A stylized representation of a red flag, usefu...

Image via Wikipedia

The government employee unions created by PERA may be the single largest obstacle to restoring the state’s prosperity. Collective bargaining for government employees is not an inalienable right, and its practice in Michigan has added billions of dollars to the cost of government. The repeal or restructuring of PERA could resolve the state’s chronic fiscal crisis. PERA is long overdue for a thorough re-examination, leading to the rewriting or repeal of the law. (source)

I, as anyone who has ever read my blog or talked to me, am not a union supporter. Now, I do believe, that at one time in our history unions were needed and did provide for the betterment of the American Workforce, but that day is long gone. No-longer do we need a socialistic group to represent the collective needs of its workers. The American workforce landscape has changed. The unions represent a group think that is not positive to the economy nor to the workers they are to represent.

The protest and reactions to local and state governments trying to get there financial houses in order is a testament to how out of touch the unions are. This country is in a depression, economically as well as morally. We are spending more than we have, yet the unions still feel they are owed more and more, unwilling to give up, as the privet sector has. We can not continue in in this fashion if we ever wish to dig our way out of this hell hole we have placed our selves in. 

I have often asked, “If unions are so good, and so helpful, than why are people forced to join?” Common sense dictates that if a particular institution was beneficial to me, I would, of my own will join it. But unions offer me no choice, if I wish to teach, I must join the union, if I wish to become a fire fighter, I must join the union… Even if I do not wish to do so… Sounds like forced participation to me. Yet if I forced everyone who worked for my company to become a Catholic or they could not work for me, I would be accused of discrimination, and rightly so. Yet with unions ( a form or socialism) it is perfectly acceptable, and in fact it is law. Hmmm….

I believe that unions once served a purpose, but that time has passed us by. It is time to move on, its time to start to take responsibility unto yourselves. Unions, to me, take away my personal responsibility and places it in to the hands of people with there own personal agenda. I advocate myself to others, not a good thing.

The United States of America is going through a change, we are growing up, and the times of the Unions is coming to an end, and God willing it will end peacefully.


God Bless


Enhanced by Zemanta

IS it to Far off?

health-care-reform-in-the-199027s-722130The so called Health Care Bill is just one step in many that will turn our great country in to a Socialist State. Consider the following, the government owns or controls:

  1. General Motors
  2. Chrysler
  3. Fannie Mae
  4. Freddie Mac
  5. Financial Institutions
  6. Mortgage Institutions

And now Health Care, and if you consider all the regulations they own our schools Hillsdaleand with Cap and Trade (Cap and Tax) they will own our corporations. The More taxies and regulations the more ownership they gain. How far off do you think it really is before they “own” our faith?

You think I am crying wolf, that I an a chicken little who is yelling that the sky is falling?  Consider this from Hillsdale College’s publication “Imprimis” (The full article is on their website):

Threats to American Philanthropy

…But this freedom to give is now under serious threat. Let me mention three kinds of proposals coming from Capitol Hill, the IRS, state governments, and sometimes from the charitable sector itself, that should be of concern to all Americans.

The first threat comes in the form of one-size-fits-all governance and regulatory proposals that would limit the diversity and independence of the charitable world. In 2003, for instance, Eliot Spitzer, then Attorney General of New York, proposed a prohibition on foundations with less than $20 million in assets. His rationale was that there were too many foundations for regulatory authorities to monitor and police. In 2004, the staff of the Senate Finance Committee proposed that tax-exempt status for charities and foundations be renewed every five years and be contingent on accreditation. In 2007, a top IRS official gave a series of speeches proposing that the IRS evaluate the effectiveness and the governance of public charities and foundations. In 2008, the California State Assembly passed a bill requiring large foundations to disclose the racial, ethnic, and gender composition of their staffs and boards, as well as those of their vendors and grantees. And just two months ago, the Congressional Research Service published a report calling for a new oversight agency for charities and foundations.

The second threat is the increasingly common argument that foundation assets are “public money” and that decisions about grant-making are subject to political control. This argument was made most recently by a prominent member of Congress, Xavier Becerra. He referred to the tax-favored treatment of charitable giving as a “$32 billion earmark” and warned foundations that Congress has an obligation to ensure that philanthropic assets advance the public good.

The Philanthropy Roundtable recently published a monograph that took strong issue with this public money argument. It reviewed the legal history of tax-favored treatment for charitable giving, and it showed conclusively that foundations and other charitable organizations do not lose their private character when they benefit from favorable tax treatment. Moreover, as Chief Justice John Marshall wrote in 1819, in the case of Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, the grant of a state charter does not render a non-profit corporation and its assets subordinate to that state. Foundations and other charities do have public purposes, and state attorneys general do have the parens patriae power to enforce foundations’ adherence to their stated charitable purposes. But this does not mean that charitable organizations must serve the same ends as those of government or that government may unduly intrude in their governance and other decision-making.

