Our National Motto

60 Years as America's National Motto

On July 30, 1956, President Dwight Eisenhower signed legislation establishing "In God We Trust" as America's national motto. As religious rights of conscience continue to be attacked, this is a good time to remember our national motto and renew our efforts to defend our religious rights.
The idea of America as a Christian nation has often been scoffed at by modern academia, religious leaders, and others. However, past Americans have acknowledged that America is a Christian nation and that the rights of religious conscience should be protected.
The United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling declaring America to be a Christian nation, and hundreds of other American courts have acknowledged the same. In fact, Justice David Brewer, a member of that Court said:

"[I]n what sense can [America] be called a Christian nation? Not in the sense that Christianity is the established religion or that the people are in any manner compelled to support it. . . . Neither is it Christian in the sense that all its citizens are either in fact or name Christians. On the contrary, all religions have free scope within our borders. Numbers of our people profess other religions, and many reject all. Nor is it Christian in the sense that a profession of Christianity is a condition of holding office or otherwise engaging in public service, or essential to recognition either politically or socially. . . . Nevertheless, we constantly speak of this republic as a Christian nation – in fact, as the leading Christian nation of the world."

Secretary of the Treasury Salmon Chase, when looking into what should be printed on the currency of the nation, acknowledged:

"No nation can be strong except in the strength of God, or safe except in His defense. The trust of our people in God should be declared on our national coins. You will cause a device to be prepared without unnecessary delay with a motto expressing in the fewest and tersest words possible this national recognition."

There are many reasons that America has long been seen as such an exceptional nation -- but those reasons are tied to the religious beliefs and the moral principles of the people that established America. On the anniversary of the national motto, it's appropriate to recognize these religious beliefs and moral principles.
As George Washington told the nation when he left the presidency:

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of man and citizens."

George Washington: Patriot, Leader and Founding Father

I've been wanting to post this one for some time, but with how I've been feeling [while awaiting transplant], this has not been accomplished. Here is some fascinating history on Founding Father and our First President, George Washington.

George Washington First Becomes a National Leader

On July 3, 241 years ago, George Washington took command of the newly formed Continental Army. Congress had selected him -- one of its own members -- to organize the farmers and local militia groups into an army capable of defeating the world’s greatest military power. Quite an undertaking!
One of his first orders to the new American military set a clear tone of what he expected from his troops and also told us much about his character. In that order, Washington urged that

"...every officer and man will endeavor so as to live and act as becomes a Christian soldier, defending the dearest rights and liberties of his country."

That his troops display Christian character was important to Washington, and he later additionally charged them:

"To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian."

He also issued orders prohibiting swearing, profanity, and gambling. He clearly set a very high moral standard for his troops, but it was not more than what he expected from himself. In fact, while just a young boy, he copied out 110 maxims concerning good behavior and manners. Called his "Rules of Civility," he lived by them throughout his life, and they were especially apparent during his time as a soldier.
Washington longed for military life from the time he was a young boy, and he got his first experience during the French and Indian War, two decades before the American Revolution. He should have been killed in the Battle of the Monongahela, but his life was saved by God's Divine intervention. As he told his brother:

"[I] now exist and appear in the land of the living by the miraculous care of Providence that protected me beyond all human expectation; I had four bullets through my coat and two horses shot under me and yet escaped unhurt."

(Similar instances of his life being spared during the Revolutionary War are in the The Founders' Bible article, "George Washington: The Soldier Who Could Not Die").
It was as a result of what he did in the French and Indian War that he was first vaulted into the national spotlight. In fact, a famous military sermon preached in 1755 by the Rev. Samuel Davies (considered the greatest pulpit orator in American history) specifically singled out the young George Washington for special attention because of what happened in that battle.
It was largely because of Washington's experiences in that early war that he was chosen by his fellow citizens as a member of Congress, and then chosen by his peers in Congress as Commander-In-Chief. He led America on to a successful conclusion of the Revolutionary War, oversaw the formation of the U. S. Constitution, and guided us through the implementation of our new government as our first president. He is rightly honored as "The Father of His Country."
Washington fully understood that the important part he had played in America’s formation was by the direction of God, acknowledging:

“I have only been an instrument in the hands of Providence.”

As the anniversary of America's independence draws closer, let's honor one of the key individuals responsible for that independence: George Washington.

Religious Education Amongst Our Founding Fathers

A bit of history--much of this is unknown today--that is purposely forgotten by secularists who seek to removed religion from the public square as well as from our early history.

