About that Lie that SCOTUS Never Defined "Natural Born Citizen"

*********

The most conservative Governor in the nation, Maine's Paul LePage,  Endorsed Donald Trump Because He's A Natural Born Citizen And Eligible.  Even though he was a US citizen, his daughters were born in Canada and researched the subject years ago to see if they could run for President.

Also, Harvard Law Professor, Former Chairman of the Antitrust Advisory Committee to Obama's campaign, Einer Elhauge, filed an amicus brief at the New York Supreme Court advising the court that Canadian-born Ted Cruz is not eligible to be president under the Article II natural born Citizen requirement.  Elhauge also says it's not a political question.

___________________________________________

State chairwoman of the Illinois National Republican Assembly claims Cruz implied that he knew he was NOT a natural born citizen when he was running for Senate.

“I said to him — on my bucket list, one day I hope to work for the first Latino president of the United States in Washington, D.C. — so I looked right at him and I said, ‘I believe someday you might be that guy.’ He looked back at me and he chuckled, ‘I wasn’t born in America … I was born in Canada.’ We laughed about it.”

But asked about his eligibility after his CPAC speech in a Q&A with Fox host Sean Hannity, Cruz said, “I was born in Calgary, my mother was an American citizen by birth, under federal law that made me an American citizen by birth. The Constitution requires that you be a natural-born citizen.”

CRUZ ALSO SAID in an interview with the GOP TEXAS STATE COMMITTEE MEMBER that Barack Obama was NOT a Natural Born Citizen and that the Constitutional definition of NBC was “Two citizen parents and born on the soil.” 

*********

The biggest lie is that there is no Supreme Court ruling, or definition of "natural born citizen."  despite actually being settled in numerous SCOTUS cases and other writings of the Founders.  

Here is your cheat sheet to stopping a potential future foreign takeover of the most powerful office in the world.

The first draft of the Constitution did not designate "natural born" citizen (NBC) but was changed following a letter from inaugural Supreme Court Chief Justice John Jay to Geo Washington arguing that foreign powers could easily find ways to take over the Presidency if they weren't NBC.  

John Jay wrote:

Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.

See a transcription of Jay’s letter to Washington at this link.

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of U.S. Constitution as adopted 17 September 1787 (emphasis mine):

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

NOTICE there is an exemption for mere “citizens” alive at the time of the adoption of the Constitution – but a “natural born” citizen is something else.   If it only meant naturalized citizen, then WHY WAS IT CHANGED?

Historian and Founder David Ramsey explicitly addressed this in his writings in 1789:

In his 1789 article, Ramsay first explained who the “original citizens” were and then defined the “natural born citizens” as the children born in the country to citizen parents. He said concerning the children born after the declaration of independence, “[c]itizenship is the inheritance of the children of those who have taken part in the late revolution; butt his is confined exclusively to the children of those who were themselves citizens….” Id.at 6. He added that “citizenship by inheritance belongs to none but the children of those Americans, who, having survived the declaration of independence, acquired that adventitious character in their own right, and transmitted it to their offspring….” Id. at 7.He continued that citizenship “as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776….” Id. at 6.

Even GLOBALIST LIBERALS, wrote in the Kent-Chicago Law Review in 2005 argued that the Constitution needed to be AMENDED to do away with the fact foreign born children aren’t “natural born citizens.

the natural born citizen provision is controversial because it prevents over 12.8 million Americans from being eligible for the presidency.

There is the reality that Republicans could go through the entire primary process, only to have their nominee thrown out, if not substantially delayed (unable to start a campaign for the general election in time).  Rep. Alan Grayson (FL) will also file lawsuit if @TedCruz nominated by GOP.

The immigration of Act of 1790 Mark Levin cites was REPEALED, because it erroneously legitimized foreign born kids to US parents (plural) as NBC. (Mark Levin the supposed "expert" claimed it was still in effect by the way.) It specifically corrected this in the Act of 1795 and we have the House Committee notes explicitly explaining that it was because of this very issue.

The Supreme Court DID explicitly address the issue of NBC in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167 (1875) (“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were
natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”);

A second SCOTUS case (U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 665 (1898)), citied Minor and quoting without criticism its common law definition of a natural born citizen. This means in a SECOND case they didn't argue against the earlier finding.

There are actually many many other acts, laws, and documentations clearly show Rubio/Cruz/Jindal ineligible.  

Supreme Court Cases that Cite “Natural Born Citizen” as One Born on U.S. Soil to Citizen Parents -

• Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
• Shanks v DuPont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
• Dred Scott v Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
• Minor v Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
• United States v Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
• Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939)

The Supreme Court Ruling in Wong vs Ark says this:

"Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired *180 by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, 

Being "naturalized" is different from being a native citizen.

Now to REALLY blow your mind.  There have been numerous attempts since 1975 to change this by Congressional LAW.  Since 2003, there have been 8 attempts alone.  IF EVERYONE ALREADY “KNEW” NBC was merely naturalized citizens, why have there been people trying to change it for the past 40 years?  (Attempts to Redefine or Amend Article II “Natural Born Citizen” Clause of the United States Constitution)

Ironically we have testimony of a famous foreign-born leader whose mother was American, and his father foreign. He was granted honorary citizenship and was asked by reporters if he would run for President of the United States. He said, “I am, as you know, half American by blood, and the story of my association with that mighty and benevolent nation goes back nearly ninety years to the day of my father's marriage. There are various little difficulties in the way. However, I have been treated so splendidly in the United States that I should be disposed, if you can amend the Constitution, seriously to consider the matter."

You know him as, Winston Churchill.


Current Hawaiian US Senator Mazie Hirono was born to a US citizen mother and a foreign father in a foreign land.  Her mother brought her to the US when she was seven years old. She defines herself as an immigrant is a "naturalized citizen"  according to her biography. 

One last note. WHY is there an exemption for foreign born citizens in Article II "alive at the ratification" of the Constitution if they too would automatically be natural born citizens? The Founders were some of the most highly educated men in the WORLD as well as our country. They didn't use words casually. So merely consider that this WAS important to them and for a reason.

Otherwise, Iranian Born, Chief of Staff and Communist Valarie Jarrett – is also eligible since BOTH of her parents were Americans.

Ted Cruz Lies on His Website

Ted Cruz's website boldly lies "NO CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLAR BELIEVES CRUZ TO BE INELIGIBLE FOR PRESIDENT."

However scholarship papers and Notable Officials to the contrary are legion including Ted Cruz's own Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Tribe.  A few include:

• Catholic Law University Review PDF (Also explains why other scholars get it wrong)
  (Layman Washington Post article by same Delaware Law School professor/historian)
• University of Chicago Professor Posner
• Chicago Kent Law Review (from a Leftist, Globalist, New World Order perspective)
• Governor of Michigan
• Michigan Law Review
• Professor of Law, Professor of Public Administration and Policy, University of Arizona 
• Maine Governor Paul LePage  (Daughters born in Canada and researched issue years ago)
• Governor Huckabee and Senator Santorum
• Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Tribe
• Fordham Law Professor
• Former Chief Judge of the State of New York and an Adjunct Professor of Constitutional Law at Touro Law School 
• Winston Churchill (In EXACT situation as Cruz with US mother, and foreign birth & father)
• Founder/Historian David Ramsey 1789 Constitutional Explanation of "Citizenship"
• 1795 Congressional Notes (explaining repeal of 1790 "natural born" Act) PDF
• Libertarian REASON magazine
• Independence Institute
• Case Western Law Professor (changed mind to now doubt earlier position Cruz eligible)  

Harvard Law Professor, Former Chairman of the Antitrust Advisory Committee to Obama's campaign, Einer Elhauge, filed an amicus brief at the New York Supreme Court advising the court that Canadian-born Ted Cruz is not eligible to be president under the Article II natural born Citizen requirement.  Elhauge also says it's not a political question but a Constitutional one.

Read More

Ted Cruz Just Undermined America. And the Constitution.

*****UPDATE*****
There is also now serious legal questions as to whether Cruz's mother ever filed a US Consular Report of Birth Abroad (CBRA) to lay claim to Ted's US citizenship right.  Canada did not allow dual citizenship until 1977 (seven years after Cruz was born in Canada) and without such a document, Cruz would ONLY have been born a Canadian citizen.  If so, since he didn't renounce his Canadian citizenship until 2 years ago, he would actually be ineligible to be US Senator also.
*****************************************************************************

Ted Cruz has now demonstrated that no matter HOW conservative and honorable a candidate starts out to be, they will eventually be corrupted by power.

