I am continually impressed by the wisdom, detailed thought, and diligence the Founding Fathers gave to the Constitution and the Republic.   Their wisdom far exceeded their time and produced a system of government and a document with an incredible sense of timelessness.   I cover the entire document in that blanket statement, including the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence. 

There is one inclusion our Founders placed in our Founding Document that must never be lost.   The Electoral College must be preserved.   I am aware that occasionally, there is an attempt to brainwash the masses regarding that process.   

There were renewed calls to abolish the Electoral College System in this last election.   The desire to transform us into a Direct Democracy with a majority rule system is dangerous to the Republic.  Those advancing that idea know, but the masses do not truly grasp the concept of representative government.   Many believe that, in all things, the majority must rule.   That is a recipe for destruction governmentally and in many areas of life.

If you are a parent, do you manage your home and your children using that principle?   If so, you have or will have anarchy and chaos in the home.   Your children will develop no discipline. You will fail in your assignment to ‘train them in the way they should go.’   

If you run a business, do you operate under that principle and allow the employees to determine by majority vote the direction, work hours, and duty assignments?   If you do, your business is either failing or will fail miserably.   If the military tasked with protecting this nation were to operate in that manner, we would have been defeated long ago and would be under despotic tyranny now.

Those thoughts are not the prime target of my discussion, but they are germane.   I want to address the Electoral College vs. the Popular Vote. The Left frequently makes a serious effort to circumvent the Constitution and subvert our electoral process.   They desire to make the popular vote the deciding factor in all future presidential elections.

Some time back, there was a massive effort to circumvent the Constitution with ‘The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact’ (NPVIC).   It came dangerously close to securing the strength to destroy our system of elections and plunge us into the abyss of political destruction.  Although this idea has faded, those agendas never totally disappear; they get revised and revisited.

The NPVIC was nothing more than an arm of the Liberal Left seeking to give absolute power to the Democratic-dominated regions of this nation, namely California, New York, and Chicago. There are other sectors, but those three alone would virtually always determine the outcome of the elections, and they are all deeply steeped in Democratic ideology. 

The pitch on the website of the NPVIC read as follows:

The National Popular Vote interstate compact would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes across all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The bill ensures that every vote in every state will matter in every presidential election. The bill is a constitutionally conservative, state-based approach that preserves the Electoral College, state control of elections, and the power of the states to control how the President is elected.

Their objective sought to establish a formal agreement in various states that controlled the needed 270 electoral votes and required their electors to vote for the candidate receiving the most popular votes in the election.    They would disregard the wishes of their own voters and require their electors to vote according to the national popular vote totals.  They successfully built a coalition of 15 states and the District of Columbia in that movement.   They controlled 196 electoral votes.    That was too close for comfort and would destroy our electoral system.

I know you have seen it before, but the NPVIC signatory states and the number of electors they control were California (55), New York (29), Illinois (20), New Jersey (14), Washington (12), Massachusetts (11), Maryland (10), Colorado (9), Oregon (7), Connecticut (7), New Mexico (5), Rhode Island (4), Hawaii (4), Delaware (3), Vermont (3), and the District of Columbia (3). 

There were seven additional states in which one legislative chamber approved the measure and one in which both houses of the legislature approved it.   If they had passed the measure, the NPVIC would decide who would be president in all future elections.  Their movement was in direct conflict with the Constitution and violated at least two constitutional provisions, including the 12^th Amendment. 

They detailed their objective in this manner:

The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President … and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate — The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all certificates and the votes shall then be counted . . . the person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed.

The 12^th Amendment was explicitly ratified to prevent actions like that of the NPVIC from becoming a reality.   If something like this were to become a reality, there would be litigation.  Unfortunately, if the Left was given power, they might pack the Supreme Court and destroy any hope of overturning their unconstitutional actions.  The Constitution would be a moot point, and our Republic would no longer exist. 

If something like this were ever to pass and survive the appeals, the Democrats controlling those states would never cast their ballots for a Republican were they to win the popular vote. 

Professor Norman R. Williams wrote in the Harvard Law Review:

[A] withdrawal from the NPVIC would violate the terms … but the Constitution trumps interstate compacts and does so whether Congress ratifies the NPVIC or not. And, sure, other states will undoubtedly sue to compel the withdrawing state to comply … but that lawsuit will likely fail for the reason just discussed. Even more importantly, the very fact that the presidential election would again be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court would again throw the nation into turmoil.

We find ourselves continually fighting for the survival of the American Republic and our Freedom.  You may believe that we should elect according to popular vote, but if we did, both coasts would determine the election, and the rest of us would have no voice.  The Electoral College is the only way to guarantee a representative vote and a reflection of the wishes of All the States and People, not just the strongholds of one party or the other. 

This is one of the many reasons I am unable to support the Democratic Party and its platform. It is anathema to our American system of government and our Constitution.  God help us if we ever allow this type of back-door end run around the Constitution to prevail.  It would mean the end of the Republic and the end of our Freedom.

God bless you, and God bless America!

That choice is whether we “Protect and Defend or Shred and Rescind that Document.”   That’s my question to the Democrats, the Republicans, the Independents, the Libertarians, and all those in politics today.  What is your objective?   I do not care about your rhetoric because, too frequently, your words and deeds do not properly or logically align.  Therefore, I ask you to respect the American people and tell us the truth, if that is possible considering your Political DNA.

I could address a million things to illustrate why I would ask that question.  I will refer back to Trump’s first term and the rush to impeach him.   Nancy Pelosi argued that “Impeaching Trump” was worth the risk of losing the House of Representatives. 

In her arguments, she attempted to illustrate to the voters how much she and the Democrats care about the Constitution and the Rule of Law.  That is so ludicrous (how much they care) that no rational human being should take her seriously.   She and they hoped to sway enough voters to their side of the electoral ledger to win in 2020.  It was not based on genuine concern for the Constitution, America, or the Rule of Law, but ridding themselves of their nemesis, Donald J. Trump.  It was about power and reversing an election they did not like or a candidate they detested. 

