Z Blog

WOW

2011-10-03T10:52:00.000-05:00

Links

2011-09-09T11:34:00.002-05:00

What does FEMA stand for? and Serfing USA were very interesting posts about freedom vs beauracracy

Homosexual Marriage

2011-08-03T11:41:00.004-05:00

The topic of "Homosexual Marriage" has been in the news a lot lately, particularly with our governor's response to the NY law so I thought I would give my thoughts on it.

GOD designed and defined marriage between one man and one woman. HE allowed multiple wives at certain times, but any other form of partnership is clearly not marriage. Therefore there can be no such thing as homosexual marriage. HE defined it and only HE can redefine it, the USA or State of NY cannot redefine what GOD defined. I can call a car an airplane, but that doesn't make it one.

The problem started when government at any level started recognizing and recording marriages. In the US there is no legal authority for county, state, or federal government to recognize, record, or solemnize marriage. It is solely a function of GOD and HIS church. Government has no business being involved. When government gets involved decisions are made based on political power and not what it right.

Some claim that is just gives homosexuals the same rights as anyone else. They already have the same rights as anyone else, they are free to marry, fornicate, or adulterate as they wish. They can leave their possessions to anyone they want to on their death or during their life. They can jointly buy houses, cars, etc just like married people.

What the homosexual community wants is to destroy CHRISTianity and the attack on marriage is just one method. They want to be able to sin and no one be able to tell them it is a sin. They want to rebel against GOD with no consequences. It doesn't work that way, even if they eliminate the social consequences, there are still eternal consequences to the unrepentant sinner.

It is not "Gay Marriage." The homosexual community has coopted the word gay. The word gay used to mean according to Websters

1 a : happily excited : merry

b : keenly alive and exuberant : having or inducing high spirits

2 a : bright, lively

b : brilliant in color

The homosexuals want to portray themselves as happy funloving people when in fact they are anything but.

Homosexual behavior is a sin, just like adultery or fornication(often found in the church). The only answer to sin is to repent and accept the forgiveness paid for by JESUS. There is no other answer to sin and in this way, homosexuality is no different than any other sin.

CHRISTians and the church have too frequently been involved in attempting to pass laws to keep people from sinful behavior. This simply does not work and is not what JESUS taught us to do. We must preach the Gospel to the world around us and encourage them to repent and turn away from their sin(all sin, not just homosexuality) and to turn to JESUS the author and perfector of our faith. HE took away my sins and he will take theirs also.

GOD loves homosexuals just like he loves all sinners. HE offers the free gift of salvation through the sacrifice of JESUS on the cross. But those who refuse to repent and ask for forgiveness will be judged according to their sins. Those who do repent and ask for forgiveness will be judged according to JESUS' sinlessness. This applies to murderers, thieves, satan worshipers, adulterers, fornicators, and homosexuals as well as all other sinners. 100% of humans will be judged.

Youth Ministry, does it work? What can we do about it

2011-07-11T10:58:00.003-05:00

I dare you to watch it.

Email Tips from Seth's blog

2011-06-10T08:16:00.001-05:00

Before you hit send on that next email, perhaps you should run down this list, just to be sure:
1. Is it going to just one person? (If yes, jump to #10)
2. Since it's going to a group, have I thought about who is on my list?
3. Are they blind copied?
4. Did every person on the list really and truly opt in? Not like sort of, but really ask for it?
5. So that means that if I didn't send it to them, they'd complain about not getting it?
6. See #5. If they wouldn't complain, take them off!
7. That means, for example, that sending bulk email to a list of bloggers just cause they have blogs is not okay.
8. Aside: the definition of permission marketing: Anticipated, personal and relevant messages delivered to people who actually want to get them. Nowhere does it say anything about you and your needs as a sender. Probably none of my business, but I'm just letting you know how I feel. (And how your prospects feel).
9. Is the email from a real person? If it is, will hitting reply get a note back to that person? (if not, change it please).
10. Have I corresponded with this person before?
11. Really? They've written back? (if no, reconsider email).
12. If it is a cold-call email, and I'm sure it's welcome, and I'm sure it's not spam, then don't apologize. If I need to apologize, then yes, it's spam, and I'll get the brand-hurt I deserve.
13. Am I angry? (If so, save as draft and come back to the note in one hour).
14. Could I do this note better with a phone call?
15. Am I blind-ccing my boss? If so, what will happen if the recipient finds out?
16. Is there anything in this email I don't want the attorney general, the media or my boss seeing? (If so, hit delete).
17. Is any portion of the email in all caps? (If so, consider changing it.)
18. Is it in black type at a normal size?
19. Do I have my contact info at the bottom? (If not, consider adding it).
20. Have I included the line, "Please save the planet. Don't print this email"? (If so, please delete the line and consider a job as a forest ranger or flight attendant).
21. Could this email be shorter?
22. Is there anyone copied on this email who could be left off the list?http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif
23. Have I attached any files that are very big? (If so, google something like 'send big files' and consider your options.)
24. Have I attached any files that would work better in PDF format?
25. Are there any :-) or other emoticons involved? (If so, reconsider).
26. Am I forwarding someone else's mail? (If so, will they be happy when they find out?)
27. Am I forwarding something about religion (mine or someone else's)? (If so, delete).
28. Am I forwarding something about a virus or worldwide charity effort or other potential hoax? (If so, visit snopes and check to see if it's 'actually true).
29. Did I hit 'reply all'? If so, am I glad I did? Does every person on the list need to see it?
30. Am I quoting back the original text in a helpful way? (Sending an email that says, in its entirety, "yes," is not helpful).
31. If this email is to someone like Seth, did I check to make sure I know the difference between its and it's? Just wondering.
32. If this is a press release, am I really sure that the recipient is going to be delighted to get it? Or am I taking advantage of the asymmetrical nature of email--free to send, expensive investment of time to read or delete?
33. Are there any little animated creatures in the footer of this email? Adorable kittens? Endangered species of any kind?
34. Bonus: Is there a long legal disclaimer at the bottom of my email? Why?
35. Bonus: Does the subject line make it easy to understand what's to come and likely it will get filed properly?
36. If I had to pay 42 cents to send this email, would I?

Chris Anderson has come up with his own list as well.

Christianity and Politics

2010-06-12T09:07:00.000-05:00

Great article, click on the title to read it.

Fast Lane past Security

2010-05-26T21:54:00.002-05:00

Texas has decided we need more security at the Capital. They have installed metal detectors and searches at all entrances, but in a brilliant decision, CHL holders get to bypass the metal detectors along with elected officials and state employees.

Another time I am proud of Texas. I think the metal detectors for the general public are a waste of time and money, but at least they are allowing CHL holders around the detectors.

Now if the KGB would allow this on airplanes we could have a little more real security and a little less pretend security.

How to act when stopped by police

2010-05-04T13:18:00.002-05:00

Many police are great guys doing a tough job. Your reactions determine how smoothly the encounter is going to proceed. Be aware of your rights and act in a way that makes everything better. It works with bad cops too.

Rick Perry

2010-04-28T16:01:00.003-05:00

I am proud of my governor today. He was out jogging(without his security detail)and with his daughter's dog. He saw a coyote looking like he was about to have dog for breakfast. He drew the Ruger LCP .380 he was carrying(legally in Texas) and shot the coyote. That is the way we deal with these things here.

Click the title to read the whole article.

Jan Markell on Obamacare, US freedom, and end times

2010-03-26T11:33:00.004-05:00

Interesting way of looking at things. If the US must decrease what is our role in the mean time? Preach the Gospel, heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, open blind eyes, in other words we should be doing what JESUS did when he was on the earth. Politics may or may not move in our favor, but does it really matter in the long run? If it does matter should we resist things that are moving where GOD has preordained them?

I think we must resist tyranny by all available means, but we must realize that our battles may or may not change the end result. We must fight these battles for our times to fulfill our role in the short term. GOD may have called us to such a time as this to fight things that he has ordained will eventually happen.

Now What

2010-03-22T11:12:00.002-05:00

The Obamanation has passed, now what should freedom loving Americans do? We have several choices.

1. Submit. Most people will say this law was passed by congress and it is our duty to submit. However, any action taken by the congress that violates the Constitution is invalid(no matter what the courts say). If we submit to this extra-constitutional invasion then we may never again have the ability to resist. Our freedoms to own firearms will be gradually taken away until we can no longer resist.

2. Fight in the courts. While the courts may well strike the law down that is far from certain. What if the SCOTUS says the law is constitutional? I think we should fight this battle, but don't expect to really win it.

3. Fight in the ballot boxes. All of the 219 "representatives" that voted for this bill are up for reelection in the fall, make sure they are all defeated(and any others who voted for any of the bailouts). Of course we should fight this battle, and we may win some battles I am not sure we can win the war this way.

4. Fight in the state legislatures. All 50 states have the authority and obligation to stand up to the federal government's intrusion. Most won't do so, but we can win some battles here. The tide at this level is turning in our favor. There should be serious discussion of secession due to this egregious violation of the constitution. We should hope for all 50 states to secede and form confederacies of states.

5. Fight individually. We must resist this bill in any way possible. We must refuse to submit, refuse to pay, resist with our lives and sacred fortunes is we really want to win the battle. We can easily win, but only if we are really willing to fight. Half hearted fighting will not produce freedom.

Much of the problem with our country is that many people want limited socialism(an oxymoron if there ever was one). Large percentages of people want government to control various entities(big business, car manufacturers, utilities, insurance companies, welfare, etc) and make them provide their goods for free or reduced prices with the features we want. You can not have a little socialism. By its very nature it will grow until it encompasses everything. You must kill socialism or it will take over. As long as we have a socialist mindset we can never win the war, we can only win battles along the way and hope for a mindset change in the future. You hope that people will see that socialism is an abject failure at every level. But covetousness makes us all want something for nothing(even when we know it is impossible). We must destroy the mindset of covetousness(it is one of the 10 Commandments, remember). Whatever government gives must have been taken(by force) from someone first.

Ermie Hensel

2010-01-25T22:20:00.002-06:00

Even when one leads a full life to age 75 it just isn't enough. A dear friend passed away today unexpectedly. He leaves behind a wonderful wife and children/stepchildren, grandchildren, and great grandchildren. He leaves a big hole in the lives of many many others that he touched along the way. Why do we miss them so much when we know they are in a truly better place? Pray for peace for Linda and the family.

Amy Grace Zesch

2009-11-09T11:34:00.001-06:00

After only 32 hours she has a name. Amy Grace Zesch was born Nov 8, 2009 at 3:37 am(for all you skymaster fans). She weighed 8 lbs and was 21 inches long.

Baby

2009-11-08T04:52:00.001-06:00

A baby girl arrived toay(Nov 8) at 3:37 am.

Happy 66 Gary

2009-09-27T16:37:00.001-05:00

In honor of my dad's 66th birthday

From LYRICSMODE.COM lyrics archive

Lyrics | Chuck Berry lyrics - Route 66 lyrics

Safety

2009-09-10T13:08:00.001-05:00

Interesting article about safety and awareness. Of course she doesn't mention that having a gun might help if you find yourself in a dangerous situation.

Danger lurks everywhere. I’m not talking about health risks or economic downturns, I’m talking about human predators. Most people are good human beings, but there are some who are not. They are dangerous and hunt for victims. The good news is that you can keep yourself safe by following seven simple safety rules.

I’m a 4th Dan Karate Black Belt and learned these seven safety rules during eighteen years of martial arts training. The safety rules are simple, because as human beings, we have a built-in warning system that alerts us to predator danger. This warning system is called fear. Yes, fear is our greatest ally in keeping ourselves safe.

The problem is that our natural warning system has become blunted through easy living. We’ve lost our natural ability to keep ourselves safe. Before I guide you through the seven safety strategies, let me say something about a key safety issue.
Don’t be an easy victim

Predators always go for easy victims. I’m not just talking about big crimes, but also of daily aggression, such a bullying. I remember the time my son Sebastian came home from school and told me that he was being bullied by an older boy. Sebastian was seven years old at the time and had just started karate training. He grew up in a Zen household where peacefulness is valued, so he was confused about how to respond to bullying. Here is what he asked me:

“Mum, if someone hits me, do I just have to take it and not hurt them back?”

