Follow by Email

Monday, February 23, 2009

The Abortion Difficulty

Abortion is murder, that is my position in a nutshell. I will not argue the position today but will direct your attention to the following article from the National Review on line. It is written by Jay Nordlinger. I would highly recommend National Review on line for some very thought provoking conservative political thought.

The Case of Baby Shanice,
By Jay Nordlinger

A few years ago, I gave a speech on abortion. It was a personal speech—even an autobiographical speech. It told of how I arrived at an anti-abortion position, when I was in my late teens or early 20s. There were waymarks on this journey (although journey is probably too grand or pompous a word). What I mean is, there were events, thoughts, articles: things that led me to my position.

I remember one summer when I was a camp counselor in Elgin, Ill. This was Camp Watagamie, aka Camp Want My Mommy. I read the Chicago Tribune, like a fiend. And there was this story of a man—a father—who had smothered his baby with a pillow 45 minutes after the baby was born. The baby had been born with some defect. And the man was charged with manslaughter.

A columnist—I can’t be sure of his name—pointed out that, if the baby had been “taken care of” a little earlier, that would have been an abortion, and perfectly fine. But this man was being charged with manslaughter—and did the 45 minutes make all that much difference?

I was reminded of this when I read about another case, here. A woman named Sycloria Williams went for an abortion outside Miami. She was almost six months pregnant, and she paid $1,200. At the appointed hour, she was in the chair, ready to go. But something went wrong: She delivered a baby girl. The doctor had not yet arrived; he was late.

I now quote the Associated Press: “What Williams and the Health Department say happened next has shocked people on both sides of the abortion debate: One of the clinic’s owners, who has no medical license, cut the infant’s umbilical cord. Williams says the woman placed the baby in a plastic biohazard bag and threw it out. Police recovered the decomposing remains in a cardboard box a week later after getting anonymous tips.”

Williams is now suing the doctor (for arriving late, I suppose). Her lawyer said, “I don’t care what your politics are, what your morals are, this should not be happening in our community.” I wonder what the lawyer’s problem is. I wonder what Williams’s is, too. She went for an abortion; she wanted the baby gone—and the baby got gone, one way or the other.

Did you notice a particular line from the AP report? The case “has shocked people on both sides of the abortion debate.” But why? Does five minutes make all that much difference—or 45, or an hour, or whatever? Is the moral gap that great? One minute, the baby is a “fetus,” and perfectly abortable; the next minute, he is a “baby,” and off-limits.

The gruesome cases make you think a little harder. But, of course, they’re all gruesome—some are just less seen than others. Sycloria Williams was shaken up on seeing her baby. The baby’s death was very messy—visible to those who were around. But the baby’s death was going to be pretty bad, anyway—just behind the curtain, so to speak. All nice ’n’ clinical.

The lawyer said, “She came face to face with a human being. And that changed everything.” Yeah, but why? The baby existed—same size, as a matter of fact—before it emerged from the womb. Williams had gone to the clinic to be rid of it. Afterward, she even named the baby (Shanice). Oh, cripe. You go in to get rid of your baby, then you catch sight of it and get all gooey? And the rest of us are supposed to go “Awww”? And penalize the doctor who did not quite get there in time?

Why not penalize you for scheduling the procedure in the first place? You’re the one who asked him; this is not Communist China, you know.

Perhaps abortion is too big and important a subject to bring up in this “breezy lil’ web column,” as I’ve called it for the eight years of its life. Abortion is too big for an “impromptu.” But the Miami case reminded me of that Chicago case, all those years ago—and the formation of my own abortion position. I grew up in a culture where abortion was regarded, not only as a right, but as a good. It represented female liberation—“choice” and all that. “A woman has a right over her own body.” (True. But, in a pregnancy, is another body involved?) “Hands off my uterus!” “A baby in its mother’s womb has no more standing than a hamburger in her stomach.” Etc., etc.

That was part of the music in Ann Arbor, Mich., when I was coming of age. I found I could not go along with it.

Sunday, February 22, 2009

The Election Of Senators

This article by George Will is a succinct defense of the Framer's decision to have Senators elected by State Legislatures. Most people do not even know this was originally the case. I would be in favor of repealing of the 17th amendment. I continue to be amazed at the wisdom of the Founders of this great Republic. What they gave us has and is slowly being diluted into a complete Democracy which one of the founders called" mobocracy".

