Michael Wolfe

Study up. Stand up. Speak up. Pray up!

Archive for the ‘politics’ Category

#‎SandraBland‬: The death that shouldn’t have happened

Posted by americana83 on July 30, 2015

The following are points to consider, no matter whether you feel she had an attitude or not (There was no attitude until after the offer was offended that she wasn’t happy about being pulled over and delayed and [as far as she knew at the time] fined heavily):
1. She didn’t start out with attitude. The officer asked her what was wrong (before saying only a warning) and she told him. Her mistake was being too honest about being frustrated about getting pulled over and cited when she had performed an apparent courtesy. It was after this that the officer started escalating things making demands about the cigarette and then about getting out of the car.

2. A request by its inherent nature can be refused and as such, should not subject the refusor to any negative side effects, otherwise it was no request, but a demand disguised in the form of a lie. There was no probable cause to ask Bland to leave the car.

3. A person’s attitude (frustration about getting pulled over, and possibly fined a hundred plus dollars) is NOT probable cause, unless you can prove that people usually respond with joy and enthusiasm 1: at getting pulled over, 2: at getting cited, and 3: at the prospect of getting out of their car and having the police officer search their private belongings.

No one is going to respond like this to a stop: Oh yes massa, so happy to waive my 4th amendment rights officer, I sho’ is happy about allowing unreasonable search and potential seizure, massa. please take all de time you need…I gots no where else to go.

Rights are rights, regardless of attitude, and the attitude didn’t start showing until the rights were being violated. The woman should never have been in jail to begin with, and her death (whether suicide or otherwise) is due to being wrongfully imprisoned.

Posted in politics | Leave a Comment »

Crony Capitalism 101

Posted by americana83 on July 30, 2015

Introduction: There has been a lot of talk recently about Planned Parenthood, and about how even, despite the horrific trafficking of the body parts of the very slaughtered babies they assured us aren’t human, Mitch McConnell and other republicans are circling the wagons to defend the tax payer funding for this horrific organization that was founded to promote eugenics and whose founder Margaret Sanger was an avowed racist.

What’s this have to do with crony capitalism? This: neither Planned Parenthood nor any other business (no matter the professed goals) ought to be receiving tax money. This includes Governor Kasich’s JobsOhio program, the bank bailouts, GM, “green” energy companies, and any other firm that is receiving tax money from the government. It is a process by which certain companies lobby the government for unfair competitive advantages and receive them. To add insult to injury, the tax money of their competitors is effectively being given to their competition. There are several different ways in which cronyism is perpetuated, and I detail some of them below.

Indirect Crony Capitalism (the carrot): Tax “refunds” that benefit certain industries when consumers purchase their product. This would include Electric cars and hybrids.

Regulatory Crony Capitalism: (concealed cronyism) Many of the biggest or most connected players are subsidized and forms of control are exerted back and forth. These companies will often lobby for or support increased regulation because the regulations will either be written to their favor or their compliance will be subsidized by the tax payer. These regulations are too expensive for non-connected business and smaller players, so the smaller ones go out of business or end getting sold to the connected players. it is concealed because regulations on their surface seem to benefit nobody in particular and are sold as being in the “common interest” or to promote transparency or some greater good.

Naked Crony Capitalism: (the stick) When congress or state legislatures ban specific lawful products for any reason. The textbook case would be congress’s ban of classic lightbulbs. This provided more revenue for already subsidized companies. One additional negative about this is that it can turn consumers off to certain products, and can impede further progress when the government will ban cheaper and more economical products, reducing the incentive to innovate and bring down costs. No matter what reasons are given for the bans, congress, nor any other federal body has lawful Constitutional power to ban products.

