by Tim Tapp

   By now most of you have undoubtedly heard about the case of Martin DeShawn McCullough, better known (before a Tennessee judge ordered a name change for the seven month old) as Messiah. The case has drawn national attention this past week as the boy's mother, Jaleesa Martin, went public with the outcome of the hearing in the Cocke County Chancery Court that was meant to determine Messiah's/ Martin's last name. The hearing was brought forth due to the inability of the mother and the "baby daddy" to agree on who got to pass on their family name. Child Support Magistrate Lu Ann Ballew clearly overstepped her authority in the case by ordering the first name of the baby boy changed and then made it worse by stating her reasons for changing Messiah's name. In Ballew's explanation it was made clear that her religious views were at the heart of the order.
   While it should be obvious that ordering the first name changed was an abuse of power, this will be overturned, (Messiah's mother is appealing), not on the merit of judicial overreach but instead on the very clear violation of the First Amendment. When Magistrate Ballew expressed her reason for changing Messiah's name she was in fact using her position in the judicial branch of government to force her religious beliefs on everyone in this case. In effect, in regards to this case, this was an attempt by Ballew to establish a religion (her religion).
   It should come as no surprise that the ACLU of Tennessee quickly announced that they would be assisting Ms. Martin in her appeal of Ballew's ruling. This is after all the kind of abuse of government power that the ACLU was originally formed to fight. Born of the high minded, well intended idea of protecting the civil rights of those without the means to stand alone and fight in a court of law. But then, another group decided to steal some press coverage by interjecting themselves into the mix, The Freedom From Religion Foundation.
     If you haven't already heard of The Freedom From Religion Foundation then I have no doubt that you soon will. This group of atheists and agnostics have been interfering in local matters all over the country with the sole purpose of removing any and all signs of religion or faith from public view. As an example, this group has threatened and pursued a law suit in Lenior City, Tennessee because the official patch of the local police force included the word religion.
   This group, like most organized atheists, prefer to call themselves "freethinkers" and insists that they are more intelligent than the masses of believers because they rely on reason and logic in their thinking. There is no room for faith in a higher power in the lives of these "freethinkers". This group, while claiming to be an educational organization, is also a judicial action committee fighting against what it defines as violations of the separation of church and state. The Foundation's definition, however, is far broader than that of the Supreme Court's on the matter of what constitutes the church and state separation. In fact, their actions do not seek to protect against the establishment of a national religion (the true purpose of the First Amendment) but instead to remove all reference to faith of any kind from the daily actions of all levels of government. What's the difference you ask? Simply put, not all expressions of faith are inappropriate in context to the government activity that may be in question. Starting a city council meeting with a prayer, having a nativity scene in a city park, even opening a high school football game with a prayer are all examples of "government" activities that this Foundation has fought against (and won in many cases either by judge ruling or rolling over of the named defendants) that regardless of court rulings just do not violate the standard that should be met before it can be considered an "establishment" of religion.   
   In the words of the FFRF itself they are a "nonprofit organization that works to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism, and to promote the constitutional principle of separation between church and state. The Foundation is the nation's largest association of freethinkers (atheists, agnostics and skeptics) with over 19,000 members. Since 1978, the Foundation has acted on countless violations of the separation of state and church, and has taken and won many significant complaints and important lawsuits to end state/church entanglements." They go on to say that "The history of Western civilization shows us that most social and moral progress has been brought about by persons free from religion. In modern times the first to speak out for prison reform, for humane treatment of the mentally ill, for abolition of capital punishment, for women's right to vote, for death with dignity for the terminally ill, and for the right to choose contraception, sterilization and abortion have been freethinkers, just as they were the first to call for an end to slavery. The Foundation works as an umbrella for those who are free from religion and are committed to the cherished principle of separation of state and church." I wonder how they quantify these claims. It is made very clear from their statements that they are a leftist group that seeks to remove any traditional conservative moral values from the processes of our government. They do all of this "work" while being a non-profit, tax-exempt, educational organization under Internal Revenue Code 501(c)(3). I would insert a wise-crack here about being targeted by the IRS but the FFRF was incorporated in 1978 in Wisconsin making it a little before the current scandal's time.
   Here's my problem with this groups activities. Outside of their claims that they are smarter than religious people and that Western civilization can only advance, or should I say "progress", through the actions of freethinking nontheists such as themselves; they claim to cherish the constitutional principle of separation of church and state. They count on people not knowing not understanding that this principle only extends to the government establishing a forced national religion such as the Church of England, the Catholic church, or even Islam (yes Islam was a consideration in the time of the framers in fact one of the first military actions taken after the new U.S. government had been established was against a group of Muslims in the Phillepines). In many of the FFRF actions they have, in fact, attacked and (along with other so-called progressives) tried to redefine the First Amendment from a guarantee to worship, or not, as you wish to a roadblock to doing so publicly.
 
