My Endorsement for the California Recall Election

October is my favorite month of the year.  I spend most of the month playing baseball tournaments in Arizona and watching postseason baseball on television.  Last October was even better because I got to escape the tyrannical lockdown orders in my home state of California that destroyed businesses, ended friendliness by covering up smiles with mask rules that do not even work, turned record employment numbers into record unemployment, crushed the dreams of young athletes, and kept people from enjoying meals together by forcing the closure of restaurants.  That is, unless you were the worst governor in the nation, Gavin Newsom, who proved that he did not believe in his own dictatorial mandates by eating with a group of lobbyists at a swanky restaurant, The French Laundry, where they ran up a $12,000 bar tab. 

It is obvious that California is a mess.  People and businesses are fleeing the state in droves.  As you all know, we are now less than a month out from a special election to recall Governor Newsom.  There are two questions on the ballot.  Question one asks whether Governor Newsom should be removed from office.  VOTE YES!  His failures are so clear that the vote should be unanimous.  Question two asks who should become governor if Newsom is removed.  Over 40 candidates are running, and that is what brings me back to Arizona last October.

During one of my stints in the Phoenix area, I noticed that radio host Larry Elder would be doing a screening of his movie, Uncle Tom, at a local theater.  As a big fan who had listened to Larry Elder for years, I bought a ticket and headed downtown for the night.  The film is excellent and I highly recommend you take the time to watch it.  It explores how black conservatives are marginalized and disparaged by Democrats and the media in America.  Larry Elder produced, co-wrote, and starred in the film.  Before each showing of the film, he did about a half-hour talk, introduced the film, and answered some questions from the audience.  He knows his stuff! 

His focus then was on ending racial division, strengthening families, and because it was a week before the election, President Trump and Joe Biden.  Larry Elder is now one of the candidates running for governor of California.  He is running on a platform that includes giving Californians back our freedom, improving the homelessness crisis that was exacerbated by the current governor’s policies, giving parents the choice of where to send their children to school, reducing wasteful government spending and regulations that harm our economy, and lowering California’s skyrocketing crime rate.

Wait, there’s more.  I know that many people are less worried about policy than they are about personality.  I don’t understand that myself, but I have good news for you.  The best part of my evening at the theater last October was when I met Larry Elder after the movie.  I have been to events with other celebrities and radio personalities, and they will usually shake hands and sign a copy of their book or DVD for the guests in attendance, but Larry Elder did more than that.  He stood there in the lobby of the theater and had a real conversation with every person who lined up to meet him.  He wasn’t running for anything at that point.  He didn’t have to stand there all night.  He genuinely took an interest in two theaters full of strangers.  When I got to the front of the line, he spoke with me for literally a few minutes.  I was wearing a Dodgers jacket, so he talked baseball with me, and actually knew what he was talking about.  I gave him a copy of my book, The God Bet, and he asked me about it.  He kept asking me questions about myself long after most people would have moved on to the next person in line.  I was very impressed.  He has the personality and character to go along with the solid policy positions that I want in a leader.

California would be lucky to have Larry Elder as the next governor.  This is why I am proudly and enthusiastically endorsing him in the September 14 special election.  If you live in the state, vote YES on question one, and vote for Larry Elder on question two.  If you don’t live in the state, you might as well come vote anyways.  We don’t check ID here!  (To be clear, that was a joke.  I do not condone cheating.  What do you think I am, a Democrat?)

Let’s Make a Deal to Save Lives

America is divided and we all know it.  Many people talk about us coming together and finding common ground, but in general, I don’t think that is possible because we no longer share the same values.  There is, however, something that both the left and the right claim to want right now that makes for a great compromise.  Both sides say that they want to save lives. 

Now, a fair compromise gives both sides something that they want.  We should all agree that saving lives is a worthy cause, even if we do not agree on how to do it.  If both sides are sincere about their desire to save lives, they will agree that this is a compromise worth agreeing to.  If not, they never really cared about saving lives and just wanted power and control.

So, how does the left say we can save lives?  They want everybody to get vaccinated from Covid.  For full disclosure, let me explain my position on the vaccinations.  I am not vaccinated.  I am not an anti-vaxxer.  I believe that each individual should have the freedom to choose whether they get vaccinated without having to disclose their vaccination status to anybody.  Some people on my side might not agree with this, but I do not think the vaccine is likely to kill you.  We have to be honest about that.  It likely kills some people, but the odds of that are pretty slim.  If we say that the media should stop exaggerating the dangers of Covid, we should not turn around and exaggerate the dangers of the vaccine. 

