I am so done with Christmas

I recently read an article that showed a popular teen store called "Urban Outfitters" incorporating profanity-laced products in their Christmas catalog.  With shirts that say "Merry Christmas B----es!" and Let's F---ing Reminisce" , I have been officially pushed over the edge with Christmas.

Christmas has been stolen by the modern day Grinches and I say "FINE!, You can have it!"

I see commercial after commercial that makes me want to vomit

• Santa Claus picking up a person in a car and telling them "What the Ho Ho Ho are you doing?"  (we all know the "ho ho ho" is Santa's way of saying "f---" ... isn't that so FUNNY?)
• A father giving his kids 2 cookies to shut them up from arguing when he should just put them in separate corners and tell them there will be no presents under the tree if they don't stop.
• Victoria Secret using the holiday to push braziers and panties on models where "angels wings" (so now God's special messengers that brought the shepherd's the Good News for the whole world are transformed into whores and skanks to "stimulate" men to buy underwear?)
• Car commercials showing Santa driving Mercedes or BMW's around and people "wishing" for a new car for Christmas (Really?  I don't know ANYONE who thinks they are going to get  a new car under the tree...or a giant red bow... who are these people?)
• Garmin uses one of my favorite Christmas Carols, "Carol of the Bells", for its "jingle" so now generations to come will think of their GPS system and not the final words in the last line of the carol which says "Tell all the world Jesus is king".

I see people behaving badly and making Christmas a bloody-hell when it should be a joyful time

• The Salvation Army and their bell-ringers and saying they are "annoying" and should not be allowed to collect money for the poor... after all isn't that the GOVERNMENTS JOB?
• Schools not allowing children to watch "A Charlie Brown Christmas" because it has a strong religious theme in it (Well excuse me that IS what Christmas is all about).
• Atheists putting up billboards claiming that Santa and Jesus are BOTH myths.
• People getting into brawls at "Black-Friday" (Really?  Black is associated with Christmas?) and go to even the extreme of shooting each other.

Corporations and other groups want to abuse OUR CELEBRATION for their own profit and at the same time destroy its meaning, spit in our faces and tell US what WE can say or not say on this day.  (often they will claim that the "druids" celebrated the winter solstice with bonfires long before the Christians took it over)

I know there is still a lot of good in Christmas and maybe I am only seeing the negative, but I often feel like Charlie Brown crying out in the empty auditorium "Does anyone know what Christmas is all about?" .  While I DO know what Christmas is all about, I feel that much of the world says "So what?  Who cares? All it means to us is more sales and more profits for us!  We can do with it what we want and you can't stop us!"

What can we do as Christians?

• Turn off the TV for the month of December
• Watch Christmas DVD's of old movies and shows
• if you have a DVR, record the shows you do care about... and skip the commercials
• Don't watch the "news" which only talks about 
• people getting into fights or robbed at malls
• how Christmas sales are going so far and how it will effect the economy
• Listen to Christmas music or read a book
• Stay out of the malls and crowds. 
• Buy on-line if you can and save yourself from being over commercialized.
• Give to a Christian charity in someone-else's name
• Lutheran World Relief is one of the best run organizations around
• Salvation Army

The Establishment Clause

The Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

To understand the "Establishment Clause" you need to understand the founders of our country.  In 1534 Henry the 8th, through the "Act of Supremacy"  declared the king to be the only Supreme Head in Earth of the Church of England.  Later the "Treasons Act" made it punishable by death to not acknowledge that idea.   Because the ministers of the Church of England were paid by the king, they effectively became his "mouth-pieces" to disseminate the "kings truth" rather than "God's truth".  Later groups of "separatists" decided to worship their own way in their own homes.   This caused alarm by the government, leading them to pass the "Act of Uniformity" that required all citizens to attend the Church of England every Sunday.  A person who chose not to attend would be fined 1 shilling every Sunday.   People conducting non-conforming church services would be imprisoned or executed. These acts were what drove our founders, the Pilgrims, to take the long and dangerous voyage over the Atlantic and risk their very lives to come here.

This is what "establishing a religion" really looks like.

Placing a nativity on a courthouse lawn does not EVEN COMPARE with having a church bought and paid for by the government and forcing citizens to attend it.   If our founders saw what some in this country consider "establishing a religion" they would be mortified, because they risked life and limb at the hands of their government while people today just have to say "their feelings were hurt" or "they felt left out" in order to evoke the "establishment clause".

