allow for either to control the other but that the two would work harmoniously to produce the best good for the nation and its citizens.  I suggest reading 2 Chronicles 26 for an expanded understanding of this division.

Both Ezra and Nehemiah operated within the principle of citizens and leaders all needed to understand how the principles of God’s Word applied to every aspect of life and culture.  That included the religious and the civic.  Nehemiah 8:1-3 declares, “And all the people gathered as one man at the square which was in front of the Water Gate, and they asked Ezra the scribe to read from the book of the law of Moses which the Lord had given to Israel.  Then Ezra the priest brought the law…[and] read from it before the square.” 

I believe it is germane to our discussion to note that those in attendance were “the heads of the fathers’ households of all the people, the priests, and the Levites.”  It is impossible to miss that those in attendance were both civil and religious leaders.  This was a meeting that would determine the direction of the nation governmentally as well as religiously.  There was no prohibition for the religious leaders to absent themselves from matters of civil government.  Rather, they were encouraged to participate.  There was a similar gathering in 2 Kings 23:2.

In America, we have a record of such meetings.  The first was in 1633 in Massachusetts and that practice continued throughout the colonies up to and beyond the period of the Revolutionary War and the Constitutional Convention.  It was part of how we operated and adopted governmental policies.  In the deliberations of the Constitutional Convention, they began their meetings with prayer.  This was the theme and process followed by all the colonies.  Where is the mandate or even practice of excluding the clergy from the process?  They desired the insight and input from Scripture into their process.

In fact, there was a practice in the colonies that blows the modern theory of ‘Separation’ out of the water.  It was known as the ‘Election Sermon’ that was printed, frequently at government expense, and distributed across the State.  Included in many of those meetings were men such as John Hancock, Samuel Adams, Josiah Bartlett, Oliver Wolcott, Elbridge Gerry, and many more.  If those men had deemed it inappropriate for the Church to be a part of the process to define and determine government and governmental policies, they would not have attended.  They would have objected with great passion, but they did not for they believed that it was important to include the Bible and God in the process.

We have examples in the Bible where men of God confronted governmental leaders including Kings regarding their governance.  Elijah confronted King Ahab and Queen Jezebel.  Isaiah confronted King Hezekiah over national failures and issues related to money.  Eliezer and Jehu confronted King Jehoshaphat over his blunders in foreign relations and ill-advised foreign alliances.  John the Baptist confronted King Herod over his divorce and marriage practices.  Daniel confronted Nebuchadnezzar over his pride and arrogance. Azariah (along with eighty priests) confronted King Uzziah for usurping religious practices and improper expansion of governmental powers.  Those are just a few of the many found in Scripture.  Where is the Separation and demand for silence on the part of the clergy?

There is no biblical model whereby God forbade ministers to speak regarding political matters and to remain separate from civil issues.  Sadly, there are many who have accepted the definition of those following an all-powerful federal government mentality and believe that nothing of God or the Bible can be included in government deliberations.  The Bible is filled with directives for men of God to step into the civic arena and declare the Word of God.  There are many examples in which the Bible mandates that men of God step up and identify the wrong and right directions from God’s point of view.

The practice of the Election Sermon is one of many examples which clearly identifies the mentality and recognition of the Founding Fathers and the Colonist of the importance and value of following biblical precepts.  I pray that we will step back from that view and realize that the precepts taught in God’s Word offer a better way of life.  Excluding God allows or encourages people to become a law unto themselves and opens the door for incredibly self-centeredness and corruption.

Our first president, George Washington in his first inaugural address said, “…Since we ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven, can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained: And since the preservation of the sacred fire of liberty, and the destiny of the Republican model of Government, are justly considered as deeply, perhaps as finally staked, on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people.”

 I urge everyone to join me in seeking to return to an understanding that God’s guidance is not just important but vital for our survival and success as a Free nation.

God bless you and God bless America!



BLOG POST 3 - Faith and Politics

I understand that I will possibly be challenged by some on both sides of the political aisle but my faith, which formulates my bedrock beliefs, determines how I vote in elections.  There are some issues that as a Christian I cannot reconcile with a particular political party.  I cannot reconcile a vote for them based on my core beliefs and what I believe the Bible teaches.  To do so would require me to renounce my convictions and thereby my faith, and my faith takes preeminence over everything else in my life.  If I am faced with a choice of voting for something that the Bible is opposed or what the Bible supports I choose to stand with the Bible.

