Christie Vetoes A2006

NJ Gov. Chris Christie

Whether out of personal commitment, political gain, or principled opposition, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie did the right thing when he vetoed the Democratic designed and promoted gun-control bill A2006. Just as guns do not kill people, nor do the bullets, and limiting the size of ammunition magazines would have at best a cosmetic effect on preventing gun violence.

Despite the unspeakable tragedies which parents and communities (Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut; Aurora, Colorado) have faced following gun-related mass murders, reason and purpose must triumph over emotion and intuition regarding the proper methods for curbing mass violence.

In California, following the devastating massacre from a mentally deranged college student at the University of California, Santa Barbara, the calls for legislating away firearms fired off again. However, wiser minds prevailed in the discussion, who indicated that the mental status of the young assailant, who ended up killing six people (three by stabbing and three more by shooting) had a history of violent mental illness. College leadership with more discretion, as well as more engaged psychiatric facilitation may have prevented the senseless deaths in Santa Barbara, California.

By rejecting the New Jersey Democratic legislature’s “easy way out”, Gov. Christie correctly argued that our state governments require more authority to institutionalize individuals who pose a danger to themselves and to others. Hopefully, his example will inspire leaders and  lawmakers throughout the country  to focus less on controlling the guns and more on dealing with the mentally ill who perpetrate violent crimes.

The "Other" Marriage Crisis

Here is the crisis of marriage writ large, and advertised.

Is there no shame?

Not just from exploiting the image of a public figure, but promoting a form of conduct which does not promote the best of anyone.

What gives?

While activists can rage against gay marriage, or call homosexuality a sin (they might want to go further in their Bibles, and discover that sin is a much deeper issue than what you do. . .), no one should ignore the other crises in marriage.

Divorce is high.

Pre-marital sex is common, not just excused, but even celebrated.

Ashley Madison adultery-made-easy promo with Hillary Clinton (Source: Truth Revolt)

And as the picture above depicts, adultery is solicited.

Harder choices? Taken from the former Secretary of State's failed memoir Hard Choices, the billboard prompts a number of questions.

First, is this ad mocking the former First Lady? Or does the CEO of the adultery website really believe that she made noteworthy decisions?

More probing question: Did her husband former President Bill Clinton harm the institution of marriage with his affairs in the White House, followed by his impassion plea that he did nothing improper with "that woman."?

No. Clinton's conduct normalized a little bit more what was becoming commonplace.

Adultery is treated as though there are no consequences to a man or woman stepping out on one's spouse. Now websites advertise quick quickies, too?

The divorce is reaching all-time highs in this country. Mary Matalin called out the high single-mother rate in this country.

Forget worrying about gay marriage, Matalin concluded with a panel of media intellectuals on ABC's This Week. The crisis of broken homes, broken marriages, casual attitudes about sex, dishonor towards the marital covenant between one man and one woman, these issues deserve real attention.

People should protest the undoing and redefining of marriage away from one man and one woman, but for the sanctity of the ceremony to (re)gain its proper status, we have to look at why the casual attitudes toward commitment and honor among wedded couples has fallen away, too. 


Ray Uchima: The Next Torrance City Council Appointee (?!)

Ray Uchima is one name I have heard a lot lately from Torrance City Council insiders.

I had the opportunity to meet him once at another political function, the campaign kick-off for one of the Torrance School Board candidates in 2013.

 A Torrance businessman who invested heavily in the 2014 City Council race, significantly assisting the winning candidates (including mayor-elect Pat Furey), Uchima had planned on running for city council himself, but personal conflicts intervened and he had to abandon his run for office this year.

However, his desire to serve on the city council has remained unabated, according to reports, and if Torrance City Council string-pulling and back-scratching win the day, Uchima may get his wish.

With Councilmember Furey's election to Torrance Mayor, the next council will have to appoint (or allow a special election) to fill the vacated council seat next.

Who will be the next city council member?

Inside sources, including those connected with prior candidates for office as well as current members, suggest that the hands have been shaken, the deals have been cut, and Uchima will be the next Torrance City Council member appointed to the seat.