Of course, Biden did claim the White House, and I won’t delve into the anomalies and exposed violations of law.  I will suffice it to say that we have endured four years of Democratic Socialistic Tyrannical Rule.  It has not served the American public well. 

That is not the topic I desire to use to articulate my concerns regarding our current condition and the attitudes and ideologies of politicians of all stripes.  I have been deeply concerned for a long time about their understanding of and commitment to our republic and our constitution.   

They took an oath to ‘Protect and Defend’ that document.   Yet, some of those taking that oath openly oppose it and want it ignored, shredded, or rescinded.  I state that based on their own words and the agendas they are advancing.  If you respect and honor the American Constitution, why pursue agendas that directly contradict it? 

The Democrats continue to launch trial balloons in the realm of taxation, and what they advanced before 2020 will likely resurface.   If they ever gain control of both Houses of Congress and the White House, it will.   The SCOTUS will become their prime target to guarantee the success of their transformational agenda. 

They heavily pushed what was identified as a “Wealth Tax.”   Most of the members of Congress and those desiring to be the President are wealthy.  Because Congress and many bureaucrats in Washington have a protective legal shield around them, they do not realize or care about how their proposals affect the rank-in-file Americans.

Even that is not my major concern.  The Left always seeks to engender sympathy and support for its cause by preying on and playing on the jealousy, envy, greed, and anger of those who are not wealthy.  They hope to endear themselves to those who do not have a mountain of cash and fan the flames of the thirst for punishing the rich and making them pay. 

I personally question whether a “Federal Wealth Tax” is constitutional.   I believe that many of the taxes imposed, including the ‘income tax,’ are not.   I am quite sure those who have read any of my posts know that was my position, but I am happy to make it public. 

Let me walk through the proposals they presented and attempt to shed some Constitutional Light on the matter as best I can or as briefly as I can.  I believe that if we are informed, we are forewarned and forearmed and in a position to make a thought-out decision.

In that campaign and push, Senator Elizabeth Warren, the Democratic Senator from Massachusetts, proposed a 2% tax on individuals worth more than $50 Million and 3% on Billionaires.   Before you argue that is not much, let’s dig a little deeper and ask, “Is it Constitutional?”

It does not matter if it is a low percentage, above and beyond what they already pay in taxes, if it is not Constitutional.  If it is not Constitutional, it is an illegitimate law.    End of Story!   Two prominent law scholars wrote letters stating that their legal view is that it violates the Constitution to seek to create what is being called the “Ultra-Millionaire Tax.”

Senator Bernie Sanders, the ‘Independent’ from Vermont, tried to coerce economists to back his plan that advanced a 1% tax on married couples worth $32 Million.   His tax plan included a progression to 8% on wealth over $10 Billion.   Again, you may say, “But that is not a large percentage on such wealth.”  That is not the question; the question is, “Is it Constitutional?”

Under the Constitution, Congress has the power to impose direct taxes under the rule of apportionment.  That proviso was to ensure impartial federal treatment of states by requiring the government to levy taxes in a manner that affords an equal amount collected in each state.   Do proposals like this do that? 

The ability to tax originated in the ‘compromise’ between the slave-holding states and the non-slave-holding states.   It was designed to prevent the North from imposing a ‘head tax’ on slaves because that could not be apportioned equally across all states.

The 16^th Amendment opened the door to what is viewed as a pathway around the apportionment requirement.  That means that Congress, under that view, would no longer have to ensure equal treatment if the direct tax is an “Income Tax.”   That is a convenient way to rescind the Constitution and violate the Intent of our predecessors, but that’s where we are.

But is a ‘Wealth Tax’ an ‘Income Tax’?   That’s where the rub comes in for many legal scholars.   In most cases, it would appear to be a ‘direct tax,’ not an ‘income tax.’   That would require apportionment, making it unconstitutional. 

It has been suggested that Congress side-step the Constitution and the apportionment required by writing the law in such a manner as to make this an income tax.   How would they do that?  They could include a provision in the current tax code to “tax assumed fixed annual return from the measurement of household wealth.”   The key word is ‘assumed!’ 

Given the current SCOTUS, it might pass or fail by a 5-4 margin.  Chief Justice John Roberts would become the deciding vote.  Do you trust him?  I do not!

I suggest we recall the Obamacare debacle and how the Supreme Court, led by Roberts, imposed a ‘tax’ on citizens without following the apportionment.  Do you see the danger?  They relied heavily on the 1796 (Hylton v. United States) decision, which ultimately found that a tax on carriages was not a direct tax and, therefore, did not violate the Constitution. 

Under that hypothetical tax, the tax rate in Virginia would have to be 10 times higher than that in New York because New York had 10 times more carriages per capita than Virginia.  They took the stance that any tax that is not reasonably apportioned is not a direct tax.  How’s that for virtually rewriting the Constitution to whatever you want it to be?

Calvin Johnson, a law professor from the University of Texas, argued in favor of Sanders and Warren’s “Ultra-Wealth Tax.”  He stated, “Apportionment is part of a rational scheme to apportion taxes to reach wealth, and if the apportionment does not function that way, its range ends and the tax is not ‘direct tax.’” 

So, go ahead, Congress and Supreme Court, shred and rescind the Constitution because that type of legislation is a clear attempt to do so.  It cannot be enacted in equal apportionment.   That would open the door to any tax they desired and allow them to confiscate our money.  After they take our money, what else would they take?

I not only oppose this type of legislation because it is wrong, unconstitutional, and violates the intent of our Founders.   It would virtually destroy our economy and cause more money to leave our shores rather than fill the federal coffers.   Therefore, as always, make the plea for rejection of the Leftist and Rhino plans in every election!

May God bless you, and God bless America!

