Political: Dr. Tim Hulsey on Federal Power

When the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, one of their main concerns was preventing the federal government from obtaining too much power over the states and dragging the country back to anything resembling the monarchy they had fled. 

Some didn’t want a central government at all, because they knew it would seek to gain more control in the years to come. Safeguards written into the Constitution in an attempt to assuage their fears finally allowed colony-wide adoption of the uniting of the states.

Conservatives and Libertarians decry the current morbidly obese federal government which seems to continually find ways to abridge our rights. Republican and Democrat federal politicians both seem to feel the need to constantly be legislating something. Our Senators and Representatives are supposed to be our voice in Washington and to be a check on the power of our president. They are supposed to remember that the premise of our country is that the millions of minds of the US population are better at making their own decisions that a few hundred elitists in DC.

Government has become enormous even in the face of our tricameral system, because that few hundred in DC think they know better than We the People about what this country should be.

Dishonesty in DC is not surprising, but actually lying by a presidential administration to propagandize the population and deceive other agencies of government seems egregious.

Lying about virtually every aspect of a bill that takes over 1/6 of the US economy in order to sneak it through passage is just the latest evidence of unbridled federal government.

The adolescent glee of those who deceive us is a disgusting exclamation point to this usurpation of power.

More arrogant tyrants need to be sent home to a real job!

The Church of the Sin-of-Choice

I've been using the term, "orthodox"; I'm afraid a little different than intended. Orthodoxy is a description of the Catholic Church before east/west schism in 1054 A.D. By that time the Roman Catholic Church had deviated tremendously from biblical doctrine. The Eastern Orthodox Church deviated in a similar manner up until that time. I would never intentionally propose that Christians return to the days of the early Catholic Church. So, what did I have in mind? A return to "practical Christianity"; the way the early Christian community worshiped in the days of the apostles.

Many churches have tried that: Pentecostals, Churches of Christ and so forth. This is called "The Restoration Movement" and is a noble attempt, but it puts emphasis on ritual as well as doctrine and for many, those rituals and practices have led to dogmatism. Many "born-again" Christians are excluded from membership in the universal church because of petty practices and non-essential doctrine.

"Dogmatic churches" are those which claim their beliefs and practices are incontrovertibly true. There is no room to admit "maybe, just maybe , we are wrong and others right"! Again, that's noble, but on issues not crucial for salvation, drives a wedge in the Christian community. Such dogmatism divides Christians who are told to love one another!

Let me define what I mean with the term "practical Christianity". It's not the method of worship or the ritual of worship, but the ideology practiced in apostolic times. However, the early church had special miracles and happenings which were for the growth of the early church. 

Let's take a quick look at one aspect of dogmatism; "speaking in unknown tongues". Let's never argue. The early church did speak in "unknown languages"; languages not known to the listener. They may have been contemporary languages, but they were unknown to the hearer. However, let's give pentecostals the benefit of the doubt! Let's say that some "Godly language" was practiced in the early church; a language unknown to any nation. What happened to it? There is no record of any "church father" after the apostolic age speaking in tongues. They may refer to others, but not themselves and they were the heirs to the apostles!

One group which did speak in "unknown languages" were the Montanists. Montanists were a sect, of course devoted to an individual, which the church ruled to be heretical. Those so ruling were "early church fathers". What the Montanists taught was not "practical Christianity" within the early church. Speaking in tongues was not common in post-apostolic days nor was it at all until 1906.

John Wesley endorsed the  Montanists, but made no claim to speaking in tongues personally. It seems that speaking in tongues was not common among early Methodists at all! 

In 1906 a black holiness church on Azusa Street in Los Angeles had a series of revivals where attendees exhibited all sorts of bizarre behaviors including speaking in tongues. That church is where the modern pentecostal movement originated and leaders justify their practice on the backs of early Montanism; a cult within the early church.

My question: What happened between the time of the apostolic church and 1906 that Christians, even martyrs, never spoke in tongues? It would appear that speaking in unknown (to the hearer) languages were for the growth of the early church. In 1906 African culture still had a strong existence in some black communities. Azusa was one of those communities. I believe that practical Christianity became influenced by African culture in 1906 and is destructive to the modern church. Many of those denominations are dogmatic in that if a person does not speak in tongues, their "born-again" experience is not real, and they are not true Christians. This dogma would have kept most, if not all, of the church martyrs from even being Christians!

