Chick-Fil-a, the first ammendment, and the pointlessness of boycotts

Let me start off by saying (and my conservative Christian friends may not like this) that I believe a person has the right to love whomever they want, and if they want to display that love in the form of a binding legal contract (marriage), I feel they should be allowed to.  Secondly let me say (and my liberal friends may not like this) I feel that any person has the right to disagree with this viewpoint, and to express their disagreement.  It is their constitutional guaranteed right to speak freely of how they feel.  If the courts say that a man who has never served in the military can say he is a war hero if he wants too; then surely a man, businessman or not, can say he believes in traditional marriage.

Now, let me lightly tread into the whole Chick-Fil-A absurdity.  First of all I think the owner was basically just exercising his right to express his views.  He in no way was saying we should hurt, harm or bully homosexuals; he simply said he was a supporter of "traditional families".  And suddenly his stores were the target of a boycott from the homosexual community.  Also we need to note, he is not an elected lawmaker or a judge on any court, so really his personal views are harmless, and have no effect on national or local policies.

What I find funny about this is that just a few weeks before this incident, several of my gay friends (yes, I have friends who are gay, and very wonderful people) were posting things on their facebook basically making fun of Christians who were boycotting some company or another about their pro-gay-marriage stance.  And I had to agree that it is silly, even pointless to try and boycott a company because of the views of management on an issue.  And suddenly these same friends who had mocked the Christian boycotts were calling for a boycott of a company based on the view of their owner.  This confused my and reeked of the hypocrisy that Christians were being accused of.

Now let me put in here my view of boycotts in general.  They are a stupid waste of time.  I do not mean this as disrespect to any of my friends boycotting on either side of any issue; but they are a waste of time and breathe.  The company, whether a smaller chain, or a huge conglomerate are not really going to care much whether or not you shop/eat there.  There will always be people who will not care about the issue, or be on the other side, and support the business.  The only people who are hurt by a boycott are those boycotting, if they were a regular customer of that business.  And if they were not a regular customer, what's the point of the boycott. "I never ate there before, and now I'm never going to." ..Guess what, they lost no business and you have made no sacrifice.  If you were a customer, then you lose out on something you enjoyed, and they find another person to fill your spot. 

A few years ago the Southern Baptists decided to boycott Disney.  Disney, not too worried, continued to make money off everyone else.  Only people hurting were the Southern Baptist parents whose kids wanted to see Cars (or whatever Disney cartoon was out at the moment) and couldn't.  Sorry, boycotts don't work, plain and simple.

Hopefully I have not ticked off too many of my friends yet; but at the risk of stepping on a few more toes I have a final message for my friends who are homosexuals, and a message for my more conservative friends. 

First of all to my conservative Christian friends; I just want to tell you that I have many friends who are homosexuals, and despite what I have often heard from the Church, none of these friends have ever tried to recruit me over to their side.  None have come to try to lure my son off to "the dark side".  There has been no "gay agenda" shoved down my throat, and several of them have been involved in loving monogamous relationships since the time we were in college (several lasting longer than the marriages of some of my straight friends.  In short, these friends are great people who just happen to love members of the same sex.

Now a message for my homosexual friends; I have a lot of conservative Christian friends, and as far as I know, none of them have ever bullied or harassed someone because of their orientation.  None of them have ever invited me to West Hollywood to go gay-bashing.  None of them teach their children to hate people with an interest in theatre and fashion.  They are just people who are trying to live in the way they feel God has called them to live.

In short, I feel we all need to take a moment to stop seeing "The Gays" and "The Christian Right" as groups that are just a mass of stereo-types.  I challenge you my friends to get to know a few people from "the other side".  Get to know them as people at as members of "THE" group, but as individuals.  I think you will find that though you may have some differences, you will have much more in common than you think.   I know there some bad apple extremists on both sides that tend to mess things up and make their group look bad to anyone outside of it.  But most of the individuals on either side are just people trying their best to get through this voyage of life.  Try to get to know some of these wonderful people, who may hold differing views than you; maybe you could get together and work on a way to help the poor in the neighborhood.  Move beyond your differences to make a difference....just a thought.  Love ya!