For some, on both sides of the aisle politically, that is as grating as fingernails on a chalkboard. But for me, it is who and what I am.  Does that make me more righteous or right than anyone else?  No, it defines me and explains why I take the political stances I take.  If that is objectionable to anyone and you find it impossible to overcome, then I guess we part ways.  Do not ask me to shelve my convictions and core beliefs for the sake of your favor.  I must declare as did the disciples when ordered to no longer speak of Jesus, “Whom shall I obey, God or man?”  I would not ask you to change your convictions and reject your faith so please do not expect me to do so.

One of the issues that I find impossible to reconcile is the Right to Life and that includes the issue of Abortion.  I am adamantly Pro-Life and believe that life begins at conception.  Even if you argue that it begins later, surely you recognize that when that baby in the womb has a heartbeat in the first month, that signifies life.  Some will not acknowledge that reality and say No?  If you are like Hillary Clinton, you may argue that that thing in the womb is nothing more than a blog of tissue until it is fully born into this world.  A living organism that has a heartbeat, fingerprints, can feel is not a blob of tissue it is a baby, albeit an unborn baby.  I find abortion at any stage troubling but when it is in the last trimester I can view it as nothing short of murder.

Please don’t tell me this is about women’s health or a woman’s right to choose.  At what point is that life in her womb awarded a choice?  Her choice was before pregnancy.  I understand the argument of rape and incest.  However, how do two wrongs make a right?  I say that with empathy for the woman who suffered either of those abuses.  What about the child?  There is the avenue of adoption as an alternative to abortion.  I know the woman will endure the pregnancy and it will serve as a constant reminder of her plight, but how long will the emotional scars of aborting that innocent baby last?  There are always two sides to every coin.

Within the realm of the Right to Life is the matter of doctor-assisted suicide and self-defense.  No, they are not related but both fall into the category of the Right to Life.  I believe, based on my understanding of the Bible that taking one’s own life is not right.  The determination of when we die is or should be in God’s hands.  On the matter of self-defense, the Bible teaches, and our Founding Fathers understood that this right was inalienable.  That right includes the use of deadly force if necessary in defense of our lives and the innocent around us.  That is where the 2nd Amendment of our Constitution comes into focus.  That is a God-given right, not a government prerogative.

On the matter of welfare and entitlements, I believe it is the responsibility of every individual practice benevolence.  It, I believe should be the view of the Church, the community, families, and individuals to care for the poor, widows, and orphans.  There is nothing in the Bible that directs the government to do that and it is not a provision of our American Constitution.  In fact, those who wrote the Constitution believed that it was prohibited to take tax money for benevolence.

The Bible speaks of the person who does not provide for his own as being worse than an infidel.  It also declares that a person that will not work should not be given sustenance and provisions.  Therefore, when the government takes tax dollars and provides billions in entitlements and welfare that is counter to my faith.  There are some people who cannot work and provide for their own and I realize that if individuals do not do their duty and churches fail, we cannot let them suffer needlessly.  However, that does not mean ignoring the Constitution or our personal duty is okay.

Before you accuse me of being uncaring and unfeeling know that I believe and practice caring for the poor and needy.  I do not do as much as I probably should or even as much as I would like, but I believe that the onus is on the individual, not the government to care for the poor.  God’s promise is that if we give to the poor He considers it a loan to Him and He always repays.

When we adopted the mentality that it was the government’s job to care for the poor and needy we abdicated our responsibility and took the easy way out.  The easy way?  Seemingly, but the cost of that easy way has imposed a burden on the Republic that the foreseeable future generations will not be able to pay.  We have bankrupted the nation in our abdication of responsibility.

When a political party adopts a platform of Pro-Choice, Pro-Entitlements, and Anti-Self-defense, and in many ways Anti-Bible, I find it difficult to support that party.  No, I find it impossible to support that party.  For me, and I do not put this on anyone else, to do so would be to denounce my faith and reject my core convictions.  That is something that I cannot do.

Therefore, my core convictions and my Christian faith prevent me from voting for the Democratic Party because of their stance on abortion, self-defense, entitlements, immigration or amnesty for the illegals who violate our laws and those who harm our citizens.  I cannot support them because of their stance in favor of same-sex marriages, the mandate that those who hold convictions otherwise violate their conscience to accommodate those choosing that lifestyle.  I cannot support them because of their willingness to ignore the Constitution.

