Land Of The Free: Blessing or Curse

Dear Mr. President:

2010-02-26T13:40:00.000-08:00

Thank you so much for hosting the health care summit February 25, 2010. It was very informative. It clearly illustrated how out of touch you are with the American people and disproved any claim that you are not an ideologue.

I only need cite one example as proof. You agreed that the CBO stated health care premiums would increase for the average American. But you insisted this was a good thing because we would get better coverage for that increased premium. In fact, I believe you stated, in a patronizing manner, that we would be happy that our lousy coverage would be replaced by better coverage. This statement is not only incorrect, it is arrogant.

The stated purpose of health care reform is to reduce cost so that more Americans can be covered. And all polls show that 85% of Americans are happy with their health care. So how is it a good thing to increase cost for better coverage when the goal is to reduce costs and 85% of Americans that have health care are happy with their coverage?

I understand that I am not as smart as you are. But I think one of us does not understand the issue.

Further, you correctly stated that this is what elections are for. Elections do have consequences - often unintended. I did not vote for you because I studied your background and understood where you would take us. I tried to convince everyone I knew. But they voted for change. Unfortunately, the change you are bringing is an unintended consequence of the American people voting without research. I do not believe that will happen again. This is why you are a one term president.

Sincerely,

Wilke Renwick

They Just Don't Get It

2010-02-04T14:43:00.000-08:00

I have been communicating with my Senators and Congressional Representative more than ever over the last year. The most common subject has been health care reform. It has been very interesting to see how little their responses have changed even as the opinion of the American people has changed dramatically over the course of the debate. As the American people have learned more and more about the health care reform proposed by the Democrat majority, the more they know they do not want it. Sure, we all know we need reform. But it is not a health care problem. We have the best health care in the world. The problem is access. We need to lower the cost and make health care more accessible to all Americans. But neither the House, nor the Senate bill address this. They are attempting to use a chain saw to fix what needs a scalpel.

Here is what I wrote to my Senators today. Since I live in Virginia, I wrote to Senators Webb and Warner. But you can substitute the name of any Democrat Senator, and virtually any Democrat Congressional Representative and the fit is perfect. If every American who believes the "leadership" in Washington is going the wrong direction communicates with their representatives two things can happen. They will listen and say no to the mess they call reform, or they will not listen and we will say no to them when they ask for our vote.

Senator Virgina Senator,

Thank you for your reply regarding the health care debate that is continuing on Capitol Hill. I understand you support the Senate plan rather than the House plan. However, you should know that the majority of your constituents, and the majority of Americans across the nation, do not support either plan. The reason is simple. Both plans are variants on a theme and the theme is an unashamed power grab by the elitists in Washington who believe that only they, and not the American people, have the intelligence, the common sense, and the right to decide how our nation is run.

Virginia Senator, you are wrong. You work for the people of Virginia. We are not unintelligent. We balance our check books and pay our bills, which is more than can be said about the Federal Government. And we are watching.

You need to do what is right for America. Congress needs to hit the reset button and take the health care debate back to square one. The President has continued to say that the Republican party is the party of NO and that the GOP has no ideas or vision. You know that is not true. What you do not seem to recognize is that the ideas proposed by the GOP have much greater chance of success than anything proposed by the Democrat majority.

What we need in health care reform is inter-state competition, true tort reform (tough one because the Democrats are beholden to the defense lawyers of America), a move away from employer based (legislated by big government) insurance by providing tax breaks for individuals so they can afford to purchase their own insurance (in the free marketplace with interstate competition) and tax incentives for health savings accounts so that individuals can save money for their basic health care and only need insurance for catastrophic care.

Analogies have been made between auto insurance and health insurance. Most of these to not hold up under close scrutiny. But as healthy competition between automobile insurers continues to bring down the cost and improve the coverage, so too could healthy competition between health insurers.

Virginia Senator, the Senate and House both have it all wrong. What we need is not Universal Health Care. What we need is not more big government intervention into our lives. What we need is a free market based system free from government intervention. This is what has made America the most prosperous country in the world over the last two hundred plus years, and it is the model being employed by the most successful emerging economies today. Failure to recognize this will not only doom your future in the Senate, it will also doom our great nation once and for all.

Wake up! Do the right thing! Stand up to the President and the Senate majority leader! Vote no on any health care plan currently under consideration! Hit the RESET button! Go back to square one! Our nation depends upon it.

Home Ownership RESET

2010-02-03T14:24:00.000-08:00

I read an interesting article today in the Wall Street Journal entitled "Home Ownership Declines". I believe a more appropriate name for this article would be "Home Ownership Reset". The title that was chosen would be appropriate if home ownership had declined to unreasonable levels. But home ownership has, in fact, only been reset to reasonable levels.

This is similar to the President's idea of a spending "freeze". He promises to freeze spending, but that only means no further increases. The increases of an out of control Democrat Congress and administration are already in place, and so spending will be frozen at a level that is far from sustainable. He needs a reset button to make the freeze meaningful.

Similarly, home ownership has only declined from artificially inflated levels to more realistic levels. The Democrat controlled Congress and administration of the early '90s passed legislation to "encourage" lenders to make homes more affordable so that an increasing number of Americans could live the American Dream of home ownership. This "encouragement" was so compelling - translate "threatening" - that financial institutions made mortgages available to borrowers with no hope of paying them. Additionally, lenders became very creative with new mortgage instruments that would make it possible for even more Americans who could not afford homes to buy them. Adjustable rate (ARMS), interest only and no money down mortgages made home ownership seem possible for almost anybody with a pulse.

Unfortunately, this strategy backfired when the housing bubble burst and we experienced the recent housing crisis. What we had was a political and cultural crisis. Politicians made it seem possible for anybody to live the dream, and Americans used to buying everything from cars to cigarettes on credit dreamed big! As reality set in with the burst of the bubble, artificially inflated home prices dropped back to reasonable levels leaving many home "owners" under water in their mortgages. Many more could not continue to pay their mortgage payments at all as the bill continued to balloon when the rates adjusted.

As a result, those who really could not afford a home at all, and those with eyes bigger than their budget, lost their homes. Therefore we see the reported rate of home ownership decline. The truth is, home ownership rates have simply reset to a realistic and sustainable level.

See what happens when the government gets involved in the free market? Not only do individual citizens lose, but we also get a great news story out of it.

