Truth

TRUTH; an unfamiliar term today.  We fear it.  We avoid it.  We hide it.  We hide from it.  We are angered by it.  Truth, though, is what we need to hold on to if we as a people are going to continue to live freely in America.  For far too long, truth has been ignored, abandoned, and rejected by our so-called leaders, our educational institutions, our national media, and the vast majority of the population.  It's been excised from our national lexicon and, instead, we have turned to emotions: fear, distrust, and anger, to rule our lives.
Nearly a hundred years ago, our national leaders decided to not bother the people of America with truth, fact, or honesty, but, rather, to manipulate them with emotions wrapped in lies, rumors, and dishonesty.  It's easier to herd a nation of people when they are angry and fearful of their neighbors than it is to lead them with the truth.  As long as the Glorious leaders promised to keep the feared fellow citizen from hurting us, taking from us, or having more than us, we allowed ourselves to be divided into voting blocks to be wooed, manipulated, and bought with "free" government stuff. 
The truth of it all is that we've been, over the last century, conditioned to believe that our government is the center of all truth and all benevolence and all justice in this country.  The truth of it all is that our National media outlets are nothing more than mouthpieces for government power.  The truth of it all is that most educational institutions--including most of the public school system--are no more than institutions of indoctrination; teaching that America's "greatness" is a lie and that our government is the answer to all our problems.  The truth of it all is that our national government has taken unto itself more power than is legally allowed by the very Constitution that all our so-called leaders swore to uphold.
The truth of is all is that we've is that we now lay on our leaders--and particularly our current President--the powers of a superman, and that we look on members of our Congress as benevolent (unless they're on the "other" side) sages who can legislate away all fear and danger in our lives.  Meanwhile, our liberties continue to erode and fall away in our fatal indifference to the quickly building, and too successful, attacks on our freedoms.   We will soon find ourselves subject to a self-avowed, all knowing, all caring, and all powerful leader.  He will be the leader of a government of "experts" who will rule every aspect of our lives and he will be beyond question or criticism (to do so will bring retribution and punishment).  He will demand total loyalty and worship...or else.  Whether we need it, want it, or accept it; it will all be done for our own good.  With promises of economic security, sharing of wealth, and the bringing down of the successful, we keep voting for, and supporting, leaders who lie and manipulate for the sole purpose of gaining, growing, and retaining power; power over us.
In a quote attributed to Scottish noble Alexander Tytler (though not verified)  the dangers to a Democracy (though, in America, we actually have a Democratic Republic): "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years." 
In a quote attributed to numerous authors (no one can find the first use of it), we see our future:  "Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage."
Here we sit, voting for those who promise us the most from the government coffers, and looking at the list, it's inarguable to say we are not going from the apathy stage to the dependence stage as we go about our lives today.  Only one step away from bondage, we allow ourselves still to be drawn around like an oxen is drawn around by the ring in his nose.   We should all be ashamed and fearful of what's happening, but, as our government wants us to be, we are to busy fearing, hating, and wanting to punish our fellow Americans--OUR NEIGHBORS--for not thinking, speaking, and acting the way they should...as our government says they should. 
Shame on us! 
 

Why gun control?

     “I apprehend no danger to our country from a foreign foe.  There is no nation on Earth powerful enough to accomplish our overthrow.  Our destruction, should it come at all, will be from another quarter: from the inattention of the people to the concerns of their government, from their carelessness and negligence.”   --Daniel Webster.

     The greatest enemy of America’s freedoms is not from outside invaders.  It isn’t from communist China, North Korea or Islamic terrorists.  No, freedom’s greatest enemy is internal and it’s three-fold: ignorance and apathy on the part of the American people and a desire to grow power on the part of those already in power. 
     Generations of a public education system that no longer emphasizes our Nation’s history or a knowledge of civics—thanks to the “Father of modern education” (and avowed Socialist), John Dewey—coupled with a population the willingly chooses to not know or understand their founding documents have allowed apathy to take hold in society.  They don’t--or won’t--see the gradual destruction of the basic freedoms we used to hold so dear; freedoms and ideals set forth centuries ago that, over the years, so many have sacrificed to secure and defend.  To be bothered with learning, thinking and decision-making has become much too difficult a task; especially when they can look to their favorite celebrity or hero politician to tell them what to think.  It’s so much easier to have those duties taken care of by someone else.  This is the thinking—or not thinking—that allows our so-called leaders to run rampant over our Constitution and to grow their own power.

