Tuesday, October 24, 2017


 
LET TRUTH BE TOLD
 
If the words of the Old English Proverb, “The Pen is Mightier than the Sword” are true, then a population should surely fear the suppression of the written word as much as they fear the restriction of arms.  Many legal and political battles were fought during the Twentieth Century, demonstrating that many Americans hold both “Freedom of the Press” and “The Right to Bear Arms” in high esteem, because both are necessary to freedom.
            However, while the rights to publish everything from daily news to pornography have been defended and protected, there are areas where the rights to publish are totally restricted.  In our judicial system, judges at every level have the authority to ban publication of facts, by the use of non-disclosure agreements, gag orders, sealing of records, closed courtrooms and other restrictions on the publication of facts.  Hardly a day goes by without disclosure that some public figure is hiding behind these barriers to truth.
            So, who benefits from these suppressions of facts; the public or the miscreants?  Is it in the public’s interest to shield a sexual predator, corporate thief, or corrupt politician, by banning publication of their misdeeds?  How can we have free and open elections when politicians’ backgrounds are hidden behind court orders?
          It is time for legislation to restrict the use of judicial fiats that prevent disclosure of truth.
 
Jim
 
 

Monday, September 25, 2017


I AM TIRED OF HEARING IT

          I am a combat veteran that graduated from the Army Infantry School named Tigerland at Ft. Polk, Louisiana and served in Vietnam with the 9th Infantry Division.  I am tired of hearing that I and my brothers in arms from all wars our Nation fought did so to defend someone’s freedom to disrespect our flag.
My generation’s war was not fought to protect our borders from invading armies.  Rather, it was fought to stop the spread of an ideology called “Communism” that rejected most everything we held dear, including personal freedoms, private ownership and rule of law, not men.  “Communism” and the “Cold War” were threats to our way of life that are today unknown, but in 1966 they were real and our Nation’s leaders felt it was better to fight it overseas than within our own borders.  I agree our involvement in Vietnam was long and costly.  Furthermore, I would not trade one of the people listed on “The Wall” for the entire wretched country, much less the more than fifty-thousand that died.  But understand I and my fellows did not go there to capture real-estate. We went there for an ideal; a belief that we lived in the greatest nation on earth and that it was our time to defend it against all enemies, both foreign and domestic.
Today, as then, the “Stars and Stripes” is the iconic symbol of our great nation and from its humble beginnings in 1776, only those that would destroy this nation, seek to dishonor its flag.
I did not slog rice paddies, sleep in the jungle, stay awake all night on a perimeter and see my friends die so that anyone who enjoys living in this great country would kneel like a slave before the greatest symbol of freedom ever known to the world.  I fought so that flag would continue to wave over our country and institutions, and so people could stand tall in its presence with confidence that as long as it waves, it symbolizes the greatest nation on earth.  I am convinced those that fought and died in the Revolution, the War of 1812, the Civil War, and every other war our nation fought did so for the same reasons.
A final thought:  Military deserters and traitors forfeit their honor and are denied the privileges of their rank and the privilege of saluting an officer or our flag.  This old soldier would much rather see our young people identify with those that fought and died for our flag, than to identify with those that betrayed their flag.

Jim
www.jim-mac.com

Saturday, January 28, 2017


Obamacare Replacement

I am a retired minister, Cherokee Indian and U.S. Army veteran that has received medical care in the private sector, Indian Health Services and the VA.  My personal experience with these services prompts me to write this letter because the healthcare model they present is seemingly being ignored in the debate over how to replace Obamacare.

The healthcare afforded American Indians and veterans, has always provided me with quality care and the added benefit of voluntary participation on my part.  At various times during my working career, I had employer provided healthcare and during those times, I used private sector healthcare.  The point is that when private health insurance was unaffordable or unavailable I could use IHS or VA services, free from the fear of bankruptcy, or unreasonably high insurance rates.  This government provided safety net has allowed me, not an insurance company, to be in control of my health care.

In my opinion, our broken healthcare system is the result of insurance companies controlling healthcare and the way to fix the problems is to put individuals back in control.

Our government has years of experience in IHS and VA healthcare, providing models that could be expanded to the general population with fees for healthcare based on family incomes.  For those that do not wish to use the services, they would be free to purchase insurance and use private sector services. 

Some inherent advantages in this system are:

1.        Insurance companies, healthcare providers, pharmaceutical companies, or anyone involved in healthcare will have to compete for the business of those that choose to use the private sector, resulting in lower costs overall.

2.        The fee based on income for Public Health Service (PHS) care allows all Americans to have healthcare, but as the fee rises for those with higher incomes, it becomes more economical to purchase insurance and use private services.

3.        The other side of the equation in item 2 is that pricing pressures on insurance and healthcare services will always be downward because higher prices will drive private customers back to the PHS.

