Tag Archives: law

Dispensing with the ‘It’s the Law’ Rhetoric

Over the past few months, Progressives and Democrats who favor the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) – both elected and not – have insisted that the new and expanding entitlement will go forward as planned because, after all, it is “the law of the land.” When I ponder this statement I find myself less inclined to laugh and more inclined to succumb to sadness. That a faction that holds the Constitution in such disregard would so disingenuously foist the hypocrisy of this statement in defense of what is arguably an unconstitutional law, defies humor.

A cursory recollection of how this horrific, economy-killing piece of legislation came to be, not only illustrates a fundamental transgression of the spirit of American government, it shows how the Progressive movement executes an “ends justifies the means” political game plan. Because Progressives believe that the United States should provide socialized healthcare to every living being existing legally in the United States (and some who do not), they purposefully circumvented the legislative process, crafting the legislation with special interest groups – including labor unions, Progressive think tank operatives and foreign aligned special interest groups, behind closed doors and excluding members of the minority party. They then moved the legislation forward – at times threatening to “deem it passed” – along party lines, ignoring the protests of the minority party and howls of discontent from the American citizenry, and into law.

Today, as Republicans in the US House, which has the constitutionally mandated power of the purse, threaten to exclude any aspect of Obamacare from the funding of government operations – which is their constitutional right to do, Progressives and toady Democrats protest that the ACA is “the law of the land.” The proclamation would have even the slightest bit of weight if these same hypocrites always acquiesced to “the law of the land.” The fact is that they transgress the “law of the land” as a matter of policy; to advance an agenda that is often times anathema to the American system of government and the rule of law.

One can look back to the first Obama Administration’s abdication of the rule of law when newly installed Attorney General Eric Holder approved of political appointees at the Justice Department quashing the prosecution of New Black Panther Party members who executed one of the most egregious instances of voter intimidation in modern history. The “law of the land” mandated that the DoJ prosecute these constitutional transgressors to “the fullest extent” of the law. If “the law of the land” was so precious to these Obama-ite Progressives and Democrats, they would have been exploring ways to include charges of racial discrimination (as the perpetrators were Black and targeting White voters) and hate crimes. But, “the law of the land” wasn’t so important as to be followed in this instance.

One could look into the non-enforcement of immigration laws by the Obama Administration to evidence their selective support of “the law of the land.” For the entire tenure of Mr. Obama’s presidency we have witnessed border patrol members and their union representatives catalog a litany of directives emanating from DHS obfuscating efforts to secure our nation’s borders and hold to justice those who have broken our laws to exist here. Yet, in a post-911 world, when we hold proof-positive in our hands that Hezbollah, Hamas and al Qaeda are working with Mexican and South American drug cartels, the “law of the land” isn’t so important to the Progressives and their sycophant Democrats so as to be honored.

The several Congressional investigations into operational and political malfeasance executed under the Obama Administration provide ample evidence that the Executive Branch Progressives have little use for “the law of the land” when it does not suit their need or the advancement of their ideological, globalist or social justice agendas. The US Constitution gives the power of oversight – including subpoena powers – to Congress. Yet today the Obama Administration routinely obstructs congressional investigators, usurping “the law of the land”:

▪ Fast & Furious saw the Holder Justice Department illegally facilitating the movement of banned weapons across the Mexican border. And even in the face of the deaths of US Border Patrol Agents, the Obama Administration – to this day – thwarts efforts to fully investigate the program.

▪ The politically motivated use of the Internal Revenue Service to target what can only be described as opposition groups, i.e. TEA Party, Conservative and Libertarian advocacy groups, stands as one of the more serious misuses of a federal agency to affect politics in the history of the country. In fact, it was the second count in the impeachment indictment leveled against former-Pres. Richard Nixon. Yet, the Obama Administration shows little interest in assisting congressional investigators in their pursuit of protecting the American citizenry from their own government’s unlawful actions. (Note to Mr. Obama…President Nixon at least had the nobility to resign).

▪ The expansion – not just the continuation – of the NSA domestic surveillance program arguably usurps the Fourth Amendment protections provided the citizenry, but under the guise of protecting the country, even some members of Congress who have Top Secret clearances are kept in the dark on the program by members of the Obama Administration.

