Leaderboard

I come before you today realizing that the time has come for me to make a definitive announcement of my plans as to whether or not I will enter the race for President of the United States. I acknowledge that this forum, Adventistan is the ideal venue in which to state my plans. With some 9,000 plus members it has clearly demonstrated that it has the ability to grow in size. Further, as I analyze its population, I sense that its members include both those followers of the current President, whom I will not name as well as those who are looking for someone new, which I am. As I consider my decision, I believe that I have the following qualification that would suggest that I run for President: · * The President needs to be decisive person who can make decision. I fit that mold. Less than 30 minutes has occurred between the time that I first considered it and the time at which I made my decision. · * My years of service in the military, to include service as an enlisted person who reached the rank of Specialist 4 and as a Commissioned Officer who achieved the rank of Major, and served in combat, demonstrates that I have better qualifications to deploy our military internationally than have other Presidents. · * My 20 years of employment with the VA gives me the background needed to understand how the government operates, how it should be reformed and to reform it. · * My formal training in Mediation qualified me to preside over a fractious government system. · * My years of service in representing employees of the Federal government in negotiations with management demonstrates that I can understand and provide for the needs of the common working person. · * Due to issues that I have with sleep, I consider that my ability to sleep during boring meetings as well as to rise early and get to work specially qualifies me for the positon over and above some who have served before me. · * I do not micromanage. I chose competent people and allow them to do their job. · * I will select persons to fill government positons from both Republications and Democrats that are representative of the U.S. population While the above are only a few of my qualification to run for President, I must say that I am lacking in some respects: · * With my advanced age, I am not longer head and shoulders above all of the others who have announced that they are running for President. I have shrunk in height from what I once was. · * I do not have the financial resources needed to purchase the office as some have had. · * I do not own a jet aircraft capable of flying me around the country in luxury. · * While I have represented people before a Federal Administrative Law Judge I have never been to law school. · * I do not want to spend the next two years traveling the country. I have visited all 50 of the States in the past and I do not need to repeat that. Well here you have it--my qualifications for and my lack of qualifications. The time has come to make a decision. I have made a decision and chosen to announce in on this preeminent forum: I will not run for President of the United States during the next election. This decision of firm. NOTE: I have announced my decisions based upon my belief that the multitude of Democrats who are expected to run for President (Presently 14, with more expected to join the race.) requires that I make a statement.

An opinion column in the Daily Telegraph... the source is not especially solid, but let’s look at the content. I don't for a moment disagree that there is trauma to some men, sometimes, when their partners have an abortion. Indeed, I have personal experience: we had to abort our much-wanted first child because she was malformed and already dead in the womb. It was incredibly traumatic. If the upshot of this story is 'let's provide better support and counselling services for men', I'm fully behind that. I mean, they need to be provided for everyone in society, including men. If the upshot is 'we need to give men more control over women'... I can't seem to get access to the article. Not sure why. Does it cite any science, or just opinion? A correlation is not causation...

In my experience as a U.S. Army Chaplain: * In every major troop assignment that I had, I found 100+ military members who had formally told the Army that the SDA Church was their church of preference. That did not mean that they were formal members. But, it alerted me to a group of people, often unknown to the SDA Church, to whom I could attempt to build a relationship. * I served for three (3) years on the teaching faculty of the Army Chaplain School which was formally accredited by the regional accrediting agency. During that time, I had as many as 155 clergy in my classes. Some of those had never experienced a SDA clergyperson before. * During my time teaching in that school, one of the chaplains converted to the SDA denomination and became a SDA Army chaplain. * With the help of the Lord, of course, I have intervened in situations in a manner that stopped a SDA from going to prison on the basis of their beliefs. [NOTE: I also was able to do that for people who were not SDA.] * The bottom line is: We in the U.S. have SDA members of the military on all levels. Right now, there are SDA students attending U.S. Military Academies. Folks, we need to provide spiritual support for these people, whether or not we agree with their personal position on military service. * If you actually knew the historical background of this denomination, you would know that there were early leaders who supported military service. Yes, I am well aware of the early denominational positions that the Church in general took. * It may be of interest to you to know that the SDA denomination first allowed SDA clergy to become military chaplains due to the intervention of high level Army chaplains who pled with the General Conference to endorse SDA military chaplains in an attempt to keep SDAs out of prison. A long time ago, in another life I once wrote on this.