4.        Unlike a single payer system, this will not force insurance companies or private healthcare providers out of business, by forcing people to use the system.  It is a voluntary system for those that do not have health insurance or the means to pay for private care.

5.        This system can effectively incorporate existing subsidies for low income healthcare, Medicare, Medicaid and other existing programs, thereby providing, along with the fees charged, enough money to fund this new program without further deficits or tax increases.

6.        This system will allow Americans choice and therefore, control of their healthcare by eliminating the strangleholds forced by threat of financial ruin, or lack of healthcare.

 
Jim
www.jim-mac.com

Tuesday, September 17, 2013

The Rule of Law

From its humble and unlikely beginning, the “Founding Fathers” intended that law, not the whims of men, should govern the United States of America.  Their experiences under the rule of a monarch taught them the worth of personal liberty, but they were wise enough to realize that individual rights and freedoms must end where the rights and freedoms of another person begin.  Their solution was a legal code based on the Judeo/Christian ethic that taught, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”  This basic biblical principle respects both individual freedom and the rights of other people.
Sadly, law no longer governs these United States.  They have devolved to the point of rule by men, under modern-day monarchs called lawyers and judges, in a system that allows them to impose their wills on other people, through their private interpretations of our legal code.  Many judges have taken for themselves the unconstitutional right to use policing agencies enforcing their own edicts.  Rather than instructing legislatures in the deficiencies of legislation and giving them time to amend, these activists exercise uncontrolled veto power.  Consequently, it is only necessary to find a judge that is sympathetic to your cause to enforce your will on all the people.
Protected first, by a self-governing association that determines who may or may not practice at the Law, followed by lifetime tenure, judges are so accustomed to interpreting the Law at will that they often disagree with each other.  Even the highest court in the Nation must resort to “majority rule” because they cannot agree.  The result being that people with enough money to pursue Appeals regularly ignore lower courts and jury rulings while their lawyer works to strain the gnat and find the camel that “higher” courts will swallow.  Everyone in the system seems to agree that the guaranteed trial by jury is just the first step in the process and not the solution of justice that it should be.
A few well-worn quips that reveal contempt for the system are:  “A jury is twelve people that are too stupid to get out of jury duty.”  “There is a way to legally do anything you want to do.”  “Justice is not for the poor.”  “If you cannot knock your opponent down and then kick him, you have no business practicing law.”  The truth is that even lawyers and judges mock the system.
Perhaps, the failings in the system that was originally intended to follow the Law and not the whims of men can be traced through two principles:  The first is, “Follow the money trail.”  The second is that our legal system is no longer concerned with the absolutes of right or wrong.  It is only concerned with legal or illegal.
Certainly, all butchers do not weigh meat with their thumbs on the scale.  Likewise, all lawyers and judges do not have their thumbs on the scales of justice.  However, even an honest butcher that is forced to use a broken scale will see an erroneous weight. 
Many good men and women are forced to work with the broken scale that is our legal system, but apparently, there are many others that thrive within it and perpetuate the brokenness.  This is evidenced when people such as Judge Moore in Alabama are removed for standing against the system.  We cannot reasonably expect that men and women within the legal system will sacrifice their educations and careers trying to reform a system that holds absolute control over them.  Therefore, if it is to change, “We The People” must change it, if we are to be governed by law, not men.  We need to “follow the money trail” to eliminate its source and redefine justice as “right” or “wrong,” not “legal” or “illegal.”

Jim

Wednesday, July 24, 2013

Detroit Is Truly Bankrupted

             While attorneys for Detroit are petitioning the courts to allow city bankruptcy, and black on black crime is rampant, the City Council busies itself with passing a resolution calling for the Justice Department to bring civil rights charges against George Zimmerman.  One has to wonder if this action is based on “content of character” or “skin color” and whose, the Council’s or George Zimmerman’s.  It is not obvious exactly how this resolution will help Detroit avoid financial ruin, but it does suggest that Detroit is bankrupted in more ways than one.

Jim

Tuesday, July 16, 2013

God Gets Upset

Judges 2:12        (NLT)
"They abandoned the LORD, the God of their ancestors, who had brought them out of Egypt. They went after other gods, worshiping the gods of the people around them. And they angered the LORD." 
 
America has angered God.  The story of America is much like the story of the Israelites.  God gave us freedom and liberty and we abandoned Him.  We have forgotten all that God did as He designed a new country and a new people.  As Israel was enslaved in Egypt so we were enslaved to the powers of England.  But God moved on the hearts of men and women and we followed the leadership of God and founded a new order.  It was called the United States.  Our leaders believed in God.  Our people believed in God.  We believed in the Truth of God’s Word.  America’s people had values that were given to us by God in His Holy Word.  It was George Washington who said, “It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible”.  However, we now have a generation that has forgotten God, His Word, and His promises.
 
