March on Harrisburg, PA for Fiscal Responsibility

Dear Patriots,

The time has come to bring our voice home to the Harrisburg Capitol! From the very inception of our great nation, Pennsylvania has raised the voice of freedom to a world filled with chains and slavery. William Penn invited settlers to come to the New World and find freedom by settling in "Penn's Woods" and some 300 years later I am inviting you to join us in Harrisburg on November 14, 2009 to once again stand for freedom! To once again stand against chains and slavery - chains of debt and slavery to an irresponsible government that would spend us into oblivion.

Saturday, November 14, 2009 will be a state-wide March on the Harrisburg Capitol for Fiscal Responsibility! We expect that buses from all over the state will arrive at City Island at 1:00pm and starting at 2:00pm Freedom loving Patriots will begin to March toward the Capitol building - we will continue the March until we have gone around the building 7x letting our leaders know that like the walls of Jericho - the walls of high taxes, increased spending and irresponsible government must fall!

The March will end with a rally on the Capitol steps with speakers from Pennsylvania and the National stage. And we will reinforce that our government is a government of the People, by the People and for the People. And our government should answer to us!

It is time for you to join the cause - the PA Budget MESS, the lack of Property Tax reform, the overall fiscal irresponsibility of the Pennsylvania leadership demands that Patriots from Erie to Philadelphia and every city in between rally to Harrisburg for FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY!

Don't forget to wear Red, White & Blue and carry your PA flag, your Culpeper flag or your Dresden flag. Hope to see YOU there!

For Liberty,

Big Government - TOO BIG!

There has been a much used quotation floating around the internet that goes something like this, "A government that is big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have." This has been attributed to everyone from Thomas Jefferson to Richard Nixon. My limited research seems to suggest that it really comes from Barry Goldwater. Regardless, the sentiments are clear: Government can get too big and it will destroy the people!

As a citizen of Pennsylvania, I can see first hand how Big Government is destroying. In PA we have been promised Property Tax Relief - due to revenues from the gambling industry - to date there has been NO RELIEF (but the governor and others insist that we can increase our new budget deficit because revenues from the gambling industry will cover the difference. Hmmmm, am I missing something? The PA Department of Public Welfare is spending tax dollars trying to license and control church daycare and have included the objective of controlling church Sunday Schools. Why? Because they believe that any child not under the Department of Education falls under their control and supervision. This is interesting considering that the Department of Education guidelines begin at 18 months old. Is government getting too big? Not according to Governor Rendell who is still pushing for more contro, like Pre-K Counts. By the way, when is the last time anyone ever cut government spending and reduced the cost of government by cutting programs, bureacracies, or any part of the state budget?. I guess they are still trying to give us everything we want. BEWARE!
The Federal government - yes the combination of Democrats and Republicans ( a liberal by any other name would smell as bad - apologies William S.) - continues to grow beyond our means and there are NO restraints! Unread bills, poor legislation, executive orders, bailouts, and health care, to name a few, are all adding up to bigger government and yet the line for handouts continues to grow! The money isn't there, the benefits aren't either and the tax burden continues to expand and oppress - us and our posterity!
Patrick Henry said, "Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased by the price of chains and slavery?" The fact is that there are too many piglets, suckling at the dried out teets of the Federal Government, that are willing to don the chains and accept the slavery in order to bask in a life that is not dear and a peace that can never be sweet! America, the governments in Washington, DC and Pennsylvania are growing beyond their means and freedom loving Patriots are once again becoming the serfs of an elected aristocracy. Let's vote them out and reclaim America.
Proof that the government is big enough to give us everything we want? THEY ARE TAKING EVERYTHING YOU HAVE! Enough is enough.

Horrific Cass Sunstein

(9/9/2009)

Sarah Muirhead

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) has scheduled a vote for Wednesday, September 9 on a presidential nominee opposed by many American hunters, gun owners, and farmers. The nominee, Cass Sunstein, has been tapped to lead the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) or ?oRegulatory Czar??as the position is known. The job functions as the ?ochoke point??between the White House and regulations from government agencies including the Departments of Interior, Agriculture, the FBI and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. The vote will take place over the objection of Senator Johnny Isakson (R-Georgia), who is attempting to place a hold on the appointment. To force the confirmation vote, Senator Reid has scheduled a vote of cloture ?" a procedural move to force a vote on an appointment. Cloture requires 60 yes votes. Sunstein has written and spoken extensively regarding his anti-hunting and anti-2nd amendment positions. He?Ts also advocated in favor of legal standing in a court of law for animals. He also has advocated that state animal cruelty laws be applied to hunting and livestock, and further that organizations should be able to sue on behalf of animals in court.

http://www.freshconservative.com/Fresh_Conservative/Fresh_Conservative/Entries/2009/8/26_Legality_and_Morality_Can_Be_Mutually_Exclusive.html

http://www.freshconservative.com/Fresh_Conservative/Fresh_Conservative/Entries/2009/8/26_Legality_and_Morality_Can_Be_Mutually_Exclusive.html

Shared via AddThis

Left? Right? or Balanced! Part 2

Ayn Rand in "Atlas Shrugged" outlines her Utopia - "Galt's Gulch". This is a society where men and women have no moral code other than seeking their own wealth, satisfaction, and existence. They are answerable to nothing but their own moral conscience which includes profit. She identifies the fact that the people who attain this Utopian ideal have decided that never again will they provide their talent, time, and treasure for the use of a population that expects it. They will not empower the "takers" nor will they exist solely as the "givers". But, is this our highest aim? It certainly qualifies as the extreme right - liberty only, no laws - no absolutes, simply MAN and his MIND.