The government has always in the past tried to encourage religion without establishing one.  For example, 1782 Congress reviewed and recommended the printing of the Aitken Bible (also known as the Bible of the Revolution).  Why did they do this?  Because at the time the only Bibles available were the English translation and they were in short supply after the Revolutionary War.  Aitken's paid for the printing of the bible, but he requested Congress to review it and give a recommendation so he could get it printed.  Here is a statement printed inside the bible:

"Reverend Gentlemen,
"Our knowledge of our piety and public spirit leads us without apology to recommend to your particular attention the edition of the Holy Scriptures publishing by Mr. Aitken. He undertook this expensive work at a time when, from the circumstances of the war, and English edition of the Bible could not be imported, nor any opinion formed how long the obstruction might continue. On this account particularly he deserves applause and encouragement. We therefore wish you, Reverend Gentlemen, to examine the execution of the work, and if approved, to give the sanction of our judgment, and the weigh of your recommendation. 

Was this establishing a religion?  No.  Not in the least!  It was promoting it though and there in lies the difference.  To illustrate my point, consider that the federal government promotes home ownership by allowing home-buyers to deduct their mortgage interest and property taxes from their income.  Why? Because homeowners are a benefit to society.  We become better citizens by putting down roots in our towns and cities.  We become INVESTED into our communities.   If, however, the federal government MANDATED that everyone over the age of 25 buy a home or pay a penalty (kind of sounds like Obama-care doesn't it?) ... then that would be ESTABLISHING home ownership.

Putting up Christmas Trees or having Thanksgiving celebrations does not MANDATE or ESTABLISH a religion... it PROMOTES it.  Why should the government promote religion?  For the same reason it promotes home-ownership.  It makes us better citizens and it helps support the Republic. George Washington said in his Farewell Address the following:

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness

A moral and ethical people are the foundation of a Republic.  A moral people will not

• steal from the government
• lie to the public
• steal votes
• take advantage of others
• show charity out of their own wealth.
• etc..etc.. etc..

What about Al-Qaeda and Muslim Extremists?  Should government promote them as well?  The answer here is simply NO!  You may be asking  "But why not?  Are they not religions as well?".  My answer here is simple, "Because they do not support the tenets of our Republic".

1. Do they support Freedom of Religion?             No.  
2. Do they support Freedom of Speech?               No
3. Do they support Freedom of the Press?            No.
4. Do they support the ownership of property?    No (not if your not muslim).
5. Do they support a woman's right to vote?        No.

So therefore, unless they are "moderate muslims" who DO support these tenets the government does not have to promote it (though it cannot entirely dissuade them either ... except if they break the law).

The Republic needs religion to survive but religion only needs the Republic to leave it alone.

The ZERO-God

Believe it or not, but one of the most difficult to understand concepts in Mathematics is the idea of ZERO.   What is ZERO?

Is it something?
Can you count it?
Can you measure it?
How can nothing be something?
How can you count anything that doesn't exist?  

It leads to many philosophical debates and discussions and yet it seems so trivial to the average person.  For example, by saying "How many zigwats are there in the universe", I would have to first describe what a zigwat is and therefore in your mind you could envision this mythical creature and therefore it no longer "does not exist", because it exists inside your mind.  How therefore can I say there are ZERO zigwats?

The reason I bring this somewhat innocuous topic up is because today religion and atheism are at odds.  Especially this time of year when countless towns and cities across this nation of ours roll out their nativity scenes of Joseph,Mary and the baby Jesus.  Like clock work, the nativities go up and the lawyers get busy filing claim after claim for atheists who demand that all of government be devoid of all mention of God and religion.  They claim that religion offends them and leaves them feeling "excluded".  

So my question to them is this:  Does Atheism proclaim a ZERO-God?

Religion is, at its core, a system of beliefs in "something" that holds a group of people together.  But even "nothing" is "something".  Atheism itself means "A belief in No God" and therefore, a belief in a ZERO-God.  It has by its own admission, a religion in which the ZERO-God:

   - Created the universe.
   - Created the earth
   - Created all creatures
   - Created man
   - Listens to man
   - Cares about man

So if government must be devoid of "God" then it must adhere to atheism which in the end demands the belief in a ZERO-God.    Therefore the government would in effect be establishing the religion of the ZERO-God and therefore violating the 1st Amendments "Establishment Clause".  So even THEY would be violating the Constitution themselves whether they like it or not.



