Tuesday, September 30, 2008

Between Two Evils, Choose Neither

Did watching the first Obama/McCain presidential debate leave you wondering how Americans could possibly choose either one of these die-hard socialists?

If you're like millions of Americans who realize 'the fix is in' on limiting the debates to the 2 evils we're told we have to choose between...well, now's your chance to force the issue and tell mainstream media: 'Your monopoly has just been broken... our candidate will get to debate and here's how: ThirdPartyTicket!

Charles Hadden Spurgeon said, "If you have to choose between two evils, choose neither!"

Please visit this site and sign up to support a debate where the other candidates will get to have their say...

The internet is the 'musket of the 21st century' and we're taking aim at censorship!

Please add your name to this effort and let's help spread Constitution Party presidential candidate Chuck Baldwin's message of life, liberty and limited government!

David Seppi at CAL Berkeley

CAL Against UCLA ~ Big D, #81 circa 1970
University of Texas at Berkeley
I recognize that arm. Daddy is the one closest to the camera.

The BIG game against Stanford at CAL Berkeley

Cal had a big home game last Saturday, and Dad is thinking of old friends.

He looked up some Campus Crusade buddies, and read their blogs. ~ Regina

Monday, September 29, 2008

Proposition 1A High Speed Rail Bond

By Regina Seppi

Nov. 4 Californians have the option to subsidize high speed rail through the heart of the state. Prop 1A would deliver 9.95 billion in bonds for a plan to be constructed in the next 10-20 years.

The rail is repeatedly described as a solution to (presumably human caused) Global Warming, but 31,000 American scientists have signed a petition stating that there is no “convincing scientific evidence” that human release of greenhouse gasses is causing the earth’s surface to heat. http://www.oism.org/pproject/

Critics question whether tax money should be apportioned when California’s budget is in crisis.

Sponsored by Nicole Parra (D) Bakersfield and Rep Davis, (D) Los Angeles, the project requires not only nearly 10 billion in bonds, but matching funds from the federal and private sector, to cover the initial $32 billion price tag.

The proposed rail would span 800 miles, connecting LA, the Central Valley and the Bay Area, with future additions to include Sand Diego and Riverside County. Traveling at 220 mph, travelers reportedly could get from San Francisco to Los Angeles in less than three hours.

California trains, however, are unlikely to meet peak speeds because trains will have to be heavier to meet California’s unique safety standards and use old tracks, already in place.

Pros and Cons

Prop 1A is supported by Congressman Jim Costa, (D) Hanford, who has sponsored legislation to form a national High Speed Rail (HSR) authority, along with business and environmental groups.

Costa claims that the project will create hundreds of thousands of jobs, and bring in twice what it costs.

Spokesman Greg Larsen of yesonprop1a.com, says HSR will relieve congestion, cutting the need to expand freeways and airports. “If you add a lane to the freeway today that's a short fix. Installing a high-speed rail throughout California is a long-term investment for California for today and for generations to come.” He told me.

The proposition’s opponents include California Chamber of Commerce and Taxpayers organizations, who say this is unaffordable for a state mired in financial crisis. Jon Coupal, President of Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assoc. says the rail is destined to cost far more than advertised. “Proponents themselves admit this is a minimum of a $40 billion project.” Coupal told me.

Coupal points out those 1A proponents have already missed the September 1 deadline for having a business plan. “So voters are being asked to spend, in essence $20 billion, (with bond interest) on a project that doesn't even have a business plan yet.”

Howard Jarvis Assoc. released a study along with the Reason Foundation to analyze the true cost of Prop 1A. The 200 page report, available at Reason.org, was created in part by a past president of The American High-Speed Rail Association. The conclusion: This particular project is not ready for prime time.

“We are not necessarily opposed all high-speed rail proposals,” Coupal stated, “but this one is lacking on the details of how much it’s going to cost.” A Reason Foundation press release warns that, “The final price tag for the complete high-speed rail system will actually be $65 to $81 billion, according to the Reason Foundation report.”

The projected savings are based on optimum amount of riders. But the HSR line in the nation’s most heavily populated area; New YorkBostonWashington has a far lower use than was projected. One Brooklyn filmmaker told me last week that he prefers to ride the train, but flies because it is cheaper.

We recommend you vote NO on prop 1A.

