Don't mock a comic

   There's an old saying that says,

"Don't get into arguments with people who buy ink by the barrel".  

    This adage was aimed mostly at politicians and it meant that a newspaper has the resources to make you look really bad to a whole lot of people.  Therefore you should just leave them alone even if they are wrong in their assessment of you.   In our modern world I would modify this saying to include TV-comics who have their own daily one hour length show.   Namely, for this article, none other than Jon Stewart.

    It seems Jon cannot take criticism these days when he is called out for his mistakes on his show he will use his show to criticize the critics that he already has it in for...  Republicans.   

Check out the video for yourself here

 

    If I were to give any advice for politicians or other news media that wish to engage him it would simply be this.   DON'T DO IT!   For as in the old case of newspapers (which no one reads anymore), Jon Stewart has more writers (over 30 for his 1 hour show) and a daily opportunity to mock and deride you without the need to actually supply substantial facts and his use of video-clips so short they are hard to call them "clips". 

    A second reason I would not engage him is simply this.   Most of your viewers/followers are not people who frequent his show and vice versa not many of his viewers are frequently exposed to you either.  This is because most of his listeners are what Karl Marx referred to as "useful idiots".  They want sound-bite policy that is easy for their partially functioning drug infused brains to digest. They are more interested in tingling their funny-bone rather than stimulate their logic-processing parts of their brains.   So for the most part, your complaints will either go unnoticed or have no meaning at all and therefore a total waste of your time.

    So when Jon Stewart mocks you.... just move on and know his followers are a completely lost cause not worth the time saving.

Congress is merely window-dressing

   Here is a video of Congressman Trey Gowdy questioning an immigration official about the President's new executive-order/law on immigration.   One major thing you might want to notice is how Congress now must ask for information about what is in the laws the President is implementing and getting this information is extremely muddled and lacking any clarity.   The official (Marielena Hincapie) must discuss with the congressman to communicate exactly what the order will be and that much of the "details" have yet to be laid out and will be decided NOT by Congress, but instead by the Department Of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security.   They will decide who will stay and who will go and it seems that they will inform Congress on a needs to know basis.

     Congress has officially been moved to the capacity of mere "window dressing".   They no longer make the laws in our country but now only serve as figureheads to appear on camera for the media.   The real government now are the endless bureaucrats in countless government agencies taking their direction from the President.  We have noticed over the past 6 years a change in tone from these agency heads as they appear in Congressional oversight committee meetings.   They no longer fear Congress at all.  They will lie directly to their faces. They will hold back information and destroy government documents and equipment to hide their illegal actions.  They will plead the 5th amendment and walk away without a care in the world.   They will disrespect the members of Congress and show no concern.   They do so, because they know the DOJ has their back and will not prosecute them and even if they somehow get caught they will be either allowed to retire with full benefits or they will be put on administrative leave until the heat is off of them.

    Some say Congress can get their power back by managing "the purse" and de-funding various agencies that are involved in this debacle of executive overreach.   Maybe they can, but my bet is on the agencies.  Somehow they will either shuffle money around unbeknownst to Congress to keep those actions alive or they will find some way to keep Congress at bay through the courts. 

    But the real loser in this battle is the American people.   WE THE PEOPLE no longer have a say in the laws that are made.   First it started with the 17th amendment that took the power away from the States to have a say in the federal government when senators were no longer elected by the state legislatures but instead by the people of the states.    Without senators reporting back to their own state legislatures,  they no longer had a voice.   Now the President, without any Constitutional amendment, has usurped the power of writing and changing legislation from Congress.   OUR voice now in Congress is gone as well and we no longer have a say in our government.   Laws from now on , even if passed by both houses and signed by the President, will only serve has "hints" or "suggestions" which can be ignored if necessary.    Our FOURTH branch of government, the countless bureaucracies, will be our new masters.  
 

What would you do?