▪ And as four brave Americans – Amb. Christopher Stevens, Ty Woods, Sean Smith & Glen Doherty – lay cold in their graves, exclusively because Mr. Obama and his Progressive crew couldn’t be exposed for their putting politics ahead of protecting American assets overseas; American soil in the form of Embassy grounds, the “most transparent” administration in American history hides behind anything that will give them cover so as not to act in the spirit of “the law of the land”; so as not to afford the justice “the law of the land” is owed those four dead Americans (Note to former-Secretary of State and potential 2016 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton: Yes, it does matter, to every American but the Progressive elected class, evidently).

But getting back to Obamacare being “the law of the land,” and the fact that these Progressive ideologues intend to inflict this economy-killing, divisive, wealth-redistributing program onto the American people, regardless of the fact that it has never – never – been popular with over half of the nation, and that it now falls well short of providing health insurance to “every American,” I have two questions:

1) If “the law of the land” is so very important to follow, then how is it that these same people ignore the fact that “the law of the land” allows the House of Representatives to refuse to fund the entitlement program?

2) If the “law of the land” is so sacrosanct then how can these Progressive elitist oligarchs decry any part of the US Constitution – the literal “law of the land” – as malleable; as subject to dictates of the day?

The truth be told, the only time “the law of the land” means anything to Progressives is when it serves their purpose. In any other case it is an edict to be scorned, rebuked, castigated and/or ignored. That Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, the White House Communications Office and President Obama himself shamelessly hide behind the “It’s the law of the land” declaration in their defense of the legitimate House effort to save the country from this legislative mistake would be laughable if it weren’t so deadly serious.

So, let’s dispense with this rhetoric, shall we?

As We Approach 237

As we approach Independence Day 2013, this might be a good time to take stock on the American experience: where we are, where we came from, what we are supposed to be and what we have become, collectively, as a country. It wouldn’t be a stretch to say that the United States of America has become something other than what our Founders and Framers would have envisioned. In fact, it could be argued that the “old white guys in wigs” would not only be shocked for what we have become, but for our apathy in allowing our country to become what it is.

Thomas Jefferson is quoted as saying:

“A government big enough to give you everything you want, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have.”

Today, the United States federal government is so large and so intrusive that it not only employs 4.4 million people, but holds a national debt of over $16.8 trillion dollars. This does not address a $124.6 trillion unfunded liabilities mandate. These numbers appear shocking because they are shocking. And when one takes into consideration that each year the US federal government operates “in the red,” even though they glean $2.902 trillion in revenue from various sources (individual income tax being the primary source at $1.359 trillion), one can only conclude that the federal government has taken on the role of the arrogant spendthrift, and one that disavows Benjamin Franklin’s sentiment, “When you run in debt; you give to another power over your liberty.”

But perhaps the whole of our modern American experience can be summed up in the end state of this quote by Thomas Jefferson:

“A departure from principle becomes a precedent for a second; that second for a third; and so on, till the bulk of society is reduced to mere automatons of misery, to have no sensibilities left but for sinning and suffering…And the fore horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression.”

Taxation
In the formative days of our Great American Experiment, the Founders and Framers set up a federal government limited in its authority and scope. In fact, in the early days of our Republic the federal government operated almost completely on revenues gleaned from tariffs and trade. It wasn’t until the 19th Century that the “income tax” would come to be and even then, until the passage of the 19th Amendment, the constitutionality of the income tax was held in question.

Today, thanks to an inequitable tax system – the Progressive tax system – we have a populace that is purposefully divided into factions: one that pays federal taxes, another that avoids paying federal taxes, and yet another that believes the taxes collected are due them. In a land where everyone is supposed to be equal in the eyes of the law (read: government), we have allowed those who we elect to office to literally create a class system, through which they manipulate the citizenry for political gain and the retention of power.

