Want to become UT Head Football Coach?

I'm a Tennessee Volunteers fan through and through. I mean that I have grown up here and like everyone wants to win and win big. I would even love to be the head football coach someday. But yet, there is a part of me that would not be inclined to blindly accept the position. I'm wanting to get a new career going in coaching and/or teaching. So I'm keeping my ears and eyes peeled for the various issues and situations that I could be expected to face sometime.

I realize that not everyone is going to be a 4.0 student. I realize that in theory at least the graduation rate is more important than the winning percentage. Yet how come when a student who is not an athlete is likely to be suspended even though she "pull[s] herself up by her bootstraps" rather than draw a disability check for her fibromyalgia and sought an education so she could help others who suffer from the disease. She's the type of student the University of Tennessee should be proud of."

I will let you come to your own conclusions about this matter.

Let's face it, at UTK like many colleges, winning percentage is more important than character or graduation rates. Winning makes people happy and happy people are more willing to open their checkbooks to donate money to the university. If you want to know why candidates were turning down the head coaching position right and left until they happened to get Derek Dooley to accept the position (and threw in a private flight via Pilot corporate plane for good measure), the flight itself should tell you something. Mike Hamilton comes across as a decent man who is good with the financial aspects that is so much part of running a college athletic program these days. There are many moving parts to this job and not everything is going to go smoothly. But I've always wondered whether he is truly his own man or if is he being unduly influenced? Then there is the issue of how the Board of Trustees can never seem to find someone to become President for more than a few months, wastes money and gladly jacks up tuition every year. Are UT students getting a return on their investment? Well, I choose to enroll at Carson-Newman.

So should at some point in the future an opportunity to become UT head football coach were to present itself, I will have to think about it. Thankfully, I'm keeping my options open.

Can The Government Just Do Whatever The Heck It Wants?

In our system of written law, Congress may use a term to mean almost anything, as long as the law itself defines that meaning. When the written law explains the meaning of a term used in the law, standard English usage becomes irrelevant. For example, by the definition in 26 USC 7701(a)(1), the term person includes estates, companies and corporations (in addition to individuals). While no one would call Walmart a person in everyday conversation, Walmart is a person under federal tax law. The legal use of a term is often significantly different from basic English, and therefore reading one section of the law alone can be very misleading. See more about the Rules of Statutory Construction

As a good example, 26 USC 5841 states that [t]he Secretary [of the Treasury] shall maintain a central registry of all firearms in the United States which are not in the possession or under the control of the United States. The law has a far more limited application than this section by itself would seem to imply. In 26 USC 5845(a) it is made clear that the term firearm in these sections does not include the majority of rifles and handguns (while the term firearm in basic English obviously would), but does include "a shotgun having a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length"(most shotguns are at least 18 inches and some like the Winchester Model 9410 are as long as 24 inches), silencers and grenades. The average citizen reading the law will naturally tend to assume that he already knows what the words in the law mean, and may have difficulty accepting that the legal meaning of the words used in the law may bear little or no resemblance to the meaning that those words have in common English. For example, reading the phrase all firearms in Section 5841 in a way that excludes most rifles and handguns is contrary to instinctive reading comprehension. But any lawyer reviewing Sections 5841 and 5845 would confirm that such a reading would be absolutely correct. Reading one section of the law without being aware of the legal definitions of the words being used can give an entirely incorrect impression about the application of the law.

As demonstrated, sometimes the apparent meaning of a simple phrase in the law is very different from the legal meaning. The income tax is imposed on income from whatever source derived. If the law did not explain what constitutes sources of income, then the law would be interpreted using basic English. However, the law does explain what the term means and therefore standard English usage is irrelevant.

Because the Constitution is the LAW (aside from natural law and natural rights which come from our creator), a good place to start in our discussion of tax laws would be right there. Have you read the Constitution lately? Have you read it since your 9th grade Civics class? This might be a good time to reacquaint yourself with the document that controls so much of our lives every day. You will be amazed at the ease with which you can read the document, especially when compared to current legal writings. It becomes obvious at first glance that the Constitution was written to be understood by the common Citizen who was very concerned with the content. Current legislation is usually not read by many people outside Washington, DC, and frequently not even by the legislators who vote on it. Because of the huge volume of legislation drafted each year, it is becoming common for most legislators to have one of their staff people review legislation to look for specific items so the legislators do not have to take the time to read it themselves. These legislators then vote yea or nay based on a staffer's review of certain items in the proposed law.