      A friend of mine was working as a cashier in a Walmart store when he saw a family come through with 2 carts loaded with every imaginable toy.  The boy (about 8 years old) was grinning from ear to ear while the mother looked a little sheepish and the father very unhappy.  My friend asked of the boy, "Is it your birthday?".   The boy exclaimed, "Oh no!  My birthday isn't for 3 months.   I am getting these because all my toys are all broken and I need new ones!".  My friend asked, "How did they they get broken?"  To which the boy replied, "I smashed them!"     "Why would you do that?" asked my friend.   "Because I was angry about not going to the movies with my friends" said the boy.    At this point the mother interjected and said, "He has a bit of a temper and he realized he was wrong to do it and says he will try to do better".   The father standing behind the mother said nothing, but only glared wide-eyed at my friend as if to say, "I don't agree to this at all!".

     Imagine if YOU were that father and you were paying the price for your child's temper-tantrum.  What is the likelihood that this child grows up to be a good, decent, well-adjusted, caring human-being?   Not likely at all.    Such a family where one parent allows all hell to break loose with no repercussions and the other wants to lower the boom cannot be good for the child.   The child will of course cozy up to the lenient parent to get their way in the future.   He will know who to turn to when life deals them heaps of problems from their bad choices and the lenient parent will never let the child grow up to be a responsible adult.  They will keep him in perpetual childhood living in their shadow to protect them from the big bad world.

     Now I must confess to you that the above story, never really happened.  I wrote it as a parable to show what has happened in the city of Ferguson and what will transpire in the coming months and years.

The child:

Represents the rioters who took to the streets after not getting an indictment for the death of Mike Brown. These "boy-men" did not get what they wanted and rather than accept the answer given them by a jury of 12 citizens who heard eye-witness testimony from 50 people (6 witnesses who were black said Mike Brown charged at the police and did not stop coming at him until he was shot dead).   These "boy-men" had an adult-sized-temper-tantrum and destroyed everything in their sight with arson and looting.

The broken toys:

The businesses in Ferguson that employ the people of Ferguson and the city vehicles burned by the protesters.  

The mother:

Represents the politicians (Republicans AND Democrats) that will seek to sooth the rioters anger with "new toys" in the form of buildings, parks and maybe a new school or town hall.  They will call for endless committees and conferences (mostly in Vegas) to discuss white-on-black crime even though most crime in their are is black-on-black.   Main street will be renamed Michael-Brown-Avenue and schools will have an additional holiday added to their list of days off.   

The father:

Represents the private-sector business-owners and taxpayers.  They are stuck with the bill for all the new toys that need to be bought.   Their employment and property taxes will go up to fix the buildings and pay for all kinds of social programs.  Their insurance premiums will go up.   Their labor costs will go up (minimum wage hikes).   They will pay for security services to protect their properties from future assaults.   They will restock their shelves with new merchandise to replace the looted items they lost and fix the broken windows and burned down walls.    They like the father will have their anger burn quietly inside them as to open their mouths would be unleash more pain and suffering from the mother who can make their lives a living hell.

    I know that all parables fail at some point.   I know that not everyone who rioted in Ferguson was FROM Ferguson and that many came from other cities just to have a "good time" at others expense.   I know many in Ferguson stayed home on that night, but as the famous anti-Hitler German Pastor Bonhoeffer said, "Not to speak is to speak, Not to act is to act"  and so those who stayed home rather than than stand up to the protesters and protect their homes and businesses are just as guilty as those who showed up to create havoc.  When we let those with evil intents to outnumber the good people we deserve what we get. 

    This is the hidden danger when we see our government swoop in to "save the day".  Whether its a man-made disaster like a riot or a natural-disaster like a hurricane or flood, government patching it all up after its done to make it all "good again" only encourages others to not be responsible.   I think people begin to expect the government to fix it all up at no cost to us so we in turn do nothing to protect ourselves to make sure it never happens again.   Like people who continue to build their houses on Florida beaches and in flood areas by major rivers, so also people of riot torn areas learn nothing and become less willing to stop the next riot from occurring as they know the riot will be followed by more government funding and loans.

   How do you think the people of Ferguson would have reacted if they knew that no one was going to come to their aid after the riots?   Maybe Ferguson should be left in tatters as a reminder to everyone that this is the price of rioting and looting.   Like the broken toys strewn around the boy's bedroom all broken and smashed, the burned businesses and police cars will be a constant reminder to the people that there is a price to pay for bad behavior and maybe the next city faced with the same angry mobs will do more than just stay home and let evil have its way.

