Free Elections - All Around ?

I've been making comments and writing questions about enforcing peace and military freedom for some time, now. Some of it is venting, some of it is challenging others, and some of it just gives me a headache if I try to keep it to myself. I have usually approached my political view from an independent that definitely thinks the separation of church and state is a very good idea. And it is a good idea for many reasons. I think politicians and lawyers determining our morality is comparable to Hugh Hefner designing and defining the clothing line for "business/casual." I think spiritual matters are spiritual matters and they cannot or should not be legislated by man. I personally think G~d did an adequate job. Besides, G~d only has 613, the United States of America, alone has over 200,000. So we should keep the government out of religion and really religion doesn't offer enough regulations for government or society. I am catching on to the way things work, though, but that's another blog. Now that America has the self-appointed duty or self-proclaimed obligation to spread freedom around the world, we're busy. All of this is so we can be free? Well, I know several Americans that are just swallowing that; hook, line and sinker, but I'm seeing something bigger. First, we cannot enforce peace. To use the campaign words of John Kerry, we can't "win the peace" and certainly not through war. Since when has America's "freedom" depended upon the elections of other countries? Or in all this "freedom talk" and faith fervor, have we forgotten that the Bible said their would be a world wide government? How do we know; that world wide government is not some form of democracy? You say, but Revelation says it will be the anti-Christ and he will be evil. Elections are not always won by nice, good people. Just ask a republican about the 1992 or 1996 presidential elections. And I am not suggesting that Bill Clinton is evil, what I am saying, is obviously in America, evil seems to be a matter of opinion and interpretation. But I am truly shocked that the same people that were sure our last president would seek to conform to the UN standard, can't see that the UN isn't the only one demonstrating a need or desire to set the one world standard. And I am even more shocked that a leader that claims to be a man of faith, thinks the whole world needs to be on the same page, specifically; his . . .
and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws:

Doctors, Lawyers, and Indian Chiefs

Before anyone gets the impression I am making an ethnic slur of any kind, let me tell you. My father is of Native American descent and I grew up listening to his grandfather call him "Chief." In our family any reference to Indians was a point of honor, and we are not a group that feels ethnicity defines the person. Although there are often cultural differences among people, a contribution or position of respect should be based on more than pigment. But, that isn't the point of the blog, that was just a tangent to reassure readers that as well as being a-political, I am also politically "a-correct."
Has anyone else noticed the increased number of doctors getting into politics, or is it just me? And why, would someone ask, when being a doctor should be a much more respected position and certainly one that would be deemed much more trustworthy? Well, my theory is two-fold. First, self-interest of course; and second, the demigod status appears to have been reassigned to politicians of the republican faith. So, now, since it takes no particular degree or education to be a politician, they can begin to move in the political circles with the same revered position that they used to receive from the people that sat for hours in their waiting rooms. Let's get back to the self-interest point. We all know some of the big issues on the political table are, Social Security, medicare funding, prescription drugs for seniors, and tort reform; which are certainly issues that will affect the medical professionals. And, they are now dealing with the generation that was absolutely dumbed-down and disciplined to believe doctors always know what's best for us and will do that, even against our will, you know, for our own good. The one topic I hadn't included in this list was, of course the next word in the title of the blog. Doctors found that lawyers had as much say as they did in the courtroom, and lawyers who were originally called wordsmiths, definitely know how to speak convincingly. As a matter of fact, the very first Republican President ever elected in our country was a lawyer. So, in the last 25 years, doctors realized they were being held in account by lawyers, and lawyers now know they are being held in account by insurance companies that are going to make them share what is awarded with their clients.
I think we are going to see before long, that both doctors and lawyers, and all the people they are "serving" are going to see that really it's the insurance and drug companies that the general population believes they cannot do without. And I would suggest that the politician that knows how to keep those lobbyists happy is the politician that will continue to be revered by the masses.
As far as the Indian Chief, well the few that remain, have probably already heard the story of this decline foretold by the tribal elders down through the years. But they more than likely, still know and are hopefully teaching the next generation, where to find the white willow bark, mullein, and red clover, what they are used for, and how to prepare them.
He causeth the grass to grow for the cattle, and herb for the service of man

Perception and Presumption

I discovered something interesting today. The title of this blog was determined before I left for work this morning. I have another weblog in which I post daily devotions. http://biblebog.blogdrive.com Now, those have been printed and determined in advance, they are ready when I get here, and today the topic that the Scriptures addressed was also presumption. Since I don't believe in coincidence, I see a theme.
We are surrounded by presumption, we get consumed by presumption, and we get disappointed frequently when our presumption is based upon an unrealistic perception. What can be terrifying, though; is what we agree to, or don't see coming due to our presumption based upon our perception. We view everything in life, not necessarily as it is, but always tinted by our own experience or understanding, which of course vary amongst individuals. I have had to assess and reassess my political perception throughout the years. I am considerably older than when I was first caught up in political presumption, and I of course, have changed my perspective. I like, most Americans can tell you exactly where I was when President Kennedy was shot in Dallas. And, I like most Americans was deeply affected by that tragedy. But, I had three personal issues with the situation, that I knew was different than most other Americans. One, my maiden name was the same as his, so therefore, I was pretty excited as a young child starting school to have the same name as our President. The second concern I had, was that the man they arrested got shot in a police station. How can that happen? He was surrounded by policemen and I was told, along with the rest of the baby boomers, that if someone wanted to hurt you, go find a policeman. Well, he was surrounded by dozens of them and killed. My third concern, was also from a child's perspective. Those Kennedy children were my age. They had lived in the White House most all of their memorable lives. Why, when their dad had just died, did our nation take their home away from them? And so for several years, I was of course a diehard democrat. And I mean absolutely no disrespect to President Kennedy, but the reality is, his presidency is held in memorial, more for the way he died and what he had said his goal was, rather than what he did as president. And the truth of the matter is, by his early death, we don't know what his accomplishments would have been, including the keeping of campaign promises. This perception is based on what might have been and what was prevented from being, not really upon the president that he was.
Now, those are the thoughts of a five year old that was as politically astute as any kindergartener of the day.
Now, I am grandma of kindergarteners, so hopefully my perspective has matured.
The democratic party has changed dramatically. Actually, I noticed it, shortly after I became of age, politically. I knew, as the democrats became more extreme, I couldn't stay in the party, but I also knew my perception of the republican party was not based upon presumption, and therefore would be unable to become any part of that party. The one democrat that really opened my eyes, was our former president. He gave us NAFTA, how republican! That was his predecessor's project. Does any republican remember the first President Bush's comment regarding the one world and new order? And where does George Tenet connect in all the dots? Why, in 1999 did George Tenet dedicate the new CIA building as the George H. W. Bush building? And, now that George Tenet's son is a senior in high school, it is time to focus on those family values held so dear by the current party of power? By the 1990's I couldn't see the difference between parties. President Clinton imposed welfare limits, cut the deficit, and by his White House antics caused many to reallign their party affiliations. As a matter of fact, what was so "democrat" about William J. Clinton, besides his wife?
And so, now that I am not 5 and like the other middle-aged baby boomers, that realized 25 years ago, we needed to do something. Now that we are all living out the fact that the previous generations are going to "tend to themselves first." It is my perception that the prevailing presumption of humanity is to ensure one retains a lofty enough perspective to always blame the other party.
When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child

