It becomes a problem, and sometimes it is “Much Ado About Nothing!”   I am going back several years to the presidential primaries before Donald Trump’s first election.   I want to extract some things from an article written by Dr. Thomas Sowell.   I agree and disagree with Dr. Sowell on many points.

I like Thomas Sowell.  I consider him articulate and insightful; we usually stand shoulder-to-shoulder on issues.  I am not concerned with the candidate Dr. Sowell favored in those primaries.   It doesn’t matter to me if he supports the Establishment Candidate(s).   That is a personal choice.   That is not my focus.

His article, “Grow Up,” was primarily directed toward Donald Trump, his apparent arrogance, and his brashness.  Those very qualities endear Mr. Trump to some and are anathema to others. That is not what I wish to focus on.  The article was, at least in part, about Donald Trump.  However, there were other parts of the article that caught my attention.  Some positions I agree with, and some I do not.  Let me venture where angels might be wise enough to avoid.

• I completely agree with Dr. Sowell with regard to people allowing “emotion” to outweigh “reason.”  “ Tragically, that happens more frequently than not. 
• I agree that many in politics and elsewhere in America need to, as Dr. Sowell declared, “Grow Up.” 
•  I agree that “talk” will not solve our problems, and as most of you know, I am disturbed by what I call “sound bite politics.”

Please note that Donald Trump was and is not the only candidate utilizing that tool.   Therefore, I am not being critical of President Trump in saying what could be directed to virtually every candidate running for political office.  I want to say to all of them: STOP IT!

I believe that President Trump truly loves America and wants what is best for this nation.  Is he right in all his choices?  I doubt it, but who among us is perfect?  Is he brash and, at times, caustic?  Yes, but he is a New York street fighter businessman who will go toe to toe with anyone to gain an objective.   That seems to be what we need in his present time.   I am supportive of President Trump on most issues!

Dr. Sowell addressed an issue that is a problem, but his solution is not a solution for several reasons, in my opinion.  He said, “If you don’t understand the issues but want to do your patriotic duty, stay home on election night, whether in the primaries or the national election in November.   Uninformed voters turn elections into a game of playing Russian roulette with the future of America.”  He is right, and he is wrong.

Dr. Sowell was right in saying that “uninformed voters” tend to follow emotions, and as one woman in her 80s said, “I voted for Bill Clinton because he was the best-looking candidate.”  Seriously?   Are you Serious? 

Sadly, millions voted for Barack Obama solely because he was Black and knew little about his ideology, agenda, or politics.  That kind of voting is tragic, but still allowed in our political system.  I know some who withheld and will withhold their vote because they do not like either major party’s candidates or potential candidates. 

Our system allows them to do that even if I think they are wrong.   Some have told me that they Do Not vote a Straight Party Ticket.  That is fine, but when asked about various races and who they voted for, they voted for one party without knowing who the candidate was.  They had no idea what the candidate stood for and what their campaign promises were. 

They voted for that individual because of their party affiliation.  I used to think that was a bad idea, but in modern politics, the differences in party platforms and the acquiescence of candidates to the party demands make it a more viable option.  We do not have a voting knowledge test requirement to vote in America.

I would support Dr. Sowell’s solution, IF, and it is a very big if.  If Everyone on both sides of the aisle followed it.  If every truly “uninformed voter,” which may be a very large percentage, opted not to vote if they did not have sufficient information, I might see the benefit. 

However, who determines who is “informed,” and who determines what constitutes being “informed?”  How many people would openly acknowledge they were “uninformed?”  I have had people tell me in one breath, “I’m not up to date on politics,” and in the next, staunchly declare they are Informed enough to pick the right candidate.  When asked about the candidate’s stance on various issues, they drew a blank but considered themselves informed.

I have encountered no leftist or left-leaning voter who thought they did not have sufficient knowledge to make their choice.  Some have even argued that they heard it on the radio, saw it on television, or read it on the internet, and the candidate of their party said it, so they considered it to be the truth of the highest order. 

I had one person, a Hillary supporter, say to me, “I don’t care if she is guilty.  I’m voting for her because she will stop the Republicans from destroying our country.”    They could offer nothing when asked what specific plans she had to save America.    But Hillary was her choice, and no matter what she was, she did or will do.  She was the preferred choice.  Please understand that there are those on the Republican side who are exactly the same with regard to their chosen or desired nominee. 

Therefore, Dr. Sowell, I do not think encouraging people not to vote is the answer.   I believe that working as diligently as we can to “educate” and “inform” with truth and facts, as well as committedly “pray,” is a better path.   