What Price for Clean Energy?

2009-12-22T09:13:00.000-08:00

The Clean Energy Act of 2009 does recognize three critical points: we must continue to depend upon nuclear energy; we must develop renewable energy sources; and we must have energy independence. I admit there there are also elements in this act that will create jobs. But energy independence and common sense should not become victims of clean energy.

Nuclear energy is currently the cleanest, most powerful and dependable source of electrical energy. But we have not built a single new reactor in decades. So this is a trend we will have to reverse, and that will require a battle against the Obama administration. This is crucial. We must expand our nuclear energy capability.

In order to be responsible stewards of the planet we must also develop renewable energy sources. Americans have always proven that we innovate and adapt. If this challenge was couched in the same language as Kennedy's race for space, we could expand our renewable energy sources dramatically in the next decade.

However, the third point is the most important. We must be energy independent. At this point, fossil fuels are still absolutely essential. We have a very long way to go before we will have hybrid fighter jets, or hydrogen powered transport aircraft. To think that we can defend our nation without fossil fuels is absurd. So, critical to our national security is energy independence, and currently that means fossil fuels.

Therefore we must drill here and drill now and we must develop more clean coal technologies. We must utilize the oil, natural gas and coal that are found in great abundance right here at home.

Yes, the clean energy act is a good idea. But it is not yet time to turn away from fossil fuels. It would be foolhardy to do this before we truly can sustain - and defend - our nation with nuclear and renewable energy resources alone.

Could Hasan Get Away with Murder?

2009-11-13T11:50:00.000-08:00

Political correctness has taken yet another turn for the bizarre as the dramatic tragedy at Ft. Hood continues to unfold. There has been great debate as to whether or not these murders could have been prevented if not for political correctness. Some of my favorite journalists have weighed in on the subject: Charles Krauthammer, Ann Coulter, and even one of my favorite action heroes, Chuck Norris. And I agree with each and every one of them. We have become so politically correct, and so afraid of speaking the truth for fear of insulting someone, or some group, that our security is at risk. I believe that our most recent American terrorist (alleged), Hasan, sent up enough red flags to have forewarned his neighbors, patients, fellow doctors and fellow officers to have smoked him out long, long ago. This tragedy truly could have been, and should have been, prevented.

Even worse, because post incident, politicians and prosecutors are afraid to call this terror attack a terror attack and hence, call a terrorist a terrorist, Hasan may actually get away with murder. If Major Hasan (I truly abhor even using the United States Army rank in his title) were called a terrorist, he would be tried as an enemy combatant and, if found guilty, chances are he would receive the appropriate sentence. However, it is clear that his criminal defense lawyers may use an insanity defense. Headlines, even in the Wall Street Journal, have already called him psychotic. And if he is deemed mentally ill, due to harassment and PTSD (PRE Traumatic Stress Syndrome) we may even see a not guilty verdict. With the trial in criminal court, it is a crap shoot. One thing is certain. He will not be convicted of terrorism. But as we all watch this fiasco, this miscarriage of justice, let's all be open minded and wait until all the evidence is in. Then let us all decide whether, based upon the evidence, he receives the appropriate sentence from criminal proceedings, and weigh the verdict and sentence against what may have been the result of a military tribunal for crimes of high terror. Perhaps the evidence in a criminal trial will exonerate him completely. You never can tell with eye witnesses.

Here's A Surprise

2009-11-02T07:08:00.000-08:00

Bank of New York Mellon Corporation CEO Robert Kelly has reportedly declined an offer to become the next CEO of Bank of America when current CEO Ken Lewis retires. What a surprise! Imagine that! Two years ago, the CEO position at Bank of America was probably one of the most coveted in the industry. But now, who in their right mind would want the job? Since Bank of America was compelled to accept TARP funds it did not need, and then was strong-armed to complete a deal to purchase failing Merrill Lynch, it's stock price has plummeted as has it's reputation! Though analysts still believe in the strength of the institution, the board will be hard pressed to find a replacement for Lewis, who is expected to retire at years end.

Why? I could exhaust pages documenting how U.S. government regulation and policies meddling in the market makes this position undesirable. I could speak of how the close scrutiny of any actions by the banking industry's major players makes deal-making nearly impossible. But that is not my point.

The point is that Ken Lewis, who has built the strongest, most diversified financial institution in the nation, has been vilified by the government and the press. But the actions taken to punish Lewis have far greater implications. This is the first sign of what has been argued will be the negative consequences of government interference. The top talent in the banking industry, or any industry, will steer clear of any position in any institution beholden -whether by force or choice - to the Obama administration. The administration will keep pay from being competitive, keep decision makers under a microscope, and prevent them from making decisions that are good for the business because success and profit are considered evils by those in political power. This is how insidious socialism is. Those with political power will succeed in stifling competition in many ways. This is only the beginning.

"Technologies that aren't proven and cost effective"

2009-03-09T09:28:00.000-07:00

I have not been here for a while. Frankly, the whole political process leading up to the election burned me out. I have been watching with dismay as President Obama has begun his assault on all that is good and right in America. But I was not motivated to write until I read the "Morning Bell" from the Heritage Foundation this morning. The subject was Defense spending. The position the president has taken is so ridiculous I nearly fell out of my chair laughing when I read about it.

President Obama seems to agree with Barney Frank - one of the architects of the meltdown in the housing market - that one of the greatest threats to fiscal recovery is massive Defense spending! What a hoot! Defense spending over the last number of years has been less than four percent - yes, that's 4% - of our GDP! I wish someone could tell me how spending four percent of the GDP on anything could ruin our hope of recovery. When you consider that Defense spending also drives the economy forward as products are researched, developed, built and fielded, this statement becomes even more comical.

But the statement that gave me the full belly laugh was the assertion of our president himself regarding new and unproven defense technologies! Our esteemed leader stated that we should "invest in technologies that are proven and cost-effective...If a system is not ready to be developed, we should not pour resources into it"! How does our president, who has never served in the military, think that we maintain the premier fighting forces of the world? Does he think that we wait for China, Russia or Japan develop a technology before we are willing to employ it? How can we keep a step ahead of our enemies if we do not explore the newest technologies? But even this is not what got me rolling around on the floor!

