Sunday, February 12, 2017

Orwell's 1984 in Living Color?

Saturday, November 12, 2016

When it Was Trump, That Was Different

According to the "Mainstream [can we really still call them that?] Media" and other self-righteous leftists, when Trump implied he might act like Al Gore and not "accept" the results of the election without question, he was extreme, offensive and a threat to democracy. What  an ironic week this has turned out to be, well-said and well-illustrated by the following humorists. Enjoy!
“Quite frankly, you gotta' watch what you say nowadays. There are a lot of people out there with love in their heart who wish you dead if you don’t have as much love in your heart as they do.” —Dennis Miller

Cartoons: Mike Lester for November 11, 2016

2016 11 12 3f325a60 large

2016 11 11 910fa51a large2016 11 12 e20b23cf large

Sunday, October 9, 2016

Spare Us Your Indignation!

The conservative voters who didn't consolidate the vote around the viable conservative candidate early in the primary process are, I hope, learning a very painful lesson. How many election cycles does it take to learn that when we have a legitimate shot with a good candidate in the early primaries, we should stop splitting our vote among the various flavors and shades of conservatives.

One of two people will be POTUS in January, and I am conscience-bound to vote for the candidate least likely to use the power of the presidency to harm Christianity and the freedom of individuals to lovingly exercise and share it. The most important issue in this presidential election is whether there will be five individuals who believe they are the Supreme Legislative Body empowered to impose their vision of social justice, diversity and deviancy on us all.

Nate Jackson makes some excellent points in the following column. I may be more disgusted than he seems to be with Trump. Donald is immoral and insufficiently repentant. But either he or Hillary will be president, those are your only two choices. And when it comes to their records and promises regarding governing, the least-destructive choice is still clear.


Donald's Boorish Comments and Bill's Criminal Actions

Nate Jackson · Oct. 9, 2016
Hillary Clinton and her Leftmedia super PAC got their dream candidate. We warned throughout the primary that the Leftmedia wanted Donald Trump as the Republican nominee because stories like the one that broke Friday afternoon would help boost Clinton, an incredibly weak candidate. And indeed, the Left couldn’t ask for a better October surprise than to be able to run headline after headline about Trump’s awful comments and GOP leaders withdrawing their support and calling for the nominee to step aside.

We’ll leave Trump’s actual lewd and despicable comments for others to repeat, but the reason they’re so devastating is, as Andrew McCarthy put it, “[T]he power of a tape to make its mark on our consciousness is simply unequaled by written and oral descriptions.”

In any case, there are a couple of primary takeaways. First, Trump is Trump, and he’s never going to change. If that wasn’t clear before, well … it should have been. Second, for Clinton and her Leftmedia allies, this is all about women voters. How they feel about Trump will either depress his support and/or increase Clinton’s. She’s depending on women to win.

But we’ll say this to Clinton and her leftist gaggle: Spare us your indignation. What Trump said and did is horrible and inexcusable. But Bill Clinton raped several women, had an affair with another in the Oval Office itself, and Hillary Clinton viciously attacked those women in public in a craven attempt to save her own political future. This was consistent with her character, too. As a young lawyer, Clinton defended a child rapist, happily destroying the victim’s character in the process. As the nation’s top diplomat, Clinton broke federal law regarding classified information, endangering national security, and she ran a pay-to-play operation called the Clinton Foundation. What Trump said 11 years ago doesn’t change the fact that Clinton is manifestly unfit for office. And either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump is going to be president come January. Make your choice, America.

Wednesday, September 28, 2016

Not Voting for the Lesser Evil is to Vote for the Greater Evil

I didn't vote for Trump in the primary. I would have preferred most of the other candidates. But in November, we have to vote for or against Hillary Clinton, who is a known commodity. The only way to vote against Clinton is to vote for Trump, a rather unknown commodity who has made some pretty good promises (such as with respect to the Supreme Court) and selected a very solid running mate.

Following is a thoughtful column which I believe states a good case for why all Christians and conservatives must vote for Trump in the general election. This is going to be the first of several such postings. If your conscience is troubled by the thought of voting for Trump, read on.

From #NeverTrump to #NeverClinton

Vote for the Supreme Court! Choosing not to vote for the "lesser of two evils" is a vote for the greater of those evils.