That's my take on pentecostalism and there are many fine people in that movement. I just disagree with the efficacy of speaking in tongues. It adds to "grace" with works as most offshoots of "practical Christianity" do!

I made my point using one movement, but there is a most awful movement within the church right now which dwarfs any previous schism. The modern schism was spoken of in Revelation and was within the Laodocian Church. I'm going to call it "humanistic Christianity". Those adherents accept Christianity, but have redefined what it is to be a Christian. Jesus' teachings, it seems, takes a back seat to what's popular. It's a cult of rationalizing. By that I mean that each individual, even Christians; decide if, what and how much; of Holy Scripture they buy into. Usually, Christians exclude their own "sin-of-choice" (SOC) from "practical Christianity". What results are millions of cults each dogmatic in their adherence to their demand that they are above scripture and have a right and obligation to decide what is right!

For instance, many Christians "shack up". They are not in a traditional marriage, but justify their fornication  because they are committed to each other! Their commitment in reality, is not a commitment to each other, but a commitment to use each other for pleasure. Their commitment is to make no commitment because that's what marriage is! The same applies for Christians in a sexual relationship. It's okay for them because God is forgiving, and after all, society accepts, even encourages promiscuity!

That cult, as I describe it, would be "The Church of Adulterous Christians". It's in existence, but they are a sect of your church! They are there to split and divide and to encourage others to join their movement. As each day goes by that sect grows. In some denominations, that cult has become the majority. In apostolic times, they were spoken of:

Revelation 2:15 So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, which thing I hate.

A deacon named Nicolas was the one who authored this heresy and the sect which followed him. This sect was part of the early Christian church and believed in wife-sharing and polygamy. They were adulterers and pimped it just as was Balaam in The Old Testament. The early church dealt with that cult and it was ended after a spell. However, we still today have Christians who practice Nicolaitanism, although they have no idea who he was, but rationalize it as acceptable behavior.

Adultery within the church is just one heresy. There are many other cults within the church: We have the Churches of Ill-will, Churches of Riches, Churches of Addicted to Sports, Churches of Gambling, Churches of Immodesty, Churches of Feminism, Churches of Drug Use, Churches of Abortion, and now Churches of Homosexuality and "Churches of the SOC". All these are Nicolaitans and God hates their practices. Nicolas not only propagated sexual promiscuity, but any type of indulgence. Pleasure was his principle and the allowance for  pleasure was made part of the church.

By "rationalizing" their Christian laxity, no face it, "sin", Christians ignore what Christ taught against! We are to obey his commands to show that we love him! If we don't obey the "don'ts" there isn't love being shown. These little individual churches people have created just don't love the Lord! I propose that they form their own association and name it "Associations of Churches who Minimize Jesus' Sacrifice on the Cross"!  Their God, the one of "rationalization" is the "God of Reason". It's secular humanism. It's leaving God out of everyday living in favor of pleasure, wealth and power.

When our forbears ate of "The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil" they wanted to be like God and know what he knows. Now, they believe that they know better than God. They believe that righteous living is not for contemporary times, the same thought that Nicolas taught! My, how times have changed (sic)! However, "there is nothing new under the sun" as the wise man knew!

The "cure" for all these little individual churches is "obedience". However, to obey and not love Jesus is an effort in futility! We can only show our love by our actions, but first one must love. In order to have divine love people must repent and be saved. When you, the rationalizer, are truly saved, your individual cultish church will die and Christ's "practical church"  will give you hope! We know who wins! It's Christ. Don't go with the loser. Be practical!

Politics: Dr. Tim Hulsey on Vetting with Transparency

Jonathan Gruber, an architect of Obamacare, admitted that writing the bill in a “tortuous manner” kept Congress, the CBO, and the American People from seeing its true nature. Like a giggling teenager, he gushed over the political expediency of non-transparency.

Now, Obama wants to “save” the internet by adding more government control: “Obamacare for the internet.”

Any proposed legislation that comes out of the Obama White House will be publicly touted as good for the masses, safer, and cheaper, but the bills will be written in a “tortuous manner” to keep as many people in the dark as possible.

