Coming Home to Mama's

On these visits to see Mama and Aunt Mae, I truly realize how fortunate I was to grow up on this mountain. We didn't have much money when I was little, but man was I ever wealthy! I had all of Uncle Dave's land, plus the entire Talladega National Forest to roam, and roam it I did. As early as I could remember, I would get up and journey into those woods. All of it was mine, every single acre. Beside our house on Uncle Dave's land was this big pecan tree that was loaded every fall, and on any day of the week, I could walk up the hill to Aunt Mae and Uncle Dave's house and Aunt Mae would always cook for me, butterbeans and biscuits and maybe even some salmon patties! Her and I would sometimes pick blackberries so she could make us the most awesome blackberry cobbler. Aunt Mae's yard had apple trees, both red and green and she made the best fried apple pies ever. They had a scufadine vine, a grape vine, and a fig tree that was always full of fruit. Uncle Dave grew watermelon and cantaloupe in the fields behind our house, and he had an old refrigerator in his well house that always had at least one of each in it, chilled and ready to slice. As I got older and started riding bicycles and later dirt bikes, that's when the daily adventures really got going! Salt Creek Falls and Branch Falls were both within walking distance of our house and we swam many times at Salt Creek Falls, climbing up and down the side of it, in spite of the danger. But those aren't the only falls on that mountain, you know. I've found waterfalls in those woods that very few people have ever seen and honestly to this day I can't remember how to get to. The memory of coming across those hidden gems and being blown away by their natural beauty gives me such an awesome feeling to this day. I was always shy and a loner, happy to spend the whole day by myself in those trails, but boy when I wasn't isolating, did I ever get some attention! My Daddy was my world and Uncle Dave was my hero, and when they passed away I was crushed. But the three rocks in my life, Mama, Aunt Mae, and my sister Penny, loved and babied me, and you know I just ate it up. Oh yeah, I was spoiled. Again, not with the things money could buy, but with love, and I still am. If there is anything in this world I'm good at, it's being loved! I've got lots of experience!
As I sit here right now and look out of the windows of Mama's house and see those pines, I'm filled with happy memories. I've always felt that my soul lived in those woods, and sometimes when I'm here, I just start walking, not intending to go anywhere in particular, but just to go. No I wasn't born a Rockefeller or a Carnegie, but there is no way in the world you could convince me that any of their children were more wealthy or more privileged than I was as a child. God certainly blessed me and he still does, every single day. I don't thank Him nearly as much as I should. 

Trump and the Forgotten Man, Forgotten by the party of FDR

It's been two months since Donald Trump referenced the "forgotten men and women" in his inaugural address. Speaking as a non-fan, I must say that it was an excellent speech. It was brief, yet powerful. I was particularly struck though by his resurrection of the term "forgotten man", which was most famously spoken by Franklin Roosevelt in a 1932 radio address. Roosevelt however, did not invent the phrase. It was actually borrowed from an 1883 essay, written by William Graham Sumner, a classically liberal social scientist and professor at Yale. Now obviously Roosevelt's forgotten man was nothing like Sumner's. You might say that it was the direct opposite. While Sumner's forgotten man was written about the man who pays for the populist's "reforms", Roosevelt used the term as a populist, for the purpose of class warfare, very similar to, but evidently more effective than John Edwards' "two Americas". 

So why am I writing about this now, two months after that inauguration address? Well simply, I have come to understand why Donald Trump exists and why the Democratic Party is losing, quite willingly I might add, the coalition that sustained itself for almost a century. The Democrat Party is essentially turning it's back on, "forgetting" about a large population of people, hard working people who play by the rules, only to be looked down on by the elites, who label them as hicks, rednecks, racists, etc. These are the same elites, I might add, who heap virtue on the "poor", who turn a malcontent like Michael Brown into Medgar Evers, and who seem to despise the white country boy with a Confederate flag on his hat more than they dislike foreign Islamic terrorists. No, to the elites who run the Democrat Party, white middle class evangelicals are to be shamed as un-Christian because they see it as unfair that the poor are subsidized to the point of an equivalent lifestyle to them. Simply put, they are tired of pushing the wheelbarrow that, not only holds the poor, but also the very rich, who also feed at the trough of the federal government. 

Donald Trump gets these people. He understands their anger. Before the election of 2016, Republicans did not even consider the possibility of carrying Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Those states were written off, "forgotten" about, if you will. But now, the farmers, assembly line workers, and coal miners from those states, who at one time would have never considered voting for a Republican, might never vote Democrat again. So what is the Democrat Party's response to this? Well obviously these former Democrats, from states President Obama carried, are all a bunch of racists. Yes that will win them back, just as well as calling up your ex-girlfriend on the phone to curse at her, will win her back. They double down on the smears, and also the social agenda. After all, they would not want to lose that 0.01 percent of the public that identifies as a sex other than the one they biologically are. The Democrat Party is so proud to have rammed through a healthcare bill, because it expanded health insurance, most of it free, to people who did not want it, while raising the costs and the deductables of the forgotten man. 

As previously stated, Donald Trump understands these "forgotten men and women", and not only does the modern Democrat Party not understand them, it does not care to. As a conservative, I have mixed emotions about this change in party structure, the narrowing of the Democrat tent and the widening of the Republican party. Obviously, these new conservatives are not really conservatives, but New Deal Democrat types who woke up one day and realized that the kooks had taken over the party of FDR. We used to call these people Reagan Democrats, Reagan, by the way, won 49 states. Hmm...

