Watching Christianity Disappear

Pulling up in traffic, I sat behind a mini-van waiting to turn into a school parking lot. Three bumper stickers stared at me. They read, “Rome Needed More Lions,” “God was my co-pilot but I crashed in the mountains and had to eat him,” and the third stated “Don’t pray in my schools and I won’t think in your church.” Fairly antagonistic toward Christians.

God provided His Holy Word so that we’d have an “Owners Manual” on how we should live if we wanted things to go well. Jesus came down to earth to do what we can’t do for ourselves – save our souls. The Apostle Paul traveled to Rome to face prosecution, in order to reach the unsaved in the “ends of the earth.” Gutenberg invented the mechanical printing press in order to put the Bible in the hands of ordinary people, so they might have a direct link to God’s Word instead of having it interpreted for them. The Separatists we refer to as “the Pilgrims” fled Europe because the Bible was being abandoned as King Henry and his successors began watering it down or ignoring it with their self-proclaimed position of intercessor. Public schooling was mandated in the New England colonies with the primary focus being of teaching children reading – so they could know what God says. Harvard began as an institution to prepare men for ministry. Our Declaration of Independence reads, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...”

How have we come so far and left it so quickly? Why are people SO angry at Christians and why do they feel so justified in publicly expressing their hatred? While I didn’t talk with the lady-of-the-van, I am going to assume that she is anti-hate. Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe she’d just as soon have bumper stickers which read “Hitler Needed More Extermination Camps,” “Buddha was my visionary but we needed more lard for the candles,” and “Don’t meditate in my yoga class and I won’t stretch at your shrine.” Perhaps her hatred covers all groups which differ from hers. But I didn’t see any additional stickers stating such.

As a Christian, I know I am supposed to forgive her. I get that. What concerns me is public policy which becomes comfortable in defining what we are allowed to think and say lest it be incendiary, hate mongering speech (at least towards certain groups). Ethnic slurs? Banished (unless aimed at whites). Sexist comments? Grounds for termination of employment. Alternative lifestyle concerns? Clear symptom of hate mongering. Questions about Islamic fundamentalism? My guess is, pretty soon you won’t be allowed to ask any.

While I don’t believe that Christians should get any “special” rights, I do feel we have an obligation to protect the cultural respect of Christianity for our posterity. Sure, I can continue to remain silent and meek. But what is happening in our country is a pushing of my cultural beliefs, based on Christianity, into a silence which offers no resistance. The lack of resistance acts as license to agnostics and atheists to take control of the moral fabric of this country, dismantling the tapestry of our fundamental beliefs thread by thread. We cannot pray in public schools, despite diligently paying our taxes. We cannot have the Ten Commandments posted in courthouses. We cannot assemble in prayer on the steps of Congress. Benedictions are no longer allowed on public property.

The Cornerstone document of our country’s history is the Declaration of Independence. That document declares that our rights came as a gift from God (endowed by their Creator). That document continues by saying that government is established for this reason: ...that to secure these rights. I ask you again: How did we get to this point? Our government is supposed to be protecting the rights given to us by God, and now we can barely mention His name.

The other famous document – the Constitution? Within the Preamble, we read ...and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity... Our freedoms are not just for ourselves, they are for our posterity (future generations). What I’m saying is this: Accepting the assault on Christianity as some sort of pious tolerance is really selfish in the long run. If this trend continues, our posterity will be reading about the once dangerous presence of religious bigotry in our country which was eventually stamped eradicated due to its dangerous teachings. “History is written by the victors.” (Winston Churchill).

If Jesus came to serve as an example, apparently there is a time and place to turn over some tables.

Where is the Stimulus?

A small dose of reality crept into my closed mind the other day. My 15 year old son told me of an online friend who was suddenly becoming flush with money. The friend, as the story goes, obtained a tele-communicator job calling applicants to relay the bad news that, “No, there is no Stimulus help for you.” As my son told the story, his online friend was relishing the power of shutting down the protests of the Stimulus hopeful. At this point in the conversation, my son was impressed that his young 20s something friend was making a whopping $17 per hour while enjoying the power of telling people, “Sorry, sucker!”

Let me ask you this: Can you turn on your computer, enter the internet, and not be barraged by promises of Stimulus money? “Obama wants mothers to go back to college!” and “Mortgage interest rates are at an historical low!” Egads, maybe that Stimulus Plan is going to save the world.