I used to remember Texas Senate-hopeful Ted telling tales of how much he loved America.  How he wanted America to be unified.  How much he loved Reagan.   With his lack of charisma and Harvard aloofness, it humanized him a bit.  It also seemed sincere.

As an transplanted Southerner, there is a wicked temptation to want to trash everything and everybody in New York or California.   Which is strange because most of those Southerners CLAIM to be Christian and are exhorted to embrace not only reason, but also humility, compassion and love.  You'd never catch Ronald Regan trashing Raleigh or Richmond.   Or Trump trashing Texas.

I have to admit - I saw it coming about 3 years ago when, on MEET THE PRESS (a sure telegraph of how Democrats are going to attack him) he claimed that "he won't get into legal arguments" when asked about his citizenship and Presidential eligibility.  I guess that whole expertise in constitutional law is only useful when you need material for a filibuster.  God forbid you should use your education and expertise to educate the public.  I wrote about it at the time (2013) pleading for him to be more like George Washington than a Washington politician.  Apparently Ted doesn't read Politijim.  Or isn't - in reality - a constitutional conservative.

I was told that in private fund raisers - here in Texas - his naturalized citizen father was telling supporters that their lawyers told them "there is nothing to" this whole birther issue.  Since then, it's been revealed Ted also lied about loans from Goldman Sachs (where his wife worked), all the while attacking them as crony capitalists.  The bright side is at least it isn't a forged birth certificate I guess.

Apparently the ideological co-opting that Trent Lott crowed about is inevitable.  Even for born again, God-fearing, constitutionally grounded Senators from Texas.

Additionally, in the past week Cruz has adopted Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton's political tactics.  During the FOX BUSINESS debate he was asked about his eligibility to be President.  He sarcastically responded, "I’m glad we’re focusing on the important topics of the evening."

Yes, Ted.  Upholding the Constitution is important.  Even if it interferes with your personal ambition.

In that one response, Ted Cruz weakened the United States of America.

It proved his love of the constitution as nothing more than a prop to be used to become President.  Well - at least we  have no illusions that he isn't as principled as he advertised.  God forbid he should be honest with the public and simply explain his legal rational.

Worse, when he suddenly stated that Trump wouldn't qualify because Donald's MOTHER wasn't born on US soil - he showed his true colors.  He lied.  NO WHERE is a definition of 'natural born citizen' anything other than a US soil born child to two US citizen's, regardless of where those parents are born.  With that statement he proved that either he is completely ignorant of the real constitutional arguments - or he is a liar.   There isn't any other explanation.  Neither are comforting.

He also adopted the "Rules for Radicals" tactics (#5 and #13 if you don't have your Luciferian dedicated copy handy) of ridiculing your opponents argument, avoiding any substantive and meaningful discussion.  Rules for Radicals calls it INTENTIONALLY irrational.

Apparently Ted is fine with any Iranian, Russian or Saudi citizens with at least one citizen parent becoming President of the United States.  Whether or not forged birth certificates are acceptable to Ted is unclear.

Why the hell Trump didn't ask Cruz why the first draft of the constitution was changed from merely a "citizen" being eligible to be President (similar to what is allowable for Congress) to a "natural born citizen" at the request of John Jay  - the first Supreme Court Chief Justice - to George Washington...I'll never know.   I hope someone asks it in the final debate to see the extent of Mr. Cruz as yet unknown constitutional expertise.

But Donald Trump proved to me one thing.  Even at the enormous political risk of being called "a birther", he raised the question.  And he's so far ahead in the polls he didn't need to.  He deftly placed the danger on that of the Democrats picking up the legal attack and running with it.  And they not only WILL - they have said they will immediately challenge the election.   None the less.  Donald has been true to the subject since question Barack's forgeries and didn't lay down when given an opportunity to do so.

Trump is now more of a Constitutionalist than Ted Cruz.  And that shocks me.

It also makes me regret buying into the notion that Cruz was truly driven by principal over politics and substance over self-ambition.   He has done some great things in the Senate.  He certainly has fought hard against much of the RINO agenda.  But perhaps the last chance to finally stop the horrendous hoax perpetrated on America by the Muslim at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, may be lost forever.

Yes, he is a Muslim.  And worse, the REAL President is Iranian born Valarie Jarrett, who now has given Iran escape from sanctions, but permission to continue their nuclear development while flooding the market with cheap, terrorist financing oil.   As someone in the oil industry, the millions of jobs lost with the crash in oil is very much due to Iran's oil coming online.  I had Europeans tell me 2 years ago that they had assurances Iran would be open for ALL WESTERN BUSINESS.  Even I didn't think it was possible.

But look what having a Kenyan born President will do for you.   I'm sure there will still be some who will warn "why should we worry about Kenya!?  They couldn't do anything."  Yeah.  Right.

Don't think for a minute that every well financed enemy of the US isn't now grooming some Manchurian Candidate to get their feet wet in American politics.

Barry Soreto has been bad.   But Ted just opened the door wide for the very thing that John Jay feared.  An open invitation for foreign powers to find a way to perpetually control the White House.  And America.

Call me conspiratorial or fringe if you want.  You already did that when you promised me that the government would never lie about unemployment or satellite data, or that the government could force children to be taken from their families and poisoned against their will.   It happens every day across this country.  Worse, you are now forced not only to subsidize liberal's healthcare, you are now at risk of jail if you don't openly support their lifestyle.   Sure.  Go ahead and convince yourself that I'm the kook it in this equation if helps you sleep at night.

Although it his highly unlikely for Cruz to EVER become President, (his unfavorable ratings surpass his favorables among most Americans and the mainstream media will Sarah-Palinize the undecideds the day he is nominated), he has left me disillusioned that there will ever be a politician who will actually do what it is right, regardless of the personal cost.

But no.  I still don't buy that he is a closet Mitch McConnell.  Yet.

George Washington presided over the Constitutional Convention and had the qualifications for President changed SPECIFICALLY to disallow foreign born citizens from taking over the powerful reigns of our country in the position of Chief Executive.  It would seem Ted is ok with undermining  our heritage as well as our country.

Until now I didn't think the Goldman Sachs connection could possibly have merit.  But if a strict "constitutional conservative" no longer finds questions about the constitution "important," what's a little favoritism among cronyists who employ your wife?

For my fellow conservatives who hate Trump (I get it.  I really do.)  Or who feel that Cruz is the only "true" conservative in the race - I would ask you what else you would sell out to get your "guy" elected.

And if, at the end of the day, if Cruz is elected, but faces secret CAIR backed Mohammad Magnetic Personality in 2020 who has the media on his side and wins the White House....was it really worth it?

Read More

Seriously? You Expect Me To Be Thankful For This?

As I write this, I’m unable to be with my family today, have numerous personal struggles, and have friends who are struggling to eat – much less walk in the fullness of their calling and careers.

On the national front, we see not only record poverty and unemployment, but - perhaps far worse - a poverty of character and moral compass that we as a nation used to be able to fall back on in crisis's of past.  A majority in our nation are enslaved by ignorance through a lying media and they continue to empower mostly spineless, weak and/or corrupt narcissists to spend our money and enslave all of us even further in more ways than we can imagine.  Communist owned Hong Kong is more economically free and former Soviet satellite Estonia may actually be a more free democracy than ours.

Seriously?  You expect me to thankful for this?

To the atheist or agnostic, (or self-absorbed) all that I can offer is that thankfulness is a key ingredient to happiness.  Researchers have proven that gratitude improves emotional and physical health, and it can strengthen relationships and communities.  Of course this required the subjects to FOCUS on what they grateful for as opposed to bitching and moaning about every problem they faced.  And if you believe that there is no purpose to your life other than a your carbon dioxide enrichment of our atmosphere – good luck with that.

However, the unfortunate thing is that without the acknowledgement of a Designer of your life you are akin to the kid who can only lick the cake batter spatula (after all your siblings and the family dog) as compared to feasting on the double fudge chocolate confection of REAL thankfulness to God that we Christians have.  Or are supposed to have despite crap hurricane that seems to never stop.

And for those that don’t just suspect or mentally suppose the existence of a Higher Power, but truly LEAN ON and TRUST Him, there is a much richer understanding and power available to you.

16 Rejoice always, 17 pray without ceasing, 18 in everything give thanks; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you.