Police State Crony Capitalism (the stick): This is when the state forces you into an industry by punitive action if you fail to purchase products from “approved” vendors or approved products. A double example is Obamacare and its list of requirements for insurance to be acceptable. And the second is the infamous penalty that was illegally rewritten by the Supreme Court into a tax, a tax levied only against those who have not purchased a product the government thinks they should have, or have purchased a product that doesn’t meet the requirements the government set for the product. The police state variant is also in play with wood burning stoves/furnaces. Which seems unusual, because wood is definitely a renewable resource, thus these stoves are “green” energy sources!

Conclusion: Crony Capitalism in all its variants is a bizarre hybrid of socialism and capitalism where competition exists, but many of the biggest or most connected players are subsidized and where forms of control are exerted back and forth (favored corporations and politicians). None of the above forms of Crony Capitalism are constitutional and all are detrimental to the freedom and prosperity of the American people, and wherever else Crony Capitalism comes into practice.

Posted in politics | Leave a Comment »

Taxes Day 2015 Thoughts (With discussion)

Posted by americana83 on July 30, 2015

Taxes Day 2015 Thoughts

Instead of having dual income taxes between the feds and the states, or dual sales taxes (as the fair tax would create between themselves and either states or locales), how about lop off the federal government’s direct taxation and make it indirect, where the federal government “taxes” the states at a percentage. The states collect taxes and then remit to the feds. Your personal information then only resides at your state. No need for federal income taxes, the IRS, or any of the apparatus of the feds involving collecting money, saving only someone to deposit checks from the state governments into the treasury.tax

  • Critique 1: For one thing it wouldn’t get rid of the IRS it would just break up the IRS into state agencies, plus the states remitting a tax to the federal government would be problematic given how different states have different tax policies/rates April 15 at 4:17pm
    1. My response: The states already have and administer taxes, so there would be no new tax administrations needed. If states have other tax forms, they could still remit to the feds and it would pose no problem, or additional paper work, especially since now many states apply for grants of varying kinds from the feds anyway. It provides much more flexibility and cuts out the middle man:

      individual –> feds –> state
      individual –>state

      to this:

      Individual –>state–>feds

      This way, local needs are met locally, federal needs are met at state level, and there’s no need for bouncing money back and forth (and wasting money on that bureaucracy. Plus the burden of compliance is shifted from the individual to the state. This is good for privacy and the state, since it has an aggregate revenue stream much larger than any one person, is better able to deal with the federal government. It also makes it harder to pork barrel, since the states will not likely take kindly to their money being used to build a billion dollar bridge to nowhere. They are also better positioned to fight the feds. That is one thing that the 16th and 17th amendments broke, was the fed’s reliance on the states. Because the fed has a revenue stream independent of the states, and because the states are no longer represented in the Senate, the feds can run roughshod over them with minimal impact. The founders were wise in the way they structured the federal government, and the early 1900s politicians were power hungry when they crafted those two amendments (the income tax and direct election of senators) to instantly undo the check on federal power that they created.April 15 at 4:26pm

  • My response, part 2: It would also allow the states to experiment. With a much reduced federal government, the states would have more flexibility to adjust their tax rates and experiment. States that adopted failing policies (like California) would have to face the results of their poor (greedy) economic decisions and cut their spending. Many citizens could then migrate to those states that offered them the most opportunities to prosper, protected the most rights, or perhaps provided the most benefits. Likewise, those who wished to support a large social welfare could lead by example and move to those states with the highest tax rates and largest public benefits programs. It would provide ample room for state experimentation.April 15 at 4:30pm
  • Critique 2: the biggest thing would be ensuring federal accountability on the states, (insert American history on the Articles of Confederation era here), cuz if there’s too much of a power imbalance favored towards states’ rights it wouldn’t end too pleasantly April 15 at 4:36pm ·
    • My Response: Further, with federal benefits eliminated, it would remove the economic arguments in favor of strict immigration laws. Then states which wished to reward immigrants could do so by the willingness of their local constituencies to do so. States that adopted tightly controlled social programs would likewise see no drain on their resources. And states with strong support for the second amendment would see crime rates controlled. So you could have a situation where border security laws became laxer, but better enforced. It would give the “sanctuary cities” the chance to show that they can make plan work, and fully fund it themselves. Localized control and funding mitigates responsibility to the nation, ie, if California residents wanted to pay for and construct a billion dollar luxury apartment complex for migrant workers, they could do that without Illinois or Texas or New Jersey having any right to hoot and holler.