Missouri Protest a Pathetic Example of Our Times

When I first heard about the Missouri football players threatening to not play because of a certain "cause", my knee jerk reaction was that these young men should lose their scholarships. When you add up the total value of an athletic scholarship, which includes medical, use of world class facilities, coaching, room and board, food, tuition, and future earnings, the true worth of an athletic scholarship is difficult to measure, but obviously quite valuable. As for the few elite athletes who are able to play professional football, is there any better place to showcase their talent than a major college program in the Southeastern Conference? Not only that, but the University of Missouri is considered by most to be one of the more elite public institutions in the country. In the fourteen member Southeastern Conference, Missouri is one of only four members of the prestigious American Association of Universities, or AAU. I don't know the numbers, but it is probably a safe bet that the overwhelming majority of the student athletes who participated in this protest, were not candidates for academic scholarships. In fact, many likely did not even meet the minimum admission standards of MU. Bottom line, a scholarship is a privilege, something to be respected and valued. It is not something to be taken lightly. Some causes are good causes though, but letting down your coaches, your fellow teammates, your fans, your alumni, for something they have nothing to do with, is just not right. If your cause is such a serious thing that you just can't play for the University, then you should transfer. There is no shame in quitting a bad situation, but using your scholarship as a form of blackmail is not the way to go.

But what of this "cause"? What exactly was the reason for this walkout threat? Though I have read several articles, honestly I am still not sure. I see the word "racial tensions" in many of the articles, but what does that mean? What are the specific incidents? This commentary mentions the school President's lack of response to certain events. One of these alleged acts was a swastika made with human feces in a dorm bathroom. If this happened, and it is highly likely that it did not, was this not the act of an individual? What exactly did these students want the President to do? No person was charged. In fact, a police report was never even made. Should the President's reaction be to ban students from forming Nazi symbols with doo-doo? Oh and by the way, are not swastikas associated more with anti-Semitism than racism against blacks? One student activist, a young son of a millionaire, actually went on a hunger strike, demanding that the President resign and admit his "white privilege". In his letter to the school, he mentioned racial slurs against black students. No specific cases were cited, just a generalization. Again, what was the President supposed to do about that? Is it illegal to say the N word? Not in America, it isn't. I know that if many left-wingers had their way, the First Amendment would be repealed, but as of now, it is still the Law of the Land. So again, what is a University President supposed to do about that? In addition to the dookie swastika, the young man mentioned the removal of graduate student health insurance subsidies, and MU's cancellation of Planned Parenthood contracts. So this is what the football players were threatening a walkout in support of? Really? So essentially, all of this was over, well, nothing, absolutely nothing.

What an embarrassing moment for the University of Missouri, the state of Missouri, the students, the administrators, and the coaches. Not only did they empower a mob, but they set a horrible precedent that players, with the threat of not playing, can bring down a University President. Who knows how else they will use this new-found power? Maybe next time they'll demand the defensive coordinator be fired because he yells too much and that hurts their feelings. They showed that bullying works, and that you don't even need a specific reason to gain attention. All you need are vague claims. Worse, they once again bowed to the race hustlers. In this day and age, you don't even need proof to bring down somebody or to gain attention for yourselves, all you have to do is scream racism, and the fearful will cower, because nobody wants that charge. It matters not whether the charge is true. The charge itself is enough to destroy. Is this the type of world that Martin Luther King jr dreamed of, a world where the charge of racism is used to bully and destroy those with whom you disagree? We've all seen those videos of students like Vivian Malone and James Meredith walking dauntlessly in front of people screaming threats at them. Those individuals had courage, real courage. These pampered little babies at Missouri and other colleges and universities across the country, don't possess any courage at all. Jones and Meredith wanted equality. These adult children of today want something else, the "right" to get free stuff, which of course, is not really free. This is a pathetic time, a time when leadership is lacking. At some point hopefully, that entitlement shark will finally be jumped, and the taxpaying public will have had enough. For now though, I guess we'll just move on to something else.

VA Scandal Is Living Study on Big Government Bureaucracies

"For the lesson of the V.H.A.'s success story -- that a government agency can deliver better care at lower cost than the private sector -- runs completely counter to the pro-privatization, anti-government conventional wisdom that dominates today's Washington."- Paul Krugman, liberal economist, idiot.

Sometimes I wonder if the conservative/ libertarians are actually a minority in the Republican Party. Seriously, what is it that Mitch McConnell and John Boehner really believe in? Is winning elections, beating the Democrats, all they really care about? Do they even have a philosophy?

Apparently they do not, and just in case they do, that philosophy surely isn't small government conservatism, because if it were, if they really understood that the administrative state was out of control and had become the "fourth branch of government", if they really understood that government bureaucracies are always less efficient and effective than the private sector, if they really believed that, then they would stop with the politics of associating the VA scandal with Democrats, and instead focus on the fact that the VA is socialized medicine in it's purest form and is therefore evidence that socialized medicine does not work too well.

You see, when President Obama and the Democrats point out that the VA has always been a disaster, instead of stating that he made it worse, the GOP should agree. Yes that's right. Instead of going for the short term political gain, they should be pointing out that he is correct, that regardless of who runs the government agency, a government agency can never deliver anything, especially something as important as health care, as good and as efficient as the private sector. If anything should kill Obamacare and the idea for single payer, it should be the VA scandal.

But the Republicans in Washington do not seem to think this way. No, they are too worried about winning their next election. It's almost as if the conservative philosophy is a second language to them.

The irony of all of this is that they actually have it wrong. Just as being a good teammate in a team sport leads to great individual accomplishment, thinking big picture/long term, in this instance, will actually benefit them in the short term.They think they are acting in a way that will help them win in November, but they could not be more wrong. This is a majority conservative country just waiting for true conservatism, and when it does not appear, conservatives stay home.

I guess it's hard to think like a conservative though, when you are not one.