I am serious in my question.  Political correctness and the nullification of many things in today’s society cause me to ask, “Is Common Sense Dead?  Have We Killed Common Sense?”  Somebody rightly asked, “Why do they call it common sense when it is so uncommon?”  There are many things I could use in this discussion, but I will selectively extract one or two to suffice.

The gender nullification activism that has become epidemic in America and around the world is alarming.  I am a father, a grandfather, a husband, a brother, a son, a patriot, a veteran, and most importantly, a Christian.   My core conviction is that God is the Creator.  I have an unrelenting belief in God’s Word and trust what the Bible says far more than what the government or man says.

The Bible declares in Genesis 1:27 – “So God created man in His own image; in the image of God, He created him; male and female He created them.”  Also, in Genesis 5:1-2 – “…God created man, He made him in the likeness of God.  2 He created them male and female, and blessed them and called them Mankind in the day they were created.”    I trust God; he did not create 112 or the number of genders identified as Google and other sites suggest.  He made two, male and female! 

The idea of gender fluidity is a relatively new idea that argues that gender is not ‘fixed.’  The Bible disagrees, as DNA verifies, as chromosomes demand, and genitals reveal.   The idea advanced by those wanting to rewrite the Bible and science suggests that gender can change along a spectrum of masculine-feminine and encompass elements of both genders. 

There is the idea of gender dysphoria that argues that there is distress associated with a mismatch between biological sex and gender identity.  That is not a biological issue but a psychological one created by our depraved society.  That condition is a product of many things, not biological but emotional, psychological, and maybe spiritual.

Body dysmorphia is an entirely different condition, they argue, that is characterized by strong feelings that the body is flawed.  Basically, the argument is, “God, you blew it when you created me, and I need to correct your error.”  I would hate to stand before God and try to argue that. 

Transgender has morphed into meaning so many different things it is hard to define and discuss.  Basically, it is the idea that gender is fluid and changes with changing attitudes and conditions.  We have transsexuals seeking to correct God’s error (their view, not mine) by transitioning from one biological gender to another via medical (hormonal or surgical) means.

The list found among other places is detailed at https://dudeasks.com/how-many-genders-are-there-in-2019/, and I suggest you read it for yourself.   The list and definitions are more than troubling; they scream that ‘common sense’ has completely vanished from Earth.    

New York City’s Commission on Human Rights took a position that slaps sanity and common sense in the face with their thirty-one recognized genders which include names such as ‘drag king, drag queen, butch, femme queen, gender fluid, gender blender, gender bender, and gender gifted.’  I have no idea what they truly mean in some of those, but I know they are rubbing it in our faces and attempting to force us to accept things foreign to common sense, genetics, science, and the Bible. 

I believe that the end game is not empowering people to be who they believe they truly are but disempowering those of us who hold to traditional and biblical values.  They are seeking to disempower those of us who value the traditional two-parent family of mother and father, male and female.  I read a statement by Theodore Dalrymple, an English writer, retired prison doctor, and psychiatrist who has studied this extensively. 

He said: “Political Correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better.  When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity [integrity, honesty].  To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself.  One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded and even destroyed.  A society of emasculated liars is easy to control.  I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.”

That is disturbing and causes me to ask again, “Is Common Sense Dead?  Have We Killed Common Sense?”  The lunacy regarding open borders is part and parcel of this agenda.   The idea that America should become a Socialist nation is part of the package.  The Political Correctness that seeks to force Americans to abandon their God-given right to “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” embodied in our inalienable rights and constitutional protections. 

The modern Democrat Party has abandoned Common Sense and is on a mission to destroy what our founders and the framers gave us in the late 1700s.   They are pursuing a pathway that will lead to tyranny, despotism, and the loss of most, if not all, our freedoms and liberties.  How millions are embracing that political agenda is beyond reason and forces me to ask, “Is Common Sense Dead?  Have We Killed Common Sense?”

What I am addressing is one of the reasons I am grateful that the Left lost in 2024.  I pray that with the GOP in control of the Senate and House of Representatives, they and the President will take steps to return constitutional normalcy to our Republic.  If they revive “Common Sense,” we have hope. 

I am troubled by numerous Republican Senators and Representatives openly opposing President Trump’s nominees and agenda.  If we do not restore constitutionality and revive Common Sense, having a Republican in the White House and control of Congress will be meaningless.   It will exasperate those who gave the President and the GOP a clear mandate, and in 2026, the pendulum will swing away from them. 

The Supreme Court will possibly have 1 to 3 openings.  There are lower court appointments to be made.  There is a 900-pound gorilla in the room, and the various bureaucracies and agencies must be defanged and de-weaponized.  The Department of Justice needs a strong, aggressive head to address the corruption and collusion.

There are matters such as stifling regulations, taxes, and our constitutional rights that must be addressed.  Our national security, the border, taxes, inflation, energy, and more are on the table.  The last time Trump was President, the Republicans in Congress spent more time opposing Trump than assisting his efforts.  Even with that opposition, much good was accomplished.  Congress, please revive common sense and do not make the same error again!

God help us wake up, return to God and our moral moorings, and allow Common Sense to be restored!   WAKE UP AMERICA! 

The 14^th Amendment DOES NOT give Blanket Birthright Citizenship to all born on U.S. Soil.   I have addressed this before, but I feel strongly that I need to reiterate my arguments and those of the legislation’s authors.    The only legitimate way to interpret the Constitution and the Amendments is to go back to the original and determine their expressed and indicated intent.  This is incredibly easy to do in this case but is ignored by many on the Right and the Left.    PLEASE TAKE THE TIME TO READ THIS!

You may vehemently disagree with me on this, but I will present my argument drawn from the words of the amendment’s authors and how it was understood in the days following its ratification. I contend that those of that era would have had NO ISSUE with Donald Trump’s Executive Order. In fact, they would have found no need for it.

