Thursday, March 31, 2011
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Attitude is more important than the past, than education, than money, than circumstances, than what people do or say. It is more important than appearance, giftedness, or skill.
The remarkable thing is, we have a choice everyday regarding the attitude we will embrace for that day.
We cannot change our past. We can not change the fact that people act in a certain way. We can not change the inevitable. The only thing we can do is play on the one string we have, and that is our attitude.
From Strengthening Your Grip
Cottage Cheese Salad
1 pt. Cottage cheese
Friday, March 25, 2011
CHANGING THE WORLD
(UNKNOWN MONK 1100AD)
When I was a young man, I wanted to change the world. I found it was difficult to change the world, so I tried to change my nation. When I found I couldn't change the nation, I began to focus on my town. I couldn't change the town and as an older man, I tried to change my family. Now, as an old man, I realize the only thing I can change is myself, and suddenly I realize that if long ago I had changed myself, I could have made an impact on my family. My family and I could have made an impact on our town. Their impact could have changed the nation and I could indeed have changed the world.
1 lb. Soda crackers crushed
Hot rice ( 2 c. Uncooked)
1 lg. Head of lettuce shredded
4 tomatoes cut up
1 onion diced
1 large bag of taco chips, crushed
3 lb. Fried, seasoned hamburger
1 pkg. Crushed pecans
1 c. Of boiled eggs
4 cans of Campbell's cheese soup.
Add milk to desired consistency & heat.
Place each item on plate in order given; top with cheese sauce.
Makes 15 servings.
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Greetings in the name of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ. How is everyone doing? I am currently in Benton, IL and just waking up. Everything is going good out here. My family is doing good also. My wife called yesterday and announced that she got a puppy for Micah. We have been wanting to get a companion dog for Micah but have not been able to find a good one. Yesterday someone gave Paula a puppy and both Puppy and Micah took to each other very well. They act like good buddies which is good cause Micah is interacting with the puppy. We feel this will help Micah excell even more.
I want to discuss a topic that is very heated. Everyone who reads my blogs and knows me knows that I am against Abortion and I know that God is also against abortion. But I want to now talk about the constitution in regards to abortion. Does the constitution give any power to the federal government to regulate abortion? I have blogged about the constitution before and if you didn't read it, you may want to go back and read that blog. If you look at Articles 1, 2, and 3 of the constitution, you see that it outlines the jobs of the Judictial, Executive, and Legistative branches of the Government. Nowhere in these articles does it talk about abortion.
You see, the constitution doesn't only say what rights you have, but it also deligates authority to the federal government from the states. It lays out what powers the states allows the federal government to have. Anything that is not in the constitution falls under the 10th Amendment. So, the federal government has no right to regulate or restrict abortion. There is only one way to change this. That is to Amend the Constitution which the founding fathers did put into the constitution a way to amend it just in case things change and the need to add something comes. They were so smart. How about the states? Was the supreme court correct in there decition to prevent the states from banning abortion. Looking at all the rights given to us under the constitution, I don't see abortion. Now, the Supreme Court used the 14th Amendment. That is really reading into the constitution a little too much. How is Abortion depriving someone of life, liberty, and property. Banning abortion is giving life and liberty to an unborn. Going on this case you can say that the death penalty is unconstitutional and yet it was done when the founding fathers were around. If a state bans abortion the mom still has life (unless having the child kills her), liberty, and property. So, this rulling was a bad one and the state does have the right to regulate or even outlaw abortion.
I know people on the right that thinks the federal government does have the right to ban or regulate abortion because it is protecting life. Again, that is reading into the constitution. Actually, the right to life is in the Bill of Rights. Do you know that the founding fathers didn't even give the federal government the right to regulate murder? Why? You would think if the founding fathers wanted moral law and for the federal government to protect life that murder would be at the top of the list. Murder laws are determind by each state. You kill someone, it is up to the state on weather you are to be punished and what that punishment should be. Which, I like that because I feel that the current federal government would punish people for protecting themselves. Currently, Oklahoma allows you to protect yourself and property. I want to keep it that way.