A Rare Criticism of Dr. Sowell

In all my years blogging at numerous websites, I have never, not once, criticized anything written by Professor Thomas Sowell. To a libertarian conservative, Sowell is a rock star. But his latest column on Ted Cruz could not be anymore wrong, not just wrong about Cruz, but wrong about the Republican Party, wrong about everything. It almost broke my heart to read it, and reading Ben Howe's (Red State) commentary on Sowell's article was even more painful, not because Howe was incorrect or unfair in his critiscism, but because he was right. Sowell, unbelievably made establishment/ ruling class Republican arguments. Shockingly to me, Dr Sowell sounded like one of "them", the GOP corporatists, the neo-statists, the ruling class.

Sowell wrote:

The most charitable interpretation of Ted Cruz and his supporters is that they are willing to see the Republican party weakened in the short run, in hopes that they will be able to take it over in the long run, and set it on a different path as a more purified conservative party. 

I'm not even going to touch the ridiculousness of what he wrote after that, but I do want to tackle the notion of purity in the Republican Party. It's not about purity, really. It's about the basics, and the ruling class GOP doesn't even come close.

Conservatives are often reminded of O'Donnell in Delaware and Murdock in Indiana. But you know, I welcome that conversation. The point is, if Lugar and Castle were nominated, and both of them went on to win, what would we have won? Seriously, are liberal Republicans better than liberal Democrats? In the Bush administration, we had the Presidency and both houses of Congress, and did the deficit go down? No, it went up like crazy, record deficits at the time. And you tell me all we need to do is elect more Republicans? What about the size of government under Bush, with the Medicare entitlement and the expansion of the administrative state? And you are still trying to tell me that we need to be quiet and focus on trying to "win", that we won't be able to accomplish anything until the GOP takes back the Senate? Are you serious? Are you on dope or something? Has it affected your short term memory?

Don't forget folks, the Tea Party movement did not begin as a reaction to Obama. The Tea Party movement came about because of Bush, and things like TARP, and the auto bailout.

We're going off the cliff folks, and if we hit that valley in ten seconds or ten minutes, does it really matter? I'm sorry, but these establishment Republicans need to be exposed, and if we lose an election here and there, so what? Lugar is vocally and monetarily supporting Democrats now, and Charlie Crist, not only is he a Democrat these days, but he spoke at Barack Obama's 2012 convention. And you tell me, we just need to elect more Republicans? Wrong answer my friend. We need to elect conservatives, and Republicans that are not conservative, well they need to be revealed.

Radical by David Platt- Book Review

So why would an unpaid blogger, writing on a website that nobody reads, take the time to criticize a book so roundly praised by "church leaders" as David Platt's "Radical". Well the answer is simple. I'm a Baptist. You see, we Baptists do not just follow and trust what out pastor, deacons, or other "leaders" tell us. No, we Baptists, who believe in the priesthood of the believer, actually tend to show up to church with our Bible's in hand, and believe it or not, when our preacher says something we do not agree with, well, we tell him that we think he is wrong. Knowing that all Baptist churches are autonomous and believe different things, we may even pack up and join another congregation from time to time, even going as far as to congregate with Methodists.

While I certainly love my church family and have the utmost respect for our young pastor, I do however, wish he had not exposed us to Dr. Platt's Bible Study, at least not the videos. In fact, I considered my first exposure to Platt's teaching to have been a form of child abuse. While sitting there with my 8 year old, Dr. Platt kept screaming over and over again "Hate your mother! Hate your father! Hate your Mom and Dad!" Now I know what verse he was preaching about (Luke 14:26), and I understand the context of that passage. But my 8 year old son was obviously confused, mainly because it took what seemed like a good half hour for the pastor to get around to that context, which he still did not explain very well. If his purpose was to shock, he did much worse. He made me quite angry. That evening I had to sit down with my son and discuss what happened to him that morning. After that day, I decided that I was not going to sit through another minute of these videos without first reading the book. After all, maybe I was wrong about this guy.

Well I did indeed read his book and in fairness, I found many good things in it. I certainly respect the man for his mission work and his passion, and I very much enjoyed the inspirational stories of believers from all over the world.  I found a few things, however, to be quite disturbing and in my opinion, not Biblical. Among those were: his emphasis on works and the questioning of other's salvation, his rejection and criticism of the traditional church, and his attack on the American dream and "materialism".

I Chapter 2, Dr. Platt scoffs "The modern day Gospel says 'God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life. Therefore follow these steps and you can be saved.'" Well yes, count me as one who believes that! Perhaps us modern day Gospel types have read Acts 16:31, or Acts 2:21, or maybe Romans 10:9. Dr. Platt even goes so far as to call the Sinners Prayer "superstitious". The whole second chapter is quite shocking actually, as he tells how he fears that many people who think they are saved, actually are not. So much for "blessed assurance". No, according to most of Chapter 2, if you are not in a constant state of fear that drives you to tireless works, then you are not saved. Strangely though, he ends this Chapter by writing, "You might think that this sounds as though we have to earn our way to Jesus through radical obedience...." I was listening to the audio version of the book when the author made this statement, and I screamed out "YES, that's exactly what it sounds like!" He finally ended the chapter by referencing Ephesians 2:8, which seemed strangely out of place. I compare that chapter to hearing a speaker go into a long racist diatribe and then end his speech with, "But I'm not a racist." Maybe that is a poor analogy, but my point is, that regardless of the way the chapter ended, the reader in no way leaves it thinking that the author believes that anything less than exceptionally good works and obedience is required to get to heaven.

