When you make a promise, you’re supposed to keep it. There may occasionally be times when circumstances arise that make it impossible for you to keep a promise but you should still stand ready to make good, as best you can, on that promise. It is a matter of honor and a testament to character that you follow through with your word and honor your commitments. This is something that you should have learned as a child. Sadly, it seems, that this is a lesson that many of our elected officials and many others in our governmental bureaucracies have either forgotten or never learned in the first place.  
  There are many bureaucracies that our government has established that fall short of serving the people of our nation. In fact some like the IRS, the EPA or the BLM seem to have forgotten altogether that they are supposed to serve the people, not act as a means for our central government to grab power not authorized by the Constitution. Like many things our government has done they were created with the “best of intentions” but as their “extra-constitutional” powers grow our personal liberty disappears. One of our bureaucracies, the Department of Veterans Affairs, while not growing it’s power is committing an atrocity just as unforgivable; failing to keep the promise made to the many American citizens who answered the call to serve in our military during times of war or “police actions”.  
  This is not the first time the VA has been called out for their failures to serve the brave men and women who are today American Combat Veterans. Just last September the outrage of 307,000 veterans having died while waiting for the Department of Veterans Affairs to process their healthcare applications, 867,000 veterans having their healthcare applications listed as pending, and poor data management prompted VA employees to arbitrarily delete 10,000 records from the database after marking them as complete, even if they were still unfinished and in need of resolution, was made public. The response to this historic debacle was to replace the head of the VA and then, under duress, implement a free choice program which would allow veterans to seek out and receive private medical care if “the VA is unable to provide the care needed within a month of being requested, or if there is not a VA facility reasonably close to their homes.”  
  This program, called The Choice Card program, was one of the common sense solutions offered up to solve the problem of the veteran backlog waiting on much needed treatment. It was actually passed by congress in 2014 when word was first getting out about the backlog, before the reports of exactly how bad things had gotten at the VA were made public. And now the program is in danger of being ended. Not because of expenses or inefficiency but because the VA hasn’t been paying the non-VA doctors and hospitals who have rendered service to the veterans who could not get care at the VA.
  It’s not hard to understand why non-VA doctors and hospitals might want to shy away from taking Choice Card patients if they are not going to get paid. So it’s also not surprising that there is a growing number of non-VA doctors who are no longer taking Choice Card cases. The problem is that once again our veterans are not getting the healthcare they need. The central government, through the VA, has an obligation to pay these health care providers per the program’s creation and by not doing so they are once again failing to keep the promise to take care of our vets.  But why they are choosing to not pay the Choice Card invoices is mind-blowing.
  First of all, the American Federation of Government Employees, a labor union which represents most of the VA’s workers was opposed to the program from the beginning. Why you might ask, well why do labor unions ever oppose anything… it will cost them money. In this case, the AFGE thought the move to have non-VA workers treating veterans would reduce the growth of their membership rolls. Without the Choice Card program the VA would have had no choice but to add more employees which would in turn would mean more membership thereby increasing the membership dues. So as far as the AFGE is concerned, the veterans be damned they want money and could not care less if anyone is getting the care they need.
  Second, the VA wanted you, me, and more important to them congress to believe that it was in fact the Choice Card program that was the cause of the VA’s image issues and not the wait-time scandal. Yes, that’s right folks, they refused to pay the service providers and then acted like the program was failing due to the service providers taking steps to get paid. Both the AFGE and the VA tried using the failure to process payments to justify ending the program. The AFGE leadership told members to contact and demand Congress end veterans using private healthcare providers, saying that Choice Card “has already led to veterans being hounded by bill collectors” and “VA staff being forced to spend hours on the phone with insurance companies and for-profit providers.” And the VA Under Secretary For Health, David Shulkin said in a March 10th Senate hearing, “The problem, our reputation has been hurt incredibly, and you’re hearing it from the veterans, because the Choice program hasn’t worked.“
  By March 14 the VA decided to come clean, my guess is that someone was going to blow the whistle on them, and released a new statement. The “VA acknowledges that delayed payments and inappropriately billed claims are unacceptable and have caused stress for veterans and providers alike, there should be no bureaucratic burden that stands in the way of veterans getting care.” Now, once again, we are offered empty-sounding apologies and we are told that they, the VA, are working to fix the problems so that the veterans will receive the care they need. Many vets, however, feel that this has happened by design in an attempt to force veterans back to the VA in order to justify the existence of VA. Our veterans have already paid the price. Promises were made and should be kept. If our federal government can find billions of dollars to help illegal invaders and foreign governments that hate America, then there are no excuses for not taking care of those to whom we owe so much.  And since when is a government employee’s job more important than the lives of the veterans they are supposed to be serving? 

   Unless you've been under a rock, by now you have heard of Ahmed Mohamed, although you may better know him as "the Bomb-Clock Kid". At first, we were told that this "very smart kid" was the victim of a terrible misunderstanding which led to the fourteen year old being arrested. This terrible misunderstanding revolved around a clock, a pencil case, and school teachers who know little if anything about explosives so they must be bigoted haters of all Muslims to have been concerned about the wires and the digital timer that was counting down. This was meant to be the "news" story to show once and for all how badly Americans treat poor, innocent Muslims. This is the narrative that we were meant to believe. 


