Thursday, July 28, 2016

Democrat Perspective: Shape Our Children

During her speech at the Democratic National Convention, Michelle Obama declared: 
This election ... is about who will have the power to shape our children for the next four or eight years of their lives.
Of course she says that as if the obvious response would be, "Oh, you're right. We must vote for Hillary!" And from the faithful delegates of the DNC - who not incidentally  booed loudly during the invocation opening the convention - no doubt Michelle evoked that response.  

But reading her statement (of course I did not listen to any of the convention!) inspired a couple of thoughts in me as well.

1. Who has the power to shape our children? In the mind of leftists, the government. Not parents. Not pastors. Not aunts, uncles and grandparents. No, the federal government "shapes our children." This is the fulfillment of the vision of Marx, John Dewey, and other proponents of centralized control. Was any Democrat delegate in that convention hall the least bit disturbed by this concept? Apparently not. The fact that half of our nation embraces this concept is alarming.

2. On another hand, she is right. The President does have an ability to influence the lives of our children. For example, the President can direct his Department of Justice to threaten all public schools in the nation with legal action if they keep boys out of the girl's locker rooms and restrooms. The President can choose not to enforce immigration laws, and thus allow (a) illegal aliens to roam our country robbing and killing innocent people, and (b) non-tax-paying aliens to flood the public school system and rob it of the resources available to law abiding citizens. The President can veto good laws, and arm-twist legislators into passing bad ones, which deprive you of freedom to choose your doctor, which wreak economic devastation on the country, which reward non-workers and punish workers, and which shift the burden of today's vote-buying expenditures onto the backs of our children as the next generation of workers. We could go on, of course. So yes, perhaps Michelle was right. The President does have an ability to shape our children's lives.

3. Finally, perhaps she understated the case. Not just for four or eight years, but the next President will appoint federal judges who will support the constitution, preserve the liberties expressly stated in the Bill of Rights, and enforce the laws enacted by our representatives (such as Thomas, Alito and the late Scalia) or re-write laws against the will of the democratically elected representatives (think of more justices like Ginsburg, Kagan, Sotomayor, Kennedy and Breyer). That means the President gets to shape the world in which our children will live for at least 25 - 30 years.

The stakes in the election could not be higher. Trump was not my choice. I would have preferred any of at least a dozen of the original Republican candidates. But I am voting #NeverHillary in this election. And anything other than a vote for Trump would be a vote for Hillary.

Sunday, July 3, 2016

Breeding crises to cure

We are manufacturing problems for ourselves. Then politicians are careful not to "waste a good crisis."

We pretend that humans are immune from powerful sexual desires. Worse than merely sticking our heads in the sand, we actively fan the flames of such desires with all sorts of images, music, movies and even public policy pronouncements. While fanning such flames on one hand, we simultaneously ridicule timeless principles of sexual restraint and the beauty of committed monogamy.

Those who claim to have won the culture war are doing everything they can to encourage unrestrained sexual activity. In most areas of the law, solicitation to commit a crime is itself a crime. So how can tempting people to behave as animals with regard to sexuality be considered good public policy?

Why is this on my mind? Senator Kirk brought it up. He wrote the following:
Dear Mr. Ferguson,
Studies show the prevalence of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) among sexual assault survivors in the military is higher than that for those who saw combat. Thousands of servicemen and women have been unfairly discharged from the military based on questionable mental health conditions or minor misconduct related to the assault.   
In this year’s annual defense authorization bill, which passed the Senate earlier this month, I cosponsored an amendment with Senator Gillibrand (D-NY) that would expand protections against wrongful discharges for those with PTSD. This includes service men and women who were sexually assaulted as well as those who saw combat. The provision ensures that if a medical professional diagnoses PTSD based on combat service or sexual assault, that the military member cannot be discharged for non-disability mental health conditions.     
The Department of Defense (DOD) estimates there are over 20,000 sexual assaults annually and nearly 8 out of 10 of those attacked do not report the incident. Despite recent Congressional reforms, more should be done to take care of servicemen and women who have been assaulted and to ensure the Department is doing everything to prosecute their offenders. 
Sincerely,
Senator Mark Kirk
Is it just possible that the centuries-old wisdom of not mixing men and women in far away places under strenuous conditions was and is still good policy? Likewise, to exclude from such circumstances people who assert they are sexually drawn to those of the same sex?

Senator Kirk and the rest of the liberals who are using our military for social experimentation should step back and consider: when on a wrong road, you don't get to a good place by increasing speed or determination. The wise person (as C.S. Lewis said, the most "progressive" person) turns back toward the right route.

Sadly, these politicians aren't on a road they even consider wrong, because their agenda isn't to get to a good place. It is to make a majority of voters animal-like, to justify controlling us all by force.

Thursday, June 16, 2016

To make Orlando Horror more frequent...