That being said, there are two main reasons why I have not partaken.  First, it is a solution in search of a problem.  There is literally a 0.0% chance that Covid will kill me.  You have to go another decimal point for it to even register as a cause of death, and that is using the inflated numbers from the government.  The risk of me dying in a car accident on the way to get the shot is likely higher than the odds of me dying of Covid.  I do not want to take an experimental vaccine if I am fine without it.  Second, it is far too much fun listening to angry leftists flip out because there are people who won’t fall in line and do what they command us to do. 

My thoughts aside, the left says that they want everybody vaccinated because it will save countless lives.  Whether it will or not, they are pulling out all the stops.  They are trying to guilt-trip people into compliance. They are vilifying and shaming people who choose not to get vaccinated.  They are bribing people to get the shot with cash and contest entries.  They want vaccine passports so that they can shun and banish unvaccinated people from society.  They would like vaccinations to be mandated for all Americans.

Here is where my compromise comes in.  Conservatives also claim that they want to save lives.  While the net number of people saved or lost by the Covid vaccines is debatable, conservatives can document how many lives their tradeoff would save.  The number is approximately 62 million lives in the past 48 years.  In fact, since the left supposedly cares about black lives, this compromise would end the leading cause of death among blacks in America.  My proposal is this:  I would gladly volunteer to get the vaccine, and even support mandatory Covid vaccines in exchange for the immediate and irreversible ban of abortions in the United States. 

When you think about it, it’s the perfect compromise.  Both sides claim that the problem they would be solving is a major, existential crisis.  Both sides are even giving up what they perceive to be the same thing; choice in a healthcare decision.  If they truly believe that what they are fighting for will save myriad lives, this would be an easy and heroic deal to make.  If they will not make this tradeoff, they must not really believe that their respective cause will actually save many lives. 

We are not likely to agree on which action actually works, but whether you are on the left or the right, you can be sure that this deal will save lives one way or another.  My sleeve is rolled up and ready.  If you honestly believe that lives will be saved, agree to the compromise.  Otherwise, you know it’s not that important to you.

The Bachelorette Term of the Year is Not Positive

I have a confession to make.  Every Monday night, I sit down, open a bottle of wine, and watch The Bachelor.  My sister used to text me to ask what I was up to, and I would send her a picture of some food, wine, and The Bachelor on television in the background.  In fact, the picture of pizza on top of the Steve Connally’s Brain Facebook page is one of them.  She would laugh at me back then, but eventually she started joining me to watch.  Now we get together every week for the spectacle.

Obviously, you should not look to The Bachelor franchise for your morals and values.  Between drunken arguments, fantasy suites, and dramatic rose ceremonies where grown adults cry over a person they have spent less time with than their dentist, the show is the definition of a guilty pleasure.  This year, however, The Bachelorette has annoyed me with a recurring theme.  No, I’m not talking about the super woke firing of host Chris Harrison for having the gall to think that a 24-year-old girl should not be labeled a racist and cancelled from society for wearing a pretty dress to a party, although that is very annoying.  What I am talking about is a term that they have used over and over again to describe the current Bachelorette, Katie Thurston, throughout this season of The Bachelorette.  The term is “sex-positive.” 

Both my sister and I noticed “sex-positive” being used multiple times in the first few episodes, to which I observed, “I think sex-positive is just the politically correct term for slutty.”  She said, “No.  I think you can be sex-positive and still have moral standards.”  I agreed that sex is definitely a positive thing within a certain framework, namely between a married husband and wife, but I doubt that is what they meant considering the progressive, secular slant of mainstream entertainment, and the fact that none of the people on the show are married.  So, I looked it up, and as usual, I was right. 

The current definition of “sex-positive” not only lacks any moral standards other than consent, but it forbids them.  An article on healthline.com explains that sex-positivity “involves being nonjudgmental and respectful regarding the diversity of sexuality and gender expressions, as long as there is consent.”  It goes on to say that any morality attached to sex is “sex-negative,” including abstinence-only education, purity pacts, slut-shaming, and the “good girl” versus “bad girl” trope.  Another article on Yahoo even quotes Dr. Jess O’Reilly worrying that Bachelorette Katie’s definition of sex-positivity might not be inclusive enough.  She opines that, “some people claim to be sex-positive, but their definition of sex is narrow — they may not support and show reverence to sex workers, who provide essential services, for example.”  So, if you don’t think that prostitution is awesome, or if you think that a girl who wants to save herself for marriage is a good girl, you are considered sex-negative. 

