Mar 30, 2016

Where Does The Bible Say Preachers Must Avoid Politics?

There is no other legal segment of our society which more actively embraces and employs any more deception, lying, stealing, and every other sin and perversion forbidden in the Bible than Politics.

Common Sense Commentary:  Politicians have perverted our laws and legalized our crimes. They have undermined self reliance and self respect by offering government largess in place of employment and robbed half of Americans of their responsibility to hold a job and pay their own way. They have twisted the truth and lied to the American people about just about everything. They have legalized illegal drugs, provided paid for abortions, persecuted Christians, promoted same sex marriage and decriminalized a host of other crimes.  And even worse than the Politicians are the preachers who have looked the other way and preached tiddle de wink sermons on improving one's self and criticized preachers who stood up against the political corruption and ministerial compromise of God's word. It is expected of criminals to act like criminals, but God called preachers are supposed to be the "Watchmen on the wall" to sound the alarm so the people have warning of the devil's devices. Preachers do not give up their citizen's rights when they surrender to the ministry, they are commissioned with an even greater responsibility to speak out for truth, honesty and Biblical principles and against error and falsehood..... if they are truly called of God. RB

The New England Pulpit and the American Revolution From Godfather Politics at this link ...

Why Do Pastors Not Stand Up Like This Anymore?

The diminishing light of civil liberty in this land is linked directly to the lack of preaching on it in today's pulpits. Dr. Alice Baldwin's wonderful book is a welcome antidote to this problem, should we be willing to take it.

Dr. Baldwin illustrates how the preachers of the early American era thought and practiced just the opposite as today. Mountains of research in colonial sermons, tracts, pamphlets, and other publications, reveals how the pulpits of colonial America rang constantly on all aspects of the public square: good rulers, good laws, good forms of government, and the blessings of liberty. We especially hear of those choice values of biblical order that became the battle cries of American independence.

Covering the entire revolutionary era, she concludes that the central force behind it all was the pulpit's application of the Word of God to politics and government. She says, "It must not be forgotten, in the multiplicity of authors mentioned, that the source of greatest authority and the one most commonly used was the Bible." And she proves that "from the law of God they derived their political theories."

It is long past time to recover the great and powerful preaching of our founding era–a time when pastors did not fear to preach politics, resist tyranny, and found their governments on the Bible. Dr. Baldwin's nearly-forgotten book is a powerful resource toward that end. We recommend it to every pastor and every Christian in hope that they follow the example of its subject matter even more.

The diminishing light of civil liberty in this land is linked directly to the lack of preaching on it in today’s pulpits. Dr. Alice Baldwin’s wonderful book is a welcome antidote to this problem, should we be willing to take it.

Dr. Baldwin illustrates how the preachers of the early American era thought and practiced just the opposite as today. Mountains of research in colonial sermons, tracts, pamphlets, and other publications, reveals how the pulpits of colonial America rang constantly on all aspects of the public square: good rulers, good laws, good forms of government, and the blessings of liberty. We especially hear of those choice values of biblical order that became the battle cries of American independence.

Commenting on the classic paraphrase of “life, liberty, and property,” Baldwin proclaims,

“No one can fully understand the American Revolution and the American constitutional system without a realization of the long history and religious associations which lie behind these words; without realizing that for a hundred years before the Revolution men were taught that these rights were protected by divine, inviolable law.”

Covering the entire revolutionary era, she concludes that the central force behind it all was the pulpit’s application of the Word of God to politics and government. She says, “It must not be forgotten, in the multiplicity of authors mentioned, that the source of greatest authority and the one most commonly used was the Bible.” And she proves that “from the law of God they derived their political theories.”

It is long past time to recover the great and powerful preaching of our founding era—a time when pastors did not fear to preach politics, resist tyranny, and found their governments on the Bible. Dr. Baldwin’s nearly-forgotten book is a powerful resource toward that end. We recommend it to every pastor and every Christian in hope that they follow the example of its subject matter even more.

Can You Give Me A Clear, Concise Definition Of The Electoral College?

If Not, Don't Tell Me Why 
Simple Majority Is Better

Common Sense Commentary: Most criticism of the "Electoral College", which is required by our Constitution, is a debate in favor of a simple "Democratic" majority vote in the selection of our President. It must be remembered that, when our Founding Fathers were designing the Constitution, they totally immersed themselves in study, prayer, analysis, discussion, correction and revision of the first drafts and then adjusted the instrument as any flaws arose. Their eventual choice of the  Electoral College, was not arrived at hastily or without long and arduous debate over every future, possible, negative eventuality. There is a very complicated, but sound reason they finally settled on the Electoral College method. Consider, for instance, that today, with more than half of American voters receiving some sort of Federal assistance or so called entitlements, most of whom who pay no income taxes, that a President could be elected by voters who are either non-employed, by choice, employed by or supported by the Federal government, or by the large population Democrat controlled states where most of the crime is being committed. If, in this entitlement obsessed age, a simple majority elected the President, we would never again have a strong, Conservative, Constitutional  President. We are simply out-numbered by those on the Federal dole. We are now a minority and we need every conservative voter voting just to preserve our National Constitution and freedom. RB

How little do they see what really is, 
who frame their hasty judgment upon 
that which seems to be. Daniel Webster

The Electoral College

Excerpt from an original document located at Jackson County, MO Election Board

by William C. Kimberling, Deputy Director FEC National Clearinghouse on Election Administration 

In order to appreciate the reasons for the Electoral College, it is essential to understand its historical context and the problem that the Founding Fathers were trying to solve. They faced the difficult question of how to elect a president in a nation that: 
  • was composed of thirteen large and small States jealous of their own rights and powers and suspicious of any central national government
  • contained only 4,000,000 people spread up and down a thousand miles of Atlantic seaboard barely connected by transportation or communication (so that national campaigns were impractical even if they had been thought desirable)
  • believed, under the influence of such British political thinkers as Henry St. John Bolingbroke, that political parties were mischievous if not downright evil, and
  • felt that gentlemen should not campaign for public office (The saying was "The office should seek the man, the man should not seek the office.").
How, then, to choose a president without political parties, without national campaigns, and without upsetting the carefully designed balance between the presidency and the Congress on one hand and between the States and the federal government on the other?