      There are many interesting ideas that could be explored with the equation tilted away from the feds and towards the states. It would also increase the importance of local governments. I would like to see how it would all work out. April 15 at 4:41pm ·

  • Critique 3 Yeah, but that’s also quite a lot of change you’re asking for, keep in mind all our federal programs don’t exist because of power hungry feds but rather out of necessity (whether that necessity is still relevant today for certain programs is another debate), if we wanted to become a confederacy like the EU, that would mean most federal agencies get dissolved into state agencies, keeping in mind that while most of said agencies and programs operate on state levels with state offices anyway, not every state has branches for all of said agencies and programs (let alone be able to afford to host or start them in their own states even with added state revenue), and not to mention with so many states sharing a border with Mexico, having the different states have different border and immigration policies would be so problematic that they would have to merge back into a federal agency again, or have to adopt a model similar to the EU where the entire nation is treated as one country as far as immigration policies go, meaning whatever point you had in states having their own policies is out the window
    also, unless a said confederacy decided to maintain a federal oversight on defense, the military would also get dissolved and likely absorbed by the states’ national guards, and if the different state militaries had too much difference in opinion on defense policies, well then there goes our national defense, and while the 2nd Amendment may have allowed for a strong national militia in the 18th and early 19th century, the fact is military technology has grown quite advanced in the years since then for each and every state to be able to maintain civilian militias capable of maintaining a national defense, while also putting an enormous amount of pressure on coastal states to maintain coast guards and navies with their own funding and population (possible draft reinstatement?), all things to consider April 15 at 4:56pm
    • My Response: First, I realize it is something that will likely never happen, but we all have our hopes.

      Second, Not a true confederacy, the states would be responsible to remit taxes, like it was between 1797 until 1913. Only if there was an issue, it would be one of 50 states raising a complaint, not one in a few hundred million raising a (hopeless) complaint.

      Some states would not have some departments or agencies, depending on the voters in that state.

      I do not support dissolving the US armed forces, coast guard, navy, nor do I support a return to the pre-constitutional government 1776-1797. It proved too weak. From 1913 on, the federal government has grown way too strong. April 15 at 5:01pm

  • Agreement 1: Indeed it has.
  • Critique 4: Just remember every federal law passed, program started, or agency founded, is a story in American history, many cases the states may have had their chances to do something but didn’t leading the federal government to step up, or, they took it up to congress and pushed for federal laws, and if it passed that means minimum 2/3 the senate and a large enough majority of House of Reps found it in their own states interests anyway, and in the rest of the 20th century that followed, the state vs fed strain we are seeing emerging now was virtually nonexistent, and mostly exists in the wake of the polarization of neo-conservative and radical progressive policies, each side weary of leaning even the slightest bit towards the middle at risk of losing support or “giving in” to the other side… You could call it a civil cold war of sorts April 15 at 5:24pm
  • My Reponse: I generally find myself opposing both “neo-conservatives/neocons – especially in areas of domestic security/Police state and foreign policy ” and radical progressives. I personally believe that a devolution of power from the top to the bottom would help. April 15 at 5:27pm
  • Alternative Suggestion 1: Being that there are now many services provided for the citizens that we are willing to pay for to keep.

    Lets propose the following, abolishing all current Tax systems.