America's Founders at College

Too many indisputable facts from American history are ignored today because they impede the direction many progressives want to move culture. For example, while they claim that the Founders were largely secularists, few today know that most of them were graduates of colleges or universities that specialized in training ministers of the Gospel.
Princeton was founded in 1746, and John Witherspoon, a Gospel minister and signer of the Declaration of Independence, was the college's president from 1768-1794. He trained scores of individuals who became national and state leaders. Princeton required that "every student shall attend worship in the college hall morning and evening."
Yale University, founded in 1701, had Thomas Clap as its president from 1740-1766, when many of the Founders attended school there. Clap affirmed:

"The original end and design of colleges was to instruct, educate, and train up persons for the work of the ministry."

Harvard University was founded in 1636. (Pictured on the right is the original 1650 Harvard incorporation charter from the WallBuilders library.) Josiah Quincy, Harvard's president from 1829 to 1845, noted:

"[T]he College was conducted as a theological institution. . . having religion for its basis and chief object."

Altogether, 29 signers of the Declaration graduated from religiously-founded universities. But to acknowledge this today would certainly contradict the common educational assertion that our Founders were largely atheists, agnostics, and deists who wanted a secular country. But those assertions are not true.
Gouverneur Morris, a signer of the Constitution and the most active member of the Constitutional Convention, openly asserted:

"Religion is the only solid basis of good morals; therefore, education should teach the precepts of religion and the duties of man towards God."

In fact, he warned:

"There must be religion. What that ligament is torn, society is disjointed and its members perish. . . . The most important of all lessons is the denunciation of ruin to every state that rejects the precepts of religion."

Take note, America! This is a good warning to remember today.

Donald Trump and Political Correctness

An article in today's Washington Post discusses the perceived missteps by presumptive Republican Party Presidential candidate, Donald Trump, in regards to his attack on the Political Correctness that has gripped this country. The article goes on the explain how Trump is offending people and groups by his insistence that PC needs to be a thing of the past and individuals need to be strong, opinionated and leaders.
The following was my response to the article...

"Like him or not, Trump is correct about the whole PC mess. People are too easily offended because they've been coddled by political correctness for too long. Yes, there's a fine line between honesty and meanness; which should never be crossed. However, when even insinuation makes people cry foul, they are being too sensitive.  Just a two months ago a movie studio had to apologize for a billboard advertising the X-Men film because a few people thought it depicted violence against women. Seriously? How completely ludicrous to jump to such a conclusion! In reality, it was a screen grab of a scene in a movie in which both men and women were being attacked non-discriminately.

Let's look at this another way...

I have Polycystic Kidney Disease. In Nov 2013 I had BOTH of my kidneys removed because they were covered and filled with cysts, and needed to have them removed in order to be eligible for transplant, which I still await. In the 2.5 years since, I have not peed one drop. Now, if I overhear a conversation by people complaining about how much they have to pee, should I get offended because they are being insensitive to my situation? 'How thoughtless of them! I'm going to be angry and demand that they conduct sensitivity training so as to NOT offend anyone with no kidneys, because doing so makes me feel like LESS of a person. Everyone MUST conform to my angst!'

Do you see the point?

In the PC world of today, there ARE individuals and groups who demand conformity from everyone else because of whatever particular offense (as they deem) is being perpetrated against them by the rest of the country. The whole PC thing was bad when it first began, and it is absolutely horrible now.

It has gotten to the point that you cannot even have an individual opinion without having to publically apologize and say that you were 'misinformed' or some such language. Just look at anyone in the spotlight for proof of that. Athletes, TV or Movie stars, Politicians, Business owners, Educators...the list goes on and on about public apologies because some person or group was offended by the opinion that someone shared with the public.

We should never have to apologize because we disagree with a particular stance or movement. Individuality is entirely about freedom. Freedom to live, worship, work, opine and discuss as we choose...even when our way of doing things-or opinions we have--goes against everyone else.

Just because we disagree with someone or something does NOT mean that we are right; or that they are. It means we are exercising our individual freedom. The whole PC movement seeks to take away individual freedom in favor of a group mentality that assures no one is offended, all feelings are sacred to the group as a whole, and that everyone who disagrees with you is hateful, or homophobic, or racist, or whatever negative connotation is bandied about these days to describe anyone who fails to fall in line with the Politically Correct way of thinking.