1 Thessalonians 5:16-18 (NKJV)

Interestingly enough, the Apostle Paul wrote this amidst similar political upheaval.  Despite enormous paganism and the worship of thousands of Gods throughout the land, Christians were – at best – thought of as annoying cult of weirdo’s (not that much different from today, right?) and – at worst – were targeted for death by Jews who felt they were a threat to Judaism.  Remember Paul himself had been a Christian killer not too long before this.   And Rome’s new emperor, Claudius, had just succeeded Caligula who was assassinated by Senators and his own Praetorian Guard.  You think Obama’s bad?  Here is the Wikipedia short description of Caligula:

An insane emperor who was self-absorbed, angry, killed on a whim, and indulged in too much spending and sex. He is accused of sleeping with other men's wives and bragging about it, killing for mere amusement, deliberately wasting money on his bridge, causing starvation, and wanting a statue of himself erected in the Temple of Jerusalem for his worship. Once, at some games at which he was presiding, he ordered his guards to throw an entire section of the crowd into the arena during intermission to be eaten by animals because there were no criminals to be prosecuted and he was bored.

The point is, the “will of God” of being THANKFUL for those of us who believe in God isn’t subject to the success of our political freedom or prospects.  Which is very hard sometimes for us to grasp.

When I first heard this scripture in my 20’s after becoming a Christian, I thought “So should I be thankful if I get in a car accident and loose my arm?”

Many well intentioned Christian denominations have made it even harder by a false teaching that God inflicts us with these problems to make us stronger or to teach us “character.”

Funny, I can’t remember a SINGLE incident where a paralytic approached Jesus to be healed and Christ said, “You haven’t learned humility quite well enough yet.  Come back in two years after you’re REALLY grateful that you’re even alive.”

No!  Instead Jesus healed EVERYONE who came to Him.  And He went further telling us to ASK ANYTHING we wanted from Him.  And He reasoned that God gives GOOD things, not evil things when we ask:

…what man is there among you who, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? 10 Or if he asks for a fish, will he give him a serpent? 11 If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask Him!

Matthew 7:9-11

It is difficult for even Christians to fathom (let alone non-Believers), but GOD is “Love” as the bible states, and He is also an uncompromising Judge for perfection in thought as well as actions.  But as the reference from Matthew explains – we are to identify with God as “Daddy” first and foremost above His identity as the Supreme Ruler of the Universe who could snuff out our life with a mere thought. 

This shouldn’t be so foreign to us.  We ALL carry multiple labels and perceptions that differ from our family, our friends and those that work with us.  The child of a special operations Army Ranger RUNS to his father, even if there was a rifle in his hand, because that child knows that their relationship is in the bounds of “Daddy” and not “Sniper.”  That child doesn’t give a second thought to a misuse of his daddy’s power or intention against those who are enemies.  And it doesn’t make his father any less of a badass to Islamic terrorists who desire to do unspeakable things to that soldier's son.  (Just like the devil by the way.)

Go look it up.  JESUS always called God “Abba” (which means “Daddy”) except for the one instance where He took upon Himself all of our sin and condemnation and judgment on the cross. 

Yes, there will be a day of judgment.  But Jesus hasn’t come back to do that yet. 

And when we TRULY know God as Jesus did, (as Daddy) not only do we gain the gift acceptance, love and approval (bought for us by the perfection and blood of His ONLY truly “genetic” Son Jesus), we also now place ourselves in a position to RECEIVE from God what we ask and what we need.   TALK ABOUT A REASON FOR BEING THANKFUL!

(Did you get that?  Not only does the most powerful Being in the Universe SEE YOU like His perfect Son with NO sin, you can ask HIM FOR STUFF and He’ll HEAR YOU!)

Doesn’t the scripture tell us in one town, Jesus could not heal many because they simply couldn’t BELIEVE that He could or would?  Didn’t the “good” son in the parable of the prodigal never get a pig roast and party from the father simply because he never asked – or thought he could?

BELIEVING that God is good EMPOWERS you to receive from Him!

The first thing we should be grateful for is that God loves us each, individually as BELOVED children – regardless of how “good” we are since it is the blood of His Son that makes us righteous in the Father’s eyes.

And the second thing we should be grateful is that GOD IS WILLING to change our economy, our political and tax enslavement for us and our children.  HE said to ask him for “good things.”  Asking for a rebirth of FINANCIAL and POLITICAL FREEDOM qualifies, just as it did for His people enslaved in Egypt.

But it requires FAITH.  And here is the secret: THANKFULNESS that God will grant us what we ask.  (Because we know it is already granted to us by our Father – even before we ask for it!)

When talking about Wisdom, James says:

If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all liberally and without reproach, and it will be given to him. ⁶ But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for he who doubts is like a wave of the sea driven and tossed by the wind. ⁷ For let not that man suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord; ⁸ he is a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways.

James 1:5 NKJV

The disciples were SHOCKED when Jesus merely spoke death to a fig tree and a day later it shriveled up.  He explained:

And Jesus, replying, said to them, Have faith in God [constantly].

Truly I tell you, whoever says to this mountain, Be lifted up and thrown into the sea! and does not doubt at all in his heart but believes that what he says will take place, it will be done for him.

For this reason I am telling you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe (trust and be confident) that it is granted to you, and you will [get it].

Mark 11:22-25 AMP

Notice Jesus said “GRANTED” as in PAST TENSE.  So our prayers for ourselves and our country should be in the EXPECTANCY that He is NOT done with us yet (as George Washington foresaw) and that He WANTS us to prosper as a Godly nation again.

If we ever needed anything lifted from the “dead” the state of our nation is it.  How did Jesus raise Lazarus? HE THANKED GOD THAT HE WOULD DO SO.

And Jesus lifted up His eyes and said, Father, I thank You that You have heard Me.

⁴² Yes, I know You always hear and listen to Me, but I have said this on account of and for the benefit of the people standing around, so that they may believe that You did send Me [that You have made Me Your Messenger].

⁴³ When He had said this, He shouted with a loud voice, Lazarus, come out!

⁴⁴ And out walked the man who had been dead, his hands and feet wrapped in burial cloths (linen strips), and with a [burial] napkin bound around his face. Jesus said to them, Free him of the burial wrappings and let him go.

John 11:41-44 AMP

Do we really think that complaining to each other – or God - about how bad Obama, the abortionists, the big bank cronies or race baiters are will change a single one of them?  We are fools if we think so because NO WHERE did Jesus or the disciples say, “If thou bitchest loud enough I will reenact the face melting scene of Raiders of the Lost of Ark upon those that violate the Constitution and blaspheme My Name.”

Even the Old Testament – which required “works” instead of faith (as is to those of us under the New Testament privilege of Jesus’ blood) said:

if My people who are called by My name will humble themselves, and pray and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land.
2 Chronicles 7:14 (NKJV)

The word “seek” (baqash) carries with it a demand, to require something.  In this case it is to get God’s attention.  IF you know Your Daddy is predisposed to your wellbeing and requests, especially those that are His Will, we now pray (as we read earlier) EXPECTING that we already have it.  The Apostle John put it this way:

Now this is the confidence that we have in Him, that if we ask anything according to His will, He hears us. And if we know that He hears us, whatever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we have asked of Him.

1 John 5:14-15 (NKJV)

So what we are THANKING God for is not just the amazing grace and mercy He has shown us in not already allowing America to turn into Islamabad, but in EXPECTATION that He loves us, He has a covenant with us as a country, and that OUR BELIEF in His Goodness and in His Promise will be seen to glorify Him.

It’s NOT in our control but His.  But our FAITH that He will intervene essentially is “Thanksgiving in advance” for what we ask.

So yeah.  HAPPY Thanksgiving.

THANK YOU Lord that You are merciful and gracious to us individually, and as a country. 

Thank you that you DO still have a mighty work for America in demonstrating true FREEDOM with Your righteousness to the world, and positioning us again to be a FORCE FOR GOOD. 

THANK YOU for exposing and removing the pernicious political playmakers who have been subversively undermining our Constitution, our banking system, our economy and our culture and please Lord RELEASE Your Holy Spirit across this nation and give us pride once again in a nation UNDER GOD and Indivisible for You.

Amen. 

 

 

Jesus gave thanks BEFORE He multiplied the loaves and fishes for the 5,000.

Read More

Why Conservative Christians Sound Like Islamic Westboro Baptists to Non-Belivers

It’s about time we had a talk about how conservative Christians are not only screwing up conservative politics but the public image of Christianity.

For some reason in the past 2 weeks I’ve been drawn into multiple blogger battles with “Christian conservatives” on the issue of gay marriage, Joel Osteen, Mormonism and a church that is serving beer at church.  As anyone who has taken a nanosecond to check out my blog, Twitter or Facebook posts – I am a Jesus Freak, albeit a bit of an unconventional and non-“religious” one.  I am fiercely devoted to God but like the friends who lowered their sick buddy through the roof to bypass the line outside, I am largely uninhibited by convention.