    New means of Personal earnings Tax.
    The citizen is to pay 5% of their annual earnings to the Local Government and to nowhere else never to be increased. The citizen is to pay a 1% VAT to the Local Government of the purchase and to nowhere else never to be increased. The Local Government is to then Budget 10% of all Personal tax revenue generated to be sent one to the County Government, then using the reset for operating expenses and to nowhere else never to be increased. The County Government is to then Budget 20% of all Personal tax revenue generated to be sent one to the State Government, then using the reset for operating expenses and to nowhere else never to be increased. The State Government is to then Budget 30% of all Personal tax revenue generated to be sent one to the Federal Government, then using the reset for operating expenses and to nowhere else never to be increased. This will eliminate any and all tax credits, deductions, and returns.

    New means of Business earnings Tax.
    All Business are to pay 10% of their annual earnings to the Local Government and to nowhere else never to be increased. All Business are to pay a 2% VAT to the City Government of the purchase and to nowhere else never to be increased. The City Government is to then Budget 20% of all Business tax revenue generated to be sent one to the County Government, then using the reset for operating expenses and to nowhere else never to be increased. The County Government is to then Budget 30% of all Business tax revenue generated to be sent one to the State Government, then using the reset for operating expenses and to nowhere else never to be increased. The State Government is to then Budget 40% of all Business tax revenue generated to be sent one to the Federal Government, then using the reset for operating expenses and to nowhere else never to be increased. This will eliminate any and all tax credits, deductions, and returns.

    This is again to remind all levels of Government that the People own these lands, their Property, and money that they have earned. April 15 at 7:07pm

  • Critique 5: That would be a pretty broken system, as the states would game it. April 15 at 11:05pm
  • My Response: The current system is gamed like the game room at Ohayocon 24-7. Loopholes and double taxation and all sorts of stuff. It would be a lot easier for the feds to hold 50 states accountable than hundreds of millions. And each state already has its own tax system. It would only reduce the gaming abilities to have each resident only submitting one instead of two tax returns (state and federal) April 15 at 11:08pm

My final thoughts and last comment in the discussion: The simpler and flatter the system with as few middle men and exceptions as possible will not only make the system more efficient (RE: more tax money to spend on end results as opposed to bureaucrats and offices), but will also make it harder to evade. Right now its a mine field, and any average citizen will be crushed under the weight of it all if one jot or tittle is out of place or a day late or a dollar short.

Originally posted on facebook April 15th, 2015. All discussion items have only been edited for obvious typos, and formatted to fit a blog. Names have been removed.

Posted in politics | Leave a Comment »

What you might have missed about “Net Neutrality”

Posted by americana83 on July 30, 2015

The FCC has discovered a new power when faced with an obstacle to it’s agenda.

Courts have struck down earlier net neutrality efforts, saying the FCC lacked authority to impose such rules. So this time around, the FCC chose to categorize high-speed Internet service as a telecommunications service.

Courts said it didn’t have the authority to control the internet, so the FCC unilaterally decided that the internet is a “telecommunications” service, and that it is now under the control of the FCC. There was no bill changing what the internet is. There was just the FCC saying it was so, making it so, and challenging anyone to dare question its authority. Oh, but don’t worry, at least the FCC “promises” there will be no new taxes or fees:

The FCC would not regulate the price of Internet services under the new rules and would not impose any new taxes or government-mandated fees. Nonetheless, opponents said they feared price regulations and new taxes would come eventually, further discouraging investment.

For the history of the internet, Government controls, not private companies have been the enemy of a free and open internet. The most infamous examples is the Great Firewall of China, which blocks anything the government deems dangerous and exerts heavy control over domestic Chinese internet content.

A heavy handed move by our own government can only mean that we will some time in the near future have an “if you like your internet you can keep your internet moment” where the full force of government comes to bear against the digital versions of our unalienable rights to freedoms of speech, religion, assembly, press, search and seizure, ect.

This move by the FCC if not contested and struck down, will only strengthen the illegal ability of the executive branch to make law by decree. “Stroke of the pen, law of the land.”

Quote Source: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/fcc-adopts-net-neutrality-rules-to-ban-internet-discrimination-163703235.html

(Originally published 2-26-2015 on my facebook)

Posted in politics | Leave a Comment »

Protesting Protesters AND Police Brutality (AKA Black lives DO matter?