Is this fair? Is this ethical? Is this even legal?

Looking at his resume, Chairman of Torrance Planning Commission, successful small businessman, there is nothing in his professional or personal background which should disqualify him. Judging from the support of family and friends who had urged him to run, he has a decent following in the "Balanced City" to sit on the city council. Furthermore, private tragedies emerge in our lives and can frustrate political ambitions for a short time,

However, should our leaders abandon the proper channels for seeking power and authority in city government and allow the next appointee's entrance into city hall rest on these flimsy and unprincipled methods? "I donated a lot of money to your campaigns, so give me a seat on the city council!"

Sources have further indicated to me that the next council, lead by Pat Furey, are feeling the pressure from the Asian (and  particularly the Asian businesses) community in Torrance to appoint an Asian American in order to have a more representative council. Putting aside the blatant influence-peddling, a city leadership which understood the cultural mores of the Asian community, particularly the businesses, would take better steps to ensure that companies like Toyota Headquarters stayed in Torrance instead of heading for Texas. Still, identity politics, especially without the input of the voters (how few who bother to vote) should not dictate who sits on any city council.

The next cohort of city leadership will have the decisions to make regarding how to fill the Furey vacancy. Three options are available:

1. Throw a special election to fill the seat, which will cost the city another $200,000 dollars.

2. Open the seat to an application/appointment process, which is more likely to happen.

3. Take the next ranking vote-getter behind the four candidates who won election to the city council. This unusual route would award the seat to Leilani Kimmel-Dagostino, who finished fifth in the 2014 election. The council could consider other candidates who put in their time and money to run for office and appoint that person too (like Asian-American businessman Alex See or Mike Griffiths, who received retiring mayor Frank Scotto's endorsement)

Whatever decision the next city council takes, the prior behavior of the voting members suggests a crop of representatives who do what they are told, who rarely investigate or challenge the reports or suggestions of department leaders and bureaucratic heads regarding spending, budgetary priorities, or the proper reforms needed to ensure smooth roads, safe neighborhoods, and solvent finances.

If the next council pursues option #2, then a slate of candidates will submit an application, listing their contributions, skills, and accomplishments for the city of Torrance. Following interviews with all the city councilmembers, they will then vote for

Because of all the backroom wheeling and dealing which has occurred, Uchima will get the seat, regardless of the dumb-show of protocol and propriety which will emerge for the public to see. One local business member assured me that this will be the likely process taking place, and the whole affair really disgusts him. At this point, he shared that it does not seem as if anything can be done to stop it.

Whatever takes place in Torrance over the next few weeks, residents should keep an eye on whom the next council appoints to replace Furey. Despite the time and investment of the other candidates who ran for office, and with the information I have received from local leaders and politicos connected with candidates running for office (and current serving on the Torrance City Council), if Uchima gets the seat, residents should expect more of the same pay-for-play politicking which has made Torrance City Hall unresponsive and unaccountable to the city's priorities and financial liabilities.

Judge Takes on Teacher Tenure

Where legislators have failed, where governors have accommodated, judges are stepping up and reforming sclerotic, bureaucratic roadblocks which have empowered unions while impoverishing students, parents, and families.

Beatriz and Elizabeth Vergara: Plaintiffs in Teacher Tenure Case
(Source: LA School Reports)

For decades, school choice and voucher activists in the state of California have fought for education reforms which would return the power of one's education to the family, to the parents, and away from the unions, from the bureaucrats, and from state legislatures.



The first major court decision, Vergara v. California, declared teacher tenure unconstitutional, along with other arbitrary, union-defended practices which rewarded mediocre (or incompetent) teachers at the expense of students.

LA Superior Court Judge Rolf M. Treu ( LA School Report)

The opinion delivered by Judge Rolf M. Treu focused first on the US Supreme Court ruling Brown v. Board of Education, which had reversed the Court's prior judicial doctrine of "separate but equal." The judge then outlined the state's compelling interest in ensuring that all students receive a proper education.