The Democratic Party booed God at their national convention and have taken positions that are in opposition to Christians who hold to traditional marriage.  They have demonstrated a willingness to impugn and vilify Christians insisting their biblical views disqualify them from public service including judgeships.  Our American Constitution identified as inalienable the right to Worship according to the dictate of our hearts without interference from the government.  Obviously, if my worship endangers the safety of other people that is not allowable either constitutionally or biblically.

Love me or hate me, accept me or reject me for what I believe, but know that it is my right.  I defend your right to believe what you choose and to express those views civilly and peaceably.

God bless you and God bless America







BLOG POST 2 - Republic

No, I am not talking about the Republican Party but Republicanism as a system of government.  Our American founders and the framers of our constitution were adamantly opposed to Democracy or Majority Rule Direct Democracy.  They viewed the examples of Pure Democracies as failed experiments and fought diligently to ensure that America was not and never became one.  That belief has drifted in today’s political climate and most of the Democrats want to move to a Grecian Style Democracy and sadly some Republicans seem to believe that was the original intent.

My question, when I hear the argument of liberals is, “Have you actually read the Constitution?”  It usually draws a nasty response, but even a cursory reading of that document would reveal that we are a Republic, not a Democracy.  It, however, is valid to identify the United States as a Republican Democracy or a Representative Democracy but not a Majority Rule Democracy.  The safeguards those forefathers placed in our Constitution must be recognized, utilized and adhered to if we are to remain the Land of the Free.

Our Founding Fathers were students of history, especially as it related to forms of governments.  They knew their task was daunting and realized the tendency of man to push for a Majority Rule System of Government so the placed preventative guardrails to help keep America a Republic.  Their efforts have succeeded for over 240 years but are in grave danger of being discarded today.  That is a danger I cannot sit silent and watch transpire without sounding the alarm.

The Founding Fathers sought to establish a government where the true power was in the hands of the people.  That is only partially true today, albeit we still have the power of our vote.  Unfortunately, we have politicians argue they are pro-limited government but once installed into office they experience a metamorphosis into a Big Government proponent and advocate.  They come back to their States and Districts and insist they are for the People, but their votes reveal the fallacy of those arguments.

In a Republic or under Republican Government the Power is held by the people.  That was true in our initial stages and remained true for many generations.  The people give power to the leaders they elect to represent them and serve their interests.  Most politicians seem to think that means carte blanche to serve their individual interests and that of their political party rather than the Nation and the People.  The Representatives are then responsible for helping all the people, not just a few.  Ours is to be a Government of the people, for the people, and by the people.  That has transformed into a Government of the elected elitist who view us as their subjects.

The Founding Fathers believed in a Republican Form of Government for they believed that the people they elected to represent them would pass laws that would be fair and in the best interest of the republic.  They also believed that if those men failed in their commitment they could and would elect people to replace them who would serve the interests of the people.  They viewed elected representatives as temporary positions, meaning that each person would serve one or maybe two terms and then return to the workforce and live under the laws they passed.

In fact, they believed, as far as I can discern, that those leaders would serve temporarily and then return to private life to never run for office again.  Unlike a direct, or ‘pure’ democracy, in which the majority vote rules, a republic guarantees a certain set of basic civil rights to every citizen, codified in a charter or constitution, which cannot be overridden by a majority rule vote.  Without that safeguard, we would see such unrest and governmental upheaval in America that any hope of stability in government would vanish.

In a Republic, there is a provision for separation of powers, but in a Democracy, there are no such provisions.  In a Republic, we have the preservation of our inalienable rights such as is provided in the Bill of Rights and a part of our Constitution.  We have the assurance of freedom from governmental interference in private affairs.  It also places heavy emphasis on self-discipline and self-reliance.  Something that seems to be a vanishing characteristic of today’s society.  In a Monarchy or Tyranny, the all-powerful leader or leaders interfere with the lives of citizens by telling them what they can and cannot do.  In a Republic, the leaders are mandated to stay out of the private lives of the citizens.  That is unless the Republic as a whole is threatened with chaos and anarchy and thereby violates the inalienable rights of some citizens.

John Adams said,Public virtue cannot exist in a nation without private, and public virtue is the only foundation of republics. There must be a positive passion for the public good, the public interest, honor, power, and glory, established in the minds of the people, or there can be no republican government, nor any real liberty: and this public passion must be superior to all private passions.”   Montesquieu said, “In Republican governments, men are all equal; equal they are also in despotic governments: in the former because they are everything; in the latter, because they are nothing.”