“Here’s what to do, Sebastian,” I said. “When the bully threatens you, stand up straight and hold both hands out in front of your chest, palms toward him, and say ‘stop!’ in a loud voice.”

“Why do I hold my hands like that?”

“The open hands in front of you show that you want peace, as well as warning your opponent not invade to your personal space. And, most importantly – you’ve got your hands in place, ready to defend or punch.”

“What? To punch?” His eyes grew round.

“Yes. You need to study your opponent carefully. Wait until he’s just getting ready to throw a punch. Then get in first and punch him on the nose. I promise he’ll never attack you again.”

Sebastian followed my advice. Next day he punched his tormentor just as I had suggested. The kids at school were impressed when they saw the big bully run away crying. I must admit, the headmaster wasn’t so pleased with my strategy, but Sebastian was never bullied again.

He reminded me of my advice a short while ago. “That wasn’t exactly what a peace-loving mother is supposed to say,” he said. “But it worked!”

Remember: never be an easy victim.
7 safety rules that can save your life
1. Be alert

I’m not talking about hyper-vigilance here. Just pay attention to what is around you. Think of all the times you walk around in a day dream, or preoccupied with your problems. Those are the times when you are in danger. Because keeping yourself safe is a matter of paying attention to possible danger and avoiding it.

Keep your wits around you at all times. That means avoid getting drunk or drugged. When you’re inebriated, you turn into an easy victim.
2. Use your senses

When our forebears still lived in caves, the senses were essential survival tools. Smell could signal the approach of a dangerous animal, or lead to a food source. Hearing could alert to a predator creeping up, ready to attack. Taste could discern poisonous food.

These days our sense are blunted and we’ve forgotten to use them in order to keep ourselves safe. Let me give you an example: many people walk through streets listening to music on their iPods. What that means is that someone can easily creep up from behind and attack. I suggest that you never listen to music while walking in order to stay alert to your surrounding.
3. Notice anomalies

Impending danger often shows up in anomalies. What I’m talking about is predators often behave in odd ways. Let me give you some examples. At the time of writing, I’m in Buenos Aires, which has a rising crime rate, due to growing poverty. At times, my partner and I have to walk though streets that are less than safe. Here are anomalies I watch out for:

* A couple or small group coming towards you whose attention is on you, and not on each other.

Normally a couple or a small group are focused on each other, talking and looking at each other. In contrast, predators hunting in packs are focused on possible victims.

* People lurking or loitering without visible reason.

Here’s an example: a few weeks ago my partner won a couple of thousand Dollars playing lotto. When he checked his ticket in the store, the win caused a bit of a stir and the store owner paid him out in cash. I quickly took stock of the situation and noticed that two of the guys who had been behind us in the queue were loitering outside the shop. So I immediately chose the back exit to get us home safely.

* People whose face or gait spells out severe mental illness.

Severe mental disturbance shows in the face and in the gait of a person. For example, a normal person uses diagonal movements when walking: we swing the left arm when the right leg moves forward, and so on. People with severe mental illness often walk with parallel movements, i.e., the right arm and right leg move forward.

Research has shown that we instinctively pick up such anomalies. Take note of your feelings of unease or fear and act upon them without delay. The best way to stay safe is to spot oncoming danger and avoid or evade it.

4. Avoid angry scenes and ugly crowds.

If you are at a club or a party and aggravation builds, leave the place immediately. If you are in a large crowd and the mood turns ugly, quickly move to the edge of the crowd and leave the area.

The word ‘immediately’ is a key to keeping yourself safe. Often you will be tempted to ‘wait and see’. Or someone will say to you, “You’re over-reacting!” To keep safe, you have to give your instinct for danger priority, no matter what others say, or what your mind thinks. Your marker for danger is fear. Take good note of any feelings of disquiet or fear and act upon them.

5. Keep together

I’m sure you have seen videos of lions hunting in the wild. They never attack the leaders of a herd. They attack the stragglers. Human predators follow the same strategy, they target people who are on their own. Make sure to keep up when moving across town with another person or a group. Don’t fall behind, and don’t get separated.

6. Look big and show confidence

I’m sure you’ve seen what cats do when they see a strange dog. They fluff up their fur and appear twice their size. If you sense danger, you need to do the same. Make sure your posture is upright. Let your arms swing by your sides but hold them away from your body a little in order to create a bigger profile.

If you are feeling threatened, walk fast and confidently. If you are lost in a foreign city, never stop and study a map under a street lamp – it marks you as a possible victim. It’s better to go into a restaurant or club in order to find your directions. Always appear in charge of your actions.

7. Treat people well

If you are aggressive or nasty to others, they may respond with aggression or even violence towards you. Your best defense against danger is to be a friendly and helpful person.

Safety is also heightened through knowledge. Make sure that you know which areas are dangerous and avoid them. Stick to larger streets with foot traffic, even if it takes longer to get to where you want to go.

If you follow these seven safety rules, you will have a good chance of keeping yourself safe. And they won’t make you into a nervous or suspicious person. Your heightened alertness will enable you to be more relaxed and less tense.

Finally, martial arts training – even for a short time – is a great way to learn not only how to defend yourself, but how to spot and avoid danger. It also gives you the self-confidence to know that you’re worth defending.

The unexpected outcome of good martial art training is that it turns you into a peaceful person. The ultimate key to safety is to radiate peacefulness whilst staying alert.

Government

2009-09-08T20:36:00.001-05:00

I love Tim Hawkins and this video shows why. He is funny and right.

Brilliant Idea from Vox

2009-06-12T12:23:00.001-05:00

Blogs vs billboards

The birth certificate controversy isn't the first time the old media has attempted to exert control over the public discourse and sweep inconvenient issues under the carpet. Nor will it be the first time they'll be unsuccessful in doing so. Who needs billboards when we've got blogs?

I'd encourage those of you who understand that the Certification of Live Birth produced by the Obama campaign is not the relevant birth certificate being requested and does not prove anything about where he was actually born to throw an electronic billboard up on your blog somewhere. I recognize it's entirely possible that Obama is, in fact, completely eligible for the Federal office he presently holds, but the indisputable fact of the matter is that we don't actually have any evidence that he is while we do know that the administration is going to unprecedented lengths to keep a very tight lid on a number of his records for reasons that remain unknown.

If you find it difficult to believe there is any difference between the document that has been provided and the one being requested, I suggest obtaining a Certification of Live Birth for yourself and attempting to use it the next time you are required to provide a birth certificate. The issue may ultimately prove irrelevant, but the difference is real. Those of us who have lived abroad for extensive periods are painfully aware of the significant differences between the various forms of birth-related documents.

"In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout)."

Modern Crimes

2008-12-27T08:03:00.003-06:00

Long Live the Confederacy

2008-11-05T13:35:00.003-06:00

I am actually sort of glad Obama won. When the amazingly hard crash comes at least it will be under Dumbocrat control. Hopefully we have a real chance of secession this time. If we did it I am certain we could win this time and leave them with the $850 billion bailout plus the debt.

Here is Vox's take on it.

Baby Steps to Healthy Eating

2008-11-04T16:51:00.006-06:00

I stole the baby steps idea from Dave Ramsey. Check out his financial info if you don't know who he is.

This is notes from talks that my wife and I have given on nutrition and ways to get started. Just do one thing until you are comfortable with it and then move to the next step. Don't try to change your whole life at once, it probably won't last long. Make small permanent changes, then when you are ready make another small permanent change.

Baby Steps to Healthy Eating

1. Cut the Crap!

Donuts
Cokes (both regular and artificially sweetened)
Anything fried in vegetable oil (French fries, chips, etc)
Non fish seafood –especially fried
Sweets-including artificial sweeteners, some of them are worse than sugar.

2. Drink lots of Pure Water

God designed water for drinking.
Avoid all processed drinks (cokes, sports drinks, fruit juices, pasteurized milk.)
Limit tea-(green, herbal, and black), coffee, and alcohol
Raw milk is good
Beware of Contaminants (chlorine, fluoride, nitrates)

3. Eat Green Vegetables

Color is a fairly good indicator of nutrition-Darker is better
Green leafy vegetables are the best (spinach, kale, collard greens, etc)
Raw is probably better than cooked
Probably the only thing you can’t overdo
Fruits are good in moderation
Organic is best

4. Exercise

Exercising burns calories
It makes your body function better
Strengthens the immune system and brain

5. Eat Whole Foods

If your great-grandparents didn’t eat it, it isn’t food
Processing of foods removes nutrition, adds bad things to foods (sugar, MSG, preservatives, etc)
Raw foods are good in many cases
The less processing the better
Some experts say grains should be avoided by most people

6. Eat Clean Meats

God’s rules to the Jews were for their health benefits, not just spiritual rules
Modern research has proven the wisdom of avoiding certain foods.
God taught them to sacrifice internal and external fats, kidneys, and liver so the didn't eat them
Antibiotics, hormones, and grain-fed animals make it less healthy

7. Eat Good Fats

Many fats and oils are bad for you
Others that you have been told are bad are really good
Use history as a guide
Coconut and Palm for cooking
Extra Virgin Olive for cold use

8. Supplement Wisely

Watch for synthetic vitamins
Don’t use vitamins as a first line of defense
Fill in holes in your diet
Try superfoods
Good digestive bacteria
Avoid antibacterial anything
Find natural remedies

9. Educate Yourself

Medical doctors generally have almost NO nutritional training
Much doctor training is funded by pharmaceutical companies
Leviticus – by Jehovah Rophe
What the Bible says about Healthy Living - by Rex Russell, M.D.
The Maker’s Diet – by Jordan S. Rubin N.M.D., Ph.D.
Dr. Mercola's Total Health Cookbook and Program – by Dr. Joseph Mercola
The Great Physician's RX for Health and Wellness – by Jordan Rubin
Rejuvenate your Life – by Serene Allison
www.mercola.com
www.naturalnews.com
www.westonaprice.org

Of course don’t believe everything you read or hear, look at many sources and make an
educated judgment.

A simple scientific experiment: Look around and see who's healthy
Let me invite you to look at a simple experiment here. If what organized medicine says is true, then you should be able to observe that people on drugs are healthy, while all the people taking herbs and vitamins are diseased.
Go park your car in front of a pharmacy and watch the first 100 people you see buying drugs, then ask yourself, "Are these healthy people?" Look at the way they walk, their energy and their posture. Do they look healthy? Then go park your car in front of a health food store and watch people entering and exiting that store. Ask yourself again: Do they look healthy?
If you do this experiment, you'll quickly find that the unhealthy people are the ones visiting the pharmacy. The healthy people are the ones visiting health food stores, which sell natural health products and supplements. Through this simple observation experiment, we can see for ourselves that conventional medicine doesn't make people healthy. Or, at the very least, we can say that the consumption of prescription drugs is strongly correlated with states of disease, while the consumption of health food store products (natural groceries, organic produce and nutritional supplements) is strongly correlated with the absence of disease. And this observation holds true through many levels: physical health, emotional health, mental health and spiritual health.

How to know if it is GOD's voice you are hearing

2008-11-04T16:37:00.000-06:00

GOD's voice
How do you know if it is GOD's voice you are hearing

1.It will go against wordly wisdom-many people will say you are crazy
2.It will require Faith
3.It will require courage
4.It will line up with the written WORD
5.You will have Peace in your spirit-
not necessarily Peace in your mind or emotions.

Life Progressions

2008-11-03T13:25:00.002-06:00

This is a list from a series of messages by Creflo Dollar. It tells us where the root is to what is going on in our life. If we want to change things we have to go back to the root.

Life Progressions

from Creflo Dollar

The words you hear(either GOD's word or satan's word) produce your
Thinking which produces your
Emotions and feeling- which affects your
Decisions- where you choose your
Actions- which produce
Habits- which become
Character- which ends up with your
Destiny

So if you don't like your destiny, you must go back to step 1 and change the words and ideas you are hearing. You can't change step5 without changing step . It will short circuit.

The 10 Cannots

2008-10-27T09:24:00.001-05:00

Check out this blog article about voting and the 10 cannots

Bayou Renaissance Man: Thoughts before the election #1

Thoughts before the election #1

A number of readers have
e-mailed me, asking why I'm not providing more thoughts on the election
and who I support for President.

The answer's simple. I don't
believe I have the right to try to persuade anyone to vote according to
my view of the world. I have my own convictions (centrist, with a
conservative angle in terms of morality and an emphasis on the
individual versus the collective), but I don't want to impose them on
anyone else.