Constitution vs. Bill of Rights???

Am I finally beginning to catch on to this red herring game? Have I stumbled upon the real purpose for the red/blue political civil war? Am I gaining greater understand as to why everyone around the world must reckon themselves with America's definition of democracy? Are we finally on the verge of understanding just what has made the democrats so angry? Is it finally making sense as to why we must continue to vote YES for amendments to preserve the integrity of our Constitution? Is this why SPIN just makes a person dizzy and everyone knows when you get too dizzy, you fall down!?!
First I am going to assess the reason the democrats are so angry. It is jealousy. And Yes, I am judging. The democrats are very angry that the republicans are doing everything the democrat way and getting away with it and having the blessing of the church and the fervor of the conservatives. They are simply livid that the republicans watched their errors and managed to figure out a way to disregard Truth and call it morality, and get the American public to not only buy it, but vote for it again. And they don't think it's fair. Well, if they weren't in politics, they would know what the rest of us have already had to learn. Life is not always fair!
Now, to the heart of the matter. The Constitution was drafted in 1787 by a group of men in which the average age was 42. Now, let's hear everyone on Social Security say, we need to get back to the America of the founding fathers. Oh, and just a note on the topic. What if everyone on Social Security really believed enough in the present administration to fund their proposed budget, rather than leave the debt for their grandchildren to pay?
Now, back to politics. You know, as a minister, it's the dirtiest word in my vocabulary. I wasn't understanding why it was taking so many amendments to preserve our Constitution, but now I do. You see the Constitution was written for the government. The Bill of Rights was written by the people, for the people. That is the document that attempted to preserve the same dignity for man that G~d's laws gave. It was drafted in 1791. It only took four years under the Constitution for the citizens to realize they better put some rights for them into print; in the form of a recognized and accepted document, and they did. And that "my fellow Americans" is what all this hullabaloo is about.
Our government is alive and well. Our politicians are well cared for throughout their terms and beyond. Our government is bigger than it has ever been. We need to realize, we are being led to defend, fight, and vote to preserve a document that was written before the inclusion of rights for the citizens.
And for this cause G~d shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

red herring/blue herring

We all know that the term red herring is a colloquial label for a diversion. A "red herring" is a topic raised or tangent introduced to lead away from the main issue. Have you noticed that we literally have a political war going on all the time and I wonder how many have the same feeling that I have? It's as if we are watching a movie or tennis match that has pre-empted the storm warnings. It's eery to realize we are choosing to be focused on the non-issues, while impending disaster looms. It's as though a magazine has the cover of a Current Event Information source, yet has the contents of a Dr. Seuss book. What would you do tomorrow morning, if you picked up the paper [whatever paper] and it was only funnies, comics, advice and TV guide? What happened to just hearing the news? Why do I need someone else to give a perspective and interpretation of what is going on? Why can't someone just give me the information? I would prefer facts, but I am willing to sort, if I have to. I don't want to be entertained by current events in the news. And, more than anything, I do not want to be lead on a biased tangent, and told that is the honest truth. When did the news become commentary? It was the same week of the election that my alarm came on, to the now familiar voice of Rush Limbaugh's moment or whatever it is to promote his several hours later. At any rate, he came on to discuss the 2008 election. Not only do we have poor sports that lose in contests and campaigns, we got to hear winners that really sound like poor sports. I could not believe the day of the inauguration that Rush Limbaugh actually could tell us what Senator Kerry was thinking and feeling. How does such a devout self-proclaimed conservative, patriotic republican know what the thoughts would be of a liberal democrat? So, is my theory correct? Spin is spin, regardless of the directional leaning! Political rhetoric schmetoric! Let's face it, without one side, there is no other side. And the current party of power needs to remember that. How many Americans knew who Rush Limbaugh was before William J. Clinton became president? Where would the Republican spokesperson be right now, were it not for those "immoral, liberal democrats?"
I guess I am beginning to wonder what America really stands for, or do we have; what unity there is, in what certain Americans stand against? But while this choreographed rhetoric and socialized civil war continues, what are the real issues that we are not hearing, but need to be aware of?