Extreme Right is NOT Conservatism.

The current controversies in the United States seem to center on the same system that Ayn Rand is fighting.

• Health care for everyone: why should a brilliant surgeon, dedicated to his craft, embracing his talent, having invested heavily in his own education allow any entity to dictate the price he should charge and the time he should give? 'Obamacare' would structure such dictates on Health care.
• The unions played an important part in our society at one time, yet today they exist basically by guaranteeing a job for a worker - regardless of performance and value to the company which hired him.
• The government has recently determined that bonuses paid to banking executives were too large.
• The government has engineered the resignations of CEO's, taken a strong hand in housing, education, agriculture, and the utilities industry.

The direction America is heading is a liberal smorgasbord of control. It certainly is heading to the extreme left: no liberties - laws ONLY and EVERY man must serve ALL men.

Current right (the mainstream Republican Party) is NOT Conservatism!

If the final authority for mankind is MAN himself, then the FAR RIGHT is correct. Man should live for himself, provide for himself, and answer to himself. Selfishness would rule, and compassion could not and would not be directed to those in need. If the final authority for mankind is government, then the FAR LEFT is correct. Man should exist only within the framework of laws which require that he live for the collective, provide for the collective and answer to the collective. Laziness would rule, no one's needs would be met because each one in need would be directed only to one in greater need.
However with God as a final authority, Man lives to His glory and depends upon God's provision. What man is given in surplus can be shared with those in need. When answerable to God, man's compassion is commanded and lack thereof is punished, but BY GOD. Laws developed in answer to God, protect mankind and offer order and structure, NOT dictates and demands.

True Conservatism answers to the Creator and is the perfect balance between RIGHT & LEFT.

Healthcare Reform and Government Dependence

The current Healthcare Reform debate is quickly polarizing the country around two extremes. Government DEPENDENCE versus Man's INDEPENDENCE. The Founding Fathers believed that their work for a new government which led to the penning of the most incredible document ever written by men, was to secure the rights and liberties of a free thinking citizenry. Never was it to create an overseeing entity that balanced the playing field between the "haves" and the "have nots". In fact, the freedoms finally secured in 1789 could boil down to this basic thought: because of the U.S. Constitution if you are included in the "have nots" you have every opportunity to work, toil, gather and save so that you can join the "haves". You also have the right to NOT work, toil, gather and save - but do not expect anyone else to carry your load. Hence "Freedom is a two-sided coin, on one side is Liberty but on the other is Responsibility."

Two clips stood out to me in the recent news coverage of the now national debate. I listened to a freedom loving citizen offer an analogy of health coverage having to do with cars. He started with, "I might like to drive a Hummer, but I can't afford one. I drive what I can afford." Only to be interrupted by a "dependabot", furious because she apparently thinks that everyone should drive a Hummer (or rather that everyone deserves the same health care coverage). In the United States of America no one deserves anything but OPPORTUNITY! The gentleman who never got the chance (on camera) to finish his example was simply saying that there are wonderful programs, vehicles, opportunities out there but we must work for them.

Granted, there are extremes that need attention. The woman who was so upset was quick to lift up her child who has medical needs that go beyond their means. The answer for her family could certainly be a compassionate citizenry that is willing to help. But why should she be looking for a government handout? Later, when given more "facetime" for her issues, she stated that pre-existing condtions disqualify her family from decent health insurance. (Read "it doesn't matter what her specfics are, she deserves as much as anyone else") However, it is government regulation and bureaucracy that have caused the problems with Health Insurance as it is. And regardless, there is not one doctor or hospital that would deny her and her family care if they have need - this woman simply doesn't want to pay for it. Hmmmm. She wants a Hummer for the cost of a Hyundai!

The second statement was a woman who basically made this comment: "When my child has a cough I want to know what's wrong with her, not just go and get some Robitussin and hope that she will be alright." What? Where is the common sense? Our grandmothers and mothers, in most cases, could "doctor" a cold, sniffle or cough. But because we now live in a dependent society, the first option is run to a doctor or fly to the emergency room! Where is the common sense? If our nation devolves into mindless takers rather than thoughtful givers, there will be no hope. Our current government is basically saying "believe in us, rely on us, depend on us" which will eventually lead to "work for us, obey us, worship us". And after 2000 years original slavery will have returned and freedom will be no more. It must not happen!

The government, designed to order and protect society, has gradually eroded our freedoms and inserted themselves into every area of our lives. Freedom must be restored. Government must be smaller, citizens must be involved and our "elected aristocracy" must be replaced. I believe it was Gerald Ford by way of Barry Goldwater who said, "A government that is big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have." We may already be there, pray that we can recover!

Tea Party Welcome for Senator Specter

This past Tuesday was a remarkable moment for Lebanon, PA! 2000 +/- people gathered in downtown to express their opinion of President Obama's health care agenda. Most of the locals were against HB 3200 and most of them had in fact read the bill or at least large portions of it. Despite the "spin" version of national media outlets, the Town Hall meeting was actually an example to the nation as to how questions could be asked to elected representatives, even in dissent, with respect and decorum. Two minor details that marred the event included Mr. Miller's stumbling tirade about not being able to speak (as if everyone in the 250 people were going to have 5 minutes to spend with the microphone - by the way that is about 20 hours!) and the fact that Senator Specter should be on "Dancing With the Stars" with the way he avoided answering the questions he was asked! Although the Meeting itself was exemplary, the rally outside was the real story.
The planned Tea Party Welcome for Senator Specter was a locally driven event that brought out extreme amounts of concerned citizens right from Lebanon. In an orderly fashion, with no confrontations, no arrests, really very little difficulty keeping the street open and with great energy the patriots of Lebanon County raised their voice in protest to the President's social agenda. Citing concerns about higher taxes to pay for the plan, public monies being used for abortions, mandatory end of life counseling for those over 65, plus issues regarding health plan choices, the effects on small businesses, and the state training of Doctors, nurses and counselors, friends and neighbors from all over the Lebanon Valley spoke their voice and it was heard!
No matter what the mainstream media wants to focus on, we should not lose focus on the fact that "Lebanonians" made a difference on the national scene. And for that we should be extremely proud. I know I am.

