Can we all agree that words have meaning and that changing them to suit those in our populace who seek to avoid responsibility for their actions only helps blur the line between good and evil?

Good. Next question: why do we allow the words like “gay” to be co-opted into a euphemism for “homosexual” or even the original word for it “sodomite”?

After all, who could argue with Noah Webster?

What we are really talking about in light of the SCOTUS' Obergefell v. Hodges opinion is “marriages between sodomites”– not “gay marriage” or “same-sex marriage”.

Even the whole national “conversation” has been focused on the gender of the sodomites instead of their elective predisposition to commit “crimes against nature” as Webster so eloquently put it.

It was these crimes that our Judeo-Christian society originally enacted laws against for good reason.

SOD’OMY, noun A crime against nature.

Webster’s American Dictionary of the English Language, 1828

Yes, there is a negative connotation to the word “sodomite” because they are committing crimes against “Nature and Nature’s God.” The connotation was intended by our forefathers. It is the same with words like “illegal alien” (which is the term used for them in the United States Code 8 USC). Somehow we have started calling them all sorts of nonsense like:

• illegal immigrant – an immigrant is someone who comes here legally with the intent to assimilate
• undocumented immigrant – see above
• migrant - see above
• undocumented worker – not all of them are working or want to work for that matter
• guest worker – they are not our guests and see above
• seasonal labor – in which season do they return home?
• etc...

We can love a sinner and still recognize and name his sin for what it is.

Do not bow to pressure because a spade doesn’t want to be called a spade!

The post-election uproar of 2020 continues. I have begun to receive questions from friends about how we can ensure the presidential electoral vote is counted correctly. More precisely: what does the U.S. Constitution say about how the electors are declared?

First, let's start with the appropriate section of the Constitution: Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 which states the following.

The petition to recall Governor Newsom (Nuisance) was approved on June 10th. Time is of the essence.

If you are tired of the crime rate, unafordable housing, rampant homelessness, failing schools, irresponsible spending, please get involved in this effort. You can be a part of liberating your state from a #LittleTyrant.

Click on the images below to download.

By now, nearly everyone in America has been told they are under a state and/or county executive fiat to stay within their homes or to avoid assembling in groups of 10 or more. Some of you are in a health situation where this makes sense for you and your family, and you have voluntarily complied. Many others have simply complied because they are unsure of their rights and are afraid of what might happen to them if they violate the order...

...and then there is the rest of us who ask:

• What gives you the authority to prevent me from meeting with others?
• Aren't you violating my Constitutional rights?
• What are you going to do if I don't comply?

Recent threats of gun control by those in both major parties, as well as the President of the United States, have once again thrust the 2nd Amendment into the spotlight.  While observing many of the debates around this topic, it has become apparent to me that many (on both sides of the argument) have been unduly influenced or distracted by the various Supreme Court decisions.  But it is more than that:  they are under the false impression that the Supreme Court of the United States is the final arbiter of the Constitution, even if their opinions are contrary to the actual text.

Although to most it is considered common sense, the concept that well-defined and protected borders keeps our nation secure is still lost on some.  Protecting American lives, property, culture, sovereignty, jobs, and resources are just some of the obvious benefits.  Yet, as the anarchy-leaning, foreign and domestic enemies to our Constitution see the resurgence of effective law enforcement across America, the tired cries of Federal Supremacy versus State Sovereignty arguments begin to rear their ugly head.

Since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, nearly 140,000 people have died at the hands of illegal aliens on U.S. soil. That is more than we've lost in every war, military action, and terrorist attack going to the Korean War COMBINED!

View the PDF version of H.R. 2458, "The Jamiel Shaw, II Memorial Act of 2017".

I am re-posting the following article I wrote in 2005.

On January 19th, 2005, I watched a program on CNN entitled, "Defending America". The program aired during the Anderson Cooper 360 show. In it, CNN’s Drew Griffin interviewed Michael Touhey the American Airlines ticket agent who sold tickets to Mohammed Atta and his henchman.

The most compelling part of the show, to me, was that the first thing Mr. Touhey thought when Atta approached his counter was, "if these two don't look like terrorists, I don't know who does" (paraphrased). Yet, despite his "gut feeling", he issued tickets to both. In fact, he said that his second thought was of shame for judging based on his "gut feeling" and their appearance.

The John Hancock Committee' Makes a Feeble Attempt to Answer the Question: "If the Federal Government Ignores the Current Constitution, Why Would They Adhere to an Amended Constitution?"

The John Hancock Committee for the States (JHC) gives numerous justifications (excuses) for why the federal government cannot seem to follow the current constitution. (Again, failing to note the states are guiltily of such as well.)  In short, JHC excuses could be summed up by saying the Framers were inexperienced, naive, simpletons who had no clue as to the (real) nature of mankind.