   Young mister Mohamed has become the poster child of Muslim victimization. He has been invited to the White House, offered a job at Facebook (when he gets older of course), and told to enroll at MIT (also when he gets older) by MIT all in an effort to shame those of us who might think that it is completely acceptable for school officials to take action if a student brings something to school that might be suspicious or that the police should take action if a bomb might be involved. The lesson that we are all meant to learn is that it is completely irrational to fear Muslims no matter what they are doing. This is the idea that is being implanted into the minds of the masses. 


   If what we had been told at first was the whole truth then there might be reason to feel bad for this kid, who seems to be enjoying his new found celebrity, but there does seem to be just a little bit more to the story. In an interview with Eyman, Ahmed’s sister, it came to light that she had been suspended from the same school district as Ahmed over, of all things, an alleged bomb threat. Then a simple background check shows Mohamed Elhassan Mohamed, Ahmed's father, to be a political activist who had run for President of his native Sudan twice and made national headlines when he got involved with the Rev.Terry Jones' Koran burning "trail" as the Koran's "defense attorney". What does any of this have to do with the bomb-clock event? Well let's just say that it is likely that this family might have had some idea both how this would look and what the reaction might be.  


   Many who have taken the time to scratch beneath the surface of the media narrative are now asking if this might not have been a planned event designed to get Ahmed suspended and gain attention. The arrest may not have been part of the plan but it certainly didn't hurt the cause. Those who have even a cursory understanding of Islam are left wondering if this isn't part of a propaganda campaign designed to convince everyone that to be suspicious of Muslims, regardless of the circumstances, is to be Islamophobic. If a young boy has a device that in any way looks like a bomb, you must be a hateful bigot to think it might be a reason for concern. After all, when have children ever been used to attack the enemies of Islam anywhere in the world?  


  Whether you believe that this was just an unfortunate set of events resulting from prejudice and fear or you are thinking there might be a little more to it, there is one simple fact that you must know. There is no such thing as Islamophobia. Islamophobia is a word made-up by the Islamic-apologists who want you to ignore those who are sounding the alarm of the dangers of those who would force Sharia upon you, your neighbors and everyone else you know. A phobia is by definition an irrational fear of something. For any non-Muslim there is a ton of very rational reasons to fear the spread of Islam and more importantly stand against it .                    


      If you are a non-Muslim then you are a Kafir, a word meaning one who conceals the "truth" of Islam. In the teachings of the Islamic "holy" texts, by not embracing Islam you are hiding the truth, as Muslims believe, that every person on the planet will become Muslim or submit to total rule by Muslims. If you are Kafir then you are the enemy of Islam and it is not only acceptable but encouraged that Muslims deceive, plot against, hate, enslave, mock, torture, and do worse to the Kafir. Sixty four percent of the Koran, thirty seven percent of the Hadith and eighty one percent of the Sira is devoted to telling the Muslim how to treat the Kafir so it is safe to say that more than half of Islam is focused on the treatment of non-Muslims. 


   Another fact that all non-Muslims need to know and understand is that Islam is not a religion. Islam is a philosophy for world domination. It is a philosophy that has a religious component but in it's whole it is a doctrine for conquest which includes strict rules for all to live by a.k.a. Sharia. Sharia covers everything from finance to dress codes to public behavior. And yes, the Kafir are expected to live under Sharia wherever Islam is dominant. 


   While it may be true that not all Muslims want to behead Christians, burn alive Jews, or turn little, non-Muslim, girls into sex slaves; it is certainly true that Islam teaches that all Muslims should in fact do this things. It teaches that those who will not convert are less than human and should not be viewed as if they are human. It is also true that because of the practice of Taqiyya it is impossible to know which Muslims would prefer to simply live in peace and which are merely waiting for the time to act. For these reasons, and more, it is completely rational if you are a freedom loving, non-Muslim, to be concerned about the spread of Islam and Sharia. If it is rational then, by definition, there is no such thing as Islamophobia.

  For some time now we have been hearing one horror story after another about the care, or better put the lack thereof, that our military veterans have been receiving from the Department of Veterans Affairs. The unimaginable failure of the VA to take care of those who risked all and sacrificed much in the name of the United States has become legendary even among federal government agencies. These failures having been exposed yet again led to a new round of promises of change, new leadership and all of the other canned political hot air that normally comes with the momentary outrage of the public before they go back to watching the Kardashians or Dancing With the Stars. But how much has changed for those to whom we owe so much?

  Now to be fair there is new leadership in place and with such a huge mess to clean up there is little doubt that there hasn’t been enough time to see wholesale improvements yet. I’d also like to say that I believe that the majority of people who work for the VA do so because they have a heartfelt desire to help our vets so this is in no way meant to be an indictment of those who are working hard to correct the issues. That having been said, those who were in a position of oversight, appointed leadership and congressional members who sat on Veteran’s Affairs committees, while the VA was allowed to fail in such a fashion should feel great shame in their role in our veterans not receiving their much needed healthcare and beyond that I would go so far as to say that some individuals should in fact face criminal charges.