Obamacare: cure? or curse!

Obamacare: Cure Or Curse?

By Louis R. Petolicchio

With recent news that the “Blue Dog Democrats” – Congressional Democrats reputed to be fiscally conservative or ‘moderate’ – have reached an agreement with liberal Democrat leader Henry Waxman (D-CA) on a ‘compromise’ version of national health care reform (referred to here as “Obamacare”), it would appear that the federal government is on target to take over America’s vast and advanced medical industry.

Advocates have praised the movement towards nationalizing how medicine and medical services are delivered to the American people, particularly the 50 million plus-or-minus uninsured who have been the focus of Obama’s great angst. Critics have been raising a host of concerns that Obamacare is the first step towards a federally funded, single payer program that would eliminate individual choice of doctors and treatment.

While some may say that both sides on the issue may have valid arguments and are using hyperbole to discredit each other, if one begins to review the House that is under consideration (HB 3200), the case against Obamacare grows stronger and stronger.

In the past week a document by Peter Fleckstein has been circulating through the Internet that essentially outlines some of the most outrageous and disturbing elements of Obamacare, many of which directly contradict the claims Obama has been making in his efforts to promote this overhaul.

All of which raises some serious questions that Pennsylvania’s confirmed liberal Senators Bob Casey and Arlen Specter, as well as Congressmen like Tim Holden who claim to be Blue Dogs, should be forced to account for:

• Should the federal government decide for every individual what medical treatments we should receive? (Section 123 establishes a Health Benefits Advisory Committee to determine who gets what treatment)
• Should the federal government have the access to every individual’s private medical history? (Section 142 outlines the ‘collection of data’ as one of the duties of the ‘Health Commissioner’)
• Should illegal immigrants and non-citizens be provided health care coverage? (Section 152 provides blanket coverage to everyone without regard to US citizenship)
• Should the federal government have real-time access to every individual’s private financial records? (Section 1173A outlines the use of real-time access information to determine medical coverage concurrent with implementation of a national health ID card)
• Should the private health insurance plans be forced into the national program regardless of the desires of the individual participants? (Section 202 outlines the creation of a ‘Health Insurance Exchange)
• Should the federal government have the authority to ration healthcare for the American people? (Section 203 outlines the authority granted to the Commissioner to establish a ‘permissible range of cost-sharing’)
• Should the states be forced to restrict the coverage mandates approved by their own representative bodies? (Section 203 requires states to reimburse the federal government for any state requirements that exceed federal minimums)
• Should the federal government have the authority to mandate cultural and linguistic services (Section 204.b.7 states: “The entity shall provide for culturally and linguistically appropriate communication and health services”; Section 1122 reinforces these type of services)
• Should the federal government have the power to tax private individuals who choose not to participate in a health plan not approved by the federal government? (Section 207 outlines how individuals and employers will be taxed for not providing “acceptable coverage”; reiterated in Section 322 and Section 401)
• Should the federal government have the authority to interfere with the compensation relationship between the private individual and their respective physician? (Section 224 notes that “payment mechanisms and policies under this section may include patient-centered medical home and other care management payments, accountable care organizations, value-based purchasing, bundling of services, differential payment rates, performance or utilization based payments, partial capitation, and direct contracting with providers”)
• Who will pay for the treatment of illegal aliens? (Section 152 provides blanket coverage to everyone without regard to US citizenship while Section 246 prohibits payments for those not legally present in the US)
• When is a tax not a tax? (Section 59B.e.6 states: “The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax…”)
• Should the federal government have the authority to control the productivity of medical service providers? (Section 1131 outlines those providers subject to federal quality oversight, including ambulatory and laboratory services)
• Should the federal government interfere with the physician/patient relationship with regards to hospital readmissions? (Section 1151 outlines how the national program will be applied to limit readmissions)
• Should the federal government interfere with the physician/patient relationship with regards to post acute care services? (Section 1152 outlines how the national program will be applied to control post acute care services)
• Should the federal government control the expansion of hospital facilities? (Section 1156 outlines how the national program will impact the expansion of medical facilities)
• Should the federal government determine whether special needs individuals should be eligible for health care services? (Section 1177 indicates that a cost analysis will be completed to determine the impact of costs as related to special needs individuals)
• Should the federal government manage individual healthcare without involvement of a local physician? (Section 1191 outlines implementation of a ‘telehealth’ [health care by phone?] system)
• Why should the federal government provide end-of-life counseling to participants in the national health plan? (Section 1233 outlines the use of ‘Advanced Care Planning Consultation’ including counseling for end-of-life services and supports)

Where do Pennsylvania’s federal legislators stand on these questions? Do they really think that the same government that spends $600 for a toilet seat and spends hundreds of thousands of dollars for Social Security bureaucrats to dance in Arizona can efficiently manage the American medical system?