With the continued push by the Leftists and some RINOs to legalize and make citizens of the presumed 11 to 30 million Illegals now in the USA, I feel the need to address this again.  I keep hearing from people on the Left and the Right that if a person is born on U.S. soil, they are automatically a citizen.  That is Wrong!  Before you insist I am wrong and throw something at your computer screen, let me delve into this again for the umpteenth time.

The Democrats railed against President Trump when he issued an Executive Order ending “birthright citizenship.”  They have called him everything but a human being and made him worse than Lucifer and a reincarnation of Genghis Khan.   President Biden and his predecessors on the Left took the opposite path and continued to bypass Congress and the Constitution.  The plan and desire of the leftist globalists liberal ideologues is to provide amnesty to the illegals.  The proponents deem it justified and praiseworthy.  I consider it both unconstitutional and dangerous.

Many on both the Left and the Right fail to comprehend this amendment’s actual wording and intent.  Like many things, it has morphed into something other than the Original Intent.  I offer my two cents, hoping to bring some clarity to the argument.   If I achieve that after numerous attempts, it will be nothing short of a miracle, but I feel compelled to place myself on the chopping block again for the sake of the Republic and the Constitution.

Illegal Immigration and Amnesty are not secondary issues in today’s political climate.  The very anti-Trump Bret Baier of Fox News during the 2016 presidential election made it clear that he and many do not understand the intent of the authors of the Amendment nor the Founders of the Republic regarding citizenship. 

This issue is, in many respects, an economic issue.  It is assuredly a national security issue.  It is unquestionably a national sovereignty issue.  It is also a moral and social issue. 

At one time, I thought that if a person were born in the United States, they were automatically granted citizenship by the United States Constitution.  As a history student in college and over the past 50-plus years, I have discovered the writings of the authors of the 14th Amendment and their view of what that amendment was designed to do.

The 14th Amendment, as per Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan, in 1866, wrote, “…every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States.  This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.” 

Please note that “subject to the jurisdiction” does not simply mean being in the country physically but means “not owing allegiance” to any other foreign nation.  It is not just the physical jurisdiction but the complete jurisdiction of the United States of America.  Illegals cannot make that claim because they are ILLEGAL! 

In 1866, Senator Edward Cowan wrote, “A foreigner in the United States has a right to the protection of the laws, but is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word…”  The words “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” were intended to exclude American-born persons whose allegiance to the United States was not complete from automatic citizenship.  

The Native Americans were not initially included, although born here because it was perceived that their allegiance was not complete to the United States but to their own tribal councils.  Regarding illegal aliens here in the United States unlawfully, their native country has a claim of allegiance, of the child as well as the parents. 

Therefore, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired and precludes automatic citizenship.  The proper interpretation of the 14th Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby.

In the “Slaughter-House Cases,” the Supreme Court confirmed this restricted interpretation of citizenship.   In 1884 Elk v. Wilkins, the phrase “subject to its jurisdiction” was interpreted to include “children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born with the United States.”  

In Elk, the American Indian claimant was considered NOT an American citizen because the law required him to be “not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.” 

The Courts essentially declared that the parents’ status determines the child’s citizenship.  To qualify children for “birthright citizenship,” based on the 14th Amendment, parents MUST owe “direct and immediate allegiance” to the United States and be “completely subject” to its jurisdiction.  They must be citizens of the United States of America.

The argument that being born here automatically affords “birthright citizenship” in the United States is to ignore the wording and intent of the Amendment.  One cannot merely self-immigrate illegally and then claim jurisdiction because they are here.  They are citizens of another country and subject to the jurisdiction of that country.  They become subject to our laws, which do not give them citizenship.  

The 14^th Amendment, ratified in 1868, was primarily directed at extending citizenship to the freed slaves.   The Amendment’s wording was derived from the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which provided that “all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power” should be considered citizens. 

The Amendment was intended to give citizenship only to those who owed their allegiance to the United States and were subject to its complete jurisdiction.  Senator Lyman Trumbull, R-IL, a key figure in its adoption, stated, “subject to the jurisdiction” meant not owing allegiance to any other country.

American Indians did not become citizens until Congress passed the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.  There would have been no need to pass such legislation if the 14^th Amendment extended citizenship to all people born in America, no matter the circumstances of their birth and no matter their parents’ legal status. 

I pray that everyone, including the Supreme Court Justices, will always consider that fact and realize that, based on the wording and declarations of the framers, the original intent. Birthright Citizenship is not part of our Constitution; politicians have made it so, not the document itself.

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 defined citizens of the United States as “all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding American Indians not taxed.”  The question of American Indians Senator Howard argued, “…have always been in our legislation and jurisprudence, as quasi-foreign nations.” 

Senator Lyman Trumbull (D-IL) agreed with Senator Howard, stating, “…it would be a violation of our treaty obligations… to extend our laws over these Indian tribes with whom we have treaties saying we would not do so.”   Trumbull insisted that the Indian tribes were not subject to our jurisdiction in the sense of owing allegiance solely to the United States.  He stated, “…it is ONLY those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens.”

The decisive factor is that Section 5 of the 14th Amendment reads: “Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”  That includes Section 1, deemed the “citizenship clause.” 

Would Congress pass legislation granting “birthright citizenship” to the children of illegal aliens?  Do wild bears live in the woods?  If they follow the arguments of the authors of the clauses and amendment, they would not, but if they follow present-day political correctness, they would. 

In 2016, I was traveling to East Texas for a Nursing Home Program with my brother and heard a Republican candidate for a political office in my state speaking.  As they all do, he was proclaiming his great conservatism and the subject of immigration came up.  He made the following statements saying he supported:

• Removing the Citizenship Birthright of Children of Illegals.
• Making the guest workers possess a biometric ID card.
• Ending the bi-lingual ballots for voting

The host lauded him for his conservatism on those points. Then he said that regarding Immigration Reform, he supported the Republican Immigration Reform Plan, which, as he stated, was “Giving those of the 12 million or so ILLEGALS Green Cards, making them Guest Workers but without a pathway to citizenship.” 

