Saturday Voice -- Our Constitution – Our Freedom

If you did not see this series on Fox News, you can see it by clicking the link below.  It’s five videos because it was a 5-part series done on Fox and Friends morning show.

Start with the first part which is the last video on the page and work your way up.  It will take a little while to watch them, but it’s well worth it.

http://www.thefoxnation.com/judge-andrew-napolitano/2010/01/11/judge-andrew-napolitanos-constitution-and-freedom-part-1

Dan

Saturday Voice -- Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics

When I worked for P&G, I once looked at a set of data over a period of time and noticed something I thought was significant.  If I had gone forward with this data, the Company might have made a bad decision.

However, after some reflection, I decided to look at the same data over a longer period of time and, in that perspective, what I thought was significant wasn’t significant at all.

In my opinion, that’s what’s happening in the climate change debate.

Much of the debate is over the “hockey stick,” a set of data over a period of time that appears to show the climate is warming.  (There are questions about the reliability of this data, but for purposes of this discussion let’s assume it’s accurate.)

However, most reputable scientists might ask the question, “What does the data look like over a longer period of time?”  Seems like a fair question to me.

This video shows that longer time perspective using data from ice core samples from Greenland and Antarctica.

There are a whole lot of agendas going on in this climate debate and it seems prudent to me not to rush this as we have rushed into other things recently.

Dan

Saturday Voice – Tired of Talking

I’m taking today off.  I’ve harped about health care enough and, unless our congressmen and senators grow some backbone, this travesty will come to pass.

Today is a good day to do nothing.

Saturday Voice -- Climate Change Scam

I'm a climate change skeptic. I'm not skeptical that the climate is or has changed -- that happens all the time throughout the history of our earth.

I'm skeptical that it is man-made. I'm skeptical because I believe certain interested parties are trying to use climate change to their own political/environmental ends. I'm skeptical because I believe our Nobel Peace Prize President will sign an upcoming UN Climate Change treaty that may be disastrous to our future.

Here's someone who is much more articulate than me.

On October 14, Lord Christopher Monckton, a noted climate change skeptic, gave a presentation in St. Paul, MN. In this 4-minute excerpt from his speech (see video below), he issues a dire warning to all Americans regarding the United Nations Climate Change Treaty, scheduled to be signed in Copenhagen in December 2009.

Lord Monckton served as a policy adviser to Margaret Thatcher. He has repeatedly challenged Al Gore to a debate to which Gore has refused. Monckton sued to stop Gore’s film “An Inconvenient Truth” from being shown in British schools due to its inaccuracies. The judge found in-favor of Monckton, ordering 9 serious errors in the film to be corrected. Lord Monckton travels internationally in an attempt to educating the public about the myth of global warming.

There has been considerable debate raised about Monckton’s conclusion that the Copenhagen Treaty would cede US sovereignty. His comments appear to be based upon his interpretation of the The Supremacy Clause in the US Constitution (Article VI, paragraph 2). This clause establishes the Constitution, Federal Statutes, and U.S. TREATIES as the supreme law of the land. Concerns have been raised in the past that a particularly ambitious treaty may supersede the US Constitution. In the 1950s, a constitutional amendment, known as the Bricker Amendment, was proposed in response to such fears, but it failed to pass.

If you want to read more of his speech or learn more about climate change skepticism, you can check out http://www.globalclimatescam.com/?p=572

Saturday Voice - WE'RE HOME!

It was a great trip, but WE'RE HOME! Dorothy was correct, "There's no place like home." I wish all we had to do was click our heels, but yesterday was a 13 hour long day with a drive from Cincinnati to Columbus, Ohio to the airport. We flew over New Mexico to Phoenix, Arizona and then finally back to Albuquerque last night. Sounds crazy, but that's Southwest Airlines scheduling.