A historic covenant has governed foundations—namely, that they must use their charitable assets for genuinely charitable purposes. Foundation trustees cannot use those assets to fund their daughters’ weddings, for instance, or their favorite political candidates. But so long as they use their assets for charitable purposes and follow some basic disclosure rules, foundations should have wide discretion to choose where to give their money and how to make their charitable contributions.

The third threat to the freedom of American philanthropy is in the form of proposals that would restrict what kind of giving is considered charitable. A growing number of such proposals, for instance, would limit the charitable deduction to direct help for racial minorities and low-income families and communities. Those are worthy purposes for charitable giving, but they are not the only worthy purposes. Americans of all races and income levels can benefit from giving to religious institutions, colleges and universities, hospitals and medical research, the arts, the environment, and many other causes that would not fall under some of the narrow definitions being proposed. Government should not be picking winners and losers in philanthropic giving. Americans should make their charitable decisions themselves….

The simple fact that the government now seems to feel that they need to regulate our donations and control who we choose to support should scare the hell out of everyone. The Nanny state is now becoming the socialist state, a state that controls your money. And who ever controls your money controls you. The day the my free will offering to my Church is scrutinized is the day that America passes the turn-around, we will be beyond the point of return.

Mary_Rosary-3If the government in America can even consider such a bill is scary. How far behind can be a bill that will decide what is and what is not a faith, what is and what is not acceptable religious practices. Will the Catholic Faith be deemed unacceptable? Will our devotions to Mary be considered a cult and not a devotion of our faith.

Are we willing to risk it? Are we willing to allow our government to decide for us what we can and can not believe? I, for one, am truly scared and I, for one, am going to pray for a conversion of hearts with in our government, but I am also going to exercise my rights as a citizen of the United States of American and vote this November for the conservatives who believe in individual freedom and the basic rights of each and every citizen.

As Catholics we are obligated to vote and as Catholics we are obligated to vote for representatives that will up hold our Constitution and or freedoms. We MUST make our voices heard, we must take back our country and our freedoms. The liberals are killing our faith and country and we need to fight back!

Stand UP! Speak Out! and Fight Back!

God Bless


Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto
Ephesians 6:10-11“[The Armor of God] Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes.”

Brought to you by BibleGateway.com. Copyright (C) . All Rights Reserved.

It ain’t fair! … So What!

fairness Last night I was reading an article in Townhall magazine about fairness. The basic point was this, liberals love to say things are unfair. It’s a battle cry for any issue that does not agree with their twisted out look on life. I found the article interesting for a few reasons, 1) I agree with the stance the article took 2) It is relevant to this whole issue of health care 3) It ties in to this mess with in the Catholic Church at the moment.

Taking each point, lets look at this:

Point 1:

The article took the stance that life ain’t fair and sometimes being fair is not the best course of action.  For life not being fair, lets just look at some very basic concepts. Were I am born and to whom I am born can have a major impact on my life. If I am lucky to be born to a rich family that loves me and in a safe environment than life was good to me. But if I was born to a poor family with out love and an environment that is hostile, well life was unfair to me. But such is life. We can not control who is born to whom and were (even though Planed Parenthood is trying to). And we can not force a parent to love a child. Life just ain’t fair at times, that’s just the way it is. But fairness in nit just based on location, you can have to people raised in the same area and just as much love from the parents but one is the first born the other is not. Scientific proof states that on average the first born child has an higher IQ than non-first born children. That’s not fair, but not much we can do about it.

Examples can go on and on of just plain unfairness but lets look at something “we can control”

berkeley_1 Berkeley High School in California wants to eliminate three science teachers positions and use the money to level the playing field form the minority students. This sounds good, they want to use the money to give them more one on one service, to teach them note taking skills and studying skills. Like I said, sounds all good, who could disagree with that idea. Well maybe the three science teachers and the other students who do not receive this “extra” help to get passing grades. Nope the other students must rely on the old fashion way of getting good grades. They have to work hard and study. Studies have shown that one of the major differences between the minority and non-minority students was their drive and habits. So we reward the students who look at their social lives as more important than their study life. This seems extremely unfair to the the students that do the hard work to earn the grades, yet the liberals fail to see this.

Fairness is not a universal right, not even in the United States to we claim that. The constitution on declares that we have the right to the pursuit of happiness and that we have the right to be treated fairly.