   By so aggressively attempting to remove faith from every part of our daily lives they (and every activist judge that has ever sided with them) are in fact violating the very constitutional principle that they claim to be championing. They are using our court system to force a religious belief upon all of us; their religion of non belief. There are, and should be, limits to religious expressions by government bodies but the idea of separation of church and state is a very narrow and limited part of our guarantee of religious freedom. These people are not fighting for the Construction; they are fighting to destroy it (which I'm sure they would deny) and they are fighting to silence people of faith.
   If the FFRF, or any group like them, come to your town be ready to stand up and to fight them in court. They count on most people just rolling over but we just can't do that anymore. You may not think that the patch being worn by your local police or an opening prayer at a ball game matter enough for a fight but the continued damage to our Constitution and the infringements to our rights are worth the fight.   

Congressional Democrats passed Obamacare so “they could find out what is in it”. Now, they’re trying very hard to keep you and everyone else from finding out what is in it until after the next election. Why? Because they know when you find out everything it… even a lot of the “Kool-aid” drinkers will never vote for any of them again. Obamacare is a job killing federal government power grab! Tell your elected congressmen to defund and repeal it before it’s too late.

   Those of you, who know me personally, know that I am part of the management team at a great food manufacturing company.  As such, I work 55+ hours there and then I spend time with the family albeit not enough. Since I have begun working on “Tapp” into the Truth I have had very little time to write much of anything but given the events of this past week I have to get this out and not just in the fleeting words of the talk show.

   There are currently three major scandals hounding the White House; the Benghazi talking points, the IRS singling out of conservative and Jewish groups making it harder for them to get Tax-exempt status (in an election cycle) than it should be while easily granting the same status to “so-called progressive” and Islamic groups, and the Justice Department spying on reporters at the Associated Press. (Not to mention that now the EPA is also conducting internal investigations to see if they too were being unfairly harsh on conservatives.) As completely outrageous as any of these issues happen to be it is even more outrageous that there are still those who continue to ignore the gravity of what has occurred in each of these cases. Both politicians and a few members of the main stream-media (although most are clearly upset over the whole spying on the AP thing) are now claiming that there are no scandals. They are claiming that all of this is just made-up by the evil conservatives in order to have “something/anything” to attack the Messiah about.  I can understand the politicians trying so very hard to spin in order to protect the image of the party but at this point who is out there still drinking the “Kool-Aid”?

   In the past few days Princess Nancy of Planet Pelosi has been saying to anyone who will listen, that Obama is just such a visionary and that the Republicans have no choice but to latch-on and blow up such “non-issues” because conservatives simply can’t challenge his intellect and his eloquence in speaking to the American people. She has also said that he is so in-touch with the American people. Jay Carney has been making the rounds too, telling Piers Morgan that the media is “concocting scandals that don’t exist.” (I almost feel bad for Jay Carney, after all it is his job to go say whatever the Administration tells him to go say. But then I remember… he wanted this job and at some point if his integrity meant enough to him, he’d walk away.) Even Harry Reid has tried to down play the IRS bit by saying that it has happened before, that the other side has done it, it’s no big deal. I’m not sure at this point what would be worse; if these people actually believed what they have been telling everyone, or if these people are truly willing to say and do whatever it takes to hold on to their power.   

   For me, and millions of other Americans, Benghazi is about a heck of a lot more than the talking-points. It is about the failure of the State Department and the White House to do the basic job of threat assessment and to act accordingly. It is about the administration’s desire to paint a political picture (that Al-Qaeda was in decline) rather than to deal with the reality on the ground. (Not to mention the fact that they may very well still be trying to cover-up the fact that they were recruiting and arming Al-Qaeda to go fight in Syria.) The talking point do however, clearly show that the White House and the State Department were knowingly lying about what happened and what they knew about it in a CYA move meant to protect Obama’s re-election campaign. Now regardless of what else whoever may or may not know about the Benghazi attack there was a time in America that if you were caught knowingly lying to the people it would have been enough to have you carried out of town on a rail and certainly would have marked the end of your political career. Not for these guys, it seems to be a case of “quick tell a new lie to cover the last lie” or let’s move on to the next flub-up and hope they forget about the last one.

