Category Archives: Liberty

Conservative Dilemma

The Conservative Dilemma

Many years ago I was faced with a very real dilemma. This dilemma involved my personal and very closely held principles on the one hand and my moral obligations on the other. It was the first time I had ever faced such a situation. Normally these two were one and the same. Not this time.
You see I was at that age when young men face the call to go into the military. My personal principles said, and very strongly, that I should keep myself as safe as possible. I should not deliberately place myself in harms way. I was meant to live and live a happy healthy life with all of my faculties and limbs. Joining the military would put all of that at serious risk.
Countering that was the moral obligation to serve the nation that fostered that safety and the freedoms that country gave me just because I was lucky enough to be born in America. At that time I was only peripherally aware of the struggle that brought about that nation. I had been taught a very real history of this nation. I had learned of the founding fathers who had pledged their lives, fortunes and their “Sacred Honor” to bring it about. I knew that most had lost the first two while keeping their “Sacred Honor”. But all of that was learned from books so I could pass the tests they gave me to write. It wasn’t all that real to me. Oh, I was raised in a family that held all of it dear. They were, what is now viewed as the old fashioned republicans. The fought the liberalization of their country. The were vocal in their angst regarding the liberal movement away from the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. But again it was a nebulousity. Something of only philosophical importance to my young and know it all mind. Suddenly I was being forced to make all of it real. I did not realize it at the time, but I was making a decision about how I was going to live my life. Was I to be just another person that accepted what others were willing to give me or would I be a person that defended others and fought to keep the American dream alive. Not that I ever thought about it like that at the time.
Well I made that decision after some time. I swore the oath and wore the uniform. For the first time I put others ahead of myself. My moral obligation had won out over my personal principles and as a result, that obligation became my highest held personal principle. The two were now one. Now, here I am, almost half a century later faced with a similar choice, but one that is just as important.
I fought the good fight. I vehemently opposed the Trump nomination run. I desperately wanted a constitutional conservative to make that run and God willing, win the white house. Trump was a very poor choice for that. Now I am faced with the dilemma of either lending my vote to this man I don’t really trust of of ceding the presidency to a woman I KNOW hates all that the constitution stands for. She is both a liar and a criminal and quite possibly a traitor in the very legal sense of that word. There are other choices on the ballot. The Libertarians have a good man the Constitution Party has a man that holds many of my beliefs. I can happily live with either in the oval office. The simple fact is that neither stands even the slightest chance of winning. The libertarians have never gotten beyond the one per cent vote level and the Constitution Party in a complete unknown to the voters. The only thing they can do is take votes away from the Republican and give the election to the Constitution and freedom destroying Liberals.
It comes down to this: I don’t like Trump. He is not a conservative, but he does espouse SOME conservative principles and he does appear genuine in hi desire to keep America from becoming an Islamic state. He does appear to be a man that will do his best to enforce the laws of our country, for the most part. Hillary, on the other hand scares the living Hell out of me. For so many reasons.
Again, the dilemma. Principles or moral obligation​? Again, I am forced to choose my moral obligation to keep the traitor out of the White House. I will vote for Trump and put my principles aside for the good of the country.

One Reason Liberty is Dying in America

There was a time in this country when personal liberty was the key to the entire philosophy of the United States of America. That philosophy no longer pertains. I think I have found the major reason for that and I would like you to begin consider the ramifications as well as the cause.

It is reasonable to state that it really began to take hold in this country with Teddy Roosevelt, who told the nation during a July Fourth speech that we should ignore the preamble to the Declaration of Independence the very thing the Fourth of July, Independence Day as it used to be called, was celebrating. He was followed in the presidency by one Woodrow Wilson. Now he went a little further by declaring that the president had a “mandate” by virtue of the fact that he won the election, to be the “Leader and sole representative of the people.” In other words, he believed the President should be acknowledged as the Sovereign of the government. This has reached its ultimate goal in Barack H. Obama, our Sovereign.

OK, that is how it all started. How did we let it happen? Ahh, to paraphrase Shakespeare, there’s the rub.