My daughter recently lost her home. Yep, it was probably a stretch that shouldn’t have been made. But nope, she did not obtain the mortgage based on an adjustable rate mortgage. She got the good old fashioned kind of loan with a fixed rate based on being a first time buyer attributed a certain income. The mistake? Well, the bank included “child support” as real income. Unfortunately, in the real world, a biological father doesn’t actually have to pay child support, unless they’re honest and genuinely want to support the children they sired. In any event, should the support not materialize, the assumed income is not there. Not “there” means insufficient funds to pay one’s indebtedness. That’s not the government’s fault, nor is it in any stretch of the imagination the taxpayer’s liability. Still, if this Stimulus Bill is designed to help those who are struggling get their feet underneath them, maintain stability for their children, and continue moving away from the road to poverty and welfare, would it be worthy of consideration to have one’s loan rate be lowered a percentage point or so? Apparently not.

In querying several people of desperate circumstances, I’ve not found any person who has received, or been given any hope of, the potential of debt relief. I have run across one person who is a well-to-do investor who has been given easy loans to buy rental homes on speculation. Why? He is not a risk. At all. While I can’t fault this person for his excellent judgment which enabled him to get where he is, I thought the Stimulus Plan was going to help, not only the economy in general, but struggling people who had a chance of recovering.

Lest this sound like a personal grudge about my daughter, allow me to get back to the online friend. What disturbs me about this story? The bank which hired this young woman created a job. That job will then be reported as “job growth” in the face of unemployment statistics. What tangible commodity is being created by this job? Nothing. She calls people in crisis and tells them the bad news (relishing in the power of doing so). Where is the bank obtaining the money for this new job? I could be wrong, but common sense tells me they are using Stimulus money to finance it. What will become of this job? It will vanish when the applicants for Stimulus relief have been extinquished. From where does this Stimulus money come? From you and me, the taxpayers. So, in summary, we are taxing ourselves to tell ourselves we can’t have our money. Not only that, despite seeing the obvious effects of unemployment all around us, we cling to the hope that Washington tells us there was an increase in job creation.

Granted, my reflections are not based on a wide-based study. On the other hand, I cannot ignore my own intellect. With my ear to the ground in my community, I know of more and more people who are unemployed and struggling. I know of not one person in need who has received assistance or the promise therein, of Stimulus money. I hear that the Administration is claiming victory in “new jobs” although all accounts - conservative and liberal - cite government jobs as being those created. In the private sector, a new job created? I guess so. One in which the employee gets to tell people in need, “No.”

Still Puzzled by the Anti-Glen Becks

I still don’t understand the anti-Glen Beck emotion. In watching him on an episode this week, he blasted Republicans and Democrats equally. In reviewing the topics of this particular show, he:

Pointed out that the government is spending 7 times its income. Beck raised the question, “What if your spouse spent 7 times more than what you earned each month?” How can anyone find fault with that question and analogy? The graph depicted began in 1970. The income spending lines diverged in 1975 and continued to separate throughout Republican and Democrat presidents. In 2006, the income line dove as the spending line went vertical. Bush was in the White House and the Democrats took control in Congress. However, Beck never cites Bush as good while Obama is bad. His ongoing pounding on the drum is this: our government is out of control and out of touch with the American people. What is there to hate in that?

Another segment of the show touched on how the House version of National Health Care included jail time for people who refused to obtain coverage. Speaker Pelosi was questioned about it, and she did not deny it. No, Pelosi said the bill would treat the matter fairly. Let me ask you this: Whether you are in favor of national health care or not, are you in favor of seeing fellow Americans go to jail for refusing to purchase a government plan if they don’t have a private plan? This, while illegal aliens are guaranteed medical coverage under emergency plans? Beck’s pointing this out brings awareness to a legitimate sticking point in a bill prior to it becoming law. What’s the hate in that?

Another segment dealt with Obama’s delaying decision of action in Afghanistan. Where are all the war protestors? Why aren’t people holding Obama’s feet to the fire for promising, during the campaign, that if elected, he would have US troops out of Iraq in seven months. Yes, he promised that; check the records. It’s important to examine history. Those of us old enough to remember Viet Nam remember how painful the lesson was that Congress cannot win wars - the military wins wars. When you tie their hands behind their backs, the news is filled with body bags being emptied from cargo planes. The Soviet’s 9 year stint in Afghanistan is sometimes called their “Viet Nam.” At the time, the Soviets had no real restraints in practicing warfare within the confines of “human rights.” With American being scrutinized at every turn, and a government that doesn’t have a clue as to strategy (let alone exit strategy) what in the world are we doing putting one more American life in harm’s way? If it were your son or daughter, would you be willing for them to die for this “cause”? Is Beck to be hated for bringing Obama’s indecision to the attention of uninformed or undecided Americans?