A small note on the "establishment clause":
To understand the "Establishment Clause" you need to understand the founders of our country.  In 1534 Henry the 8th, through the "Act of Supremacy"  which declared the king to be the only Supreme Head in Earth of the Church of England.  Later the "Treasons Act" made it punishable by death to not acknowledge that idea.   Because the ministers of the Church of England were paid by the king, they effectively became his "mouth-pieces" to disseminate the "kings truth" rather than "God's truth".  Later groups of "separatists" decided to worship their own way in their own homes.   This caused alarm by the government, leading them to pass the "Act of Uniformity" that required all citizens to attend the Church of England every Sunday.  A person who chose not to attend would be fined 1 shilling every Sunday.   People conducting non-conforming church services would be imprisoned or executed. These acts were what drover our founders, the Pilgrims, to take the long and dangerous voyage over the Atlantic and risk their very lives to come here.

This is what ESTABLISHING A RELIGION really looks like.

Placing a nativity on a courthouse lawn does not EVEN COMPARE with having a church bought and paid for by the government and forcing citizens to attend it.   If our founders saw what some in this country consider "establishing a religion" they would be mortified, because they risked life and limb at the hands of their government while people today just have to say "their feelings were hurt" or "they felt left out" in order to evoke the "establishment clause".

The government has always in the past tried to encourage religion without establishing one.  For example, 1782 Congress reviewed and recommended the printing of the Aitken Bible (also known as the Bible of the Revolution).  Why did they do this?  Because at the time the only Bibles available were the English translation and they were in short supply after the Revolutionary War.  Aitken's paid for the printing of the bible, but he requested Congress to review it and give a recommendation so he could get it printed.  Here is a statement printed inside the bible:

"Reverend Gentlemen,
"Our knowledge of our piety and public spirit leads us without apology to recommend to your particular attention the edition of the Holy Scriptures publishing by Mr. Aitken. He undertook this expensive work at a time when, from the circumstances of the war, and English edition of the Bible could not be imported, nor any opinion formed how long the obstruction might continue. On this account particularly he deserves applause and encouragement. We therefore wish you, Reverend Gentlemen, to examine the execution of the work, and if approved, to give the sanction of our judgment, and the weigh of your recommendation. 

Was this establishing a religion?  No.  Not in the least!  It was promoting it though.  There in lies the difference.  For example, today the federal government promotes home ownership by allowing home-buyers to deduct their mortgage interest and property taxes from their income.  Why? Because homeowners are a benefit to society.  We become better citizens by putting down roots in our towns and cities.  We become INVESTED into our communities.   If, however, the federal government MANDATED that everyone over the age of 25 buy a home or pay a penalty (kind of sounds like Obama-care doesn't it?) ... then that would be ESTABLISHING home ownership.

Putting up Christmas Trees or having Thanksgiving celebrations does not MANDATE or ESTABLISH a religion... it PROMOTES it.  Why should the government promote religion?  For the same reason it promotes home-ownership.  It makes us better citizens and it helps support the Republic. George Washington said in his Farewell Address:

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness

The Republic needs religion to survive (but religion only needs the Republic to leave it alone).

Destroying the middle class

Today you hear a lot about how the separation between the rich and poor in America is widening and that the middle class is being wiped out.  For the left, the problem is the rich, out of their own greed, are preventing the poor from moving up.  To me however the problem is not caused by the rich, but instead by government regulation. 

In the past, America had  a very vibrant and health middle class.   Our structure was one of a series of "steps" ranging from  poor, lower-middle, middle, upper-middle, and rich.  Each step was within "reach" of the previous step allowing people to move up (and in some cases down) with little difficulty.  A poor person could work a simple factor job and work their way up to more skilled position and enter the middle class.  A lower-middle-income person could open up a small business out of their car or garage.  After some time they can work their business up to a level of opening up a shop.  They could hire extra help and work their business up to where they could afford to expand to multiple locations and within time if they desired take company to a more national level and enter the rich class of America.  Success stories like that of Dave Thomas the founder of "Wendy's" restaurants, who started with literally nothing and became a millionaire by working his way up through the restaurant business and later starting his own chain, were common place.