The 17th amendment is one of the reasons that the States have become increasingly subject to the National government. Centralized power always cultivates an environment ripe for tyranny. The Senate was designed to keep part of the legislative power diffused throughout the States. With the adoption of the 17th amendment the States lost their ability to check the National power from overreaching.

I recommend the above article.

Tuesday, February 17, 2009

Spurgeon - Faith

"But if faith cannot continue to believe in the hard things, it is not the faith that is worthy of God." C. H. Spurgeon

Monday, February 16, 2009

Baptismal Regeneration - Salvation Is By Grace

It is my intent here to simply set forth the Scriptural premise that salvation is by grace. I am well aware that this point alone does not solve the issue, but there is method to my madness. The fact is, those who argue for baptismal regeneration speak of salvation being by grace. So we all agree that salvation is by grace but we obviously disagree on the nature and essence of grace. Nevertheless it is I believe a profitable exercise to remind ourselves why we defend so ferociously the idea, the truth that salvation is by grace.

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

It could not be stated more clearly that we are saved by grace. Our salvation is the gift of God. It being a gift ensures that it is by grace. We do not purchase it, nor do we pay any price to retain it. If we do either it ceases to be a gift, and I would presume it would cease to be by grace.

Ephesians 2:5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)

Again, a very clear assertion that it is by grace that we are saved. We were spiritually dead because of sin. He made us spiritually alive. I suppose being spiritually dead that we were incapable of achieving any spiritual act worthy of merit.

Romans 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

Being justified is the legal term denoting salvation. So we are saved freely. Nothing is required. this is true because salvation is by his grace. Again, if it we were not freely saved the argument that it is by grace is greatly weakened. His grace is revealed in the redemption that is provided in Christ Jesus.

Acts 15:11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

It was believed that salvation was through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Romans 5:17 For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

This verse reveals the nature of the gift. It is the gift of righteousness. It is the result of an abundance of grace. I am not saved by any personal act of righteousness. I am not saved because of anything I do, or by refraining from certain things I should not do. I am saved by receiving the gift of righteousness, the righteousness of God. We are saved not by what we do but by what we "receive".

2 Corinthians 8:9 For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich.

I am not saved by any thing I have to offer. I am saved through his willingness to assume poverty on my behalf. It was an act of grace on his part to do so. He did not see me and say he is worthy, or he will be worthy. He looked at me and determined I was unworthy and was made poor on my behalf anyway. It was an act of grace.

Ephesians 1:6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.

My being accepted is not due to any merit on my part, no work of righteousness. I have not made my self accepted. He hath made me accepted by providing for me the gift of righteousness. This whole process does not bespeak of any goodness on my part but it redounds to the praise of the glory of his grace that makes it possible.

Ephesians 1:7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;

We are redeemed through his blood. Not water, sanctified or otherwise. The forgiveness of our sins is made possible through his blood. It is the blood that makes an atonement for the soul. There is no water on earth that can do that. And in fact not just any blood can. Only the blood of Jesus. We have this redemption, this forgiveness of sins through his blood, according to the riches of his grace.

2 Timothy 1:9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,

He saved us according to his grace. In fact, and we will return to this point in the next post, Paul says not according to our works. Works and grace are established as opposites. We are not saved according to our works, but according to his grace.

Titus 2:11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,

What is it that brings salvation to all men? The grace of God.

Titus 3:7 That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

We are justified by what? Grace. It is by grace that we are made heirs of eternal life. Grace is the context in which salvation is offered to the sinner. It is not offered in a context of works.

Hebrews 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

Christ tasted death for every man. Why? Because men are so valuable to God. We would love to so flatter ourselves. He saved us in order to show forth the riches of his grace. It was by the grace of God that Jesus tasted death for every man. He did not die for us because we have worth but because he has grace!

I believe the New Testament is abundantly clear that salvation is by grace. And as I stated at the outset I suspect that most that defend baptismal regeneration would heartily agree with that assessment. Even the Catholics that may well have the most advanced system of "works" of all the "christian" denominations would probably still own the statement that salvation is by grace.

The fact is the statement cannot be denied and one make any pretense to be a Bible believer. Yet, we do not agree on the application of grace. Salvation is by grace but you must be baptized. Thus one must conclude that baptism is not a work. But more on that later. For now suffice it to say that salvation is by grace.

In our next post on this subject we will undertake that the New Testament equally states that salvation is not of works.