  The latest news to come from the VA is the rather disturbing report that a total of 307,000 veterans have died while waiting for the Department of Veterans Affairs to process their healthcare applications. Allegations of mismanagement at the Veterans Health Administration’s Health Eligibility Center led to an investigation by the VA office of the inspector general. The findings that exactly 867,000 veterans still have their healthcare applications listed as pending in the database is just the beginning of the outrage. The database records go back multiple decades, so many of the applicants would have died some time ago while still waiting for care. The exact dates are unclear, because many, if not most, of the pending applications had no filing dates listed. As a result there are a large number of deceased veterans who remain on the list because the VA has no method in place to remove them.  

  Bad enough? There’s more. Poor data management prompted VA employees to arbitrarily delete 10,000 records from the database after marking them as complete, even if they were still unfinished and in need of resolution. For example from September 2012 to January 2013 alone, the VA had 11,000 unprocessed applications on hand. And according to the report there is no guidance to establish timelines for application completion. In an effort to fix the issue the VA has already started the process of contacting hundreds of thousands of veterans, asking them to send in new documentation to prove healthcare eligibility. Is it any wonder that our vets are angry and frustrated with this ill-designed, bureaucratic, nightmare system.

  How are our vets supposed to get the care they need if they can’t even get past the application part of the process? How can we, the people, allow this kind of inefficient waste continue? This must be fixed or better yet a new system put in place. In the meantime what would be so bad about the common sense solution of our vets getting needed healthcare at regular medical facilities and the VA reimbursing those providers?

Our veterans have already paid the price. Promises were made and should be kept. If our federal government can find billions of dollars to help illegal invaders and foreign governments that hate American, then there are no excuses for not taking care of those to whom we owe so much. 

Today, Sept. 1st 2015, Kim Davis once again stood defiant against the recent SCOTUS opinion that many wrongly believe legalized same-sex marriage nation-wide. Davis is the Rowan County Clerk who stopped issuing all marriage licenses in the days after the SCOTUS opinion citing her religious beliefs as her reason for not issuing them to same-sex couples. Yesterday the SCOTUS denied her last-ditch appeal asking that they grant her “asylum for her conscience” because of a federal judge’s order for her to issue the licenses.  

  This morning she was faced with a life changing moment of truth. She had to choose whether to issue marriage licenses, defying her Christian conviction, or continue to refuse them, defying the federal judge who could hit her with fines or order that she be hauled off to jail. She decided to stand by her Christian faith and face the consequences whatever they may be. A brave choice under the circumstances, but one she should have never had to make.

  The issue of same-sex marriage, at the legal level, is really a very simple one. The federal government has no authority to control or regulate marriage of any kind. There is no constitutional right to marriage guaranteed to anyone. The extent the federal government has any say is in defining what criteria must be met for federal tax purposes. And for those that would argue that the “Equal treatment” clause of the 14th Amendment gives same-sex couples all the same privileges as bestowed to opposite-sex couples I would remind you that the legal standard for “equal treatment” is identical treatment not “fair” treatment. If both heterosexuals and homosexuals are denied state recognition of civil unions based on “marriage” to a person of the same sex then that in fact does meet the identical treatment standard. Yes, I know that the SCOTUS has given an opinion that would be contrary to my statement, but their opinion and the “rulings” of any other federal judge or court is a huge overreach on their part and as one would expect they have moved to try to further that extra-constitution power hoping that we the people won’t challenge.

  With no federal authority over marriage, per the constitution, the power falls back to the states and the people. I would argue that no government has any authority over marriage, that it is in fact a spiritual union between the people involved and God. But the states decided a very long time ago that they had need to define their criteria for recognizing civil unions that they would refer to as marriage for various legal purposes. Pursuant to that end the states were well within their rights to establish those criteria in accordance with the will of the people of those states. Which then brings us back to Kim Davis and the state of Kentucky.

  In Kentucky, same-sex marriage is not currently legal. In fact the state has the Defense of Marriage Act written into their state constitution. Their state constitution defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman in Section 233A. The language was approved by the voters of Kentucky with almost 75% of the vote. These facts make issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples against the law within the state of Kentucky. Regardless of anyone’s “feelings” on this issue the federal courts do not have the constitutional authority to force Kim Davis or anyone else violate the current state law.

  The entire Kentucky state government should be standing with Kim Davis. Not because of support or lack of support of same-sex marriage but because of the federal government’s attempt to override their state sovereignty. There should be outrage by every citizen of this nation that the federal court system hasn’t refused to hear these cases citing the fact that it’s simply not a federal issue. The fact that this issue even got to the SCOTUS represents a willful choice to ignore the limits of the federal courts placed on them by the U.S. Constitution.