Enter the "nanny state" in which the government, for our own "protection", adds business regulations.  These regulations limit things such as where you can set up your business.  You want to use your garage?  Forget it!  You want to sell things out of your car on the street?  Don't even think about it!   Other regulations limit WHO can open up a business and who cannot.  You want to braid hair?   In the state of Illinois you will need 1000 hours of training and $15,000 of education to obtain a cosmetology degree before you can do that.  And all to often, those you create such regulations are already in the business and use the government as a way to keep competition low.These regulations remove the lower rungs of the economic ladder (see below).

 This makes it MORE difficult for the poor to take that "first step" in the economic ladder towards a better life.  While some of these regulations seem non-intrusive to you or me, to someone who is heavy in debt and has little in their savings (if they have any at all), even a small $100 license fee can seem insurmountable.

But it doesn't stop there.   For even the Middle class trying to make it into the "rich" class, regulation can be used to impede their progress. In the early 1900's one could hire workers on as little as a "handshake and a promise".   But today, without litigation-happy society, this is a mere dream.   Employers must have employee contracts detailing, how they will be paid, how they will be evaluated, what their duties will be, what their "rights are", how much time off they will get etc...  Also with regulations being added to them a break-neck speeds, employers must hire hosts of lawyers and accountants to help them keep up and navigate the regulation complexities and nuances.   For established corporations these lawyers are a drop in they proverbial bucket, but for the business owner just starting out, these costs reduce their ability to hire lower skilled workers they need to build, package, ship and bill. 









 And so with fewer people able to ENTER the middle class from the poor-class, the middle class is literally "dying off" over time.

Finally,  because we allow illegal immigrants to enter our country we are "growing" the poor class by adding to them at alarming rates.  Therefore the "poor" class is growing while the middle class is ever shrinking.

North and South poles have switched!!

Many people don't know this, but the North pole has not always been in the north.  In a weird twist of geological events, the north and south poles occasionally switch ends.   This process takes years to happen but it does in deed occur about ever 780,000 years (not sure how this would effect migratory birds, but I am sure it will give our airplanes and ships a run for their money).

Joseph Stalin

Ronald Reagan

So it also seems to occur with political "poles" in which on one end we have freedom and the other end we have totalitarianism (or communism) for just a little over 20 years ago, Russia was the leader and promoter of communism and the US was the leader of the free world. 






  Now looking at our two countries, one must wonder if the US and Russia have somehow "swapped'
 sides.

Vladimir Putin

To illustrate, consider this: the Russian paper, "The Pravda", which was the Soviet Union's own propaganda newspaper today is labeling our President, with no uncertain terms,  a communist.  At the same time the newspaper is contrasting what their leader Vladimir Putin has said recently in speeches that look eerily similar to what President Reagan was promoting in the 80's (lower taxes, smaller government etc..)

See the link below for more information:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/russian-news-outlet-pravda-previously-the-official-press-of-the-ussr-labels-obama-a-communist-in-scathing-oped/

I swear world is upside down now!

3 solutions to our national debt

There are really on 3 solutions to our national debt crisis.  Anyone who says we can ignore it and it will eventually go away is not living in reality.   The 3 solutions I have can be rated as: BAD, BAD and DISASTROUS

First solution:  Austerity measures. 

    Who likes it:  No one.

This solution requires serious cuts the federal budget.  Everything from welfare, social security, medicare and even the military would need to be addressed.  People would need to help other people rather than hope the government would be there to catch them.

Second solution:  Inflate our way out of debt

    Who likes it:   Politicians
\This is not a new method.  Germany did it after WW-I in the Weinmar Republi.  Loaded with all of Europe's war debt (a requirement from Woodrow Wilson to get France on board for his League of Nations), Germany printed loads of money to payback its debts.  This lead to Hyper-Inflation where wheel-barrels of money were needed to buy a loaf of bread and for many it was more cost effective to use the money as fuel for their furnaces.  This method was also used by the US in the 1970's as well.  Strapped with loads of debt both from the Vietnam War and also from Johnson's War on Poverty, Nixon took the US off the gold-standard in 1971 freeing the treasury to print more money and inflation ensued at levels of 15-20%.  This is Washington's favorite way of fixing these kinds of problems.  Because Congress can set their own pay levels, they are immune to inflation.  While the average person must get by with less and see their savings eaten up by inflation.  For example if inflation is at 12%, the value of goods and services doubles every 6 years (rule of 72), therefore money sitting in a bank drawing 3-5% loses buying power.