This country was founded upon the principle of freedom that comes from the acceptance of responsibility. This thought is found in many forms in the founders explanation of the constitution, the Patriot Papers. Just what is this “acceptance of responsibility” that I find so important and why is it important?

The founders truly believed that freedom, while granted by God, would never be easy to maintain. There would be a cost and that cost would be the responsibility to work to keep it. How, you might well ask? It is very simple to put into words and, for some, so difficult to do. You must accept the responsibility for yourself. And and all of your actions. You must never allow others to absolve you of that responsibility. If you want material wealth, go out and earn it. If you want political freedom, fight to protect it even when your neighbor tells you that the government will do all of that for you. They won’t and never can.

The premier promulgator of “progressive philosophy” was a man named John Dewey, 1859-1952. Dr. Dewey published many things from books to scholarly papers espousing his philosophy. He believed that no person was ‘born free’. He had to be made that way and protected in that condition by government. The government must begin this process in a person’s very earliest stages of life with an education system that taught him how to think of government and his/her own position in the scheme of things. The must be taught that it is the government’s responsibility to assure that your “freedoms and equality” are protected. Does your neighbor have more land than you? The government is required to take some of that land and give it to you, his less fortunate (Read lazier) neighbor. The government must create equality since it does not exist in any natural state as the Declaration of Independence so beautifully states. It was his teachings that led to Teddy Roosevelt to tell the American people in an Independence Day, now simply the fourth of July, speech that we should just ignore the preamble to that seminal document of our nation.

Please don’t get the idea that progressive philosophy began with Dr. Dewey. That has been around for a long, long time. It has failed every time it has been tried, from late Rome to England prior to the Magna Carta in 1215. His educational philosophy was formulated while studying for his PhD at Johns Hopkins University, the original progressive University in this country.
So now we have intelligent, but under educated children and University Chancellors both decrying the first amendment and denying its practice on their campuses. We have a federal government attempting to criminalize dissent as in the scientific thought on the bogus climate change agenda of the current administration.

The reason Liberty is dying in America? Because the liberals and the progressives say that it must. For our own protection. I say to them … Please don’t protect me from myself! Please don’t protect me from my natural equality and require me to have your version of equality.

What is a Conservative?

What Is a Conservative?

The first task we face when discussing Conservatism is the definition of terms. What defines a conservative? It seems this definition is rapidly changing with time. Way back when Reagan was a democrat, conservatism was defined as the strict adherence to the words and ideals of the constitution. The liberal was one who believed in the constitution, but felt that it should be interpreted to fit the modern cultural values.

The democrats (liberals from here on) have taken the stance that the constitution is just an old document with a lot of meaningless words. The tenth amendment, for one instance, should never be a blockade to giving the people all the free stuff they want. The second amendment does really say that citizens have a right to their guns. Well, maybe a musket or two. They hold these truths to be self evident, that bigger government is better government. That the government’s purpose is to perpetuate their power and to serve the interests of big business.

So what does being “conservative” mean? That word has a lot of definitions these days. If you are a Libertarian, it means very small government as it does to most traditional conservatives, but it also means isolationism. They believe we should not be involved anywhere in the world except here at home.

To the mainstream Republican it appears to mean if you are a registered Republican you are, by definition, conservative regardless of what government you have or vote for. Government sponsored health care is OK even though it is in violation of both the commerce clause in the constitution and the tenth Amendment. It has come to mean that government sponsored abortion is OK in some few special cases. As I write this, the Republican presumptive nominee for president believes that a person’s self determination of gender is paramount, regardless of what God has given them and the rest of us must conform to that minuscule minority’s beliefs.The liberals seem to feel that the founders oft stated belief in God and the freedom of religion actually means the freedom From religion and the rest of us should just keep our religious beliefs to ourselves. God help the idiot that actually speaks in public about freedom >b>of religion.

Our founding fathers wrote some immortal words in the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” I will discuss only one of those “self evident truths,” Liberty. Liberty is defined by Merriam-Webster as “1 : the quality or state of being free: a : the power to do as one pleases b : freedom from physical restraint c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges e : the power of choice.” They went on to codify that in the constitution they wrote in 1779.