The truth is that the founding fathers wanted the federal government to be weak and for the states to have more power. Remember, when the constitution was written, the people were not affraid of their states. The states already had governments in place. The people were afraid of a federal government taking the states powers and rights away. So the founding fathers gave the federal government limited powers. Moral laws are not one of the powers given to the federal government. This is left to the states. So, the federal government (including judges) need to stay out of abortion and the states need to decide if they want abortion law in there state. If we want the federal government to get involved, then we need to follow the constitution and start the amending process.
It is time for me to head north. Y'all have a great day. Take care and God Bless.
The Oklahoma Tomcat
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Monday, March 14, 2011
Greetings in the name of our Lord and Savour. How is everyone doing? Everything is going good here. I got home Saturday afternoon for my daughter's birthday. She is now 5 years old and is also now doing 1st grade work. It is amazing how good she is doing and how fast she is growing. We took her to Golden Corals which is one of her favorite places to go. It is great that I got to be home for her birthday.
I wanted to tell everyone about a change we made. Everyone who knows us or has been following our posts on the Internet, know that three years ago we got rid of our electricity. It sure has been an experience, but we have seen lots of good changes in our family and we have also learned a lot from the experience. Our goal is to be God reliant and not have to depend on any one company or any man to supply our families needs. Now that we know how to live without the electric and to rely on God for our needs, we are working on solar energy to supply electric to of the things we want. The house we are having built will still be built to not need electric. We will still have oil lamps, wood heat and cook stove, propane cook stove and back-up heat, and propane refrigerator. But are starting to build a solar system to power and charge our small personal devices. Our son-in-law has built us a very simple system. We got a solar panel, 12V car battery and a 410 Watt inverter. He hooked them up and mounted the solar panel on top of the roof of our front porch. The system works great. We are able to run and charge our net books while charging our cell phones. This is a very small and simple system but we are able to expand it as time goes on. We will never go back to having lots of electricity. We enjoy the simple living of not having the TV and lots of electric things to distract us from what is important in life. We also love the changes that this lifestyle has created in our family. But we also know the benefits of cell phones and Internet access when it comes to communications and networking with others and promoting our lifestyle to others. Internet access also has great benefits when it comes to my wife home schooling our children and doing research to help us teach our Autistic son. The way we did this (going completely without electricity first) is great because now we know we do not have to have electricity. This makes it to where we are not in a rush to suddenly put lots of money in having our house completely solar powered. We can take it slowly and just add as we are able to.
For those of you who are looking into lowering your electric bill, this may be a way for you to do it. You do not need to get rid of your electricity but start out with a small solar system like what we have to charge your cell phones and laptop. That will eliminate you needing to use your regular electric to charge these devices and save you a little bit of money. Then, as you are able to, add more panels and batteries. Eventually you will have to get a bigger inverter to power larger items. Keep upgrading and you may find yourself getting rid of the electric company and having your whole house powered by God's sun. Of course, this method does take a long time, but you will not go in debt and you can start saving a little bit of money right away. We bought the solar panel at Lowes, got a standard car battery and the 410 Watt inverter at a electronic store and it all came to about $115. Not a whole lot when you think about how much it costs just to power a laptop and charge cell phones. I will keep you all updated as we expand our solar system.
The Oklahoma Tomcat
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Monday, March 7, 2011
I just read an article that supported Federal Social programs by asking "What would Jesus do?" It is true that Jesus told people to help the poor and support the widows and orphans. I am all for that. We are supposed to give to the poor. But we are also supposed to help the poor by giving them a hand. When Jesus said all of this, who was He talking too and how did He say to do it? Was He talking to the government? No. Was He talking to individuals? Yes. Did He tell you to force your neighbor to give money? No. Did He tell you to take your neighbors money and give it to the poor? No. Did say for each individual to give with great joy to the poor? Yes. In fact, do you know that when you pay taxes, God doesn't look at that as you giving to the poor? Do you pay your taxes with joy? I don't know anyone who dances with joy as they pay their taxes. Are you taking money out of your pocket willingly and giving it to a person or an organization that helps out people in need? Don't know too many people doing that either. Is that money blessed and prayed over so that it goes to good use? No, in fact, I think we see the result of that being so little of the money meant to go to those in need actually make it there. I don't believe God blesses the money going to the Government at all or it wouldn't be wasted as it is. So, how does God look at Man's government and what would Jesus Do?
