BLOG POST 2 - Enemy

The Democrats, some Republicans, and the Main Stream Media all insist that Donald John Trump, the President of these United States is the greatest threat to Freedom of Speech in our lifetime.  I have one small pertinent question, “Where were the complaints when Barack Hussein, the former President, evicted a reporter for asking a question?”  You don’t remember that?  Convenient and selective memory?

CNN Reporter, Jim Acosta is a media thug that believes it is his moral mandate or whatever kind of mandate he believes in, to attack President Trump on everything and whenever and wherever the opportunity presents itself.  President Obama challenged a reporter that interrupted him and asked a question that he obviously did not like.  He said, “You are in My House.”  The reporters in the room chanted “Throw Him Out!”  The MSM applauded the president but when Donald Trump takes similar action against one of the liberal leftist activist of CNN he is worse than Lucifer himself.

It is not that I agree or disagree with Trump or Obama on their handling of the reporters but the double standard being used, that is my issue.  I have no problem with Obama or Trump dealing with rude and interruptive reporters but if it was okay for Obama then it should also be okay for Trump.  I am 100% in favor of Freedom of Speech and believe that is speech is not free for everyone it is free for no one.  I may not like what you have to say but you have the right to speak your mind.  The caveat that I place on that is somewhat two-fold.  You do not have the right to endanger me and you do not have the right to violate my house.  If I lay down guidelines of decorum and you are invited to my house, you can be and should be expected to abide by them.

Once you leave my house you are free to write or say whatever you please, within limits of the law.  But, while you are in my house I have every right to ask you to cease your disruption and rudeness or the right to show you the door.  You may disagree and argue that the White House is our house and we can say or do whatever we want there.  It is the people’s house in the sense that we are the true owners and overseers of government.  However, when we elect a President and he takes up residence and conducts business there, it is his house.  I say that in the same sense that I would say that if you rented a house it is your house while you live there and maintain the provisions of the rental agreement.

Obama removed a heckler in 2015 for disagreeing with his deportations of illegals.  Obama said, “Shame on you.  Listen you are in my house and it is not respectful.”  I don’t disagree.  The heckler continued to interrupt, and Obama asked for the heckler to be removed from the room.  The former president said, “As a general rule I am just fine with a few hecklers. But not when I’m up here in the house.”  Okay with hecklers?  I would say that you were not okay and now that President Trump has reacted in a very direct manner to a reporter who was, in a very real sense, interrupting and heckling him, you and the Left consider it the epitome of evil and a threat to our Freedom of Speech.  Double Standards are double standards and should not be allowed.

Obama said that if the guests were “eating the hors-d’oeuvres and drinking the booze” they were expected to listen respectfully.  Hey, I do not disagree, but I am concerned that the blind hatred for President Trump allows the double standard to become the norm.  I am convinced that if President Trump said we were going to open the borders and allow anyone and everyone to come into this country unvetted the Left would argue that there was something nefarious in his edict.  I would too, but that is not my point.  The point is that no matter what he does, he is damned.  He can do exactly what President Obama did and he is wrong.  He can do the exact opposite of President Obama and he is wrong.  At least in the eyes and rhetoric of the Democrats, MSM, and the haters in this country.

Freedom of Speech has an enemy and that is Political Correctness that has become so pervasive in this country it is stifling freedom.  Well, freedom is stifled for anyone who disagrees with the ideological position and agenda of those following the toxicity of liberalism embraced by the Democratic Party.  I am a devoted advocate for the preservation of our inalienable rights including the 1st Amendment and Freedom of Speech.  When institutions of higher learning (tongue in cheek) ban anyone holding an opposing view to the Socialist Liberal Leftist Progressive view of today they become the enemy of Freedom of Speech.

Freedom of Speech must walk hand in hand with the right to Peaceable Assembly.  You can preach your beliefs with the fervor of an evangelist and I will defend your right.  However, if you, as some have, call for the eradication of ethnicities I will argue that you are in violation of our constitution, the law, and abusing your right to Freedom of Speech.  I am okay with classrooms teaching the theory of evolution, although I do not believe in it, so long as they give equal time to creationism.  If a news outlet claims to be a body that reports the news they should ‘report the news’ not ‘make the news or become the news.’ 