     With the promise of “free” services, guaranteed happiness and that those who have more (the “evil” rich) will be punished for daring to be successful, complete support is gained—or bought, if you will.  So, when something like McCain/Feingold is passed—destroying true political free speech for all but the mainstream media or wealthy individuals backing Political Action Committees—the people shrug their shoulders and yawn.  When a Patriot Act is signed into law; even with its over-reaching police powers (including warrantless searches and wiretaps), it’s the people’s ignorance of law and constraint and their desire for  safety at all costs that allow it to happen.  When a President states his desire—and even begins the process—for a “Civilian National Security Force, “just as powerful, just as well funded as our military,” the people just look the other way.  As long as their own little bubble of a world isn’t directly affected by any of these power grabs, then it doesn’t matter to the people what their government does.
And now, following a horrendous mass killing in Connecticut comes another assault on the Constitution.  With promises of safety, security and “we’re not going to take your guns,” President Obama is touring the country pushing a new era of gun control measures.  He, along with Vice President Biden, has stated that they have no desire to take our guns or to not allow you to defend your home or hunt or go sport shooting.  They say they only want “common sense” gun control laws that will save lives.  President Obama has even said that what he wants implemented will “stop” these acts (mass shootings) from happening again.  But what they really want is to further dismantle the Constitution and they are attempting to so under the guise of a “safety” that can never exist.

     The first ten Amendments to the Constitution, what are called the Bill Of Rights, were written and ratified for one reason; to stop the federal government from trampling our “natural, God-given rights.”  These rights: freedom of speech, religion, assembly, freedom from self-incrimination and from illegal search and seizure, and the freedom to keep and bear arms are all protected individual rights that our government is not allowed to infringe upon.  In fact, they are fundamental and inalienable right that our government is supposed to uphold and defend; not destroy.

     To understand the words of the Second Amendment, one first has to look at history.  Since Medieval times, most European countries had laws that required people to participate in citizen militias.  These people were not a standing army under a monarch’s direct control but rather, were ordinary citizens with their own arms (weapons) who came when their monarch needed them; whether to maintain civil order or for national security.  Over time, though, things started to change.  Political and religious conflicts were becoming more common and the citizen militias were being used more and more as political police forces.  As many citizens refused to be used in this way, more and more were being disarmed.  In England, Oliver Cromwell started the trend of building a standing, paid army; answerable only to the government.  Throughout the 17^th century, as unrest grew “politically unreliable” citizens were disarmed and professional armies were built up.  Continued through the reigns of Charles II and James II, these practices convinced the populace that the government must not be allowed to disarm its own people.

In 1689, the English Parliament produced the Declaration of Right, in which the independent right of ownership of arms—not dependent of militia membership—was written.  This document was one of the inspirations for America’s founding fathers as they worked out the writing of our constitution and Bill of Rights…including the Second Amendment.  Written in that particular Amendment is the phrase “well regulated,” which, at the time, meant “well trained.”  Therefore, the argument that the Amendment actually means to be “regulated” by the government (the military) is a fallacious argument.  The vast commentary of the Founding Fathers supports private-owned arms by the American people; with no government permission, no government oversight and no government registration of ownership.
     “A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a state of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.”
 --George Washington

     “The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.”

 --Samuel Adams

     “No Freeman shall be debarred the use of arms.  The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
 --Thomas Jefferson writing the draft for the Virginia Constitution

     Spring forward to our current administration and its demand for a massive expansion of federal gun control powers.  President Obama and the Democrats have latched onto a horrible tragedy (Newtown, Connecticut) and are using it to push an agenda they have been pushing for decades.  The bill put forward by Dianne Feinstein is one she wrote a  long time ago, tweaked a year ago—in readiness for Obama’s expected second term—and had on the shelf waiting for an opportunity to bring it before the American people.  They are using the suffering and pain of all those Families for their own personal and political agenda.  Newtown was the event they could take advantage of and use to manipulate emotions and push for their desired ends; ends that are far from their stated desires for safety and security.

