Bye Bye for Now

For now, Wichita water can say Bye Bye to fluoridation.

Amazingly, the deceitful propagandists with their exorbitant spending did not win the day.  Enough people were aware of the facts and were unwilling to be swayed by dishonest dentists, doctors, and pharmacon pushers that the addition of this poison to our drinking water was voted down by 60% to 40%.

Therefore, those who want to poison themselves may do so, but the rest of us are safe from forced fluoridation.  At least until the Obama and his health czar or other administrative tyrant somehow make it a national mandate.

At least we should not be getting any more phone calls from the ADA calling us liars for presenting the facts that even the FDA and CDC openly admit.

It is a little victory, but nevertheless cause for giving thanks to God.

Election Day

Tomorrow Americans will be voting concerning various political issues, including who will be the President for the next four years.

I have met a few people who think that Obama is the right choice.  I am amazed at their reasoning when they try to explain.

I have met many more who think that Romney is the lesser of two evils.

In talking with people I have heard many people say that they would consider voting for a third party candidate, but that such a candidate cannot win.

Huh?

I’ve seen polls that indicate that those claiming to be independent of the two lock-step parties are as much as 40%.

If everyone one who claims to be independent really meant it and voted for say, Gary Johnson, he would be the next president elect.

If everyone who said, “He can’t win” voted for him, guess what?

I don’t agree with Gary on everything, but hearing him speak and reading his positions, he seems to me to take the Constitution very seriously.  He has a good record.  He is every bit as pro-Life as Romney.

You think otherwise?

Read what Romney’s site says:

Values: Marriage, Family, Life.

First notice that this is stated in the third person.  This is written by someone other than Romney.

Next notice that he makes no statement of any actual plan for action.

The boldest statement made is:

“He will protect the right of health care workers to follow their conscience in their work.”

How?

Every statement indicates that he intends to point his finger at someone else and claim no responsibility himself.  Read what his propagandist writes for him.  See if he ever actually commits to anything.  Anything at all.

Gary Johnson at least speaks in the first person or simply states the points that he believes.  Johnson says basically the same regarding protecting life that Romney says.  He says that all life is precious and must be protected.  He furthermore limits a woman’s choice to viability of a fetus.  So if this is pressed regarding what viability actually means, then the fetus would be protected from conception.  This is not his current stand, but he indicates protection for those he counts as viable as necessary.  This is actually more than Romney states as his intended actual action.

But then, what Republican president has actually done anything more than claim to be pro-Life.  What president has actually done anything about it?

On the other hand, pro-Life presidents have pressed for the Patriot Act and the TSA and Homeland Security and other horrific acts.

Johnson says: Civil Liberties:

• The PATRIOT Act should be repealed, which would restore proper judicial oversight to federal investigations and again require federal investigators to prove probable cause prior to executing a search.
  
• Habeas corpus should be respected entirely, requiring the government to either charge incarcerated individuals with a crime or release them.
  
• The TSA should take a risk-based approach to airport security. Only high-risk individuals should be subjected to invasive pat-downs and full-body scans.
  
• The TSA should not have a monopoly on airport security. Airports and airlines should be encouraged to seek the most effective methods for screening travelers, including private sector screeners. Screeners outside of government can be held fully accountable for their successes and failures.

This is a very good start.  Imagine if we had a president who actually tried to accomplish these things.

At least pro-Life people would not be labeled as terrorists and arrested for speaking out.

What did either of the Bushes do?  What does Romney actually commit himself to do?

Johnson is on the ballot.  Voting for him is easy.  Voting for him is casting a true NO vote to the way the lockstep parties have been leading us.  That may be a long way from what a great option would be, but it would be a step in the right direction.

If anyone thinks that the Patriot Act is a small issue, wait till that person is arrested without Habeas Corpus.  Suddenly very little else will matter.

Sadly, Johnson admits that he does not know much about the NDAA, but since he desires to repeal the Patriot Act, he would surely also want to repeal its big brother.

At any rate, it will surely be interesting to see how many people are truly independents, and how many are merely noise makers.

