Sunday, January 22, 2017


While watching news coverage of the Inauguration of President Trump, I couldn’t help but notice the media’s continued frustration with his election.

I distinctly remember the distressed, shocked, teary-eyed look on Scott Pelley’s face in November when it became apparent that Trump was likely to win Pennsylvania, and therefore might win the election. The whole atmosphere of their election night reporting abruptly changed .

Initially, the media was beside themselves for so miserably failing to anticipate the Presidential Election outcome. They quickly started blubbering out excuses.

The media then began a diatribe enumerating how incredibly stupid it was for so many Americans to have voted for Donald Trump. After all, it was obvious to the mainstream media that Trump was a terrible person, and that his Presidency would be disastrous on every front. They even went so far as to blame Trump when Hillary’s “extremely careless” implementation of her own email server resulting in it being hacked.

Later they came up with the term ‘Fake News.’ Basically, this is the term they pin on any news that does not come through mainstream media. Note this is a shift beyond ‘fact checking.’ Historically, the mainstream media attacked news stories that did not fit their mold with some “fact checking” they could use to discredit the differing viewpoint. But now, they have expanded that approach. Basically, anything that does not conform to their politically correct view is deemed “fake.”

I couldn’t help but roll my eyes as the media spent most of their inauguration news coverage reiterating everything they can imagine going awry during the next four years. Is it their agenda to undermine the success of a Trump presidency? Is it their goal to foster riotous dissent? Is that how they think a democracy should work? Rather than reporting on what actually happens over the course of time, they fuel fear mongering based on pure negative speculation over what theoretically could happen.

Their political agenda was made especially clear when they brought in a guest to make a big deal out of a small loss in the popular vote (which is an outcome by design in a representative democracy). After the guest finished making his Trump denouncing point, Scott Pelly gave him an appreciative nod and a ‘thumbs up’ (under the false notion the camera shot had finished going to a commercial).

I have come up with the term ‘Fake Brains’ to describe people that purport 'Fake News.' They are so caught up in their political correctness that they are blind to what matters to everybody else. They fail to comprehend why people become irate after being promised Health Care that would be better and more affordable, when in fact their premiums skyrocketed and their benefits vaporized. Nor do they comprehend a zillion other things.

One admonition in this scenario is to “engage brain.” But perhaps there is no brain to engage... Perhaps they only have a “Fake Brain!”

Tuesday, November 8, 2016


Don’t worry – God is in control.

I have been hearing this increasingly as a response to the frustration with our national election. As I write this, the election results are not in. In the meantime, I am being admonished to sit in my rocking chair and recognize that no matter what happens, I can point my finger at God and say “He did it.”


Is that what the Bible says? (Surely if you believe that God is in control, you also believe the Bible is flawlessly reliable.)

My problem is that I haven’t been able to find that concept in my Bible.

Yes, my Bible says that God is in control. But rather than that causing me to be dismissive, it calls me to action.

My Bible talks about God blessing the Israelites, and also punishing them when they did not repent of their sins. Punishment by death and captivity. For sacrificing their children to Molech (and more).

Well, in the USA we don’t sacrifice our children to Molech. We just chop them up and sell the parts for profit. That is absolutely sickening. But the USA is seriously considering a presidential candidate that has promised to nominate judges to our highest court that will make sure this practice remains legal for decades, with Christians as accomplices via their tax dollars !

If that doesn’t cause Christians to panic, pray, and repent, what will God’s response be?

Worry – God is in control!

Thursday, October 20, 2016


Other than themselves, no one likes either Presidential candidate this year.

Historically, political debates have helped voters clarify candidates’ positions in numerous areas. And to that end they are valuable.

But this year, the Presidential debates seem to only amplify what Americans find most disappointing in politics. Namely, it has turned into a barrage of name calling and fault finding, rather than a time of sharing what each candidate believes will serve America best.

Furthermore, the “winner” of each debate in the minds of many viewers is the one who best articulates their position, rather than the candidate whose solutions appear to best serve the nation.

Consequently, Hillary comes across as the “better” debater. When asked about her support for Obamacare, she immediately tells the heart throbbing story of some poor soul who has been helped by Obamacare. That is a good thing. But she makes no mention that for every person helped by Obamacare, 100 others have had their premiums rise dramatically and their health coverage shrink.

Donald has a knack for bungling his answers. Perhaps the best example of this is his response last night when asked if he would accept the outcome of this election if it did not go his way. He obviously is not going to start an insurrection if he were to lose the Presidential race – but that is how his answer came across.

In America, we pride ourselves on honest open elections. We are a true democracy, and that is how it should be. Stuffing the ballot box is a threat to democracy, and a step down that road should not be “accepted” by Donald or anyone.

Unfortunately, we do find ourselves on that slippery slope. Hillary sabotaged Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary; should it surprise anyone that she would try to rig the general election? In undercover videos, while discussing how one could rig this election, an operative close to the DNC bragged that he had been involved in busing fraudulent voters to the polls in Wisconsin for 50 years. Except he noted that he did it using cars with local license plates so that it would not be obvious.

In another undercover segment, an individual whose organization is closely tied to the DNC bragged that he had hired the person in the wheelchair to disrupt Trump’s campaign stop in Chicago. And that he had hired people in the back to cause cause a disturbance there also, so that the incident with the person in the wheelchair would not be seen as an isolated incident.

