Monday, September 17, 2018


First, let me say, I am an advocate for equal rights for women.  I am proud to have raised a daughter who is now a staff pastor at her church.  I think women should be able to do whatever job they want to do and are able to succeed at.  Discrimination is unacceptable.

However, as a pastor, I know what it is like to have guard against false allegations of misconduct.  For instance, I never counseled a woman without my wife being present.  I have to not only behave properly, I had to be able to prove that I had not acted improperly.

Additionally, this accusation is a “recovered memory” - which have proven to be false and have resulted in many convictions that have been reversed.  In these cases the accuser sincerely believes the misconduct took place – even when it can be proven that it never happened.

Worst of all, some left wing media are citing the fact that Kavanaugh hired women and mentored women as proof that the charges are true – even though none of these women have accused him of any misconduct, and many have come to his defense.

At this point, none of us know what they outcome of this senate probe will be – but, if on the basis of a single accusation of misconduct that is 38 years old, he is defeated, the effect upon women in the workplace could be profound.   What man is going to hire a woman for a position where she will work closely with him when he could be destroyed by a false accusation she might make decades later?  What man is going to mentor a woman if this becomes a reality?  Remember, even a false accusation can destroy your life and career.  This could have a chilling effect on opportunities for women for decades to come.

At this point, none of us knows how this will play out.  Perhaps more women will come forward with more recent and more credible accusations – but absent such a development, a Kavanaugh defeat would be very bad for women in the workplace.

Friday, November 17, 2017

The House Tax Bill - What Will You Pay and Other Details

The bottom line, how much can you make before you are taxed:

Single Taxpayer: 
Now, $10,400.00 

Under this bill, $14,700.00 ($12,200.00 + $2500.00 due to $300.00 Credit)

Married Couple:
Now, $20,800.00
Under this bill, 
$26,900.00 ($24,400.00 + $2500.00 due to $300.00 Credit)

Married Couple With Two Children:
Now, $28,900.00

Under this bill,  $53,578.00 ($24,400.00 + $2500.00 due to $300.00 Credit + $26,678.00 due to child tax credits)

Married Couple With Four Children:
Now, $28,900.00

Under this bill, $80,256.00 ($24,400.00 + $2500.00 due to $300.00 Credit + 53,356.00 due to tax credits)

After these amounts, you begin being taxed at 12% - but at these income levels many people will end up being taxed at 15% under current tax laws.

First of all remember this: 50% of Americans pay no income tax whatsoever under the current system. 
In fact many, actually get money from the government.  This has resulted in massive fraud.  Under this bill, those who pay no tax would no longer be allowed to claim tax credits in excess of what the owe.  Much opposition centers on this issue.

The House bill consolidates those into four brackets:

12% (up to first $45,000 of taxable income for individuals; $90,000 for married couples filing jointly)

25% (over $45,000 to $200,000 for individuals; over $90,000 to $260,000 for married couples)

35% (over $200,000 to $500,000 for individuals; over $260,000 to $1 million for married couples)

39.6% (over $500,000 for individuals; over $1 million for married couples)

There is also a 6% surtax or “bubble rate” that applies to adjusted gross income over $1 million ($1.2 million for couples)

Household Exemptions and Credits

Doubles the standard deduction: The bill raises today’s standard deduction for singles to $12,200 from $6,350 currently; and it raises it for married couples filing jointly to $24,400 from $12,700.

Eliminates personal exemptions: Today you’re allowed to claim a $4,050 personal exemption for yourself, your spouse and each of your dependents. The House bill eliminates that option.

Expands child tax credit: The bill would increase for five years the child tax credit to $1,600, up from $1,000, for any child under 17.  But that $600 increase won’t be available to the lowest-income families if they don’t end up owing federal income taxes.  The bill would let more people claim the child tax credit - raises the cut off to $230,00.00 for married parents.

Creates a new $300 family tax credit: Taxpayers may claim a $300 non-refundable tax credit for themselves as well as any non-child dependent — for instance, a son or daughter over 17 whom you’re supporting, an ailing elderly mother or an adult child with a disability.  The family credit would expire after five years (although it is quite likely to be renewed).

