From time to time I get one of those chain mails that constantly weave their way through cyberspace.  What I think happens to be the most humorous and thoughtful ones I post.


As the CEO of this organization, I have resigned  myself to the fact that Barack Obama is our President, and that our taxes, and government fees will increase in a BIG way.   To compensate for these increases, our prices would have to increase by about 10%.

Since we cannot increase our prices right now due to the dismal  state of the economy, we will have to lay off six of our employees instead.  This has really been bothering me, since I believe we are family here and I didn’t know how to choose who would have to go.

So, this is what I did. I walked through our parking lot and found six Obama bumper stickers on our employees’ cars and have decided these folks will be the ones to let go.  I can’t think of a more fair way to approach this problem.

They voted for change; I gave it to them.

I will see the rest of you at the annual company picnic.

Smart Thinker

Undoubtedly, some will be horrified that a CEO would consider laying off anyone because of their political beliefs.  However, election idiocy has consequences.

Consider the nature of Democratic Party majority.  Is this not a political party that places political correctness far ahead of corporate profits?  If the CEO is not suppose to use profit as his primary criteria for deciding which employees to lay off, what criteria should he use?  Would poetic justice work?

If your vote just happens to be one of those votes that your boss thinks helped to cripple his company, why shouldn’t your boss fire you?

The Cartoons

Here we have the usual complaint about excessive management.

So what does our political leadership propose?  We need layers and layers of government to manage every aspect of the economy.

What follows is a health care proposal that just might improve both our health care and the economy.


Will socialized medicine be good for the members of the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP)?  No.  Then why does the AARP support our government’s takeover of health care.  What follows is a simple explanation.  Our government funds this political advocacy group.

As one might imagine, the fact that the AARP receives government funds is not something the organization wants to advertise.  Since the organization lobbies the government intensely, the potential for a conflict is interest is obvious.  Nonetheless, the AARP does receive government grants.   How much?  Here is the AARP’s financial statement.  The document combines government and private grants into one pot.  In 2008, this pot was $89,649,000.  The report only list the two largest grants, both government grants.  The first was $79,000,000 and the second was $4,000,000.  Thus it is safe to say that the AARP got at least 8 percent of its total 2008 income from the Federal Government.

This conflict of interest is nothing new for the AARP,  and undoubtedly this sort of funding will only increase with the Democrats in charge.  In 2005, Human Events described how the AARP joined forces with the Democrats to oppose Social Security.  Then as now, the AARP received government funds.

AARP stirs considerable anger among conservatives for its aggressive advocacy of liberal causes. Of course, as a private nonprofit organization it has the right to take any stand it chooses on a public policy issue. However, the fact that AARP pursues its political agenda using federal dollars especially angers taxpayers, and not just those who have problems with its politics. The AARP 2004 annual report showed that of the $878 million in revenue AARP received that year $83 million came from the federal government through a variety of grants.

Charlie Jarvis, Chairman and CEO of USA Next, estimates that since 1989, “AARP appears to have taken over a billion dollars in taxpayer money in the form of federal grants.”  (from here)


Every news source has a fault, and Mark Levin most certainly has his.  Levin is an angry man, and anger tends to be both infectious and tiring.  Nonetheless, I listen to Levin.  Why?  Levin does his research and presents supporting facts.

After I started listening to Levin, I decided to read his books.  Here is my report on Men in Black: How the Supreme Court Is Destroying America.

What Is The Book About?

Men in Black came out in 2005.  So it is not a brand new book.  That, however, does not make the book any less relevant.  The issues Levin writes about have grown more acute.   Because of the Democratic Party’s election victories, it is now even less likely that the Supreme Court’s rulings will support and defend our Constitution.

Levin begins his book by pointing out what should be obvious; Supreme Court justices are only men and women, not gods and goddesses.   That is why, he explains, the Constitution gives the Supreme Court no special right to interpret the Law.   Levin underlines this argument with a surprisingly long list of justices who have had mental problems, grown senile in office, or behaved irresponsibility.

Levin then talks about legal issues, and he explains how judges use their position to promote their own personal agendas.  The book provides each of the following subjects its own chapter:

  • The philosophy that underlies judicial activism.  Some judges, for example, consider okay to cite foreign law.
  • An explanation of judicial review.  This addresses the court’s “constitutional argument“ for overturning laws or imposing new laws.
  • The so-called wall separation of church and state.   This chapter answers a question.  How do legal activists use a false interpretation of the Constitution to promote their agenda?
  • Abortion and the “right to privacy. Levin argues that the right to abort evolved through a series of concocted legal decisions.
  • Same-sex “marriage. Levin discusses how justices are promoting the legal right to same-sex marriage one court decision at a time.
  • Affirmative action.   This chapter explains how judges promote affirmative action, racism.
  • Immigration law.  Here Levin explains how the Court is setting immigration policy by establishing nonexistent rights for illegal immigrants.
  • The court’s interference in the war with Al Qaeda.   With its overreaching, the court undermines the power of the Commander in Chief to make war.
  • The commerce clause and creeping socialism.  This chapter is almost funny.  Congress and the Supremes have so broadly interpreted the commerce clause Levin can make it seem funny.
  • Freedom of speech.  This chapter is scary.  What politicians do most expertly is run for public office.  Nonetheless, Congress passed the McCain-Feingold Act without reading or understanding the bill.
  • Growing court interference in elections.  This chapter provides a great explanation of what happened when Al Gore and George Bush fought over the results of the 2000 presidential election in Florida.
  • Stacking the bench.  Only this chapter specifically relates to situation at the time the book was written.  Levin provides advice on how to fight Liberal efforts to stack the bench.
  • Eliminating the Supreme Court’s abuse of its powers.  Here Levin provides his proposals for reforming the Supreme Court.

Other Views

When the Washington Post reviewed the book (here), their reviewer stressed who was reading the book, just Conservatives.  Without saying so, the Post’s reviewer also made it clear he also had not bothered to read the book.  He had almost nothing to say about its actual content.

Rush Limbaugh, obviously partisan, provided his review of the book here.  Limbaugh recommended the book as a must read.  Its contents arm Conservatives with arguments against judicial activism.

Conservatives must explain to the American people that Senate Democrats want activist justices who will continue to impose their personal policy preferences on society by fiat, thereby disenfranchising them and undermining the entire notion of representative government. Conservatives must tap into the public’s growing frustration with the Supreme Court’s increasingly radical and elitist decisions in order to build popular opposition to it.

The best guide to this approach is a timely new book by Mark R. Levin – “Men in Black, How the Supreme Court is Destroying America.” In a scholarly yet readable prose, Levin makes the conservative case. He argues that the time is long overdue to strip the veneer from the facade of the Court. There have been only slightly over 100 justices in our history. They’ve not been imbued with more wisdom or better judgment than the rest of us.

The Heritage Foundation hosted a speech by Levin (see here).  The invite endorses the book, making the point that “a Court that imperiously strikes down laws and imposes new ones purely on its own arbitrary whims” is tyrannical.

Even if you have no inclination to read Levin’s book, listen to Levin’s speech.  The speech provides a good summary of the book.


cross.pngFrom time to time I post one of the pages from Grace for the Moment by Max Lucado.  Something about that page in particular grabs my attention.  So I decide to write and share my thoughts.

Getting Our Attention

Joel 2:13 (New Century Version)

Come back to the Lord your God,
because he is kind and shows mercy.
He doesn’t become angry quickly,
and he has great love.
He can change his mind about doing harm.

How far do you want God to go in getting your attention?  If God has to choose between your eternal safety and your earthly comfort, which do you hope he chooses?

What if he moved you to another land?  (As he did Abraham.)  What if he called your out of retirement?  (Remember Moses?)  How about the voice of an angel or the bowel of a fish?  (A la Gideon and Jonah.)  How about a promotion like Daniel’s or a demotion like Samson’s?

God does what it takes to get our attention.  Isn’t that the message of the Bible?  The relentless pursuit of God.  God on the hunt.  God in the search.  Peeking under the bed for the hiding kids, stirring the bushes for lost sheep.

When I read this page, I was shaken.  I remembered what it had once taken to get my attention, and my eyes teared.  In each of the examples above, with the father of nations, the prophets, and the heroes, God seized a man’s attention by allowing something to happen to that man.

Several years ago God got my attention.  How did He seized my attention?  When a loved one was strickened with a terrible illness,  I did not know what to do.  I could find nothing to do — except pray.

So thoughts raced through my head.  Did God get my attention by hurting a loved one?  Was she put through so much pain and fear just for my sake?  I want to believe God is the Holy One who can do no evil, but I do not know God’s thoughts.  I only know my own.

So I paused and wondered.  First I thought of the Book of Job, of puzzles we cannot solve.  Then I thought of the Apostle Paul.

1 Corinthians 13:11-12 (New Century Version)

When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I stopped those childish ways. It is the same with us. Now we see a dim reflection, as if we were looking into a mirror, but then we shall see clearly. Now I know only a part, but then I will know fully, as God has known me.

Some think of faith as believing because we want to believe.  Yet that is not faith.  That is fantasy.  Such faith was not Paul’s faith.

Paul knew Jesus, but he still required faith to set aside his doubts and uncertainty.  To defeat his doubts, Paul clutched to the belief that God loved him.  Paul found the strength to love God because God first loved him.

And so it must be for me.  To find the strength to set aside my doubts and uncertainty, I too must have faith that God loves me and those I love.