Mike Brown and the Boston Massacre

   Karl Marx once referred to religion as "the opiate of the masses" because to him it placated the people to not rise up in violent revolution which is why he advocated for the removal of religion from the world and the adherence to atheism.   In some ways, Marx was right but even a broken clock is right twice a day and so he is as well.  He is correct that Christianity in particular calls for us to pray for our leaders, respect those in authority, and love those who persecute us.  These ideas are very anti-violent-revolutionary and run completely counter to those who advocate such behaviors.  Secondly its followers have hope in a better world yet to come and know this world will always be a far cry from our future one.   Thirdly, we believe God is ultimately in control and will have the final say in what happens on this earth and no one ever really gets away with murder.  Because of these ideals and principles, it's hard to stir people up into a frenzy when they see that no matter what you promise to do to reform their current situation it will never ever be perfect.

      However it's not completely impossible to rally the Christians to revolt.  First,  your cause must first be seen as just and second it must be the only card left to play.  Take for example our own revolution in 1776.  The leaders of this revolution were pious and very religious yet they came to the conclusion nothing else could be done.  But because of their faith, they did not rush into revolution or war.  They sought other means for many months and years.  They wrote countless letters of opposition to the King to seek compromise yet time and time again they only saw the British increase their clamp on their throats.  Some tried to use violence to push the Colonists into war but these methods were short-lived.  Take for example the so-called "Boston Massacre" in 1770 in which 5 people were killed in the fight when an unruly crowd (some drunk) ran into a group of British soldiers.  While many tried to capitalize on this event, others used reason to see their way through it.  One such person was none other than John Adams (our future 3rd president) who, as a trained lawyer, represented the British soldiers in court.  Even his own wife Abigail pleaded with him to not take the case as it was a lose-lose proposition.  If he won the soldiers their freedom he might be ostracized by the people of Boston and never have another case to take.  If he lost the case and the soldiers were hanged, he would have the king and his army to deal with.  Yet he decided to take the case anyway and was able to get them acquitted because the call to "fire" came from the crowd and not from regiment leader (as witnessed by a person in the crowd).   Justice was served and the flames of revolution were squelched for the time being.

    Today is no different.  We see people trying desperately to use the Mike Brown case as a cause for their own revolution.  They stand with their hands up saying "Don't Shoot" after which they loot and burn local businesses.  To them, Mike Brown is the new Boston Massacre and hate mongers like Rev. Al Sharpton inflame their hatred of the police and people who don't stand with them (I guess Jesus words of "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" never made into the Al's Bible reading list).  Like the Boston Massacre justice was sought.  A grand jury was convened and after 50 eye-witnesses (many of them black) and even testimony by the police officer who was allowed to be questioned for over 4 hours (also note, grand juries do NOT have defense attorney's present.. only prosecuting attorneys) a ruling of non-acquittal was reached which meant the jurors did not feel a crime had been committed by police officer because:

• Mike Brown performed a strong arm robbery and the police officer received this account when he detained Mike Brown for walking in the middle of a busy street.
• Mike Brown initiated the attack by punching the officer  through his open window
• Mike Brown tried to shoot the officer with his own gun (autopsy confirmed with shot to his hand at a very close range)
• Mike Brown was shot ONLY from the front (and not from the back)
• Mike Brown was fatally shot in the head with the bullet entering the top of his head as he was leaning towards the office when he rushed him.
• No witness testified that Mike Brown was ever on his knees with his hands up saying "Don't Shoot"

   While I am sure there were many in Boston who were angry at John Adams for getting the British soldiers "off the hook"; they ,as a mostly christian nation, did not retaliate with burning Boston or British barracks.   Instead, they allowed justice to be served by the courts.  Could the courts have been wrong?  Of course they can.  No system invented by man is perfect.  Mistakes will be made and good people will sometimes be sent to jail and bad people released to the streets.  However, we entrust real justice to be delivered by a just God when that time comes and so we leave it to him even if we think our system has failed.