Illinois Style Gun Control

This past Saturday I read this article in our local paper. I wish the Illinois Representative would not try to impose Illinois/Chicago style gun restrictions on the rest of the country.

This is not a difficult issue: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

There has already been a great deal of infringement and we do not need any more. Enforce the laws on the books.

Mr. Broadus, a former Lake Jackson police officer, who now teaches a concealed handgun class said, "The bill would ensure those who don’t need to have a gun won’t be able to buy one." Now I don't mean any disrespect to Mr. Broadus. I have spoken to him on the phone and attended his class (though taught by another Lake Jackson police officer) for a concealed handgun license. When I spoke to him he was very helpful and encouraging in relation to my interest to apply for a CHL. I enjoyed the class and learned a lot. But I must respectfully disagree with him on this point. That is like saying a statute against murder will ensure that no one will kill anyone unless duly authorized to do so. Laws do not ensure compliance. There are plenty of laws on the books that are designed to keep guns out of the hands of bad people. Yet, bad people still end up with guns, and probably always will. So effectively all these laws do is discourage or keep good people from arming themselves for personal protection.

Which is also why I do not understand laws prohibiting the carrying of weapons, particularly those licensed to do so, into certain places. For example a school. Is a person who had decided to go to a school to shoot people going to get to the door and see a sign that says this is a gun free zone and go back and trade his gun for a spit ball. I doubt it! No he has actually had a place prepared for him by legislation where he can go create chaos, mayhem, death, and injury until law enforcement arrive. To be quite honest the places I feel most unsafe are the places where people are forbidden to carry guns and if I or any of my family is ever attacked in a place where I have been disarmed by my own government I will be none-to-happy, I will consider them to have been an accomplice in murder.

Texas is not Illinois! I can only hope that Mr. Rush's bill fails to even make it out of committee, but with Democrats in charge we will probably have to guard our guns.

Second Grade

I generally look at the obituaries in the local paper every day. Occasionally there are names that I recognize. A few days ago as I was looking through them I saw the name Stevenson. The first name was Willie. The name sounded familiar. I believed it to be the name of my second grade teacher. I knew for certain that the last name was correct and was fairly certain about the first name. I clicked on the link, read the obituary and sure enough it was her.

As I read the obituary I learned things about her I did not know. Most people probably do not learn much about their second grade teachers. Do we even consider them human like the rest of us? Do they actually have a life outside of a classroom? Do they ever walk down any halls outside of a school building. Well, as I read her obituary I realized that she actually lived a very active life outside the school house. The last time I saw here was some years back in the local Kroger store. I was standing in line behind her. I caught her attention and introduced myself. She acted as though she remembered me, I don't know if she really did. That is the only time I can remember seeing her outside the classroom and halls of Jane Long Elementary. She was very gracious and we spoke for several minutes. She no doubt had thousands of students over her lengthy career.

Her passing caused me to remember several things. I remember her being my teacher but I can't say I remember much about the classroom or who was in the class with me. I do remember that at that time, the lunch cart would be rolled down the hall to each classroom and the students would go out into the hall around the lunch cart, deposit their token, collect our lunch, file back into the classroom and eat at our desk. We would deposit the scraps of food into the designated containers, place the silverware into a designated container, and stack the trays. The lunch ladies would come by a bit later and collect the trash and utensils. I remember recess.

I also remember one day on the way out to recess that I had done something that caused Mrs. Stevenson to take me by both shoulders and give me a good shaking. I don't remember what I did, but I don't doubt that I deserved the shaking. I certainly knew she meant business after that. Of course, it would have done little good to go home and tell my parents that Mrs. Stevenson grabbed me and shook me on the way to the playground today. My parents would not have likely went down to the school room but rather sent me to my room and followed me with an instrument of correction. I grew up when if you got in trouble at school, you got in trouble at home. So I am quite certain I did not share that interesting piece of information with my parents until possibly some years later. No sense in compounding the grief.

I also remember that it was Mrs. Stevenson who wrote on the back of one of my report cards that James seems to have a stumbling block in relation to math. She was right. I found math to be very frustrating. I think I even had difficulty grasping the concept of greater than/lesser than. Somehow I managed to make it through two years of introductory Algebra in High School but at the first opportunity removed math from my curriculum. Only two years of math was required for graduation, so I only took two years of math. My difficulty in the area was obviously a point of grief for her as well. That is probably the sign of a good teacher. I think it is likely that my lack of ability created a degree of despair for her. I finally managed to adequately master the basics, well maybe not master but certainly get by.