Home Ownership: The bill preserves the mortgage deduction as is for existing mortgages. But for newly purchased homes, you would only be able to claim a deduction for interest you pay on mortgage debt up to $500,000, down from $1 million today.  Preserves an itemized property tax deduction for property taxes but only up to $10,000.  Note that with the doubling of the personal deduction, few homeowners will benefit from these deductions.

Repeals the estate (death) tax: The estate tax today affects just 0.2% of all estates, and only those with more than $5.49 million in assets (or $10.98 million if you leave a spouse behind).  This will mean that hiers will no longer have to sell farms and other family businesses in order to pay the tax.  These business are most often either liquidated or sold to large corporations.

Corporate Taxes:

Lowers corporate tax rate: The bill would permanently cut the corporate rate to 20% from 35% (literally the highest in the entire world).  There is little question that this high tax rate is costing is jobs.

Creates territorial tax system: The House GOP bill would switch corporate taxation to a territorial system. That way, American companies would owe U.S. tax only on what they earn here. Their offshore profits would only be taxed by the country where the money is made.  The current system, that taxes corporations on income generate both domestically and overseas is unique in the world and definately cost the U.S. jobs and companies flee the country.

Thursday, October 13, 2016


We need to email the RNC at:

Feel free to copy and paste the following message:

Dear Sirs and Madams,

Recent revelations concerning our candidate for president make it clear that he is unqualified to serve in such a high office.  We need not rely on the statements of his accusers - his own recorded statements are damaging enough.   The RNC is empowered to act to replace a candidate in order to deal with situations precisely like this.

I have voted Republican my entire life - and should Trump be on the ticket I will vote for him.  The alternative is even worse.  However, we all know that he will lose.  We cannot afford to lose this election.  The nation cannot afford to lose this election.  Given the recent revelations concerning Sec. Clinton should ensure a Republican win - an there is every reason to believe that exactly what will happen IF WE HAVE A "CLEAN" CANDIDATE.

I implore you to replace Donald Trump with Mike Pence.  Please do the right thing for the party and the nation.

Tuesday, October 11, 2016

What Constitutional Rights Are At Risk Should Hillary Clinton Become President?

YOUR 1ST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO PRACTICE YOUR RELIGION.  Hillary Clinton would continue Obama’s policies.  His Civil Rights Commission said: “The phrases ‘religious liberty’ and ‘religious freedom’ … remain code words for discrimination, intolerance, racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, Christian supremacy or any form of intolerance”.   She would push for repeal of RFRA, which is the only thing protecting religious freedom at this point.

YOUR 1ST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH.  Hillary Clinton wants to make it illegal for you to band together with like-minded people to speak out on issues in the months leading up to elections.  Of course millionaires and billionaires – as well as labor unions – would be unaffected.  She has advocated the partial repeal of the 1st Amendment to accomplish this – what other people does she wish to muzzle?

YOUR 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHT TO OWN FIREARMS.  Hillary Clinton has said “the Supreme Court got it wrong on the 2nd Amendment” – yet all their rulings did was establish that the 2nd Amendment protects a personal right for sane and law abiding citizens to own firearms.  Many gun control measures are unaffected.  She also has advocated “the Australian model” in which over half the nation’s civilian firearms were confiscated.   In the recent debate she flat out lied about the nature of the Heller decision and why she opposes it.  Heller had nothing to do with toddlers - it was a ban on all handguns and a ban on functional long guns.  This is the law Heller overturned.  Safe storage laws are unaffected, ans are DC's background check and training requirements.  The only reason to want to overturn this historic ruling is to be able to ban handguns.

YOUR 5TH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  In a move opposed by the ACLU, the NAACP and the NRA (among others), Hillary Clinton wants to use the so called “no fly list” to deny firearms rights to people who have never been convicted of anything – in spite of the fact that we do not know how people get on the list and there is no way to get off.  Many people have been on the list in error (even Sen. Kennedy!).  If your due process rights can be denied in this area of law – they can be denied in any area of law.

