The prayers God listens to

My daughter sent me this E-Mail.

Funny how I get picked on for ALWAYS going to church.  Yet, a mutual friend's mom dies and I get asked if I am going to church tonight.  I replied no, there's nothing going on tonight.  And I am told, "Well, I need you to go today for her".  Really? Are prayers heard best when they are made from the church building? Why is it that they would think my prayers would be heard any louder than their own? So, does that mean that they do believe that there is a God? And that my worship of God isn't foolish?  It's just that they don't want to have God interfere with their life?  

Prayer Facts:

·         Location of the individual praying is not important.

·         The words used to start you're a prayer are not important.

·         The reason and content of the prayer is not important.

·         The only important fact is the prayer is intended to the one living God.

God doesn't listen to prayer in a language i.e. English, Spanish, French, etc. He listens to the heart and soul of the individual. When you pray he knows the concern.  He also knows the best outcome for that concern.

My daughter's friend was right to ask for others to pray. Personal bias in the situation is reduced as more people pray for the concern. As a group prays together for a concern , whether in physical contact or isolated from one another, God hears the problem.

Being in a Church building or holding hands with a long-time praying Christian allows the individual to focus on the concern, but it doesn't make it louder or impute greater worth on the concern.

Prayer is simply a conversation between a person and God.

Police do not stop crime

The function of the police is deterring crime. They cannot stop crime. Prisons stop crime. The best deterrent is: solving criminal activity and having the perpetrators punished.

Solving crimes means protecting evidence. The good police forces have become efficient in gathering data and meticulous in handling and assessing the evidence collected. The plethora of forensic based TV shows are indicative of the science involved in solving crime.

The men and women in uniform are the front line and are the face of our justice system. It is their job to stabilize a crime scene and protect it for the forensic specialist. This is what I honestly visualize when I hear the term 'protect and serve.'

The failure to deter crime is in the punishment phase. The police having done their job hand off the case to our justice system. The police solve the crime. Then it is time for the punishment side of deterrence. Even when convictions are obtained the resultant punishment is rarely a deterrent.

When criminals are coddled it makes deterrence ineffective. The system is not geared for incarceration of miscreants, but to making useful citizens of convicted criminals. The general public is skeptical of criminal rehabilitation. An ex-con's usefulness is diminished by an inherent lack of trust.

Perversely, this lack of trust is actually put on the police. People aware of criminal activity are not forth coming with the information. They know the criminal even if convicted will be back in a relatively short time. They also know upon the criminal's return retribution will be extracted. The criminal knows that if caught for the retribution they will once again be back soon. It is their cost of doing business.

Those wishing to coddle criminals never understand when prisons are full and exceeding capacity, crime statistics are down.

 

Lost liberties

We have lost many liberties over the last half century.  They were lost to good intentions.  Chief among good intentions is the ability to unassociate or to discriminate. Some such as property rights (infringed by zoning) and self defense appear to be for overall community good. One of the first rights lost was education. Now health care is under attack.

Education is not a constitutional right. I see nothing wrong with free public school education. I see nothing wrong with mandatory education through age 14. Our rights are removed when the compulsory aspects (i.e. attendance) have no direct relation to actual learning. Our rights are infringed when non-public education has arbitrary compliance standards (curriculum specifications and number of instruction hours).

Initially zoning was used to keep health problems from impacting neighborhoods. Restrictions on the number by type of livestock particularly pigs and chickens were the first examples of zoning. Then zoning was imposed to "protect property values." Building requirements and square footage were imposed so a cardboard and tin shanty was erected next to a three story brick colonial home.  You don't want a shanty, buy the lot so they can't build.

The good intentions of anti-discrimination laws are insidious and caused the biggest loss of liberty. I have to justify terminating an employee based on more than we don't get along.  I can't refuse business to someone based solely on my personal biases. Let civil rights demonstrations of the 1960's change my actions not law and some "do gooder" judge.

These liberties were lost because of a law to make us all play nice. The laws were really unnecessary as there are viable market place remedies.

I am smarter than government. If I feel lost or bewildered I have friends who can make sense of a situation and plan a solution. Keep government out of my health care!

 

Voting is serious business

What is wrong with our country today: People being stupid in the voting booth. They go in uninformed and are later surprised to learn things about the people they voted for.  If you voted for a race and 30 minutes later can't remember who you voted for, you are an uninformed voter.

There are many voter guides out there. The homosexual groups have several. The guides are prepared by groups (Unions, liberals, conservatives, libertarians, environmental, "build the bridge", NRA,  and many others) all with single issues. One guide may not be enough.

If you use a guide, know the group preparing it. Know what  their issue is. More importantly what do they ignore.

Everyone should vote. Voting for someone because their last name is the same as your mother maiden name is irresponsible. So is I'm voting for him because he has a biblical name. I'll vote for him because of his party affiliation is also naive. The person on the ballot has no requirement to adhere to part policy. Don't expect them to do so.