America has become tolerant of all religions.  As Christians, God called us to be separate and to be different from the world.  We have done just as the Israelites did.  We have taken the gods of the world and we have forgotten the God who made the world.  We have allowed the few to make decisions for the majority.  We have failed to stand for the Truth that God gave us.  We are worshiping the false gods of the people around us.  Samuel Adams said, “The rights of the colonists as Christians…may be best understood by reading and carefully studying the institutes of the Great Law Giver and Head of the Christian Church, which are to be found clearly written and promulgated in the New Testament”.  America has forgotten God and His Word.  And we wonder why our Nation is in the shape it’s in!
 
Just as Israel returned to God so can America.  We can once again be the “In God We Trust” land.  We can return to God in confession and repentance.  It begins with the people of God getting back to God.  We have followed the strange gods of the world and now we must return to the One True God.  God was intolerant of false gods and false religions and so must we be.  Believers must no longer tolerate the immoral actions of our leaders.  We must no longer tolerate the immoral actions of our citizens.  We must remember that the wages of sin is death and America is on her death bed.  But sin can be forgiven.  God will forgive our sins and heal our land if we are willing to return to Him with our whole heart.  God is ready to forgive us if we are ready to confess and repent.  America, what will we do?
 
Tom Doty
 
Pastor Tom Doty writes a morning devotional available by email.  You may contact him at: twdoty02@yahoo.com

Thursday, April 25, 2013

Draft Them!

Concerning the Senators that voted for the U.N. treaty to ban weapons; here's a suggestion: They should all be drafted, go through boot camp and advanced infantry training, then shipped to Afghanistan, Korea, Iraq or any of several hotbeds of activity, where they would certainly learn to not fear firearms and come to realize the importance of firearms to survival.

Jim

Monday, April 22, 2013

More On Taxes

             On October 26, 2011 I wrote “The Real Tax Bite” (http://dr-jfm.blogspot.com/2011/10/real-tax-bite.html).  Interestingly, all the talk of tax reform has disappeared like smoke in the wind and it is business as usual in government—tax and spend politics that exempt special interest groups and large blocks of prospective voters, while increasing the burden on Middle America. 
            As described in the above-mentioned blog, the system depends on its ability to “divide and conquer.”  For example, those that do not drive diesel-fueled vehicles don’t care if diesel taxes are raised and people that do not use a particular government service or property are not concerned when fees are raised.  It is the ability of government to levy taxes and fees on small segments of society and earmark those funds that gives government the freedom to use general revenue for unpopular, wasteful or politically profitable causes.  Every dollar Americans pay in fees and taxes for government goods and services is a dollar freed from the accountability inherent in the income tax stream.  Politicians know that if their only source of income is the income tax, they will be accountable to all the voters, without the favor of those they exempt. 
            Much has been written about the benefits of a national sales tax, others suggest a flat-rate tax, and there are other proposals, but the method that is tried and works in our own country is the graduated income tax, where everyone that has income pays something.  When the graduated income tax was abandoned, the door was opened to squeeze the middle and exempt the ends.
            A simple amendment to the U.S. Constitution will fix the problem:  “Government will have no source of revenue other than the income tax.”

Jim

Wednesday, April 3, 2013

The Meaning of Marriage

According to the most ancient historical documents marriage is as old as humankind and began as a union between a female and a male. This is a unique union and serves a purpose that none other can accomplish, procreation. For literately thousands of years marriage has been defined as a union between a man and a woman. Marriage of a man and a woman provides, potentially, the best possible environment for nurturing children.  
In recent years a movement has arisen promoting the expansion of marriage to include homosexual couples. That concept radically changes the meaning of marriage. Originally the primary prerequisite for marriage was having two people of opposite sexes joined for the purpose of procreation. Now we are being told the only prerequisite should be “love”, which doesn’t mean anything because love cannot be measured, proven or unproven. Therefore, a group of several males living in a single residence could claim to love each other, arrange a marriage ceremony, be wed to one another, and become a family. Using this method, most people could qualify for marriage benefits, including tax breaks. It is also conceivable that legal marriages could include a person with a pet or barnyard animal (such marriages have occurred). Since our modern society is constantly pushing to eliminate morals (for example this often repeated sentence: “You can’t legislate morality.”) on what grounds could polygamy and human/animal marriages be prohibited?
I see no rational reason to change the meaning of marriage but changing that meaning will undoubtedly open a can of unpleasant worms.
Tom Lottinville