      The best example of this in the Bible I can think of is the story of David and King Saul.  Saul was hunting down David because many people loved David and Saul saw him as a threat to his throne.   While hunting David down, Saul went into a cave to relieve himself not knowing David was in the cave as well.  Some of his followers wanted David to kill Saul right there in the cave while he was unprotected.  Instead, David took Saul's cloak and cut a large piece off of it and later yelled at Saul from on top of hill showing Saul that he had the chance to kill him but he did not and he wanted peace with Saul and not war.   The reason David did not take Saul's life was because, to him, Saul was still God's anointed king and he was going to leave it to God when Saul would be replaced rather than usurp it himself. Now imagine that for a second!  Here is a person, with a large following of men wanting him to be the king, who has the opportunity of a lifetime to kill the current king and thus allow himself to ascend to the throne. Yet, he holds himself back because murder is not the right way to gain power.  He respects the kings position and God who has placed him there.      

     I fear that as we lose these basic principles and more people equate JUSTICE with REVENGE we will reach a tipping point where the clear-headed will be overruled by the ignorant, hate-filled crowds and those who manipulate them for their own purpose and want to take power by force.  

Who's buried in Grant's Tomb?

   Any time someone wants to point out the "obvious" they sometimes make a reference to an old riddle that says, "Who is buried in Grant's Tomb" ?   The answer is obvious!  Grant of course!   Some times in life things you take for granted for so long all of a sudden changes and you see something you should have seen a long time ago.  The reason you didn't see it before was because it was too obvious.  It was hidden in plain sight.

    Take for example, the Statue of Liberty. 

    We have all seen the iconic pictures of her standing in the

New York harbor beckoning newcomers to her.  I, like many, always saw her as a symbol of America and her famous poem engraved on her base was a call of immigrants to our shores.  Then last week as I was contemplating this poem (in regards to the Presidents immigration executive order to ignore congressional law) I suddenly realized how wrong I was was.  Like the iconic "Grant's Tomb" riddle the Statue of Liberty is NOT the Statue of America.  She does not represent the United States, but instead she embodies an ideal. A concept if you may.   Her poem is not meant to be a dinner bell to all the world's poor to come to THIS land.  In fact, it would be physically impossible for the United States to assimilate the entire world's poor here in this one small country.  Instead, her call is a CHALLENGE to all the other countries in the world to release their tired poor and their huddled masses to her, LIBERTY.  Her words echo the demands of Moses to Pharaoh some 4000 years ago when he said : "Let my people go!".   She tells them to forget their "storied pomp" as it has not worked and to leave it all behind.   She tells them to try freedom instead.  Her resources and borders are boundless and she will accept any all who come to her shores "yearning to be free"

Given then this insight, now read the famous poem attributed to her with liberty replaced for the statues pronouns (original words in parenthesis)

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and liberty is its (her) name
Mother of Exiles. From liberty's (her) beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; Liberty's (her) mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries liberty (she)
With silent lips. "Give liberty to (me) your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to liberty (me),
Liberty (I) lift its (my) lamp beside the golden door!"

Time is up!

    The President has declared:  TIME IS UP!   Like a teacher timing his students during an exam, his congressional-egg-timer on his desk has gone off and there is no more time to debate.  He he has lost his patience with Congress and with you the American people who are just too stupid to elect good Senators and Congressmen.   To him, the world runs on Obama-Time now and he just could not take it anymore.   Like the guy from the movie "Network" he has decided to open up the window of the White House and yell:

"I am mad as hell and I am not going to take it anymore!"

  
    He is a new American Trinity!  

    No not Father-Son-and-Holy-Spirit, but Legislative-Executive-and-Judicial-branches all rolled up into 1 person and there is nothing we can do about it.  

    What if the Supreme Court says he has overreached?

          He will probably just write new executive orders to override the older ones
          and wait for the next ruling from the Supreme Court (which usually takes
          months if not years to come about).

    What if Congress passes contrary legislation?  

            He will VETO it of course!

    What if Congress passes legislation that is veto proof?   

            He will IGNORE it and will declare the law as "ignorant" and Congress acting "stupidly".