Religion
To say that the United States of America was founded on deep-rooted desire for the individual to be free to practice the religion of his or her choosing is to understate the importance of the issue. Truth be told, the issue of religious freedom delivered pilgrims to American shores centuries before. The Founders and Framers, being deeply reverent men – much to the opposite of claims by the secularists of today – understood all too well the importance of not only freedom of religion (the natural law right to worship in the dogma of choice) but the idea of recognizing something larger than self where government was concerned. As our founding documents – the Charters of Freedom – are predicated on the understanding and acknowledgment of Natural Law (the acknowledgement of a Higher Power), it is only the intellectually dishonest who argue religion did not (and does not) play a significant role in the government of our Republic.

To wit, The Declaration of Independence states:

“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

“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…” (emphasis added)

Yet, today, military chaplains are forbidden from even displaying a Bible on their government issued desks for the ignorance of history served up at the hands of Progressive and secular activists.

Today, because of an activist Judicial Branch (and at the urging of Progressive and secular activists), the innocent notion of a separation of Church and State, which in its original intent was meant to reassure one denomination that another would not be placed above it in an establishment of a “national religion,” i.e. the Church of England, has been grotesquely distorted to require the ever-increasing banishment of all religious symbols from the public square. And at the same time, the federal government – in the form of ever-expanding entitlements – seeks to replace the Creator as the Alpha and the Omega for the American citizenry.

Law
At our country’s inception, the Judiciary – the Judicial Branch and all federal courts in its charge – was to administer federal law in the context of constitutionality. Was it constitutional or what is not? Or was the question reserved for the States and the judiciaries of those States, per the 10th Amendment?

Today, our entire legal system – federal as well as the lessers – is held hostage to a system of precedent law; Stare decisis et non quieta movere, a Latin term meaning “to stand by decisions and not disturb the undisturbed.” This is understood to mean that courts should abide by decided precedent and not disturb settled matters, regardless of whether the decision was born of activism. If the judiciary produced judgments and opinions that had fidelity to the Constitution – as the Constitution mandates, then the notion of stare decisis would be a good thing. But those who serve in the Judiciary are equally subject to human intellectual infirmities as are those who serve in the Executive and Legislative Branches. Truth is, one decision based on ideologically; one activist decision, forever moves law away from the Constitution.

As Steven G. Calabresi, a professor of law at Northwestern University School of Law and a visiting professor at Brown University, opined in a paper titled, Text vs. Precedent in Constitutional Law, published the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy:

“The argument…is that the doctrinalists are wrong in arguing for a strong theory of stare decisis for three reasons. First, there is nothing in the text, history, or original meaning of the Constitution that supports the doctrinalists’ strong theory of stare decisis. Second, the actual practice of the US Supreme Court is to not follow precedent, especially in important cases. In other words, precedent itself counsels against following precedent. And, third, a strong theory of stare decisis is a bad idea for policy reasons…

“Both textualism and originalism supply arguments as to why following precedent is wrong. As for the text, it is striking that there is not a word in the Constitution that says in any way that precedent trumps the text.”

Yet, decisions on issues from voting rights to life-ending procedures, social issues to mandatory health insurance are continuously based on precedent law, or stare decisis. And with each decision that bows to stare decisis, we move further away from fidelity to the Constitution.

Self-Reliance
At the founding of our nation, our citizenry was comprised on those who wanted the freedom to build, to create, to glean the benefits of their labors based on the effort with which they sought success. Pride was not the product of artificially installed self-esteem, but a humble condition of dignity, arrived at through determination, education – sometimes, or most times autodidactic – and perseverance. The United States was a nation of strong individuals, determined to embrace the freedom – the liberty, that the New World afforded them; a nation of people with a commonality based on self-reliance and a brotherhood born of the love of liberty and justice for all, not just the oligarchic few.

Today, our country has devolved into a socialistic nanny-state, complete with an entitlement faction that will very soon not only outnumber Ayn Rand’s “producers” but a faction that celebrates its gluttony; its piggish appetite for entitlement, even as they scheme to avoid the responsibility of maintaining the Republic; even as they demand more from a government whose seemingly sole purpose is to concoct new ways to extract wealth from those who produce. Today, 47% of the nation’s people do not pay federal income taxes. Today, 23 million households are dependent on food stamps. Today, nearly 49 percent of the citizenry lives in a household where at least one member receives a direct benefit from the federal government.