Do Casey, Specter, Holden, Murphy and the other liberals who make up this commonwealth’s Democrat delegation, actually embrace such meddling in our individual health plans and our individual physicians? Do they really think the federal government has been granted the authority by the Constitution to tell doctors what to do and what medical treatments a sick individual should receive? Are they such tyrants that they want to steal away so much of our God-given liberties?

Ironically, the Obamacare bill does not simply relate to the creation of a national health care program. Multiple references are made throughout that amended the Social Security Act, Medicare, the federal tax code, and many other areas. To say that the Obamacare bill is sweeping in its nature is an understatement.

And need mention be made of the fact that there is no way to tell how this program will be fully funded?

Presuming neither the House nor the Senate actually try to sneak a vote in before their August recess, it is imperative for the people of Pennsylvania to challenge their legislators and demand both an accounting for their support of Obamacare. Opponents of Obamacare must make it clear in no uncertain terms that political careers are on the line, and must remain vigilante and vocal in publicly fighting this assault on American liberty.

Left? Right? or Balanced! - Part I

OK, I've jumped on the bandwagon and started reading the "5000 Year Leap". I highly recommend it to anyone and everyone. But I have quickly realized that the United States has skidded violently away from the intents and hopes of our founding fathers and, truthfully, we all are to blame. If Skoussen is right, then the accurate model of governmental ideals would show that there really is no 'left' or 'right' as we define them. In fact, though many of us have almost proudly claimed the moniker "right wing conservative", we really are not on the right. According to Skoussen's model, what we know as "right wing" is more properly defined as centrist. The Founders placed us in a balanced position of a constitutionally bound, democratic, republic - a conglomeration of the best facets of some of the most successfull governments of history. What we have seen for many years is the shifting toward government control (which Skoussen would place on the left) and away from our position of balance. However, the growing trend at the moment seems to be more libertarian and while many god-fearing Americans are pleased with the levels of agreement we have with those fighting for "more liberties", we need to carefully realize that there are many who would be pleased with absolute liberty - which would lead to anarchy (placed by Skoussen on the right). Therefore the battle, as always, is for CONTROL by the government or LIBERTY by the godless or BALANCE by the god-fearing. In other words, to whom is man really accountable - government, God, or himself?

Our Founding Fathers knew that any form of government that did not acquiesce to God (or at least a power higher than man himself - the Creator) would not and could not succeed. They believed that religious belief was the glue that would bind a people together, provide a common foundation for building this great nation and encourage the growth and prosperity that they all hoped for when they first came to this continent. It is important to realize that they did this knowing that no one religion was the answer, but a general appreciation of five basic truths was absolutely necessary. These five truths, as outlined by Benjamin Franklin and identified by Skoussen are as follows:

1. There exists a Creator who made all things, and mankind should recognize and worship him.
2. The Creator has revealed a moral code of behavior for happy living which distinguishes right from wrong.
3. The Creator holds mankind responsible for the way they treat each other.
4. All mankind live beyond this life.
5. In the next life mankind are judged for their conduct in this one.

While many Bible-believing Christians would wish to add to this list, we certainly agree that these five fundamentals are consistent and pertinent for every man and in a more practical sense, every religion - other than Humanism.

Elbridge Gerry, signer of the Declaration of Independence wrote, "Should we succeed in Power & Wealth every Empiree on Earth, and neglect the Morals of the people, is it not evident, that our Independence, instead of Freedom would produce a slavery far exceeding that of every other nation?" November 8, 1778

References: "The 5000 Year Leap", W. Cleon Skoussen

U.S. graduates low in Math, high is Socialism!

Although no one would say that education is free (just check you property tax bills!), free education has all but destroyed our American way of life. Liberal thought and philosophy have pervaded our educational institutions and just as John Dewey would have planned, the way was paved for a socialist, idealist to win the Presidency of the United States. We should all pay close attention to the perspective that the White House gives to ideals like liberty, equality, democracy, capitalism and so on. However, this trend toward socialism and the destruction of our freedoms was predicted based on the direction of our system of education.
When? How about the 1600's and the Jamestown Colony. Here's what Governor Berkely observed, "I thank God there are no free schools...and I hope we shall not have [for a] hundred years; for learning has brought disobedience and heresy and sects into the world, and printing has divulged them, and libel against the best government. God keep us from both."
"Free" education in the United States has done exactly what the Governor warned against. Our classrooms have become destitute of historic facts, absolute truths and the basic tenets of religious belief that made our country great. Instead, our students have been instructed in the great thinkers of history that have exalted man above all else. This simple yet pervasive ideal has given rise to generations that believe the tried and failed philosophies of socialism and collectivism combined with humanism and atheism will now work because our people have progressed to a point where "we" can now make them work! No matter how you spin it, the foundational truths of the American Independence are still relevant and current. Unalienable rights, endowed by the Creator are self-evident - unless you graduated from a public school in the United States!

Independence Day? Not in the House Speaker's office!

For all the good that is happening in Pennsylvania these days, beware of the continued erosion of our liberties. Ethan Allen and his Green Mountain Boys when mounting their amazing victory at Fort Ticonderoga were challenged with their authority in demanding surrender, made this stirring declaration: "In the name of the great Jehovah and the Continental Congress". It's a good thing he wasn't answerable to the Pennsylvania House of Representatives! Consider this:

"It then recent days, news has spread like wildfire throughout the commonwealth that the office of House Speaker

Keith McCall (D-Carbon County) censored a prayer which was supposed to be delivered by a pastor from

Adams County. The edit involved two words: "Jesus Christ."

