Wednesday, January 18, 2017

President Obama's Final Command to the Press

Ohhhh... I see...

So NOW that President Obama is leaving office, the press corp should remove its collective lips from his rear end and start doing their job of holding our government and its officials accountable to the United States Constitution and We The People.  Does this arrogant buffoon even realize the irony of his "directive" to his sycophantic minions in the media?

Hell yes they should not seek to be necessarily complimentary, and by all means, they should cast a critical eye towards those in power going forward.  They SHOULD have been doing so for the last eight years as well though.  Perhaps if the vaunted "fourth branch" of government had done their job properly over the better part of the last decade, the erosion of liberty and the neglect of our Constitution would not have been as wantonly subsumed as the normal course of business under President Obama's administration.


Monday, January 16, 2017

Moses Lambert on Chicago

"Chicago was a perfectly symbolic setting for Obama to give his last official speech; the city is a petri dish of the failed radical policies Obama attempted to impose on the country as a whole.

Of course, Chicago was an appropriate locale for the goodbye address. It’s a violent, one-party city that is collapsing under the weight of its own corruption.

Ruled by his White House chief of staff, Mayor Rahm Emanuel, in 2016 there were 762 murders in Chicago, more than all the murders recorded that year in New York City and Los Angeles combined.

There were 4331 people shot in Chicago in 2016, up from 3550 in 2015, in a city where politicians blame inanimate objects, instead of criminals, for homicides and work relentlessly to deprive helpless residents of their Second Amendment rights.

Chicago is a so-called sanctuary city that goes out of its way to shield illegal aliens from immigration authorities and make their lives as comfortable as possible at the expense of everyone else. Obama protégé Emanuel is a strident, in-your-face supporter of the sanctuary city movement that gave illegal aliens permission to rob, rape, and murder Americans.

Chicago’s debt has junk-bond status and residents are fleeing the city in droves in search of greener pastures.

It is home to failing public schools made worse by the militant, rapacious Chicago Teachers Union and spectacularly unsuccessful public housing complexes.

They should really just rename Chicago 'Obama City.' "

Friday, January 13, 2017

Chad Prather: Goodbye Obama!

It was my intention to write a post about what President Obama accomplished in his eight years in office.  Sadly nearly all of the accomplishments were NOT for the better.  That said, I came across Chad Prather in this video and he did such a good job of summing up those "accomplishments" that I figured why should I reinvent the wheel.  So, this one is for you, Mr. President!  Good luck, godspeed, and good riddance!

Monday, December 19, 2016

The Genius of the Electoral College

Today is the day that the electors from each state cast their votes for the next president via the Electoral College.  This is the actual process that determines who will be president; not the popular democratic vote.

Donald J. Trump, who "lost the popular vote," as we have been reminded ad nauseum from many of our brothers and sisters on the left will nonetheless be elected as The United States of America's 45th chief executive today.

With all the whining and confusion surrounding the Electoral College vs. the popular vote, I figured it was worthwhile to take a look at the genius of our Founding Fathers and why they set things up the way that they did. First, let’s look at a basic short tutorial about the Electoral College that was excellently done by Prager University:

Also, this well-done short article explains why the Electoral College was so important in this particular election. Essentially, it saves the rest of us from being dictated by the far left goofy state of California:

"Clinton’s 2.3-million-popular-vote plurality over Trump depends on the votes in a single state: California. Clinton has more than a 4-million-vote plurality over Trump there. In the other 49 states plus the District of Columbia, Trump actually has a 1.7-million-popular-vote plurality over Clinton. So California single-handedly turns a Trump plurality into a Clinton plurality....
He also won the national popular vote cast outside of the single state of California. Moreover, Clinton won all of California’s 55 electoral votes despite the fact that 4.3 million of the state’s voters voted for Trump."