   In our government we need many departments to be non-political. We must have people in these rolls to understand that they are public servants. It is there job to perform their duties without regard to race, sex, age, religion, or political leanings. The IRS and the Department of Justice are two of the biggest examples of such functions within our government. Both have failed on this count. The IRS has targeted groups based on political ideology and religion (in an election cycle) in order to make it harder for them to have an impact in the election process. Then once the truth could no longer be hidden(a watchdog group was about to release a report) they issue an apology. In an effort to avoid taking responsibility they then blame two low level employees in one office. (It is very unlikely that all of the issue could be contained there.) Obama comes out claiming ignorance of the IRS targeting saying that he is angry about it and that it is unacceptable, but there is no immediate course of corrective action mentioned other than to say that the “two low-level employees” will be disciplined. After it’s clear that the media and the people want more, then Steven Miller (the acting IRS director) resigns. Want to know why that still doesn’t make conservative happy? Because Steven Miller was leaving in June anyway and the lady who was in charge of the IRS office where the targeting was taking place has been promoted and now is in charge of the IRS’s Obamacare office. (Yes that’s right ladies and gentlemen, if you didn’t already know, the IRS is in charge of enforcing Obamacare.) I have heard many say that this is chilling that the IRS or any part of our government would be actively involved with intimidation and restriction of our election process to me it has had quite the opposite effect. I am hot! I am so very hot and angry that here in America this could happen and go on for as long as it did and then the people who are supposed to be in charge act as if it should be good enough when they say “I didn’t know”.

   One can’t help but wonder what was going on at the Justice Department when someone decided that it would be a good idea to spy on the folks working for the AP. There is no question that most of the main-stream media has openly worked to protect and promote Obama and his agenda. So, then why risk losing the best ally you have when it comes to convincing the people to accept your agenda? Simple, silencing the leaks (the whistleblowers) was more important in there estimation. The media has been in the bag for the administration for so long now that it must have seemed like a very small risk compared to the risk of letting certain people talk to the press. But then that raises the question of what it is they don’t want getting out for public consumption. Regardless, much like with the IRS, laws were broken and it just isn’t good enough that the people in charge don’t know anything about it. There is no doubt that there can be no justice if the Justice Department is being run by criminals. Eric Holder demanding respect in a congressional hearing is almost as funny as Princess Pelosi saying that Obama is in-touch with the American people. Holder should have been fired when he refused to prosecute the New Black Panther Party for intimidating voters in 2008, but if not over that then he should have been forced to resign over Fast and Furious. With that in mind I would think most reasonable people can understand why folks might not be willing to just take their word for it when they say “I didn’t know”. Why keep someone around in a key role if you know that he is either incompetent or a criminal? Again simple, he is either doing what you wanted him to do or you want to keep him around to be the fall guy when stuff really hits the fan.

   In the past these kinds of actions would have sent many heads rolling. The media would not let go of the stories without there being resolutions and the American people would not simply grab the clicker and flip over to re-runs of thirty minute sit coms without caring that with each one of these transgressions our freedoms and our safety is being eroded. Much of the American public has been asleep when it comes to our political system and thanks to the pretty words of liars and a press that has abandoned it’s roll as watchdog to become an advocate for the false dream of utopia there has been no sense of alarm to awake them.

   But now, there is a new tone, a tone that could very well lead to the end of careless disregard by the public. Now, as the lie that is Obamacare reveals itself to the working poor who so desperately need help and wanted to believe, there is a chance to open the eyes of more people than ever. As it is made apparent that Obamacare was never meant to reduce our costs, only to push us all into accepting a single-payer system (with most of us thinking it was our choice) now is the time to explain why they must buy insurance that they already could not afford and why that insurance must become more expensive when they buy it. Make no mistake, the other guys will try to blame it on those mean old insurance companies but remind the public about how these people so obviously lie and then lie about lying (see Jay Carney earlier; there are no scandals). Now is the time to reach out to those who still want to believe, because now is the time that the truth is clear… this Administration is pushing their agenda the consequences to the American people be damned!