I've therefore decided to share, over a few posts,
some of the thinkers whom I find valuable in evaluating the candidates
for office (whether the Presidency, Senate, Congress, or temporary
acting honorary assistant deputy dog-catcher). What I do is to take the
ideas of such thinkers and use them as a yardstick to evaluate the
candidates. How do they measure up? How well will they implement these
ideas or principles? If they don't and/or won't, I can't in good
conscience vote for them, irrespective of their political party or
philosophy, or their track record.

Today I'd like to introduce you to William J. H. Boetcker
(1873-1962). He was a Presbyterian minister, renowned for his
motivational public speaking, and had the knack of putting important
truths into concise, easily-grasped points.

Among his most
famous ideas are the 'Ten Cannots', dating from 1916. They're often
attributed - mistakenly - to Abraham Lincoln.

You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich.
You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
You cannot establish security on borrowed money.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initiative and independence.
You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.

I
think the 'Ten Cannots' say a great deal about our present society,
particularly its emphasis on 'big government' and 'handouts' and
'welfare' and suchlike. I don't believe in any of them. If a given
candidate (or political party) has a position that contradicts most of
the 'Ten Cannots', the odds are that I can't support them. If the
positions of all candidates (or parties) contradict the 'Ten Cannots',
I'll have to vote for the person or party who contradicts the fewest of
them, on the principle of choosing the lesser of the evils confronting
me.

Boetcker also coined the 'Seven National Crimes':

I don’t think.
I don’t know.
I don’t care.
I am too busy.
I leave well enough alone.
I have no time to read and find out.
I am not interested.

These
may or may not apply to our politicians, but they sure apply to us as
voters! We should be asking ourselves whether we're guilty of any of
these attitudes: and, if so, we should try to change that.

In
the days ahead I'll write about a few more thinkers who've influenced
me, and helped to shape my outlook. I hope you find them as interesting
as I do - and helpful, in this election season.

Peter

22 Reasons people don't receive healing

2008-10-21T14:50:00.002-05:00

I have some notes that I have been carrying in my Bible for years. I typed them up for my use, but thought others might be interested in them, so I will post them here. I am not a note taker generally. These are lists of items that I thought were vital.

22 Reasons People don't receive their healing.

Originally taught by Creflo Dollar

Insufficient Instruction
Lack of united prayer
Community Unbelief
Traditions of men
Breaking natural laws-eating, lack of exercise, etc
Unbelief of elder/minister who prays
Evil spirit must be cast our
Unconfessed sin
Lukewarmness in the church
Unwillingness to surrender to GOD
Unforgiving spirit
Need to seek forgiveness
Lack of diligence
Seeking miracles instead of healing
Watching Symptoms
Failure to act on faith
Lack of confidence
Failure to receive the HOLY SPIRIT
Lack of Faith
Failure to receive promises
Waiting for healing in order to believe in healing-I'll believe it after I see it.

Big government fingerprints on murder weapon

2008-10-16T09:16:00.002-05:00

Big-government fingerprints on murder weapon

Big-government fingerprints on murder weapon
Posted: October 16, 2008
1:00 am Eastern

© 2008

Whose fingerprints are on the weapon that murdered the U.S. economy?

Multiple culprits deserve blame, but the Clinton administration stands out as a ringleader for diverting billions of dollars into junk sub-prime mortgages. Those loans have fouled the economy and siphoned away the capital needed by businesses and families today.

Government created a quota system that required lending to people who lacked the ability to repay.

Clinton's HUD (Department of Housing and Urban Development) decreed that big chunks of mortgages must be issued to borrowers with poor finances. It started at 12 percent of all Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mortgages in 1996. By 2008, that proportion had more than doubled, to 28 percent.

Because Fannie and Freddie dominated the mortgage market, holding about $5 trillion in mortgages, they effectively dictated mortgage standards. The result: Their misguided practices rippled through lenders across the country. If banks made a sub-prime loan, they could re-sell it to Fannie and Freddie. And unless banks made those loans, there was a limit to other loans that would be bought.

(Column continues below)

As HUD wrote in a 2004 report, explaining its post-1996 quotas:

HUD's ... Regulation imposes no requirement for the total number of home purchase mortgages that a GSE [Government-Sponsored Enterprise] must buy. Rather, the rule provides that, however many home purchase loans in metropolitan areas the GSEs buy, a certain percentage must be in each goal category. For example, if a GSE buys 1 million home purchase mortgages in metropolitan areas in 2005, then 450,000 of these mortgages would need to be for low- and moderate-income families.

Under that scenario, for each million loans made in 2005 (when the "very low-income" goal was 22 percent), then 220,000 of those mortgages were required by federal regulation to be among the "special affordable" sub-prime group. Since Fannie and Freddie bought hundreds of billions in mortgages each year, this 22 percent quickly became a huge mandate to make poor-quality loans.

Lenders complied by creating the infamous zero-down loans and other loans that proved to be junk. This wasn't a failure to regulate. It was a failure by regulating too much!

Many motives were commendable, of course. The American dream of home ownership is common to all races, classes and income levels. But so, too, is the ability to get in over your head.

So how low was low-income to our government? "Very low-income," also called "special affordable loans," was defined as having less than 60 percent of an area's median income. Just being below the median alone put a household in the bottom half of income. Being in the bottom third of the bottom half was scraping along compared to most folks.

Local medians vary. Census numbers show a median range from $44,000 for a family of three in Arkansas to $81,000 for a family of three in Maryland. (These are 2008 dollars). Living on 60 percent of that would be $26,400 to $48,600, with all sorts of levels in-between, depending on locality.

Fannie and Freddie complied with HUD's requirements, increasing their sub-prime loans year after year. They didn't mind. Indeed, they and their congressional supporters bragged about it.

Protected by their political friends, especially in Congress, Fannie and Freddie not only met their quotas for backing home loans to people who couldn't afford houses, they surpassed them. In 2004, 24.2 percent of their mortgages went to very low-income families, beating the goal of 20 percent. The following year they bested the 22 percent goal, hitting 24.5 percent. In 2006 they smashed the 23 percent goal with 26.46 percent. A year later they slipped, but still exceeded the 25 percent goal with 25.65 percent.

Helping out was the controversial group ACORN, which joined other community organizations in channeling potential borrowers to banks that would make these special loans. Of course, ACORN and the other enablers received handsome fees for this effort.

But it wasn't a kindness to help poor people get into a house, only to be evicted because they couldn't pay. It was a setback to them.

So, what if Fannie and Freddie had balked, rather than happily complied? Ultimately, the law created penalties that could reach $25,000 each day if they were not aggressive enough in marketing mortgages to those who had limited ability to pay.

This quota system for mortgage loans began when Congress in 1992 created the requirement that Fannie and Freddie must back loans to very low-income persons. However, the legislation specified only that this goal must be "not less than 1 percent." Starting at 12 percent and scaling up to 28 percent, the Clinton administration went above and beyond this. And the Bush administration did not reverse that course.

The left is aggressively working to convince America that a "failure to regulate" made lenders go crazy and wreck our economy through greed. The truth is that our economy was legislated and regulated into this mess. Even if our economy isn't already regulated to death, it's still attempted murder.

No Nonsense Self Defense

2008-10-15T18:31:00.001-05:00

No Nonsense Self Defense - Reliable information for dangerous situations

I came across this site recently. There is a ton of good information on safety in lot's of situations and how to avoid violence. I don't necessarily agree with everything they say, but there is a lot of good information.

Our loathsome members of Congress

2008-10-08T13:30:00.001-05:00

Dr Williams tells it well. Now there is a black man I would vote for if he ran for anything.

Our loathsome members of Congress

Posted: October 08, 2008
1:00 am Eastern

© 2008

In my more cynical moments, I think that we Americans deserve what we get from our politicians, many of whom can be generally described as nothing less than loathsome. You say, "Williams, that's a pretty heavy putdown." My question to you is how else would you describe these congressmen who are now blaming the financial mess on the failure of the free market? Starting with the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, that was given more teeth during the Clinton administration, Congress started intimidating banks and other financial institutions into making loans, so-called sub-prime loans, to high-risk homebuyers and businesses. The carrot offered was that these high-risk loans would be purchased by the government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Anyone with an ounce of brains would have known that this was a prescription for disaster, but there was a congressional chorus of denial.

Five years ago, Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., vouched for the "soundness" of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and said, "I do not see any possibility of serious financial losses to the treasury." In 2004 congressional hearings, where the Bush administration sought greater oversight over Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., said, "We do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac and particularly at Fannie Mae," adding that "the GSEs have exceeded their housing goals." Rep. Gregory Meeks, D-N.Y., said, "There's nothing wrong with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." In these hearings, Barney Frank said that he doesn't see "anything in the reports that raises safety and soundness problems." Earlier this year, Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., praised Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for "riding to the rescue" to help people get home mortgage loans, adding that they "need to do more" to help high-risk borrowers get better loans.

The financial collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is not a failure of the free market, because lending institutions in a free market would not have taken on the high-risk loans. They were forced to by the heavy hand of government. The solution is not a taxpayer-financed bailout. The solution is to let them fail and allow the people who invested in them, as well as the people who purchased homes they couldn't afford, suffer the losses. Of course, that takes a level of political courage that is in short supply. There are other measures that should be taken as part of a second-best solution.

(Column continues below)

In 2002, when the Enron and WorldCom scandal broke, the Congress held hearings, and some chief executives were jailed. Who did what was the big story in the major news media almost every night. Congress rushed to enact the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, also known as the Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act of 2002. The act placed unnecessary, onerous and costly accounting standards on American businesses. The Enron and WorldCom debacle is a drop in the bucket compared to the financial mess Congress has created through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, in the name of "affordable" housing. Have you heard Congress calling for hearings? They haven't called for hearings because many of them, both Democrats and Republicans, receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars, were in cahoots with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. If Americans are going to be on the hook to bail out these government-sponsored enterprises, at the minimum congressional hearings ought to be held to find out who did what and when.

Corporations employ accounting practices promulgated by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) that established Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and government agencies have accounting practices that don't come close to, and never did, the honesty of private accounting practices. Accounting fraud and deception are the dominant features of government agencies. If a private business kept and cooked the books, like government agencies do, the top executives would go to jail. Shouldn't the accounting standards businesses have to meet be applied to Washington? My answer is yes, and if a congressman says no, I'd like for him to tell us why.

Is a third party vote wasted?

2008-10-08T09:58:00.001-05:00

Vox Day has an interesting blog about how if you are a conservative and vote republican that your vote is the vote that is wasted, not those of us who vote third party and get what we expect.

The beginning of the end

2008-10-07T14:54:00.002-05:00

The bailout bill I think represents the beginning of the end of the great experiment in freedom known as the United States of America. There have been attacks on freedom from it's inception with great crisis giving dictocratic leaders the reasons to take away freedom; Abe Lincoln, FDR, LBJ, and GWB being among the worst.But this bill results in the socialization of 10% of the american economy to solve problems created by Congress and their wealthy contributors.

I compare this to someone who get's a diagnosis of terminal cancer. You may not know the time frame, but short of a miracle the time will be too short. Prepare yourself, it could be ugly before the end.

On the positive side, I saved some money on my car insurance by switching to Geico. (not really)

On the truly positive side this may hasten Jesus return to earth. Most biblical scholars don't believe the US is pictured in the Revelation of John. So, somewhere along the way the power and influence of the US has to wane. The economic free fall that this set up could sure do that. Prepare yourself Spiritually first, then prepare naturally for times that will be like no other in our history. What is that old Chinese blessing/curse? "May you live in interesting times?

Letter

2008-10-07T14:48:00.001-05:00

Here is a copy of the letter I send to my congressman and senators about their votes to give away $700 Billion of my money to wealthy businessmen to solve a problem created by the US government.

I have never been so disgusted in the actions of my elected officials as I am now. Your recent vote to spend $700 Billion dollars of someone else's(my) money to socialize 10% of the American economy is unthinkable. It has been clear for a while that most Republicans are alomost as much big government socialists as the Democrats. I have already gotten to the point that I can't imagine voting for a Republican for President and now I must include Senators and Congressmen in that. I know the Libertarian party attracts some idiots, but it also attracts men of true principle.

