All content, of both the original and this blog, is written from my point of view and is my opinion. I believe it to be accurate at the time it is written. ~ Kyle Prast, Brookfield resident since 1986

Wednesday, February 27, 2013

Obama's Sequester Spending Cut Disaster Charade Continues

We've known it was coming. The very idea came from the White House. He approved it a year and a half ago, and in November 2011, insisted it be done. What is it? Why the Sequester, of course.

What is a sequester? Automatic spending cuts triggered to go off in 2013, after the 2012 presidential campaign. Sequester was a gimme the money now, I'll economize later deal.

And here is a graph of that Sequestration deal. Nothing cut from present levels of spending, just $85 billion cut from 2 years of* FUTURE spending! Take a look here. (Put your reading glasses on or you might not notice the change.) *Correction: About $44 billion cut from this year, remaining cuts spread out over the next 7 years.

Now our Spender in Chief doesn't want to go through with Sequester cuts and threatens the sky will fall if we don't increase the increase in government spending on Friday. So much for his famous last words from November of 2011 regarding welching on the deal: “Already, some in Congress are trying to undo these automatic spending cuts. My message to them is simple: No. I will veto any effort to get rid of those automatic spending cuts – domestic and defense spending. There will be no easy off-ramps on this one.”

But then our President seems to enjoy running our government in sky-is-falling-crisis mode, or as Peggy Noonan just wrote, "Government by Freakout". And to make sure you freakout, Obama's Federal Immigration officials just approved 100s of illegal convicted criminal detainees released from prison for emphasis on how these budget increase cuts will affect us. Now the President could easily find $85 billion savings by eliminating redundant programs, fraud, and wasteful pork spending but instead chose this avenue to make his point.

Refreshingly, for once Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner is not negotiating this one in advance but is challenging the Senate to 'Get off its [posterior]' to propose other cuts if those in the Sequester deal are unacceptable. Reason being, the House has come up with 2 proposals thus far with no response from the President or Senate. Hope the Republicans stand firm on this.

One reason the president might be balking is that he again is talking about increasing revenues in any substitute sequester deal: "So when the president asks that a substitute for the sequester include not just spending cuts but also new revenue, he is moving the goal posts.

Increasing revenues could be the real reason for Obama's flip-flop. Incidentally, $85 billion in sequester cuts funds the government for about a week and a half--hardly worth freaking out about.

And here is another heads-up: The debt ceiling/government shut down could come at the end of March, so I would avoid planning any extensive vacations touring our National Historic Sites and Parks until later in the spring. Like a school district facing a budget cut with the threat the cut will eliminate the music program, government threatens to close the Washington Monument* or Grand Canyon, etc. (We had an extensive National Park trip tour planned for the last debt ceiling crisis in April 2011! Rangers told us they put up barricades to block park entrances the eve of the debt ceiling agreement--just in case. That agreement was reached at the 11th hour, 11pm our time.) 
*Washington Monument is presently closed for repairs.

More Reading:
Bob Woodward: Obama's sequester deal-changer
President Obama in 2011: 'No Easy Off-Ramps' on Sequester
Noonan: Government by Freakout
Federal Spending Without and With Sequester Cuts
Boehner tells Senate to 'Get off its [posterior]
Immigrants Released Ahead of Automatic Budget Cuts

Labels: , , , , ,

Wednesday, February 20, 2013

Jay Seegert: 'Faith is not a 4-letter word', 7:15 pm, Tuesday, Feb. 26, 2013

Photo  from  last event: Nature without Naturalism
People are often led to believe they must choose between believing in God and believing in science--that the two are mutually exclusive. And if they do believe in the God of the Bible, and the Genesis account of creation in particular, their faith is treated with the same disdain as a 4-letter word. The assumption being that science deals with "facts" and certainty and the Bible with faith, feelings, and wishful thinking, none of which are academically credible.

However, the assumption that God and science are opposing beliefs is utterly wrong, and nationally known lecturer Jay Seegert will address this very topic at the Creation Science Society of Milwaukee's meeting this Tuesday, February 26th. Seegert will discuss the relationship between science and faith and demonstrate that true science always lines up with the Bible.