    So here is how it works now.

    1) The President writes his own laws as he sees fit.
    2) If Congress' law is contrary to HIS law then....he gets to VETO it.
    3) If Congress passes a veto proof law, he can IGNORE the law and only implement his law  

    Therefore the only law that gets past the Presidents desk AND gets enforced is the law he has written to begin with.  This being the case, the process becomes simply...

     1) The President writes and enforces the laws.
     2) Congress must accept them as written

  Times up America!   

Democracy is dead!

 

  

The most dangerous court to be convicted in

   What court do you think is the worst one to be found in as a citizen?   Some think its a court in Dallas Texas or some small town in New Mexico or Arizona.   Others might argue that there are probably some pretty nasty courts in New York City where you would never want to find yourself being convicted in.   Visions of judges with axes to grind or being in cahoots with a local prison warden pop into our minds from multiple movies where the hero finds himself doing 25 years of hard labor working swamps and rock quarries. 

    Actually the worst court in America to be convicted in is not a real court at all.

    It's the court of public opinion. 

    What makes this court the most dangerous court in the land?

1) Guilty unless proven innocent without a shadow of a doubt.

Unlike our real courts you are considered guilty as charged.  People will say, "Why would this woman (or person) come up with such a story unless it wasn't true?"  Since they are the victim they are anointed "Sainthood" (and we all know saints never lie).  TV journalists will show countless pictures of them in their youth when they were young and carefree and innocent.  Tears from the victims faces will be played in slow motion with music playing in the background to tug at the juror's heartstrings.

2) Everyone is a juror and no one is a judge.

Do you have a Twitter account?  Then you too can be a juror in this court.  You can send out your whimsical and sarcastic 140 character messages to the Twitto-sphere and wait for your responses from the other jurors (you think to yourself "I missed my calling as a writer on Comedy Central").  Are you a TV personality looking for ratings?   You too can sit in a chair across from the convict to cross examine them and ask them personal questions they don't have to answer and it they don't answer that show complete guilt on their behalf.   You can squint your eyes with a serious look of anger towards the convict and offer a tissue to the victim as they shed tears

3) No 5th amendment rights in this court

As mentioned in the previous paragraph, the convict (note this court never uses the word "accused") is not allowed to NOT answer any questions.  To NOT answer is to confess guilt.  Look at Bill Cosby's radio interview where he decided to NOT answer the question by the host.   His lack of answer was a considered to be a clear and unmistakable confession of guilt.  If you say you don't want to give credence to these questions you are quickly confronted with questions of "don't you feel anything for these people who are accusing you?"

 4) No defense lawyer

In this court, there are very few who will be willing to come to your defense.  Since you are already guilty as charged, those running to your defense will be leveled with the same charge you have been found guilty of already.  You will be called a bigot, or a racist, or a woman hater and you will be only in attendance in this court to set your own future court appearance to be charged as well.

 5) No statute of limitations

What you do and say will be held against you in perpetuity (even after you are long dead).   Take for example what happened to Paula Deen.  She made some racist comment in a court case 30 years ago and it was drummed up and used against her with such force that she had to leave her TV show despite all the evidence to the contrary of what kind of person she is today.   Or another example, Bill Cosby today is being lambasted by women who say he raped them over 40 years ago and none of them ever went to the police to file a complaint or make a formal charge and all the evidence is gone.

6) Endless lawyers for the prosecution

"I'm not a lawyer but I love to play one on TV" is the common phrase used by streams of pretend journalists. These people want nothing more than to sit in a chair across from the convict with their legs crossed and holding the ever important pen and paper in their hand, asking those questions that "just HAVE to be asked".   Questions of the "victims" assume your guilt and probe only when the event occurred and how it felt to be victimized by the convict.  Lawyers will come out of the woodwork in the form of late-night-TV-hosts,  TV talk show hosts, TV gossip shows like "Inside Edition",  comedians, radio personalities, book writers and authors and even Washington politicians looking for anyone to compare themselves to that will make them look like saints.