  I, personally, am indifferent on the issue of same-sex marriage. I don’t care what any state decides to set as it criteria in the establishment of civil unions that they call “marriage”. But I do care about the law of the land. The Constitution is the “Prime Directive” for this nation. The SCOTUS does not make law, it renders opinions, which on occasions have been reversed, about the constitutionality of laws. The states themselves have the constitutionally upheld means of nullification to fight federal overreach when all else fails. So all of this comes down to working within the system or trying to trash the system. Following the law or pushing an agenda at any cost.

  The activist that have been working so hard for so long to get same-sex marriage legally recognized in every state should continue their efforts to change to hearts and minds of the people in each state, not try to force it on people who don’t agree with them. I understand the desire to take the short-cut, because “it’s hard”, and it takes “too long” but if your cause is as noble as many of you feel it is, then isn’t it worth doing the right way? Stop trying to short-circuit the Constitution and force your will on others. Just go back to work if you really believe in it.

  I stand with Kim Davis, not just because of the government overreach but also because of her courage. She has made a stand based on her faith. She has let her moral compass guide her in a very tough situations. I applaud her and would hope that even those who hold different beliefs than she, can appreciate and respect her stand. I would ask that all liberty loving, freedom cherishing Americans join me in calling for the Kentucky state government to stand behind Kim Davis, for the federal government to back off, and for the same-sex activists to pursue their goals in accordance to the state by state efforts of the past.

  If the people of Kentucky decide to change their laws in regards to same-sex marriage then Kim Davis will then be forced to choose between honoring her faith and doing her job. But until Kentucky does that, she should continue to do her job in accordance with Kentucky state law and the federal courts should get back to federal matters.

   In Istanbul funeral prayers were held to honor Cherif and Said Kouachi, the Islamic-extremists brothers who killed 12 people in the Charlie Hebdo magazine attack in Paris. Estimates of 160 or more men – shouted "God is great!" They held a banner showing former al-Qaida leader Osama Bin Laden's picture on one side, and the Kouachi brothers superimposed over the Parisian skyline on the other side. Also seen were smaller posters with "We are all Cherif" and "We are all Said" as the men chanted in unison.

   For some time now, at least since the U.S. led efforts to push Iraq out of Kuwait, there has been a growing anti-American/ anti-Western movement in Turkey. This movement has grown as the nation itself has moved away from a secular government and seems to be moving toward a theocracy (in practice even if not officially in name). So, it is no surprise that there are some in Turkey who would praise the killers who, in their minds, died as martyrs for Allah. The question becomes how pervasive has this sentiment become among the population of the only Muslim member of NATO. We know from experience that the loudest voices don’t always speak for the majority, but we in the west would be fools to ignore the swelling chorus of radical-Islamic hate come from the people of Turkey.

   I’m not saying that it’s time to kick them out of NATO, some have been calling for that for many years now, nor am I saying that the people of Turkey have embraced a dark path of hate. What I am saying is that we should no longer turn a blind eye to these events. We need to know if this is still just a loud minority making as much noise as they can or a chosen few who are voicing the thoughts of an overwhelming majority. We need to know so that we may prepare for the challenges of a world where Turkey is no longer a bridge between the Western world and the Muslim world.

   I do not know the hearts and minds of the people of one of the most beautiful and storied nations of the world so I say this as an alert, and I hope that it is an alert that is not necessary, but the spread of radical-Islam can not be denied so I will say it. Seeing so many participating in these “funeral prayers” must raise concerns about the mood of the people of Turkey. I must caution; we can‘t count on an ally who would honor jihadist nor can we call any group of people who would side with cold-blooded killers over free-speech our friend.            

   Washington D.C. was once a place where men of honor went to debate the issues and govern the land with the best interests of America in mind. It has since become a swamp filled with quicksand, vipers, and other predators with no goal other than to aquire personal wealth and power at the expense of the American people. There is only one way to fix this problem. We the people must elect men and women of great character and high moral standards who will hold themselves and their fellow elected office holders accountable to those standards. Men and women who will listen to the people they were sent to reprsent, who will stand up and Openly, honestly debate the issues, who will once again put America first.

   It is with all of this in mind that I whole hartedly and without reservation endorse Danny Page for U.S. Senate. Tennessee needs a conservative voice in D.C. and America deserves better than Lamar Alexander.  

 





If you live in Tennessee and you are looking for a conservative alternative to Lamar Alexander for the U.S. Senate please consider voting Danny Page.

http://dannypageforsenate.com/

https://www.facebook.com/DannyPageforSenate?fref=ts

@PageforTN

#BallotBoxRevolution

 

Below are links to Mr. Page’s interviews on “Tapp” into the Truth. They are listed from first to last. (So far.) Listen to Mr. Page in his own words.