We are a Republic, but if the Democrats succeed in dismantling our Electoral College and transform it into Majority Vote system that will not be the end of their push.  It will engender the mistaken notion that we are a Pure or Direct Democracy.  That would transform the operation of the House and Senate and virtually everything else in America and the Republic would be lost.  Yes, I believe it is that serious!  The rule of the majority becomes mob rule and whatever decision made by the majority, no matter how ill-advised, or how it tramples on the rights of various groups or people, it becomes the law.  If you cannot see how dangerous that is to our American way of life and the preservation of our Free Constitutional Republic, you are not thinking deeply or clearly.

America, we are facing the survival or the demise of our System of Government.  You may think you want to become a Majority Rule Democracy but the first time the Majority Rules Against You, you will cry foul.  Remember Newton’s Third Law, “for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.”  In that sense, what goes around comes around and what you thought was good when it favored you will be deemed monstrous when it opposes you.  Be careful what you wish for.

God bless you and God bless America!


BLOG POST 1 - Process

The Democrats have repeatedly decried the ‘electoral college’ and issued their pleas and plans for the abolishing that Constitutional Process and move to ‘popular vote’ on presidential elections.  That is only one of their ploys, and yes, I said ploy.  The founding fathers and the framers of our American Constitution considered ‘democracy’ or ‘majority rule’ anathema to the Republic they envisioned and established.  Yet, today’s Democrats believe that is what we must move to.  The question is not if it is part of their agenda but why.

In a Republic, it is recognized that we have certain inalienable rights that come from God not government.  In a Republic, the government is not allowed to strip the citizens of those rights.  In a Republic, the government is mandated to protect and defend the Constitution.  In a Republic, there are safeguards and stopgaps which prevent a knee-jerk majority decision and helps to maintain our status as the Free Constitutional Republic established through the Revolutionary War and the Constitutional Convention.

In a ‘majority rule’ democracy the majority, a simple plurality would determine what rights we have and what rights are stripped from us.  In Congress, there is the provision where both Houses of Congress must approve legislation for it to be passed on to the President for signature to make it a law.  If the president vetoes that piece of legislation it then requires a two-thirds majority (290 Representatives and 67 Senators) to override that veto.  That is a daunting task and a pathway that is seldom achieved.

The founders and framers saw that as a means to preserve the integrity and operation of the Republic.  President Franklin D. Roosevelt vetoed 635 bills and only 9 of them were overturned.  President Grover Cleveland vetoed 584 bills and only 7 were overturned.  That reflects how difficult it is for Congress to arbitrarily impose its will on the Executive Branch.  It also provides a safeguard for Congress to hold the President in check on various issues.  It should present a basis for both branches of government to work together.  It does not, because in today’s political climate everything is done on a partisan basis, most usually.

The desire of the Democrats to transform our system of electing presidents into a ‘simple majority rule’ process and eliminate the ‘electoral college’ suggests they might other sinister motives and plans.  Would they also seek to remove the required two-thirds requirement for overriding a presidential veto and make it a simple majority vote?  I would hope that either party pushing for that would realize the imminent danger of that action biting them in the proverbial behind in the future and restrain themselves.  But, alas, politicians and restraint are hardly compatible words.  The Democrats have shown a propensity to “damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead, “in their push to get what they want.  A case in point would be Obamacare but it is not the only example.

For those of us who are Christians, regardless of party affiliation, there are some things that we should consider in every election.  We should consider the faith of the candidates.  No, I am not saying that is the only consideration, but it is a consideration.  I readily acknowledge that it is sometimes impossible to truly discern or know the reality of a candidate’s profession of faith.  I am not God, so I leave that to God.  However, it is possible to look at their track record and stance on Religious Liberties and other matters pertaining to the Bible.  The fruit defines the root and will either validate the words or negate them.

Another thing must be considered for believers, in my view, is the Traditional Family and how the candidates stand on government-mandated acceptance of same-sex marriages and how they have voted on family-focused legislation.  By that, I mean how they voted on legislation that either enhanced the two-parent families of one man and one woman or helped create a negative environment for that objective.  Some legislation makes it more profitable for a woman to remain unmarried and have children than marry and raise those children in a traditional family home.  Making a career out of welfare and having children out of wedlock is not a biblically endorsed position and any politician that advances that pathway is not deserving of a Christian’s vote.

