Ancient Boundary Markers

“Don’t cheat your neighbor by moving the ancient boundary markers set up by previous generations.” Proverbs 22:28

Without a doubt, our government, at break-neck speed, is moving the ancient boundary markers set in our constitution. The big question is whether or not they will be stopped.

A vine, if allowed, will grow into a tree. The key is to get it early. If you let it go too long, it will be very difficult to get it out. Unfortunately, that is where we find ourselves with our government. We have allowed too much and the effort to correct it will be difficult.

Andrew Jackson’s warning to the nation would have been easier advice to heed and apply quite a few years back. Nevertheless, the advice in it still fits.

“But you must remember, my fellow citizens, that eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty, and that you must pay the price if you wish to secure the blessing. It behooves you, therefore, to be watchful in your States as well as in the Federal Government.”

 

The Combination of Praying and Fighting

A favorite writer friend of mine posted a story yesterday: “Prayer…oh no! Has it come down to that?” Funny how things fit together sometimes. It is almost like someone is putting them together. J In my review of one of the stories in my next book, The Fight of Faith, the story for the day was, Add Fighting to Your Praying. And if two sources was not enough, my Bible chapter this morning was Hebrews 11; “It’s all about that Faith, bout that Faith, bout that Faith.”

 

Oh yeh, back to my story. In Add Fighting to Your Praying, Moses had sent Joshua to fight the Amalekites. Moses went to the top of the hill and as long as his hands were raised, the Israelites were wining. When lowered they were losing. Moses’ praying alone was not enough. Joshua’s fighting alone was not enough. It took both together to have success.

 

A political group I have recently become associated with is struggling to find ways to right our out of control government. We all are. Last week we attended a meeting that emphasized the role of prayer in our effort. I believe it is the key. Either one by itself is not enough; both together will make the difference.

 

The last verse of Hebrews 10 caught my attention before reading 11. “We are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who believe and are saved.” Sure, it may be referring to the ‘hanging on’ to our personal faith, for what Jesus provided for us, but I think too it is a principal. It is the perfect lead into the chapter where we see what many of the Bible characters did because they did not “shrink back”. Instead, they believed against all odds.

 

My favorite line is about Moses: “He persevered because he saw him who is invisible.” In order for us to persevere, to not shrink back, we must have the faith that God is with us. And to have that faith, we must add praying to our fighting. I do believe it has come to that.

 

 

The Need for Maintenance

We should be careful to not be so lulled by our liberties that we neglect the maintenance that is necessary to keep them.

Squeezing Unintended Constitutional Meaning

A lawsuit has been filed in Ohio to get ‘In God We Trust’ removed from our currency. 41 people are being represented. One plaintiff says his Atheism is “substantially burdened because he is forced to bear on his person a religious statement that causes him to sense his government is legitimizing, promoting and reinforcing negative and injurious attitudes not only against Atheists in general but against him personally.”

Wow! I wonder how long it took the attorney to craft that statement?

This is what the Constitution says about religion, from which all our rulings to remove God from our midst have been squeezed. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Thomas Jefferson said, “On every question of construction, [let us] carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which was intended.”

The squeezing needs to stop. Many of the past squeezes need to be reversed.

 

State of the Union Response

How is it that so many can stand and applaud while so many others sit stone faced? Is one side really right? Is the other side really wrong? Is there not common ground that both sides can stand together on? And if not, why not?

The president commented that his one regret was the rancor between the parties having worsened during his time in office. Could it be a result of the force with which his party pushed their agenda? Often there was blatant disregard of both the opposing party and the American people. Once we gained the majority, not even that was enough as the threat of veto loomed over all that did not line up with the agenda.

So there they were; the clappers and the stone faced. But still the question; is one side right and one wrong? Is there not common ground? Is that not what our government is designed to seek? To enter their chambers, maybe knock each other around a little, but emerge with a direction that the majority on both sides can stand and cheer.

