And it's only $2.99 shipping and handling whether you want one or all five!
The-Trades.com says "Boldly combining science fiction with Christian theology, Gerald Welch's story refrains from preachiness while delivering non-stop page-turning action."
The Last Witness
I've gotten requests on how to buy all five books at once, so if you have never bought any of the books, here's your chance! You can get all five books in the series for $39.99 (save $13!) or any of the individual titles at their original retail price.
And it's only $2.99 shipping and handling whether you want one or all five!
The-Trades.com says "Boldly combining science fiction with Christian theology, Gerald Welch's story refrains from preachiness while delivering non-stop page-turning action."
And it's only $2.99 shipping and handling whether you want one or all five!
The-Trades.com says "Boldly combining science fiction with Christian theology, Gerald Welch's story refrains from preachiness while delivering non-stop page-turning action."
Candidates
I'm tired of hearing candidates talk about "Taking America Back". Why? Because whenever you invoke nostalgia to one group, it brings back negative memories to another.
I'd like candidates show me what their vision of America is for the future with specifics. And don't be afraid to be bold; that's what it takes to be a leader. If enough people agree with you, you'll win election and lead our nation. If you're wanting to be chicken soup for everyone, you won't lead. You will merely occupy an elected office.
LEAD.
I'd like candidates show me what their vision of America is for the future with specifics. And don't be afraid to be bold; that's what it takes to be a leader. If enough people agree with you, you'll win election and lead our nation. If you're wanting to be chicken soup for everyone, you won't lead. You will merely occupy an elected office.
LEAD.
Freedom
As Americans, we like to talk about freedom. We can vote, talk smack about our elected officials with impunity (unless you threaten violence, of course) but are we really free? Something happened to the definition of the word freedom in the last century. At one point, you could buy a piece of land and you and your family were the king of that land.
That America no longer exists.
In the original America, the individual was reponsible for their own fate. There was no medicare, no social security, no safety net. Americans were strong because they had to be.
Don't be fooled into thinking that the only cost of government safety nets is the multi-trillion dollar amount that my grandkids will have to pay. The largest cost is what made America great: Freedom.
You can already see it. Oh, it's small things right now, like pulling chocolate milk and other "undesireable foods" from school lunches and prohibiting parents from letting their kids bring their own lunch. See, once the government pays for something, it gets to tell you what to do. Government becomes the master, not the servant.
I'm not ready to be a servant.
That America no longer exists.
In the original America, the individual was reponsible for their own fate. There was no medicare, no social security, no safety net. Americans were strong because they had to be.
Don't be fooled into thinking that the only cost of government safety nets is the multi-trillion dollar amount that my grandkids will have to pay. The largest cost is what made America great: Freedom.
You can already see it. Oh, it's small things right now, like pulling chocolate milk and other "undesireable foods" from school lunches and prohibiting parents from letting their kids bring their own lunch. See, once the government pays for something, it gets to tell you what to do. Government becomes the master, not the servant.
I'm not ready to be a servant.
BIBGIV
What the heck is BIBGIV? It's how America should do war.
Brutal In Battle, Gracious In Victory.
Wars are not won when the army on the other side is defeated; it is won when the will for war has been crushed. Right now, the US is trying to "win the hearts" of people by tip-toeing instead of fighting and the rules of engagement are costing American lives. I do not apologize when I say that when we're at war, WE SHOULD ACT LIKE WE ARE AT WAR. We should crush everything that is thrown at us and, just as importantly, after the war, we do whatever we can to help build a new government that won't repeat the mistakes of the prior government.
This gives two impressions:
1) When the American military is heading your way, if you don't surrender, you will die.
2) Everyone will know that once hostilities are over, America will take the lead in helping rebuild the country.
And if, after hostilities have ended, we see a guerrilla style insurgency, we again go into aggressor mode and crush it. We have to make sure that the potential enemies of America see not just mercy, they must see our might.
For too long, we've tried to seek acclaim from our enemies while on the battlefield and, while we shouldn't directly target civilians, if those civilians are actively housing combatants, they should expect to pay that price.
The civilians say "We do it because they will kill us," but guess what? That's not our problem; this is your country. Take control of it or we'll do it for you. I'm tired of American soldiers dying for a political reason that never works. When was the last time you saw people from the left congratulate us when we risk our soldiers' lives in order to make it softer for the enemy? When was the last time the UN recognized it? Never. We are unnecessarily spilling American blood when it's not necessary. Does anyone think that we are making friends by showing weakness? Grow up. We are the remaining super-power and need to start acting like it, instead of "just another nation".