I know many say, figuratively if not literally, “Don’t confuse me with the facts; my mind is made up.”   That being said, we will still only had about 64% participation in the 2024 presidential election.      Voting is a choice that should be regarded as extremely important.  However, so should being informed.   What will happen in future elections?   That is entirely up to the American people.  I am convinced God will, as He did with Israel, allow us to have our desires, and the price for that may be incredibly high.

God bless you, and God bless America!

I have learned in life that, too often, people abandon a purpose, cause, mission, or effort shortly before victory would have been theirs.   I have been guilty of giving up prematurely, only to find sufficient evidence in the days or weeks following that had I stayed the course, there is almost 100% certainty I would have achieved the objective.

There are many accounts in history where, against all odds, some valiant heroes stayed the course and turned the tide in a battle, which ultimately altered the course of war and shaped the course of human history. 

• Had Jesus not stayed the course and gone to the Cross, mankind would be hopeless. 
• Had England not stayed the course under the leadership of Churchill, all of Europe and likely the world would have fallen into the control of Nazi Germany and or the Japanese Empire.  H
• Had Ronald Reagan not stayed the course in pursuit of the Republican nomination, Jimmy Carter might have won reelection and pushed America further down the path of inflationary and additional national security disasters! 
• Had the Founding Fathers and the colonists who sought Freedom and Liberty not stayed the course in 1776 and beyond, there would be no United States of America.

I have never suggested that one should ignore reality.  However, if the cause was worth beginning the fight, it is worth seeing it through to the conclusion.  In today’s America, we have been facing choices between Constitutional Republicanism and Socialism or Tyranny. 

Many have been laboring to enlighten people, vet candidates, and hold politicians accountable by standing up, speaking up, and stepping up for a Free Constitutional Republic.   There are times when we see a light at the end of the tunnel and times when it appears the tunnel has suffered a cave-in, and all is hopeless.   

The onslaught of toxic liberalism and globalism is massive, well-orchestrated, and well-funded.  It is a concerted effort to dismantle what the Founding Fathers established and for which the colonists fought and died.   We must “Stay the Course!” 

I make this appeal because I have seen and heard many who are becoming so weary of the struggle.   The frequent abandonment of constitutional principles by Congress wearies the hearts of many citizens, and their hearts are growing faint.   Some have told me, “I have made up my mind, NONE OF THE ABOVE,” with regard to virtually all future elections. 

They have given up.   They are throwing in the towel and conceding defeat.   I spend almost as much time trying to encourage some of them as I do in my efforts to enlighten and challenge the false narrative of the leftist who would “fundamentally transform” America.  We Must Stay the Course!

We are too near the end to quit now.  In my years of ministry, I have often challenged believers, saying, “The devil cannot win (in our situation) unless we quit.”  Christ defeated him at the Cross.  Likewise, the massive push of the Progressives, Liberals, Socialists, RINOs, and all who promote Bigger Government, More Spending, and More Federal Control can only win if WE, THE PEOPLE, fail to “stay the course.” 

It is impossible not to realize that there is massive voter fraud, rigging elections, deep pockets, diabolical alliances, and millions of dollars to buy an election.  Sadly, too many are blind or willingly blind to political reality in America.    But I ask, “Is not our cause worthy of whatever it takes to Stay the Course?”

Each election, especially national elections, is the most critical election we will have faced.   We must not become complacent or resigned to business as usual, and we must not cede defeat.  We must “Stay the Course!”   We must stand for “Faith, Family, and Freedom!”

God bless you, and God bless America!

What is that topic?   It is the mistaken idea that our Founding Fathers and the U.S. Constitution mandate the Separation of Church and State in all things and at all times!

Now that I have ignited the fuse, I want to address this issue from a Constitutional perspective.  I believe it is vital that we approach it from the position of Original Intent.   Over the past several decades, the phrase “Separation of Church and State” has been invoked in legal cases more than 4,000 times. 

That position stems from a flawed understanding of the Original Intent of the Framers of the American Constitution.  It was the catalyst for removing prayer from schools, effectively invocations at public school sporting events.  It was the tool used to remove the Ten Commandments from public or government buildings.  It was the basis upon which we allowed the removal of Nativity scenes from public parks and events.   Beyond that, it has been used to remove or ban several types of popular religious expressions, such as “Merry Christmas.”