So when I pointed out that Jesus’ FIRST demonstration of God’s power was creating alcohol at a religious event – you would have thought I denied the virgin birth or something.  These dear brothers and sisters in the Lord declared a fundamentalist Christian jihad against PolitiJim.

I don’t get shocked by much any more, but the overwhelming hateful tone by Christians responding to these articles just …. well … shocked me.  I’d estimate that well over 75% of the posts were condemning, hateful, scorning and mocking.  The disdain for homosexuals wasn’t much different from that I’ve heard against members of ISIS.  One normally intelligent blogger whom I follow regularly felt that somehow by repeating the word “demonic” about Mormonism he was actually “loving” Mormons so that they knew the errors of their ways.

You know what I’m talking about.  There is almost a celebratory glee in demeaning Democrats and frosting it with sarcastic and even vicious retorts.  “They’ll know we are Christians by our love” is now “They’ll know we are conservatives by our shove.”

Now those who’ve followed me for the past few years know that I enjoy a good row, and sometime have gotten a little to happy with biting sarcasm and ridicule of “the other side.”  Even some on OUR side.  One reason I quit doing regular political posts was the realization that it actually wasn’t DOING anything other than allowing to me blow off steam on whatever was riling me at the moment.  By lampooning and ridiculing the left, I was shocked to find they weren’t turning to our side in droves  Also I began to realize (as our Founders did) that prayer was also an effective as a weapon especially in unity.  I didn’t seem myself unifying anyone other than my fellow frustrated patriots.

Charisma News ran an article this week that Joel Osteen thought Obama was a Christian.  Never mind that the interview was TWO AND A HALF YEARS AGO when Barry/Barack was running for reelection and finally made an appearance at the Washington DC Prayer Breakfast.   Answering the question on air to Wolf Blitzer, Osteen said that he heard Barry/Barack confess that Jesus was his Lord and talked in terms of redemption and other “Christian” understanding.

Like Billy Graham, Osteen has chosen to remain totally non-political in order to have access to people in power.   The Bible only lays out one criteria to become a Christian and it’s found in the book of Romans Chapter 10. 

…if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved…

Since NO ONE (and that includes you Twitter Christians) knows what people REALLY believe inside themselves accept God, someone confess Christ publically can’t be automatically dismissed.  Especially if your nature borders on a 1 Corinthians personality that “believes the best of all people” just like Jesus does.  (Funny how Osteen doesn’t attack his critics, is the biggest donor to his own church while not taking a penny from it – even for travel and yet HE is the one who is supposedly not a Christian while the critics don’t exhibit a rind shaving of the fruit of the Spirit.)

I have no idea if my pastor (yes, I go to Lakewood) believes that any more.  The comments on this “Christian” website claimed that not only was he not a Christian or a Man of God for not believing Obama was a Muslim, most quoted scriptures that he would burn in hell and would be judged in the last days.

Really?  At that time less than 20% of all Americans believed Obama was a Muslim.  And moreover – Joel Osteen’s business is in proclaiming the “good news” of Jesus Christ, not being the final judge of whether people are deceptive or lying about whether they are or not.  You may recall Billy Graham never got criticized for not criticizing Carter and hung out with Hillary without an all out attack by the moral majority.

Since when did it become acceptable to falsely accuse a pastor who ONLY talks about Jesus as the way to live life AND has directly been responsible for over 1 million documented salvations through his Night of Hope stadium events over the past few years?  That’s actually a better record than Billy!

The bottom line is that these ferocious Facebook Pharisees want a non-stop marathon of the condemnation of SIN.   No grace.  No hope.  No love.  (You know, the entire personification of Jesus.)  They want the Revelation version of judgmental Jesus despite the fact that when Jesus read in the synagogue (Luke 4) the following:

18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, 19To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.

AND LEFT OUT

and the day of vengeance of our God;

They want fire and brimstone Jesus despite the fact that they couldn’t possible escape God’s judgments for THEIR myriad of sins beginning with taking their Lord’s name in vain all the way to even THINKING murder of another (which Jesus says is the equivalent to actually DOING IT).

What fascinated me about this Charisma article, is that at one point a MUSLIM commented on how these Christians and Muslims were not much different, and he invited them to read more of the Quran.

And you know what?  HE WAS RIGHT!

Contemporary conservative Christians seem to have this notion that “righteousness” comes from the proper conservative political beliefs and not committing homosexuality or voting for Democrats.

And their entire message to the world is comprised of either “you’re bad and we’re not” or “if you quit sinning you won’t go to hell.”

It is the exact same spirit of Islam and Westboro Baptist Church.

No wonder the world is confused about Christianity.  And why liberals distrust conservatives.   Whey the hell would they want to become a bitter, judgmental, self-righteous political snob like you?

Ever wonder why all the SINNERS wanted to hang out with Jesus?  I did.  It confounded me that the “religious” who actually were trying to obey the 10 Commandments couldn’t STAND Jesus, but the gluttons, drunkards and sinners not only flocked to him but kept inviting Him to their parties!

Do you know of any analy retentive religious a**hole YOU would want to invite to your July 4th BBQ?  (Hint: If you don’t know what I’m talking about, this is likely how others see you.)

It is the same tone and action of the men who found a married woman sleeping with another man and decided that they would “take action” to purge their town of such atrocity.

But then a bearded man (whom I guess most of these conservatives today would call a liberal today), stood in between the stone wielding posse and the naked humiliated woman.  And what’s ironic is that he didn’t even point out the hypocrisy of these men in ONLY bringing out the woman to stone and not the man they caught her in bed with.  He didn’t start yelling at them or even get angry.  He merely wrote in the sand and challenge the first “perfect” person to throw the first stone.  They left.

And even then, he didn’t turn to the woman and say, “what you did was bad, bad, bad.  And if you don’t REPENT you will burn in the eternal fires of hell!”

Instead He let her off SCOT-FREE.  No groveling, no “repentance,” not even a warning.  Just, “I don’t condemn you either.  Go and sin no more.”

What’s interesting is that the “sin no more” is actually in what is called present, imperative tense.  That means he did NOT say “don’t ever sin again” or even “stop sinning.”  It is more like, “you are not in sin from here on out.”

AND HE FIRST TOLD HER that he did NOT condemn her.  EVEN BEFORE she could have possibly said anything remorseful – let alone “confess” her sin.  We don’t even have a record of her REPENTING!!  [And “repent” by the way does NOT mean to confess your sin and determine that you won’t do bad any more.  The word in the Greek is “metanoia,” which is CHANGE (meta) your MIND (noia). So Jesus and John the Baptist were literally saying “Change the way you think” not asking for some kind of admission of all their past sins.]

Which most Christians – especially conservative ones – seem to overlook.  Our “righteousness” has nothing to do with our actions but our belief.  The 10 Commandments and the Law given to Moses (after the Israelites turned down God’s offer to relate to Him directly as we can now in Christ) demanded perfect action to rules.  In fact the Bible makes it even clearer that you make Christ’s death unimportant if you believe “keeping the law” is what God cares about.

I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain.”
Galatians 2:21, NKJV

Instead, our “righteousness” comes from what we believe.  Trusting that Jesus lived perfectly so that our attention (or attention on others) isn’t focused on what we (or they) are doing right or wrong – but focusing and believing that Jesus gave us all of His righteousness, and He took all of our sin.

21 But now the righteousness of God has been revealed independently and altogether apart from the Law, although actually it is attested by the Law and the Prophets,

22 Namely, the righteousness of God which comes by believing with personal trust and confident reliance on Jesus Christ (the Messiah). [And it is meant] for all who believe.

Romans 3:21-24Amplified Bible (AMP)

It could not be any clearer.

And yet huge parts of Christians continue to want to focus not only the sin of sinners – somehow thinking they don’t know they are miserable and “missing the mark” (which is what the word “sin” really means), they also feel compelled to do it against OTHER CHRISTIANS!

Now everyone is not only Joel Osteen’s judge, they now are greater than God in pronouncing every celebrity, every politician and every TV personality worthy or not ignoring their own tax cheating, cursing, lustful thoughts, false accusations and speeding through school zones that no one will ever know about because of their anonymity.  Worse – you violate the direction Jesus gave for the same dilemma when the disciples complained that “one who is not following us” is casting out demons in His name.  Jesus said, “Do not stop them. For whoever is not against us is for us.”

“Politijim, are you saying that we should just accept gay marriage, unaddressed lies from the left and political corruption and do nothing about it!!???

