The Texas Watchtower

Not Everbody is a Fan of Tea!

2009-04-20T10:42:00.005-05:00

Throughout this great country there are a thousand different ways to serve tea. In Boston, they serve it either hot or cold with a twist of cranberry, and in Texas it is served brewed by the sun and with a half of bag of refined sugar. Anywhere you go you can find a refreshing embibement made with Great Britain's national beverage. However, not everyone was enthused by the direction a group of concerned citizens decided to serve their T.E.A.

On April 15, 2009 over 750,000 Americans joined together under the title of a "T.E.A. party", and protested the tax and spend policies of the United States Government. Unlike what is being reported by the main stream media, both parties were the subject of the protester's ire. Ordinary Americans gathered with their fellow citizens, and with one voice demanded to be heard. How much more American can you get? Yet, those in both parties, embarrassed by the message behind the T.E.A. Parties, have lashed out at these patriots and have demeaned them every chance they get.

They have attacked the genuineness of the tea parties by claiming that they were organized by the GOP, and that these were anything but spontaneous. Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi called the "Astro-turf" representing that the Tea Parties were fake grassroots movements. If there was real organization, sponsored by the GOP, then why were there so many signs expressing frustration with the GOP? These protests were the real deal!

I was loosely part of the organization of the San Antonio T.E.A. Party, where Glenn Beck help orchestrate the entertainment, but the organization was completely grassroots. The people there were so paranoid of the appearance of not being grassroots, that anyone affiliated with a party or organization was kept at arms length. I know I was one of them. I did not attend because of financial reasons, but I did attend the Fort Worth T.E.A. Party.

The FW party was sponsored by the Tarrant County GOP, and going into it I thought I was going to a pep rally for the GOP; however, I was greatly surprised. Yes, Governor Perry and Rep. Joe Barton (TX-6) came and spoke, but neither of them talked about the GOP. They discussed Conservative principles, and rallied the crowd around these principles. The FW T.E.A. Party was a great experience!

Those on the left and right, who wish to disparage American citizens who speak out against them do themselves a disservice. They reveal their elitist and statist tendencies, and set themselves up to be taken out of the debate. They reveal through their vitriol and consternation that they support government that hinders freedom. They show that their ambition for greater power takes precedence over the will of the people. They also show their fear, that should this movement take root and spread, that they may be out of a job. I'm glad their scared, because scared people do two things: 1. Listen or 2. Make a mistake that takes them out of the equation.

The sentiments of April 15, 2009 are not a fleeting craze! Come November 2010, we may choose to demonstrate this by making a few changes of our own at the ballot box. Those in power or the media, who wish to ridicule and cast us aside, I believe, do so at their own risk.

Where Have All the Cowboys Gone?

2009-04-10T10:38:00.002-05:00

As a young man in Texas, you grow up with icons like Wyatt Earp, The Texas Rangers, Col. William Barret Travis (Commander of the Alamo) and David Crockett. You learn what it means to stand up when no one else will, and look adversity in the eye knowing full well it could lead to your death. You're taught that being a Texan means having the courage of your convictions and standing up for them. Sure, some who are raised in Texas have a more metropolitan upbringing, where your taught that compromise is the way, and that your convictions are fine as long as they don't cost you anything. Thank God, I was raised away from this thinking and taught what it meant to have real courage, by a man who knew what courage was. That being said, I can't say this for the current crop of would be GOP leaders, Governors Mike Sanford (S.C.), Bobby Jindal (L.A.), and Sarah Palin(Alaska) (not a man, but courage respects no sex).

Today in an article in the Politico, we find out that Gov. Sandford, Gov. Jindal and Gov. Palin have all backed away from their stance that they will not take any federal stimulus funds. All three have submitted letters to the federal government asking to be eligible for federal aid. This is a complete 180 degree turn from their stalwart positions made a few months ago. What happened?

The answer: All three have claimed that it is the stiff political pressure from home that has led them to acquiesce to the demands of the political powers that be. Notice it is the political powers that be, and not the people of their state that they are giving into. In other words, it is becoming to politically difficult for them to stand up for their convictions!

The people of their great states demand that they be men and women of action, and to also be men and women of their word. If these individuals hope to run for the highest office in the land, the American people expect the same, and yet, when given a chance to show real leadership they took the most politically expedient way out. This kind of cowardice reminds me of a story all Texan youths are told.

On the twenty-third day of February 1836, Col. William Barrett Travis was faced with a predicament. His troops and the troops of Col Jim Bowie's militia saw the force that Mexican General Santa Anna amassed around the small mission, the Alamo (where Travis and Bowie agreed to fortify themselves), and the Texas troops begin to formulate plans to run. Col. Travis sensing this revolt in the ranks assembles the troops for an announcement in the main yard.

There Col. Travis begins to inform those who have gathered of the worthiness of their cause, and what it means to fight for freedom and to be free. He then informs those who wish to leave that they will not be charged with desertion and are free to go, but he makes one last bold move to get them to join him. Col. Travis draws is sword and cuts a line in the sand before him and asks "Who will join me? Who will join me for Texas?" Not everyone stayed but many did, and thirteen days later they were all dead and the Alamo was lost. However, their bravery became the battle cry for Texas Independence, and became the motivation that led to the successful fight for freedom.

We need more men today like Col. Travis. Yes, he was indebted dandy from South Carolina - hint, hint Gov. Sandford- who took more time designing his uniform than training his troops, but when the time came for him to stand for what he knew was right, he was not afraid and he led his troops valiantly. This gallantry should be ingrained in the leader the GOP chooses to be its standard bearer in 2012. Otherwise, we deserve the scorn that the American people hurl at us, and we do not deserve to have a Republican occupy the White House. America deserves a real leader, not a political hack.

I am proud of my State's heritage, and I am even more proud that my family is now a part of that heritage through my wife. I will now be able to raise my children with these stories, and they will no longer be in the abstract, because the blood of Davey Crockett will flow through their veins. They will now have an ancestral model in which to measure their actions.

On April 15th, all across this great country there will be mini-Alamoes taking place in the form of "Tea Parties". I recommend that you join me and your fellow Americans in their demands that Washington listen. Step across the figurative line in the sand, and join me in standing up for what we believe in, even if our leadership will not!

Game Plan #1: Taking Back the Debate

2009-03-26T14:32:00.002-05:00

Now that the GOP seems to be gaining some momentum in the polls, and are showing some real desire to get their platform out there to the American people, it is is time to start working on strategies to take back the debate. For years we have allowed those on the left to dictate the terms of the debate. We sit back and allow the leftist or statist accuse us of any number of horrible acts simply because we disagree with their policies. We spend way to much time trying to convince the American people that we are not these horrible things. Our time would be much better spent explaining to the American people the merits of our policies, and showing them the real effects of those policies. By doing this we will effectively take back the debate.

One sure fire way that we can be sure that our message is heard, is to completely ignore the left when it goes into ad hoc attack mode. The left will call anyone who advocates reducing welfare as a racist with no heart, but they won't ever talk about the facts. Instead of taking the bait and discussing why our policies are not racist, we should ignore the accuser and continue discussing the benefits of our programs and policy. The American people will listen to the person who is offering real solutions and will ignore those hurling insults.

Mary Spaeth, Communications Aide to President Reagan and Modern Communications Guru, says that "you should never repeat a negative." If someone accuses you of something you should acknowledge the comment, with out repeating it, and then go back to your message. Mary says you should never repeat the accusation. If you do the accusation will be the only thing people will remember. Example: If someone says "you are a racist", you should never say "I am not a racist." If you do this the only thing people will remember is the word "racist'. Instead simply acknowledge their remark by saying, "my opponent through their accusation is simply trying to distract from the truth of the matter, and that is that we need welfare reform." Now the people will remember that "welfare reform" is the "truth". By taking the wind out of their accusation you take back the debate.

The left is not afraid of hurling irrational accusations at the rational policy proposals that our side will propose. They are not afraid of attacking you personally instead debating the merits of the issue. To our opponents, personal attacks and accusations are how you debate, and by trying to refute these accusations and defending ourselves against these attacks we lower ourselves and the level of debate in this country. This is what the American public are finding harder and harder to swallow, and why more and more Americans are getting frustrated with their government. The best way to show how the GOP is different from the DNC, is by raising the level of debate in this country, and by refusing to debate personal attacks by simply brushing them off and staying on message. If we do this, then we will take back the debate and force the left to actually come clean about their real motives.

The Game Plan: How to win the GOP can win its support back.

2009-03-13T14:29:00.002-05:00

Sorry for the long lull in between blog posts, but I wanted to take some time and do some deep reflexion about the current state of my party and the direction I believe the Republican Party needs to go. Unfortunately, the GOP is splitting further every day into two camps: The Conservative Camp and the Moderation Camp. I believe this internal bickering is not beneficial for our party, and is moving us towards a leaderless vaccuum of indecision and confusion. This is the reason why I developed a game plan for the GOP this election cycle.

1. Take back the debate!

Stop letting the Leftists in this country frame the debate. When they do, they paint conservatives in a corner, in which the conservative spends most of their time refuting instead of talking about their solutions. If you can't shut them down in debate, do what they do to us and ignore them. Instead of refuting their claims, don't even acknowledge them, make some claims of your own, and then talk solutions. This is the only way to get your message out and take back the debate. STOP FALLING FOR THE RHETORICAL TRAPS OF THE LEFT!

2. Throw an elbow when they throw a jab!

Stop playing nice! Our opponents are shameless in their name calling and hystrionics. Don't be afraid to call a spade a spade. Look at the response towards Ari Fleischer's appearance on MSNBC's Hardball on Wednesday. Ari called Chris Matthews out on all of his hyberbolic accusations, and made Matthews acknowledge his sensationalistic twisting of the facts. It was awesome, and at the same time Ari was respectful, but he was not afraid to call Matthews out. This is what it takes. The facts and the truth on our side, start using it to throw an elbow from time to time. The American people will respect that. They want us to fight for them, not suck up to them.

3. Approach and reveal the heart in Conservatism.

Instead being completely focused on numbers and statistics in our arguments, we need to start appealing to heart of the American people. We need to celebrate the American spirit, and brag on the individual who succeeds on their own without the government being their savior. We need to champion people like Star Parker, who pulled herself out of the trap of welfare and became successful. We need to put more heart and less brain in our arguments. We need to show that conservatism puts the individual above government, and that our policies are about empowerment and not enslavement. This is the approach of every successful political talk radio host, and it is a strategy we need to adopt.

4. We need real Pro-Life policies, not wedge issues.

The GOP needs to get away from divisive issues like gay marriage and abortion, and begin to show a willingness to compromise to take back certain ground in issues like the above. We need to say that we could be fore civil unions, so long as there are protections for churches who do not wish to perform gay ceremonies. We should say that we would be willing to allow abortions for four key situations: Rape, Incest, Viability of the fetus and health of the mother. If we could get abortion limited to these four areas it would be a huge success and would show compassion towards hard situations.

That being said these issues should not be our sole focus during elections. Yes, they are great for ralling the troops, but we have to show the American people that we care about what they care about, and that is putting food on the table and gas in their car, keeping their children safe and being able to save for retirement and the future. This is what they care about, not whether Adam and Steve are wanting to tie the knot. Moral issues ARE important, but we must not be singular in our efforts, nor be portrayed as such.

5. A moderate who votes with you 80% of the time is still 20% a leftist.

Senator John Cornyn (R- TX) chairman of the Republican Senatorial Election Committee said several weeks ago that the GOP should consider recruiting more moderate candidates to run in more liberal areas in the country if we wanted to win in 2010. He said as his reasoning that he would "rather serve with a Republican who voted with him 80% of the time, than a Democrat who voted with him 0% of the time." Though his reasoning makes since, it is not what is best for the country, and THAT should be the focus of our party, not what is best for our party.

We have learned in the past that moderates will always vote against you when you need them the most, and they will always take more left leaning positions once elected. This is not what America needs. If Conservatives were better at communicating conservatism we would not have a problem getting elected in the center-right country of America. Run a conservative, but help him with message and he will get elected.

These five points are simply my opinions, and should be weighed as such. I know that I am a small time blogger with not much of a following, but I also have a few friends who could take these ideas and put them in the hands of the right people. My only hope, is that you the reader read these points, and pass them along to your friends, so that at the grassroots level we start chaging the Grand Ole Party.

It's Gettin' Hot In Here...

2009-02-16T14:31:00.004-06:00

Listening to many pundits and experts on the issue of Global Warming, one could assume that we are heading for disaster in the next fifty years if nothing is done to curb the effects. We are inundated with story after story of how humans are destroying this planet, and that it is our greed and laziness that is leading to this destruction. If only we will allow drastic governmental measures to thwart this threat, then we will all be saved. Yet, I have not seen any peer reviewed, scientific proof that there is such a thing as human caused global warming, and I am not exactly sure that there is anything we could right now to drastically thwart any warming trend if one exists. So, why all the hysteria? It makes great political theatre, and opens the door for Big Government proponents to intrude in our lives.

For example, in today's Agance France, there was an article that stipulated that if humans continue to eat hamburgers we will irrevocably destroy the earth, and contribute to global warming. Why? Because cows emit too much methane which is bad to the environment, and the more burgers we eat the more cows are needed to produce them. Really? Well, anyone whose every eaten at McDonald's knows that more cows is not necessarily what makes more burgers. (I digress) Large beasts have been on this planet much longer than humans, if you believe the evolutionists, and therefore have been emitting methane for a lot longer time. Fact is, cows have been crapping on this earth longer than us, and will probably be after us. That being said, I don't think a vegetarian diet (as suggested in the article) is what the doctor ordered. No, I think we should simply eat more cow, then we can keep the population down and have a tasty steak at the same time.

In reality, methane is actually not as harmful as the alarmist make out. Methane is a natural byproduct of decay. That means that even fallen trees emit methane, animals that die naturally in the wilderness emit methane, and rotting vegetables that go uneaten because of farm subsidies produce methane when they decay because no one bought them and consumed them. Perhaps, our friend who wrote this ill-researched paper should stop trying to control the rest of us, and focus more energy in researching his science.

On another note, the issue of global warming is a "red herring" used by individuals in the name of "altruism" to force government control on the people. In the AP today they released a story of former Astronaut Harrison Schmitt - who walked on the moon- resigning his position at The Planetary Society, a non-profit dedicated to space exploration, because they endorsed human-caused global warming. Dr. Schmitt was quoted as saying, "scientists are being intimidated if they disagree with the idea that burning fossil fuels has increased carbon dioxide levels, temperatures and sea levels." He was also quoted as saying that he believed, "global warming scare is being used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives, incomes and decision making."

Dr, Schmitt does not resist the claim that the climate is changing, only that it is not being propelled by human activity, and that the data actually stands behind his claim. Dr. Scmitt would be right in many cases. Global temperatures are not actually increasing, but are decreasing.

According to the leading meteorologists at the National Weather and Meteorological Society (NWMS)the average temperature for America has gone down 3 degrees fehrenheit over the last 150 years. globally, the temp has either remained constant or decreased from 1 to 3 degrees as well. According to many peer-reviewed journal pieces, the temperature on the plant has not been effected that greatly by the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. According to the NWMS, if the atmosphere was the thickness of a football field, the total carbon dioxide build up over the last 150 years (since we started using fossil fuels) would be three to five inches. According to NWMS this is not enough to cause any irreversible effects. Matter of fact if the layer of CO2 were to increase at that rate consistently it would take 1000 years to reach critical mass. I believe 1000 years would be enough time for technology to catch up in the free market and curb any effects at all.

Overall, people who believe that government should take care of people, and that government should keep us from harming ourselves, are the ones who have a tendency in believing the hype behind the global warming craze. Global warming may or may not be occurring, but one thing is certain, it looks less and less likely that humans are causing it, and that we can do anything at all to stop it.

Three Fingers Pointing Back and "Hope We Can Believe In" Riiiight!

2009-02-12T14:34:00.002-06:00

In today's blog you will find two topics. One the grilling of the Wall Street financiers yesterday, and a lil treatise on what President Obama really meant by "Tax Cut". Enjoy!

Three Fingers Pointing Back

Yesterday on the Hill, Democrats took turns gesticulating for the cameras by taking their favorite whipping boy(s) (Read: Wall Street Execs) out to the post. Many Representatives wanted the "captains of industry" to answer for their wasteful excess at taxpayer's expense, and then get to the bottom of how these "titans of ticker tape" plan on using the "Bailout" money more responsibly. Yet, while watching one Congressperson after another point fingers at the Wall Street execs, and condemn them for what the Representative thought was gross maleficence, I could not help to think of what my 6th grade English teacher once taught me, "Every time you point a finger, there are three fingers pointing back." This led me to come up with what I thought should have been the responses of the Wall Street execs that sat in the hot seat.

1. When asked about their private jets by a snotty New England Rep., one exec should have said, "Don't look down at us about our using a more efficient way of travel when your Speaker spends $9000 to $22,000 an hour every time she travels on her 100% taxpayer supported Air Force jet. (factcheck.com)Yes, we took some taxpayer money, but we also made money and that profit also went to pay for our travel. Can you say this?"

2. When California Representative Maxine Waters began her tirade about Executive bonuses when those execs failed to keep their business solvent, one exec should have said:
"Don't lecture us about pay raises and bonuses when every single one of you up there voted to give yourself a $4,200 pay raise this year, and gave every single one of your staff a bonus, and yet I challenge you to show us one single government program that works. (Citizens Against Wasteful Spending)Our losses were only in the Billions, yours have been in the Trillions."

Don't get me wrong, I don't support Wall Street getting a Bailout, and their extravagances during these hard economic times are hard to swallow. However, I don't believe anyone should use anyone to score cheap political points. Especially if you are wanting them to revive your country. Besides I get tired of the smugness of the Democrats, and the moral superiority they think they have.