Sunday, September 28, 2008

Andrew David Campbell

Pastor Warren Mark, Jill, their adopted son-Andrew, daughter Joyce and both grandmothers

Andrew and Jodavid

Casey, April, Alisa, Jodavid, Regina, Dinah, Joyce, Andrew, Melody

Boys love drums.

Saturday, September 27, 2008

Replacing Windows

My prayer for you is to be joyful, fruitful, blessed, and abundant to many generations. ~ Geoffrey Botkin

Don Hart Esq., Entrepreneurial Bootcamp 2006

Children can go one of two ways in my view, they can either serve and work, and they can be raised to love those things. Or they can play and be served and learn to love those things. These are two distinct tracks that our children will travel. It will either be work and service to others or play and being served and being entertained. Which way do we want our children to go? What better avenue than family entrepreneurship to learn the ethic of the Christian life? Work for the Lord in service of others. It is the God ordained avenue for this kind of discipleship; it is Deuteronomy 6 waiting to happen. In doing so, we prepare our children both for provision and to be a help meet to a provider. In family entrepreneurship we give our children a biblical view of economics and wealth.

RJ Rushdoony in Christianity and Capitalism points out the biblical basis for capitalism. He talks about reward and punishment in the Bible and how competition, reward and punishment are biblical objectives…God is the source of liberty to engage in business and He is the provider of blessings when we are obedient and curses when we are disobedient. All we have to do is read Deuteronomy 28 to see how clear that picture is and how material things are a part of how God operates.

This is not a conference about automatic steps to prosperity and wealth; it is a conference about faithfulness and respect for His sovereignty in submission to His will.

~Attorney Don Hart after several lawyer jokes, brought to light the root reasons for family business before explaining top legal issues and tax benefits.

Friday, September 26, 2008

Don & Lore Rogers

Lore and Don Rogers joined us for lunch tody and filled us with their memories.
The Rodgers stoppped in this morning on their way to a family reunion. Don & Lore always regale us with stories of meeting people, projects they've worked on and what's happening with Dr. Ron Paul. They gave us a bag of papers from Donzella Cross Boyle, author of Quest of a Hemisphere, a history book I read at age 10. The papers are from Mrs. Boyle's notes and rough draft when she was writing her book. The Rodgers rescued many boxes of her work after she died, when a trash man was called to pick up all of the papers in her garage.
Don & Lore 66 years ago, on their honeymoon, July 1942. They were riding his motor bike to California to meet Don's parents, and broke down outside Steam Boat Springs, Colorado. Don was 19, Lore, 22. "She was my legal guardian for two years." He said.

Wednesday, September 24, 2008

"Republocrat Campaign Song"

Dinah reading to Jodavid
Dinah washing windows, Melody & Regina surgingChris came for Lance
Good-bye Chris! Good-bye Lance!
Dinah and Jodavid cleaning the big Attic dormer

while Victor cleans our pistols.

Ross & Carter shot video footage of target shooting

Victor videoed Ross and Carter shooting too.

Victor is kindly serving us without being asked..

Tuesday, September 23, 2008

Dr. Ron Paul Endorsed Chuck Baldwin for President

Thank You, By Chuck Baldwin

This column is archived at

Yesterday, September 22, Congressman Ron Paul publicly gave me his
endorsement for the office of President of the United States. In his blog at
the Campaign for Liberty web site, he said, "I'm supporting Chuck Baldwin,
the Constitution Party candidate." (See the complete statement at:
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog/?p=582 )

Obviously, I could not be more delighted and honored to have Dr. Paul's
endorsement. I called him last evening and thanked him personally. And now I
want to thank him publicly.

I am fully aware that Dr. Paul was under considerable pressure from various
groups that were actively soliciting his support. I can honestly say that I
never lobbied Dr. Paul for his endorsement. He knew I would be thrilled to
have it, but I have too much respect for Ron Paul to be so presumptuous as
to expect him to endorse me. I completely understood his neutrality. He has
strong ties to both the Libertarian and Constitution parties--not to mention
the obvious fact that he is a ten-term Republican Congressman with much
support from the Republican Party in his home district.

I was happy to support Ron Paul during the Republican primaries, because I
believe in the same principles. I personally campaigned for him in several
states and in this column. And I asked (or expected) nothing in return. In
fact, I have stated this publicly, time and again: if Ron Paul had won the
Republican nomination for President, I would not be running. I would still
be supporting Ron Paul.