The Founding Father most associated with the “Separation of Church and State” was Thomas Jefferson.  The phrase is well-known, but its history is obscure to most.  Most people today believe that the Constitution bans all religious activities from public buildings, courtrooms, schools, and government offices.    If we understood the history, we would come to a very different understanding of the “Original Intent” and possibly realize the damage we have done to our foundational principles as the Constitutional Republic of our Framers and Founders. 

Historically, the phrase was introduced in the 1500s by prominent ministers in England and was in use in the 1600s, long before Jefferson mentioned it.   If we look at the Bible, we will find that when God established the nation of Israel, He placed Moses over the civil government and Aaron over the spiritual. 

2 Chronicles 26 provides an understanding of how God insisted that the two jurisdictions be kept separate.   King Uzziah’s reign lasted 52 years, which was unheard of in that era for a regime to last that long.  In 2 Chronicles 26:16, we find something dramatic happening that changed everything. 

The King unlawfully entered the temple to burn incense on the altar of incense.  He decided that, as king, he had the authority and right to reign over both aspects of government, the civil and the religious.  He crossed the line, a line drawn by God Himself.  The priests withstood him in a daring act of courage, but the king used his kingship to overrule them.  It was at that point that God struck him with leprosy, and Uzziah fled the temple in horror and humiliation.

This precedent led to heads of state declaring themselves as heads of the Church, and the church was “secularized” to the hurt of its purpose and function.   The widespread atrocities that ensued were some of the most horrific in human history, often in the name of the Church and wrongly claiming to be doing God’s bidding and service. 

Due to the corruption of the Church’s purpose, we find in the 1500s, Bible-based ministers began to stand up to the Crown, often to their own destruction.  It was Englishman Richard Hooker who used the phrase as a call to sanity and order.    

King Henry VIII wanted a divorce, but the Church refused to grant one.  The King promptly established his own National Church, with himself as its head, and granted his own divorce.  The English Parliament passed laws on who could or could not take the sacraments and defined the qualifications for ministering. 

Other ministers joined that cause, including Reverend John Greenwood, who pioneered the church that many of the Pilgrims attended when they were still in England.    At that time, Queen Elizabeth was head of both the State and the Church, and Greenwood famously declared, “There could be but one head of the church, and that head was not the Queen, but Christ.”  

Greenwood was executed for denying Her Majesty’s ecclesiastical supremacy simply to the Crown; He was convicted as a traitor and executed for what were called treasonous acts.   The Pilgrims fled England to Holland, then to America, and boldly advocated for “Separation of Church and State.” 

They believed, rightly, that the government had no right or authority to “compel religion, to plant churches by power, and to force a submission to ecclesiastical government by laws and penalties.”  Many of the Christian colonists had endured persecution at the hands of State leaders who had commandeered the Church. 

In the American colonies, ministers such as Roger Williams, John Wise, William Penn, and more were strong advocates of “Separation of Church and State.”  In the development of the American colonies, we find that the Separation Doctrine was never used to secularize the public square, but quite the opposite.   

The founders and colonists believed in Separation to protect rather than banning voluntary public religious practices.   Quaker leader Will Wood declared: “The separation of Church and State does not mean the exclusion of God, righteousness, morality, from the State.”  American Bishop Charles Galloway agreed, stating: “The separation of the Church from the State did not mean the severance of the State from God or the nation from Christianity.”  

Thomas Jefferson’s use of the phrase “Separation of Church and State” did not advocate the modern idea of “Separation.”   His letter where the phrase is used, was to the Danbury Baptist:

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.  Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation on behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.” 

Jefferson argued that the Government should be prevented from establishing a national church as it existed in England and elsewhere.  He strongly advocated for our inalienable rights, not the banning of all things Christian, biblical, or religious from the public sector.

Eventually, our Framers and Founders placed these words within the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the Free Exercise thereof.”    Unfortunately, the first portion, the “Establishment Clause,” is used to ban religion from all public or government properties, functions, and agencies.   The “Free Exercise Clause” is largely ignored. 

If you read the wording carefully and honestly, you will realize that both clauses were pointed solely and directly at the State, not the Church.  The State is prohibited from enforcing religious conformity, and this amendment also seeks to ensure that the State would protect, not suppress, the rights of the citizens, the rights of conscience and religious expression. 

Jefferson reaffirmed that position repeatedly in his writings.  We have allowed the secularists to steal an inalienable right and foundational principle from us, and that has led to much of the difficulty we now face in our American government and society. 

I do not expect everyone to agree with me.  Still, if we want to see America restored, we must return to our founding principles and interpret the Constitution under the light of original intent.

God bless you, and God bless America!