Third solution:  Bankruptcy

     Who likes it:  Those who want to "transform" the country

Governments can and often do go bankrupt.  This doesn't mean the country does not exist anymore.  It just means the country must change how it does things.  This is what we did to the USSR in the 90's after they bankrupted themselves trying to compete in an arm's race with the US under the leadership of Ronald Reagan.  They had to re-write their constitution and make changes to their way of doing things.  Russia went from a centralized government that owned everything to a republic in which citizens were free to own property and businesses again.  In other words, they became more like us.

We too, if we do not fix the mess we are in may also have to declare bankruptcy.  We would have to re-write our contract with the citizens as well and most likely that Constitution will be LESS Free than the one which we have held for over 200 years.  We may see the end of "states" and instead have a large national system with "zones" or "wards".   We will most likely see the end of gun ownership and the freedom of religion and speaking.  Property rights may need to be "communitized" (the individual is subject to the community and its interests). 

This is of course the most disastrous of the 3 solutions.  But I fear there are many who are counting on this.

I want to SCREAM!

I am sitting in a Starbucks waiting for my son to get out of his meeting and can't help but notice all the obliviously happy people around me.  Most of them are under 25 from what I can tell.  The man next to me is listening to music on his cell phone.  Another man two tables from me is watching a movie on his laptop.  At a table in the corner is a group of what appears to be college students sitting around joking about their lives (2 are guys who are trying to desperately get the attention of the one very attractive female in the group).  A girl across from me is feverishly texting on her phone (maybe she should call and save her fingers the trouble). 

All of them so merry but unaware that the world they were brought up in going to change dramatically over the next 4 years.   Most of these "adults" (I use that term loosely) have no idea of what inflation, qualitative-easing, laffer-curve, dynamic-scoring, static-scoring, debt crisis, fiscal-cliff even mean.  They have no understanding of our government or our constitution.   They know nothing of our heritage or our history.   They know more about Justin Bieber and Justin Timberlake than they do of Washington, Jefferson, Madison or Lincoln combined.  To them watching Jon Stewart counts as watching the news and staying "informed" (sort of a TV-two-fer where you get comedy AND news all rolled into one).  They also see watching the president on the late-night-talk-shows as election-decision-data-gathering and feel the debates are too long and too wordy (Can't we cut it down to 30 minutes instead of 3 90 minute sessions?)

They will spend more time deciding what to put on in the morning than who they will vote for in a presidential election.  (a news piece showed that the most Googled question on November 6th was "Who is running for president").   They have been pampered and padded over their lives.  Given A's when they should have gotten B's or C's.  They are frustrated when their phone doesn't get service within 10 seconds of turning it on.    They will spend $5 on a coffee they will consume in  15 minutes but not give  $5 to a charity.  They know how to work their smart phone but they are not smart enough to find a job.

I JUST WANT TO SCREAM!  ARE YOU SO BLIND?  ARE YOU SO STUPID?

Why taxing the rich NEVER works

People often mistake INCOME and WEALTH as the same thing when nothing can be further from the truth.  When people hear that we are only going to increase taxes on the millionaires and billionaires they compute the amount of money they think the government will pull in based on their wealth and not on their income.   We forget that the tax we pay is the INCOME tax and not a wealth tax.  As the word income implies, its the wealth that is in-coming or coming-into our possession.  Once possessed it cannot be taxed again.

The millionaires and billionaires may in fact end up paying ZERO federal income tax when all is said and done.  How this is done is not magic or some hidden fund or loop-hole they are utilizing.  Instead it is simply by reducing their "income" to zero and zero times anything is still zero.  They can do this because they can afford to do this.

If I gave you 10 million dollars, you would be able to live out the rest of your life fairly comfortably.  For me that would give me about $300,000 per year.  I would not have to invest it at all and therefore pay no tax on it.  This is how millionaires and billionaires would circumvent the increase in taxes altogether and in the end the treasury would collect less in taxes rather than more. 

This is the difficult dance that Obama has attempted to perform.   As we know from this past election Obama demonized the rich by going after one of their own ... Mitt Romney.  He cannot take back all of his rhetoric and negative ads and expect the golden goose to which he has beaten over the head time and time again to lay its golden eggs at his feet.  Instead it may spurn his requests and make him go without.