Americans Enslaved Both to and through Apathy

According to Wichita: Population Profile, the total number of city residents for the year 2000 was 344,284. The age categories are listed by 5 year increments, but that still allows one to consider the primary voting age population of 20 years and older. Subtracting the numbers for those under 20, 102,704 from 344,284 leaves a total of 241,580 people of voting age. And this number does not count 18-19 year olds.

So out of 241,580 people, 26,305 voted in the February 28 special election regarding the City Council’s attempt to misdirect tax money for private gain. This is slightly less than 11 percent of those who could have voted.

What does this mean?

It seems to indicate at least three things.

1. that the perception among the citizenry regarding whether their efforts can have a genuine and substantial impact upon the actions of the government and government leaders is becoming more negative
   
2. that people are pressed so hard to fight for personal survival that fewer and fewer people are investing the time and effort required to make informed political decisions
   
3. that fewer and fewer people believe that they are empowered to learn sufficiently the issues on which they would vote
   

During my activities earlier in the day I spoke with a number of people regarding the special election. I spoke to about a dozen people, small businessmen who serve the community with their businesses, intelligent businessmen who are well educated and hard workers. They all said that they did not know enough about the issue to vote responsibly. When I shared the details with them, details that were in the local paper and easily accessible on the Internet, they were appalled by the facts. They all were enraged by what was being done. Yet not one indicated an intention to go and vote against what they counted as being wrong. Not one.

Perhaps some did decide to go and vote. I hope so.

But what is wrong that less than 11% actually voted?

We receive no television broadcasts in our home. We no longer receive the newspaper because of the endless lies and misrepresentations in it. Yet I knew about this issue.

Why?

First, those who were seeking to steal the tax money kept calling me trying to convince me to vote in favor of it. These calls were of the type that I recognized as deceptive propaganda, simply by the language and approach utilized. This alone made me investigate.

But there were also billboards all over town. There were mailings of propaganda. There were radio advertisements. There were campaign lawn signs on the street corners.

What is happening that people no longer hear or see? How is it that people no longer perceive?

Is this merely apathy, or is this something more?

- - -

Representation Made Possible Through Efforts of the Vigilant

I was very pleasantly surprised by the this announcement at the KWCH 12 website:

(WICHITA, Kan.)—

After months of robo-calls, mailers and yard signs on both sides of the issue, Wichita voters voted no to giving the Ambassador Hotel a majority of the guest tax revenue it generates. Here's a look at the results:

No: 61% or 16,198 voters

Yes: 38% or 10,107 voters

To read the reported reactions of both sides after the election see:

Wichita votes down Ambassador Hotel tax incentive

"Vote No" group says hotel vote sends clear message

The article goes on to say:

Usually guest tax revenue generated by hotels goes directly to the Convention and Visitors Bureau. However, the incentive package approved by the Wichita City Council council would have allowed the developer to keep 75% of the guest tax to put back into the hotel.

Tuesday's special election means the guest tax generated at the hotel will be spent to promote tourism.

Wow! Imagine that! The tax will be used for the declared purpose instead of for personal gain (city council approved and legalized theft).

The vigilance of those who gathered the signatures on the petition to force this vote by which the city council was held accountable for their double dealing paid off. The people were made aware of this unethical handling of tax money so that they reacted and voted it down.

Imagine if the American people woke up and voted this way in the Republican primaries and caucuses! Imagine if they voted to nominate the only candidate who is calling for the Federal government to stop raping the nation and giving the people’s hard earned money to the globalist elite!

Could it happen?

I did not think that today’s special election would actually succeed. What a wonderful surprise to be proven wrong.

If it happens at the national level I will likely wonder whether I’m dreaming.

- - -

Today It Concludes

Today the election process concludes.

The polling station opened at 6:00 AM. We arrived at 6:15 AM and the parking lot was full!

We entered the building and there was a line. No surprise.

Then a kind lady asked pointed us to our line, which was very short. For some reason, not many S-Z people were in line at this time.

Then we were asked whether we would like to stand in the long line for the voting machines or to take the short line for paper ballots.

Paper!

We zoomed through. We had examined the candidates and brought our little sample ballots with our selections marked and simply sat down at our individual booths and filled in the little circles.