The thing that got me laughing so hard I could hardly breathe was thinking about the billions of dollars Mr. Obama wants us to invest in unproven "green" energy technologies! Billions have been spent on these technologies since the term "green" was invented, and the only thing proven about these technologies is that they are nowhere near ready to power our nation. All of the green technologies combined cannot produce even 10% of the power our fuel hungry nation craves!

The president also stated that we should "reform our defense budget so that we're not paying for Cold-War-era systems...". He has obviously taken this approach to the energy world as well with his cap and trade idiocy for the coal industry. He clearly stated during the campaign that any company that wanted to continue to develop coal burning plants would be bankrupted by his plan. This while we sit on coal reserves that surpass all the oil in Saudi Arabia! While coal certainly is not the cleanest energy source in the world, neither is oil. If we bankrupt the coal industry we will never develop the technologies necessary to burn coal more cleanly, and our vast energy reserves, buried under North America in the form of coal, will be wasted.

Our president is clearly showing his lack of understanding of these issues. In between trips on Air Force One he is simply throwing radical left-wing liberal mud on the wall to see what sticks. And in the process he is ruining the greatest nation that has ever existed on this planet!

Dear Mrs. Obama

2008-11-12T14:15:00.000-08:00

Congratulations are in order. After two years, and what must have seemed much longer to you, your husband has been elected as the forty-fourth President of the United States. It is an accomplishment to be proud of and an accomplishment that must be celebrated as an historical landmark for the United States of America. Only time will tell whether or not America has chosen wisely. Regardless of how history will eventually look back on his presidency, we know his place in history is secured.

I hope that this journey has been enlightening for you as well. I must confess that I have not read transcripts of your speeches and interviews in detail, and I have formed most of my opinions of you from the sound bites provided by the media. But I do not have a decidedly negative or positive impression of you at all. I would, however, like to take a few moments to reflect on the impressions I have formed.

First, I do not doubt that you are a highly intelligent and accomplished woman. You are to be commended for what you have been able to accomplish. I understand that you were not born with a silver spoon in your mouth, and in fact, had a very challenging childhood. Your accomplishments are to be celebrated all the more because of this. And the fact that you were able to accomplish so much in such a "mean country" says a lot about you as well. Or does it say a lot about your misunderstanding of our nation?

Nowhere else in the world could you and your husband have achieved so much, particularly from such humble beginnings. This "mean country" has provided the opportunity for two African-Americans, one the son of a first generation immigrant, to rise to power in your fields of choice. Through hard work and individual enterprise both of you have been able to aspire and succeed with dreams that in any other country in the world would be absolutely unattainable.

But you are not alone in achieving such success in such a "mean country". Countless immigrants have come from countries around the world and by grit and determination risen to become business owners, corporate leaders, even millionaires. Only in the United States of America. Vietnamese immigrants, in spite of the ill feelings of the Vietnam war have succeeded. Chinese immigrants have found success even while we worry over all of the manufacturing jobs that have moved overseas. Indians have come to America armed only with a foreign education and become leaders in technical fields from engineering to medicine. And all of these immigrants achieved this in a country that did not speak their primary language.

So what is so mean about this country, where immigrants and citizens born at the bottom of our society alike can succeed in even their wildest dreams? I submit that there is really nothing mean about this country. Yes, there are mean people. But this country is far from mean! We celebrate the diversity of our country and the fact that anybody can succeed.

But just as you have succeeded, so have others succeeded - by hard work, determination, enterprise, and yes, a little luck. I believe your comments about our country were formed out of ignorance. I believe your comments were spoken out of naïveté. I believe you are a product of your environment. The Chicago area where you grew up, and certainly the church you have attended for the last twenty years, have promoted a feeling of resentment towards the white establishment - the "mean country" that prevents minorities of all kinds from attaining success. But even as you sat in the pews listening the the rantings of a Black Liberation Theologist, you were disproving his very assertions. Your own personal success disproves his theories. The theology that he professed is what is preventing African-Americans from succeeding. If African-Americans buy into his rhetoric they will continue to seek restoration of something that was not lost. We cannot rewrite the history books and erase the dark period of slavery from our past. But you were not a slave and I was not a slave owner. Neither can we erase the bigotry that existed on a large scale in the past. For many decades now bigotry has been a much more personal choice, and both sides are guilty of it. For example, I was truly insulted by the mean and racist words of some African-American ministers who called me a racist because I voted for John McCain, as if race was the only issue of note in this election. But we must leave our differences in the past. If African-Americans buy into the rhetoric of Reverend Wright, they will continue to expect a hand out. They will continue to scrape by with their entitlement mentality. It is not this "mean country" that is keeping them from succeeding. It is the idea that this "mean country" is keeping them from success. You did not buy into it and fought for your success. But even in your success you espouse the beliefs that you refuted - that this is a "mean country".

Now that your husband will have the opportunity to facilitate change, what kind of change will he make? Will he inspire others to dream. work hard, get a good education, and persevere, as you both did? Or will he propagate the sentiment that this is a "mean country" and that they need a handout - that they are entitled to something. This will only breed failure. Instead of empowering people of all backgrounds to put their nose to the grindstone and believe in themselves, this strategy will only make them dependent on a government that cannot, and was never intended to, take care of them. It will doom them to a life of mediocrity when the whole world lies at their feet if only they believe they can achieve. And the entire nation will suffer for their failure. For we only succeed together.

Mrs. Obama, as you become more worldly, and get to know the America outside of the confines of Chicago and the Trinity United Church of Christ, I am convinced you will find a country that is much warmer and friendlier than you have dared to dream actually exists. I am certain that over time, if you have an open mind and an open heart, you will recognize the goodness of this country. And I pray that you and your husband inspire Americans to succeed as you have. Both of you have great stories of what can be accomplished - but only in America! Celebrate your stories and lead others to dream that they too can accomplish great things!

Counting the Cost

2008-11-05T17:45:00.000-08:00

As Barak Obama sails into the White House propelled by his "righteous wind" the rest of America can finally sit back, catch our collective breath, and contemplate what we have done. I must give credit to all of the candidates and their staff for the commitment and endurance they displayed to complete a campaign that in some cases lasted two years. I have been fully focused on the election for less than a year, and for all but the last three months from the comfort of my own home. And I am exhausted.

