General

Are Branson officials flushing money down the airport drain?

General / /

When Branson residents flush their toilet they pay for it, but the opportunities for Branson residents to flush things away and pay doesn’t stop there. Without even getting to pull the handle on the stool, Branson residents get to pay $8.24 for every person getting off a plane at the Branson Airport who did not originally depart from that airport on their trip.

It’s actually kind of like flushing your toilet, the more you flush the more you pay. Well, the more passengers that fly into the airport the more the Branson residents pay. As a matter of fact, over the next 30 years, at $8.24 cents per passenger, $500,000 per quarter, and $2,000,000 per year that could  cost the residents of Branson $60 million dollars flushed away.

The requirement for the residents of Branson to pay the per passenger fee arises from a contract, created and entered into under the leadership of a past city administrator and the merry band of aldermen who, in the opinion of an Ole Seagull, did what they wanted to do when they wanted to do it. For example, they wanted to give the airport up to $2 million a year merely for doing what they said they would do in the first place with no public money and for just doing what airports are supposed to do, fly people in and out. So they did.

The first time the Ole Seagull saw the contract he was amazed at how one sided it was even considering the city leadership that authorized it. Basically, the residents of the city of Branson are obligated, in accordance with the contract, to pay the airport up to $2 million per year for the next 30 years without the airport doing anything other than run an airport. To an Ole Seagull the contract, more a gift from the city of Branson to the airport developers, is the most “unconscionable” contract he has ever seen.

In a general legal sense, a contract could be considered “unconscionable” if, among other things, it is so one-sided as to be considered oppressively unfair. In this contract one even wonders if the airport is obligated to do anything it was not already doing except collect the money from the city. It’s so ludicrous and one sided that if Visitor A and his Wife flew into the Branson Airport, even though they had been flying into Branson through the Springfield Branson Regional airport twice a year for the last five years, the residents of the city of Branson would have to pay $16.48 for the first and each subsequent time they fly into the Branson airport. That’s right folks each time, twice a year $32.96, twice a year for the next ten years $329.60.

The city has spent over $67,000 for legal reviews of the contract and, if published reports on those reviews are accurate there are legal problems and issues with the contract. Indeed, the city’s staff has recommended that no payments be made under the original contract until it is amended.

One of the newly appointed aldermen is quoted as saying, “We have an obligation like it or not. I have to stand up and honor the decision. The intent is to support the airport if funds are available…Don’t want to put out the message we don’t support their airport.” May an Ole Seagull ask, “What is there to honor and at what expense to the residents of the city of Branson?”  It was an unconscionable agreement from its inception, city lawyers have indicated its illegal and not paying the money indicates no more than the city is not going to allow its tax payers money be flushed down the drain in an illegal or unconscionable manner whether it’s paid to the airport or any another entity.

In an Ole Seagull’s opinion the word “honor” is dishonored when used in connection with the airport agreement. He believes there was no honor in its inception; can be no honor in any attempt to flush money from the residents of the city of Branson to the airport whether flushed directly or through some other legal entity in a pitiful attempt to circumvent state law and there is no honor if a legal and conscionable means is available to renegotiate a fairer more audit friendly contract and is not pursued to the maximum extent possible. As a starter, how about just paying the airport for the first time a passenger comes in and not every subsequent time?

Are Branson officials flushing money down the airport drain? Read More »

Illegal Aliens should only get “back where you came from” benefits

General, Opinion / /

The title on the email the Ole Seagull received from a close friend was “What is wrong?.” It is published below as received.

In the for what it’s worth department, the Ole Seagull believes that the only benefits an illegal alien should receive should are those necessary and directly connected with providing the health care, sustenance, and travel assistance necessary to send them back where they came from as quickly as possible.

“Let’s See if I have this RIGHT!
If you cross the border from South Korea into North Korea you get 12 Years hard labor
If you cross the Iranian border you are detained indefinitely.
If you cross the Afghan border you get shot.
If you cross the Saudi Arabian border you will be jailed.
If you cross the Chinese border you may never be heard from again.
If you cross the Venezuelan border you will be branded a spy and your fate will be sealed.
If you cross the border into Cuba you will be thrown into political prison to rot.
If you illegally cross the United Stated border you get —-
A Job (sure politicians will say it’s a job Americans don’t want to do but with 10% unemployment I’m sure we can find someone)
A Drivers License (but why bother drive without one, and don’t bother with insurance either)
A Social Security Card (collect social security, but don’t bother paying any taxes)
Welfare
Food Stamps
Free Education
Credit Cards
Subsidized Rent (or just get a govt loan for a house)
Free Health Care (especially for those nice diseases you weren’t inoculated for)
A Lobbyist working for you in Washington
Government Documents printed in your native language costing Billions of Dollars
The right to carry the flag of the country you left while you protest your treatment in this country which you entered illegally
And in many instances you can VOTE (thank you ACORN)
Just wanted to be clear on how our representatives that are supposed to be working for us are spending our tax dollars. Any questions?”