Posted by americana83 on July 30, 2015

Some of my friends may think I am bipolar on this issue: On one hand I recognize that Eric Garner and some others wrongly met death at the hands of police officers, but on the other it seems like I condemn most of the protests going on. How does that work?

The Issue: Militarized police, excessive force and no-knock warrants are, or at least should be a “grave” concern for anyone who values life and liberty. These issues deny people their unalienable rights up to and including life. People do not forfeit ALL their rights when they have a criminal background. Choking someone to death for evading a cigarette tax? A flashbang grenade permanently devastating the body of a small child? These and many others are very real issues where justice has been denied. Victims of these various examples of brutality are not confined to a single race.

The Protests. Many of these protests have either been organized by radical groups with the goal of fundamentally changing the US from a country with relative economic freedom to a country with no freedom or have been influenced/hijacked by people sympathetic to these groups. Members of the families of some of the victims have came out against self/media-appointed “black leaders” like Sharpton. Instead of targeting the criminals and their political cohorts, they unleash their attacks and “protests” on the broad masses, without regard to who is actually guilty. If these protests were REALLY being carried out with the purpose of protesting injustice, they would be targeting the guilty, not the innocent. But since their goals are NOT liberty and justice for all, this doesn’t matter. Some of the groups that have been instigators in these counter-productive protests have been the Revolutionary Communist Party and the Nation of Islam. Atheistic or Theocratic tyranny are their goals.

The Targets: Police Stations and Political organizations. The Federal government is moving to consolidate police power that was properly denied it and reserved for the states and localities / people. The Feds have been usurping the autonomy of local police departments through grants / funding. However, the states and localities have been militarizing their police and allowing or ordering officers to commit “no-knock” warrant based home invasions, resulting in the murder/injury of police and innocent civilians. These criminal acts put the lives of officers and those they are supposed to serve in harm’s way.

The most publicized protests seem to be missing the targets. Instead opting to block public roadways and prevent Christmas shopping and travel. These protesters are more than likely headed by people symathetic to one of the radical communists parties or the Nation of Islam. Of course the inherent irony of Communists and Radical Muslims protesting police brutality is that the police are most brutal, the police state most invasive and human rights most curtailed in Islamic and Communistic states. Thus protests led by either group cannot be with the end goal of truly ensuring a fair and limited police force. Such a goal goes against their purpose of fundamentally transforming the United States of America.

It is in the interest of furthering properly targeted protests that I offer the following:

The model is Joshua and the battle of Jericho. Marches around police stations in large areas with singing and shouting, and it could be done daily at the same time like the Bible account with a special conclusion on the last day. “tearing/(shouting?) down the walls of police brutality” and other themed slogans. High energy, high visibility, and directly targeting those responsible. Could also target state local legislatures / assemblies / courts or any related government building with ones that are surrounded completely by public sidewalks / throughways the best options. Just thought I’d offer something other than (what I think is) constructive criticism. If you think it is helpful, feel free to pass it along to anyone who genuinely cares about addressing police brutality issues.
Liberty and justice for all.

(Originally published December 25, 2014 on my facebook page)
I have a dream that one day police will return to “protect and serve” instead of “police for profit.”

Posted in politics | Leave a Comment »

Analyzing a meme: McDonald’s “Profit gouging”

Posted by americana83 on July 30, 2015

The problmcdonalds memeem isn’t what you think. McDonald’s, when it is not being vilified for selling fast food, is being vilified for its wage practices by memes such as this one. About 80% of McDonald’s are franchisees. That means that only 20 percent of McDonald’s are direct owned. Which means that a good amount of that income comes from franchisee payments… Which means it is mostly small businesses that are paying their employees “minimum wage” and paying McDonald’s for the right to use their trademarks and recipes.  And if a restaurant through economies of scale / sheer volume manages to make lots of money through small margins, these progressives and their memes can’t seem to fathom that adjusting these small margins substantially would rapidly consume that capital surplus and drive it down in to red, and then insolvency and bankruptcy.