Abortion issues and the Right to Life cannot be excluded.  If we believe, and I do, that we are created by God then I have to believe that that life begins at conception.  Jeremiah 1:5 declares, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.”  Isaiah 44:24 speaks of God forming us in the womb.  Galatians 1:15 speaks of God setting us apart from our mother’s womb.  In Psalm 139:13-15, we read, “You brought my inner parts into being; You wove me in my mother’s womb.  I will praise you, for You made me with fear and wonder; marvelous are Your works, and You know me completely.  My frame was not hidden from You when I was made in secret and intricately put together in the lowest parts of the earth.  Your eyes saw me unformed, yet in Your book, all my days were written, before any of them came in to being.”

There are those who insist that the argument of the right to have an abortion is about a woman’s right to choose and women’s health, but I must ask, what about the rights of that unborn baby?  Who defends that life and right to life that our Declaration and Constitution identifies as inalienable?  If we believe that Life is Sacred and the right to Life is inalienable, how do we determine that the unborn have no rights?  They are the most defenseless among us.  Women have the right to not engage in unprotected sex.  Before you argue, that if she was raped or it was incest she should have the right to abort.  When did two wrongs make a right?  She should be showered with our love and compassion, but abortion is not the only pathway to relieving herself of the responsibility of that new life in her womb.  There is the pathway of adoption, is there not?

Also, the believer, in my view, must consider how the candidates stand on religious liberty, self-defense and more.  If the candidate votes to mandate believers violate their religious convictions to accommodate someone with an opposing view, that is to be noted.  You have a right to believe what you believe, but you have no right to force me to participate, assist, or even agree with your choice.   Your rights must end where mine being and according to the First Amendment we are to be free to worship according to our faith, not the whims of government or activist groups. If the candidate seeks to touch our inalienable rights and strip us of our constitutional liberties, that should be noted. I believe if we used a litmus test of that nature it would be very easy to determine which candidate we would vote for.

God bless you and God bless America.  Remember 2020 is just two short years away!


BLOG POST 1 - Blue

There has been a great exodus of people from the Blue States that have been Democrat run for decades to the Red States where there are lower taxes, lower cost of living, and more freedom we are experiencing Red State Blues.  Those exiting the stifling Blue States and moving to the Red States appear to have missed what caused their former State to be in the condition it is in.  They come but bring their liberal leftist ideology with them and then begin the process of transforming their new State into their old state.  What happens then is that the State they sought out because of the things it offered will no longer offer those freedoms and liberties but will become another Blue State strangled by liberalism.  Is that bluetrification inevitable?  Sadly, it appears so.

People are moving to my home State, Texas, by the droves.  Over 79,000 since the 2016 Elections.  That is well and good but when they bring their Leftist views with them it is bad.  In Texas, we have enjoyed one of the lowest tax rates in the nation because of Conservatism and Common Sense.  But when these Blue State liberals immigrate to Texas they want to have all the social programs, freebies, and liberal politics they had before.  What they fail to realize is that it was the Leftist, Socialist, Liberal views and policies of the Democrats that cause the problems they ran from.  If they succeed in transforming Texas and the other Red States into Blue or Purple States Texas will become California or New York.

What that would then mean is that businesses and people would begin to depart the State because of the liberal policies those people help to vote in.  The definition of insanity is, “continuing to do the same thing expecting a different result.”  Hey, newcomers to Texas and the other Red States, we have what you want because we did not follow your Leftist Liberal Ideology and Policies.  WAKE UP!  If you insist on being a liberal Democrat and vote leftist into office you will have to flee again to somewhere else, seeking a reprieve from the devastation of liberalism.

You will continue to take another lap around the proverbial mountain UNLESS you wake up and realize that what you are seeking is Conservatism, Constitutionalism, and Freedom.  You want lower taxes.  You want fewer restrictions that stifle business and the economy.  You want the benefits of the Free Market.  You want limited government.  But, you do not seem to understand that your ideological view is what created the problem where you were and will create it where you have come.  It is inevitable that the Red States will turn Blue or Purple if enough of the Liberal Leftists from the Blue States move in without assimilating into the culture and mindset of the Red States.