* In my 20+ years of military service, to include combat, I was always been listed in the records as a conscientious objector. * The commandment, "Thou shalt not kill.," Is better translated as Thou shalt not murder. * It is commonly believed that a death that occurs in a law enforcement action may not be a violation of that commandment. * I can respect a person who makes a personal decision not to be involved with the military. * I have never encouraged a "traditional Adventist" to join the military, with the possible exceptions of chaplain and medical positions. * I support the present SDA position to provide spiritual support to SDAs who find themselves in the military. * I hope that we do not change our present position.

Dear Mr. Matthews, It's a great tragedy for America that you have declined to run for POTUS as a either a Republicator or Democritator. With your extensive experience in non-politics you would have been far more qualified than any community organizer or reality TV star. We believe it was the intent of the Founding Fathers of America that the presidency should not be bought by the wealthy, nor should it require riding horse back for thousands of miles just to make people think you care about them and their problems. Those of us dwelling in Adventistan sincerely hope that you reconsider running for POTUS, and if you do, know that we foresee you riding into glory and history on horseback as a great pioneer of non-campaigning and use of zero energy in order to save the world and America. Every single patriot and Green New Dealer has your back and a cartload of horse poop that can be used instead of fossil fuels to power America's future indefinitely. Sincerely, the Tater family, including Dick, Common, Frozen, Stuffed, Mashed, and Instant

For me, I think it's a matter of how one's message is presented as much as the message itself. I personally hold a lot of the views proposed by guys like Des Ford and Raymond Cotrell; I even talk about some of them here. But I would never preach them in church; and I would be hesitant to teach them in a Sabbath School. I hold some views that some think are WAY outside of the SDA box. That doesn't mean my views are right and the church's views are wrong. My theology has "evolved" over the years.In some ways I am a much more conservative SDA than I was 15 years ago; and in some ways I am more liberal. Some things about which I used to be dogmatic I now completely reject; and vice-versa. So I have no right to call myself right and someone else wrong when it comes to most spiritual issues when my position "evolves". That's one of the reasons I call myself the "Resident Chameleon". I also must have the discretion to keep my opinions to myself in certain company. That being said, I think the church did Des Ford dirty; and I think the Texas Conference took things too far by confiscating that church's financial assets.

5 Things You Didn't Know About Howard Hughes On April 5, 1976, the reclusive and mysterious billionaire Howard Hughes died at age 70. Hughes was a real estate mogul, a successful Hollywood producer, and a record-setting aviator. Here are 5 things you didn't know about Howard Hughes... Hughes Became a Millionaire at age 18 Hughes’ father, Howard Sr., was a dropout from Harvard who made his way to Texas to work in the oil industry as a wildcatter. After inventing a new drill bit that made drilling for oil easier, he went into business with a partner to manufacture it. The younger Hughes, whose mother had previously died, inherited that company from his father at age 18, after his father died. It made him a millionaire. Hughes Set Not One, but Two Speed Records The first speed record Hughes set was on January 13, 1936, in his H-1 Racer monoplane, where it was clocked at 352 mph at a course near Santa Ana, California. The metal and wood single-seat plane took Hughes 18 months to design and build, and was tested at the Guggenheim Aeronautical Laboratory at Caltech in a wind tunnel. On January 19, 1937, he flew across the country from Burbank, California to Newark, New Jersey, in a speed that cut the current record by 75 seconds. His Famous Wooden Airplane Only Took to the Skies Once Hughes had a U.S. government contract during World War II to construct an aircraft that could be used to transport up to 700 troops or carry 60 tons overseas. The Spruce Goose, constructed of birch, was the biggest aircraft up-to-date with a 320-foot wingspan. In 1947, following the end of the war, Hughes piloted the plane for around a mile at Long Beach, California, above the water, and this was the only time it ever flew. His Severe Phobias Turned Him Into a Recluse About 30 years before his death, Hughes' phobias took over, and he spent the rest of his life in hotel rooms to avoid germs. He wore tissue boxes as footwear to keep himself germ-free. His extreme obsessive-compulsive disorder caused him to go so far as to write a manual for his staff on how to open canned peaches, which included removing the label first, washing the can until bare metal showed, rewashing it and not touching the can to the bowl they were pouring the fruit into. As he got older, he rarely brushed his teeth, bathed or trimmed his nails and hair, but he insisted that his staff put paper towels over their hands when they served his food. He Was as Controversial After Death as He Was When He Was Alive Hughes died of kidney failure on a flight from a hotel in Mexico to a medical facility in Texas, but the drama didn’t stop there. He died intestate, having sired no children, though many fake wills showed up that claimed a part of his estate. Eventually, the estate was split between 22 cousins, with Hughes Aircraft going to the Howard Hughes Medical Institute.