Origins of the Electoral College

The Constitutional Convention considered several possible methods of selecting a president.

One idea was to have the Congress choose the president. This idea was rejected, however, because some felt that making such a choice would be too divisive an issue and leave too many hard feelings in the Congress. Others felt that such a procedure would invite unseemly political bargaining, corruption, and perhaps even interference from foreign powers. Still others felt that such an arrangement would upset the balance of power between the legislative and executive branches of the federal government.

A second idea was to have the State legislatures select the president. This idea, too, was rejected out of fears that a president so beholden to the State legislatures might permit them to erode federal authority and thus undermine the whole idea of a federation.

A third idea was to have the president elected by a direct popular vote. Direct election was rejected not because the Framers of the Constitution doubted public intelligence but rather because they feared that without sufficient information about candidates from outside their State, people would naturally vote for a "favorite son" from their own State or region. At worst, no president would emerge with a popular majority sufficient to govern the whole country. At best, the choice of president would always be decided by the largest, most populous States with little regard for the smaller ones.

Finally, a so-called "Committee of Eleven" in the Constitutional Convention proposed an indirect election of the president through a College of Electors.

The function of the College of Electors in choosing the president can be likened to that in the Roman Catholic Church of the College of Cardinals selecting the Pope. The original idea was for the most knowledgeable and informed individuals from each State to select the president based solely on merit and without regard to State of origin or political party.

The structure of the Electoral College can be traced to the Centurial Assembly system of the Roman Republic. Under that system, the adult male citizens of Rome were divided, according to their wealth, into groups of 100 (called Centuries). Each group of 100 was entitled to cast only one vote either in favor or against proposals submitted to them by the Roman Senate. In the Electoral College system, the States serve as the Centurial groups (though they are not, of course, based on wealth), and the number of votes per State is determined by the size of each State's Congressional delegation. Still, the two systems are similar in design and share many of the same advantages and disadvantages.

The similarities between the Electoral College and classical institutions are not accidental. Many of the Founding Fathers were well schooled in ancient history and its lessons.

The First Design

In the first design of the Electoral College (described in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution): 
  • Each State was allocated a number of Electors equal to the number of its U.S. Senators (always 2) plus the number of its U.S. Representatives (which may change each decade according to the size of each State's population as determined in the decennial census). This arrangement built upon an earlier compromise in the design of the Congress itself and thus satisfied both large and small States.
  • The manner of choosing the Electors was left to the individual State legislatures, thereby pacifying States suspicious of a central national government.
  • Members of Congress and employees of the federal government were specifically prohibited from serving as an Elector in order to maintain the balance between the legislative and executive branches of the federal government.
  • Each State's Electors were required to meet in their respective States rather than all together in one great meeting. This arrangement, it was thought, would prevent bribery, corruption, secret dealing, and foreign influence.
  • In order to prevent Electors from voting only for a "favorite son" of their own State, each Elector was required to cast two votes for president, at least one of which had to be for someone outside their home State. The idea, presumably, was that the winner would likely be everyone's second favorite choice.
  • The electoral votes were to be sealed and transmitted from each of the States to the President of the Senate who would then open them before both houses of the Congress and read the results.
  • The person with the most electoral votes, provided that it was an absolute majority (at least one over half of the total), became president. Whoever obtained the next greatest number of electoral votes became vice president - an office which they seem to have invented for the occasion since it had not been mentioned previously in the Constitutional Convention.
  • In the event that no one obtained an absolute majority in the Electoral College or in the event of a tie vote, the U.S. House of Representatives, as the chamber closest to the people, would choose the president from among the top five contenders. They would do this (as a further concession to the small States) by allowing each State to cast only one vote with an absolute majority of the States being required to elect a president. The vice presidency would go to whatever remaining contender had the greatest number of electoral votes. If that, too, was tied, the U.S. Senate would break the tie by deciding between the two.
In all, this was quite an elaborate design. But it was also a very clever one when you consider that the whole operation was supposed to work without political parties and without national campaigns
while maintaining the balances and satisfying the fears in play at the time. Indeed, it is probably because the Electoral College was originally designed to operate in an environment so totally different from our own that many people think it is anachronistic and fail to appreciate the new purposes it now serves. But of that, more later.

The Second Design

The first design of the Electoral College lasted through only four presidential elections. For in the meantime, political parties had emerged in the United States. The very people who had been condemning parties publicly had nevertheless been building them privately. And too, the idea of political parties had gained respectability through the persuasive writings of such political philosophers as Edmund Burke and James Madison.

One of the accidental results of the development of political parties was that in the presidential election of 1800, the Electors of the Democratic-Republican Party gave Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr (both of that party) an equal number of electoral votes. The tie was resolved by the House of Representatives in Jefferson's favor - but only after 36 tries and some serious political dealings which were considered unseemly at the time. Since this sort of bargaining over the presidency was the very thing the Electoral College was supposed to prevent, the Congress and the States hastily adopted the Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution by September of 1804.