But, we did have a great time. We spent Thursday night through Monday morning with our son, Chris, daughter-in-law, Tracy, and grandson, Javier. Javier is a Junior at Mount Vernon, Ohio High School. He mostly plays on the Junior Varsity (JV) team on Saturday mornings, but he always suits up for the Varsity game on Friday nights. So, to be good supporters, we went to both.

While all of our friends here in New Mexico were enjoying 70 degree weather, it was raining and cold, cold, cold on Friday night. It didn't rain on Saturday morning, but it was even colder. I love New Mexico.

Mount Vernon won Friday night by such as large score that several of the JV players, including Javier, got to play some of the last plays. On Saturday morning he played most of the game, but they lost by an equally large score.

Javier plays nose tackle on defense because he weighs in at 310 pounds, so he can fill up a hole in the defense. Unfortunately, and unknown to everyone at the time, he broke his ankle during Saturday's game. He continued to play, but could hardly walk on Sunday morning. Chris took him to the ER and he has a chip fracture. So, he'll miss the last two games of the season, but we're happy we got to see him play.

On Saturday afternoon, we went to a local photographer to get some pictures made of the five of us, the three of them, and Javier by himself.

Sunday was spent watching pro football since Javier couldn't walk.

On Monday, we drove down to visit with our friends, Bob and Molly Dutina, who live in Batavia, Ohio -- outside of Cincinnati. We had a great time with them taking hikes in the beautiful Ohio woods and shopping at Amish stores and downtown Cincinnati markets.

On Thursday evening, we all drove out to another small Ohio town to do a wedding vow renewal for Bill and Melody Haines, more friends whom we married 10 years ago. It was a lot of fun.

As I said earlier, a great trip, but we are very glad to be home.

Here are some pictures from the trip.

Saturday morning's football game. Javier is number 69 in the black uniforms.

Javier walking to the bench. Unknown to us all, his ankle was already broken.


Javier still played. He's in the middle of the action on this play. He's a tough kid.


Here's a picture of Tracy, Chris and Javier at the photographer's house. He took some pictures outside. Everything looks great, right?

This picture was taken about 5 minutes before the one above. It was cold and it was starting to rain.

However, the next day was very pretty and Ohio in the Fall is gorgeous. This picture was taken about one mile from Chris and Tracy's house.

This is the drive up to their house.

Here are a couple of pictures around their house.

Here are some pictures from our visit with Bob and Molly on one of our hikes.

Finally, a picture of me and Betty doing the vow renewal for Melody and Bill.

Did I say how happy we are to be home?

Saturday Voice - Balloons and Idiots

Today has two subjects. The first is the first mass ascension of the Balloon Fiesta this morning. From our house it was one of the best. The second is how the elites are responding to Roman Polanski being arrested for raping a 13 year old girl.

We often get quite a few balloons on several mornings of the Fiesta, but nothing like this morning. The winds brought the balloons directly over our house and, as they descended, the lower winds brought them back towards our house. They landed either behind our house or across the road from us in the sage area. We didn't count, but we had at least 20 or more balloons land around our house.

We were concerned about Sugar as this was her first mass ascension and how she would react to seeing and hearing so many balloons so close. We went out to spend some time with her and Morgunn to lend our support. As mentioned yesterday, Morgunn is an old pro when it comes to balloons as he was born and raised in Corrales.

The only time they spooked at all was when two different balloons (the last two pictures below) came so low over our house that their propane burners were extra loud as they approached their landing spots.

Here are some pictures from this morning.

It was a great first morning for the Balloon Fiesta. I hope and pray we have an equally good one next Saturday when our kids and granddaughter are here and we go to the Fiesta.

Now for the second topic. It will be brief because I find this so distasteful. There is no question that Roman Polanski raped a 13 year old girl 30 years ago. There is no question he evaded justice by fleeing to Europe where he has lived a lavish lifestyle, including dating a 15 year old actress who was in one of his movies. There is no question the guy is a sleaze bucket who deserves to return to face the justice system for his actions.

However, there are quite a few Hollywood elites who think he has done nothing wrong -- or should be excused because "he is talented."