But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness

FREE SPEECH, FREEDOM of the PRESS

Since blogging is becoming such a vital part of the media and a source of information, I thought I better do some checking. Since this is not on paper, it must be considered free speech, since it is in print, better consider the definition of freedom of the press. The real issue, here, seems to be one of concern. Now, I realize this is not a famous blogsite, and I am not a blogger of prestige, but . . . once I hit the Publish button, it's out there. Just where "out there" is, I don't know, but I have said it, and typed it, and am accountable for the content. It bothers me, that so many things are being explained and "defined" in a way, that is so unrecognizable and foreign to my previous understanding. Why do I have to be concerned whether my right to free speech and freedom of the press might be termed subversive? How did we come to accept watching our every word in fear of repercussion when we live in a free society? When did that change occur? My husband and I both have mothers that are reminding us, not to say things and don't disagree with the powers that be. They can make life more difficult. So, maybe it's always been this way, but I remember being an adult in midwest America and being free enough to express myself without fear of losing my property. I began to realize our city was on a "mission," but by the time I realized it, it was obviously too late, and I had been on all sorts of community committees. And now, I know, what had seemed like progress has resulted in what now seems like occupation. Not only has our city overtaken it's citizens, we volunteered the hours to help them do it! And when I call city hall with a question, I have already been told, next summer's agenda is going to be even tougher on ordinances, so ultimately on it's residents. So, now that I know, you can't call city hall to complain or question, you may however call, to ask for leniency and more time. That's where it really starts to feel like occupation. We even have been told that in certain instances when proper protocol and decorum are observed; our city manager may forgive a lien. I do not have words to describe the sinking feeling inside, and to know I live in America. Our town has raised Code Inforcement to an intimidating level. And, I did ask a city employee the difference between ordinance and law. She very clearly and concisely told me there was none. I had asked last summer about these imposed fines and bills which resulted in leins against the properties, all done with no day in court. A different city employee told me they were not required to serve a summons, it was more efficient to do things the way they do them, but he understood our disdain. He said if he wasn't a city employee, he'd be pretty upset, too. And here is the kicker, I actually had a city inspector, who is also the son of a councilman, so we know, he is well informed, as well as connected; explain to me that all ordinances must be treated with the same rigorous intensity, whether it is a major safety issue or small annoyance. On a scale of 1 to 10, they are treated the same. And we have a mayor that calls himself a progressive leader that wants aggressive growth for our city! Well, with all due respect, the only word I can argue with in that sentence is his use of the word "our." I would be happy to sell him my property, and give him my portion of the town's real estate, but then why should city administrators negotiate or concern themselves with fair market value when they can simply hold a lien on the property, take by imminent domain, or annexation?
But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore G~d is not ashamed to be called their G~d: for He hath prepared for them a city

Who or What is to Blame for the Decline of Morality?

I think we can all look around and say, "things just aren't the way they used to be." Now, there are monumental events that cause our society to change. But I firmly believe the monumental events are the effect rather than the cause. For years, I have wondered what the correlation was, between the assassination of our President in 1963 and the removal of prayer in school in 1962. I've made reference to the great depression and the roaring twenties, the revolution in the 60's and 70's, and the list goes on and on, I am sure. What I think we can see, is each generation contributes to the erosion. You know, a few years ago, with the former leadership, much of America seemed to think the baby boomers would be the cause of the fire and brimstone. Now, it would seem, with the present administration, those same Americans think, maybe it's not the entire generation, after all. All things considered, each generation has made contributions, both positive and negative. What I don't think we all consider, is that the way we view things may be part of the problem. I think some of the things we have considered to be very positive for society, have been to the moral detriment of our nation. And some of the things regarded as negative may have been more illuminating than some are willing to see. And you know, most of life is in the perception. I was one of those kids that had a stay at home mom, because both my parents' moms worked. That in itself is interesting, in that we all assumed it was the youth of the sixties that were anti-establishment. Oh, contrare. I remember my grandmas both saying they had grown up on a farm and wouldn't ever live on a farm again, so they had jobs. And I insisted upon doing things in a different way than my parents. And of course, my daughter is doing things in a way that is unlike the way I raised her. Do we see a theme here? And yet, different hasn't seemed to bring about restoration of what? Maybe if we really knew how things had been previously, we would at least be aiming at an accomplishment, rather than avoidance. My parents and grandparents used to tell me all the things my parents did growing up. Sounded great to me, but I couldn't do all those things. The reason? Well, their mothers had to work, so they had time alone to go places and do things. Well, you can imagine, from a kid's perspective, I desperately wanted a working mother. I naturally presumed I would have more freedom if my mother didn't have so much free time. Oh, by the way, I discovered that free time and motherhood do not fit into the same life, much less the same sentence. A number of my friends had mothers that worked, and basically we all turned out probably about the same. So, it isn't working moms verses stay at home moms. And it isn't country living verses city living. My daughter is a working mother and her children are wonderful. And of course, that is not a biased view because they are my grandchildren. And we can't really pin it down to one generation that threw the monkey wrench in the works. So what is the deal? We've discussed the women, what about the men? Did our national morality decline, when fewer men became self-employed? There was a time when most men were self-employed, either business owners or farmers. Well, I am not blaming the men, here, either, although I believe when men had to start "taking orders" to feed their families, it did permeate beyond the workplace into the home. Anybody remember, "You kids just wait, til your father gets home!" And most of us didn't have to be very old to realize, Dad was dealing with us, so he didn't have to deal with Mom!
Here is what I believe to be the problem. It is not the men, it is not the women, working in or outside the home, it isn't really even the industrial revolution, but that did sort of emphasize the already established direction. Erosion is such a difficult thing to pinpoint the beginning, because it's beginning is so subtle and unnoticed. It begins with one of the first discernable words a toddler speaks: MINE. And it develops from there. Humanity likes to aquire and to do that, we must have money, because we find very soon, the simple declaration of MINE doesn't get us the stuff we want. That is why this is so difficult to find the offending generation or gender, because we all want stuff. We want to be comfortable, we want to give our kids stuff. We begin to equate stuff with accomplishment and sadly we use stuff to replace time and love, while we are accomplishing. And to have stuff, take care of our stuff, and give other people stuff, we need money. And since we think we need more stuff than we do, we spend more money than we ought. And since we spend more than we should, we have to make more than we have. And somewhere in the mix of it all, we find; we love the ability to amass and love the feeling it gives us, and before long, we must admit we love money.