Rest In Peace Rodney King

If you are from the LA area, the name Rodney King is very well known.  I'm not sure how much the rest of the country or world really know the name.  Over 20 years ago this young black man was beaten by LA police.  After a trial for the officers involved that became a televised media circus, a verdict came down that was less than satisfactory for the African American community (and to most normal thinking people).  The verdict was followed by the LA riots, that turned the city into a war zone for days.  Even in the Inland Empire where I lived, fear was rampant.  One of the most famous moments during the riots was when Rodney King himself went on TV and pleaded for calm, "Can't we all just get along?"

After the riots cooled and life in LA went back to normal, King dropped off the radar, except for a few brushes with the law.  He tried to live a quiet life out of the spotlight.  On Sunday morning his girlfriend found him in his pooled, drowned.  I pray now that he finds the peace that eluded him in his life.

Black Music Month and Poliical Correctness

June is Black Music Month.  They told us so at work the other day.  It is an observance that was started by President Jimmy Carter, and June has been declared as such by each successive president with the exception of President Obama. I know what you are saying right now.  "How could the first black president not declare Black Music Month."  Well here's the thing; In his great wisdom President Obama has caved to the idiocy of Political Correctness and is now calling it "African-American Musical Heritage Month".

Besides being way to long to say, this bow to PC effectively eliminates a lot of great Black Music.  We lose Seal and Sade, both British, with a Nigerian background, so NOT African American.  We love Ladysmith Black Mambazo, the Black vocal group from South Africa that came to fame on Paul Simon's Graceland album (they are just Africans, not African Americans). And of course we lose Bob Marley and all his kids, as well as Peter Tosh and most of the rest of the reggae community, who mostly come from Jamacia, not America.
So why limit Black Music Month to only African Americans...Let's screw Political Correctness and celebrate Black Music WORLDWIDE!!!

Election Time for California

California's primary is tomorrow.  Of course it is a bit late in the season, and as a Republican I am basically down to just one choice for the presidential primary.  So I was thinking of just throwing the vote there and picking Green Party Candidate Rosanne Barr (just kidding).  There are a couple state wide ballot measures that are of interest. There is one dealing with term limits for state legislators, which if I understand it will actually extend the current term limits by allowing legislators to switch houses at the end of their limited term. If it keeps those idiots in longer, I'm opposed. And we also have to vote on an increase in tax on cigarettes.  On this one I figure I'm for it because the big tobacco companies are spending big bucks to defeat it, and anything that might make less people smoke their cancer sticks, I'm for it!

So not a lot of surprises expect in California tomorrow, but I ask my fellow Californians to vote anyway.                                                                                                                                                                                        

Missing the boat on Education

I was talking with a friend of mine the other day.  He is a recent (2012) graduate of the UC system here in California.  We were talking about how the California state government is missing the point on education.  The state government, currently under our idiot Governor Brown has decided the only way to do anything for  the state's floundering budget is to cut over $330 million from the state's education budget.

My friend and I discussed that fact that when you cut spending on education, you raise a generation that will not be able to compete in the job market, and will be forced to work lower income jobs, or be on welfare, costing the state more.  If you invest in education you will have a generation that can get good jobs in fields where they can make money and pay taxes and actually assist in the budget crisis.

But California was dumb enough to elect Brown AGAIN, and I think he hopes by cutting education he will breed Californians dumb enough to keep electing the same idiots to our state government.  Our state will never recover economically until we cut government waste spending (like the "new car" budget that is filling state storage facilities with unused cars), and invest in our future (EDUCATION!!!).  I say vote them all out!!

Fishing Lessons.

