The NFL is Guilty of Piling On

© Original content written by James R. Carlson


The suspension of Ezekiel Elliot, following an alleged domestic violence case, is an example of the abuse that NFL players are being subjected to. The Rule of Law is the final arbiter of penalties in such cases but the NFL is piling on to the point of vigilantism. And in a climate of Black Lives Matter (BLM), which complains about police brutality, the actions by the NFL against its players is more of the same.

The Rule of Law is supposed to provide for justice through a court system where the victim and the accused both have rights. The Court is uniquely established in our country to provide for the due process of law to both parties in a legal case. The Court has the final jurisdiction in such cases and their decisions are not only final, their verdicts are the final word in such matters.

When a person is punished by the Court in civil or criminal cases, they are not supposed to be subjected to additional penalties, called double jeopardy. When someone pays their debt (money or time) to society, they are supposed to return to society without further retribution. Society is supposed to respect this process and not take matters into their own hands and add further punishment.

When a person or group of people decide to take matters into their own hands, they may seek justice but because they are not duly authorized or established to take on matters of law, they become vigilantes. Vigilante justice is well known in America as many people have been lynched by it. Hanging a horse thief or a Black man who just wants to vote was a common practice in our nation’s past. We consider vigilante justice to be brutish and without justice.

The NFL has rules that penalizes poor sportsmanship on the field of play. Piling on is one such penalty. When a runner has been tackled and is down, others might jump on top of him to create a pile; the intent is to punish the runner with extra weight. While this delivers a crushing blow to the runner, it also delivers a yellow flag indicating a violation of league rules. This is exactly what is being done by the NFL when they add penalties to Mr. Elliot after Court actions have already tackled him.

The business of the NFL is entertainment, not justice. Social issues are certainly highlighted by the BLM movement within the NFL as they a protest against legal abuses. The solution sought by BLM should be the rule of law and equal justice to all people despite their color. The solution to the legal issues that Mr. Elliot faces should be found in a Court of Justice, with the provision of the due process of law and not with the vigilantism of the NFL. As people complain about the disrespect of the nation’s flag during our national anthem ceremonies, perhaps it’s time to talk about the disrespect of our nation’s Rule of Law by the NFL. There is nothing wrong with being patriotic at the beginning of each game; but there is something very wrong with the NFL piling on Mr. Elliot.

One Nation, Under God, Indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for All

© Original content written by James R. Carlson

One Nation

The recent turmoil with the issues of race and racism has led many to challenge the established order of things and demean the foundation of our nation. Some have even called for demonstrations during the National Anthem ceremonies at various sporting events. The movement called Black Lives Matter has provided a foil whereby the continued problems of our society with respect to race can be addressed. However, this movement has not captured the heart of the problem nor has it provided solutions to the persistent problems that many people face daily.

Recall that the Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King Jr. led the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s and was a proponent of both the Christian Gospel and the equal application of the rule of law for all people. These are two solutions that the Black Lives Matter movement misses; nonetheless, black lives do matter. If you don’t know where you are going, you won’t get there. It is more important to identify the solution than to constantly rave about the problem.

The Gospel of Jesus Christ shows us that we are all created equal and treated equal in the eyes of God. The book of Revelations sums it up clearly:

9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation. [Revelations 5:9 KJV]

The Christian religion is an inclusive religion that accepts everyone despite their ethnic makeup. While we identify people by color but God sees us differently. He treats us all the same without regard to differences. The Christian faith is the primary means whereby the issues of race and racism can be treated spiritually in the heart of individual people and society. Respecting people as people is the goal. When we treat people like we want to be treated, we are following the Golden Rule of God. The Christian religion was key to the success of Dr. King.

Also, Dr. King supported the rule of law as a means of protecting the black community, not harming it. The rule of law is supposed to provide for civil and criminal justice for everyone in society. It is also supposed to protect our liberties; although we have to exercise our liberties ourselves. The rule of law is also supposed to provide for our Civil Rights, which includes the right to vote; people cannot establish their own polling stations so the government has to provide for these rights. So, where the law is supposed to provide for justice, liberty, and the rights of people, it wasn’t doing so in the American South before Dr. King. That is what he wanted as a solution of the state to deal with the problems of race and racism.