Forgive me if I go on abit. I tend to agree that folks have a right - these days - to expect healthcare. But healthcare is EXPENSIVE, so folks should expect to pay for it with taxes. But taxes suppress the economy. At this point in the US economy, we can't afford more debt. We are about buried in debt. I do think folks who abuse their health with bad habits, should pay more. I think there should be a high tax on cigs and sweets and sodas and dangerous sports equipment, etc. etc. That tax should go towards healthcare. So what might be the best way for the government to provide for healthcare? The government always does a poor job - compared to the private sector where competition is involved. We in the US, have seen that with the VA scandle. Any time big business smells money in the water, they manipulate prices to serve themselves. When the government paid the money to the hospitals, suddenly the hospitals began charging a LOT MORE for their services. When the government paid the money to insurance companies, those companies suddenly began raising premiums. Same with drug companies, and rehabilitation services, etc. etc. etc. If the government gives the money to citizens (with the stipulation that it be used only for "healthcare" as defined by the government) then prices will go up, because big business knows that people have money to spend for healthcare. If the government then regulates all the prices (to keep them down), then service providers (especially doctors, etc.) will move to other places where they CAN charge more, (like from Canada to the US, OR the brighter minds will not go into medicine in the first place. They will go into law, or business investment. Then the citizens will have doctors trained in other countries (which is already happening). I just don't think there IS an answer to the heathcare problem. Any way you slice it, there are BIG PROBLEMS. If an element of competition could be introduced, that would help to bring prices down. If folks could use their money (or insurance) at ANY hospital, or with any doctor, that would force competition. Even if they all charged the same, they would compete for business with better service. THAT would be a plus. If folks could buy insurance in groups of their own making THAT would give individuals with small businesses a better bargaining position. If folks could buy insurance across state lines, that would create more competition between insurance companies, and eliminate state lobbies and monopolies. Has ANYONE seen a plan that might work? Folks were disgusted with the Republicans because they wanted to repeal the HCA, because they were not ready with something workable to put in its place. Folks were also disgusted with the HCA because it is NOT the HCA. It should have been called the UN-Affordable Healthcare Act.

We want our government to protect us, or rescue us (in the event of a natural disaster), so why not protect our health? The LORD is our true government - right? He has not provided healthcare, except as a special blessing for obedience, and even then we still die. IF - all people everywhere have a right to healthcare, does that mean poor nations have a right to expect help from wealthier nations - for healthcare? Is this a spread the wealth issue? And what about the folks who abuse their health? Smokers, drug addicts, food addicts, etc. etc. Do they have a right to unending healthcare for conditions caused by their own behaviors?

while it would be ideal if access to healthcare was a "right," the fact of the matter is, it's a privilege, rather than a right (or entitlement).