It seems like yesterday when I was in Mrs. Stevenson's second grade class. Yet it was, I believe in 70/71. It was 39, almost 40 years ago. That was a long time ago, why does it seem like a few years ago?? By the time I sat in Mrs. Stevenson's classroom she was halfway through her career. She was I guess you might say, a seasoned, experienced teacher. I am now probably over halfway through my ministry. I am effectively where she was at the time. Her passing has been the occasion of reminding me of the brevity of life. I will probably remember Mrs. Stevenson till the end, which will be here before I know it. So, here she is, in her obituary leaving me one last lesson, life is short, live it to the fullest. Thanks Mrs. Stevenson from a long ago second grade student.

Thursday, February 12, 2009

Baptismal Regeneration

I am going to be writing a series of posts on the topic of Baptismal Regeneration. At least a couple of things come together to motivate me to this undertaking. About a month ago when we were with my Father-in-law at the Hospital in Central Kansas we had the opportunity to interact with an older gentleman who was there with his very elderly mother. The man was very friendly, and at bare minimum Christian affected. Our last evening there the conversation, thanks to my wife, turned to the question of baptism being necessary for salvation. We had learned a day earlier that the gentleman was of the Church of Christ persuasion. He was commenting on how we agreed on so much. It was this that caused my wife to raise the issue of the necessity of baptism for salvation. Because the fact is, we disagree on a critical point that is how a man gets to heaven. We discussed the issue for several minutes. My wife left the room to be with her Father and I took a call on her cell phone. When I finished with that call he was handing me his cell phone and informed me that his preacher was on the other end. I obliged him by taking the phone and speaking to the Church of Christ preacher for some 20 or 30 minutes before he needed his phone returned. As might be expected we did not agree and the conversation even spilled over into the issue of eternal security.

There is also the fact that baptism has been the most contentious element of Christian doctrine for centuries. Many believing that baptism is necessary for salvation and then Baptists and a few others believing it is an ordinance. Of those who believe it is essential for salvation many embrace the practice of infant baptism. I realize I probably paint with a broad brush here and that there are no doubt many levels of distinction between those that hold to some form of baptismal regeneration. The point is I reject it in all its forms! I do not pretend to end the discussion with this series of posts. Greater minds than mine have applied themselves to the question and yet it still rages. We may all possibly agree that it will continue to rage because the Devil is the occasion of confusion. We will probably disagree about who he is using to continue the confusion. So, while the discussion will not end here I do not know who all will read this. It may be some who have questions and I can help answer them. It may be someone will read and come to see the truth. It could be that the Lord might use my feeble effort to encourage those who agree with the position I take here. I will not concern myself with how it will be used. I will simply write for one of the main reasons I commenced this blog, for an outlet, an opportunity to write.

I will state my position clearly. The New Testament teaches that baptism is an ordinance instituted by God and given to Christ’s church to administer to those who have repented and believed the gospel as a living picture of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ while at the same time bearing testimony to the candidate’s death to the old man and being raised to walk in newness of life. New Testament baptism has no saving merit and is not required in order to be born again. This I am fully persuaded is taught by the New Testament.

I will, over the next few weeks, seek to give the Biblical basis for the premise set forth.

Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: . . . . Acts 2:42

Tuesday, February 10, 2009

The Break Down And Break Up Of Civilization

The following is from a message by Arthur Pink, entitled The Destruction of Dagon preached in 1943.

"The "march of progress" from 1920 onwards, was, if measured by the standards of righteousness and decency, steadily downwards. Those with the least sense of decency were determined to drag the whole of the rising generation, down into the gutter. An orgy of licentiousness was widely entered into. Night-clubs were multiplied, gambling spread like wild fire, and debauchery abounded on every side. The beaches lowered their bathing restrictions--and modesty became a thing of the past. Youth was allowed to have its fling, unrestrained.

The novels and magazines of the last decade have been filled with obscenities and blasphemies. A friend of ours in the publishing business recently wrote to us, "Today we have shops stacked with books which, had they been published when we were boys--the authors and publishers would have been put in jail!" Censorship has long since been reduced to a farce. The great majority of our children have their ideas formed by the pictures they saw at the "movies" and the debasing productions of a degenerate press. As a recent writer said, "The best-sellers of today, are often books whose morals are of the barnyard, whose language is of the sewer and whose ethics are of the pit!"