The entire Obama existence is a consistent theme: no-fault mendacity. He wrote books that were loose with the truth. Acquaintances were fabricated. Real characters were obfuscated. Yes, he did inhale… a lot! But that was cool and made him look hip to the younger generation.

Obama’s college years are in a haze for a different reason. Records are sealed and jealously guarded, because non-transparency is politically expedient.

He came from obscurity to crush others on his way to a Senatorial seat in Illinois. He then devoured the presumptive heir to the Democrat throne in 2008, leaving Hillary to ask, “Did anyone get the number of that truck?!” The press is complicit, but who choreographed this?

Despite lack of theatrical experience, Obama became what many people wanted: a calm, eloquent, non-partisan, post-racial, intelligent, transparent, middle-of-the road, diplomatic candidate. “Tell them anything to get elected. Then, do what you want.”

As president, he has brutally pursued his socialist agenda by hiding the truth, lying to get support, and welching on political deals like a true socialist thug.

Candidates who cannot be vetted properly are too dangerous for the country and cannot hold office. Lesson learned?

Grace: Well Worth the Effort

Catholicism, throughout the ages, practiced sacraments. Let's take a look at what sacraments are:

Council of Trent:
CANON I.- If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law were not all instituted by Jesus Christ, our Lord; or that they are more, or less, than seven, to wit, Baptism, Confirmation, the Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Order, and Matrimony; or even that any one of these seven is not truly and properly a sacrament; let him be anathema.
CANON IV.- If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification; -though all (the sacraments) are not necessary for every individual; let him be anathema." (highlights mine).

The "New Law" is the New Testament.  The Old Law contained five books of things TO DO for righteousness. With the "New Law", according to Roman Catholicism, the five books, called Mosaic Law, are whittled down to seven.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines the sacraments as "efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is dispensed to us. The visible rites by which the sacraments are celebrated signify and make present the graces proper to each sacrament. They bear fruit in those who receive them with the required dispositions."

Let's look in layman's terms what a sacrament is, according to the Catholic Church.  "Efficacious" is "achieving the desired results" or "bearing fruit". Hence, according to the "Council of Trent", sacraments are the seven activities which are a demonstration of God's grace. There's no problem so far, until one looks at Canon IV:  If at least one sacrament is not evident in a Christian, they are not saved (my paraphrase). This Canon precludes sola gratia (by grace alone) because it requires Christians TO DO something for their salvation.

Lutheranism and Calvinism are founded upon sola gratia. People are saved by God's grace alone and there is nothing that we can do to either supplement God's gift nor avoid it for that matter because Calvinists call it "irresistible grace"!

Romans 6:23 "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

Romans 5:15 "But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many."

First off, Calvinism is right. Salvation is a "free gift". That's truth and that's as demonstration of God's grace!

However, Our very existence is by God's grace. Our lives are a gift of God. We did nothing to deserve birth and do nothing to deserve living. Hence, not only is salvation a gift from God, but so is everything; even things we take for granted!  Since our present lives is a gift, then it follows (Romans 6:23 above) that ETERNAL LIFE is also a gift. We might expect to live forever, but our expectations don't change a thing. Grace is a gift and God's not a genie. He decides who will be graced and who's not!

However, God doesn't dispense grace randomly. He has powers which we cannot even fathom. His gift to all men was our will. It's the part of our minds which makes decisions. It operates freely; God provides the stimulus and man the response. The stimulus is the Holy Spirit.

Titus 2:11 "For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men..."
Romans 2:4b "the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?"
John 6:44a "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him..."
Philippians 2:12-13: "...work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. For it is God that worketh in you according to his good pleasure, both to will and to do."

As can be seen God draws all men! That's grace. However, all men do not repent, Hence, they are drawn, but make one of two decisions: accept or reject. The exercise of that decision is made by the will. Since God does not coerce anyone to love him, willing to follow God is done of man's own volition. Even that "free will" is a gift of God, but God gave man that will so we will be more than automatons! He could have created "Stepford People" who were perfect without cognition. He, however, wanted men to love him out of their own hearts!