WikiLeaks has uncovered several irregularities. There is evidence of collusion between the media and the DNC. This was apparent in last night’s final debate. At the end of the debate it was announced that although it was not on the program and the candidates were not informed of such, each candidate would be given a minute to make a closing statement. Did you detect any indication of surprise on Hillary’s face by this “last minute change?” I noticed she happily proceeded to deliver a 59 second speech that was obviously prepared and rehearsed word for word.

Should this be “accepted” politics in America? I think not.

P.S. Is Hillary more concerned that the Russians are hacking email accounts, or that she got caught in her secret primary race treatment of Bernie Sanders? If she was truly concerned about Russian hacking, she certainly would not have used a personal email server for state business!

Wednesday, January 21, 2015

NO FAITH at all...

January 16, 2015 was proclaimed “Religious Freedom Day.” In the proclamation it states the First Amendment “protects the right of every person to practice their faith how they choose, to change their faith, or to practice no faith at all, and to do so free from persecution and fear.” It also stated that “our Nation continues to be shaped by people of every religion and of no religion…”


Problem is, there is no such thing as “no religion.” All individuals have inherently religious persuasions. Some believe there is a God. Others do not. A few are not sure which perspective is right, but recognize that it has to be one or the other – even if they are confused which is correct. The point is that if believing in God is “religious,” then believing in no God is equally “religious.” You cannot have it both ways.

There also is no such thing as “practicing no faith at all.” Atheists and Agnostics live their lives as if there is no God, and no final “judgment day.” Their confidence in an absence of eternal consequences forms the basis for their day-to-day actions, and is a religious position they adopt by “faith” since they cannot see beyond the grave.

These points are important.

Atheism is every bit as religious as Theism. One belief is no more, or less, religious than the other. Both have their basis in “faith.” Atheism and Theism are the ‘heads & tails’ of religion. The daily actions of persons of both persuasions are motivated by their “faith” in the existence or absence of their creator. Theists will do the right thing when no one is looking based on the conviction of a “judgment day.” Atheists are convinced that behavior doesn't matter if you don’t get caught, based on the belief there will never be a “judgment day.”

So why is this important? Well, when someone pitches the concept of “no religion” or “no faith at all” they do so in the hope of forcing everyone into their preferred religious context – one they conveniently, but erroneously, characterize as “no religion.” They want to pull the wool over your eyes by suggesting that religion is something that can be put into a box. But in truth, religion cannot be contained in a box – our daily existence is inextricably intertwined with our religious persuasion.

The negative consequence of the erroneous “no religion” concept is that it is used to bludgeon people into violating their conscience in the public square, under the smokescreen of a “no religion” religion. Laws get passed that conflict with some wide-spread sincerely held religious beliefs that do not mesh with the purportedly “non-religious” beliefs of the cultural elite.

Unfortunately, freedom of religion in this context ends up being effective only for the politically correct. Theism gets put in a box that is only to be opened momentarily on Sunday behind stained glass, while the lifestyle of Atheists proceeds unabated – even when destructive. This was the scenario recently when a mayor learned the religious beliefs of their long time Fire Chief differed from his own, and reacted by firing him. His stance is that all government employees must share anti-Biblical views.

The concepts of “no religion” and “living without faith” are a deception. And a serious threat to true religious liberty, which, with strong family structures, has made America great.

Monday, January 20, 2014


Common Core. A good thing? A bad thing?

When it comes to our public schools, who doesn't want rigorous standards set for our students! I held my own children to high standards, and I want smart grand-kids too.

So what is there to fault with Common Core? After all, every kid should know his three R’s. Every kid. Throughout the nation. Without exceptions.

And therein lies the problem. It is a national project; a consolidated program aimed at every student in every state. The foundation will be national tests. And a national curriculum that cranks-out auto responders – oops, I meant pupils that will pass every test.

So what is wrong with that? The problem is that it will establish a system that will control the minds of all our nation’s children.

Some people say that Common Core is merely an implementation to make sure everyone knows 2+2=4. And only the student’s teacher will know how the student answered the test questions. And furthermore, the teacher will be in control of the classroom instruction.

However, once a system is in place for basic subjects, the system will naturally expand to include more areas, and then expand some more, and some more, and yet even more. The road cannot lead anywhere but to an ever expanding federally mandated education system that teaches not only math, but also molds public opinion on matters from global warming to ObamaCare.

The person who writes the tests will, within a generation, steer the mentality of the nation. The mechanism will program the ‘leaders of tomorrow’; it will define what is right and wrong, what is politically correct.

To administer the tests, each student will need a unique ID akin to their Social Security number, if not their actual SS#. That will enable the system to monitor every student, personally and in aggregate form. It will track not only who is smart and who is dumb, but also who is compliant and opposes  the ‘tested’ viewpoint on everything from global warming to social issues to origins.

Because the Common Core tests will be administered on-line in multiple states, you can be certain they will use the student’s SS# to document the test results of each student – there is no other way to do it. There will be a master database on everyone. And if students do not answer questions “correctly” – including the ones such as whether gun control is beneficial – then the teacher will be compelled to fashion their instruction more in line with the test creator’s agenda. Otherwise, federal funding will be withheld – a scenario that already occurs. This aspect of common core may not bother you if your viewpoints match those of the current party in power, but what goes around comes around. Be careful what you wish for.

When supporters of Common Core tell you that “If you like your current child’s teacher, you can keep her, period” – don't believe it.