 NO ONE should get your vote unless you feel they are worthy to be in authority over you. You are much better off to leave that ballot choice blank. Better yet, don't leave it blank. Write in your name. Or, the name of someone you would like to have in that office. This has the effect of voting for none of the above.

Voting for a minor party or independent is not a wasted vote. When people complain afterwards about the elected person you will know you voted responsibly.

If you can't find the information yourself, talk to someone you trust.  Do not go into the booth a vote based on a coin flip or worse.

Please vote Tuesday. But only those races where you are informed.

Multiculturalism is divisive not bonding

I was thinking about the Labor Day Louisville world fest celebration held on the water front. People got to enjoy ethnic food and visit exhibits on various cultures. All of which was good. It was no doubt an enjoyable weekend for those attending.

This event would be more meaningful if it wasn't such an everyday occurrence. Ethnic groups today tend to congregate and socialize together in a way to exclude others. Prior to the Cubans of the early 1960's immigrant ethnic groups clung together until assimilated into the American culture. Although some parents never truly assimilated the children nearly always did. The children left the ethnic neighborhood and as new immigrants of that ethnicity declined the neighborhood was assimilated.

The things of value provided by an ethnic group was absorbed and Americanized (pizza or tacos anyone).  The Americanized items are altered enough that the ethnic purist raise their nose in disdain. But it is the Americanization of these things that makes America the melting pot. Being American isn't about who you were, it is about who you are.

When individuals in an ethnic group cling together and don't assimilate, their uniqueness is not Americanized and isn't added to the American culture. They stagnate rather than grow.

Multiculturalism encourages ethnic groups to cling. Repeatedly telling them their ethnicity has value. I agree it has value. If you think it is better than America then go back and enjoy it. However, you came to America to get something different. How do you expect to get that difference hiding yourself in your ethnic culture.

Multiculturalism is a ploy of liberals to keep groups segregated. Being divided they can exploit them one against the other. If they assimilate to being American, they have common interest and are difficult to exploit.

Remember embracing your past limits your future.

 

 

Fixing FEMA

FEMA's roots were with the Flood Insurance Program (FIP). The FIP didn't help communities. It also was intended for one time relieve. The President would declare a Federal disaster requested by a State Governor. This onetime event should apply to any disaster.

Reoccurring events are north east snow storms, mid-west flooding, west coast fires, west coast earthquakes, tornados, and hurricanes. Many communities have had multiple hits of the same type disaster. Why should the rest of the nation pay to help them again?

A southern Indiana town called English was prone to flooding. After a particularly bad flood the decision was made to move the town. It was moved about a mile from its old location to high ground.

I am particularly incensed about New Orleans. The devastation there a few years ago was because money scheduled for flood protection was diverted to social causes like midnight basketball. Many of those politicians diverting the funds are still being elected and not held responsible.

Twice last century San Francisco area communities suffered devastating earth quakes. Both times National resources and funds were used to rebuild the communities. What did the rest of the nation get? Nancy Pelosi.

Once is enough. And even then it should be limited to Federal interest, i.e. Federal government buildings and installations. It may seem harsh but if they can't fully rebuild, they probably shouldn't since as history shows, it will happen again.

If I was rebuilding New Orleans, I would be creating a lake on the west to match Pontchartrain on the east. The removed earth would be used to raise New Orleans and provide suitable site drainage. Of course this makes sense and would never be allowed because of digging up wetlands.

Let the communities decide how to protect and use resources. There are enough square miles of wetland in Louisiana that a 1% loss would not be noticed.

The Tea Party is not Republican

The Tea Party is still misunderstood. The Tea Party candidates are almost exclusively Republican. But, to the Tea Party it is a matter of convenience rather than philosophical agreement. The Tea Party has drawn their members from the fiscally conservatives regardless of their political registration.

The Tea Party is a philosophy of small government, low taxes, and Constitutional fidelity. Except for a few scattered cases, it is not an official political party to have registered members. Democrats who would never vote for a Republican may do so this November if the candidate is the one supported by Tea Party.

Many of the Tea Party candidates are not avowed social conservatives. For instance many do not support a Pro-life agenda. They are not for abortion. They simply don't see it as a legislative issue. Under Federal law this type of issue should be precluded by the 10^th Amendment giving the States the legislative power on the issue. A Tea Party Candidate would not support Federal legislation to overturn Roe vs Wade. They would support legislation repealing Supreme Court Decisions not consistent with the 10^th Amendment.  Thus, Roe Vs Wade would be null and void by fiat.

The liberals have pushed social legislation. None of it should be allowed under the 10^th amendment.  If a candidate has a narrow view of things applicable under the 10^th amendment it doesn't matter what is particular view is on a social issue they will vote in agreement with conservative social viewpoint.

A fiscal conservative and strict constitutional interpretation candidate will produce conservative social aligning votes. This type candidate would see education, health issues (including abortion), "the Arts", retirement (including social security), Fannie and Freddie, and the National  Flood Insurance Program as unfounded government intrusion.

Phasing government out of those programs will boost the economy.