Laws today are not written to be understood by the common Citizen. They are written by legislators, who are usually lawyers, to be understood only by lawyers. In a very practical way, this is called "job security." I mean, whom better to interpret the law than one who played a role in writing and approving the law? As a result, most legislators go back to being lawyers when their terms are complete. So most legislation is specifically written by lawyers to be understood only by lawyers. Yet the whole concept of "common law" assumes the average Citizen has both read and understood the law. "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" is very true, but if you can prove you didn't understand how the law applied to you, it is common to get a case against you dismissed. That is how important it is for the law to be understandable! And yet the Internal Revenue Code is so complex and difficult to understand, even the IRS is not held accountable to the view or interpretation it gives you on any specific tax law! The U.S. Tax Court is full of cases where the IRS gave a written, researched opinion of the "law" and later changed its mind, resulting in a civil or criminal tax case against the person who was counting on the accuracy of the IRS in interpreting the tax laws!

This is a good place to make a statement on the type of government that was created by the Constitution. When you hear a politician speak of our government, almost always you will hear the politician refer to America as a democracy. Over the past sixty years or so, Americans have been brainwashed by our politicians into believing that we live in a democracy. WE DO NOT! Our Founding Fathers considered a democracy and dismissed it. They chose to create, instead, a republic. The differences between a democracy and a republic have been discussed and debated at great length by people more knowledgeable than I, so I won�t take much space here to add to their work. Allow me, instead, to make a simple comparison. In a democracy, if the people or their elected servants want to create a law or enact a change, all they have to do is demonstrate that a majority of the people wants the law or change. A majority vote is all that is necessary. In a republic, there might be a vast majority of the people in favor of a particular law or change, but that will not matter unless The LAW allows it. The LAW must allow it or The LAW must be modified before a new law or change can be passed. The Founding Fathers knew public opinion could be manipulated, or even misrepresented. This is the major weakness of a true democracy. So America elects its public servants to enact the will of the people, but only if The LAW allows it! Congress cannot, by majority vote, extend or increase its authority. The United States Supreme Court explains this principle:

"It is also not entirely unworthy of observation, that in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the constitution itself is first mentioned; and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the constitution, have that rank. Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument." Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)

"Congress cannot by any definition it may adopt conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone it derives its power to legislate, and within whose limitations alone that power can be lawfully exercised." Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920)

The Supreme Court of Tennessee agrees further elaborates:

"Privileges are special rights, belonging to the individual or class, and not to the mass; properly, an exemption from some general burden, obligation or duty; a right peculiar to some individual or body.

Since the right to receive income or earnings is a right belonging to every person, this right cannot be taxed as privilege."
Cole v. MacFarland, 337 S.W. 2d 453 (Tenn. 1960)

The Sights and Sounds of Spring

We are now at the time of the year when the air is cool and crisp, the sun is shining, the skies are blue and football fills the news. This week, Tennessee Volunteers quarterback Nick Stephens has decided he wants to quit the team and try his luck elsewhere for his senior year. First, it was coaches jumping ship and now the players are. Unless there is something I don't know, most of it can be attributed to people wanting to go elsewhere, not being a good fit for the program or personal reasons. In Stephens case, it appears to be that he senses he won't get a fair shake for the starting spot. Competition is a fact of life. While I wish him well on his newest endeavors, if he is going to let the fact that a freshman and a transfer are getting their share of snaps this Spring bother him, perhaps he realized he wasn't cut out for the cut-throat competition that occurs in the SEC.

School will be over in about a month. I will likely get a part-time job (or at least attempt to) so I can have some spending money coming in. I have signed up for 17 hours for Fall semester. If all goes well, I should graduate with a bachelor's degree in Physical Education sometime in 2011. I'm willing to teach at any level and/or coach preferably football. But I can also coach baseball/softball or track and field/cross-country. Of course, if by some fortunate set of circumstances, I were to get the opportunity to interview for a coaching position in the NFL, I would certainly consider it. But given the likelihood that the NFL may be on a lockout at that time, it would be a non-issue. That is on top of the fact that I am not in the know with any coaches at that level. But we'll see. Stranger things have happened.