The Federal Government created the mess by socializing parts of the monetary system, banking, securities, etc. Now you want to solve the problem by more of the same problem. This was not a market failure, it was a socialism failure and $700 Billion more socialism will only make it worse. You may have delayed the crash for a little while but it will come and it will probably be worse. This is the beginning of the end of the United States of America. I had spoken with JoAnn in the San Angelo office and she assured me you would not vote for the bailout, but after voting no on the first one you caved to special interests and left your constituents with the bill.

Rest assured that I will never vote for you for any office again and will actively work to get you voted out of office.

Third Party Candidates

2008-10-01T11:48:00.001-05:00

Check out this site for ideas on how to help third party freedom candidates get electoral traction. Don't vote for lesser evil, vote for good people.

Financial Crisis Pt 2

2008-09-26T17:09:00.003-05:00

Now we are up into relatively modern times. I remember when Jimmy Carter was elected and I remember Ronald Reagan coming on the scene to supposedly clean up the mess(he tried, but failed).

Fannie Mae was also a quasi public entity(private stockholders with some government control) created in 1938 to help Americans buy homes. Basically a bank would loan someone the money to buy a house, then the bank would sell the loan to Fannie Mae and the interest and payments went to Fannie Mae until the loan was paid off. Freddie Mac was created for more of the same in 1970. As long as home values were going up(due to inflation) and people paid on their mortgages everything looked rosy.

Then under the Clinton administration new banking regulations were put in place that made non discrimination a part of the loan process. Banks had to have a certain percentage of loans to minorities. But since inflation was the rising tide that raises all boats the banks got away with this for a while. They loosened their lending standards and created things like "interest only loans" and "subprime mortgages"(low interest for a short period with a large gotcha at the end) so people with no income or ability to pay a mortgage could still buy a house. Then those notes were sold to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac so they bank was off the hook. Another part of the trap was in place.

Because of many years of stability the US dollar had been the world's currency for many years. Because of this the Treasury could sell Treasury notes to the world to create the money the Fed loaned to banks(remember the banks loan out the same money 10 times). But in the last few years the Euro has gained strength against the dollar(because of the dollar's inflation) and is a threat to become the world's currency. This put even more pressure on the Fed to stop printing money and act responsibly. But like an alcoholic that goes back for one more drink, the couldn't stop printing.

Today the weak dollar with a deteriorating US economy(due largely to regulating and taxing business so much that costs are increased) has put us in a situation that can't continue. The banks have loaned out Billions of dollars 10 times over for property that isn't even worth what they loaned out on it. So if a bank has loans worth $10 million, but the property is only worth $8 Million they have lost $2 Million. But wait, remember they loaned out that same money 10 times, so they have lost $20 million. And once the panic starts, prices drop even more and starts the vicious cycle.

This is where we are today. Hopefully I have explained it well enough so that you see it is a direct result of improper(illegal and unconstitutional) government actions. Years of these actions for the benefit of extremely powerful and politically connected people have created a problem. So what is our government's solution. Give these rich people$700 Billion(today's estimate which works out to about $2500 for every man, woman, and child in the US)(what are the chances this government program will take more money that expected(over 100%))of US taxpayers money to keep them from taking a loss. This is a failure of socialism with more socialism prescribed as the cure.

So what should be done? The government should allow these companies to fail if they cannot pay their notes. Those failures will definitely hurt our economy and make life difficult for a while. But much of the burden will be on the rich and powerful who legislated the problem. Get the government out of the business of regulating banks and such and let the true free market work. Government regulation keeps out competition for the rich and powerful and enables them to outcompete the little guys for a while. Ultimately we should get back to the gold standard where we have a money that is worth something and can't be manipulated for the benefit of the rich and powerful. This goes along with returning our government to its constitutionally defined limits before it strangle the US.

What can you do to protect yourself? Well, hopefully you started years ago getting out of debt. It is real hard to accomplish much now, but get to work on it. Owning gold helps protect your value, but is difficult and impractical for many. The only things that truly hold their value in inflation are "hard" assets(real estate, precious metals, etc). Be at least somewhat self sufficient. Have cash reserves, both in the bank and real cash on hand. Pray that GOD protects you and guides you through this mess. It has the potential to get very ugly.

For more studies

Shadow Stats shows the US money supply over time and demonstrates what inflation really is and how bad it has been.

The Ludwig von Mises institute can educate you about how economics really works

Dave Ramsey can teach you how to get out of debt. I love his work, but some of his advice was only good in the past and I don't think is the best option in the future.

Financial Crisis Pt 1

2008-09-26T17:05:00.003-05:00

I am tired of hearing news readers talk about how the current financial crisis is caused by free markets, capitalism, and greed and that we need the government to fix it. Free markets and capitalism have nothing to do with it. The United States government has created the problem(accidentally or on purpose) with influence from greedy anti free market business people. I will try to keep this short, but there is a lot of ground to cover.

First, I must define inflation. Every economist agrees with the basic definition of inflation, but their definition is different than what the government and modern media use. If you hear someone talking about inflation you think about rising prices; ie food, gas, clothing, etc. The prices actually rise as a result of inflation, they are not the cause. Inflation is defined as an increase in the supply of money. In the old days a ruler would issue gold and silver coins that would be used in trade. Periodically the ruler would want to spend more than he could afford and didn't have enough money. So he would call in the coins, melt them down and reissue them with the same stated value, but slightly less gold or silver weight(either by making them smaller, or mixing them with cheaper metals). This was inflating the money supply. You still had 100 $1 coins, but there was less gold than before.

Gold was the most common money supply in the history of the world. Paper money had been tried in the US by several states and the US, but had always failed shortly when money got tight and the printing presses started running. Soon you could only buy a loaf of bread with a wheelbarrow full of money. That is one of the reasons our Constitution gave Congress the power to "coin"(not print) money. OUr founding fathers knew that printing money would destroy us. The US was basically on a Gold standard up until 1933. Sometimes gold was used as the actual medium or exchange, and sometimes paper money was issued that was backed by gold. If you lost confidence in the paper you could exchange it for gold. US Dollars were virtually 100% gold backed until 1933, and were mostly gold backed until 1971. A $20 gold piece(about 1 ounce of gold) was worth pretty much $20 until 1933(it is worth about $880 today).

In 1913 the Federal Reserve Act created the Federal Reserve. The Fed is a private company(semi government controlled) that manages the US money supply. The Fed is the third attempt at a national banking system. The other two only survived about 20 years. The Federal Reserve and the fractional banking system it created are the root of today's financial crisis. The Fed basically has the authority to create money out of thin air. Basically the Fed authorizes the sale of Treasury Notes to supply itself with money. Then it loans that money out to banks. Then the banks are(legally) allowed to loan out 10 times what they have on hand. So the Fed creates $1 Million and loans it to banks, those banks can then loan out $10 Million. They theoritically only created $1 Million, but the money supply was really increased by $10 Million so your dollars are worth less than before.

The Fed was handcuffed by the gold standard. They could not really create money until 1971 when the US went totally off the gold standard. In fact, Congress and President Nixon made it illegal to own gold in 1971. From then on the Fed could do whatever it wanted. It wanted to print money. It really began to perfect printing money while Jimmy Carter was president, but it got out of hand and had to be reined in or the US would have been bankrupt sooner. Since then the Fed has walked a tightrope with a rate of inflation(money printing) that was slow and steady enough that most people wouldn't notice, but that provided a steady flow of money the the Fed and it's stockholders. Using official government statistics. What cost $100 to purchase in 1967 now costs $656, and what costs $100 in 1982 now costs $220. But government has continued to grow and this wasn't enough. The inflation has really been growing recently. In 2006 the US government quit publishing M3 money supply data which basically showed the results of the Fed creating money out of thin air and then loaning it to banks that loaned out the same money 10 times. See this chart for the results.

Chuck Baldwin

2008-09-26T13:01:00.001-05:00

Ron Paul Endorses Chuck Baldwin for President | Ron Paul .com

Money

2008-09-26T12:00:00.001-05:00

The Bailout Reader - Mises.org - Mises Institute

I am planning on writing a blog entry about the government caused financial crisis and how the proposed $700 Billion bailout is the worst possible solution to the problem. Until I write my summary, the above link shows links to many articles explaining how the banking and financial systems work.

More Later

Palin/McCain

2008-09-01T10:03:00.003-05:00

See Vox Day's article about McCain's choice of Palin.

This is a brilliant pick by McCain. But remember it is McCain/Palin and not the other way around. As far as I know Sarah Palin is the kind of person we want in Washington. But, a VP has almost no power. As long as McCain is alive VP Palin would be a figurehead to make people that don't like McCain vote for him. It does not signal a change in McCain's way of thinking, just a political ploy to get votes. The best option now is that McCain wins now and then dies early in office. But I am still not voting for John McCain. Don't listen to what he is saying now, look at 20 years of his voting record as a Senator. That is the McCain you will get, not the one you are hearing now. If you think he will appoint good SC judges, just look at who he partnered with to defeat GW's mediocre judge selections. He might cut spending and he is at least somewhat prolife. But he is wrong on virtually every other issue. Here is Gun Owners of America's report card on Senator John McCain.

Chuck Baldwin 2008

Update 1: As I have processed this longer and more info has come out I have some new thoughts. I still think Palin was a brilliant pick for McCain. But, several things are bothering me. There seems to be a fair amount of feminism in Mrs Palin. While she was busy being governor, her 15 year old daughter was growing up and exploring her sexuality. Would having her mother at home guiding her have changed her actions? She was a 4 month old baby with Downs Syndrome. What is going to happen to him while she is campaigning and being VP? If Paul's qualifications for elder were applied to national candidates, would she qualify? Would any of them qualify? It is hard to imagine most of the women I know and respect leaving a 4 month Downs child at home while they are campaiging for VP. Yes most "Conservative Christians" are hailing her as a great choice. Her positions on the issues I agree with but I guess I question her priorities and commitments to family.

Articles

2008-08-22T16:48:00.003-05:00

Here is an interesting article about uninvolved people stepping in with guns in a gunfight. And here is a blog post from a nurse with lots of experience in bad areas. They are both interesting to read, ponder, and prepare yourself.

Gun Control

2008-08-22T16:31:00.000-05:00

Open vs Concealed Carry

2008-07-22T15:25:00.002-05:00

I just learned about an interesting movement in Texas and nationwide. It is the Open Carry of firearms. Did you know that in 42 states you can open carry a firearm(with various levels of restrictions). Also, interesting enough Texas is not one of those states. There is quite a debate about the benefits of concealed carry vs open carry. You can check it out at the web sites above. I will attempt to summarize the arguments and then give my opinion.

Open carry is easier-Definitely true in Texas in the summertime and for smaller people
Open carry is a better deterrent to crime-Maybe, some argue that if someone is known to be armed the bad guy can take them out first.
Open carry is a constitutional right-True, but the Texas constitution allows the restriction of that right
Honest citizens will be scared if honest Texicans are openly carrying guns-probably true at first if open carry ever became popular. But I think we would get used to it over time.
There will be gunfights in the streets-that is what was said when the CHL law was passed too and crime went down
Property owners are more likely to not allow carrying openly-probably true, but business people don't like to lose money either
Protecting is the police's job-Not true, in fact court cases have shown the police have no obligation to protect(no matter what they put on the cars). Police can prevent some crimes, and they can investigate and arrest after the fact. There are simply not enough of them and too many of us(and the bad guys)

I think any expansion of gun rights is a good thing, so I am in favor of Open Carry. I think it could happen but probably with a gradual process, or maybe just be allowed by CHL. In an ideal world any Good Texican(or American) over 18(except convicted VIOLENT criminals and the legally insane) would be allowed to carry a firearm openly or concealed except on private property where not allowed by the owner. Any steps toward this would be good. The more honest people carry guns the lower the odds are for the bad guys and some of them will give up and get a real job instead of preying on the weaker. Also remember that a gun is the only way too even up the odds between a young large male attacker and a small, or female, or elderly, or handicapped person. Give your mother/wife/daughter/poor neighbor/handicapped friend a chance to protect themself.

