Listen to God\’s Voice

Words of wisdom for today

Archive for the ‘Important Questions’ Category

Congress and the Constitution

Congress for a long time has been skirting around their constitutional authority. Now they are getting just plain bold in sticking their nose up at the constitution. In fact they are just plain going against what the constitution says is their area of authority.

from resistnetdotcom

Written by tfheringer

November 24, 2009 at 4:05 pm

Little Town Bullied Out of Prayer

from CADC


Thursday, 17 September 2009 16:02

The City Council of Tehachapi, California has become another victim of bullying by the Freedom from Religion Foundation. Tehachapi City Hall

In keeping with their customary practice, the Tehachapi city council invited local clergy to open up its meetings with prayer. But the Freedom from Religion Foundation has threatened to sue because some prayers have been offered in Jesus’ name.

This bullying tactic is regularly used to intimidate small cities into eliminating all signs of religious expression because of the high cost of defending their rights.

The Supreme Court has already ruled that it is Constitutional to begin meetings with prayer. But to avoid a costly battle, the Tehachapi council decided they would say the Pledge of Allegiance instead.


Contact the Tehachapi City Council today and encourage them to stand up for their Constitutional rights! Tell them to pray and say the pledge!

Written by tfheringer

September 17, 2009 at 7:17 pm

Obama urges "fair-minded" abortion debate – Alain’s Response

from alains newsletter

Obama urges “fair-minded” abortion debate – Alain’s Response

I just read the report on the news that in Obama’s speech at Notre Dame he called for a “fair minded” abortion debate. Well I am giving him MY response. Please read the news report, then after it read my response to Obama.

Alain Reuters

SOUTH BEND, Indiana (Reuters) – President Barack Obama urged both sides in the abortion debate on Sunday to pursue a “fair-minded” discussion as he sought to quell a firestorm over his invitation to speak at Notre Dame, a premier U.S. Catholic university.

Notre Dame’s decision to confer an honorary degree on Obama and invite him to be the keynote speaker for the commencement sparked petitions and several days of protests. Some students vowed to boycott the commencement.

But the speech itself drew mostly cheers, applause and standing ovations.

Critics who said Obama’s support for abortion rights violated Catholic Church doctrine had sought to have the invitation rescinded but the university refused.

Interrupted at times by hecklers, Obama said he recognized the strong emotions stirred up by the abortion debate but he urged the two sides to try to find common ground, such as preventing unintended pregnancies.

“I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away,” Obama said. “Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction. But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature.”

“Let us work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions. Let’s reduce unintended pregnancies. Let’s make adoption more available. Let’s provide care and support for women who do carry their child to term,” Obama told the crowd of 12,000 at a huge athletic facility.

His appearance was mostly warmly welcomed by the crowd, which gave him several standing ovations.


But at a few points during the speech, he was interrupted by hecklers, including one who shouted, “Abortion is murder.” That heckler was booed by the audience.

Some graduates displayed a print of a cross symbol and two baby feet on their caps while others wore caps that said “Viva Obama.”

Outside the commencement, hundreds of protesters gathered and carried signs that said “Notre Dame supports violence” and “Thou shall not kill.”

As Obama spoke, protesters chanted outside the arena entrance: “One, two, three, four. Throw Obama out the door.”

At least 22 protesters were arrested after they walked past a piece of yellow police tape they had been told not to cross, according to police.

Norma McCorvey, the Jane Roe of the landmark Roe vs. Wade case that legalized abortion, was among the first protesters arrested at Notre Dame. A Catholic convert, McCorvey is now active in the anti-abortion.

Tony Ughetti, of Spring, Texas, said he watched as McCorvey asked the officers, “How do I get arrested?”

Ughetti said that in response to the Notre Dame decision to invite Obama, he got rid of books, T-shirts and other Notre Dame memorabilia in his home.

“We disposed of over 40 Notre Dame items from our house…I wanted to burn them but my wife took them to Goodwill (charity). Our house is now Notre Dame-free,” he said.

A smaller group of those outside were there in support of Obama’s visit. Carrying a sign reading “Welcome President Obama,” Bill Dillon, of South Bend, said he thought Obama was being treated unfairly.

“I don’t think they should call Obama a murderer,” said Dillon, a 1951 graduate in aeronautical engineering.

Catholics are the largest single denomination in the United States, making up nearly a quarter of the population. More than half of the adult population is Protestant but that is split among many denominations.