Update: With new technology like this in the works: http://www.americasfreedomfighters.com/2014/08/11/burger-flipping-robot-will-put-fast-food-workers-out-of-a-job/ Such demands like $15 an hour for burger flipping, and possible future modifications to Obamacare  (almost double the current rate) could push many franchises (AKA small businesses) operating under the McDonalds, Burger King or Wendy’s brand names towards automation. With the current price of the average McDonald’s employee being 11,670 plus the employer side of the Social Security tax, this robo-cook won’t be too hard of a sell (at the demanded $15 an hour, it would be 22,500 plus SS tax annual for the same individual employee).

Source: http://www.aboutmcdonalds.com/mcd/franchising.html

Average profit margin per Franchise runs about 10% of sales per Mr. Franchise of Franchise Foundations, a Professional Corp.

Source: http://www.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_average_mcdonald%27s_franchise_net_profit

From 2013, the gross sales are around 22 billion, after expenses, pre-tax income is 8.2 billion, after US and foreign taxes 5.59 billion. So they actually “made” 5.59 billion, which is considerably less than 22. So do they send the subsidies to the foreign markets? What happens when share holders get jittery over substantially reduced profits and bail?

Source: http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/mcd/financials#

If domestically, then you have to determine who gets a subsidy and how much wealth to distibute. Also, with the federal minimum wage being 7.25 and state being up to 9.32 as of January, all of those located in those states make more. The crew member hourly average makes $7.78. the national average is above the national minimum wage, with other positions having an $8.13-$9.62 an hour wage, not counting store managers.

Wage information source: http://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/McDonald-s-Salaries-E432.htm

I worked at a McDonalds for a summer job as a crew member between college semesters (a unionized grocery store position didn’t pay any more than McDonald’s did). Many of these positions are high turnover (summer jobs, college jobs, first jobs), low skill positions which, under a free market economy would serve as spring boards and experience builders for new to the job market workers. Under the ever growing weight of the regulation and social welfare and warfare state the economic opportunities to grow are being killed, so the solution is not to compel McDonald’s to pay more, but to liberate the market from the forces of government that are making it ever more difficult to do business. Of course the federal government is not alone in this. State governments have added their own lists to the federal government’s lists, threatening and pressuring faith based businesses to abandon their faith to serve the “moral” imperatives of their state “betters.”

If you want to see people regain the ability to lift themselves up, it is time to get the dead weight of government off of our economy. It is time to end the punitive taxation and onerous regulations crafted in part by so called crony-capitalists to protect their own profits from competition and secure additional profits through tax credits for purchasing their products and state and local mandates to consume their products (think “renewable” energy). Crony capitalism is as much a threat to the free market and to general prosperity as socialism is. It is time to end tax payer subsidization of companies (Think GE) unable to stay afloat and to let the “vultures” of the free market tear them apart and weld them into something which can again make profit and grow and hire workers.

What would it look like if McDonald’s distributed 100% of its net profit to its employees:

Distribution of 100% of net profit:

5,559,000,000 net profit / 1,700,000 MD’s (source said 1.7M+) employees = additional $3,288 per employee per year or an additional $65 / week (assuming 50 weeks of work and two weeks of missed scheduling)or an additional $2.19 per hour assuming part time @ 30 hours per week.

(This of course would be a GROSS “benefit,” before federal, state and local taxes were applied).
(Originally published 8-29-2014 on my facebook)

Posted in politics | Leave a Comment »

Important Exerts from Governor Christies Global Warming/Green Speech

Posted by americana83 on July 30, 2015

“RGGI has not changed behavior and it has not reduced emissions.”