Illegal Aliens should only get “back where you came from” benefits Read More »

Can there be Christmas without CHRISTmas?

General, Opinion / /

This column was originally written over 12 years ago and is modified and republished each year as an Ole Seagull’s testimony as to what Christmas means to him. The political correctness of “Merry Christmas” may change but the true meaning of CHRISTmas will never change.

The “Grinch” never came any closer to stealing the true meaning of Christmas than has trying to be “politically correct.” In recent years there has been a strong move to change the traditional Christmas greeting of “Merry Christmas” to the “politically correct” terminology of “Happy Holidays” or “Seasons Greetings.”

“But one wouldn’t want to offend those who are celebrating Kwanzaa, Hanukkah, or something else would they?” Absolutely not, but most people are not offended by the use of the term “Merry Christmas.” Yet, it is important to the vast majority of Americans to whom the celebration of Christmas is so significant and special and to those who want to preserve the spirit, history and tradition of the “Christmas” that the U.S. Congress designated as a legal holiday on June 26, 1870.

What do “Happy Holidays,” and “Seasons Greetings,” have in common with “_ _ _ _ _ _ mas?” They both leave “Christ” out. So what? What does “Christ” have to do with the celebration of Kwanza, Hanukkah, Santa Claus, presents, office parties, red nosed reindeer, decorating trees, wreaths, holly, sleigh bells, retail sales, booze, atheism and feasting? Not much.

What does Christ have to do with CHRISTmas? Everything! Without Christ there can be no CHRISTmas. There can be a holiday, a season, festivals, and religious observations of every persuasion, but without Christ there can be no CHRISTmas, in either fact or spirit. One cannot even say or spell the word “CHRISTmas,” let alone explain its actual history, meaning or origins, as it is celebrated in the United States, without Christ.

The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia states that Christmas is “Christ’s Mass in the Christian calendar, the feast of the nativity of Jesus.” The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines “Christmas” as “A Christian feast commemorating the birth of Jesus.” Jesus who? Jesus, the Christ Child, the only begotten Son of God, born of the virgin Mary in Bethlehem over 2000 years ago.
First there was Jesus Christ and because of Christ there is the celebration of His birth, CHRISTmas. Secular customs and traditions have developed since; but, first there was Christ.

Even the greatest current secular symbol, the “Ho, Ho, Ho” jolly old Santa Claus seen everywhere during the Christmas season, was first made popular in New York during the 19th century. And before that the European traditions of “Sinterklaas,” and Saint Nicholas can be traced back hundreds of years; but, first there was “Christ.”

Why, there are even some who would try to replace the bright guiding light of the Star of Bethlehem with the red glow of the nose of “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer.” Rudolph’s nose has been guiding Santa’s sleigh since 1939 when Robert May wrote a verse for a Montgomery Ward promotional comic book. In the late 1940’s his brother-in-law adapted the verse and used it in the song “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer;” and the cowboy crooner, Gene Autry, made Rudolph famous but, first there was “Christ.”

When someone says “Happy Holidays” or “Seasons Greetings,” rather than “Merry Christmas,” those wanting to share the gift of Christmas could ask, “What Holiday?” or “What Season?” What better way to create or reinforce an awareness of the “reason for the season,” that very first Christmas when “God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life?”
If we keep the spirit of the Christ Child and His love in our hearts and share it with others, Christmas, in its truest sense, will be with us every day of the year, Merry Christmas folks, Merry Christmas.

An Ole Seagull, and the rest of the Groman Family would take this opportunity to wish you and yours a blessed Merry Christmas.

Can there be Christmas without CHRISTmas? Read More »

“Music City Game” can cost the loss of tens of millions in revenues to Branson and Missouri?