Many Catholics agreed with the university’s decision to invite Obama to speak at the commencement, according to a poll by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.

Fifty percent of those in the poll agreed with the university’s invitation to Obama while 28 percent opposed it. The rest were undecided or had no opinion.

Dear President Obama,

You asked for a fair minded Debate on the issue of abortion. Well let me explain my opinion on this matter, which you should also really come to understand is probably also the position of close to half the voting population of the United states.

I received a letter from one of your fellow liberal thinkers a while ago, and I explained the viewpoint of myself, and many others in this country, to him in a simple letter back to him. Perhaps this simple, straight forward explanation is one that you can understand.

One thing I have noticed dramatically since you have come to power, you seem to have forgotten that nearly half of the country does not agree with you on so many things, yet you want to ram down our throats every far far left item from the liberal agenda all at one time.

Here is the letter he wrote to me:

Subject: I don’t fully understand your ideas, could you assist me please?

Before I ask my question I wish to say beforehand, I’m not asking this out of spite or any sort of hateful thoughts. I’m just curious about your stance on abortion, why are you so set in your ways against it when abortion can both control human population (and we are in a population crisis) and has the purposefully hidden consenquinse of lowering crime. but ill not get into that argument, for it isn’t proper conversation.

Please forgive my horrable writing, and please don’t think me a fool for asking. Maybe we can have a civil discusion as time progresses, but for now ill say fare well and thank you for replying.

Jonathan Mxxxxxx

Now President Obama, here is my response. I hope you will read it carefully, and possible try to grasp the simple principles involved here.

Dear Jonathan,

Why am I so against abortion? I am against it because it is murder of an innocent human life, plain and simple.

As for controlling the population and crime, you sound pretty selfish if you can present an argument for destroying the weakest of the human race to better the lives of the others, i.e., yourself.

We could just as easily control population and crime by killing adults, I mean if you follow this argument why place limitations?

Why not kill off all the old people as well. After all they do not produce for society but take from it.

We could also kill the ill and infirm since they are a constant drain on our resources.

We could kill the people with lower IQ’s, I mean only the intelligent should benefit from living right?

Oh, then we must also most definitely kill those who look different or think different. I mean, where would we be if people were not like you, or disagreed with you, and these people were allowed to keep on breathing.

Where do you draw the line??

Once the value of life is removed, the only limitations are those placed by those in control.

A man named Hitler went this route. His reasoning was to control what he saw as overpopulation by those who were detrimental to his view of society.

As for discussion, there is none. I am absolute in my values of innocent life, and there is no argument you or anyone else out there will ever be able to bring to me that will sway my opinion on this.

Especially since almost every single person out there who supports the so-called “Choice” of a woman to kill their children are some of the most self-centered selfish people in our day and age.

They believe in the “do it if it feels good and go on living without any consequence” mentality.

I believe in moral absolutes. Some things are unbending, unchanging. This does not matter whether you agree or disagree it is just simple fact.

Some times there is NO SHADE of GREY, just simple black and white, good and evil, right and wrong. This is one of those things.


One last thing President Obama, and I hope you really take this to heart. You have so many “changes” on your plate right now, and you have half of the country soundly against you on almost all of these. Here is one simple thought, to HELP you further your many agendas.

Give us THIS ONE.

Outlaw abortion in our great nation. Flat and Simple.

Take a lesson from the Dominican Republic, which in April Passed Bill to Preserve Life.

I soundly believe that if you grant us this, the end of what we see as the incoherent slaughter of our nations young, you will find a true place in history and probably much less resistance to so many of your other radical ideas and “Changes” that you are trying to implement.

Think on this, and thank you for taking the time to listen to this requested response to a “fair minded” abortion debate.

Hate-crime Laws and the Day of the Pink Guillotine

from the jbs

Written by Selwyn Duke

Wednesday, 29 April 2009 01:43

Scales of JusticeHate Crime law HR-1913 may offer federal protection to 30 different “sexual orientations.” Yet, as alarming as this is, the problem with hate-crime laws doesn’t lie in the details. It lies in the laws themselves.
In another example of creating specially-protected classes of people, the government is poised to offer homosexuals and other groups defined by sexual behavior protected status under federal hate-crime law. And the scope of the bill is great, encompassing a whole host of sexual perversions. Standard Newswire provides the following information:

. . . the House Judiciary Committee refused to exclude pedophiles from the bill’s protection. The Committee also refused to include veterans. Moreover, the bill does not include the elderly.
H.R. 1913 (Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009) is not about stopping crime but is designed to give "actual or perceived" sexual preference or "gender identity" (which is still classified as a mental disorder) the same legal status as race. The DSM IVR (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual used by psychologists and psychiatrists to diagnose mental disorders) lists more than 30 "sexual orientations" and "Gender Identity Disorders," including pedophilia. The hate crimes bill does not limit "sexual orientation" or "gender identity" and, thus, includes all these disorders and fetishes. The use of "actual or perceived" includes those with disorders or deviant sexual preferences and those who do not have such disorders or fetishes, so long as it is alleged that the person charged allegedly "thought" the other person had such [a] disorder or fetish.

As if this isn’t bad enough, many fear that the bill could also be used to stifle free speech. addresses this, writing that Texas congressman and former judge Louie Gohmert suggested that a hate-crime law “would add nothing but punishment for pastors who preach biblically held beliefs against homosexuality."
‘It would not take too many arrests to have an extraordinary chilling affect [sic] on some religious teachings with regard to sexual immorality,’ Gohmert claimed.”
This isn’t paranoia, as the pink guillotine has already used similar laws overseas to persecute people uttering unfashionable beliefs. For instance, Ake Green, a Swedish pastor imprisoned for preaching against homosexuality in a sermon. And then there was Bill Whatcott, a Christian who was fined $20,000 by the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission for criticizing homosexuality, just to mention a couple of cases.
Yet, whatever the details, it’s a mistake to become so immersed in them that we miss the big picture. Because the problem with hate-crime laws lies not in who is protected, who is punished and what the consequences are. It lies with the laws themselves.
Hate-crime laws punish thoughts and words. Consider this example: two crimes are committed, and they are identical in terms of the action undertaken. But they are prosecuted very differently. The perpetrator of the first crime is deemed to have been motivated by a politically-correct sin, greed, and receives five years in prison. The criminal hands in the second crime, however, are said to have been animated by “hate” – as defined by oh-so loving social engineers – thus, the perpetrator is sent away for 15 years.
Now, we can conclude that the act itself warranted five years prison, as that is what was handed down when only the act was considered. So, we have to ask, what were the extra 10 years given to Mr. Hate for? Could they perhaps be for the thoughts expressed through the act?
This brings us back to free-speech concerns. Whether or not HR-1913 itself would be used to stifle politically-incorrect criticism, there is no doubt that hate-crime laws in general are a transitional phase on the road to hate-speech laws. To illustrate why, consider how it is that a criminal act is deemed a hate crime. It is thus labeled when the perpetrator expresses displeasure with a group his victim is identified with during the commission of the act. But think about it: if the government can criminalize the expression of certain beliefs within one context, it is that much closer to criminalizing them within any context.
And, by and large, this is the goal of hate-crime law proponents. If they would deny this, I would issue the following challenge: if eliminating the violence in question really is your goal, let’s just increase the penalties for a given act to hate-crime levels regardless of the motivation. In other words, if you want “hate-crime” murderers to receive an extra 15 years, it can easily be accomplished by thus punishing all murderers. And if that level of punishment is needed to deter the behavior, doesn’t it make sense to apply it across-the-board? (I should mention an interesting contradiction here. Liberals have been scoffing at punishment for decades, lobbying against spanking and harsh sentences; they’ve called such things cruel and have often implied that they don’t even work. Yet, isn’t it funny that when it’s their emotional ox being gored, they suddenly believe harsh punishment is warranted and that its effectiveness is a given?)
But leftists won’t do this for a simple reason: they want to make a statement about the expression of certain ideas. Thus, they want individuals acting upon those ideas singled out for draconian punishment. And they can’t even defend their aims by likening them to broadcast indecency prohibitions. After all, it isn’t just group-specific epithets uttered during a crime that would bring hate-crime charges but anything relating a negative opinion about the group in question. In other words, they will punish not just mindless profanity, not just style, but also substance.
At the end of the day, hate-crime laws are yet another example of invidious leftist double standards. That is to say, if someone’s loved one is murdered because of good old-fashioned greed, will you be willing to look him in the eye and explain why it’s just that the perpetrator gets a slap on the wrist relative to a politically-incorrect, "hateful" killer? If not, you have no business supporting hate-crime laws.