McCall's office has tried to explain this action in a variety of ways. First, his office said the censorship was an

effort to keep all prayers made in the House "nondenominational" claiming that they don't want the commonwealth

to get sued, and that they are simply doing what other states have done. Then, his office said they wanted to

avoid any controversial prayers because of an incident alleged to have occurred where a pastor from Lancaster

County made inflammatory comments in a prayer he gave. Finally, McCall is claiming that he is only continuing

a policy begun by former House Speaker Matt Ryan (R-Delaware County) - which was three Speakers ago.

Yet, when a muslim cleric was invited to pray in the House, he was permitted to pray in the name of "Allah."

Laurel Lynn Petolicchio, Constitutional Organization of Liberty


Happy 4th of July

Sanford...Step Aside!

I'm often amazed at the apologists that spring up to defend immoral and unacceptable behavior of elected leaders! The comments I've heard have ranged from "What's the big deal?" to "His personal life is between he and his wife". These well intended comments might be political idealogs who do not want to lose a "good" man in office or they could just be truly apathetic to what these kind of actions really represent.
Frankly, whether Governor Sanford has finally found his "soul mate" or just a no strings attached fling is really meaningless. The fact is that his actions reveal a character flaw that cannot be ignored. First, he made a vow to his wife, probably before God, that implied faithfulness, honor, protection and love. He betrayed that vow. No matter how you slice it, that speaks to his integrity. As an engineering term, integrity implies thorough, complete strength. Governor Sanford has shown his flaws and revealed his lack of integrity. This disqualifies him from office.
Second, Governor Sanford spent money (his or otherwise), time and thought to "cover" his extramarrital affair. Regardless of where his "heart" was, this reveals a total lack of honesty and, in fact, exposes his proclivity to deceit.
Last, Governor Sanford's actions show that he is unworthy of the trust of his wife, his family, and certainly the people of South Carolina.
Integrity, fidelity, trust, and character are not just words to build a campaign or describe a friend. They are words with meaning; conservative thought and values will not be helped by someone with these unfortunate failings.
Our founding fathers knew that a nation that became godless, that elected leaders without virtue and that ignored the basic values of human decency was doomed. Marital infidelity and betrayal is enough reason for any public official to resign - regardless of conservative, liberal, republican or democratic schools of thought.
Finally, Governor Sanford has some serious work to do - but not in the State Capital, rather he has some serious work to do at home. Restoring his own values, his own marriage, his own family and his own soul. Caretakers of the public trust, that show themselves to be lacking in the areas mentioned above must honor the office and respect the position of leadership - even above their own worth to that office.
Mr. Sanford, the first step in restoring your integrity and character is to resign and privately deal with the difficulties you caused. Please step aside!

Socialism in NOT the answer!

Recently our local paper (Lebanon Daily News) published a letter referring to Republicans as naive because we are fighting against government regulation and controls in big business. His ideas were that strong government regulations and controls will protect us from the greedy "robber-barons" that have run the industries of banking, credit, health care, and automobiles. His suggestion was that, like firefighting, police and roadwork, government should take over these industries and thus ensure that we will no longer be victims of these abuses. Just who is naive?
Government has long been the stronghold of the "robber-barons". Ever heard of pork barrel spending? That is a greedy politician more interested in maintaining his office than exercising the common good of the citizenry. Although my friend wished to make this a Republican versus Democrat debate, the fact is that our debate is really "Big Government" versus "Limited Government" and in the eyes of any true patriot, the Republicans are just as guilty as the Democrats in wasteful spending and irresponsible governing. It is not naive to assume that a reduction in government controls and regulation is the true way to resolve our current economic problems.
For instance, consider the banking industry - banking regulations have been used to protect investors for years - that was the goal. The government stepped into private industry to ensure that hardworking people did not lose their hard-earned dollars. Regulation created a bureaucracy and bureaucracy searched for loopholes and loopholes created opportunity for "industrious" individuals to make money while protecting someone else's money. Sounds great, everyone gets a piece of the pie and the investors are happy with some gain knowing that even though others are eating the pie, their capital is sound. Then came further regulation, when BIG GOVERNMENT decided to force the banking industry to make allowances for those with little or no capital to invest. What we now call "bad loans" - wait, we always called them that until Uncle Sam changed the rules. As a result, capital is not being ensured, investors are not being protected and our economic system is collapsing. This may be a simplistic view of the problem but nevertheless it works. So what was the solution? remove the regulation and restore what was working? No. Rather, let's increase regulation, bailout the losers we created and hope it all fixes itself. Is the problem greedy, rich "robber-barons" or elected, greedy, rich "robber-barons"?
This same scenario is being repeated in Environmental Issues, Education Issues,Health care, the Auto Industry, Banking, Real Estate, Wall Street, Utilities, and on, and on, and on. Once again, who is really naive? Socialism and its near relatives, communism and Marxism lead only one direction - TYRANNY. The only ones who are truly naive are those that believe that thousands of years of history will somehow change, that human nature will somehow reverse itself and socialism will finally lead to a Utopian society. Our Founding Fathers had it right the problem is that we have ceased to hear them, see them or know them. Freedom must be the driving force of our society and Liberty must always be bounded by responsibility. Government regulation and socialized ideals will only lead to destruction.

Who will lead the Republican Party?

The talking "heads" (or throats if you refer to radio hosts) have been debating about the vision and leadership of the Republican party all week! Michael Steele (who?) is the elected chairman and Rush Limbaugh has just resigned as the unofficial head. Colin Powell has tried to take a lead (by creating his own round hole into which he can jam his square peg) and Newt Gingrich has launched his own unofficial / official campaign to maybe want to possibly think about seriously considering a potential leadership role that might eventually lead to the Presidency. Glenn Beck has created a "networking" site that would allow people to connect and never be alone and yet its membership has only just grown past 650,000 - not quite enough to surround 'them'. There has been quite a bit of rhetoric but the substance seems thin and in our first '100 days' not much has truly been accomplished.