I hear lots of Christians (and even non-Christians who try to challenge me) use the Bible to support Government Social Programs and Social Justice. The first thing I think of anytime I hear the Bible used to support mans government is 1 Samuel 8. If you read this, you will see that God never even wanted His people to be ruled by a human government. He warned His people what would happen. But we, as humans, know what is best for us, right? It is amazing how everything God said would happen under a human government is happening. So, what would Jesus do? Does God like His people being ruled by a human government? I think our government really doesn't want to know what Jesus thinks about it. Another thing that comes to mind is 2 Thessalonians 3:10. Now, this isn't talking about those that physically can't work. Individuals and churches are supposed to help those that are handicapped, elderly, and orphans. But, is the government making sure that those that can work are working before giving money and food to them. Most non-profit organizations do interview people before giving food and money to people. If the person can work but isn't, then they will guide them to get work. So, the government isn't following God's word. What would Jesus do? Next, show me where in scripture where it says to force people to give to the poor. God doesn't force anyone to give to the poor. Each individual must do it on there own. God even says that we must give with a cheerful heart or do not even bother. If you are looking at paying taxes as satisfying God's will for you to help the poor, you are terribly mistaken. If you are not making the sacrifice to physically help out the needy and to take money out of your own pocket (not your rich neighbor), then you are not satisfying God's will for you to help the needy.
So, what would Jesus do when it comes to Government Social Programs? It depends on what time frame you are talking about? When Jesus was on earth He showed no interest in the human government other then we must follow the law of the land except if it conflicts what God tells us to do. He didn't tell us to be against it or tell the government what to do. He only told us what we should do in our personal life. So, in that I have to say that Jesus would do nothing with the human government. Now, if you are talking about when Jesus returns, He is going to destroy the human government. Our United States government will be no exception. So, in that I have to say he would do a complete makeover of the government. When it comes to the human government and God, I find that a weak federal government is the closest to what God wants. The federal government shouldn't try to be religious or to do good works. This gives individuals the freedom to do God's Will. That is what God wants under the new covenant, individuals to do God's Will. Individuals should be acting in love to their neighbor. So, do not look to the government to be doing what you should be doing. Do not look to the government to feed your family when it should be you (if you can work) or the church and your neighbors (if you are having temporary problems or unable to work). Do not get fooled into thinking that the government is doing God's will by having all of these social programs. Just the fact we have a human government isn't God's will. If the government was doing God's will, the government wouldn't be having the huge financial problems that it does. That is another thing, what does God say about being in debt. Take care and God Bless.
The Oklahoma Tomcat
Saturday, March 5, 2011
The following comes from Townhall Magazine. I thought I would share it with everyone.
While still a Hollywood man, Ronald Reagan took to the radio airwaves to speak out against a national health care bill, then referred to as the Ferrand Bill and later the King Bill. Although 50 years ahead of his time, Reagan's impassioned address warned that such a bill would not only bring an erosion of private rights and individual freedoms but would also give socialism and statism a "foot in the door."
In his memorable peroration, Reagan calls citizens to direct and immediate action. It's a call as timely today as it was 50 years ago. Otherwise, says Reagan, "One of these days you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children, and our children's children, what it once was like in America when men were free."
Radio Address on Socialized Medicine, 1961:
My name is Ronald Reagan. I have been asked to talk on several subjects that have to do with the problems of the day. ...
Back in 1927, an American socialist, Norman Thomas, six times candidate for president on the Socialist Party ticket, said the American people would never vote for socialism. But he said under the name of liberalism the American people will adopt every fragment of the socialist program. ...