I am running for President because the Republican Party rejected Ron's
Paul's message of constitutional government, fiscal responsibility, and
non-interventionism. Therefore, someone had to pick up the mantle and carry
this message into the general election. The Constitution Party asked me to
be their standard-bearer in order to bring this message to the American
people in November. So, here I am. And now, Ron Paul's endorsement is
further substantiation that the message of constitutional government will
not die in 2008. The American people still have a real choice instead of the
big-government, globalist, interventionist, "big box" party candidates, John
McCain and Barack Obama.

Ron Paul's message is my message; Ron Paul's fight is my fight.

I want to return America to constitutional government. "The powers not
delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to
the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
(Amendment X) I believe that, and will govern the Executive branch of the
federal government accordingly.

My sworn oath to the Tenth Amendment means I would dismantle the Patriot Act
and restore law enforcement to the states and local governments, where it
rightly belongs. Yes, this includes the so-called "war on drugs" and the
so-called "war on terror." No more warrantless searches and seizures. No
more eavesdropping on Americans' phone calls, or collecting Americans'
emails, or spying on American citizens without court order and oversight. No
more stripping Americans of their constitutional rights in the name of
"national security." In addition, I would use every power and authority
vested to my office to preserve and protect the right of the people to keep
and bear arms. And, yes, I will immediately restore Posse Comitatus. As
President, I want to protect America from Washington, D.C., as much I want
to protect it from foreign powers.

I will also take the words of the Declaration of Independence seriously,
where it states, "That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be
Free and Independent States." This means the day I am sworn in as President
of the United States, the New World Order comes crashing down! The NAFTA
superhighway is dead. The North American Union is dead. I will work to
eliminate NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT, and the WTO. The FTAA is DOA. I will not
expend tax dollars for the support of the United Nations.

Furthermore, I will take my oath to the Constitution seriously, when it
states that one of the express purposes of the federal government is to
"repel Invasions." This means we will secure America's borders, because the
illegal immigration crisis is more than mere immigration: it is an invasion,
and I will stop it! Even if I have to send the U.S. Army to the borders, we
will put a stop to this invasion of illegal aliens. I will also aggressively
prosecute those employers who knowingly hire illegals. And did I mention
that my first day in office is Border Patrol Agents Ramos and Compean's last
day in prison? I will personally open the prison doors and restore to these
men their freedom. I will also give them their jobs back (with pay), if they
want them. And one more item on this point: my first day of office is also
U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton's last day on the job.

I also share Ron Paul's concerns for the way the two major parties have
allowed the United States to become a meddlesome, interventionist,
nation-building empire for the sake of satisfying the greedy machinations of
international bankers and power-hungry politicians. I will not only bring
our troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan, but also from most of the other
130 nations that currently house U.S. forces. I will end foreign aid. I will
get the U.S. out of NATO. It is past time for the European states to defend
themselves. It is time for us to stop sticking our nose in every other
nation's business and start taking care of the United States. The Warfare
State will kill us. Global empires are not sustainable. I repeat: global
empires are not sustainable. If history teaches anything, it teaches that.

Furthermore, the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war is over, when I become
President. Because I will take my oath to the Constitution seriously, I
would never send troops to invade and occupy a foreign country without a
Declaration of War by Congress. In dealing with rogue terrorist
organizations such as al Qaeda, I will seek letters of Marque and Reprisal
from Congress, which would give me the authority to use whatever special
and/or private forces are necessary to seek out and destroy those who desire
our hurt.

And even though I am a born again Christian (as is Ron Paul), I would take
my responsibility to protect the religious liberty of every American
seriously. People have the right to worship God (or not worship God)
according to the dictates of their own conscience. Whether one is Baptist,
Catholic, Mormon, or agnostic, people have the right to practice their faith
as they see fit. I am absolutely dedicated to preserving religious liberty.
Religious tyranny is as evil as political or social tyranny. And, as I will
be no man's slave, neither will I be any man's master.

I also share Ron Paul's commitment to the sanctity of life. When I become
President, I will use the bully pulpit of the White House to press Congress
to pass Dr. Paul's Sanctity of Life Act, which would overturn Roe v. Wade
and end abortion-on-demand. On this topic, the GOP is especially
hypocritical. The Republican Party controlled the entire federal government
for six years and did nothing to save the life of a single unborn child.
Saving unborn babies from the abortionists' scalpel is more than rhetoric
with me, however.