Right now in Texas a concealed firearm can not be visible to normal observation. This had made quite a market for holsters that attempt to hide a gun on a human. It is fairly difficult to conceal a large gun(especially on a small person or someone wearing tight clothes) and large guns make bigger holes in bad guys. Many people don't carry because it it too difficult to conceal properly so open carry would probably result in more Good Guys carrying guns(a good thing). Also right now you have to be 21 years old to get a CHL(unless you are military). I would really like to see that lowered to 18, in fact to me(as a father of girls) that is a much higher priority than open carry. Also the NRA and TSRA don't want to get strongly behind open carry. They think it will give gun owners a bad wrap with the public and hurt their image and their ability to get legislation passed.

So, I would like to see open carry legalized in Texas. A friend asked me recently if I would carry openly if it was legal. I told him probably not most of the time. In fact, it is legal now on premises that I own or control and I rarely open carry there(never in public). I guess if it got to be more socially accepted I would and there would probably be times that I would in a high risk area. But I don't think I would carry openly on a regular basis. But I still think this would be a step in the right direction. If nothing else I would carry a larger gun concealed and worry less about if it was totally concealed. That would be very nice in Texas in the summertime.

An armed society is a polite society.

When seconds count the police are only minutes away.

DC vs Heller part 2

2008-07-19T14:44:00.001-05:00

WUSA9.com | Washington, DC | DC Rejects Handgun Application

I said before that all the majority of the Supreme Court said was that DC had to issue a license to Heller to keep his gun at home. Now they have thumbed their nose at the Supreme Court and refused to even do that. This should be interesting.

DC vs Heller

2008-07-04T14:26:00.002-05:00

The supreme court recently ruled in the case of DC vs Heller. The case is considered a victory for gun rights. Was it? It is certainly a mixed bag.

First is the fact that is was a 5-4 decision. This means we are only 1 Supreme Court appointment away from a 4-5 decision. We have a Presidential election coming this year and the chances that the next president will appoint judges who can read and understand the Constitution is virtually zero.

Second, the facts were very narrow. Basically the court required DC to issue Heller a permit to keep a gun in his home. Anything more than that will require additional court cases.

Third, Justice Scalia writing for the majority was very clear in stating that the second amendment applies to individuals whether or not they are part of the organized militia. He and Justices Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito joined in the most clear defense of the second amendment you can read. Check out this quote from page 34 of the Opinion of the Court.

“The prohibition is general. No clause in the constitution
could by any rule of construction be conceived
to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such
a flagitious attempt could only be made under some
general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any
blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt
it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint
on both.” Rawle 121–122.20

Fourth, while clearly agreeing that the 2nd was an individual right, the court suggested that limits on that right could be constitutional. What part of "shall not be infringed" do they not understand.

This ruling was a positive for gun rights and maybe more positives will follow.

Under the Constitution the Federal Government was absolutely prohibited from barring the keeping and bearing of arms. This would mean ownership and carrying of ANY type of weapons. Yes, that would include F-35s with Tomahawk missiles if you can afford it. Here is a quote from page 47 of the Courts Opinion.

The second amendment . . .
means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.”
92 U. S., at 553. States, we said, were free to
restrict or protect the right under their police powers. The
limited discussion of the Second Amendment in Cruikshank
supports, if anything, the individual-rights interpretation.

On the other hand under the Constitution the Sovereign States could limit keeping and bearing of arms. So the 2nd is not a real protection. But remember Courts and laws are not the basis of our rights. According to the Declaration of Independence rights are given by GOD and therefore can only be taken away by GOD. For Government to attempt to take away a GOD given right is a usurpation of power that should never be allowed by anyone. Here is another quote from page 33 of the Opinion of the Court

Tucker elaborated on the Second Amendment:“This may be considered as the true palladium ofliberty . . . . The right to self-defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine the right within the narrowest limits possible.

President

2008-06-14T13:10:00.002-05:00

Well it's official. Ron Paul is no longer a candidate for President. He has started a movement and website to move us forward to Liberty. What do we do now. I don't think I can ever vote for McCain. He is a Democrat in everything but name. He is certainly less evil than Barak Hussein Obama, but then again who isn't. I have a real hard time with the vote for the lesser of two evils thought pattern. If I admit that a man is evil and I vote for him, can I stand up to GOD and say I did the right thing. Many people say that a vote for a third party candidate is a wasted vote, is it? In a way yes, if you don't vote or vote for someone who can not possibly win then you have not helped get the lesser evil elected. However that is only the short term view. Our two party system has worked to the detriment of freedom in the US. In the long term I think that if a large percentage of the voters said I am not voting for anyone evil and voted their conscience that it could be the beginning of a turnaround for our country. Chuck Baldwin is the Constitution Party candidate and Bob Barr is the Libertarian Party candidate. These two men are only slightly more likely to win the 2008 election than I am. But a vote for either of them is a statement that we no longer want only 2 choices.

Who will I vote for? At this point I am not sure. Chuck Baldwin and the Constitution Party come closer to my views, but Chuck Baldwin doesn't have a past voting record to see if his rhetoric matches his votes and the Constitution Party may not be on the ballot in Texas. Bob Barr has a decent record as a member of Congress, but not great. His views of freedom may have been improving, but it could be for show. The Libertarian Party will be on the ballot in Texas. At this point if both are on the ballot I will probably vote for Baldwin, but if the Constitution Party doesn't get on the ballot then I will probably vote for Barr instead of writing in Baldwin. But I have some time to make a final decision.

Texas Concealed Handgun License

2008-06-04T11:23:00.003-05:00

A group of Home School ladies in the area are planning on qualifying for their CHL. I wanted them to know what the advantages of it were so they would know if it was worth the effort and money. I thought I would repost it here in case someone else was interested. This of course only applies in Texas although the principles are true elsewhere.

Ladies, before you go out and spend $250 ish for you CHL I wanted to
make sure you knew what you are getting. In Texas you are already free
to carry a gun on premises you own or control(house, businesses, etc) or
in non public places where you have permission from the person who owns
or controls it(friends, family, neighbors, etc). If your employer has
spelled it out in the policy manual, you can carry at work. You can
carry openly or concealed in these places with or without a CHL. You
can also carry in your vehicle as long as the gun is out of plain sight
and you are not committing any crime(besides traffic offense). This
includes from your house(or other allowed place) to the vehicle.

The CHL means you can carry into public places as long as the gun is
concealed from normal observation. There are place you cannot carry,
but generally you can carry to most places you go. You can also carry
in 28 states that recognize the Texas CHL. Their laws may not give you
the ability to carry in your vehicle without the CHL. The class teaches
you mostly about Texas law, when you can legally display the firearm and
when you can legally shoot at a human person. The laws for this are the
same for CHL and non CHL, the only difference is that without the CHL
you can't legally have the gun in as many places. It is illegal for
someone without the CHL to carry a concealed firearm into a public
place; however, if it concealed properly no one will know unless you
are forced to use it. Carry at your own risk. "It is better to be
tried by 12 than carried by six."

The CHL is a great thing. But, if you are not going to regularly carry
outside of your vehicle it is probably not worth the hassle. If you are
only interested in learning to handle a gun safely and shoot well, find
a qualified person to teach you and then carry where you can legally.
The CHL training assumes you know how to safely handle and accurately
shoot a handgun, if you need real training and practice get it before
the class starts. Also, get good recommendations on what kind of gun
you want to use to qualify and to carry(they may be different). Neil
Grant and his bunch at The Outdoorsman are very good at this.

All of that being said, my wife is planning on getting her CHL, I have
had mine for almost 2 years. There are places I would not feel near as
comfortable going unarmed, especially as I travel. In my opinion, the
more honest and well trained people carry guns the better off we are.
The criminals will have them whether they are legal or not. If I can
answer any questions, let me know.

RZ

Texas State Rifle Assoc CHL page

A map showing states that
recognize the Texas CHL

Texas Concealed Handgun Association a great association that has a legal services plan that is interesting.
TCHA's list of reciprocity agreements
TCHA's chart of where you can and cannot carry in Texas.

Pray for Trey and Tyler...

2008-05-31T10:16:00.001-05:00

Two of my cousins were is a serious wreck 5/18. Trey has recovered enough to leave the hospital after several surgeries. He should make a full recovery, but if titanium ever becomes really valuable he may be able to sell himself by the pound. Tyler had some serious burns, he has had on skin graft surgery and will have another on Monday. He is fighting an infection that is starting to wear him down. Please pray for an end to the infection and successful surgery on Monday. He is a fighter(just ask the ICU nurses), but this will be a long fight. Here is a website some friends have set up to track their progress.

FLDS update

2008-05-25T15:46:00.003-05:00

Good news for the parents of the children kidnapped from the FLDS compound near Eldorado. A state appeals court judge has rule that Judge Walther exceed her discretion when she order the state to take custody of the children. Judge Walther has 10 days to vacate her order.

"The Department (CPS) did not present any evidence of danger to the
physical health or safety of any male children or any female children
who had not reached puberty," the panel wrote in its order.

Here is a link to the Houston Chronicle article and some comments by Tim Lambert from the Texas HomeSchool Coalition
Update on Parental Rights Challenge: FLDS vs CPS

The law says that the state must show that the children are in imminent danger. That was clearly not true of all the children that were removed. Although it could be true of girls near puberty IF the state has proof of a pattern of underage marriages.

With regard to underage marriages. Up until several years ago, Texas law allowed 14 and older to be married with parental permission. After the FLDS group moved to Eldorado, the law was changed to make 16 the youngest age of marriage with parental consent. While it is hard for me to imagine my soon to be 14 year old daughter being married, if you look at history it is fairly normal for girls to marry soon after puberty. If it was okay in Texas in 1908, or 1988, why is it not okay in 2008? It would be interesting for most of us to research our great grandparents and older to see what age they married at. It might put this whole "underage" marriage issue in a different light.

The ultimate question is does that state of Texas have to follow their own laws about the burden of proof that is required before seizing children. The appeals court has said they do. But the court system and CPS got away with disobeying the law for 60 days. Who will repair the trauma caused to the children by the state's illegal actions? Will CPS or Judge Walther be disciplined in any way for the refusal to follow Texas law?

Another good summary article.

The state supreme court slapped CPS and Judge Walther today(5/29). They affirmed the appeals court decision that the children were in no immediate danger and should be returned to their parents within a reasonable time period. The ruling technically applied to only 124 children and 38 parents, but the rest of the parents are attempting to be added and Judge Walther may reverse her ruling. A victory for justice, but not until after the families had been abused by the CPS and the legal system for over 60 days.

It will be very interesting to see if any charges are filed against any of the men who were supposedly abusing children.

(5/31) Apparently Judge Walther doesn't like being slapped by the Texas Supreme Court for not following the law. In this article she is setting requirements on the parents getting their children back. The can't leave the state(this one I think is reasonable), they can't travel more than 60 miles from home without her permission, they must take parenting classes(state approved), and the must allow CPS on the ranch to interview the children and continue their witch hunt(clearly unconstitutional). If the parents don't sign these agreements they won't get their kids back. She also said she would only sign the document after all of the 38 mothers signed it(not individual decisions as the law requires). This should continue to be interesting. But I think the tide of public opinion is turning.

Also, interestingly the Supreme Court decision referenced 5 girls who the state says have been abused. That is 5 out of 460 something. And that is only if the state is right about the ages and the abuse(their story changes daily). Still no arrests of child abusers or molesters.

Lawyers cry foul in FLDS seizures

Cycle of Abuse: The FLDS Raid

FLDS Update: Judge-Attorney conference ends in confusion

Free the Texas children now!

Impeach Judge Walther

FLDS Eldorado

2008-05-21T09:13:00.001-05:00

I had a friend email me wondering about my thoughts on the FLDS kidnappings in Eldorado. Here are some bullet points.

Govt kidnaps 460 kids because they have unusual religious beliefs.
After 60 days no men have been arrested for abuse.
All of the supposed underage mothers are actually of legal consent
age. They had provided documents proving ages, but CPS didn't believe their documents.
Stupid judges say parents can have their kids back after psychiatric
evaluations, parenting classes, and training.
It looks like the phone call was just an excuse to get an overly broad
warrant. The person who made the phone call was not a member of the
group, faked the phone call, and has been arrested. However no one
checked out her story before issuing a warrant.
Absolutely no publicly available evidence of abuse, but everyone
"knows" they abuse them.
Children were almost all very healthy prior to the kidnapping.
Afterwards many are unhealthy.
Even state MHMR agencies are saying CPS lied, manipulated, and treated
the mothers and children abusively.
All in all the most clear govt abuse of power in the US in recent
memory(possibly ever).
The judge that issued the warrants and took the children from their parents is a Republican. I thought they were on our side.