There is an old saying that says "Give a man a fish, you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish, you feed him for a lifetime."  It seems to me, as I look back over the last several decades that the Democratic party seems to favor the "Give a man a fish" philosophy. They have created a generation of people who have had things handed to them.  "Can't find a job? Not qualified for the job? Don't worry about training...we'll give you welfare"  In other words they hand people the fish.  And the children of the people who have been handed the fish expect the fish to automatically come to them.  Why bother to learn how to fish when the government keeps handing you fish.

Now don't get me wrong, I don't want to get rid of welfare altogether.  There are people out there who work hard and try to support their family and just can't make it with out a little help, and I think it is good that they can get that assistance.  But I think the system needs to be reviewed and repaired. The people out there who refuse to get work, or just keep having more kids so their government check gets bigger, need to be taken out of the system, or penalized for abusing it.

I am also not saying the Republicans have done a perfect job of "teaching people to fish"  but at least they realize that by continuing to hand people fish with no accountability is not the answer.

And another thing the Democrats have become good at is blaming the people who "have learned to fish" for the problems of those who have "no fish".  That is to say they have demonized those who are successful and have made money.  The "occupy Wall Street" movement is a prime example.  Now there are some bad people in the financial business world, yes; but making money and being successful is not a bad thing.  But if the democrats can get people to ficus their anger at business, they can take the eye off the runaway government spending.  With the national debt ceiling at $14.5trillion (that $14,500,000,000,000.00) I think maybe it's time the American people call for the government to curb its out of control spending, drop taxes on everyone, so they would have more of their money to spend and boost the economy.

I do not claim by any means that the Republicans are not also to hold blame for the out of control spending, both sides of the political system is reckless in their spending.  If anyone of us ran our finances the way the government did, we would be in the poor house for sure...wishing we knew how to fish.

An election is nearing...let's find people to vote for who want to help the economy, not just get a tax exempt government job.


okay...I'm done ranting...been a long week...sorry if my train of thought jumped a few tracks.

Say it ain't so!

One of the great things about America is that you don't have to be one of the two major parties to get on the ballot.  Received in the mail today our California primary ballot.  And there to my surprise on the Green Party section of the ballot is Rosanne Barr.  Guess I have been concentrating too much on the Republican candidates, and had not heard she was running.  I realize the last time we had an actor in the White House he did a pretty good job, but are we ready for Rosanne as the first female president...seriously I would rather have Hillary than Rosanne...I mean look what she did to the national anthem.

Obama Backs Gay Marriages

President Obama came out today in support of same sex marriage. At least this is what I am seeing all over facebook & twitter.  I admit I have not yet watch the video clip or read the news blurbs. But I tend to believe it since it has been posted by numerous people I trust.

A great number of my friends are excited about this, and I would say with good reason.  But at the same time I must ask what underlying motive might be behind this? Now whether you think gay marriage is ok or not, and whether you like Obama or not, we must remember he is a politician.  A smooth-talking, straight-from-Chicago politician who knows exactly how to play the political game.  He also knows there is an election in 6 months, and today he pretty much sewed up the gay community vote. 

So did he come out now, six months before the election, because he just now decided gay marriages were ok, or did he make this declaration just to get votes, knowing that no matter what he thinks, the decision still rests with each state, and so he will never have to face a national test on the issue.

I don't know the answer, it's just something to think about.

"It's no fun being an Illegal"...oops nevermind

I guess Genesis will need to rewrite their song, because apparently the term "Illegal Alien" is now a racist term.  I always thought that it was simply a statement of status, but apparently not.  I want to make it clear from the start that I am not a racist, and have nothing against immigrants. My grandparents immigrated from Holland.

But I'm not going to get into my views on immigration laws and immigrants right now.  I just want to talk about this bull crap called "Political Correctness".  This is a disease that has been thrust on our nation by liberals for the past 20 or so years, where they dictate to us what we can or cannot call something.  These are the bozos who have tried to convince many pro and college teams to change their names, particularly those with names related to American Indians.  They seem to think that calling a team the Braves is an affront to the American Indians...hello folks, last time I checked "Brave" was a positive character trait, and so that name would be a compliment to the courage fighting spirit of the American Indian. 