The trouble that Black Lives Matter presents is one of attacking law officers when they should be advocates of the law. The rule of law is a foundation for everyone to stand on and people need to be sure they are following the orders of the police or else they may be in trouble regardless of their color. The police are there for all people and all people should support them.

I recall reading the Federalist Papers many years ago and the ideas of the authors John Jay, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton remain on my heart and my mind still today. Their wisdom led this nation, before we became a nation, to see who we are as a people and what our new government should be like. Their words also provide a foundation for unity amidst the troubles of race and racism.

With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people–a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence. [Federalist #2, John Jay; 31 October 1787]

The country that Jay referred to was dominated by descendants of the English people, religion, law, and language. The heritage that Jay spoke of is of profound importance to us today.

The English were immigrants to North America and were accustomed to change. In fact, the population in England was heterogeneous consisting of many groups of people like the Anglos, the Normans, the Saxons, the Welch, the French, etc. The idea of a group of people descended from the same set of ancestors is really a signal of how many people groups migrated to England before coming to America. In the colonies of North America, the English immigrants were met by any number of migrants from other nations that were incorporated within the colonies. Not only did England have a history of bringing in new people to their country, the English in America carried on with the same traditions.

This cosmopolitan nature of England also led to a cosmopolitan language. With the influx of people from many countries into England came the change of the English language itself. English is a mixture of many different terms from various other languages and today we find the language still changing to meet with new concepts and ideas that often come from other countries. The mixture of language that now comprises English came from England’s ancestors.

From Jay’s essay we can still see how the foundation of our nation has led to an immigrant nation with a mixture of languages and cultures. Many people from many nations continue to seek the protection of America’s system of liberty and justice. As much as in the past, we are still today “one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” America continues to build on its original foundations for the needs of all people.

So too, the rule of law was meant for the protection of the people and not the state. The history of law throughout the world has been dominated by the Roman Civil Law where the purpose of law is the protection of the state (an adversarial system). However, the English Common Law was founded upon an advocacy system for the protection of the individual. The rule of law is our defense against the excesses of crime and bad government.

The words of Dr. King and John Jay provide a foundation for solutions to today’s dilemma with race and racism. Faith in Jesus Christ and his redemption for us is the spiritual solution. And treating people like people is a personal solution; we learn this from God as he takes us just as we are. And the equal application of the rule of law is a state solution. So, while black lives do matter, Black Lives Matter misses the mark on all counts. It is time to complain more about the solution than the problem.

Pardon Me Mr. President

© Original content written by James R. Carlson

Image result for trump arpaio

Former Sherriff Joe Arpaio is bad for America. His brand of politics has led to vigilantism with a badge. The use of public office without authority is a problem we all have to deal with. I welcome more pardons from the President for people who have been abused by runaway government (Scooter Libby); but, pardon me Mr. President, why Joe Arpaio?

The rule of law is perhaps the most important job of people in the government. The office of the President should be concerned when people are wrongfully prosecuted and abused by those in power but it should also be concerned about the people who abuse power while in public office. Joe Arpaio embodies the abuse of power and his position in government. He should not have been the first person to receive a pardon by President Trump.

Sherriff Arpaio is guilty of abusing his office as have others around him. Sherriff’s deputies targeted Hispanics who may have been illegal aliens in our country. I spoke directly with a Phoenix city official years ago who said that sheriff’s deputies in Maricopa County (the county that includes the city of Phoenix) were testing a program to ask for people’s birth certificates instead of just their driver’s license when they were pulled over. This apparently was not done to white people but to Hispanics suspected of being illegal aliens.

There remains a basic level of bigotry in the United States. The idea that Hispanics are by default Mexican is not true and just plain ignorant. Mexicans are Hispanics because they reside in New Spain (Hispania). Also, Hispanics in the U.S. are also not always Latino. A person who supports or is a part of the Roman Catholic Church is a part of the Latin Catholic Church or Latino. Europe was known for Latin France, Latin Portugal, and Latin Spain. So, Hispanics in the New World are often called Latinos as they were a part of the Latin Church. Calling someone Hispanic who is Mexican also betrays the heterogeneous makeup of Mexico. Not all Mexicans are Hispanics. It helps to just give people respect no matter what.