Without the Electoral College, the presidency could very well be decided by the top half-dozen most populous states, while the rest of the nation would be ignored by presidential campaigns.  That hardly seems like a good way to unite the remaining 44 states with the "decider states".  A "Dis-united States" would soon be the inevitable outcome of that debacle.  Once again, our Founding Fathers' genius is on display in our representative republic.

Thursday, November 10, 2016

The Election of Trump and the Left's Fears

Anyone living in the United States over the past several generations can tell you that the American people have become increasingly divided in their political outlooks.  It would seem now that those divisions are so diametrically opposed as to be irreconcilable.  That, perhaps, is one dark path (or is that two dark paths which diverged from each other?) that we may very well continue to travel down.  There has always been a progressive/conservative divide in the nation, particularly since the turn of the 20th century.  That divide, with the election of Donald Trump as the 45th President of the United States, seems to be widening into an impassable chasm.  Even loving members of my own family are at nasty odds with each other over this outcome.  (As a disclaimer, I did not vote for either egregious candidate of Clinton or Trump.)

I noticed from the evening news that the Left has taken to the streets in protest in many cities last night decrying the election of Trump.  They have tried to subtly or not so subtly shame anyone that voted or supported the policies of Trump and the Right.  Some have vowed social unrest and civil disobedience even.  They are fearful what the future holds for them in our country.

I get it. 

I too was afraid and deeply troubled when President Obama was elected in 2008 and then inexplicably re-elected in 2012.  I had done enough research prior to his first election to know that Obama was not whom he portrayed himself to be.   Sadly, I was correct.  That said, despite my disdain for identity politics, I was at least hopeful that our first black president would be able to further improve already-healing race relations amongst our citizenry.  Instead, President Obama squandered this opportunity and only inflamed race relations.  He did everything to replace one “oppressed” group with another.  The good will instilled in him by all Americans with his election was wasted. 

Ironically Trump has now won on the backs of millions of white working-class families that had previously voted for Obama.  And yet, the intolerant among the Left such as Van Jones claim that Trump’s election was a “white-lash” against a black president.  If one voted for Obama and then subsequently voted for Trump, that would seem to me to negate the facetious charge of racism.  Indeed, higher numbers of Black and Hispanic Americans voted for Trump than had previously voted for Romney in 2012.  Could it possibly be that Americans voted for Trump over Clinton because of choices in policies?

President Obama ran roughshod over the Constitution and governed by executive order when he could not move his agenda forward by congressional legislation.  Further, when existing laws ran contrary to his agenda, such as the Defense of Marriage Act signed into law by Bill Clinton, he simply refused to enforce them as per his constitutionally sworn duty.  Indeed, he often championed the overturning of such laws by the courts when he could not get the peoples' representatives in congress to do his will.

Along the way, many of our constitutional rights were eroded, if not fully curtailed.  Business owners were challenged in court for practicing their religious principles, many to their financial ruin.  Our right to be secure in our persons and papers unless a warrant was issued was fully violated.  The tenth amendment guaranteeing States the power to do all that was not explicitly stated as duties of the federal government became a laughing stock.  Federal grants of funds were threatened to be withheld for education etc. if States did not comply with executive branch mandates to provide transgender bathrooms and privileges.  And the right to LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as stated in our founding document as a nation, was wholly undermined with the pernicious HHS mandate requiring even religiously affiliated schools, hospitals etc. to provide abortifacients to their employees via health insurance, even when it was against their freedom to exercise their religions as they had so chosen.  Even a half a billion dollars a year in tax-payer's dollars was given to fund the Planned Parenthood abortion clinics throughout the country.

Hillary Clinton would have simply continued President Obama’s failed and morally egregious policies and further restricted our constitutional rights.  She would have continued down the path of anemic economic policies and continued to put herself above the rule of law, all the while enriching her cronies and herself. 

The Left fears that all of these “gains” for their various constituency groups that they have garnered under Obama’s tenure will be rolled back or stripped away once again.  Where these gains conflict with constitutional rights intended for all Americans, I say that they absolutely should be eradicated. 