After Senator Murphy's filibuster, I hear new legislation might be considered to impose greater restrictions on access to firearms by law-abiding citizens. Is it intentional, or is he just that ignorant? The more restrictive the laws on private citizens owning guns, the greater the carnage when a serious Jihadist like Omar Mateen decides to go on a rampage.

It's almost like, "there oughta' be a law against Islamic jihadists taking guns into a gun-free night club and shooting people!"  ["Oh. There already is such a law?"] Hellooo, is this Barney Fife speaking? Or an actual U.S. Senator...Feinstein, Durbin, Kirk, Murphy?


The only legislation that should be seriously considered at this point is something to eliminate the so-called gun-free (aka fish-in-a-barrel) zones. Gun free zones are not gun-free, obviously, to terrorists. Such "zones" merely disarm good citizens. To terrorists they are return-fire-free zones.

Had there been one lawful CCW permittee for every 20 people in that night club, Omar would have been facing return fire from what, 15, 20, 25 people? It would have been over in minutes and a lot fewer people would be dead.

Senators, Representatives, President Obama...if you want to make it easier for "lone wolves" like Omar to kill, maim and terrorize, go ahead and pass more laws converting sheep dogs into sheep.

Incidentally, here is the truth about so-called "assault weapons" or "weapons of war." Read it before you regurgitate the talking points about them having "no place on our streets." As for the "no-fly list"...according to the American Civil Liberties Union, certainly no right-wing conspirator:
"The public does not know how many people are on the No Fly List, and the criteria for inclusion are so broad and vague that they inevitably ensnare innocent people engaged in First Amendment-protected speech, activity, or association. The process the government has established for people on the No Fly List to challenge their blacklisting is grossly insufficient and violates the U.S. Constitution's due process guarantee."
The "criteria for inclusion are so broad and vague that they inevitably ensnare innocent people..."  Do you think that this Administration is above nudging political opposition onto the list? How about "people who believe the 2nd amendment allows people to defend themselves until the police to arrive...they're dangerous! Put 'em on the list so they can't get a gun." What other explicit, constitutional right can be taken away from you without due process?

Saturday, May 21, 2016

Poor Bernie!

I can't help myself, I have to re-post this cartoon, it just cracks me up. Amazing how the party of PC and tolerance is starting to turn vicious on the honest old geezer who really believes all the socialism stuff.

Sorry, Bernie. As honest as you might be in your belief that it should work or could work, it never has and can't given the nature of mankind. Maybe your sincerity proves you to be an "intellectual"... according to Thomas Sowell,
“Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it.”

Cartoons: Michael Ramirez for May 21, 2016

Thursday, May 12, 2016

Vote Your Conscience in November. But VOTE!

Dr. Randall McElwain wrote the following insightful post on his FB page.  To everyone who decides that they cannot in good conscience vote for Trump (and I may be one of them) there is something that is CRITICALLY important to remember, especially if you are making this decision on grounds of Christian conscience: 
You must not sit at home. You must go and vote! 

Every one who makes the conscious choice to cede the Presidential election to the Democrat must still cast their vote for the best available Congressional candidate, to provide a check against the liberal president. And, like it or not, we must go vote for the best state judicial candidates, school board members, city council members, state officeholders, and the like. Your vote has much higher weight there.

This is our Christian duty. We cannot complain about bathroom bills, or homosexual rights, or lack of restriction on abortions, or the sorry state of the public schools, or any of the innumerable other policy conditions in our country if we fail to exercise our right to vote for the people who enact such policies.

No excuses.

Now read Randy's excellent commentary which follows.
 **********************************************************


May 4 · Public

In this post, I am breaking two of my personal commandments:

1) Thou shalt not post on Facebook.

2) Thou shalt CERTAINLY not post about politics on Facebook.

However… now that it appears certain that Donald Trump will be the Republican nominee for president, I am starting to hear the theme among many evangelicals: “Christians must not sit out the election. We have a duty to vote. Trump is better than the Democratic candidate. So, we must hold our nose and vote for the Republican candidate."

I beg to disagree. I have voted in every election since I reached voting age. But with Donald Trump as the Republican nominee, I am convinced that it is my duty to sit out this presidential election.

Look at the arguments of those encouraging us to "hold your nose and vote."

We are told that “we are voting for a president, not for a pastor.” Donald Trump’s problem is not that he is unsuited to be my pastor; the problem is that he is unsuited to my president.

The first election that grabbed my interest in 1980. As the first American president to be divorced and remarried, and as a Hollywood actor with a rather checkered past, Ronald Reagan was not suited to be my pastor. However, he had a long record of support for conservative principles, and I was happy to have him as my president.

To my friends who point to Reagan as the model for a Trump presidency, let me break the bad news to you: Donald Trump is no Ronald Reagan. He has no record of supporting conservative principles. To those who say, “Yes, Donald Trump was liberal in the past, but he may have changed,” he hasn’t changed. The “past” is as recent as Trump’s endorsement of Planned Parenthood during this campaign!