So tell me how the students who are not getting the extra help is being treated fairly? If Berkeley is a school of academic excellence, than but its very charter it is not a fair school, it is a school for the high achievers, not the average or below average students.

Point 2:

The current debate over Universal Health Care in the united states can be stated as a  heart basic fairness question. Is it fair that some have insurance and others do not? This basic question is the whole issue is summed up in that one question.

So is it fair?

Once again, life ain’t fair. I work hard and have good health care coverage. But I have also been out of work with no insurance and have had insurance that was basically worthless. I never looked at health care coverage as an entitlement or a statement of fairness. All things considered, if health care is a fairness issue, than the privet sector insurance companies should be outlawed. The freedom to choose my own level of coverage means that I can choose to have a greater coverage that others, and in doing so creating an unfair situation.

I do think that the American health system needs to be overhauled, but I do not think that Universal Health is the answer, nor to I think that it is a question of fairness. I do believe that all should have access to health coverage, but we should be allowed the freedom to choose the level we want, with out punishment of taxation.

Point 3:

your_fair_share_aint_in_my_wallet_sticker-p217488160840968313tdcj_210 The current state of affairs in the Catholic Church is sad at best. We have a subset of Catholics who use the battle cry of “Fairness” as the tool to chip away at the cornerstone of the Church. They cry unfair concerning male only priesthood and celibacy. They cry unfair in the teaching of sex outside of marriage and same sex union. They look for fairness that fits in to there narrow view of the faith, yet see no unfairness in there actions of persecution of the faithful that do not agree with the theology of the fairness doctrine.

The modern Catholic Church is being duped in to the fairness of things regardless of the history, Traditions or meaning of certain aspects of the faith. They are allowing the liberal point of view and perverted view of the Church and world to cloud there eyes.

Fairness is not about sameness but about access and opportunity. It is fair to give all Catholic the opportunity to serve the Church and God, but not all opportunities are the same. I do not have the drive or the ability to be a world leader in apologetics, I would love to be like Scott Hahn, but do not have the smarts. Is that unfair? should I demand that they lower the bar so that I too can claim to be at the same level as Mr. Hahn? No that would be truly unfair to him and deceitful to not only me but to the public. My gifts and opportunities lie elsewhere with in the Church. Not all are called to serve at the same level or in the same capacity nor should they be. If we were all priest or scalars, who would we be shepherding or teaching?

Fairness is not a right but opportunity is, both in the world and the Church.

So stop whining and do something about it. Educate yourself look for opportunities and take the risks.

God Bless


Many Are Called: Rediscovering the Glory of the Priesthood


Romans 15:13“May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace as you trust in him, so that you may overflow with hope by the power of the Holy Spirit.”

Brought to you by BibleGateway.com. Copyright (C) . All Rights Reserved.

The Power of Emotions

Emotions can help you or hinder you, it is up to you. I have often talked about how our attitudes will shape our our comes, how we can think our way in to a new you. The opposite is also true, we can think ourselves out of a new you, we can think ourselves in to the same old same old.

The power of positive thinking is only defeated by the power of negative thinking. The human mind is capable of many great things, it has the power to land a man on the moon and to start horrific wars, the same mind can do both. Our capability is only limited by our lack of imagination. Our greatness is with in us, and only our emotions keep us from achieving our goals.

The power of negative thinking can be overwhelming, and in today’s society, the negative takes the forefront, over shadowing all other emotions. We are encourage to feel the negative emotions, we are made to feel sub-human if we do not. New daily news feeds off of our fears, manufacturing crisis after crisis, our schools teach our children fear (unproven global warming science) and our government thrives off our fears grabbing ever larger portions of the privet sector.

We as a collective mind buy in to the fear, we all look for the negative emotions and try to use it to our advantage, we publically state our shock and outrage but privately we are celebrating the momentary power surge we receive. 

If we truly wish to change, to grow in to a better self we need to learn to control the negative emotions, we need to learn not to buy in to the mass hysteria that drives the masses. To so called “true feelings” of negatives need to diverted in to a positive. The task at hand is truly a monumental task, all the forces of humanity are working to control you, to scare you in to a submission, the choice is yours.

Here are some things to consider concerning negative emotions:

Anxiety and fear strips away courage and makes great performances impossible.

Doubt makes even the best decisions feel difficult and causes procrastination.

Anger rips your focus away from your goals.

Frustration can only serve to make you quit.

Guilt makes it impossible to enjoy any successes you achieve.

Jealousy and envy create dishonesty, hate and corruption. Your thoughts and emotions are the only things that can truly stop you.