To tell you the truth, Glen Beck is the only broadcaster I see who is truly trying to educate his listeners and viewers. Instead of discussing which entitlement program needs to go, he spends time trying to get his audience to understand a basic concept: “We’re spending far more than we earn, our jobs are disappearing, and this debt will be carried by ourselves, our children, and their children - while Congress continues to spend money at an ever increasing pace.” At that point, it becomes obvious that we need to do something. Beck doesn’t tell us what to do. He outlines the problem, the crisis, and expects us to care to be involved. How can you hate that?

Again, I’m largely convinced that people who say they hate Glen Beck have not given him a chance. I would challenge those of you who haven’t done so, but are convinced Beck is a wack job, to put your judgement to the test. Listen to what the man says. He loves this country, and is acting as a voice warning of an oncoming catastrophe.

Congressional Term Limits Now

George Washington was right - Having competing parties would lead to problems in our country. "However combinations or associations of the above description (political parties) may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reins of government; destroying afterwards the very engines, which have lifted them to unjust dominion."

If I were the emperor god of the political world, there are so many changes I would change. For starters, it would be a requirement that elected and appointed officials had to be able to pass a rigorous test covering the content of the US Constitution. Secondly, just like in most businesses, employees are required to take refresher courses on law and ethics of their particular specialty, those same government officials would be required to revisit the underlying reasons for the inclusion of those contents of the Constitution. And most importantly, they would be required to know what the Declaration of Independence stated was the purpose for having government in the first place: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. That to secure those rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...”

I find it reprehensible what has happened to our government which was once the envy of the world. Party Bosses control who gets a chance. Then, special interest groups of every variety step in, pledging money with strings attached. The media controls what we’re allowed to know about the candidate. Because we, as people, devote limited attention to what’s going on, we focus all our attention on the presidential race and very little attention on the most powerful branch of government: Congress. Once in, 100 members of the Senate and 435 members of the House are essentially shrouded in anonymity. They conjure up rules and committees and bills that can’t possibly be understood by the man or woman on the street. In back rooms, they exchange favors and attach riders to bills completely unrelated to the content of the rider. Committees often refuse to allow bills leave the room despite knowing the public supports it. They’ve learned their trade well and know all the tricks to direct traffic and hide their corruption.

Congress is the body of government that determines our economy. The House of Representatives originates bills involving taxation. It is Congress who approves the budget. It is Congress which declares war. It is Congress that has the power to accept or reject presidential appointments. Congress writes the laws. Congress orders investigations. Congress overrides the power of veto. And it is Congress which has the sole authority for impeachment of government officials.

It has become clear to me that Congress is not really interested in the People anymore. Madam Pelosi belittles 50% of the American people by calling them dangerous and an astroturf movement. Lines of communication designed to allow constituents to contact their representatives are shut down, and responses, if any, are boiler plate explanations of “thank you” but here’s what we’re going to do anyway. Town Hall meetings are canceled due to unruly protestors.

The answer to this? Term limits in Congress. Far too many members of Congress are “lifers.” They get in, learn to play the game, brown nose those in power (or are sidelined until they learn how the cow at the cabbage), pay their dues, become power brokers in their own respect, and become indoctrinated to “the Washington Way.”

We need to clean house. Republicans and Democrats. We need fresh blood - people who have actually had real jobs, and a variety of jobs as opposed to a steady parade of attorneys. People who go to DC with ideals of actually representing the People, and don’t stay long enough to become jaded and handled. We need candidates who are more concerned with doing what is right than in flying around in billion dollar jets while telling the public they have to be green.

I don’t think Congress can actually see the forest through the trees anymore. I mean, how hypocritical is it to pretend we’re concerned about the world while we won’t drill for oil in our own backyard but we don’t mind if we buy it from somebody else who does? And while we give away our country to China, how stupid are we to think they won’t take advantage of ALL the natural resources found within our borders. Why in the world are we asking soldiers to risk their life in Afghanistan or come back as an amputee when we won’t give them the resources and authority to win? With the firepower and technology our country has, why the hell can’t we keep the illegals and drug lords on their side of the border and let Mexico clean itself up? For years, I’ve listened to liberals bash conservatives about America going around nation building - for purely selfish motives. I’m sick to death of people feeling apologetic for our country. I say, bring the soldiers home and use those who volunteer for active duty to shut down our borders to anyone attempting to come here illegally and take advantage of tax paid services.