A person without a proper driver’s license may be detained for not having a valid legal identification card, often called a Photo ID. There is no need to check a person’s birth certificate. In fact, the only people who would be carrying a birth certificate would be illegal immigrants who knew they would need one; they would counterfeit them just like many driver’s licenses have been counterfeited. This was a stupid act on the part of sheriffs; acts that were done without proper legislation.

On another note, I applaud holding prisoners in tent cities without all the creature comforts of life; this is another of Mr. Arpaio’s efforts to get tough on crime. However, prisoners need to be properly fed and clothed and sheltered against adverse weather. Here again, Mr. Arpaio went beyond the rule of law and just plain common sense when he made prisoners wear pink underwear and eat green sandwiches. The punishment prisoners should receive is incarceration; sheriffs do not need to add to that punishment. Maybe Mr. Arpaio has a deeper problem with color than was first suspected.

Mr. Arpaio did not help this country with his aggressive behavior. While he may be a hero to some in our country, he has added more problems to America than he has solved. His work demonstrates what it means when someone in power abuses that power and extends themselves beyond the rule of law. The President was definitely tone deaf when he pardoned the former sheriff in light of recent racial tensions. But regardless of timing, it was a bad pardon from the standpoint that Mr. Arpaio does not represent the rule of law (immigration or otherwise); he represents what is wrong with our country. It is time for Republicans in the Arizona Legislature to consider impeaching Mr. Arpaio. People like him do not need to serve in public office ever again.

Both Sides Differ

© Original content written by James R. Carlson

Charlottesville Logo

The legacy of Dr. King Jr. was to bring the rule of law to the black community. The rule of law is supposed to support people with liberty and justice. Modern movements like Black Lives Matter are not focused on the rule of law and differ from their predecessors as a result. The Cross of Jesus Christ provided the forgiveness of sin and gave light to the lives of men like Dr. King Jr. The KKK and modern white racist movements differ from the Gospel of Christ when they burn the Cross of Christ. Instead of providing the light of truth for all mankind, white racist movements differ from the real Christian message of Christ and offer darkness of the soul instead of light.

The racism that persisted in the American South after the Civil War was based upon a bigotry that was applied through the rule of law; this is the formal definition of racism. The law is supposed to protect people’s freedom and provide justice for people when violated. This was good for the white community but not for the black people under slavery and Jim Crow. Dr. King Jr. wanted to change this and he did; but that was just the beginning.

Civil rights requires the government, by law, to facilitate the vote of the American people. If the law was applied equally to everyone, regardless of color, then everyone should be allowed to vote. This was not provided for with Jim Crow laws and therefore those should have been removed; they have since been dismissed as illegal. The law applied equally to all people meant that black people should be allowed to vote. As the rule of law means at least this, it also means much more.

Black Lives Matter is correct in seeing the latent bigotry that still exists within America. What they don’t do is support the equal application of the rule of law, as Dr. King did, as a means to solve the problems facing ‘Black America.’ The rule of law is supposed to support all people in our country. Fighting law officers is contrary to the message of Dr. King and their vision of success is different.

The racism that persisted for 100 years in the South was largely quelled following the 1960s. The advocacy of racism by law remained dormant for a generation since then but is now emerging in some white minority groups within the South. A small fraction of white people are capturing the terrorist appetite and are parading it through the streets of American cities. Their actions are contrary to peaceful public demonstrations and their permit to march should never have been allowed by the rule of law.

Many white racists not only condemn black people but Jews as well. The Cross that is often burned by these racists is the symbol of one Jew, Jesus, who established the modern religion of Christianity. Jesus was not concerned about the color of people’s skin but the darkness of people’s hearts. He brought light and life to people who believed in him and forgiveness to those who trusted in his Cross. The Christian symbols used by some of these racist groups represents a message that is different from the message used by these racists.

Neither white racists or black reactionists are following the foundations they claim for their support. The solution to the problem of racism is both the rule of law and faith in Christ Jesus. Jesus opened the Gospel to all nations, it was not just for Jews. And the New Testament tells us that government should hold people accountable for their own actions, not their color.