I may be wading into a swamp filled with mines and need a Navy minesweeper to clear a path, but let’s deal with the issue of “Children Voting” in America.  

Jesus spoke of truth from the mouths of “babes and sucklings” and in spiritual matters.   I believe that is a valid reality in certain situations.    However, I do not think that Jesus instituting a blanket doctrine that we are to accept the “wisdom” of the children in all things and at all times.   

That would negate His and the Bible’s clear teaching on the responsibility of parents to nurture, teach, and train their children.  Although we should listen to children, that does not mean that everything they say is wise or that every policy they seek is right.

However, that seems to be precisely where the Leftists and the MSM are trying to take us in the aftermath of some of the mass shootings.    I believe it is rooted in their primary objective of achieving “gun control” up to and including a total gun ban.   It is beyond ludicrous to assert that the children are the arbiters of superior wisdom in this matter.

That would open the door for children to be considered the voices of reason in all matters.  I believe anyone with an IQ above room temperature can see the danger of that.  It would effectively lead to the complete collapse of our society and government. 

I hear the argument that they were the victims, the traumatized; therefore, they are the only ones we should listen to.   That is neither reasonable nor helpful.    Yes, we should consider their feelings and understand their emotional turmoil, but we must not abdicate our positions as adults.  It is the responsibility of adults to supervise and train the young, not surrender the Republic to those too young and lacking experience to determine our country’s political direction. 

There are some, primarily Leftist Democrats, who advocate that we let the Children Vote.” They desire that those as young as 16 or 17 should be given the right to vote.    The hypocrisy of that stance is glaring.  Those same people demand that anyone under twenty-one should not be allowed to purchase an AR-15.   Their position is one of glaring inconsistencies.  If it were not so serious and dangerous, it would be amusing. 

An article by Jonathan Bernstein insists that the Parkland students’ ability to organize (with outside help, I might add) was proof that the younger teenagers should also be allowed to vote.   The idea that voting is the training wheels of political participation when applied to young teenagers is a dangerous one to pursue. 

Organizing protests, marches, lobbying, and electioneering are expressions of “Free Speech.” The last time I checked, “Free Speech” was not age–restrictive.  That might be somewhat altered in the home where parents can and often do limit the ability.   On the other hand, VOTING is a definitive action that determines the direction of our Republic and Government.  It cannot be diminished by allowing the naïve, inexperienced, and immature children to determine the direction of our nation.   You can easily decipher the dangers that it poses.

I ask that we examine this “Children Voting” issue and see what we can discern regarding the pros and/or cons of young teenagers being given the vote.  Let’s take the State of Florida, where adults (Elected Officials) sent a bill to the Governor declaring that anyone under the age of seventeen was too immature to marry.    I might insert that many 17-year-olds also fall into that category.   

Before you boil me in oil or tar and feather me, I know that some of you married young and are doing just fine.  However, if you are honest, you will acknowledge that few of today’s seventeen and younger have the maturity to handle the responsibilities needed in marriage, a home, and family.  Additionally, the Florida Legislature has passed a law stating that one must be twenty-one to purchase a hunting rifle. 

Let’s be consistent, please.  If you think 15-year-olds and possibly younger people should be able to vote, how can you deny them the other rights of adults?  What about alcohol or tobacco products?  Hey, if they can vote, they are surely mature and responsible enough to decide whether or not to use those products, right? 

I have always found some things somewhat hypocritical and inconsistent. We declare that a young person at 18 or 19 could serve in the military.  They were old enough to die for their country but not old enough to be granted other privileges and responsibilities of adulthood.    Please understand, I Do Not Think That a 17-year-old should be given the right to vote.   I sometimes question whether a person aged 18, 19, 20, or even 35 is mature enough. 

I do not mean that to be a blanket or net that I can throw over all the youth, for I know some 16-year-olds who know more about what is happening in politics and the Constitution than some 40-year-olds.  That does not alter the fact that we would effectively destroy our Republican Democracy were we to further lower the voting age in America. 

As in many events, such as mass shootings, the youth are often easily manipulated and indoctrinated to advance a particular agenda and ideology.   I frequently lament the ability of adults to vote when they know nothing about the matters they are voting on or the candidates they must choose between. 

Again, before you break out the bag of feathers and heat up the tar and the rail to ride me out of town on, let me ask, “Doesn’t it bother you that people make decisions on matters not based on fact but political party?”  I believe the right to vote is more than simply a privilege; it is a responsibility and even a duty. 

In that view, it is incumbent on every voter to become informed and make a rational decision based on facts rather than simply voting along party lines.  It is not the government or the political candidates to ensure I have that information; It Is Mine!  