As with anything worth doing, what the American people have accomplished comes with a cost. Anybody following the press today must agree that what we have done certainly was worth doing! A country with a legacy of slave ownership and a long history of civil rights strife has elected an African-American to the most powerful office in the land - arguably the most powerful office in the world. This truly is of note. We can feel very good about this noble accomplishment. It certainly was a long time coming. I believe it was long overdue. But I cannot say I am proud of the American people for this accomplishment because I believe the cost was too great. While I heartily applaud the election of an African-American to the Presidency, I believe we have selected the wrong African-American. Again, because the cost is too great.

There are many other issues over which we can debate. We can debate the economy, the Iraq War, taxes, gun control, and many, many other issues. However, since the American people, flushed with the excitement of this historical moment, seem to believe there is one overwhelming issue over which to rejoice - the selection of an African-American - I choose to count the cost based on a single issue. What we have paid for this historical accomplishment is our moral and ethical fiber. We have sold out to the radical left wing on the most fundamental issue - life. Barak Obama promised that the first thing he would do as president of the United States is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. This single action would negate all state-level pro-life legislation.

Barak Obama believes a woman has a right to abort her fetus based on the sex of the child. Eighty-two percent of all Americans, and 87.5 percent of American women oppose legislation that would provide this choice. Barak Obama does not believe a physician should be required to notify the parents of an underage female seeking an abortion. Seventy-seven percent of all Americans and 73.5 percent of American women disagree. While fifty-five percent of all Americans believe that life begins at conception and twenty-three percent believe it begins when the child can survive outside the mother's womb, Barak Obama is not sure. And while fifty-one percent of all Americans and 55.5 percent of American women believe that abortion destroys a human life and is manslaughter, Barak Obama does not. Surveys have shown that in general, most Americans believe that moral concerns should be more important in their daily lives than material concerns. Once again, Barak Obama disagrees.

It is clear that America does not agree with Barak Obama on this fundamental issue. Though surveys show the American people believe morals are more important than material things, they plainly did not demonstrate that with their vote. No, the voting public clearly elevated other issues in this election above moral issues. Yes, we have righted a wrong that has cursed our nation since its birth. We have taken one huge step for racial equality. This is noble indeed. However we have paid a cost that I believe is far too dear. We have sacrificed our unborn children on the altar of Civil Rights.

Will We Choose To Abandon Our Founding Fathers' Principles?

2008-11-03T18:47:00.000-08:00

During the 1960's, President Eisenhower ordered Ezra T. Benson, Secretary of Agriculture, to give Nikita Kruschev, the leader of the Soviet Union, a tour of some of our Agricultural facilities. During the tour Kruschev made the extremely bold statement that communism would eventually "consume democracy" in the United States. Naturally, Secretary Benson rebuked this absurd assertion. Mr. Kruschev insisted, and in fact declared that it had already begun. He said that it would be a slow process and that our government would begin to employ communist and socialist programs gradually. He further suggested it would be so gradual the average American would not even recognize it was happening. One of the leading indicators of a socialist government is a massive federal government. Another tenet of socialism is the redistribution of wealth. Sound familiar? Sadly, we witnessed movement in this direction during the Democrat Clinton administration. Even more disconcerting, it has accelerated during the "conservative" Republican Bush administration.

This evening we stand on the brink. An Obama presidency would certainly fulfill the prophecy of Nikita Kruschev. Some may say this statement is an exaggerated, paranoid Republican diatribe. However, it is the words of Obama himself that offer all the evidence we need to know that under his administration the America our Founding Fathers envisioned will cease to exist. Obama has clearly stated that he believes the principles upon which our country was founded should be overturned. In 2001 he said "As radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution". The Warren Court was recognized as the high point in the use of judicial power for social change. I call this legislating from the bench. The Justices are supposed to render their opinions based upon strict interpretation of the rule of law, as defined in the Constitution, not influence opinions based on their personal social affinity. I believe suggesting that we should "break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers" is treason in no uncertain terms. Yet tomorrow millions of Americans will go to the polls and vote for a man who is determined to undermine all that makes America free.

Are you afraid? You should be. Because today, we are The Land of the Free. Tomorrow may be quite another story. Regardless of who wins tomorrow I, for one, will be glad to see the election season end. It has been a distraction from the intended purpose of this blog - to examine the blessings and curses of the principles upon which our great nation was founded and has thrived for centuries - principles which may be soon be overturned before our very eyes.

The Character of a President

2008-11-02T16:51:00.000-08:00

As the 2008 election season winds down after nearly two years, the election draws near. Tuesday America will decide who our next president will be. And, as many have said, this election will certainly determine the future of our country as no other election in my lifetime has or will. We have looked at tax plans, foreign policy philosophy, energy ideas and positions on Supreme Court Justice nominations. We have heard from Joe the Plumber and Joe the six term Senator. We have heard from Tito the builder and Sarah Barracuda. But there has been very little attention focused on an element of Barak Obama's character and history that truly troubles me - that of his religious background.

It has been argued that he is a closet Muslim. Others argue that he is a Christian and can point to his attendance at a "Christian" church for twenty years. But I do not believe he is a Muslim. Neither do I believe he is a Christian. I believe that the only opinion that matters to Barak Obama is the opinion of Barak Obama. I believe that he is an atheist, and if he does believe in a god, it is himself. I have no evidence that he is an atheist, but there is considerable evidence that he is not a Christian. And if he is not a Christian, the fact that he has told the American nation that he is should be very troubling indeed - to Christians and non-Christians alike, because it goes to the character of the individual.

Since Barak Obama has stated that he is a Christian, let me outline the evidence against his claim. All evidence presented here was obtained on the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission web site.

First, in a 2004 interview with Catherine Falsani Barak Obama stated "I believe there are many paths to the same place". In a meeting of evangelical leaders in 2008, when asked if Jesus was the only way to salvation, Obama stated, "Jesus is the only way for me". This clearly implies that he believes there are other paths. He further stated that "All people of Faith - Christians, Jews, Muslims, Animists, everyone - knows the same God". This may mean nothing to non-believers. But Christians know that in John 14:6, Jesus said" I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me". No Christian would ever state that there are many paths to heaven, and no Christian believes that all religions share the same God.