He reasoned that we could not deport twelve million illegals, and because we could not then, it made no sense to have ICE or the Border Patrol looking for them.  He said that not taking this step would be a de facto amnesty.  He argued that focusing on the illegals would detract from securing the border and, rather than securing the border, reducing the number of immigrants who can come and enforcing the current laws on immigration that because we could not catch them all, the law should not be enforced. 

To his credit, the host challenged that, and I was yelling at my radio, shouting – REALLY?  My question was, if we have bank robbers and cannot catch them all, do we cease enforcing the law?  If we cannot catch all those driving under the influence, does that mean we should not enforce the law?  What law do we have where we require that 100% are apprehended to make the law valid? 

He further argued that most of the twelve million Illegals do not want to be citizens; they want to work, and that by making them legal, we would suddenly have an enormous influx of tax revenue pouring into the coffers.  Really?  If they know that the law will not be enforced and do not want to vote or be citizens, what would motivate them to identify themselves and make them liable for taxes, etc.?

I do not believe that illegals should get free tuition to go to college.  I do not believe that they should receive free health care, food stamps, or any other entitlement.  I also say to the employers who knowingly employ illegals, you are also a lawbreaker and should face the brunt of the law. 

Then there is the issue of those who were born here or brought here at a very young age by parents illegally.  Still, I do not see how that mandates that we give what would become nothing more than blanket amnesty to those who have broken our laws and thumbed their noses at our constitution. 

Immigration is one of our many issues; securing our borders must become one of our top priorities.  We have the resources to accomplish that, and I believe that law enforcement reduces the number of those breaking the law over the long haul.  It certainly gives pause to some who weigh the consequences. 

Those for whom the consequences are inconsequential will do what they do regardless, and no reform will change that.  Criminals who have utter disregard for the law will not magically change.

May God be with you as you go through your day!

I believe it is obvious, but before anyone breaks out the boiling oil, tar, and feathers and secures a rail sufficiently strong to hoist me upon, let me state that Liberal was not me!   I do not recall ever being a liberal politically.  I desire to be quite liberal in my charitable giving.   I believe strongly in being generous (liberal) in our willingness to give to good causes and the Kingdom of God. 

I hope everyone has read far enough to realize that the former Liberal I speak of was not me.  If you are still with me, I would like to address some of the current political climate in America.  I want to focus on how it has, does, and will affect everyone.   I realize that my objective is lofty and one that I may not attain but it is worthy of me giving the old college try. 

Over the past decade, I have talked with numerous liberals, some still in the Democratic fold and some straying from the plantation.  I found a surprising unanimity on some things.   One is that the Left in America is not a homogenous entity but a blending of numerous factions.   

The Left has largely adopted the Middle Eastern philosophy, “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.”  Thus, they have worked with and even allowed the coopting of their Party Platform by the avid activists on the Far Left to lead the way.   Almost all of the Leftists leading the Party have a disdain for anyone embracing conservative views or embracing Judeo-Christian values.  Therefore, those on the Far Left who hate us are deemed as welcome allies in their quest for power.

It is an unfortunate condition in America that the purveyors of Democratic Socialism or Marxism have hijacked the Left.   Those staunchly entrenched in the Marxist/Socialist philosophy control the Party mechanisms and drive the bus.  They have the singular objective of fundamentally transforming America into a socialist paradise. 

There are a few more traditional, moderate liberals in the Party who are beginning to realize that this agenda will swallow them up and eliminate their position and power.  However, they see no viable pathway to regain control of the Party, so they stay on the proverbial plantation.

If anyone had been paying attention in the early and mid-1960s, they would have quickly realized that there was a hijacking underfoot.  Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Black community were viewed as useful tools in obtaining their objective.  Sadly, few seemed able to embrace the reality of the high jacking of the Party, but it is. 

The ultra-far-left left-liberals in the Democratic Party viewed Black people as useful and expendable foot soldiers for their cause.   They manipulated and seduced them into believing they were the Party that genuinely cared about their plight.  If one researches LBJ’s views, one will quickly realize that control was the objective, not rectifying any perceived wrong.

The Uber Left has always viewed Black people and now Hispanics, LBGTQ, Transgender, etc., they can manipulate as people to be pitied, patted on the head, tossed an occasional bone, and used as their mascots.  They do not care about the needs of any of those groups.  They care about power and control. 

History reveals that it has been the Republican Party throughout our American history who have taken action that truly benefitted all ethnicities, not the Democrats.   But you never hear that from the media and will never hear it from the far-left activist professors in our institutions of higher learning.

Out of the civil rights and anti-establishment movements of the 1960s came people such as Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, Medgar Evers, and others.   Those activists of the 1960s became educators, politicians, and activists of today.  They have been allowed to shape the minds of our youth for decades.  They have successfully produced generations of mind-numbed activists who follow their leaders like children, and rats follow the Pied Piper. 

According to the liberals I spoke to, there is growing trepidation in their ranks over the direction of their beloved Party. Those who love Big Government but want to maintain Capitalism and most of our freedoms seem to be waking up to the reality that the Far-Left Activists have hijacked their Party. Some realize that their future, position, place, and power are becoming endangered, and they, too, will be swallowed up by the destruction of those in control of the agenda. 

Academia is in bed with the Far Left and is the source of advancing that philosophy and ideology.   The entertainment community is joined at the hip with the Far-Left Socialist Communist agenda and ideology.  Those in the Old Democratic Party who would prefer a somewhat more moderate approach to government are realizing that the handwriting is on the wall and their days are numbered, too.  Many of them believe, as do I, that it is too late for the Democratic Party to return to any semblance of moderation.