To tea party members, for the most part, it means adherence to the constitution and keeping the federal government out of our lives and businesses. That means, among many other things, the tenth amendment, the second amendment both mean exactly what they say.

The above paragraph uses the comma phrase ‘for the most part’ when discussing the tea party philosophy. There was a time when that caveat would not have been necessary. Today, however, the Tea Party is an idea that has spawned many tea party offshoots with little or no bond to that original intent. Notice I use Caps to discuss the original Tea Party. That will be my method of delineating those groups actually affiliated and adherents to the original Tea Party national organization. That concept has become multiple fractured

Conservative is defined in so many ways today it is impossible to define except in terms of a person’s own ideology. My definition holds for me. That definition is simple. The constitution is the supreme law of the land and any who seek to destroy it are, by definition, criminals.

Why?

Why?

I had an interesting question asked of me by a friend last night. Why am I so adamantly and passionately supporting Cruz and equally adamantly and passionately opposed to Trump and his political sister, Hillary?
A great part of the answer revolves around the country I grew up in. You see I grew up in a country that respected the rights of others. Where the phrase “my rights end at the start of your nose,” actually meant something. A country that respected the right of a person to run his or her own business and if he/she put in place a policy that I didn’t agree with, it as my right not to patronize him and urge others to do the same.
The country I grew up in had no tolerance for a supreme court that ignored the constitution and wrote their own laws. The constitution was the SUPREME law of the land, not groups of unelected bureaucrats and Judges that made it up as they went along. My country thought that the Declaration of Independence was almost sacred. When it said – “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their CREATOR …” it meant something. I meant that this was a country founded on the rights of the individual as granted by God, not men.
I have lost my country. A country whose uniform I proudly wore and to whom I swore the oath to defend the constitution and my country against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. Nobody, including me, has ever said “that’s OK, Rick, you don’t have to hold to that oath anymore. Just forget it.”
Now I find that there is an election that has many people running that honestly believe that Declaration of Independence and The Constitution of the United States are just old pieces of paper that need to be forgotten and ignored. That the reasons this country was founded on individual liberty and a trust in God is no longer pertinent to our lives and certainly not something our government should have any concern for. Mr. Trump has said the following and though I may paraphrase the concepts are identical:
1> I don’t think I have ever asked God for forgiveness. I trust in my own judgment about right and wrong.
2> If a man thinks he is a woman he should be allowed to be in the bathroom our wives and daughter’s use.
3> I don’t need to follow the rules. The rules aren’t always things I agree with.
4> Wrote an entire book about how to con people and then uses those tactics while campaigning to be MY president.
5> Promotes violence within his own organization and among his followers.
Promises that if he is not the nominee there will be riots in the streets across our land.
6> Cannot tolerate any form of disagreement.
7> Is afraid to meet his opponent in a head to head debate even when openly challenged to do so.
8> Believes the rules should be changed to fit his own personal definition of “fair” even though some of those rules have been in place long before he decided to run and all have been in place before this campaign began.
9> When asked about the Convention of States project he reportedly replied “What’s that?”

There is one person in this race that has a lifelong history of standing for the constitution and the people of this land. He has openly opposed those who would and do denigrate the supreme law of this country. He even had that constitution memorized before he graduated form high school. He has stood on the floor of he senate and correctly identified the leader of the senate of lying and took heat for it! He has proposed bill after bill that would curb the power of the very body he was elected to in the face of those who forgot their promises the second they were sworn into office.
He has repeatedly stated that he wants to give me my country back to me.
I ask you – How can I not support him?

Should Islam be Considered a Religion in America?