The Bengals options in 2010 NFL Draft

Yes, I do have other interests aside from boring politics or history :) One of my biggest interests is football, particularly college, but pro football too. I've followed the NFL Draft regularly since 1989 (when I first had ESPN), the draft in which Troy Aikman, Barry Sanders, Derrick Thomas and a number of other players who would go on to become the face of the NFL in the 1990's were drafted. Personally, I would love to work in the NFL in some capacity.

I've been a Bengals fan for 25 years. So I'm particularly interested in who they may draft. I am a "draft the player, not the position" type of person. The Bengals don't have any glaring needs, but do need to fix up at several positions. This year, the talk has been that the Bengals would draft a tight end or receiver. Now that Antonio Bryant and Matt Jones have been signed to free agent contracts, plus the other receivers and tights ends that they have on the roster such as Chase Coffman, it makes this draft being more about solidifying the team more than having to replace the entire wall. I think Coffman (who was on IR last year) and Jones can get the job done. The bigger question is will offensive coordinator Bob Bratkowski utilize the tight end as more than just another blocker or diversion? The Bengals particularly in the 1970's and 1980's were known for having tight ends who were legitimate first down threats. It hasn't been the case since Rodney Holman and Tony McGee were Bengals lastly in the early 1990's.

So draft-wise, I think the defensive side of the ball would be the way to go. While the Vol fan in me would love to see Eric Berry in a Bengals uniform, he should go top 10 whereas the Bengals are picking 21. Barring some surprising trade up, I could see the Bengals drafting Southern Cal safety Taylor Mays who would give the Bengals the closet thing they have had to a David Fulcher at the safety position. Depending on how Mays is used, he would need to improve on his angles and tackling to make it at the next level. I expect Seattle Seahawks coach Pete Carroll to draft him at #14. Given the way most NFL defenses are crafted these days, Mays would be a better fit at outside linebacker.

Texas safety Earl Thomas is another possibility. Thomas is a purer defensive back than Mays and would be a better fit than Mays. The only thing keeping Thomas from being a top ten pick is his size, but a good football player is a good football player. Size isn't everything.

Another player the Bengals may consider is Penn State defensive tackle Jared Odrick. Depth on the defensive line is always desirable and given that the Bengals have a solid one, they can afford to draft for depth rather than just worrying about trading up and losing picks that would be expended for a higher pick.

So I think it will come down to Thomas and Odrick with Mays being a possibility.

Remembering Good Wednesday

by Mark Cockrell

"Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee. But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: For as Jonas was three days and three night in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth" (Matthew 12:38-40).

Since Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, the Jews demanded a sign of Him to prove His claim. Jesus could give them no better proof that He was the Christ than the literal fulfillment of the well-known sign of Jonah, Luke 11:30. If this sign were not literally fulfilled, it would prove unto them that He was not the Messiah. This was the only sign Jesus ever gave them to prove His Messiahship. Hence the great need for Him to do exactly what He promised them to do.

Mark 8:31 tells us:

"And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again."

Did Christ mean what He said? Did He really expect to be buried in the earth for three days and three nights? Jesus did not say, "After two nights and one day I will rise again." He said, "After three days I will rise again." He meant three days and three nights--a full 72 hours!

The Jews remembered this sign when He was crucified.

"Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate, Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again. Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first" (Matthew 27:62-64).

They did all they could to prevent His resurrection. They got the watch, made the sepulchre sure, and sealed the stone. "After three days I will rise again" was necessary to fulfill the Jonah sign.

Modern interpreters of the Bible make Jesus Christ a liar. They say Jesus was crucified on Good Friday, buried about sundown the same day, and arose on the next Sunday about daybreak in contradiction to the Scriptures! Any schoolboy knows that this is only two nights and one day. If He were crucified on Good Friday and arose on Sunday morning as they say, then He did not literally fulfill the sign of Jonah. If He did not fulfill this sign as He promised the Jews, then He was an impostor and not the Messiah! In other words, Jesus Christ lied to the Jews about His burial and resurrection.