The recent tragedy in Charlottesville, SC, highlights these problems that persist in America. These problems begin with the human heart that is darkened by sin and in need of the forgiveness of sin. This is a message taught by Christians like the Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King Junior. As Christians follow the Jewish Messiah, we also advocate the rule of law for all people.

Lady Justice has a blindfold and is not supposed to look at people’s color when a judicial decision is provided. The idea of uniform justice provided by long standing principles is called ‘prae judaicum.’ But when lady justice peeks at a person’s color that would be called ‘racial prae judaicum.’ That is where we get the word ‘racial prejudice.’ Liberty and justice for all, liberty under law, is supposed to be provided without prejudice of color.

As white racist and reactionary black movements collided in South Carolina, we are witnessing movements that do not follow the principles they claim as their symbols. White racists should follow Christ and abandon racism. Black Lives Matter should promote the rule of law and respect of law enforcement officials. When these groups combined in South Carolina the result was a tragedy. That tragedy, including the loss of life, is the end of principled solutions to the ongoing problem and perceptions of racism in America.


My great-grandfather, Hiram Craig Wallace, was a solider in the Confederate Army during the Civil War. He fought during the war, he surrendered at the end of the war, and he swore an oath to support the Union and rejoined the USA. I have no reason to do otherwise. I support the Union called the United States of America! God Bless the USA! It is time to remove the statues of Civil War Confederates from the grounds of government buildings. I am proud of my great-grandfather but not with these symbols of racism. There is no reason to keep these symbols that do not promote faith and justice in modern America.

PRK’s Leader – A Great Leader

© Original content written by James R. Carlson

Kim Jong Un

Kim Jong Un is the Leader of the People of North Korea. He inherited this role from his father and grand-father. He also inherited an uneasy truce between the United States and North Korea. After the end of the Cold War, relations between the U.S. and Korea have grown more heated. With a new Leader, the people of Korea have a great opportunity for freedom. Kim Jong Un, has the opportunity to provide for the people of Korea, religious freedom. In providing for the People’s freedom to worship God, the Leader of North Korea will become more than just a Leader for his People, he will become a Great Leader.

Greatness is not bestowed upon oneself, by others, or by great deeds. Greatness is bestowed upon others by God and by history. Great men do not intend to be great; they pursue great principles in their lives and greatness follows. The work of any man is never considered great until after some deed is done; greatness is bestowed not in advance of some great work but afterwards; not as a means to achieve greatness but as a recognition of merit employed.

The record of history is full of examples of leaders who promote religious freedom and those who do not. Those leaders who promote the freedom of people to worship God are recorded in history as great leaders. Those leaders who prevent the freedom of people to worship God are considered evil dictators in history. The decisions of leaders are their own but God will promote those leaders who let people worship him. In this leaders may choose the path to greatness or ruin.

God is not absent in any country. God will open the doors to freedom to any people. The desire of God is in the heart of the people of any country. Religious freedom is a basic liberty for all people everywhere. Any Leader who opens the doors of religious freedom for their people will find God working on their side. God will promote the Leader who pursues religious freedom. And God will make any Leader a Great Leader if they serve the people with liberty.

Please Pray for Kim Jong Un and the People of Korea

God in heaven, show favor to Kim Jong Un and the People of Korea like you did to Moses and the People of Israel when they were in Egypt. Release them from the bondage of oppression and allow them to walk with you and worship you in peace. Bless the People, Bless the land, Bless the Leader of this great people in North Korea. Please show Kim Jong Un your grace and grant him the requests of his heart. With great reverence and respect, please open the doors for religious freedom for the People of Korea. And with your hand upon Kim Jong Un, grant that one day he too will become a Great Leader of the Korean People. In Jesus’ name, we pray. Amen!


© Original content written by James R. Carlson

Nye pic

Bill Nye, a Religious Atheist, wants to:

Imprison people who believe in God,

Deny them their Right to Vote, and

Indoctrinate their Children to his way of thinking.

This is the face of the future.