There is an article in the Ft Worth Star Telegram that talks about a state senator proposing that the state seize FLDS assets to pay for the costs of "taking care" of the children(housing, legal, CPS costs). Here the state with accusations of abuse, but no legal proof, has kidnapped 460 kids and now wants to steal the parents assets to pay for the costs of keeping them. It is a clear legal violation to keep them without proof of abuse, but very few are complaining about it. It really reminds me of the quote

First they came for the Jews

and I did not speak out

because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for the Communists

and I did not speak out

because I was not a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists

and I did not speak out

because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for me

and there was no one left

to speak out for me.

Pastor Martin Niemöller

What is next? Who is next? What if you have more children than normal, can they be taken? What if you homeschool? What if you choose not to have your children immunized with dangerous drugs to prevent minor illnesses? What if you don't let your children date and have sexual relations before marriage?

This could be a test to see how much outcry there is, they started with a group that is somewhat odd and very secretive. But will they stop there? Who do the children belong to? How do we stop them?

Social Security

2008-05-19T15:57:00.008-05:00

I had not gotten social security numbers on children 4-9. I figured that they were neither paying or collecting social security so why did they need them. I had not been able to claim them as dependents on my taxes(it had not made much difference), but other than that I had no problems with SS#s until recently. This year the tax difference was fairly large so I decided to get the numbers. I found out later that you can not get individual health insurance on people without SS#s. I knew Birth Certificates would be required so I got all of them($23 each), then I diligently go to the SS website and got the forms I thought I needed. I missed the comment about

We may use one document for two purposes. For example, we may use your U.S. passport as proof of both citizenship and identity. However, you must provide at least two separate documents.
All documents must be either originals or copies certified by the issuing agency. We cannot accept photocopies or notarized copies of documents.

I took in the birth certificates and they told me they had to have another form of identification. Here is the list from the website

Your child: We can accept only certain documents as proof of your child’s identity. An acceptable document must be current (not expired) and show your child’s name, identifying information and preferably a recent photograph. We generally can accept a non-photo identity document if it has enough information to identify the child (such as the child’s name and age, date of birth or parents’ names). We prefer to see the child’s U.S. passport. If that document is not available, we may accept the child’s:
Adoption decree;
Doctor, clinic or hospital record;
Religious record (e.g., baptismal record);
Daycare center or school record; or
School identification card.

The first thing they request is the childs passport. You can not get a passport without a SS# so that is impossible.

The children are not adopted so the first bullet point wouldn't work.

4 of the 6 had been to the doctor, so I could get medical records on them. But it would be a pain, so I decided to try other things.

Bullet 3 looked like a good choice, so I got together dedication certificates on 7, 8, and 9. Signed by third party ministers.

Since Homeschools are private schools in Texas I did school records for 4, 5, and 6(below compulsory attendance age, but schooling).

Guess what piece of information you have to have to enter a Govt school and get a school ID. If you guessed SS# go to the front of the line.

I go back in with these documents. They tell me none of the documents are acceptable because they don't have date of birth(have you ever seen a religious document with date of birth). I tell them I can add a date of birth to the school records, which is not required information on the list above. Then they tell me they have no probative value since they are done by the parents. After arguing for a while they agree to send them to the regional office for approval. They promise to call back when they get an answer(this was 4 pm on Friday).

On Wednesday I go in since I haven't heard from them. They tell me that none of the documents are acceptable. I ask what would be acceptable, they tell me medical records with date of birth. I ask what about the ones who have never seen a doctor, they tell me again that all they will accept is medical records with date of birth. I call HSLDA for help and they offer to send me third party verification letters.

I go to the local congressional office and tell Joanne Powell who runs the local office the story. She seems amazed that they won't take what I have. She calls the manager and talks to him for 30 minutes and then says there is nothing she can do, he is following the procedures. Of course this is all the democrats fault this they are the majority. The republicans would fix this if they were in the majority.

The following Monday I take the HSLDA letters in(in the meantime I have gotten medical records on 4, 5, and 6 from the pediatrician, but I don't tell them that). They first tell me it isn't acceptable. I ask them why and they said they would refer it to regional again, but it probably would not be acceptable. I ask them to get me explanation of why they are not acceptable and why the religious records are not acceptable. They promise to call when they get an answer from regional.To be continued so far two weeks and no SS numbers. But at least they didn't kidnap my kids because they aren't govt schooled and have wierd ideas like they have the FLDS kids from Eldorado. I think I might have to take 2 or 3 healthy kids and pay for a doctors visit so I have medical records on them to get a SS#.

Update #1(5-25-08) The SS office called me Friday to tell me that they haven't heard back from the regional office if the HSLDA letters are acceptable. I took them in on Monday. I have medical records on 4-6 and letters from a doctor friend for 7-9. So if they refuse the HSLDA letters, I will try those.

Update #2(5-29-08) Went into SS office today because I hadn't heard an answer on the HSLDA letters and because I had all the medical records. I had tried to call and their phone is always busy. They showed me an email from regional that explained that they refused the Church documents because they were based on parents statements and had not probative value(not true since they were signed by third party ministers). They had no answer on the HSLDA letters, he said they were not school records so he couldn't use them. I said that they were a third party verification of the school records(which he had refused because they came from the parents). Then I gave them the medical documents I had, he said I think we can use these. He checked with his boss and said they were okay and he could do 4 of them today. The other two were born in Concho County and he has to call and verify them because they don't report to the Bureau of Vital Statistics. He hadn't verified them in the past 4 weeks. He said I should have cards on the 4 in about 7 to 10 days(I assume he means working days). He will(supposedly)call if there are any problems with the other 2.

Update #3(6/13/08) We received cards on 4 and 6 on 6/6, we received the cards for 3 and 7 on 6/10, 9 came on 6/13 and 8 came in on 6/16/08, so we have them all now.

The Untold Story of the New Testament Church: An Extraordinary Guide to Understanding the New Testament [ILLUSTRATED] (Paperback)

2008-03-26T15:00:00.003-05:00

I just finished a very interesting book by Frank Viola. Did you know what order our church fathers put Paul's letter to churches? The are in order from longest to shortest. Apparently this was a common way of ordering letters at some point in the past. Of course I would think chronologically would make more sense, but I wasn't around when they were deciding such things. And then, take the fact that we only get the letters that Paul, Peter, and others wrote. You don't get the letters written to them that they are in response to, and you don't get the personal reports from Timothy, Titus, etc that others were in response to. Kind of like listening to one side of a phone conversation.

Anyway, in this book Frank Viola take the NT story from the book of Acts, he adds some additional information and then tells where in that story the epistles were written and what specifically Paul, Peter, and Jude were addressing. It is an amazing way of looking at things. Now; of course, it takes some reading between the lines to come up with all of this. He uses some extra Biblical history and some "mirror reading." "Mirror Reading" is his term for reading a letter trying to find out what questions were asked that the author is trying to answer. Not the way to be most absolutely correct, but very interesting.

He is trying to recreate as much of the history as possible. Some of it is an educated guess at what was going on. Don't take this book as the absolute truth of what was going on, but it can have a profound effect on your thinking about the New Testament. Buy it and read it.

Aggie Football

2008-03-23T17:54:00.002-05:00

A little late to post, but it was a great Thanksgiving. Dennis Franchione looked like the best coach in the world during the tu game. We thumped them and then he resigned after the game. It was a buyout/resignation so he gets paid a big chunk of money, but he wasn't fired.

Then a couple of days later AD Bill Byrne announced the hiring of Mike Sherman. Sherman had been at A&M for several years under RC Slocum. He was promoted to Offensive Coordinator by RC, but then he left to take that same job with the Green Bay Packers. When Mike Holmgren left he was moved up to head coach. He was there for several pretty good years before leaving. Most recently he was Offensive Coordinator for the Houston Texans and greatly improved them.

I think Sherman is a great hire, he has an A&M background, strong coaching experience, and can recruit well. I hope he does great, but it is a tough job.

Aggie Football

2007-11-01T17:20:00.001-05:00

I quit blogging 3 years ago when Dennis Franchione's ability to be a successful coach at Texas A&M was still in question. The Jury is in, he has been a failure. 5 years ago at the end of this season RC Slocum was fired. He as the winningest coach in Texas A&M history and the 3rd winningest active coach in college football. He had some weaknesses, but his strengths were legendary. Fran has had 5 years to prove he could do better and it isn't even close. It is time to Fire Dennis Franchione at the end of this season. His best year out of 5 in only slightly better than RC's worst years at A&M.

Bring back RC. That is the best choice, but will probably never happen. At least maybe we can find someone to take our program back to the previous level and hopefully above that. Dennis Franchione may be a good man, and he is a pretty good coach. But he is clearly not what we expected when he was hired, and clearly not in RC Slocum's league.

President

2007-11-01T17:08:00.000-05:00

You look at the field of Republican candidates for president and you quickly see something. Most of them are only marginally different from the democrats. They are all telling you how many dollars they are going to spend and what their fiscal priorities are. They always forget to mention that it is your money. It has been stolen from you under the threat of prison and then "the government" decides how to spend it. Basically they have ignored the real problem. Our government is way too big.

There is one candidate who stands so far above the rest that he seems unreal. That man is Dr. Ron Paul Here is someone what has a 20+ year track record in Congress and has been consistently doing what he says for that long. His nickname is Dr. No because he votes against so many spending bills. Check out his website and see for yourself how different he is. I know our country can not be saved by the political process, but Dr. Paul is definitely the man to start us moving in the right direction.

Rights

2004-10-27T13:10:00.000-05:00

I borrowed this from a comment by some guy on Vox Day's Blog
It says it so well, why try to do better.

ON RIGHTS:

1. Rights come from somewhere.
2. The Declaration of Independence claims our rights come from God.
3. Government recognizes out God-given rights.
5. Since rights don't come from government, government can't take them away.
6. Government can't also make up new rights to give you.
7. Any "right" you have that requires someone else to give up something for you to have, isn't a right, it is oppression.
Insert-Name-Here | 10.26.04 - 5:17 pm | #

A&M 29, Colorado 26 Overtime

2004-10-24T14:43:00.000-05:00

Wow, this was a surprise. I thought this week would be a little easier, maybe that was our teams problem too. We played CU very close for the entire game. But two fumbles by Colorado made the difference in the game. One was in the fourth quarter that we took in to score 3 points. The other was in overtime that ended the game for the A&M win. This game would have been great to see, either in person or via TV; but, the networks decided two weeks ago that it wasn't worth televising. Don't you know they are kicking themselves now.

Reggie McNeal didn't look at all like a Heisman trophy candidate for the first 40 minutes, but he sure did for the last 20 and overtime. He threw the ball poorly for the first half and part of the 3rd quarter, but then he really stepped it up. CU scored and took a 3 point lead with 1:03 left in regulation. Reggie took us down the field and almost scored a TD on a run, but we didn't have enough time for another play so we kicked the field goal to take us to OT. In OT Reggie ran or passed for almost every yard. After a touchdown being called dead at the 1 we couldn't score the TD, but the defense came through with a fumble to end the game. Reggie now has 195 pass attempts without an inteception. That is an A&M and Big 12 record and an absolotely incredible statistic. Not only is Reggie good enough to win games, but he makes so few of the mistakes that can cost you a close game. The Heisman committee should certainly be looking at him. 22 rushes for 139 yards and23 of 38 passing for 243 yards and no INT. Of course, he didn't rush or pass for a TD, he must be slipping.

Freedom

2004-10-18T15:42:00.000-05:00

Americans like to believe we live in a free country because we fought a revolution for freedom 228 years ago. We aren't really a free country but we should vote Freedom First.

1. A vote for the right to own guns is a vote for freedom. This country would never have been free without people owning guns and even now, a gun is your best defense of your own family.

2. A vote for lower taxes is a vote for freedom. The US collects far too much in taxes which are then spent on unconstitutional programs. Only 50% of the population pays income tax; but, 95% of the people pay too much in taxes. There is no such thing as a bad tax cut. Taxes should be lower, fairer, and more predictable.