To prevent tie votes in the Electoral College which were made probable, if not inevitable, by the rise of political parties (and no doubt to facilitate the election of a president and vice president of the same party), the 12th Amendment requires that each Elector cast one vote for president and a separate vote for vice president rather than casting two votes for president with the runner-up being made vice president. The Amendment also stipulates that if no one receives an absolute majority of electoral votes for president, then the U.S. House of Representatives will select the president from among the top three contenders with each State casting only one vote and an absolute majority being required to elect. By the same token, if no one receives an absolute majority for vice president, then the U.S. Senate will select the vice president from among the top two contenders for that office. All other features of the Electoral College remained the same including the requirements that, in order to prevent Electors from voting only for "favorite sons", either the presidential or vice presidential candidate has to be from a State other than that of the Electors.

In short, political party loyalties had, by 1800, begun to cut across State loyalties thereby creating new and different problems in the selection of a president. By making seemingly slight changes, the 12th Amendment fundamentally altered the design of the Electoral College and, in one stroke, accommodated political parties as a fact of life in American presidential elections.

It is noteworthy in passing that the idea of electing the president by direct popular vote was not widely promoted as an alternative to redesigning the Electoral College. This may be because the physical and demographic circumstances of the country had not changed that much in a dozen or so years. Or it may be because the excesses of the recent French revolution (and its fairly rapid degeneration into dictatorship) had given the populists some pause to reflect on the wisdom of too direct a democracy.

The Evolution of the Electoral College

Since the 12th Amendment, there have been several federal and State statutory changes which have affected both the time and manner of choosing Presidential Electors but which have not further altered the fundamental workings of the Electoral College. There have also been a few curious incidents which its critics cite as problems but which proponents of the Electoral College view as merely its natural and intended operation.
For more on the Electoral College 

© David Leip 2008 All Rights Reserved

Mar 29, 2016

Your Doorbell Is Ringing

Common Sense Commentary:  Staggering truth packed into one single minute.

"PowerLineBlog” recently held a competition for $100,000 for
whomever could most effectively and creatively dramatize the
significance of the federal debt crisis. Several entries have
gotten a lot of attention, but the one gone most viral so far is
‘The Doorbell.’ If you haven't yet seen it, you may watch it
here. It’s 59 seconds long:

Mar 27, 2016

Americanism Simple As ABC - 123 Explained by Prager University Video And 5th Grader

None So Blind As He Who Will Not See

Common Sense Commentary: American Exceptionalism isn't quite dead yet.
There is hope when we still have people like this University Professor, from the top of the Educational Ladder, to a 5th Grade boy on the bottom rung, both explaining America's success in terms any child can understand, but too deep for Liberals. RB

America's Socialist Origins Failed 
This short video from Prager University 
at the top of the Educational scale.

Click here

Mar 25, 2016

Strangest, Most Diabolical Man On Earth...Enigmatic Blend Of Communist, Muslim, Fascist

Common Sense Commentary: There is but one explanation for the election of such a man as President of the greatest, most successful nation on earth known as "Christian America" throughout the world .... "An Evil Miracle" similar to what Satan did to the man Job. "There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil .... And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?"  Job. 1:1 & 8."

God let down His protecting hedge around Job and let Satan put him to the ultimate test of suffering and loss. That too was an Evil Miracle on one side of the page, but on the other side, it served God's purpose in the lives of Job and those around him. As Joseph, in Egypt, said to his brothers, "But as for you, ye thought evil against mebut God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive." Gen.50:20. Which is to say, ".... all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose." Rom.8:28. But similarly, all things work together for bad to whose who do not love God. We must look beyond all of the temporal events of life and see God in absolute control ... for His own purposes.
As Niebuhr prayed,  "God grant me the serenity to live with the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference. "



"Just choose from what works"

President Obama has stoked controversy after he suggested to an audience of Argentinian youth that there was no great difference between communism and capitalism and that they should just “choose from what works”. 

Obama responded to a question about nonprofit community organizations and the necessity of attracting funding from both the public and private sectors. “So often in the past there has been a division between left and right, between capitalists and communists or socialists, and especially in the Americas, that’s been a big debate,” Obama said.

“Those are interesting intellectual arguments, but I think for your generation, you should be practical and just choose from what works. You don’t have to worry about whether it really fits into socialist theory or capitalist theory. You should just decide what works,” he added. Obama went on to praise Cuba’s socialist system under dictator Raúl Castro, touting the country’s free access to basic education and health care, although he acknowledged that Havana itself “looks like it did in the 1950s” because the economy is “not working”. Obama concluded his comments by arguing that a market-based system “has to have a social and moral and ethical and community basis”. Reaction to the remarks wasn’t pretty. “This man is so destructive, so harmful and so ignorant,” wrote Jim Hoft. “The Marxist in the White House is erasing the lines between two dangerous ideologies and the one that made the US great, just as he erased our borders. This is a man who would be at home in communist China,” chided the Independent Sentinel. 
Change this trend if you can but survive and live as an ambassador of Christ in a troubled world. RB

Mar 21, 2016

To You Republicans In Name Only..."Republicrats" ...You Did It To Yourselves

Fox News Reported Last Week...