I have only one comment about that -- you're idiots!

Saturday Voice - Race

You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:26-29)

I was born in Nashville, Tennessee in 1945 and lived there until 1953 when I was eight. My father's work transferred him to Birmingham, Alabama and we lived there for eight years. We moved back to Nashville in 1961 when I was sixteen.

Both of my parents were born and raised in Tennessee so they were products of their culture. When it came to blacks they were prejudiced against them as a whole. However, I watched them many times work with, converse with and treat individual blacks with respect.

Looking back it almost seems as if they responded out of their cultural conditioning when blacks as a race were mentioned. But, when it came to dealing with real, live human beings their goodness naturally came out. If a man, black or white, deserved respect they gave it.

I don't think they were unusual as I noticed that was fairly common among their friends as well. There were plenty of die-hard racists -- people who would not only treat all blacks with prejudice including individuals -- however the majority I knew seemed to be like my parents. Blacks as a race were considered inferior, but if an individual black person was deserving of respect they usually received it.

I didn't have any black friends until the Navy when I became good friends with several of the enlisted men. Since then we've had many friends of different races and cultures and our lives have been enriched because of those friendships.

I want to be respected because of who I am and what I do. I want to be judged on my integrity and character. I value those people who will disagree with me because I learn from them. I want my friends and acquaintances to know that they have that freedom to disagree. That freedom comes not from me, but from the Constitution we all live under.

I am so sick of anyone who disagrees with the President's policies being called a racist. This is absurd. President Carter, who I voted for back in the 70's, is totally wrong when he says the people who oppose President Obama's policies do so because of his race. To President Obama's credit, his public statements disagree with Carter's statements.

In 1963 churches were bombed in Birmingham, Alabama killing young children. Blacks were still fearful of lynching and unlawful imprisonment. The ugly, dangerous head of racism was clearly in evidence. This was the same year that Dr. Martin Luther King had a dream...

Let us not wallow in the valley of despair, I say to you today, my friends.

And so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

I have a dream today!

I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of "interposition" and "nullification" -- one day right there in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.

I have a dream today!

I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, and every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight; "and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed and all flesh shall see it together."

The days of racial bombings, lynchings and unlawful imprisonments are over. For the first time we elected a black man as President of the United States. We have the right to judge our President by the content of his character. It is not racist to do so.

We are still far from a perfect country -- the last paragraph of Dr. King's statement has yet to be fulfilled. But his dream where a black man can be judged on the content of his character has come true. This is a good thing.

Saturday Voice - I Miss Betty & Happy Birthday Chris

Betty left this morning on a Southwest flight to Nashville, Tennessee through Kansas City, Missouri. As I write this she's sitting int he Kansas City airport waiting for her flight to Nashville.

She's going to be with her sister Margie who had a serious automobile accident a little over two weeks ago.

It's a good thing she's doing, but the house is awful empty without her -- so is my life.

I'll manage, but I don't like it.

On the flip side of today, it's our youngest son's birthday today. Chris was born August 1, 1971 while I was still in the Navy. Our ship was coming home from our around the world cruise and we were in Rio de Janeiro when Chris was born. I didn't see him for the first time until he was about two weeks old.

He's grown up to be a good Christian man, good husband and good father to his adopted son, Javier Benavides.

We're blessed to be his parents.

Happy Birthday Chris.

Saturday Voice - Freedom of Religion

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

This is the first statement in the first amendment to our Constitution. Given what the founders had been through, it's not surprising this would be foremost on their minds.

Many people came to the new land called America to practice their faith freely and without government interference. The Pilgrims were called Separatists because they wanted independence from the Church of England which was the official church in England. The Church and the government were intertwined.

For the most part, the early founders were a religious people -- certainly to varying degrees even as today. But despite their individual faiths, they all agreed with the importance of this freedom.

The amendment gives us two basic rights:

First, the Congress cannot pass a law establishing a state religion. Second, the Congress cannot pass a law prohibiting the free exercise of our faith.