     We have to remember that in the Liberal; or Progressive, mind—particularly for those in a position of power—is the belief that they are superior in intelligence to the “ unwashed masses.”  The Progressive mind sees the government (the State) as the be-all and end-all of all that’s good, compassionate, and great.  The individual who actually dares to espouse freedom and self-reliance alarms and angers them.  “We know best” and “government experts know more how to run your life than do you” are their beliefs.  For the Progressive, the most alarming and frightening act of individualism any American citizen can commit is to exercise their Second Amendment right to “keep and bear arms.”  Whether for personal security, hunting, sport, or the actual intent of the Founders; to be a safeguard against tyranny, the Progressive cannot abide this act of self-reliance over government dependence.  In their eyes, government is the father, the progenitor, the surety and the safety we should all look to and rely upon.  In the progressive mind, anyone showing individualism, talking of Constitutional freedoms and rights, or speaking out against their glorious leader (at the moment, Barrack Obama) is an enemy; not just someone they disagree with, but an enemy.

     This rabid zealotry of the Left is based purely on feelings and emotionalism…and the need to control (for our own good, of course).  “We need to save lives” is the stated goal, but when looking at the facts, it’s easy to see—for those willing to do so—that the ultimate goal is control.  And to gain their desired control the Progressive mindset relies in deceit; with the Saul Alinsky (the philosophical hero of the Left) idea that the end always justifies the means.  In other words, if the Progressive leader needs to lie and manipulate to do it, he or she will do or say whatever they need to in order to push, pull, trick and convince the people to come to their way of thinking. They will prey on emotions, they will deceive, and then they will control.  Remember that Barack Obama, while a professor in Chicago, taught the Alinsky philosophy—to foment civil discord through encouraging class envy, redistribution of wealth, racial animosity, anti-Christian bigotry and a reliance on the State—and uses that philosophy as his political model.
     This is how the progressive mind is pushing their quest for massively expanded gun and magazine bans and limits.  Our President has stated that what he is demanding (“assault weapons” ban, high capacity magazine ban, and more) will put an end to such tragedies as happened in Connecticut.  What he and other leading progressives have done is exploit a horrible tragedy in order to advance an agenda that was waiting on a shelf; waiting for and event.  That event was the murders in Newtown  and as soon as it occurred, they knew they had their emotional anchor.  They have exploited it in order to manipulate a large portion of the population in to believing that they--our so-called leaders—can draft legislation that will do away with criminality and danger and make us all safe.  The great problem with that thinking is that they can’t.

     In the normalcy that is American society they can’t legislate or mandate away violence.  They can pass laws, mandate punishments, put more police on the streets and even tell those who are willing to rob, rape and murder that using a gun is illegal, but they can’t stop criminals from committing crimes.  With that impossibility in mind, think about the abnormality in society; over and above the basic criminal activity, the aberration and evil that is mass killing sprees.  These acts—unforeseeable, unimaginable and horrific—will never be touched by any legislation…ever!  A sick, twisted, hate-filled, evil mind will always find a way to accomplish their crime.  The height of hubris on the part of our leaders, and the height of naiveté on the part of the gun-control supporters are believing that "assault weapons" bans and magazine restrictions will stop someone bent on death and destruction.  All they will accomplish is making instant criminals out of millions of law-abiding gun owners; which is, of course, the ultimate plan of the Progressive in the first place.  It’s not about safety and security; it’s about control.