Citing more recent California State Supreme Court rulings, Judge Treu outlined that decisions from school districts which adversely affected one group of students at the expense of other students, such as the premature closing of a school, or a lack of funding, were also unconstitutional acts. Equality had to extend to educational opportunity, without any delay or dispute.

Moving from the equality of access to the quality of education, the judge summarized the plaintiffs of the case, nine students from Los Angeles Unified. Their argument for removing teacher tenure and "Last hired, first fired" statutes rested on the premise that those conditions denied the students equal access to a quality education.

In a summation which affirmed the argument of the plaintiffs then outlined the specific reasons for supporting their contentions, the judge agreed that the current teacher tenures laws were unconstitutional, violating the Equal Protections clause of the California State Constitution.

LAUSD Superintendent John Deasy (LA School Report)

The nine students filed lawsuits against California Governor Jerry Brown and the State Superintendent Tom Torkalson, as well as the State Board of Education and the LAUSD superintendent John Deasy, who  following the lawsuit reported that he supported the students' legal challenge. How often does that happen, where a defendant agrees and accommodates the charges of the plaintiff?

The opinion also points out that the California Teachers Association intervened in the case, trying to prevent the lawsuit from going forward. Well.

Recognizing the crucial importance of a quality education, and a responsibility of the state to provide that service, the court moved to inspect the challenged statutes with scrutiny.

The first: Permanent Employment Statute

The judge pointed out that most teachers undergo a two year probationary status, when in reality the period does not last for two years, but less, because teachers must receive notice of tenure by March 15, as opposed to the end of the school year. Local superintendents have pointed out this contradiction, then concede that new teachers get tenure before the probationary period officially ends.

That's a problem in itself, regardless of the quality or the competence of the teacher. For that reason alone, the judge ruled the two year tenure law unconstitutional.

Then: Dismissal Statutes

The judge summarized the intense amount of time and money which school districts must spend to get rid of ineffective or incompetent teachers. The stories about abusive or unacceptable teachers are too numerous to relate in one post. The comparing the dismissal process and due process hearings of classified school employees, the court ruled that there are procedures in place which can protect due process without requiring the extended, "uber due process" which has discouraged school districts form getting rid of ineffective teachers.

Finally: LIFO (Last In, First Out)

The judge identified the cold reality of these statutes, which would force the best, the most gifted teachers out of their jobs first just because of seniority. Identifying the "lose-lose situation" inherent in this statute, the court found that the best interests of the student depend on keeping the best teachers, regardless of seniority, in their jobs while removing bad teachers, regardless of their time or tenure on the job. Currently, LIFO automatically separates good teachers from students, an undue and unconstitutional burden for both parties. Furthermore, the opinion provided information that seniority is not the overriding condition of retention for employment in twenty other states. In other words, the judges decision to strike down LIFO would not occur in a vacuum of judicial activism, but within a current of reforms emerging across the country.

Effects on low-income, minority students

Establishing through legal, judicial, and empirical evidence the failure of teacher tenure statutes, the Judge Treu's opinion rounds out his ruling by reminding the reader that these laws have disproportionately harmed students in low-income areas, and particularly minority students. The implicit violations of the different Civil Rights Act legislation passed by federal and states government would have invited more problems than solutions, and the judge wisely argued in dicta about the adverse consequences of teacher tenure.

Teacher tenure, impossible dismissal procedures, and LIFO hurt all students, regardless of race or financial status.

Finally, a judge in California had the time and courage to take on these outdated, adult-driven statutes, which cared more about the bureaucrats and the unions, instead of the parents, the students, and the teachers, many of whom do want the most qualified people in the classroom teaching students.

SCOTUS says "No!" to POTUS

SCOTUS says "No!" to POTUS

Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them.  -- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 78, 1788

The genius of the United States Constitution lies in the checks and balances of power, not the award of power to the people or any dedicated interest (or elitist) group.

Under the Obama Administration, the checks on President Obama's abusive expansion of executive arrogance has met little resistance from Congress, aside from vocal critics in the House of Representatives and the decaying filibuster in the US Senate.