This country was founded on the idea of individual freedom. The PC movement has devolved to the point so as to destroy that freedom in favor of preserving everyone's FEELINGS. Trump is merely seeking to restore balance to the insanity that political correctness has wrought upon this country. How is this a bad thing? And just how are we worse off by exercising our freedoms? Yes, there will always be people who abuse their rights; but as a whole, we are stronger, more intelligent, we achieve more and become better as individuals and as a country when we are allowed to BE the individuals that we should be."

The Importance of the Fourth of July

Celebrating America

Today, July 4th, we celebrate Independence Day - the 240th birthday of America! We also commemorate those who signed the Declaration of Independence and were willing to risk so much. As they acknowledged:

"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."

Many of the signers suffered for their actions. Some were hunted, lost homes and property, fled with their families to avoid capture, and had family members captured or killed. Yet despite the high cost, no signer went back on his personal pledge, and America did win its freedom! The stories of the signers inspire us, and America has thrived under the five unique principles they set forth in the Declaration:

• There is a Creator.


• The Creator has given a certain set of inalienable rights to every individual.


• The primary purpose of government is to protect those inalienable rights.


• There is a fixed moral law ("the laws of Nature and of Nature's God").


• Decisions below the level of inalienable rights and fixed morals are to be made with the consent of the governed.

As we remember these principles from our nation's founding, let's celebrate this Independence Day in a way that was recommended by John Adams in 1776:

"It ought to be commemorated, as the day of deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty."

Happy Fourth of July!

Salaries: Basketball vs. Football--The Insanity of it All

The following article from Fox Sports highlights the disparity between basketball and football salaries that only serves to show just how completely ridiculous the salaries of both sports have become--and they'll only get worse! Following the article is my response.