Second, Barak Obama denies the authority of the Bible. Recently Obama stated "Now this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible...". He further misused Biblical passages regarding the golden rule to condone homosexuality. He also used a scriptural passage as a rallying cry, calling it an American promise. He said "Let us keep that promise, that American promise, and in the words of scripture, hold firmly, without wavering to the hope that we confess." The hope that we confess is not the hope in this nation, but the hope we have in Jesus. So although he does not believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, he quotes scripture to lend credibilty to his campaign.

Third, Senator Obama supports special privileges for homosexuality. He condemned black pastors who faithfully decry homosexuality as against God's word. He stated that "most African American churches are still fairly traditional in the interpretation of scripture. And so from the pulpit or in sermons you still hear homophobic attitudes expressed." Conversely, the church Obama attends just voted to approve same sex marriage. Scripture clearly condemns homosexuality, and in many different passages. In the interest of saving space I will include only one passage here. In Romans 1:27, Paul writes: "Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversions." Further, Obama has promised to overturn the federal defense of marriage act.

Fourth, Barak Obama is the most liberal Senator in the United States on the subject of abortion. He proudly claimed that "I have consistently had a 100% pro-choice rating with Planned Parenthoodand Naral Pro-Choice America". He has also stated clearly that "The first thing I'd do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act." This would stop states from restricting abortions of any kind - even partial birth abortions. On four separate occasions, Barak Obama has voted against bills that would provide health care for survivors of failed abortions. Christians revere all life as sacred as scripture clearly declares. Psalm 139 verses 13 -14 states: "For you formed my inward parts...You covered me in my mother's womb; I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made".

Fifth, Senator Obama affirmed that the Muslim call to prayer is "one of the prettiest sounds on earth at sunset." Moreover, he recited the call to prayer in Arabic with a perfect first class Arabic accent. The call to prayer states repetitively that "Allah is supreme" and "I witness there is not god but Allah", and finally "I witness that Mohammed is his prophet".

Sixth, the principal teachings of Obama's home church for twenty years were based upon Black Liberation Theology which states, among other things, that "Whiteness as revealed in the history of America, is the expression of what is wrong with man. It is a symbol of man's depravity". Jesus clearly rejected any form of race based theology.

Finally, Barak Obama has no Bona Fide Christian testimony. Clearly a true conversion experience must include confessing one's sin and repenting. But when asked to define sin, Obama stated that sin is "being out of alignment with my values". The Bible states that sin is violation of God's law. Barak Obama further states that "Jesus is an historical figure for me, and he's also a bridge between God and man, in the Christian faith".

I believe the evidence reproduced here is enough to convict Senator Obama by his own words. I do not necessarily believe that a man, or woman, must be a Christian to be President of the United States. I do have a concern that a man might affect a conversion to Christianity to make himself acceptable as a candidate to the American people. It is clear to me that Senator Obama is not a Christian, though he has stated that he is. Perhaps he believes the fact that he states he is a Christian is enough. However, there are certain beliefs that Christians of all denominations share. And clearly many of these essentials are not shared by Barak Obama. Though the true faith and belief of a man is strictly between himself and God, and no one else can know whether or not faith is true, my belief is that Barak Obama is not a Christian, and that his conversion was one calculated act among many calculated acts to prepare him for his run for the Presidency. If we elect Barak Obama, we are electing a man who will stop at nothing to become President. But this is only the beginning. What is Barak Obama's ultimate agenda? Becoming President of the United States, the most powerful man in the free world, is only one more step towards his final purpose. Only time will reveal his ultimate objective.

Who doesn't want health care?

2008-11-01T18:12:00.000-07:00

Naturally everyone wants health care coverage. And this is one of the most costly recurring expense items in the budget of a normal America family. The problem must certainly be addressed. But what are our options? For years the Democrats have been pushing Universal Health Care. And on the surface, it may look like a great idea. But once you dig beneath that surface, the challenges are apparent. Many countries have implemented this type of health care program. One need look no further than our great neighbor to the north, Canada, to see how Universal Health Care works, or does not work, in application. Senator Obama is proposing Universal Health Care as an option, and would make some sort of health care compulsory for children.

From where I sit, I see a number of problems. I always say that experience is the best teacher, but it does not need to be your own personal experience. I prefer to see how things have worked for others before I try it myself. If others fail, or consistently report negative results , I don't try it. The countries that have implemented Universal Health Care have already done the research we need. Without exception countries that have implemented this type of program have found that there are not enough doctors or facilities to go around. So treatments which could be life-saving or at the least quality of life improvements, are rationed. Under this system older citizens are not valued as much as younger citizens because they have already lived a full life and the youngsters have many more productive, tax-paying years ahead of them. In our country, it would not be out of the realm of possibility to see a senior tax-paying citizen denied a procedure so that a young illegal alien could receive it.

Doctors and nurses in countries with Universal Health Care programs regularly report that their Emergency Rooms are out of control. Where you might complain about waiting for six to eight hours to be seen here, Canadians regularly wait more than twelve hours for Emergency Room care. Many doctors and nurses are changing professions or moving to other countries because they cannot take the stress of being constantly overwhelmed by the over saturation of the system. Others are driven away because they are not rewarded as handsomely for their skills because the government keeps their pay low, ostensibly to keep costs down. This results in fewer health care professionals, further overloading the systems.

Some states have experimented with Universal Health Care as well. Just this year Hawaii implemented an optional Universal Health Care Plan for children only. The idea was to ensure that all children were covered. This really is a worthy cause. But they were not ready for what happened. Families that were paying for health care dropped those programs so they could participate in the free program. This reduced their monthly budget so they could spend more money on other necessities like groceries and gas which are very expensive in Hawaii. But this increased the number of participants in the program far beyond what the state anticipated. After seven months the program was terminated because it went bankrupt.

If Senator Obama becomes our next president he will have the opportunity to partner with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to implement whatever plans they want. A Democrat President with a Democrat majority in both the House and the Senate has a rubber stamp for his, or her, programs. While many things a president could rubber stamp in this environment could later be changed by future administrations, things like Universal Health Care likely could not easily be reversed. You see, Universal Health Care is an entitlement program. Americans would be entitled to free health care. And entitlements, once implemented, are virtually impossible to stop. I can almost guarantee a President Obama would make Universal Health Care - and free Pre-school education and child care, another entitlement program - top priorities for his very first year in office.