Here’s an interesting footnote: I started to rant about Muslims being in our country who offered no apology for the misrepresentation of Islam after 9/11 and terrorism a la jihad in general. I looked at my writing and thought - “You’re over the top.” I got home, turned on the news to find that a convert to Islam had committed the largest atrocity to US soldiers on a US base in the history of the country. Major Nidal Malik Hasan opened fire on US soldiers graduating, ceremonies had been delayed due to their service overseas, killing 12 and injuring another 31. The guy is a psychiatrist. I thought Islam was supposed to be a religion of peace. Will the existing churches of Islam enjoying the freedom of religion come out and condemn the major’s actions as being totally inconsistent with their teachings, or will they remain silent? Will the Rev. Jeremiah Wright tells us that this is another case of the chickens coming home to roost? (Sometimes I can’t tell where black theology and Islam begin and end.)

But I digress - big time. Admittedly, this blog is a rant, but it’s just the way I am feeling today. Pretty much tired of trying to help a thankless Third World, I’m ready to bring our troops home while they still live - especially if our goal is muddied and they’re at the whims of politics in Washington, DC. Such was the setting of Viet Nam, and that proved disastrous. We actually need their help here: I’m sick and tired of looking at graffiti inspired by the gang mentality of Mexico. Continuing to have southwestern states live in the fear shadow of drug cartels seems ludicrous when we have the means to protect our own borders. Allowing an influx into the US of people who practice a religion of hatred toward Western philosophy seems suicidal, and yet we practice it to prove we embrace diversity. The proverbial shit is hitting the fan at an ever increasing pace, and I can reconcile my own plight by thinking that I may well die before the collapse actually happens. But what about my children? What about my grandchildren? And more importantly, what about the sacrifices of those who fought for this great country to exist in the first place?

Congress is the key to the future of the US. We cannot allow them to remain anonymous. We cannot allow them to recline in the comfort of a lifetime incumbancy. Change is required, and that change will only be required through term limitation.

Glen Beck and Fox News on Trial

Do you hate Glen Beck? Have you been brainwashed to hate him? From where does your opinion come?

I admit it. I watch Beck on a fairly regular basis. Because of this, I’m always caught off guard when somebody talks about what an idiot he is. Because what that means is, I’m an idiot.

If I got my opinion via quips from the administration, I guess I’d think Beck is totally unreliable. Or, if I reached my decision from Saturday Night Live, Letterman, the View, NPR, or “mainstream media,” I’d readily reach the conclusion that Beck is a right-wing nut job.

Here’s my challenge for those of you who don’t watch Beck. Watch his show, or listen to his radio broadcast for 5 days in a row. I know, I know. How would you be able to stand that? Take it just one day at a time. If at the end of the 5 days you still think he’s not to be taken seriously, let alone credible, I would take your criticism seriously. However, most people I’ve met who hate Glen Beck do so because somebody told them Beck is a wack job. That’s right; they’ve NEVER listened to the man. Still, their verdict is that he is dangerous.

America is at a crossroads. We’re about to take a divergent course which leads down a completely different direction from our legacy. Frighteningly, if taken, the course we take may prove hard, if not impossible, to abandon. Because of this, it is imperative that we take the time to examine where we are headed. Forget Republican vs. Democrat - Beck decries both parties. What he favors is the Constitution, our foundation, and our legacy as a great nation.

Beck is raising concerns which need to be considered. Whether or not you agree with his position, it is worth your time to listen to the warnings. Following a path that leads to destruction is a choice that should be made by the will of the People. We cannot afford to let others tell us what to think. Living in a Republic requires an informed and involved populace. Anything less, and we resort to relying on elected officials without accountability. We’ll get what we deserve.

Aviv, Obama, and Martial Law

There has been an email circulating that scares the pants off thinking Americans. It’s based on the credibility of a man named Juval Aviv. In the email, Aviv is credited with being on the Bill O’Reilly show (FOX news) and making predictions of terrorist attacks on England, and later, purportedly warning President Bush of the nature of the attacks of 9/11. Snopes.com, a website that has become a mainstay of substantiating or refuting urban legends finds the claims to be “false.” I visit Snopes periodically to check on alarming emails.