Now you may notice I am not caving to the PC left and referring to "Native Americans". The reason I do not use that term is because, living in Southern California I see many ads on TV for various Indian gaming facilities, and they all seem to refer to themselves as Indians, and that's good enough for me.

Now the PC police are telling me I need to call an Illegal Alien an "Undocumented Immigrant".  So here are a few more PC terms for your consideration: "Unlicensed Pharmacist" instead of Drug pusher, "Professional Pleasure Consultant" instead of prostitute, "highly relaxed thinker" instead of Pothead.  And let us not forget the politically correct term for a lying, cheating, booze-swilling womanizer...a "Politician".

Secret Service..really

So some secret service officers (on the presidential detail) picked up a (perfectly legal in Columbia) prostitute; had her up to the room for a good time (which according to hotel staff included whiskey and a white powder) and then tried to get away with only paying $30.

Here's my main question. Is there not some kind of intelligence test required to become a secret service officer?? Do you not need at least an ounce of a brain cell to become part of the presidential detail? Did your tiny little brain (which has obviously temporarily relocated south of the navel) not remember WHO you worked for?

Now I am not a hug fan of the current administration, yet I feel this secret service scandal, coming this close to an election is just rotten. I want the election to be about what Obama has or hasn't accomplished against the goals, plans and accomplishment of his opponent (read Romney); not about mistakes his staff have made that is now center of the media spotlight.

So hey SECRET SERVICE, lets remember the first half of your name, and not do anything in SECRET that might compromise your SERVICE. Or put more simply...you have a brain...USE IT!

A Candidate Emerges

Ok, dumb title for this blog today, but it was all I could come up with. Well, Santorum has dropped out leaving basically Mitt and Newt...or more basically Mitt to take on the President come fall. And I read today that the latest Reuters (sp) poll shows Obama's lead down to 4%, and any polling expert will tell you the margin of error is around 10%, so there is a pretty fair chance that Mitt Romney will be able to do what all the Republicans hope he can-- Make Obama a one & Done president.

Now lets hope for a clean fight....Ok stop laughing and get ready to vote.

A new word

I coined a new word yesterday. It happened while I was at work. We received a case up the freight elevator that had a broken runner. The runners are what allow the cases to roll smoothly along the conveyors. With a broken runner of course the case would not roll. Some brilliant soul on the dock thought it would be a good idea to keep the freight rolling by simply placing the broken case on a folded up case of a slightly larger size, While this did keep the case rolling it also lead to many safety risks. The broken case could easily have shifted or slipped causing harm to the parts in side, or any person who may have been around. Or if it had shift while on the freight elevator, it could have jammed the elevator and damaged equipment. Anyway, the word I coined was "idjitnuity". My definition for "idjitnuity" is "a bit of utter lunacy that some idjit thought was a great idea" And other than the example I just cited, the prime example is Obamacare. Comment with your own examples.

Religion and politics

"...no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." -- U.S. Constitution Article VI

It seems to me, as I look at the Republican primaries that the race has, to many voters, become a religious struggle rather than a political one. We have Rick Santorum, the right wing conservative Christian against the Mormon Mitt Romney. And it would appear that in many places it is the candidates religious beliefs that are the only thing guiding the voters. In the south and other areas generally considered "Christian" the ultra conservative Christians can't imagine a "Cult member Mormon" representing them.

At the same time many of the moderates and independent voters can't bare the thought of a conservative Christian candidate. So what I am seeing is a race that is focusing on the religious beliefs of the candidates rather than on what they might stand for politically, or if they have a chance of winning in November.

I think as voters, especially if you are a Republican, or a conservative independent, you must look at the constitution (quoted above) and put aside the religious test, and ask yourself if the candidate you choose has a chance of winning in the fall, and does his politics reflect what you want from a leader.