If you think as I do that there should be moral standards attached to sex, and for example, it is not a good idea to try to have sex with a bunch of people you just met on a television show, you will probably be accused of “slut-shaming.”  Don’t worry about it.  Shame is not a bad thing.  The Oxford Dictionary definition of “shame” is, “the feelings of sadness, embarrassment, and guilt that you have when you know that something you have done is wrong or stupid.”  What is the alternative?  Should we prefer that people feel happy and proud when they do something wrong or stupid?  No!  I feel shame for bad things I have done.  That is good.  The shame should make me want to correct those behaviors.   The definition of “shaming” as a verb is, “to make someone feel ashamed.”  I don’t see that as a bad thing.  Would it be wrong to shame someone for beating their girlfriend?  For stealing?  For rape?  Of course not.  They should feel ashamed. 

Here’s the funny thing.  The people who say it is bad to shame someone constantly try to shame people they disagree with, including shaming people for shaming people.  Even worse, they shame people for doing what is right.  For example, while researching I came across an article ripping on The Bachelor for portraying Madison Prewitt, a contestant from last year, in a positive light.  Let’s see if you can guess why they did not like Madison with a multiple choice quiz.

A) She got super drunk and threw a pizza from a hotel balcony

B) She supports rocket attacks against Israel

C) She is a Christian and a virgin

Although it seems like A or B should draw more criticism, if you guessed C, you are correct.  Madison actually was disparaged for having good character and doing things the way God intended, because that is sex-negative.  (If Madi happens to be reading this, I’m single!)

On the other side of the coin, when season 11 Bachelorette Kaitlyn Bristowe had sex with Nick Viall on their first one-on-one date, “Bachelor Nation” went out of their way to show their approval.  Anybody who dared to question the wisdom or morality of the decision was denounced as a slut-shamer and a meanie.  Now, I actually liked Kaitlyn (not so much Nick), and nobody should bully her for doing what she did, but it was certainly wrong.  Saying so is not mean.  It’s just a fact.  God created sex for marriage.

People tend to think that God is cruel for giving us rules, but they are looking at it wrong.  God tells us how to do things to help us, not to be mean.  He is not saying, “I made some arbitrary rules to keep you from doing what you want.”  He is saying, “This is how I designed creation.  If you do things outside of that design it will lead to more harm than good.  I love you, so I’m telling you this to protect you from doing things that will hurt you.” 

Katie seems like a sweet, fun, and likeable girl.  When we first saw her get out of the limo with a big, pink vibrator, I thought it was funny.  What is not funny is trying to eliminate morality and implying that doing what is right is a negative thing.  Let’s get back to the shouting matches, drama, and finding out who is there for the right reasons, and stop with the politically correct buzzwords.  I’ll bring the wine.

The Ultimate Sin?

As a boy growing up in the ‘80s, you had to watch certain things on Saturday television to stay in the loop.  I distinctly remember going down to the playground in my apartment complex armed with the secret word from Pee Wee’s Playhouse so that I knew when to scream real loud.  Those boyhood gatherings would soon turn into a discussion of a far more serious Saturday television event: WWF wrestling.

“Dude!  Did you see Brutus ‘the Barber’ Beefcake cut that guy’s hair?”  

“Oh man, the ‘Macho Man’ Randy Savage is mad!”

“Did you see what happened on Piper’s Pit?  Hulk Hogan is gonna fight Andre the Giant!”

Recently, I have been nerding out on some WWF nostalgia.  I ran across an A&E Biography episode about “Rowdy” Roddy Piper a few weeks ago and I loved it.  It turns out that A&E is airing a bunch of WWF (now WWE) themed documentaries.  I made sure to catch the one about Andre the Giant when it came on because he is a legend.  I even watched one about Mick Foley, who was a little after my time but still very intriguing because he would let them beat him nearly to death for his craft.  A few days ago, I saw one about another legendary wrestler from my childhood, The Ultimate Warrior. 

It followed the usual formula for a biographical documentary.  It talked about the Warrior’s youth, his meteoric rise to the top of the wrestling world, his struggles and fall from grace, and his untimely death.  Something stood out about this one, though.  In the section about his fall from grace, they first explained the real reason, which was the same as with almost every wrestler.  He started arguing with his boss, Vince McMahon.  However, they then spent a long segment on what they really saw as his ultimate sin.  The Ultimate Warrior came out as a conservative.

The Warrior (he legally had his name changed to Warrior in 1993) actually became a conservative blogger and speaker after his wrestling career.  The guests who were interviewed in the Biography episode wondered aloud if they could still admire the Warrior after learning about his unforgivable opinions.  At first, this made me roll my eyes in annoyance at the blatant double standard.  After all, had Warrior become a progressive pundit, would A&E have criticized him for it and painted him as a horrible person?  We all know the answer to that. 