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/tim-tapp/2013/10/20/danny-page-for-us-senate

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/tim-tapp/2013/12/15/danny-page-vs-lamar-alexander

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/tim-tapp/2014/08/17/danny-page-independent-candidate-for-us-senate

3,480,000 Muslims live in North America, and it’s believed that number will more than double in the next six to ten years. With Muslim immigration comes the push for Sharia law that Islam demands. And with Muslims assuring everyone that critics of Sharia law simply have a misunderstanding of it or are “islamophobic,” it is hard to have an open conversation on the topic without being labeled intolerant or closed-minded. Still, it is important for non-Muslims to have that conversation and understand what Sharia law would mean for them.   Sharia law is derived from the Quran, Sunnah, scholars, and collective courts. This system of laws cover how to conduct yourself in each and every facet of your life including hygiene, the economy, food preparation and consumption, theological obligations, marriage, crime and punishment, war, slavery, and dress. Enforcement and punishment vary in some small degree from country to country, however, the major laws stand in accordance with Sharia.

    The following is a short list of things that every non-Muslim in a Western nation should keep in mind when the Sharia question comes around.

1.) Freedom of Speech ???

Insulting the Prophet Muhammad, Allah, and the Quran are considered blasphemy. Many times the punishment is death, even if there is no proof the crime was committed.

2.) Freedom of Religion ???

A person is guilty of apostasy if they were born or raised a Muslim and choose to leave the religion. This is sometimes applied to those who convert to Islam later in life, then choose another religion thereafter. The punishment is usually death by hanging.

3.) Women’s Rights ???

a.) Beating, divorce, or even killing of a wife if she is “disobedient” or brings shame to her husband is the norm. b.) A woman with a lower level job will almost always lose custody of her children in a divorce.

c.) Women must dress “modestly” at all times. Whether this means wearing a full hijab and burka, or covering the arms and legs, some “clergy” allow for the raping of women who are considered immodest. d.) Foreign non-Muslim women can be considered sex slaves, as per the Quran, and may be held for that purpose. e.) In cases of rape,

a woman must provide male witnesses, normally 4, or she will be convicted of adultery, for which the punishment is usually lashing or death.

4.) Child Marriage ???

Child marriage is different from country to country, however, many make it acceptable to marry very young girls since the prophet married his wife Aaliyah at the age of 6. Marriages may be arranged, or even carried out, at any time after birth, with consummation legal by age 8 or 9, again as Muhammad did.

   Throw in Sharia’s absolute zero tolerance of homosexual activity, punishable by lashing, stoning, imprisonment or death and you have to wonder why liberals are so quick the defend Islam and the “merits” of Sharia. These are not rare, extreme parts of Sharia that no one follows; these are some of the main tenants of the system. With this in mind, I think that an honest discussion would be the right thing so if that earns me the title of “Islamophobic” then so be it.

   There is a reason why the political left has worked so hard to control public and higher education in this country. The saying that best describes the strategy is “Those who fail to learn from their history are doomed to repeat it”. If you are never taught the full view of history, or how to think for yourself, then you can never see or understand that there are patterns that clearly show truths about human nature, ideologies, and failed policies that claim the “best of intentions” as a promise but then only claim personal liberty as a result. Control how (and what) people are educated (indoctrinated) and you win over the hearts and minds of the future.

   This along with other strategies such as controlling media, inducing poor economic conditions, limiting opportunities for upward economic mobility, and creating divisions among people are all part (but not all) of the plan to cast off our Constitution for good and remove all limits on the power of the federal government. These strategies are part of what some of us conservatives call the “playbook”. We call it that because just like with sports, if you have the understanding to see the patterns of history repeating itself and you are paying attention, you can recognize the same strategies being employed. Giving a speech about the Obamacare website while the people are asking about Benghazi- running an end around; telling Americans that talks broke down with Iran then two weeks later announce a deal with Iran- play action pass; go on television countless times saying “if you like your….” -all-out blitz, all examples of how there is a strategy being used by these people that there is a “playbook”. The good news is, just like in sports, when you become familiar with their playbook you can design counters to the plays they are running. The first step to countering their actions is always to recognize the play.

   Well the political left is running a triple option against the American people right now as they try to convince low-wage earners that the federal minimum wage should be $10.10 per hour and that quick service restaurant workers should be paid $15 per hour. The first thing that they are trying to do here is further the class-warfare agenda of dividing Americans along economic lines. The second thing is to pivot from the Obamacare debate as the primary topic among Americans so that people stop asking questions and just accept the government power grab that was sold as helping people. The third, and possibly the most concerning, now with Rep. Keith Ellison demanding that Obama raise the federal minimum wage by executive order they are trying to implant the idea that it is somehow acceptable for our President to behave as a tyrant and ignore the rule of law. (Not that Obama hasn’t already ignored the constitutional separation of powers, i.e. delaying the employer mandate in Obamacare)