While reading this book, I thought about one of those old Billy Graham revivals and how Dr. Platt would likely scoff at such an event, where hundreds of people walk down front and recite that Sinners Prayer that he calls "superstitious". When Reverend Graham invites people to accept Jesus into their hearts, would Dr. Platt ask, as he does in his book, "Does Billy Graham really think that Jesus needs their acceptance?" Dr. Platt infers that everyone, yes every single believer, is called required to do global mission work. I crossed out the word called, because he doesn't believe global missions to be a calling, but that all, every single believer, is commanded to go to foreign lands, based on the great commission. But if missionaries are not answering a calling, are pastors, is anybody? This is strange and unbiblical to me. I believe that if one is led by the Holy Spirit, it is quite possible that he will never leave the city he was born in. Dr. Platt has done many great things as a missionary, but are we second class Christians because God has not asked us to do the same things? This type of thinking is common for a "radical" personality. The radical quits eating pork, and suddenly everybody has to quit eating pork. The radical gives up secular music, and suddenly everybody has to give up secular music. Dr. Platt has obviously been called to go to foreign lands, so obviously everybody is.

The most offending part of this book though, is the author's lack of understanding of capitalism and free markets, and his rejection of the American idea. In one of his anecdotes, he speaks of a "nationalistic" congregation and he continually shames Americans for being so rich, while the world is so poor. At times I thought I was reading something written by Jim Wallis. I thought to myself, this is not a book written for the religious right, but the religious left. It is not only anti-American, but anti-capitalist. This is the language of liberation theology or social justice, and it is a guilt that this American dreamer, this pursuer of happiness, outright rejects. We should not be spurning the American dream, as Dr. Platt teaches, but rather we should be embracing it, and exporting it. If we live in a mansion that requires a full time landscaper, a full time housekeeper, and a full time cook, are we noble for "downsizing" and putting those three people out of work? Perhaps we should all stop buying new clothing and instead shop at thrift stores. Being one who has worked in retail for the last 15 years, would that be helping people like me and my family? Of all of the charities Rockefeller and Carnegie created in their later years, none of those societal contributions compare to what the mass production of steel or the refining of oil did for this country, and yes they did these great things solely for the purpose of making a profit. As the great Adam Smith once wrote "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest." But if the jobs these men provided, and their contribution to an improved American standard of living, still do not impress you as much as their charity, ask yourself, would that charity have ever been possible if the money was not first made?

These "poor" countries Dr. Platt speaks of, are poor precisely because they are not free, because the people there despise the wealthy and support demagogic dictators that exploit their envy. And why does this destructive economic mindset exist in these countries? Well obviously the Marxists have influence in the third world, but the Marxists would have gotten nowhere if the foundation for their class warfare was not first laid by religion. Now obviously I am not opposed to charity and helping the poor. I am aware though, that based on history, the best standard of living for the poor is found in countries where markets are free and people are allowed, even encouraged to make as much as they can, and to spend that money they make. It is no coincidence that these countries are also the most generous. In South and Central America, where liberation theology and socialism rule the day, poverty is a way of life.

In conclusion, perhaps my criticism is too harsh. Maybe my perception is completely wrong. Often times, one person can see things totally different than another. This could very well apply in this situation, because after praising "Radical", my pastor steps up to the podium and preaches a wonderful sermon, that to me sounds nothing like David Platt. But I read what I read and thus had to comment on it. Why? Because I'm a Baptist.

Other reviews of "Radical" can be found here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

Southern Lefties Like Cornbread Too!

The following is a response to a very interesting post, written by what seems to be an extremely nice, but very liberal fellow Nashvillian.

I mostly like what Ms. Gibbons had to say in her post, although I don't believe people in this region are still as bigoted as she seems to think we still are. But that's okay, Ms. Gibbons would probably consider me a little bigoted. I did use nullify in a sentence once. As for being blue in the south, I can understand the frustration with seeing the "wrong" kind of candidates elected and reelected on a regular basis.

But other than that, I can't see how southern life is much different for a liberal person. I mean, if you like cornbread and sweet tea, and sitting on a front porch swing, it doesn't matter what your politics are. As far as being gay is concerned, southern cities, Atlanta, New Orleans, Memphis, and yes Nashville, have plenty of gay people. Black folks who once migrated northward to escape segregation, are actually migrating back to the south these days. It seems that middle class and upper class black people dislike taxes just as much as white people. As for religion, believe it or not, many liberals attend church too, and the mainline, more liberal congregations often partner with the more conservative churches in the community to do good deeds, like feeding and clothing the poor and making sure every child receives gifts on Christmas morning.

The stereotypes are unfortunate. But in fairness, the same stereotype applies to people in West Virginia, and various parts of the Midwest. My issue with Maher, and the others, is their snideness. They don't see people as individuals, but pre-judge people based on where they are from. This is no different than racial prejudice, in my opinion. I believe, and I would expect Ms. Gibbons to disagree with me, but I believe that bigotry is the essence of modern liberalism. In modern liberalism, people are not individuals, but everyone is part of a group, and for "progress" to be made, these groups have to be pitted against each other. That's why the modern liberal media is so obsessed with gender, sexual identity, race, and class. Conservatism, or libertarianism, or classical liberalism, by contrast, focuses on the individual. Where a person is from, what their skin color is, or what economic circumstances they were born into, are irrelevant and unimportant in the mind of the conservative.

The underlying problem with individuals like Bill Maher and Jon Stewart though, is not their prejudice, but the fact that they just don't like people. I don't care where you go in this country, or the world, every culture has something to appreciate, and if that individual you meet from that other part of America isn't as advanced as you, cut them some slack. They're just human. This goes back to one of the core differences between modern liberalism and classical liberalism. Classical liberals believe that generally speaking, people are good. Modern liberals, on the other hand, are much more cynical of mankind.