That those duly elected to office exploit this societal malady for purposes of maintaining power is tantamount to a betrayal of the very principles held by those who gifted us the exquisite beauty of liberty. I wonder, if the Founders and Framers could confront the elitist oligarchs of today’s American ruling class, would they be strong enough to do so with temperance?

On this, the 237th anniversary of the American Declaration of Independence, we would be wise to self-examine our national condition. Do we really want to be a nanny-state? Do we really want to admire a legal system that moves further away for the very basis for our freedom with each decision? Do we really want to support a government that increasingly steals from the producers to give to the dependent class of their own creation, and for purely ideological and politically motivated purposes? Do we want to be a nation that stands arrogantly in its belief that We the People – or They the Government – are the highest power to which we must answer, therefore abandoning our God-given right to acknowledge Natural Law?

In 1964, future president Ronald Reagan gave a speech titled, A Time for Choosing, in which he said:

“We are faced with the most evil enemy mankind has known in his long climb from the swamp to the stars. There can be no security anywhere in the free world if there is no fiscal and economic stability within the United States. Those who ask us to trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state are architects of a policy of accommodation.

“They say the world has become too complex for simple answers. They are wrong. There are no easy answers, but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right….

“You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and our children’s children say of us we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done.”

Today, my fellow Americans is Independence Day. Please, think about it.

Justice Scalia: Guns Can Be “Regulated”

Scalia-Fox-News-Sunday-300x210

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia sent a chill through the spines of conservatives with a foreboding warning about the government’s power to “regulate” what he referred to as “menacing” hand-held weapons.

Scalia’s comments elicited a furor at the website National Journal, where many weighed in to register their disgust at the possibility of another “conservative” justice betrayal. Supreme Court Justice John Roberts  appeared poised to strike down the individual mandate of the Obamacare legislation in late June 2012, but apparently sided with the liberal wing at the last moment.

Appearing in an interview given by Mike Wallace that is to be aired on Fox News Sunday, the originalist stalwart had the following comments:

[Whether or not government can ban high volume magazines and “assault” weapons] will have to be decided in future cases… But there were legal precedents from the days of the Founding Fathers that banned frightening weapons which a constitutional originalist like himself must recognize. There were also “locational limitations” on where weapons could be carried.

Several commenters at National Journal rightly rebutted Scalia’s opinion by pointing out the subjective nature of basing law on what liberals perceive as “frightening” or “menacing,” including hand-held weapons. There were other causes for concern with Justice Scalia’s comments.

Instead of basing his reasoning on inalienable individual rights, such as the rights to private property and self-defense, Scalia expounded on particular 18th century gun practices that preceded the ratification of The Constitution. From this exercise in historical exegesis, he leapt to the conclusion that the several states had the authority to “regulate” the citizens’ right to keep and bear arms.

Scalia thus hedges the recent case record that the Second Amendment is incorporated and binding on the states, which was established in the 2010 Supreme Court case McDonald vs. Chicago that struck down local gun control laws. That followed upon the related gun control case District of Columbia vs. Heller, which also struck down gun regulations.

The record of the Roberts’ course had seemed to be strong on both gun control and free speech issues before the Obamacare case debacle. Roberts’ capricious minimalism (the tendency to yield to the legislature on Constitutional interpretation)  and Scalia’s inconsistency in defending individual rights have many attentive citizens alarmed that gun “regulation” could go the deleterious way of Commerce “regulation.”

Whether or not one agrees with the Constitutional amendment stating that citizens have the right to bear arms, it is empirically rock-solid that citizens’ ability to lawfully carry concealed firearms leads to a 60 percent decrease in multiple-victim public shootings and a 78 percent decrease in victims per attack among the several states.

Nonetheless, the massacre at an Aurora, Colorado theater, a gun-free zone, has given rise to increasingly vocal calls for gun regulations by the Democrat Party. The party even had the audacity to try to slip assault weapons-related gun regulations into an upcoming “cybersecurity” bill, probably after recognizing that the U.S. would not become a party to the UN’s small arms treaty.

Please share this article if you want to alert your fellow citizens about the assaults being made on the Second Amendment!