The Reasons Why NFL Players Make Less Than Their NBA Counterparts

"Thanks to new, extremely lucrative television deals, the NBA essentially handed out $24 million to every team in the league to spend on free agents this summer.
The way that money is being used has many in and around the NFL irked.
NFL players are complaining, claiming they picked the wrong sport. Football-leaning media members are bewildered at the value of the deals being tossed around. People are really mad all around the internet.
It's hard to blame anyone for being up in arms about the NBA's spending. Matthew Dellavedova is set to sign a four-year, $38 million deal, and Timofey Mozgov is poised to put pen to paper on a fouryear deal worth $64 million. Neither soon-to-be former member of the champion Cavs played a minute in Game 7 of the NBA Finals.
But you can't fault any player for taking a big ol' contract if it's offered, and if a general manager and owner want to spend $64 million on a frequently injured, not-exactly-versatile center who was relegated to the bench for the second half of last season, that's their prerogative.
That kind of stuff happens in the NFL too, lest we forget.
So NFL players and media members complaining about the NBA's spending spree should channel their frustrations and bewilderment into fixing a problem that has been exposed instead.
Yes, NFL players are underpaid. But that's their fault.
The NBA's salary cap was $70 million last season. It will go to $94 million next season, and will likely level off at to $107 million for the 2017-18 campaign. The NBA is a closed economy — increasing the available money by 50 percent over a short span (three years) while maintaining the same supply (players, 15 on each of the static 30 teams) is a textbook definition of inflation. Contract values were going to go up dramatically; there was no way around it.
The NBA didn't want it to be this way. They wanted to spread out the increase in the cap over five — or, better yet, 10 — years. The NBA Players Association pushed back.
"[The dramatic salary cap increase] is not something that we modeled for," NBA commissioner Adam Silver said at February's All-Star Game. "There will be unintended consequences from all this additional cap room this summer. I just don't know what those consequences will be."
The NBAPA got what it wanted. But ultimately, it will have to face internal political backlash, as the short-term increases in the cap threaten to disproportionally aid those on the free agent market this summer. Spreading out the windfall could have prevented a situation where Mike Conley receives the largest contract in NBA history.
The most expensive NBA contracts are done by percentage of the salary cap — a "max" deal is worth between 25 and 35 percent of the salary cap, depending on how long the player has been in the league. On top of that, the league has a "soft" salary cap, where teams are allowed to go over the cap to re-sign their own players.
These two factors are huge positives for players: It puts more money in their pockets, and it came about through tough negotiations over the league's collective bargaining agreement.
NFL players could also have salary-cap percentage deals — and a soft cap, too — but they'd have to fight for them in their collective bargaining agreement.
CBAs are incredibly complicated, but their most critical component is the divvying up of league's revenue pie. The money all goes into the owners' pockets to start. And they give the players their slice of the pie, mostly through player salaries.
That's why when the NBA signed a nine-year, $24 billion (with a "b") television deal, the salary cap spiked. The revenue pie became much larger and the players negotiated to receive roughly 50 percent of that pie.
NFL revenue doubles the NBA, even with the hoopers' new TV money. The NFL salary cap is $155 million — 60 percent higher than the NBA's.
But considering that NFL rosters are 3.5 larger than NBA rosters (53 to 15), that 60 percent difference is paltry.
If you cut up the NBA salary cap 15 ways on all 30 teams, each player would make $6.25 million. Next year, that number will go above $7 million.
If you split up the NFL's salary threshold equally — $155 million, 53 ways — you get an "average" salary of $2.9 million. You can do the math — that's less than half the NBA's number.
NHL "average" salaries exceed the NFL's, too. Split up the NHL and every player gets $3.17 million. The last time the "average" NBA salary was less than $3 million was 2005.
So absolutely, NFL players are underpaid. But that's in large part because of the deal they signed.
NFL players get — at most — 48.5 percent of the league's revenue, as agreed upon in the 2011 collective bargaining agreement. In 2016, the player percentage is 47.2. But not all of that $6 billion-plus is translated into the salary cap. The players have to use a good chunk of that money to pay for pension and health costs, as outlined in Article 12 of the CBA. The remaining sum is more or less (it's some complicated stuff in that 301-page document) split up 32 ways to determine the salary cap.
Even if NFL players had a 50 percent cut, they'd only be seeing a 3 percent increase in pay. The NFL would have to double its revenue to pay players as much as the NBA pays theirs.
That, or the NBA could double the amount of players in the league.
Neither seems likely.
The NFL's CBA runs until 2020, and there are no opt-out clauses for either side included in it. This is the deal the NFL players signed.
And while it's highly unlikely that "average" NFL player salaries will be able to match NBA player salaries in 2020, there are things that the NFL Players Association should be looking to have included in the next treaty that NBA players have.
Things like guaranteed contracts for players who have been in the league for a few years. Currently, NFL players can have their contracts canceled at any time, for any reason.
Things like a soft salary cap. A hard cap artificially limits player salaries and hampers earning potentials — that's why the NBA owners wanted to implement one in 2011.
NBA players fought for both guaranteed contracts and a soft salary cap and won, and now they're reaping the benefits.
NFL players might have fought the same battles, but they clearly lost, and now they're only left to complain. They'll have a chance to actually something about it in 2020.
Until then, they need to remember what then NBA commissioner David Stern said during his league's lockout in 2011: "From where we sit, we are looking at a league [the NFL] that was the most profitable in sports, that became more profitable by virtue of concessions from their players."

My Response:

Wealthy players whining about not being wealthier for a sport that has 16 games per year (+ playoffs, if they are lucky, and for which they receive additional pay above their contracts), as well as official practice times (OTA’s, Training camp, etc).

When is the money ever enough for these guys?

I absolutely detest the money these athletes are making; especially in football.  If anyone deserves more money in sports, it is baseball players. They play 162 games per year (10 times as many as football, and twice as much as basketball!), plus nearly two months of training camp that features an additional twenty five games, or so,  yet they make a per game average that is a fraction of what football and basketball players make.

I remember when Dale Murphy of the Atlanta Braves became the first athlete to get a $1M per year contract. Everyone thought it was too much. Compared to the demands of the athletes these days, Murphy’s contract was a steal.


It used to be that only top tier athletes received the big monies. Now, you have bench players making huge amounts, and superstars earning hundreds of millions.

I ask again… When is the money ever enough for these guys?

Hillary Clinton as Possible President

An article from 'The Hill,' an online blog that focuses on issues in Washington D.C., today focused on the interview Hillary Clinton, the presumptive Democratic Nominee for President, had with an FBI investigative team that was looking into serious charges against Clinton regarding her personal (and illegal) email account and server that she used while Secretary of State. As usual, the Clinton team spun the interview as "Voluntary." Yet, the investigation is a criminal probe. Just how such an interview is "Voluntary" rather than compulsory, I just don't understand.
Anyhow, the comments that followed the article were either slamming or supporting Hillary, while totally ignoring what she re[presents if elected. I wrote the following response:

And her followers blindly accept every word, every excuse as truth. I am an Independent. I vote for whomever I believe to be best suited for the job instead of blindly going all in as a Democrat or Republican. From everything I've read, Hillary is a train wreck waiting to happen. This country is already floundering as Obama has trampled all over the Constitution. With the Clintons ready to take the Whitehouse once again, we, as Americans, could be seeing some dire years ahead as the latest iteration of the Democratic Party leads us all further and further from the country our Founding Fathers created, wherein the Federal Government was small, the President merely a spokesperson for Congress, States maintained a modicum of self-governing, American rights were more important than illegal immigrants and the Bill of Rights was followed and revered as [basically] sacred rules for every citizen to live by.