By Mark Alexander · July 27, 2016   

"In the midst of these pleasing ideas we should be unfaithful to ourselves if we should ever lose sight of the danger to our liberties if anything partial or extraneous should infect the purity of our free, fair, virtuous, and independent elections." —John Adams (1797)

(Aggravation Alert: I have received a considerable number of objections from fellow Patriots this year complaining either that my analysis of Donald Trump was too hard or too soft. This column is directed at those who believe either one to be true — the #NeverClinton and #NeverTrump folks who plan to abstain or vote for a third-party candidate.)

It's no small irony that the Socialist Democratic Party is hosting its confab in Philadelphia this week, the cradle of Liberty and Rule of Law.

On the opening night, Bernie Sanders, the candidate who was narrowly defeated by Clinton thanks to hacked DNC emails indicating they rigged the primary, offered this assessment of the last eight years: "Together, my friends, we have begun a political revolution to transform America, and that revolution — our revolution — continues."

If that sounds familiar, it should. That "political revolution to transform America" would be the fulfillment of Obama's 2008 campaign promise of "fundamentally transforming the United States of America."

On the other hand, Republicans should be debating the re-election of Mitt Romney this year, but we aren't. Here's why.

Without debating Romney's merits all over again, the reason that the contest this year is not between Romney/Ryan and Clinton/Kaine is because millions of "faith and values" voters chose to sit it out in 2012. Weeks before the 2012 election, I had a very intelligent young Christian woman ask a question far too typical of evangelicals: "Can you really vote for a Mormon?"

Of course, in addition to those evangelicals, there were also millions of principled conservatives who didn't cast their ballots in 2012, protesting that Romney was a centrist, moderate, Northeastern elitist.

So how did that work out?

Four more years of Barack Obama's colossal failures in both domestic and foreign policy.

Let's review.

Obama's domestic policies have been defined by his litany of lies and legacy of scandals, most notably the failure of his so-called "economic recovery" plan; his long list of ObamaCare lies; his IRS Enemies List targeting conservatives; his "Fast and Furious" gun control ploy; the VA death panels cover-up; the immigration crisis on our southern border, and the long-overdue resignation of his corrupt attorney general, Eric Holder.

The Obama-Clinton foreign policy malfeasance is unparalleled in American history, including the Benghazi cover-up ahead of the 2012 election; the "Russian Spring" in Crimea; the hollow "Red Line" in the Syrian sand; the Middle East meltdown in Egypt, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Jordan and Gaza; the disintegration of Iraq; the dramatic resurgence of al-Qa'ida; the rise of the Islamic State; and the re-emergence of Iran as the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism, which is now metastasizing into Western Europe and North America.

All that being the case, once again, millions of conservatives are reluctant to vote because the choices are the assurance of extending Obama's disgraceful legacy for four more years under a Clinton regime or the prospect that Donald Trump will prove to be the "lesser of two evils" come January 2017.

For value and principle conservatives wrestling with whether to vote for Trump or not at all, political philosophers and moral theologians have written for generations about the "incommensurability in values," or, in common parlance, choosing between the lesser of two evils.

Some of my conservative friends subscribe to the observation of 19th century British theologian Charles Spurgeon, who wrote, "Of two evils, choose neither." But Spurgeon's words, as related to evil actions, are taken out of context in reference to civic duty. Of such duties, Spurgeon said, "I would not, however, say ... despise the privilege which you have as citizens."

The question of voting for Trump is no quandary for me.

While I understand well the nature of presidential character, and believe both Clinton and Trump fall substantially short of that character, I also understand that the outcome of the November election will not only determine our president for at least the next four years, but also the composition of the Supreme Court for at least the next quarter-century. Think about that before you decide to stay home this year or to cast a "protest vote" for a third-party candidate.

On this point, I would state emphatically that those who choose to sit this election out or "choose neither" are making a choice. In fact, I would argue that handing this election to Hillary Clinton is far more evil than choosing the lesser of the two. If you can't vote for Trump, then at least vote against Clinton. If you can't vote for Trump, then at least vote for the Supreme Court. And make no mistake: A vote this year for a third-party candidate in any state where the Clinton v Trump contest is close constitutes a vote for Clinton and a third term for Obama. Period.

After the conservative congressional advances across the nation in 2010 and 2014, despite the needless presidential loss in 2012, throwing this year's contest to Clinton would be disastrous.