3. A vote for less government control is a vote for freedom. The US government should be forced to live within the constitutional limits. But since most people have never read the constitution they don't even know what the limits are supposed to be. Government can not do anything well, so our constitution was created so the federal government only did the very few things no one else could do. They were given so little to do that they couldn't mess it up too bad.

These three things explain why I am not voting for George W. Let's grade him on these three 1. C He has not allowed any new horrendous gun laws, but he hasn't helped any either. He promised to sign a bill continuing the ban on Dangerous Looking Guns. 2. B+ His tax cuts were good and he fought hard for them, but they weren't really big enough he hasn't controlled spending at all. 3. F GW used 9/11 as an excuse to grow government while failing to do the things that would really help, like secure our borders.

Michael Peroutka of the Constitution Party is my choice for President. He won't even be on the ballot in Texas, but he is a certified write in candidate. But; to be taken seriously, the Constitution Party has to getting serious about getting their message our between elections. They are saying the right things, but are sort of weak on action.

Freedom is the right to make wrong decisions

A&M 36 Oklahoma State 20

2004-10-18T15:34:00.000-05:00

Wow, I was incredibly impressed again. for 3 quarters we pounded OSU and then we were about even in the fourth quarter. We forced two fumbles while not giving up any turnovers. 5-1 amazing.

Reggie McNeal was all world Saturday. He was 19 of 25 passing for 288 yards and two touchdowns. He rushed 14 times for 98 yards and two touchdowns. After 6 games he still has not turned the ball over. He even had all the breaks go his way, he fumbled the football on a run and it bounced into the hands of our tight end. The very next play he throws a 60 yard Hail Mary which is tipped by one of our receivers and caught by a second receiver for a touchdown. Reggie was named the National Offensive Player of the Week. And halfway through the season, the Heisman talk is starting. If he keeps up this level of performance he deserves it.

We have Colorado and Baylor the next two weeks so we should be 7-1 then. Then we play Oklahoma, Texas Tech, and tu(texas university). So even if we lost the last three we would be 7-4 after 4-8 last year. Plus I think we have a good chance to win one or maybe two of those three big games. 9-2 is possible and you can even dream about 10-1 and a BCS spot. What a difference a year makes.

A&M 34 Iowa State 3

2004-10-11T10:39:00.000-05:00

4-1 wow! I did not expect that we would be 4-1 at this point. I didn't see the Iowa State games as it was on pay per view, but it must have been good. We scored on our first two drives and kept rolling from there. Now; Iowa State is not a great football team; and we still have lots of room for improvement but this year has started very well.

We have still been getting too many penalties and too many stupid penalties. But I know the coaches will continue to work on that. We had some problems in kickoff coverage this week. But anytime you kickoff that many times at least you have some good film to find the weak areas.

Reggie McNeal is the real deal. After 5 games he has not thrown an interception. Before the Iowa State game there were only 3 teams in Division 1A that didn't have an interception and the other two were very small schools. That statistic by itself is amazing, but he reads defenses very well, makes good decisions, and is athlete enough to fill in any gaps he might have. Keep your eyes on Reggie.

Wake Up

2004-10-06T13:29:00.000-05:00

Amazing that 228 years after we declared independence and fought a war for freedom we have drifted so far. The Founding Fathers would be embarrassed, probably not surprised because they understood human nature enough to know which way the country would naturally tend to drift.

Read this article by Joseph Farah or this one by Michelle Malkin, or how about this action by our elected representatives(apparently some crimes are more important than others, or some crimes are committed out of love and not hate)these are serious issues that neither of the big 2 presidential candidates have addressed. These are issues costing billions of dollars per year and possibly many lives, but the major media aren't reporting them either. In 2004, you can find more accurate and truthful reporting on the internet than on network TV news. Of course not everything you read on the internet is true, but it is probably more true that what you hear on TV and is certainly deeper discussion than 5 minutes dedicated to serious issues on Network TV.

There has been a lot of discussion lately about Dan Rather and the fake documents that CBS portrayed as real. But; most people don't know that Rather and CBS have been doing that for years without getting caught publicly. If you think Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, Tom Brokaw, and others don't have political views, or that their reports aren't biased by their views then you need to educate yourself. Those guys have views and opinions as strong as Rush Limbaugh. Their newscasts show their biases, but unlike Rush they say they are unbiased. How can anyone intelligent enough to do what Dan Rather has done for years not have an opinion, and if you have a strong opinion, it will come through in what you say and what you report. Jesus said "You brood of vipers, how can you, being evil, speak what is good? For the mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart. Matt 12:34 NASU. It is at true today as it was 2000 years ago. Everyone has an opinion, it is not wrong to have an opinion or to report with a biased. What is wrong is saying you are unbiased, but everyone else is biased.

Freedom includes the right to make wrong decisions.

The Law

2004-10-05T17:27:00.000-05:00

People who don't know God personally tend to think that he made up the law to keep us from having fun. Actually, just the opposite is true. God gave us the law to protect us from things that we didn't even know could hurt us.

The Jews were given many laws when they were wandering in the wilderness after leaving Egypt. They were given dietary and sanitation laws hundreds of years before germs were discovered. The were told not to eat food that modern science has shown are more likely to have deadly germs in them. They were told to isolate people with communicable diseases so they wouldn't spread. They were told not to touch the dead to keep from spreading disease. They were told to bury human waste instead of leaving it in the street like everyone else. All of these laws were obviously to protect them, many of these laws are why the Jewish people are alive today and not destroyed when plagues ripped through Europe. Their laws protected them.

Why do we think that the other laws are to hurt us. God's laws against fornication(unmarried sex), theft, homosexuality, bestiality, adultery, murder, fraud, etc are all for our benefit. If we will do things his way our life will work out better and we will be happied. How many lives have been hurt by these sins, but yet we try to say murder, adultery, theft and fraud are wrong, but fornication and homosexuality are okay. We can argue all day about why God says they are wrong, but it comes down to he knows more than we do about the world; after all, he created it.

I wish people could understand God's heart. He wants to protect us and help us live the good life, but he won't force it upon us. He gives us a choice, but we have to live with the consequences of the choices. Sure he could have forced us to choose right, but then it wouldn't have really been a choice.

Freedom is the right to make wrong decisions. But the right ones always work out better.

A&M 42 Kansas State30

2004-10-03T14:52:00.000-05:00

It was very close. With about 1:00 left to go it was 35 to 30 and K State was driving. We stopped them and then Reggie McNeal broke a 62 yard touchdown run. K State was the best football team, but they turned the ball over 4 times and we took advantage of it.

We are a decent football team playing very well. We don't have what it will take to beat some Big 12 teams, but if we keep up this level of play at least we won't have another year like last year. Plus success breed success. As our players get used to winning again it makes it easier to keep winning. If you had told me six months ago that we would start the season 3-1 and would have said no way. Good job Coach Fran, keep up the good work.

Cars and Freedom

2004-10-01T16:35:00.000-05:00

I talked some last time about unintended consequences. Where the government attempts to solve a perceived problem and ends up creating several worse problems. That really relates with our cars.

You probably think you are free to buy a car with the features you want. WRONG!! You are free to buy any car on the market with the features closest to what you want. The difference is that your government has told the cars makers certain features that cannot be included and certain features that must be included. The car makers only make the cars they are allowed to, so your freedom(and maybe your life) is limited by the government.

CAFE is a federal law requiring all cars to meet certain gas mileage standards by certain dates, or pay fines added to the price of the car. To comply with this law the carmakers had to make smaller and lighter cars. The quit making large family cars and station wagons. The consumers didn't like smaller lighter cars so guess what, the consumers demanded and the automakers provided SUVs that are family size, but the CAFE standards don't apply to them. Of course they are more expensive and get worse mileage than the cars they replaced. But; that's not all, smaller lighter cars are also more dangerous. You are much more likely to be killed or seriously injured in an accident in a small car than a SUV. So either you can afford a SUV that is bigger and gets worse gas mileage than the car you would have bought, you buy a small car that get's great mileage but is more likely to kill you, or you can't afford either so you keep your old car that get's bad mileage and puts off more emissions but you can afford. Some freedom of choice.

What about safety, we can't compromise on safety can we? Well the federal masters imposed airbag rules that required a very powerful airbag to protect a large man with no seatbelt. Guess what, those federally mandated airbags were so powerful that they killed small adults or children. So the gov change the rules to allow lower powered airbags, but only after many people died and then sued the automakers for the airbags. So the cost of the lawsuits was added to the cost of the safety improvements and cars moved further out of financial reach. So again, more people drive older cars with no airbags because the new ones are too expensive.

I could go on all day, but you get the picture. Every requirement put on cars by government raises the price of the car, and many of the requirements don't even help the problem they are intended to solve. Often they create more numerous and more serious problems. Really each regulation is saying that consumers aren't smart enough to make their own decisions. So some beaureacrat will make the right decision for you. But sometimes their bad decisions can kill you.

Freedom includes the right to make wrong decisions.

Unintended Consequences

2004-09-28T11:25:00.000-05:00

When laws are passed to solve a problem, people think that is great. But we don't think about the additional problems that did not exist before but now do due to the new law. This is because the elected officials often don't understand or care about the results of the law. They just want the political benefit of passing a law to solve a problem. Here is an article showing how a law passed to stop people from getting tax benefits from real estate deals set up just for tax benefits had the unintended consequence of cutting off tax benefits from legitimate deals that help build the economy.

Dennis Prager writes about the unintended consequences of our modern legal climate. By the way whenever you want to complain about the legal system, remember that most of the really stupid cases you hear about are decided by juries. We can blame the lawyers, judges, and plaintiffs all we want. But 12 (normal?) Americans made the decision. Maybe we need to educate people of the benefits of businesses instead of denigrating business every time we get the chance.

Freedom means the right to make bad decisions.

Freedom

2004-09-27T17:22:00.000-05:00

A Friend told me I hadn't posted enough recently. I said I didn't know anyone was reading. If you are reading, at least comment occasionally. I love the feedback.

The Bible compares people to sheep, and when you watch American citizens you really see the profound truth of that comparison. After the Sept 11 attacks, we gladly accepted airline security that strip searches grandmothers, war heros, even Al Gore. While at the same time, we don't demand that our elected leaders close off our borders. We are at war, but millions of people enter the U.S. illegally across our border with Mexico every day. How many of those millions are terrorists? Who knows. If we are seriously going to fight a war on terror, the first step must be to close our borders. Do whatever it takes. If we aren't willing to do this we WILL lose the war on terror.

After we close the borders, we can debate wars on foreign countries and other things. We have to wake up to the size of this problem and do something about it. And then get the Government out of the airline security business. The government can't do anything well. Let the airlines do their own security and let them advertise the differences. Would you rather fly the most secure, or the one that gets you on the airplane the quickest. Give people the freedom to choose and watch what happens.

Freedom means the right to make wrong decisions.

Democracy

2004-09-27T17:20:00.000-05:00

Here is another opinion on our "Democracy" I agree that limiting voters is more important that increasing possible voters. Limit it to those who pay taxes, or at least don't allow anyone to vote who gets "Government"(it's is really ours, stolen under threat of force) money.

"I am now and have been for years a firm advocate of developing a system to limit the people who can vote in this country. We need to find a way to restrict the number of people who can vote. If we don't weed out the chaff soon it may well be too late. Don't give me that 'democracy' nonsense. In spite of what you hear from your government school teacher, your leftist college professor, or that smiling talking head on television, we are not a democracy. Never were. Weren't supposed to be. You won't find the word 'democracy' in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States or in any constitution of any of the 50 States. There's a reason for that. Our Founding Fathers hated the idea of democracy. They knew that a government of majority rule would dissolve into a tyranny of plunder and chaos. In anticipation of yet another knee-jerk response to my proposal that we limit voting, let me remind you that there is absolutely no constitutional guarantee of your right to vote in any federal election. Do some reading. It isn't there. A latte to the person who can find anything in our Constitution that sounds remotely like 'each citizen shall have the right to vote in a federal election.' Happy hunting." --Neal Boortz

Republic vs Democracy

2004-09-19T16:13:00.000-05:00

It amazes me how few people even know what type of government we have in the United States of America. We are NOT a democracy. We are(were) a Representative Constitutional Republic. Representative means that we elect representatives instead of all of us voting on whatever the issues of the day are. Constitutional means that the federal government is (supposed to be) limited by the Constitution in what areas it can control. Republic means that the rule of law is more important that majority vote so that the rights of minorities are protected.