After a bit of thinking, though, I am glad that corporations, the media, and the entertainment industry continue to reveal their hatred for anybody who dares to disagree with them.  It chips away more and more at their credibility when people open their eyes to how intolerant those institutions are of anyone who doesn’t fall into line with their views.  Their obvious bias against conservatives alienates many who may not even be conservatives themselves, but don’t think people should be vilified for holding conservative values.  It certainly should make clear to conservatives that the mainstream culture has nothing but contempt for you and you have to stand up to them.

This contempt is not reserved only for celebrity conservatives like Warrior.  Remember, the left sees conservatives as “a basket of deplorables.”  You may not have the status to get as much attention as a famous person, but they still want to marginalize and silence you for taking conservative positions.  Just try questioning the security of our elections and see how long it takes social media sites to censor your posts.  If you have the audacity to say that homosexuality is not the ideal, which is one of the things they went after the Warrior for in the documentary, those on the left would attack you with a folding chair if they could get away with it. 

Criminals who sneak across our borders illegally are A-okay with the left.  If protesters block traffic and throw bricks through the windows of businesses, the left will make excuses for them.  Publicly announce that you are no longer the gender that you really are and they will laud you for your courage.  Murder a baby in the womb and the left will praise your “choice.”  Those are all fine, but if you are found out to be a conservative, they think you should lose your livelihood, your reputation, and become an outcast from society.

The Ultimate Warrior was a flawed man.  He was apparently egotistical and did not get along with many of his fellow wrestlers.  Was Warrior the most articulate or tactful conservative speaker?  Of course not!  Would you expect him to be?  He’s the Ultimate Warrior, not William F. Buckley.  Was he perfect?  No, but he did defeat Mr. Perfect in the ring.  Was this article an excuse for me to take a trip down memory lane and watch old wrestling matches?  Absolutely, but we do need to call out double standards in our culture when we see them.  Do not let them silence you.  In this fight, we all need to be warriors.

Why Romans 13 Is Inapplicable to What Is Happening Now

In the Best Picture winning film from 1965, The Sound of Music, the von Trapp family lives in Austria when it is annexed by Germany during World War II.  The main conflict arises when the father, Captain von Trapp, is ordered to accept a commission in the German Navy.  Did he quietly comply because the powers that be gave him a command?  Should he have?  No!  He concocted a plan to disobey the rulers and flee the country.  What a different film it would have been if he had done what so many of our churches have done and obeyed his orders.

Ever since the California government terminated our liberty last year, I have been disappointed that so many churches quietly complied.  This past week I received an email from a local church, once again saying that they were going to keep their doors shut until we are endowed by our government with some liberty.  (That sounds wrong, doesn’t it?)  The reason given has been inappropriately used since the beginning of the lockdowns to justify compliance with tyrannical edicts… Romans 13: 1-7.  It says this:

1 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4 For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. 5 Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. 7 Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.

Let me be clear.  I believe the Bible completely, from Genesis to Revelation, including Romans 13.  In fact, I talk about the importance of Romans 13 multiple times in my book, The God Bet.  There is, however, a big problem with hiding behind these verses to justify weakly complying during this fight between good and evil.  While we are not supposed to “resist the authority,” our government DOES NOT HAVE the authority to do what it is doing.  There are two main reasons for this.  The first is found in our founding documents.  The Declaration of Independence acknowledges that liberty is endowed not by the government, but by our Creator, and is unalienable.  That means that the government does not have the authority to take away our freedom on a whim. 

I know.  Some of you are saying, “Wait a minute.  The government does have the authority to take away our liberty in certain situations, like when they put a thief in prison.”  You are absolutely correct.  There are instances where the government can take away our freedom.  That leads us to the second reason this is not one of those instances.  Romans 13 not only tells us that we are subject to the governing authorities, but it also tells us what those authorities are authorized to do.  Verse 3 specifically tells us that “rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil.”  Verse 4 explains that “he (the ruler) is God’s minister to you for good.  But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.”  As you can clearly see, the rulers have the authority to punish you or take away your liberty if you do evil, but NOT for doing good works.  Stealing is evil; thus, the government is authorized to execute wrath on that thief.  Opening the doors of your church, on the other hand, is a good work.  If a church quietly closes its doors and cites the government as the reason, they are implying that a father who wants to take his family to church and sit inside is doing evil.  Any thinking person can see that the rulers who are putting these crazy dictates on churches are being a terror to good works and Romans 13 does not authorize them to do that. 