No, not at all.  I’m just saying that there is a reason non-Christians are mean, divisive, judgmental and the last person they would want to be caught in an elevator with  - let alone a desert island, despite the fact Jesus people FLOCKED to Him.   Kids – always a great judge of character couldn’t wait to jump in His arms.  Sinners didn’t feel condemned around him and invited them to their gluttonous parties.  He wasn’t the kill joy that most Christians – indeed – are.

Jesus said,

By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.”

John 13:35 New King James Version (NKJV)

Notice the Creator of the Universe said that ALL (that means everyone including liberals), will KNOW that you are a Christian IF you have AGAPE love (that is selfless love) for each other.

Since Rush isn’t here, I’ll translate for those of you in Rio Linda:  “NO ONE KNOWS OR BELIEVES YOU ARE A CHRISTIAN IF YOU ATTACK, DEMEAN AND CONDEMN OTHERS WHO ARE SEEKING JESUS” 

(And I’ll add – they certainly want NOTHING to do with your God.)

And that holds true to our political enemies as well.

Mormons are not “against” Christianity.   Joel Osteen is not “against” what is best for this country.  Both may be naïve or clueless on things that are obvious to us – but that is no cause to berate and ridicule them.And if you ask me BOTH show more “LOVE” toward other Christians than any of those who want to spend their time attacking and ridiculing others.

There is a new documentary by Darren Wilson that came out this fall called HOLY GHOST.  (Purchase Streaming here.)  It is amazing.  He let the Spirit of God lead him on how to document the moving and power of God in people’s lives.

During this segment, the filmmakers followed a fire and brimstone preacher who told every Mormon he me met that they were going to hell.  He shouted scripture and handed out tracts that were written to scare the Bejesus to…well Jesus.  Over 10 years he had saved 3 people.

Then, we followed some young, joyous Christians, drunk on the Holy Spirit (like the Christians of Acts) who merely started praying for the needs of various Mormons they met.  In less than half an hour 4 who had actually EXPERIENCED the Power and Love of God had accepted repented of their sins and accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.  You know, just like Jesus used to do.

Paul said, “And my speech and my preaching were not with persuasive words of human[a] wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.  [ 1 Corinthians 2:4-5, (NKJV)]

But what do most evangelicals do today?  Try to the talk the sinner to death – mostly by harboring on how bad and evil and sinful they are.

When has that ever worked with you?

I can’t remember a single instance from teachers, parents, friends  - and CERTAINLY not strangers – where someone hammered me to death on something I was doing wrong and I suddenly just melted and did whatever they wanted.  Usually it drove me to the EXTREME of the opposite.

I wrote a booklet/essay years ago called “God Unplugged.”  I described my first encounter with this type of Christianity this way:

It started the day my momma turned on Billy Graham when I was 13. “Was I a Christian?” “Was I saved?”

She wouldn’t let up. I thought, who cares? Sure, I’d gone to Sunday School when I was 8 but no one made it out to be that much different from Cub Scouts or Little League.

While my biggest concern was the right sized bell bottom styles and trying to get my first kiss, mom suddenly morphed into Darth Vader. "What kind of music was I listening to?" "Are kids my age drinking?"

"Was I having sex yet?" (Like I’d talk about that with my mom!). There were more commandments handed down that week than Moses on Mt. Caffeine. I was just sure of one thing - I was no longer neutral on religion. I was now firmly against it.

Honestly, it wasn’t really until the past 5 years that I found out how totally forgiving, loving and non-judgmental Jesus is.  And it hasn’t made me want to sin more – it’s made me want to sin less – since my love for Him has grown exponentially. 

Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance?

Romans 2:4 (NKJV)

I just finished a great book by Jason Clark which summarizes it wonderfully:

I used to try and love God, but now I just let Him love me.

This is why Jesus was so RADICAL to the “religious” community and why they wanted him killed!  What?  All I have to do is trust in God and tell people that and I don’t have to pay for my sins??

Didn’t Jesus let the adulteress off?  Didn’t he let Peter off when He had just told the public that if someone denies Jesus before people, Jesus would deny that person in front of GOD!?

THIS is why the Left can’t stand us and won’t listen to our ideas.  THIS is why we are called hypocrites.  Our “claim to fame” rests on our OWN righteousness – rather than that of Jesus’.  And Paul says that if you DO NOT KNOW that repentance comes from telling and demonstrating God’s GOODNESS (not His condemnation) then you “despise the riches of God!”

Paul is pretty adamant that this is NOT the way to live the Christian life. In fact, he calls those who try to put Christians back on the Law of doing right and wrong – versus letting Jesus and the Holy Spirit live inside you ACCURSED.

I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, 7 …8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed

Galatians 1

If you read the whole chapter (or book) Paul makes it clear that these Galatians are caught up with being “religious” rather just believing by faith they are righteous through faith. (Don’t take my word for it read it yourself!)

Going Back to How to Change People

Now lest you think I’m turning into John Kerry, who believes if we just quit antagonizing Muslims they will stop their jihad, let me talk about the difference between PERSONAL and GOVERNMENTAL responsibilities as a Christian.  Clearly Jesus said to render to CESEAR what is CESEAR’s and to render God that which is God’s.  When you are talking (or tweeting) an individual – your standard is far different from what we do as a society through government power.

PERSONAL SALVATION isn’t under the dominion of the government (unless you live in an Islamic or Communist state).  And all faithful Christians and Jews ARE required to be “good stewards” of that which is given them.  Jesus pointed out for instance that the person who sets out to build a barn without planning, and budgeting for it will be ridiculed.  Americans were given STEWARDSHIP responsibilities unlike any other government in history. 

So while I can personally pray for and “love” my friends who are gay or Muslim (I have both by the way), I can also advocate public policy that is responsible to oversee my responsibility as WE THE PEOPLE.  (Unlike other countries, WE THE PEOPLE have the authority over government – we just seldom talk about or enforce it).

It isn’t any more “loving” to let crooks steal goods or my cash from grocery store than it is to let those with no commitment to steal the wealth (or morality) of my country.

I just don’t have to be angry about it all the time.

Remember Jesus knit a bullwhip and DROVE the moneychangers from the temple.  But also notice that NO WHERE does it say he did this in anger.

Like a petulant 5 year old child of mine, I can firmly spank their little behinds with an attitude of complete calm  - and even caring – because I know that  - for where their maturity is – it is the best thing for them.

The concept to defend one’s self, family and country is also biblical.  But when we see our society, culture and government attacked with things that we KNOW instinctively are wrong (and even dangerous), it is natural to cry out in outrage.

But we already know the concept of “appropriate and proportional response” in law.  I will shoot dead an intruder in my home without a second thought to their wellbeing, but would (rightfully) be jailed and tried for shooting a politician who wanted to sign a law allowing the government to invade it electronically, or confiscate my goods without Constitutional due process.   Why?  Because of “imminent threat.”

We all know that releasing millions of illegal aliens into public – many that are dangerous criminals – isn’t just a theoretical political danger, it is a very real threat to our homes and communities.  (Just ask border town victims.)

Darryl Issa has been amazing in his professional, mature demeanor in Congress (albeit not strong enough in taking politically risky actions like actually calling for Holder’s imprisonment.)  And as such, many in the middle feel “safe” in standing behind his efforts as opposed to someone like Alex Jones.

But on one on one, interactions with other Christians and liberals – IF WE CLAIM TO FOLLOW CHRIST – we are besmirching Jesus’ reputation more than Obama is the Constitution when we keep demanding “performance” that Jesus never did.

I had one poster on the Charisma challenge me that Jesus said, “be ye perfect” and “if you love Me keep My commandments” inferring that it was all of MY responsibility to not sin and be perfect.  I find it funny he also didn’t tell me it was my responsibility to heal the sick and raise dead on my own too!  It is this false notion that somehow I can make myself become like Jesus - without Jesus!

The Bible is pretty clear:

…[because we] continued to behold [in the Word of God] as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are constantly being transfigured into His very own image in ever increasing splendor and from one degree of glory to another; [for this comes] from the Lord…

2 Corinthians 3:18, AMP

Why can’t we call sin “sin” without condemning people?

Jesus seem do OK by changing the hearts of the people and the entire world.  Muhammad seemed to do not quite as well, but OK too.  But in a very destructive way.

Islamists want to change the world by total control.   They want to DEMAND every one abides by what they think is RIGHT or WRONG, and if you don’t agree – they will kill you. 

Unfortunately this is PRECISELY how many conservative Christians behave.  “We demand you quit sinning and we are going to implement a law to make sure you do!”

Funny thing is  - all the laws in the world won’t change someone’s heart to WANT to do the right thing.  Only Jesus and the Holy Spirit can.