While I feel a leader should have a strong moral background, we need to see that it is not the Presidents job to dictate the Morals of the nation. The President should lead the nation morally, but not lead the nations morality. Hopefully that makes sense to you. I think we need to find a candidate who lives his life by his moral convictions, but realize that we need to live our lives by our own convictions.

So basically what I'm saying if you are torn between Romney and Santorum, do not make the decision based on the candidates religious affiliation. Vote for the candidate who you feel best represents your political goals, and the candidate you feel can win in November. Doing otherwise is a vote for Obama. And if you are saying, "oh. I don't like either of them" you are giving a vote to Obama.

And finally a message to my more liberal friends. I am asking you, as you approach the November election to ask yourself honestly if Obama has turned out to be all you hoped for, or just another political disappointment. Ask yourself if you are happier now, and better off now than you were 10 years ago, or if you are old enough to remember, than you were in the 80's. Do you get the "change" you "hoped" for. If you answer these questions with a "no" then it might be time to say "Nobama in 2012" ...just a thought.

Things that make you say "Well, DUH!!"

So I was listening to some talk radio station on Super Tuesday and one of the lady commentators said, in a very authoritative voice, "What the Republicans seem to be looking for is someone who can beat Obama in the fall." I looked over at Rob, who I car pool with, and he looked at me at the same time. He asked, "did she just...?" and I said, "Yeah, she just..." and then we both said, "Well...DUH."

Of course the republicans are lookoing for someone who can beat Obama...isn't that the point of the elections....beat the other side. Maybe, just maybe, talk radio stations should hire commentators who think before making blaringly obvious statements. Let's count how often in this election season we here statements that make us go, "Well...DUH!"

Politics, I'll never quite get it

Sorry, this post should have come on Tuesday, but I've been a bit lazy this week. On Tuesday I was watching a few moments of CNN before the primary results for Michigan started. They were talking with democrats voting in the primary. Apparently Michigan has open primaries where you don't have to vote party lines. The democrats they were talking to said they were voting for Santorum, because they thought Obama had a better chance of beating Santorum than Romney. I know this is an old trick, I've seen it in California in Governor races etc. Vote for the weaker opponent in the primary, so you can beat them easily in the fall.

Now call me naive, but to me that is like a vote of no confidence in your own candidate. It's like saying, "We aren't sure our guy is the best, so let's make sure we get the weakest opponent." This then ties into the election ads where you point out all the bad things about the other guy rather than saying anything good about what your guy is going to do. I don't quite get politics, I'm sorry, but tell me why your the best guy for the job, not why the other guy is worst.

Well, a few more months of this....okay over half a year really. I'll try to survive...thank God Tivo will let me skip most of the ads!!

Facebook is Big Brother

I am a social media fanatic. I blog (2 different blogs), I tweet, I connect with my friends and family on facebook. But I've begun to notice that facebook is getting really scary, maybe a bit too familiar. The other day one of my friends posted that she was moving to Australia. To anyone familiar with children's literature this was an indication that she was having a terrible, horrible, no-good, very bad day. But as I was looking at her post, I noticed that the ad column on the right was filled with ads on "relocate to Australia" and "find a home in Australia" and "Finding jobs in Australia" Big Brother was watching, and hoping my friend and I would reach out to their advertisers in Australia.

I also notice that when I am reading a post or comment by a particular friend, most of the "friend suggestions" facebook gives at that time are fiends of that person. I'm not sure why facebook assumes that I want to be friends with EVERYONE who knows someone I went to school with 25 years ago. I mean really, I am glad to be in touch with my friends from Wheaton, but I don't necessarily want to be friends with someone from their church in 2011.

But all these little indicators make me a bit cautious. We are being watched, plain and simple. Now I am not a conspiracy theory type of guy, but if someone knows we are talking about Australia, then someone can find out anything else we talk about. There have been divorce cases where the judge has ordered the couples to turn over their facebook passwords to opposing council. A case in England where facebook and Twitter feeds were used as evidence. I am pretty sure that in larger cities police forces have a dedicated Internet watcher searching for threats of criminal activity.