Look at the state our Country is in today. The Constitution is barely recognizable anymore as King Obama does whatever he wants while Congress sits by and does nothing to stop him. The Bill of Rights are no longer enjoyed by ALL Americans as individuals and small groups use the Courts to force everyone else to adhere to THEIR beliefs and way of life, The Pledge of Allegience is no longer uttered in our schools for fear of 'offending' someone (Seiously?!), Big Government just gets bigger and bigger, individual privacy is gone, the true history of our Founding is no longer taught as secular revistionists declared that Christianity played no role in the lives of the Founding Fathers and played no role in the formation of this great country. Now too, we read that Illegal Immigrants are being given food, housing, medical care while our President ignores our war veterans, our homeless and the citizens of this country, in favor of illegal immigrants--he is FAILING to uphold the law! The very law he has twice sworn to uphold and protect.

For the record, I don't care about immigrants to this country. Aside from the Native Americans, we are ALL here as a result of immigration. However, when immigrants from the South choose to ignore the laws, as established by Congress, and enter this country illegally and then use the systems in place meant to help the actual citizens of the United States, then I draw the line.

No, I'm probably NOT going to vote for Trump...He's just the wrong choice, as well.  But to have Hillary Clinton as President would be disastrous for this country. Freedom, once enjoyed by all Americans, is now more of an illusion than a reality.

This country is teetering, folks, whether you recognize it, or not. Trump is a terrible choice; but Hillary is even worse. I only hope that the next four years do not see us as a nation crumble under the weight of our complacency as we blindly follow leaders who, speaking like a snake oil salesman, tell us "I know what's is best for you. Follow me..."  (And the blind and ignorant will follow)

The Bill of Rights is Essential to Our Government

From Senator Mike Lee (R) UT

Chairman's Note: Bill of Rights is a Feature - Not a Bug - of our Government

Since the horrific terrorist attack in Orlando, Florida nearly two weeks ago – the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11 – Congress has been engrossed in a debate about what can be done to prevent something like this from happening again.

In their grief for the victims, and in their concern about the safety of our communities, many Americans have come to the same conclusion: “something must be done.” Unfortunately, many of members of Congress believe that those four words – “something must be done” – give the federal government permission to do whatever it wants.

But the government can’t do whatever it wants, not even at a time of great anxiety and insecurity. In fact, there are several things that the government is expressly prohibited from doing under any circumstances.

The government may not infringe on “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.” It may not violate the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” Nor may it deprive any person “of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
These are just a few of the explicit limitations on government action – a few of Americans’ core civil liberties – listed in the Bill of Rights. They are not negotiable. Yet many of the legislative proposals that have emerged in recent days run roughshod over these basic constitutional rights.

One such measure would give law-enforcement agencies power to access Americans’ Internet browsing history and email metadata – which can be analyzed to reveal intimate details about a person’s life – without a warrant, probable cause, or judicial review by a federal court. Another measure, the Terrorist Firearms and Prevention Act, would prohibit individuals on the government’s secret No Fly List or Selectee List from purchasing firearms.

"But the government can’t do whatever it wants, not even at a time of great anxiety and insecurity. In fact, there are several things that the government is expressly prohibited from doing under any circumstances."

Everyone agrees that terrorists should be prevented from purchasing guns, but this proposal would deny Americans their Second Amendment rights based on a mere suspicion from the FBI that they are engaged in terrorist activity. The denial of a constitutional right should require more proof than a reasonable suspicion – a standard so low that it doesn’t even justify an arrest.

In defending these measures, some proponents have lamented the difficulty of working around the core civil liberties listed in the Bill of Rights. But this is a feature, not a bug, of our constitutional system.

Americans’ constitutional rights are not nuisances that the government must accommodate. Protecting these rights is the reason that government exists. As we continue consideration of these measures next week, we must work to ensure that Congress fulfills this purpose.