The enemies of Freedom of Speech are those who seek to silence any segment of our society for their political purposes.  If you disagree with me, you are not obligated to engage in conversation with me or debate me. Institutions of higher learning should be about unveiling truth not propagating a particular view.  Critical thinking’s departure is a very real danger in our American society today.  The fact that people, many people, no longer think but regurgitate what they hear from their source of ‘news’ leaves this Republic open to internal destruction and exposes us to outside enemies.

I stand for your right and my right of Free Speech.  When any group becomes the self-appointed police of what is acceptable speech without due process they are the enemy of Freedom of Speech.  Someone asked if I watch CNN or MSNBC and my answer is no.  Oh, I will occasionally listen to hear what they are saying, then fact check their assertions, allegations, or charges so I can present truth to anyone who will listen.  If 95+% of everything that comes from a source is Anti-conservatism and an attack on President Trump and the agenda voted for by the American people, I turn it off.  They can say it, but I don’t have to listen to it.

If you want to protect and preserve our inalienable right of Freedom of Speech you need to think and develop the ability to use critical analysis and thinking.  You need to examine what is being done and the inherent dangers of censorship.  If you do that I am convinced you will reject the liberal leftists socialist of the Democratic Party and vote for candidates that stand for the rule of law and the constitution.  It is, in a very real sense, a fight for Faith, Family, and Freedom.

God bless you and God bless America!



BLOG POST 1 - Nowhere to Hide

Several things have stood out to me recently that have reaffirmed my belief that the Leftists Liberal Progressives Democrat or RINOs are far more interested in harming Donald Trump than they are America.  It is about power and that will not change in the foreseeable future unless something dramatic happens in the hearts of politicians and the public.

There is a short video clip that gives the reason that Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats want open borders.  The clip can be viewed at  It is quite revealing as to the ulterior motive behind the push for broad-brush amnesty and open borders.  The sad reality is that this will move the needle on precious few who are not already adamantly opposed to open borders and want to retain and maintain our national sovereignty and security.  The sheep that follow MSNBC, CNN, and the other media propaganda outlets of the Democrats will continue to shout, Amen and vote Blue.  Facts are anathema to them and when facts are presented they usually resort to name calling and shouting “Trump Bad! Trump Bad!” in the spirit of Jim Acosta and Maxine Waters.

You may recall the memo from Clinton’s former communications director Jennifer Palmieri regarding the Dreamers.  She said, “The fight to protect Dreamers is not only a moral imperative, but it is also a critical component of the Democratic Party’s future electoral success.”  Ms. Palmieri, me thinks that the last part of your statement reveals how little you truly believe in the first part. It reveals the motive behind the push of the Left to obliterate our American borders and national sovereignty.  Does that trouble you?  It does me, but there is not one sound of protest from the media and not much from the Republicans in Washington.

Queen Nancy Pelosi’s unintentional or intentional exposure of their motives is clear but another factor she failed to mention is the huge vineyards owned by her and her husband in California and their need for cheap labor.  She demands that we have a minimum wage of $10-14 per hour but does not pay her illegals the minimum.  But, that’s okay since she is a Liberal Leftists Progressive Democrat, right?  Only in the minds of the New Democratic Party of Socialist in America.

Another thing that reveals how far into the tank or toilet we find ourselves is in the response of Chief Justice John Roberts to President Trump’s complaint that an Obama Judge ruled against his Asylum edict.  Justice Roberts insisted that we do not have Obama Judges, Clinton Judges, Bush Judges, and Trump Judges.  Justice Roberts your words reveal that you are anything but a conservative and a constitutional originalist.  You are another of the Swamp Denizens who continually seek to protect their own and secure your place in the Swamp hierarchy and guard your historical legacy.  America be damned if protecting America interferes or conflicts with your agenda.

How about United States District Court Judge Carlton Reeves an Obama appointee in striking down Mississippi’s law against abortions after fifteen weeks.  He not only struck it down, but he also expressed his reasons in incredibly radical and partisan language.  He said that the law “unequivocally” violated women’s constitutional rights.  He found zero “legitimate state interest strong enough, prior to viability, to justify a ban on abortions.”  He added that “the Mississippi Legislature’s professed interest in ‘women’s health’ is pure gaslighting.”  He then made a statement that made my skin crawl and the hair stand up on the back of my neck.  He said that Mississippi’s law to protect the unborn reflected “the old Mississippi.”  He argued that it was the Mississippi that was bent on controlling women and minorities.  Sounds like judicial activism to me.