Absolute Absolutes

A law expresses an absolute and an absolute establishes authority. If there is one thing liberals hate, it is an absolute authority. Where does authority begin? It must have a source. There are basically two views which contradict one another. (1) Authority is derived from man, as groups collectively bestow power upon government or magistrates, to govern the people, or (2) Authority is derived from God, then man organizes government, based upon the commandments and principles of God. If authority comes from man, then there are no absolutes. What man deems to be wrong, is indeed wrong, as long as man declares it to be wrong. But if man decides to change the law, then what was wrong is no longer wrong. However, if God declares something to be wrong, then an absolute is established, which is immutable.

Thomas Hobbes, 1588-1679, was a British philosopher and infidel, who advocated the idea that authority is derived from man under the common consent of the governed. But if authority comes from man, then nothing is moral or immoral, but amoral. According to English philosopher, John Locke, who was diametrically opposed to the philosophy of Hobbes, fundamental rights were the right to “life, liberty and estate”, estate being the right to own property. Thankfully, our founding fathers subscribed to the philosophy of John Locke, as reflected in some of the founding documents. The phrase “inalienable rights” from the Declaration of Independence speaks of authority that transcends man. Inalienable rights are sometimes called natural rights. Inalienable means they are fixed and not contingent on or awarded by human power. The right to life is an unalienable power.

All three of these rights, life, liberty and property are being challenged increasingly in America. The right to life was challenged and blown away years ago, when the right to murder innocent, unborn children in the womb was legalized. Our liberties are under fire as an ever growing government continues to encroach on “we the people” with insane rulings by agenda driven judges, from the right to own firearms, to the right to disagree with and voice an opinion against that which is perverse and abnormal, in the realm of what defines marriage and family. And certainly, the right to own property is challenged through eminent domain cases, with an increase in abuse, as a philosophy of socialism continues to grow among elected officials. By its own admission, the Federal Government owns more than 600,000,000 acres of land with this amount increasing every year. Woven into the fabric of the founding of this nation was the right to own property.

Ultimately, the recognition of an ultimate authority points to The Ultimate Authority, the God of the universe, Jehovah God of the Bible. And this is why people kick against the idea of absolutes and authority so vehemently. If there is a God, then we must all face Him one day, and standing before Him means accountability to authority. A prevailing theme throughout the Bible is the theme of authority. Whether the story is the Garden of Eden, Israel in Egypt or the Promised Land, the saga of the united and divided kingdoms, Jesus in the Gospels or the presentation of the King of Kings in the book of Revelation, authority is the final issue. Will man rebel against God, or will man submit to God? That is always the final issue. Either God is the absolute authority of the universe, to which all men are accountable, or He is not. If He is not the final authority, then nothing matters, man can live as he chooses and die, with no reward or punishment. Or man can submit to God, through repentance and faith in the blood of Jesus, live for Him, keep His commandments, and enter into the joy of his Lord at death.

You know, if I’m wrong and atheists are right, then no one has to give account to a higher power. But If I’m right…………….. You tell me the best common sense choice.

Joseph Harris has been a college professor and pastor since 1987 and his writings have appeared on WND, Sword of the Lord, Intellectual Conservative, Conservative Daily News, Canada Free Press, Land of the Free, and The Post Chronicle. [email protected]

A law expresses an absolute and an absolute establishes authority. If there is one thing liberals hate, it is an absolute authority. Where does authority begin? It must have a source. There are basically two views which contradict one another. (1) Authority is derived from man, as groups collectively bestow power upon government or magistrates, to govern the people, or (2) Authority is derived from God, then man organizes government, based upon the commandments and principles of God. If authority comes from man, then there are no absolutes. What man deems to be wrong, is indeed wrong, as long as man declares it to be wrong. But if man decides to change the law, then what was wrong is no longer wrong. However, if God declares something to be wrong, then an absolute is established, which is immutable.

Thomas Hobbes, 1588-1679, was a British philosopher and infidel, who advocated the idea that authority is derived from man under the common consent of the governed. But if authority comes from man, then nothing is moral or immoral, but amoral. According to English philosopher, John Locke, who was diametrically opposed to the philosophy of Thomas Hobbes, fundamental rights were the right to “life, liberty and estate”, estate being the right to own property. Thankfully, our founding fathers subscribed to the philosophy of John Locke, as reflected in some of the founding documents. The phrase “inalienable rights” from the Declaration of Independence speaks of authority that transcends man. Inalienable rights are sometimes called natural rights. Inalienable means they are fixed and not contingent on or awarded by human power. The right to life is an unalienable power.