I believe that candidates need to be honest, open, and forthcoming as they provide Information, not simply political shtick, rhetoric, or propaganda.   That is another reason I work as hard as possible and stay as involved as I am in dispensing Information that allows people to make responsible and informed decisions in political matters.

I ask that you “study” what is being presented, “vet” the candidates, and remember that every November is about the Republic and our Freedom. 

God bless you, and God bless America!

In America, for the most part, the followers of Christ are not severely persecuted, at least not physically.   That is not to say there is no persecution and that there is no bias or prejudice against Christians, at least those who ascribe to a more fundamental brand. 

In 1993, President William Jefferson Clinton signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act into law. The bill was introduced by Congressman Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on March 11, 1993, and a companion bill was introduced by Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) on the same day.  The House voted unanimously, while the Senate was three votes short of unanimity.  The Law reinstated the Sherbert Test to ensure compliance with the Constitution in guaranteeing religious freedom.   

The law stated that the “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.”  An exception was provided if two conditions were met.  They argued that the burden was necessary to “further a compelling government interest” and that “the rule must be the least restrictive way to further the government’s interest.”

The Law was enacted as a direct result of Native Americans using peyote in their religious ceremonies and has been used to protect the religious freedom of Muslims, Jews, and any number of other religious groups or faiths, and was designed to reinforce the constitutional guarantees that we have Freedom of Religion.  

That law was praised and championed by the left at the time, and their support continued until a few years ago.  That was when the Left decided that the rights or desires of homosexuals trumped the religious liberties of those of biblical faith who believe that homosexuality violates the commandments of God. 

In numerous cases, one in particular comes to mind.  The law I am referring to was enacted in the state of Indiana.    This revealed that the left, the media, and other entities desired to reverse course regarding religious liberties in some instances.  They declared that in the case of a homosexual, the person holding a conviction based on their interpretation or understanding of the Bible has no religious liberty. 

This is not about the individual florist, baker, or other business owner being homophobic or hating the individuals who opted for that particular lifestyle.  It is about Religious Liberty and the Freedom of Religion.   I was and continue to be amazed at how many on the Republican side have trended toward appeasement of the gay community and are willing to allow Religious Liberty to take a direct hit. 

The Constitution and Bill of Rights articulate and mandate that we have the Freedom of Religion.   Would the left, the media, and others be willing to mandate that a Muslim business be forced to bake a cake with the image of their prophet Muhammad on it?   That would be an absolute violation of their religion. 

Yet, when it comes to Christians holding a biblical conviction that homosexuality is in direct violation of God’s Word, they are to be forced to meet the demands made upon them regardless of their religious convictions.   How is that Religious Liberty? If a business, based on its religious convictions, chooses not to violate them, it should have that right.  If the public wants to withdraw patronage from that business, that is their right. 

The Constitution of the United States of America should protect Religious Freedom.  This issue is manufactured with the ultimate objective and, if allowed to take the planned course, will result in Selective Religious Freedom, at best, in America.    

If we continue in the direction the Left desires, we will see a time when churches and ministers will be mandated, by law, to perform ceremonies that violate their religious beliefs.  The penalty for noncompliance will be incarceration or heavy fines.  How is that constitutional?

I do not believe that any rights we have as individuals should be violated.  Our personal convictions, religious affiliation, or sexual preference are personal matters.     However, forcing someone to violate their religious convictions to accommodate the demands of any group is dangerous and wrong. 

For me personally, if a business did not want to provide a service for me based on the fact that I am a Southern White Christian Male, my attitude would be, “Oh well!”   If you do not want my business, you will not get it.  I might try to get others to avoid them, but I would not feel that they should be forced to accommodate me. 

The left, media, and other activist groups are less interested in Religious Freedom than in mandating acceptance of their particular issue.   I may disagree with a person’s lifestyle, and unless doing business with them violates my religious convictions, I take no issue with them. 

If anyone demands that I violate my faith to accommodate someone’s preference, I take issue with that.  I feel like the apostles, when commanded to preach no more in the name of Jesus, “Who should we obey, God or man?” 

You can agree or disagree, and that is your right.  You can disassociate with me based on my argument, which is your right.  You can agree with me wholeheartedly, and that is your right.  A person might say it is their religious conviction to kill infidels and, therefore, should have the right to do so with impunity; there, I draw the line.  That is not a refusal of service based on religious convictions; it is a violation of our ultimate right to life.

May God bless you, and may God bless America!