This is a question being pondered by many in our country today. The subject logically begins with the definition of the word religion. Then, if it should not be called a religion, why and how come into immediate play?
How does one define the word religion? Merriam Webster says this: “: the belief in a god or in a group of gods : an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods.“ That might be a little simplistic for our purposes. That definition allows any group, large or small, to declare that they are following a religion for for any sensical or nonsensical reason. Even the constitution or at least the patriot papers and the founding fathers put limits on religion and its practices. Using religion to justify human sacrifice and you still face the death penalty. Using religion to start riots used to be considered against the law though you have to wonder these days.
Let us then, look at a definition that the founding fathers might have had in mind when they wrote the first amendment granting that “Congress shall make no laws respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, …” (pardon the aside here, but notice that it is very specific in saying that Congress, shall pass no law establishing a religion. Doesn’t say a word about praying at a football game or before a government body conducts business.) That definition might well be considered in today’s world, as well as yesterdays, as one which accepts the precepts of the Judeo-Christian ethic. In other words the respecting of life. Human life most of all. The phrase ‘Do unto others as you would have them do unto you’ comes to mind. Though it is not in the Christian or Jewish holy scripture nor any religion’s defining document it is perceived as the fundamental law of ethical life.
Ethical. An interesting word. Also the word ethos fits here. Ethical is defined as ‘involving or expressing moral approval or disapproval conforming to accepted standards of conduct ‘ and ethos as ‘the distinguishing character, sentiment, moral nature, or guiding beliefs of a person, group, or institution.’ Somehow the philosophy of the so called Islamic faith just doesn’t seem to fit well.
I have trouble believing that they would find a “religion” that allows the killing of a woman for being raped or a person refusing to accept another religion, or made fun of your gods image as acceptable religious behavior.
Most, if not all, religions, with the exception of Islam, believe that life is sacred. Particularly human life. There are religions that take that reverence much further than we Christians do. The Hindus believe that even cows are sacred. The Shintu religion go so far as to actually have marriage ceremonies for rocks. They tie them together with ropes to signify that bond. Many religions ban the eating of meat. The point here is that all religions accept the fact that HUMAN life is sacred. It is not to be taken from anyone lightly. The first problem we face in this discussion therefore is the one of definition in the legal sense. I propose that a valid starting point would be: “Religion shall be defined by the United States of America as that purported religious believe(s) that holds life, particularly Human life, is a sacred thing and will not be taken without due process under American law. No other law of any nation or entity shall be entertained.” That should be easily understood by even those nine unelected people in black robes in D.C.
The next point is the how.
That one is easier said than done. Congress could and, indeed should, pass a law to this effect, but those nine unelected robed figures might strike it down. There is another sure way to do it. You need either congress to call a convention of the states and have 38 of them vote in favor of the amendment OR have 34 of the state legislatures call one with the 38 yea votes following. It then would become the undisputed law of this land. Enough said.
Comments of all kinds welcome and encouraged.

The Day They Raped the Blind Lady

 

Justice is portrayed in stone on the front of the Supreme Court Building in our nation’s capital as a female with a blindfold and a scale in one hand and a sword in the other. The blindfold symbolizes objectivity and stoicism, the scales represent empiricism and enlightenment values, and, the sword appeals to enforcement and restraint. These ideals can be differently represented based on the permutations of tokens that comprise the statue. For example, some have created critiques of U.S. justice by changing the specific token that represents the ideal that corresponds with it, by making a figure of Justitia with her blindfold “slipping” to allow a watchful eye for the other, non-Stoic, means to prudent decision making that might exist in deliberations of jurisprudence.

A few days ago the institution that is supposed to represent these lofty ideals decided to rape all she stands for rather than follow the supreme law of this nation. It began with two of the Justices refusing to recuse themselves as required by law. Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Justice Elena Kagan both made their position on same sex marriage very clear by personally performing these marriages. The law requires that when a judge in a case has formed an opinion or there is reason to believe they have done so prior to the hearing of evidence they must stand aside and allow other judges to decide the case. They did not do so and voted as we knew from their history that they would vote.

Next came the blatant ignoring of the constitution in several areas. Probably the most significant of these would be the 10th amendment which specifically forbids the federal government from doing anything the states can do for themselves. In this case, it is the states via the individual counties and cities in those states, that issue marriage licenses based on the will of the people in those jurisdictions. In some cases this may be the requirement of a blood test while in others it may be the blood relation of the supplicants and in several of these United States the denial may be based on the fact that the petitioners for said license are of the same sex. It is clear that the constitution permits the states these rights.