One of my significant concerns came to fruition in 2020 when Biden was declared the winner and became President.  When they retook the Senate, it posed a threat to our Constitutional Liberties and Freedoms.  The weaponization of government agencies was entrenched.  We may never root out the corruption of the Deep State.

The RINOs within the Republican Party, the Never Trump Advocates, and the Liberal Activist seem to be traveling the same path, and that is cause for concern.  The RINOs and Never Trumpers actively worked to prevent Trump from winning in 2024.  Thankfully, their efforts failed, and hopefully, the GOP will back him as he attempts to work for the people and the Republic.

One of the liberals, now a former liberal, said, “I hope Trump wins in a landslide in 2024 and the Republicans reclaim the Senate and keep the House.”  I was surprised at that declaration, and he explained his reasoning.  He said, “If that happens, there is hope that the Democratic Party will realize its own failure and those who want to move more to the center will regain influence and control of the Party mechanism.” 

In a very real sense that would mean a divorce within the Party by the Far Left and the Left.   It would be bloody and could mean the end of the Party or its resurgence in a position more palatable to millions of voters who would see them as an alternative. 

If the Republicans will follow Trump’s lead, they have the opportunity to relegate the Ultra Liberal Leftism to the trash heap of history.   Will they do that?  They have not in the past, so there is cautious optimism that they will now. 

Donald Trump has the unique ability to talk to and resonate with people from all spectrums of life.   He can communicate with those in what is deemed ‘flyover’ America, those in the urban centers, the rich and the poor.   Why?  Because Trump is Trump and can be nothing else, and that strikes a chord of hope in many hearts.   They believe he means it when He says, “America First.”  Those in the African American, Hispanic, and other ethnic communities are beginning to awaken and see that his policies have been better for them than the age-old Democratic offerings.

We have been granted a small, very short window of opportunity.  No, I do not see Donald Trump as our savior; that is Jesus.  However, I believe he has America at heart and wants to help all Americans.   In this election, his message resonated with the working class, and he was given a clear mandate.  My plea is not to waste this opportunity. 

If the Republicans will seize this opportunity and follow the lead of the President, we can see a new era of conservatism, constitutionalism, and Americanism well into the foreseeable future.   Will that happen?  That depends on you and me.  Therefore, I ask that you join me and the millions like me and pray, work, and keep the pressure on the elected officials to ‘do the right thing.’

God bless you, and God bless America!

I believe my title question is legitimate in the current climate politically, societally, and socially.   I would imagine that it will get the attention of some and infuriate others.   It is a declaration of what I see as a prevalent problem in 2024-25 in America and much of the world. 

I remember something a teenage girl in a church I pastored years ago said.   She had grown tired of the pressure to be a perfect physical specimen and coined a phrase, “Thin ain’t in, fats where it’s at.”   In today’s world, many seem to be adopting the view that “Love ain’t in, and hate is where it’s at.” 

It has become more fashionable to hate than to love.  It has become more acceptable to be vitriolic than compassionate.  Both sides of virtually every issue seem to have adopted the attitude that if someone disagrees with their ideological position, it is justifiable and desirable to express hatred for that person.   People seem to be reaching the place where they “Love to Hate and Hate to Love.”   In today’s world, most hate anyone outside their ideological sect.

The Bible spoke of the time, which seems to describe our day.  I have told congregants in churches that there would come a time when the Body of Christ had to become willing to die for their faith.  I have warned that a time was coming when hate would be so prevalent that it would be dangerous to be identified as a Christian.  I believe we see evidence that my predictions and the biblical warnings are accurate.

For decades, the debate about God in government has raged, and sadly, too many followers of Jesus sat in silence.  The result was God, the Bible, and anything Christian was evicted from the public square in America.   As a result, many of our inalienable rights were usurped.    After all, if God and the Bible are anathema to American politics and government, then why would those adherents recognize God-given inalienable rights? 

I am not Catholic, but a statement by a Catholic archbishop is germane.  Francis George, in 2010, said, “I expect to die in my bed, my successor will die in prison, and his successor will die a martyr in the public square.”  He was addressing his view of the growing hate for Christians and Christianity.  There is no doubt that the disdain and hatred for Christianity and the Bible have grown exponentially in America in many sectors. 

The attacks against those of faith have increased, and so has the tolerance and tacit endorsement for those attacks increased.  In a Wall Street Journal poll, the importance of traditional values in America has plunged to the cellar.  That poll indicated that a meager 39% of Americans now say that religious faith is important to them.  In 1998, that number was 62%.  That is disturbing and incredibly revealing of what and why we are in the state we are in today. 

I detest murder!  I detest the insanity and evil that produces mass shootings and often involves children, the most vulnerable and innocent of our world.   I believe in the Second Amendment and defend our rights to keep and bear arms.   But in this blog post, I desire to address the insanity and hate that it is producing numerous diabolical tragedies.

The shooting some time ago in Nashville is a prime example of the danger of hate! The rampage and carnage of using a truck in New Orleans is as well. In Nashville, the transgender individual, apparently with premeditation, targeted a Christian school with a biblical curriculum and represented Christian values.   

That seems to be precisely what this shooter wanted to destroy.  I suppose this person hated Christianity and the Bible because of the traditional and biblical position of two genders (male and female) and that God does not make mistakes placing a person of one gender in the body of another.  The flames of that hatred have been fanned extensively, and the fruit is beginning to be evident.  It is not a good fruit!

The leftist politicians, activists, journalists (sic), columnists, and entertainers all took to the microphones, social media sites, and printed pages to defend the shooter and decry Christianity as the cause of the tragedy.  That is beyond ridiculous and reveals the deep-seated hatred for Christianity and the Bible.  There was no sympathy or empathy for the victims, but they sought to make the perpetrator of the diabolical evil the victim. 