A friend of mine recently read a book about Hitler and how easy it was for him to round up the people he wanted to get rid of,and that was 70 years ago, long before the computers and technologies of today. Just think how easy now, if someone came to power who wanted to round up all that opposed him. Just a get a record of who "liked" what on facebook. The McCarthy trials would have been so much easier had there been a facebook then. Just see who "liked" the communist party, or who were friends with people who "liked" it.

All I'm trying to say I guess is a word of caution. be careful what you "like" or it may be used against you. please like this post and share with your friends. And a wink goes out to Big Brother "FACEBOOK" We "like" and "Hate" you all at once.

New Way to Decide the Winner

Okay, this is crazy, but I have come up with a new way to pick the winner of elections. It came to me today while briefly watching CNN. This will save all the problems of vote counting, election tampering, and all the other troubles we encounter in modern elections.

As I was watching CNN the little news blurb on the bottom of the screen read, "Romney Santorum Fight Heats Up". That's when it hit me, put the candidates in the ring and let them duke it out. I'm not sure if the should use the Queensburry rules, or go for an all out UFC style MMA fighting. But just let them go at it till someone is knocked out. Then the winner of the Republican fight can get in the ring and duke it out with Obama.

Ok, Who's with me on this? Sounds like a nice change. Hopefully less nasty commercials. Make it a pay-per-view event with proceeds going to pay off the national debt.

Hate breeds more Hate

If you are like there are three words that instantly start your blood boiling: Westboro Baptist Church. This is a group of so-called Christians who preach a message of hate. Their main tactic is to protest at the funerals of slain American soldiers.

Yesterday the Westboro church announced it would protest at the funeral of the Powell boys (brutally murdered by their own father) because, according to the church their death was God's punishment to the state of Washington for plans to legalize gay marriage. Now whether you support gay marriage or not, you can surely see the horrendous lack of logic in the church's actions. I admit I have a hard time not being angry with this church. Yes I have troubles not hating them. This church, who always seems to get themselves in the news, gives Christian groups a bad name. In a news media always searching for the bad, the crazy, the offensive news, this is the kind of Christian we see. We rarely get media coverage for the churches that have outreaches to the poor; or the churches that reach out to disaster victims side by side with the Red Cross. So I get angry that this group is making all Christians look bad.

But as the hate in me brews, I realize that Westboro's hate is just breeding a hate within me, and I do not want to stoop to their level. I think churches around he nation need to mobilize, and wherever the Westboro church plans one of their hate-filled demonstrations, the local church needs to counter with a demonstration of God's love. Wrap thee family in a circle of Prayer (literally surrounding them with God's love) and keeping the hateful ones on the outside of the circle. Hate only breeds hate, lets show Westboro that God's love is stronger than Hate!!

(After I began this blog I learned that Westboro has cancelled their protest on the Powell funeral in exchange for some radio time on a local Catholic program. Whatever keeps them away from the funeral...at least you can turn the radio off.

Serenity Now...NIMBY

I'm sure you all remember the Seinfeld episode with "Serenity Now". But here in Lake Arrowhead, the calls of Serenity are being answered with "Not In My Back Yard". The Serenity Lodge is one of several drug rehab houses that have popped up around the Lake Arrowhead area, and Serenity has also recently acquired one of the many local camps.

All of these drug rehab facilities have sparked quite a bit of controversy in our lovely mountain community. Cries that these facilities will drag down property values, and bring unsavory types to our mountain.