Yet the third branch of government, the judiciary, is taking up the slack, checking the abuse of power in the Obama Administration. In recent decisions handed down from their 2013-2014 term, The United States Supreme Court said no to the aggravated executive arrogance of President Obama:

1. In a unanimous decision (National Labor Review Board v. Noel Canning et al.), SCOTUS slammed Obama's 2012 recess appointments to the National Labor Relations board, citing the three day "recess" of the US Senate as an insufficient period of time to warrant those rapid appointments without prior advise and consent of Congress. Obama does not like waiting, and has bandied about his phone and pen as an authoritative response to Congressional inaction. Yet even the "Wise Latina" Sonia Sotomayor and the novice Justice Elena Kagan, both liberal Obama appointees themselves, rebuked the President. In response to this poetic and political justice, The Washington Post reports that hundreds of NLRB decisions now require review.

 

"Wise Latina" Sonia Sotomayor
Joined Unanimous Rebuke of Obama Overreach

2. Extending Fourth Amendment protections against unwarranted search and seizure to cellphones, another unanimous SCOTUS verdict sided with the citizen against the state in Riley v. California. Cellphones are not just hardware facilitating communication, but reservoirs of sensitive data, to which police power should not have arbitrary access. The implications of this ruling have promoted civil liberty activists demanding greater scrutiny of the Obama Administration’s NSA metadata collection, which has grossly overstepped its bounds, invading the privacy of. Perhaps US Senator Rand Paul (r-ENTIYCK) will start carrying his cellphone once again. To sum up, Chief Justice Roberts and colleagues scolded the state (and Obama): “Get off my cellphone!”

3. In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, SCOTUS delivered another blow to ObamaCare’s careless and unconstitutional invasion of individual liberty. The conservative majority upheld the religious convictions of the Hobby Lobby corporate owners. Arguing that the contraceptive mandate in Obama runs contrary to their religious convictions, Hobby Lobby owners have succeed

Even left-leaning Politico had to acknowledge:

The ruling. . .amounts to a huge black eye for Obamacare, the administration and its backers. The justices have given Obamacare opponents their most significant political victory against the health care law, reinforcing their argument that the law and President Barack Obama are encroaching on Americans’ freedoms.

While outraged liberals argue that this decision will lead to a sweeping denial of birth control in employee insurance plans, the rulings in fact will prevent the Affordable Care Act from forcing private corporations to offer contraceptives in violation of their religious precepts.

The slippery slope of ObamaCare’s overreach has hit major bumps along the way. With the Hobby Lobby case, the Supreme Court declared: “No, President Obama, legal fiat does not trump religious liberty in the United States of America.”

Other rulings which deserve attention include Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency et al., in which both liberal and conservative justices concurred that the regulatory powers of the EPA did not include rewriting unclear statutes or imposing undue burdens which cannot be realistically realized in practice. Obama’s War on Coal through administrative fiat may hit another snag with this ruling.

While Founding Father Alexander Hamilton had argued initially that "[The Judicial Branch] may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment" (Federalist 71), he did not witness the desegregation of public schools following Brown v. Board of Education, either. Even if conservative columnist  Ben Shapiro pushed aside any reveling over SCOTUS’ series of rebukes to Presidential imperiousness, but the consensus on the Court, and in concert with public opinion, demonstrates that Obama’s unchecked, imbalanced power grabs are facing increased scrutiny, heated criticism, and a growing reaction toward limiting state power at the expense of individual liberty and constitutional rule.

Frustrations of Modern Conservatism

Conservatives must recognize that the Supreme Court’s tidbits of good news today are no counterweight to its steady encroachment on Constitutional liberties. Leaning back on our heels, waiting for our supposed betters at SCOTUS to save us, is a recipe for disaster. - Ben Shapiro

No matter how many steps, however small, limited government advocates make toward pushing back the encroachments of the Obama Administration, radio talk shows hosts, columnists, and eternal critics all will contend "not enough!"