We're not. We're America.
Let's start acting like it.
Brutal In Battle, Gracious In Victory.
Wars are not won when the army on the other side is defeated; it is won when the will for war has been crushed. Right now, the US is trying to "win the hearts" of people by tip-toeing instead of fighting and the rules of engagement are costing American lives. I do not apologize when I say that when we're at war, WE SHOULD ACT LIKE WE ARE AT WAR. We should crush everything that is thrown at us and, just as importantly, after the war, we do whatever we can to help build a new government that won't repeat the mistakes of the prior government.
This gives two impressions:
1) When the American military is heading your way, if you don't surrender, you will die.
2) Everyone will know that once hostilities are over, America will take the lead in helping rebuild the country.
And if, after hostilities have ended, we see a guerrilla style insurgency, we again go into aggressor mode and crush it. We have to make sure that the potential enemies of America see not just mercy, they must see our might.
For too long, we've tried to seek acclaim from our enemies while on the battlefield and, while we shouldn't directly target civilians, if those civilians are actively housing combatants, they should expect to pay that price.
The civilians say "We do it because they will kill us," but guess what? That's not our problem; this is your country. Take control of it or we'll do it for you. I'm tired of American soldiers dying for a political reason that never works. When was the last time you saw people from the left congratulate us when we risk our soldiers' lives in order to make it softer for the enemy? When was the last time the UN recognized it? Never. We are unnecessarily spilling American blood when it's not necessary. Does anyone think that we are making friends by showing weakness? Grow up. We are the remaining super-power and need to start acting like it, instead of "just another nation".
We're not. We're America.
Let's start acting like it.
Taxes
Yeah, taxes. I'm going to make this short because I don't have a lot of time. Basically we pass the following Constitutional Amendment because I don't trust the government with taxes:
The IRS and all accompanying agencies shall be dissolved and a 12.5% federal sales tax shall take its place. This rate cannot be raised more than .5% in any twelve month period and can only be changed by a vote of 65% or greater in both Houses of Congress and must also be signed by the President.
A new flat income tax shall be imposed on all income made in the United States of America at a permanently fixed rate of 1% of gross personal income without exception or deduction. This flat income tax is not eligible for change under any circumstances.
This flat tax shall take place the calendar year following its passage and shall remain in effect unless and until changed by Constitutional amendment.
BTW, I'd also like to see something talking about earmarks but wouldn't want to turn this into the second coming of the 14th amendment. The bottom line is that federal spending should be limited to spending authorized by the tenth amendment. States can build bridges on non-interstate highways and build museums to Roy Orbison or whatever.
The IRS and all accompanying agencies shall be dissolved and a 12.5% federal sales tax shall take its place. This rate cannot be raised more than .5% in any twelve month period and can only be changed by a vote of 65% or greater in both Houses of Congress and must also be signed by the President.
A new flat income tax shall be imposed on all income made in the United States of America at a permanently fixed rate of 1% of gross personal income without exception or deduction. This flat income tax is not eligible for change under any circumstances.
This flat tax shall take place the calendar year following its passage and shall remain in effect unless and until changed by Constitutional amendment.
BTW, I'd also like to see something talking about earmarks but wouldn't want to turn this into the second coming of the 14th amendment. The bottom line is that federal spending should be limited to spending authorized by the tenth amendment. States can build bridges on non-interstate highways and build museums to Roy Orbison or whatever.
Social Security/Medicare Fix
We have an unsustainable $38 TRILLION commitment with the current Social Security and Medicare plans. The problem with the current programs is that they cover everyone. Why not make Social Security/Medicare, et al like food stamps? You would have simple qualifications to qualify for Social Security/Medicare:
1) You must be 65 or older AND:
2) You can make no more than 25% above poverty level (about $18,200 for a family of two) OR:
3) Are disabled to the point it prohibits employment
Now, we have a sustainable designed to help the needy.
There has to be a transition to a fix this large, so if you are 50 or older, you would have two options:
1) Stay in the current system with current system payouts (which are quite weak)
2) Choose the 35-49 option.