Then the ballots were fed through a scanner. It read the ballots in about two seconds per ballot.

Why on earth, with this available, is so much money being spent to develop voting machines?

And why did so many people choose to stand in line when they could have moved through quickly, with the added benefit of the security of a paper ballot?

Don’t know.

But soon, the voting will be complete and the votes will be counted and that will be that.

VERY Helpful Voter's Guide

Kansas voters in Sedgwick, Butler, Harvey and Sumner counties can go to 2008 Voter Guide for an interactive voter's guide. After entering your address it will list the candidates for whom you will be given opportunity to vote. Included are drop down lists with the candidates' responses on the issues.

Life - - - Liberty - - - Pursuit of Happiness

In the Declaration of Independence, Congress sets forth the justification for the dissolution of the political bands which connected them to English government and rule. Most people forget that this is not merely the declaration of Thomas Jefferson, but the Declaration of Congress.

Most people also forget that these words are the beginning of the Declaration: “The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America.”

Congress reached a unanimous decision! This Declaration is a UNANIMOUS Declaration of the thirteen united States of America.

Wow!

What united them so completely? Was it the wisdom and beliefs of Thomas Jefferson?

Hardly.

No. It was what they unanimously held to be true. They easily accepted with complete agreement “these truths to be self-evident.”

What truths?

. . . that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by the Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

The union was based upon belief in the single Creator embraced by all. The rights of men were believed to be endowed by this Creator of all in whom these legislators and their constituents all professed to believe. They unanimously professed in this Declaration their belief in this Creator, the same Creator that was professed by the various States. This Creator is the one proclaimed in the Bible. While they were not unanimous in the manner of worship nor in the faith given by this Creator, they were unanimous in the belief that the Creator declared in the Bible is the source of all the rights that they openly and unanimously declared in this Declaration.

In this unanimous Declaration they declare that three rights in particular exist by this endowment of the Creator: Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

Notice the order of what is declared. Life is first, then Liberty, then the pursuit of Happiness. Thus the first right of human beings is the Right to Life. Without this right there can be no Liberty. Without Life and without Liberty there can be no pursuit of Happiness.

This is why today the nation stands divided and is being conquered. First of all, the very source of human rights is denied in many ways. Some deny the Creator altogether. Some allow that He exists, but do not declare Him as the Creator that the Bible declares. Some are so bold as to deny that the founders even counted this Creator as the basis of the nation. With such division, how can the Rights acknowledged in the Declaration be defended? When the foremost of these Rights is denied to some, how can it be guaranteed for anyone? And when the foremost of the Rights is in jeopardy, how can the Rights that flow from it not also be jeopardized?

Some today insist that to base one’s political commitment upon the single issue of Life is foolishness. Yet if the first Congress had not done so, we would not even have the nation nor the Constitution by which this nation is supposed to be governed.

Is this not food for thought for those who criticize those Pro-Life voters whom they label as single issue voters?

In the end, is there really any other issue?



+ = + = +


Then we have the final sentence of this unanimous Declaration:

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.

Enough Already

Enough already! That is what I keep telling myself regarding the elections.

Is anyone really still considering what to do? It seems not to be so. It seems that people have made up their minds what they will do and now are only arguing with others and with themselves about it.

I really think the real arguing is really that, arguing with selves. Most people have made up their minds to vote for someone with whom they are not pleased. At least this is what I perceive from those who desire a constitutional republic that truly seeks to promote and defend the good of all. By “All” I mean truly that, from the very tiniest and most helpless and without voices that can be heard, to the wealthiest and strongest and most admired in society. Little babies who are in the earliest stages of development and old codgers in wheelchairs with oxygen tanks ALL are people who are protected by the Constitution. Those who believe this to be true, even though the weak and the helpless are often deemed to be inconvenient and burdensome, believe that they nevertheless are created, yes, CREATED equal under the rule of their Creator. Those who believe this are arguing with themselves, trying to convince themselves that someone who does not honor this higher authority quoted in the Declaration upon which the Constitution is founded can be voted for without violation of conscience, without violation of one’s integrity.