General / /

An August opinion of the Missouri Supreme Court (Court), “Music City Management, LLC v Director of Revenue” (Music City), changes the way that retail sales taxes on show tickets are collected and paid and authorized huge refunds of taxes already paid back to the plaintiff theatres. In doing so it created a situation that can potentially cost the city of Branson and the state of Missouri tens of millions of dollars in lost revenues and cost the taxpayers of Branson hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Prior to the Music City case, if theatre “TA” sold a Ticket Reseller a ticket that retailed for $40.00 for the wholesale (FIT) rate of $30.00 and the retail sales tax rate on the ticket, including city of Branson, state, ambulance districts, etc, was 10 percent, TA would have collected and remitted $3.00 in retail sales taxes to the Missouri Department of Revenue (MDOR). When the Ticket Reseller sold the ticket at retail to a customer for the full $40.00 they would collect and remit to MDOR an additional $1.00 in retail sales taxes, for a total tax collected and remitted of $4.00. At its simplest level, after the Music City case, the Ticket Resellers is responsible for collecting and remitting the total sales tax due, in this case $4.00.

In implementing the Courts decision MDOR has said that every Ticket Reseller must register for Missouri sales tax for each place of amusement, entertainment or recreation and collect and remit the tax based on the tax rate applicable to the place “for which the admission is sold.” The registration appears important because the “Sales/Use Exemption Tax Certificate (Form 149)” that must be presented to the theatre at the time the Ticket Reseller Purchases tickets for resale by Missouri businesses is required to have the Missouri Tax ID Number. One can only wonder how many Ticket Resellers have applied to register with the state, just how long such registration takes and if there is a public list of Ticket Resellers who have registered.

The Ole Seagull finds the Courts authorization for a refund particularly onerous. The theatres in the Music City case appear to getting a refund of money that was paid by the Resellers that bought the tickets from them. Too, an Ole Seagull believes there is a strong likely hood that the State of Missouri will go against the City of Branson and the other taxing entities for a refund of the taxes the state paid to them and is having to refund to the Music City plaintiffs. What a strain that could put on already stretched budgets.

Why is some sort of class action not being taken to have the “Music City” money held in escrow until it can be determined who actually paid how much for what? Once it’s given back to the “Music City” plaintiffs and their attorney(s), for all practical purposes, it is gone absent legal action by each entity against each theatre getting a “Music City” refund. One can only wonder about the possibility that the ramifications of this decision could cost the city of Branson, and for that matter, the state of Missouri,millions of dollars in lost revenues from tour companies and others that might choose to go somewhere else rather than play the “Music City Game?

“Music City Game” can cost the loss of tens of millions in revenues to Branson and Missouri? Read More »

U.S. Supreme Court says First Amendment applies only to the Federal government!

General, Government, Opinion / /

In a column a couple of weeks ago entitled “Ouch and sorry, but our Forefathers didn’t prohibit Nativity scenes on public land, prayer in school, etc.” the Ole Seagull made some comments and asked some questions based on a Letter to the Editor by Bill Stephenson. For the most part they related the truthfulness and accuracy of some of Stephenson’s comments relating to what our “Founding Fathers” did or meant by putting the words “an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”  in the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Stephenson responded to that column with another Letter to the Editor. Because of the Ole Seagull’s sincere belief that this discussion transcends religion and goes to the core of how the Federal Government has become so involved in our daily lives, on an ever increasing level, he believes it timely and appropriate to continue the dialogue. Comments made by Bill Stephenson from his letter are preceded by his initials “BS” and the response of The Ole Seagull by the initials “TOSG.”

BS:“This time he wanted us to believe that the First Amendment to the Constitution was only intended to apply to ‘Congress.’”

TOSG: That has to be a Freudian Slip because what the Ole Seagull actually did was point out, that as written “the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits ‘Congress,’ from making a law ‘respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” He then asked two questions, “Who does it apply to, local school districts, cities, states, counties” or “Congress?” and “Isn’t that the same Congress defined in Section 1 of Article I of the U.S. Constitution?”

One can only assume that BS read the First Amendment and Section 1 of Article I and reached the same logical conclusion most reasonable persons reading those words would reach. That conclusion, using the words of BS himself is “that the First Amendment to the Constitution was only intended to apply to ‘Congress.’”

BS: “Now, I don’t want to spread ‘misinformation’ here, but I’m pretty sure the ‘Ole Seagull’ was also asking us to believe that State and Local governments were never intended by our ‘Founding Fathers’ to respect any of those rights as well.”