"Hope We Can Believe In." Yeah Riiight!

The economic figures are starting to come out about the Stimulus Package the Democrats are trying to shove down our throats. With these figures out one thing becomes perfectly clear. It is better for you in this country if you are a rodent, than a taxpayer.

According the H.R. 1, $30 Million dollars is going for wetland preservation in San Fransisco (wonder whose district this is for?), more specifically, to help preserve the habitat of an endangered mouse. Yet, as promised by President Obama, the American people are receiving a reduction in their tax burden. Being the ever stout populist, President Obama fought for a robust tax cut of $7.70 per week for every American. Thanks Mr. President, now I can afford an extra rental at blockbuster with my stimulating tax cut. I am definitely more hopeful today, than yesterday!

A Letter to 70 Million Americans

2009-02-10T14:18:00.002-06:00

My Fellow Americans,

I know that over the last two years many disturbing and troubling events have occurred. We have seen yet another financial burst and send our economy into free fall. We have seen the banks declare their inability to remain solvant, and we have seen the big three auto makers declare their need for help. During this great time of turmoil you, my fellow Americans, voted for a charasmatic speaker who promised "change you can believe in", and promised to radically change the way business was done in Washington. To be honest all Americans hoped that this young leader could deliver on these promises, however, it seems in the last two weeks much of his promises were just rhetoric. So, I pose this question again, "Is this what you voted for?"

Did you vote for American tax dollars to be spent on the sensless murder of unborn children around the globe all in the name of economic simplicity? Did you vote for the Commander in Chief to close the only prison we have for murderous and feckless terrorist thugs, and then not have alternate spot to house them? Did you vote for a man to head the Executive Branch who chose a Governor suspected of "pay for play" to run Commerce, a tax cheat to run the Treasury, another tax cheat to run HHS, the wife of a tax cheat to be his performance officer, and a porn lobbyist to be Deputy Atty. General? Did you really vote for a President who would spend 2-4 trillion dollars of money we don't have, for only the "possibility" of economic recovery? Did you really really vote for a man who doesn't believe that this stimulus package has any pork? If you did than we need to talk, because none of this is the change anyone was promised!

I know for about 30 million of you what President Obama is doing is exactly what you hoped for; however, for the remaining 40 million you cannot believe what you are seeing. You seeing a President who promised change, but delivered nothing be the same tired Washington policies. You have seen a President who promised inclusion, exclude every REAL conservative from the conversation. You have seen a President who promised tax cuts for 95% of Americans run from that promise the first chance he could. You have seen exactly what you thought you were voting against in the man you voted for. How does this make you feel?

If it makes you feel outraged and incensed, then join me in using the next two years to give the Republicans a majority in one of the houses of Congress. Lets have real representative democracy, and force the President to have to genuinely compromise in order to get things done. Lets stop the forced socialism, and give the Democrats a real revolution to deal with, a Conservative Revolution!

Sincerely,

Joe Shehan

Is This Really What 52% of America Voted For?

2008-12-10T11:47:00.003-06:00

From the outside looking in, it is hard to see why people operating on common sense would support a $15 Billion bailout of the Auto Industry. Also, it is hard that the same people would vote for a gentleman who believes that a handfull of workers have the right to hold a bank hostage, because the bank did not loan their bankrupt business money to pay their payroll. Again, it is even more difficult to believe that the American people would vote a for a man who says one thing one day, and then the next denies he said it or says that those speaking for him "misspoke". Yet, if one looks at American history, one will find example after example of the American people being duped all in the name of "hope" and "change".

In the 1960's the people believed a megalomaniacal man who promised "hope" and "change" in Vietnam policy, and in the end was discovered to be a "win at all cost" politician and had to resign his presidency. This opened the door for another prophet of "change", and he led the country into near financial ruin, and the weakest foreign policy ever. But a glimmer of hope came in the 1980's, and it looked like the American people finally got it figured out, and for 12 years they had peace and prosperity. Unfortunate, another "snake oil" salesman from the South showed weaving words of "hope" and "change". His lies regarding the economy resonated because it played to the basest of all human emotions "envy", and his charge that "hope was on the way" led millions of Americans to vote for him. Now, we are faced another Ivy league trained lawyer, with smooth rhetoric and ability to use the catch phrase that wins elections, "change", and before he is even sworn into office he is on the precipice of a confidence risking scandal. Yet, this is nothing new.

The last smooth talking Ivy league trained lawyer to grace the office could not even get out of the election without scandal, and his presidency was one scandal after another, which eventually led to his impeachment. President-elect Obama is already involved in a cover up involving his governor. The Illinois governor has been recorded saying that Obama told him who he wanted to fill his spot, and yet today Obama is quoted as saying that he and the governor have not discussed the matter. Even Obama's campaign manager, has been quoted as saying that Obama and the governor discussed the matter. Yet, today an unknown Obama staffer has been quoted as saying that, "Axelrod misspoke". This is the M.O. of Mr. Obama. He is close with people and has them as "advisers" or "mentors", and discusses many issues with them. Obama even brags about their relationship, until these people do something that is politically inconvenient or damaging. Then these "were not [the people] he knew", or they "misspoke" or were "mistaken". Is this kind of side stepping the kind of presidency we will have from a President Obama? Is this kind of presidency what 52% of Americans voted for?

No one can know for sure what kind of presidency we will have the next four years. Many on the right have been warning the American people about the allegiances of Obama, but no one listened. The media chose to ignore the Ayers, Wright, Salinski, Retzco relationships, and now it appears the Blago relationship, or "lack there of" may mire this presidency. This begs the question, what other relationships will call into question our president's character during the next four years? Time will only tell.

Side Bar:
I don't know if anyone has been paying attention, but have you noticed that since the $700 Billion dollar bailout more and more companies and entities have put their hands out? The Auto industry was first, but now States and Mayors are asking for their piece of the pie.

The U.S. has a policy with negotiating with terrorists. We don't do it! Perhaps we should develop a policy to deal with "freeloaders" looking for a handout. JUST SAY NO!!!

Failure builds character, and if we allow large businesses to fail it has more positive benefits than negative. Business leaders learn from the mistakes of others and don't repeat them, workers learn that if they demand too much from their company they can destroy it from the inside, and investors learn to diversify. How are any of these lessons bad? Sure people might be out of a job, but maybe that is the quick kick in the butt they need to go back to school and learn a more modern trade, and maybe younger generations will see the importance of a good education. Again, how is this bad?

Capitol Visitor's Center: A Testament to Elitism and Liberalism

2008-12-03T14:01:00.004-06:00

In yesterday and today's Drudge Report, there were two stories that caught my eye. One dealt with the controversial speech Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) gave at the opening of the Capitol Visitor's Center, where he besmirched the millions of vistors who flock to D.C. every year, and the other story dealt with Senator Jim DeMint's (R-SC) letter of complaint about the utter lack of references to the Christian heritage of this country. Both, reveal something very poignant about the Multi-billion dollar Capitol Visitor's Center (CVC). The CVC is a testament of the attitude those who occupy federal office have towards this country and its people.

When I worked in D.C. I was witness to the construction of the monstrocity that is the CVC. It was already two years behind schedule, and well over budget. Two different Architects of the Capitol oversaw the construction of the project, and the Congressional leadership was very excited about it's soon to be opening (which was delayed for the sixth time when I was there). During my tenure is when it received its name "Emancipation Hall". From pictures I have seen, it is very beautiful and has a lot of modern media fair. However, with the recent statements by the Senate Majority Leader, and the concerns raised by the gentleman from South Carolina, I am wondering if its beauty will be fleeting.

Over the recent months, surprisingly, the disdain that the Members of Congress have for the people of the United States has been openly displayed and well documented. During the debate over the economic bailout policies this Congress is pursuing, Senators and Representatives alike have looked down from their ivory towers at the riff raff, and declared openly that the American people are "too ignorant of the complicated nuances of this 'rescue package'", (Senator Diane Feinstein, D-CA). Once their disdain (read fear) was relayed, they voted against the American people for a bailout that had no hope of working. Yet, now we have another example of the overt disdain the Members of Congress seem now so free to display in Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's comments at the opening of the CVC.

Against the expressed wishes of his staff, Sen. Reid jokingly announced that he would no longer have to "smell the visitor's B.O." when they come to visit the Capitol. What the ofactorally challanged Senator was alluding to was, that in the past tourists would choose to go through their Senator's or Representative's office to receive a tour of the Capitol. Many times these people - during the hot summer months in D.C.- would have to walk almost a mile to get to their Senator's or Representative's office. This schlepp would often lead to people not smelling that fresh. Now, with the opening of the CVC, Senate and Representative offices no longer have to offer constiuent tours, and apparently Sen. Reid is thankful for this, because he won't have to "smell" his constituents. I am sorry that the inconveniences of his constiuents offends him so much. Perhaps Mr. Reid should find a new line of work, if he is so sensitive to such things.

As someone who gave the tours of the Capitol to the hot and sweating constituents. I take offense with these statements. The highlight of my week was often giving tours to the constiuents that I help represent. I loved getting to know the people of our district, and listening to their concerns and triumphs. I believed this helped me do my job better for the Congressman I worked for, and I know that it gave a more personal touch to our constituents vacation. I know that many of these people enjoyed the tours, because many would call the office or write letters to thank us. During the summer months the people could be ripe, but that was because they were walking everywhere they went (because renting and parking a car in D.C. is near impossible). Instead of commenting on their odor, we offered to let them rest and stored greater number of 5 gallon water jugs so we could offer them something cool to drink. I guess this is what it means to be a servant of the people, instead of thinking that the people are there to serve you. Perhaps Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid could take a lesson from the attitude of the people of Congressman Burgess of Texas' office.

Seperation of Church and State Gone Too Far

Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) released a letter to the media announcing his disgust with the lack of references to the Christian heritage of the United States in the Capitol Vistor's Center (CVC). Many of the references allude to the superiority of the federal government, and that the federal government is the answer to all men's woes. Visitors will also enter reading a large engraving that states, ‘We have built no temple but the Capitol. We consult no common oracle but the Constitution.’ This is a clear determination by the Architect of the Capitol and Congressional Leadership to deny God's past and current blessings on this country, and the importance Christianity played in our founding. To deny or even to refuse to mention the Christian heritage of this country is not only a travisty, but is a deliberate attempt to revise the history of this great country.

I am not suprised that this Architect of the Capitol would not wish to include religious references in the design of the CVC. This is the same Architect who tried to disallow any reference to God on the certificates that are given with the flags that are flown over the Capitol. It was only after public outcry that he changed his mind. Again the same Architect has promised to remedy this situation as well, and again it took the outcry of Senators.

Economy Team: Deal or Dud

2008-11-25T13:52:00.002-06:00

This last week, president-elect Barak Obama threw his hat into the ring by giving his first speech as president-elect on the economy. He announced who his economic team was going to be, and announced his economic plan. With the picks of former Treasury Secretary, Larry Summers as Obama's in-White House economic advisor, and NY Fed Chair, Timothy Geithner as Treasury Secretary, president-elect Obama should have the economic team he desires.

Both men served very Liberal administrations and governments, and know how to govern an economy from the left. It will be very interesting to see just how these individuals will be able to pull us out of this economic crisis. However, these new picks may not have much say, because president-elect Obama has already announced what he wishes to do over the next two years.

Mr. Obama has declared that he will oversee the largest stimulus package in the history of America. Where he and the Congress will get the money to pay for this is still a mistery to me. He also said that he will use this time to oversee radical changes in healthcare, energy and education policy. If you know the Obama's plans in any of three, you will know this will mean less choice and more bureaucracy all in the name of "fairness". Mr. Obama seeks a, "long term retooling of the American economy."This is scarey language if you like free market capitalism. Mr Obama, also declares that he will save the American tax payer $700 Billion, by using the line-item veto to cut specific spending items from the budget. Unfortunately for Mr. Obama, "Constitutional Scholar" that he is, the U.S. Supreme Court declared the line-item veto unconstitutional for the executive branch back in the 1990s. Unless he plans on superseding their authority, the line-item veto is not an option. But then again he also promises not to raise taxes, but how is he going to pay for his new social programs with out doing that?

I know that in my earlier blog I spoke about praying for our president, that he will make wise decisions that are good for this country. I also now it is a little bit premature to be speculating on what Obama's policies will exactly be, but if you base your opinions on what Barak Obama has said in the past about what he desires for this country, then its hard to beleive he will not try to implement those desires. President-Obama has stated in his books and stump speeches that he is for radical changes in our policies as a country (this includes radically changing the Constitution). Many of these policy changes are extremely unpopular with the American people when presented to them honestly(i.e. socialized healthcare, 65% against-40% for (AmericanSolutions.com)). Here is where you might say, "wait a minute he got elected on those policies!" No, he got elected on a vague promise of change, where everyone projected what change they wanted on to him. If you read his books, listen to his speeches and "private" conversations you will see a dyed-in-the-wool socialist, and socailist policy is unpopular with the American people. This is why I am already calling into question his policy decisions.

President-elect Obama is doing his best to do the right thing. The only problem is that it is his opinion of what the right thing is. For generations this country has operated under the free market system. We were not afraid to allow companies to fail, because we kknew the market would recover and those companies would be bought by the highest bidder and salvaged. Yet, today we are so afraid of failure and hard times, that we will allow our simplest freedom, the freedom of choice, to be taken from us in the name of "financial security". I understand that if companies like AIG or GM fail it could mean the collapse of large portion of our economy and millions would lose their jobs. However, these effects would be hard, but they would be short lived and individual Americans, who normally would not have a chance at owning a piece of America, would be able to buy up these failed business and make them trhive again through ingenuity and drive both of which is what this country was founded on.

Hard times are not called hard because they are attractive, but they are necessary from time to time to make us appreciate what we have. This country has survived worse, and we can survive this, but it is going to take the resolve of our leaders, and the courage of the American people to do the things that are necessary to save our country's economy and preserve the freedoms we so enjoy.

Mr. Obama, Our President

2008-11-20T10:41:00.003-06:00

The people have spoken, and have chosen as their 44th president, the first African-American president, Barak Hussein Obama. This is a great day for our county's racial relations, and with much prayer could be a great day for our country as a whole. Eventhough I vigorously campaigned against president-elect Obama and do not agree with a single policy he campaigned on, he is my President and I wish him well.

In the Bible, Second Timothy, chapter 2 starts out exclaiming Christians to pray for all their leaders, that they will govern justly and there will be peace. This is my prayer for the leaders of our country, and for President-elect Obama. My prayer is that he governs so well, that as Dennis Miller said, "I want to run out and vote for his second term." Unfortunately, as I said during the campaign, I do not believe this will be so.

As a candidate of Change, Barak Obama promised us that he would reform Washington, and yet his choice for a running mate, and now his choices for a cabinet show either a veiled niavete, or deliberate dishonesty in that promise. By choosing former Clinton Administration advisors and Cabinet members, it is hard to determine if President-elect Obama is really serious about change. Or was change simply a by-word for anti-Bushism? It will be interesting to see if the Obama Administration will be something new and inspiring, or if it will be business as usual. I hope for the former.

Many conservative activists and media personalities have already shown what makes being conservative great. Everyone is wishing this soon-to-be president well, and showing what it means to be real patriots by supporting the office and not the man. All true patriots want the best for their country, and want their president to govern well, because when the government governs well, the people flurish.

A Prayer:

May God continue to shine his face on the United States of America, and may his eternal blessings rain done upon us forever. May our Heavenly Father give President Obama the wisdom and courage needed in the tough times, and the integrity and intelligence needed in the easy times.
In Jesus' precious name , Amen!

Newt and Burgess - Future of the GOP

2008-11-13T12:09:00.006-06:00

Two days ago, I read on the Drudge Report that Newt Gingrich is rumored to be seeking the RNC chairmanship. This excited me to no end, then today I discovered that Congressman Michael C. Burgess, MD (TX-26) is seeking the House Republican Policy Committee Chairmanship, and now my joy runneth over! Should Newt and Burgess receive these posts we can be sure the GOP will be heading in the right direction.
Newt will serve the Party and the country best as the chairman of the RNC. His books Winning the Future and Real Change put forth a plan for this country that will rebuild America. They are solidly conservative, and place government squarely in the place that it belongs. The policies Newt focuses on in these books are overwhelmingly popular with the American people, and if pursued with the help of a Burgess Policy chairmanship could propell the GOP back into the Majority.
I know Congressman Burgess both personally and professionally. I am proud that I spent 2006 -2007 helping Burgess represent the people of the 26th District, and I know that if given the chance, Dr. Burgess can heal the Republican Party. His courage underfire (which I have seen first hand) and leadership is the exact prescription the GOP needs. Dr. Burgess is a conservative's conservative, and knows exactly how to fix America's healthcare woes, energy crisis, and has the moral fortitude to stand up to the special interest, and give the American people the medicine they need for recovery.
With Burgess and Gingrich at the helm, the future of the Republican Party looks strong, however, this future can dim should the moderate and liberal Republicans dominate the GOP. That is why we need to inform our representation that we want the real leadership of Burgess and Gingrich.

U.S. News Media: 1776 - 2008

2008-09-19T15:40:00.005-05:00

Listening to Conservatives bemoan about the "bias in the media" has grown as common place in today's society as hearing Liberals decry the actions of the Bush Administration, or declare that their President is an idiot. Yet, one only needs to be paying attention to current events to realize that Conservatives cries of bias are not baseless. Conservative talk radio host Sean Hannity, has often referred to the death of the U.S. news media in 2008, and I believe he may be right.