The matter is greatly complicated for those who are aware of the third party candidates, especially of those running for the highest civil office in the land. There is one presidential candidate who truly stands apart from the rest. Chuck Baldwin really makes this matter more complicated, especially for those who want to convince themselves that Washington and Jefferson and Adams and Hale and Hamilton and Hancock and Franklin and Jones and the many others who were unwilling to settle for any less than what they counted as true to their convictions really don’t have anything to say to us today. Those who want to convince themselves that such absolutism is no longer possible have to work hard to justify their choice to resist voting for someone like George Washington.

But then maybe people like me are the ones fooling themselves. Maybe such absolutism has never really existed.

What do we observe from such men as the founders of this nation? Did they all agree on everything? Certainly not. Yet they nominated men with whom they agreed. If no such person could be found, they themselves ran for office. Yes, they worked together with whomever was elected, but they voted for what they believed.

Is that different than what most people today are doing, especially among those who profess to have strong convictions?

It certainly seems to be different from what I am seeing and hearing.

Perhaps in my statements I do overstate things, at least with regard to what is possible in the civil realm. But then I believe in the God who says that with Him all things are possible. I believe in the God who created all men equal in terms of their value in the world and in connection with His love. I believe in the God who says that He recreates us to be perfect even as He is perfect.

Because of this, I cannot accept the notion of settling for the lesser of two evils or the lesser of two undesirables. I believe in looking to that which is the very highest and best, even in the political arena. I believe in demanding absolute commitment from a candidate, commitment to protecting and defending the Constitution and to protecting and defending All of “We the People.”

In the past, I was less informed than I am after many years of study and experience. I the past I was less able to discern between candidates. In the past I knew less of the Constitution and of the history that led to its formulation and of the history that shows the many ways in which it has been ignored and abused.

Now I know at least a little more, and I cannot ignore what I have observed and learned. So I will not settle for a lesser candidate even though for all appearances that candidate may have a better chance of prevailing or winning. After all, what good will his victory do me, if he does not truly represent what I believe is right and good?

In this ongoing battle the issue of integrity arises. Perhaps a reminder of the definition would be a fitting ending for this post.

From the American Heritage Dictionary:

1. Steadfast adherence to a strict moral or ethical code.
2. The state of being unimpaired; soundness.
3. The quality or condition of being whole or undivided; completeness.

Well, perhaps it is enough already. Perhaps it was enough even before this post. Perhaps it is simply time to vote and accept what is coming.

Perhaps.

Third Party Presidential Debate

In the following video, also available at Baldwin/Castle 2008 and at YouTube Third Party Presidential Debate, Chuck Baldwin and Ralph Nader express their positions and give a bit of counter on the areas where they are not aligned. Amazingly, however, at least from my observation, the two are in agreement on more things than they are in disagreement.

Also to my amazement, is the number of issues in which Nader makes good sense. He is clearly a well-intentioned person, devoted to what he believes, and willing to stand apart from others in order to remain faithful to the principles that he holds.

The debate, in my opinion, was more of an moderated discussion of ideals, and well-worth viewing. Here it is.




My evaluation of the views expressed by the two candidates is that if Mr. Nader held to the clearly stated basis of the Declaration of Independence, that he and Baldwin would agree on almost everything. As I perceive the difference between the two men and their expressed stands, the difference can be summed up in the matter of where human rights have their origin. Chuck Baldwin believes that human rights have their origin in the clearly stated words of the Bible, as God’s revelation of His Word and will. Ralph Nader believes that human rights have their origin in whatever can be derived from nature and from the will of the people. Interestingly, the two candidates deal with the matters of the Constitution and the founding of the nation differently according to their presumed bases for human rights. By and large, Nader is more prone to make allusions to the founding documents and the founding fathers, while Baldwin is far more prone to quotation of what the founding documents and founding fathers actually say.

This seems to me to be significant.

In contrast to the Obama/McCain campaigns and debates, they don’t even do a decent job of alluding to the founding documents and the founding fathers. This seems to me to be even more significant.

Enjoy the video and make your own evaluations, please.