Hence, salvation, although by grace, is a combination of grace, attitudes and actions . We all know that "faith without works are dead" (James 2:17), but that's not "works" toward salvation. What are those things which we must DO to exercise our free will? Let's look at what it takes to accept any gift.

Let's say a great man desires to make me happy. He has a grand gift for me. He encourages me to take the gift. Let's take a look at this scenario. First off, I must recognize the giver is able to give. A bum on the streets could hardly offer me a grand gift. The receiver must recognize the power of the giver.

Secondly, the receiver (me) must believe that the situation is real and he's (me) not fantasizing. There must exist the giver and the gift.

Thirdly, the value of the gift must be "grand". It must be a gift to be desired! No one will accept a junk gift or a gag gift.

The receiver must be sincere in the desire to have the gift. It can't be of the attitude that "I'll try this gift and use it if it's good, but discard it if it's not!" Some believe that it's "gracious" to accept unwanted gifts, but real grace is taking the gift with appreciation.

With that said, the receiver must be ready to appreciate the gift. The appreciation is shown by our emotion of love. That too is a gift of God, but we can either use that gift or not!

The receiver must understand the gift. It can't be taken with the attitude "I don't know what it is, but I want it!"

Withe all the understanding thus far, the receiver must accept the gift. In order to accept it, the receiver must understand the conditions for use! (Yes, the gift is given conditionally). It's a great gift and so far, the receiving person has abused the givers gift. For this gift he must feel sorrow for not being gracious for all that the giver has given before.

It's gracious of the recipient if before he takes this gift from the giver, that he apologizes for all the past gifts which were used wrongly. He tells the giver that he's sorry! He (or she) repents of past injustices.

With this all done, the recipient can now accept the gift. He (or me or she) recognizes the authority of the giver, knows that what he's doing is real, appreciates the value of the gift, understands that the gift is given out of love and what the gift truly is, feels sorrow for formerly wronging the great giver, and apologizes to the giver for the wrongs of the past!

Within these thoughts and conditions are ACTIONS; things we must do and/or  feel! Applying this practical example of receiving gifts, let's apply that to God's gift of his only son!

• God is recognized as great and capable of giving what he is giving. (God is all-powerful)
• The recipient must understand God and the gift (the Eunoch example and Philip)
• God and his gift is known to be real (believe God is real and salvation his through Jesus only)
• That the gift is from God (man cannot achieve it himself)
• The value of the gift is considered great. (Jesus' sacrifice)
• The person must desire the gift ("drawing of the Spirit")
• The recipient must have a humble attitude (non-deserving of the gift)
• The recipient must value to gift and desire to have it.
• The recipient must accept the gift.
• The recipient must desire to use the gift optimally (service to God)
• The recipient must feel badly for previous disrespect to God.
• The recipient must repent to God and say "I'm sorry".

With all these things accomplished (done, acted upon, felt, behaved, worked, and the like), the gift is ready to be received. There is scripture to support all these aspects of salvation  and I leave it to the reader to examine each point. As a result of salvation, then there are two results: love God for his mercy and show it by loving others just as we love ourselves! We get baptzed and take communion to testify and love God! Those are works.

Notice that all the pre-conditions for salvation can be summarized by "belief and faith". Our ability to believe and have faith is too a gift of God!

Ephesians 2:8 "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God..."

So even our "belief mechanism" described within the steps above are a gift, and hence are by grace. There is one "work" required of ourselves:

1 Thessalonians 1:3 "Remembering without ceasing your work of faith..."

 We are saved "through faith", but it's faith which is never through. It takes "work" to have faith and faith is for all time. We work for our faith through prayer, meditation and scripture. Faith is grown by exercising the twelve gifts of the Spirit. It takes "work" to have and maintain faith, but even that work is a gift of God. Our ability to do anything is all a gift and all our steps to salvation which we do, feel and think are all because of God's grace.

Now, not one thing. None of the things we DO cause us to deserve mercy. They're steps to accepting the gift of mercy which is freely given. If we fail to do any of these things, we reject the gift and as such, reject God. Think how he feels when he offers this grand gift and his children turn up their nose in pride and refuse to take it! Most people reject the gift, but even of one of his children accepts it, the angels sing!

