AS FOR ME AND MY HOUSE, WE SHALL SERVE THE LORD!

Look, I've written about this sort of thing before, but every time it occurs it grates me immeasurably: I sympathize with congresswoman Giffords and I wish her well, both in her recovery and her life.

You know, when we vote for someone and they eventually get elected into office, that simple act does not elevate them to some astronomical status. They do not suddenly become "god-like". In fact, it could be the case that they might lose the next election they are running in, so why do we feel obligated to glorify them as if they are the epitome of goodness?

Do you remember when Ted Kennedy died? Why if you just landed on this planet you might think that God Himself just died. 

These people one day, are shaking our hands, telling us stuff they think they need to say to get elected. They put their pants on one leg at a time, just like me and you. But once they are in office, ....well,    God is not as popular as some of them. And when they die, or as in Gifford's case, they resign, the news media and the American public, act like it might be impossible for this country to continue to exist, absent this one, great individual?

It is a shame what happened to the congresswoman, but some 40,000 people die a year in car crashes, and nobody epitomizes their absence.  WHY? What is it that makes these elected people so precious to us? Why do we weep and lament at their parting? Does it speak to our shallow existence or does it speak to our need to act human?

Isn't it the normal and best thing for Americans to "throw the bums out" or to 'vote for someone who best represents our views", or "try someone different" in an election? If this is the case, how do these "choices" become so iconoclastic? How and why do we elevate them to such a pinnacle as to promote them beyond the God whom created the very being we are idolizing?

There in lies the dilemma:  we have a system that allows the citizens of this great country to vote for, and place into an office, a person who promises to represent us in a political system admired by the rest of the world. And in that position, we expect them to behave judicially, and impiously; a representative of the people, for the people and by the people; a system, some would argue is God sent; a system that is trying to eliminate God from every aspect of our lives. What,   did I just say that? "A system trying to eliminate God from every aspect our our lives? Sure enough, and in so doing, we replace Him with His own creation. We worship the creature rather than the Creator. Oh, how debased and perverted we are, as a people and as a nation.

Lament no more: God is alive and well. He has no beginning and no end and on Him we can depend. He will never leave us or forsake us. We will never have to lament His passing, and we can always depend on Him to be there no matter what the political pundits are saying.

WHAT DO YOU KNOW ABOUT NATIONAL ELECTIONS?

Read Amendment XII;    THAT was how Presidents and Vice Presidents were intended to be elected so favorites or special PAC's could not affect the election of the 2 most important offices in this free nation. It is the ultimate balance.

 
That's why I do not believe in the PRIMARY election system: It is left to a few states as to whom is left over for the general election, not forgetting that America has the electoral college that is supposed to do the presidential elections, we are stuck with the 2 party system ultimately funding one candidate as opposed to another, then we get to vote as if our vote actually counted (Presidents and Vice Presidents are NOT elected by popular vote), and the states' electors are sworn to vote for the persons on a ticket regardless of the actual vote count. Meaning, the primary and the National Conventions dictate who will be the Pres./V. Pres. in the general election. Electors do not even concern themselves with the actual vote; they are not obligated to vote the way YOU want them to, but IF a state's voters vote more for a Repub than a Dem., the electors of those states will vote the same. The 2 party system has 2 sets of electors, one for each party so the party gets to choose who wins, not the "constitutional" electors who should be able to vote for whomever they wish.

By and large, the Establishment, for one party or the other, funds the candidates of their choice. The advertisements and press coverage through PAC's and other political tools, get to choose for us. America is the greatest country on this earth, but Americans have allowed politics to turn the constitution on its head, without as much as a whimper.

Think about this clearly. Please do not dismiss this out of hand. Corporations, the Establishment, Big money and the 2 party system direct the affairs of any election from the county head quarters of each candidate to the most influential people affordable and available to promote and advertise one person against another.

In the last election cycle, the Repub's GAVE us McCain, who now endorses Romney: you would think that would be the death knell for Mitt since McCain couldn't beat Obama, and now is backing the person of "choice", but in the current system, it gives Mitt a boost because it tells the money people that entrenched politicians who chair the committees that direct the affairs of this nation, are "backing" one person as opposed to the other; where do you think the "Big Money" will go? If you, Mr. corporation or Mr. deep pockets want to maintain a good working relationship with the "powers that be"; powers that can make or break you, than you know what to do, is the unspoken political mantra.

What I've described above is what gave this nation Obama as President, a man who voted present most of his, not finished, one-term as senator. A man who now circumvents the constitution in so many ways because the 100 member senate is largely from the same party and they negate anything the 435 member House of Representatives do. The Senate does not vote on anything that doesn't promote their agenda and there is nothing the House can do about it. There hasn't been a budget in over 950 days, that's over 2 1/2 years; what does the Constitution say about that?

With what little influence you have as an American in this voting process, you must consider the person best qualified to support and outwardly promote the original intention of the Constitution. With what voting power you have, you can help save this nation and turn it around. The 2 party system has a choke hold on elections and only the citizens can change that. Neither party is exempt; they are obligated to their financiers, not you, Mr and Mrs America.