   This past Thursday, December 5, 2013, Washington D.C. was the site of the “Fast Food Forward” protest. This little protest, and oh yes it was small by way of numbers of people there, was meant to rally quick service restaurant workers to continue with the unrealistic demand of a $15 per hour wage and convince others that this is a reasonable wage for low skill jobs. The U.S. Representative for Minnesota’s 5th congressional district Keith Ellison took a turn at the microphone and said, “We demand it, right now. Mr. President, sign the executive order! Give the pay raise, the livable, fair wage. Let’s do it now.” It’s no surprise that Ellison is willing to say this as he is a professed progressive but it should be very upsetting to the people who elected him to represent them since he doesn’t seem to want them to be represented. No need for Congress if all you need is an executive order and then without Congress there is no representation. Never before this administration, have you heard multiple Congressmen and Senators advocate for bypassing their role in governing and there by bypassing the will of the people to be heard via the congressional process. While it was Rep. Ellison, who happens to be the first Muslim elected to Congress and is the co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (like we need a progressive caucus in Congress), who made this call for exceeding the legal authority of the office of President we have heard Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Charley Rangel and others suggest that Obama should just sign an executive order on issues ranging from immigration, healthcare, gun control, and now federal minimum wage just to name a few. What makes it worse is that there is not one of these people who does not know that what they are suggesting is illegal but they do know that there are (sadly) many Americans who do not know that it is illegal.

     The President of the United States may issue executive orders to help officers and agencies of the executive branch manage the operations within the federal government itself. Executive orders have the full force of law when they take authority from a power granted directly to the Executive by the Constitution, or are made in pursuance of certain Acts of Congress (laws) which explicitly delegate to the President some degree of discretionary power. Just like with statutes or regulations put in place by government agencies, executive orders are subject to judicial review, and may be struck down if deemed by the courts to be unsupported by statute or the Constitution. Major policy initiatives require approval by the legislative branch, but executive orders have significant influence over the internal affairs of government. There is no constitutional provision nor statute that explicitly permits executive orders, however there is a vague grant of "executive power" given in Article II,Section 1, Clause 1 of the Constitution, and furthered by the declaration "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" made in Article II, Section 3, Clause 5. Most executive orders use these Constitutional reasoning as the authorization allowing for their issuance to be justified as part of the President's sworn duties, the intent being to help direct officers of the U.S. Executive carry out their delegated duties as well as the normal operations of the federal government. All that said, the power of an executive order is very limited and does not have the force of law if the order falls outside the realm of anything not in the Executive Branch’s constitutional listed powers.

   The play here is to get Americans used to the idea of being ruled, not governed but ruled, by executive order. The more these people put the idea out there, the more they believe you will become comfortable with having no voice in D.C. as they pretend to be your voice. That is why they pick issues like immigration and the federal minimum wage to make the argument for executive orders so that they can claim to be fighting for the poor as they try to emotionally link executive orders with things low information voters think that they want (in this case more money). The whole time these so-called progressives know full well that rather than helping the poor these policies actually make things worse for the working poor because of the effects on the job market but those who do not understand it buy into the lie that they are working to help. The pattern here has been seen before in almost every single communist revolution in history. Rally the poor to arms with the promise of making things better for them (always a broken promise) and then grab as much power as you can in the chaos that follows.

   The counter must be to inform everyone. Some won’t listen, but we must all try. We must show everyone the patterns so that the current low information voter can see for themselves the danger to personal freedom of by passing Congress and giving up your voice in our government.    

   For the past few years there has been an effort underway to raise the federal minimum wage from the $7.25 per hour that it has been since July of 2009 to something closer to $10 per hour. The push for this increase hadn’t really gotten much traction in Congress until the last couple of years and now there is “work” being done on a bill that would raise minimum wage above $10 an hour. (With the bill still in development it is unknown right now how much over $10 the desired new pay rate per hour will be. However Obama has used $10.10 as his talking point on the issue.) The charge for the increase is being led by Democrats who are using the “tried & true” battle cry that it’s “for the poor”, which sounds good and plays well with those who don’t understand that it is these same Democrats who have put in place countless barriers to the upward mobility of the economic under-class aka “the poor”.

   All of the arguments about minimum wage (pro and con) aside, Obamacare has done many things to make an increase in wages a moot point for most of the working poor. (After all, it doesn’t matter if the minimum wage is a million dollars per hour if you can’t get a job and as we all know jobs are at a premium in the Obama economy.) We have already seen the reduction in new hires and transition of full time employees to part time employees by companies looking to be ready for the so-called corporate mandate part of Obamacare. (Complete with the spin of hundreds of thousands of jobs created … you know… all of the new part time positions needed to cover the hours once worked by full time employees who had their positions reduced to part time.) Well, as it turns out there is more harm to job prospects for the working poor on the horizon due to the employer mandate and that is the employer’s cost per employee.

   Just like with price increases in energy, transportation, ingredients/parts, and loss (waste, mistakes, and thief), increased payroll costs force businesses of all sizes to reevaluate their policies, procedures and systems in order achieve the highest efficiency levels possible. When the expense of payroll becomes too high companies must find ways to do more with fewer people or they will put themselves out of business when they can no longer balance what they can bring in (how much people are willing to pay for their service or goods) with what they must dole out (what it costs them to do business i.e. power, insurance, and yes payroll, just to name a few). Every company should want to maximize it’s efficiency because that’s where company improvements, wage increases, and profits come from, but no company wants to increase it’s employees work load due to a need to reduce personal; because unhappy employees have a hard time taking pride in their work and employees who do not take pride in their work always cost companies more than they will ever earn for the company.