I don't think we as a nation have had many problems with the first right -- especially in today's more secular culture. It's unlikely we will see a State religion in our lifetimes.

It's in the second right that I have concerns.

The biggest misconception to enter this discussion is 'separation of church and state.' Many people think that's in the Constitution, but it's not. It was actually a statement of Thomas Jefferson in one of his letters.

If you interpret that statement in light of the first right (as I think Jefferson was), not establishing a state church, then I agree 'separation of church and state' is appropriate. However, many people want to apply this supposed 'separation' to the second right, our free exercise.

When I was a kid in elementary school, we started each day by reciting the Pledge of Allegiance and saying the Lord's Prayer. Given our diversity in the country today, the Lord's Prayer is probably too much.

However, my hackles get up (what's a hackle anyway) when I hear that a young person, recognized for their academic success (e.g., valedictorian), cannot acknowledge their gratitude to God in their speech. In my humble opinion this is free exercise and cannot be curtailed, but it often is.

There are other examples, but I won't burden this post with more. I'm just concerned that there is a growing force within our country who would be happy to eradicate religion from our country -- to effectively deny our right to free expression of our faith.

They have a long way to go, but we have to be vigilant to protect our Constitutional rights.

Saturday Voice - Bill of Rights

During the debates on the adoption of the Constitution, its opponents repeatedly charged that the Constitution as drafted would open the way to "tyranny by the central government."

Fresh in their minds was the memory of the British violation of civil rights before and during the Revolution. They demanded a "bill of rights" that would spell out the immunities of individual citizens. Several state conventions in their formal ratification of the Constitution asked for such amendments; others ratified the Constitution with the understanding that the amendments would be offered.

"Tyranny by the central government" - those are strong words and it's hard to imagine that we could ever see that happen in our country. The watch out is that we may be the frog in the pot. That's a reference to the parable that says if you throw a frog into a boiling pot, he will jump out. However, if you put a frog into a pot of cool water, he will stay in it. If you slowly raise the heat he will not notice it until its too late -- and he's boiled.

The founders of our country were all loyal to the Crown at one point in their lives. However, they saw that over time, the freedom they sought in this new land called America was being slowly taken away -- decree by decree -- by a central government in England. They finally came to a point where they knew that they were "slowly being boiled to death." They chose to make a stand.

Out of their courage and sacrifice came the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution with its Bill of Rights -- the first 10 amendments to the Constitution.

The preamble to the Bill of Rights clearly states their fear of a new, powerful central government that could arise if it were not restricted:

The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

It's clear to me that our founding was to be based on a government that was restricted in its powers so what power it did have could not be misconstrued or abused.

I believe the founders envisioned a country where each man and woman had the freedom to pursue their own lives, liberties and happiness. They believed in equality of pursuit -- not in equality of outcomes. This freedom to, in the words of the US Army, be all you can be, led this country to be a place that everyone aspired to come to -- America became a beacon of hope for the world.

They envisioned a central government that was primarily responsible for the safety of the country with most all other powers resident in the states. They believed if power was resident in state governments then individual citizens would be closer to those who exercised that power and the rights of individuals would be more easily preserved. The farther removed power becomes, the harder it is to restrict that power and the easier it is for that power to be misconstrued.

I want to be clear, my concerns about where our country is headed are not directed solely to our current President and Congress. I'm well aware that the slow boiling of our pot started many years ago. Some constitutional scholars pinpoint the start of the boil to the early part of the 20th century with President Teddy Roosevelt. It was aggravated by Presidents Hoover and Coolidge and accelerated by President Roosevelt during the depression and World War II.

However, I am concerned that our current government is regularly ignoring the Constitution and the Bill or Rights at a pace that is unprecedented in our history. And, for the first time, they are being aided and abetted by a compliant media that is in danger of becoming a propaganda arm of this government.

