Former president Dwight D. Eisenhower wrote in his memoir concerning the presidential election of 1960, “It showed the influence of television: for some reasons one man projects well, another does not. It showed again how much elections can be controlled by sentiment and emotion rather than by facts and experience.”
Of course he was referring to the televised Nixon-Kennedy debate where Kennedy essentially won the election on his appearance and affectation rather than on the substance of his words.
Eisenhower was not a great fan of Kennedy. He believed him to be too headstrong and overconfident. He didn’t think Kennedy appreciated the deep complexity and difficulty of the issues he would be facing as president. However, Eisenhower in writing these words was more concerned about what the country was becoming rather than the 1960 election outcome.
Yes, in his January 1961 farewell speech, Eisenhower warned of a perpetual peacetime war economy. He was greatly concerned of the industry take over of military armament and the overwhelming influence it was beginning to have on America. However, his concern about the growing irrationality of American society represented a bigger concern for the general.
Eisenhower was a very thoughtful man. He made his decisions by careful consideration of the facts at hand and used his informed emotion to then guide him to the solution he sought. That’s how he led our forces to victory in the European theater of World War II and ended the Korean conflict as president.
Eisenhower prided himself in his rationality, something that was becoming increasingly scarce in 1960 America as his lament made clear. Today rationality is virtually absent from our public discourse particularly with respect to politics and government.
Rationality can be defined as the “habit of acting by reason, which means in accordance with the facts of reality”. (www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Ethics_Rationality.html).
America is rapidly losing its grip on rationality as defined above. We have become a country of the unthinking and the unthoughtful and the unreasoning. We no longer act through careful deliberation based on our own individual understanding and experience. Instead we are highly conditioned to merely react to stimuli and as a result, our humanity is greatly diminished. We become little more than automatons performing on command. Our society cannot stay on this path much longer and retain our republic.
If rationality is acting according to the facts of reality, the question we must ask is what are the facts of reality? Up until the middle of the last century, the answer was obvious. Reality is the way things are. The facts do not change over time. Facts do not change with the situation.
The late, great Democrat senator from New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, once said, “You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.” I don’t believe Moynihan would be welcome in the Democrat Party of 2017.
Today to insinuate that objective fact exists and is immutable will incur the Left’s condemnation as a homophobe, bigot, climate change denier, or hater. You see, there’s great power in being able to dictate what the facts are and then stampede the masses in the desired direction in reaction to certain pejorative descriptors. It’s far easier to herd unthinking sheep than sly foxes.
And that’s what the Marxist Left’s strategy has been for several decades now – reduce our society to an unthinking, fearful, irrational herd. This is the only path to the absolute totalitarian power they maniacally pursue. A population of rational, critically thinking citizens will not mindlessly accept what is dictated to them and will challenge authoritarian control. Therefore, rationality must be corrupted.
And they have methodically worked at such a corruption through a complete subversion of our public school system, academia, the news media, the entertainment media, and the federal government bureaucracy. Virtually all of the most important societal influencing institutions have been twisted into drone creating mechanisms.
It also explains why the Left is so crazy to eradicate Christianity. Historically, the Christian faith has been the driver of rational thoughtfulness. Wherever Christianity has been introduced, literacy rates have risen dramatically. Christians have historically been readers and thinkers.
To reach the level of understanding Christians are commanded to have of their theology, one must study and learn and grow in the ability to think rationally. We must understand how to make philosophical arguments in defense of Christianity’s claims. This demands the ability to think critically and be able to sort out truth from a fog of disparate facts.
Christians launched the scientific revolution in pursuit of understanding God the Creator through his creation. Developing the laws of planetary motion or establishing the complex mathematics necessary to comprehend subatomic physics demands the ability to think rationally. Christianity fosters such use of the mind and therefore is completely incompatible with a Marxian utopia.
Barack Obama in his first inauguration speech glared at the unthinking masses before him and proclaimed that the transformation of America was about to commence. As much as Obama wants to give himself credit, America had already been radically transformed from its historical existence at that point. What’s really been happening since is the vise of control has been steadily tightened around our liberty. A republican president and Congress appear incapable of slowing the destruction of the greatest society the world has ever known. I may not vote in a federal election again.
My dear readers, Washington is a lost cause. An Article V convention of states is the only way to save the republic. Twelve states are now onboard. That leaves twenty-two more to go. The battle lines are forming.
August 12, 2016
John Rhys-Davies is a rare commodity in Hollywood these days. Best known for his portrayal of Gimli, the King of the Dwarfs in the Lord of the Rings trilogy, Rhys-Davies has stood up to the political correctness that has calcified Tinsel Town into a liberal monolith. He believes kimono-opening comments he has made have cost him friends as well as opportunities for other roles.