In closing, I want to address something Ms. Gibbons, the daughter of a Baptist preacher said in one of her comments.

Data just shows that people who attend church regularly also tend to have a more Conservative (in the political & modern sense of the word) worldview and vote Republican. My own experience growing up in the Church is that although there is surface “acceptance” of difference, I was taught that pretty much everyone who wasn’t a devout Protestant was going to burn in hell.

I have been in Southern Baptist churches my entire life, and I can unequivocally say that not one of the congregations I attended taught that only Baptists went to heaven. There are some primitive Baptist churches that believe this, I'm sure, and likely some Pentecostals, but they are very much in the minority, and have always been. Now I am not saying that what we do believe is going to satisfy you. Yes we do believe in hell, but whether or not you go there when you die is not dependent on what church you attend, be it Catholic or Protestant, but whether you believe that Christ is God incarnate, was born of a virgin, lived a perfect life, was crucified, and rose on the third day. Also, we believe that once you accept this truth, this gift of salvation that comes from repentance, it can never be taken from you, not even by you. We call this "once saved, always saved". I have known many people that as adults, hate religion, because they were taught something different, and were exposed to rules and religiosity, not Jesus, and that is sad and unfortunate. But as a lifelong Southern Baptist, I have to point out that many common beliefs associated with us, well, just are not true, and are most likely the result of religious bigotry. Apologies for my digression.

Anyway, enjoy a little southern culture on your way out, via Widespread Panic. Thanks!

Some Thoughts On Penn State And All That It Still Represents

It's really hard to describe how I feel right now. I'm not nearly as angry as I am disturbed, sickened, and saddened for these children. I really just want for this story to not be true. But it is.

I visited the Penn State campus a couple of months ago, and I remember thinking how awesome it was to finally see a Joe Paterno coached team in one of the most tradition rich stadiums in college football. I remember how nice the people were there in central Pennsylvania, how they shared their food and made us feel welcome. I remember how proud they were of their University, football program, and coach.

I can't imagine how they feel right now. The most important concern should, of course, be the victims of Jerry Sandusky's crimes. But in our condemnation and calls for justice, we should remember that the people in the stands, and the young men in uniform, didn't have anything to do with what happened. Cancelling the rest of the season would not be fair to them, and it wouldn't undo anything.

We love our heroes and we hate it when they let us down. We also love our myths. Does this mean that everything Penn State supposedly stood for is a myth? If we're talking about the administration and it's coach, then yes. But if we're talking about the fans and alumni, I don't think so. The Penn State family is bigger than Jerry Sandusky, and yes it is even bigger than Joe Paterno.

They "Declared" Independence

I wonder sometimes how many Americans understand why we celebrate "the fourth of July". According to at least one reputable poll, almost a quarter of Americans do not even know what country we declared independence from. I would guess that even less understand the significance of this particular day. Well let me tell you.

Today is not the day our nation won independence. Today is the day we declared it, when several brave men risked their lives to sign a document called the Declaration of Independence. You often hear commentators use the term "our founding documents". Well actually there are no founding documents. There is only one. The Declaration is the founding document.

And what about that Declaration? Some today, like Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan, want to diminish the importance of this document. That is either a huge mistake, or the purposeful act of a statist. You see, the Declaration of Independence should be considered equal to the Constitution. The ideals put forth in the Declaration, are why this nation exists and why it was formed the way it was. The Declaration is a radical document, because it recognized the fact that our rights come from God, not man, and that if a government violates those rights then the people have the right to disconnect from that government.

Slavery was obviously a black eye on America's founding. That can not be denied. However, it was the language of the Declaration that held this nation accountable to the values and ideals expressed in it. Sure there would have been an abolition movement without the Declaration, as there was in Europe. But in America, the abolition movement continually referred to the Declaration. The Declaration, in fact, laid the foundation for that movement. Lincoln referenced it quite often.

The Declaration is everything, and it should be taught as equal to the Constitution. The belief that all men are equal, and that our rights come from God, not governments, is central to understanding why this country exists. If you do not understand those things, then you can not understand this experiment called America.

No, July 4th is not the day we won independence. Independence Day, or the fourth of July, is the day we declared it, the day we told King George that our rights do not come from him, but from Him. Perhaps today's "rulers" have forgotten this. May they be reminded.

Free Speech Applies To All, Even The Phelps Family

This is one of those posts that put me at odds with many of my friends who call themselves "conservative". These are individuals I agree with most of time.

I totally understand why people feel the way they do. In fact, as far as the emotion is concerned, I'm right there with them. My reaction to this behavior, or my reaction to something like a flag burning, is just like most people's. I'm angered.

As disgusting as their behavior is though, the Phelps family did not violate state laws. They did not come within a thousand feet of the funeral. They were never even actually seen by the father of the heroic soldier. They did not come in contact with the funeral or disrupt it in any way.

What they did was exercise their Constitutional right to protest in the most unpopular way imaginable. Sometimes we, as a Constitutional republic, are tested. We are tested by Klansman, Neo-Nazis, Communists, Anarchists, and all types of fringe groups, organizations like the Phelps family.

But our Constitution, our republic, must be bigger than this. In America, we respect the right to protest, and our soldiers fight to uphold that right. I once read somewhere, that if we are not able to burn our flag, then it stands for nothing. The same goes, I believe, for free speech. If unpopular speech is not protected, then we don't have a First Amendment. Why would popular speech ever need protection?

Folks, we should not allow people like this to trick us into trampling on our Constitution. America, the one Matthew Snyder gave his life for, is bigger, much bigger than this.