Everybody and their puppy dog knows that we have judges that are partisan and hold a political bias.  What we are supposed to have is what Roberts said we have, “Impartial Justices and Impartial Justice.”  One of the major reasons the Founding Fathers gave federal judges lifetime tenures was designed to ensure that we maintained judicial impartiality.  They believed that by removing the fear of removal from office of the need to seek reelection would remove the tendency to be biased and help them maintain impartiality.  Some seem to achieve that but too many are simply, Obama judges, Clinton judges, Bush judges, or Trump judges.  It is in the best interest of America for our judicial system to be blind to party, politics, or anything other than the Constitution.

The danger laced in judicial activism is that a paltry one percent of federal appellate decisions gets reviewed.  That has resulted in courts like the Sixth Circuit becoming a ‘de facto’ Mini Supreme Court.  That is true with each of the twelve circuits and is a problem.  I have argued for a long time that judicial appointments are probably the most important thing that a president does.  If the President appoints judges that are not activist but are constitutional originalist we have a hope of restoring and preserving our System of Government.  If the courts are packed with liberal activist such as was the case under former President Obama, we have rulings like that of Judge Carlton Reeves.

It is imperative President Trump strive to make the lower and mid-level federal courts as constitutional as possible.  He dare, not focus solely on the Supreme Court and fail to nominate and appoint constitutionalist to the lower courts.  The impact that President Trump has on the courts over the next two years will largely determine the success or failure of Constitutional America.  We need fidelity to the Constitution, not judges who follow Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals.  Those are further reasons to stay engaged and work diligently to defeat every liberal leftist’s progressive socialist in 2020.  America’s future depends on it and on us to pray, labor, and vote.

God bless you and God bless America!


BLOG POST 3 - Government and the poor

I can and will give you numerous biblical and constitutional references including the statements of our Founding Fathers and the Framers of our American Constitution on this matter.  It is, in my view, essential and germane to the discussion and a requirement for refuting the fallacy that caring for the poor is the government’s job.  We have reached a place in America where entitlements are considered rights and the responsibility of the federal government.  That, in my view, is one of the mistakes we have made and has done incredible damage to our nation and our society.  I will attempt to explain.

In Deuteronomy Chapter 15 we have an indication of God’s purpose for caring for the poor.  It was exclusively the responsibility of individuals, not governments to minister to and care for those who were poor or impoverished at any given time.  I believe that Jesus and the New Testament reveal that it is expanded to the Church as is seen in the Gospels and the Book of Acts.  In Deuteronomy 24:19-21, “When you reap your harvest in your field and have forgotten a sheaf in the field, you shall not go back to get it; it shall be for the alien, for the orphan, and for the widow, in order that the LORD your God may bless you in all the work of your hands. 20 ” When you beat your olive tree, you shall not go over the boughs again; it shall be for the alien, for the orphan, and for the widow. 21 “When you gather the grapes of your vineyard, you shall not go over it again; it shall be for the alien, for the orphan, and for the widow.”  That directive was first listed in Leviticus 19:9-10 and Leviticus 23:22. It is a biblical principle to Care for the Poor.

In the Bible, God’s instructions for caring for the poor, any farmer or keeper of the vineyards were to leave something for the poor.  Leviticus 23:11 speaks of the seventh year’s rest of the land so that the needy and even the beast of the field could eat of what grew on its own.  I insert an interesting fact that today’s welfare and entitlement process and mentality overlook, and objects to.  The poor had to do the work for themselves!  They had to gather the produce that was left for them.  The farmer did not harvest it and bring it to them, they labored for it.

That is consistent with the directive of the apostle Paul in 2 Thessalonians 3:10, “…if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either.”  Simply, if a person is too lazy to gather for himself or work for his sustenance, he is to be afforded no consideration.  I did not say, ‘could not work’ but ‘would not work’ or ‘was not willing to work.’  There is a significant difference and the Bible addresses that as well.  If you were truly physically incapable of working charity was provided for them.

The biblical policy of caring for the poor was initially accepted and adopted in America.  The colonist and Americans after the Revolutionary War followed that mentality.  The result was not the absence of any poor, but more who were poor felt the pinch of hunger and altered their attitude.  Work was expected, and work was done!  Today, there are too many who, for whatever reason, believe that we are to simply offer handouts to whoever claims to be poor.  One clear objective is buying votes, and another seems to be putting a salve on the conscience for the personal neglect of caring for the poor.  If we make it the government’s job, we are absolved of responsibility and relieved of guilt for our failure.