Well, I have news for some of my fellow mountain folk. The unsavory types are already here. In case you didn't know folks, drug use in the mountain is rampant. This of course leads to the need for rehab houses. Maybe if you took more time to check up on what your kids are doing, they wouldn't end up needing rehab. I'm sorry if I'm being blunt and stepping on toes, but the general mind set all over this mountain seems to be to let your kids do what they want. Let them smoke a little weed, no problem. Let them have a keg party for prom night, no problem. Oh,so they stepped it up from alcohol and pot to X, no problem. So someone wants to open a "medical marijuana" clinic, no problem. But God forbid we put a drug rehab facility here, it might bring in drug addicts to our mountain. GET A CLUE PEOPLE, the drug addicts are your kids!!

At least the people in the treatment houses are trying to do something about their problem. Let's try and close down Budmart before we try and drive Serenity from our mountain.
SERENITY NOW!!!

Death prayer for Obama?

Much talk has been made about Kansas speaker Mike O'Neal supposedly calling for people to pray for Obama's death. In a recent letter he sent out he quoted Psalm 109:8 which says "May his days be few, and may another take his office." Now the media has pounced all over this as the speaker praying for Obama's death. I'm pretty willing to bet that speaker O'Neal simply meant it as a prayer that Obama lose the election.

Now the media, and probably some of my liberal friends will point out that the following verse calls for his wife to be a widow and his children fatherless. And if you go on in the Psalm it gets pretty gruesome. David was apparently pretty upset with the person he wrote this about. I feel however, that speaker O'Neal probably didn't bother to research his quote this deeply. My guess is he saw the one verse quoted somewhere and decided it was a cute, nice little prayer jibe he could send out to a president he was not fond of. I am relatively sure he does not want the president dead, and if he did he certainly wouldn't put it in print. But of course the media grabbed hold of it, and won't let go.

Now I admit, it was probably a stupid thing for an elected official to put in his newsletter. But I think the media failed to notice that similar wishes were expressed by liberals toward the previous president. Liberals hate conservatives, conservatives hate liberals. Right or wrong, that's the way it is.

Should politicians be more careful with what they say? Yes. Should media be less liberal biased in the panic storms they stir up? Yes. Should people check their scriptures before quoting out of context? You bet.

And the state of American politics brings to mind the words of John 11:35 "Jesus wept"

No more James or John

America has had 44 presidents in its 235 years, and this year we will elect another (or maybe hang on to 44). Actually if you look closely there has only been 43, since Grover Cleveland served two non-consecutive terms. Of these 43 men 16 of them bore the names James, John, George or William. Almost all the rest had names unique to them (imagine 2 Millards or 2 Ulysses). This election we are once again looking at some unique names. Barack of course was very unique in the last election, and I'm pretty sure it will remain one of a kind.

But looking at the Republican front runners, I really must chuckle; Mitt and Newt. Really??? Mitt and Newt?? Please excuse my humorous tone, but dang, these are FUNNY names. Mitt sounds so 80's preppy, I expect he hang with Biff, Buffy and Kiki. Either that, or maybe his parents were dyslexic and were trying for Tim. And don't get me started on Newt. I'm pretty sure it is short for Newton, but that only reminds me of a guy in a giant fig suit. And whenever I hear the name Newt I can't help but think of John Cleese in Monty Python and the Holy Grail; "She turned my into a Newt!" "A Newt?" "I got better".

So it would appear that James, John and George are off the table for now, and the strange names will win out. So take your pick-- President Newt, President Mitt or President Barack.... tough choice?

I miss Ronald Reagan

In 1981 (31 years ago this week) Ronald Reagan became president. I was a 15 year old kid, and didn't know much. I'm sure I did my share of joking about the old ex-actor thinking he could run a country. But looking back now, I realize he was a great president.

I've been listening to his white house diaries and his mind and his love for his country, God and his wife Nancy is just amazing. He was a man with a warm heart, and a great sense of humor. I only hope in this upcoming election that we can find someone half as good as him to become the next president.

Not the Government's Job.

First off, a thank you to Iowa for making NO clear choice last week, let's see if New Hampshire will do better tomorrow.