The Federal Government Should Have Nothing To Do With Education

"No matter what anyone says, the Department of Education will not just write checks to local school boards. They will meddle in everything. I do not want that."-Representative Pat Schroeder (D-CO)

Once the federal government gets it's foot in the door, you can be 100% sure that eventually, that threshold will be swung wide open. Government is never happy with just a little bit of liberty, with just a little bit of state's rights. No, Washington never shrinks it's power, it only grows it.

Sadly, most people walking around today are not aware that the Department of Education has only been around since 1980. If you mention getting rid of this massive and quite useless bureaucracy, many will accuse you of not caring about education. I even had one gentleman claim that getting rid of the DOE would prevent Alabama from having any black football players. Amazing!

Most though, just do not want to discuss the issue. They have other things on their mind. I understand that. But tyranny does not always come by way of revolution. No the worst kind, the kind we have in this country today, creeps along while nobody is paying attention. It is what Hayak called a soft tyranny.

The establishment of the Department of Education in 1980, was, along with HealthCare reform, one of the federal government's most massive power grabs. Teachers and public school administrators love those federal dollars, but they fail to understand that money isn't free. Parents love regulation like No Child Left Behind, but they fail to see the future, which is nationalization of education.

Even though No Child Left Behind had good intentions, I opposed it. Even if President Obama's administration has equally good intentions with their proposal to test teachers, I oppose it. Education has always been and should remain the job of the states. Taking that away, or nationalizing it, while still forcing the states to fund it, is a huge mistake, and a huge infringement on the sovereignty of state governments. It is just one more way to increase the power of Washington.

Somebody, some politician, has to say these things. Somebody has to educate the public on why the federal Department of Education should be done away with. At some point, the federal government has to stop growing. We have to stop looking to Washington to solve our problems. These people can't even administer Social Security or Medicare, yet many want to allow them to run education? Seriously folks, it is way past time to get rid of the Department of Education.

What Is A Right?

So what is a right? I believe the best definition of a right comes from Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. In that document, Jefferson used the word unalienable, which means "it can't be taken away". Prior to his use of the word unalienable, he wrote "endowed by their Creator", which of course means that rights are not granted by men, but by God, by nature. In other words, we are born with "rights". Rights are not granted by governments or legislation, but instead are "natural". Jefferson also stated that "all men are created equal", which means that natural rights apply to all, and in the Creator's view, every one is endowed with the same rights. So obviously, health care can not be considered a right. It may be something that our society decides that we should grant as a gift, but it can never be considered a right. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are rights, but nothing that requires the labor of another can be considered a right. We have the right to pursue health care, assuming that makes us happy. But no man has the right to the labor of another. To grant health care to people who can not pay for it, requires force and coercion. It either requires that money be taken from the "haves", at the point of a gun, and redistributed to the "have nots", or it requires that doctors and nurses, and various health care professionals, be forced to labor for the benefit of others. In the nineteenth century, we called that slavery, and fought a bloody Civil War to end it. So no, health care is not a right. It is a gift. We, as a country, need to re-learn the definition of a "right". We have become so dependent in this country, that we believe we are entitled to anything and everything. We are not. We have traded our liberty, our true rights, away for dependence. Hopefully though, there are enough of us left who choose liberty over security. I believe there is.

The Ground Zero Mosque

I'm watching these left wing pundits wrap themselves in the First Amendment, and I almost want to throw up. The American left doesn't give a rat's ass about the Constitution. The Constitution, in their view, is garbage because it limits the power of government and it affirms the rights of individuals. The American left is all about the state, not the individual. That's why they want to limit our exposure to talk radio (1st Amendment), and seek to limit political speech (1st Amendment) by certain groups that they despise.

So excuse me if their sudden affinity for the First Amendment causes me to puke. What I am specifically talking about, of course, is the Mosque that is being planned near Ground Zero. These leftists go on these programs and immediately start talking about Freedom of Religion. They do this, in spite of the fact that nobody, and I mean nobody, is saying that Muslims do not have a right to worship. They don't have a right to build a house of worship anywhere they want though. Any building, be it a religious building, a home, or a business, is subject to local ordinances and building codes. Apparently, the group that plans on building this Mosque, has already jumped through those bureaucratic hurdles, and has gotten permission from the city to move forward.

So the issue here, is not whether they have the right to do so. Nobody is saying that they do not. The issue here is whether they should. Can we not express an opinion on this without being lectured on the First Amendment? I mean seriously, for just once, can we maybe have an intelligent conversation with you people?

The building of this Mosque is a provocative act. It is a huge purposeful show of disrespect. It is divisive. If they want to build that Mosque, and if the cities zoning authorities are allowing them to do so, then they certainly have a right to build it. But that doesn't mean they should. We have a right to do a lot of things. We can scream the N word and even deny the Holocaust. We can do a lot of things, but we don't because we have class and we respect the sensitivities of others. Apparently the individuals building this Mosque, do not care about those things.

Why We Celebrate on July 4th

I took great pleasure this morning in attempting to explain to my five year old, what the fourth of July is all about and why we celebrate it. While my son was somewhat confused and amused by the idea of calling a signature a "John Hancock", I am quite confident that he went to church this morning with a better understanding of our nation's birth than many adults. 

Sending a reporter out to ask people on the street what the fourth of July is all about, would be a frightening endeavor. I almost hope that nobody ever does it. I imagine though that if it were done, we would hear all kinds of answers, anywhere from "the day we won our independence", to something to do with our constitution. But we all know that July fourth was not the day that independence was won, but merely declared. 