   In closing, no Nancy conservatives don’t need to grab onto “non-issues” to have excuses to attack the Occupier we need to make sure all Americans know the truth about real issues because to this point the press has not. No Harry, you are wrong, regardless of who’s in charge when the IRS abuses it’s power it is a big deal! No Jay, the press and the big scary conservatives are not just concocting scandals your boss is doing that all on his own by not honoring his oath to protect and defend the Constitution! No Eric, you do not deserve respect for your job title while you have done nothing to earn respect that comes with job performance. No Chris Matthews, we are not opposed to the criminal policies of the Obama White House because of racism but because those policies are often criminal and almost totally unconstitutional. We know, however, liars are going to lie and politicians are going to try to protect their party so we don’t expect you to change or to come clean until you have absolutely no choice. I do hope that all of the press has learned from that awkward moment when they found out that this Administration is more than happy to use them but in no way sees them as a real partner for change (they are no more special than the public). That leaves my final question for the average Democratic voter. You’ve been watching this unfold. You now know that they have been lying to you, that they are still lying to you (there is no point in lying to the people who wouldn’t support them anyway). Are you still going to support them? Are you going to accept their lies and say to them that it’s okay to lie to me because you are just so much smarter than me and you know what’s best for all of us? Are you just going to keep on drinking the “Kool-Aid”? If so…. Then what’s wrong with you?                 

This past week Paul Ryan unveiled his new budget proposal. In the past Ryan could be counted on for strong, common sense, conservative number crunching that used budget cuts and entitlement reforms to push the Federal government toward spending with-in the limits of the revenue that it was generating. (That would taxes.) His past efforts also included “Growth-Oriented” tax reforms with an eye on improving the economy so that the government could take in more money without raising taxes on the American people. I’m afraid that this year’s effort fell short of his previous work. In fact, I’d say some conservative principles were missing completely.

   Ryan’s proposal does balance the budget… in ten years. There is no doubt that given the current level of dependence on government programs/ government spending, that balancing the budget will cause pain for many Americans and that the faster you make those cuts the more it will hurt those folks. But, we are past the point of making these reforms painless; the longer you draw it out the more you run the risk of the needed reforms being too little too late. Think about these reforms like pulling off a band-aid… the faster you pull it off the more it’ll hurt in the short term but the faster you’ll feel better in the long term. Plus, regardless of how long it takes to get there, when was the last time Congress has done anything that is planned for four years or longer and not made changes to it within two or three years? The point… even if this got passed and signed into law (which it won’t) Congress would monkey with it well before the ten years this plan needs.

    Ryan’s proposal cuts the growth of spending to about 3.4 percent per year compared to the nearly five percent that the current continuing resolutions would continue adding each year. It also cuts about five trillion dollars from current spending. But, unfortunately, it relies on Obama’s $618 billion fiscal cliff tax increase and the $1 trillion Obamacare tax hikes to balance. The budget does repeal Obamacare spending, insurance exchange subsidies and Medicaid expansion, but keeps the taxes. Two tax increases that the Republicans fought (but lost) to protect Americans from, now becomes a main stay of the budget for the next decade. Does that sound very conservative to you?

   Like last year, Ryan protects defense from sequestration cuts. This is good. As North Korea’s posturing shows, the world is not a safer place today. But the national defense budget has been reduced by Obama’s just when U.S. forces need to be replenished and modernized. Ryan’s budget essentially adopts the defense spending caps in the Budget Control Act without sequestration. This is better than Obama’s inadequate funding for current and future needs, and certainly better than the sequester, but is still way less than what is needed.

   There is entitlement reform but most of it is focused on Medicare reform. It comes in the form of Ryan’s signature solution of a premium support model. While moving to a patient-centered model would free retirees from having to depend on the unstable and unsustainable government run program; it will be attacked as a means to put more money in the hands of the rich without care for the well-being of the poor. If the Republicans would do a better job explaining the benefits of doing this, it would be a win for conservatives, but they have never been good at educating the public on entitlement reform. Also of note, this budget offers no Social Security reforms.

   The spending caps of the Budget Control Act on “non-defense discretionary” spending is extended for two years and kept at sequestration levels. It also looks to consolidate the federal government’s 49 job training programs, and takes steps toward reining in farm subsidies. It rejects closing tax “loopholes” just to raise revenue. True tax reform should be revenue neutral as any revenue raised by closing a “loophole” should be offset by lowering tax rates. These are all good things.

   There are some very good points to this proposal. There are some troubling points as well. In the end it won’t matter as the Senate will never pass a budget like this and Obama would never sign if it did make it to his desk.

   At some point the Republicans will have to prove that they are serious about the budget. That starts with no longer passing continuing resolutions. If it is necessary to shut down the government to bring the Democrats to the table then do it! Then they must stand on principle. If you repeal Obamacare then that includes all the tax increases that come with it. You must cut spending! Entitlement reform must happen, and that means sooner rather than later. If you don’t do this things then nothing will happen to make things better for any of us and we will all go down together.