     As this debate burns around the country and we listen to the proponents of expanded gun control, each one of us has to choose what to believe.  While pushing hard for a new “assault weapons” ban, President Obama stated that he fully supports the Second Amendment right to defend your home or to go hunting and sport shooting.  He also stated that he “isn’t here to take your guns” and “we’re not talking about registration.”  Of course, looking at his many statements of the past decades, one gets a different idea of his views on gun ownership.  While running for the Illinois Senate in 1996, he state “I support banning the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns and the manufacture, sale and possession of assault weapons.”  While running for re-election for his seat in 1998, he pledged his support to “ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semiautomatic weapons.”  He also pushed for maintaining government files on every legal gun owner; including mug-shot style photos and fingerprints.  So, long before becoming President and long before the Newtown tragedy, Barack Obama, supporting a voting for every piece of gun control legislation that came before him, very plainly made his views on gun ownership known; he loathes private gun ownership.
     Senator Dianne Feinstein, the architect of both the 1994 assault weapons ban and the newest attempt to re-instate—and grow—a federal assault weapons ban, has also stated her support of the Second Amendment right to self-defense: “I own a handgun.”  She has also stated that she doesn’t want registration or to “take away your guns.”  Yet, in 1994, after successfully pushing through her assault weapons ban, she stated in an interview her deep desire to take every weapon from every American citizen: “if I could’ve gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them—Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in—I would have done it.  I could not do that; the votes weren’t there.”  Which one of the Feinstein’s do we listen to, the one who “supports the Second amendment, or the one who desires to completely disarm “Mr. and Mrs. America.”

     Maybe we should listen to Vice President Joe Biden when, after a gun control meeting with fellow Democrats, he stated at a press conference these sentiments: “…there are things that we can do, demonstrably can do, that have virtually zero impact on your Second Amendment right to own a weapon for both self-defense or recreation that can save some lives.”  He continued by saying “nothing we’re going to do is going to fundamentally alter or eliminate the possibility of another mass shooting or guarantee that we will bring deaths down.”  This man, who has been lauded as the greatest Vice President in the history of America, essentially said that the government wants to enact massive new laws, restricting law abiding citizens on what they can buy, yet those same new laws won’t save lives or make us any safer.  And most recently, our Vice President has stated that “an assault weapons ban is just the beginning” and that “universal background checks can’t be undertaken without the understanding that is it a de-facto registration of gun owners.”  So, while saying it isn’t about registration or confiscation, he says it is about registration—which always leads to confiscation and that these measures “for safety” aren’t going to make us safe. 
     Perhaps we should listen to the words of Illinois Representative Jan Schakowsky.  When asked if the assault weapons ban is just the beginning, she answered “oh, absolutely; I’m against handguns.”  After the reporter pointed out that “we’ll never get a handgun ban with the Second Amendment as stated,” Schakowsky responded by saying “I don’t know that we can’t; I don’t think it’s precluded.”  She may be one of the most forthcoming of gun control advocates in Washington.  Or perhaps we should listen to the ACLU—yes,  the ACLU—when even they have come out and voiced opposition to universal background checks because they gather far too much information and have “historically been used in confiscation schemes.”
     What we should do is to heed the words of the Justice Department and the FBI, both of which have said that there is no evidence that points to any effect on crime or criminality do to the previous assault weapons ban.  We should listen to Professors Koper and Roth of the National Institute for Justice who, after being hired by the government (Dianne Feinstein), announced that “the evidence is not strong enough for us to conclude that there was any meaningful effect from the assault weapons ban. 

     The question, then, comes back again to “why.”  With all the evidence showing that the proposed laws will have no effect on criminal activity and that the previous bans were ineffectual, why do our leaders still push for new, expanded gun control laws?  Again, the answer is control—power and control over those considered inferior by those in power.   By taking advantage of people’s need to “do something” after a tragedy (mostly to make themselves feel good about themselves), our political leaders can manipulate the argument to their advantage and thereby grow their own power.
     Yes, I am thankful and feel very blessed to be an American, yet, in my gratitude, I also am very concerned about where America is being taken.   Over the last century, this Nation has slowly—though it’s recently been at a faster pace—transformed from a Constitutional Republic to a near Imperial Presidency.  Slowly, incrementally and possibly irreparably, we have given our freedoms over to a government run amuck.  Barack Obama is one who has shown, through his words and actions, that he has a disdain and loathing for the constraints of the Constitution. Backed by sycophantic party members and a national media that’s happy to not only cheer-lead a Progressive mindset, but to actually campaign for a Socialistic change in America, they would having us bend to their politically correct ideology by trading in fear, emotionalism and uncertainty; and thereby garner more power for themselves and the government and the ability to intrude more and more in our lives.  Expanded gun control measures and eventual confiscation is, at the moment, their greatest desire. 