For the love of money is the root of all evil:

Brother's Keeper or Kept by Big Brother

We just keep hearing more and more security. I have touched on this point, previously; but the news of an Itelligence Coordinator? or whatever the new term and definition is, got me thinking about our security progress. Or maybe it's just another part of the process. The reporter this morning, clearly said that there are terrorist cells in the United States planning something again. So, let me get this straight. After 3 1/2 years of new legislation, being inconvenienced and treated as potential perpetrators every where we go, we Americans are not safer? So what are we doing? How is this happening? Did they get in here through all of our intensified security systems? Were they already here before the security enforcement? How do the authorities know there are terrorists here, know that they are planning something, but can't find them? How do they hear all this, if they don't know where the bad guys are? If they've arrived in the last 3 years, surely they didn't get past airport security, I know I can't. If they are sending messages or threats to our investigative people, how much more restriction will be deemed necessary on the law abiding Americans to bring success to the investigation? And while I am asking that, how exactly does placing invasive restrictions on law abiding citizens help catch the lawless terrorists, anyway? I am not suggesting that I understand how these intelligence agencies work, but I do believe I am asking some intelligent questions. In reality, does tightened security mean we are now safer; or simply aware that we are continuously under threat? If all of these extra security measures have failed to thwart the presence, much less the plans of terrorists, how many more will we be told, it takes? That makes something else seem pretty clear. It takes fifteen separate intelligence agencies and one official to coordinate all the information on the law-abiding citizens in our country. What kind of a society are we? Has anyone noticed the scattered headlines regarding cameras at stoplights, tickets in the mail, RFID tags, veri-chips, biometric ID, electronic health records, and suggestions of state uniformity regulation? They aren't frequent enough or necessarily located closely in proximity to seem congruently directional, but with each article or news item, there's a sense of connection. Cameras at stoplights and tickets in the mail mean you are being watched, somewhere there is a monitoring device recording movement in front of a lense. RFID, veri-chips, biometric ID, and electronic medical records means your information can't be stolen by a pickpocket or mail fraud, but it is now safely confined to one or 3 million databanks of someone else's choosing. And, history fans, a regulation that is passed and enforced uniformly among the states, is called federal law.
Wonder how the rest of history would have gone, if Abel had realized sooner that his big brother didn't have his best interests at heart?
And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother's keeper?

Begging without the Stigma

When did assistance become entitlements? How does a society manufacture enough bureaucracy and create enough programs to remove the shame from begging? Well, I'm not sure even the internet has the capacity for all the departmentalized details of the process, but I do assure you the difference between process and progress has become very obvious. We don't actually know how much red tape it takes just to start tying everyone's hands, because it starts out so simply, usually as help following some sort of disaster or calamity. People are in a very fragile place at that point. They are living in a situation that they never invisioned themselves being, and so . . . they need help. Now, it all starts innocently, and builds. First, the problem itself is determined to have been unforseeable and unpreventable. I hesitate to agree with that, but for the sake of space, I won't pursue that train of thought right now. Second, the assistance is only temporary. Now let's consider this in any organization or society. This is where the cycle begins. There is something that breaks or weakens people when they have to ask for help. And there is something that becomes powerful in those that offer help. And thus, the birth of an assistance program. And then there is the perpetuation of the assistance. Either the problem becomes less temporary or the number of those needing asistance, increases. And that is where the slippery slope begins to blur and all hope of ever gaining balance or stability is lost. And since we can go to nice private offices and hear people tell us that it isn't begging, and "no need to be ashamed, that 's what they are there for." The assistance is then well on it's way to redifinition: entitlement. I cannot tell you the number of people that ask for help, expect assistance, that tell me how much they have accomplished, so they are [entitled?]. And how many times do we hear someone discussing, I paid into it, so I shouldn't feel bad for taking it. And you know, the way our country lives, we are generous, sometimes with our own things, but always with someone else's. I see a direct correlation between the disobedience to Scripture and the need for government programs. I mean we didn't even have Social Security until the great depression, and we didn't have the great depression until after the roaring 20's. And we didn't have WIC and medicaid until after the sexual revolution of the 60's and 70's. And if anyone could run the pencil and crunch the numbers, what is the relationship to farm subsidies and commodities and food banks? There used to be these things called food stamps, for people who couldn't afford to feed their families. Then they changed the whole system to something they called a "dignity card." It looks like a credit card, so nobody in line knows who is paying with what . . . Well, now people can have both dignity cards and credit cards. How does someone that cannot afford food qualify for a credit card? Now, I know things can happen out of our control. People do suffer traumas and crises, but those are singular events, not social lifestyles. When did social dependency become a career of choice? And if all the programs cease, which we already know, the programs that are not abused and truly needed, will be the first to be cut. Then we have to look at another part of the picture. How many jobs have been created to process all this red tape and facilitate the assistance programs? So is the red tape required to hold a society securelt and if so how much red tape does it take to tie this all together? And do we know where the red tape becomes bureaucratic bondage? At any rate, to eliminate the stigma of begging, it must simply be wrapped in tons of paperwork and have a pretty bow tied of red tape.

to tend to your own business, and to work with your own hands

The America of the Founding Fathers

In a previous post, I spoke of our Founding Fathers and we all know the accuracy of history is questionable at best. I believe the accuracy of the account always depends upon the perspective. Well, I'm not going to suggest that every American needs to see it my way to be better citizens, because we all have different perspectives of what it would take; and who should do the changing. So, I am going to refer to the generally accepted history about one of our founding fathers and some interesting recent information that I believe to be factual. I mean, it has to be true, I read it on the internet!!!
We all have read and been taught that George Washington endured great hardship at Valley Forge. He was personally both a patriotic leader and a soldier, but did we realize he was already 44 years old by 1776? Present day Army career men have already retired by then and are collecting a pension or are calling the shots at the Pentagon, but they are not usually on the front line. I remember learning that presidents had careers and businesses before they went to serve in that office and went back to their profession after they had served their country. I was taught, being elected to a government position was one of a servant . . .
I have personally seen the progressive chronological photos of our last president, as he moved up the political ladder from the late 60's until in 1992 he attained the top rung of the ladder;
1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Remember, he didn't even have a house to live in between the governor's mansion and the White House, much less a career. Our modern leaders seem to merely be gleaned for their political aspirations and really don't have a career to return to, so I guess that explains the fact that in 1958, the former presidents of the United States began to receive a 'pension' of sorts. Now my thought is that it was a pleasantly modest sum to accompany what ever his investment returns would bring him or possibly accomodate any loss of income by unpopular decisions he may have made with our nation's interests ahead of his own personal priorities.
And as for Social Security reform, we absolutely need it! I cannot tell you how many seniors I have heard say, "these young people won't be able to save in personal accounts, young people don't know how to manage their money," and then turn right around in the same breath and say, "he better not touch my social security check, I can't make it without it." Sounds like nobody knows how to manage their money for old age, now doesn't it? As a baby-boomer that is younger than 55, but no where near young enough to expect great returns from any investment at our present interest rate, I feel sorry for all the generations that surround me. We 50's boomers knew capitalistic materialism would become exhausted, and recognized early that we could not just set our focus on amassing for ourselves; if we were to leave the world to the next generation, better than the last one is leaving it to us. I have certain ideals of what true patriotism is, and frankly I don't see it in our leaders or our revered generations. I see it in some of these young men that are willing to endure the hardship of war, like George Washington at Valley Forge, but they are not in positions of leadership. I am literally embarrassed that in the last presidential campaign, we had two men that made an issue of "their military service," state-side guard reserves, and how many medals and home in 3 or 4 months? I would say, if we are going to get back to the America of the Founding Father's vision, then we need the leadership that is willing to make the same sacrifices our founding father's did. Picture, if you will, not a debate, but a candidate's forum with the same military service and war focused issues as we listened to last year, but this time between our President, Senator Kerry, and George Washington. Now, tell me, please; which party has a real understanding of what the founding fathers stood for and fought for?

Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly

Roadmap to Peace and Our Advice to Israel

I have already mentioned that I am a minister, and I will also share that I attend synagogue, weekly to worship G~d. I am not going to stand on a soap box and recount the horrors that Israel has faced throughout history, although there have been many. I have a perspective that I am not sure has been shared before, and that being . . . are we, America, giving advice to Israel that we would live by? Are we practicing what we preach? Is this road map to peace a matter of "do as I say, not as I do?"
Israel has lived for years with the fact that there are inhabitants of that land that do not want the State of Israel to be considered at all, much less politicially accommodated, or even recognized for that matter. But Israel is an established government, people, an entity in geography and world events. I, personally believe the Biblical account and land parameters to still be in effect. I stand firm, that the real estate deal G~d made with Abraham still stands as it was first deeded without addendum. But I realize I am in the minority, from the global perspective. With that being said, let's set aside the religious perspective and the emotional aspect and consider this matter strictly from the logical standpoint. This Roadmap to Peace set forth by the [quartet?] is not something that any member of this quartet would accept for their own country. These arrangements are certainly not the definition of peace acknowledged by any of the entities making the recommendation. Would Putin, Chirac or President Bush pander to any terrorist threat the way this roadmap has recommended that Israel do in dealing with Arafat or the Palestinian demands? I realize that Arafat is no longer an issue, and I think it will be very interesting to see what takes place, now that the excuse that "he" would not be dealt with is gone. Now back to the quartet advisors. I cannot speak for France, nor can I say what Russia is tolerating, but I do live in America. I can tell you first hand, I received a three page letter from the White House, outlining the Roadmap to Peace. And I can also tell you first hand, I have listened to the speeches and read the reports and it would seem, we in America, "do not negotiate with terrorists," much less give them land to appease them. I have used this example before, and I do not see the circumstances changing that much between the demands of Arafat and Abbas. What I do see changing, is that Israel may finally be able to actually identify her allies and those that truly do support Israel's rights as a State in Palestine. Advising Israel in this land give-away, for peace would be comparable to America giving Manhattan, Philadelphia, and maybe throwing in Texas to Osama bin Laden and granting him easements and travel rights throughout the rest of the country. And although I do not feel that I know the reason for the war in Iraq, I pray we would never consider negotiation with the one or ones responsible for the terrorist act on 9/11. And yet, that is what we have proposed that Israel do. When we already know there is no purpose accomplished in attempting to negotiate with someone making unreasonable demands and threats of terrorism? With the "friends" Israel has, does she really need any enemies?

And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Zion the Deliverer

the Constitution and the Bible?

First, let me say, I do not consider them to be of equal importance. But, I do see a real similarity in the way Americans treat both. It has bothered me for some time, now, all these Constitutional Amendments that are getting presented on ballots. Amendment means change, and yet the qualifying rhetoric is always, "we need this amendment to preserve our constitution." Why do we need to make changes to keep something the same? And the answer just hit me: people are now interpretting the constitution, the same way they have interpretted the Bible for years, according to trend, comfort, convenience, economy, and power. It's just a matter of deciding what fits the mood, the mode, and the pressures of popularity. Now, it has been "perfectly acceptable," in the name of spiritual liberty to throw out most of the laws of the Old Testament, or to reinterpret what "G~d meant." Anyone remember how many times the "intent" of the founding fathers has been referred to in all of our discussions concerning the Constitution? We are a nation that really doesn't know how to go by the rules. Which of our pro-faith, fearless leaders really think a nation in which 86% of it's population claims to believe in G~d, is actually going to give more credence to a man made document than the Bible, when they claim It to be G~d's Word? And in our society, the actual obedience to G~d's Word is in fact "self-evident." We are a nation that loves things open to our own interpretation and I believe that is the last freedom we will give up.
Now I believe the Bible is inerrant, I believe it to be absolute Truth, and I also believe that the Messiah did not amend the obedience portion to be open to individual interpretation. I think it seems clear. I believe the Constitution, with the Bill of Rights, is a good and stable document, that doesn't seem to need a great deal of additional phrasing. My concern is that all these amendments to preserve the Constitution, just may eliminate the Bill of Rights. I believe for too long, we have considered the Constitution on the same level as the Bible, therefore the Supreme Powers that be, will render their virdict authoritatively and ultimately unquestionably according to their interpretation. We are heading for a very precarious place, never before witnessed in America. With the decision in Alabama, we have now, actually placed our Constitution above the Bible in our judicial system. So mankind is now, the ultimate authority in our land, and we have placed nine human beings in the position of absolute authority of interpretation.
My thought here, is the problem lies not in the adequacy or clarity of either the Constitution or the Bible, but rather in the ethics and exponential factor of those that would interpret, not only into law, but into the enforcement of those laws, and the practical application of living by those laws.
Look at all the denominations and religious differences and changes by that one word, INTERPRETATION. Isn't this exactly what is now happening to the American Constitution as well?
Remember, it's always been What American society has recognized as moral leaders interpreting both the Bible and the Constitution.

Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God
Since many believe our election results confirm G~d's decree . . . What is the interpretation of this scripture for America? blessing or judgment?

Elections / Democracy?

I heard on the news this morning that the first "elections" were being held in Saudi. I guess, I feel I was led to believe that either America is influencing all of the Middle East by our presence, or an International Standard of sorts is being put in place. At any rate, the newscaster or reporter went on to describe the previously established way of determining leadership in that land. I just read a post at startribune.com that was concise and informative, but did not give the same commentary that I heard this morning. Now back to the report I heard. This reporter went on to say, that previously in that country, to determine leaders; there was the killing of a few lambs, dinner prepared, friends invited and asked sign their petition for a position of leadership. I have been unable to confirm this particular analysis anywhere else. Perhaps I am nitpicking terminology here, but as "elections" gain popularity and global momentum, whom or what sort of governments are being elected. I for one, have tended to associate the term election with democracy, freedom, etc., in a word: choice. I think many of us do, especially with the images that are portrayed, but the reality is; throughout world history, some very ruthless people that do not stand for freedom, have been elected. As I heard the reporter go into detail regarding the "old way" of doing things and this "new order" that is consistent with the international standard, I had more questions than he gave information. First, the prepared dinner sounds very much like what we term a party convention or even fund raising dinner. It is merely a cultural difference as to whether one slaughters livestock or phones the caterer. And what's not democratic or even absolutely fundamental, in gaining a public profile or political power of any kind; to have your friends and colleagues supporting your aspirations? I believe we just witnessed how many inaugural balls because friends had worked so hard and were celebrating, and they had the right to do so. I did see the term Western style campaigns mentioned. So does that mean, millions of dollars spent? or everyone is now registered into some system to have a say, or what? I kind of have a fun image in my head of seeing two men that are verbally mudslinging in a language I cannot understand, but by their tone, recognize the content and purpose. Now, as for signing a petition or writing down a name to give support; don't we call that a "write in?" I personally have done that here in our elections. I saw the signs with my own two eyes in none other than Washington D.C. in their mayoral race.
My point, my concern is that we are caught up in exuberance of the word election, but the bottom line is, we know human beings hate change. So, with these free elections, are many first time voters, electing to keep the same type of leadership that is already established?


Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:

My Eulogy for America's Politics

In reading at this site, you may have decided, I am either a minister or a political skeptic with extra time on my hands. Well, I am a minister, and sadly, have become worse than a political skeptic, I am in political mourning. I am not mourning the victory or loss of a particular candidate, I am mourning the people's loss of choice in the election. It is not a matter of party affiliation, or disappointment in my candidate. I didn't have a candidate of choice. Do you remember how many times President Bush told the American public that John Kerry, agreed with him, on various issues? I am mourning the fact that, regardless of election results, I truly believe the outcome would be the same. This is personal and perhaps could be seen as selfish. I used to just love politics. I mean, I wanted to be involved. I was so excited when I was finally old enough to vote. I took my 2 1/2 month old, "bicentennial" daughter, into the voting booth, just to be a part of the bigger picture. To vote was exciting. To be a part of the political machinery that moved this country and influenced the world, evoked absolute passion in me. I read biographies of Presidents, I wrote Congressmen, I handed out political fliers, I wrote the Presidents . . . but those were different times. That was back when I really thought the world could be changed politically. I realized how much things had changed when I wrote our current President. This was the first time, I received a response from the White House that was not signed by the President. Not that I am so naive as to think that the previous presidents actually read my letters personally, but there was a signature and seal that meant alot to a young American. And the absence of that is also significant, to this; now middle-aged American. I miss feeling a part of something big. I remember watching the visiting dignitaries in the White House. I was always glad that The State of the Union Address pre-empted regularly scheduled programming. I loved being a part and following what was happening. I now find myself, wondering what in the world is going on? I feel so disconnected from our government and it's direction. You see, the Politics that I remember, involved the People in their Government. It seems now, the purpose of Politics is to let the peasants view the Aristocrats.

To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven.

Law, Liberty, and Living?

Usually I have a title before I ever begin to type, but this time I have comments and questions and very unsure of of either the direction or the point.
How is it that we, here in America, draw such nice neat lines between our beliefs and our way of living, our religion and our values, while projecting a precarious balancing act between liberty and law?
Well, now that political affiliation has become polarized on moral issues, it has really made the influence in religion that the ecumenical movement could not. Who knew? Rather than love for the "brethren," it would be war, anti-terrorism, and ban of gay marriage that would finally draw the denominations to one accord. Well, I'm sure G~d knew what it would take, all along. So, I am not questioning Him, but I am questioning the criteria by which we have established our living standard; and even more, the standard by which we judge others.
First, our ecumenical politics. I heard several ministers last fall, telling their congregations to "vote according to the Bible." The Bible tells believers, their "citizenship is not in this world" and "pray for those in leadership." Praying and voting are not the same thing, so is American religion, political; or are American politics, religious?
And does our way of life, the way we interact with others, line up with what we say are our beliefs? Do our ethics match our situation, or does our response match the action of the perpetrator, or do we really live according to what we proclaim? I have had some interesting time in ministry as I have spoken to very devout people that are having difficulty getting others to see things their way, which is, of course; right. Do you know, there are only Old Testament scriptures that say parents can use corporal punishment for their children, but those same people do not have to live by the Old Testament rules themselves, because they are free from the law? And the liberty of the New Testament tells us to turn the other cheek, while the law of the Old Testament tells us "an eye for an eye." Which brings me to my next point.
How is it; that I am told the Bible says liberty does away with the Law, and this nation is Bible based, but has laws to protect liberty? Now, I personally do not believe that teaching. I believe we are offered forgiveness by grace through Y'shua, and have the liberty to accept or reject that offer. With acceptance of the offer, comes the privilege to be called the children of G~d. And we all know, with family rights, come rules, and rules are ordinances and ordinances are laws. And as we continue to accept the continual drumming of all the new laws needed in our country to "protect our freedom and liberty" . . . If our nation is Bible-based, and our laws are founded on Scripture, then why is our national religion teaching that the Biblical definition of liberty means the Law is obsolete? Are we suggesting that man's laws are superior or more lasting than G~d's? Why is it; that to observe G~d's 613 laws makes a religious person, in legalistic bondage, but to observe America's 200.000+ laws, makes a person free?
What could possibly be wrong with being as loyal to G~d as we are to our nation?

Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey G~d rather than men

The Subjectivity of Psychology

The New Freedom Initiative, which is the official title of the newly proposed Mental Health Screening for our youth is truly cause for concern. I remember years ago, I was taking a psychology class in college and heard the term unconditional positive regard, which I understood to mean, you may not appreciate what someone is doing, but you separate the act from the person, and you care about the person. Actually that concept was introduced long before Freud or Jung, in the Bible as; G~d loves the sinner, but hates sin. At any rate, I used that terminology in front of several teens in my home, just in casual conversation toward my daughter. She happened to be friends with the daughter of a psychiatrist. My daughter later told me that her friend's dad didn't think that was a good thing for a mother to say to a child. I use that case in point for one simple reason. Look at the subjectivity of the opinions that took place just between a doctor and a student and a family interaction. Did the teens repeat what was said, correctly? Who knows. Did I mean anything derogatory toward my daughter or her friends? Absolutely not! Did the doctor think I was verbally abusing my daughter? I don't think so, he let his daughter come back to my home. My point is, the statements that were made and the information exchanged were completely based upon perception and everyone had a different one.
So, what is this new initiative likely to become? I am guessing a real boom for the pharmaceutical companies. What will happen when the kids of our public school system are having a bad day, one bad day, and that's the day of the evaluation? Or what happens if a child is just not feeling up to par, that day, something going around that hasn't quite "gotten" them yet? What about the children that are just terribly creative and march to a different drum beat? You know, since Freud started this emotional extravaganza and mental manipulation, there just aren't the artists and musicians that lived before his time, are there? And just who determines the mental health of those that are administering the evaluation? I know a number of people in decision making positions regarding the lives and future of others, that can't manage their own lives or health. If preachers are supposed to be moral and have high standards to preach, then why aren't doctors and nurses required to be healthy? And should counselors or therapists have problems, if they are equipped to tell others how to handle theirs, or in authority to revoke the privelege from others? Just who will be setting the standard and evaluating those doing the evaluation? I guess the "powers that be" are just doing what they think is best for the rest of us, who are questionably thinking for ourselves. And that raises another question. In these evaluations, since we now see what is perceived as "normal," are those that don't see things this way abnormal?
And with the new HIPAA regulations, if an adult is perecieved to be a problem or concern; to "protect their privacy" a concerned caller cannot even know if they are being detained. So I guess my question is: Why is this personal invasion called a New Freedom Initiative, or is this just one more manipulation of a definition of a word we regard with great value? Is this really going to preserve our freedom or give freedom a NEW definition?

If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed

What is the War on Drugs?

And I am not asking that question trying to remember through any hazy brain cells. I 'm just not sure what the battle is really about. First let me say, I am not an advocate of drugs. I don't even have an aspirin in my home, much less anything that could remotely alter my thinking process. There is enough confusion already being presented, I certainly don't need to give the propaganda a "breeding ground." I suppose to win the war, we need to know what the fight is really about and what the target is. First, what drugs have we declared war on? Wasn't the war on drugs that was declared in the 80's just a type of Prohibition without an Amendment? We wanted illicit drugs off the streets. So, we busted all the "aggressive pot smokers" which in itself is an oxymoron, jailed them, then what? We had already started cracking down on the dealers, and with the crack down, came the name for the next round of drugs: crack. What I really noticed though, was the group that experimented with LSD and pot simply moved onto the acceptable establishment drugs. That's right, they graduated college, got a job with good insurance and great co-pay benefits and get the legal ones that take the worry out of the buzz. Then we had to move on to the next round of the war, the "bladder to bottle" intesive. Since we cannot trust anyone now, we must do drug screening. I think it's a wonderful concept for a bluff, but really . . . making people believe they had to be degraded to have a job? And look, got rid of that 'pesky' liberty: "innocent until proven guilty." And the American public accepted it. The men that were willing to work and support their families had to put up with it to be employed, because union representation was more or less retired by then. The pre-emptive strike of the drug war was now permanently in place. And, if you have a headache or toothache or compound fracture, it is illegal for you to accept any prescribed pain medication from anyone that is not authorized to prescribe, that includes your spouse. So remember, tooth ache at 10:30pm Friday and the dentist isn't in until 8am Monday, and your spouse has a couple of pain killers left over from a procedure . . . too bad. Now I am really not sure how that plays into keeping our streets safe from dealers, but I do see how it keeps pharmaceutical companies, pharmacists, and the personnel collecting the ever expanding personal data base employed, not to mention nursing staff. Can you imagine that much unemployment in our nation, right now?
So what has the war on drugs accomplished? New issues, heated debates, more new laws, and a greater level of paranoia by those that are not on drugs. And there are now more children on maintenance medication than ever before. So was the war on drugs to get the sales in the right hands? Was the war on drugs to eliminate the choice and control the dosage? What are we really fighting and are we winning? Will we know when we've won?
Remember when drug testing started in sports, remeber how many athletes were on drugs? Remember drug testing for the teamsters and truckers, anyone remember the teamsters? What would the politics of our nation be right now if they had drug testing for radio broadcasters?

for with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged . . .

Now let me get this straight . . .?