Pressing against the encroachment of the state in itself  will never be enough. This is a fallen earth, and men are not angels. The watchmen of liberty must be ever vigilant. Did they think that the fight would have big victories under which people car loll and relax

As LA Times token columnist Jonah Goldberg once contended, resisting the growth of the federal government as a sole policy is like a priest running a whore house. Resistance alone is not active, or effective enough. Defining the problems and preaching against them do not stop people from doing the bad.

Breitbart understood the importance of God and Country
(Source: Shal Farley)

Offering a woman a better life than whoredom gets her out of the whore house faster than telling her not to sell herself. Offering people good news and the skills and the pathway to a better life will get them off the teat of Big Government.

The "something better" is essential, or it will remain difficult (if not impossible) for conservative to make a case of limited government without a larger narrative to hang the truth of everything.

What is wrong with two men marrying? What is wrong with killing a child in the womb before the baby is born? Conservatives today are not answering this question. They certainly are not presenting them the better life of marriage between one man and one woman.

These are Biblical principles, which require that individuals have a warm respect for the Bible and the God revealed in the Bible. Even many Christians have a wrong understanding of God and His goodness.

Conservative counter-cultural leader (and Internet new media scion
Andrew Breitbart understood the importance of God and Country, but the focus needs to be on God, and then the country part will follow. Otherwise, like the priests who grow weary (
or wayward) with preaching against sin, modern conservatives will find that no one gets better, but the preachers grow bitter and frustrated.

That was not the case decades ago, when young men and women read the Bible, learned the redemptive accounts of Christ as Savior now and forever.

Without this foundation, there is not basis for defining the folly of liberal (in fact, quite illiberal) encroachment of the government into our lives.

Without the revelation of the Scriptures (affirmed by science), what is wrong with the political class taking from the business class to enrich or at least subsist the dependent classes in our communities?

A recognition of an eternal and loving God (most traditional denominations ignore that the love of God sent His Son to redeem us), the source of every absolute disappears, and the dictates the truth of life as the preeminent value dissipates, all other values with it.

Severe libertarians reject this argument, focusing on liberty as the primary value. Arguing from fear instead of facts, many of these libertarians ignore that liberty does not emerge out of nothing, no more than we did. Liberty as a political reality is a relatively new phenomenon. Liberty without the overwhelming care of God is not liberty, but short-lived license which descends into an amoral, then power-made conformity.

The frustrations of modern conservatism rest on the godless or the secular bases for its arguments. Without the proper respect for the domains of the Divine, which is all encompassing, no one can take seriously the arguments of "this is the way it has been" as the last word on maintaining vital institutions such as marriage, the family, the role of government as enforcement of law and protection of right.

Until conservatives today recognize that truth, not tradition; morality and religion, not politics and persuasion, are the essential basis for restoring morality and virtue, conservatives will spurn even the smallest of wins and encounter failure after failure in the face of the moral decay which will corrupt even the most ardent of fiscal conservatives.

SCOTUS: Furthers Walker Victories

The United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has issued a number of rulings scaling back the power of President Obama, who has unfaithfully refused to execute the laws of the land while unlawfully issuing directives through executive order.

 

United States Supreme Court

 

However, one of the most important SCOTUS rulings, Harris v. Quinn, has blocked organized labor, particularly the public sector union juggernaut, from forcing non-union members to pay dues to any union which negotiates on their behalf.

Incidentally enough, the appellants in that case launched a lawsuit against Liberal Democratic Governor Pat Quinn who (like Obama,) though executive order required that all in-home caretakers pay dues to the Service Employees International Union, since that labor collective represented all in-home care workers compensated by state funds through Medicaid.

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker

The key appellant, Pamela Harris, who cares for an adult son in her own home, resented having to pay dues to a union which lobbied for policies and values which she disagreed with. She was right to be angry, and her First Amendment rights have been upheld by the SCOTUS.

 

Hopefully, Illinois residents will not stop with this federal victory, but consider the brave example of Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who without initial judicial backing, neither federal nor statewide, instituted collective bargaining reforms to limit the political and financial power of public sector unions.