     As George Washington said: “laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those whom are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.  Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage rather than to prevent homicide.  For an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”

Wow; what a government!

So, there it is--the newest progressive take-over of power, the newly signed in to law health care bill. It astounds me that so many can believe this is the correct solution to the problems in the health care system. Our government, instead of cleaning up Medicaid and Medicare (two bloated agencies full of corruption, mismanagement and fraud) and offering subsidies to the working poor, has instead taken over what makes up 1/6th of our gross domestic product--which pushes it over the 50% mark in how much it controls of our GDP.

What we have is a law that will create over 110 new agencies with tens of thousands of new bureaucrats all to oversee our health choices and to control the costs of those choices. And who oversees these agencies? One person: the Secretary of Health and Human Services, who is given a free hand to decide how it is all run.

I'm sorry to say this; well, actually I'm not, but it is not the governments job so oversee my health care. It is not the governments job to force anyone to buy health insurance. It is not the governments job to mandate that employers provide health care benefits for their employees. Private businesses don't have to offer such benefits, or any benefits for that matter. They do so to attract employees and to keep employees, but it is still only a benefit offered by a private business. Our government now says different: all businesses must give health care benefits to their workers or face fines by the federal government. All businesses must offer--and all citizens must have--the correct insurance or face federal fines. If one employee is not happy with their health care benefit and tries to get extra government insurance, that business will be fined $750 for each employee it has. Constitutionally, where is any of this found or justified?

So why did the progressives (liberals, fascists, socialists) need to go this far? Because in their mind it is only through massive government programs that we the people can be made whole and better than we are. They believe that government programs and not free enterprise is what drives and grows our economy. They believe that redistributing wealth from those who work, invest, take risks and sacrifice to those who don't or won't do any of these things is the role of government. They believe in the perfectibility of man through the proper leadership of intellectual and political elites guided by a cadre of social experts who have the proper technical training to shape and perfect us. They believe government is the means to change society in unlimited ways for the better (their version of better) using unlimited resources and power.
They truly believe they have been bestowed by nature the ability to manage our lives without our consent.

Over the last year we have seen our government effectively take over our banks; even forcing some to take stimulus money, thereby gaining a controlling interest in many of them. It has taken over the majority of our auto industries. It just took over all private educational lending institutions (approx. 2000 businesses gone) and rolled it all in to four government offices. And of course it now controls every aspect of our health care, compelling us to buy insurance which conforms to the government criteria--or else. It's the "bullying spirit" of today's politics. It's a politics that no longer protects and defends our rights but rather forces us to conform to a progressive ideology of what is correct and good and right. It's called tyranny and despotism. It follows in the tradition of most fascist regimes, IE: "do it all for your country and the government." "We don't want to own any of your businesses, we just want to tell you how to run them for the betterment of society--OR ELSE!"

And what do we do? Nothing!!!! Some of us speak out, but for the most part, we do nothing. Why?
Alexander Tyler said it this way: "A democracy can not exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship...these nations have progresses through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from great courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to apathy, from apathy to dependence and from dependence back to bondage.

So, as we lay on our president the qualities of a heroic superman on a mission of salvation and our congress as benevolent sages, our liberties continue to slowly erode. In our fatal indifference to this quickly building death of our freedoms, we will soon find ourselves subject to self-avowed, all-knowing, all-caring leader of a government that will be beyond question or criticism (to do so will bring punishment). This government will demand total loyalty and worship and will do everything "for our own good" whether or not we need it.

JUST A THOUGHT

Hmmmmm; POLITICS! What is it? Let's take a quick look. Politics: from the Greek, POLI: meaning many and TICS: meaning blood sucking, disease carrying creatures who live by slowly sucking the life blood from its host.