Another area of agreement with Ron Paul is my philosophy of economics. Dr.
Paul has been predicting the current financial meltdown in this country for
years. And when all is done, the current bailout being proposed will do more
harm than good. The problem is, America's leaders have rejected sound money
policies for years, and the chickens are coming home to roost.

As President, I would seek to overturn the 16th Amendment, eliminate the
Internal Revenue Service, and disband the Federal Reserve. I would lead the
charge to return America to sound money principles. I would seek to reduce
federal spending to constitutional levels by eliminating those same federal
departments that Newt Gingrich promised to eliminate in his Contract with
America back in 1994 (and then failed to do). I would seek to eliminate the
Departments of Education, Commerce, Energy, etc. I would demand that
Congress pass a balanced budget and that we stop deficit spending.

Neither John McCain nor Barack Obama will do any of the above. If he were
President, Dr. Paul would do it, however, and so would I.

Needless to say, I am both humbled and honored that Ron Paul would place
enough faith in me that he would endorse me for President. I can think of no
higher compliment to my candidacy. I here and now publicly thank him for
this vote of confidence. I know my Vice Presidential running mate, Darrell
Castle (a former Marine Corps officer and Vietnam veteran), joins me in
inviting all of Dr. Paul's supporters to help us take the message of
constitutional government into the general election on November 4. Thank

Monday, September 22, 2008

Jon Leever Family, Ross McDonnell, Carter Gunn

Dinah and Ross
Eccleastical Morturary
Antique Book Room
Kaweah once had a socialist colony
The original name of the General Sherman Tree
was the Karl Marx Tree

April and Joyce visiting Grandpa Campbell's Memorial Stone

Law Library
Jodavid and Anthea
We are looking forward to seeing this production.
Jeren and Josiah
Monday Morning Good-Byes to Carter and Ross

Sunday, September 21, 2008


An Article by Chuck Baldwin - September 16th, 2008

Alaska Governor Sarah Palin gave her first exclusive interview as John McCain's Vice- Presidential running mate to ABC's Charles Gibson last week. Her answers were very troubling, especially to those of us who believe in constitutional government. On foreign policy, especially, Palin reveals herself to be just another neocon; one who would enthusiastically promote Bush's preemptive war doctrine.

Speaking of the Bush doctrine, it was extremely enlightening that Sarah Palin demonstrated surprising ignorance as to what the Bush Doctrine is. Gibson asked: "Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?" Palin's response: "In what respect, Charlie?" Continued questions revealed that Sarah Palin was totally ignorant of the Bush doctrine.

When Gibson properly defined the Bush doctrine as being the determination of President Bush to unilaterally, preemptively launch anticipatory military attacks and invasions against foreign countries (without a Declaration of War from Congress, I might add), Palin said the President "has the obligation, the duty" to launch such attacks. No wonder John McCain likes her so much.

Palin went on to make further statements that must have made John McCain proud. When asked if she would be willing to take America to war with Russia in order to defend Georgia, she responded by saying, "Perhaps so."

Egad! Do John McCain and Sarah Palin envision--even desire--war with Russia? John McCain is already on record as supporting sending troops to Georgia; now Sarah Palin suggests that even war with Russia is a possibility. Over what? Has Russia deployed troops along our borders? Has Russia threatened to invade the United States? Are McCain and Palin truly willing to launch a war with a nation that has thousands of ICBMs in its nuclear arsenal, when our own security has not been threatened? And just how many other countries are McCain and Palin willing to defend with American toil and blood? All of Europe?

Instead of promoting European states such as Georgia joining NATO, America should promote dismantling NATO. The reason for NATO's existence ended when the cold war with the former Soviet Union ended. It is past time for European states to take responsibility for their own defense. To promote American hegemony in Russia's backyard (which is exactly what we are doing by promoting the expansion of NATO) not only serves to reignite the cold war, it could inflame an all-out, very hot war. Is this what McCain and Palin want?

With Palin's willingness to launch a possible war with Russia, I suppose it is a small thing that she has no problem with the United States invading smaller countries such as Pakistan. To quote Sarah Palin, "We have got to have all options out there on the table."

Many people familiar with John McCain have tried to warn the American people about the warmongering, hot-tempered senator. To quote one of McCain's fellow POWs, Phillip Butler (who was a POW for 8 years, 2 1/2 years longer than McCain), "I can verify that John [McCain] has an infamous reputation for being a hot head. He has a quick and explosive temper that many have experienced first hand. Folks, quite honestly, that is not the finger I want next to that red button."