Our founding fathers warned us of the dangers of pushing God and the Bible out of the public arena, but we did not listen.  Instead of heeding the warnings of many of the founders, the Bible, and moral sanity, we allowed the haters to become more and more successful in eliminating everything of God and the Bible from the public square, insisting that “Separation of Church and State” warranted that action.  If you remove moral restraint, you invite evil of diabolical proportions. 

When world leaders can view fire bombings of Christian centers as understandable and condonable, it signals our condition.  When politicians can claim that the domestic terrorism of lawless groups is justifiable anger, we are in deep trouble.   Are we going back to the days when the Romans and others used Christians as fodder for lions and their deaths as objects of entertainment for the non-Christian public? 

America has attempted to tolerate the haters, appease the terrorists, and legislate the desired behavior and failed miserably.  America’s moral standing is rapidly dwindling into abysmal nothingness.  We have metamorphosed from being the greatest nation in the world to an immoral morass of corruption and hatred.  We have failed our children, ranging from those in the womb to those who are pressed into society brainwashed about God, the Bible, our founding, and absolute truth.

We live in a time when speaking for family values, traditional values, the Bible, and Christianity is deemed a hate crime.  To want to take care of America before we try to take care of the rest of the world is viewed as an abrogation of our global responsibility and rooted in selfishness or white supremacy, regardless of the speaker’s ethnicity.  We have divided this nation to a greater extent than the issue of slavery in the 1860s.

America’s two chief pillars were the Bible and the Constitution.  We have abandoned or allowed the abandonment of both in today’s America.  That does not bode well for the present or posterity.  The Bible is no longer an anchor in this nation.  Many today view it as a book of myths and fables, outdated, and even misogynistic, bigoted, and narrow-minded.  The followers of God in Christianity who do not ascribe to those views are deemed unworthy of existence, and whatever harm comes to them is justifiable. 

I realize that some reading what I am writing ascribe to the modern view of justifiable hate for Christians and the Bible.  I offer this thought and hope it will resonate with some.  If there is no God, no absolute truth, and we are to base all our decisions on what we deem good for us as individuals, we have effectively contributed to the current calamity.   We have decayed to a place where no behaviors are too wretched, and no evil is deemed so abhorrent that it must be condemned.   Calling evil good and good evil is a clear sign of depravity so extensive it guarantees unavoidable destruction and chaos.

Neither the Bible nor the American Constitution are outdated.   Both are viable guides for our lives and our human government endeavors.  We seem to have replaced order and morality with extreme disorder and selfishness.  When ‘number one’ becomes more important than ‘anyone,’ we will become laws unto ourselves, and nothing will be off the table.  If this mindset continues, hate will prevail, and Love will be relegated to the shadows.  God help us!  

America, we cannot fix this with politics or legislation.   It is a heart, moral, and mind issue that can only be repaired by God and a return to moral sanity.  As a Christian, I call for all who believe in God and prayer to become fervent in their cries to our Creator.  We are destroying ourselves with Hate when Love would heal our wounds.

God bless you, and God bless America!

January 1, 2025, marked the beginning of what could be the most wonderful time in America, or it could become a time of utter chaos and destruction.  I wish I could tell you with absolute certainty that this year will see a return to our government following foundational constitutional principles.  I do not believe that those desiring the fundamental transformation of America will cooperate and that the Trump administration will fight an uphill battle.

Those on the Left and some of the Establishment adherents on the Right are determined to protect their ole-boy system and the positions of power and personal prosperity.   They view us (the people) as useful tools to achieve their goal and, therefore, only important in providing funds and votes.

Those of us who desire limited government, the guarantee of our unalienable rights granted to us by God and preserved in the Constitution, and having a Constitutional Republic are viewed as members of the ‘Flat Earth Society.’     If the Trump team can accomplish some of their objectives well, it will see a return to a more livable economy.  The easing of energy and the cost of goods and services should facilitate the easing of some of the societal tensions that are now being experienced.  

If the Trump administration has the backing of Congress, we will be less threatened by international terroristic activity.  We will see a much more secure border, reducing the influx of drugs, human trafficking, and disease.  We will have a more thorough vetting of those entering our country and thereby reduce the threat of terrorism.  It will not eliminate those things but produce a reduction.

We will observe an effort to de-weaponize the DOJ, FBI, CIA, and IRS.  Those agencies will be less able to harass and intimidate those who do not support the Leftist agenda.  Our rights will become more secure as the courts receive an influx of constitutionalists and adherents to the rule of law.  It could be a very prosperous time in America.  Again, I said, “Could be.”

I wish I were more optimistic, but with Congress’s history and the immensity of our federal government’s bureaucracy, it will be a long fight. The Establishment leadership in the GOP has a demonstrated track record of being more akin to the ideological views of the Left than Constitutional Conservatism.

Can we fix that?  Yes, but not in one election cycle.  We must organize at the grass-roots level and invest ourselves individually in the effort to restore America to Constitutionalism.   The question is, “Are we up to the task?”  That remains to be seen.

Now that I’ve thrown down the gauntlet, what will I do personally?  Am I going to speak and write about what we should do while sitting on the sideline, or will I get my feet wet and hands dirty and dive into the filthy water of the political arena locally?   

I should stop speaking and writing if I am unwilling to invest personally. If I am not willing to accept the challenge and responsibility of being a voice of reason, it would be hypocritical and reactionary rather than proactive for me to say anything. 

I view inactivity as perpetuating the problem rather than pursuing the solution.   Therefore, I am researching how to become involved locally at the precinct level.    I do not feel that my purpose is to be a candidate for political office but to have a voice in the platform and choice of candidates. 

Martin Luther King said, “I have a dream…”    I also dream of a restored, revitalized constitutional republic in America.  I dream of a nation that returns to its moral moorings and to God.  I have a vision of an America that is focused on solutions rather than personality preferences. 