According to the email, Aviv was a former bodyguard of Prime Minister Golda Meir. He also, according to the email, was the real person upon which the character “Avner” is based upon in the Steven Speilberg movie Munich. The controversy stems from whether Aviv truly was a ranking member of Mossad (Israeli secret service) who had access to this type of information, and then warned of the impending acts of terrorism. Let me ask this: Would any high level member of the CIA who went public with his position, giving inside information, be authenticated as credible by his government? I don’t mean to sound like a screenwriter, but what’s the business of highly sensitive agents being told, “If you are caught, we will disavow any information you may give”?

What we need to consider is not whether Aviv did or did not accomplish all he claims. Instead, we should be examining the logic of his current assertions. Those assertions warn of the form the next wave of terrorist acts on American soil may take. Which include: bombs in suitcases or packages left in densely populated public places, such as Disneyworld, football stadiums, concert halls; terrorists who will have been raised in the United States as opposed to known terrorists sneaking in; explosives being much more discreet due to their plastic composition instead of more easily detected metal structure; attacks on more remote areas that may feel safe due to proximity - such as Wyoming or Montana. In view of these, whether or not Aviv was the role model for Avner, do these warnings make sense?

My concern? Martial law. For those of us who look forward to the 2010 elections, we probably do so in hopes of many members of Congress being ousted from their positions. Why? We trust in the balance of powers provided in the Constitution. Whether the president is Republican or Democrat, we realize that Congress is the vessel which can either support or undermine the power of the president. If the president proceeds with activities which we abhor, it is not necessary to simply wait out his term of four years. Yes, the president has a lot of power. But Congress has the ability to limit the power of the president. In fact, Congress, in reality, is the most powerful branch of government; they may override his veto, they can deny his appointments, they will support or deny his declarations of war, and ultimately, they can bring about an impeachment process which examines his activities. However, if the sitting Congress allows a president to act in a manner inconsistent with the will of the people, about the only thing the people can do is replace the sitting members of Congress. And so, those of us who mourn the current trend of our government look forward to November 2010 as an opportunity to stop the destruction of the United States. Back to Aviv.

What if Aviv’s warnings of another terrorist attack on America have credence? A few suitcase bombings here, a suicide bomber there, a bit of infrastructure chaos - how would our government respond? Okay, here’s where I may sound like an alarmist. President Obama has leveraged himself into being in charge of an internet shutdown for security. He also has the power to order the shutdown of cell phone satellite communication under the basis that cell phones are how terrorists would communicate. In place, Rex 84, (do a Google search), a plan which has been in place for many years, putting FEMA in charge of an instance of civil insurrection. Then do another search on USNorthcom - contigency forces trained for dealing with controlling the US populace in the event of civil chaos. I’m honestly not a conspiracy theorist - I’m just considering the pieces of the puzzle.

I have to ask myself this: In view of Obama’s conciliatory manner toward the Islamic countries, as well as his overtures of apologizing to the world, to the point of bowing to Islamic world leaders, why would the Islamic terrorists choose to terrorize America? Especially when our leniency and apologetics would allow infiltrators to deeply root themselves into the American mainstream. Wouldn’t this be a key time to avoid alarming mainstream America of an Islamic threat? When the getting is good, why wouldn’t Islamic terrorists use the opportunity to charm America, continuing with the insistent mantra that Islam is a religion of peace? When America is conciliatory and open, why not quietly and aggressively insert your influence and operatives within its borders. Wouldn’t another 9/11 wake a sleeping giant?

Here’s where I hope I am dead wrong: If a terrorist attack were to happen sometime before the November, 2010 elections, would President Obama seem justified in implementing martial law? A crisis of that proportion would seem to warrant side-stepping a congressional election. Would it seem justified. Conspiracy?

As I said - I don’t want to be right, and this is not a prediction; it’s a fear. Hopefully unwarranted. But when I think about elemental pieces such as the president being in charge of pulling the plug on cell phone communication and the internet, the push from liberals to pass a “Fairness Doctrine” which has a sole purpose of silencing conservative media, the urgency to pass socialistic laws without opening them to scrutiny, a president who says we’ll be able to know him by who he surrounds himself with (his advisors) and then doing so with people formerly associated with Marxist and Socialistic agendas, the apologizing to the world for American arrogance, the attempt of alignment with leaders we formerly recognized as dictators and thugs, the administrations admiration of the Cuban social structure - one has to wonder: Are all these elements coincidental, or are they pieces of a puzzle that will come together?