Only one time during Sarah Palin's interview with Charles Gibson did she refer to the U.S. Constitution, constitutional government, or her responsibility as Vice President to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. This is very troubling. Can it be that Sarah Palin is simply another politician who is ignorant and unconcerned regarding constitutional government? If so, the fact that she is a social conservative would make this dereliction no less egregious.

Speaking of social conservatism, Sarah Palin's response to Charles Gibson's question regarding abortion is also troubling. Everyone knows that John McCain is extremely weak on the life issue. He openly and repeatedly supported embryonic stem cell research. Ms. Palin says she opposes it. So, how would this conflict affect her position as McCain's Vice President? It wouldn't.

According to Palin, she would not let a "personal opinion" interfere with a McCain administration's policy that differed from hers. In other words, she would support McCain's pro-embryonic stem cell research decisions. I am sure this would also be true as John McCain increases federal funding for abortion providers, including Planned Parenthood, which is something that McCain has also repeatedly done. Pray tell, how many other "personal opinions" is Sarah Palin willing to sacrifice in order to be John McCain's running mate? Already my previous column's cogitations are being borne out.

Since my last column, I have discovered that Sarah Palin did nothing to prevent the state of Alaska from being a sanctuary state for illegal aliens. The La Frontera web site credits Lou Dobbs as noting that, according to an August 14, 2006 report by the Congressional Research Service, at least two Alaskan cities have don't ask, don't tell sanctuary policies in place for illegal aliens: Anchorage and Fairbanks. Beyond that, Alaska has a statewide policy that forbids state agencies from using resources to enforce federal immigration law.

It makes perfect sense that Sarah Palin would embrace (or do nothing to oppose) John McCain's pro-illegal immigration policy, as this is one of the issues he is most passionate about. It is absolutely inconceivable that John McCain would ever select a running mate that did not share (or that would oppose) his pro-illegal immigration convictions.

Of course, Charles Gibson never bothered to inquire concerning Sarah Palin's attitudes toward the United Nations, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), free trade deals (such as NAFTA, FTAA, etc.), the burgeoning North American Community, the NAFTA superhighway, etc. It really doesn't matter. I think we all know where Governor Palin comes down on all of the above. She will continue to support America's participation in and financial support for the U.N.; she will, as former Presidents and Vice Presidents have done, ingratiate herself with the CFR. Good grief! Her boss, John McCain, is a longstanding member of the CFR. She will enthusiastically support [so-called] free trade deals, which destroy American jobs and encroach upon American independence and sovereignty; she will not oppose the North American Community, or any other form of globalism. And if called on, she will promote the NAFTA superhighway.

In other words, Sarah Palin will offer no resistance to the escalating New World Order (America's greatest threat), her conservative leanings on social issues notwithstanding.

Sarah Palin's answers did reveal one positive: she seems to be solid on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. That is encouraging, because with the way that both Republicans and Democrats are leading America, it may not be long before we will need to actually exercise that right.

Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." -- John Quincy Adams

Saturday, September 20, 2008

Church at Kaweah Work Day

Warren Mark, Jodavid, Lance
Lance, Warren Mark, Warren Luke
Carol, surprised by Regina's camera.
Engineer Ray
Technition Darryl
Warren Mark and Warren Luke

Checking Off the List

Gerri & her 92 year-old Cleve
John 5:22-23
For the Father judges no one,
But has comitted all judgmnt to the Son,
That all should honor the Son
Just as they honor the Father
He who does not honor the Son,
Does not honor the Father who sent Him.

My Sweetheart!

The Most Steady, Faithful, and Handsome Man of All

Luke's Scuba Stories
Hunter green is the new church meeting house color.
Who is in the ski mask?

David H.,
On the roof are Ray and Lawrence
Watching David Harey paint
Victor, W. Mark, Jodavid, Vence Tella
Klocke Siblings
Our beloved son in whom we are well pleased
Do you see someone in the wild fig tree above?

Take a closer look!
"Hi Regina!"
Algebra after day of work
David and Esther and sons are
spending the night in "Eve's Mobile Home."
Dinah is ready to go with her sisters to Joyce's overnight.
Victor teaching Jodavid "math games"