Boehner says he could back Ryan in contested GOP convention


Common Sense Commentary:

Well Mr. Boehner, you and your other RINOs (Republican In Name Only) can kick and scream behind the scenes all you want, but if you hate the thought of Trump or Cruz as president of this country, don't blame them or their supporters for steam-rolling you out of office and taking control of the Republican party. If your divisive actions split the party and thereby elect Hillary, Bernie or Biden, the consequences are on you, not Cruz or Trump. You RINOs brought this ugly political catastrophe on yourselves. It was not Trump or Cruz, but YOU guys who broke all of your "elect me" Conservative campaign promises . It was YOU who fought Ted Cruz's efforts to keep those promises. It was you who went along to get along with the Democrats and their President and their Liberal agenda. It was YOU who voted to finance Obama Care, funding for Planned Parenthood and every other stupid Liberal Socialist program they wanted, over a lot of years. The only reasons I can imagine that would cause you RINOs to vote like Democrats is either because you agree with them or they have secret files on your secret lives. So if you and your fellow wimps want Paul Ryan as your President with Kasick as your stalking horse, go ahead and struggle, whine and fuss over the mess you have made of the Grand Old Party, and the country. Do what you will... this is your last betrayal of your oaths of office and those who voted for you. The Party may be terribly damaged, but there is still nearly half this country who are against your united Republicrat efforts to lead both Parties down the prim-rose path to the crime of Socialism as Hitler did to Germany and Marx/Lenin did to Russia. The Republican Party will never again become a rubber stamp for Democrat policies. It may be smaller, but it will at least be stronger.

Mar 19, 2016


From as far away as I could get

Common Sense Commentary: Yes, the Democrat Candidates, who believe in abortion, same sex marriage, paying no taxes themselves, big government, legalizing narcotics and dozens of similar offences, can also teach us some things we didn't know.  Here is a list, like links in the Democrat Agenda Chain, which Obama forged in the furnace of Hell and the next Democrat President will enforce as Slave Master. RB

"One of the penalties of not participating in politics 
is that you will be governed by your inferiors" Plato

From a Patriot

Black Lives Matter, All Lives Don't Matter.

*       College should be free and all student loans cancelled.

*       All medical treatment should be free.

*       To become an American citizen you just need to show up here.

*       The economy is suffocating and after 7 years in office, it's not Obama's fault.

*       The Middle Class is shrinking rapidly and after 7 years in office, it's not Obama's fault.

*       Average family income is continuing to drop and after 7 years in office, it's not Obama's fault.

*       Black youths have over a 50% unemployment rate and after 7 years in office it's not Obama's fault.

*       Hispanic youth unemployment is over 35% and after 7 years in office, it's not Obama's fault.

*       50% of the population is paying 100% of all the taxes and they are still not paying their “fair share.”   The other 50% are not receiving nearly enough free stuff and deserve more.

*       Everyone who votes Democrat will work less, make more money, get more time off, spend more time with family, pay less taxes, and get more government subsidies.

*       Government wants even more money to squander on old promises already broken.

*       Being a  "Progressive" is less cringe-worthy than saying you're a Liberal.  
*       When  America grows up, we want to be Norway ,  Sweden or the  Netherlands .

*       There's a quagmire in Iraq and Obama's complete retreat from there has nothing to do with the situation.

*       Republicans want dirty air, oil spills, trash in the streets, polluted oceans, no medical treatment, young people without any education  being paid the lowest possible wages, starving children, were responsible for Jim Crow Laws and don't believe in equal rights.

*       Snowden and General Petraeus broke laws for releasing and not securing secret documents but Hillary Clinton shares no responsibility for doing WORSE.

*       If Hilary is elected, everything will be rainbows and Unicorns - just like with Obama.

*       Hillary Clinton does walk on water.

*       Cheaters do prosper.

*       People often cheer stupidity.

*       Hillary and Bill Clinton were born poor Black Children.

*       All the qualifications needed to be President is to be a woman.

*       Evil looks like anything white, rich, successful and productive.

*       You will receive a participation trophy in life.

*       Agreements of any kind should be signed and committed to, even if the other agreeing party doesn't live up  to its obligations.
 Everyone else does it, so should we, regardless of any results in those other countries.

*       Everything is still Bush's fault.

Mar 16, 2016

Obama Admin Built On Architects Plan Of Potemkin Village

Common Sense Commentary: Everything about the Obama/Clinton Democrat bamboozle is smoke and mirrors, bate and switch, a ponzi scheme rip off,
a flimflam racket, a con-artist hustle. Obama's agenda in four four letter words ... FAKE WITH ZERO HOPE. It fits the historic description conjured up by the similarly deceptive actions of two other swindlers. One in 1787 in an area still being fought over today, the Crimea. RB

(1) Potemkin Villages 
In Time Magazine
By Ishaan Tharoor Friday, Aug. 06, 2010

Grigory Potyomkin was a dashing 18th century Russian nobleman who intrigued in courts, smote his enemies upon the steppes and allegedly wooed Catherine the Great. It was while he was courting his nation's comely Tsarina, at least according to legend, that his name came to forever stand for something insubstantial. For Catherine's 1783 tour of new Russian possessions in the Crimea, Potyomkin endeavored to show her the best face of the empire. As the story goes, pasteboard facades of pretty towns were set up at a distance on riverbanks. At stops, she'd be greeted by regiments of Amazonian snipers or fields set ablaze by burning braziers and exploding rockets spelling her initials; whole populations of serfs were moved around and dressed up in fanciful garb to flaunt a prosperity that didn't exist (later precipitating famine in the region). A "Potemkin village" signifies any deceptive or false construct, conjured often by cruel regimes, to deceive both those within the land and those peering in from outside.

(From Wikipedia Encyclopedia)
The phrase "Potemkin village" (derived from the RussianПотёмкинские деревниPotyomkinskiye derevni) was originally used to describe a fake portable village, built only to impress. According to the story, Grigory Potemkin erected the fake portable settlement along the banks of the Dnieper River in order to fool Empress Catherine II during her journey to Crimea in 1787. The phrase is now used, typically in politics and economics, to describe any construction (literal or figurative) built solely to deceive others into thinking that some situation is better than it really is. 