In all the talk about leadership there has been a dearth of conversation about philosophy, ideology, and conviction. The problem revolves around the lack of baseline fundamentals. Even conservatives have fallen into the trap of relying upon gut feelings and emotional responses. Long forgotten are concepts of absolutes and foundational truths that form the platform for reasoned and balanced argument. The Founding Fathers are reverently cited and their ideals rolled out with great accolades but few have taken the time to realize that these ideals were not original with the Founders - meaning that the Founders only discovered existent truth they did not create truth. So what's the difference?

Existent truth is unchanging - it does not flex with circumstances or waver in the breeze of public opinion. Its immutability gives hope and security for those who follow it because trust is placed not in personalities or movements but in a greater, eternal, omnipotent power that cares for His creatures and His creation. In fact, the Founders referred to Him as The Creator but the Bible calls Him the Lord Jesus Christ.
Existent truth is all-encompassing - it is applicable to every area of life and every individual. All citizens of the Earth can enjoy the blessings and benefits of a system that was created for them and all their needs. It offers blessings to the good and judgment to the evil in perfect balance and harmony and by the way, the choice is up to you!

There is much more that could be said however, the start is that debate over leadership sift out to understanding of ideology. When the foundations are secure, the other pieces more readily fall into place. Incidentally, no personality that abandons existent truth or twists it with rhetoric will be able to lead those who build on the base of existent truth. Let the talking heads talk and the politicians politic, but let the people who love truth - existent truth - define a party and locate a leader, no one is really interested in another popularity contest!

Freedom Is Not Free - (and neither is anything else!)

The catch phrase for Memorial Day is almost always "Freedom is not free". It is a powerful statement as we consider the sacrifices of thousands of American patriots over the years. From our very foundations (the signers of the Declaration felt certain that they would pay the ultimate price for their independence - and signed anyway!) the cost of freedom was always heavy but most definitely worth it. For more than two centuries true Americans have placed blood value on the liberties we enjoy, but more and more we are surrounded by a society of citizens that believe the cost should be paid by someone else. Someone else's ideas. Someone else's sweat. Someone else's money and someone else's expense. Something is seriously wrong with this picture.
When the Continental Army marched to fight against the British soldiers, they willingly faced the greatest army in the world at that time. Each colonial soldier knew that his life might quickly end with the sound of a shot or the slash of a saber yet on he marched. At home was his family who knew he was not fighting for the privileges that some government or king would grant him, but rather for the rights guaranteed by the Creator. He knew that those rights did not provide for his needs, his cares or even his safety - he knew only that the ultimate prize of this "revolutionary" war would be opportunity. Opportunity to choose his own path in an ordered civilization, to exercise his own judgment in a civil society and to control his own destiny in the sight of God. He probably also realized that the pendulum of opportunity swung from the heights of success to the depths of failure however, in a truly free country, the key is that the pendulum keeps swinging!
Freedom is not free and it was never meant to be. There is always a price to pay. Patrick Henry realized that, for those who did not truly value life as dear or peace as sweet, freedom might be purchased at the cost of chains and slavery. That's the price that many are willing to pay in this current day. Prevent "climate change"; Provide healthcare; Save the banks; Supplement the industries; Tax the rich - tax the poor spend it all and tax some more. And at every turn more indpendent thinkers, innovative workers and industrious citizens are enslaved and chained. The pendulum is slowing and soon all opportunity will be lost. When will America wake up?

What's Wrong With America?

Probably no blog is large enough to answer this question but perhaps you will consider a book entitled "Culture Collapse". Follow the links and obtain a copy for yourself then join up and help send a copy to every legislative leader in all the states of the Union! Maybe we can get an answer and fix what's wrong with America!

Arlen Specter - a Democrat?

It's already happened in ideology and practice. Senator Specter is basically a Democrat. So what is our recourse? For years, Specter has ridden the fence of moderation at best - he has never been a conservative. In fact, for many true conservatives Specter received Republican votes for his stand on Israel and his economic reserve, not for his true 'republicanism'. And now we are stuck, and he knows it.
Where is his integrity? He was chosen by specific voters for specific reasons that are not defined by the other side of the aisle. He owes his constituents fair return for their investment. A switch in parties is duplicitous and despicable. He owes us better than that!
Where is his common sense? There is a balance of powers that is guaranteed by the Constitution and disenfranchisement by a politician is wrong. How much will Specter get for the change he is making? Someone is paying the bill and the Justice Department should take a hard look at his office. It is not beyond Senator Specter to buy support, I wonder if he is willing to sell it?
Where is his future? The Democrats can have him but just what will they expect from someone who has betrayed the trust of his constituents? Beware Arlen Specter! You just might find yourself a so-called "man without a country".

School Choice in Pennsyllvania

Some school districts in Pennsylvania spend as much as $20,000.00 per student for their education. For their money, parents get a broad approach to education. Open mindedness, political correctness, tolerance and inclusivism are all proclaimed as benchmarks of a progressive and appropriate education. Most school districts operate in state-of-the-art facilities with modern technology and every convenience. All of this sounds great if you can be satisfied, not with buildings, classrooms and accoutrement's, but with the philosophical and ideological agendas of the faculty, administration, and leaders of the Department of Education. So, what is a parent to do? No one is debating the proper way to add two and two or the proper way to diagram a prepositional phrase. What is being debated is the morals, values, and ideals that are represented in the various classrooms around the Keystone State.