TOSG: Absolutely.

BS: “I certainly hope I’m wrong about this because who knows how many might ask, ‘That can’t be right, can it?’”

TOSG: It doesn’t make any difference how many ask because the answer is still the same, “Of course it’s right;” that is, if the opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court has any bearing on the issue. In terms of “those rights,” as evidenced by its decision in the 1833 case “Barron v City of Baltimore,” the Supreme Court held that “These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the state governments. This court cannot so apply them.”

BS: “It would serve the ‘Ole Seagull’ well to finish reading the First Amendment, and while he has the Constitution out he might read the Fourteenth Amendment too… “Congress added it [14th amendment] about one hundred and fifty years ago to make sure that no one would get confused again about where your rights as a U.S. citizen are protected…”

TOSG: The 14th amendment, ratified in 1868, had nothing to do with what the “Founding Fathers” did or did not do. They were in their graves.

Nor was there any “confusion” at the time of its ratification about who the Bill of Rights, the first amendment in this case, applied to. The U.S. supreme court in the case of “United States v. Cruikshank,” held that “The first amendment to the Constitution prohibits Congress from abridging ‘the right of the people to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.’ This, like the other amendments proposed and adopted at the same time, was not intended to limit the powers of the State governments in respect to their own citizens, but to operate upon the National government alone.” (Underline added)

To an Ole Seagull there doesn’t appear to be any confusion at all, only consistency. It’s probably appropriate to note that this decision was delivered in 1875 about seven years after the 14th amendment was ratified.

Some might ask, “Then how did we get from there to the National government’s growing infringement into our local government, churches, schools, and daily lives?” That’s an article for another day.

U.S. Supreme Court says First Amendment applies only to the Federal government! Read More »

Thanksgiving is all about to whom the “Thanks” is “given!”

General, Opinion / /

This annual Thanksgiving reprint is a wish from the Bthe Ole Seagull and the entire Groman family that you and yours will have a Blessed and Happy Thanksgiving.

Common sense tells an Ole Seagull that something celebrated as “Thanksgiving Day” should be a day of “giving thanks.”  Generally speaking, who among us says “thank you” to “no one?” When thanks is given it is for something and is “given” to the person or entity believed to have provided that something.

Yet, even as some would take “CHRIST” out of CHRISTmas they would take the “Giving” out of Thanksgiving. To whom are we giving thanks? From Coronado’s 1541 Thanksgiving in Palo Duro Canyon, in what is now West Texas, through the 1600 Puritan Thanksgivings in New England, history testifies to the fact that our modern day Thanksgiving is rooted on giving thanks to God for blessings bestowed.

The true meaning of “Thanksgiving,” and its involvement with the very foundation of our Nation can be readily gleaned from the Proclamations establishing it and history itself. One of the “First Thanksgiving Proclamations,” issued in 1676, by the Governing Council of Charlestown, Massachusetts proclaimed, “a day of Solemn Thanksgiving and praise to God for such his Goodness and Favor …”

On December 18, 1777, after the victory over the British at Saratoga, the Congress recommended, “That at one time, and with one voice, the good people may express the grateful feelings of their hearts, and consecrate themselves to the service of their divine benefactor; and that, together with their sincere acknowledgements and offerings they may join the penitent confession of their sins; and supplications for such further blessings as they stand in need of.”

On November 16, 1789, the First President of the United States, George Washington, issued a Thanksgiving Proclamation stating, “Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor, and Whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint committee requested me to ‘recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanks-giving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many single favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.”

Perhaps Abraham Lincoln, in his 1863 Thanksgiving Proclamation said it best. “No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things.  They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy.  It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and one voice by the whole American People.  I do therefore invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next, as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens.”

Particularly at this time in our Nation’s history, it would seem appropriate, during our Thanksgiving celebrations, to stop and give “thanks” to Almighty God for the many blessings he has bestowed upon this Nation and its people. As Lincoln so beautifully said, “No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God.”

Thanksgiving is all about to whom the “Thanks” is “given!” Read More »

Ouch and sorry, but our Forefathers didn’t prohibit Nativity scenes on public land, prayer in school, etc.