One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It's very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project. Most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can't afford it.
Now, the American people, if you put it to them about socialized medicine and gave them a chance to choose, would unhesitatingly vote against it. We had an example of this. Under the Truman administration, it was proposed that we have a compulsory health insurance program for all people in the United States, and, of course, the American people unhesitatingly rejected this.
So, with the American people on record as not wanting socialized medicine, Congressman Ferrand introduced the Ferrand Bill. This was the idea that all people of Social Security age should be brought under a program of compulsory health insurance. Now this would not only be our senior citizens, this would be the dependents and those who are disabled, this would be young people if they are dependents of someone eligible for Social Security.
Now, Congressman Ferrand brought the program out on that idea of just for that group of people. But Congressman Ferrand was subscribing to this foot-in-the-door philosophy, because, he said, "[I]f we can only break through and get our foot inside the door, then we can expand the program after that."
Walter Ruther said, "It's no secret that the United Automobile Workers is officially on record as backing a program of national health insurance." And by national health insurance, he meant socialized medicine for every American. Well, let's see what the socialists themselves have to say about it.
They say, "Once the Ferrand Bill is passed, this nation will be provided with a mechanism for socialized medicine capable of indefinite expansion in every direction until it includes the entire population." Well, we can't say we haven't been warned. ...
It is presented in the idea of a great emergency that millions of our senior citizens are unable to provide needed medical care. But this ignores the fact that, in the last decade, 127 million of our citizens in just 10 years have come under the protection of some form of privately owned medical or hospital insurance.
Now the advocates of this bill, when you try to oppose it, challenge you on an emotional basis. They say, "What would you do, throw these poor old people out to die with no medical attention?" That's ridiculous, and of course no one's advocated it. ...
What reason could the other people have for backing a bill which says, "We insist on compulsory health insurance for senior citizens on the basis of age alone, regardless of whether they're worth millions of dollars, whether they have an income, whether they're protected by their own insurance, whether they have savings?"
I think we can be excused for believing that, as ex-Congressman Ferrand said, this was simply an excuse to bring about what they wanted all the time -- socialized medicine.
James Madison in 1788, speaking to the Virginia Convention, said: "Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpations."
The privacy, the care that is given to a person, the right to chose a doctor, the right to go from one doctor to the other ... This is a freedom that I wonder whether any of us have the right to take from any human being. ... From here it is a short step to all the rest of socialism. ...
The Founding Fathers -- for the first time -- established the idea that you and I had within ourselves the God-given right and ability to determine our own destiny. ...
What can we do about this? Well, you and I can do a great deal. We can write to our congressmen and our senators. We can say right now that we want no further encroachment on these individual liberties and freedoms. And at the moment, the key issue is we do not want socialized medicine. ...
Write those letters now; call your friends and tell them to write them. If you don't, this program I promise you will pass just as surely as the sun will come up tomorrow, and behind it will come other federal programs that will invade every area of freedom as we have known it in this country until one day, as Normal Thomas said, we will awake to find that we have socialism. And if you don't do this, and if I don't do it, one of these days you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children, and our children's children, what it once was like in America when men were free.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Paula and the children are all doing good. Abigail turns 5 this Friday. She is now doing 1st grade math and is doing Kindegarden in everything else. She is so smart and I am very proud of her. Micah is also doing very good. He is starting to do new things. Some of the things he is doing are things we never showed him. We were told that autistic children will do that. I was happy to be home when he started pointing to foods he wanted during meals. He was so happy to be able to do it that I think he ate just to do it. I was over whelmed with joy. The real credit to all this goes to my wife who is a very smart and dedicated mom and homeschools both our children.
In my previous blog, I posted a video. I hope that everyone watched it because it is very educational and it sets the foundation to this blog.