I don't pretend that I have the only and final opinion on this subject, but I think it's important for every American to read the Bill of Rights for themselves as they spell out the rights each of us are supposed to have and freely exercise. Measure your understanding of your rights against these Rights and make your won conclusions.

For your reading pleasure, here are the Bill of Rights Amendments:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

---

Amendment II

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.

---

Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

---

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

---

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

---

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

---

Amendment VII

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

---

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

---

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

---

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

When the founders agreed to the Bill of Rights, I believe they placed the rights they were most concerned about first. If this is true, then the first and second amendments enumerated the rights they wanted to be sure were preserved to the individual citizens of this new country.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

There are three points in this first (and in my opinion, most important) amendment

1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
2. Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press
3. Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

Over the next three weeks, I'll share my thoughts on each of these because I'm concerned all three are in danger of slowly being boiled to death. Then I'll tackle the second amendment on the right to bear arms.

Next week: Freedom of Religion

Saturday Voice - Health Care

There have been many changes in our country over the past six months and it is legitimate to debate the need for and success of any of them. However, one potential change is coming down the road that could dramatically change the nature of our country - what do we do about health care?

We do have millions of people without health insurance - many are illegal immigrants, many are young people who could afford insurance but choose not to purchase it. They would rather spend that money on themselves and that is their right.

However, I think we have very few people who do not have access to health care when they need it.

Our government seems to be pushing for a public, single-payer health care system similar to what Canada and Britain have. Here is someone more eloquent than me who has written about this, author Paul Rahae.

"At a carefully staged rally for the administration's health care proposal, President Obama responded to a question by acknowledging that his plan aimed to reduce medical costs by aligning "incentives" in such a fashion as to discourage the sick and the dying from undergoing "additional tests" or taking "additional drugs that the evidence shows is not necessarily going to improve care."

Obama's choice of words was, as always, soothing. But anyone familiar with the healthcare debate will immediately recognize what he left unsaid. We all know that, wherever there is socialized medicine, there is rationing. Cutting costs is, in fact, its rationale, and this end is achieved by a refusal on the part of the government to pay for care that the bureaucrats judge uneconomic. Already now, in the semi-socialized system to which we have been made subject, those consigned to HMOs come up against gatekeepers charged with shaving costs by restricting care.

Why, we might ask, should one have to wait months or even years for a hip-replacement operation? Why should one be denied a cataract operation if one is over a certain age? What business is it of Barack Obama's whether I choose to spend my own hard-earned money on procedures thought to have only a limited chance of success? What gives him--or, for that matter, anyone else--the right to make decisions that are for me a matter of life and death?

Defenders of Obama's proposal will reply that I am misrepresenting his proposal. No one, they will say, will be forced to give up the health insurance they have. Technically, of course, this is true. But what President Obama calls the "incentives" will be structured in such a way that employers will no longer have to offer coverage, and to save themselves the expense (which is considerable), they will seize the opportunity to opt out, and then we will have no choice. "To take from one," Thomas Jefferson wrote, "because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father's has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association--'the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.'" It was on this foundation that Abraham Lincoln objected to slavery, and it is on this foundation that one can object to the health care reform proposed by our President. For this proposal is designed to take from those who have earned and to give to those who have not bothered to do so; and, by way of constraining "incentives," it will take from us the right to manage our own lives in a matter most dear to each and every one of us, and it will confer this responsibility on experts empowered to decide whether, given the cost of care, it is of greater value to society that we suffer or are cured, that we live or die."


Those are strong words, but I think we need to listen to them and give them some thought. The research I have done, including talking with friends in Canada and England, seems to confirm that, "Government run health care works fine, if you're never sick." There is no denying that they have much longer waits for tests and surgery than we do. It also appears that treatment for the elderly is restricted because of their age.

As a person who is probably facing cataract surgery in one or two years, I wonder if I will be deemed worthy enough for a government run health system when I am 65 or 66 years old?

Additionally, the government has a pretty poor record trying to run big operations, e.g., Social Security and Medicare (both bankrupt), the Post Office (losing money every year), etc.