There are things we don't do for salvation:

• We don't have to walk anywhere.
• We don't have to be a certain place.
• We don't have to perform a certain ritual.
• We don't have to clean up our act first.
• We don't have to wash our bodies first.
• We don't have to breed, grow and burn the sacrifice.
• We don't have to even love first!
• We do come as we are. Our sacrifice is ourselves. 

We are a blemished sacrifice, unlike those of Moses'  time. We come to the altar of God (a supernatural place in our minds) and submit ourselves at the altar. We are "the living sacrifice" which we present to God along with all our flaws. We can't eliminate all those flaws to be worthy of receiving the gift because those flaws are many and we'll never be worthy of the gift which we are about to receive!

In summary, sacraments stand against salvation. We don't do works to get our free gift, but we do have an understanding, believing, accepting and willing spirit. That's our sacrifice. That's our part in receiving the gift. As such, none of the seven sacraments are a pre-requisite for salvation, but all can be done to show our love for God giving us his gift. As such "sacraments" are not really "saving". They are ordinances! Ordinances are works we do to show our love.

We even differ on what works demonstrate love! Evangelicals for the most part use the "Lord's Supper" and baptism as a testimony to our faith. Others throw in foot-washing as a show of humility and love. However, unless done in the right attitude, these are merely eating, getting wet and cleaning feet. It's our attitude which allows us to submit to God and it's our attitude in how we remember God's grace!

Peace on Earth? Was that the reason for Jesus?

With the birth of Jesus the angels sang of his purpose! What was to be the result of Jesus' coming?

Luke 2:11 "For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. 12 And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger. 13 And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, 14 Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men."

Jesus was born to 1) glorify God, 2) bring peace on earth and 3) and for people to love one another. Glorifying God and loving one another are "The Greatest Commandment and the One Like Unto It": Love God and love our neighbors as ourselves. When Jesus "glorified God" he revealed himself as God! What about bringing peace on earth?

Jesus commented on that!

Luke 13:51 "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: 52 For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three.53 The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law."

Both of these declarations are from Luke, the good doctor: "peace on earth" and "bring division". Does Luke contradict Jesus' ministry in his own writings? No! The latter is a "hard saying". It's toughlove.  Jesus was distressed that when he spoke truth, that truth creates disunity!

When there is a lack of unity, there is war! Jesus speaks of the war between individuals, but by extension, we know that nations war because they disagree. Right now the Muslim nations and the Christianity-based nations are fighting all over the world. It's because they disagree about Jesus!  If Islam taught about Jesus in the same way that Christianity teaches, there would be little room for dissension. We would indeed have "peace on earth"!

If Roman Catholics and the reformers had the same interpretation of Holy Scripture, there would have been no persecution by the church. If the Reformed Church (Protestants) had the same view of Jesus as did the Anglicans there would have been no dissension between them. Wars were fought Christian against Christian because doctrine was different. Doctrine is how people interpret truth.

Jesus came to teach "right doctrine". Some adhered to tradition. They were influenced by Judaism (The Law) and paganism. In Luke 13:52-53 we see that even families will be divided... and they have been! Some hang onto paganism, others tradition and others contemporary worship. Someone is right and someone is wrong! War results in disagreement. In the case of which Jesus was speaking, family members were going to war with each other. Why? Because some reject "truth" and others fail to see "real truth".

Jesus knew that he would be the source of dissension, even war among people! However, the angels sang of the "peace on earth" because of Jesus! Who's wrong? Neither. There is another type of war of which the angels knew.

Ephesians 6:12 "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."

There is a war and that war is within each one of us. In everything we do there is a battle waging. Even the wicked know that what they do is wrong! Evil people do wrong on purpose. They weigh the trade-off and take the road paved with pleasure, power and wealth. When sinners sin, it's always a choice. When those choices are weighed a "principality" (an evil force or fallen angel) persuades the person to sin. People are always at war with invisible powers because they just won't give up!

John 16:33 (ESV) "I have said these things to you, that in me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world.”