In a country were the media is more free to print or say what they want than the common citizen, the U.S. media has begun to abuse their privilige, and are beginning to overtly use their power to forward a political agenda the half of America does not agree with. This is no surprise, when you look at a Gallup poll conducted in 2006, where over 80% of reporters polled said they were financial contributers and members of the Democratic Party.

The 2008 Presidential Campaign has, if anything, been very exposing to the bias the liberal media has often tried to hide, and often ouright denied. When Saturday Night Live is parodying the cult up coverage of Sen. Barak Obama, and showing reporters as stalkers and psychofants of the Illinois Senator, we have a real problem. A little more solid evidence is a Rassmuesen poll conducted last week that showed 73% of the American people believed that the political news coverage favored Obama, and Media Matters said that the number of reports of the Obama campaign outnumbered the McCain Campaign 2 : 1. The bias towards Sen. Obama has been so great, and the public outcry so loud that MSNBC was forced to remove their veteran political news commentator, Chris Matthews, from further direct coverage of the campaigns because of his inability to contain his political motivations.

For many Americans, watching the news has become too nausiating to sustain, and they have chosen to remain either uninformed or limit their news to sources they know to be credible; however, this is proving to be harder to do as the bias towards Obama becomes more brazen. Even the once respected Charlie Gibson of ABC News has fallen victim to his own bias when he unfortunately chose to take on the task of "grand inquisitor" of Governor Sara Palin, who is seeking the Republican Vice Presidency.I believe very strongly that if media icons such as: Edward R. Murrow or even the very partisan Walter Kronkite would disapprove of the current state of our nation's news media. The news media is to be an unbias relayer of the news, not an attack wing of a political party or ideology.

In a free society we are rightfully limited to the regulations we are able to put on our media, because we believe in the freedom of speech, but in a free market society we do have a recourse to such abuse of the freedom of press, and that is turning the channel or walking past the news stand and not buying a paper. In a free society with free markets such overt bias is not a sound business move, and if continued could lead to the ruin of many media outlets' reputation and bottom line. Yet, many who benefit from this bias wish to use stifling measures (i.e. the Fairness Act) to prevent coverage that is less beneficial, but more popular. (That is a topic for another column.)

My dear reader, do what many of us "bitter" Americans do and turn the dial, and if you still don't like what you see or hear, then turn the whole thing off and find something that lives up to the true journalistic ethics that should be predominate in our media. Boycott is not the answer, but taking your business elsewhere is. This is the only way we will ever see the resurection of legitimate news coverage.

The Real Change America Needs

2008-08-08T18:49:00.003-05:00

During my brief stint in Washington, I got to see how laws are really made, and I got to see what most Americans don't. What troubled me more than anything was the lack of real effort being put into fighting for the conservative ideals espoused by many Republicans on the Hill. Instead, a lot of wounds were being licked, a lot of regrouping took place and appeared the leadership went into playing the minority game instead of working on reclaiming the majority.

Granted I arrived in Washington the January 2007, which followed the spanking the GOP received in 2006. Yet, what was the real reason for this disciplinary action? Simple, the American people were disgusted with the GOP leadership, or lack thereof, and the complete abandonment of the conservative ideals that brought them to power in 1994. Today, we are seeing a resurgence in the old Conservative wing of the GOP with the protests taking place on Capitol Hill concerning the Energy Crisis, and the American people are paying attention.

America's attention is on the few patriots decrying the "tryanny" of the despotic rule of Speaker Pelosi, who is so beholden to her fringe enviromentalist base that she could not even allow a vote to allow this country to provide energy relief for its poor and lower middle class citizens. With America's attention squarely fixed on Congress, the GOP needs to sieze the moment and offer real ideas to help those citizens whom Speaker Pelosi and the Democratic party claim they represent. These same citizens who this day are suffering under the weight of high energy prices, and will suffer even greater come winter. These Americans are listening, but what is the message they need to hear?

The American citizen needs to hear more than just empty promises, or empty policies like "inflate your tires". (Marie Antionette could not have come up with a better policie initiative.) What they need to here are real plans that move our economy forward. Plans such as the bill introduced by Congressman Michael C. Burgess (R-TX)this Congress that would open our military bases to oil refinery construction and distribution. This simple fix would provide a quick answer to America's supply issues, while providing greater security for our energy infrastructure.

Another great idea is that of energy tycoon T. Boone Pickens, who wishes to use the vast wilderness of Texas and the midwest to raise a wind energy farm that could provide 20% of the Southwest's energy needs, and could free up much needed natural gas that could be used to convert 100% of all government vehicles to clean energy, and free up a considerable amount of gasoline and deisel for the free market.

One more interesting idea is one that I have heard from many great thinkers such as Newt Gingrich. This idea is to use the closed military instillations in the U.S. to build nuclear reactors for energy production. This is smart useage of uninhabited property, which help create even more clean energy production. How could the environmentalists argue with that? (Wry Smile)

All of the above ideas are energy policies that could be voted on immediately, and could have a dramatic and quick effect on energy prices and subsequently the economy. Yet, for environmental idealogues, these policies would help instead of hurt those industries on which they have a idealogical vendetta waged, and they just don't care about the rest of use who are hurting at the pump.

The American people are demanding something be done! I believe that if more of the same crud oozes from the DNC's "Do Nothing Congress", and the needs of the American people are not met, there will be a lot of incumbents updating their resumes.

Obamisms

2008-07-21T18:30:00.003-05:00

For the last eight years Republicans have been regiled with "Bushisms" because of the current President's uncanny ability to butcher the English language. Yet, even in his misspeaking he still was able to master basic geography and social studies. Unfortunately, the current presumptive Democratic candidate for President, Senator Barak Obama (a Constitutional Lawyer) cannot seem to get even the most elementary facts about his country correct.

During the campaign for President, Barak Obama has given some wonderful gems for Republicans to devour. Even when the late night comedy hosts are experiencing ideological comedy block, Republicans around the country can enjoy the fodder Obama gives so generously.

For example, when asked about his campaign schedule Senator Obama offered that he had been to "57 states, and still [had] three more to go." Now the last time I counted the stars on the American flag there were only 50 stars, and if the honorable Senator from Illinois is correct, then Hawaii will have to change its State motto. Not knowing the number of states is not too serious when you consider that Miss Teen South Carolina believes her country's name is the "United States of Americans", or that over 54% of Americans cannot accurately locate Washington, D.C on a map, or even Texas for that matter. Mr. Obama's ignorance of the number of states in the United States just enables him to identify more closely with the American people, but surely when it comes to the Constitution, Mr. Obama is an expert?

Not according to his recent statements in an interview with CBS when asked why he is meeting with foreign heads of state. In response to the question Senator Obama replied, "I want to get to know [them] better since I hope to be working with them for the next 8 to 10 years."

Now I am no expert when it comes to Constitutional Law like Barak Obama, who graduated Harvard Law School with a specialization in Constitutional Law, but I do know that according to the 25th Amendment, the President of the United States is limited to two, four year terms. If my math is correct that equals 8 definitively, not 8 to 10.

Here we have a Presidential candidate who cannot effectively communicate the subject in which he is Ivy League educated, and no one can see the comedy in that. Perhaps the light night comedy hosts are getting lazy, or perhaps they are afraid of being labeled racist, heretics or even worse...Republicans.

Obama: A False Messiah

2008-07-09T11:49:00.002-05:00

Since the beginning of the Democratic Primary race, Senator Obama's campaign has tried to portray the Illinois Senator as the "Savior of America". With an almost messianic message of "hope", "change", and "salvation" Mr. Obama has swept the country up in a kind of delirium, that rivals when the Beatles first arrived in the States back in the 1960s. Now the alleged "savior" is seeking to sway the evangelical vote his direction with policies that tickle the evangelical ear. It is time that American Evangelicals begin to see who this "wolf in sheep's clothing" really is.

In the last couple of weeks, Sen. Obama has reached out to America's evangelical community by promising to keep and expand President Bush's faith based initiatives program, and by stating that he believes that the legality of abortion should be determined by the States. However, these statements do not align with much of what Mr. Obama said during the Democratic primary.

For a gentleman who believes that people who believe in God do so because they are "bitter with their situation in life", claiming that he wants to help these embittered citizens who "cling to guns, and have anti-immigrant feelings" help their communities appears disingenuous. Senator Obama since before the beginning of his campaign has tried to court the Christian Evangelical vote. In his two books, he regales the reader with his stories of conversion and service to the Christian cause. Yet, when he is alone and with people who he believes are not going to report what he says, he belittles people of faith. I know that ridiculing Christians in San Francisco is en vouge to the voters of the most liberal city in America, but to the people of the South and the Bible belt it is patronizing, especially when his rhetoric about faith is different when he is in Mobile, Alabama.

In recent weeks Mr. Obama has also been quoted as saying that he believes that issues surrounding abortion should be decided by the States. However, this is not what the Senator, who believes a child is a punishment, said when he was courting Democratic votes. In a townhall meeting held by Mr. Obama during the primary, he was recorded (after being asked abortion) saying "I don't want my daughters, if they made a mistake, punished with a child". This simple statement reveals the heart of Mr. Obama, and tells us where really stands on this issue. Conservatives and Evangelicals should not be confused, the Honorable Senator from Illinois is not the "Savior of America"!

I believe that Senator Obama is genuine in his claims that he wishes to see change in America. All Americans would like to see change, but not all Americans are willing to sell out their beliefs or their freedom to do so. Since 2006 the Democratic Party has sought ways to lure the Christian Evangelical vote their way. In 2007, they hired a woman who had once held a policy position with the Assembly of God denomination, to help develop a strategy to make the Democrats more appealing to Christian voters. The language you see come from Senator Obama, is no doubt heartfelt, but it is clouded in the rhetoric that is emanating from the Religion think tank at the DNC. It is time that Evangelicals open their eyes and heed the warning that Jesus gave us to "beware of false prophets...and wolves in sheep's clothing".

Obama the Delusional

2008-06-12T11:51:00.002-05:00

Yesterday on the campaign trail Senator and presidential candidate Barak Obama gave the single greatest quote of his campaign. "Its not the cost of gas that gives shock... its not the cost of gas, but how fast it went up." This single quote reveals a lot about the beliefs, judgment and mental state of the Democratic candidate. Mr. Obama's words reveal how out of touch he is with he American people, and how delusional he is about the energy situation in this country. But hey, he's going to talk to the terrorist and make it alright.

The American people could care less about the time it takes the market to adjust to the cost of energy, because in the amount of time the market adjusts many Americans will be homeless and starving. Energy costs have been horrible for far to long now, and the Federal Government has done nothing to relieve the problem.

Democrats want you to believe that it was under President Bush's watch that gas prices went up, and thus, it is his fault. However, in 2006, a barrel of oil cost $56 (up from $26 a barrel in 2001), but in the last 18 months (since the Democrats took power) oil has almost tripled to a cost of $136+ a barrel.

The Democrats in 2006 gave their energy plan. It called for large tax incentives and tax breaks for the oil industry and energy companies to research alternative sources of energy and to increase domestic supply. They promised that only they could lower oil prices and energy costs. Yet, after 18 months no legislation giving oil and energy companies tax breaks and tax incentives for increase supply production has been introduced; however, bill after bill has been introduced increasing taxes on oil and energy companies. lets also not forget the wonderful "cap and trade" or "Tax and kill" bill that just passed. Still, the Democrats have the "Audacity of Hype" to claim it is the Republicans who are at fault. As far as the the American people are concerned, both parties have not done enough to alleviate today's energy strain.

Until we increase our nation's supply of oil and lower domestic energy costs, it is delusional to believe that our problems won't seem as bad in a couple of months because the market will balance out. Such thinking is the reason why an Obama Presidency would be disastrous for this country.

An American Ideology: The Economy

2008-05-06T11:09:00.000-05:00

NOTE: This piece, as will be with every piece in this series, is a very brief glimpse into the overall history and politics that shape our American ideology.

American Ideology: The Economy

With today’s economic concerns, and with presidential hopefuls pontificating on how they plan to pull us out of our “economic slump”, it is appropriate to continue our look into the American Ideology, and how Americans view and have viewed the American Economy.

Since the onset of the “Great Experiment”, the American economy has been built on the free market. It was not until the late 19th century that socialism began to show up in the thought process of the American people. The founding fathers and subsequent generations understood that freedom must exist in commerce as well as in government, and many of the economic policies of the past were directed to that end.

Yet, in the early 20th century a new economic ideology began to seep into the American consciousness, and began the movement away from free market principles to more regulated, government controlled models that focused on social justice. Not forgetting the horrific conditions of many industrial revolutionary factories, and the slave wages many Americans worked for in the early 20th century it is easy to see why these populist ideas took root. However, the good that these policies did to create a fairer and healthier workplace in the early 20th century, is being out weighed by the damage the current aggressive socialist policies are doing to our economy today.

Free markets and deregulation, as revealed in the current economic atmosphere in Ireland (9% GDP in 2007), is the only way to spur another economic boom. Even though the working conditions and wages of the late 19th century worker were atrocious, the economy of late 19th century/early 20th century America was spectacular. Ingenuity and enterprise were the clarion call of the day, and America was poised to assume its later role as world super power. Yet, sadly today, America’s once economic prowess is falling to a weak dollar and high energy prices. What is to be done to stimulate our economy once again?

If America grasps on to its original ideology of free markets and deregulation again, we could see a stronger economy in our future. However, if few allow the current crop of socialist to implement their ideas of increasing taxes, and implementing greater control on the market, we will see America’s economy fall away. The American Economic Ideology of free markets and limited government interference is the only saving hope for America’s economy today.

Obama's Undoing: 5 things that will end Senator Obama's Presidential bid

2008-04-28T15:41:00.003-05:00

After watching Fox News Sunday’s interview with Presidential hopeful Senator Barak Obama I realized that there are really five clear things that will bring down the Illinois Senator.

1. Connections with a radical Black Liberation preacher and church.

It is not merely that people disagree with the racial ranting and conspiratorial diatribes that come forth from the mouth of Rev. Jeremiah Wright that will hurt Se. Obama. It is Sen. Obama’s denial that in 20 years of attending Rev. Wright’s church he never heard anything controversial. Well that was the first answer. Then it was Sen. Obama heard things he didn’t necessarily agree with, but stayed in the church because of the good works the church was doing in the community. It doesn’t matter the good works an organization does in a community, if it is teaching racism and sedition it is not an organization any person should be a member of. Only those blinded by “hope” would see otherwise.

2. The company he keeps.

When you have one radical or shady friend people are willing to accept that, because we all have one or two people we wish we didn’t know. However, when you defend a known terrorist and associate and profit from dirty dealers the American people begin to question your judgment. Sen. Obama not only associates himself with a radical racist pastor, but is also closely connected to a 1960’s radical who is known, and unapologetically admitted to blowing up bombs at several Washington D.C. buildings. The connection between Sen. Obama and Prof. William Ayers is both neighborly and financial. Mr. Ayers held a find raiser for Sen. Obama’s presidential campaign where Sen. Obama was in attendance. When asked about his association with Prof. Ayers, Obama defiantly asks if he should “base his associations on actions individuals did 40 years ago?” My answer to that question is yes! Especially when it comes to someone who is guilty of sedition and still believes he was right in doing what he did.

3. Sen. Obama has a 98.9% liberal voting record (CongressWatch.com), the highest in the Senate.

In 2004, Sen. John Kerry (D- MA) was given a 96% liberal voting record, meaning that 96% of the time he voted with the liberal cause. This hurt Sen. John Kerry in 2004, and it will not bode well for a man who claims he can “reach across the aisle, and unite the country”. It is hard to believe that conservatives will appreciate the first 100 days of an Obama presidency when such legislation as Universal Healthcare or the raising of taxes is passed and signed. These are some of the issues Mr. Obama has consistently voted for.

4. A vague presidential platform of “change”.

“What does Senator Obama seek to change?” is the question millions of Americans still need Sen. Obama to answer. In his stumps speech he talks about hope and change, but he never details how he intends to change Washington. Is he going to change his own style of politics, and fight against the special interest that he represents in order to reach across the aisle? Is he going to veto anything that comes from his party? Change is a very broad topic, and is a wonderfully popular topic among the American people, however, eventually they want to know how you plan on changing America, and usually they make you tell them before they will vote for you.

5. Not saying what he means the first time.

During the entire interview on Saturday, Sen. Obama repeatedly corrected Chris Wallace, who was directly quoting Mr. Obama, and told him “what he meant by that”. It is hard to get behind a candidate that when questioned on his statements, tries to spin his statement to mean something else. The American people deserve a president who means what he says the first time he says it. We do not deserve someone who changes the meaning of his words when they are no longer politically expedient. Mr. Obama’s desire to be all things to all people will in the end give him a falseness that the American people will reject. This item is what I believe will hurt him the most.

For the first time in American history, America has a legitimate African-American candidate. However, being charismatic and articulate is not enough to run the greatest country every created by man. In these hard times we need real leadership with real, clear vision. We don’t need empty promises of hope and change, but we need someone who on day one will begin to allow his actions speak for themselves. Senator Obama is very “presidential”, but I do not believe there is much “there, there”. Yet, only time will tell, and we will see who Mr. Obama really is, should he receive the Democratic nomination.

An American Ideology: The Constitution

2008-04-23T11:14:00.000-05:00

NOTE: This piece, as will be with every piece in this series, is a very brief glimpse into the overall history and politics that shape our American ideology.

In every social studies class and Government 101 class in college the Constitution is covered. Usually not in great detail, and sometimes with the teacher’s own personal biases mixed in. Yet, every American is instructed on the document that is the foundation for laws and government for their country. Surprisingly though, many Americans cannot accurately tell you which amendment contains the freedom of religion or where in the Constitution they can find the enumerated powers of the three branches of government. A people ignorant of the document that protects them from the overreach of government cannot prevent the stripping away of their freedoms, or realize that those freedoms were there to begin with. This is why I am starting with the Constitution. Not, only because it is a great document to use to develop the American Ideology, but also to give the readers a desire to read again the document that is so important to their freedom.