Written by tfheringer

April 30, 2009 at 8:57 pm


from apprising ministries

By Ken Silva pastor-teacher on Apr 4, 2009 in Current Issues, Theology

Even as one who holds to the Biblical Reformed doctrines of grace it is still surprising how fast and how far this apostasy within mainstream evangelicalism is spreading. And with it a myriad of aberrant and heretical offshoots, one of which that’s gaining increasing popularity within the nearly spiritually comatose spiritually evanjellyfish is Open Theism (OT). A particularly popular preacher of OT would be Greg Boyd who’s especially soothing to the itching ears in the postliberal cult of  Emergence Christianity as evidenced by e.g. Rob Bell having Boyd come speak at his Mars Hill Bible Church.

Apprising Ministries believes that truly those who are apostatizing have no shame because not only are they attacking of God’s absolute sovereignty in man’s salvation but now they are even more boldly attacking the omniscience of the LORD God Almighty Creator of Heaven and earth. In this excellent and thoroughly Biblical article solidly refuting Boyd’s heretical dream of open theism Bob DeWaay writes:

In recent years, some evangelicals have rekindled an old controversy by asserting that God does not have exhaustive foreknowledge. That is to say that He does not know everything that is going to happen. This is an old controversy. For example, Jonathan Edwards devoted many pages of his famous book, A Careful and Strict Inquiry into the Modern Prevailing Notions of the Freedom of the Will, Which is Supposed to be Essential to Moral Agency, Virtue and Vice, Reward and Punishment, Praise and Blame (commonly known as Freedom of the Will for obvious reasons). Edwards wrote:

First, I am to prove, that God has an absolute and certain foreknowledge of the free actions of moral agents. One would think it should be wholly needless to enter on such an argument with any that profess themselves Christians: but so it is, God’s certain foreknowledge of the free acts of moral agents is denied by some that pretend to believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God; especially of late.

This was the situation in the eighteenth century. Edward’s work on this issue is profound and timeless. He supplies page after page of Scriptural proof that God foreknows the future choices of free moral agents. In this article I shall respond to a recent challenge issued in the book God of the Possible by Gregory A. Boyd. He writes: “What is particularly sad about the current state of this debate is that Scripture seems to be playing a small role in it. Most published criticisms raised against the open view have largely ignored the biblical grounds on which open theists base their position.”

If it is so that published criticisms do not interact with the specific Scriptures put forth to support the “open” position, then I shall make a contribution toward rectifying this. In this essay I will interact with several of Dr. Boyd’s key proof texts, though space does not permit dealing with all of them. I shall show that the passages cited, if taken in their Biblical context, do not prove Dr. Boyd’s assertion that God lacks knowledge of some of the future… (Online source)

Less specific to the musings of Greg Boyd, in his excellent four part look at the heresy of Open Theism, Dr. Gary Gilley begins:

Any war is composed of major battles and minor skirmishes. The skirmishes, while often little more than irritants in the big picture, nevertheless cannot be ignored. True casualties are often the result of such conflict and the military ignores them at its own peril. Still, the war is won or lost on the front lines where the primary clash is taking place. So it is on the Christian battlefield. Relatively minor challenges to truth are constant. Overemphasis on this doctrine, ignorance of another, inordinate attention on emotions here, encroachment of the world’s mindset there.

Such altercations are disregarded at the high price of casualties among believers and churches alike. While we agree with the Puritan Richard Baxter that “charity should be practiced in all things”, we must also recognize that minor attacks on our flank, left unchallenged and uncorrected, tend to evolve into full-blown invasions that threaten the very heart of the church. Such is the issue before us today.

Open theism (also known as free-will theism, open theology and openness of God) was, until recently, a little-known stirring on the fringes of the evangelical camp. In 1980, few noticed and fewer cared about perennial rebel Clark Pinnock and his friends, who claimed they had discovered the “true” biblical understanding of God. But more recently their views have both matured and emerged into the mainstream of Christian thought through the writings of among others, Pinnock, Gregory A. Boyd, professor of theology at Bethel College (Baptist General Conference) and Professor John Sanders.