My Comment:
How apropos can a comparison get?  Something put up high in the media for all to see. Something fake like unemployment numbers, Inflation rate, False gun accusations, ObamaCare ruse, Undermining Law Enforcement Officers, False claims of strong economic conditions, Making criminals of the law abiding and law abiding of criminals .... and the list goes on and on and on. The whole nation is being converted into a Potemkin Village, a paper tiger, green paper money with zero standing behind it but broken promises and hot air. Like Potemkin's fake villages, a hollow facade, a lying smile on the face of our modern day Potemkin Obama, Potemkin Clinton .... and even some Potemkin Republicans. RB 

(2) Ponzi Scheme

And then there was a swindler who went by the name, "Charles Ponzi" and several other aliases, but his real name was Carlo Pietro Giovanni Guglielmo Tebaldo Ponzi. If that were my name I would shorten it too, but its length was not the reason he changed it to "Charles". He was a swindler, a scam artist who changed his name often to hide from the LAW and those whose money he had stolen. So his name lives on today associated with a pyramid type scheme still being used with a mixture of lies to mislead and rob people of their confidence and their savings. It is called a "Ponzi Scheme".

(From Wikipedia Encyclopedia)
Charles Ponzi (March 3, 1882 – January 18, 1949) was an Italian businessman and con artist in the U.S. and Canada. His aliases include Charles Ponci Carloand ,Charles P. Bianchi. Born in Italy, he became known in the early 1920s as a swindler in North America for his money-making scheme. He promised clients a 50% profit within 45 days, or 100% profit within 90 days .... Ponzi was paying early investors using the investments of later investors
My Comment
How would you and your descendants like your name to come to mean a liar and thief? Which gives me an idea......

As of today I will introduce two new words for the dictionaries.  A "billary " Clinton is "A greedy, power hungry liar". And a "baracko" is "A conspiratorial  traitor".   RB

Mar 15, 2016

The Ultimate, World-Class Liar Among Presidential Candidates

Common Sense Commentary: The more that is revealed about Hillary Clinton, the more votes her opponent, Bernie Sanders gets. The problem Bernie and the Democrats have is that Bernie is an avowed, self described Socialist and is even worse than Hillary. Until the delegate votes are counted and the Democrats have picked their Candidate, Americans have to worry that one of these two, or Biden, might wind up President. In the mean time, Hillary wins the Liar's championship.
At least Bernie tells the truth when he admits he is a Socialist, but then, so did the Nazis (National Socialist Party) and Joseph Stalin's USSR (United Soviet Socialist Republic). RB

In a world that prized truth, she couldn’t be dog-catcher. In our world, she could be president.
New York Post
January 30, 2016 | 10:03pm
When Donald Trump, Ben Carson and other political outsiders first denounced political correctness, they instantly struck a nerve. They were promising to peel back the mushy language that government and so-called sophisticates use to conceal simple truths.
I was hardly alone in liking the vow of honesty, and as Trump and Carson rose in the early polls, their rivals, the media and voters got into the act. Denouncing political correctness quickly became routine and is now the leading ­cliché of the campaign.
Alas, that makes it part of the problem it was meant to solve.
Look at it this way: Accusing someone of being politically correct is the politically correct way of saying they are lying. Let’s cut to the chase and just say it, for God’s sake!
That urge came over me as I watched Sens. Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, along with Jeb Bush, ­argue over each other’s immigration flip-flops during last week’s GOP debate. Because Fox moderators used videos to demonstrate the differences between where the candidates once stood and where they stand, the truth was obvious, yet none of the three ­rivals dared say it.
Why couldn’t even one acknowledge that he changed his position and explain why? And if none would, why didn’t the others just say, “You’re lying”?
These are three men I admire, yet each lacked the courage to be honest on a crucial point during a televised job interview. When did the truth become so toxic and ­untruths so acceptable?
Spin and puffery have a long history in politics, but something has snapped in our culture that we no longer even expect our leaders to talk straight. We have become immune to lies and the ­liars who tell them.
I blame it on the Clintons. Their survival despite a quarter-century of shameful dishonesty has lead the way in lowering the bar for ­integrity in public life.
One result is the disgust that most Americans have for government. Another is that many voters are willing to overlook other deficiencies in anyone they believe is honest, such as Trump and Bernie Sanders. Americans desperate for the truth will sacrifice traditional litmus tests to get it.
We would have better politics and be a better country if we had stopped the Clintons years ago. It was obvious before his election that Bill Clinton was a stranger to truth, and it soon became obvious that Hillary was no better. Recall the sensation in 1996 when the late William Safire used his New York Times column to speak in shockingly plain terms about ­Hillary.
“Americans of all political persuasions are coming to the sad ­realization that our First Lady — a woman of undoubted talents who was a role model for many in her generation — is a congenital liar,” he began, 20 years ago this month.
“Drip by drip, like Whitewater torture, the case is being made that she is compelled to mislead, and to ensnare her subordinates and friends in a web of deceit.”
Safire took a lot of heat, with critics disputing not so much his conclusion about a raft of incidents but the bare-knuckled way he expressed it. Bill Clinton’s press secretary supplied obligatory chivalry by saying, “The president, if he were not the president, would have delivered a more forceful response on the bridge of Mr. Safire’s nose.”
Safire used a later column to defend his language with a dissection of both “congenital” and “liar.” He cited Winston Churchill, who had once chided a colleague for “terminological inexactitude,” before quoting Churchill’s advice that “short words are best, and the old words when short are best of all.”
And so they are, yet our pretensions keep getting in the way. A downside of the upscaling of modern life is a fondness for false sensitivity and verbal cotton candy. Nobody “watches” anything anymore, they “monitor” it. No action is taken until all “stakeholders” are consulted. We say “price point” when we mean “price.” And is there no other way to express sympathy besides pledging “thoughts and prayers”?
This lament is not about semantics. It is about the urgent need for plain honesty in American life. Being politically correct is not being kind. It is being dishonest and we are reaping the consequences.
Consider that the passage of time has confirmed Safire’s conclusion about Hillary Clinton. She was a liar then, and remains one today.
In a world that prized truth, she couldn’t be dog-catcher. In our world, she could be president.