If conservatives spent HALF the time praying not just for our country – but for those who want to transform it into Sodom and Gomorrah, both in quiet and DIRECTLY, they might be surprised at how impact it would have.

Many say they believe in the Bible.  It’s about time they started ACTING like it including the part that says, “Love conquers all.”

And maybe then as we continue to try and elect godly men and women to government to continue to create Constitutional conduct, some socialists will be struck blind by the lack of anger, animosity and animus on their path to Destruction.  And we’ll frame our policies and positions with true sense of concern that might make the scales fall from the eyes.

The Bible is brilliant.  There is a clear guideline on how to deal with the rebellious.  It seems contradictory but isn’t.

Do not answer a fool according to his folly,
Lest you also be like him.

Answer a fool according to his folly,
Lest he be wise in his own eyes.

Proverbs 26-4-5 NKJV

When we are given opportunities to dismantle their own “wisdom,” we have a mandate IF it does in a way that doesn’t reflect the “spirit” of selfishness, vindictiveness and pride that wants to exert power and disrespect to beat the other side into submission.

We do this in the right way, we will not only win over the secular right and many on the left, but we will win back the country our Founders envisioned.

Read More

Why My Parents Should Have Abused Me

Adrian Peterson was arrested, suspended by the Minnesota Vikings, and convicted of child abuse in the court of public opinion.  I wish he had been my dad.

---

UPDATE: BREAKING SPORTS ALERT - September 15, 2014

Vikings' Adrian Peterson reinstated, will play Sunday

Minnesota Vikings running back Adrian Peterson, who was indicted on charges of reckless or negligent injury to a child, is being reinstated and is expected to play this Sunday against the New Orleans Saints, the team said Monday.

---

In a week where even the uber-liberal Daily Kos called the controversy surrounding Ray and Janay Rice was a public “lynching,”  ESPN and main stream media quickly found a new victim to completely discard any presumption of innocence before we had even a single detail.  Like Rice, Petersen has no history of the crime for which he is accused.  In the Rice incident, after 3 weeks there are cracks in the Iron Wall of Knee Jerk Liberalism as more learn that Janay admitted to the Ravens and Commissioner Goodell that not only did she instigate, slap and spit on Ray, but that over 40% of all domestic abuse victims are men.  Hmmm, well maybe a “lifetime ban” isn’t quite so righteous as the Witches Caucus of the Senate demands as a sacrifice.  (Just imagine how little truth would be known if the woman instigator WASN’T truthful and lied about what happened behind closed doors.  But ESPN wouldn’t let commentator Stephen A. Smith intelligently bring up the discussion without threats of losing his job and (worse) being stuck hosting a show with Keith Olbermann until he died.)  Yet I digress.

Petersen was recently a victim of true child abuse to 2 year old son by the mother’s boyfriend who murdered him just last year.  But by all means, let’s jump to conclusion that he immediately inflicted harm on one of his other children with a switch (nothing more than a tree twig) that is common (and lawful) in many places in the rest of the world.  Thank God he didn’t name his son “Redskin” or Eric Holder would already have him in Guantanamo.  How did simply doing something our parents and grandparents did become “child abuse?”

My parents suddenly quit spanking me when I was about 5.  My mother fell under the spell of one Dr. Benjamin Spock who took to every morning TV show and news program to explain that the greatest generation of the greatest country which had achieved the greatest moral and prosperity freedoms in history had it all wrong. 

My mom bought Benjamin’s BS instead of using the one in sociology she achieved at college and removed her 18” Phi Mu sorority paddle from display.  So when little PolitiJimmy decided to see if it might be more environmentally advantageous to burn a fire in the oven, she explained to me how wrong it was, how creative I was and assumed I could understand all this like a mature 30 year old.  She decided that there would be no more pain associated with anything I ever did wrong.  Well, at least until I started stealing cars and throwing plates at them when I was 16.  I can’t imagine what the policeman (whom I would come to know quite well) thought when I explained to him it hurt my feelings that I actually had to obey my parents over taking the car to my first kegger.

Granted, I had the highest esteem and confidence of any child in Chicago but also tested in the 5% percentile in self discipline, reason, moral judgment and respect for (any) authority. 

It took about 3 years of continued financial and legal destruction before I finally got the hint:  “There ARE rules and they do have consequences no matter how they make you FEEL.” 

It took another 2 decades, 2 marriages, 2 emotionally wounded children and even more financial devastation to start rewiring my brain, instinct and association to “get” how life worked and how valuable core character qualities like complete honesty, self-restraint and concern for others not only was beneficial to my life, but necessary to the pursuit of happiness.

I did somewhat better with my 2 children when they were young.  However, I learned that not all punishment was equal.  My daughter popped into this world with all the happiness, energy and vitality of her father.  She also had most of his reinforced iron will and obstinence.  And while I ALWAYS would paddle her out of love and not anger – even intentionally waiting an hour until I calmed down after she lied about drawing the likeness of the neighbor’s cat on the living room wall in purple.  (Seriously, it didn’t look like the cat at all.)

I never really tested the limits of how hard I could spank her, but I did increase the pressure – or duration - as she kept laughing through the entire thing thinking it was a game.  Even the few times a few tears were dropped, she’d be asking me for a cookie or to play only seconds afterward.    Needless to say, the paddle would break long before her determination would.

My son was completely different.  A stern look of disapproval would send him bawling and even putting my hand on the paddle would send him into convulsions.  He was so sensitive by nature he never really needed ANY physical punishment.  And both (thank God) have been far more successful in so many more “life” areas than I ever was, although I can’t take credit for either.

Yes, there are parents that have their own self-discipline, anger and emotional issues who, out of fear or ignorance, physically and emotionally harm their children.  They should be prosecuted immediately and fully so that THEY can learn boundaries that clearly aren’t being grasped any other way.

WND ran an article eloquently describing why it is that violent crime has tripled since the “Dr. Spock” era began.

The sexual revolution that started in the ’60s continues with many casualties. Promiscuity has become so rampant that 1 of every 4 teenage girls now has a sexually transmitted infection. In the last five decades, practices have become so deviant that the number of distinct STDs had risen from five to more than 50 – a sudden increase of a thousand percent. Obsession with sexual violence has brought a 318 percent increase in sexual assault.

 

There are many parenting styles.  And many studies of how effective (or ineffective) many are.  From the Ruben Hill study, I realized that my parents weren’t the worst parents – NEGLECTFUL.  They simply let their fear of peer judgment, or fear of their own ability to restrain themselves from inflicting TRUE harm upon me override what was best for me.  It is quite possible that the cruelty of my grandfather toward my father growing up played a role in over-compensating.  My mother however was spoiled rotten by her parents but likely also had issues in that they weren’t around all that much in her later years.  So, I don’t want to seem ungrateful for what they DID do for me. 

There are research studies that support that corporal punishment is beneficial.  From the UK Daily Mail:

Young children who are smacked by their parents grow up to be happier and more successful than those who have never been hit, research claims.

It found that children who are smacked before the age of six perform better at school when they are teenagers.

They are also more likely to do voluntary work and to want to go to university than those who have never been physically disciplined.

I was shocked to learn just how polarized academia was in research for this column.  As many studies have been published showing the benefits of corporal punishment I saw a pattern that the study authors are attacked – Alinsky style.  The Daily Kos (same one that thought maybe we were lynching Ray Rice by media excess) decided their best comeback against a Professor who found that even young children are better off for physical discipline was to stain her by saying, “Surprise! She’s a Christian.”  Perhaps they are unaware of how Christianity alone took a barbarian world into peace, freedom and prosperity exceeding every other “philosophy” in the history of the world.  Or perhaps they were just early Common Core graduates.

But the author (and subject of attack), Marjorie Gunnoe, professor of Psychology at Calvin College in the Michigan, found there was not enough evidence to prove that physical punishment harmed most children with the exception of a segment over the age of 6 who were STILL much more academically successful than their coddled contemporaries.  I seriously wonder if disconnect is where the parent is oblivious to the sensitivity of their own child or the MANNER in which they inflict it.  I probably would feel differently about my parents slapping my hand for attempting to touch the stove than if they dried to cut it off altogether.  And I really don’t’ see any studies that study the parents motivation of worldview guidelines – or how they would, since every parent thinks they are probably a great parent.