Conservative political analyst Dennis Prager wrote a letter "To My Conservative #NeverTrump Friends," in which he makes the case for supporting Trump:

"The 'conscience' argument that one can sleep with a clear conscience by not voting for Trump [asserts] that your conscience is clear after making it possible for Clinton to win. ... In the 2016 presidential race, I am not interested in moral purity. I am interested in defeating the left and its party, the Democratic Party. The notion ... that we can live with another four years of a Democratic president is, forgive me, mind-boggling. To that end ... multiple additional leftists on the Supreme Court, a Republican presidential victory in 2020 would mean nothing. ... Left-wing judges pass so many left-wing laws that they render those who control Congress, and even the White House, almost irrelevant. I just don't understand how anyone who understands the threat the left and the Democrats pose on America will refuse to vote for the only person who can stop them."

(Notably, Prager argues that Trump's convention speech was not "dark enough.")

Last week, Donald Trump delivered his GOP convention acceptance speech, outlining in the broadest terms what his objectives would be if elected president.

This week, Hillary Clinton will conclude the DNC convention with a similar speech, promising mostly the antithesis of the Trump platform. And it is unlikely that any of her adoring media will highlight her extensive record of incompetence and lawlessness.

In advance of Clinton's diatribe, we compiled a list of questions for consideration by those who are not yet committed to vote for Trump. Our editors have expanded that list to include the following questions:

Who will achieve more with Republicans in Congress?

Who will nominate judges for the federal bench and Supreme Court who will uphold Rule of Law?

Who is more likely to formulate and enforce stronger foreign policy in an effort to restore America's standing in the world?

Who is more likely to seek to begin rebuilding America's military might?

Who is more likely to implement policies to protect America and the West from catastrophic terrorist attacks?

Who is more likely to clearly identify the greatest ideological threat to the West as "Islamic extremism"?

Who is more likely to treat our nation's military personnel and veterans with the dignity and respect they have earned?

Who is more likely to enforce immigration laws and protect American borders?

Who is more likely to support the Second Amendment?

Who is more likely to reduce taxes?

Who is more likely to balance a budget?

Who is more likely to address our ruinous national debt?

Who is more likely to be a better communicator of free market principles?

Who is more likely to reduce oppressive central government regulations?

Who is more likely to repeal ObamaCare and implement market solutions for health care?

Who is more likely to repeal the onerous Dodd-Frank regulations?

Who has more experience creating and protecting American jobs?

Who is more likely to promote Americanism rather than globalism?

Who is more likely to flex American muscle when dealing with foreign tyrants?

Who is more likely to aggressively pursue energy exploration?

Who is more likely to re-write trade agreements that undermine the U.S. economy?

Who is more likely to populate their administration with free enterprise advocates?

Who is more likely to advocate for retention of Republican majorities in the House and Senate?

Who is more likely to resist the influence of Wall Street?

Who is more likely to reject Obama's unconstitutional executive overreach?

Who is more likely to denounce Black Lives Matter and other Democrat Party fronts seeking to disunite America?

I'm sure you can add to this list, and I'm equally sure that Trump will fare better across the board than Clinton.

In her convention remarks, 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." Indeed it is, and well into the next generation. Will our children and their children fare better with leadership from Democrats on the Left or Republicans on the Right?

So to my fellow conservatives who don't plan to vote in 2016, I ask the following: What will our nation look like in 2020? How about 2030?

I ask this question not only as a citizen and fellow Patriot, but also as one who, like many other Patriots, has family blood on the line in this election. As the father of a young Marine who is bound by oath to "Support and Defend" our Constitution, I am, like so many of you, deeply concerned about who will be our next commander in chief.

The last seven years have been very demoralizing for those of us who are in the trenches every day advocating for Liberty. But take heart. While Liberty is eternal, the contest to maintain its beacon of freedom is also eternal, and sitting this election out or voting for a third-party candidate in a closely contested state only makes that contest more difficult.

Finally, the Demos are very divided. Let's finish them off. Hillary Clinton is a deeply flawed status quo candidate in an election year for change. My advice to anyone who hasn't yet committed to vote for Trump and the Supreme Court, or at least vote against Clinton: Embrace the suck. Just do it, and convince everyone you know to do the same.

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. 
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?