Why does it matter since California Governor Gavin Newsom is going to allow churches to open on the magical date of June 15?  It matters because these lockdowns and regulations were just the first major battle in the fight to remain a free country.  It was a test to see how many of us would stand up for each other’s liberty.  Unfortunately, the answer was, “not enough.” 

To those of you who are on the side of good, you may be tempted to write off the churches and Christians who sat on the sidelines during this battle and say, “you’re dead to us.”  I urge you not to do that.  We must be forgiving of churches or individuals who were complicit in our loss of rights when they realize what their complacency is leading to.  It is better that they are late to the party than miss it altogether.  Things will get worse and we need more churches to see the light and speak up before it is too late.  We need to pray for these churches to come around, and when they do, we need to welcome them to the fight with open arms.  They need to loudly declare that they will never again remain silent when the government acts as a terror against good works, which is against what Romans 13 says.  Never again will they close the doors of our churches, or limit who or how people can attend.  Our founding documents do not allow it, and the Bible does not allow it.  

An Open Letter to Baseball Commissioner Rob Manfred

Commissioner Manfred,

I love baseball.  Between playing, coaching, and watching baseball I have probably spent more time at a ballfield than anywhere else in the world.  Unfortunately, today I am distraught.  I love my country, too, but it is in danger. 

Our founding fathers understood that people are better off when they are free to decide how to live their lives without government interference.  Therefore, they had the brilliant idea of setting up a system where the power comes from the people up to the government, not the other way around.  We do that by voting for people to represent us.  As you know, we just had a contentious, disputed election where many states accepted ballots without knowing who or where they came from.  This is not a baseless claim.  Most states did not verify who cast the ballots that were counted.  This is a fact.  Whether you agree or disagree with the results, there is now a large portion of Americans who distrust our election results, and for good reason.  Check out this funny video I made that shows why we need safeguards to secure our voting.

The state of Georgia is trying to restore faith in our elections by simply asking that we verify who is casting the ballots.  Your decision to take away the All-Star Game that was supposed to be held this summer in Atlanta is punishing the state of Georgia for trying to protect our ability to choose our government officials at the ballot box and trust the results.  Not only is it unfair, but you justified your decision by falsely claiming that the new law was meant to suppress voting.  The people who make this claim say that requiring voters to show identification somehow prevents black people from voting.  I don’t lightly throw around the term “racist” like many now do, but to say that black people are too dumb to show ID is definitely racist.  If you truly want to honor the memory of “Home Run King” Hank Aaron, you need to turn away from the idea that blacks are inferior to whites, not embrace it like you are by furthering this lie about ID. 

To be perfectly honest, when I hear that somebody is against voters showing ID to cast their ballot, I assume that the person just wants their side to be able to cheat and assure a political victory.  It really makes me question your judgment when the best excuse you can come up with is in essence that no, you don’t want to cheat.  You just think that only white people are smart enough to get an ID.

The part that really has me upset is that I don’t know what to do.  Baseball is the greatest game ever invented.  Many of the landmark moments in my life can be connected to what was going on in baseball at the time.  Since you, the Commissioner of Baseball, have decided that cheating in elections is not something to prevent, many people are boycotting the game.  Either you are for cheating, which is certainly possible considering the slap on the wrist that the Astros got, or you are a racist who thinks blacks are inferior. 

Whichever it is, I have to decide what to do, and here is how I am going to rationalize watching baseball this season.  The game on the field is still great.  The people around it may not be, but it has been that way before.  You may think that black people are not intelligent enough to show identification to vote, but until Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier in 1947, blacks were not even allowed to play in the majors, so you are not the first racist to be involved with baseball.  If the game survived them, it can survive you.

Now, I want to give you the opportunity to defend yourself against charges of racism, but the only other possibility is just as bad.  If you do think blacks are fully capable of getting an ID and are still against requiring ID to vote, then you just don’t want us to know where ballots are coming from in our elections so that cheating is easier.  There is, fortunately, an easy way to tell which you actually believe.  If you really think asking for ID discriminates against blacks, you will tell all of the ballparks in Major League Baseball that they are no longer allowed to ask for ID at beer stands.  After all, if it’s racist to require ID to vote, it is racist to require ID to buy beer. 

This tells me that you likely are just using race as an excuse for looking the other way when cheating happens.  The Democrats and the Astros thank you.