The alternative is to make it possible for Americans to select their health care providers. In a free market system, providers compete for consumers. The provider with the best care at the best price gets the most consumers. A plan which would enable Americans to shop around for health care, with providers competing, is good for the economy, good for the consumers, and good for America. I do not believe five thousand dollars is enough to secure health care for a family. But it does offset some of the cost. And I believe making the free market system work for America is always smarter than trusting the government to provide for us. After all, how many programs do you know for which the government is the best provider.

As far as the East is from the West

2008-10-31T20:13:00.000-07:00

When I was in school, both high school and college, I loved to write - as long as I had something to write about. But I struggled with topics. If I had a topic I was passionate about the words just flowed. One of my favorite writing styles back then was comparison and contrast. It was always fun to find things that were polar opposites to write about, or even to reveal differences between things that looked alike, by using the comparison and contrast style of writing.

Thankfully, now that I have a place to put down my thoughts, I have been blessed with a great topic on which to opine. Even better, the topic is quite well suited to my favorite writing style. Unfortunately, I cannot use some of the usual analogies when writing on this particular subject. If I said "different as night and day" or the difference is "black and white", I would probably be labeled as a racist. So I will stick to saying that the positions our two candidates for president in this election support are as far apart as the East is from the West.

Yes, since the polls show the candidates in a virtual dead heat you may be surprised to know how far these two candidates differ on the issues, particularly when opinion polls reveal that the vast majority of Americans are still very conservative. Could it be that the people being polled are not aware of the position of the candidates? If you fall into that category perhaps I can help. Let's take a look at where each candidate stands. I will not be able to compare their stances on all issues, so please allow me the liberty to pick a few that are important to me. When I am finished, you can assess their positions and decide with which candidate you identify. Then, don't forget to vote based upon that knowledge. I only hope that you have an understanding of the issues because I will endeavor to state positions only and not insert any opinion on whether the current state of affairs is satisfactory or whether I agree with either candidate.

Senator Obama opposes public school vouchers preferring to allocate funds to our high quality, extremely successful, existing public school systems. (Our children are rated 18th out of 24 nations in quality of education). Senator McCain supports school vouchers so that parents can move their children from poorly performing public schools to private schools or charter schools, providing an equalizer for families that are not wealthy.

Senator McCain proposes a $2 billion dollar investment in clean coal technology, supports off shore drilling (not limited by the extreme restrictions imposed by the recent bill passed by the Democrat led Congress), favors a tax credit to Americans who buy zero carbon emission cars and selected a running mate who supports drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. He opposes a windfall tax on oil companies that provide products and jobs to the American people. He believes in a full spectrum plan that bridges the gap from where we are now to the time when we can provide a significant amount of our energy from renewable energy sources. Senator McCain also supports clean nuclear power. Senator Obama wants to concentrate on the future by investing $150 billion over the next ten years on alternative energy research and development. He also supports taxing of oil companies' windfall profits and proper inflation pressure in automobile tires. (Sorry, I could not resist.)

Senator McCain served our country as an officer in the United States Navy for twenty-two years. He supported the war in Iraq, but disagreed with the way President Bush executed the campaign. Senator McCain was the major proponent of the surge which has proven the turning point in the war. He has also served in the Senate for twenty-six years. Senator McCain has established relationships with foreign leaders around the world and is respected for his leadership. Senator McCain wants to bring our troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan in Victory. Senator Obama never served in the military. He has, however, served over two hundred days in the United States Senate. Senator Obama has threatened unilateral attacks on a nuclear Pakistan if that country fails to take action to stop terrorists. Senator Obama will meet with our enemies, notably the leaders of Iran, North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela, without precondition. Senator Obama did not support the surge, and refuses to state outright that the surge was the turning point in Iraq. Senator Obama wants to withdraw our troops on an arbitrary timetable not based upon the situation on the ground.

Senator Obama believes that more strict "common sense" gun laws will reduce gun violence. Senator McCain believes that our Second Amendment Right to bear arms must be protected. Both candidates support closing the "gun-show loophole" by requiring background checks at gun shows.

Senator McCain opposes abortion rights and would seek to overturn Roe v. Wade. He also believes life begins at conception. Senator Obama favors abortion rights and does not have an opinion on when life begins because it is above his pay grade.

Senator Obama believes that Supreme Court Justices should make court decisions based upon their value system. Senator McCain believes that Supreme Court Justices must make judicial decisions based upon the facts of the case and written law, meaning they do not legislate from the bench.

Senator McCain believes that the worst thing to do in a time of recession is raise taxes. He believes that lowering taxes, as proven by Reaganomics, increases investment, research and development, and jobs, and ultimately stimulates the economy and promotes growth. Senator Obama believes the economy can grow from the bottom up and wants to give tax breaks and tax credits to those who earn less than $250,000/year...or $200,000/year...or $150,000/year. Actually, today I heard it is $120,000/year. Senator Obama believes that if we give the less fortunate extra money they will spend our way to prosperity. Senator Obama will fund this plan by increasing taxes on wealthy Americans, large corporations and small businesses. He will suspend the capital gains tax for new start up businesses which should really help since the average start up does not earn any capital gains for the first five years anyway.

That wasn't as much fun as I thought it would be. In fact, it was quite dry and boring to write. There are many other issues and even these issues were given only cursory consideration. If you cannot make up your mind yet, or would like more information there are lots of places to look that are not filtered by the media. I suggest www.ontheissues.org or www.votesmart.org. Each of these will give you the facts on how the candidates have voted...or not voted.

For me, this exercise has been mundane. I already know who will receive my vote - a vote guaranteed by the Armed Forces which sacrifice daily to protect our rights and our way of life. I take my vote very seriously. It is critical that we all go to the polls armed with the conviction of our morals and values intact. Do not vote based upon anything but your values. Find the candidate that represents your values on the issues most important to you and support that candidate.

Perhaps tomorrow I will compare how the candidates stack up with the majority of the American people as determined by national polls. The results of that comparison may shock you.

For me the decision is easy. I will vote based upon the issue or issues to which I give highest priority. The government is charged with protecting Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. My decision can be made from that statement alone. I vote with the candidate who protects life!

Vote McCain/Palin on November 4th!

Compassionate Capitalism

2008-10-30T20:11:00.000-07:00

Americans are recognized as the greatest givers in the world. Wherever there is a disaster, whether within our borders or anywhere else on the planet, whether an ally or enemy, American citizens step up to help. We help with finances. We help with supplies. We help by sending others. And we help by putting on our boots and gloves and digging in personally. Americans are generous with their time and their resources.