   How is the employer mandate a problem for low-wage earners finding jobs or keeping the jobs they have now? Well let’s start by looking at the numbers. Obamacare requires employers with 50 or more employees to offer qualifying health coverage (an Obamacare approved plan) to their full-time workers. This health coverage is expensive and that is why so many companies had already made public their plans to either keep their workforce under 50 or to move as many of their employees to a part time status as possible and still meet their customer’s needs . In 2015, when the mandate will take effect, it will add $2.24 per hour to the cost of employing a worker with single coverage (more for family plans). Companies that do not provide coverage will be fined $2,000 per employee per year (after the first 30 workers) that comes out of after-tax dollars. That is a $3,279 increase in pre-tax payroll costs—$1.64 per hour. When you combine federal or state minimum wage rates, payroll taxes, unemployment insurance taxes, and then Obamacare’s employer mandate, employing a worker full-time will cost the employer a minimum of $10.30 an hour. The government has made the hiring of unskilled workers more costly without raising workers’ pay a single cent. (And, just FYI, if the federal minimum wage was to be raised to $10.10 an hour that $10.30 per hour cost to employers becomes $12.71 per hour.)

   Now put yourself in the roll of the hiring manager or small business owner. If each and every employee you hire is going to cost you more than $10 per hour then you are quickly faced with the reality that you need to be far more selective about who you are willing to add to your workforce. Any new hire must be more flexible to the company’s needs and already have at least a good set of both hard and soft skills. This makes entry-level jobs harder to get as normally you get hired for the soft skills and are trained for the hard skills in most entry-level employment. The majority of people use the entry-level jobs as a stepping stone to training which leads to higher pay.

   This mandate will force companies to raise the minimum standards for their entry-level employees. Adding an increase to the federal minimum wage will only force these companies to raise those standards even higher. Many companies will be forced to let go of current employees that are lacking in their skill set and these newly unemployed will be at a disadvantage in seeking other employment because all of the other companies have also raised their minimum requirements for new hires. Here I will remind you that raising minimum wage will do no good for anyone who can not get or keep a job so that they may EARN that wage.

   The point is that Obamacare is even more of a job killer than most conservatives thought it would be and sadly it will hurt the low-wage earners the most. But to the issue of raising the federal minimum wage; Obamacare has, from the employer’s standpoint, already raised it past $10 per hour. The employee will never see the extra cash but your employer is paying it just the same. Beyond that, two thirds of minimum wage workers receive a raise within a year making them no longer minimum wage workers. But more to the point, minimum wage jobs are meant to be entry-level jobs, they are meant to be a stepping stone. At no time has any employer intended for their employees to make a career out of a minimum wage job. And despite the efforts by some this past year to convince quick service restaurant workers that they should be paid $15 per hour for their entry-level positions; if there really is anyone out there that expected to be able to raise a family on a minimum wage, then the problem is with that person not the company that hired them.     

   Back in August of 2013 I first wrote about the Freedom From Religion Foundation. They were offering their “assistance” to Jaleesa Martin, the mother who had a Child Support Magistrate order a name change for her son whom she had named Messiah. The FFRF is a group of atheists and agnostics based in Wisconsin that have fought, all across the country, to remove religion from everyone’s daily life. They do so by going to court or bulling local organizations with the threat of court.

     It seems that the FFRF has won a case that can have a profound impact on organized religion across the nation if the ruling isn’t overturned on appeal.  This past Friday, Nov. 22 2013, U.S. District Court Judge Barbara Crabb ruled in favor of the FFRF in a case where they were challenging the IRS exemption that gives clergy tax-free housing allowances. The FFRF argued that this exemption violated the constitutional concepts of “separation of church and state” and “equal protection under the law”. They even argued that if tax-exempt religious groups are allowed a housing “subsidy” then other tax-exempt groups, like the FFRF, should get one too. The federal judge decided that the exemption was unconstitutional saying that it “provides a benefit to religious persons and no one else, even though doing so is not necessary to alleviate a special burden on religious exercise.” I’m guessing from that statement that she was focused on the “equal treatment” part of the argument. Now to be fair, Judge Crabb did stay the ruling until all appeals are exhausted. (FYI, Crabb is the federal judge that ruled the National Day of Prayer unconstitutional back in 2010.)    I have news for both the FFRF and the judge in this case. You can make any number of arguments against the tax exemption if you are so inclined, most of which don’t (or at least shouldn’t) hold legal water, but you can make those arguments. However, this exemption in no way violates the establishment clause because it does not favor any one faith over another nor does it do anything to force any belief system on anyone. I would remind my learned friends that the establishment clause is not as inclusive as many of them would like to make it; the clause only prevents the government from establishing a national religion or by extension favoring one religion over another.    The exemption in question applies to about 44,000 ministers, priests, rabbis, imams and “others”. (See my point about it not favoring one faith over another?) If the ruling stands, which I don’t believe that it could under the exemption clause argument, it would mean a 5 to 10 percent cut in take home pay for some clergy. In this economy who can afford to lose any of their income? The case was decided in the District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin and will most likely be appealed to the 7th Circuit which very well could reverse the ruling. If the 7th Circuit lets the ruling stand then it will become precedent for courts not only in Wisconsin, Illinois, and Indiana (the 7th Circuit’s region) but all across the land. For the record, the 7th Circuit barred the enforcement of the contraceptive mandate in Obamacare; but of course that is being taken to the Supreme Court.