35-49 Option:
You would receive what you have paid into Social Security in one lump sum. No interest gained, just what you have paid into the system. You can then invest in a 401K or some other option. These new retirement options would be named to you and would be transferred when switching jobs and would remain active even during times of unemployment (you would just not pay into them during that time). The bottom line is that personal investments tend to give much higher returns than the Social Security system; that's why rich people don't invest in government bonds other than as a diversification option. What about the few whose returns don't give back more? Easy; if they NEED it, Social Security is there.
If you are under 34, you will continue to pay into the system, but unless you are poor or disabled at 65, you would pay into a 401K instead of to the government. And since the Social Security/Medicare burden has been lightened, so will the taxes.
Taxes. Hmmm, that's my next post.
1) You must be 65 or older AND:
2) You can make no more than 25% above poverty level (about $18,200 for a family of two) OR:
3) Are disabled to the point it prohibits employment
Now, we have a sustainable designed to help the needy.
There has to be a transition to a fix this large, so if you are 50 or older, you would have two options:
1) Stay in the current system with current system payouts (which are quite weak)
2) Choose the 35-49 option.
35-49 Option:
You would receive what you have paid into Social Security in one lump sum. No interest gained, just what you have paid into the system. You can then invest in a 401K or some other option. These new retirement options would be named to you and would be transferred when switching jobs and would remain active even during times of unemployment (you would just not pay into them during that time). The bottom line is that personal investments tend to give much higher returns than the Social Security system; that's why rich people don't invest in government bonds other than as a diversification option. What about the few whose returns don't give back more? Easy; if they NEED it, Social Security is there.
If you are under 34, you will continue to pay into the system, but unless you are poor or disabled at 65, you would pay into a 401K instead of to the government. And since the Social Security/Medicare burden has been lightened, so will the taxes.
Taxes. Hmmm, that's my next post.
A Question of Torture
I have no idea why I'm so riled up about this right now but on behalf of the 100,000+ people who will die in our next 9-11, you politicians need to get off your high horse and start protecting the people you supposedly serve.
We are tired of political expediency eroding basic protections while you use your office to advance your nepotism and line your pockets. After the next 9-11, a lot of finger pointing will be going on but the American people aren't stupid. If you can't put the survival of the American people at the top of your agenda, then you don't deserve the office you hold. You think that water boarding may constitute torture and run to bury your head beneath a judicial blanket, but Linus isn't even that naive.
You hypocrites! You ignore the law whenever it's convenient for you! Whether it's campaign donations or spending taxpayer dollars on your whores, you abuse the law as easily as you abandon the trust the people have given you, yet when it comes to our survival you quickly mount the high horse and hold your nose above us peons behind the banner of the law.
What will your answer be, after our next 9-11? What will you tell the families of the victims?
Again, if you can't pledge to do EVERYTHING to protect the lives of the people whom you serve or don't understand why you need to, then get out of the way and let someone else serve who can.
You're just in the way.
We are tired of political expediency eroding basic protections while you use your office to advance your nepotism and line your pockets. After the next 9-11, a lot of finger pointing will be going on but the American people aren't stupid. If you can't put the survival of the American people at the top of your agenda, then you don't deserve the office you hold. You think that water boarding may constitute torture and run to bury your head beneath a judicial blanket, but Linus isn't even that naive.
You hypocrites! You ignore the law whenever it's convenient for you! Whether it's campaign donations or spending taxpayer dollars on your whores, you abuse the law as easily as you abandon the trust the people have given you, yet when it comes to our survival you quickly mount the high horse and hold your nose above us peons behind the banner of the law.
What will your answer be, after our next 9-11? What will you tell the families of the victims?
Again, if you can't pledge to do EVERYTHING to protect the lives of the people whom you serve or don't understand why you need to, then get out of the way and let someone else serve who can.
You're just in the way.
The Spirit: Worst Comic Book Movie EVER...
Until The Spirit, Frank Miller was Hollywood's comic book golden boy. He could do no wrong. That reign has come to an end. Frank Miller, who both wrote and directed this...thing will be lucky if someone just starts screaming about 300 and Sin City. And someone needs to start screaming that really loud because I am still trying to wash this movie out of my memory.
I really don't want to make this a full review because that would entail having to remember it to make comments. My two teens, Justin and Cody were laughing all through the movie, it was that bad. And no, they weren't laughing at the funny parts. They were laughing AT THE MOVIE.