The real question revolves around which faith is best: believing in origins via evolution or believing in origins via creation. Each position requires faith. This very encouraging talk defines and discusses both science and faith and the relationship of one to the other, concluding that it is not a matter of choosing between the two but that true science always lines up with God’s Word when properly understood.

Interestingly, as I learned from last month's talk: Nature without Naturalism, as science advances and they are discovering the complexity of just one human cell with it's many systems, the information coded on a single strand of DNA, or even the intricacy of a bacterial flagellum, it is becoming apparent that the source of these highly developed, organized systems had to be some sort of intelligent agent. As a result, following or going where the evidence leads has caused some scientists to renounce naturalism and come to a belief in a Creator. Following the evidence, the truth, has led some of our board members and speakers to a belief in God and the Bible.

'Faith is not a 4-letter word' will begin at 7:15 pm at Milwaukee Lutheran High School  Cafeteria
9700 W. Grantosa Drive, Milwaukee, WI  The event is free and open to the public. Enter by the doors under the archway, turn left, and follow the corridor to the Cafeteria. Milwaukee Lutheran High School is located on Grantosa Drive, north of Capitol Drive, west of 92nd St. Directions

Jay Seegert is the co-founder and principal lecturer of the Waukesha-based Creation Education Center, as well as a national speaker for Creation Ministries International. He has degrees in Physics and Engineering.

Upcoming Events: 
March 12, 2013, 7 pm, Dr. Jerry Bergman  presents Hitler and the Nazi Darwinian Worldview at Grace Bible Church, 117th and Cleveland Ave. West Allis

April 16, 2013, Tuesday, 7 pm, Jerry Frye speaks on God is Angry and Man is Without Excuse - Romans 1: 18-20 at Brookside Baptist Church, 4470 N. Pilgrim Road, Brookfield.

Blog Archives - Creation Science:
Understanding Fossil Evidence
Answers in Genesis Nov. 2012 Conference
Origins, Beauty, and Wrath: Why What We Believe Matters Today
Purpose Precedes Creation
The Importance of Worldview & literal 6 day creation

Dr. Bolander: The Miracle of Human Development 
The great debate at UWM: 'Intelligent Design vs. Darwinism: Can Science Point to God?' Tues. March 6, 2012
Former evolutionist Paul Frank discusses Creation / Evolution debate 
Dr. Scott Hardin, From Fish to Amphibian (Impossible)
From Feminist Atheism to Biblical Truth 
Amazing video animation of inner life of cell   one component, a motor protein literally walked up the microtubule hauling a huge membrane bound cargo vesicle to its destination!

Creation Science Society of Milwaukee website:

Creation Ministries International

Labels: , , ,

Thursday, February 14, 2013

'VIP' Primary Election for Justice Roggensack Feb. 19, 2013

UPDATE: Justice Pat Roggensack and Ed Fallone advance to the April 2nd election.

Spread the word: Wisconsin has a V.I.P., as in Vitally Important Primary, election coming up on Tuesday, February 19th for Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice. We must reelect Incumbent Pat Roggensack to the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

Though in many areas of the state there is only race on the ballot, this election is still of the utmost importance to our state, because Wisconsin's Supreme Court is the court of last resort in our state. Every court case appealed, every law or reform ruled "unconstitutional" by liberal lower courts come to this court for the final decision, the final word.

Roggensack recently explained her judicial philosophy is based on the Wisconsin Constitution, which sets up 3 branches of government. The Legislative branch's power resides in the Assembly and Senate, so when she interprets a statute, she strives to figure out their intent and uphold the statute (if in accordance with the Constitution), not change the statute. She doesn't play favorites; she respects the separation of powers.

Why this emphasis on experience? Because her 2 opponents have NONE. Justice Pat Roggensack is the only candidate running who has17 years of judicial experience. She is currently on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, finishing her 10 year term. Before that, she was twice elected to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, serving for 7 years, and prior to her time on the bench, she practiced law for 16 years.

Justice Roggensack is often referred to as being a brilliant jurist with tremendous experience. Even Wisconsin Vote, a service of Wisconsin Public Television / Radio said this of her: "As a 1980 honors graduate of the University of Wisconsin Law School, she has shown herself to be a thoughtful and scholarly justice who respects the rule of law and the separate responsibilities of the three branches of government." 