[see note below]

Atheistic terrorism is growing in the United States. It may not be obvious but the definition of terrorism is as close to defining radical atheism as anything I’ve seen. I’m not saying that all atheists are terrorists; but there are radicalized atheists who have a religious/political agenda to end the American way of life that is centered upon a universal respect and reverence of the Creator God.

The U.S. military has been fighting Islamic terrorism for decades, at least since the 1980s. The DoD has a definition for terrorism that provides insight into another kind of a-terrorism that we see in the U.S.

Although there is no universal definition for terrorism, the Department of Defense (DOD) defines it as the unlawful use of violence or threat of violence to instill fear and coerce governments or societies. Terrorism is often motivated by religious, political, or other ideological beliefs and committed in the pursuit of goals that are usually political. [Joint Publication 3-07.2 (JP 3-07.2); Antiterrorism; 24 November 2010.]

Atheists use a mischaracterization of the Separation of Church and State to secularize American society and government. Although they carry the cloak of the law, their work is actually unlawful. By the use of litigation, religious radicalized atheists issue the threat violence to instill fear and coerce people in society and government. These a-terrorists (atheistic terrorists) are religiously, politically, and ideologically motivated by their atheistic beliefs to pursue the religious political goal of a secular world.

The definition of terrorism by the DoD is a near match to the work of religious/political atheists who wave the threat of a violation of the separation of church and state around as a bully club to get their way. Sadly, the U.S. Court system has supported them in their unremitting reign of terror.

My own definition of terrorism is slightly different than the DoD’s version.

Terrorism is the use of belligerent force (criminal or military) from a minority group who is willing to overthrow the majority authority because they feel underrepresented religiously, politically, economically, or ideologically. Terrorism begins in the home country where this belligerence force dominates a local population. Once domesticated by violence, terrorism is exported to other countries where this belligerence continues.

This definition provides a deeper perspective as to the domestication of terrorism. A-Terrorists are a minority group in America (again, not all atheists are a-terrorists). They feel underrepresented religiously, politically, and ideologically as a majority of Americans believe in God and not evolution. And as we have seen with recent campaigns, the Democrat Party has not only tried to kick God out of its Party platform, they sponsored secular campaigns like Hillary Clinton’s. Once domesticated (Democrats) it is exported (Clinton as Secretary of State/Presidential Candidate) worldwide.

Defining the problem is the start of solving the problem. This website has repeatedly defined the proper historical definition of the Separation of Church and State and shown the atheist version to be unfounded and illegitimate. Although a secularized Court system in America facilitates the secular agenda of religious atheists, it is without legitimacy.

Recent activity by the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) demonstrates their form of a-terrorism. They are willing to sue anyone who remotely connects religion with government. The idea that there is a right to a ‘freedom from religion’ is born of the Soviet idea of a ‘right to anti-religious propaganda.’ Religious atheism was combined with State power during the era of the Soviet Union to terrorize people who believed in God. This was an atheistic terrorist state that domesticated political violence against religious people and then exported its methods to the U.S. Madalyn Murray O’Hair is but one example. The FFRF is an example of how this type of violence, once domesticated in Russia and exported to the U.S. is now being domesticated in the U.S.

We are not about to change the foundation of groups like the FRFF, which is the U.S. Court system, in the foreseeable future. The Courts will continue to misuse the First Amendment to facilitate religious and radical atheism. But identifying the a-terrorism symbiosis that exists between religious atheism and the Courts is a start to bring it to an end.

Religious freedom is not freedom from religion, it is what America was founded upon. Our history is replete with examples of people fleeing religious persecution abroad and migrating to the U.S. for the freedom of religion. It is time to take a stand against the a-terrorism of religious a-theism.

Notes to figure above are based upon Nye’s own book, Undeniable:

Nye is so convinced that his religious beliefs are right, he thinks he has a right to put people in jail who disagree with him (chapter 31).

The science is clear; certain church-derived ethics reflect an understanding that’s murky at best and just plain ignorant at worst. Perhaps we should be prosecuting people who espouse these views…

Nye even thinks there needs to be a religious test for voters that would exclude creationists from voting (Chapter 2).

I hope that all of us will consider the potential consequences of this sort of thinking – or nonthinking. If there were a test of competency for voters, how well would they fare?