If the Good Friday theory is correct as some teach, then the Bible contains "highly figurative language" which requires a human interpreter to tell people what the verses really mean. By this same liberal method of interpreting the Scriptures you can destroy every basic doctrine in the Bible.

I do not care very much for what scholars say! But I am greatly concerned about not accusing my Lord of lying! Jesus Christ plainly said He would be in the grave "three days and three nights". He emphatically declared He would rise again "after three days". I believe He fulfilled the sign of Jonah and vindicated His Messiahship. In Matthew 28:6, we read this testimony of the angel at the tomb:

"He is not here: for he is risen, as he said."

He said He would be in the grave "three days and three nights" and "after three days" He would rise again. Jesus did fulfill the Jonah sign. But He was not crucified on Good Friday, nor did He rise on Sunday morning!

The Part-of-a-Day Theory Wrong

Men, in order to get the Bible out of an embarrassing situation, allege that the Jews counted a part of a day as the whole day. Such passages as Genesis 42:17, 18; 1 Samuel 30:12, 13; Esther 4:15-17; 1 Kings 20:29; and 1 Chronicles 10:5 are cited to prove this theory. However, none of these passages prove "three days and three nights" means two nights and one day. Only one of them even contains the expression "three days and three nights" 1 Samuel 30:12. But there is absolutely no reason to give "three days and three nights" in 1 Samuel 30:12 any meaning except their literal meaning. Divine inspiration declares the young man "had eaten no bread, nor drunk any water, three days and three nights." What authority has any man to contradict these plain words by affirming the time was not so long? The expression, "three days, night and day", in Esther 4:15, is not the same wording as "three days and three nights" in Matthew 12:40. There is no mention of any nights at all in the other passages; therefore, they give no evidence as to the meaning of "three days and three nights." There is no reason to take any of the passages cited in any sense except their literal sense, unless one has a theory to prove. The "three days and three nights" in Jonah 1:17 are to be taken in their literal sense.

Granting that some of the Jews did count a part of the day for a whole day, can it be proven that this is what Jesus meant? Can it be proven that the Jews counted a part of a day as a whole day and a whole night? Where is the proof in the inspired Word?

Yet, proponents of the Good Friday tradition want us to believe that a part of a day meant a whole day and a whole night. Men who believe the Bible to be literally true dare not accept such reasoning.

The Meaning of Day in the Bible

The word "day" in the Bible in its primary sense means the interval between dawn and darkness.

"And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night . . . " (Genesis 1:5, Compare Genesis 1:14-18; 8:22.)

This is the first occurrence of the word "day" in the Bible, and the Lord God himself gives its meaning. Jesus believed there were 12 hours in a day. He asked in John 11:9:

" . . . Are there not twelve hours in the day? If any man walk in the day, he stumbleth not, because he seeth the light of this world."

Jesus made a day and night consist of 24 hours. Can there be any higher authorities than the Lord God and Jesus Christ? Do not such authorities settle the matter for all true believers?

In the Bible a day is the interval of time comprising the period between two successive risings of the sun (Genesis 7:24; Job 3:16). The Hebrews reckoned it from evening to evening Exodus 12:18,

" . . . from even unto even, shall ye celebrate your sabbath" (Leviticus 23:32).

The 12-hour night began at sunset and ended at sunup. It was counted before the 12-hour day.

"And the evening and the morning were the first day" (Genesis 1:5).

Hence a new day began at 6 o'clock in the evening and lasted until the same time the next evening--a period of 24 hours--a 12-hour night followed by a 12-hour day!

The Good Friday Hoax

The Bible nowhere says or implies that Jesus was crucified and died on Good Friday! It is said that Jesus was crucified on

"the day before the Sabbath", (Mark 15:42; Luke 23:54; John 19:14, 31, 42).

As the Jewish weekly Sabbath came on Saturday, scholars have assumed Jesus was crucified on Good Friday. This is poor reasoning because the Bible bears abundant testimony that the Jews had other Sabbaths beside the weekly Sabbath which fell on Saturday.

The first day of the Passover week, no matter on what day of the week it came, was always an annual Sabbath.

"And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the feast of unleavened bread unto the LORD: seven days ye must eat unleavened bread. In the first day ye shall have an holy convocation: ye shall do no servile work therein" (Leviticus 23:6, 7).