The breakdown and breakup of "Civilization" appears in such things as the decay of the sanctity of marriage--as evidenced by the multiplication of divorces, and the abandonment of large numbers of babies; juvenile delinquency and immorality among the young; the vandalism which is now so rife; such widespread pilfering--and the flimsy efforts of the authorities to deal with such evils! Thousands of culprits who ought to be sent to prison, are given nominal fines. Law and order is almost reduced to a farce!

We do what we do--because we are what we are. There is always a rigid consistency between character and conduct. The thin coating of "civilized" varnish has worn off, and twentieth-century character stands exposed."

It is interesting to note that these words were spoken in 1943. Most of us would appreciate the level of righteousness of that day, and if we went back to the "goodness" of that time would believe we were in the midst of a great spirtitual revival.

I Don't Understand

I admit to not being the smartest person in the room when it comes to economic issues. I do think I have a decent grasp of how things basically work. I do not understand how what our present government is doing is going to help in the long run.

I suppose this may be part of the problem we have become a society that does not want to be troubled with the long run but with the immediate.

It is a bit intimidating to me when a few months ago our government would speak in terms of billions of dollars and we would all be a bit taken back and now to think we are speaking in terms of trillions of dollars.

How much will we end up spending? Today I heard the amount of $3,000,000,000,000, yesterday I read where someone was suggesting it could end up being $9,000,000,000,000 (trillion) A trillion is a one with 12 zeros behind it. Does anyone really know how much money that is? I really doubt it.

What is scary is we don't have (lets just split the difference) $6,000,000,000,000. Last year we spent approximately 2.8 trillion dollars in the Federal budget. Now we are talking about the possibility of spending twice that outside the normal budget expenditures. We don't have the money. In 2008 the federal government spent 2.5 billion more than it took in. We are all aware of our governments penchant for deficit spending. Last year we spent 2.5 billion more than we had and now we might spend $6,000,000,000,000 more outside the budget. Am I the only one who wonders about the wisdom of this? We don't have the money!

So we spend it, we go into debt? Where does the money come from to pay the debt? The Federal government. Exactly but that answer shields us from a sober reality. Where does the Federal government get its money? What does it manufacture? What marketable, profit generating service does it provide? It's primary source of revenue is taxes. From whom do they collect the taxes? The American people. So all of this money they are borrowing to help us is simply ensuring that we will be indebted for years to come. They spend the money to help us then a few years down the road they will be coming back to ask for the money back with interest. And, the reality is we will not have a choice thanks to payroll taxes. They get their money before you even see it.

They are spending all this money to supposedly stimulate the economy. In a few years they will come to that same economy and take the money out with interest, and what if it does not work? Now we have a bad economy with a $6,000,000,000,000 debt. I don't think it will work. I am not convinced.

These unemployment statistics from the Depression are interesting.

Does anyone really consider an unemployment rate going from 24% to 14% a success. Especially when the unemployment rate in 1929 was 3%. And you will notice that just before the War the unemployment figures had started to go back up.

I have believed for a long time that it was not FDR's New Deal that ended the depression but World War II. I don't think the government can spend us out of the present difficulty.

I am not fooled by all the talk of oversight. No one, not even the Federal government has the capacity to oversee the spending of trillions of dollars. They will probably think they have really exercised oversight if they can account for the money in increments of billions of dollars. That leaves a lot of room for corruption and misuse of funds.

I'm probably all wet behind the ears when it comes to these things but I do not think what our elected officials are doing is best for the country.

By the way, I know lots of people have lost their jobs. But........when did people start looking to the government to make sure they had a job? I am also afraid that as we become increasingly dependent upon government we will find ourselves increasingly ruled by tyrants. Everything the government provides increases it authority to dictate, and that is exactly what dictators are very good at.

Oh, yes did you notice that the state of California is not sending its citizens their tax refunds at this time? Proof of what I have been saying for several years. Your income belongs to the government. Taxation of income is not about what they take it is about what they let you keep. Don't think for a minute that there are not those in all levels of government who are not watching to see if Californians take this lying down. I am afraid they will and those who want to enslave us will be emboldened.

Even so, Come, Lord Jesus!

Tuesday, February 03, 2009

Amazing Transformation

I still stand amazed at this!
Posted by Picasa

Can you see the birds?