Their are those who believe with great sincerity that such marriages are contrary to the bible and that alone is sufficient reason for said denial. Yep, they have the right to do that also under the 1rst amendment.

Then there is the case Obamacare. The law as written, states that those states that did not create their own Obamacare plan would not receive any subsidies. This was not a problem for this court. They simple decided that they had legislative powers contrary to Article I section I of the Constitution which states in plain language that the only body that may create laws for this nation is the congress. This made no difference to the Roberts Court. They just rewrote the law.

There are more constitutional issues, but why belabor an obvious point. Might be time to install term limits on all of D.C.!

Conservative vs Liberal Values

Notice that the title does not refer to ‘Republican vs Democrat’. I find that there are many republicans that fit more into the liberal scheme of government and even some democrats that find comfort in the conservative view on many issues. Then there are the so called ‘moderates’. I find most of those are simply people that don’t know where they stand or are liberal on one issue and conservative on another .
Let us discuss the voter ID an election fraud issue for a moment. That election fraud exists is not up for debate. It is a proven fact and involves both of the two main parties. True, the most egregious cases seem to be on the liberal front porch, For confirmation of that just look at Pa, Mich., CA, FL, etc. in the last election.
How do we correct this situation? It seems tome to be quite simple. First a totally bi-partisan commission that thoroughly tests and vets voting machines. These test would be run immediately prior to any company being allowed to ship their machines to any voting district. This would be done on a a totally random basis with the machines selected for the tests chosen by an independent auditing agency not affiliated with any government agency or political organization. And it would be done an a minimum of 33% of those machines. Second would be Voter ID!
The liberals would have you believe that this would disenfranchise many of the minority and poor. I agree. It would prevent many minority voters that are not citizens from voting. That would be a good thing. The poor? This one I don’t understand. I am among the poorest in this nation. I am a registered voter and help many other people register to vote and obtain official picture IDs. There is no problem there that I can see. It will also prevent the deceased, the ones who have moved out of a particular district from having their votes input by less than scrupulous people and voters that vote more than once for any candidate(s). Obtaining a birth certificate is simply a matter of paying a very small fee to the state of your birth and having one mailed to you. This would also assure us that people running for office are citizens. The constitution grants us the right to vote with only two qualifying factors: You must be of a stated legal age and YOU MUST BE A CITIZEN. Now what is wrong with proving that you fulfil both of those requirements? You are already required to prove that you are of legal age, by the way.
Liberals are espousing the philosophy that the federal government has the right to know everything about you and to regulate your lives down to the smallest detail contrary to our “Supreme Law of the Land” also known as the Constitution of the United States and its amendments. Liberals consider this document as a guideline at best and simply an outdated piece of paper with some fancy words written down for some unknown reason.
Conservatives hold that document as almost sacred and necessary to the ideals and purposes of this nation. The stated purpose of the constitution is stated, in plain language needing no interpretation, in the preamble to that instrument of laws. It states: “We the People  of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
That’s it folks. It basically permits the Federal government to protect us from each other and foreign intervention. Everything else is left to the states and the people. The will to power by those in the federal government was even recognized and a way to provide restraints on those elected and unelected officials of our Government in Article V. Both the government and We The People can amend the constitution whenever the cultural paradigm changes from the time of writing and ratification of the constitution. They recognized that there would be unforeseen cultural changes that might require the constitution to be brought up to date and plug any holes to insure the basic rights are in danger as they are today.
Liberals don’t think that way. Conservatives do.
Liberals believe they have the right and the power to tell you how to run your lives regardless of the actual wording of the constitution. They believe that if they, the politicians, don’t like the way you are running your own business they have the right to step in and mandate how you will run your business. The case in point here is the obvious one of a business refusing service to anyone they so choose. It is their money and their livelihood at stake. If they make bad decisions they will not be in business long. It is called free enterprise and it was the prime mover in making this a once great nation. You have the right to refuse to serve anyone with blond hair, if you are stupid enough to do that. Should a request for service violate your sense of moral or religious or cultural beliefs you have the right to say no. I have the right to shop some place else. Free enterprise.
Liberals don’t think that way. Conservatives do.
Next time I will take on the so called “Fair Tax” bill that is circulating.
Please like and or comment. I have had my say, now it is your turn to become involved and engaged.