Bill Nye has clearly said that the children of pastors need to be rescued (Chapter 2) from their parents and indoctrinated with evolutionary thinking.

Here’s hoping we can work together to bring the children of the creationist’ preachers’ flocks to a more enlightened, boundless way of thinking about the world around us.

The Mediocre

© Original content written by James R. Carlson


The Media has long been on the decline. News today is not about facts and information, it is about opinion and narratives. We no longer can rely upon the Media to tell us what the truth is because they are not interested in truth. The pursuit of ideology has led to the loss of the objectivity leading to mediocracy.

The blog article that received the most comments is Merit and Metrics. People want morality and measurements as an unbiased way of viewing issues. The bias of the Media does not provide this foundation for their articles or news stories they present. In effect, the Media is talking past most of us to get what they want.

The Media constantly suppresses the idea of public morality. Instead of standing for moral values to help society move forward, they undermine the idea of morals even questioning the foundation of godliness. The ungodly manner in which they attack people who stand for morals is coupled with their attempt to replace traditional moral values with their own rationalist perception of right and wrong. Here, ideology finds its home.

The Media used to be in the business of providing a baseline for conversation and debate. Knowing what the facts of an issue are gave people in society a chance to debate the future of their own nation. Now we are debating the facts of any given issue with ideology being the constant factor. No longer can we rely upon the Media to provide metrics that We the People can use to govern our country with.

Political debates moderated and broadcast by the Media also provide no foundation for the American People to use in deciding who governs our country. If someone from the Media moderates a political debate they will steer the debate to their ideology and often they argue with candidates in a debate turning the debate into a contest between candidates and the Media.

Political campaigns have to advertise in various Media outlets available to them to get their message out; but the Media often undermines the messages presented by campaigns with so-called ‘truth tests’ of campaign ads. Campaigns that stand for morals are especially susceptible to the Media attacks. And if you dare to present statistics or measures of some kind, get ready for a contest. The Media will not let you stand on your own without a fight.

Campaigns must end their funding of the Media with their advertising dollars. Why spend money on the Media when it will just be wasted. Alternate media forms that do not subject campaigns to the abuse of today’s Media is imperative for any successful campaign. Boycotting the Media is not something that can be done 100% but the more money spent on alternative media forms means the more their message will reach the People without the bias of the Media.

The American people are waking up to the abuse of the Media. A government of the Media, by the Media, for the Media is what we are seeing today. The Media and the American people are not on the same page philosophically, morally, or practically. Americans can stand up for moral principles but the Media will undercut the People’s general will as well as the Will of God. We cannot rely upon the Media to serve us as they serve themselves. It’s time to affect their bottom line.

Many people who see the monstrous activities of the Media are calling for a boycott. Funding the Media is no longer an option. Buying their wares online, in the store, on TV, in the movies, etc. is no longer something we can do without considering the consequences. I enjoy some aspects of American media but the persistent abuse of traditions norms is not something I am willing fund anymore.

The American People have the final word on the Media and their activity. The Freedom of the Press does not actually belong to the Press or the ‘Media’; it belongs to the American People. Once the People decide the abuse of their freedoms has gone too far, We the People can take our freedoms back. If the Media wants to abuse our traditional values and fail to provide a factual foundation for national debate, we can stop buying their products. In this way, the Media will find they no longer have a foundation apart from the rest of the nation. Serving Americans should be what the Media/Press is all about. However, as the Media continues to serve themselves, they are simply becoming the Mediocre.

Broken Commandments

© Original content written by James R. Carlson

Broken Commandments

Broken Monument to the 10 Commandments in Arkansas

Less than a day after the 10 Commandments monument, a replica of the Texas version, was erected at the Arkansas state capitol grounds, it was knocked over by a madman in a car. This same person did the same thing in Oklahoma in 2014 and claimed the devil made him do it. This incident did not result in the injury of any person but it did highlight the fact that whether the devil, or atheists (ACLU), incited him, America’s freedoms are under attack. Freedoms that are based upon the 10 Commandments.