That is not to say that we should be hostile to our LGBTQ brothers and sisters and those that are fearful on the left.  Indeed this country was not founded on “tolerance” but rather on freedom and respect.  Freedom though is not in the doing of anything we want, but rather on the ability to choose to do what we ought.  We ought to be respectful of one another, even when we disagree.

To the Left, tolerance is a virtue.  It isn’t.  Further, their idea of tolerance only applies to those that agree with their notions.  Disagreement with their “enlightened” view will certainly NOT be tolerated by them.  Respect must be afforded to all Americans by each of us, Left and Right, and especially with those with whom we disagree on political and social issues. 

Nobody is going to come and lock up law abiding Muslim or Hispanic Americans.  Nobody is going to insist that gay people must live their lives back in the closet, which is ironic since many on the Left want religious people to only live their faith behind closed doors and not in the public square. 

We are a wonderful nation composed of myriads of people and their differing views.  We will never all agree with one another, nor should we.  We should continue to state, challenge, and live our views and convictions.  The debate of ideas is how we come to find that which is the best amongst us.  Denigrating and condescending towards those with whom we disagree will only invite more of the same in return.

I lived through eight years of what many Americans considered to be very destructive policies emplaced by President Obama.  All of my friends and family on the Left that are fearful of Trump’s presidency need to take heart.  You too will survive, and even though I have serious doubts about President-elect Trump in many regards, my hopes and fervent prayers are that the country will be better off four years from now.  I tried to give President Obama the benefit of the doubt at the beginning of his first term in office.  Perhaps we all should try to do the same with Mr. Trump.  In the meantime, let’s remember that we are ALL Americans and thus we are all in this experiment in representative Democracy together.

Monday, October 24, 2016

Archbishop Naumann: VP Nominee Tim Kaine is a "Cafeteria Catholic"

The Archbishop of Kansas City, Joseph F. Naumann, posted an excellent article on his diocesan website on October 14th regarding the Democrat nominee for Vice President, Tim Kaine. Senator Kaine professes to be a Catholic, but like many elected Democrat officials, he also takes the politically expedient viewpoint of being pro-abortion.  It is something that has long troubled me as these folks DO know better.

Now I would expect Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to be militantly "pro-choice" in every aspect possible, but when supposed Catholic folks like Nancy Pelosi, John Biden, John Kerry, or Tim Kaine take a pro-abortion stance, it would seem to me that they are trading what their faith teaches them to be right and true for the thirty pieces of silver that Democrat political viability demands.  Archbishop Naumann does a masterful job of calling the problem out in his following article.

Our choices end where another’s more fundamental right begins
"Though he has local roots in the Kansas City area, I have never met vice presidential candidate, Senator Tim Kaine. From those who do know him, I understand that he is a very affable and likable person.

In the Oct. 4 vice presidential debate, Senator Kaine acknowledged he was blessed with great Irish Catholic parents and grew up in a wonderful faith-filled family. He also mentioned proudly that he is a graduate of Rockhurst High School, crediting the Jesuits with instilling within him a desire for public service and a commitment to advocate for the poor. I wish that was the end of the story.

It was painful to listen to Senator Kaine repeat the same tired and contorted reasoning to profess his personal opposition to abortion while justifying his commitment to keep it legal. He said all the usual made-for-modern-media sound bites: It is not proper to impose his religious beliefs upon all Americans. He trusts women to make good reproductive choices. And when all else fails, there is always: Do we really want to criminalize and fill our jails with post-abortive women?

With regard to the imposition of religious beliefs, Senator Kaine appears to have no qualms with his public positions conforming with his religious beliefs with regard to such issues as the church’s opposition to racism or our preferential option for the poor. He appears not to be conflicted with our public policies mirroring the Ten Commandments with regard to stealing, perjury, or forms of murder, other than abortion.