The first is a picture of a great horned owl. It started much closer to us but when we backed up to take a picture, just as we were ready to click it flew to this tree. Rats........

The second is an American bittern. A winter visitor that is very shy. This bird also started very close. We saw it fly up and then spotted it here a little further from the road. had it stayed in place we probably would have driven right by it.

Lydia and I went to the San Benard National Wildlife Refuge this past Saturday. The Brazoria National Wildlife Refuge was inundated with four feet of ocean when Hurricane Ike came through. Consequently all the fresh water ponds and water now have a very high salt content and consequently there are not many birds there. I was there on Thursday driving a school bus for a field trip.
Posted by Picasa

A Woman's Right To Control Her Own Body

Did you hear about the woman in California that had eight one time. This after she already had six. She has no husband. She has no means of supporting the babies, at least that is my understanding???

I have heard and seen several places where people were appalled at this woman's decision. They say she should not have been permitted to do this. The industry that made it possible needs to be regulated. I wonder if this is the same people that believe a woman should have the right to an abortion?????

Could it be that some believe a woman should have exclusive right over her own body if she is aborting a baby, but not if she is having eight at one time, especially after having six already?????

Just asking????

Change You Can Believe In

This was candidate Obama's promise. Change was coming and it has. Herein was the problem that I had with the message of change. How was it going to change? Things can change for the worse. Once elected I determined to give President Obama every benefit of the doubt. In spite of what I considered to be good reasons for opposing him based upon his scant record and his own words, I was willing to wait until he was President and making decisions.

Well just a few weeks into his Presidency he has been making decisions. And if his decisions are, as I suspect, a foretaste of things to come, it is change I can do without.

1. He has reversed the executive order banning federal funding for organizations overseas that provide abortion counseling and services.

2. He has signed an executive order to close Gitmo. I have to hand it to him for keeping his campaign promise, for he promised to do this and the American people voted for it. But it is a bad idea. We have yet to be told what is going to be done with these terrorist who would kill all of us given the chance. I am amazed at those who want them to have Constitutional protections. People, these are not American citizens. The Constitution is for Americans, not the whole world and certainly not for our enemies. I keep a copy of the Constitution on my desk. The preamble opens with the words,

"We the People of the United States, . . . ." and ends with the words, "do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The people of the United States ratified a Constitution for the United States of America, not for 21st century foreign terrorist!

3. We have a Secretary of the Treasurer who failed to pay his taxes until he was considered for the cabinet position.

4. We have nominated for the Secretary of Health and Human Services a man who failed to pay his taxes until he was considered for the cabinet position. (I just saw where Mr. Daschle withdraws his nomination to be the Secretary of Health and Human Services. He can now go back to not paying his taxes.)

5. We have a Secretary of State whose husband is going to be allowed to continue to receive donations from foreign countries.

6. We have an Attorney General who, if I understand correctly, while serving in the Clinton administration lobbied for and secured a pardon for the man who was number two on the FBI's most wanted list. I just read an article today concerning his confirmation where the following was said,

"Holder promised one senator that he would re-examine a ruling by former Attorney General Michael Mukasey that immigrants facing deportation do not have a right to government-provided lawyers. Holder said he understands the desire to expedite immigration court proceedings, but added that the Constitution also requires that proceedings be fair."

Fair for who? The whole world, people that violate our laws to come here, foreigners who want to kill us."

I am sure President Obama is "banking" on the fact that the American people have lost the ability to be truly outraged.

All of this and we have not even touched on the Government's rendition of Who Wants To Be A Billionaire, more commonly known as a stimulus package. Let me just say this, the remedy is simple. Let people and companies, large and small keep more of their money. Strip away all of the overbearing regulation. the economy take off! Obama and most of the rest of the politicians are saying government has to do something. We are in this shape because of what government has been doing. Our present difficulty is not the result of free market economics but of government intervention in free markets, ie . . . the mortgage meltdown that has effected the credit markets.

People have a short memory. It was just last Spring and early Summer when the government sent most of us a check and that was suppose to kick start the economy. Didn't work! Now they are attempting to spend what is it, $840,000,000,000.00. If they were to take that money and divide it among our approximately 300,000,000 citizens every man, woman, boy, and girl would get a check for $2,800.00. That means that $16,800.00 would be sent to my home. But instead this is the debt with which we will be saddled. Remember folks, the government does not have any money. Everything it spends it has to take from you and me!

Not enjoying the change!