Here's a clue as to the quality of any proposal -- check out who is NOT a part of the legislation -- who is exempt from the new system. At this point, the major proposals exclude government employees and union members. So, it's supposedly a good health care proposal for us -- but not for our 'leaders,' their families, or their money supporters. That kind of makes me wonder -- actually it makes me mad -- hypocrites.

I am not smart enough or knowledgeable enough to know what a good solution is, but I am strongly opposed to government control of our health care system.

Saturday Voice - Independence

On the eve of the 4th of July, 1776, John Adams wrote a letter to his wife, Abigail, detailing his thoughts about the upcoming Declaration of Independence.

This is just a part of that letter:

I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated, by succeeding Generations, as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance by solemn Acts of Devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shews, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forever more.

You will think me transported with Enthusiasm but I am not. — I am well aware of the Toil and Blood and Treasure, that it will cost Us to maintain this Declaration, and support and defend these States. — Yet through all the Gloom I can see the Rays of ravishing Light and Glory. I can see that the End is more than worth all the Means. And that Posterity will tryumph in that Days Transaction, even altho We should rue it, which I trust in God We shall not.

"I am well aware of the toil and blood and treasure that it will cost us to maintain this Declaration, and support an defend these States."

The founders of our country wanted and laid out plans for a federal government with limited powers with all remaining rights and powers belonging to the States and to individuals. They had seen and endured what havoc a 'supreme' government could cause through central control of their lives.

233 years later it still requires toil and blood and treasure to maintain this Declaration... and part of the battle is to keep our freedoms safe from foreign oppression, but also from some within our own country and government who would try to take over control of our lives, little by little.

We no longer have a federal government with limited powers, but there is still time to preserve what rights the States still have and we as individuals still have if we are willing to give our toil, blood and treasure to maintain that "...all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."

We have a choice -- independence as free people or dependence as wards of the state. I choose the former and I will share my toil, blood and treasure to maintain that Declaration. As the Declaration says in its last words, just above the signatures of those brave men who risked everything...

"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor."

Have a safe and happy 4th of July and remember to say a prayer for all of our men and women who serve to protect our freedom.

Saturday Voice - Whatever Happened to Honor?

As most of you know, I was born at the end of World War II. My formative years were the last half of the 1940's and most of the 1950's. My parents and grandparents had endured both the Great Depression and World War II and both events affected them in ways that we can't comprehend today with our relatively easier lives.

I made plenty of mistakes as a young man, but one lesson I learned from my father and grandfather is a man honors his word. If a man says he going to do something and shakes on it, you can consider it done. Only a snake in the grass type of man would consider going back on his word and he was always considered to be beneath contempt.

When I was a kid, I was a Scout (and a Scoutmaster for 8 years as an adult) and our oath always started with, "On my honor I will..."

One of the most important promises any man makes is when he faces his wife-to-be and promises to be faithful to her "for better or worse, for richer or poorer, in sickness and health, until death do we part."

I made that promise to Betty on Saturday, July 1, 1967 and, after my decision to accept Jesus as my Savior and Lord, I consider it the most sacred and important promise I have ever made or will make. I love Betty very much, but it is also a matter of honor for me as a man to keep that promise.

The meaning of honor is personal integrity: strong moral character or strength, and adherence to ethical principles. It also has a meaning of reputation: someone's good name or good reputation.

It seems that honor is greatly lacking in our culture today, especially among people in the public arena. I'm not surprised when a singer or movie star dishonors their word and their spouse and renege on the sacred promises they made. It's more disappointing, but unfortunately not surprising, when a leader in our country does the same thing.

The most recent example is the Governor of South Carolina, Mark Sanford who has admitted to an adulterous affair with a woman in Argentina - breaking his word to his wife, the mother of his four children.