The founders of our nation actually dealt with this issue 240 years ago in the Declaration of Independence, in which they articulate certain self-evident and inalienable rights that government does not bestow but has a responsibility to protect. Our founders actually believed that the right to life is given to us by our Creator, not by the Supreme Court.

Of course, religion will speak about fundamental human rights issues. However, to understand that the government has a right to protect human life is not dependent on religious belief. As the founders’ stated, these are self-evident truths. They are accessible to everyone through the use of reason. They do not require faith.

Why is Senator Kaine personally opposed to abortion, if he does not believe that it is the taking of an innocent human life? I hope in his science classes at Rockhurst he learned that at the moment of fertilization a new human life has begun with his or her own distinct DNA — different from the genetic code of both the child’s mother and father.

It is difficult to imagine that Senator Kaine has not seen the ultrasound images of his children and grandchildren when they were in their mother’s womb. Is the senator unaware that abortion stopped the beating hearts of 60 million American children aborted legally since 1973?

If he knows these truths of biology, why would he believe that anyone has the right to authorize the killing of an unborn human being? This is where the reproductive choice euphemism breaks apart. Does anyone really have the choice to end another human being’s life? Our choices end where another individual’s more fundamental rights begin.

As far as Senator Kaine’s fear that if abortion is made illegal, our prisons will be teeming with post-abortive women, we actually have decades of legal history in our own country when this was certainly not the case.

Before the late 1960s when abortion was illegal in every state, except for the life-of-the-mother cases, it is difficult to find a single instance of a woman imprisoned for abortion. The laws were enforced against the abortionists. Our own legal experience shows clearly that it is possible to develop public policies aimed at protecting children, not punishing women.

Actually, I wish Senator Kaine would take the time to talk with some of the post–abortive women that are assisted by Project Rachel and other post-abortion ministries helping women and men find healing, hope and mercy after an abortion. Our current permissive abortion policies, placing the entire burden of responsibility for the abortion decision upon the mother, results in millions of women experiencing an inner imprisonment where the bars keeping them from freedom and happiness are the guilt and unresolved grief that inevitably ensues from abortion.

It is interesting that Senator Kaine expressed his personal anguish when as governor he enforced capital punishment sentences. He gave the impression that he attempted unsuccessfully to convince Virginians to abolish the death penalty. Yet, with regard to legalized abortion, I am not aware of Senator Kaine making a similar effort to convince his constituents to work for public policies that protect the lives of the unborn. Instead, he appears eager to champion not only maintaining the status quo, but actually expanding abortion rights.

It is ironic that Senator Kaine expressed such profound concern about imposing his religious beliefs on others, while supporting efforts: 1) to coerce the Little Sisters of the Poor and other faith-based ministries to violate their conscience by including abortifacients, contraceptives and sterilizations in their employee health plans; 2) to put small business owners (e.g., florists, bakers, photographers, etc.) out of business with crippling fines if they decline to participate in same-sex marriage ceremonies; and 3) to force every American taxpayer to help fund abortion.

This presidential election presents all Americans with a difficult choice. Both major political parties have nominated very flawed candidates. In making your decision as a voter, I encourage you to think not only of the candidate, but who they will appoint to key Cabinet and other powerful government positions if he or she becomes president. We are choosing not just a president, but an entire administration.

Finally, be wary of candidates who assume to take upon themselves the role of defining what Catholics believe or should believe. Unfortunately, the vice-presidential debate revealed that the Catholic running for the second highest office in our land is an orthodox member of his party, fully embracing his party’s platform, but a cafeteria Catholic, picking and choosing the teachings of the Catholic Church that are politically convenient."

I am heartened to see Archbishop Naumann call out Senator Kaine on this accordingly.  God bless the good Archbishop and I will continue to pray for a conversion of heart for all of those that support abortion - especially those claiming to be adherents to the Catholic faith.