We are told that Hilary (or Bernie) will be worse than Trump. While this may be true, the longterm damage done by a Trump presidency may well be worse than either of the Democratic candidates. Consider:

1) For the past several elections, evangelicals have been taken for granted by the Republican party. “Moderate” candidates such as Bob Dole, John McCain, and Mitt Romney have assumed that “Evangelicals have no other option; they can’t vote for the Democrat. So, we can ignore them and run to the center.”

I held my nose and voted for these. And the stench keeps getting worse. It is time for evangelicals to show that we are not puppets of the Republican Party. If we vote for Donald Trump, we can no longer claim to be guided by moral principles; we are just one more special interest group. In that case, we deserve to be ignored! When evangelical “leaders” such as Jerry Falwell, Jr endorse Donald Trump, they give our opponents good reason to scoff when we claim that evangelicals vote for moral principles, not a political party. This election is an opportunity for evangelicals to show that we vote conscience, not party.

2) It maybe better to have a liberal president who is identified as a Democrat than a liberal president who is identified as a Republican. If Hilary Clinton wins, she will support disastrous policies - but at least she will be opposed by Republicans. If Donald Trump wins, it is very unlikely that Republicans will stand up to him.

Based on his history, it is fair to assume that Donald Trump will appoint liberal Supreme court justices. Those appointments will be supported by Democrats and will not be vigorously opposed by establishment Republicans since he will be “one of ours.” (Republican senators have no decent record of standing up to Republican presidents who propose liberal justices - see David Souter, appointed by George H.W. Bush and Anthony Kennedy, appointed by Ronald Reagan).

We are told that if we lose this election, evangelicals will lose our influence in American politics. Again, I beg to disagree. Sometimes you must lose a battle in order to win a war. Donald Trump will very probably lose this election. He consistently polls below both Clinton and Sanders. In the general election, his extreme rhetoric, vulgar language, questionable business deals, and self-indulgent lifestyle will become huge liabilities. If I were Hilary Clinton, I would be secretly begging for a Trump nomination; the attack ads write themselves.

So, why should evangelicals share the blame for his loss? Instead, we should lose strategically. If a big majority of evangelicals openly boycott the election, it will give a message to the Republican Party: “If you continue to ignore our concerns, you will never win another presidential election.” We will suffer a short term loss for a long term gain.

There is a fairly recent precedent (from the other side): the 1984 campaign of Jesse Jackson. Jackson ran a campaign to protest the Democratic party’s tendency to take black voters for granted. Many commentators blame Walter Mondale’s landslide loss to Ronald Reagan on Jesse Jackson’s split of the party. However, this loss is credited with laying the groundwork for Obama’s win in 2008.

If we can use a 2016 loss to lay the foundation for a genuine conservative win in 2020, it will be a “good loss."

If Mr. Trump is nominated, I believe there is a very good argument for evangelicals sitting out the presidential vote en masse. This should be done not quietly, but publicly and vocally. Evangelical pastors should encourage their members not to vote in the presidential election, while encouraging 100% participation in state and congressional elections. This will do two things:

1) It may help preserve a Republican Senate to oppose Hilary’s agenda.

2) An unprecedented disparity between the lack of evangelical participation in the presidential vote and in congressional/state votes will highlight the impact of evangelicals on an election. Perhaps we can regain an evangelical voice in the Republican party.

A final thought. God is not a Republican; God is not a Democrat; God is not even an American. Regardless of who wins the election, God’s Kingdom will not be defeated. As Chuck Colson reminded us years ago, “The Kingdom of God does not fly Air Force One."

Is it possible that the church in America will face difficult times and even suffering? Yes.

Is it possible that evil will triumph in the short term? Yes.

Is it possible that God’s Kingdom will be defeated? Absolutely not!

As evangelicals, we may be short-range pessimists - 2017 may be difficult. However, we must be long-range optimists - God will triumph!

Wednesday, April 27, 2016

Disaster Looming: Take a Principled Position


Goldberg hits the nail on the head:




I would add: in the unlikely event that Trump is elected (he won't win, running against the person whom he has so often supported, and who has the entire MSM as her campaign team...but if by chance he did win the general) we will have set the conservative movement back by decades. The "middle" and "independent" voters will be easily persuaded after a Trump term that conservative principles don't work when in fact, they will not have been tried (much like they were convinced after George W. Bush's moderate leadership).

We must elect a true conservative in order for our country to make progress. I believe that if the GOP will nominate Cruz, and if Trump shows the slightest integrity for the good of the country (genuinely urges his voters to support the party nominee..."I’m a unifier. I unify people. We’re going to have such unity."...and doesn't have a tantrum and take his marbles home) Cruz can and will be elected like Reagan was in 1980.