Of course at the end of the day you have to get into the detail of the study yourself to determine the true balance of the “he said, she said” battle of the PR corporal punishment battle.  As a layman, it seemed to me that the research of the “pro-punishment” group doesn’t have a lot of substantial empirical challenges, but I’m no researcher.  (Just ask my former professors.)  However, two facts stand out to me.  First, the central argument against punishment by it’s detractors is almost solely based in attacking the researcher and “method” rather than showing substantial data themselves.  Secondly is REAL WORLD experience.  You KNOW friends, family or neighbors that don’t spank their kids and have seen how those kids turn out.  You KNOW the character of your children.  And yourself.

And all of us know that PAIN is a great teacher.  Emotional pain in avoiding the wrong person to date makes a wiser in choosing the right one.  Physical pain of not eating motivates one to work.  The segment of children (like me) who are born with a bit stronger self-will than others ESPECIALY know this because we test the boundaries more than our peers and always seemed to have suffered for it.  It shouldn’t be especially surprising to know that the Dr. Spock’s of the world have created a departure of what has been known for over 3000 years:

He who spares his rod [of discipline] hates his son, but he who loves him disciplines diligently and punishes him early. (Proverbs 13:24 Amplified)

It seems obvious to me that the parent who does NOT inflict some form of appropriately measured discipline is another form of an abuser.

Read More

Heritage Foundation Goes Global Warming Crony Capitalism Crazy

I am a big fan of the Heritage Foundation.  Especially under the new reign of former Senator Jim DeMint.  But this morning’s “The Daily Signal” by Daren Bakst is everything contrary to the true conservative mission I understood that Heritage stood for.

Bakst wants to make a case that mandatory GMO labeling is “big government” and “anti-consumer.”  He (incredulously) makes broad (and undocumented) scientific conclusions of the safety of GMO’s.   And I write this as much to hope they will “buy a vowel” on the true science behind the current GMO academic understandings and not suddenly turn into the equivalent of Al Gore disciples of ignorance and corruption.

Bakst’s Beginning Deceit

Bakst starts out deliberately deceiving his readers that GMO have existed from the beginning of time.  In the same tact of a global warming evangelist, he misuses the term “GMO” to only associate it with hybridization and cross-pollenization most of us learned by virtue of our high school science lessons on the famous friar Gregor Mendel.   What Bakst doesn’t acknowledge is that nature itself PREVENTS “unholy” genetic mutations.   We all know that a mule (offspring of a horse and donkey) can’t reproduce.  So nature (or some would suggest God’s design) itself stops large inter-special mutations from occurring.   Bakst somehow wants to mislead his reader that the genetic mutation of a new colored rose is the same as splicing glysophate (aka RoundUp - designed to explode the intervascular system of a weed causing it to die internal malfunction) into corn, soy or rutabaga.

No, they are not the same.  YES, genetics change over team through environment and breeding.   NO, that does not mean that taking frog DNA and putting it into tomatoes, or splicing e-coli strains into baby food have been proved by centuries of scientific observation.  (And yes, these both are already occurring.)

Bakst’s UNSAFE Crony Capitalist Talking Points

Under the headline “Safety” Bakst makes the statement:

The FDA not only has said GMO foods are safe; it also has expressly stated that labeling of GMO foods isn’t necessary.

So, let me get this right.  To prove that GMO labeling is “big government” he cites “big government” as his definitive source?  Mr. Bakst didn’t think it was salient to also include the fact that the FDA has REFUSED to do any actual TESTING of GMO’s.  Even the UN/WHO and the AMA call for that.  As OCA notes:

Meanwhile, a growing body of peer-reviewed studies in the scientific literature suggests genetic engineering is linked to allergies and other adverse effects and increased pesticide use . The United Nations/World Health Organization food standards ... and the American Medical Association have called for mandatory safety testing of genetically engineered foods.

As if this wasn’t bad enough, Bakst then makes a wild claim citing an organization TOTALLY funded by pro-GMO companies.  he says:

Beyond the FDA, the science supporting the safety of GMOs is overwhelming. The Genetic Literacy Project has a great chart outlining conclusions from major international organizations that supports the safety of GMO foods.

Really?  Perhaps you missed the letter from 64 well respected scientists who have had to go “whistleblower” on a similar faked effort underway at the U.S. National Academy of Science’s National Research Council.  One of these scientist says it succinctly:

As scientists and researchers, we are deeply disturbed by NRC’s creation of a panel that appears predisposed to endorse GE crops, without undertaking a balanced and evidence-based assessment of the real-world impacts of the technology.

A successful investigation of the complex agronomic, ecological, economic, social, political and cultural impacts of GE crops around the world demands a panel of highly skilled experts trained in the social sciences and in multidisciplinary analysis, and having real-world experience beyond the microscope.

Very few individuals on the proposed committee possess this expertise, a few exemplary exceptions notwithstanding. As currently configured, NRC’s panel has nowhere near the scholarly or real-world expertise required to produce a credible product.

And if that isn’t enough, how about the 800 scientists from 84 countries who are demanding a complete halt to not only GMO production.

Or how about the 230+ scientists INCLUDING A SCIENTIST WHO HELPED COMMERICAL THE GMO FLAVR SAVR TOMATO who have publically stated that there is “no consensus” on GMO safety.

Dr. Belinda Martineau is a former member of the Michelmore Lab at the University of California Davis Genome Center, where she worked on the technology for the first GM-whole food. Now, however, she isn’t so convinced about its value.

In backing the statement against GMO safety, Dr. Martineau wrote:

“I wholeheartedly support this thorough, thoughtful and professional statement describing the lack of scientific consensus on the safety of genetically engineered (GM) crops and other GM organisms (also referred to as GMOs). Society’s debate over how best to utilize the powerful technology of genetic engineering is clearly not over. For its supporters to assume it is, is little more than wishful thinking.”

Hmmmm.    Governments and media declaring a “consensus” among scientists when there are thousands who not only disagree, but are denied a right to have their papers peer-reviewed and published.  What does THAT remind you of?  Maybe a nearly 18 year absence of “global warming” that was supposedly unanimous among scientists but turned out to really be less than 12%?

Does Heritage understand that China has now banned all US crops due to GMO contamination?  Are you telling me a totalitarian communist government that badly NEEDS cheap US food would really even care about their own population if this wasn’t a major health issue?

Did Heritage miss the scientific presentations of dozens of credentialed scientists last year discussing the latest research on GMO and health safety?  Perhaps I can help.  Here is just one presentation where court documents reveal that FDA scientists DID indeed believe GMO’s caused damage despite their employers position:

FDA Scientists Admit GMO Health Concerns

Lobbyist Crony Capitalism At It’s Worse

And it get’s worse.  The “policy” of the FDA to make biotech companies do their own testing is administered by it’s leadership.  Who, pray tell RUNS the FDA?  A former GMO executive who keeps jumping back and forth between the FDA and Monsanto.  The ULTIMATE Crony Capitalist who asked the US GOVERNMENT for the right to IGNORE court findings of liability against …you guessed it GMO’s.

Mr. Bakst a question for you.  If GMO’s are so “safe,” why did an enemy of conservative causes whose campaign is funded by the leading GMO advocate in the world need legal protection from future court cases finding GMO’s harmful and usurping the rights of American citizens?

Are you sure you want to stick with this notion that being against GMO labeling is “conservative?”

Big Government

Bakst tries to make a correlation that “labeling” equals “big government.”  Oddly, he finds no problem with the existence of the FDA ITSELF.  (So I’m assuming Bakst finds it’s ok to have a massive government bureaucracy overseeing “Food” and “Drugs” but the government can only regulate “Drugs”?)

Of course, this would be the same FDA that was manipulated by political chicanery to approve Aspartame (Nutrasweet) despite clear evidence that it not only hid damning studies, but was known to turn into formaldehyde in the digestive system.  Former Searle President Don Rumsfeld had the obstructing FDA President removed so that his former employer could poison billions legally through their patent.  But I’m sure that’s hunky dory and “pro business” in Heritage’s eyes?

The Intellectual Missing Link

What Bakst misses (IMHO) is that as long as government ALREADY claims control of the right to regulate Food and Drugs, the call to remove labeling endorses ONLY the rich companies that can manipulate government regulation and decree.  As in the NutraSweet example above, millions assume that there is some new safety with the government’s Good Housekeeping seal of approval.  Oddly, in light of the millions of sick Americans and studies exposing liver disease, kidney failure and even cancer, the FDA has now issued a warning for Aspartame. 

(Here’s a hint for Mr. Bakst: Either advocate a complete Libertarian principle where government should be out of EVERYTHING except national defense and international trade as the Founder’s designed, or help in protecting Americans FROM tyrannical government.  Otherwise you embarrass the “conservative” movement as a whole.)