Since the founding fathers began working on a Constitution to today, the debate behind the interpretation of the second greatest document ever written (second only to the Bible) has continued. To state that the founding fathers were unanimous in their support for the Constitution would be inaccurate.

The men who fought the Revolution against the British and formed this great nation were divided during the ratification of the Constitution (September 1787 to July 1788), and split into political groups called Federalists and Anti-federalists. These were the beginnings of the dual party system we have today. The Federalist argued for the ratification of the Constitution which established a strong central government, but still allowed for the sovereignty of the States. The Anti-federalists argued against the ratification in support of a united confederacy of sovereign States. Ultimately the Federalists were able to persuade the American people, and the Constitution was officially ratified in 1788 and became the law of the land.

The fact we have a Constitution or its history of ratification has never been the hot topic of debate, but the interpretation of this document is where much of the division lies. There are many in this country that would say that the Constitution is a “living, breathing document”, which is to say that it “progresses” with the American people. There are also those who are labeled “constructionists” who believe that the Constitution is legal contract, and therefore is a stalwart document and its meaning can only be changed with amendments. In further study of the founding father’s opinions of the Constitution, they would say the Constitution is a legal contract between the governed and the government, and can only change with the people through the amendment process. Yet, as America progressed through centuries the “constructionist” belief dwindled more and more, yet with the rising of the modern conservative movement more people are beginning to understand the founding father’s opinion of the Constitution and are asking questions to the validity of the “living, breathing” or “progressive” position.

It is important to understand that both thought processes have a place into today’s political environment. The “progressive” interpretation of the Constitution led to the abolition of slavery (13th Amendment), the 14th , 15th and 19th Amendments which are very important to the progression of this country. Yet, the “progressive” interpretation of the Constitution has led to some rather harmful positions as well. For example: “Separation of Church and State” being inserted into the 1st Amendment as to mean Government to be separated from religion (which was never the intent of the founding fathers), Legalized Abortion (which would have turned the stomachs of anyone who was born before the turn of the 19th-20th century), and Flag Burning and Pornography protected under the freedom of speech. Anyone would be hard pressed to find a document that the founding fathers wrote that would support any of these positions, yet they have become accepted interpretations by many in “progressive” camp.

If you examine the previous goods that have come from the “progressive” camp you will see that many of them were achieved through “constructionist” methods (i.e. the amendment process). Yet, the arguments used to support these amendments originated from a “living, breathing” interpretation. I say this, because a strict “constructionist” interpretation would have maintained that African Americans should only amount to 3/5 a person.

A “progressive constructionist” view of the Constitution would best fit into an American ideology. It would allow for some interpretation of the constitution, but would require that any law that is proposed, that is contrary to the original intent of the constitution or the amendment in question, be subject to the Amendment process. This kind of position would be consistent with the evolution of this country, and would uphold the founding principles that make this country great.

2008-04-09T14:18:00.001-05:00

In the previous post I discussed what the “American Identity” is, and why we have lost it. After I wrote those words I began to think about what an American identity truly is. With much introspection I believe we cannot really pinpoint one clear American identity. Because of the diverse cultural landscapes that make up America, it is intellectually impossible to pinpoint one clear “identity”. That being said, I believe it is possible to locate and identify a genuine “American Ideology”.

Right now many of you are beginning to formulate your opinions of where I am going, and whether I would be right. Before you go any further let me first explain that the “American Ideology” I propose is not beholding to any political party, or any political ideology. It is merely a reflection of what can be gleaned from American history, the Founding Fathers, and what is being said of the issues that divide us today. I honestly believe that there is more that unites us, than divides us, and it is the effort of this exploration to highlight these areas.

This will be an interesting exploration and may take time between entries, but ultimately it should illuminate a central, American Ideology, and cast aside the trivial things that seek to tear a rip in our domestic fabric.

Long Days Time Entry

2008-04-08T13:49:00.002-05:00

For lack of any reason, other than I have not written in a long time, I write this blog. Like many Americans I am about as numb as you can be to anything that is going on in this country. I am not excited about the upcoming election, because we are back to voting for the least of two evils.

I do not believe that John McCain will make a great president. Will he be a lowsy president? No, he will just pretty much exist in the office. Much like President Bush has over the last year. Reason for his ineffectiveness will be that he did not do enough to rally the American people behind the Republican party, and win back the House and Senate. Instead, what will occur is the deadlock we have now.

I believe that the President (no matter who he/she is or what party he/she is) if he/she has the best interest of the American people at heart, can achieve great things. However, he/she has to inspire the American people, and their representatives to achieve such goals. That being said, it will be a long time before that will happen. Why? Because the division that runs rampant in this country today.

Our division is not anyone's fault but our own. As a country we have traded our identity in for the false promise of diversity and fainess. We have sold ourselves short by believing that the government is here to take care of us if something goes wrong. We have lost our identity in our pursuit of being more European in our policies. Yet, there is hope. If we grab ahold of the real American identity, and reject these false identities that have been forced upon us all in the name of "fairness".

The American Identity is one of rugged individualism. There was a time in our not too distant past that we celebrated the rugged pioneer, or the rough and tumble cowboy. They were symbols of the American ideal. That every man and woman, with enough grit, could hack out a place for themselves in the harsh world. Men and Women in the prairies helped each other out, because they wanted to or needed to. Not because men sitting in a limestone building several thousand miles away said they had too. They did it because it was the "Christian" thing to do. Charity, justice and fairness were a way of life at one time in America, but somewhere we allowed the government to take it from us, and for what? The comfort of nice roads, or a bigger refund check at the end of tax season?

I believe if Americans would tap into the "spirit" of the pioneer once again we would see past the petty differences over policy (because they wouldn't matter anymore), and unite once again under the only banner that ever mattered; being American.

A False Promise of Hope

2008-03-18T14:32:00.002-05:00

Today in Philadelphia, PA presidential hopeful Senator Barak Obama gave a speech on the issue of race in this country. His speech was in response to the racist comments made by his preacher, Jeremiah Wright of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, IL, and the backlash against him and his campaign because of these comments. Sen. Obama’s speech was a very heartfelt and moving about the state of race relations in this country, but they did very little to dissuade this writer that his beliefs do not fall far from his pastor’s proverbial tree.

In his speech, he spoke about the condition of poor America. Though he tried to say this was synonymous with black America, what he said is true of every depressed area. He bemoaned of worn school buildings and kids on street corners. He decried the lack of funding for our education system, and how the welfare system is broke. No one, conservative or liberal, denies these things. What half of the country disagrees with Sen. Obama about is that we believe the worse fix for these problems is government involvement. More freedom, liberty and lives have been stolen by governments around the world, and were done all in the name of altruism. More Government is not what the American people need.

By giving his speech today, Senator Obama did a good job trying to placate to his base, and deflect the heat that is coming from his pastor’s comments; however, he did little to convince conservative America that he is not a tax and spend, protectionist, isolationist liberal. He also did a great job setting the trap for anyone who disagrees with him to be called a racist, because according to his speech, if you disagree that Government is the best way to solve this country’s problems, then you are a part of the old guard and thus, part of the problem.

What America needs is less Government intrusion, and more personal responsibility. The president best serves his country if he encourages personal involvement in our communities, and works with the Congress to ensure fiscal responsibility by limiting assistance to those who desperately need it (i.e. the homeless, the elderly without support, the mentally ill, at-risk children. etc.). George Orwell was correct when he labeled Big Government, “Big Brother”. Like a big brother, Government never does anything for free, they always require something. Ask any non-profit or business that receives aid from the Government, and they will tell you of the hoops they have to jump through in order to receive and keep the money they receive. Eventually, these organizations and companies lose their freedom to operate how they wish, and give their decision making capability to the government thousands of miles away.

America has dealt with the race issue better than any country in the world. We fought a civil war that cost millions of lives, and we have spent billions of dollars trying to rebuild a race of people. What other country has paid such a price? Yet, as the old adage says “you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.” In America anyone can become what they wish, and achieve any goal if they choose to work hard to achieve it. In this country it is only when you allow those negative influences around you to dictate your station that you fail. It is the promise of success, coupled with hard work, that is the American Dream, and it is this dream that the president must encourage in the people of this country, not government intrusion disguised as a promise of hope.

The Crossover Vote...BAD IDEA!!

2008-03-04T10:52:00.004-06:00

Driving to work today I was listening to talk radio, as I always do, and I heard a very disturbing conversation. Many of the Republican callers were saying that they were going to "crossover" their vote to alter the Democratic vote. Their belief is that Hillary will be easier to beat, and therefore, they want to give her the advantage. This just didn't sit well with me, and I will tell you two reasons why.

1. Our Vote is Too Important to Waste!
Millions of Americans have bled and died to give us the right to vote, and to throw it away just to screw with our opponents outcome is a slap in their face. Every vote counts. If your guy didn't make it to now, and you are mad, then vote to show your support to your party. Remember, if you vote Democrat in the primary you can't vote for the Republicans who deserve and need your vote. There are many great Republicans running who face stiff competition, and if you vote in the Democratic primary these great Republicans won't get your vote.

2. The Democrats Deserve to Have Their Candidate!
Even though we despise the Democrat's platform and the candidates who represent that platform, Deomcrats still deserve to have the candidate they choose. Imagine if the shoe was turned, and Republicans were in a close race, and the Democrats believed they could beat one candidate easier than the other. Would we want Democrats secretly voting to undermine our choice? We must remember that at the end of the day we are all Americans, and we deserve to have our candidates. To mess with that in order to cause chaos in the other party is borderline treasonous.

If the Republicans are afraid of losing to the Democrats in the general election, if a certain candidate is elected, then perhaps the real effort should have been spent on choosing the right candidate instead of trying to foil the Democrats.

Choosing a candidate for any race should not be something Americans take lightly. If the field of hopefuls does not fulfill our ideal, then we should find the person who will, and encourage them to run. The Republicans are in the position they are in, because they spent the last 3 months voting for candidates they believed could beat Hillary. In February of last year, I warned in a blog, that choosing a candidate based on their ability to beat Hillary was a bad idea. I also asked the question, "What happens if we choose a candidate to beat Hillary, and Hillary is not the nominee?" Well, we are about to find out. Short of a miracle in Texas and Ohio, Hillary will more than likely be out of the race tonight. This realization has many Texas Republican voters asking if McCain can beat Obama, and the ones that aren't so sure are our "crossover" voters.

I only pray that many Republicans use this primary season to learn a very impotant lesson. Republicans are best served if we recruit the most charasmatic and deeply conservative individuals to be our candidates. History has shown, that only these characteristics prove to be winners for Republicans.

For the Good of the Country!

2008-02-14T19:44:00.002-06:00

As many of you all are very well aware, I am a Huckabee supporter. I know that it has been an annoying bit for some of you to listen to my reasons for why Governor Huckabee should be President. Well...I am not sorry for supporting the person I feel is best for the country, as I am sure many of you do concerning your candidate. That being said, let me be completely forthright in telling you that I still believe that Huckabee is the best man for the job.

I know that many of you did not like his record of raising taxes in Arkansas, even though they went to improving infrastructure and education, and were voted on by the people of Arkansas. I know that many of you bought into the press' misrepresentations of Huckabee's stances on U.S. foreign policy, yet, he is probably the strongest candidate in regards to the warand America's position in the global community. All of these reasons are valid reasons for not supporting a candidate, but many of the candidates that you supported have done the same, if not worse.

Governor Mitt Romney raised taxes in Massachussetts, but he was smart enough to call them "fee changes". Gov. Romney was also responsible for increasing the intrusion of government in to the lives of his constituents by mandating that every person have health insurance, and if they could not afford it they would be covered by the state. I bet that is what the fee changes were for.

John McCain, "The Maverick of the Senate", stifled free speech in McCain-Feingold, was willing to grant amnesty to illegals in McCain-Kennedy, has said multiple times that he believes that America is responsible for torturing and has vowed to close the terrorist prison at Guantanamo.

Rudy Guiliani with his multiple marriages, support of gun control and pro-choice policies garnered the "moral" support of Rev. Pat Roberson.

I could go on and on about the lack of wonderful candidates the Republicans fielded this election cycle, but for the sake of your time I will refain. I bring this up only to say that out of the myriad of bad candidates, the best candidate that would do the most to heal the wounds of this country would be Huckabee, and that is what I feel America needs now, however, ever the pragmatist that I am, (it pains me to say what I am about to say)...I believe Governor Huckabee should step down and put his support behind Sen. McCain.

As Republicans, we need to begin rallying behind our candidate. We need to start the "get out the vote" campaigns now if we have any hope of counter acting the momentum the Democrats appear to have. Yes, many of us will have to go out for a stiff drink after we vote for McCain, but that in no way means that we should abstain, not vote or God forbid vote Democrat. The last option should not even be an option for any conservative. I know many of you may feel that McCain would not be any worse, but I promise you that you don't know the hell that awaits America should Hillary or Obama take office. Yes, McCain is a Maverick. Yes, he has done many things that force us to question his conservative credentials, but I tell you this, he is still better than the Blatant Communism coming from the Democrats.

The one thing that has made this country great is the personal freedoms provided by the Constitution and the free-market society. If the Democratic agenda, as it stands today, is given a foot hold in this country many of the freedoms we enjoy will be stripped away and will never return. Though painful as it may be, your ability to go to any doctor you want and choose any health coverage you want will be gone forever if Universal Healthcare is passed. Like Social Security, Socialized medicine will never go away should it be enacted. This is one mistake we cannot take back.

Taxes will return to pre-Reagan rates if they are allowed to pass their agenda. Thats right, forget about the Bush tax cuts, you'll be longing for the Reagan tax cuts, because the Democrats will need that much revenue to implement their programs should they secure the White House and maintain control of the House and Senate.

I for one enjoy a low tax burden and so does our economy. I could go into the Democrats platform regarding the military and where it should be, but I don't have time. As Republicans we must do what is good for this country, and that means taking one for the team if we have too. If you have to take an airline sickness bag in to the election booth, then do so, but it is time we "cowboy up" and do what is right for this country, and that is not having a Democrat in the White House. We can worry about the other two houses later.

"Suffer" Tuesday: What It Means for the GOP

2008-01-31T10:47:00.002-06:00

I must admit that last night was both surreal and disappointing. My guy, Gov. Mike Huckabee surprised everyone by winning 5 states, but it was not enough to bring him out of third place in the delegate race. Yet, one claim that Huckabee can make, that the others can't, is that in 3 out of the 5 states he one with well over 50% of the vote, and he barely loss Missouri by less than 1% of the vote. Even with the surprise success, nothing changed in the standings. McCain is still the front runner, and Romney and Huckabee are competing for second. What is most compelling about last night is that the vote revealed a glimpse into the Republican psyche, and what they are thinking. Even thought Mitt Romney overwhelmingly won in the exit polls when it came to conservative issues, McCain still got the overall vote. Why? Simple, the Republicans across the country are trying to beat Hillary with a moderate. This a tactic that is doomed to fail.

In 1976 and 1996, the Republicans went to the middle, because the polls were showing that America was becoming more moderate. However, they ran against a liberal, and when the American people didn't see a difference in the candidates they went to the person with the most emotionally driven argument. The only times the Republicans have won is when they clearly show their difference with the other party. For some reason the conventional wisdom among voters and Party insiders is that when there is a strong Democratic personality running, Republicans need to run to the middle much like they are doing now.

Granted in 2008, there really is not one solid conservative that the GOP can rally behind, but the candidate they are choosing is not even close to what they need to win. Even though I believe Romney to be nothing more than a hair-do, or a convenient conservative who became conservative to win the GOP nomination; he is still a better choice than McCain. McCain's military experience gives him a lot of credibility when it comes to defense, but his willingness to be overly pragmatic makes his nomination sour in the mouths of dyed-in-the-wool conservatives. Many on the right believes that McCain would sell his values down the river in order to get things done. As you all know I love Huckabee, but I know that he has a few weaknesses. He is a little more moderate on immigration as he should be, and he did raise taxes in his state, but not as much as Mitt Romney, and he is not guilty of being a proponent of universal healthcare.

Many of the RNC insiders are gun shy after the spanking they received in 2006, but that was because many of the GOP faithful were disillusioned by their out-of-control spending. So, you would think that the RNC would have learned that returning to basic principles would be the answer, and recruiting a candidate that was conservative would be top priority. By the looks of things...Maybe not.

Leadership seems to be the one thing quickly lost from the Reagan revolution. If the GOP has any hope of restoring this country to its past greatness and keeping this country's economy and populace safe, it must return to the leadership examplified by President Reagan. Over the next couple of weeks this blog is going to take a look at what I like to call Impact Conservatism. I know that this philosophy will return us to Reagan's ideology, but also give it the necessary twist for a 21st century world.

Unless the GOP and the RNC committ themselves to the ideals that resonate witht he American people, they will increasingly lose ground to the emotional policies of the left, and then this country will be irreversibly changed. I pray we never let it get that far.

I am not a Conservative!

2008-01-31T10:47:00.001-06:00

I guess if you are someone who believes in securing the borders, providing pride for the people of America by stimulating the economy by letting them keep 100% of their paycheck, that every life is sacred no matter if it is inside or outside the womb, and believe in a strong national defense; then you are not a Conservative. These positions are positions are positions held by Governor Mike Huckabee, but according to leading Republican strategists and conservative talk-radio he is not a conservative.