"That violates the 'separation of church and state'!"

How often do you hear this phrase screamed across the airwaves in a news program or a heated debate about the role of religion in our government?

Do you ever give it a second thought?

Do you know where the phrase originated?

If you said, "The Constitution" or "the 1st Amendment", you're wrong! This phrase does not appear once in any of our founding documents--even though, the proponents of a "separation of church and state" would have you believe just that, or that it was a founding principle of this nation.

Let's explore the history of this phrase and look at the words of the Founders and our government documents that will arm you with the true history of Christianity in our government's history.

The other day, my 9 year old son came into my office and asked me if I knew the "Pledge of Allegiance".

Of course, he was really prompting me to ask him so he could recite it to me--and how proud I was that he did! These are the times I love the most about being a father. What a great opportunity to talk with my son about what the "Pledge of Allegiance" means.

This got me thinking about how many of us just recite the Pledge without really thinking about it's meaning, and more importantly what it means to pledge our allegiance.

So, let's first review the history of the pledge.

It seems that everywhere you turn on the internet, someone is calling himself a "patriot." There are patriots, patriot groups, patriotic sentiments, patriotic language, and the list goes on.

But are all of these "patriots" operating from the same definition of the word? Does it even matter?

Words do matter. The more complacent we become about the use of the English language, the easier it becomes for the opportunists and the more devious among us to subtly (or not so subtly) hijack the language to suit their own nefarious purposes.

It is called by many names: Constitutional Convention, Con-Con, Convention of States, Article V Convention.

But just because we can have one, doesn't mean we should have one. In fact, the opposite is true.

Fox News recently published an article in their Politics section entitled "States' rights advocates eye convention to bypass Congress, amend Constitution." As the title implies, the article discusses the efforts by what they refer to as "States' Rights advocates" to call for a "convention of states." Right out of the gate, the deception begins--be it intentional or simply due to ignorance and lazy reporting.

With all of these references to the states, you would think that an Article V Convention (as it is most precisely called) is controlled by the states. However, this is not the case.

Every so often, the question is raised whether the United States should grant citizenship to children of illegal aliens. These children are more commonly known as "Anchor Babies" because they are used as an anchor to secure their family to this country illegally.

The most common justification for allowing this practice of granting citizenship to anchor babies is Section 1 of the 14th Amendment which reads

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." (Emphasis added)

That pesky phrase underlined above somehow has been ignored for decades when applied to anchor baby cases.

One of the rare, positive effects that has come out of Congress recently is the introduction into the Rules of the House of Representatives the requirement to cite "as specifically as practicable the power or powers granted to Congress in the Constitution to enact the bill..." (113th Congress, House Rules, Rule XII, paragraph 7c).

Sometimes it is so frustrating scrolling through all of the social media out there full of the latest unbelievable act of this politician or that branch of government.

It is frustrating because recounting and underscoring the wrongness of these acts, or testifying to how angry it makes you, or spending time creating memes about them does nothing to solve the problem. While sharing news stories and commentaries with your fellow citizens is important, we have far too many of these social media "pundits" out there and not enough analysts, planners, and principled leaders.

“A Republic, if you can keep it.”

These were the words Dr. Benjamin Franklin replied on the final day of deliberations at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 when asked about the type of government the delegates had created. Franklin was clearly alluding to the fact that a republic does not stand on its own; rather, it can only be maintained by an involved and informed citizenry. Only recently, more than two centuries later, does the largely apathetic population of the United States recognize the magnitude of Dr. Franklin’s sage words.

MoveOn.org co-founder Joan Blades and Tea Party Patriots/Convention of States co-founder Mark Meckler have been working on a "grand bargain" for years.

Executive Summary

Progressive groups and leaders are working hand in hand with "conservative" groups to promote a rewrite of our federal Constitution. Some "conservatives"[i] like Mike Farris and Kris Kobach deny this reality, but other "conservatives" flaunt it. Backing both sides are the Progressive and “conservative” billionaire boys’ clubs. What does this tell us and what does it tell us about those who deny it is going on? It appears what is in the works is a Progressive/moderate-establishment Republican compromise.

H.R. 1041, “The Jamiel Shaw, II Memorial Act of 2015”

(Formerly the Illegal Alien Crime Reporting Act)

THE TIME HAS COME FOR H.R. 1041 TO GET HEARINGS AND A VOTE!

It is time to defend America’s children!

Our Republic is in serious trouble. The Framers would not recognize our government and they would not have tolerated the current level to which our fundamental rights have been derogated.