I believe in standing on or for your principles.   Sometimes, I wonder if we should be arguing for standing on principles or fighting to develop people who are guided by principles.  They can be and should be the same, but are they?  

Sometimes, when I hear the argument that one is standing on their principles in an election as a reason to vote or not vote a particular way, I feel I’m hearing the ‘Letter of the Law’ versus ‘Liberty of Grace’ argument. 

I often come away wondering if, rather than principles being argued for, it is a favored ideology, and if that is the case, then is it truly principles?   If we develop and become People of Principle, then there is no question that we will seek the ‘best good’- not the expedient or ideological agreement but the Best and the Right.

If we define principles as fundamental norms, rules, or values, then we may still be having the Law versus Grace argument about whose norms, rules, and values we are using to develop those principles. 

Principles, in a real sense, are like opinions and are very individualized and subjective.  We do not have a universal definition of what principles are that could be applied to everyone.  If one is a leftist socialist, one’s principles will be notably different from those of a conservative who fully supports the literal interpretation of the Constitution and fundamental moral values for society.   So, when someone tells me they are standing for their principles, are they describing a conviction borne out of the moral fabric of the Bible or their beliefs regarding a particular issue?

That being said, I want people to be principled and willing to stand for their beliefs and convictions.  I am passionate about my faith in God, my belief in traditional marriage, the right of the unborn to live, limited government, and the fundamental unalienable right of all people to pursue Life, Liberty, and Happiness.  Our founding fathers extensively considered all aspects of the Principles Debate when hammering out our guiding documents in the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights. 

Some of the Principles they advanced were:

• The Only True Basis for Sound Government and Just Human Relations is Natural Law.

(Natural Law is God’s Law.  Jefferson declared that the laws that govern men were “the laws of nature and of nature’s God.”

• A Free People Cannot Survive A Republican Form of Government UNLESS They Remain Virtuous and Morally Strong.

(Benjamin Franklin:  “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom.  As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have need of more masters.”  What we need is the Master of the Universe guiding our hearts.  Our problem is not a government problem but a heart problem or a problem with depravity.)

• The Surest Way to Have Good Government is for Virtuous People to Elect Virtuous Leaders.

(Samuel Adams: “Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt.  He, therefore, is the truest friend to the liberty of his country who tries most to promote its virtue, and who … will not suffer a man to be chosen into any office of power and trust who is not a wise and virtuous man.”)

• Without Religion, The Government of a Free People Cannot Be Maintained.

(Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports…And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality cannot be maintained without religion.”  George Washington)

• The Proper Role of Government is to Protect Equal Rights, not Provide Equal Things.

• Mankind Are Endowed By God With Certain Unalienable Rights.

(“Those rights, then, which God and nature have established, and are therefore called natural rights, such as are life and liberty, need not the aid of human laws to be more effectually invested in every man than they are; neither do they receive any additional strength when declared by the municipal [or state] laws to be inviolable.  On the contrary, no human legislation has power to abridge or destroy them, unless the owner [of the right] shall himself commit some act that amounts to a forfeiture.” – William Blackstone 

• A Free People Will Not Survive Unless They Stay Strong.

(“To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace.”  George Washington)

• The Core Unit Which Determines the Strength of Any Society is the Family; Therefore, the Government Should Foster and Protect Its Integrity.

(“There is certainly no country in the world where the tie of marriage is more respected than in America, or where conjugal happiness is more highly or worthily appreciated.”  Alexis de Tocqueville)

• The Burden of Debt is as Destructive to Human Freedom as Subjugation by Conquest.

(“We are bound to defray expenses [of the war] within our own time, and are unauthorized to burden posterity with them…  We shall all consider ourselves morally bound to pay them ourselves and consequently within the life [expectancy] of the majority.”  Thomas Jefferson)

I believe our Founding Fathers demonstrated they were People of Principle and stood for Principles rooted in who they were, their recognition of the unalienable rights of man, the equality of man, and the sovereignty of God.  You may disagree, and as with all things, it is my view that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  

My prayer is not so much for people to proclaim a stance for a personal particular principle as for us to become People of Principle who desire The Best Good in all things and at all times.  That is another reason politicians are so distasteful to me, but I understand that we have a system of Government in which politics is a part.  Therefore, my objective is to discern between principle and preference and fight for Faith, Family, and Freedom.

God bless you, and God bless America!

It is my observation that in our American government, there is a tendency to take from producers and give to non-producers.  That is the reality of the desire to “Redistribute the Wealth.”   That plan, if implemented, will punish success and create a perpetual state in which people are “Completely Dependent” upon the government for their livelihood. 