After the Colonies won the Revolutionary War in 1783, the government operated under the Articles of Confederation. There are people who wants the United States to go back to this form of Government. The problem that the colonies was having is that the federal government was too weak. It was broke, it could not united the colonies, it could not make treaties. The colonies had to do it all. Under this government, the United States was going to fall and England was watching and probably laughing. It was Hamilton that helped bring about a Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, PA, in 1787. Some of the men that met there had plans to modify or reright the Articles of Confederation but most of them wanted to form a new government that would have more power. Now think about something. These men could have formed anytype of government and they all had to have known that they would be in leadership in one form or another. Some of them wanted to make Washington king. But the type of government they formed was a type that would have the STATES DELIGATE some authority to the Federal Government. That is what the Constitution does. Most people today thinks that the Constitution deligates authority to the state and gives power to the federal government. This is untrue. So, why did the founding fathers form a Republic that limits the power of the federal government. Isn't this anti-government?
Most people in 1787 was anti-federal government. The states was very much against having a strong federal government. They saw first hand what happens when you give a group of people power. So, the founding fathers drew up a document that listed the things that the Executive Branch would have the power to do (Article II), the powers that the Legislative Branch (House of Representatives and Senate)(Aticle I), and the powers of the Supreme Court (Article III). These were the only powers that the federal government would have. Everything else would be left up to the states (tenth Amendment). With these Articles and Amendment, the federal government would have enough power to keep the country strong, but would not be too strong and take powers away from the states and freedoms from the people. The people during this time knew that too much power in the hands of a small group of people was dangerous, even if the group of people had the best of intentions. The constitution was set up as the law of the land. These are laws that the Federal Government MUST FOLLOW no matter what. EVEN IF THE PEOPLE WANTS SOMETHING DIFFERENT. That is correct. The founding fathers didn't want majority rule. Why? Well, would it be easy for a small group of very smart people to convince a large group of people that a bad law is good for the people? Look at Hitler, who was elected in a demicratic system. Look at every Demicratic government in history. The founding fathers were extremely smart and knew that a Demicratic government would lead to an Oligarchy. So, there is no place in the Constitution that says that if the majority of the people wants to give the federal government more power then it is to be done. Now, I have heard people say that the Constitution is a "living document" and congess can make new laws not listed in the constitution. Would the founding fathers put this much power in the hands of one group of people? There is a way congress can add to the Constitution. It is called "Amending the Constitution" and it is in Article V of the Constitution. It is very diffecult to do and it was made that way for a reason. The founding fathers didn't want the federal government to change the constitution at will or to reach outside of thier powers at will. It is because of Article V that I can say with 100% confidence that the Constitution isn't a living document. See, the founding fathers already thought of a way to modify the Constitution for future needs. So, all these laws that the federal government has that isn't in the Constitutional was supposed to be Amended into the Constitution in accordence with Article V. Congress can do that and it has been done many times in the past. When you look at the powers given to the federal government by the constitution and the power the federal government has now, you may be shocked. You may even look at some things and say, "Well, we need that because it helps the poor" or "Well, we need that law because it protects people." But remember, every law can be justified and made to sound like it is for the best interest of the people. If laws to help the poor or protect the people are needed in your state, then that is where that law should be made. That is what the 10th Amendment is for. The founding fathers set it up so that the states had more power as long as it didn't take away the rights of the individual. Actually, the states have amazing power under the Constitution which is good. See, you have more influence over your local leaders then you do over your leaders in Washington. And if you don't like your state laws, it is easier to leave your state then it is to leave the country. So, social laws should be kept with the state. Also, states know more about thier people and what thier people need then the federal government does. The needs of the people in Oklahoma are very much different then those in New York. How can one huge government meet everyones needs?
Well, I hope this blog has helped you unerstand the Constitution better. It is really a cut and dry law. The founding fathers did a very good job at putting it together which just shows how smart they were. In future blogs I will bring up issues that we are facing and put it up to the Constitution. This is were I will shock most people including Republicans. You will be shocked at just how weak the Constitution makes the federal government. The Libertarians do have a point when it comes to social issues and the Constitution.
Well, I have to get a hair cut. Take care and God Bless.
The Oklahoma Tomcat