This months Readers Digest has an article titled "Democracy Undone" about how our voting systems are not true democracy. Amazingly enough the author quotes Benjamin Franklin being asked what form of government the founders had given us. He reportedly said "A republic if you can keep it". This author quotes a founding father saying we have a republic in an article about how are democracy is being undone by the rules of how we elect our President and Congress. How can you write an article in a major magazine and not even understand the difference between the words you use.

Republican and Democratic systems of government have in common that the people have a voice in the government. But they are very different in practice and form. Learn the difference and be a part of moving us back to a republic as we were intended to be. Not a democracy no matter what the president or his opponent in the current election say.

A&M 27 Clemson 6

2004-09-19T16:04:00.000-05:00

Wow, for the first time in almost two years I think the hype about Dennis Franchione might have a basis in truth. For the second week in a row we looked like a good football team, and this time we were playing a much better opponent. A&M dominated Clemson we were better than them offensively, defensively, and on special teams. We forced 5 turnovers while giving up none. It is amazing to see this after watching our team get worse every game for 13 games.

Reggie McNeal is the real deal. He made Clemson's defense look silly at times. If we needed a pass he threw a stike, if we needed an option he provided, and if we needed a run he did that too. The whole package. Pray for his health to stay good, and his ego to not grow. He could be incredible.

Election

2004-09-12T17:00:00.000-05:00

I am not a great writer, but I can recognize logical arguments. Read this article by Chuck Baldwin where he lists similarities between Kerry and Bush. I still say a vote for Bush is a vote for the wrong direction. He and Kerry are more alike than they are different. Although, there are a few real differences between them.

A&M 31 Wyoming 0

2004-09-12T16:56:00.000-05:00

A&M had it's first shutout in several years yesterday. We looked like a good football team all the way around. We ran the ball well, we threw the ball well, and we played defense well. I know the level of competition was different than at Utah, but we still didn't look like the same football team.

Remember the name Reggie McNeal. He is A&M's junior quarterback. If he can avoid injury this young man will be playing on Sundays in two years. He has all the skills you want in a QB: he can throw, he can run, he is intelligent, he is football smart, he can read defenses, and he can win. Get ready, if our offensive line can give him some time he can beat many good football teams.

Worldview

2004-09-10T17:14:00.000-05:00

I have been busy flying for several days so I haven't posted so here goes.

I talked earlier about all education being indoctrination. Young people come up with their view of the world from the people they grow up around. It is learned from parents, grandparents, siblings, babysitters, teachers, church workers, friends, classmates, etc. If a child is spending time with someone, they are learning from them. So, it follows that if a child is homeschooled they are learning their worldview from their parents. If they are sent to daycare and then government schools then they are still learning some from their parents, but much comes from other people.

This idea of worldview is even more important that the actual education the child receives. There are basically two worldviews. One is that GOD exists, and the second is that HE doesn't exist. Now in the US, most people would say that GOD exists. But, when you look at the way they view the world you can see a disconnect between their values and GOD's way of thinking. They know there is a GOD, but think abortion should be legal, evolution created man, it is okay for two men to get married, and the government should help the poor. So their every day decisions are based on a secular (non GOD) worldview.

If you believe GOD exists and that he told us how to look at the world then you will have concrete beliefs about many decisions of life. But if your worldview is non GOD, then your ideas can vary from day to day and will mostly result in making decision based on what will give you short term pleasure or benefit. There can be almost no rational discussion between people from these two groups because their foundation is so different. They can't even agree on the rules of the debate without a common foundation.

You can see this so clearly in politics today. Al Gore's recent statments about President Bush's religion being as dangerous as extreme Muslim views is a good example. I am not so sure that we can continue to exist as a country with so much diffence in our world views. What made this country free and great was a common foundational worldview. We could argue policies, but that argument began and ended with a common worldview. That is no longer the case. Those of us with a GOD worldview must work to show others GOD through our lives, because if we don't bring them to our worldview, then our nation will continue down the same path and that is somewhere most of us don't want to go. So spread the Gospel of JESUS CHRIST, he is the only answer to most of our problems.

Are teachers bad?

2004-09-05T17:53:00.000-05:00

I don't want anyone to get the wrong idea from my last post. I don't think all teachers are bad. In fact I know a lot of caring people who are teachers. But they are good cogs on a broken wheel. Some teachers are teaching because they couldn't get a better job and they want 2 months of vacation. Some teachers are there because they want to help children, these are the ones we want but the system has a tendency to frustrate them so many of them leave. But in general, the teachers are not the problem

With money comes power, and the federal government's funding of education has increased so they have to power to mandate programs that don't work and end ones that do. The National Education Association is a teachers union that is teamed up with the Department of Education to keep effective programs and accountability out of the schools.

Just like any bureaucracy, government education is made up of some good and some not so good people working under rules that prevent them from succeeding. And for that reason it can never work, like any bureaucracy, it is doomed to collapse of it's own weight.

Education?

2004-09-04T13:04:00.000-05:00

Fred (whoever he is) has some very interesting solutions to the our government indoctrination program(some call it public education). While some of his thought are good, they are not the American freedom solution. The problem is clear: our government funded schools have had huge increases in per student funding, huge decreases in teacher/student ratios, so what has happened? Our schools continue to be abject failures. All moral rules have been removed from them so we can't tell the children it is wrong to steal or cheat. Children graduate without learing how to read, write, or do arithmetic; but they are well versed in sex, drugs, and welfare dependency. We must all realize that ALL schools are for indoctrination. The leaders teach the children how to think the way they do, while hopefully teaching the tasks of reading, writing, and arithmetic. The problem with government schools is not that they are indoctrinating children, but that they are indoctrination children with their beliefs instead of the parents beliefs.

The solution is simple: for two parent families- homeschooling, for single parent families-private schooling. Get government totally out of the education. If you take the dollars spend on education at the local, state, and federal levels and don't steal it from the people then parents can afford these options. Companies would probably willingly donate some of the tax savings to private schools. This would give us schools that would teach what the parents want taught for much less money. Homeschooling puts the responsiblity for education where God put it; on the parents. Check out HSLDA and THSC for ideas on how you can get started.

If you aren't willing to take the responsiblity for your children's education, then keep sending them to government schools, but don't be surprised when they come home thinking government can solve any problem and God doesn't exist. For more info on totally eliminating government schools and how it would work, check out this site.

Football

2004-09-02T14:30:00.000-05:00

College Football starts tonite. Texas A&M vs Utah 6:30 pm. I don't know if it is 6:30 Mountain or Central time. Apparently the A&M sports information department has never heard of time zones because the press release just says 6:30.

This should be an interesting year. For those who don't know, after the 2002 season the Aggies fired the winningest coach in school history. RC Slocum was there 14 years and had a .721 winning percentage. He never had a season below .500. But because he didn't win a National Title in those years the powers that be thought they could do better. So they fired him and hired Dennis Franchione Now Fran does have a good history, but not in the Big 12. He went 4-8 last year. So he managed to do in one year what RC couldn't do in 14, go below 500. He also set lots of records for turnovers lost, points scored against us, those types of things. But you have to remember that the Big 12 is the toughtest conference around.

So was firing RC and hiring Fran the wrong thing to do. Time will tell. You are really taking a chance when you fire a coach of the caliber and character of RC Slocum. But, although he had done fabulous in the old SWC he hadn't done great in the Big 12. So, if Fran can recruit better than RC and get them ready to play maybe it was the right decision. I respected RC both on and off the field, but IF Fran can out-coach him and keep the respect of people outside of football, it was the right decision. But last year was sure a disappointment.

So tune in to ESPN at 6:30 tonight and see the beginning of Fran 2004. The Utes have a pretty good team and are playing at home. Let's kick it off and get started, I am tired of waiting.

Republican Drift

2004-09-01T10:27:00.000-05:00

It is amazing and sad to see the current Republican party. I am from Texas and have seen my state change form 80% Democrat to 70% Republican. The amazing part is I don't think the views of the people have moved rightward(they have probably moved left), but the parties have both moved so far left that old Democrats find themselves comfortable in the Republican party. The only problem is where do the old Republicans go?

There are a couple of choices. Though they don't have much chance in the 2004 election, third parties such as the Libertarian and Constitution parties(links to their website are to the left) are attracting people who still believe in Freedom and the Constitution, unlike the Republicans. Check out their positions and see what you think. But remember, the official platform of the Republican party is pretty good, but their actions when elected are not even close.

Some peopel have argued that if they can't win you shouldn't vote for them because it hurts Bush. But if you don't agree with Bush and the Republican party and their actions(not their talk) then you can't in good conscience vote for him. Look at Bush's good things: Tax Cuts, and maybe the handling of the terrorist attacks, what else good is there? Then compare his bad things: increased spending, Every Child Left Behind act(with Ted Kennedy), Patroit Act, Campaign finance act, the undeclared(and therefore unconstitutional) war in Iraq, failure to close our borders or enforce immigration laws while we are at war. He has nominated some decent judges, but has been unwilling to really fight for their confirmation. Here is a President that after 3.5 years in office has NEVER vetoed a single bill passed by Congress. That has never happened in our almost 230 year history.

As for me, I figure I am in agreement with Bush about 30% of the time(Kerry Never). I don't have a problem with compromising and voting for someone I don't totally agree with. But 30% means he is on the other side. I would like to vote for Michael Peroutka with the Constitution Party, but they won't be on the ballot in Texas(see their website for how hard the two major parties make it to get on the ballot). So I will vote for Badnarik with the Libertarian party. I don't totally agree with some of their postions but it is about 70% agreement.

Of course, we each have to decide for ourselves who will we vote for. I just wanted everyone to know where I stand and why.

Political Circus

2004-08-30T13:40:00.000-05:00

It occurred to me lately that the whole campaign process is directed at about 7% of the population. The rest of us are forced to listen to it. Where did I come up with the 7%; about 50% of the eligible voters are registered to vote. About 50% of registered voters vote in any given presidential election(less in state and local elections). So now we have 25% of the population electing our leaders. But probably 35% of the people had decided long ago that they were going to vote Democrat and 35% Republican regardless of who the candidates are. So that leaves about 30% of the voters(undecided and third party voters) that decide the election. So 30% of 25%(actual voters as percentage of eligible) is 7.5%.

Think about that, the whole campaign. Millions of dollars for TV, for travel, for the conventions to convince about 7% of the people to vote for them. Wonder how much that is per vote?

First Things First

2004-08-29T14:11:00.000-05:00

It always amazes me that most people think they will go to Heaven, but don't know what the criteria are for going. It is like going in to take a test, but the teacher hasn't told you what a passing score is. Except here, the test is forever and if you fail you can't imagine how bad it will be.

But there is an answer, the GOD that created Heaven and Hell gave us a book that tells us what it takes to get into Heaven(the Bible). The bad news is it takes a 100 on the life test to get in. So, none of us can make it. It doesn't matter if you are making a 95 or a 20, it isn't enough. GOD is so holy that he can't tolerate sin(none, zip, zero, zilch, nada). If you have ever sinned, then you don't qualify for Heaven. Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; KJV.

So now what, we have a problem. GOD can't let us in with sin and we have all sinned. There is only one possiblity. Someone else had to take the test for us. GOD sent his SON, who made a 100 on the test. But he is willing to trade his test for yours, just so you can get in. If you give him your life, he will give you his. That is the only way to Heaven. John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. KJV

So just admit to JESUS that you aren't good enough, give him your life and take up his. He is ready to take you. He wants to trade your test score for his. It is the only way and he won't turn you down. 1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. KJV

Why don't you ask him today. Then, get a Bible and read the Gospel of John, and find a good church and start going. You can never be good enough without HIM, just admit it and be good enough in HIM

First Post

2004-08-28T21:08:00.000-05:00

I guess you have to start somewhere. Isn't the blog world interesting. Anyone can have their own website that they can publish whatever is important to them. Maybe one has thousands of readers and one may not be read by anyone but themselves, but it is out there. That is freedom of speech. You have a right to write, but not a right to be read.

If you found this blog accidently or on purpose, stop by and visit awhile. Let's talk about religion, politics, football(college), family, or freedom. And I intend to have fun too.