The Founding Fathers viewed this attitude and condition as anathema to the nation’s existence and success and detrimental to its citizens.   That statement may lead you to think I am wrong and that the founders were uncaring aristocrats who only sought to protect their fortunes and had no concern for the poor or needy.   I believe that both statements I have made are correct, so let me elaborate briefly.

Benjamin Franklin was a brilliant man and one who loved America.  The concept of a Free Nation was so deeply ingrained in his psyche that when the Boston Tea Party occurred, he offered to reimburse the Crown for their losses to prevent overreaching retaliation against the colonists, but was refused.   Does that sound like someone who didn’t care about people and only wanted to protect their fortune?   It doesn’t to me, but then that is my view.

Mr. Franklin also saw a danger in creating a “Welfare State” and argued:

“To relieve the misfortunes of our fellow creatures is concurring with the Deity; it is godlike; but, if we provide encouragement for laziness, and supports for folly, may we not be found fighting against the order of God and nature, which perhaps has appointed want and misery as the proper punishment for, and cautions against, as well as necessary consequence of, idleness and extravagance?  Whenever we attempt to amend the scheme of Providence and to interfere with the government of the world, we need to be very circumspect, lest we do more harm than good.”

Mr. Franklin and the other Founders believed that kindness and charity were admirable traits, but they also recognized that these qualities could be destructive.  They realized that if the government were to give continuous support to people, those who were lazy or irresponsible would be enabled, not helped. 

Samuel Adams took it a step further and said, “The utopian schemes of leveling (redistribution) and a community of goods (where the government owns everything) are as visionary and impractical as those which vest all property in the Crown.”    He called those ideas Unconstitutional.  I do not believe it is difficult to know what they would have thought of the liberal leftist policies of Obama, Biden, and the Democrats today.

I believe that most Americans want to be benevolent; I do.  But if you research true history and the writings of our Founders, you will find the words of President James Madison when he spoke to the House of Representatives in the 3^rd Congress in 1794: “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” 

Our founders designed the Constitution and expressed a desire that our Republic be a Limited Government, where congressional representatives or Presidents would be restricted from creating a Welfare State.   But alas, that is precisely what we have done!    We have created a government with little or no fiscal or financial responsibility, devoid of prudence. 

We are spending for political purposes rather than humanitarian purposes and out of genuine concern for the people.   If we genuinely cared for the people and were humanitarian in our efforts, we would find ways to enable and insist that the people who can work do so in order to provide for themselves and their families.  That is a concept foreign to most liberals and many Republicans or RINOs.

Thomas Jefferson had a particularly strong view on this matter and stated:

“I place economy among the first and most important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt.”

He continued saying:

The principle of spending money to be paid by future generations under the guise of funding is, in effect, swindling futurity on a large scale.  Democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.

James Madison said:

“If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare…. The powers of Congress would subvert the very foundation, the very nature of limited government established by the people of America.”

John Adams took it a step further and made a statement that we have ignored:

“The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.”

My fellow Americans, where are we today if not precisely where they warned us not to go?    It is time that ‘We The People’ become the Power of Government, utilizing the means provided by the Constitution and the authorizations of it, and our Bill of Rights, as well as the Bible, and Stand Up, Stand Firm, Stand Tall, and Stand Together against Tyranny (Soft or Hard). 

May God bless you, and may God bless America!

Why do I charge politicians with such a diabolical charge?  One of the reasons is the complete lack of civility, common sense, and understanding of our Republican form of government.

Over the past few days and weeks, I have found it perplexing to listen to, watch, and experience the lack of civility and common sense, and the complete failure to comprehend the American Republic by many.  I am not claiming I know it all or much at all.  

Our American Republic, which was fought for and established by the Founders and Framers, is incredibly valuable, often vulnerable, and complex in many ways.  Today’s academia, many jurists, most politicians, and many citizens in today’s American Society seem to have little grasp of the ingenious system designed, desired, and established by the Patriots of the American Revolution and the Framers of the American Constitution and System of Government. 

Many today, even some who usually are on the Constitutional and Conservative side of the political issues, believe that the American Constitution should be interpreted according to the current ideological precepts rather than the Original Intent.   The Framers understood the inherent danger in that concept. 

In the document’s wording and the framers’ extensive writing, they sought to warn and encourage the following generations to adhere to the Original Intent strictly.  Viewing the American Constitution in any other light strips that document of its authority and power and endangers our Constitutional Republic’s existence. 