7) Evidence is anything that proves you are guilty

"I heard a friend of mine who has a sister who is good friends with waitress whose uncle served in the military with a guy who used to mow the lawn of a neighbor 5 houses down from this person and that person said they thought they saw something strange happen around the house but wasn't very sure because they were drunk at the time".  

8) Sentencing never occurs, but the punishment begins immediately

You will be hounded every time you leave your abode.  You will wish you were dead at times and sometimes death is your only way out.   So often we have seen people who later commit suicide or die by drug abuse brought on by their conviction.  After your death, the sentence will be acquitted and loving tributes may be said in your honor with some mention to what caused you to lose hope. They may yet revisit the victims of your "crime" to see if they have found "peace in your dying" or not.   No amount of tears you offer on national television will ever be enough.  Your tears will be analyzed for true contriteness of heart by an array of psychologists who couldn't tell you the difference between schizophrenia and psychosis (but darn they look good on TV).  You may be mocked for your attempt to set things right and say your sorry.  Lawyers against you will say "No amount of tears will undo the damage they have done".   Most convicts will sentence themselves to home jail by locking themselves up in their homes never to be seen again.  (This will be also haled as additional evidence of your guilt as well).


The only GOOD thing to say about this court is that it is SWIFT and it is DECISIVE.  There are no hung courts (just hung convicts) and there are no court of appeals as their motto is:

Reus Supplicia semper, et semel, reus

which means

Once guilty, always guilty  

The New Golden Rule

    The golden rule for this century is, "He who has the gold makes the rules" as our nations banking system today is used as a mechanism to subversively take away our rights as citizens.  Ronald Reagan in 1960 in his address for Barry Goldwater said,

 "What good does it do to own property if you are regulated as to what you can do with that property?"  

This he referred to as State-ism which was a lighter-gentler form of Communism that allows people to own property (whereas communism disallows all private property), but regulates what owners can do with the land whether in building or planting crops.

     Today the Obama administration is doing an end run on our 2nd amendment rights by working through banks to restrict credit on companies that manufacture guns.  The DOJ program, rightly called: Operation Choke Point, seeks to choke out businesses in the firearms industry altogether.   It utilizes laws put on the books to go after the Mafia and drug dealers but now used for other purposes.  As we learned in 2008, credit is the life-blood of business and without it they wither and die quickly.  If successful, they would be able to eventually drive out all gun manufacturers and prevent us from owning guns.  Thus the 2nd amendment becomes as meaningless as the 3rd amendment (quartering of soldiers) as we would "technically" still have the right to own a gun, but no where to buy one (or even if you could the cost would be too prohibitive for most Americans).

    The federal government has no right under the Constitution to control the economy of legal enterprises (especially one that is guaranteed by the Constitution itself).   This is a misuse of the laws on the books used to take down the mafia and drug cartels who do business outside the confines of the law.   But as with all laws, they can be used for good and for bad depending on who is making the rules at the time.

    Could such laws be used to control us as well?   Possibly.

    Take for example if the government wants to limit how far from work you live.  If the government thinks everyone should walk to work and not drive they could use the credit system to control you as well.   Therefore when you go to apply for a car loan they take into account the distance between your work and your home.  If further than 3 miles, they cannot approve your loan.  The same could be with regards to your mortgage as well.   Too far from your places of work?  Forget about it!   Maybe you should rent a government approved apartment near your work instead?   How about your child's college education?   You want them to go to a Christian college?   Forget about it!   How about a nice state sponsored college instead?   Your church wants a loan to expand or build a new building?   Forget about it!  (unless your church is willing to change their stance on abortion).

     The possibilities are endless... unless we tell our congressmen to investigate and put an end to this abuse of law abiding citizens.
        

The Ends Justify The Means

    Every child (well hopefully every child) has been told by a parent or teacher at some point in their
young life that "the ends does NOT justify the means" or another version of the proverb, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions".   I can probably re-count half a dozen TV family sit-coms from "The Andy Griffith Show" to "Growing Pains" to "The Cosby Show" where a TV dad or mom tries to enlighten their young TV child that good intentions never trumps lying and or stealing to achieve those ends.  Normally the child sets out to fix some problem on their own and in their pre-adolesant mind it all makes sense at the moment, but as they go along things begin to unravel like a bad sweater and their lies begin to catch up to them until they can't do it anymore and the parent lovingly scolds them and sets them back on the right path.