But wait a minute you say, "We've seen many rich people saying they would gladly pay more in taxes.  So maybe they don't feel so badly about the president"

To me, however, the rich can be divided into 2 camps:  earners and non-earners.

Earners:
   - Business owners and CEO's
   - Entrepreneurs
   - Inventors
   - Capital Investors

Non-earners
   - Hollywood stars
   - Sport Athletes (NBA, NFL, MLB etc)
   - Musicians and Singers
   - Hedge Fund managers




Now looking at those 2 lists you may be thinking.. "CEOs??"    Yes they do earn the money they are  paid.  Did they just wake up one day and say "Make me a CEO!" ?  No.  Many worked their way up through the manager ranks and VP levels to prove their ability to manage large groups of people and large budgets.  They make the big decisions like:

- Where to build (or close)
- What to make (or not make)
- When to hire (and when to fire)
- When to split stocks (or buy them back)

Those who fill out the non-earners ranks of course do work hard at what they do, but often they do not make decisions that effect the lives of 1000's of people and while they may give us a few minutes of enjoyment, they do not move the world forward and give us more stuff to put under our proverbial "christmas tree".   The non-earners are of course MORE than happy to give up more of their NON-EARNED-INCOME to the government for that which is not earned is not appreciated whether that be a welfare check or a big-paycheck from a movie studio.

What about the sub-millionaires?  Those making $250K or more?   They can't live on their acquired wealth as well so won't they be paying more in taxes? 

To a point yes.  But we will not go unscathed because most of these are small business owners who will either make up for the higher taxes either by charging more for their services or by laying off some of their workers to increase their profits.  Either way, everyone will be paying these taxes and not just the top 1 or 2 percent.

Secession is NOT an option

Recently the White House web-site has been inundated with requests to allow their states to secede from the union peacefully.

First of all, I understand the frustration of losing the election.  It hurts.  I also know the frustration of knowing what is coming down the pipe towards us.  More taxes. More regulation. Less freedom.  More crap from the White House.  It's like the time when I was in the backyard with some friends years ago and we were watching our kids play on the swing when we saw my friends 3 year run in front of the swinging kids.  We knew what was about to happen but were powerless as we watched my son swing right into her, knocking her over like a bowling pin.  It all happened in slow motion in our minds and I swear I felt a pain strike into me before she was struck.

So to it is with what we see happening before our very eyes.  The death of the Republic and the rise of Socialist-States-of-America.

But in reality we are still the UNITED STATES of AMERICA.  We must stick together and hope that through education (not the kind the schools provide) we can win back the hearts of our citizenry.  Secession is NOT the answer because there are many around the world who would LOVE to see that happen for they know a divide USA is an impotent USA.   Tough times are ahead.  The 70's were not a cake-walk either.  High gas prices. High unemployment. High interest rates (18%).  Hostages in Iran.  A Republican party in disarray after Watergate.  A military coming back from its first defeat (Vietnam).   Yet with all of this, America turned around and voted in Ronald Reagan in a land-slide.  It can happen again, but only if we stick together.

Finally, I do not think it wise to "sign" the White House website request to secede.  Putting your name on a document that some could use against you in the future is not a wise thing.  I know it may be a way of "protesting" but protest is only useful if it brings about a change.  This type of protest will never bring about change and is a dead end.   Some have decided to protest by flying their flag upside down.  This has been used by sea going vessels as a sign of "distress" and is not dishonoring the flag.  However, I say do not do this lightly.  Be ready for those around you who do not understand this as a sign of distress to call you unpatriotic and look to do you harm.   Also, be ready with an answer to those who question your upside-down-flag.  Be reasonable and thoughtful.  Not angry.

If you have read my other blogs you know how much value I put in education. To me that is half the battle.  For too long we let our public schools do all the teaching and this is what they have brought us.  We must first educate ourselves and then our children, our grand-children, nieces, nephews, boy-scouts .. who ever.  We must teach them REAL history and REAL values. We are blessed by God with the internet and EASY access to materials both written and in videos.  We can show them  Reagan's 1964 speech and Milton Friedmans 1980 TV series "Free to chose" .  There are also countless websites that offer education free of charge such as : Prager University and  Declaration Entertainment


And these are just a few..