There are many today who believe that America is a Democracy, and IT IS NOT!   We are a Representative Democracy or a Republic, not a Pure Greek direct democracy where the majority rules.   The Founders and Framers’ clarion call was to avoid pure democracy at all costs and detailed the perils extensively in their writings.  They placed safeguards in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, which embodied the intent of the Declaration of Independence.   They sought to provide us with a framework and system of government that would weather changing whims within any group or groups, political, social, or economic. 

Their labors were nothing short of miraculous and amazing, and our American Republic has weathered some incredible storms over the past 240-plus years.    We can weather more IF, which is the Key IF, and preserve the Constitution and interpret it through the grid of Original Intent. 

The Constitution is not a living document continually evolving to adapt to any generation’s morals, modes, mores, or whims.  It provides a means for Limited Government and places far more power in the hands of the individual States than within the Central Government.  That was the intent, but we have allowed politicians and bureaucrats to modify and codify it to the point that we have created a political monster known as the federal government. 

The ever-increasing rhetoric, diatribe, and call for intensified harassment and even violence, mainly by those on the Left, are destroying all hope of Civility and sending Common Sense packing.   It matters not if you are on the Left or the Right; you have no right to engage in violence or the authority to censor anyone’s Freedom of Speech. 

• Everyone has certain inalienable rights that are given by God, not government. 
• Everyone has the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.  
• Everyone has the right to Freedom of Speech and the Right of Self-Defense. 
• Everyone has the right to maintain, keep, and protect their Personal Property.  EVERYONE! 

Just because you or I do not like a candidate or ideology does not mean we have the right to seek the silencing of those voices.  That is one of the things that makes our American System so great: we allow differences of opinion and open debate. 

However, when the debate, even heated disagreement, turns into violence of calls for “getting in their faces,” “bringing a gun to a knife fight,” or “overt harassment,” we have crossed the line.  Maxine Waters and others on the Left crossed that line frequently.  The attempt to argue that this began with Donald J. Trump is somewhat ludicrous. I remember Michelle and Barack Obama calling for stepped-up protests and even aggression, so it is not new, but something that needs to stop. 

Civility is a prize plum worth striving for.   Even our Framers and Founders had heated debates and intense disagreements as to our system of government.  Still, they kept civility intact, for the most part, enabling them to reach a workable agreement. 

When the debate descends into HATE and ANGER boils over, all hope of compromise or concrete solutions vanish.  Some say, “I don’t hate Trump; I am oblivious to him,” and yet incessantly attack him and those who are supporting him; I argue they are not oblivious to him at all. 

I did not like the policies of Barack Obama and highlighted where I thought he was wrong frequently, but for the sake of our American Republic, I did not want anything to happen to him, such as being called for against Donald Trump.  I believe and believed that Barack Obama did not have the best interest of America at heart and that he was being true to his stated position that “if the political winds turned sour, he would side with the Muslims.” 

In many of his policies and edicts, he demonstrated that America was, in his mind, an evil empire needing correction and/or punishment for her sins, which he deemed were many.  On the other hand, I believe that Donald Trump has America’s best interests at heart.  He may be misguided in some of his actions, over the top in some of his Twitter responses, and take wrong actions from time to time, but in his heart, America is first. 

The mid-term elections of 2026 are critical.  If anyone allows their dislike for the President to prevent them from defeating the Leftist Progressive Toxic Liberal Agenda, we will endanger, if not open the door to the destruction of our American Republic. 

The Supreme Court is vital for preserving our Republic and the Constitution as it was written and intended.  Things like Border Security, the Supreme Court, our Inalienable Rights, keeping our Tax Breaks, strengthening our National Security and Military, and enabling our Economy to keep moving in an upward direction all hang in the balance. 

I do not suggest that anyone violate their convictions and principles.  Still, I suggest that keeping America Safe and Free is vital to our continued enjoyment of our Freedoms and Liberties.  I do not always find that life affords me what I want, but presents me with choices that require me to decide and take action that provides the best hope of achieving our desired objective.  

Socialism is on the rise in the Democratic Party, and Socialism would be a disaster in America.  Obamacare was an experiment in Socialism, and the Open Borders demands, as well as the many Entitlement and so-called protected classes of people’s needs, are driving our Republic to the precipice of the Abyss. 

I will fight against that with every breath and ounce of energy.  I will try to maintain Civility, use Common Sense and Reason, and stand firmly on the Side of the American Republic as is detailed in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.  My position is, without apology, for Faith, Family, and Freedom!

God bless you, and God bless America!