Michigan Governor Rick Snyder

With SCOTUS, plus the reforms of Walker and Michigan Governor Rick Snyder (and possibly support for right-to-work laws in Missouri), the power of the public sector union lobby will be scaled back indefinitely.

Pro-Life, Pro-Marriage Extreme: Why? (What To Do?)

Today, to define marriage as one man and one woman – that is an extreme position. “Since when should marriage be limited to one man and one woman?” Critics argue.

To recognize life at conception and defend life as much as resources permit – that is also an extreme position.

Is it extreme to defend an unborn baby?

How has this transformation in values about life and marriage taken place, and so quickly?

We can start with the faux-libertarian (in reality, narcissistic and self-righteous) argument, the craze from political activists these days: “It’s my body, and I can do what I want with it.”

From the most vocal of activists come the most venal of politicians, leaders in Washington fear losing the majority power or long-term influence in Washington if they do not accede to the limited demands of this childish generation, who want their financial future secure, yet at the same time want to do as they please with their bodies and minds.

This myopic morality has bred the pro-choice (or rather “pro-abortion”) movement. “It’s my body” has given birth to the gay marriage debate, too.

Yet should we blame exclusively the youth culture, or the cowardice of the political establishment, for this “Me first” moral miasma?

In terms of marriage, the transformative Obama Administration has hastened the demise of the institution, pressing on every organization of the federal government acceptance of homosexuality and the “rights” of gay couples to marry.

Looking further back, the judicial fiat of the Massachusetts Supreme Court in 2004 opened the pandemic of undoing marriage as one man and one woman. At least marriage supporters can point out that the arrogance of judges, not the will of individuals or communities, pushed the perversion of the marital sacrament on this country.

What about abortion?

Unlike the argument about marriage, the definition of life (its beginnings, values, and implications) has endured longer, also from judicial interventionism (Roe v. Wade). Proponents of life and marriage should take heart, since only a court could force the devolution of these values, and only in law (not in spirit). To this day in Massachusetts, there are many who do not recognize nor respect gay marriage as an accomplished fact. The same holds true for abortion.

(Source: University of Toronto Students for Life)

Unlike the marriage argument, the pro-life Movement is growing stronger. From Roe v. Wade in 1973, millions of babies have been aborted, yet the voices to protect those children has grown louder, too. Private interests, including churches, have rallied year after year to speak for those who cannot, the unborn. Laws have changed in locales as distinct as North Dakota and Texas to define the legal time limit for seeking an abortion.

The latest US Supreme Court ruling, McCullen v. Coakley, struck down the 35-ft barrier which prevented pro-life protestors from denouncing abortion clinics. The ruling had been upheld by the Massachusetts State Supreme Court (the same body which arbitrarily redefine marriage). Could SCOTUS undo their undue ruling redefining marriage, too?

Following the disturbing revelations of the Gosnell trial and the inner city abortion clinics (where babies born alive were murdered), the “pro-choice” mantra has been exposed as a pro-murder agenda. Pro-life is alive and well in the United States, even in ultra-liberal New England. Even pro-gay marriage politicians like former US Senate candidate Gabriel Gomez (R-Massachusetts) proudly announce their pro-life views.

Still, the sanctity of marriage is giving way, however, to the insanity of group-think, and the voices speaking out for one man and one woman are not as strong.

Why is our culture turning its back on traditional marriage? (Source epSos.de)

Why?

The problem of marriage goes deeper than two men or two women masquerading as a married couple. The lack of respect for the institution began much earlier, when men and women decided, and local mores acquiesced, that sex before marriage, that parenthood before matrimony, was acceptable.

Perhaps instead of focusing on perversion of the institution, our society must also investigate why so many choose cohabitation instead of marriage, or why adultery has become standard. Casual sex has created a casual attitude about marriage, as the rates of intended pregnancies have increased in key urban areas (New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles)

The consequences of casual and pre-marital sex are getting more attention than before, but the consequences of such loose and unaccountable conduct resists easy documentation. The death of a baby is an immediate and outrageous tragedy. The break-down of restraint before sex and commitment before consummation escapes our notice.

Is there any way to present (and thus prevent) of the diminution (or destruction?) of marriage?