All three of these rights, life, liberty and property are being challenged increasingly in America. The right to life was challenged and blown away years ago, when the right to murder innocent, unborn children in the womb was legalized. Our liberties are under fire as an ever growing government continues to encroach on “we the people” with insane rulings by agenda driven judges, from the right to own firearms, to the right to disagree with and voice an opinion against that which is perverse and abnormal, in the realm of what defines marriage and family. And certainly, the right to own property is challenged through eminent domain cases, with an increase in abuse, as a philosophy of socialism continues to grow among elected officials. By its own admission, the Federal Government owns more than 600,000,000 acres of land with this amount increasing every year. Woven into the fabric of the founding of this nation was the right to own property.

Ultimately, the recognition of an ultimate authority points to The Ultimate Authority, the God of the universe, Jehovah God of the Bible. And this is why people kick against the idea of absolutes and authority so vehemently. If there is a God, then we must all face Him one day, and standing before Him means accountability to authority. A prevailing theme throughout the Bible is the theme of authority. Whether the story is the Garden of Eden, Israel in Egypt or the Promised Land, the saga of the united and divided kingdoms, Jesus in the Gospels or the presentation of the King of Kings in the book of Revelation, authority is the final issue. Will man rebel against God, or will man submit to God? That is always the final issue. Either God is the absolute authority of the universe, to which all men are accountable, or He is not. If He is not the final authority, then nothing matters, man can live as he chooses and die, with no reward or punishment. Or man can submit to God, through repentance and faith in the blood of Jesus, live for Him, keep His commandments, and enter into the joy of his Lord at death.

You know, if I’m wrong and atheists are right, then no one has to give account to a higher power. But If I’m right…………….. You tell me the best common sense choice.

Joseph Harris has been a college professor and pastor since 1987 and his writings have appeared on WND, Sword of the Lord, Intellectual Conservative, Conservative Daily News, Canada Free Press, Land of the Free, and The Post Chronicle. [email protected]

New Year’s Resolution or Grace Revolution?

There is a pretty easy explanation as to why the vast majority of New Year’s resolutions don’t make it past the fifth of January. It’s because for most of them, they are unrealistic goals motivated by a desire for radical change in one’s life. And while radical change is not necessarily a bad thing, it becomes impossible when you are trying to fit that change into a one second window between 11:59:59 on December 31st and midnight on January 1st.

The typical New Year’s battle cry, things like “I’m going to lose 50 pounds this year” or “I’m going to be a better person this year” are indeed admirable goals and I am not saying for a second that we should not set them and move toward them. What usually happens though is that at the first sign of an obstacle moving towards these goals, most people fold up like a cheap tent and say “to heck with it!” We expect ourselves to change behaviors and positions that have probably been with us for many years and we literally expect it overnight. With the deck stacked so heavily and unfairly against us, it’s no wonder why the average New Year’s resolution does not last for more than a fortnight.

The apostle Paul tells us in Romans 6:14 that “For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.” The “law” under the Mosaic covenant, was and is a very unforgiving thing. Paul further talks about not knowing what sin is, if it had not been for the law itself. The same is true for us today.

There are two types of citizens in our world. Simply put, there are law-abiding citizens and non-law-abiding citizens – who we like to call, criminals. In order for a person to remain a law-abiding citizen, they must, well, obey all the laws. In order to become a criminal, one only needs to break the law. So when we apply the “law” to the treatment of our New Year’s Resolutions, we are already setting ourselves up for failure. The Law is pass/fail.

You will make mistakes, hence the Grace.

Instead, we should approach January 1st from a different perspective. Yes, it’s a new year, new calendar and, it is as good a time as any to start fresh in many aspects of our lives. We should also realize that many of the bad habits we have did not develop overnight and to expect them to right themselves with the click of a clock is simply unrealistic.