Hillary Clinton is the only modern presidential candidate to advocate the de facto repeal of portions of the Bill of Rights.  She must not become president.

Saturday, September 24, 2016

Seven Reasons Why Christians Should Vote For Trump

In this election, there is no one running whom Christians can wholeheartedly support.  Both Trump and Clinton have their issues.  I sincerely wish that Ted Cruz was on the general election ballot – but he isn’t there.  On the Democratic side, we cannot choose a Jimmy Carter, a John Kennedy, or even an honest Socialist like Bernie Sanders.  Although I am a conservative, I would give serious consideration to any of the preceding Democrats – because of their character - but they are not running.

We all must face this reality: Just because we must choose between two poor candidates this does not mean that our choice is not important.  There are many reasons why, in this election, Donald Trump is the better choice.  Here are seven of them.

1) Christians will have significant influence in a Trump administration; they will have zero influence in a Clinton administration.

Outside of extremely theologically liberal churches, Hillary Clinton certainly doesn’t want or need to listen to Christians.  On the other hand, Trump absolutely needs the support of evangelicals, theologically conservative Catholics and other theologically conservative Christians (as well as theologically conservative Jews).  He will not be elected without our votes and he will not be able to advance his legislative agenda without us either.  Trump’s choice of Mike Pence – a solid evangelical - as his running mate certainly reflects his recognition that he needs us.

Trump's choice of Mike Pence, a solid evangelical,
as his running mate is huge.
So, be it immigration reform, or the matter of Christians being persecuted overseas, or any other issue that concerns us – we will have influence in a Trump administration.  Hillary Clinton has never cared what we think and never will.

2) Trump will be held accountable by both parties – Democrats will continue to give Hillary Clinton a pass on any and everything she may want to do.

We have seen the Democratic party pull out all the stops to nominate someone with massive ethical and even criminal issues.  Short of homicide, it appears that she can do nothing that will cause the Democratic leadership to stop covering for her.  On the other hand, Trump is not only despised by Democrats, he is a complete outsider in relation to Republicans – having won the nomination by attracting both new voters and crossover votes from Democrats.  Should Trump do any of the things that opponents fear, the Republican leadership would not hesitate to impeach him.  After all, his replacement – Mike Pence – is a rock solid conventional conservative, someone the Republican establishment would consider a vast improvement over Trump. 

3) Clinton presents a significant threat to religious freedom – Trump does not.

Our religious freedom is hanging by a thread – and has been for many years.  In the late 1980s and early 1990s SCOTUS issued several rulings that gutted the free exercise clause of the 1st Amendment.  Taken together, they require religious individuals to obey “all generally applicable laws”.  In other words, unless the law is specifically designed to apply only to religious people, religious individuals must obey it even if it conflicts with, and substantially burdens, the free exercise of their religion.

These rulings alarmed both left and right – so much that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) was passed with overwhelming bipartisan support.  Sen. Ted Kennedy was a co-sponsor and it passed the Senate 99-0.  It could never pass today.  It was RFRA – not the 1st Amendment free exercise clause - that was the basis of the Hobby Lobby decision.  

Without RFRA, here are just a few of the things that the federal government could do:

  • Require all doctors, as a condition of licensing, to participate in at least one abortion.  (This has actually been proposed in the past.)
  • Draft Quakers, Amish and others whose religion forbids their participation in war and require them to serve in combat units.
  • Require religious hospitals to conduct abortions, regardless of their views.
  • Churches that allow non-members to rent their facilities for non-member weddings could be compelled to allow same sex couples to rent their facilities, regardless of their views on such unions.
  • Require religious organizations, perhaps even churches, to hire people whose conduct and/or beliefs conflict with the official positions of the organization.
  • Religious schools could be required to use government-mandated curriculum on any and every subject.
  • Everyone who solemnizes marriages – including priests, ministers and rabbis – could be required to do so for all persons issued a license.

In short, as long as religious individuals and institutions are not singled out – almost anything goes.