Okay, now on to my topic for today. And before I start, I want to say that I realize there are people in this country who truly need help to get by and survive. People who have had a low life husband walk out on them leaving 4 or 5 kids. People who have been hurt or disabled and can't work a full time job. But there are also so many people today living off the government (a government hat is 15 TRILLION dollars in debt) who are simply to lazy to find work, or realize they can make more by just having babies and letting the government pay for them.

Many people seem to think that the government owes them a decent life. It is, according to some, the job of the government to insure that everyone lives the American Dream. The first problem with this is that everyone seems to think the American Dream is having whatever you want whenever you want it. When I was a child I believe the American Dream, as my parents understood it was to be able to work and supply a house and food and clothes for your kids, and offer them a chance to have things a little better than they had it.

Here's the problem, most of our parents (I'm speaking of the senior citizens of today) were able to give us a better life than they had. And my generation and those a bit younger than me began to feel like we deserved everything. And so we started charging to get everything, and to give our kids everything. And now we have a generation of kids who just walk into a store say they want something, and get up set if no one is there with a credit card to get it for them NOW!

But I'm trailing away from my real topic, which is whether or not welfare is the government's job. I say it is NOT. The job of the government should be to uphold law and protect the citizens, not to hand them everything they want/need. I'm going to throw out a word that is bound to stir up fiery emotions from friends on the right or the left. Socialism... this is a word the left tend to embrace, either openly, or at least ideologically. It is a word that generally makes the skin of those on the right crawl with fears of a Marxist regime moving in. I am a conservative, right-wing Republican who says there is a place for socialism. Please don't shoot me now, please don't burn my blog.

Let me explain myself please. One of the things left-wingers love to throw out is that "Jesus was a socialist" and that "early Christians lived in a socialist society". And if you look at the book of Acts, there definitely seems to be a good case at least for the later statement. The early Church lived in a very communal way, helping each other, and providing each others' needs. And throughout the New Testament we are told to help those around you in need,care for the fatherless and the widow.

But here is where I must differ from my left-wing friends who wish to extrapolate this in to saying we need a socialist government to supply our needs, to make sure everyone is taken care of. You see, in the New Testament it was the Church coming together as a group and taking care of each others' needs and burdens. It was not some group of officials, elected or otherwise telling everyone that you need to give your money to him/her, so they have the same.

One thing I find interesting is that liberals tend to be in favor of human rights, and are opposed to governments who violate there citizens human rights. And yet most of these governments are the result of socialistic government taken to far. China is a prime example. And yet they left continues to want to give our government more and more power. And as the government get more power to control more areas of our lives, then they give themselves the power to become the corrupt human rights violators that they claim to oppose.

What my point here is, is that socialism should not be a style of government, in that the people running the government will undoubtedly corrupt it, and get it wrong. But socialism in the form practiced by the early church is something that could make life better for many. Welfare should not be the job of the government...It should be the job of the church! Many churches has outreach programs to help feed and clothe the needy in there communities, and this is wonderful, but many do not. With America's economy in a mess, I think it is time for the Church to step up and say "We are here to minister not only to your spirit, but to your body as well". This is a call out to Christians, myself included, to step up and help out those who are less fortunate, those who need a hand, those who are struggling to get by. Let the Church do the job it is called to do, so the government can get on track to do what it is here to do.

Iowa's Turn

2012 is upon us and once we embark on the wondrous election process that make America great, and annoys the hell out of us all at the same time. In just a few hours this process begins in Iowa, as the caucuses. I'm not sure how the caucuses work compared to the primary elections in many other states. But I do know they are considered an early indicator for how the elections are shaping up.

In 2012 it is considered a given that Obama will be the Democratic nominee, so all attention is on the Republicans. I know there have been many names floating around in the Republican race, some who have already dropped out, and some seeming to pop up at the last minute. I do not know who I am leaning towards, and since we still have 5 months before elections come to California, I still have time to decide.

I only hope the Republicans in Iowa come out and vote, and help point the way to someone who can beat Obama in November. This should be an election year to watch, and I'll try to keep you updated on what is going on.