Benjamin Franklin’s response to an English practice of providing for the poor by taxing citizens.  In part, he wrote, “I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means.  I think the best way of doing good to the poor is not making them easy in poverty but leading or driving them out of it.  In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves and of course became poorer.  And on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves and became richer… I affirm that there is no country in the world in which the poor are more idle, dissolute, drunken, and insolent.  The day you passed that act, you took away from before their eyes the greatest of all inducements to industry, frugality, and sobriety… In short, you offered a premium for the encouragement of idleness, and you should not now wonder that it has had its effect in the increase of poverty.  “Six days shalt thou labor.” (Exodus 20:9), though one of the old commandments long treated as out of date, will again be looked on as a respectable precept; industry will increase (and with it plenty among the lower people); their circumstances will mend, and more will be done for their happiness by inuring [enabling] them to provide for themselves than could be done by dividing all your estates among them.”  That is powerful!

Mr. Franklin listed several bad fruits that resulted when the biblical pattern was ignored.  He could not foresee our current situation, but he was speaking directly to it.  He cited the increase in poverty, ungratefulness, laziness, higher taxes with no resulting benefits.  Those alone should move us immediately away from our current policy regarding entitlements and welfare, but it doesn’t.

Our Founding Fathers were very concerned, as am I, about caring for the poor and needy among us.  Thomas Jefferson and George Washington were both incredibly generous as was demonstrated through their personal charity.  Both were leaders in organizing the community to care for the poor, but both argued adamantly that whatever the poor received could not and must not encourage laziness or idleness.  They also argued, that it was not the responsibility of the government but the individual to care for the poor.  James Madison said, “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.”

When we allow the government to be responsible for caring for the poor and needy we neglect our personal duty and thereby create an entitlement mentality.  A mentality that demands, I have a Right to what is yours.  A mentality that argues, I do not have to work for what I get, you owe it to me because you have.  NO, ten thousand times NO!  What you have earned is yours and I have no right to it.  What I have is mine and you have no right to it.  If I choose to share it with you that is my right and your blessing, but the government is never to be involved.

God bless you and God bless America!



Before anyone lashes out at me over the Trump Slogan, can we stop and think about where we have been for several years politically and economically?  Are we better off now than we were during the eight years of Barack Obama?  I don’t know how anyone can answer that in the negative, but some still discount everything or ignore every success that this administration has enjoyed or produced in two very short years.

President Trump, unlike any former president, has endured what has virtually been a 24/7/365 assault on his person, character, and legitimacy.  His family has been attacked viciously.  He has endured more scrutiny from Congress, the Courts, the Media, and the opposing Party than any president I can recall.  He has doggedly focused on his agenda and even in the face of their incessant diatribe and rhetoric with the unfounded and unverifiable allegations, he has continued to do things that are good for America economically.  He has taken a firm stand against terrorism and for securing our borders.  He has sought to bring the Trade Balance into a more equitable position and demonstrated the resolve to guarantee that the world knows we will no longer be a doormat.  That is paying dividends that he gets little credit for.

If he uses tear gas at the border he is a villain, but when Obama did the same there was not a peep of opposition reported in the media.  If he stands up to the members of NATO and insists they are not but should be paying their fair share, he is shredding our relationships with our friends by saying, “America first.”  However, those nations are all devotedly committed to their nations first.  His predecessor went on a world tour apologizing for our success and supposed arrogance.  Mr. Obama decried American Exceptionalism and spoke as though it were a bad thing.  American Exceptionalism is one of the factors that enabled this nation to become the world leader and bastion of opportunity it has been for centuries.

President Trump has modified Teddy Roosevelt’s edict to “walk softly but carry a big stick” to “calling things as he sees them and carrying a big stick.”  The MSM and Democrats call him a bully and tyrant for doing so.  When Obama and Hillary cozied up to Putin and Russian they were, in the eyes of the Media, simply trying to find a way to work with them.  But when Trump speaks nice, to the Russians he is colluding and when he speaks harshly to them he is plunging us into war.  He cannot win, no matter what he does.  Someone said that if President Trump were to declare Thursday breathing day, the Democrats would all be dead by Friday because they would seek to stop breathing in opposition and protest.