Just in case you still think that Democrats are in favor of freedom of religion, consider this statement from the Obama administration’s Commission on Civil Rights:

“The phrases ‘religious liberty’ and ‘religious freedom’ … remain code words for discrimination, intolerance, racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, Christian supremacy or any form of intolerance,”  This terrifying statement does not reflect an off hand comment by a single official – it appears in an official report and reflects official policy

Indeed many of our civil rights are now at risk and may be lost if Clinton is elected.  She and most other Democrats would love to repeal RFRA, but this is unlikely.  However, do not forget that if elected she will appoint several justices to SCOTUS.  Chance are that in addition to reversing recent 2nd Amendment rulings, a willingness to overturn RFRA as unconstitutional will be a litmus test.  Either way, Hillary Clinton will try to end religious freedom as we know it. 

4) Clinton can be counted upon to do everything possible to silence Christians.

Democrats of today have no respect for the First Amendment’s Freedom of Speech clause either.  Under the guise of “election reform” they want to limit the ability of persons to join together and speak their mind for months before elections.  Of course, organizations favorable to Democrats, such as unions, would be exempted.  Without question, this is yet another effort to fix elections.

Given that the single most reliable predictor of a Republican vote is church attendance, a Clinton administration will definitely do everything possible to silence Christians.  Given that the Obama administration has already used the IRS against conservative groups, it is highly likely that the IRS will be weaponized against Churches and Christians.  It is likely that any clergy endorsing Republican candidates can expect their churches to be audited.  Look for the IRS to say that by virtue of their association with the church, personal endorsements constitute an endorsement by the church.  Any clergy member speaking out will risk their church’s non-profit status.  Ditto for churches where a significant number of parishioners are politically active.  The IRS will allege that with so many members involved in conservative causes, the church is simply a cover for political activity.  The IRS does not have to win these cases to accomplish their goal – they can and will make life so difficult for politically active Christians that they learn to keep their mouths shut.  

5) If elected, Clinton will be the first person elected after committing an impeachable offense.  (Perjury, without question she lied under oath to Congress – the FBI findings directly contradict her testimony.)

Hillary Clinton testified under oath, before Congress, that she had never sent or received any classified material via her private email – the FBI found over 100 such communications.  She testified that she had turned over all of her work related emails, the FBI found thousands more she had not turned over.  I could go on, but what is totally clear is that Hillary Clinton committed perjury before Congress.  There is no question that this constitutes an impeachable offense.

Donald Trump has no such problems.

6) Hillary Clinton is not only corrupt – she does not even attempt to hide her corruption.

Weapons Deals Are But A Tiny
Fraction Of Cases Where A
Favorable Act By The State
Department Was Followed By
A Huge "Gift"
As Secretary of State, Clinton turned the State Department into her own cash machine.  President Obama was so concerned about this, that he had Hillary Clinton sign a document agreeing that her foundation would not take contributions from persons or nations having business before the State Department.  She began violating this agreement almost immediately.  During her four years as Secretary of State, her foundation took tens of millions of dollars from persons and nations having business before the Department of State.  In addition, time after time, after getting a favorable ruling from the Clinton State Department, Bill Clinton would be hired by those who sought the ruling to give a speech.  He was paid between $250,000.00 and $1,500,000.00 for these “speeches”.  All of this was done right out in the open.  If this had been done by anyone else, the press would be all over this – but when it comes to Hillary, this obvious corruption is ignored.  Imagine what she would do as president…

All of this is well documented in this documentary.

Donald Trump has no issues that rise to this level.

7) According to the FBI director, it would be highly unlikely, after mishandling classified documents, that she could obtain a security clearance – this alone should completely disqualify her.

General David Petraeus Mishandled One
Classified Document - Sec. Clinton
Mishandled Hundreds
Should we elect someone as president who has already demonstrated that she cannot be trusted with classified information?  Should we elect someone as president who could not qualify to be a presidential aide?  Should we elect someone as president who barely escaped prosecution for an offense that, in addition to other punishment, would have barred her from ever holding public office?  I think the answer is obvious.