I agree with what the president said when he said, “It doesn’t work if we think those who disagree with us are motivated by malice; that political opponents are unpatriotic or trying to weaken America.” The problem is that there has been so much evidence of malice, so much evidence of a lack of patriotism and decisions that have weakened us. So he is right; it isn’t working.

The president’s sights seem set more on the “world stage” than our own. Hate speech toward Muslims does not set well on the “world stage”. “Carpet bombing ISIL may be a good sound bite here, but it doesn’t do good on the world stage.”

He consoles himself by thinking “ISIl is not a super power”, and that “they do not threaten our existence”.  In my opinion, his world stage mind set has diverted his attention from his number one job as commander and chief. He is more concerned about his reputation with the world than he is of protecting us from it.

It is no wonder that so many sat stone faced. What I can’t understand is why so many stood and cheered. I have to admit it sounded good; but the actions preceding the evening do not line up. The rancor he regrets is much on his own shoulders. He has led his party to defy and they have followed. But at the same time it is much on the opposing party for letting him/them get away with it.

Ultimately though, I think it is on us. I like the way Thomas Jefferson put it; “All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.” The president made it clear early on that he intended to transform America.  That’s fine if We the People like the changes; but we don’t and it is on us to stop it.

 

When Freedom Ceases to Ring

The result of the two battles (and all the others associated with the War of 1812) was the Treaty of Ghent. Both “British and American negotiators” met to hammer out the deal. The British had done their best to delay the process, hoping their navy could crush us.

The news of their success in taking and burning Washington didn’t help. But the news of our success in Baltimore and some other subsequent battles helped seal the deal. We were really close to losing our Independence.

Hugh Howard, the author of the book I just finished reading ‘Mr. and Mrs. Madison’s War’, had this to say about Madison: “To Madison, ‘the nation’s life force was its appetite for liberty and thirst for independence.'”

When you boil it all down, that is America. We love our freedom and we don’t take kindly to anyone trying to take it away . . . not even our own government.

 

Reply to My Other Senator

I received and email from Senator Roy Blunt (Missouri) this morning.  He was concerned about Obama’s overreach regarding guns and wanted my financial help to stop him.

This was my reply:

“I am not saying this in a disrespectful way, but I don’t understand why every correspondence I get from your office requests I donate to help you do your job. You are already paid to do your job. Does more money help you to do your job better somehow? The company I work for hired me to do a job. I either do the job for the money I agreed to do it for or I move on. I really don’t get it. I really don’t see how my donation could help you do a better job in this fight against gun control. I don’t see it as needing more money: I see it as needing to do more with what you already have. I see it as needing more resolve. Our system of government is on the line for heaven’s sake. If that is not enough to arouse every fiber of fight there is, I don’t see a little more money making a difference.”

 

Reply to My Senator

I have been writing my representative and senators on a regular basis lately. I know the reply’s I get are standard, but the one I got from McCaskill asked for another response. In light of the President’s State of the Union address in a few days, she asked for my input on the issues I feel are important.

The following is my response:

“In general, I would like to see the federal government stop its out of control control of everything under the sun. Instead, I would like to see a focus on reducing our out of control debt. I would like to see a noticeable return of our 3 branches of government to their intended design. Our constitution is being trampled and the branches are not defending it. We are beyond the typical party lines. Our system of government is on the line. Both parties should be standing now to defend it. From all I read, I understand there may be more behind the scenes than we citizens are aware of. But the bottom line, whatever is going on, is out of control and it is on the branches to get it back under control. There really can be no excuses. It has gone too far.

Two battles, three weeks apart in 1814, are examples of where I think we are today. The British marched unrestrained into Washington and set it on fire. The American forces did not feel they could stop the British, and didn’t. But the forces defending Baltimore saw the danger of one more loss. One more loss could have broken us and made us subject again to the motherland. They fought all day and night. At daybreak, our flag was still there and the British had pulled out.

We are on the line today of being subject to someone other than ourselves. The question is, will the branches of our government, on whose watch this falls, stand to defend us.

There are many issues I could address, but if we don’t get this main one taken care of, in a way . . . the others won’t matter.”