HEALTH CARE REFORM COSTS

For months now I've been listening, studying and researching the topic of health care reform. It's actually depressing. The two loudest voices are the two most polar opposites: the status quo side and the government take-over side. Anyone dealing with the system over the last twenty years knows it can be a nightmare: needs not met, overcharges, mistakes (costing over 90,000 lives per year) and the feeling that you are just a piece of meat to those supposed to take care of us. Yet, given all that, I would rather face this than go to Canada, England or France to face their idea of state sponsored and supported health care.

It can't be denied that there needs to be change. Where we look for that change is the question. Is it, as our president believes, only through a massive government take-over of the entire system? All one has to do is read the largest, most comprehensive bill proposed on the the subject by congress--HR3200; the opening line of which starts out quite lofty but ends quir omminously: "to provide affordable, quality health care for all...and for other purposes." It's the "OTHER PURPOSES" that should worry us all. I'm one of the few people I know of who have actually bothered to read through the bill (not a fun or very easy task, trust me). It is rather scary the amount of power the government wants to give itself over my health.

I've worked many years to gain a good job with reasonably good health insurance benefits. HR 3200 allows a government bureaucrat to arbitrarily take it all away. If I choose to change any of my benefits, I WILL be put on the government insurance option. If he or she so chooses, they have the authority to take away my own insurance and replace it with government insurance It's nothing done on my part, it can just be a bureaucrat "deciding what's best for me."

What's even more sad is the fact that private, charity driven hospitals such as Shriners Hospitals for Children, the more than 600 hospitals of the Catholic Health Association or St. Judes Research Hospital will face disastrous new rules and regulations. Let's remember what these places do; they help those--usually the poorest of citizens--who can't help themselves. the Shriners help not only America's children, but go to other countries (usually Mexico and Central America) to treat children. They will even bring them to one of their hospitals in the states, letting them live and go the school at the hospital for months at a time, just so they can help children. New government regulations will curtail and even stop much of this. The same goes for St. Judes and the Catholic hospitals. The CHA also faces another challenge in that the government reform of health care also means ALL hospitals would be forced to perform abortions on demand. for the Catholics this is a stipulation that has brought much angst and concern.

Catholic Bishops have stated that they would have to shut down many, if not all, their hospitals rather than be forced to perform abortions. Many have asked, "why not just sell to another organization who can run the hospital?" It could be that committing a sin or just allowing the committing of a sin are one in the same. So the CHA is in a quandry; having to weigh the help they provide to so many who would otherwise be without help against one of the basic tenets of Catholic social teaching-- that ALL LIFE IS SACRED.

And what's the one thing that ties all of these institutions together? The fact that their only concern is for the welfare and health of those they treat. The don't care about political ties, monetary abilities, immigration status, parental lifestyles or what faith (or lack thereof) you may profess. They actually live up to their ideals of helping mankind. gosh, what a concept.

As far as the Obama administration is concerned, to reform health care to aid the small percentage of people who truly need help, the government has to destroy what does work, what does help and what a hundred million americans have acheived. I guess that's always been the cost of allowing the government to "fix" all our problems.

Where's America going?

So; I watched a four and a half minute video of all sorts of celebrities--the Hollywood types who, due to their grand and cool famousness, know more than us unfamousy types--making pledges: "I pledge to......work harder, be a voice, to meet my neighbors, to sell my obnoxious car and buy a hybrid." Most were like these; just general feel good platitudes, but, they got to the end and I heard: "I pledge to be of service to Barrak Obama," and "I pledge to be a servant to our President." Then the screen slowly pulled back to show a multi-screen of all the celebrities which then pulled back and morphed in to a multi colored iconic image of Obama superimposed over the American flag. The old Soviet Union, Cuba, Iran and North Korea came to mind quite quickly.

I was not a great fan of George Bush (massive government growth. spending in to the stratosphere, "no child left behind," and a war in Iraq that was ill conceived, poorly planned and the wrong place to be at the time) but many other people thought him to be a great President who dealt with terrorism and protected our country. What I didn't see from most of these people was any kind of mindless worship. No man is worthy of that. Yet today we see a president who enjoys the unquestioning adulation of tens of millions, including the majority of the nation's media--you can even go the the NBC site and buy Obama action figures.