To clarify some thoughts, morals are the foundational beliefs of an individual, values are the guidelines of life that are built upon those morals, and ideals are the goals and expectations which one hopes to attain based on those morals and values. The bottom line is whose morals, values and ideals are chosen to train the children in Pennsylvania school districts and who chooses how your money is spent.

Based on the laws of this state, every family is required to initially consider the public school (provided based on the property taxes and other funds set aside in the state budget). Other secondary options require families to find the money for tuition and fees of private or parochial schools and finally, families might consider various options of "home" school. Unfortunately, when you choose an option other than the public school, your taxes still go to support the public schools.
The debate hinges on this basic supposition - the Department of Education takes your money, provides an education that they deem appropriate, and teaches the morals, values and ideals that they affirm. You are welcome to explore options, but we keep your money. This collectivism mentality diminishes competition and smacks of monopoly. Why shouldn't Pennsylvania families be allowed to direct their taxes to the schools of their choice? Consider that the Department of Education already publishes minimum guidelines for educational institutions that assure basic structure and order. School choice would not and should not change those guidelines. The Department of Education through PSAT's and other standardized tests properly evaluate the educational levels of all students. Charter, private, and parochial schools administer those tests as well and their students perform on similar (and often better) levels.

The most probable concerns of the Department of Education must then be control of three areas: Control of the money; Control of values and ideals; and Control of the students. Each of these areas are an infringement on the rights guaranteed us by the U.S. Constitution and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. An efficient system of public education does not imply control of all monies to educate nor does it imply control over philosophy and curriculum. It most certainly does not imply control of the actual students. The debate over school choice is problematic for the Department of Education for they do not want to relinquish control.

There can be no more basic understanding of the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness than that of control over your own family and no one should usurp that control, including the Pennsylvania Department of Education.

Tea Parties: One Lump or Two?

The impact of last week's bevy of Tea Parties will not be known for sometime. The coverage before during and after April 15th certainly covered the gamut of support, criticism and ridicule - much of which I understand. I attended the Harrisburg, PA Tea Party and was astounded to see the radicals that were represented.
As a Bible-believing Christian, I certainly blushed at the impromptu preachers that stole their turn on the soap box. Honestly, I agree with much of what they were bellowing into the bullhorns however I did not agree with their opportunism. What was accomplished? Was anyone challenged by their message or were they simply tolerant of the extra "noise". Truthfully, I wish they had held their own rally because they did a great injustice to citizens and the Word of God by painting themselves (and by association the rally) as the tool of Radicalism.
As a Patriot, I was proud of the opportunity to stand with fellow citizens in peaceable assembly and rally together against the free wheel spending of Big Government. Note, NOT democrats but Big Government. There are many, many Americans who recognize that the problems our country is facing are not related to partisan issues, but rather to ideology. Collectivism, Regulation, Excessive Spending and even Socialistic ideals will lead to the economic struggles we face and they are not exclusive to Democrats or Republicans. The Tea Party was defined and presented as an assured right by the United States Constitution - and by the way it was not a revolt.
Unfortunately, I can foresee a possible revolution in the United States but it is not now and should not be about the issues we face. We have a proper way to redress grievances and we will and should follow that method. The vast minority - maybe two signs - calling for revolt were misplaced and inappropriate. However, calls to remove some from office by vote or impeachment were properly placed and represent our next call to action.
Finally, as a Citizen of the world, I was proud to see many races, creeds and beliefs represented. Clearly this is NOT a problem of WASPish America! The diversity represented as many of our speakers challenged real issues of government (like overspending, overtaxing, unaccountability of government) was refreshing and truly amazing.
As a Human Soul, I was touched by one specific member of the crowd - a dear elderly lady. Watching her hunched in the rain, hood on her head, and one singular, wrinkled hand held in the air. Her sign was just a scrap of cardboard taped to an old paint stick, her message scrawled in a shaky hand. The words didn't matter - her presence did. This is not a rally to revolt, it is not a rally of radicals - it is truly a rally of redemption by those who are finally stirred to buy back the freedoms that our country stood for and someday will again. God bless America!

Let's hear it for Governor Perry!

There certainly has been much discussion about the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Just what did the Founders intend when they included it in the original Bill of Rights? Basically the writers took great pains to identify two main aspects to the Constitution and its first ten amendments, the Bill of Rights.
First, they sought to limit the Federal government. Their experience with a tyrannical king, a controlling military, a restrictive ruling religion (the Church of England), and an irresponsible parliament left them reeling. They were determined that government would provide the protection and order that they needed without absolute control over the Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness that was endowed by the Creator. Second, they actively sought to delegate specific powers to the Federal government, thus ensuring that it would fulfill its responsibility to the citizenry - namely guaranteeing the Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness that were endowed by the Creator.
The Bill of Rights, added to further clarify the principles outlined in the Constitution, were finalized by a beautifully crafted statement that any powers not specifically granted to the Federal government was reserved for the State government and THE PEOPLE. The founders believed that the Federal government was the servant of the States and not the other way around. Men like Patrick Henry and George Mason fought wisely and logically for these specific assurances as protections from an overbearing Federal government.
And now - some 200 years later - here we are: fighting to once again maintain State's rights for the protection of the people and our inalienable rights.
Governor Perry of Texas has it right. The United States is a wonderful union but it is just that a union of States each with individual rights and powers that are not dictated to by a central, Federal body but rather reliant upon that Federal government for order and protection. Governor Perry's detractors, unfortunately, reveal their ignorance of History and the founding principles of this great nation when they simply relate his comments to the issue of slavery. No one could possibly interpret the Tenth Amendment as archaic or ineffective no matter how much it has been ignored. The real question is just how many of our inalienable rights are under attack? ALL OF THEM! And that is why states like Texas, South Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and others have introduced legislation to reinforce the understanding of States Rights and the importance of the Tenth Amendment. No one should ever be accused of being un-American when they stand upon the pillars of the United States Constitution.
It has been said that the Tenth Amendment is the cornerstone of the Constitution may we ever build upon it and may it never be removed!