Mar 13, 2016

A Masterpiece From The Democrat Tribe Of Idiotic Subterfuge

D.N.C. on vacation in Ghana Africa ....

Common Sense Commentary: Just label it "Church Ministerial Materials" and it will sail right through customs. RB

The Democrat National Committee speech writer for Obama, Hillary and Bernie Boy sent the following alert for a "FedEx" delivery to me, and thousands of other "Beneficiaries", today. It promises two trunk-loads of cash ($5,800,000. total) if I send the Democratic National Committee's, Dr. George Kurt, a measly $98. and all of my vital, private information, including my name so they will know which fish is biting, Soc.Sec. #, phone #, address, occupation etc. Dr. Kurt obviously didn't graduate Grade School since he can't spell, punctuate, grammarize or convince a dumb, moronic, idiot except those he convinced to vote for Obama ... who will also vote for Hillary and Bernie Boy. Believe it or not, he will get back a large sized mail bag of  responses with $98 and enough vital information to bankrupt large areas of Chicago, Detroit and certain sections of D.C.... if they weren't already bankrupt.  I recognized the author's style from the Obama speeches, the Hillary/Sanders debates and at least one of the Republican candidates, a closet Democrat. RB

I really did receive this by email 3-12-16

----- Forwarded Message ----- From: DR. GEORGE KURT <> To: Recipients <> Sent: Saturday, March 12, 2016 12:41 PM Subject: CONTACT FEDEX EXPRESS COURIER FOR THE DELIVERING THIS IS YOUR SHIPMENT CODE AWB 33XZS.

Dear Beneficiary,
Compliment of the day to you and your families have been waiting for you since to come down here and pick your compensation Check which my boss left with me on his departure to England but I did not hear from you since that time till today.I went to the bank to confirm whether the Check is getting close to expire as it has been long time my boss issued the Check.The director of the bank Mr.Ahmed Zafa the Director of Financial Trust Bank Limited told me that before the draft will get to you that it will expire.Then I told him to help me and cash the Check worth of $5.800.000.00 to cash payment.

However,I have successfully cashed the draft and packaged it in two trunk boxes and have registered it in the FedEx Courier Company here in Accra Ghana because I will travel to see my boss in England and will not come back till End of this year 2016.You have to contact the FedEx Diplomatic Courier Company to know when they will deliver the two of your consignment boxes to your address.I have paid for the delivering charges and insurance fees.The only money you have to send to them is their official security keeping fees which is USD$98 USD to receive your boxes.Don’t be deceived by anybody.I should have paid the keeping fee but I do not know how long it will take before you contact them and the keeping fee increases weekly.

This is their Contact Address:

Director Name: MR.JAMES BOONER
(Director FedEx Diplomatic Courier Company) Telephone:+233265410406 Fax: 030-56799 2782 Their E-mail Contact :( )
Send them your contacts information to enable them locate you immediately they arrived in your country with your package.

This is the information they needed from you..

1) Your Full Name ===============
2) Your Home Address=============
3) Your Fax==========
4) Your Cell Numbers==============
5) You personal identification===
6) Your Occupation=====

Below is your shipping code of the two of your consignment boxes so Contact them with the below code.

YOUR SHIPMENT CODE AWB 33XZS PACKAGE REGISTERED CODE NO XGT442. SECURITY CODE SCTC/2001DHX/567/ TRANSACTION CODE 233/CSTC/101/33028/ CERTIFICATE DEPOSIT CODE SCTC/BUN/xxiv/-78/01 Deposit Certificate N0: 405576 Consignment Description: 2 METAL Boxes Sensitive Church Ministerial Materials

Try to contact them as soon as possible to avoid the weekly increasing of the security keeping fee.Note.I didn't tell the FedEx Diplomatic Courier Company that it's money inside the two trunk boxes,I registered it as a boxes of a Church Minister Materials.This is to avoid delay or any upfront problem during the delivery.So,do not let them know that the two trunk boxes contains money.Do let me know as soon as you received your boxes.You will contact me only through e-mail as my phone is no longer available now that I am out from our country.I may not be able to respond to you urgent but I will get back to you whenever I checked my email.

Thanks and Remain Blessed.

Yours sincerely,



I just love it when someone else does all my blog work for me. RB

Mar 12, 2016

Why Is He One Of My All Time Favorite Human Beings

Common Sense Commentary: One of my all time favorite speakers and writers is Dennis Prager. Dennis is a devout Jew who sounds, in almost every way, like a devout Christian. He was born in Brooklyn, N.Y.  and is a staunch political conservative and Constitutionalist. He is also a renowned syndicated radio talk show host, columnist, author and public speaker.  Having heard him speak many times, I have often suspected him to be a closet Christian ... but probably not..just a really fine man and patriot. Thanks to my son Ron for this article. RB

    From Prager University
The American Trinity
By Dennis Prager
Ask almost any American what's different about America? Why are American  values different, let's say, than France's values or Britain's values or Uruguay's values or any Democracies values? Is there anything unique about the United  States and especially is there anything unique about the American values  system? Well in fact it is unique; it's part of the reason some people speak about what we call American exceptionalism, meaning that America's values have been exceptional. 