While disparaging the exception--Fox news--for actually questioning the policies of this administration, MSNBC has an evening line up of Obama sycophants. First there is Ed Schultz, a typical mean spirited liberal (any who oppose the president are whacko, crazy or right wing zealots). Then you can watch Chris Mathews, a former Democtrat political player who wrangled his own talk show by playing "hardball." after Chris is the great (and he'll tell you this himself) Keith Olberman; without a doubt one of the angriest, most hate-filled ultra liberals on any network--and he has a very creepy obsession with Sarah Palin (kind of like the school yard bully who likes a girl but can't admit it so he bullies her instead). Finally, there is Rachel Maddow; a sarcastic, insulting liberal who puts down any discent from the liberal playbook with marginalizing insults and putdowns. She was one of the first to call the "Tea Party" protestors the "tea baggers," referencing a strange sexual practice. And they attack Fox for being too political? Sheesh!

We have a president who managed to take over a huge portion of the financial structure of this nation, a huge percentage of the auto industry, a monstrously huge share of the energy industry (cap and trade) and now demands a government take over of 16 percent of our GDP in the form of health care reform. He calls for a "civilan security force as large, as powerful, as well trained and as well funded as our military (uh, just who's the enemy big guy) and set up a watch-dog website for people to turn in anyone who may say anything bad about the president and his plans for us all (shades of Wilson and his secret spy network of civilians turning in civilians for speaking out against government policies). With all of this happening at a rapid pace, where are the media who are supposed to be watching a reporting this take over of our society? Panting after their new hero and savior, Obama! Where else.

When I say God help us, I really mean GOD, HELP US!

Quarter of a Century

What can I say about being married to a woman like Shanna for 25 years except WOW: what an adventure. It still amazes me that a cute, young and VERY naive preacher's daughter actually fell in love with me. There I was; a separated, soon to be divorced, hurt, angry, down on himself man who had blown one marriage and alienated his entire family (most were mad I didn't "stick it to the first wife"). I was working two jobs, keeping myself exhausted on purpose, and then here she came; all cute and bubbly--and flirty!!!!!!! RUBBER BANDS (inside joke). She helped me see that I didn't have to be down on myself; well, that actually took a few years and some heartache along the way, but she got it through to me.
What's so great about Shanna is that after 25 years, she's still cute and bubbly--AND FLIRTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Holy crap lady, I'm an old guy--take it easy on me!

She's everything a man could ever hope for in a wife: she supports me in my decisions (usually after she tells me just what I should decide--KIDDING), If I want to head to the mountains for the weekend she's helping me pack (hmmmm, sometimes a bit too eagerly), she makes me feel good about just being me, she's a fantastic mother to Christine and Alex (and also has a wonderful relationship with my oldest daughter Charity), and is the kindest, most loving person I have ever known.

Her strength of faith and of character are things I admire greatly in her. They are the bedrock that supports her very ispiring bravery in dealing with her M.S.. Though at times she gives in to the gravity of it all and just cries on me, which brings us closer together so we can BOTH deal with it.

She loves deeper than anyone I've ever known. She cares greater than anyone I've ever known. The depth of feeling she has for friends and family is amazing. Even at her lowest times, if someone calls or comes to her with a need, she responds with compassion, empathy and understanding; forgetting her own problems while taking care of the problems of others. It isn't a burden to her. In truly brings her joy to be someone people know they can come to for help and guidance. And when she feels joy, I feel joy for her. Seeing her happy: whether it's from listening to a new gospel CD, playing a game with our son, talking to friends on the phone (or flying half way across the country to visit them), or just snuggling together on the couch, is one of the precious aspects of marriage to Shanna.

Has it all been easy? No! A quarter century of life with me is not a cake walk (hey, I'm a complex kind of guy). We've had plenty of tough times to work through. With God's grace, we're still here, we're still together and (do I dare get this mushy) I love her more and more every day.

Trust me when I say it's a privilege to be Shanna's husband and I am ALWAYS proud to call her my wife.