The signers of the Declaration of Independence were not loyal believers in the power of government and how it could be used to help people. Quite the contrary, these men were anti-government, anti-taxes, and most importantly anti-dependence. In a radio interview, the modern day leader of a different philosophy discussed the Constitution by lamenting the fact that it was a charter of what he called "negative liberties". In other words, it stated what government could not do to you, but it didn't state what it could do for you. The framers of that document, obviously, had a different view than that individual in the interview. Realizing that the same men responsible for the Constitution took part in the declaration, and knowing that the declaration provided the framework for the Constitution, it would not be too far of a reach to assume that the same individual, the leader of modern liberalism, also laments the fact that the declaration was one of independence, and not dependence.

That word independence is important. It has to do with individualism, liberty, and the right of mankind to pursue happiness. Independence is what America is all about. Individual independence is exactly why America has prospered. There is no such thing as American nationalism. The word nationalism comes from nation, and in this case, the word nation does not mean country but nationality. America is a melting pot, a nation of immigrants/ foreigners. The is no American race, so you can't attribute the success of this country to any kind of racial superiority. No this nation prospered and became the most powerful on earth, simply because of it's freedom. If modern regulation were in effect in the nineteenth century, there would never have been a railroad. Carnegie would have never found a cheaper way to make steel. Rockefeller would have never been able to sell oil so cheaply. These men became rich and made countless other Americans rich, simply because they were free. 

A true American doesn't want help from government. Liberty loving Americans know that any help from Washington is not really help at all, but a means of control. Americans, the ones who share the same spirit of those who signed the declaration, don't like to be controlled. They will take liberty over security any day. Those are the kind of people that signed the declaration, and they are the same kind of people that came to this country from every part of the world, Europe, Asia, Africa.

The other day, a Supreme Court nominee, dismissed the declaration as unimportant. This same future Supreme Court Justice most likely shares the same philosophy as the gentleman in the aforementioned radio interview. How far has our nation regressed when a nominee for the highest court in the land dismisses the Declaration of Independence? People, the declaration is everything. Lincoln used the declaration as the template for the Gettysburg address. The declaration, and the ideals in it, were the reason this country got rid of that wretched system known as slavery, less than a century after it's birth. The declaration affirms our natural rights, rights not granted to us by any government, but by our Creator.

When this country and it's people forget about the declaration and forget about what it truly means, we are in trouble. Now is the time to remind and re-learn the founding of this country, why it happened, and what they were fighting for. I fear that we have already forgotten these things. I fear that some immigrate to this country, not because of it's freedoms, but because of it's gifts. They seek dependence and not independence. 

Some however, still know why this country is great, and they are fighting to keep it great. Some people still come here because of our liberal freedoms, not our handouts. They love this country and dream of a life in the only place on earth where even the poor are not hungry.

When you celebrate today, think about the courage it took for those men to sign that declaration, a treasonous document. Remember the brashness of John Hancock, who wrote his name bigger than anybody else. That's what America is all about folks. God bless it. 

Just A Little Time Is All

My five year old son Frank, is a pretty fortunate fellow. He has all kinds of "stuff" to play with. Not only that, but with a forty year old dad, his upbringing is, to put it mildly, somewhat laid back. He still tends to get bored though.

Tonight, after a long rainy day of staying inside and playing video games, he was allowed to watch a little TV in bed. On my way to my own bedroom, I decided I'd drop in a catch a few minutes of Spongebob with him. His reaction to this rare visit was something else. He was extremely excited to have me in his room watching cartoons with him. He even went out of his way to explain the episode to me. The whole thing really got me to thinking.

As I sat in his room staring at several hundred dollars worth of toys, I realized that while all of that stuff was nice, it in no way compared to just a few minutes of my time.

Like most parents, I work hard and often use the excuse of being too tired to spend time with my son. What a huge failure on my part!

We live in the most technologically advanced age in history. We pretty much have it all. But even with all of this "stuff", all of these advances, nothing means more to a little boy than a few minutes with his daddy. It's good to be reminded of that sometimes.

HealthCare Bill Passage Will Be Historic Tragedy

President Obama, this weekend, said that the passage of Healthcare will be a historic event in American history. He is right. If this disaster passes, it will be historic, just like the trail of tears was historic, or Plessy v. Fergesun was historic. Being historic, or as he puts it, being “transformative”, is not always a good thing. There is such a thing as bad history.

This healthcare bill is more than a disaster. It is a mindless tragedy. It does absolutely nothing the President claims it does. First off, it imposes an unconstitutional mandate on American citizens. Secondly, it burdens the states with a huge unfunded mandate, one that can only be paid for with higher state taxes or services cut in other areas. Taxes will be raised on individuals, and also businesses. Medicare will be cut, and Medicaid will be expanded, which means that doctors will be reimbursed by these government entities even less than they already are, forcing them to either make up the cost on the rest of us, or deny care to old and poor people. This thing is an absolute disaster. There is no other way to put it.

Any honest constitutional scholar will tell you that, not only is a mandate to buy health insurance unprecedented, but it is also unconstitutional. Never before has the Federal government required you to purchase a product simply because you were breathing. That is not liberty folks. It is tyranny. Congress simply does not have the power to require an individual to enter into a contract with another. The backers of this idea always mention the states and their mandates to buy car insurance. First off, we are talking about states and not the federal government. I realize that many of you do not believe in the concept of federalism. Hell, many of you don't believe in a lot of constitutional concepts. But the framers of our constitution did. Also, there is quite a bit of difference in requiring a driver of a car to be insured, than there is in requiring somebody to purchase insurance simply because they were born. You don't have to own and drive a car. That is a choice, and it is done on roads owned by the states. As far as I can tell though, breathing is a requirement of living.