Definition of Marriage

The battle truly is raging in the Northeast! Not only has the Vermont legislature legalized same-sex marriage, they over rode the Governor's veto to do it. Why is this such a big deal? Despite the naysayers and re-definers, the Bible is clear - homosexuality is unnatural and wrong. You have to twist the Scriptures pretty hard to make it say anything else, although some do. But from a practical point of view, what rights are homosexual couples missing that cause such legislation and hoopla?
Homosexuals live together as a couple, purchase houses, pay rent, work jobs, attend churches and other wise exist as a "couple". The only thing they don't have is the validation of a state issued license and in order to do that, marriage must be re-defined. Marriage licenses are the governments way of recognizing the union that for generations was a church proceeding. Homosexuals can exist in a civil union (a government sanction) and receive similar recognition. Insurance benefits and life rights are guaranteed because of a marriage license and yet the pervasiveness of divorce has made these once difficult decisions much easier and relatively similar to the marriage "contract" as issued by the Government.
Government licenses have been applied to raising children, both by natural birth and adoption. Once again the social issues of the day with single parent hood have opened the door for just about anybody to adopt and, advances in science have even dealt with certain issues of natural birth.
I would not necessarily agree with all of the applications that these "policies" of government have made nor would they be the law of the land if everyone lived in my country. The truth of it is that in the United States there is no need of government sanctioned, legalized, same-sex marriage except the selfish validation of the homosexual lifestyle. They maintain the same rights, privileges and opportunities that the average married couple maintains they simply do not have the official marriage license - that which has been reserved for historic, traditional, biblical marriage - one man and one woman.
The National Organization of Marriage has recently released a commercial entitled "A Gathering Storm". This campaign makes it clear that the legalization of same sex marriage is not an 'end' but rather a 'means'. The means to disrupt, the means to sue, the means to forcefully integrate into a society that otherwise accepts their existence but doesn't need or want to validate it. I may personally disagree with many of the lifestyle decisions made by the citizens of this great country - I'm free to express my opinion and no one has to listen. They are free to make their choices but I should not be forced to accept or validate their choice.
The issue then of same-sex marriage is really only another special interest group, pushing their own agenda and tearing at the fabric of society.

Is Health Care a 'Right'?

Read this article first: Is Health Care a 'Right'?
Of course not! It clearly falls under "liberty" ensured by the U.S. Constitution. This is where government oversteps its bounds time and again. Redefine, Reorganize and Regulate - requiring citizens to see government as the only source of provision and care thus makiing them dependant. Setting aside for a moment the issues of Health Care and its cost, simply consider the loss of freedom when Government controls the guidelines by which we choose to receive care. It is not a stretch to see a world where an overworked civil servant is deciding when you need care - or perhaps when you don't need care! Then where are your rights? What if the decision is that you need too much care? Wouldn't your needs then impinge on the 'rights' of others? The biggest problem is that we have generations of Americans who have been taught to expect the government to provide. When we become a nation of entitlement and privilege we will cease to exist in freedom! God help us we are already there!

A Nation of Citizens?

President Obama's understanding of our Nation and its founding should really concern all of us. Apparently, he continued his theme of the United States not being a Christian nation an opinion he has held since at least 2006. The U.S. Constitution was not an explosion of thought by 55 men with common interests. It was the conglomeration of 55 men who understood history, logic, human nature, and above all government. Where did they learn about these foundations? From the Bible! In fact more than 30% of the Constitution is quoted from the Bible (the basis of CHRISTIAN thought). The vast majority of these men were Christians (52 out of 55). They represented the original 13 colonies - most of which were established as Christian colonies with the free exercise of any belief in God. The founders were sent to the Convention in Philadelphia to establish a government that was ordered, established and endowed by God the Creator - Jesus Christ. Even the Bill of Rights was inserted after a time of prayer asking for guidance based on Benjamin Franklin's encouragement that, "unless the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it". (directly from the Bible). Is the United States a Christian nation? Yes! And not because of President Obama's opinion, not because 83% of Americans claim a belief in God and not because seventy-some percent claim to be Christian. It is Christian because it was founded on Christian principles, using Christian guidelines, by Christian men representing a Christian citizenry and asking for God's blessing. It is a Christian nation that is tolerant of all other beliefs that will abide with us in peace and it is "one nation under God".
President Obama would do well to read our Constitution and understand it before he begins redefining our nation.

The Fife & Drum

One of the most endearing visuals from the Revolutionary War Era is the embattled color guard marching to war playing the fife and the drum. The instruments were valuable additions to the armed forces. They signaled a rally cry, they kept order, they enlivened footsteps and they led the troops into battle. In 2009 we need such a group!
So, here is the Fife & Drum - my effort to rally Christians, Patriots, and Citizens to the cries of Purity, Freedom and Democracy! In an orderly fashion, with lively imagery and occasional debate may we be used to lead the troops and hold the colors high!