So what is it that makes Americans so generous? Is it because we all have so much wealth we have to give it away for a tax break? Is it so that we will feel good about ourselves? Is it so we can impress our neighbors? Without a doubt we all give for different reasons. And we all contribute to different causes. Some contribute to causes right in their own community while others feel compelled to contribute to causes around the world. But we give. Even those with little to give, share what they can. If they cannot share finances, they share time. Somehow, it is in our national DNA.

I do not claim to know the answer. I have no idea why so many Americans are so generous. What I do know is that we live in a country where we are blessed beyond measure. Perhaps we want to spread that wealth around. And it is our choice to do so. Each of us has the opportunity to choose how we share and what we share. Perhaps the answer lies somewhere in that freedom. When we are allowed to keep what we earn we have the option to share. When we are blessed with abundance we can bless others as well. And in blessing others, we are also blessed. I do know that societies that are not as free as we are do not have the capacity to give as generously we do. And I am also sure that if they had the same freedoms we have, and the same prosperity we enjoy, they would be generous too.

I think the key is the understanding that it is not about us. It is about being a part of this planet we call earth. It is about being a part of the global community. It is about recognizing that we can make a difference. We can make this world a better place. We appreciate that each one of us can contribute to something bigger than ourselves. In this self-seeking world we somehow understand that the sum of all of our parts is greater than the whole. And each and every American that gives of themselves is made better for having done so.

For me, the best part of giving is getting down in the trenches and getting eye to eye with those in need. The true joy comes in seeing the positive impact you can make on another life. It is the personal touch of being able to make a difference. I believe Americans should be able to decide where they give, how much they give, and how they give. It has worked for over two hundred years. It is not a government program. It is individuals, non-profit organizations, churches and neighbors recognizing where there is a true need and responding to it.

We have a free market society. This was the intent of our founding fathers. This free market society has produced the kind of personal wealth that provides the personal freedom to give to others. This is the future that the framers of our Constitution envisioned.

Count a blessing.

Not My Father's America

2008-10-29T19:12:00.000-07:00

I am becoming more and more convinced that, no matter which candidate wins the presidency, we lose. I have not come to this conclusion because I do not believe at least one of the parties would bring real change, and the right change, to Washington. This sense of despair is based upon the attitudes displayed by the American people.

Everywhere I look I am dismayed by the dialogue between supporters of the opposing candidates. Whether on television, on the streets, or in the blogs I see an increasing amount of animosity - no - outright hostility! Why can't we have a discussion about the issues without resorting to juvenile name-calling? I know. Many of you will blame the campaigns. Since the candidates themselves have resorted to negativity, so shall we. So who is responsible for your behavior? We all want the same thing - the best for America. We may not agree on who has the best ideas to provide the leadership. But we should let our common goal unite us rather than our difference of philosophy divide us.

My opinion is that those who resort to the personal attacks are the uninformed supporters. Since they do not know or understand the issues they insult their adversaries. The most frightening implication of this thought is that this is the same way a vast majority of Americans exercise their right to vote. They "like" one of the candidates, perhaps because he or she is more like them or they are angry at the other party. But along with the right to vote comes a greater responsibility. If we are to entertain any hope that we will elect leaders that are really equipped to govern effectively, and make the decisions upon which our economy, the security of our nation, and the future of our children depend, we must become an educated electorate. If we plan to go to the polls to vote by the way we feel, the nation would certainly be better off if we just stayed home.

The information is out there. A good place to start is with voting records. This source is totally objective and cannot be changed by the presenter. The candidate either voted for or against an issue - or perhaps present. But the vote is a fact and cannot be distorted by the media.

Further, an informed voter will be able to debate with another informed voter regarding the issues. Mature dialogue is the only way one can convince or persuade another. Name-calling only widens the gap. Calling another individual a moron or fascist because they do not agree with your point of view will only alienate them and increase feelings of hostility - and guarantee they will not vote with you!

I am sure that I feel as strongly, perhaps more strongly, about the candidate that I support as any supporter of either candidate. But my conviction is based upon an understanding of the issues and the knowledge of where the candidates stand on the issues. I welcome the opportunity to discuss the issues with anyone regardless of which candidate they support. Unfortunately, I have not been very successful at finding many who have done enough real research to carry on this conversation. So I have been called every name in the book, and not without expletives.

I am very discouraged about the future of our country if we cannot get along amicably with one another. If the climate in America does not change neither candidate will be able to unify this nation after the election.

Our founding fathers provided us with the opportunity to select our leaders - a government of the people, for the people and by the people.

Count a blessing - and a curse!

Merry Christmas or Happy Holidays

2008-10-28T11:35:00.000-07:00

Why are retailers afraid to use "Merry Christmas"? It is amazing to me that the demographic that stands to benefit the most from the "Christmas" holiday is the demographic that has a problem with Christmas. Retailers across the country are once again refusing to use the expression "Merry Christmas". I visited the Home Depot web site today and found that I could search for, and find, Hanukkah decorations, but when I searched on "Christmas" I came up with nothing. I called their 800 number and asked about this. The customer care associate read a scripted statement to me over the phone. Clearly they have already had a lot of people call in regarding the issue or they would not have a prepared statement. The text the associate read stated that the word Christmas is used in the stores at the point of sale where the customer would find the Christmas decorations. However, the Home Depot chooses not to use the word Christmas, preferring Happy Holidays, in their marketing and advertising. Are they afraid of driving away Christmas shopping customers if they call it Christmas?

It is true that Christmas is not the only holiday celebrated at this time of year. The "holiday" decorations that are already appearing on the shelves of stores include everything from Halloween and Thanksgiving, to Hanukkah and Christmas. But stores do not have any problem calling Halloween Halloween, Thanksgiving Thanksgiving, or Hanukkah Hanukkah. Why then is Christmas a "holiday"? Given that our country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles (see Endowed by the Creator), and that a vast majority of Americans still identify themselves as Christians, it is difficult to understand why the Christian holiday is the one under attack. The truth is that Christmas is under attack by a very small minority of the citizens of America. But for some reason retailers, city managers and countless individuals are afraid of this minority and will not stand up for the values with which they were raised. This phenomenon is much farther reaching than just the Christmas issue and will be explored in future posts.