Tim Tapp

Religious Freedom!


“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ;” Those are the first words of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America. This is our constitutional guarantee of religious freedom here in America but it is also the basis of the legal concept of separation of church and state.

The concept of separation of church and state, as it was intended, was and still is vital to maintaining religious liberties. The problem is today too many people have come to believe that this separation means that there is to be no expression of anything remotely religious by any branch, form, or activity at any level of our government. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written in simple, clear, and concise language so that there would be very little room for misunderstanding and no need for interpretation. There is also a reason why freedom of speech immediately follows freedom of religion in the First Amendment. (Not just to protect political speech but religious speech as well.)

The separation is clearly meant to protect all those of faith, and no faith at all, from being persecuted by any majority. No one religion, or denomination there of, can be made the mandatory faith of the nation. All are free to practice, or not, (with few exceptions) as they see fit. That is the limit of this separation. It does not equate to freedom from religion. Let me say that again. Freedom of religion does not equal freedom from religion.

Too often in recent history our court system has taken the slant that the separation is somehow supposed to protect people of differing spiritual backgrounds from being offended by someone else’s spiritual practices. In an effort to keep from offending others our courts (pushed by activist groups like the A.C.L.U.) have endeavored to sanitize religion from almost every aspect of daily government business and every single special occasion that a school or city hall might have cause to recognize, i.e. Thanksgiving, Christmas, Easter, Hanukah, etc. All of this done (using separation of church and state as the lynch pin of their argument) in the name of protecting the delicate sensibilities of a hypersensitive minority who don’t seem to understand that just because they are offended by something doesn’t mean that their rights are being violated.

No one has the civil right to not be offended! In fact, I would say that with the proper application of freedom of speech and of the press, it is pretty much guaranteed that everyone will be offended by something at some time. It is not a violation of your civil rights if you are; a Christian and you see me wearing a Star of David, a Jew and you see me unroll a prayer rug and start praying toward Mecca, a Muslim and you see me wearing a cross or an “I Love Jesus” tee-shirt.

If in a court building there are monuments to ideas and documents of historical significance to the foundation of our legal system then it is wholly reasonable that the Ten Commandments be present just as mush as the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Magna Carta, or any other such deemed worthy. This is not about establishment of religion but recognition of the historical impact that the Ten Commandments had on the legal system of the United States. Having the Ten Commandments, or any other scripture from any holy book or teaching for that matter, posted in a government building does not mean that you must follow that faith to expect equal treatment in your dealings there. If you feel that you are being discriminated against just because of a sign or a plaque is hanging somewhere in a building do you really think your business there will be handled any differently if that sign was not there?

If city hall has a nativity scene at Christmas does it cause you harm to see it if you’re not a Christian? Is it worse if that same city hall, in an effort to be more inclusive, adds Hanukah and Kwanza symbols to there holiday display? I have heard representatives of the A.C.L.U. say that it is worse and still demand that there be no non-secular displays. If a high school football game is opened with a prayer is anyone being hurt? Are players, coaches, or fans of a different spiritual background being prevented from participating because of the prayer? Is anyone’s civil rights being violated?

Don’t get me wrong. There are limits. No one should be directly or indirectly challenging you or your beliefs in these settings. No one should be actively working against your best interests based solely on your beliefs. However, the saying of a prayer before a high school graduation is not a challenge of anyone’s beliefs just an expression of the majority’s beliefs. While this may lead to feelings of being uncomfortable by those of a different spiritual leaning, being uncomfortable is not a violation of your civil rights.

Now to be hardcore about this issue the Constitution is a document intended to limit the scope and power of the federal government of the United States while guareenting many basic rights to the states and the citizens. The founders never thought in terms of the publics schools being a function of the government, especially the federal government. These facts alone beg the question does the separation of church and state as stated in the Constitution even apply to locally run and funded school systems or state court houses. Legal rulings and judgement after judgement have sided with the side of secularism but these rulings have been made by activist judges on the same side as the secularist or by judges who seek to protect the rights of a minority without addressing the basic question of wheither or not any rights are actually being challenged or violated.

To sum up; you have the right to be uncomfortable and or offended, you have the right to believe or not believe however you choose, you have the right to express your political, social, and religious beliefs. Your rights are not being infringed upon if you are exposed to the ideas or beliefs of others. Your rights are being infringed upon if you are being forced into active participation of anothers faith based activities or are being excluded from activities, honors, recognition, or actions of justice based on your faith or lack there of being different from those in a position of authority.