Many people concern themselves with the First and Second Amendments, but I tell you the very constitution itself, is being shredded, daily, and if  WE THE PEOPLE, do not get control back, this nation will cease to exist as it has for over 200 years. History tells us Rome was destroyed from within, is it too far fetched a thing to imagine that the citizens of the United States of America are letting this nation crumble because of their lack of understanding of the Constitution and what it has meant to this country, and to the world?

LET HIM WHO IS ON OUR SIDE, STEP FORWARD

You know, Roman Catholicism is a very ancient religion. The followers of Muhammad were not the first to oppose Christianity; the Roman Catholics were. In ancient times, Christians fought against Christians because they differed in their beliefs. For example the Arians did not believe in the trinity and were so adamant in their beliefs they would literally slaughter any Christian who believed otherwise.

But the followers of Muhammad were not prejudiced; they opposed anyone that did not follow Muhammad, and do till this day. It is the ancient battle of the flesh versus the spirit; Ishmael vs. Isaac

The Roman Catholics are called that because theirs was the religion of The Roman Empire. They were sanctioned by the Romans to clear the surrounding lands of non-believers who would not follow the Roman, Catholic rule, especially after Constantine converted to Catholicism.

Through the religious wars, the Popes actually developed an army, or in some cases, hired mercenaries to destroy any man, woman and child who would not "bow" to the Pope and his authority as the religious leader of the then known world.

To this day, Catholics call themselves Christians because the word Catholic is used in the Bible to mean the universal church, but the Catholic version of Christianity is just another sect or denomination, like the Arians,  which believes you are not a Christian unless you abide by the Roman Catholic tenets, and believe the Pope is the vicar of God and that he can make various rulings regarding Christian beliefs.

Admittedly, they have a problem within themselves because it seems each church in any town USA follows what they want to believe, and disregard the Pope on many issues. Don't forget, the Catholic religion has a huge monkey on its back: homosexual priests taking advantage of altar boys and congregants (that doesn't seem to Christian to me), and this contraceptive/abortion issue.

Many "converts" today, like Sean Hannity, Newt Gingrich, and Rush Limbaugh, practice some sort of Catholic religion, and probably between them, they differ as well. None the less, two out of three do have a good deal of influence on the American people, and the other is trying to have influence on the American people. And if you listen to any one of them speak, they do so, contrary to what is called Christian theology. To a man, politics comes first to them, then if there is room, they throw in their religious "flavor" to one or two subjects.

Each one will claim to be speaking as a Christian, but as I pointed out in the first paragraph, Christians were being literally tortured and slaughtered for their beliefs; with these guys you can hardly tell they believe in God, let alone stand up against the enemies of God.

I have heard Sean and Rush repeatedly say that the human condition is basically good, and that there is a desire within every human being to be free and prosper. And in doing so, all of humanity benefits through their innovations and creations that make life better and easier for all of us. There is a problem here....namely, God has declared that man is a sinner, (Gal.3:22  "But the scriptures has shut up all men under sin....",  and he does only those things that are inherently opposed to God. That as sinners, every mans deeds are "immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensi is detrimental to all of mankind. Theirs is a "soft" persecution, and their ignorance in these matters is very harmful to Americans and Christians throughout the world, that are being killed in the democracies being created without the 10 basic laws of God to govern man by.

NO MORE LAWS AGAINST INANIMATE OBJECT, PUH-LEAZE!

First we were told driving without a seat belt killed people. Then we were told guns killed people. Then it was those danged SUV's that killed people. Then alcohol killed people and now it is those most beloved cell phones that are killing people. And each of these assertions made it possible for our federal government to write another law against the liberties of a free society.

Where is the evidence that people stopped dying in car crashes because they wore a seat belt?

Where is the evidence that a gun just raised itself off a shelf, put ammunition into itself and fired upon a person?

Where is the evidence that a car just started up, put itself into drive and aimed itself at passing pedestrians?

Yes, and as to that elusive demon drink, alcohol. Last I read, over 40,000 people are killed in car crashes each year and only some 30% of those are attributable to someone drinking and then driving, but none of the deaths are attributable to alcohol itself. And now the self operating cell phone is going to find itself on the legislative table so they too, can become a governmental, unprovable statistic.

Whatever happened to individual responsibility? How on earth are more liberty-taking laws going to save lives or make America a safer nation? Do you not know there are individuals that do not abide by laws (they're called lawless)? Can you imagine how difficult it will be to enforce a "don't use the cell phone while driving" law? (probably as difficult as it is to stop SUV's from driving over people).

The truth is a growing society, free in its endeavors to prosper, will make the next generation gadget that will make life more comfortable and better for us all. Along the way, lawless people will do lawless things regardless of how many laws are written against them.

The fact is simple: enforce the laws that are already on the books; eliminate plea bargaining and put people in jail or to death that deserve to be there. On the one hand we make un-enforceable laws and on the other, we plea bargain violators out of the jails and prisons those laws were meant for.