Governor Huckabee was elected to a state that voted for Bill Clinton three times. He was elected for Lt. Governor when Bill Clinton's Lt Governor was elected Governor, and became Governor when Clinton's Lt. Governor was indicted for fraud. As Governor, in a state where major tax initiatives are voted on the people, Gov. Huckabee signed miniscule tax increases that were then used to improve roads in a state known for a horrible infrastructure. However, he was able to cut taxes in areas that were detrimental to Arkansas' economy and was able to oversee the largest surplus in Arkansas' history. One should note that this surplus was a result of Huckabee's restaint in spending. Gov. Huckabee also took the 2nd worst education system and turned it into the 6th best. In a state that is prodominently Democratic a Republican Governor was relected twice. How? By being a populace. I believe if Gov. Huckabee had put his party over the people of his state, he would be the Republican nominee today, but He would never got past his first term and Arkansas would be worse off.

I would love to do what many of you asked, and be like the news media and only focus on a Maverick and a Convenient Conservative, but I would rather focus on the one person who I believe should win. There is only one candidate that could bring this country together, and help heal our wounds.

Even though evangelicals have been relegated to a corner, and labeled a kook wing of the far right; we belive in the greatness of this country. We believe this country operates under the blessings of our Lord, and when we move further from him, we move further from his blessing. Yet, our candidates are not given serrious thought, because in the past many of our candidates have been less than serious. However, Huckabee is finally a serious candidate, and he deserves his due. If you don't believe he is serious, I dare you to explain how he has spent less money than any candidate, and is in a very strong third, and stands to win a lot of delegates today.

What's Happened to Reagan's GOP?

2008-01-31T10:47:00.000-06:00

Last night the GOP presidential hopefuls gathered in Simi Valley, CA at the Reagan Presidential Library, and the fire works flew. Governor Romney and Senator McCain -both the statistical frontrunners- spent most of the debate fighting over who was more conservative. In a memorial dedicated to the memory and the history of the greatest president in U.S. history, we had at least two candidates violating one of President Reagan's commandments, "Never speak ill of another Republican." What made it worse is both Romney and McCain claimed that "the Gipper" would endorse them. Really? A man who never blatantly attacked another Republican with false accusations would endorse one candidate who has spent millions trashing his opponents, and another who twisted a quote of his opponent to make him look weak? I believe that the two leading candidates have shown that much of today's GOP has moved so far away from the Reagan Revolution that they would not be able to find any simbolence of it with a microscope. So, what's happened that led the GOP so far from Dutch Reagan's dream?

Like in any great movement the "heirs" to the leader claim that their ideas are that of the previous. However, like a wicked game of telephone, the further you get from the origin the more twisted the original message gets. The problem the GOP faces today is that Reagan is not here today to correct any errors, and thus the most convincing orator can convince the party faithful that they are Reagan's heir-apparent. Yet, when they get to power they act like anything but Ronald Wilson Reagan, and the GOP follows in lockstep. If the GOP is to have any hope of finding their way back to power, they really need to take a long hard look at the real policies and attitudes of President Reagan, and then try to emmulate them.

As a novice historian of President Reagan, I have researched the life of this prolific leader. He is my political hero, and I hope to some day be half the leader he was. That being said I know that Reagan would have looked at last night's debate with horror and disgust. He would not have approved of Sen. McCain refusing to back down from his claim of "withdrawl" against Gov. Romney even after it was proven false by both the Governor and the moderators of the debate. The same horror would have been directed at Gov. Romney for his millions of dollars spent on attack ads, and his continual attacks on his fellow Republicans. I know that "the Gipper" would tell the candidates to focus on what brings us together, and stick to their message of hope and promise. He would advise the candidates to make a solid promise to reign in spending, and build up our defense. He would also support repairing this country's infrastructure, and using that as a real economic stimulus, and not the band-aid policies that are being pursued. He would tell the GOP hopeful to support life at all stages, and work hard to put people on the Supreme Court who believe the same. President Reagan would overall tell the Republican Presidential Candidates to stay positive.

It amazes me when the American people begin rallying around a candidate because he is well quaffed, or good looking, or is a war hero, or speaks well. When they should be looking at who will do the best job. They may not agree with every policy decision, but ultimately they need to realize that there is more to America than tax policy or immigration policy.

Now I have always been up front in my endorsement of Governor Huckabee, and I am still for Huck. After watching last night, I am even more convinced that Gov. Huckabee is the president this country needs. He is also -according to this novice Reagan historian- the closest to Reagan out of the whole field of GOP candidates, and I am not the only one. Nacy Reagan I am sure believes the same. She has not said so, but you can see it based on her actions last night.

On CNN you could see that before the debate, after the candidates had been introduced, Mrs.Reagan walked up to Huckabee and started a conversation. During the course of the discussion she slipped her hand into the crook of Huckabee's elbow. This movement was completely unsolicited. Ask any woman and she will tell you that is a sign a woman is completely comfortable with you. Also, she was smiling ear to ear when they talked, and any time Huckabee talked during the debate she was seen smiling. There was even a time, when Huckabee was speaking on state's rights, that the camera turned to Gov. Schwartznegger and you see Mrs. Reagan lean in and say I like him. For a woman who hated politics, and doesn't give her endorsement lightly, she seemed to be rather fond of the Arkansas Governor who got very little attention.

Ultimately, it will be a long time before we have another President like Ronald Reagan, but it doesn't have to be a long time to have a president and a Party that will emmulate his policies. Let's hope that the GOP faithful figure this out, and use the humble American from Dixon, Illinois as their litmus test for future candidates at every level of politics.

The Soapbox

2008-01-07T16:48:00.001-06:00

What You Get with the "Hope" Candidate

by Joe Shehan

On the eve of the New Hampshire Primary it looks as though Senator Barak Obama (D-Illinois) will upset Senator Hillary Clinton (D-New York) for a second time to win the New Hampshire delegates. With this win Sen. Obama sets himself up as the new leader of the Democratic party, and as one MSNBC pundit said, "he is now a movement". A movement to where? Racial equality? Well, I will agree that an Obama presidency would take a lot of wind out of the race baiter's debate, however, I believe his movement may take our country in the wrong direction.

For the first time in recent U.S. history there is not one true moderate running for president on the Democrat side. All three top tier candidate are selling a socialist, even communist platform. The only difference is that Obama is claiming he is willing to work with Republicans, and he has also been able to hide a lot of his desires in euphimistic language.

As the Author of the New York Times bestselling The Audacity of Hope, Senator Obama outlines his dream for America. Hidden in the language of hope and dreams are very real nightmares and dispares. As the great hope to knock down the racial ceiling in American politics, Sen. Obama wishes to create a national affirmative action program. Nothing would be more detrimental to race relations in this country than mandated racial quotas where less qualified African Americans are chosen over whites for highly contested jobs. This would destroy everything that Obama's presidency would stand for.

Another nightmare that would be unleashed by an Obama presidency is unversal healthcare. Like many pie in the sky ideas that liberals/communists come up with, Universal Healthcare tickles your heart strings, but would be destructive to the quality of healthcare Americans receive. Granted, healthcare is in a pretty bad place right now, but it is still better than 99% of the world, and would go down the tubes if the government took it over. My example...Walter Reed Army Medical Center or the V.A. Ask any veteran and they would tell you that when they have the money they perfer to go to a private doctor because waiting as few as three hours for a doctor when you have the flu is not fun. A three hour wait is a good wait when socialized medicine is the only game in town. One more negative about socialized medicine is, like Social Security, it will not go away once enacted. If you don't beleive that Sen. Obama would vote for such a bill if elected president remember with a Democratic majority in both the House and the Senate he would be hard pressed not too.

Finally, Sen. Obama would sell away our national sovereignty in the name of unversal brotherhood, and has admitted so much in his speeches. He would remove our troops from Iraq thus creating a power vacuum, and therefore creating more islamic radicals and terrorist who hate America. If you think that that is the price you pay for Bush's failed policy, well I think you fail to realize that the Iraqis don't separate Bush from America, and will blame America as a whole for destabilizing their country. At least right now they see America is at least trying to help. Any policy that does not appreciate that we are dealing with an enemy who does not believe he has to honor any agreement made with an infidel is doomed to fail and make America weaker. Remember it is our culture that radical Islamists hate more than our foreign policy.

I am excited to see that for the first time in our nation's history an African American is getting a fair shake, and may even stand a chance of winning his party's nomination and even the presidency. However, like Martin Luther King Jr. hoped for our country, I am judging Senator Barak Obama not by the color of his skin, but by the content of his character (platform),and so should everyone else who is looking at the Senator from Illinois.

The Soapbox

2008-01-03T21:31:00.000-06:00

Say it's So Joe, Say it's So!

by Joe Shehan

Writer W.P. Kinsella wrote a prolific book about baseball called Shoeless Joe Comes to Iowa, but the rest of us know the story as the movie Field of Dreams. In both the book and movie there is a great quote which comes from the main character in describing his home state. It reads as follows:

" I woke up one morning and thought I was dead, but then I realized I was in Iowa"

Watching the Iowa Caucuses one would have to agree with this statement, except they're not in hell or heaven, or even a dream...they are in a real place and they just witnessed the most peculiar event in American politics, and as result America is left scratching their heads. Yes, Mike Huckabee (who was only registering 1% in polls 6 months ago) won the GOP Caucus and Barak Obama won the Democratic nod. Now, what does this mean for Americans and Texans?

Looking at the two choices it appears that the Iowans chose the candidates that at least promised change, but came across as the candidates that could bring this country together while pursuing change. Whether you agree or disagree with their politics, both Senator Obama and Governor Huckabee ran on platforms that were focused on healing this country and bringing us together. Sen. Obama chooses to use his position to expand the role of government in our daily lives, and Governor Huckabee seeks to lessen the role of government and bring people into the promise of the American dream. But again what does this mean for us?

It means dear reader, that those who are in power today need to be concerned with their grasps of their positions. The establishment candidates on both sides lost. Clinton took third and Romney took second. This shows, as what I have seen by talking to friends and family, that Americans are dissatisfied with the current state of government and with those who run it.

Since January of last year I have been warning people to be careful about chosing their candidate based on whether they can beat Sen. Clinton. Today's Iowa Caucus showed that Clinton's hold on the lead is soft at best. A third place finish in Iowa is horrible especially if you were the coronated favorite. The best candidate for the Republicans in 2008 is a candidate that can bring the country together. He may not be the most conservative, but he needs to be able to crossover and heal the wounds of the last eight years. Also - in regards to Huckabee- you gotta love a guy who walks out to give his victory speech to Monty Python's Flying Circus theme song.

One positive that comes from an Obama win in Iowa is that the racial ceiling is slowly being removed from American politics. An African American winning the presidency could do a lot to heal race relations in this country. Granted I am disappointed that it would be a liberal African American, but still I have been saying that this country is ready for a black president and Senator Obama may be the first black president. As much as I hate to say this, realistically speaking, a Obama presidency would not be as bad as a Clinton presidency.

It is getting late on what has been a very exciting evening, and speeches have been given and the rest of America is watching college football or are asleep. We have witness at the micro level what makes this country so great...democracy. Tonight men and women of all races and creeds gathered together in homes, gyms and churches to cast their votes without fear of violent reprisal and without fear of death. We should all remember and be thankful to all those who made tonight possible, and when it becomes our turn, lets be sure to do our part as well.

The Soapbox

2007-12-29T17:17:00.000-06:00

Beivenidos a Realidad!
By Joe Shehan

In Saturday’s Dallas Morning News, the DMN chose their Texan of the year. Instead of deciding on an actual Texan they went the way of Time Magazine and chose something inane…the Illegal Immigrant! So, yes fair reader the illegal immigrant is the only Texan this year worthy of our gratitude and praise. It does not come as any surprise to the Texas Watchman that the DMN would find some counter-culture representative to honor, but I more expected Molly Ivins (who passed away this year) than The Illegal Immigrant! Yet again the Dallas Morning News shows its colors, and takes one more step towards being as pertinent as the Star-Telegram.

Illegal immigration is a real problem in this country. Whether it shows our inability to guard our own borders, or it reminds us all of the actual strain it puts on our economy, it is a problem that must be addressed. Yet, how can the civil discourse that needs to take place happen when the few news outlets we rely on to tell the story accurately and unbiased honor criminals and reveal their bias towards such a hot button issue? It’s hard enough getting positive stories out of Iraq, but now the DMN is shilling for illegals too.

I am a third generation American. I have grown up with the stories of signs that read “no Irish need apply”. What makes my story different is my grandparents came here with the permission of the American government, and still suffered discrimination. Many on the left and in the illegals’ camp want to paint those who do not support illegal immigration as xenophobes. This might be true if the bulk of us were against all immigrants, but we aren’t. Those we are against are the individuals who seek to break our laws to profit themselves. If they were citizens we would be throwing them in jail, but because they are the cheap labor greedy business owners desire, we look the other way.

It is time to understand that people who want to return illegal immigrants back to their country of origin do not hate these people, they are simply impassioned by the government’s inability and unwillingness to do what is necessary to stem the tide of illegals into this country. These people are also tired of hearing stories of how illegals would have starved if they stayed back in their country, but yeta majority saved $1000 to pay the coyote to get them here. I know that $1000 is not a lot of money, but in Mexico that can feed a family for months.

Granted the immigration process is convoluted and antiquated. I can admit that, but until we can control the tide of people getting in it is going to be harder to fix. We need greater border protection and enforcement. We need greater prosecution against employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants. Cities such as Irving and other towns in Arizona have taken such measures, and have seen the number of illegals diminish almost over night. Their economies have not suffered because of it, and their crime has overwhelming gone down as well. Perhaps in this debate we should be focused on what betters the whole of society, than an important voting block during an election year.

Immigration has always been a hot button issue for this country, especially during economically unsure times. If it’s not the Mexicans, it was the Chinese. If it’s not the Irish, it was Italians. America has had its fair share of xenophobic jerks portraying their bigoted hatred as patriotism, but I do not believe this is the case this time. In the above immigration stories these people came here legally, and were brought here because they were cheap labor and needed work. Concerned Americans today could care less about the race of the individual, but care about their legal status. Yes, many people assume that a person of brown skin and a Hispanic last name may be illegal, but that comes from their own ignorance of the person in question, and that the overwhelming majority of the people who are illegal originate from Latin America.

The real issue here is that everyone is so worked up over this issue that we are talking past each other. Granted, some heated words and some hard truths need to be said, but the debate should not be childish. We need to look long and hard at this issue, and decide what the best course of action for all Americans should be. Compromises need to be made, and there will need to be a willingness by both sides to give up ground to find a real solution. It may take years to fix the problem, but then fixing the problem would be worth the wait. Remember it took Thomas Edison 2000 prototypes before he created 1 incandescent light bulb.

The Soapbox

2007-12-21T09:39:00.000-06:00

North Texas’ Representatives during 2007:

Dr. Michael C. Burgess, M.D. (TX-26)
By Joe Shehan

The end of the first session of the 110th Congress is here. While under the leadership of the Democratic party and the first woman Speaker of the House, the U.S. Congress has received the lowest ranking in its’ history. Even rank and file Democrats are disgusted with this generation of Democratic leadership, however, wanting to dedicate time to this topic in another column, I would like to take a look at the local representatives in this column, and see if they were really worth sending back to another term in office. Therefore, I choose to start with U.S. Congressman Michael C. Burgess, M.D. Republican, representing the 26th district of Texas.

For full disclosure it is important for you to know that I spent the last year working for Dr. Burgess in D.C. Now lets see what he has done.

During the first session of the 110th Congress, Dr. Burgess introduced 20 bills and 4 amendments for consideration, and missed very few votes on the floor and in committee. Of the bills introduced, the majority dealt with healthcare and health related issues ranging from physician reimbursement (H.R. 2585) to a fix for the current SCHIP bill (H.R. 1013). Congressman Burgess introduced legislation that would help raise funds for Veterans’ Healthcare through a Veterans’ postal stamp (H.R. 4116), and Dr. Burgess introduced legislation that would enact the Flat Tax (H.R. 1040), which would revolutionize the way taxes are collected, and would lessen the tax burden on the American people.

As you can see Congressman Burgess has been busy these last twelve months trying to create legislation that helps the American people and the people of North Texas. That being said, one piece of legislation that stands out to me is his most recent introduction; H.R. 4190, which amends title 5, U.S.C., to exclude Members of Congress from the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program. This legislation most likely has no hope of getting out of committee or even becoming law, but it is rooted in a genuine desire to force the hand of Congress to do something real to fix healthcare in this country.

Now for those of you out there who would like to use your tired rhetoric and accuse Congressman Burgess of doing nothing while in Congress, the above simply dispels these accusations. You can also look up the following link to see for yourselves. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery

Representative Michael C. Burgess, M.D. (TX-26) serves is district with distinction and grace. When uninformed constituents and ignorant, partisan bloggers began to attack him over SCHIP, Dr. Burgess took his case to the people of is district. He also, sat down at the table with the Democrats to try to reach a compromise. This was something that ate up a lot of his time, created great stress for him and his office, and bore very little fruit if any at all, but because of his desire to best serve the people of the 26th District he did it.

In an antagonistic Congress, where many Republicans flew the coop by retiring, Congressman Burgess stood up, worked hard for his district, and deserves the gratitude of those who are able to give it. You may not agree with his platform, or even agree with every vote Dr. Burgess casts, but the one thing you can’t say is he does not work hard for Texas 26. Congressman Burgess deserves two more years.

The Pulpit

2007-12-19T09:15:00.000-06:00

Christmas Happiness from the Dumps.

By Pastor Troy Brewer

About ten years ago I made my first trip to the border and across into the trash dumps of Matamoros. It was a lot like going to the moon for me. Anytime you get out of your box you are likely to hear God speak to your heart in a profound way. It tends to be dangerous territory because when you really hook up with the heart of God, you tend to get changed. I have discovered Jesus never leaves me the same way He finds me.