Again the Apostle Paul tells us in Romans 12:2, “And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind.” The objective is to be transformed – past tense – but the process is by the renewing – present tense – of our minds. We will always to be in the process of renewal, less about a destination and more about destiny.

With this is mind, I call on all of you to trade in the New Year’s Resolution for the Grace Revolution. The Grace Revolution is based on a complete turning over (revolution) from one state to another, but through grace, not law. It means that we need to realize going in that we will make mistakes. Expect to fall off the wagon, if fact, plan on it; and don’t just plan on it, plan FOR it.

I have taught the Dave Ramsey “Financial Peace University” course over a dozen times and one of the many things I like about it is that he makes you budget for your mistakes. He calls it “blow” money – for when you blow it. This is the grace mentality.

It’s probably no wonder why budgets and diets perish early in our list of resolutions. We don’t budget for our failures, perhaps because they have such a stigma attached to them. Yet when you look at truly successful people, you will realize that they all hold the “2,000 ways not to make a light bulb” philosophy close to them. This tenacious spirit will invariably lead to success.

So, plan for your mismanaging of the budget. Cut yourself some slack when your temperature rises a few times in traffic. Allow for habits to develop. Schedule your feasts!

Aim low and short, take baby steps and realize that some of those will be backwards. If you do this day by day, perhaps hour by hour, you will have the privilege of looking up one fine day and realizing that those distant goals that seemed so far off are within arm’s reach after all.

All children skin their knees, some of us more than others. Regardless, they all have one thing in common – they grow. That growing cannot be rushed, only time will cultivate your harvest. So, instead of being frustrated over what you may see as a lack of progress, enjoy the journey and, I bet by this time next year, many of those seemingly insurmountable mountains will have indeed been removed and cast into the sea!

To all: Happy New Year.

Loughner Deemed “Not Competent To Stand Trial”

You have absolutely GOT to be kidding me!

I should have known. We have reached a point in our society where nothing makes sense anymore! Up is down, right is wrong, wrong is right, white is black, black is white…. and I could go on and on with analogies. However, that will get us nowhere, really.

I try to be an optimist. I am a Bible believer, so I know the power of prayer. I also know what Scripture says about what will come in what we call “the last days”. Have we reached “the last days?” Well, I do not know for certain, but all signs sure seem to be pointing that way!

Where my faith, knowing what Scripture says will come, and reality clash are my feelings with everything. I am not one to give up in the sense of, “there’s just no point in going on.” I KNOW I have to keep fighting the good fight until my last day comes, whether it is by my death through old age or other occurrences or if it is by way of the rapture of the Church which yes, I do most certainly believe in.

I know that God says, “Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord”. (Romans 12:19)

I also believe that there are consequences for our actions. I believe there are certain actions in this life that are punishable by death. Yes, I have Bible Scripture that I use to base this belief on. (Romans 1:28-32 ; Acts 25:10-11 ; Romans 13:1-4) but that is not the point of this article.

Now we have a man who will get away with cold-blooded murder because he is feigning incompetency! Yes, I am calling him a liar, a manipulator, and a game-player playing the system.

This very same man went into court sneering the first couple of times he appeared in court. Now, according to one report I heard on TV, all of a sudden he is “rocking back and forth”.

Please do not get me wrong. I absolutely believe he is a mentally disturbed man. I believe that is quite obvious from his initial actions of murder and attempted murder back in January. I believe there is proof of that from other incidences that have been reported after the attack happened.

Now there will be no justice for Ms. Giffords, the other survivors, and those who were killed that day. Now our tax-paying dollars will have to be used to keep this man alive until the day he dies.

I do not for one minute believe he can be rehabilitated. He has shown absolutely no remorse- even today in court. He is relishing in the fact that he killed people. To me this speaks volumes for his mental well-being, or lack thereof.

So what is the answer? I will be called “inhumane” because I would rather he be put to death.

I will be called selfish, cold, uncaring, un-Christ like for thinking he deserves the death penalty.

I believe justice should be served.

Today that did not happen.

Thankfully this was just the federal case. Maybe the State of Arizona will not be so politically correct!

God help us all.

My continued prayers are with Ms. Giffords, her family and friends, and all the other lives that were affected by this tragedy.