Is it possible?  I cannot say definitively that it is.   However, I refuse to be deterred from my belief that it is and my willingness to invest all to ensure it.  That is my commitment for 2025 and beyond.   If we fail, our posterity will pay an extremely high price for the loss of Freedom.  I am not saying we should abandon all hope, but rather that we should, with the hope, develop a spirit of 1776 for Freedom. 

We cannot see a restored America at the ballot box alone, but on our knees before Almighty God!   I believe that the number one problem in America and the world is the condition of the human heart.  I believe that if we follow the directive of 2 Chronicles 7:14 and make Matthew 6:33 our foundation, we can see restoration, renewal, and revival in America.  I hope you see that and will join us in prayer and commitment to fight for Faith, Family, and Freedom.

May God bless you and guard, guide, and govern America again!

The old saying “a rose is a rose by any other name, it is still a rose” applies to the barbaric practices of the Islamic Jihadists.  You can attempt to put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig.  You can call evil good, and it remains evil.  You can call an outhouse a portal of waste elimination, and the smell is still the same.  Barbarism is barbarism whether those in positions of power and authority acknowledge it or not. 

We have many dangers facing America, but the one that I want to address in this blog is Terrorism.   It is a genuine threat; the danger has increased exponentially with the non-existent border.   You can argue for an open border and ignore the dangers.  The influx of drugs, criminals, gangs, human trafficking, and disease are also issues of concern.  Those are topics for another discussion.

The Islamists are not the first in history to be barbaric, but they are as bad as any in recorded history.  Barbarians have no apparent conscience and genuinely believe they have the right to do what they do.  They continue until they are stopped by a force greater than their own.  When I review recorded history, I find there is much disagreement as to what cultures, nations, or societies were the most barbaric, but among virtually every account, I find the following listed:

THE CELTS…

They were prominent Europeans in the 7th and 8th centuries BC.  The Romans called them Galli, and the Greeks called them Keltoi, meaning “barbarians.”  Their maximum expansion was in the 3rd-5th centuries BC and occupied much of Europe north of the Alps. 

The Celts seemed to have a thing for severed heads and, after the battle, would collect heads, take them home, and decorate their houses with them.  They believed that the head held the soul, and by taking the head, they took the soul of the one killed.  They would often paint themselves blue and fight naked as a supreme insult, saying, “I have no fear of you, and to prove it will stand before you naked and exposed.”

THE AZTECS…

They held the belief that every 52 years, the world would end unless the gods were strong enough, and the best way to strengthen the gods was a steady diet of human sacrifice with a mixture of cannibalism.  Their practices were beyond horrific. 

THE ASSYRIANS…

They hailed from ancient Mesopotamia, and upon discovering iron and how to use it to form weapons, they became a terror of the region.  Iron was much more durable than bronze and made the Assyrians formidable foes.  

King Ashurnasirpal said:  “I built a pillar over against his city gate, and I flayed all the chief men who had revolted, and I covered the pillar with their skins; some I walled up within the pillar, some I impaled upon the pillar on stakes, and others I bound to stakes round the about the pillar; many within the border of my own land I flayed, and I spread their skins upon the walls; and I cut off the limbs of the officers, of the royal officers who had rebelled.”

It seemed to be more than their way of putting fear in the hearts of their enemies.  They seemed to enjoy the sport of barbarism.

THE SPARTANS…

They took babies they considered imperfect and tossed them over the cliffs to die on the rocks below.  They bathed newborn babies in wine to see if they were strong enough to survive.  Every male was a soldier and fought until they could retire at about age 60, which some have equated to living to 400 today based on what they went through.  If you died in battle, your grave was marked because you were a hero, but otherwise, there was no notice or mention of you.  Their law did not allow them to beat their slaves; it required it.  Their barbarism and fierceness were well-known and documented throughout the world.

THE MONGOLS…

It is estimated that Genghis Khan and other Mongols killed upwards of 40 million people.  They conquered anything and everything in their path and slaughtered everyone in the city except for the women they opted to keep as sex slaves.  It is recorded that during an invasion of India, a Mongol general built a pyramid in front of the walls of Delhi out of human heads.  He used 90,000 of them to accomplish his architecture.  They force-marched vast crowds of refugees before their armies as human shields.  At one point, it was reported that they controlled as much as 12 million square miles and were ruthless.

The closest we have today to the Mongols are the Islamic Jihadists.  Yet, the Obama and Biden administrations found calling them what they are impossible.  Those administrations denied that groups like ISIS, Hamas, and Hezbollah were Islamic and continually made excuses for their heinous acts.   It is not climate change, lack of jobs, lack of education, or lack of tolerance that makes them what they are.   It is their Belief.   It is rooted in their interpretation of the Quran.

Thomas Jefferson challenged Tripoli’s ambassador to Great Britain as to what right his nation had to attack American ships and enslave her citizens and why the Muslims held such hostility to this new nation.  The answer is chilling.   Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the ambassador, replied that Islam:

“Was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Qur’an, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.”

Sadly, America paid ransom to these barbarians for 15 more years until Jefferson became President.  When Tripoli’s Pasha (leader) sent a demand for payment of $225,000 and $25,000 per year, Jefferson refused.  The Pasha cut down the American flag and declared war on the United States. 

Jefferson determined that this action be met with force and, with the approval of Congress, ordered the American ships to seize all vessels and goods that belonged to the Pasha.  When they realized the United States was serious, Algiers and Tunis abandoned the war, and the Americans defeated Tripoli.  This is why the line “to the shores of Tripoli” was added to the Marine Corps hymn. 

Jefferson and previous presidents understood that you meet barbarism and terrorism with force rather than attempting to appease them with rhetoric and temerity.  Hopefully, we will stand strong and never bow to the demands of terrorists and meet their threats with strength.  May we never bow to the demands of domestic terrorists who seek to strip us of our rights and liberties.  Let’s keep the Republic strong!

God help us wake up, stand up, speak up, and come to the rescue of the Republic and the world in the fight against barbarism.    God bless you, and God bless America!