I had seen things on TV. I had an idea of what to expect, but I was completely unprepared for the effect it would have on me personally. I went to Mexico and came back completely different. The impact of those beautiful people in that terrible place was so strong that in some ways it defines me today. A lot of the ways I think and deal with life’s issues, the Lord taught me from a trash-dump pulpit. I still go back there four or five time a year. It’s something like another semester in Brewer’s theological seminary.

Planes and Trains

It’s not the traveling part that changed me. Yes I’m a gringo, but hardly a greenhorn. I’ve been to India twice, Uganda four times, all over Central America and even made an illegal missionary trip to Cuba. The trips we take tend to be rugged, raw and off the beaten path. Always on the bad part of town.

Still traveling has its perks. I’ve prayed at the wall in Jerusalem, suffered for Jesus from hammocks on the Caribbean and had the high honor of addressing the King in his actual palace at Kampala. I have had just as great an honor in hugging leprosy victims at a colony in Asia. It’s been awesome.

I’ve been so sick in Nicaragua that the locals put me in a 50-gallon oil drum full of water to cool my fever down. I’ve been so pampered I’ve eaten steak from first class on Singapore Airlines with a ticket I didn’t even pay for.

I’ve seen little kids in East Africa playing with a deadly black mamba snake and two men fight to the death with machetes for money in Cuba. I have actually witnessed Muslim rebels coming into Western Uganda from Congo and seen the village after they got through with it. I’ve also seen people have so much mercy and compassion it defies explanation.

My son and I were robbed in a taxi in Bombay. I have protested anti-American protesters in downtown London and dawned a kilt in Scotland. When my wife and I were offered marijuana in Jamaica, I said, “No thanks brother, we are Christians.” The drug dealer smiled, gave me a big hug and said, “Yo mon, I am too!” He promised me the “weed of wisdom” would help me receive a higher revelation.

That’s just scratching the surface so when I say the Matamoros dump had a profound effect on me its not because I don’t get out much. In fact, I have been back to the dumps nearly sixty times since then, taken hundreds of people with me and nearly half a million pounds of food. It affects me because I want it to. Matamoros makes my priorities rightly align. It makes me realize how privileged I really am.

A Higher Education

Last week, we took 2,200 backpacks and tote bags stuffed full of toys to the kids in Brownsville (TX), Matamoros (Mexico) and yes, even to the city dump. The advantage of loving on kids and giving things away is one of the greatest gifts God has personally given me. My wife and I not only take a bunch of crazy people from the church down there but we always take our kids with us too. The impact it has made on them has been just as incredible.

This Christmas we will be in our little house on our little spot in Johnson County, Texas. We will have just come back from another experience in the trash dump of a major Mexican city. We will know we are blessed. We will know life is special and we will know that God’s goodness is overwhelming.

We won’t have an exuberant amount of gifts to give each other because we spent it all on our trip. But what we will have is happiness and appreciation. Sometimes happiness is wanting what you already have. I learned that in the dump.

Merry Christmas friends and may you be blessed with a Christmas of wanting what you already have.

Psalms 63:5 - "You satisfy me more than the richest feast. I will praise you with songs of joy." (N.L.V.)

Pastor Troy Brewer is pastor of Open Door Ministries in Joshua, Texas. he is also the author of the Fresh from the Brewer Column and blog.

The Soapbox

2007-12-19T09:12:00.000-06:00

Back in God’s Country!
By Joe Shehan

I have always said that there is nothing like the Texas sky. Growing up just outside Ft. Worth, I had a fort that I would climb to the top of and lay for hours looking at the bright blue sky. Well gentle reader, for the last year I have been wonderfully serving my country in Washington, D.C. and have not been able to see the Texas sky and I missed it dearly. Well, my family and I have returned to Texas (God’s Country) to stay, and the beautiful Texas Sky was there to great us as we crossed the border from Arkansas into Texas.

The title of this blog is called the Texas Watchtower and not the American Watchtower, because of my love for this state. For too long now the liberals have had dominance over the North Texas Blog-o-sphere for far too long. It is my goal to provide quality analysis and opinion of what is going on politically and socially in the North Texas region as well as in the country.

Its good to be back, and I am ready, and my friends are ready to take on the liberal establishment, and provide you with the other side –and more often than not the true side- of the story.

The Pulpit

2007-12-07T13:36:00.000-06:00

The Gift That Keeps On Giving

By Pastor Troy Brewer

I write this sip of flavored wisdom on my birthday. I know its later than December 6th when you read this but its takes the Brewer a little more than a week to grind his column, but please feel free to send gifts.

December 6th is not only known for the glorious day God blessed the world with my 3 pounds of splendor (my how I’ve grown since then) but it is also famous for being known as the day America got drunk. About 30 years before I was born, prohibition ended on December 5th and most of America went to have a legal drink on the next day. I think God has a big sense of humor about a lot things and having me born on that day is somehow poetic. I have probably driven several people to drinking. Sorry, but still feel free to send gifts.

Kill the Grinch

The whole world is about to celebrate the birthday of the greatest troublemaker and peace giver ever seen. Christmas might have an X in the name of your holiday but you probably are still going to give or get a gift or two. The whole gift-giving thing goes back to the original scene. Wise men from the east of Israel came to Bethlehem with three kinds of gifts that would bank role Mary and Joseph on their exiled trip to Egypt.

If you look at those three gifts in the book of Matthew, we discover an important, yet often-overlooked, theological fact; in this account, there is no mention of wrapping paper.
If there had been wrapping paper, Matthew would have said, "And lo, the gifts were encompassed about with 7 square cubits of paper. The paper was covered within and without with pictures of Frosty, a man of snow.

Joseph purposed in his heart to cast the paper into the barrel of refuse, but Mary saith unto him, ‘Cease man. Thou shalt not. For Mary had purposed in heart that the paper should be set-aside for future generations, and Joseph didst roll his eyeballs at the wonder of his wife. It came to pass that the babe was more interested in the paper than the frankincense.”

…But these words do not appear in the Bible, which means that the very first Christmas gifts were NOT wrapped. This is because the people giving those gifts had two important characteristics: 1. They were wise. 2. They were men not women.

Men are not big gift wrappers. Men do not understand the point of putting paper on a gift just so somebody else can tear it off. You can tell when I have wrapped a gift because it’s either in a hefty bag with a bow on it or it looks like a giant spitball.

For some reason, I can never completely wrap a gift. I can take a gift the size of a deck of cards and put it the exact center of a section of wrapping paper the size of a rodeo arena but when I am done folding and taping, you can still see a piece of the gift poking out.

On the other hand, if you give my wife a 12-inch square of wrapping paper, she can wrap a C-130 cargo plane. My stepmother, like many women, actually likes wrapping things. If she gives you a gift that requires batteries, she wraps the batteries separately, which to me is bordering on mental illness.

Roll Your Own

The editors of Woman's Day magazine recently ran an item on how to make your own wrapping paper by printing a design on it with an apple sliced in half horizontally and dipped in a mixture of food coloring and liquid starch. Those people are smoking crack and need to get a job!
Remember that the important thing is not what you give, or even how you wrap it. The important thing, during this very special time of year, is that you save the receipt. Because most of us knucklehead men don’t have since when it comes to buying gifts anyway.

I find that Jesus Christ, who the Bible calls the unspeakable gift, does tend to come gift-wrapped. Part of the journey of Christianity is about discovery and revelation. Jesus Christ is not the guy that lives in the building with a big steeple on it, take that wrapper off and you discover He’s the God that lives with you in your living room even when its messy. He loves it when we unwrap him from religion and our pain and see him for who he really is. Yes wise men and girls still seek him and yes, incredibly blessed people still receive Him for the gift He really is.

Unwrapping Jesus as a gift is not a one-time thing. God’s goodness towards us is ongoing and never ending. It’s a progressive journey into an inheritance that is so awesome it will take an eternity for us to unwrap it. Keep unwrapping guys, and see Him this season in a way you’ve seen him before.

"Thanks be unto God for his UNSPEAKABLE gift.''--II Cor. 9:15

Pastor Troy "The Brewer" Brewer is Senior Pastor and Founder of Open Door Ministries in Joshua, Texas. To contact The Brewer, please email us at FFTB@OpenDoorMinistries.org

The Soapbox

2007-12-06T11:40:00.000-06:00

Doubleheader: Give Me Energy or Give Me…Death?
By Joe Shehan

Today, December 6, 2007 the Congress is arguing the merits and problems of the current Energy Bill that has been slowly making its way to a vote. Not being well versed in the ins and outs of the very complex piece of legislation, I can assure it does nothing that needs to be done to bring immediate relief to average Americans.

Gas prices hovering above $3 a gallon and actually higher than $4 a gallon in California and other states should be an absolute tragedy to anyone who wears the Congressional lapel pin, yet many on the left side of the aisle seem to want to pass the buck off to the energy companies. Like every other major piece of legislation that has been brought to the floor for a vote, the Majority has kept the Minority out of the debate. The bill that is on the House floor was written and pushed through the committee by the Majority.

The real solutions are being ignored for coercive measures that are only supported by radicals that make up the base of the Democratic Party. Higher Taxes and regulations on the energy/oil companies do nothing to lower prices, and it actually increases costs to the consumer. What needs to happen is a gradual transition to renewable fuels, but immediate exploration for local energy sources that can be utilized to help offset the costs now.

When we can keep cars on the road, and families are able to get to work and school, then we can focus on making sure their vehicles can go further on a tank of gas or ethanol or a fuel cell. When people are able to heat their homes for the winter and still by gifts for Christmas or even food for the table, then we can focus on cleaner burning coal or alternative fuels.

Needs should be more important than dreams.

Doubleheader: What about the holy underwear?

Governor Mitt Romney (R- MA) gave a well received speech today at the George H.W. Bush Presidential Library in College Station, Texas. The topic of the speech: religion and the presidency. Responding to criticizisms of his faith in Mormonism, Gov. Romney gave a speech in where he declared that he would never “allow the doctrines of any faith” overrule the laws of the land. He was also very adamant about religion not being a litmus test for presidents. Overall the speech was very moving, but still lacked the convictions of a person seeking the highest elected office in the land.

As a Christian, and a non-denominationalist, I agree with Gov. Romney that the constitution guarantees that a religious litmus test will ever be used for any elected office, but I do not appreciate a man running as a “conservative Christian” criticizing (either directly or indirectly) other people who question his beliefs in an extreme branch of the Christian faith. Many Christians question any “Christian” denomination which places its doctrinal documents over the word of God, and they question a denomination that is so secretive of their beliefs that many Christians belief Mormonism is a cult. However, always wanting to give credit where credit is due, I applaud Gov. Romney for taking a stand and defending his beliefs, but his beliefs are exactly what many Christians are afraid of.

Gov. Romney’s record of flip flopping on the pro-life issue is exactly what I am talking about. In his speech he said he would never put the doctrine of any religion above the laws of the land. Much of the opposition to the pro-life movement says that our beliefs are based on our religion. Well, that completely forgets that there are agnostic and atheists who do not support abortion, but this doesn’t make my point. My point is that as of right now the “laws of the land” say that the murder of unborn children is lawful, and he has said his Christian faith says that abortion is against the law of God. So, if he supports the overturn of Row v. Wade is he not putting his doctrine over the law of the land? Gov. Romney has often been quoted as saying his religion does not affect his decision making, and he has been accused that that means his religion is not important too him. I have to agree with this statement.

If you are devoutly religious, your religion forms how you view the world, thus it influences the decisions you make. If you are not devoutly religious, then you are not as impacted by the doctrines and mores of your faith, and then you could say “it does not affect my decision making process”. However if this is true, then you should not be advertising yourself as a devout believer.

If Governor Romney believes what he said today, then his platform is very similar to another Massachusetts official who ran for president and tried to pass himself off as something he was not.

The Soapbox

2007-12-03T12:08:00.000-06:00

Choose Who You Want; Huck’s My Guy!
By Joe Shehan

In the spirit of full disclosure I do not hide my support for Governor Mike Huckabee (R-Arkansas) for President of the United States. The only candidate that I would ever try to discourage any reader of the Watchtower from voting for would have a “D” after their name, that being said, I personally believe that Gov. Huckabee is the best choice out of the entire field of eight Republican Primary candidates.

There are many issues that the candidates must take a position on, and it would be impossible for a singular candidate to take the right position on all of them for every person in this country. Many in the current field of Republican candidates have tried to be everyone’s candidate, and they come across as wishy-washy and fake. Gov. Huckabee has not wavered on any of his issues. Yet, he still finds that he is being attacked by individuals in his own party.

Huckabee was quoted as saying he had an old seminary professor who used to tell him, “If you are getting kicked in the butt you must be in the lead,” and this is quickly becoming reality for Gov. Huckabee. The political punditry and talk radio are beginning their investigations into the former Governor, but are falling short of anything better than conjecture and innuendo. Taking what a candidate says out of proportion does not good reporting make.

Much of the problems many pundits and those in talk radio have with Governor Huckabee come from two areas: Tax Reform and Immigration. On the topic of Tax Reform many anti-Huckabee pundits site his raising taxes in Arkansas. Close examination of Governor Huckabee’s record would show that many of the tax hikes were voted into law by the people of Arkansas, and as the representative of the Arkansasian people he had to sign the legislation into law. Also one would discover that he lowered the overall tax burden for the Arkansasian people, and had a multi-billion dollar surplus when he left. You ask anyone in Arkansas about Governor Huckabee, they will tell you he did a lot to fix the infrastructure of his state.

Immigration proving to be the most contentious issue in this country since social security reform has proven to be, yet again, a stumbling block for another qualified candidate. Much of the reason Senator John McCain (R-Arizona) is not the front runner for the GOP nomination (which he was at the beginning of this year) is Comprehensive Immigration Reform. Governor Huckabee, may soon realize that those individuals who have taken a singular opinion on this issue, are a force to be reckoned with.

The same agitators who caused the Senate phone banks to shut down earlier this year have set their eyes on the Governor of Arkansas. Why? Because Gov. Huckabee defends a program which would allow children from illegal immigrants to apply for a state scholarship to go to school, and that is simply unacceptable for them. However, many misunderstand the program and accuse Gov. Huckabee of setting preferential treatment for the children of illegal immigrants, and political pundits and talk show radio hosts do not correct the record when this accusation is made. The truth is that every child, no matter of immigration status, is held to the same standard as every other student during selection. The only difference is that if a child of an illegal is selected, that child must complete citizenship classes and become a citizen before they graduate or face having to pay the money back. This seems fair and reasonable.

What these issues really boil down to is fiscal responsibility or money. Fiscal conservatives have always been at odds with social conservatives, because of the simple issue of spending. People who identify themselves solely as a social conservative tend to be a bit moderate when it comes to spending. However, those who call themselves solely fiscal conservatives desire very limited government and minimal taxation and minimal spending. Yet, what both fail to realize is that we are living in a very complex world, and a little bit of both ideologies is what’s needed.

Many Americans have been raised that the government is here to help them. They live their daily lives dependent on the government for assistance. To suddenly take that assistance away leaves a vacuum that will be difficult to fill. Yet, if this country continues to spend money at its current rate, we will suffer much of the same recession postwar Germany experienced pre-Hitler. What is needed is a balanced approach to spending and entitlement programs that leads to a gradual phase out of the entitlement system. This is the root of many of the programs Gov. Huckabee supports.

I know that if the Governor’s record is closely examined and hyperbole is left at the door, that many Americans will realize that Mike Huckabee is the man for the job. In a time of severe partisan divide in this country we do not need another candidate that will divide us, but we need one that will unite us. Governor Mike Huckabee seems to be the only candidate right now who speaks to all of America, and has those on both sides of the aisle eager to listen.

The Soapbox

2007-11-29T08:32:00.001-06:00

Check out this link! The best answer by a conservative Christian about the Word of God! Go Huck!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RF-nMaYq3QE&feature=user

One of the Greatest answers on the Christian posiiton on pro-life and the death penalty!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVqEKX1JyzY&feature=user

A great answer about immigration, and Huck shows why he is a leader!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqJMLVdoKyg

The Soapbox

2007-11-28T08:50:00.000-06:00

“The Sky Is Falling, the Sky Is Falling”
By Joe Shehan

In the age old story and now major animated film, Chicken Little is the spritely chick who proclaims to the world that the sky is falling. Much like the Boy Who Cried Wolf, Chicken Little’s community and family begin to not believe his proclaimations. Well, now we have the Democratic Party, and their cohorts the news media, helping to perpetuate another claim of celestial decent. But this time it is not the “sky”, but the economy that is doomed.

In 1992, then Governor Bill Clinton was able to orchestrate a come-from-behind win of the presidency with one simple motto, “It’s the Economy, Stupid!” This motto, along with the media’s depiction of an economy in recession and a third party challenger led to the defeat of President George H.W. Bush (#41 for the politically illiterate). Now, the Democratic Party is hoping to pull off yet another such victory for yet another Clinton, and also a victory for House and Senate Democrats. Frustrated with the political stalemate that exists in the current make-up of Congress, the Democrats, under the leadership of Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Illinois), are already seeking a new strategy for this next year’s Congressional campaigns, and it is going to involve the economy.

Fueled by the recent dramatic drop in the Dow, the ever present housing crisis, and let’s not forget skyrocketing energy costs, the Democrats, according to The Hill, are devising a way to take political advantage of the declining consumer confidence index. Rep. Emanuel was quoted as saying, “The executive branch gets credit for a good economy and a bad economy. That’s how it works.”