Quite frankly, this direction does not come as a surprise. People, who were willing to listen prior to the election, realized there was cause for concern - but these concerns were derailed by a liberal media shouting “Racism.” When Obama’s associations with people like Bill Ayers were brought up, the concerns were made to look ridiculous (They just happen to live in the same community - don’t we all know people with different backgrounds and beliefs than our own?) We really didn’t know much about Obama’s past, and when his actual citizenship was questionned, we were first told he had a right to privacy, then that Hawaii’s laws precluded public examination, then shown a document on the internet - but there was no forthcoming explanation by Obama - the man who said transparency would be the cornerstone of his administration. During the campaigning, when Joe the Plumber confronted Obama with his frustration over not being able to survive in business, Obama revealed his belief about redistributive wealth; mainstream media let this slide. And a few days before the election, Obama announced that “We are 5 days away from fundamentally transforming America...” Boy, he wasn’t kidding. While the crowd attending this rally was wildly cheering and celebrating, I was sick inside, thinking, “I don’t want to change America’s fundamentals”; those are what make America great, at least to me. Semantic interpretation? I don’t think so; not when you look at the big picture.

Rex 84 - an undisclosed number of concentration camps are throughout America under the jurisdiction of FEMA. As far as I can tell, these were originally put into service for an event where an uncontrollable number of illegal aliens flooded our borders and needed to be detained. Liberals feared that the Bush/Cheney administration would resort to a police state. So perhaps my fears are like those of the liberals - just from a different perspective. I hope so.

One of the key successes of the American system of government, acknowledged from the very beginning, was the peaceful transfer of power from one elected official to the next. Americans, now sick of an unresponsive and reckless Congress, look forward to 2010 in hopes of putting the brakes on runaway government. If Juval Aviv’s warnings prove prophetic, the timing of an attack before those elections won’t shock me. What better way to subvert the will of the American people than to be able to exercise martial law, with an ostensible patriotic action to “protect” America during a time of crisis.

National Health Care Shell Game

Good golly, Molly, what's the latest on the national health care bill? Which health care bill? Why, I'm not even sure what the health care bill says. How would we? Not only are there a variety of bills being cast about, the contents are not being divulged for examination. Remember that shell game where you try to watch the illusionist's hands as they quickly change 3 shells from one position to another, all in the blink of an eye, and your supposed to know which half shell contains the pea? Well, there's a lot more than three shells, contents unknown, being moved about by 100 senators and 435 representatives. These folks, you know, our representatives, count on us not knowing the rules of the game - confusing constituents with committee rules, cloture, and other terminology that cause us to shrug our shoulders.

The Senate is scared to pass a national health care bill right now. Why? They got the message. The majority of Americans don't trust a government to take over their health care when they can't manage Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid. If those programs are poorly administered and upside down, why would the government be able to handle a much bigger program that determines which coverage I'm allocated? Granted, there is work to be done, but turning over our health coverage - the best in the world - to a group of politicians who haven't read the bill(s)? I don't think so.

Well, what better way to get things accomplished than to play the proverbial shell game. So, here's the latest deal. Since bills can be amended, why not try this: Take a bill that already has majority support, or one that is already passed but not signed - say, a bill that taxes executives who receive TARP bailout money. Yeah, we all hate those slimy executives who are getting TARP bailout money. So, that's a slam dunk bill, in fact, it's already been voted on, just not signed into law. Okay, so here's the deal; split up the health care bill into sections, and attach sections of the bill to bills that are sure to pass, or have passed - such as the taxing of executives who receive bailouts.

"That's ludicrous!" you cry. "Health care doesn't have anything to do with bailouts of executives using TARP money!" By golly, you're right. They can't do that, can they?

Well, yes, they can. Ethical? Depends on who you ask. I mean, what does "is" mean? Think of it this way. If you really want a health care bill to pass, irrespective of what your constituents say, irrespective of the feedback from the majority of Americans, what better way to accomplish your objective than to vote on a bill that has nothing to do with health care, and vindicate your voting record by saying "I voted for those slimeball executives receiving TARP bailout money to have to pay big taxation. I wasn't voting on health care - it just happened to be an attachment." Dirty politics? You betcha!

As mentioned in earlier blogs, when Ben Franklin, upon exiting the Constitutional Convention, was asked what form of government the Framers had decided upon, he quipped, "A republic, if you can keep it." Our government was founded on the assumption of an informed and educated public holding the politicians responsible and accountable. Are we up to the task?

Oh, and by the way, this is being orchestrated by Reid, Pelosi, and the team of audacity, Obama.