Exploring the Opposition to COS

(Convention of States)

There is growing opposition to the Convention of States project all across this land of ours. This project is one which deserves serious consideration as it has the potential to recreate the ‘Land of the Free” that has been eroded so severely in recent years. It is not a change, it is a buttress that plugs some rather large holes the original founders with all their genius simply could not foresee. So why the increasing opposition?

In the state of West Virginia passage of the resolution calling for an Article V convention was all but assured when it just fell apart. Senator Trump the Chair of the Judiciary committee in the senate that was the final step to having it presented to the floor for debate was one of the sponsors of the resolution. Then he suddenly decided to vote against it. Thus it failed in the senate after passing the house with a super majority.

I spoke with Senator Trump this morning on this issue. I identified myself as a blogger and asked the question concerning his reversal on the Article V. He told me that he became concerned with some of the things he had been told by the opponents and wanted further study of the issues involved. He also informed me that the passage of the Balanced Budget Amendment bill was a factor. He Informed me that he has received a large packet of information from Barbara Thomas, the current state director of the project for Convention of States and I sent him some other items. He stated that he was willing to be convinced. He even said that he did have some concerns about the federal overreach and ways to put an end to them. I was left with the definite impression that the issue will be revisited in the next session. I also got the impression that he is a concerned citizen and senator that has an open mind.

I would like to explore some of the reasons legislators have expressed to me in private conversations. As the state director of this organization, it was my job to get to know many of the legislators in our state. I took my volunteer job very seriously and was able to establish some good relationships. One of the concerns was the scope of the proposed convention. Even with the conscientious consideration given to that scope and the limiting of said scope it was felt to be too broad. The “runaway convention” kept showing up despite several factors that belied that possibility. I decided to look deeper. I learned, after the fact, that some legislators feared that amendments might come back to haunt them as state legislators. Term limits for one example.

Then there arose a suspicion that the national organization had a hidden agenda. This also might well be spurious, to be honest. What would any “hidden agenda” have to do with this project? The entire process is controlled by the state legislators. Once the resolution is presented to Congress, the national organization would have no say what-so-ever In the process. However, I had more than one legislator point to the somewhat Orwellian practices of that organization. They knew that the organization had taken over each states facebook pages to the point of refusing the state organization from even posting to that page. There is no law which even hints that private organizations must follow laws expressly intended for government. The 10th amendment. for instance does not and should not apply to private corporations. They must be allowed to operate in their own best interest, one thing the Article V convention seeks to reinforce.

Allow me to elaborate. When I resigned, I informed several legislators of my intention and that it was for reasons of health only. I attempted to keep them informed of our intention for a smooth transfer of that responsibility. Our state organization held conference calls each week to discuss our strategy and in one of those calls we discussed the person that would take the reigns. I personally asked our state Coalitions Director if she wanted the job and she said she didn’t think she would be the best choice and reiterated that during one of those calls for the entire team. One well qualified gentleman volunteered and was accepted by acclimation of the team. I asked him to apply and assumed it was a done deal. Then National stepped in and simply appointed the lady that didn’t want it. They went further and appointed a man that has proven to be extremely ineffective in the past. This man is an avowed republican that is not trusted even by the state party, according to a couple of county chairmen of my acquaintance and this is a non-partisan issue. This man was made the state legislative liaison supplanting the one we had who had become quite effective. He had not officially applied for that position, to my knowledge, any more than the new state director. This was seen as the national organization, that has no knowledge of our state’s body politic, declaring that “Big Brother knows best.” Some legislators felt this was ample reason for not trusting that organization. No, it doesn’t make sense to me, but that was and, perhaps, still is the perception.

Of course we must consider the strictly political opposition. Liberals simply don’t want the interference with their socialist ideals any such Article V convention would present. I must inform you that we had some Democrats support and even co-sponsor the resolution, but I am not sure they fit the mold of the modern day ‘liberal’.