Tuesday, April 2, 2013

Carneys Point

            Somewhere in Carneys Point, New Jersey, resides a boy whose picture was posted on Facebook, showing him holding a new birthday present.  Millions of people daily post pictures of themselves with newly acquired items and in less turbulent times, outside of family and friends, these postings are not “news worthy.”  But, in the insane and paranoid world of the United States, the picture caused an outrageous response because the present was a .22 caliber rifle that the boy’s father gave him for his 11th birthday.
            Apparently, someone called an anonymous child abuse hotline to report the picture.  The State responded with child welfare workers and four policemen asking to open the family gun safe and inspect the firearms.  The father, in contact with an attorney on his phone, asked for a search warrant, which the police did not have, so they left the home. 
Whether or not the official investigation is complete and the incident closed, remains to be seen, but regardless of the outcome there is the question:  What is there about a picture of a boy holding an inanimate object and posing no threat to anyone that requires a “raid” by child welfare workers and four policemen?  If the aforementioned elements of insanity and paranoia are omitted from the equation, the answer is nothing. 
However, when the insanity or paranoia of those that misuse firearms are met with insanity and paranoia, the result will be ever-spreading insanity and paranoia.  It is a fact that when people’s emotions are controlled by fear and illogic, their actions will be radical and irrational.  This is happening in America, today.  To believe that anyone who owns a firearm is a potential threat to society is just as irrational and paranoid as are those who misuse firearms.
Aside from the written Word of God, perhaps, the most rational documents written by men are the Constitution of the United States and the attached Bill of Rights.  All have served our nation well, particularly, in times of fear and human illogic; despite that there have always been people denying the freedoms they document.  The important issue in Carneys Point and in the rest of the United States is not “gun control.”  So called “gun control” is a symptom of the real problem.  The real problem is that we are allowing our own insanity and paranoia to disavow the very documents written to guide us in times of insanity and paranoia.  The only possible result is the dearth of individual freedom to “life, liberty and the pursuits of happiness.” 
             
Jim

Monday, March 4, 2013

Department of Homeland Security?

             There are reports that DHS is stockpiling small arms ammunition and some estimates put the total at more than 1.6 billion rounds.  Additionally, DHS has purchased 2,717 Mine Resistant Light-Armored Tanks.  Pictures of these tanks show they are labeled on each side with “Police/Rescue,” suggesting they are not intended for military use in foreign combat zones, rather, they will be deployed within the borders of the United States.  What’s up with that?
            Could it be that foreign nationals have infiltrated the United States to the point they pose a threat to security?  Perhaps, in addition to body scans and pat-downs, tanks and small arms are needed to stop the threat of airplane hijackers.  Maybe, these weapons of war are needed to stop the next nut-bag that decides to shoot unarmed people in a gun-free zone.  Or, is it possible these armaments will someday be deployed against citizens of the United States that refuse to bow to government oppression?
            One of the lessons from the debacle at Waco is that our government officials believe a stockpile of small arms held by private citizens is a threat to security requiring the deployment of military tanks and forfeiting the lives of men, women and children.  American Citizens need to realize that a government with tanks among its people is far more dangerous than citizens with stockpiles of small arms.
            The line between a civilian police force and a paramilitary force is blurring rapidly and once the transformation is complete, neither ballots nor bullets will stop the tanks.

Jim

Thursday, January 24, 2013

Second Amendment Refugees

Clearly, those that would infringe the right to keep and bear arms outnumber law-abiding citizens that respect the Second Amendment in some areas of the United States.  This is demonstrated by the fact that these areas continue to elect politicians that seek to overturn, wire around, or simply ignore our Constitution. 
Perhaps, it is time to organize a Second Amendment Refugee program, under which, any citizen of the United States fleeing one of these areas because of belief in the Second Amendment, is granted asylum in a State that respects the U.S. Constitution.  This will involve helping these refugees with relocation and living expenses until they find suitable housing and employment.  Existing assistance programs could be used for this by reallocating monies presently given to individuals that have no desire to find employment.  It is also possible that a program to exchange these non-working individuals for Second Amendment Refugees can be instituted.
A primary benefit of this program will be that the votes of these refugees will no longer be cancelled by larger numbers of Constitution opponents, and in marginal areas, the influx of refugees will swing the balance in favor of those that respect the Constitution, particularly, the Second Amendment. 
Of course, the down side for areas abandoned by the refugees is that the dampening effect on crime and oppressive government, created by the uncertainty that some victims may be armed, will be removed.  This will allow criminals both in and out of government the security of knowing the armed refugees are no longer among them.  However, those who see no need for the Second Amendment should not mind this minor inconvenience.  Millions before them have sought to resist crime and oppression with pitchforks and shovels against guns.
All in all, this proposal seems the best of all solutions for everyone:  Those that prefer to ignore the wisdom of our Founders and reinvent history will have unbridled opportunity to live with their belief that an unarmed citizenry is more secure than an armed citizenry.  Those that understand the purpose of the Second Amendment and agree with the wisdom of the Founders that enacted it will also continue to live with their belief in the Second Amendment and the freedom it secures.  In ten years or less, the worth of the Second Amendment should be obvious.

Jim