Gay Marriage is Legal (for now?)

 

Studies showing increased depression and suicide following casual sex suggest that the concrete dangers of immoral conduct or prevalent and relevant. The individual accounts of young people (and the crushing fallout) from casual encounters will awaken a new respect for marital love as opposed to “easy sex”. Medical studies documenting th disease, dysfunction, and death associated with homosexuality (and revelations debunking the “born gay” myth) will cause individuals to rethink homosexual conduct.

Legal rulings are supporting life once again. Judges may rule right and strike down mandated gay marriage in the future, too. As Pro-Life goes mainstream, marriage as one man and one woman may return, too.

Justified From All Things and thus For All Things

All is a brand of detergent which cleanses stains from clothes.

Television commercials advertise that you can clean many loads of laundry with one bottle of All.

The blood of Jesus is the very brand which cleanses us from all sin.

The blood of Jesus keeps on cleansing us from all sin, whether we know it or not, and this cleansing sets us up for every blessing under the New Covenant.

"Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel." (1 Corinthians 9: 14)

We live by the Gospel, because the Gospel is the gift of righteousness bought and paid for us because of what Jesus did at the Cross, and what He does for us at the right hand of God the Father (Romans 8: 31-34):

"Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins: 39And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses." (Acts 13: 38-39)

Notice that the law is displaced by the grace of God, which justifies us from all things.

All things:

"And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;" (Colossians 2: 13)

Yes, the Blood Keeps on Cleansing (LookingUntoJesus.net)

and then

"[Jesus] gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works." (Titus 2: 14)

and also

"But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin." (1 John 1: 7)

And then

"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." (1 John 1: 9)

Keep in mind, that since John is writing primarily to a Jewish audience, confession of sins has nothing to do with itemizing every perversion, but coming clean about the truth that we are sinners.

The blood of Jesus cleanses us from all unrighteousness.

All. All. All.

This total gift grants us His righteousness:

"15But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. 16And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. 17For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ." (Romans 5: 15-17)

and also

"For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." (2 Corinthians 5: 21)

The gift of righteousness which keeps on cleansing us from all sin guarantees us all things in Christ, too:

"What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us? 32He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?" (Romans 8: 31-32)

This is what we learn also about "all things" in comparison to the riches of Christ Jesus:

"But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ. 8Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ," (Philippians 3: 7-8)

When we understand that Christ is all things for us, then we can receive the answer to this prayer, too:

"6That the communication of thy faith may become effectual by the acknowledging of every good thing which is in you in Christ Jesus." (Philemon 6)


and

"2Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord,

 

3According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:" (2 Peter 1: 2-3)

 

Through Christ we are forgiven from all our sins -- all of them -- that we  may receive all things in Christ -- all of them!

Gov Walker: Not a Smidgen of Corruption

Despite the national press’ preening for bad news, particularly against Republican leaders, new outlets have failed once again, intending to fit only the news which prints their limited liberal ideology, as opposed to the truth, which vindicated conservatives and limited government advocates.

Twice this year so far, John Doe prosecutors have investigated Governor Walker for political improprieties related to his campaign efforts and his prior office staff. Twice these concerns have been rebuffed, and for all the cries of wrong-doing, there has not been one “smidgen” of corruption staining Walker’s tenure. Instead of unsubstantiated reports of unethical behavior, the mainstream media should report at length that the Governor of Wisconsin has cut taxes and spending, returned revenue surpluses to the people, and has put the public sector unions in their place, supporting the public. All adding to an economic legacy of collective bargaining rights reforms which will remain standing for the long term.

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker is one of many Republican state executives overseeing and encouraging an American comeback despite the repeated failures, disappointments, and scandals of the federal government, most of which center on the culture of corruption otherwise known as the Obama Administration.

Instead of barking up the wrong tree of baseless accusations of base behavior coming out  of Madison, the liberal media watch dogs would be doing a true service to their calling and the country if they exposed the endemic, pandemonium of lies, deceit, waste, fraud, and international cowardice which defines the Obama Administration today.