Sincerely,

Steven Connally

In Defense of Naps, Golf, and Cancun

I am going to defend Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, Donald Trump, and Ted Cruz from some undeserved criticism.  As you can see, I am very consistent on this stance whether the person involved is someone I generally agree with or someone I almost never do.  Both the right and the left are guilty of this attack and should both stop it. 

Let’s start with the latest example.  Recently, Texas Senator Ted Cruz was predictably blasted by the left for going with his wife and two daughters to Cancun during a terrible ice storm in his home state.  My first thought was, “That sounds like a pretty good idea to me.  If I had a choice between sitting in an ice storm with no electricity and sitting on the beach with a margarita, I know which one I would choose.”  My next thought was, “Is that my reaction just because I like Senator Cruz?  Would I have a different reaction if it was Bernie Sanders?”  This is a normal question for me because we as conservatives should not have double standards like the left does.  You know, like how Democrats cheered on rioting thugs for a year and then started denouncing rioting thugs on January 6 when they thought they could win political points.  My conclusion:  No.  I would not feel differently if it was a political opponent. 

I reached this conclusion by looking at times when Democrats have been criticized for wasting time on leisure activities instead of “doing the work of the people.”  The example that came to mind was something that Donald Trump, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, and many other presidents have been criticized for:  golf.  I specifically remember those three presidents being attacked for spending too much time on the golf course during their term in office.  In every case I defended them, whether they were Republicans or Democrats, for this simple reason:  the less politicians do, the better it is for us.  As another golfer president once said, “government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.”

Both the left and the right need to stop with this criticism.  Ideally, politicians would spend more time, not less, golfing or on vacations.  Pondering this reminded me of one of our very best presidents.  Calvin Coolidge was known for sleeping 10 to 11 hours a night and then taking a long nap in the afternoon.  How much better off would our country be if politicians spent more time sleeping and less time interfering with our lives?

This gave me an idea.  As you know, I almost always oppose government regulations, but I actually want to propose a rule for anyone elected to public office.  Upon election, each office holder must take up a new hobby that occupies at least 5 hours per day.  It’s a brilliant law because nothing would help the American people more than to keep politicians busy and out of our lives.

To help get them started I even have some ideas for current politicians. 

Senator Elizabeth Warren – Gardening:  Senator Warren famously claimed to be an American Indian, earning her nickname, “Pocahontas.”  Since American Indians taught the settlers how to plant corn, gardening would be the perfect hobby for her to reconnect with her roots.

Representative Adam Schiff – Writing:  I don’t mean writing political op-eds for the Washington Post.  I mean writing fiction books.  Mr. Schiff is known mostly for pushing imaginary claims that President Trump colluded with foreign countries to interfere with the U.S. election in 2016.  I think his wild imagination could come up with some crazy international political thrillers.  He could be the next Tom Clancy!

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer – Poker:  One of the skills that makes a good poker player is bluffing.  Bluffing is simply the ability to look right at people and lie with a straight face.  Speaker Pelosi and Senator Schumer have been perfecting this skill for years.  They wouldn’t have any trouble setting up games either.  We could fill the Amazon Room at The Rio with lying politicians!

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell – Yodeling:  Honestly, I just want to see this.

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo – Calling bingo at senior living communities

Senator Mitt Romney – LARPing:  LARPing stands for Live Action Role Playing.  Basically, a group of guys get together and pretend to be people that they’re not, like knights, elves, and wizards.  Senator Romney should be good at that since he has pretended to be a Republican for years.

Senator Bernie Sanders – Stand-up comedy:  I hear he looks a lot like Larry David.

Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Pressley, and Rashida Tlaib, aka “The Squad” – Start a band: “Performing next on New Year’s Rockin’ Eve, singing their hit single, “Israel Has Hypnotized the World,”… The Squad!” 

Joe Biden – Massage therapy:  We all know that Joe Biden has already been known to massage women who cross his path.  He may as well take some classes and get a little side gig going. 

Ultimately, whatever they decide to do it will be better for the country than anything they are doing now. 

My Rapture Will

“The world is getting really bad.  I think the rapture will happen within the next 12 years.”  I was dating a girl who made that prediction to me, and that was about 10 years ago.  For those of you who are not familiar, the rapture is the term used to describe when the Lord takes believers out of the world before the seven-year tribulation period prophesied about in the Bible. 

At the time she said that I was pretty skeptical for two reasons.  First, the Bible is clear “that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night” (1 Thessalonians 5:2) and “…that day and hour no one knows.” (Mark 13:32)  That guarantees that the only time we can rule out for the rapture is any specific time when somebody says it will happen.  In her defense, though, she was not predicting a specific day and hour.  She was just guessing a general time frame. 