More lethal is the fact that this new concept of God is sneaking in through the backdoor of the camp by means of popular writers such as Phil Yancey, and the influence of men like Gilbert Bilezikian, who, as the resident theologian of the Willow Creek Community Church , wields tremendous power over the minds of many modern church leaders. Others in line with Yancey and Bilezikian include devotional/mystical writer Richard Foster and theologian Donald Bloesch. Particular danger of this latter group is that they may seldom, if ever, admit to holding open theistic convictions but espouse those views in attractive formats (e.g. Yancey’s popular book, Disappointment with God)… (Online source)  

See also:

Part Two Part Three Part Four

Answering Greg Boyd’s Openness of God Texts

Open Theism Part One

The Foreknowledge of God

Monergism: Open Theism

What Is Open Theism?

Pastoral Implications of Open Theism

The New Utility: Cloud Computing March 6, 2009

from cio update

By Andy Patrizio

Cloud services will be what the electrical grid was a century ago: the basis for a whole new set of services, markets and possibilities that can change the way we live and operate, but also threaten the dominant computing hierarchy, said Nicholas Carr, controversial author of Does IT Matter?, in his closing keynote speech at the IDC Directions ’09 conference. The theme of the day was cloud computing.

Carr’s 2008 book The Big Switch compared cloud computing with how electricity was generated a century ago, and his speech built on that. Back in the 1800s, individual businesses built their own power generators. Sitting next to a company, whether it was a steel mill or a factory, was its own power plant. The advent of Thomas Edison’s direct current (DC) power allowed for the creation of power plants that let companies simply pay for it from a third-party. DC power had a short transmission length, however, and in 1910, 60% of firms still generated their own power.

It was the arrival of alternating current (AC) from mad genius Nikola Tesla that allowed for long distance power transmission. Now, we’re all plugged into the power grid and our lights, appliances and computers are powered by giant utilities. Carr didn’t have a modern day equivalent to Tesla, but believes AC has arrived in the form of cloud computing. “We are moving today to a different assumption, where more and more it capabilities and services and assets will be supplied as services over a network,” he told the audience.

Essence of Virtualization

Computing power has become so cheap today, you can take things that existed as hardware, servers and storage, and turn it into pure software and run it on other computers, Carr said. “This is the essence of virtualization,” he said. “The price of computing will go way, way down and accessibility of computing will go way, way up. That will force companies to re-think how they build their products and connect with customers.”

He quoted Eric Schmidt, current CEO of Google, who said back in 1993 when he was CTO of Sun Microsystems: “When the network becomes as fast as the processor, the computer hollows out and spreads across the network.”

The Internet is becoming exactly what Schmidt predicted, Carr said, “a shared computer everyone can tap into and use for whatever, and at a price much cheaper than before.”

Moving to on-demand computing means a much greater pairing of capacity and demand, as companies will pay for what they need, as opposed to maintaining this steady amount of capacity that’s sometimes underutilized, other times over utilized. Capacity can adjust to customer needs and they only pay for what they need. To illustrate his point, Carr cited a big computing job at The New York Times. The venerable newspaper had scanned all of its issues dating back to the mid-1800s in TIFF file format, which is very big.

Faced with converting 4TB of TIFF files to something more usable, an IT staffer at the Times rented time on a 100 virtual machines on Amazon EC2 to convert all the TIFF files to PDF, which is smaller, lighter and easier to transfer over the Internet. The job was done in 24 hours and cost $240. It was a lot cheaper than tying up Times company servers for hours or days on the conversion—assuming the company had the horsepower to spare.

Related Articles

“I don’t think companies have realized what this is going to mean,” said Carr. “Not only what they can do quickly and cheaply without having to make a big investment, but the IT department won’t be the bottleneck for big computing jobs within the company.”

Written by tfheringer

March 10, 2009 at 4:25 pm

Harry Reid: "It’s Not Nationalization"

from the JBS


Written by Christopher S. Bentley

Tuesday, 24 February 2009 14:17


I’m sure this joke has been around a loooonnng time, but I only first heard it in college.
Q: “How can you tell when a politician is lying?”
A: “His lips are moving.”

A little harsh, however….
















“I never obstructed justice.” “I’m not a crook.”

“Read my lips: no new taxes!”

“I did not have sexual relations with that woman Monica Lewinsky.”

“Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths … to build and keep weapons of mass destruction”


But what happens when certain politicians are confronted with evidence and facts so incontrovertible, that they have no choice to admit they were wrong?
They tell the truth, right?
Well, not really.

“It depends upon what the meaning of the word is… is…”

“I don’t think we force people. Our system of government is a voluntary tax system…. The fact of the matter is our system is a voluntary system.”