For now though, I must return to the question with which this post began. Why are retailers afraid to use "Merry Christmas"? I submit it is not because Christmas is a Christian holiday! In fact, although historically Christmas is a Christian holiday, certainly today it is more of a secular holiday. I guarantee that non-Christians will take the day off, put up a "Christmas" tree, and give each other "Christmas" gifts. They don't even call them "Holiday" gifts! They call them Christmas gifts. And where do Americans get their Christmas gifts? They purchase them from retailers. So who benefits the most from Christmas? Right - Retailers!

The true meaning of Christmas is the celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ. Even those who do not believe Jesus is the Son of God believe he was an actual historical figure. Though they may not stake their eternal salvation on Him, they count their calendar based on the year of his birth. Even if they do not believe He is the only way to heaven, most acknowledge he was a good man and a good teacher. Even the prophet Muhammed insisted that Jesus was one of a short list of the great prophets and that His teachings should be respected and followed. So why can't we say "Merry Christmas"?

Because it is a choice. But in this case, the majority of Americans are not making the choice. Rather the majority of Americans are allowing a minority of Americans to make the choice for them. A small minority of Americans have a problem with "Merry Christmas". So retailers, who benefit more from the Christmas holiday than anyone else, refuse to say "Merry Christmas". Cities, the majority of whose citizens still identify themselves as Christians, will not allow the traditional Nativity Scene to be displayed on public property unless equal space is allocated for other religious holiday displays - even if no other religions have a traditional display to erect. Schools, who should be teaching students about all different peoples, cultures and traditions, as well as tolerance of the differences, are intimidated into not celebrating one of the oldest traditions in our great nation.

In America the constitution guarantees us freedom of choice. We are promised that we can worship our God in the way we see fit without fear of persecution. But apparently this holds true only within the privacy of our own home or our own church if we are Christians. The very guarantees of our constitution have allowed the few to intimidate the many. Shame on the authorities, whether private or public, who have allowed this to happen. Shame on the majority of Americans who allow their rights to be trampled. Shame on any lawmaker who rules that it is illegal to speak out in a demonstration of our faith!

We have freedom of religion. Count a blessing.
Some have exercised that freedom to the detriment of others. Count a curse.

Oh......and MERRY CHRISTMAS!

Endowed by the Creator

2008-10-27T14:35:00.000-07:00

There are many citizens today who believe there is no truth to the idea that America was established upon Judeo-Christian principles. However, the authors of our Declaration of Independence used the phrase "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights". I do not believe they chose their words carelessly. After all, this declaration was a very bold statement which put all the signers and even their families at great risk. I believe they chose their words very carefully before they announced their intent to the world. But the Christian heritage of this country goes back even further, to the very beginnings of the history of our great nation. The proposition that the Christian God is the one true God is not the purpose of this post. My objective is simply to state that one can deny our Christian heritage steadfastly and repeatedly. But this does nothing to change the facts. One can rewrite the history books. But this in no way changes history itself.

The facts are clear, and the facts are irrefutable. Our country was founded by colonists fleeing religious and political persecution in their homelands. Most of these colonists were Protestant rather than Roman Catholic. Religion was not their sole motivation. Certainly expansion of territory and maritime commerce provided funding for the original explorers who first set foot in the New World. But the colonists who came here to establish a new life were driven by the desire to worship unfettered by the constraints of the Old World Church. It is not my intent to provide exhaustive evidence of this here. This evidence may be found easily enough by anyone with the desire for the truth. However, a few examples will serve well at this point.

The original charter of the Virginia Colony in Jamestown stated that one of the principal purposes of the colony was "under the providence of Almighty God, might tend to the glory of his Divine Majesty in propagating the Christian religion to such people as yet live in darkness and miserable ignorance of the true knowledge and worship of God". In fact, male colonists were taxed to pay the yearly salary of the clergy. Further, by law each plantation was required to have a room or house established strictly for worship, and attendance at worship was required.

The colonists who established the Plymouth Colony signed a compact before debarking from the Mayflower. In this compact we can read the following words today: "In the name of God, Amen. We whose names are underwritten...having undertaken, for the glory of God and advancement of the Christian faith...".

The first governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, John Winthrop wrote the following words to his father: "I shall call that my country where I may most glorify God and enjoy the presence of my dearest friends. Therefore herein I submit myself to God's will and yours, and dedicate myself to God and the company with the whole endeavors both of body and of mind".

These brief glimpses into the minds of the early colonists are repeated again and again in the historical documentation of each and every colony. These hardy pioneers were girded by their faith in the Almighty, and they established rules and routines that reflected their values. Their faith provided them the strength and the motivation that carried them through the colonial period and saw them successfully through to the time of the founding of this nation.

So, you may say, what difference does this make to me today? It is the twenty-first century and our country is comprised of citizens from every faith on the face of the earth. There are many citizens who deny the existence of the Almighty entirely. There are many citizens who say we cannot know whether or not a God exists. There are many citizens who argue that we are no longer a Christian nation. Though history leaves no doubt that the founders of our country were Christian, the constitution adopted by the framers makes it possible for all of us to live together peacefully and respectfully.

Count a blessing.

Where to begin

2008-10-26T17:37:00.000-07:00

As Americans we are blessed with freedoms no other country on earth can claim. It has been argued by most that this is always a good thing. I would argue, however, that it is not always good. All the benefits that these freedoms provide are offset by consequences of the same. It is up to the citizens of the nation to determine whether the blessings outweigh the curses. Our Founding Fathers established this country as the land of the free. Their Declaration of Independence from the tyranny of their homelands spoke of unalienable rights endowed by the Creator. It is the question of what these rights are, and how far they extend that quite often becomes the curse. The blessing of these rights can be guaranteed to all only if all share a common moral and ethical foundation. When the citizens of the nation do not share such common beliefs, the system breaks down.

We are all different. We all have different backgrounds. We hail from different cultures. We adhere to different faith systems, or have no faith at all. So how do we, as a nation, survive when we are so different? If we do not share the same moral and ethical foundation how can we agree on what is good for all? How do we determine what rights are unalienable? If we fail to answer such questions we cease to be the United States of America. And if we cease to be the United States, we soon will no longer be The Land of the Free!