Jesus is speaking of "inner peace".  Although there are battles going on within us (tribulation) we are to "take heart" because in him "you may have peace". If we are "born-again" we are new creatures. As a new creature we are able to defeat our inner demons, because God's Holy Spirit fills the space originally holding the spirit of the Prince of the Air (the devil). Evil is defeated when the Holy Spirit dwells within us. We're no longer alone fighting a spiritual war. God provides full-armor to defeat evil. Christians, thanks to Jesus' death in our place,  are victors. Jesus is our King and with the King we have security and serenity. We don't worry about the things of this world because it's no  longer our home! Because Jesus was resurrected we will also be! Our hope lies in Jesus and hope leads to inner peace!

The angels rightfully sung of "on earth peace", but it was a different peace of which they were singing!

 2 Thessalonians 3:16 (ESV) "Now may the Lord of peace himself give you peace at all times in every way. The Lord be with you all."

This is the peace which Jesus brought! It's himself. The Lord of peace passes on to his followers the same peace which he has!  He gives us peace at all times, in every way and with all his disciples! That promise of peace brings serenity and that's the peace of which the angels sang!

As we will always have the poor, so too will we always have war! Although war is futile peace on earth is an effort in futility. We will have war, and it will get worse, until Jesus comes to reign!

Jesus came then to 1) glorify God (show God to the world), 2) provide inner peace through the Holy Spirit and 3) to love others. Now, that's what Luke was talking about! War is a consequence of truth because most refuse what Jesus had to say!

So Jesus didn't come to "bring peace on earth". He came to bring "peace to us while we're on earth"!

Politics: Dr. Tim Hulsey on "ignorance is strength"

There is an interesting You Tube video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G790p0LcgbI) of an Obamacare architect, Jonathan Gruber, pointing out the necessity of making the Affordable [sic] Care Act confusing and non-transparent. He espouses the lack of transparency as “a huge political advantage.”

Gruber, a Harvard-trained economics professor at MIT, was a “key architect of Massachusetts’ healthcare reform” and helped implement it. From 2009-2010, he worked with the Obama administration and Congress to develop the Obamacare bill.

His hubris matches our Arrogant in Chief perfectly. He admit that, if the actual consequences of the law had been know, “…it would not have passed.”

“This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure [the Congressional Budget Office] did not score the mandate as taxes. If CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies. OK, so it’s written to do that. In terms of risk-rated subsidies, if you had a law which said that healthy people are going to pay in – you made explicit healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed.”

The smarter MIT professor says, “Call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever. That was really critical in getting this thing to pass.”

Since the end justifies the means, “Look, I wish … we could make it all transparent, but I’d rather have this law than not.” Just like all progressives, he knows what we need better than we do.

Oddly, the confused Congressional Budget Office gave inaccurate estimates of the consequences of the bill, because they felt the required health coverage was a mandate, not a tax. Chief Justice John Roberts thought it was constitutional because it was a tax. How perplexing!

Keep the ignorant people in the dark: socialism at its best!

Politics: Dr. Tim Hulsey - Don't be mistaken about Hillary

A cattle ranch is a microcosm of socialism. The rancher is autocratic. He makes decisions for the good of the herd, and therefore himself. Problem cattle are eliminated efficiently.

Our Constitutional Republic is based on the worth of the individual. Three hundred million individual minds are better at innovation, problem solving, and defining government than a few politicians.

When you hear politicians use the words “society” or “the common good,” you can be sure that person has become so myopic that we have become their “herd,” and they have decided what is best for us.

Socialism, in practice, becomes fascism, where the state (the few) becomes the power instead of “the proletariat” for whom the entire “social revolution” was undertaken.

In the USSR, were the people in charge or was Stalin? In China, was Mao in charge or the proletariate? Castro or the people in Cuba?

In Nazi Germany, Hitler said, “Society’s needs come before the individual’s needs.” Hitler made the decisions.

Democrats like Obama and Hillary Clinton have socialist ideologies. Obama said, “A little redistribution would be a good thing for everybody.”

In June, 2004, Hillary said “We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.” As First Lady, she said: “We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society.”

People seem to expect Hillary to be more middle-of-the-road, because Bill Clinton was, but make no mistake! She is a socialist to the core. She is more of a student of the progressive bible, Rules for Radicals, than Obama.

Saul Alinsky, its author, is her acknowledged hero.

Not all Democrats are socialists, but those vying for leadership are. I would remind everyone of the disappointment Obama has been. Let’s not repeat that mistake!