    Yet somewhere in our world those lessons were missed or never taught at all.  Take for example, poor professor Jonathan Gruber of MIT.  In video after video he discusses how lies and deceit were used to get ObamaCare pushed through Congress.  He tells us how it was written in tortuous language to make it near impossible for the CBO to score it and to see that the mandate was in fact a TAX on the American public.   He goes on about how they intended to "dupe" the American public who he refers to as "the stupidity of the American voter" or how the average voter has little or no knowledge of economics.   This has caused many democrats now to distance themselves from Mr. Gruber.  Nancy Pelosi for example says "I don't know the man" but videos show her saying glowing things about his report back in 2009.  The White House says he was not involved in the writing of the legislation yet they paid him over $400K for his work and reports say he may have been compensated even more than this amount.  (Don't worry Mr. Gruber, even Jesus was disowned by his own disciples in the same manner). 

    To the left, we are just stupid sheep that are too stupid to live our own lives.  To them ObamaCare is so beneficial for us that they must use lies and deceit to get their way.   This of course is not the first time they have done this.   It is the same method they used to get Social Security passed through Congress in the 1930's.  On record, they passed it as a government "insurance" plan (That is why your paycheck says FICA .. Federal Insurance Contributions Act) but when Congress wanted to use this money for other social welfare programs it was brought to the Supreme Court.  It was there in front of the court that they confessed that they only used the word "insurance" to sell it to the American people and that really it was a tax to be used for any purpose they sought fit in keeping with the "general welfare" clause of the Constitution.  But the arguments didn't end there either.  Even today this bill is argued in court over whether or not American citizens have a contractual claim to benefits from the Federal government as anyone would have in any normal "insurance plan".  If it's not really an insurance plan then the federal government could argue that we have not claim to benefits when we retire (the so called lock box is empty).

   While this may anger a lot of people, it doesn't anger me anymore.  Not because I am numb to the matter, but because I try to see the bigger picture.  In my opinion, these people should be pitied more than anything. I actually feel sorry for them because their lives are wrapped up in one long string of lies and deceit that just gets more messy as they go.   Maybe it's because the left predominately sees no need of God in our world (my opinion).  To many of them there is no heaven or hell, there is just here and now and therefore they must make this the best heaven on earth they can create. To do this, requires lots of force and coercion to accomplish as not everyone is going to enjoy the earthly heaven you set out to create.  To do this, they must spend every waking hour addressing every new video that comes up and every lie they said with new and improved lies.    They will have to re-write and ignore sections of their laws as the unexpected consequences of their legislation begin to become obvious to the voters.   As Reagan put it best, "The more the plans fail, the more the planners plan" until it consumes every minute of their lives on earth.  To that, all I can say is....

    What a pathetic lot they have become.

    Or as in the proverb by the famous Scottish author, Sir Walter Scott

 "Oh what a wicked web we weave when first we practice to deceive"

 

Fixing the problem of Executive Orders

   Executive orders have been around almost since our founding with George Washington issuing 8 such orders.   The president with the record of MOST Executive Orders is good old Teddy Roosevelt with a whopping 1,081 Executive Orders issued and the only president to NEVER use it was William Harrison.  While many will argue that it's not the number of orders but the power of each Executive Order that is abused we still must somehow come to grips with and how to balance such power whether for good or for bad.

   I have watched countless political pundits on TV list things congress can do to stand up to the President and his idea to use Executive Orders to "fix" the immigration issue that he says he has "grown tired" of waiting for an answer from Congress.  Their ideas to fix  this "Constitutional Crisis" range from impeachment (which they don't have the stomach for), to suing the President, to shutting down the government or de-funding parts of the immigration department.   None of which seems effective against this President as he has nothing to lose with only 2 years left and his "legacy" will be written by liberal scholars and glossed over in time with him being America's first Black President (Sorry Bill).   Also, the President, who claims to be a Constitutional scholar (though he was never a tenured professor of any college), has it completely backwards.  He has said that Congress can always pass a law that super-cedes his "law" (he meant order...but you get what he means).  But that is not our system.  Congress passes legislation and the President can veto them.  The president does not make laws and Congress vetoes them with legislation.   In fact, nothing would stop the president from vetoing their legislation in the end by declaring their law as either "wrong-headed" or "going too far" and letting his "law" super-cede theirs.
  