The uniqueness of the American values system, which has made American unique and has made the American experiment indeed the experiment for humanity. That's why people who come here assimilate faster than in any other country in the world -- without  disparaging any other countries, and there are many wonderful people in every  country, and many miserable people in our own, surely. 

But nevertheless the American experiment is unique. If you come to Germany,  let's say, from Turkey where many people have emigrated from, you will find that  most Turks remain Turks for generations. They are not considered fellow Germans or fellow Swedes or fellow Danes nearly as much as somebody from  Turkey would be within a week in the United States. Why is this? Why is America unique.

Well, we have a unique values system. I call it the American Trinity. It's not to be confused in any way with the Christian Trinity, that's a theological statement of Christianity. The American Trinity is the 3 pillars of American values.

And I finally discovered this uniqueness of America looking at a coin one day. There it was in front of me my entire life, the American values system on a  coin. We have all three values on every coin and no other country has these  three: E Pluribus Unum, In God We Trust, Liberty.

No country in the world has those three values as its essence.

E Pluribus Unum: from many, one; meaning that we don't care where you are from. We don't care about your blood origins, your ethnic origins, your racial origins, your religious origins. We don't care. From the many, one: you work with us to make America, you are one of us, whatever your color, creed, race or what have you. 

In God We Trust. America is founded on the notion that God is the source of values.

That's why the Declaration of Independence says that we have inalienable rights, but they're not from humanism, and they're not from great thinkers; they are  from God. No God -- then rights can be taken away by people, because they were given by people. So God is central. The God that we're talking about? That's another course for another time.

And third, the third of our American Trinity, is liberty. Now you will say, "Well the French Revolution, they said Liberty, Equality, Fraternity; we're not the only ones to enshrine Liberty." That's true, we're not the only ones to enshrine liberty;  we're the only ones to enshrine Liberty and E Pluribis Unum and In God We Trust. Liberty is not the same as the French understood it because the French understood it in their revolution as with equality. Notice equality is not part of the American Trinity. That's a European value.

We are all born equal, that's an American value, but ending up equal, that's a European value. Where you end up, that's your business.

Our business in America is to enable you to have the liberty to end up wherever your talents and abilities and, yes, luck bring you. So we don't believe in equality as such because the truth is liberty and equality are often in conflict. If you want  to enforce equality then you tell people how much they can earn, and that is one example of the removal of liberty.

That's the American Trinity. It has worked. We are fooling with it though,  because too many Americans, especially the well-educated end up subscribing to the European system, and not the American system of Values.

E Pluribis Unum: from many, one; Liberty, not necessarily Equality, and in God We Trust -- God is the essence and basis of our values. That's the American Trinity, and I'm Dennis Prager.

    Mar 11, 2016

    Did Anyone, Anywhere, Ever Know A Young Barack Hussein Obama ?

    Common Sense Commentary: Greatest mystery in the History of America.

    From The Texas Patriot.

    It will be interesting to see what they put in his "Presidential Library" about his early  years when he is out of office.

    In a country where we take notice of many, many facets of our public figures' lives, doesn't it seem odd that there's so little we know about our current president, Barack Obama.

    For example, we know that Andrew Jackson's wife smoked a corn cob pipe and was accused of adultery; Abe Lincoln never  went to school; Jack Kennedy wore a back brace; Harry  Truman played the piano. As Americans, we enjoy knowing details about our newsmakers, but none of us know one single humanizing fact about the history of our own president.

    We are all aware of the lack of uncontestable birth records for Obama; that document managing has been spectacularly successful.

    There are however, several additional oddities in Obama's history that appear to be as well managed as the birthing issue.

    One other interesting thing... There are no birth certificates of his daughters that can be found?

    It's interesting that no one who ever dated him has shown up.  The charisma that caused women to be drawn to him so strongly during his campaign, certainly would in the normal course of events, lead some lady to come forward, if only to garner some attention for herself.  We all know about JFK's magnetism, that McCain was no monk and quite a few details about  Palin's courtship and even her athletic prowess, Joe Biden's aneurysms are no secret;  look at Cheney and Clinton, we all  know about their heart  problems. Certainly Wild Bill Clinton's exploits before and during his White House years, were well known.  That's why it's so odd that not one lady has stepped up and said, "He was soooo shy..." or "What a great dancer..."

    It's virtually impossible to know anything about this fellow.

    Who was the best man at his wedding? Start there. Then check groomsmen.

    Then get the footage of the graduation ceremony. Has anyone talked to the professors?   It is odd that no one is bragging that they knew him or taught him or lived with him.

    When did he meet Michele, and how? Are there photos there?  Every president gives to the public all their photos, etc. for their library, etc. What has he released?    And who voted for him to be the most popular man in 2010?          Doesn't this make you wonder?

    Ever wonder why no one ever came forward from President Obama's past saying they knew him, attended school with him, was his friend, etc??  Not one person has ever come forward from his past. It certainly is very, very strange...

    This should be a cause for great concern. To those who voted for him, you may have elected an unqualified, inexperienced shadow man. Have you seen a movie named "The Manchurian Candidate"

    As insignificant as each of us might be, someone with whom we went to school will remember our name or face; someone will remember we were the clown or the dork or the brain or the quiet one or the bully or something about  us. George Stephanopoulos of ABC News said the same thing during the 2008 campaign. He questions why no one has acknowledged the president was in their classroom or ate in the same cafeteria or made impromptu speeches on campus.  Stephanopoulos also was a classmate of Obama at Columbia -- the class of 1984.  He says he never had a single class with  him.

    He is such a great orator; why doesn't anyone in Obama's college class remember him? Why won't he allow Columbia to release his records?

    Nobody remembers Obama at Columbia University...