   Now as bad as the attack on the income of these church leaders is, and I remind you here that the FFRF is after all not just one or two individual cases where there might be some actual abuse going on, there are things at play in this case that is far worse. Take a look at the use of the word subsidy in the FFRF argument. Look at Harry Reid’s use of the “Nuclear Option”. Look at the continuing attacks by the FFRF and other like groups on people of faith.

   In the use of the word subsidies in referring to the tax exemption they show the typical political left thinking that all money belongs to the government and we should just be happy that they let us keep any of it. Using the term subsidy in place of tax cut, tax break, or tax exemption implies that there is someone outside of the church (church used here as a general term for all spiritual organizations) who has to help pay for the housing allowances. This is clearly an attempt to control the language to win the argument. It is also an effort to, over time, make most people accept the idea that the government is entitled to the first piece of everyone’s pie. While you can make an effective point that every time you exempt some form of income from the tax pool it makes it harder on those not exempted from paying to cover the government’s tab you could just as easily use the same logic to call for an end to all tax credits and exemptions at every economic level. Somehow I think if taken to that level many people who might support attacking the clergy’s housing allowance might rethink the whole subsidy argument. But make no mistake about it; there is a lot of potential tax revenue on the table here. The exemption is worth about $700 million per year according to the Joint Committee on Taxation Estimate of Federal Tax Expenditure. And FYI, the Hosans-Tabor vs. EEOC case decided last year that a teacher could be considered a “minister” so the ruling in this case could go beyond just those we would think of as clergy. Does anyone believe that given an opportunity that our government won’t jump at the chance to pull in an additional $700 million regardless of it’s source? Add that the current bunch of statists running the show could grab that cash from clergy… well it might as well be tea party groups.

   Harry Reid just changed the Senate rules to reduce the number of votes to end a filibuster. Called the “Nuclear Option” Reid did this for the sole purpose of getting on with the “so-called progressive” agenda of stacking the federal courts with leftist, activist judges who will be happy to slap down conservative challenges to unconstitutional laws and actions taken by our government. They want judges who would also legislate from the bench when they aren’t happy with laws passed by conservatives. The idea is to get as many judges in place that will ignore the Constitution and simply side with their “progressive” arguments regardless of the issue of the case. (Like maybe a judge who would rule that the National Day of Prayer is unconstitutional should be moved up to a higher court so that when those type of cases are appealed that they will have a much lesser chance of success.)

   The worst part of this is almost lost among the talk of increased taxes, reduced income, and activist judges stretching the limits of our founding documents. The open attack on religion in this country should be of the highest concern to all Americans religious or not. This nation was first founded on the concept of Freedom of Religion.  Annie Laurie Gaylor and Dan Barker, co-presidents of the Freedom from Religion Foundation, hailed the decision saying, “May we say hallelujah! This decision agrees with us that Congress may not reward ministers for fighting a ‘godless and anti-religious’ movement by letting them pay less income tax. The rest of us should not pay more because clergy pay less.” But here they show their willingness to mislead people because no one, outside of the churches, is paying more because of the allowances. The clergy housing allowance’s tax-exempt status is not an establishment of religion but in fact is the exact opposite as it is the government staying out of the affairs of religious groups in the U.S. and that it is neutral to all religions. The FFRF also showed there hand when earlier this year the federal government offered them a tax break available to religious groups and they rejected that offer. They are not interested so much in “equal treatment” as they are in weakening organized religion through any means possible. They know that clergy in small congregations will be harmed greatly by this ruling if allowed to stand. These atheists are committed to the cause of ending religion in all it’s forms here in the United States and most likely the whole world.

    I wish these guys would have started their crusade in a Muslim theocracy. I would love to see how successful their efforts would have been in Iran for example. Here in the United States they can find like-minded people; they can join together, express their opinions freely and raise money to further their cause. Here they can petition the courts and find like-minded judges who will side with them even if the law does not. The FFRF uses our system meant to protect our Freedom of Religion to attack it.

   I have more news for the FFRF and any other atheist group that thinks and acts in a similar fashion (important to note that many do not). You are not superior to people of faith. You are not smarter. You are not more enlightened. You are not leading to way to some greater tomorrow. You are in fact missing out on an important part of the human experience; and for that I pity you.

   I stand with Christ. I stand for the Constitution. I stand for Freedom of Religion not from religion. I stand for what I believe but I also stand for your right to believe as you do. You have a right to not believe; but you do not have the right to tell me that I can not. You do not have the right to attack me or my church just because you don’t like it. And you most definitely do not have the right to twist the U.S. Constitution to serve your agenda of attacking people of faith.