For all of the above reasons, given the actual choice between these two candidates, the only choice for serious Christians is Donald Trump.  Should he be elected, this Christian will be watching him closely in order to hold him accountable.


Wednesday, January 6, 2016

Do Democrats Keep People Out Of Poverty?

Based on Presidential Election Wins 2000-2012
Blue = 4 Democratic Wins
Light Blue = 3 Democratic Wins
Purple = 2 Wins Each
Pink = 3 Republican Wins
Red = 4 Republican Wins
Democrats claim that they do the best job of keeping people out of poverty.  Is that really true?  Well, let's check.

The key to getting it right is the Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA).  In some states the cost of living is so high that people who make a lot of money still are impoverished.  In others, the cost of living is low and people making much less are not in poverty. 

The map at left gauges control of states by charting the winners in the last 4 presidential elections.  This mirrors control of state government - especially legislatures - quite well.

Here are the most impoverished states when COLA is factored:

1) California - Blue State  (Most impoverished state)
2) Hawaii - Blue State
3) New Jersey - Blue State
4) Florida - Purple State
5) Nevada - Purple State
6) Maryland - Blue State
7) Virginia - Purple State
8) Massachusetts - Blue State
9) Connecticut - Blue State
10  New Hampshire - Blue State


1) All ten of the most impoverished states are solidly Democratic or lean heavily Democratic.

2) Even more significantly, not one of the states is solidly Republican or leans Republican.

3) Only one state - Florida - is in the Deep South

4) Many of the top ten states are losing populations as people move to - you guessed it - Red States.

These states are losing population
These states are gaining population


Saturday, December 5, 2015

Facts Related To The San Bernardino Terrorist Attack

In the wake of the horrible terrorist attack upon our fellow Americans in San Bernardino, as the media is filled with highly opinionated commentary and a great deal of disinformation, I would like to share some FACTS.

Christians and Jews Are Targets

Fact #1: The terrorists may have chosen to attack this group because a Messianic Jew debated with the man.
 The issue?  The Messianic Jew refused to concede that Islam is a religion of peace.  No joke.

Fact #2: Islamic terrorists have attacked Christians and Jews overseas.

Fact #3: Most churches are soft targets, with no armed security.

Conclusion: Churches and Synagogues (and even moderate Mosques) are likely to be targeted in the future.  Clergy should lead their congregations in establishing real security, and those measures must include multiple armed and trained persons or they will be completely ineffective against armed attackers.

Gun Control and Terrorism

Fact #4: Gun control laws far beyond US constitutional limits did not stop the terrorist attack in Mumbai, India - they simply ensured that the terrorists victims were unable to effectively resist the terrorists as they roamed the city for days killing defenseless people.

Fact #5: Gun control laws far beyond US constitutional limits did not stop the Kenyan mall attack - they simply ensured that the terrorists victims were unable to effectively resist as they roamed the mall killing helpless people.

Fact #6: Gun control laws beyond US constitutional limits did not stop the Paris attacks - they merely insured that the victims were unable to effectively resist as the terrorists continued shooting people for over an hour.

Fact #7: California has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country, and they failed to stop the San Bernardino attacks.  Having lived under these laws, I am very familiar with them - and most of what has been stated by the media is wrong.  Specifically:

1) The rifles used in the attack were obtained illegally.  California requires a state and federal background check and change of registration on all transfers of ownership or possession for more than 30 days.  This did not happen in this case.  I expect that we will see the person who transferred them to the terrorist arrested.  Take note: California has no "gun show loophole" and the law accomplished nothing.

2) The rifles used in the attack are illegal to possess under California law.  They had been illegally modified by removing the magazine lock that slows magazine changes.  They were equipped with muzzle brakes, pistol grips, forward grips, and 30 round magazines - every one of which is illegal in California.

3) California makes it nearly impossible for an average person to obtain a permit to carry a firearm.  In fact, the 9th Circuit recently ruled these restrictions to be unconstitutional.  The state has appealed. All this law did was insure that no one could shoot back.