Why is it the worst comic book movie ever? Because it had all of the advantages but came out making Dolph Lundgren's Punisher look good. How can you fail with FRANK MILLER writing and directing? Production values were great, though the Sin City thing wore thin in places. Shots were original, the musical score was fantastic.
And yet it tanked.
BADLY.
I don't want to dwell on any scenes (not to spoil any scenes, because frankly, I don't care) because it is just that painful. But think about this; there is one scene about five minutes long showing a human head on a foot hopping around and everyone saying "That's just weird". "Yeah, that's just weird." "I know, but that's weird!"
After a serious moment when the Spirit is confronting his mortality, Justin said "Wow, is it going to get serious now?" The instant he asked that, the scene switched to a dinosaur head.
I'm serious! A TOY DINOSAUR HEAD!
It's like the movie itself is on drugs and has contaminated you. The Spirit tries to deny that, screaming at one point, "I'm not on drugs!"
Do not see this movie. Don't even give it the dignity of a download. Before you go to bed tonight, say an extra prayer of thankfulness if you haven't wasted your money on The Spirit.
I really don't want to make this a full review because that would entail having to remember it to make comments. My two teens, Justin and Cody were laughing all through the movie, it was that bad. And no, they weren't laughing at the funny parts. They were laughing AT THE MOVIE.
Why is it the worst comic book movie ever? Because it had all of the advantages but came out making Dolph Lundgren's Punisher look good. How can you fail with FRANK MILLER writing and directing? Production values were great, though the Sin City thing wore thin in places. Shots were original, the musical score was fantastic.
And yet it tanked.
BADLY.
I don't want to dwell on any scenes (not to spoil any scenes, because frankly, I don't care) because it is just that painful. But think about this; there is one scene about five minutes long showing a human head on a foot hopping around and everyone saying "That's just weird". "Yeah, that's just weird." "I know, but that's weird!"
After a serious moment when the Spirit is confronting his mortality, Justin said "Wow, is it going to get serious now?" The instant he asked that, the scene switched to a dinosaur head.
I'm serious! A TOY DINOSAUR HEAD!
It's like the movie itself is on drugs and has contaminated you. The Spirit tries to deny that, screaming at one point, "I'm not on drugs!"
Do not see this movie. Don't even give it the dignity of a download. Before you go to bed tonight, say an extra prayer of thankfulness if you haven't wasted your money on The Spirit.
Caroline Smith for Senate
Let's say there is a woman named Caroline Smith who wants Hillary Clinton's senate seat. She has never run for any public office and, as far as I know, even held a real job. No, I don't count being on boards of charities. Those are like political appointments.. She did write a book about the Constitution, she's good with socialite parties and is a lawyer, though not licensed. She kind of let that go for several years though I hear she's going to pay her dues this year.
My point is, that if Caroline Smith had the same qualifications that Caroline Kennedy has, Caroline Smith would have no chance of getting this seat. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada. I'm tired of hearing "Think of her DNA" as an excuse to vote for someone who doesn't even think enough of her state to vote in a regular election, much less represent that state by...voting.
So the same crowd who was hissing at Sarah Palin, who owned her own business for years, was a City Councilman, Mayor and then Governor of her state are giving us....Caroline Kennedy???
Oh, and I love the rumors about Chelsea Clinton who is like Caroline Kennedy but constitutionally too young for the position, even though some people don't quite care about a little thing like the Constitution.
C'mon, Democrats, show some backbone. If your principles allowed you to maul Sarah Palin, then those principles should not allow Caroline Kennedy to seriously ask the question.
My point is, that if Caroline Smith had the same qualifications that Caroline Kennedy has, Caroline Smith would have no chance of getting this seat. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada. I'm tired of hearing "Think of her DNA" as an excuse to vote for someone who doesn't even think enough of her state to vote in a regular election, much less represent that state by...voting.
So the same crowd who was hissing at Sarah Palin, who owned her own business for years, was a City Councilman, Mayor and then Governor of her state are giving us....Caroline Kennedy???
Oh, and I love the rumors about Chelsea Clinton who is like Caroline Kennedy but constitutionally too young for the position, even though some people don't quite care about a little thing like the Constitution.
C'mon, Democrats, show some backbone. If your principles allowed you to maul Sarah Palin, then those principles should not allow Caroline Kennedy to seriously ask the question.