The Final Week

"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." -- John Quincy Adams


One more week to throw a stone or an angry word at the candidate who is worse than your own! Time is running out!

What a different way from what led to the founding of this nation! What a different way from what led to the very careful and arduous writing of our Declaration of Independence and the follow-up document known as our Constitution!

Yet it seems that the general populace was not that much different than today's populace. Otherwise, why would John Quincy Adams have written what is quoted above?

Apparently, the notion that a vote for a principle that is deemed by many as unobtainable and beyond hope for winning the day is a wasted vote may not be a new notion at all. Apparently those who fought for liberty and justice for all faced the same pessimism in their day as we face today. Apparently what they accomplished was accomplished through faith in what was declared to be impossible and hopeless. Apparently their ideals were counted by many as too high to be realistic and their candidates were counted as too far on the fringe to be electable.

So how on earth did they accomplish these things and win the day?

Apparently it was not by being compromising in their actions! Apparently it was not by settling for the lesser of two evils! Apparently they were unwilling to vote for a candidate on the basis of the rationale: "At least he's not the other guy!" or "He's for hope and change!"

It seems that those who accomplished the great things of the past had rock solid principles that they were willing to fight for, even beyond sacrificing their own lives, but also their fortunes and families.

But these heroes did not choose these principles for themselves. They had a basis for these principles. They declared this basis in their Declaration of Independence and debated from this basis in the Constitutional Convention.

Could that be what is missing today? Could it be that the willingness to tolerate compromise, even the eagerness to embrace compromise, found in the churches in our age, could be the cause of the willingness to settle for so little in the sphere of politics?

But then, the way of compromise is easier. Right? Who wants to stand alone with nothing but one's principles as his footing?

There are still a few. Yes, we do still exist.

Are you one those few, too?

Voter Information

Are you ready to vote?

Do you even know who the candidates are? Seriously. Do you?

Check out the list. You will likely be surprised.

Sedgwick County Election Office Current Candidate Listings





At the Sedgwick County Election Office Web Page you can learn more information as well.




Included is a link for the Kansas VoterView, where you can enter your personal information and learn where your polling place is and all of the information regarding districts, etc.




Check it out, especially the candidates. You will be surprised to learn how many candidates are not even mentioned by the media. Who knows. You may even find out that there is someone running who is actually someone you will WANT to support with your vote rather than just choosing a lesser of two evils, or perhaps not even knowing who you are choosing.

Chuck Baldwin Interview

Finally, an intelligent, articulate, constitutional, and credible candidate!



This video and other discussions are also available at Chuck Baldwin For President Forum and Freedom Money Bomb.

Pro-Choice

The so-called Pro-Choice movement leaves a person who ponders this objectively wondering how on earth such an atrocious lie could be blindly accepted by so many.

If at any stage the baby’s choice is considered, what would that choice be?

Those seeking to eliminate the baby’s choice had MANY opportunities to choose prior to the baby’s conception. But what choice is afforded the baby in this matter?

When you ponder this matter, at what point in your conception would you judge that your mother should have been granted the authority to terminate your development?

I have seen bumper stickers that say,

I’m PRO-CHOICE and I VOTE!

Bewildering!

Proud Conservative Liberal Republican

It seems extremely unlikely that Senator McCain intended to give such an accurate or precise self-definition.



Nevertheless, this is very much the definition that anyone paying attention formulates regarding the senator. Certainly there are others in the Republican Party who are even more liberal. Thus he is indeed a conservative Liberal Republican.

Those public figures who not long ago denounced McCain have changed their tune. Surprised? Me neither.

Now they say that Senator McCain has “listened to the people.” He has made promises that align himself with the will of the conservatives in the Republican Party.

Is that the kind of president that we really want? Do we really want a president who will make promises that counter what he really believes? Do we want someone who will ask us what is right and good?

As for myself, I want a president who clearly states what he believes and stands unmoved upon those principles. I want a president who LEADS by what he says and does rather than one who follows the perceived will of the people long enough to get elected. I want a president who has a history of holding to the principles upon which this nation was founded, holding to them not for the sake of pleasing others and persuading others to support him, but holding to them because he believes that they are the life of the nation. I want a president who will stand tall as a beacon by which others will be directed to the safety of unity under God.