“We are committed to putting in place policies that actively work to decrease greenhouse gas emissions 22 and a half percent renewable portfolio standard target by 2021…”

“One of the things I am announcing today is that there will be NO NEW COAL permitted in New Jersey. From this day forward, any plans that anyone has regarding any type of coal based generation of energy in New Jersey is over.”

“We know that coal is a major source of CO2 emissions, we will no longer accept coal as a new source of power in the state and WE WILL WORK to SHUTDOWN older dirtier peaker and intermediate plants that emit high green house gases. We need to commit in NJ to making coal a part of our past. We are going to work to make NJ number 1 in offshore wind energy production. Last year I signed the offshore wind economic development act to provide FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE and tax credits to businesses that construct manufacturing, assembly and water access facilities that support offshore wind products.” – Governor Christie, Economic Choices Czar.

VIDEO of Speech: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-qMoqAfViM

“Energy Costs will necessarily skyrocket.” – President Obama, who is also at war with Coal… One might say they are comrades in arms on this matter of economic tyranny.

(originally published 6-2-2011 on my facebook page)

Posted in politics | Leave a Comment »

A Reminder on Civility and Christian Charity

Posted by americana83 on July 30, 2015

It is time for some reminders: If you think I hate Obama, you are mistaken. I do not wish death or damnation or ill health or any tragedy of any kind upon Obama or his family. (Indeed, I wish that they would lay hold on and receive the greatest blessing ever offered to mortal man: Salvation).

That aside, I pray that his agenda would be blocked, obstructed and deconstructed at every turn-Every cap and trade bill, every abridgment of the bill of rights, every intrusion into the private market, every government spending spree, every attempt to conform this country to the “failed politics of the past” (aka socialism/Marxism).

His voice on the international scene hinders and stifles freedom. He bashes the USA and pressures our allies. He gives hope to Hamas and Mullahs. He pressures Israel to accept her piecemeal destruction.

His voice on the domestic scene calls for the continuing unconstitutional (RE: Illegal) expansion of the government, the spending of stolen money, the open and unabated involvement of thieves and cheaters in the running of, and forming of government policies.

He would plunder the lower and middle classes through ridiculous energy and carbon taxes.

The only freedom he uncompromisingly supports (abortion) is the one that contradicts the first freedom fought for in the Declaration of Independence: Life.

Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and cry against it; for their wickedness is come up before me. (Jonah 1:2)

Job was called to decry the wickedness, NOT for the purpose of damning Nineveh, but that Nineveh might repent!

Christians, raise up and weep for your country! Pray for her. That we and our leaders would “put on sackcloth” and cry out on account of our sins!

We can be silent no longer. Cast off apathy.

Or partake in the decline and fall of America without complaint. That is where we are headed.

The writing is on the wall.

(originally published 6-29-2009 on my facebook page)

Posted in politics | Leave a Comment »

The WRONG reasons to oppose Obama

Posted by americana83 on July 30, 2015

Many of you know that I have been raising a lot of concerns about the policies and actions of the Obama administration*. Let me take some time now to share reasons no one should cite for opposing a candidate. Not only is it shallow, but it subverts the promise of this nation “That all men are created equal.” Perhaps some conservatives will object, but I will say that using any of the things below to define opposition to a president or administration subverts and destroys the hope of Dr. King (A republican by the way) that men would judge by content of character and not the color of skin. Racism is ugly, and not only violates God’s command to look to the inward and not judge by the outer appearance), but it also distracts from the very real issues surrounding this administration (including congress).

Obama’s name.

Lets face it, a name does not define a person. Obama means “blessed” in Arabic. So what if the name has Arabic origins, there are many people not only with Arabic names, but with Arabic origins that are good hardworking and patriotic Americans, and still others who are fighting for freedoms on the social, economic and political fronts in their native lands. A name is a terrible reason to oppose a president.

Obama’s father was Kenyan.