I remember when Obamacare was being forced upon us the former president insisting that, “if you like your plan or your doctor you can keep them.”  I remember that he and the Democrats assured us that we would see a minimum of a $2,500 per year reduction in costs.  The reverse or worse was the reality.  We did not get to keep either our plan or our doctor in many cases.  The Medicaid demands of that program would have bankrupted the States and those who tried to implement it felt the pinch and pain and resisted.  I remember Nancy Pelosi telling us, “They had to pass the plan to find out what was in it.”  That is absolute nonsense.  Would you buy a car or a house if the seller said, “Buy it and then we will start it or open it up for you to view?”  If you are a follower of Toxic Liberalism as is now on display by the National Democratic Party, you just might.

The idea of throwing open our borders to whomever without proper vetting is sheer insanity and poses a grave danger to our nation and our people.  We don’t know their medical condition, their political ideological beliefs, or their criminal history.  Would you open your home to anyone?  If you say, yes you are either not being honest or you are delusional.  You would want to know something about them, especially if you have children.  If we allow illegals to flood our nation with no regard for our laws or our sovereign border we have destroyed the Republic.

Immigrants seeking asylum in another country do not seek to enter that country illegally and boldly wave the flag of their former country.  That’s what invaders do not refugees.  If one is seeking the safety and protection of a new nation, rational logic would suggest that they would praise the new nation, not call it evil names.  If someone came to your door seeking a place to stay and began to trash talk everything you do and who you were would you willingly allow them to enter?  No, you would not!  You would expect them to show some gratitude and follow the rules of your home.  Anything less would be irresponsible and that is how it is with our nation.

It is a topic for another blog, but I applaud the President in suggesting he will, by executive order, end the ‘birthright citizenship’ practice.  I have presented details as to how this is not a constitutional mandate or precept.  It comes from a misreading of the 14th Amendment.  Those writing the amendment did not view as valid the idea that a person simply being born on our soil afforded them automatic citizenship.  The requirement was that one or both parents were legal American citizens at the time of the birth.  Some will argue, and I will present my case again at a later time but for now, I argue it is not constitutional.  What other country affords that right to anyone?

We have the opportunity to get this right and see our Republic restored to its moral moorings and founding principles.  We can allow the toxicity of liberalism and socialism to transform our Republic from a Free Market Capitalist Economy to a Socialist or Liberal Freebie Economy and die nationally.  Just around the bend are the 2020 Elections and we either get on board with the desire and agenda to reclaim our liberties, limit our government, and see America restored to her former glory or we do not.  The choice is yours and mine.  As for me and my house, we will vote FOR AMERICA and that will mean voting NO on the Leftist Agenda and Candidates.

God bless you and God bless America!


BLOG POST 2 - Illegal Immigration Costs

There are so many things that could and probably should be said about Illegal Immigration as opposed to Legal Immigration it is a daunting task.  It would be impossible for me to elucidate all the problems and ramifications with this issue, but I will attempt to address a few and hopefully, they will resonate with you.  I’m sure you many of you will expand on what I say, and some may be adamant detractors.  I believe it is important to openly and honestly have this discussion in America.  Kicking the proverbial can down the road will not resolve the matter but will exacerbate it.

Before I address the known fiscal costs of Illegal Immigration let me address some moral, social, and national issues involved.  From the point of being a sovereign nation if one eliminates the borders they effectively destroy national sovereignty.  I cannot believe that most Americans if any, would truly want our Republic to go down in flames to an invasion of persons from other countries with no limitations, restrictions, and requirements.  Until the somewhat recent phenomenon advanced by some businesses and liberal politicians, we demanded certain things from those coming to America seeking either asylum or citizenship.  We expected them to assimilate into our society and culture.  We expected them to become Americans.

Of course, we expected people to maintain their cultural heritage but not at the expense or endangerment of America or Americans.  Former President Theodore Roosevelt made an impassioned and reasoned speech in 1907 regarding this issue.  He said, “In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American and nothing but an American … There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag … We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language … and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.”  That is powerful!

Some argue that it is less than compassionate and not Christian to deny entry into our nation to those seeking to come.  That sounds noble but when we weight the impact and practical aspects of that policy we find it unsustainable.  We now have an estimated 11-30 million illegals in this country.  Is it in the best interest of the citizens of this Republic to throw open our doors and allow unrestricted flow of people of all skill levels to enter?  What does that do to the American citizen who is now struggling to make ends meet when there are dozens of new people seeking the same job they hold or desire?  If the supply of workers exceeds the jobs available employers can be expected to lower wages to hire the least costly individuals and that hurts everyone.  I am not arguing the rightness of that action but the reality of it.