Well, if the words of the distinguished “gentleman” from Illinois are true, then this president deserves the praise for one of the best economies on record. According to the Government Accounting Office (GAO) October 2007 marks the 50th straight month of job growth, with 8.31 million jobs created since August 2003. This is the single greatest creation of jobs in our county's history. Real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) grew at strong 3.9 percent in the third quarter of 2007. After-tax personal income rose per capita by 12.7 percent, at an average of over $3,800 per person since 2001. Wages grew 1.2 percent over the last 12 months. Despite the rise in energy costs and the falling housing market, consumers still were able to increase the nation’s economy by 3.9%. With numbers like these you have to wonder where the media and the Democrats are getting this idea of a recession, and a downward economy.

Looking back at the 1992 Presidential Race, political science professors at Texas A&M University in College Station, Texas did a study of the impact of the media on the election. Their data revealed a wealth of information on how that the media, by controlling the perception of the economy, were able to subvert the efforts of then President Bush to proclaim an actual robust economy. Sound familiar? Many of the numbers for the economy in 1992 are the same as today’s numbers, and yet the media perpetuated the myth that the economy was in a free fall.

The Dallas Morning News is no different in its attempts to forward this myth, yet did a fairly decent job in portraying both sides today. In an article titled, “Holiday shoppers plan to spend despite economy”, the DMN reported the superficial and temporary woes of the economy, but offset it with the fact that shoppers are going to do their job to help the economy. So, if the economy was in such dire straights, how then could consumers still afford to buy gifts? According to the article, the consumers can afford to spend because of good old fashioned budgeting and scrimping. Yet, it also bears notice that many of these people who are adversely effected by the increase in energy costs and the housing woes, were also the recipient of a robust economy where higher costs are offset by hire earnings (despite what you might hear on Lou Dobbs)

Now, I am not ignoring the fact that there are some very negative aspects of our economy today, but many of these problems can be fixed by better, more comprehensive energy policies and more restraint by the mortgage companies to not give mortgages to individuals who cannot afford them. In philosophy 101 you learn that perception is not reality, but this is not necessarily true in politics. If the Democrats want to give the perception that our economy is bad and they have the answer, then those who are not informed will believe them, and the media will be happy to feed the story. But it is up to those of us who know different to get the message out there before they have a chance.

The Soapbox

2007-11-26T12:59:00.000-06:00

Pimps and Hoes: All A Candidate Needs
By Joe Shehan

On November 26, 2007, the owner of the Moonlight Bunny Ranch of Reno, Nevada, Dennis Hof announced that he and the employees of the “Bunny Ranch” will help raise money for the dark horse candidate from Texas, Rep. Ron Paul. This is great, because it places Ron Paul right where he needs to be: Jokesville.

There used to be a time when a political candidate shied away from the seedier side of life. However, Rep. Ron Paul has chosen to stand by his Libertarian roots, and accept the Bunny Ranch endorsement. Now this could be a good thing, because members of the oldest profession will be funding his campaign, and they are always good for some cash. I can only imagine what the next fundraising mailer will look like.

Watching the Paul campaign and Rep. Paul as well, one can determine the man is not all there. Even from my meetings with his staff, I have learned that the questions of his sanity are not just limited to the outer circles. But, the 2008 campaign is not the first time a crazy person has run for office and gotten attention, and it will not be the last.

What is so shocking about all of this is the way Ron Paul has made a mockery of the campaign process. Now don’t get me wrong. I believe a lot of these candidates need to be taken down a few pegs, but when you seek the office of the President of the United States, you need to have a little more respect for yourself and the government you hope to lead.

I can only imagine Rep. Paul wished the endorsement had not come from the “Bunny Ranch” but the “Chicken Ranch”, but that is a whole different musical.

The Soapbox

2007-11-20T06:48:00.000-06:00

Hey everybody!

Lil Miss Abigayle is under the weather so today's Soapbox will have to be postponed. I hope everyone has a blessed day, and keep Abby in your prayers.

The Texas Watchman

The Soapbox

2007-11-19T13:13:00.000-06:00

Containing the Flood
By Joe Shehan

Growing up as a kid, I was often told the story of the lil Dutch boy trying to save his town from the ensuing flood by plugging holes in the dyke with his fingers. That image has a lot of weight in today’s world, especially in regards to immigration. We should not consider it a curse that millions of people from all over the world try to come to this country. If anything, we should see it as the compliment that it is, however, we should seek to remedy the problem faced by people disregarding those laws either for life or profit. This is the real root of the debate.

Much of the immigration debate, like many of the debates in this country, is divided down the ideological line. If you believe that the government has infinite resources, and should take care of anyone who asks, then you would not see the difference in a legal immigrant and an illegal immigrant, and you would use the term “undocumented” to describe the later. That being said, if you recognize that the “infinite” resources of the federal government already come from an overtaxed populace, then you tend to have a more “black and white” viewpoint towards this issue. Yet, no matter your ideological viewpoint, this country still faces a very real situation of porous borders and illegal immigrants. So, what is the best course of action?

Much of the problem lies in three areas: 1. Porous Borders, 2. Unscrupulous Employers and 3. Impossible Visa Application Program. Each one of these three issues creates problems both logistically and politically for Members of Congress. Yet, doing nothing creates even more problems.

In the 1980s, President Reagan granted a sweeping amnesty to illegal immigrants that were in the country at the time, with the belief that the federal government would do its job of curbing the tide. That as we have come to learn did not happen, and almost 20 years later we are facing the same crisis. We must do something, and to begin the process we should look at the three main problems.

Closing the Borders

History shows that countries without well secure borders are doomed to fall to the outside world’s dangers and influence. Past presidents have even acknowledged this fact. Yet, today our borders are porous, and it is becoming increasingly easer to cross into this country. Even with improvements in technology and executive orders enforced through the Department of Homeland Security, the borders are still being violated.

We need to reestablish the border by forcefully enforcing it. Placing the National Guard on the borders, and putting virtually impassible walls and fences in places too remote to patrol could help facilitate eliminating access points to this country.

Though closing the borders would create a logistical nightmare for many of the Border States, it could provide some temporary relief while we try to get a hold of the problem.

Take Away the Incentive

Many of the people to who come to this country illegally are in search of a better life for themselves and their families. If there were no jobs for them to have here in this country, there would be no reason to break our laws. Now, I am not advocating killing our economy, but what I am advocating is enforcing the existing employment laws and going after the business who hire illegal or undocumented workers.

Local cities, like Irving and Farmers Branch have enacted such laws, and they have seen much of their illegal population dissipate. Now, there are those in the community who are worried that will hurt the local economy, but as of right now things seem to be looking fine. Only time will tell.

Irving and Farmers Branch are not the only cities who have seen such phenomena. Other towns in Nevada and Arizona have seen such results.

Fix the Immigration Service

One reason many illegals find it necessary to break our laws, is because the process to become a documented worker and even a citizen takes an astronomically long time. To simply get a green card to work here can take up to 10 years. During that time anything can happen, and if the family is truly destitute they could be ruined by that time. For some illegal immigrants, they believe it is better to ask forgiveness later then wait.

We live in a time of unparalleled technology, and the ability to share information is far better than anytime in history. Because of these advancements in technology, one has to ask, “Why does it take so long?”

National Security is important and doing background checks on people who seek to live in this country is necessary, but to take 10 years to do so is ridiculous. If this country is ever going to be able to fix the immigration problem, we need to be able to process applications for work visas and citizenship much faster.

As the grandson of an immigrant I am sensitive to the plight of immigrants. My family still feels the pains of signs that read, “No Irish Need Apply.” That being said, I do believe in the necessity of laws, and that if we do not honor our own laws all for the sake of scoring some cheap political points, then we do a dishonor to the millions of immigrants who come here legally every year. Immigrants are the life blood of our society, and our acceptance of all peoples is what makes America great. But, we need to make sure that it is those who wish to come here to be American that comes into our country and not those who wish to destroy everything that is American.

“There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t and American at all…we have room for but one sole loyalty, and that is a loyalty to the American people.” – Theodore Roosevelt, 1919

The Soapbox

2007-11-16T12:08:00.001-06:00

Taking It in the Tank
By Joe Shehan

Today the Dallas Morning News reported that gas prices reached an all time high for November prices. According to AAA, “this is the first time AAA Texas has seen gas prices topping more than $3 a gallon in November.”

I can remember, when my wife and I started dating about twelve years ago, that I could fill my tank (I had an SUV) for about $10, and still have enough money to buy a couple of videos at Blockbuster. Now, it costs me almost the price of a nice date (dinner, movie and dessert) to fill my car. How did gas prices rise over 400% in the last 10 years?

One answer is that OPEC regulates oil flow, and since the resent insecurity in the Middle East has made oil production more dangerous, they have decided to decrease the amount of oil being produced.

Another answer is that American oil reserves are being depleted because of natural disasters like Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, which destroyed close to 1/3 of America’s refining capabilities.

Yet, another answer is that the oil industries continue to raise oil prices in order to cut a fat check.

These above answers are not the only options to choose from, but they are the most commonly heard. No matter what you believe is the answer there still remains one problem, and that is that oil prices are getting higher and gas is getting more expensive.

For years now, Republicans have been advocating the exploration of more oil. Yet, at every turn they are thwarted by environmentalists who accuse them of being greedy and evil because they wish to drill in ANWAR or off the cost of California. However, many Republicans are extremely environmentally conscious, but they also know how free markets work, and realize that the complete switch over to renewable fuels will take time, and until that point we need affordable fuels to keep going. This would require finding new sources of oil and natural gas.

The dream of renewable energy is a great dream, and can be accomplished. Renewable Energy would make America safer, and would benefit all Americans with its reduction of greenhouse gases, and the reduction of energy costs. Yet, until that day comes, we need to be pragmatic and find a way to fix the problem now. People’s lives and livelihoods are at stake.

As we complain about the cost of gas for our cars, there are families in the north and northeast portions of our country that have to make the decision to have Thanksgiving dinner, or freeze for the winter. This is ridiculous! I would much rather lose a couple of Porcupine caribou, and then have to tell a family they can’t warm their house for the winter. I am not as concerned with the California skyline, as I am with a Carpenter being able to get to and from his worksite, or a single mother being able to get her kids to school and herself to work. These should be the ultimate priorities, not whether or not a natural gas company is making too much noise in a rural neighborhood.

I believe that we must do a better job in taking care of this earth, but I am also pro-human and look for ways to do both the right environmental thing and the right humanitarian thing.

The Pulpit

2007-11-15T15:49:00.000-06:00

Hold Your Nose!

By Pastor Troy Brewer, Open Door Ministries

The smell of Coffee in the morning puts the Brewer in a good mood. I love the smell of coffee. I like the smell of lots of things. Leather, the Sunday pork roast, a brand new car.Smell is a big deal. It’s the only sense you have that extends into your brain directly. It’s a key component to our moods, memory and appetite.

Your nose is a truly remarkable structure. When a nose functions the right way, it can help us detect as many as 2,000 different scents. It also conditions the air we breathe. We inhale about 17,000 times a day, moving some 300 cubic feet of air through our nostrils every 24 hours.That’s a lot of nose business.

That snout of yours has to clean, humidify and in a fraction of a second, warm or cool the air you breathe to match your body temperature.A scent, fragrance, or aroma also have a powerful effect on our emotions that help transform the way we feel. Specific smells suppress appetite, reduce stress, revitalize and energize, even promote physical attractiveness. I know I certainly become much better looking when I throw on some Old Spice.

The thing about smell is that it can do the opposite as well. A bad smell can put you in a bad mood or flat wear you out.

King James

You might know the name King James because of the famous English translation of the Bible. What you might not know is that he was a character that didn’t care to live a life reflecting the Bible he had commissioned. His very interesting life as King of England is something worth looking at.

Though a promiscuous homosexual, he married Anne of Denmark and had seven children who survived beyond birth. He himself survived the Guy Fawks gunpowder plot, but none of those things are really what King James was famous for.

King James suffered from a terrible fear called aquaphobia and he never took a single bath his entire life. Those around him suffered the smell of a King who refused to put water on his body. He was a presence to be reckoned with, and when he came into a room every one knew it.There’s nothing worse than somebody that reeks from a major malfunction of personal hygiene.

The Stink in Big BendBig Bend National Park is an amazing place and that area was the last frontier for the lower forty-eight. When people in the rest of the United States were voting for Roosevelt and driving the Model T, Texans in the Big Bend were enduring Apache Indian raids on ranches and dealing with bandits robbing their banks. Extremely eccentric places tend to attract eclectic characters.

Bobcat Carter lived at the Permission Gap entrance to the National Park. He devoutly preached to all that, "Cleanliness is next to Godliness. A true gentleman should bathe at least once every seven years. I do!" People say you could smell him a mile away.

He ate skunk stew, drank from a pregnant horses utter and poisoned prairie dog villages for a living. He would turn back flips along the road just to stop visitors for a chat. After more than a hundred years old, he was taken to a hospital in Alpine. In terrible protest they removed his filthy rags and scrubbed his nasty body. “Don’t let them kill me!” He cried, as black water splashed across his elderly form.Three days latter Bobcat Carter died, apparently the victim of pneumonia. The bath had actually killed him.

The Smell of Success

When you can’t see something or feel something, you can still identify it if you can smell it. The sense of smell is all about discernment. I think if there is anything Christianity needs today is a strong sense of spiritual discernment. A lot of things feel right and look right, but you can just tell their not because of your spiritual “knower”, or the ability to be able to identify what is God and what is not.

What is life and what’s not something that brings life?

Furthermore the people around us should be able to sense something different about Christians. We ought to be so full of life that people around us can smell it on us. The Christian church is metaphorically called the body of Christ. This body is really attractive when we are properly joined with Christ the head.

I think one of the reasons why Christianity is so unattractive to so many people is because too many of us are bodies that have become unattached to Christ as our head. After it’s all said and done, a headless body is good for nothing but lying around and stinking up the place.

Philippians 4:18b"…the gifts you sent. They are a fragrant offering, an acceptable sacrifice, pleasing to God."

Pastor Troy Brewer is pastor and foudner of Open Door Ministries in Joshua, Texas. He is also Author of Fresh From the Brewer, an opinion column and blog for the local newspapers.

The Soapbox

2007-11-15T09:33:00.000-06:00

Giving Defeat a Chance
By Joe Shehan

I feel I am becoming a broken record when it comes to the Iraq War, and the Democratic efforts to end the war. But, I would be remissed if I allowed yet another cowardly episode on the floor of the House to go unchallenged.

On the night of November 14, 2007, the House of Representatives voted in favor of H.R. 4156, the Orderly and Responsible Iraq Redeployment Appropriations Act. The final tally of the vote was 218 for, and 203 against. Not enough to sustain a veto, if H.R. 4156 should get out of the Senate and on to the Presidents desk (which is not likely). To many Conservatives who are working on the Hill, this attempt to tie war funding to withdrawal was yet another attempt by the Democratic Majority to play politics with our troops lives and score some cheap points with their base.

Now many of you out there would say that their base is pretty large when it comes to the war, and with that claim I would say you only have half of the truth. According to the most recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, 55% of Americans want most troops withdrawn from Iraq by the beginning of 2009. Well, if many people were paying attention they would know that the President, at the urging of General Patraeus, announced two days ago he will begin to draw down troop levels this year. If the President follows Gen. Patraeus’ recommendations, we could have close to 25,000 troops home by July of next year. However, the Democrats wanting to steal some of the credit from President Bush pushed their legislation through.

Still, there are those out there who believe the Congress should take command from the President because 68% of the American people do not agree with how the President is running the war. Well, I am sure there are more people than that who don’t agree how Bill Belicheck or Wade Phillips coached the previous night’s game, but the owners of the New England Patriots or Dallas Cowboys don’t take away their command of their team.

The real motivation behind these moves is a cowardice that is informing the leadership that they are losing and therefore must tuck tail and run. This cowardice is so prevalent that it is affecting the way many in the Democratic leadership are thinking. Their thoughts are completely upside down. Point in case is a quote in CQ Today where a spokesman for Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D- Maryland) said,

“We will not leave here until we have seen whether Senate Republicans are once again going to obstruct a majority of the Senate from passing a bill that provides funding for our troops as well as a strategy for success.”

Let’s take a close look at this statement. First the spokesman accuses the Republicans of “obstruction”. This is a charge that every Republican should take pride in. When faulty and poor legislation is brought to the floor we should everything in our power to prevent it from becoming law. The line about “funding for troops” is especially rich, because if they were genuinely interested in this they would pass a bill for funding with out any caveats for withdrawal. Lastly (and this where is gets upside down), they are calling their strategy of retreat a “strategy for success”. I am sure that the Generals and Admirals at the War College would agree that the only way to win a war is to retreat, especially when you are seeing tangible success. As long as the Democratic Majority of the House and Senate continue to think in these terms, they will continue to see the lowest approval rating in the history of Congress.

It is important that those of us out there realize that the Majority of the 110th Congress is not operating in our best interest, but in the best interest of their campaign war chests. Completely entrenched in survival mode they are doing everything in their power to placate to their base, and to show the American people they have a purpose. But as long as their legislation continues to be vetoed, they will have to work harder to find the real “middle ground” if they want to avoid being the most insignificant Congress in American history.

The Soapbox

2007-11-14T12:04:00.001-06:00

T-Sippers Need More Cake
By Joe Shehan

The Dallas Morning News reported Wednesday that the University of Texas was going to be increasing tuition by as much as 22% over the next two years. In a day and age where it is getting less expensive to own a home than it is to send your kids to college for four years, I am surprised that an institution of higher learning would seek to make it more difficult for students to afford classes.

Since 2003 (the year they de-regulated college cost in Texas), the cost of higher education has risen almost 100%. When I first attended college in 1998, the University of Texas (then and still the most expensive state school in Texas) cost approximately $11,000 a year. Today, the proposed cost increase will lead the cost of a state education at UT to be $22,000 a year. For many already at risk of not being able to go to college, this creates one more hurdle to overcome. But do schools like UT need to raise their costs? Let’s see.