    Looking for evidence of Obama's past,    Fox News contacted 400 Columbia University students from the period when Obama claims to have been there... but none remembered him.

    Wayne Allyn Root was, like Obama, a political science major at Columbia who also graduated in 1983. In 2008, Root says of Obama, "I don't know a single person at Columbia that knew him, and they all know me. I don't have a classmate who ever knew Barack Obama at Columbia, ever."

    Nobody recalls him. Root adds that he was also, like Obama, Class of '83 Political Science, and says, "You don't get more exact or closer than that. Never met him in my life, don't know anyone who ever met him. At class reunion, our 20th reunion five years ago, who was asked to be the speaker of the class?  Me. No one ever heard of Barack! And five years ago, nobody even knew who he was. The guy who writes the  class notes, who's kind  of the, as we say in New York, 'the macha' who knows everybody, has yet  to find a person, a human who ever met  him."

    Obama's photograph does not appear in the school's yearbook  and Obama consistently declines requests to talk about his years at Columbia, provide school records, or provide the name of any former classmates or friends while at Columbia .

    Some other interesting questions:

    Why was Obama's law license inactivated in 2002? It is said there is no record of him ever taking the Bar exam.

    Why was Michelle's law license inactivated by court order? We understand that was forced to avoid fraud charges.

    It is circulating that according to the U.S. Census, there is only one Barack Obama but 27 Social Security numbers and over 80 alias connected to him.

    The Social Security number he uses now originated in Connecticut where he is reported to have never lived. And was originally registered to another man
    (Thomas Louis Wood) from Connecticut, who died in Hawaii while on vacation there. As we all know Social Security Numbers are only issued 'once, they are not reused' No wonder all his records are sealed..........

    Mar 10, 2016

    2nd Amendment Not About Hunting, But About Protecting Us Against Political Tyrants

    Common Sense Commentary: Male or Female.... Black or White... Republican or Democrat.... Rich or Poor.... the Second Amendment was included in the Bill Of Rights as the U.S. citizen's ultimate protection against being enslaved by an abusive, tyrannical government, which all the founders had recently lived under. It gives the individual citizen the right to "keep and bear arms" in order to join with other citizens in the establishment of a citizens' "Militia" to "secure" their newly liberated "free State" from future, internal political tyrants. They had the foresight to know it could happen again if the people were unarmed. The Second Amendment is said to be the most important of all the other Bill Of Rights because it protects the others.

    The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

    Many black citizens understand the Freedom Protection of the 2nd Amendment..... See these wonderful, black Christians take their stand.

    The 2nd Amendment is not just for men or the NRA, but for women as well.

    Mar 8, 2016

    HISTORY IS The Rise, Progression And Then Deterioration Of Nations

    Common Sense Commentary: Throughout history, slaves of rare mentality, personality and strength, have arisen from their chains, in power and popularity, to lead their fellow slaves or tribes in rebellion against their masters. Determined tribes of strong slaves, with nothing to lose, can grow into expanding territories into nations into kingdoms over time.... Which then, through a process of change, events, attitudes and plenty, having reached their zenith of prosperity and freedom, gradually weaken and then yield their freedom to an organized, control obsessed dictator in exchange for government largess ... free stuff.  Lack of struggle, increase of leisure and pleasure gradually destroy initiative, they grow indifferent and cease to resist tyranny and destroy all they or their fathers have built.  And finally, after the passage of time ... they or their descendants are returned to the pits of slavery and poverty ... to await their next slave leader and deliverer ... to arise again from slavery. All of which involves generations, few of which were privileged to live during the glory days of struggle for freedom, slow success and finally, plenty. We are at the end of the last generation of a freely functioning Bill Of Rights... from the blight of poverty to success and plenty to the beginning of loss of character, loss of freedom and loss of plenty. Unless AMERICA awakens, takes dynamic action, dislodges our dictators and their social planners, our nation is headed for the long ranks of has-been nations. Our loss will be fully gone before it is fully recognized.  This free nation took three or four hundred years to build, from scratch, into the greatest, richest and freest people on earth, but all that progress is being frittered away at the speed of a falling star. As a free nation, we are only about 240 years old, but our descent into a dictatorship will be accomplished in about one tenth of that time unless we all rise up in rebellion during this presidential election. RB

    In 1887 Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the
    University of Edinburgh , had this to say about the fall of the
    Athenian Republic some 2,000 years prior: "A democracy is always
    Temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent
    Form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until
    The time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous
    Gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority
    Always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from
    The public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally
    Collapse over loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a

    "The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the
    Beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200
    Years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

    From bondage to spiritual faith;
    From spiritual faith to great courage;
    From courage to liberty;
    From liberty to abundance;
    From abundance to complacency;
    From complacency to apathy;
    From apathy to dependence;
    From dependence back into bondage."
    The Obituary follows:

     United States of America ",  Born 1776, Died 2016
    It doesn't hurt to read this several times.
    Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law in
    St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning
    The last Presidential election:

     Number of States won by:         Obama: 19               Romney: 29
    Square miles of land won by:    Obama: 580,000      Romney: 2,427,000
    Population of counties won by: Obama: 127 million  Romney: 143 million
    Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by:                                           Obama: 13.2             Romney: 2.1

     Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory
    Romney won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of the country.

     Obama territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in low
    Income tenements and living off various forms of government

     Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the
    "complacency and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of
    Democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population
    Already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase...

    If Politicians grant amnesty and citizenship to twenty to thirty million poor, uninformedimmigrants and illegal aliens, they will vote for the Political party which gives them the most largess ... which is the Liberal, Socialist "Democrat" party. That will seal the doom of our nation and put us on the same slippery slope which led to the fall of the Roman Empire