On the seventh day of this feast, the 21st of Nisan, was another annual Sabbath:

" . . . in the seventh day is an holy convocation: ye shall do no servile work therein" (Leviticus 23:8).

The day of Pentecost was an annual Sabbath Numbers 28:26. This is the reason we read about Sabbaths in the plural number in the Old Testament Leviticus 26:2, 34, 35, 43.

The Bible makes it plain, Jesus was crucified and buried on:

" . . . the preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath" (Mark 15:42).

John tells us:

"And it was the preparation of the Passover" (John 19:14).

It was the preparation day on which the Passover Supper was made ready [editor's note: actually it was the preparation for the Holy Day, the Night to Be Much Remembered], the 14th of Nisan John 13:1, 29; 18:28. It was the preparation to keep the Passover Sabbath--the annual Sabbath which always came on the 15th day of the first ecclesiastical month. John 19:31 adds:

" . . . (for that sabbath day was an high day) . . . ."

Its greatness was due to the fact that it was the annual Sabbath of the Passover Festival.

Two Sabbaths that Week

Matthew makes it plain that two Sabbaths had passed since Jesus was crucified. The KJV has this rendering:

"In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre" (Matthew 28:1).

On this verse nearly all translators have allowed tradition to control their translation. It is not "Sabbath" but "Sabbaths" in the Greek text (the genitive case and the plural number). The verse properly translated would read:

"In the end of the sabbaths . . . ."

This allows for an annual Sabbath on Thursday and a regular Sabbath on Saturday.

When Jesus was buried near sundown on the day of the Passover,

"Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary"

watched the burial Matthew 27:58-61. Immediately after the burial, Luke says:

"And that day was the preparation, and the sabbath drew on" (Luke 3:54).

This Sabbath was an annual Sabbath on Thursday. The day after the annual Sabbath the women bought spices, Mark 16:1. Luke tells us that the women, after preparing the spices on Friday,

" . . . rested the sabbath day according to the commandment" (Luke 23:56).

The traditional interpretation makes Mark and Luke contradict each other. In Mark 16:1 we are informed that the Sabbath was past when the spices were purchased. "Had" is inserted without any authority from the Greek text.

"No reason can be given for the variation--bought sweet spices. Not had bought" (An American Commentary on the New Testament, Vol. 11, p. 251).

In Luke 23:56 we are told that the women prepared the spices and ointments, and rested the Sabbath day. If Jesus lay in the grave on Sabbath only, Mark and Luke contradict each other. But if He lay there two Sabbaths having a work day between them, then Mark and Luke harmonize to perfection.

The Resurrection Late Saturday Evening

When does the Bible say that Jesus rose from the dead? The two Mary's came to the tomb:

"in the end of the sabbath" (Matthew 28:1).

The Sabbath always ended at sunset:

"From even unto even, shall ye celebrate your sabbath" (Leviticus 23:32).

Then they went to the tomb before sunset on Saturday. Jesus had risen from the dead before their arrival Matthew 28:1-8. According to the Bible, Jesus Christ arose before sunset on Saturday. Christ did not rise on Sunday morning, for the two Mary saw Him, heard Him speak, and held His feet just as the Sabbath ended and the first day of the week began.

"In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week . . ." (Matthew 28:1).

Mark 16:9 tells us Jesus first appeared to Mary Magdalene early the first day of the week, which was Saturday after sundown. The nearer after sunset this happened, the earlier in the first of the week it was. Mark does not say that she was alone at the time she first saw Jesus, and Matthew tells us that:

"the other Mary was with her" (Matthew 28:1).

The Date of the Crucifixion

Having shown from Matthew 28:1 that Jesus rose from the grave as the Sabbath ended at sunset and the first day of the week began, this would put the crucifixion on Wednesday at sunset just as the preparation day ended and the annual Sabbath commenced. According to the Gospel writers, Jesus died at the ninth hour (3:00 p.m. our time) and was buried about sunset that same day, Luke 23:44, 45, 50-54; Mark 15:33-38, 42-47.