Atheists do not understand the purpose of the Separation of Church and State. As noted in my blogs before, the Separation of Church and State is a Christian idea. It requires the state to focus upon the behavior and actions of people and not upon the religious beliefs of people. Jefferson said as much in his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

The 10 Commandments has 2 tablets, as noted by the stone monuments in Texas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas. The first tablet represents man’s duties to God and the second tablet represents man’s duties to man. Belief is in the first tablet, behavior is in the second tablet. According to the Separation of Church and State, civil government is based upon the second tablet and not the first; civil government should only be focused only on the legitimate actions of people. That is what the Separation of Church and State means.

Law must be based upon morality, even Biblical morality. Holding people accountable for their actions is what government is supposed to do. The Separation of Church and State requires law to be based upon morality. That people are constrained by the law to act in accordance with moral principles is what the separation between Church & State is supposed to provide. There is no right to do what is wrong.

Atheists and madmen alike do not understand that they have freedoms and responsibilities together. There is no right to ‘do’ what is wrong because the act of ‘doing’ is only legitimate when it is moral and does no harm to others. One is free to worship God (not the devil) according to the dictates of their conscience but recall that the conscience is our moral guide throughout life. One cannot do what is morally wrong consciously and be right. Only a madman would think they have a right to do what is wrong.

While some may applaud the attack on the symbols of our freedoms, it is an act that should send shockwaves throughout our nation leading to action. Legislatures in all 50 of these United States should act to put this same version of the 10 Commandments onto their state capitol grounds. The 10 Commandments stands for religious freedom, a free conscience, and a free people in every State. The 10 Commandments are not an attack on freedoms; the 10 Commandments are the foundation of our freedoms.

Pizza Pi

© Original content written by James R. Carlson


[Pizza circumference/pizza diameter = pizza pi]

Pizza is fun food for everyone. I’ve enjoyed eating pizza since I was a kid, 50 years ago. I’ve seen all kinds of pizza and yet I have a distaste for the pizza that modern restaurants offer. I know that if you want to make some dough as a business you have to sell some dough in your pizza; but I’m not in the market for extra bread so I’m not giving them any more of my hard-earned bread. It’s time for a pizza revolution!!

Look at the next pizza you buy. How much bread is there? I’ve seen the pizza sauce and toppings get thinner while the bread crust gets thicker. Ever see those deep-dish pizzas they sell nowadays? The only thing thick about it is the crust. The toppings, etc., are exactly the same as if they were on a thinner crust. Why do I want to fill my gut with a glut of gluten?

I actually bought a pizza-pie recently and was so excited when they brought it out to the table. But when I cut into it I discovered what I always suspected about anyone who claims to have a deep-dish pizza. The bottom of the crust was burnt and the top half of the crust was uncooked and doughy. The sides of the crust were nothing more than bread stacked upon the edge of the pizza; that was the same as having a larger flat pizza with an extra-large border crust. Standing crust borders up instead of leaving them flat is no bonus to me.

One can calculate the amount of wasted pizza space for extra-large crust borders using the equation for area = pi times radius squared (a=πr2). Given a 10” pizza and a 1” crust edge, the area for the entire pizza is ~78.5 square inches (in2); but having one inch of crust at the edge leaves a total area of 63.5 in2. That means that 81% of the pizza is edible but 19% is wasted bread without any toppings. That means you’ve wasted nearly 1/5 of the money you spent on that pizza. For a $10 pizza, that’s a waste of $1.90.

The geometry of a circle is such that the farther away from the center of the pizza you get, the more area there is; it is not a linear relationship as the graph below shows.


And if you wanted to make more money (save on your food cost), you’d sell a pizza with a larger border crust. A 10” pizza with a 2” crust may not seem like a big problem but you lose 36% of the pizza to crust on the edge.


If the pizza cost $10 you wasted $3.60. I’m not interested in eating a bunch of bread or wasting a load of dough. As a consumer, I want to get the largest pizza with the smallest crust at the edge.

Buying a fake deep-dish pizza with thick crust at the bottom of the pizza is no picnic either. By doubling the thickness of the pizza crust under the toppings, I get the same amount of bread that I would if the pizza was larger. However, with a smaller radius, the total amount of surface area that pizza sauce, toppings, and cheese has to cover is less. The consumer loses again with a fake deep-dish pizza. A real pizza pie has a moderate to thin crust all around and the filling is 1” deep or more; most fake pizza pies have bread crust 1” thick or more. That pizza-pie does not qualify when using pizza-pi.