The University of Texas shares a universal college endowment called the Permanent University Fund (PUF) which has over $11.6 Billion (4th largest in the country), of which 30% is the University of Texas’ share ($3.4B). In 2005, they received over $446 million in funding for research, $417 awards and grants, $5 million in licensing revenue from patents owned by UT, and they received $2 Billion in private endowments. The University of Texas has 2,271 faculty and staff, of which 1,000 positions are privately funded. They also have 40, $1 million (Privately funded) chairs. In total, UT receives approximately $6.4 Billion dollars in endowment and private funding each year. This does not include revenue brought in through student fees and tuition, which equals approximately $1.1 Billion a year.

Now looking at the total amount of money the UT system has at its disposal, one has to ask, what do they need to raise tuition for? I do not know all of UT’s overhead, but surely it doesn’t exceed $6.4Billion, especially if you take into consideration that the students should be paying for their costs and then some. So, why is UT raising their tuition? According to Kevin Hegarty, UT’s CFO, the price hikes are “directly related to the lack of adequate state funding for basic needs.” I guess $6.4 Billion in private funding, $1.1 Billion in tuition, and the lion’s share of a $2.5 Billion dollar Texas State School Budget is just not enough for the University to get by. Perhaps the problem is not in the lack of funding, but perhaps in Mr. Hagerty doing his job to ensure that the University is using their money wisely.

College is expensive, and it should be. It should be expensive to keep those who do not take education seriously out of the halls of learning; however, it should not be so expensive that only the elite and privileged in this country can afford to go. I do not believe the answer to curbing college costs is re-regulation, but neither is de-regulation an excuse to drive up the cost.

The Soapbox

2007-11-13T12:55:00.000-06:00

First Principles
By Joe Shehan

Times are getting exciting! We are moving towards another electric campaign season where both parties are ready to do battle for our votes. Already some very interesting developments are coming out of both parties. Candidates that were thought as inevitable are now showing signs of weakness, and candidates that everyone thought were hopeless are gaining in the polls. Yet, what brings me to put pen to paper (or rather skin to keys) is the disturbing compromises of first principles being committed by many in the Conservative movement. Many Conservative leaders have in the opinion of this author compromised their beliefs for the sake of political expediency, and this is not right!

Two Conservative leaders that deserve much of our ire are Texas Governor Rick Perry, and Evangelical leader Pat Robertson. Both men have made many decision based on “first principles” and have stood by these principles under extreme persecution. Yet, when faced by the real chance of another Clinton presidency, both men put their support behind the candidate that right now shows he could beat Senator Clinton.

Several months ago, I wrote a column decrying the quick support of any candidate for political expediency. In the column I mentioned that until the primaries, caucuses and conventions are over we will not know for sure who the Democratic and Republican candidates will be. Because of this uncertainty, sticking to first principles is the only way to ensure that the candidate of our party is the best candidate for the job. Throwing our support behind a candidate too soon without doing the appropriate research could be dangerous for the country and our party.

So, what exactly are the “first principles” of the Conservative movement? Some of them are as follows:
1. A consistent pro-life stance where every life, born and unborn, is considered valuable
2. The government that governs least, governs best.
3. Taxes are a weight around the neck of our economy.
4. The family is the most important resource we have in this country, and it must be protected.
5. The governed must have the right to protect their life and property.
6. Immigration is important to the survival of a country, but only when it is legal.
7. Healthcare is important and should be kept functioning at the private level.
8. Defense is the government’s primary responsibility.

The support of anyone who does not have a consistent record of supporting these and others of our first principles is tough to swallow.

Pat Robertson’s support of Rudy Giuliani is confusing and frustrating at the same time. I am not saying the Rudy Giuliani is not a good candidate, or that he would make an awful president, but to see one of the leaders of the Conservative Christian movement back a candidate that is on record as being pro-choice and pro-civil unions, is disturbing. Now, I have not been one of Pat Robertson’s biggest fans, and I have often question many of his motives, but when it comes to the two aforementioned issues the Christian viewpoint is resolute. But in Rev. Robertson’s view, I guess they are a little more flexible when it comes to politics.

Governor Rick Perry is not any different. Again, in all honesty, I am not a huge fan of Governor Perry, but I do expect a man to be a man of convictions especially if he seeks to be my governor. Gov. Perry’s endorsement of Mayor Giuliani brings into question Gov. Perry’s views on Abortion, Gay Marriage, and Gun Rights.

To most Texans, gun ownership is a proud tradition handed down from father to son. Yet, Mayor Giuliani has shown some flexibility towards government regulations on handguns. In state who has now enacted the “Castle Law” (Your home is your castle and you can defend it at all costs) and a “No Retreat” law (You no longer have to attempt retreat, before brandishing your weapon in self defense) it helps to have a Governor who believes in protecting these right, and yet, it appears these principles are flexible for Gov. Perry when it comes to beating Senator Clinton.

I am all for rallying behind the candidate you believe best represents your positions, but when you begin to compromise your principles in order to “vote for a winner” you walk into a very dangerous area. Elected office is too important to vote for someone who will win. If you cast your vote behind a person for that reason, don’t get angry if that person passes laws you find morally repugnant.

The Pulpit

2007-11-12T06:36:00.000-06:00

The Will To Live
by Pastor Troy Brewer

Maxine’s Madness
Have you seen the cartoon character Maxine? She’s the Hallmark cartoon caricature of a cranky old lady that holds a coffee cup proclaiming, “I love my bad attitude.” She suffers hot flashes and lives on Crabby Lane in a little trailer with pink flamingos. She always wears bunny slippers, a bathrobe and a pair of sunglasses.

My grandmother collects Maxine paraphernalia. Like many of her peers, Nana believes Maxine to be her personal prophet and irritable voice of one crying out in the wilderness.

Maxine answers the phone by saying things like, “I’m busy right now. Can I ignore you later?” She lays on her worn out couch as she says, "If each day is a gift, I'd like to know where to return Mondays." She has a website for you to send complaints. Its http://www.like-i-care.com/

There’s no end to Maxine’s musings and complaints. She prides herself in telling it like it is and as she sees it. Just recently I got a funny e-mail that stated Maxine’s living will. A living will is the instructions you leave in the event you are totally incapacitated. Here’s what she said….

“I, MAXINE , being of sound mind and body, do not wish to be kept alive indefinitely by artificial means. Under no circumstances should my fate be put in the hands of pinhead politicians who couldn't pass ninth-grade biology if their lives depended on it, or lawyers/ doctors interested in simply running up the bills. If a reasonable amount of time passes and I fail to ask for at least one of the following: A Glass of wine. Chocolate. Chicken fried steak and cream gravy. Chocolate. Mexican food. French fries. Chocolate. Pizza. Chocolate. Ice cream. A cup of tea or coffee. Chocolate. Sex, and finally Chocolate. It should be presumed that I won't ever get better.When such a determination is reached, I hereby instruct my appointed person and attending physicians to pull the plug, reel in the tubes, let the "fat lady sing” . . .and call it a day!”

Life and the Pursuit Of
Lots of people have pulled the plug on their dreams and settled down into a life of apathy.The will to live is not just about wanting to survive. There are people all around us in a healthy body who don’t have the will to live past where they are.

The Brewer herby encourages you to be a dreamer, so sip on this.

Some Christians know the story about Lots wife and how her look back got her killed. But what most people don’t realize is it is just as deadly to stay where you are as it is to look back. Life has something better to offer you. Get up and get after it.

God does not make the distinction between sacred and secular. He is the God of “better” and “all” things. In Mark 9:23 Jesus said, “If you can believe, all things are possible to him who believes.”

So it is absolutely ok with God for you to dream big dreams that don’t have anything to do with traditional church. It makes God just as happy when you accomplish a goal for your family, like an awesome vacation for instance, as it does when a guy like me builds a food bank warehouse to feed the poor.

Dream a big dream and do something cool. Move off of Crabby Lane and refuse to pull the plug on hoping for better things.

Psalms 37:4 “Delight yourself in the LORD and he will give you the desires of your heart.”

Pastor Troy Brewer is pastor of Open Door Ministries in Joshua, TX and author of the weekly column Fresh From The Brewer.

The Soapbox

2007-11-09T09:58:00.000-06:00

Recognizing the Truth, part 3
By Joe Shehan

Lie #3: 110th Congress Has Done More Under Democratic Leadership Than Any Congress!

Promising the world is one way to win an election, and the Democrats were the kings and queens of making promises for the 2006 elections. It came as no surprise to anyone who was active in the Republican Party before the 2006 election, that the GOP was going to take a hit, and boy did we take a hit! So, on January 4, 2007 the Democratic majority had the opportunity to deliver on its promises. Did they? Lets see.

Promise #1: We will have five day work weeks, and do more work than any other Congress!

The Democrats could not even wait one week to break this promise. Within the first week Congress was recessed for the BCS championship game. Then shortly after that all but a few weeks have actually been five days in length. Much of the time the members arrive around 3 to 5 pm on Monday and work until 6p on Thursday. The only time we seem to have a five day week, is if that weeks falls before a long scheduled holiday.

As far as doing more work, I would call naming post offices hardly the pressing business of this country. Yet, with the majority of votes cast on bills that are hardly important, the Democratic majority can claim the passing more legislation then any Congress in history.

Promise #2: We have 6 initiatives that we will pass within the first 100 hours!

Well if you only count the hours that Congress was in session, then the Democratic Congress was able to do this. However, if you are like the rest of us, 100 hours is 100 hours, not 1,000 which it actually took. But, let’s really look at these bills to see if they “passed”.

Minimum wage – passed and was signed into law by President Bush.
Stem Cells – passed, but was vetoed by President Bush and sustained by Congress.
Ending the war in Iraq – passed twice by the Congress, ad vetoed and sustained twice.
Student Loans – passed and signed into law.
Energy independence – Still waiting for an Energy bill.
Retirement Security – Still waiting on that too.

So as far as the “6 for ‘06” goes, it looks like they 2 for 6, and that is not really accomplishing their goals. Now many in the Democratic camp could tell me that they did their job they passed it in the House. Well, that’s all well and good, but it does nothing for the American people if it is not made into law. Symbolic measures will never put bread on the table, or keep this country safe.

The broken promises from the Democrats are too numerous to count, and to discuss them all in detail would take too long.

It is important as a society, that we look into the promises and accusation made by our elected officials, and as it says in the Bible “sort through the wheat and the chaff”. Benjamin Franklin said that “vigilance is the cost of liberty”, and we all must be vigilant if we are going to ensure this country lasts for generations to come. It is our job as the people of a democratic republic to be informed, and active in the process. We need to be able to sort through all the rhetoric and gleam the truth. The truth is usually found in the actions of the individual making the claim, or in intellectual, academic research. It’s not going to be easy, but we can all make a difference if we start recognizing the truth.

The Soapbox

2007-11-08T12:03:00.001-06:00

Recognizing the Truth, part 2
By Joe Shehan

Lie #2: SCHIP is For Poor Kids!

Much of the contentious debate that surrounds the reauthorization of the Children’s Health Insurance Program known as CHIP, or more recently dubbed “SCHIP” is rooted in the claim that SCHIP is for poor children. This claim is true to a point, but it gets lost in the demagoguery of the left, and gets replaced with hyperbole and sensationalism.

Seeing that they would have very little political success with the twelve upcoming appropriations or “spending” bills, the Democrats chose to use children’s healthcare as a political football to batter beaten and bruised Republicans before the rapidly approaching Presidential and Congressional primary season. The evidence for this accusation is found in the process story of the current legislation.

The first SCHIP bill was introduced to the House with out even once going through the committee markup process (which would enabled Republicans to add amendments), and created many fiscal and policy quandaries for the GOP, and thus forcing them to vote against it. Many of the problems surrounded increasing the eligibility to families who make 300% over poverty (Approx. $63,000) with out ensuring that 90% of the children whose families make less than 200% (original eligibility level) are covered. Another problem was the age limit for coverage was increased from 21 years to 25 years of age, essentially making this a program for adults as well as children. These problems, mixed with inadiquate funding modalities forced the GOP to vote against it, the President to veto it, and the Democrats got their twisted political victory.

Next came the second attempt by the Majority to pass , yet again, a “bipartisan” bill that did not include any of the measures the minority clearly stated were deal breakers. The “changes to the bill” were weak efforts to bring compromise to the bill. The Majority did lower the age requirement back to 21, but they allowed adults older than 21 to stay on the program for one year, they slightly removed immigration requirements, but did nothing to provide citizenship verification, and the cigarette tax (which is a regressive tax) was still left in the bill. All of these “compromises” were still not enough, and rightly so, to bring the Republicans to vote for SCHIP.

Now we are faced with the SCHIP reauthorization being returned to the President for another veto, and another sustainment of the veto. So, Democrats and Republicans are now at the negotiating table, and they are working to find middle ground. Yet, after two days they are no where closer to an agreement. So, what about the kids during all this?

Unlike what is being reported and advertised the children covered under the previous CHIP bill are still being covered through Continuing Resolutions (CR). They are not at risk of losing their health coverage, and no one believes that Speaker Pelosi or the Republican leadership will let them be without coverage. So, if we do not have an agreement by the new cut-off date of November 16th, we are all confident that the Majority and Minority will pass another CR to take us into next year. No one wants that to happen, everyone wants to reauthorize the program, unlike Democratic accusations, but ultimately, the GOP wants a bill that covers those who deserve to be covered, and a bill that is able to pay for itself with out increasing the tax burden on anyone.

The Soapbox

2007-11-06T13:46:00.000-06:00

Recognizing the Truth, part 1
By Joe Shehan

There are many people out there who would say that the below is not the truth, but more lies coming from my side. Yet, I challenge those who would say that to try to pick a part the actual statements made by this author. I firmly believe that those on the left who are claiming to stand on the side of truth, or that they are speaking truth to power, could not recognize truth if they tried. Not because they are incapable of knowing the truth, but because they have allowed themselves to be deceived. I hope to shed the proverbial light on a few of the topics where I believe their “truth” is nothing more than fabrication.

Lie #1: Bush and Cheney Lied!

On November 6, 2007, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) went to the floor in order to argue the merits of H.R. 333, the Impeachment of Vice President of the United States Richard Cheney, and to force a vote. Listening to his argument for impeachment began to once again reveal the inaccuracies in this overall accusation.

By claiming, without any proof, that the V.P. cherry picked data in order to convince the American people and Congress to go to war with Iraq is both in accurate, but disingenuous. By placing the blame solely on the shoulders of the President and Vice President, it removes the responsibility of every Congressman and Senator who campaigned nationally and within the halls of Congress for the war. However, it over looks several facts about the build up for the war.

On such fact is that 6 different intelligence communities, including our own, reported every piece of information the V.P. and the President used as facts, and that those members of the Select House Intelligence Committee signed off on their findings. To then accuse the President and V.P. of lying after it is shown that these findings were incorrect, is both intellectually dishonest, but also reeks of opportunism in a time of great national turmoil. Let us also not forget that President Clinton just one year before he left office, proclaimed almost the same accusations against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.

Before we begin to start the impeachment trials of two of our leaders, let’s try to take a legitimate and unemotional look of the real situation. Yes, the nuclear weapons program was much smaller than we realized, but we still discovered thousands of canisters of biological agents which would be classified as WMDs.

I believe if looked at carefully, one would rationally determine that the decision to go into Iraq, though ill advised, was based on the best intelligence we had at the time, and that the intelligence and not the President or V.P. should be blamed for this mistake.

What is the Texas Watchtower?

2007-11-06T09:27:00.000-06:00

by Joe Shehan, Founder of The Texas Watchtower

In the not too recent past, Weblogs or simply “blogs” have become a very effective tool to reach what those in the political world call “the grassroots”. By placing political opinion on the World Wide Web many political pundits can influence the way the ordinary, everyday person views particular issues. Yet, for too long now in North Texas the “blogosphere” or the world of NorthTexas blogs has leaned in one direction. It is time for that to change, and thus enters the Texas Watchtower.

The Texas Watchtower seeks to combine both politics and Christian ministry together. It is not an advocate for theocracy, but a platform for Christians and Conservatives to come together, and discuss today’s issues.

The Watchtower will be divided into three sections of interests, and they are the Podium, the Pulpit, and the Soapbox. The Podium is reserved for elected officials who wish to relay their take on what is going on at the local, state and national level. The Pulpit will be reserved for those ministers who wish to discuss the role of Christians in today’s society, and what we can all do to try to better our communities. Lastly, the Soapbox is open to all who are active in their community (i.e. Local Conservative leaders, Political Activists or Community Organizers.) It is the hopes of the North Texas Watchtower to provide a conservative alternative to the liberal blogs that seem to dominate the local blogosphere.

Ultimately, the Texas Watchtower is based on Habakkuk 2:1, which says,

“I will stand my guard post, and station myself in the rampart [watchtower]; and I will keep watch to see what He will speak to me, and how I may reply when I am reproved.”

Those who write for the Texas Watchtower will seek to look out for the voters and people of North Texas, Texas and the Nation, so that they will know the truth separate from the lies. Much of what is called “truth” out there is a distortion of the truth, and it is up to the Texas Watchtower to keep a vigilant eye to ensure that the people remain informed and motivated to better their community, state and country.

Coming Soon: December 2007

2007-10-07T09:51:00.001-05:00

Be on the look out! The Texas Watchman is coming back to Texas via D.C., and he is bringing his and his friend's inside knowledge of national, state and local politics to the Texas Watchtower in order to help Texas Republicans and Texas Christian Conservatives take back the debate from the Left!