What happens to the educational system and healthcare, not to mention the increased burden on the courts and law enforcement?  What do you tell those struggling American citizens when there is not enough money to help them because of the subsistence provided to the illegals who cannot care for themselves or have learned to game the system?  Is that compassionate or reasonable?  We have over 400,000 applications for asylum backlogged and some have been in the system since 2014, how do we expand that without doing great harm to our immigration system?  Do we need Immigration Reform?  Absolutely, but we do not need open borders and certainly not illegal and unconstitutional sanctuary cities.  The cost and danger are too great to allow.

But to the actual fiscal costs of Illegal Immigration.  In order to grasp the vastness of this, we must define “illegal alien”.  It would be fair to identify such a person as someone who is in the United States of America without authorization or their authorization has expired.  The United States has no centralized database to track and we largely rely on ‘self-reporting’.  I find that akin to asking a thief to report to the IRS how much he stole and pay taxes on the profits of his criminality.

Taxpayers, in America, payout almost $135 Billion to cover the costs of the estimated 12.5 million illegals and their 4.2 million children now, here.  That is an ever-rising cost estimate and places us on a path of unsustainability.  It is estimated that illegals pay about $18 Billion in taxes and cost $135 Billion. That is a deficit of approximately $116 Billion dollars annually.  Imagine what that could do for American citizens now in need.  We are spending about $1.6 Billion on education for the illegals.  Medical Care is about $17.1 Billion, Federal Justice costs come in at $13.1 Billion and Welfare at $5.8 Billion.  If you extrapolate the number here exponentially the costs become hundreds of billions if not trillions and that is not sustainable.

Before anyone argues that those people will starve if we don’t let them in and as Governor John Kasich argued, God wants us to back the illegals, let me insert a few thoughts.  We cannot solve the poverty problem of the world.  That is a fact.  Is it compassionate to throw open our doors and create an economic condition where not only the new illegal aliens starve but millions of legal citizens as well?  At what point do we realize, as, in virtually every aspect of human life, there must be a line over which we do not cross?  Are you willing to have the government bring illegals to your home and mandate that you are to the house and feed them at no cost to them?  Are you willing to take food, clothing, and medical care from your children so that you can spread your resources out to your family and the illegals deposited at your door?  Do you consider that reasonable?

America fought a Revolution to earn the right to be a Free People with a system of government that allowed each person to pursue their dreams through Free Market Capitalism.  Some of those seeking entry into our country are impoverished and deeply in need and my heart breaks for them.  I am willing and do, give money to help provide food, clothing, shelter, and water for impoverished peoples in the world.  I can only do so much without destroying my responsibility to my family.  America cannot be the policeman of the world or the benefactor of the world and as difficult as that may sound, it is a reality.  Proverbs 19:17 tells us that “he that gives to the poor lends to the LORD, and God will repay him for that deed.”  I believe in Christian charity and benevolence, but I also believe the Bible when it says in 1 Timothy 5:8, “if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.”

There are a limited number of persons that we can incorporate into our society and economy annually and there are requirements that must be imposed on each of them.  There is a legal pathway for entry into America and there is the route of seeking asylum.  The Illegal Entry is a criminal offense and if we are to remain the Free Sovereign Republic our Laws must be honored and enforced.

God bless you and God bless America!







BLOG POST 3 Health Care

I can hardly believe that I feel the need to tackle this hot potato again, but with the ever-increasing push for “Medicare For All” by the Democrats and the acquiescence of some Republicans, I must.  I pray that everyone who needs medical care or health care of any kind will be able to secure it and receive the best possible treatment.  However, I do not believe that health care is a right but a privilege.  Driving is not a right, it is a privilege, but many seem to believe it is their right to drive.  Owning a home is not a right, but a privilege providing one can afford the down payment and monthly mortgage payments as well as the upkeep of that property.  Having a job is not a right, it is a privilege and should hinge upon the productivity of the individual whether they keep that job.  Having a Big Screen television is not a right, it is a privilege, providing you can afford it.

It sounds compassionate and humane to insist that everyone has the basic right to health care.  I want everyone to have access to medical doctors, hospitals, clinics, and health care.  I want no one to suffer and die because of a lack of insurance or money to pay for their care. There are avenues through which people without insurance can get care.  There are benevolence organizations, churches, foundations, and funds that provide that opportunity to many.  Hospitals are not legally allowed to turn away the uninsured.