On the positive side, I do find some places where I can get a very thin, almost cracker like crust for a pizza. The sauce can be spread to the edge of the pizza and the toppings as well. I found one place where they do this and their toppings are sliced very thin but the slices are very large in diameter. The amount of meat in each thin slice of pepperoni is greater if the radius of the slice is larger than a thick slice that has a smaller radius.

If I have a slice of pepperoni 1/8” thick and another one 1/16” thick, if the thicker slice is 2” in diameter, the thinner slice only has to be slightly less than 3” in diameter to have the same amount of meat. Having a thin crust and thinly sliced toppings allows the pizza sauce and toppings to go to the edge of the pizza. Now that’s a pizza-pi.

What Tapes?

© Original content written by James R. Carlson


Nixon’s Tape Recorder (White House – Oval Office; Watergate Era)

The media is in a frenzy about the tapes that President Trump supposedly has, recording a conversation between himself and former FBI Director James Comey. However, there are no tapes. Tape recording has not been used for years. With the advent of the modern electronic era, we no longer use tapes to record audio. The search either ends here or begins looking for something else.

Even though the President said,

James Comey better hope that there are no “tapes” of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press! [Trump Tweet; 12 May 2017; 5:26 AM EST]

Trump was attempting to put Comey on his guard about potential leaks of a private conversation. The media has picked upon the use of the word ‘tapes’ and decided to run with it; but it should be obvious that there are no ‘tapes.’

Ok, I’m being technical; so, let’s get technical. Electrical/electronic audio recording began back in the day when wire was used to make recordings. Magnetic fields were put onto a spool of wire that were then played back to present the audio record. This technology was in use for about a decade after World War II (mid-1940s to mid-1950s).

Magnetic tape was just starting to develop during this time but didn’t take off until the mid-1950s. Reel to reel tapes were used in the audio recording industry but were not used much in the home. Then came the 8-track tape in the 1960s that put the reel to reel in a package where one did not have to handle the tape or thread it in a machine. This lasted until another improvement put the reel to reel technology into a cassette. Much smaller than the 8-track, the cassette tape took center stage in the 1970s and was popular until digital media effectively took over the market place in the 1990s.

Enter with the rest of us into the digital age where compact disks (CDs) began to dominate the market and audio recordings were moving away from tape. No longer do people use tape recordings. There is a seemingly endless array of digital recording and playing devices from DVDs to iPods that people use today. The transition between tape and digital audio did witness digitally formatted tapes (DAT, DCC, etc.), but these are long gone. With the rise of powerful computers and other electronic devices, tapes have long since passed.

What has not passed is the interest in the media in gathering this media for their ideological ambitions. During the days of Watergate, when Nixon had secretly recorded meetings, these recordings were on reel to reel tapes. And when the investigation into Watergate included the request for the Nixon ‘tapes’, they were referring to these audio recordings on magnetic tape media.

Today the media is again asking for the ‘tapes.’ What tapes; there are no tapes?! The media is fixated on their ambition to bemoan this President because his ideology is vastly different from theirs. Instead, they should be asking for the MP3 files or other electronically formatted audio recordings. The media is out of touch and lost in their blind ambition to undermine this President.

Director Comey, in a candid interview with Congress yesterday, said that he suspected, inferred, assumed, and felt motivated (paraphrases) by the President when they had a private conversation. I’m not interested in Comey’s feelings or suppositions, I’m interested in explicit orders given by the President to Mr. Comey. Where is the written record? Did the President issue an order on paper, by email, by text, or tweet? If not, why did Comey act on unconfirmed ‘orders’? Comey’s emotional reactions do not constitute actions by the President. We should be asking, ‘Where are the documents?’ instead of ‘Where are the tapes?’. Where is the paper trail?

The media, the Democrats, and Comey are all blinded by the past with Nixon’s downfall, hoping for a new media showdown with Trump. However, there are no tapes in the White House basement. The media no longer bases its reports on a foundation of fact but supposition. I suppose that’s why they want the White House tapes instead of the White House documents.