Her campaign website Roggensack For Justice notes she has "strong and broad support from both the law enforcement and judicial community in Wisconsin". She is endorsed  by 53 sheriffs across the state, Milwaukee Police Supervisors' Organization, Milwaukee Professional Fire Fighters' Association and Milwaukee Police Association. As for the judicial community, "Justice Roggensack has earned the endorsement from 108 current Circuit Court judges, 11 retired Circuit Court judges, 3 current Court of Appeals judges and 3 retired Court of Appeals judges. In addition, Justice Roggensack has also been endorsed by four former Supreme Court Justices (a total of 129)."

Roggensack's opponents are both liberals. Vince Megna is dubbed "king of lemon law litigation" with a very limited scope of practice, who recently proclaimed he wouldn't serve Republicans! (Justices are to be impartial) Ed Fallone is the other man running; he is the liberal's favorite. He no longer practices law but is a Marquette Law School Professor. His former practice specialty was in academic, corporate and nonprofit law--again a narrow field.

Currently, our Supreme Court has a 4/3 split, Conservative to Liberal. And remember, Conservatives interpret the Constitution on the basis of what it actually says; Liberals view the Constitution as a living document, subject to their whim and their opinion on what they feel is right--sometimes called legislating from the bench.

Though we may be a weary from our constant election mode in Wisconsin, we cannot afford to stay home on this one. This is likely to be a contest much like the Prosser / Kloppenburg race two years ago. So if you value the separation of powers and don't want the court to elbow their way into the legislature's authority, go out and vote Pat Roggensack.

This is a non-partisan election so all voters choose one of the three candidates running, and the top two vote recipients advance to the April 2, 2013 ballot.
Justice Roggensack's hour long interview with Jim Schneider

More Reading: Roggensack launches first ad of Supreme Court race
Justice Roggensack Receives Endorsement From Over 100 Judges In The Wisconsin Court System 

For Brookfield residents, Supreme Court Justice is the only race on our ballot. 
In Milwaukee County, Justice Rebecca Bradley is running for Milwaukee County Circuit Court  against 2 liberal attorneys. Bradley was appointed last year by Gov. Walker and has the support of 22 Judges, Milwaukee Professional Firefighters, Police Association, and others. She would be the candidate who respects the rule of law and is the Conservative's choice. She states, "The role of a judge is to interpret the law – not invent it." Do not confuse Justice Rebecca Bradley with Liberal Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Ann Walsh Bradley. They are as different as night from day.

Labels: , , , ,

Wednesday, February 13, 2013

Yes, YES, Marco Rubio, Bravo

Senator Marco Rubio delivered one of the most inspiring State of the Union Responses I can ever recall. In his 14 minute address, he clearly pointed out the differences between Liberals and Conservatives: more taxes and more government vs.protecting liberty and  the American Dream

Best line of his speech was, "So Mr. President, I don’t oppose your plans because I want to protect the rich. I oppose your plans because I want to protect my neighbors."

Another favorite was an acknowledgement to God's blessing on our nation, "But God also blessed America with abundant coal, oil and natural gas. Instead of wasting more taxpayer money on so-called “clean energy” companies like Solyndra, let’s open up more federal lands for safe and responsible exploration. ... If we can grow our energy industry, it will make us energy independent, it will create middle class jobs and it will help bring manufacturing back from places like China."

Rubio touched on one of our biggest threats to our nation, our spending problem, "The real cause of our debt is that our government has been spending $1 trillion more than it takes in every year. That's why we need a balanced budget amendment."

Today, many are hailing Rubio's speech last night. Either watch it for yourself or read the transcript.

Unfortunately, others are focusing on the minor detail of Rubio needing a sip of water. Again the complice media doesn't look at substance, they nit-pic the superficials.

Do I care if someone got a little parched delivering a speech? or am I more concerned about a smooth talking President who twists and distorts the truth to fit his agenda?

Truth wins the day for me.

More Reading: Transcript
Forbes: Marco Rubio's Imressive Response to Obama's 2013 State of the Union Address

Labels: , , ,