General, Government, Opinion / /

In a recent “Letter to the Editor,” published in the Taney County Times, Bill Stephenson of Kirbyville said, “Both Betty Edwards and Gary Groman [a.k.a. the Ole Seagull] recently opined that my and everyone else’s children should be taught in our public schools to be Christians according to what I must suppose is their personal interpretation of what that means.” As to Stephenson’s assertion that the Ole Seagull wrote that his “and everyone else’s children should be taught in our public schools to be Christians according to what I must suppose is their personal interpretation,” put in its kindest light, the Ole Seagull would suggest that Stephenson is inaccurate.

In a recent column entitled, “An Ole Seagull’s ‘Separation of Church and State 101” The Ole Seagull stated “his basic belief that the ‘created’ have no power or authority to change the laws of the ‘Creator.’” He continued, “The created either follow the laws of the Creator or don’t and must live with the result(s)”

The word “school” was mentioned in the column twice, the first being in connection with a rhetorical question and its answer. The question was, “If the U.S. Constitution, the document upon which our government is based, says there should be no prayer in schools, no nativity scenes on public property, that the Ten Commandments cannot be displayed in public buildings, Christmas should be called ‘Winter Solstice,’ etc., shouldn’t that be the law of the land?” The immediate answer was “Absolutely, and if a frog had wings it should be able to fly but a frog doesn’t have wings and the Constitution contains no such language!”

The second mention of the word “school” was contained in the following paragraph, “Can any reasonably thinking person really believe that the same Congress that encouraged the ‘people of the United States’ to acknowledge ‘with grateful hearts the many single favors of Almighty God,’ intended that the First Amendment they had proposed, not two months prior, be used as a tool to take prayer out of schools, remove the ten commandments from the walls of all public buildings etc.? It flies in the face of logic.”

It really takes a special thought process to get from those two paragraphs, or anything else in the column, to the point of saying the Ole Seagull wrote that Stephenson’s “and everyone else’s children should be taught in our public schools to be Christians according to what I must suppose is their personal interpretation of what that means.” From an Ole Seagull’s perspective, as illustrated in the instant situation, the results from that type of process are based on “A fountain bubbling over with misinformation.”

And the “bubbling over with misinformation” doesn’t stop there. Stephenson goes on to say, “Our nations forefathers knew this was a problem too. Who could they possibly appoint to determine what must be taught, and how?… The only right answer to religious teaching is for government to stay out of it. Completely out of it. So they addressed it in the very first amendment to our Constitution with this law of our land: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

Wow, so that was the rational for the first amendment? That’s the first time the Ole Seagull has ever heard that rational expressed and, for what it matters, in an Ole Seagull’s opinion it is about as valid as what Stephenson said the Ole Seagull wrote.

As originally written and specifically stated, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits “Congress,” from making a law “respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Who does it apply to, local school districts, cities, states, counties” or “Congress?”

Isn’t that the same Congress defined in Section 1 of Article I of the U.S. Constitution? Some might ask, “How did we get from a prohibition against the Congress of the United States doing something down to local government entities, taking prayer out of local schools, removing the Ten Commandments from city buildings, or prohibiting the display of Nativity scenes on public land or a public prayer at a meeting or football game? Come to think of it, why does it make any difference? One thing is for sure though; if that was the intention of our Nations Forefathers it was well hidden and not adhered to for well over the first 100 years of our Nation’s history.

Ouch and sorry, but our Forefathers didn’t prohibit Nativity scenes on public land, prayer in school, etc. Read More »

An Apology for Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

General, Opinion / /

Dedication: The republication of this evolving tribute is respectfully dedicated to the Branson entertainment industry for its steadfast support and honoring of America’s Veterans, active duty Military personnel and their families.

It is a sad fact of life that the politicians, and those in power, start wars and that the people of the nations involved bleed, die, suffer, and otherwise pay the price of war. Even in today’s world of terrorist attacks, as the people of countries or ideologies make war on each other they fall into two general categories, “Military” and “Civilian.” The “Military,” the fighters, generally kill each other and the civilians they believe are making war on them, the old fashioned way, directly, with bullets, rockets and bombs either delivered directly, by suicide bomber, plane, drone, etc. History testifies to the fact that they, and the civilians their actions impact on, are generally the first to bleed, suffer, and die.

The Civilians of warring nations provide the means for the military to kill each other and the bodies to replace those that are killed or maimed. History records that the bullets, bombs, torpedoes, planes, ships and other implements of war, used by Japan, to destroy the peace at Pearl Harbor and by America, to reestablish that peace in WW II, were made by civilians.