Individual responsibility means that if you are have caused a car crash or any other "accident" while using your cell phone, or while being behind the wheel under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or just by the mere fact that you were driving and abiding by and obeying every law on the books, then you should be penalized with the maximum sentence the law allows; no plea bargaining. It isn't the gadget that caused the crash, it is the person using it that caused the crash and they should be held responsible for the damage they have caused even capital punishment for the death of someone. Those of us who own carry permits understand the responsibility we have over discharging our weapons of defense and we have never heard of a carry permit being held responsible for the discharge of those weapons.

We have laws that include vehicular manslaughter, manslaughter, murder in the first degree, murder in the second degree, accidental murder, homicide, vehicular homicide, ad nauseum. Good gravy how many different ways does it take to determine that a person damaged another's property, or took the life of another? Do we really need to water down the fact that it was done with or without an instrument? Does a speeding car kill less than a bullet, or a knife; is it less lethal or is the death not as bad? Shouldn't there be a penalty for taking someones life via the misuse of the instrument involved: ie. a car, a pistol, a knife, a fist, a club, a bomb?

Panic-law making and sympathy-lawmaking are the reasons for a lot of the laws that take away our freedoms given to us by the Constitution and as we allow legislators to make silly laws against inanimate objects, we allow them to pass amendments to the Constitution by fiat.

Criminals and law violators do not give a hoot about which law they are violating; they do what it is they intend to do, no matter what. Their best hope is they won't get caught. Megan's law, or a restraining order, does not keep violators from causing you or your children harm. It is up to you to protect yourself, which is what gun owners have always promoted.

Lawmakers are taking away your right to protect yourself and your property by making all of those sympathy laws that pull at heart strings but do nothing in reality.

Constitutionally, states have the legal right to allow citizens the right to defend and protect their person and  property and to also have a way to seek remunerations against the persons that have caused them damage or harm, whether with a gun, a car or a fist. Insurance companies have stepped into some of these areas, but legislation only takes away your freedoms and rights to pursue prosperity and to defend what is your private property, and to be made whole for damages caused by another person even unto involuntary servitude or death by capital punishment.

EARTH TO POLITICIANS

It's like Newt just landed on earth and found that politicians screwed everything up:  ugh, wasn't he part of the problem?

These guys are unbelievable; they act like they can fix everything, but actually they, with their stock manipulating, profit taking, insider trading laws that protect them and not you and me, are the ones that have given us all the mess we now have to live through.

I am a saved by the grace of God Christian, and as I re-read Foxes book of Martyrs I wonder just how the modern day Christian fits in.

We have boxers thanking God for their win, we have football players "giving God the Glory", we have politicians thanking God for their victory, ad nauseum, but can any one of them, or for that matter, any one of us live up to the standard of Christianity that our predecessors did?

Look, I'm not trying to turn this into a we versus them, but when the ones who are seeking to get elected to the highest office of the land, claim to be a Catholic or a Christian, then on that basis alone, we have the right to ascertain whether or not they are legitimate.

Catholicism is a non-christian religion. Just like their predecessors, they CLAIM to believe in God and that Jesus is the savior, but the Bible tells us that (in James) so do the devils, and they tremble. Catholicism, Mormonism, Buddhism, and other "isms" are not CHRISTIANITY. The Bible tells us that, as a sense of mocking, believers in Jesus Christ were called CHRISTIANS. The book of the Martyrs tells us that they willingly, by the thousands at times, admitted to loving Jesus and gave their lives for Him. Today, we call ourselves Christians so it will benefit us, especially in an election year.

We are told we will know "them" by their fruit: how fruitful is Newt, or Cain, or Romney or Santorum or even Bachmann? I cannot attest to the truthfulness of Ron Paul, but at least what he says and what he stands for, in that none of it lines up with the political establishment of today, is opposed to what mankind thinks are the right answers.

Christians have always been persecuted; Jews have always been persecuted. In America, if a man (and I do exclude women from leadership roles) expresses that he is a Christian, then his life, beliefs, motivations, desires, and understanding of leadership HAS got to line up with scripture, or else he does not get my vote.

Does Newt, or Romney or Santorum or Bachmann or even Huntsman look like Christians? Does Ron Paul?
Yeah the media casts him as a weirdo or as Trump said, " a clown politician", but is he really? Does Ron Paul line up with scripture and Christianity so closely that the anti-Christians of the world (the news media) want to besmirch him as a person so outrageous that he CANNOT get elected and is likely not to be able to beat Obama?

What would Christian bashing look like to you today?
Would you be able to stand up against the "political machine" or the news media of today and not waiver?


Look at the politicians running for the Presidency: as they all claim to have a love for God, a Christian background or a love for "fairness",........if you are a Christian, which one of those people best suites your understanding of Christianity and are you willing not only to vote for him but also to help him financially, to get him elected so God can use him? I am not advocating for Ron Paul, not Mitt Romney nor any of the others, I am merely asking.......put your money where your mouth is, Christians included.