If Jesus were buried at sunset on Wednesday and arose at sunset on Saturday, He fulfilled the sign of Jonah. He would have been in the grave Wednesday night, Thursday night, and Friday night--a full "three days". All together a full "three days and three nights." Thus we have a literal fulfillment of the words of Christ in Matthew 12:40. hence there is no need to follow Roman Catholic tradition which makes Jesus Christ a liar. Truly,

". . . He rose again the third day according to the scriptures" (1Corinthians 15:4),

not the second day according to Roman Catholic tradition!

The Third Day

Some Scriptures speak of His resurrection

"after three days" (Mark 8:31; 9:31 R. V.; 10:34 R. V.; Matthew 27:63).

Other verses say

"three days" (Matthew 26:60, 61; 27:39, 40; Mark 14:58; 15:29, 30; John 2:19, 20).

Still others speak of

"the third day" (Matthew 16:21; 17:23; 20:19; 27:64; Luke 9:22; 18;33; 24:6, 7, 21, 46; Acts 10:40; 1 Corinthians 16:4).

Some make much over "the third day" in Luke 24:21, and they affirm that if the crucifixion took place on Wednesday, Sunday would be the fourth day since these things were done. But the answer is simple. These things were done just as Thursday was beginning at sunset on Wednesday. They were therefore completed on Thursday, and the first day since Thursday would be Friday, the second day since Thursday would be Saturday, and "the third day since" Thursday would be Sunday, the first day of the week.

So the supposed objection in reality supports the Wednesday crucifixion. But if the crucifixion took place on Friday, by no manner of reckoning could Sunday be made "the third day since" these things were done.

Unless we believe the Bible contains errors, we know that all passages must harmonize. Therefore, "after three days" must mean the same as "the third day" Matthew 16:21.

There is nothing in the Bible to favor the Good Friday crucifixion of Jesus Christ. The biblical record harmonizes with a Wednesday crucifixion and Saturday evening resurrection--a full 72 hours. This view allows for a literal interpretation of "three days and three nights." It allows for the word "after three days" to mean just that. It proves that Jesus Christ fulfilled the sign of Jonah and thus proved His Messiahship to the Jews.

What Does The Fascination With Celebrities Say About Us?

"Worldly things are fleeting"
Yesterday, Michael David Barrett was sentenced to 2 1/2 years in prison.

Of course, other "sex" scandals in the news lately have involved Tiger Woods and John Edwards/Rielle Hunter. But in all honesty, those smack of smug arrogance and feigned ignorance about what they were doing and the potential consequences of their actions. In Erin Andrew's case, it was a legitimate case of stalking.

The obsession with celebrities and everything about them, fast cars, bigger houses, more money, etc... are really indicative of a bigger symptom at work. It is the false belief that you can't be happy unless you are "famous", "rich", "popular" (insert your adjective here). This symptom is of course nothing new. It is human nature at work. In any given situation, you are going to have leaders and followers. Most people will follow especially when the "leaders" appeal to their innate desires and senses such as safety, security, or making all your problems go away. In ancient times, people were enthralled with emperors, their fancy togas, armor, chariots, and other artifacts of the ancient world. They claimed that on condition you give up essential liberty, they will protect you from barbarians and slaves. In modern times, we want presidents, congressmen and experts to protect us. They claim to make your food safe to eat, your water fit to drink, have lifetime employment so as long as you support collectivist policies, and a whole host of other things. How do you think someone like Hitler or Stalin were able to become as powerful as they were? They couldn't do it without the people.

Tied in with these empty promises, when we see the celebrities on the red carpet, all primed up and stepping out of the limo, or on the big/small screen, they are in the spotlight. They are in the position to be acknowledged. Underneath, we also desire to be acknowledged by others. Is your desire to be acknowledged or popular so great that you lose your head over it? Ask Michael David Barrett. There is nothing new under the sun. Somewhere along the lines, it is important to keep in mind that all things must come to an end. Sometimes it is a matter of fate. Sometimes it is a matter of the natural course that life takes. Sometimes it is of our own doing. Don't lose your head!

America Does Not Go In Search of Enemies Abroad

"Most traditional conservatives believe we would not have nearly as many enemies around the world if we followed a non-interventionist foreign policy and did not get involved in so many religious, ethnic, and political disputes in other countries. The so-called Neo-Cons have great power but really are a small minority of American conservatives, if they are conservative at all." John Duncan, September 10, 2003