The other reason was that I looked back at the other times in history where God gave up on us turning it around and realized that He is very patient.  Think about it.  The first time he brought large-scale judgment down on people was the flood.  He waited until Noah and his family were the only ones left worth saving in the entire world.  That is patience!  The other example is when God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah.  In that instance, He told Abraham that He was going to destroy those cities and Abraham negotiated with him.  Abraham asked if God would destroy the city if there were 50 good people there.  God said no.  Then he lowered it to 45.  God said no.  Abraham kept haggling all the way down to 10 good people and God said He would spare the cities for the sake of 10.  In the end, as we know, God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because 10 could not be found, and Lot and his daughters were the only ones who survived.  Again, God is patient!

All this being said, I am starting to think that she might not be as far off as I assumed at the time.  It is hard to deny that end-time prophesies are starting to line up so well that it’s hard to believe that anybody can doubt the Bible anymore.  There are even groups who are trying to push for the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem, which we know will be there during the tribulation.  With dominos falling like they are it would not surprise me if her 12-year guess was close.  Then again, it could be 100 years away still.  The only certainty is that it’s closer now than ever before, and we should be prepared.

This is what gave me the idea for a rapture will.  I’ve thought about writing a normal will before but put it off because I’m still young, healthy, and extremely attractive. I also think it is a big decision who to leave my money to.  I’m single and have no kids so at this point I do not have a responsibility to take care of anybody.  I used to think about who would have the most fun with it.  As shallow as that sounds, it still matters to me.  I would not want it to be wasted on somebody who follows the lockdown rules and sits inside hiding.  I want it to be enjoyed.  On the other hand, I wouldn’t want to leave it all to someone who would blow through it all on frivolous stuff like caviar and spider monkeys.  One spider monkey, fine, but definitely not plural.  Ultimately, what I really want is to leave my money to people who will use it for the most important purpose there is, to bring people to God so that they end up in Heaven.  This makes the obvious heirs to my inheritance have one necessary quality.  They must be good Christians. 

This works when deciding on my normal will, but a big problem arises when it comes to a rapture will.  All of the other good Christians will have been whooshed away with me.  I can’t leave it to my parents because they will also be gone.  Any Christian friends will have also disappeared.  It would be pointless to leave it to my church because any true believers there will be with me.  Unfortunately, I do have family members who may not believe and will still be around, but I do not want to give my money to someone who will not use it to spread the truth about what is going on and how to be saved.  It sounds like I may as well just burn the money, doesn’t it?  Wrong!  I figured out a way to at least make an educated guess as to who to leave my inheritance to. 

To do this we have to look at what we do know about the seven-year tribulation period after the rapture.  We know that although Christians will have been removed from the world and the antichrist will be ruling, many people will realize that they missed the boat and will turn to God.  Further, Revelation 7:1-8 tells us that 144,000 people will be sealed as servants of God during that time; 12,000 from each of the twelve tribes of Israel.  So, we know for a fact that 144,000 Jews will realize that Jesus is the Messiah and will become witnesses who bring others to Him during this time. 

Now that we have this information to go on, I can narrow down who to set as my beneficiary.  Since it has to be somebody who will be left behind, and I want the biggest probability that my inheritance is used to further the Kingdom of God, I will leave my money to a Jewish person who is both smart and preferably someone who has influence.  My mind instantly went to my favorite radio personality and founder of Prager University, Dennis Prager, and another great mind and founder of The Daily Wire, Ben Shapiro. 

I have to admit, this was supposed to be the end of the article.  Then I noticed Revelation 14:4, which says of the 144,000, “These are the ones who were not defiled by women, for they are virgins.”  That throws off my plan since both Prager and Shapiro have children.  They will not be part of the “sealed” group mentioned in Revelation.  Fortunately, this does not mean they will not be saved.  Revelation 14:9-17 tells us that a “great multitude which no one could number, of all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues,” will be saved during the tribulation. 

Knowing all of this, here is what I have decided for my rapture will.  If at any time I go missing, and so do many other Christians including my parents, my sister Amber, and some Christian public figures like Pastor Jack Hibbs, Vice President Mike Pence, and Tim Tebow, then my money should be split evenly between Dennis Prager and Ben Shapiro.  Since I have no way of knowing who are virgins, I have to take a chance that Prager and Shapiro will be part of the “great multitude” of converts.  I know that they are both wise men who study the Torah (the Old Testament to Christians) and I think that makes them a better bet than most.  However, if you see Ben Shapiro at the rebuilt temple in Jerusalem with a spider monkey on each shoulder, you know I made an incorrect choice.