4) The building in question is a "gun free zone" - meaning that in the unlikely event that someone had a permit to carry, they could not do so in this building.

In short, California's laws completely failed to even slow this attack - in fact, they made things much easier for the terrorists.

Fact #8: Banning people on the Terrorist Watch list from purchasing firearms is absolutely unconstitutional.  

There is no constitutional right to fly on an airplane.  This enables the government to place people on the watch list with no due process whatsoever.  Such persons are not even notified that they are on the list.  In fact, the ACLU is working hard to overturn the watch list because, among other things, there is no due process.  The list is a wide net, and many people with nothing to do with terrorism are on it.  The Huffington Post (not exactly a conservative publication!) has published at least two articles detailing how inaccurate the watch list is.  (See "7 Ways That You (Yes, You) Could End Up On A Terrorist Watch List"  and "Ford Motor Co., 2-Year-Old, Innocent Man Have Records In Terror Database".) At one point Sen. Kennedy could not fly because someone with an identical name was on the list.  

There is a constitutional right of purchase and own firearms.  People cannot be deprived of their constitutional rights without due process of law.  Banning people on the watch list from buying firearms is every bit as unconstitutional as rounding up all Muslims and placing them in camps without charges or due process.  A law banning people on the watch list from buying guns would be struck down in days, if not hours.

Fact #9: The FBI is notified every time a firearms background check is done on someone who is on the Terrorist Watch list.  (See 3rd paragraph of this CNN article.) They are then able to take action if they have real evidence that the person is a threat.

Fact #10: Gun control advocates cannot point to a single instance where any countries gun laws have stopped a terrorist attack.  The reason: It has never happened - in fact some of the worst terrorism has happened in countries where the possession of firearms is banned or virtually banned.

Conclusion: Gun control is not going to stop or even slow terrorists.  Administration efforts to enact new gun laws are an effort to distract from the real issues and co opt this tragedy to advance their pre-existing agenda.

What Can Stop Terrorist Attacks?

Fact: The head of INTERPOL has stated that armed citizens are the most effective way to stop terrorist attacks like those in Kenya and San Bernardino.  In the wake of San Bernardino, several leaders in law enforcement have called for more armed citizens.   This includes a New York state sheriff.

Fact: In spite of lies to the contrary, legally armed citizens have stopped many mass shootings.  

Fact: Armed citizens are forbidden to carry in places that are most commonly attacked - thus reducing the number of times they are able to stop mass shootings.  Indeed, since 2009, 92% of mass shootings such as the San Bernardino and the Oregon College shooting
 have taken place in so called gun free zones.  (More)

Fact: The FBI defines a mass shooting as a incident in which at least four people are shot.  Since shootings armed citizens almost always stop shootings before four people are shot, when they succeed, IT DOESN'T COUNT AS A MASS SHOOTING!  Talk about a "catch 22"!

Israeli Citizen Using His Gun To Stop A Terrorist Attack

Fact: Israel effectively stopped mass shootings by terrorists by arming large numbers of citizens.  In recent years, the number of persons authorized to carry fell to 170,000 - still a huge number when you consider that NYC, with about the same population has well under 10,000..   Recently, in response to stabbing incidents, they have increased the number of armed citizens - leading to many women being called "Glock moms".  In fact, the Israeli Prime Minister recently urged all those legally allowed to carry firearms to do so.  His call was echoed by the Jerusalem mayor.  More HERE.

Fact: Approximately 13 Million Americans have permits to carry.  Terrorists must take this into account when planning attacks (unless they are planning an attack in CA!).  These people are more law abiding than police officers and can be a major resource in stopping terrorist attacks, if and only if, we do away with so called gun free zones where only law abiding citizens are disarmed.

Conclusion: Ask yourself this question: People are being shot at your church.  Do you want to wait ten minutes or more for police to arrive, o would you rather have people in your church prepared to act immediately?  I think thre answer is obvious.

Finally, I urge everyone to view this documentary on mass shootings.   You will find it quite informative.