We here in Tennessee, better than anybody else, know what happens when you expand Medicaid and make it attractive for employers to drop their benefits and allow the “government” to take over. Remember TennCare? How did that work out for you Tennessee? How is Medicaid expansion working out in Massachusetts? They say the states are laboratories, but obviously not in this case. Forcing all of the states to adopt TennCare is mindlessly idiotic. It is senseless. Many of these states are already in deep trouble. Now the federal government is going to pose another burden on them. Unbelievable!

The only way that the states will be able to fund this national TennCare program is through higher taxes. But not only will we face higher taxes from our state governments. We will also see an increase in the tax on capital gains. Yes that's right. In a time of high unemployment and stagnant economic growth, our government is going to raise the tax on capital gains. But wait, it gets better. Remember how those evil insurance companies, that make (gasp!) those huge two percent profits, remember how they charge us too much for insurance. Well guess what, they are going to be taxed too. Think about the stupidity of government logic here for a minute. The government is complaining about the cost of insurance, so the government is going to raise taxes on insurance companies.  ARE PEOPLE REALLY THIS STUPID?

Caterpillar recently stated that the Healthcare bill would cost their company an extra $100 million a year. And some of you still believe that the President gives a rat's ass about jobs. Are you people even able to feed yourselves? I mean seriously, is the forty percent that support this idiocy out there on the roads with the rest of us? God help us if they are.

So basically, this bill is going to increase the cost of doing business, which will either cause higher unemployment, lower wages, or an increase in the price of the products being produced. Either way you look at it, that means less money in our pockets. It is going to raise capital gains taxes, which will depress jobs and decrease wages. It will force health insurance companies to raise premiums to account for increased taxes. But wait, there is more costs hidden in this disaster.

More people will be forced into Medicaid, and Medicare will be cut. Will they take these benefits from old people? No of course not. What they will do is reimburse doctors less. How does that affect us, you might ask? Well the doctors have to make that money up somewhere don’t they? Look for the costs of healthcare, for the rest of us, to increase quite rapidly.

So basically, not only does this healtcare bill do nothing the President claims it will do, it actually does the exact opposite. It really is nothing but a government take over. There is not even a short term benefit. I really don’t see how anybody could support this embarrassment. It just doesn’t make any sense, but socialism never does.

Life Begins At 40

For the last couple of weeks I have intended to write a post about the milestone of my fortieth birthday. It is a particularly important event for me, since my father never lived to see this age, and my brother died shortly thereafter, both of colon cancer. There was a time when I didn't expect to see this age either, but it wasn't because I feared cancer. No I suffered from a completely different kind of sickness, a sickness of the mind called addiction. I didn't just expect to die young. I actually cried out to God and begged Him to take me. No I wasn't suicidal. I didn't have that much courage.

But drugs were never my problem. They were merely a symptom. My problems were much deeper. What I suffered from was insecurity and fear, an irrational self-centeredness. Everything about this world scared the hell out of me. My only way to deal with this fear was to play the part of the clown, and to be the life of the party. I became popular and made lots of friends, but I never felt like I measured up.

I made it through college, but school was always easy for me. It's participating and competing out in the real world that troubled me. I was too afraid to succeed, so I didn't participate. When my friends were getting married, buying homes, and excelling in their careers, I was going nowhere. However, I did make several trips to the city jail.

I won't bore you anymore with my story, but I will say that at the age of thirty, I decided to "grow up". I joined the rat race, married a beautiful girl, had a son, and later bought a home. I even went back to school and earned my Masters degree, at night of course.

I have changed quite a bit in the last ten years, but who hasn't? I have calmed down considerably. Having a child kind of does that to you, I think. I am much more tolerant of others and less prone to losing my temper than I used to be. My negative mental attitude has mostly been changed to a positive outlook. But most of all I have changed the way I view myself.

I don't beat myself up the way I did in the past. When I mess up, and I often do, I cut myself some slack. When others criticize me, I am able to accept their criticism and consider it, as opposed to stomping off angrily and cursing about their shortcomings. I like myself these days, and because of that, I am able to be a better friend to others. I am able to not only love my enemies, but to forgive them and focus on whatever qualities they have that I admire. I have come to realize that people don't think about me as much as I once thought they did. They have their own problems and their own fears and insecurities. When they act out, it usually has nothing to do with me. They might just be having a bad day, and rather than be angry at them for hurting my precious little feelings, I should have compassion for what they might be going through.

Does life begin at forty? For me, the answer is yes. Rather than lamenting my age, I choose to embrace it and make a point to practice the wisdom that was given to me through my experiences. Yes life would have been much different had I known then what I know now. But I had to learn these things on my own, in my own way. My life, however difficult I chose to make it, had to be just as it was.

Yes I have learned a great deal and made much progress, but I am fully aware that I am not even close to having arrived. There is so much more to learn and so much more growth to be experienced. No, forty isn't old, not for a late bloomer like myself. It really is a beginning.

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas everybody.

Frankie's First Jack-o-lantern

I don't know where it came from. But for some reason, there was this really little and shabby looking pumpkin on my counter this afternoon. Even though I had never carved a pumpkin in my entire life, I thought "what the heck" and brought Frank in the kitchen and carved that sucker up. Now I know this is a really amateurish job of carving, but Frank loved it. Notice the mean face he's making. Happy Halloween!

Garcia and Grisman- "Ripple"

What a sweet song! It's definitely one of my favorite Dead tunes, performed here by Jerry and David. Of course, David actually played mandolin on the album version, featured on American Beauty. Excerpt of Robert Hunter's lyrics below.

Reach out your hand if your cup be empty,
If your cup is full may it be again,
Let it be known there is a fountain,
That was not made by the hands of men.

There is a road, no simple highway,
Between the dawn and the dark of night,
And if you go no one may follow,
That path is for your steps alone.

Enjoy!