Prior to December 7, 1941 there was peace between the United States and Japan. At approximately 7:55 a.m. Hawaii time, on Sunday, December 7, 1941, while Japanese diplomats were in the process of negotiating to maintain that peace with Secretary of State Cordell Hull in Washington, DC, and without warning, the country of Japan shattered that peace by spilling American blood in a cowardly surprise attack on the United States Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor. The attack killed over 2,400 and wounded over 1,175. On Monday December 8, 1941 President Roosevelt went before Congress and declared December 7, 1941 as, “A date that will live in infamy.” Congress declared war against Japan on that date.

Upon the death of President Roosevelt on April 12, 1945, over three years and 200,000 American lives later, Harry S. Truman, became the 33rd President of the United States. He was a Missourian known for honesty and one of the most respected politicians of his time. The war in Europe was over and the Axis Powers of Italy and Germany had been defeated. All that remained between war and peace was the fanatical and kamikaze like resistance of the Japanese people and their army of over 2,500,000. In spite of the repeated warnings to surrender and that the alternative “was complete and utter destruction,” Japan refused to surrender and continued to fight.

Truman had served as an Artillery Officer in France during World War I and, prior to becoming President, was not aware of the “Manhattan Project” and its Atom Bomb. His advisors estimated the war could be shortened by a year and that 1 million Allied casualties, 500,000 of them American lives, could be saved if the Atomic Bomb was used on Japan. He decided that enough American blood had been spilled in trying to reestablish the peace that Japan had shattered. Truman said, “Let there be no mistake about it, I regarded the bomb as a military weapon and never had any doubt that it should be used.”

At approximately 9:15 a.m. on August 6, 1945, after repeated warnings for Japan to surrender, the Atomic Bomb was dropped from the “Enola Gay” on Hiroshima. In spite of the horrific carnage and destruction that resulted Japan did not capitulate. On August 9, 1945, another Atomic Bomb was dropped on Nagasaki. Japan sued for peace the next day and the formal surrender papers were signed, on the deck of the Battleship U.S.S. Missouri, on September 2, 1945. Peace had been restored.

Some say America owes Japan an apology for using the Atomic Bomb. The lives sacrificed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved many times the lives, Japanese, American, as well as others, that would have been spent if the war had continued. Without Pearl Harbor and the refusal of Japan to end the war that they had started, not only would there have been no Hiroshima or Nagasaki, but millions of people, Japanese as well as others, would not have died. If the people of Japan are due an apology it more appropriately should come from their own government.

Some say that Japan owes us an apology for Pearl Harbor. No apology can undo history, the treacherous cowardice of that attack, or bring back the lives that were lost. Rather than seek useless insincere apologies let us thank God that the nuclear power used to end a terrible war, has never been used in war since. At the end of the day, the blood of her sons, and ours, staining the sands of remote Pacific Islands such as Peleliu, Okinawa, Saipan, Iwo Jima and others, solemnly testify to the futility of such an apology.

An Apology for Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Read More »

An Ole Seagull’s “Separation of Church and State 101”

General, Government, Opinion / /

From the get-go, the Ole Seagull must state his basic belief that the “created” have no power or authority to change the laws of the “Creator.” The created either follow the laws of the Creator or don’t and must live with the result(s) of their decision.

Obviously, who or what the “Creator” is plays a critical role. To an Ole Seagull, even one in the winter of his years and with all his glaring faults, the answer is contained within the words, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” That “Creator” is God.

“Come on Seagull, do you really believe that God created everything?” Absolutely! Through the spring, summer, fall, and into the winter of his years, from the sun coming up every morning to its setting every evening, and all that naturally transpires in between, he has observed an orderliness to the universe that continually testifies to the certainty of God’s creation and His blessing.

“Next you’re going to tell us that you believe that “the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.” From an Ole Seagull’s perspective it sure beats the alternative of a Godless “inbreeding monkey evolution” left to itself without God’s hand to direct it.

“Well, God didn’t create this country?” Actually He did. Relatively speaking, it just took a “few years” for Columbus, to “discover” that which God had created and which, at the time of his discovery, was occupied by “Native Americans” who had discovered it centuries before.