Many in the conservative movement decry the “progressive” movement of the Teddy Roosevelt era.  But what they often overlook is that corporations were completely unregulated (or taxed) up until that point and could do what they would.  They romantically assume some kind morality to capitalism when business did nothing to stop child labor, false labeling, market manipulation and more.  Capitalism FAILED to effectively protect the very marketplace it demanded.  And thus was born government oversight.  Not every railroad baron was evil and wanted to destroy towns for personal tyranny but many did by sheer political and financial influence. 

No I’m not against Capitalism.  The Founders brilliance allowed government to create a hands off system that allowed America to create the greatest improvement of human welfare (by virtue of free enterprise) with a government structure that allowed it to flourish.  It created a framework of trademarks and patents without which they knew there would be no protection (or reward) for innovation.  But now some patents are used KEEP innovation off of the market and even are leveraged to create monopolies over a basic human right, the right to grow your own food.  (More on that below.)

So how do you protect people but allow capitalism to prosper?  The Founder’s knew the answer quite well:

Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for Liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free Constitution is pure Virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People in a greater Measure than they have it now, They may change their Rulers and the forms of Government, but they will not obtain a lasting Liberty. They will only exchange Tyrants and Tyrannies.

• John Adams Letter to Zabdiel Adams (21 June 1776)

But today morality is relative.  We can trust NEITHER government or business or even our population to do what is the “right” thing for all.

The tyrannical weapon granted by government that Bakst is defending is, in fact, the worst form of capitalism.  Monsanto has been using it to attack the small farmer for years to drive him out of business.  Multiple documentaries including FOOD, Inc. and THE WORLD ACCORDING TO MONSANTO (free to watch here) expose case after case of a small farmer whose crops INADVERTANTLY are cross contaminated by a nearby Monsanto field, and Monsanto moves in to (literally) shut the small farmer down if he doesn’t pay the mafia vig. 

THIS is who Heritage is defending. 

And they and Bakst should not only be ashamed of themselves, they should immediately reverse their position and work to eliminate one of the most egregious instances of crony capitalism.

That or join their soul brothers Al Gore and Barak Obama in pretending that by taxing companies, they can change the weather.

Read More

Bulls Media Bitten by the Cubs Bug

I awoke from my 2nd consecutive night of nightmarish Bulls dreams to a Sam Smith article entitled, “The State of the Bulls is sound."  It’s quite interesting the word “sound” is not in proper title case, and I thought perhaps Smith was at his peak playoff prose performance in defining it is “errant noise” rather than than that of being “sturdy and strong.”

Unfortunately, I think instead he is as deluded as our current President who – with record poverty, record REAL underemployment/unemployment and record debt, deficits and fear of America’s financial future also characterized the state of the nation the same way.

Granted, I think the Bulls are better off than the nation as a whole.  But c’mon.  The Bulls are “sound”?  If you believe that you may be the same guy who thought signing Carlos Zambrano or Soriano would singularly set up a World Series run.  Like the delusion we Cub fans have had for years, I’m not so sure we are a player away from our playoff fantasies.  In fact, I think Thibodeau may need to go to the Theo school of rebuilding a number of things about our Bulls.

Let’s start with everyone’s #1 Bulls issue.  Derek “the thorny” Rose.  Clearly Bulls aren’t playoff competitive without him.  So the two salient questions are:

1. Will he ever be healthy and have sustainable basketball brilliance?; and,

2. Is his surrounding cast truly sufficient for championship contention?

Derek Rose’s Unreal Body Dynamics

Of course no one knows the answer to the first.  Everyone assumes he can return given his age and drive.  Smith references Bernard King and Zydrunas Ilgauskas as examples of why this is likely.   However, it is more likely that Rose is probably more similar to Tiger Woods in the enormous torque and stress he places his body under to accomplish his acrobatic feats.  He’s never been a pure shooter or (yet) developed the Jordan/Kobe (and even Ray Allen) dynamics that rely more on basketball IQ than physicality, so CAN he be an All Star premier player without his unreal speed and creative contortions?  Doubtful.  The 2 games just prior to his latest injury showed signs that he could be the original Rose.  But I think we are deluding ourselves to think that the long term proposition for Rose being “Rose” beyond even a year or two is 50/50.  Athleticism will fade and he won’t get any taller.  Truth be told he looked old against the young guns like Wall in the beginning of the year.

And what of that supporting cast?  We know OKC can survive without Westbrook (and Hardin) and suspect that Pacers might not be any better with all of their talent at full speed.  Are we REALLY just a Rose away from greatness?  Noah’s standout year was wonderful, but at the end of the day – he couldn’t do squat against the Wizard’s big men.  Butler still hasn’t come of age offensively (and may never do so) but clearly Taj showed sustainable greatness even in the playoffs.  Dunleavy, Boozer and Snell are all expendable.  Do YOU think a Noah/Gibson/Butler/(Hinrick or Augstin) platoon equals the offensive firepower that Miami, Washington, OKC, Houston or the Clippers have?  The “bench mob” was profound because it showed just how important a second unit was to long term winning.  Like my beloved Cubbies, you can have an MBL leading starting rotation but without a stellar bullpen you will continue to be…well.. the Cubs.  I’m not sure the Bulls can sustain any prolonged San Antonio caliber offensive or defensive threat at a championship level with our mix of players.

And the addition of a star like Carmelo Anthony seems to bring the Bulls to (perhaps) a 2nd round contender but not a Championship team if you add up all the numbers.  The brilliant article by Kelly Scaletta shows, a ‘Melo addition is a diminishing one in more ways than one.  (Kevin Love on the other hand isn’t.)

I actually believe the Bulls position is much better than the Bears and slightly better than the Cubs.  The addition of the “Real Madrid MJ” AND someone like Kevin Love would make the Bulls uber-competitive with or without the re-blooming of Rose and the current cast.  But Rose’s unknowns and an aging selfish shooter like Carmelo doesn’t give me much confidence.

Perhaps the major concern of the Bulls is one that no one dares entertain.  One Coach Tom Thibodeau.

On one hand it is remarkable that any coach could motivate professional prima donnas to the playoffs after the triple sucker punch of loosing your MVP twice and your only other All Star leader.  I truly can’t understand how Thibs only came in 4th in Coach of the Year voting after what he accomplished this year.

On the other hand you have to ask, “how is it that you couldn’t make significant enough STRATEGIC adjustments (not just tactical ones) to the Wizards after barely eeking out 1 win in 4 tries?”  The whole “we just have to play harder” mantra is great time-out tutelage but doesn’t address the key fact that your “defense wins all” strategy …doesn’t.  Or at least it didn’t last year or this year.

All the Wizards had to do was swarm Dunleavy to dampen his deviate scoring display and use an Ariza antidote on Augustin and waala – no O.  Thibs seems to think that scoring is merely a nuisance for the NBA pansies who won’t work at defense.  It might shock him to know that James Naismith create a game that focused on giving points for putting a ball in a basket and didn’t reward any points to the opposing team for deny them.

Don’t get me wrong.  I still love Thibs, but it turns out he is perhaps the best REGULAR season coach in the NBA and the worst playoff coach.  The whisper that he overworks players during the regular season to overperform (and that the Bulls have no 2nd gear come the playoffs) is now louder and more persistent than Boozer’s mouth.   They have yet to show they DO have a different  - more competitive gear – to match the intensity of their playoff opponents.  All that “practicing top effort” for an entire season hasn’t paid off TWO YEARS IN A ROW.  (Yes, the Heat were beatable last year.)

Clearly, Tom T overvalues defense and despises offense.  His first year success came more from merely delegating offense to Rose than any ingenuity in embracing and creating it in his other players.  Didn’t Phil focus his players on defensive excellence despite his offensive calling card?

One of the greatest things Phil Jackson and Pat Riley did was to create entirely different “looks” both offensively AND defensively against their opponents to keep them off guard in the playoffs.  (Tex Winter was a big part of that).  Outside of tweaking spacing or  - as in Dunleavy’s 35 point extravaganza – merely running plays for one guy, Thibodeau seems out matched when it comes to creating scoring.  Mentioning the best pure shooter the team was worse than saying “Tea Party” in the oval office.  “Jimmer” who proved he was the most productive scorer in his limited minutes wasn’t even allowed to take his sweats off even in second platoon relief.  Imagine where the Rockets would be if they were afraid to put Troy Daniels in?

Someone needs to spend his summer learning how to be just as ingenious at offense as he does D.  And with his knowledge of the game, who knows he doesn’t come up with something rivaling Phil’s “triangle” offense to match his defensive brilliance?

My guess is not only is the current coaching approach not “sound” for the future of the Bulls, it will never create a dynasty we all long for.

Read More