Unfortunately, he's the most recent in a long line. From what little research I did, it seems the first prominent politician to dishonor his word was President Franklin Roosevelt. His successor, Harry Truman, was such an honorable man he was ready to fight a reporter who insulted his daughter (way to go, Harry). President Eisenhower was rumored to have had at least an emotional relationship with his assistant during World War II, but it was never conclusively proven.

The first known for sure dishonorable president was John F. Kennedy. He was known for his romantic relationships, even while president. Nothing was ever said about either Lyndon Johnson or Richard Nixon.

George Bush, Sr., has always seemed to be an honorable man in his marriage. However, he paid a price politically when he promised in his first run for president, "Read my lips. No new taxes." He gave in to political pressure and paid a price in the next election for going against his word.

Bill Clinton is the poster boy for dishonoring his wedding vows. There are so many stories - many proven and many only rumored - that he is almost a caricature. His supporters tried to cover him by saying, "It's only sex," as if everyone does it. No - we don't!

George Bush Jr., also seems to have honored his word to his wife and been faithful to her. We know he has a strong Christian faith and that has probably carried him throughout the years to be faithful to her.

Recent poor examples have been New York Attorney General Spitzer, Senator John Edwards who cheated on his wife who has cancer, Senator John Ensign, and now Governor Sanford. I'm sure there are plenty more that I'm missing. All of these men who have dishonored their wedding vows also made promises to uphold the Constitution of our country or of their State. How can a man be believed in those promises when the takes his marriage promises so lightly?

I just learned this morning that Mark Sanford actually asked his wife, after she learned of his affair, if it was OK for him to go to Argentina to be with his mistress. Of course she said NO! Good for her.

This is not a political issue for me. I don't care if they are Republican, Democrat or Independent.

A man's word matters. Keeping our promises to our wives is a matter of honor.

I pray we can somehow revive this sense of honor in our sons and daughters, grandsons and granddaughters. Our country and our souls depend on how successful we are in this revival.

My Saturday voice.

Saturday Voice - Why Are We Silent? (Updated)

Normally, I do not want this blog to be political. My desire is primarily to share a little of our lives with whomever might find it worth their time to read what we say about our lives.

However, there are times that I wonder what I will say when I stand before God and he says, "What did you do about this?" Or, someday, Juliet, our granddaughter may ask me "What did you do when this was happening?"

In both cases I don't want to stammer and say, "Nothing." At the very least I want to be able to say I spoke up - I took a side - I took a stand. I believe that God calls me to be a man of honor and sometimes honor requires getting off the fence on one side or the other.

There is poem written by Martin Niemoller, a German pastor, that captures what I'm feeling:

"In Germany, they came first for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;

And then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;

And then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;

And then... they came for me... And by that time there was no one left to speak up."

On Saturdays, I may share my viewpoint on what's happening in the world - not to make a political statement - but to make a personal statement. I want to give voice to what I'm feeling in my heart. I want to take sides. I want to take a stand. I want to speak up and this blog is one avenue for my voice.

I picked Saturday because I know that is usually a low day for blog readership because, rightfully so, people have better things to do.

So, if you see the Saturday post title is 'Saturday Voice' and you're not interested in what I have to say, you know you can skip it and you won't hurt my feelings. I'm doing this as much for me as for any other reason. So, here's what's on my heart today.

Why are we silent? In Tehran, Iran, thousands upon thousands of young people are protesting, and, in some cases, bleeding and dying for their freedoms.

To date, President Obama has either been silent or has made statements that sound as if he supports the totalitarian regime and not the freedom protesters.

In the 1980's when the Polish were protesting against their Soviet-backed regime for their freedoms, President Reagan made it clear that he, and through his words the US, stood solidly in support of those protesters who risked their lives for their freedoms. Today, Poland is a different country because of his support.

I will not begin to guess the President's motives, but I am disappointed in his silence for he represents me and, I suspect, millions of others who want to take a stand for people who are fighting for their freedom.

Why are we silent!

(Update: President Obama's staff released a statement this afternoon that's better than what has been said before. However, I wish he had given a personal statement instead of a press release.)