Give Us the Same Courtesy That We Gave You

The first paragraph of this article is here for a very specific reason. To promote the article on social media I had to make sure that there was no political speech in the first couple of lines so that it wouldn’t be censored. The original started here:

Democrats now control the White House and both chambers of Congress.  They are calling for unity, but what they mean by that is, “Now everybody needs to agree with us.”  That is not going to happen.  I am not saying that in an obstinate way.  I’m just being realistic and honest.  People disagree and that is alright.  Republicans were in charge for the last four years and many people disagreed with them, and I expected that as well because that is how life works. 

This leads me to my one request to Democrats.  Now that you’re in charge please give us the same courtesy that we gave to you when we were.  That courtesy is this:  When people disagree with you, don’t force them to do what you want. 

This may surprise some of you after being told by the media for four years that President Trump was a fascist dictator, but I cannot think of anything that he forced us to do during his term.  If you disagreed with President Trump and the Republicans, they did not make you do anything against your will.  Republicans let people agree to disagree.  

If, for example, you disagreed with the tax cuts that were passed, Republicans did not force you to go along with it.  They implemented no penalties for people who wanted to keep paying the higher tax rates voluntarily.  Yes, you can do that.  Surprisingly, wealthy Democrats who complain that rich people don’t pay their fair share do not opt to pay more themselves when given that choice.  Alright, maybe not so surprisingly.

Ultimately, this is the main thing that Republicans want:  to be left alone.  We want to control our own lives and let others control theirs.  Another example; we may understand that homosexuality is immoral, but we do not block people from the practice.  In fact, the Trump administration started a global effort to end the criminalization of homosexuality.  (In contrast, Democrats kowtow to countries like Iran who put homosexuals to death.)  Republicans also disagree with divisive groups like Antifa and Black Lives Matter, yet do not want them prevented from speaking or kicked off of social media.  Another Republican belief is that God is central to the American way of life and necessary for our success, but we do not want to require church attendance.  In other words, Republicans would like everybody to act in particular ways but think that people should be free to choose for themselves.

This approach is not a new one.  It is actually one of the principles that our country was established on.  Our Founding Fathers were wise men who understood that people would not always agree as to what should be done.  They also knew that throughout history, when the powerful forced those who disagreed with them to conform to their will it sowed contempt, division and conflict.  Their solution was liberty.  If one group wants to do “A” and another group wants to do “B,” the answer is not to have the group in power force the other group to do what they command.  Instead, the first group can do “A” and the second group can do “B.”  They can try to use persuasion to win the other side over but they should not use coercion.

If Joe Biden really wants unity this is what he should do.  Refrain from taking away our liberty.  Allow people to have free will and do what they think is best for themselves.  He can disagree with our choices but he should not overrule them.  Here are ten great suggestions that the Democrats can do to respect the liberty of Americans:

  1. If you decide to raise taxes, make it optional to pay the old rate like the Republicans did for you. 
  2. If you want people to wear masks, make it optional like the Republicans did.
  3. Let scared restaurant owners who want to shut down do so, and let the ones who want to remain open choose to do that.  If patrons want to show up they can but if they are afraid they should also be free to stay home.
  4. Let churches decide whether to remain open or close down.  If congregants do not want to attend they should not be forced to, but those who do should be allowed in.
  5. President Trump stopped enforcement of the Johnson Amendment, which threatens to take away tax-exempt status from churches if the pastor endorses a political candidate.  Continue with that policy and allow pastors to decide for themselves what to say from the pulpit without threat of retaliation from the government.
  6. If somebody wants health insurance that covers pregnancy and drug rehabilitation they should be allowed to purchase it.  If another person wants less expensive insurance that does not cover those things they should be allowed to choose that.  If someone else prefers to pay out of pocket for medical care instead of buying insurance they should be able to do that.
  7. Do not force law abiding citizens to buy guns.  Likewise, do not prohibit them from buying guns.
  8. If someone wants to do a job for $8 per hour, do not prohibit them from doing so and force them out of a job.  Let people decide for themselves what wage to accept.
  9. Do not force people who are against murdering babies to pay for the murder of babies.  Do not use taxpayer money for Planned Parenthood.
  10. Refrain from banning or restricting us from using certain products like incandescent light bulbs, straws, grocery bags, soda, and shower heads with good water pressure.

These are all things that Democrats have tried to dictate in the past.  If they truly want unity this list would be a solid first step.  Instead of using tyrannical power to control those of us who disagree with them, try going back to our founding vision of liberty.  It’s the least they can do after Republicans did it for them the last four years.