If a person goes to the Emergency Room the ERs are mandated, by law, to examine the patient and determine if they have a serious condition.  If the ER doctor determines a person has an emergent condition, that person will be given the necessary treatment or stabilized.  If no emergency exists, the person will be referred to a physician or community resource for further evaluation.  If you don’t have insurance, understand that emergency rooms (ERs) have a federal directive under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) to screen and stabilize patients to determine if the problem is a medical emergency, regardless of their ability to pay. That’s the Law!

Bernie Sanders and the Democrats are insisting that we recognize health care as a right, not a privilege.  They are wrong!  He and they insist that every man, woman, and child in our country should be able to access the health care they need regardless of their income.  I don’t disagree that everyone should have access but to insist as they that the only long-term solution to America’s health care crisis is a single-payer national care program is wrong!  That would both bankrupt the country and would essentially destroy our health care system.  It sounds compassionate and humane but where does it end?  Are we to also guarantee that everyone lives in a nice house, drive a nice car, and receive a college education?

Economics cannot be eliminated from this equation and unfortunately the attitude of many like Senator Sanders and as was stated by Robert Francis O’Rourke, in Texas, “consider the benefit, not the costs.”  WHAT?  Are we to abandon reason if it appears to provide benefit?  Are we to forget the reality that if the nation cannot sustain this program it will damage the benefit for EVERYONE?  Are we to forget the reality that any national health care program would result in longer lines for care, waiting periods for treatment, and denied care in many cases.  Is that what we want?

My wife and I are fighting a battle for her health.  She is battling Stage Four Metastatic Breast Cancer and we have encountered denials in treatments and medications because of insurance coverages.  What insurance do we have?  We have Medicare or Government Insurance.  When she had private insurance, we did not experience the same denials or delays as we now face.  Had her insurance been truly portable we could have maintained it.  Had there been, as Republicans have suggested, marketplace competition we could have purchased that insurance as a continuation at a cost slightly higher than our Medicare and Supplemental insurance, but we could not.  When I examine the States and Countries that have moved to this type of plan I see its dangers and detriments.

Vermont passed a single-payer plan only to have the governor decline to implement it because it would cost more than the entire state budget and drive businesses to neighboring states.  That would have crippled the State and benefited no one.  Colorado also tried a version of single-payer health insurance and voters rejected it because of the astronomical costs it brought to the table.  The Bernie plan according to Mercatus Center, a George Mason University research institute reported that the Bernie Plan would cost $32.6 TRILLION in the first ten years or about $3.3 TRILLION per year and the entire federal budget is $4.1 TRILLION.  We would virtually double the yearly budget of the nation.  THAT IS NOT SUSTAINABLE!

If you remember when Medicare was instituted in 1965 the projected cost in 1990 was to be $12 BILLION but the actual price tag was $90 BILLION.  I’m quite sure that the Democrat Plan of Medicare for All would follow the same escalation of actual cost and if it was proportional to that failed estimate we would quadruple the national budget each year.  How long could we last?  The Democrat plan includes illegals as well as citizens and how many would we find sneaking across the border for health care?  How many physicians would be willing to work for half their previous rates?  How many new doctors would enter the field of medicine?  I can promise you there would become a severe shortage.  Rationing would become a reality and then everyone would cry foul and both sides would blame the other.

In Canada, the average wait time for a referral from a general practitioner to a specialist is 21 weeks or over 5 months.  How would you like to be the person with failing kidneys and realize that by the time you are evaluated by a specialist you may be dead?  What would be the incentive for those evil Big Drug Companies to research new drugs if they know they will not recoup their investments and cannot expect to make that evil profit.  Yes, I hate what they do in price gouging, but I love the fact that they are finding new and better drugs.

Imagine the damage to Medicare patients.  I argue that Medicare is not an entitlement like Medicaid or Food Stamps.  Seniors have paid into the program for decades in the form of the Medicare Tax.  With the Democrat Plan, they would be lumped into a system with those who have paid nothing.  We paid for the system and in their plan, everyone would use it at our expense.  Republicans are not trying to deny care to anyone but to protect everyone from the destruction of the Venezuelan America Plan of Bernie Sanders and the Leftists.

Just because something looks good on paper and in theory does not mean it is workable.  Socialism has failed every time it has been tried.  What would make us think this new approach will work any better?

God bless you and God bless America!