     But there is another answer for this Constitutional Crisis and its staring you right in the face.

     It's the Constitution of course!

     The only way to fix a Constitutional Crisis is to have a Constitutional fix.  And I think given the

situation right now it is ripe for implementation since both the left and the right are on record as being against Executive Orders (when its the other side of course).   Congress now sees that their power is dwindling and the President is usurping most of it from them.   And as in the words of that great political thinker, Rahm Emmanuel, who said "We should never let a good crisis go to waste" we too should take advantage of this crisis as well.

     What can be done?

     First of all we must accept that some executive action is required at times to address issues that cannot wait for Congress to convene or are too trivial to be of their concern.   So while we don't want to strip the President of all of his power to manage minor governmental details, at the same time Congress does need to have a check to determine if his actions are encroaching on their authority or are in defiance of the people and the Constitution that we live by.

    An answer came to me while watching an NFL football game.  Today each coach is given the power to play "referee" during the game by the throwing of a "red flag" to request the last play to be reviewed by the leagues referees (who are watching the game in New York).   The coach is given 2 red flags per game.   He must use these flags wisely because if the ruling on the field stands (was deemed correct) then the coach loses the flag and is also charged a timeout.   If he's right and the ruling is overturned he gets his flag back and is not charged a timeout. Call it an "NFL check and balance".

   A similar process could be done for Executive Orders.  First of all, the president would have a special Executive Order pen.   Second his order would need to provide an expiration date of no more than 90 days.   During this 90 day period, Congress can convene and vote on allowing his order to stand or not.  If they approve the EO, the President gets his Executive Order pen back immediately.  If they veto his order, he loses his pen for TWICE the expiration time (max of 180 days).  In this way he is prevented from re-issuing the exact same order back-to-back indefinitely (there could be an additional clause that after 4 vetoes he loses his pen for the remainder of the year or term.

    I believe Congress could get this done as both side hate it when Presidents abuse this power and it would re-balance the power between the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch at the same time give the President some control over the government.








    

Falling Short

   Football is often called a game of inches played on a field measured in yards.  Recently I saw a video clip of a Utah State football player making one of the largest goofs in college football history.   You can see the clip here.  The mistake was so narrow that it even went unnoticed by the announcers on TV.   What happened?

   A player for Utah had caught a pass and run it in for a touchdown, but just 1 yard short of the end zone decided to drop the ball.  The referee noticed this and did not signal a touchdown and while the Utah players we celebrating an Oregon player realized the situation and picked up the ball and ran it back 99 yards for a touchdown. 

      The reason I decided to write this blog is not to rub salt into the Utah players wound ( I am sure this will haunt him for years to come) but instead to use this story as an illustration of how we are in God's eyes on our own merits.   Paul says in Romans, "For all fall short of the glory of God...".   Just as the Utah player fell short and it didn't matter to the referee that he had all intentions of scoring a touchdown, the fact was that the ball did not cross the goal line.  Some would say this is knit-picking and close should be "good enough" but that is not how it is in football or in God's world.  

    It's sad to see such effort wasted.  It pained me to watch the players face as he saw what he had done on the TV screen in the stadium.  He messed up and it cost the team a touchdown.   He let down his team, his coach and his school.   God too is pained by our loss.  He is not sitting on the opposite sideline cheering our misfortune.  Instead, he is there sitting next to us on the bench consoling us.  But not consoling like we do here on earth with words like "There there... you'll do better next time" or "We all mess up sometimes.. its ok.."     Instead he has the power to rewrite the history books and the scoreboard.   We look up at the TV screen and we don't see US dropping the ball but instead his own Son , Jesus Christ fumbling the ball at the 1 yard line and taking the punishment for us.

    John writes:  "He who knew no sin, became sin for us"

    That's called the grace of God.