To Hell With the Left

 

I caught a portion of the Beck radio program last week where Glenn was talking to Pat and Stu about how a thing can be spoken into existence.  It was in relation to their joking and carrying on about each others wives.  Some of it is funny and all can laugh at it.  But there is a point that it can cross the line and it becomes degrading.  Glenn was making the point that he did not want any of them to cross that line.

Crossing the line can speak things into existence.  Derogatory comments can get implanted in a person’s mind and become reality—at least in their mind.

I caught a portion of another Beck radio program where the three of them were talking about bottled water.  In general, they were talking about how we have bought into paying for water that we can get relatively free from our own faucets.  They commented on the source—some city’s public water supply.  I happened to notice that night, having the same brand they were referring to, that they were right.  The source was some city’s public water supply.

Their point was that we buy into things that are ridiculous.  Granted, there are times that a bottle of water is more convenient, but to just always feel we have to grab a bottle—thinking it is better—when we have close to the same thing nearly free of charge . . .  we have bought into it.

The left is speaking things into existence and we are quite simply buying into it.  I had the thought as I was thinking about all this that as sure as something can be spoken into existence, it can be spoken out of existence.  When our government can go from 0 to 60 in one school shooting, I say they have successfully spoken into existence the idea that major restrictions need to be placed on guns.  And what are the most of us who disagree doing, other than buying at a record pace; we’re entering the debate on where the line should be drawn.  They have spoken a thing into existence and we are buying into it.

Now, as I mentioned earlier—that they have spoken a thing into existence—who is going to speak it out of existence?  Who is going to stand up and say to hell with notion that you can restrict our ability to defend ourselves?  All the attention is on making our society a safer place.  All the attention is geared toward protecting us from ourselves.  Have you noticed that there has been no mention of the possibility that we might one day need to protect ourselves from foreign infiltrated forces?  They are already here by the way.  Instead of all this effort on restricting law abiding citizens, why don’t they dedicate the same energy towards punishment of law breakers?

It’s not just the issue of gun control; you name it.  We are being sold a bad deal on many fronts and We the People just buy it.  EPA shuts an energy plant down or keeps entrepreneurs from accessing our own natural gas and oil.  They encourage people to not work.  They have convinced us that we are wrong to not tolerate gays, lesbians and baby killers.  They have spoken these things into existence and we simply tolerate it.  Who is going to speak it out of existence?  When they stand with arms crossed and say, in effect, who is going to stop us; who is going to stand with their arms crossed and say, “I will.”

We the People are the ones who have to put our foot down.  We the People are the one’s who have to eventually say, “To hell with the left.”  Since hell is where their ideas come from, let’s instead, speak that into existence.

Restrict Video Games Not Guns

Why is there always a push to get rid of guns after a terrible shooting, and never a push to get rid of the video games and movies that stir people to think of such things?

Corporations spend millions on advertising because they believe if they can keep their product before us, certain people will be motivated to want to buy it.  But then the same people will argue that the content of what they are selling will not motivate certain people to want to do what their product suggests.

We have had guns for hundreds of years.  We have had video games and movies for just a few.  We use to use our guns for what they were designed for – hunting and protection.  It was not until our media have suggested other uses that these needless killings have sprung up.

Something is wrong about a government that will protect the right of these video and movie makers to produce this crap – knowing the effect it is having – but doesn’t seem to have a problem with infringing on the right of we the people to own and possess guns.

How many millions use them for what they were designed?  And because of a few, the government thinks we should get rid of them.  Something is not right about that.   I enjoy shooting targets.  One day I may have to shoot a rabbit to have food to eat.

Personally I think our government ought to figure out a way to protect our good rights and concentrate instead on the rights that are inciting these senseless acts.  And please don’t try to tell me that to restrict these rights would be an infringement.  The government thinks nothing   about infringing on things that we in this country has believed in and accepted  for hundreds of years, all because one person is offended.  So if that happens to be your comeback . . . get over it.  I’ve got no room for that kind of thinking anymore.