Recently, the threat of tariffs on China and Trump’s negotiations produced a concession from the Chinese Government to buy, “a substantial amount of agricultural, energy, industrial, and other products from the United States to reduce the trade imbalance between the two nations.”  That is good for American farmers and America.  This is to begin immediately and has opened the door to renewed negotiations on structural changes with respect to forced technology transfer, intellectual property protection, non-tariff barriers, cyber intrusions, and cyber theft, as well as services and agriculture.  How is that not good?  How is that not beneficial?  How is that not better than the nothing that former president Obama did?

Economically, our Gross Domestic Product continues to grow above 3% a ceiling that the previous administration insisted was a thing of the past and unreachable.  Consumer confidence has increased to the highest level it has been in almost two decades.  President Trump cut 67 Obama-era regulations that were stifling business and economic growth and added only 3 new rules.  His actions have saved over $8 billion in lifetime net regulatory costs.  How is that not good and praiseworthy?

The judicial appointments on the federal courts including the Supreme Court of constitutionalist give America a silver lining to look to in the days and years to come.  The national unemployment rate is the lowest it has been in almost 50 years.  He has worked out beneficial trade agreements with China, South Korea, and Vietnam that are encouraging.  Energy costs are down because of the reduction in the stranglehold of the Obama administration and the future looks bright for our achieving the brass ring of total energy independence.

He withdrew from the disastrous trade agreements such as NAFTA and renegotiated new deals and got us out of the terrible and costly Paris Climate Change Agreement as well as blowing up (figuratively) the Iran Nuke deal.  President Trump has not achieved all he promised or purposed to do but he has done much that is Good for America!  He could have achieved more, and the Republicans would likely have held the House in the mid-term elections had the Republican Congress gotten behind his agenda and kept their promises to the voters.  We can reclaim the lost ground in 2020 but only if they have learned their lesson and get with the program.

America has been Great and, in many ways still is.  I contend that America is arguably the greatest country in the world.  She was heading toward disaster on many fronts but thankfully in 2016 enough Americans had awakened and voted to prevent the planned destruction of “fundamental transformation” advanced by the previous administration.  I shudder to think of where we would be economically had Hillary been elected.  I believe that our borders would have been virtually if not literally erased, our constitution shredded, and our national security would be on holiday had she won.  She didn’t, and we must ensure that no one of her ilk is ever allowed to occupy the White House again.

America, we have a big hill to climb and even as caustic as this president can be, he is doing good for America.  He can be abrasive, his moral fiber questioned, his ability to be ruthless despised but if you are honest you know he has been what we needed in America.  I often wish he could or would be less caustic but that is who he is, and it just may be that no other approach would have stopped the toxic liberal destruction facing us.  I am praying for our president and hope that you pray for him and America.  We can retake the Hill of Greatness again and see America restored to the Constitutional Republic our Founding Fathers fought and died to give us.

Call me a Trump apologist if you like, but I try to be objective in my view of politics.  I do not have blinders on when I look at this President or any President.  He has flaws and will make mistakes, all have, all do, and all will, including you, and me.   Hopefully, all of us want to see America become that which our Founding Fathers envisioned and we have tasted, “One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

God bless you and God bless America!


BLOG POST 1 - Voter Fraud

There is never a bad time to discuss the problem of ‘voter fraud’ in America.  I am fully aware that the Democrats keep protesting the charge that there is widespread voter fraud in America.  There have been numerous incidents in Texas and around the country that makes their claim look like protectionism for the illegals voting.  It is not new to this election but appears to be increasing with the knowledge of election officials.  There are laws on the books both State and Federal that make this a felony but those bent on bending the rules and shifting the balance of an election do not seem to mind.  I have said for a long time, laws are made for honest people.  Locks on doors are for honest people because those willing to commit a crime do not care about the law, they are criminals.

In Edinburg, Texas we have been alerted of the arrest of nine individuals who were a part of a fraud ring. They sought to determine the outcome of the municipal election in that city in 2017.  Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said, “Illegal voting, particularly an organized illegal voting scheme orchestrated by political operatives, is an affront to democracy and results in corruption at the highest level.  Each illegal vote silences the voice of a law-abiding registered voter, my office will continue to do everything in its power to uncover illegal voting schemes and bring to justice those who try to manipulate the outcome of elections in Texas.”  Thank you, Attorney General, something must be done no matter the geographic impact of the tampering.