“Come on Seagull, what I meant is that God didn’t fight the Revolutionary War which established us as an independent nation or write the U.S. Constitution upon which its government is based.” As an Ole Seagull understands it, that war like all others before it and since, was fought by beings that God created as they exercised their option of free choice. In like manner the U.S. Constitution was written.
“If the U.S. Constitution, the document upon which our government is based, says there should be no prayer in schools, no nativity scenes on public property, that the Ten Commandments cannot be displayed in public buildings, Christmas should be called “Winter Solstice,” etc., shouldn’t that be the law of the land?” Absolutely, and if a frog had wings it should be able to fly but a frog doesn’t have wings and the Constitution contains no such language!

“Gotcha there Seagull, how about the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which says, among other things, ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.’ ” Are we talking about the same First Amendment that Congress proposed, as part of the Bill of Rights on September 25, 1789? “That’s the one.” Was that same Congress still in session, not two months later, on November 16, 1789? “Sure it was.  Why?”

On November 16, 1789, the First President of the United States, George Washington, issued a Thanksgiving Proclamation.  In that proclamation he stated, “Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint committee requested me to ‘recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanks-giving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many single favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.’”

Can any reasonably thinking person really believe that the same Congress that encouraged the “people of the United States” to acknowledge “with grateful hearts the many single favors of Almighty God,” intended that the First Amendment they had proposed, not two months prior, be used as a tool to take prayer out of schools, remove the ten commandments from the walls of all public buildings etc.? It flies in the face of logic.

“Well, the Supreme Court of the United States says it does!” Is that the same “Supreme Court” that issued the Dred Scott Decision? “I guess so. What was that decision about?” The fallibility of mans law, the imperfection of those who interpret it, and a testimony to what can happen when the created change the laws of the Creator.

An Ole Seagull’s “Separation of Church and State 101” Read More »

Things haven’t changed much since Noah built the Ark

General, Opinion / /

The Ole Seagull was blessed to see one of Branson’s many live shows, “Noah the Musical,” at the fabulous Sight & Sound Theatre, the afternoon of October 16. Now he might not go to church every week, but he knows the Noah story, respects Noah’s God and humbly accepts the salvation from his Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, the Son of the Living God.

At the start of the show the audience is told that it is a fictional presentation of a factual event but, there is nothing fictional about the main thrust of the show and why Noah was doing what he was doing. God said to Noah, “The end of all flesh has come before Me; for the earth is filled with violence because of them; and behold, I am about to destroy them with the earth.” He told Noah to build an Ark, how to do it and what to put on it and Scripture records “Thus Noah did; according to all that God had commanded him, so he did.”

“Noah the Musical” dramatically illustrates the shows interpretation of ways in which the people of the time had separated themselves from God and worshipped their own God and the way of life he provided. Why he even built a tower the people could go into to protect themselves in the case Noah was right and the waters rose. The factual truth that resonates throughout was that God’s people had chosen to forsake Him and His ways for something else.

As the Ole Seagull sat there and watched how far the people of that day had turned from God and His ways and thought about today and how far our Nation has drifted down that same path. The government will take care of us, we have to take prayer out of the schools and Christmas out of anything that can be remotely construed to be governmental because of the U.S. Constitution and its alleged separation of Church and can worship God and practice our faith as long as it is socially acceptable.

It has been said that one woman got prayer out of the schools and that one man is trying to get “Under God” out of the Pledge of Allegiance and “In God We Trust” removed from out money. In an Ole Seagull’s opinion, prayer is out of our schools and, if “God” is taken out of the pledge and off our currency it will not be because of the action of one person it will be because of the inaction of millions of Gods people who simply stood by and let it happen.

It almost makes the Ole Seagull sick when people say, “Oh well what can you do, it’s what the U.S. Constitution says.” It’s not what the constitution says, it is an interpretation of what the federal judiciary says it says, and regardless, as a general rule, the created, forefathers and judges included, cannot change the laws of the Creator.

Since the days of Moses, God’s law has said, “You shall have no other god before me,” “You shall not make for yourself an idol” and “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house ….or anything that belongs to your neighbor.” Yet today it seems that God’s people have put the constitution before God and are building a whole society based on coveting and actually taking from their neighbors that which they have earned and giving it to themselves in benefits they have not earned.

As a nation, when was America the most successful? Was it when God, His precepts and power were an integral part of our daily lives from both a national and a personal perspective? Or, is it now when seemingly as a nation, and in a lot of cases from a personal perspective, the U.S. Constitution and the Federal government has been substituted for the precepts and power of God?

Things haven’t changed much since Noah built the Ark Read More »