In seeking a candidate whom I may support confidently with my vote, I want a candidate who does not have to try to persuade me that he is conservative and trustworthy. I want a presidential candidate who by his past actions and statements as well as his current actions and statements leaves me without doubt that he is the right man for the office.

If every voter who claims to be conservative and supportive of the US Constitution were to vote according to conscience, supporting such a candidate, even though from a third party, that person would be elected. There are still enough people in this nation who still believe in the principles by which this nation and people have been blessed that if we all united behind a worthy candidate, we could truly make our voices heard.

Isn’t it time that we stop looking to others to speak for us?

The Christian Vote

In a country where the citizens are given the opportunity to vote, a very special privilege and duty is entrusted to the citizenry and to each citizen. It seems, however, that very few citizens actually remember today what a vote really is.

The first two listings for vote in the American Heritage Dictionary are:

* a. A formal expression of preference for a candidate for office or for a proposed resolution of an issue.
* b. A means by which such a preference is made known, such as a raised hand or a marked ballot.

The vote is the citizen’s voice. It is the citizen’s opportunity to stand publicly for what that citizen believes. The vote is the opportunity to have a say in the way that the nation’s and society’s life is ordered. It is the person’s expression of what is right and good, not only for self, but for family, friends, neighbors, for all.

So what does a citizen actually say when that citizen votes for a person that does not stand with the same principles? What does the citizen say when a vote is cast for the lesser of two evils?

On what does a citizen stand when such a vote is cast?

The answer seems to be “winning.”

So what does the citizenry win when a vote is cast for the lesser of two evils?

Some Christians argue that we always cast a vote for the lesser of two evils since all human beings are sinners and all human beings have faults and make errors in judgment.

Well, isn’t that clever? Since all people are sinners and make bad judgments the conclusion is that no one can ever actually stand for what is right and good.

This is ludicrous reasoning. This is the reasoning that has resulted in the kind of politics and politicians that we have today, politics and politicians who say whatever sounds good at the moment but are never held accountable by the people and so they lie and change their promises from minute to minute.

What is worse is that people have started listening to the voices on the radio, voices that actually encourage the voters to be like the politicians. One such clever strategist has named himself the commander of “operation chaos.” Since his party of choice can no longer be called conservative and no longer stands for anything, now, rather than encouraging people to vote for a candidate with conservative principles, now he encourages people to try to cause chaos in the other party by voting in that party.

Why? Why would someone promote such dishonesty? The answer lies in the title that he has claimed for himself. It is about gathering followers to himself.

The really sad point is that people do follow him and boast of their mischief. They speak of themselves as liars and as dishonest and then pride themselves as taking one for the cause.

What cause?

WHAT CAUSE?

They hate themselves for remaining with a party that is represented by someone they distrust, someone who openly undermines what they believe. So what is their answer? To cause trouble in the other party.

Why not let go of the party and take a stand for what is right? Why not let John McCain have the Republican Party? Why not let the dueling duo have the Democrat Party?

Why not stand back from both parties and regroup? What does anyone win by preserving a party that no longer stands for the principles on which it was founded?

What is worse is that people would rather cause trouble when the nation needs to be reunited in the principles that made this nation strong.

Voting is not about one side or another winning. Voting is the voice of the citizenry. It is that which makes this a nation of the people, by the people, and for the people, rather than a battleground for politicians who care only about being elected at the expense of the citizenry.

Do the American people really want to follow the ways of the politicians, or do they want to have the politicians follow the voice of the people? Once upon a time in this nation the people claimed to follow a voice that was greater than their own, a truly reliable voice. When this was their claim, this nation called itself and was known throughout the world as a Christian nation.

Isn’t it time for the citizenry to remember and hear again the voice by which this nation has been blessed beyond that of any nation in history? Isn’t it time for the people of this nation to stop giving their voice away to leadership that leads us in the opposite direction of what we know to be right and true? Isn’t time for the citizenry of this nation to take back their voice and be heard again over the ruckus of the corruption of the media and the politicians?