Next is the passage of the resolution for a Balanced Budget Amendment Article V Convention by the legislature. This was a primary source of supporters in both houses which may well cost the COS project supporters in the next legislative session. We are in desperate need of a well thought out, effective educational plan and campaign for our legislators and the people of our state. This is something I have been developing for about a year now and am going to attempt to implement it in the near future with a few savvy acquaintances.

I am a staunch supporter and believer in the the crying need for a significant Article V convention; however, I fear that if there isn’t more recognition of each state’s Body Politic by both the national organization and their respective state organizations it will not happen soon.

Customer Service

Customer Service
Government and Corporate

Today I would like to talk about another facet of the cultural change this country is going through. A little thing called customer service. This was for years the backbone of both the government and the private sector. Gone are the days when elected officials will respond to questions from constituents. Here in WV we have elected legislators refusing to even acknowledge emails and/ or calls from those that elected them. I cite my own case of a man I supported in his election bid, now senator Robert Karnes of WV senate district 11. He has refused to respond to 5 telephone calls and numerous emails all concerning issues before the state legislature. I have been told by others in my district that he has done the same to them on a variety of issues. For Shame, Robert! Please understand the I have received courteous and responsive answers from legislators from other districts so they are not all as uncaring about the people as Senator Karnes.

The federal government is even worse about customer service these days as every politically aware person in the country knows. The IRS refusing to answer their phones??? The outgoing AG stating that his department was the most focused on justice in history? The presumptive Democrat’s nominee for president telling the American people the Government has the responsibility of changing the mores of our country. Christian values are destructive and need to go. Freedoms must be surrendered to her party’s concept of security. …… Excuse the pause. I had to go lose my breakfast.

This however, is only one part of a larger picture. We also have the private sector. The large corporations that have seemingly forgotten that paying close attention to customer needs was the corner stones of building their corporations. Sam Walton was a shining example of this. He built one of the largest fortunes in the world by building a company that was actually concerned about its customers. He used to walk through his stores talking to his customers. Getting their feedback and then acting on the knowledge gained.

I am going to relate a personal story on this subject. I have Sprint as my cellular company. I should say that my son has and I am one of the people included in the plan. You should know that the plan he has costs roughly $9000.00 per year so we are not a small item for them. I purchased the insurance plan to cover my phone should it be lost, stolen or just quit working. Should be no problem, right? Wait for it.

My Windows phone went dead. That is no surprise as Windows phones have to be the worst possible on the market, unfortunately changing to a decent one is VERY costly with Sprint. On with the tale of their so called customer service. I notified them that my phone was totally dead. Would not even turn on. I was without a phone, period. I informed them of my insurance and jumped through their security hoops to get to what I thought was the right person. “No problem”, they said we will send one right out. They took down and confirmed my address three times. Naturally they sent it to the wrong address. They sent it to my son who is a long distance trucker driving with his wife. They won’t even be home until the middle of May! This was February. I placed another call. Understand I was using a friends phone that had limited minutes which I for which I had to pay, The person I was talking to kept me on that phone with inanities until the phone ran out of minutes. He had told me several times that he was sending out the phone and had once again confirmed the correct address several times. I had warned him that I was running out of minutes. The phone went dead. I was disconnected.

I wasn’t worried. He had all of the information and had told me he was sending out the phone. I waited a week. No phone. I called back. There was not even a record of my last call. No action was taken. Long, tedious and very frustrating story made quite a bit shorter, I finally did receive the phone. Over 45 days after my original call! The phone they sent? Obviously a used one. And it DOES NOT WORK! Will not connect to WiFi, Cannot use it for driving directions because it cannot connect to the service. The phone portion is fraught with so many problems it is almost unusable. Conversations are broken even when I show 5 bars. Here we go again.
Customer service by both private industry and the government is at an all time low. The average citizen in this country has only the still quiet voice crying in the wilderness to money hungry politicians and an uncaring group of corporate thieves and corrupt politicians and we just put up with it. Well, most of you do.

I have said it before and I say it again. Those who believe in what this country was founded upon need to Stand Up! Speak up! Show up!