Perhaps Senator Reid missed the point that the people who are in prison who voluntarily decided not to pay, or whose assets the IRS seized, would beg to differ. But that’s a discussion for another time.
When I first saw Senator Reid’s rhetorical tap dance about voluntary taxes I thought it would be unmatched by any subsequent comments he might ever make.
I was wrong.
Now we’re told that the government taking over the banking system is not “nationalization.”

As Senator Reid told MSNBC, “It’s not nationalization, it’s protecting the taxpayers’ interests.”
According to Politico, “[Senator] Reid on Monday morning argued that the federal government has been involved in private sector for decades — taking over large chunks of the railroad and the highway system when those industries got into massive financial trouble.”
Yes, and Amtrak has operated at a loss for decades. It has only survived because of over $30 billion in subsidies during that whole period.
Don’t you feel protected now?
Occasionally, though, our elected politicians let their guard down, and in moments of candor, tell us lesser mortals what they really think.

Nancy Pelosi and Harry ReidThey do so when they are giddily flexing their political muscles and relishing the power they wield.

Consider this past summer’s unveiling of the new Capitol Visitor Center. Few will dispute that the building — both for crowd accommodation (three million visitors a year) and security purposes (shootings in 1998 and the attacks on 9/11) — was necessary.
But like everything else Washington does, the project ended up costing $621 million ($356 million over budget), and ran three years past its deadline.

Why did the company RTKL get the job for constructing the Capitol Visitor Center? According to the Wall Street Journal, “Incredibly…because it happened to be working on perimeter-security improvements at the Capitol.”
Hmmm. Let’s try again.
The Journal also noted, “There was no competition.”
That’s more plausible.
Anyway, what are a few hundred million dollars in today’s world when our government is bailing us out with trillions of dollars in more borrowed funds?
U.S. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi — who is always willing to shovel generous helpings of taxpayer money at anything and everything — called this government boondoggle a fitting entrance to our nation’s “temple of Democracy.”

While the average American is struggling to pay next month’s mortgage, or put food on the table, the “Temple’s” entrance (with its ironically Orwellian name “Emancipation Hall”) was completed with a 20,000-square-foot marbled-floor plaza, and adorned with a number of amenities, including “plentiful bathrooms (26 here), a restaurant (with 530 seats), [and] an indoor lobby where large crowds (up to 4,000 people) could be channeled into smaller spaces and gift shops.”

News reports never stated if the “introductory film” would include an upcoming release of the New Messiah as the next installment in the series. However, it was rumored that the commercial “1001 Best Free Stuff” will be aired every hour on the hour to remind the proletariat that we can reap the blessings of better living through coercive wealth redistribution.

The salesman — who looks like a Bizarro World version of the Riddler in Batman — will play the role of court jester.
Emancipation Hall, the New York Times glowingly observed, provides a nice view of “the dome of the mother ship.”
However, the most important amenity, as the Solons of the Capitol Hill “mother ship” view it, is something that’s hard to put a price tag on.
They won’t have to put up with smelly visitors anymore.

As Senator Reid put it so delicately,

My staff tells me not to say this, but I’m going to say it anyway…. In the summer because of the heat and high humidity, you could literally smell the tourists coming into the Capitol. It may be descriptive but it’s true.

Finally, in the midst of “taxes are voluntary,” and “banks aren’t being nationalized,” we get the truth about the tourists (constituents): they smell.

I can just see the new TV commercials:

Capitol Visitor Center?                                         $621 million
View of the “mother ship”?                                  Breathtaking
Not having to put up with smelly tourists?              Priceless.
For everything else, there’s the Federal Reserve.
Seriously, though, what is the solution to this tragic-comedy?

For starters, we should take their government credit cards (like the Fed), pull out our trusty pairs of constituent scissors, and promptly dispose of them before they do us any more favors.

And, we must find representatives who will actually be true to their oath of office to uphold the Constitution. That is vital.
Before I forget, there is one last thing.
I can honestly say that not all of the visitor center construction was a complete waste of taxpayer money.
The Wall Street Journal observed that the center was outfitted with one useful feature: “for congressmen, it offers … a secure 1,000-foot-long delivery and trash-collection tunnel.”
So, please, start preparing now to use your ballot box Hefty bags on the next election day, and when that time comes, send the unrepentant, self-anointed socialist demigods packing down that tunnel.
Capitol Hill will smell much better, but not for the reasons Senator Reid claimed.

Written by tfheringer

February 25, 2009 at 2:01 am