To date, there have been 14 people accused in that investigation.  In Texas, this is a felony that is punishable but up to twenty years in prison.  In this ring, there were illegals casting ballots.  In North Texas, Tarrant County, four women were indicted for being a part of a “paid voter fraud ring.”  In the Rio Grande Valley area before the 2018 elections the Public Interest Legal Foundation released a complaint to county and state officers regarding “altered” voter registration forms circulated by the Texas Democratic Party directed at noncitizen residents.

In Travis County, Austin, Texas Project Veritas exposed what appears to be a widespread occurrence of noncitizens voting in our elections. This has prompted the Governor and Attorney General to launch an investigation.  The admissions, on tape, by poll works that this not only happened but there were tons of illegals voting in the early voting period is troubling and regardless of whether you are Republican or Democrat you should immediately condemn this practice.

In Florida, the voting irregularities and fraud that have occurred in places like Broward County needs some serious investigation.  A fraudulent vote diminishes the legitimate vote of every registered American citizen.  In 2016, Democratic Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz faced a primary challenge by a Bernie Sanders-backed candidate named Tim Canova in Florida’s 23rd District.  Canova sued Broward elections officials and asked to inspect the physical ballots in the race.  Election official Ms. Snipe’s office destroyed the physical originals while saving digital copies as the lawsuit was pending.  That is a violation of a federal statute requiring congressional ballots to be saved for 22 months.  The explanation, just a mistake.

In California, Democratic Bakersfield City Council candidate Gilberto de la Torre was charged with election fraud for his involvement in the 2016 election.  In California the implementation of providing automatic voter registration of motorist who obtain or renew a driver’s license is problematic.  The revelation of several hundred if not thousands of illegals who obtained driver’s licenses were also registered to vote.  Many of the municipalities and even the State has indicated they will count the votes of illegals if cast without consideration of legality.  That is a problem!  In Texas and other States, you can register to vote when you get or renew your license.  Legal status must be part of the process, or we do incredible damage to the integrity of our electoral process.

The Law in Federal Elections is clear.  The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) requires that persons registering to vote in federal elections affirm that they are United States Citizens. Failure to do so is a crime punishable under the following statutes:

  • Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 611, it is a crime – punishable by a fine and up to one year in prison – for an alien to vote in a federal election.
  • Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1227, any alien who has voted in violation of any Federal, State, or local constitutional provision, statute, ordinance, or regulation is deportable.
  • Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-10(2) any false statement concerning an applicant’s citizenship status that is made on a registration form submitted to election authorities is a crime.
  • Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 911 knowing and willful false assertions of United States citizenship in order to vote are punishable by up to three years in prison.
  • Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1015(f) it is a criminal offense for an individual to make a false statement or claim that he or she is a citizen of the United States in order to register or to vote.

Unfortunately, too many officials in various States and municipalities believe that illegals should be able to vote with as much ease and legitimacy as citizens. Twelve States and the District of Columbia allow illegal aliens to obtain a drivers’ license.  Congress attempted to deal with that in 2005 with the Real ID Act but only 24 States are compliant.  The intent of the Real ID Act continues to be thwarted by the NVRA.  The provisions of the NVRA “Motor-Voter Law”, requires state departments of motor vehicles to act as voter registration proxies.  That makes it incredibly easy for noncitizens to both drive legally and vote illegally.

With the estimated illegal population in the United States as being between 11 and 30 million, it is estimated that at least 26 million noncitizens are in this country at any given time.  This has created such an immense problem and the incentive for a noncitizen to vote grows each year.  In East Chicago, Indiana, a city with 30,000 residents, voting fraud was so systemic in 2003 that the State Supreme Court ordered a new election with heightened verification.  When the unlawful voters were prohibited from casting a ballot the outcome of the election changed.

How widespread is the problem?  No one really knows but in 2014 a team of professors from Old Dominion University and George Mason University estimated that approximately 6.4 percent of non-citizens voted in the 2008 presidential election.  They also surmised that 2.2 percent voted in the 2010 mid-term elections.  They also estimated that 80 percent of noncitizens who appeared to have voted cast their ballots in favor of one party, the Democratic Party.  It was believed by these professors that there were enough illegal votes to have affected the outcome.  THAT IS A PROBLEM!

Discount this if you please.  I urge you to pray about it and contact your elected officials asking them to take steps to curb the problem.

God bless you and God bless America!

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