I listened to our President give the State of the Union Address last evening and our Union is in quite a State! And of course, I have received countless e-mails from both sides of the political perspective. I think what I have found to be absolutely fascinating is the number of "forward to your friends" e-mails regarding the Congressional retirement plan and Social Security. And the majority of the senders were over 55, in the 'guaranteed protected' age group. I attempted to do a little research on the subject, and found a pretty interestingly detailed explanation of how this 'social insurance,' and 'government dole' was promoted and accepted into American mainstream. Entitlement for the elderly and infirm, regardless of need, became the guarantee of every working American. Ah, but there are now so many entitlements for the not so elderly and only conveniently infirm, how do we ever sort all this out? As I read it, and it is extensive, I felt to preserve accuracy I would simply post the link, which I have at the end of this blog.
As I listened last night to the arbitrary line that was drawn, I just shrugged my shoulders in resignation. Social Security and medicare, fixed or not, solvent or not, is not where I dare put my faith, and I was blessed to know that ten years ago. I am so grateful that the G~d I serve has a better health plan than medicare or medicaid. Realizing that job security and pension plans began to be eliminated in the 80's, and unions destroyed, we had to know this day was coming. We are simply going to pay the price and walk out the plan that was put in place long before we were born.
There is only going to be one group of Americans that will receive full Social Security, pensions, stock dividends, retirement plans and the proceeds from "selling the farm" to suburbian expansion, and they are enjoying it right now. And I do not begrudge them their windfall. I just hope that they realize they are the end of the line. I pray they will be willing to share their fortunes with the children of the boomers born in the 50's, as those boomers will have nothing left to leave the next generations. And as a 50's boomer, I'm truly sorry kids and grandkids. The way we were taught, is no longer feasible. And since we obviously have a very unstable financial future, it's a fair conclusion that we haven't prepare you.
Always when there is a problem in our country, there is one factor that remains stable. When there is absolutely no reasoning an issue out amongst the generations or along political party lines, the ones with the most money and power; win!
I looked in Scripture to see G~d's instructions for dealing justly with the poor and proper care of the elderly, laws of inheritance, and retirement. There are specific instructions regarding widows, orphans and the poor. And G~d says the sons get the farms. Now all of that is instruction to a G~dly nation. You know, I can't find a thing about G~d's instruction regarding retirement. I wonder . . . did He fail to figure in retirement, or did retirement fail to figure into His plan?

http://www.francesperkins.org/fdr.html

visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, to the third and to the fourth generation.

The Intolerance of Tolerance

Why do we have to have classes at work about tolerance? Why is tolerance defined by which side of the issue one is standing? Why is it, that those that promote tolerance, have to keep teaching those that are intolerant, how to be tolerant? Just how situational is tolerance? The word "intolerance" seems to have replaced prejudice in some cases. And we have determined that prejudice is born of ignorance. Did the people that chose to be prejudiced, change their minds? Or did we just find new issues and new words to describe the same old ignorant attitudes?
We all know someone that is so "tolerant" and "open-minded" and "unprejudiced," that they can tell us exactly how many people of different ethnicities and lifestyles that they know, and we are obliged to listen tolerantly. I heard on the radio last month, that a local church of a particular denomination was having a presentation for others to learn about Islam in the name of tolerance. But that is also the same denomination that is boycotting certain businesses over another religion and political ties . . . So where is the tolerance? It seems to me, we've made so many things an issue, that basically, all must attend tolerance classes for some special group. And on every issue, those that are labelled "tolerant" cannot tolerate those that are labelled "intolerant." But in reality, regardless of the latest label of of an ostracized group, tolerance classes are held for four reasons, besides government and money. At this point in the history of man; government and money are pretty much always a factor.
Now, back to the reasons closer to home. The first reason for mandatory attendace is: those that are employed would like to stay that way. The second reason is: To learn the latest buzzwords that apply to this particular group of people or cause, and the appropriateness of an "outsider" of the particular group to use the buzzwords. The third reason is a little more self-serving for those that are required to attend: To learn how to avoid being slapped with some sort of a lawsuit in the workplace or at school. And the fourth reason employers seem compelled to make all employees attend is: Too many people in our society didn't learn how to
Just Be Nice!
But having to attend tolerance classes in the work place is a little like being in elementary school when everyone was required to stay in from recess because the teacher didn't know who shot the rubber band . . .
Maybe tolerance is one of those things that must be demonstrated to really be taught effectively.
Why can't those that demand, promote, and teach tolerance just learn to tolerate the rest?

Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them . . .

building on the foundation of the founding fathers

As we see our nation changing and dividing, I think 'maybe if we just taking one step back and a deep breath.' This political civil war, although not fought with guns, is truly crippling our nation. Are we like so many civilizations in history: it will take a common enemy to unite us? Apparently that is not the case or someone hasn't made the case strongly enough. Our nation has been at war for over three years [this time] and the chasm is widening, although we continue to move, in a 'national' direction. [Isn't that term bipartisan a piece of grammar?]
I am neither Republican nor Democrat, so I get mail from both sides. I am not a political matahari, but in listening and reading, I find so little actual difference. The Republicans use the word "faith" in a very general, vague way in which it can apply to any religion, as; we are a nation that is free to worship as an individual sees fit, because your leaders say so. The Democrats say believe what you want or nothing at all, 'just believe me,' your trustworthy representative. I have trouble hearing any real difference. And don't even get me started on the NAFTA Highway. I am fully convinced Bill Clinton did more to rally the Republican Party than any Republican in American History!
Now, on with my rant. I have read articles and posts that declare our founding fathers to be everything from devout Christians to deists to plotting Illuminati. For the sake of argument, because as history continues to be "re-evaluated" which I simply refer to as rewritten, there will be no way to verify convincingly.
If in fact our founding fathers were devout Christian men that based their decisions regarding morals and values upon the Bible, how did we come to have a revolution?
The same scriptures that justify and defend our nation's leaders and render us to be law abiding tax paying citizens were in their Bible, also. Romans 13:1, 2 is in the King James Version of the Bible, and it was practically still "hot off the press!" I also checked with another Version claimed to be used at that time . . . Geneva 1599? It doesn't read much differently. What about paying taxes in "rendering unto Caesar, that which is Caesar's?"
If these men were the devout Christians that many say, how did the Boston Tea Party and the Revolutionary War become a good idea? And if they were deists, would they really have fought with the fervor that they did for an abandoned universe? And if they were plotting Illuminati, aka: powerful members of the freemasons, their membership is dwindling.
My concern and question is: What will happen in America if we reclaim the foundation of the founding fathers? If high taxes and loss of liberty were reason to revolt in the 1700's, what will be the cause in this century? Has the definition of treason become more subjective or less subjective in our Act of Patriotism?
Regardless of their religion, regardless of our politics . . . if George W. and Thomas J. and John H. were here today, what would they advise?

Except the LORD build the house, they labor in vain that build it: except the LORD keep the city, the watchman wakes but in vain.