We Once Were …

We Once Were …

Our once great nation began life as an independent nation. We were a group of rugged individualist that depended upon our families and neighbors for our lives, sustenance and happiness. We knew our security rested within ourselves. If I may paraphrase a scholar of those time, Benjamin Franklin, who once said ‘If you wish to give up freedom for security you will have neither.’ Yeah, I know that isn’t an exact quote, but it is close.
Today we have a large group of people that believe they should receive all things from the government. They are owed something just for being born. The only thing they are owed is a mother and father that teach them and protect them until they are old enough to do those things for themselves.
You see the founding fathers knew this and set up a system of government that allow for individual growth and liberty. They did a pretty good job, in my humble opinion. Oh, sure there were some things that they simply couldn’t foresee, but they tried to allow for even that by making sure we, the individuals of that new nation, could modify the founding document to accommodate for growth and changing paradigms.
The basic assumption was that each individual would have the freedom to become that which they both wanted and were capable of achieving. They made it plain in the founding documents that we were all created equal. Does that mean that we can all achieve the same level of prosperity and greatness in our lives? Nope. It means that the law of the land will treat us all with equal respect and deference. The rest is up to you. Nobody owes you more than that. Once you are both mentally and physically capable of taking cae of yourself it is time for you to begin the process of growth and paying back what you were given for the first part of your life.
What? Payback? What payback? You began this life as a dependent. You were dependent upon others for everything. You could do nothing for yourself except attempt to get somebody’s attention to the needs of your body. And for the most part that was given to you without the expectation of payback. Just because none expected payback does not mean that it isn’t owed by the honorable.
Hmmm Honorable. Interesting word that. According to Merriam-Webster it has the following short definition: “: deserving honor and respect : having or showing honesty and good moral character : fair and proper : not deserving blame or criticism.” That was so important at one time in this country that is deserves special mention. Men pledged their “Sacred” honor only to really important goals. Their honor was so important that some gave their lives to protect it. There are few among us willing to do that in this day of infamy we now find ourselves living. Soldiers do it on a daily basis and are to be thanked for that. They deserve to be ‘honored’ for that. How about you? Are you deserving of anybodies honor? Really?
Through out our countries history we have set in law a variety of procedures that both define us and aid in protecting us from those that would destroy our honor and independence. Let’s look at one small example of that. How about new people that want in on this land of liberty? We felt you should observe the niceties and ask permission. Sort of like knocking on the door of a stranger you want to become familiar with. First you knock on the door and ask permission to enter. Should you decide not to do this simple act and enter without permission, you are subject to a plethora of possible penalties. It was intended that you should follow the proper procedure in gaining access to all this country has to offer. First you ask permission to enter then you indicate your desire to stay a while then you ask to become a member of the family and become a citizen.
Before you ‘marry’ into the family that is American we require that you know something about us and we know something about you. You have to learn our constitution and we give you a test to make sure that you have. Then you take the vows or the oath promising to defend that constitution and there are all those penalties for failure of that oath. Shucks, we even require people that want to work for us to take an oath before they may do so. I took an oath when I joined the service and did so willingly. That oath is for life. No one ever has came by and said that I didn’t need to obey it anymore. I willingly, loyally and even happily follow that oath to this day.
It seems to this writer that today honor and law has become a matter of personal convenience. If a law is inconvenient simply ignore we it. This is happening from the so clled pillars of our nation to the man in the street. Our judges, our media pundits, even our ministers. Our judges seem to believe that the first line of the constitution is a matter of convenience. Sharia law was never even considered by our our congress yet some judges feel it is OK to use it as a basis for some decisions. Our media feels that the Constitution is just an old, out dated writing with some suggestions on how we should behave. Some ministers feel that the bible wasn’t really serious when it condemned homosexuality, etc. The president calls us an Islamic nation. It doesn’t matter that most of our founding documents and the reason for the existence of this nation was religious, Christian freedom. Not a freedom from religion. Not so we could revere a philosophy that preaches the hate and destruction of any people that do not accept their narrow and hate filled so called religion.
We once were a nation that had honor. We once were a nation that held to the principle of self determination and respect for others. We once were a nation that stood proud and strong. We once were a nation of proud people. We once were.