There's Something Here...
I've been watching several of Penn Jillette's YouTube posts and I've got to say, I admire the man. Sure, we disagree on several issues, but there's a respect there for differing opinion and you can't help but admire that. Any politician would be wise to adopt that stance, not making their campaign about hating the other guy/party but to present the issues.
No, that's not Pollyanna thinking.
The American people aren't stupid. We know when a politician is trying to play us. If they are on our side, we agree with the negative attacks against "the other guy/party" but any attacks directed against us are automatically defended. So far from actually moving anyone, they merely cement a person's beliefs.
Let's be honest; today's politicians are about polling before they respond. Why can't a politician stand on what they believe, what they know in their heart to be the right thing to do?
FEAR.
Fear that if they do, the opponent will twist their words to mean something they don't. We need politicians who can rise above party and run on ideology. If you want my vote, be honest with me and let me decide if I want to vote for you, not your polling group or marketing director.
Don't insult me. Lead me.
No, that's not Pollyanna thinking.
The American people aren't stupid. We know when a politician is trying to play us. If they are on our side, we agree with the negative attacks against "the other guy/party" but any attacks directed against us are automatically defended. So far from actually moving anyone, they merely cement a person's beliefs.
Let's be honest; today's politicians are about polling before they respond. Why can't a politician stand on what they believe, what they know in their heart to be the right thing to do?
FEAR.
Fear that if they do, the opponent will twist their words to mean something they don't. We need politicians who can rise above party and run on ideology. If you want my vote, be honest with me and let me decide if I want to vote for you, not your polling group or marketing director.
Don't insult me. Lead me.
A Further Note
The more I think about my last post, the more I am puzzled by the Left's logic when it comes to free speech. Think about it; when you break it down, religion is just one type of philosophy, but it is the only specifically named philosophy protected by the Constitution. For that to somehow mean that it has fewer protections than any other philosophy is illogical.
A teacher in school who promotes a secular philosophy is given all kinds of protections to promote their viewpoint. Okay, that's fine; they have freedom of speech. I get that. My question is how then can they be restricted just because the philosophy in question is religious? Teachers have the same freedom of speech that the secularist enjoys as well as the specifically stated freedom of religion.
The only answer I have ever heard is that by allowing religious viewpoints, it somehow possibly demeans a minority viewpoint that is not religious; that it violates a "right not to be offended". But this answer doesn't make sense. The Pro-Choice crowd is always screaming how their viewpoint is the majority, so why don't they advocate censoring the Pro-Choice viewpoint to avoid offending someone with a Pro-Life viewpoint?
And if it is a matter of a mythical "freedom not to be offended" then how come this right is only exercised against the freedom of religion? That is, why isn't it invoked with it comes to freedom of speech, or press, or assembly?
For too long the Left has taken the good intentions of the American people and tied them with their own noose. The American people don't mind allowing divergent viewpoints; in fact, we thrive on them. But to use that as a basis to censor the majority runs specifically counter to the American way of life. More on this later; I'm not through with this topic yet.
A teacher in school who promotes a secular philosophy is given all kinds of protections to promote their viewpoint. Okay, that's fine; they have freedom of speech. I get that. My question is how then can they be restricted just because the philosophy in question is religious? Teachers have the same freedom of speech that the secularist enjoys as well as the specifically stated freedom of religion.
The only answer I have ever heard is that by allowing religious viewpoints, it somehow possibly demeans a minority viewpoint that is not religious; that it violates a "right not to be offended". But this answer doesn't make sense. The Pro-Choice crowd is always screaming how their viewpoint is the majority, so why don't they advocate censoring the Pro-Choice viewpoint to avoid offending someone with a Pro-Life viewpoint?
And if it is a matter of a mythical "freedom not to be offended" then how come this right is only exercised against the freedom of religion? That is, why isn't it invoked with it comes to freedom of speech, or press, or assembly?
For too long the Left has taken the good intentions of the American people and tied them with their own noose. The American people don't mind allowing divergent viewpoints; in fact, we thrive on them. But to use that as a basis to censor the majority runs specifically counter to the American way of life. More on this later; I'm not through with this topic yet.
Federal Funding and Speech Rights
I wonder how Planned Parenthood can officially support a political candidate while receiving tax dollars but somehow churches can't...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)