*Gasp* You mean people come from other countries to this one? Lest we forget, this country is a nation of immigrants. Blood sweat and tears of many people from every corner of this planet have come together here to build a nation (some against their will). Since then legal immigrants have streamed here from every continent in the hopes of building better lives for themselves, and helping their families back home. Ancestry is a terrible reason to oppose a president.

Obama is black.

Born to a white mother and black father, Obama overcame the odds, especially at that point in history, and his rise shatters a whole bunch of myths about “bi-racial” children not being accepted. Whether he chooses to identify as “black” or “bi-racial” is of as little consequence as the color of his skin, and groups who bash him for his skin or self-identification are practicing racism. Race is a terrible reason to oppose a president.

Obama tries on traditional garb.

This is such a laughable reason to oppose a candidate. Conservatives, liberals, democrats and republicans have done this when visiting foreign lands. Clothes do not define a president, or his policies. It would not trouble me in the least if he wanted to wear Dashikis in the Oval office. I certainly have nothing against culture. Clothing is a terrible reason to oppose a president

*the concern doesn’t begin or end with just Obama’s policies, but also with those of congress, who is responsible for allowing debate, editing and passing the damaging legislation that Obama signs into law.

(Originally published 3-31-2009 on my facebook)

Posted in politics | Leave a Comment »

Reflections on God and Government… (Replication from facebook)

Posted by americana83 on July 30, 2015

The highest calling is spreading the gospel. Jesus said go into all the world. God also ordained government: the family, the church and the nation/city/state. God would not ordain an institution that was in itself evil. Throughout …the Bible, believers have been councilors, kings, advisers, military leaders, in both the nation of Israel and under pagan regimes. According to the Bible, it seems that the pagan king Nebuchadnezzar was brought to salvation because of the godly service of Daniel, as well as the testimony of the 3 men from the fiery furnace who were also involved in his kingdom:

Now I Nebuchadnezzar praise and extol and honor the King of heaven, all whose works are truth, and his ways judgment: and those that walk in pride he is able to abase. (Daniel 4:37)

Jesus commends the centurion (Matthew 8) who was of course a military leader. Jesus praised his faith above Israel. Jesus had a perfect opportunity to tell the Centurion to forsake his leadership in the military, but he did not. If it would have improved the walk of one who was so faithful, certainly Jesus would have made it known, or if it was an abomination.

And when Jesus was entered into Capernaum, there came unto him a centurion, beseeching him, And saying, Lord, my servant lieth at home sick of the palsy, grievously tormented. And Jesus saith unto him, I will come and heal him. The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed. For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this man, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it. When Jesus heard it, he marveled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel. And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. And Jesus said unto the centurion, Go thy way; and as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee. And his servant was healed in the selfsame hour. (Matthew 8:5-13)

Also, it was a councilor that came and prepared the body of Jesus. The Bible calls him a good and just man, though he holds a position of council. If it were sinful or apostate to do so, God would not have called him good or just.

And, behold, there was a man named Joseph, a counselor; and he was a good man, and a just: (Luke 23:50)

(The same had not consented to the counsel and deed of them;) he was of Arimathaea, a city of the Jews: who also himself waited for the kingdom of God. (Luke 23:51)

This man went unto Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus. (Luke 23:52)

And he took it down, and wrapped it in linen, and laid it in a sepulcher that was hewn in stone, wherein never man before was laid. (Luke 23:53)

It depends on a person’s heart whether they should be involved with politics. The Bible is full of numerous men and women who were called to do such things, but there are also many who were not. Seek the will of God in all things, and study the scriptures. While the words of Bible teachers can be helpful, they must always be tested against the whole word of God, whether they be right or wrong. There are those who cherry pick verses to condemn ALL involvement in the public square, just as there are those who pick verses to condemn anyone who is NOT involved in the public square. Both will have to answer to God for any souls they help to push outside of God’s will for their life.

Nebuchadnezzar is certainly thankful that Daniel answered the call to public service.

Posted in politics | Leave a Comment »


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 104 other followers