Rhys-Davies has extolled the virtues of free speech, disagreement, and debate that simply cannot be tolerated in the enlightened utopia of Southern California. He compounds his sin by stating in reference to his new film, “Peter: The Redemption”,
“I think the film touches on something fairly important – whether you are a Christian or not, we are all heirs to Western European Judeo-Christian civilization, and your right to have your opinions directly comes from the Christians.”
August 5, 2016
This is an open letter to the twenty-five or thirty percent of Republicans that can be considered solid Constitutional conservatives. I share your concern for how this 2016 election cycle has unfolded and for what may lie ahead for our nation.
We had great hopes that given the last disastrous eight years we were in position to turn our country back to the roots of its founding. This was such an enormous opportunity to make the case for conservatism and its promise of prosperity and happiness. However, we now have to face the fact that we did not succeed. In fact, we may have taken a step back from what we sought so ardently.
We have to clearly recognize that the Republican National Committee (RNC) wants to defeat conservatism more than it wants to defeat Democrats. This first started crystalizing for me with the 2013 Virginia governor’s race where a solid, Tea Party conservative, Ken Cuccinelli, was narrowly defeated by Clinton crony, Terry McAuliffe.
July 29, 2016
Ben Carson in his speech at the Republican National Convention provided a sharp contrast between America as constituted and the America the Democrats are endeavoring to transform us into.
Carson had the temerity to shine the light on our current president and his desired successor’s mentor, Saul Alinsky, and his game plan for the dissolution of our country as founded. He accurately stated that Alinsky dedicated his subversive tome, “Rules For Radicals”, to none other than Lucifer:
“Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins—or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom—Lucifer.”
(Note that newer copies are being published with this dedication omitted.)
July 21, 2016
“Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people”
Ronald Reagan at CPAC, 1975
With what passes for political discourse today, sometimes we just need to reflect and take stock on the timeless wisdom of our last political genius. Reagan’s words ring as true today as they did over 40 years ago and Republicans would be wise to take heed and follow them.
Donald Trump has a style that lends itself to making sharp contrasts but they are more often personal and tactical attacks rather than the ideological and strategic contrasts Reagan was emphasizing. If he wants to “make America great again”, The Donald should study carefully the speech methodology of “The Great Communicator”.
July 14, 2016
The latest national presidential election polling shows that about forty percent of registered voters are planning to cast a vote for Hillary Clinton. This despite the FBI confirming that she violated criminal statutes for the handling of top secret material and then lied to Congress about it.
This forty percent will vote for her even though she was complicit in the deaths of four brave Americans in Benghazi and then promulgated lies about the attack for political purposes. Clinton will get their vote despite her catastrophic diplomatic initiatives in the Middle East that have left the region a seething cauldron of violence with tens of thousands dead.
How can forty percent of the electorate consider someone as incompetent, deceitful, and amoral as Clinton a viable candidate for the most powerful office on earth? The only consistent justification offered for her candidacy is that, “It’s just time for a woman to be president.” Heck, then why not Julia Louise-Dreyfus? This could have been her chance to be president for real. She would certainly be more appealing.
Truth is that this forty percent will pull the “D” lever no matter who the candidate is. The question remains though – why?
July 8, 2016
Intent (/inˈtent/) – the thing that you plan to do or achieve: an aim or purpose
Do you see anything ambiguous or confusing about this definition? A fifth grader could easily understand it and use this word properly in a sentence. It’s only in Washington that the obvious meaning of words becomes distorted and pliable. Only in the land where it “depends on what the definition of is is” does the clear and certain become opaque and situational.
There is no clearer confirmation of this than the testimony on Thursday by the director of the FBI in front of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. James Comey confirmed every allegation that had been made about Hillary Clinton during her time as Secretary of State in her set up and use of a private email server.
Comey made clear that Clinton’s statements that she neither received nor sent top secret information from this unsecured server were lies. He confirmed that she orchestrated an effort to eliminate vast numbers of emails and shield them from scrutiny as required by government statutes. The director advised that Clinton actually accessed multiple unsecured servers with multiple wireless devices refuting the Secretary’s claim of only one device and one server. Yet, Comey decided not to recommend Secretary Clinton be indicted since she did not exhibit “intent” to violate the applicable laws.
June 24, 2016
“I have a clear vision for the economy and it’s this. We need to make sure our economy works for everyone. Not just those at the top.”
So began Hillary Clinton this week in North Carolina while offering her rebuttal of Donald Trump’s economic prescriptions for the country. She continued:
“Not just for the rich or the well-connected, not just for people living in some parts of the country or people from certain backgrounds and not others, I mean everyone. And I have a plan to get us there.”
Yes, Hillary has a plan. Pay no attention to the fact that she has endorsed every economic policy the current administration has foisted upon the nation. Since Obama came into office, the top 1% has seen incomes rise by 11.2 %, while the remaining 99 % of us were stuck with an income decrease of .4 %. But this is yesterday’s news, now Hillary has a plan!
She laid out five “ambitious” goals that we would be directed to tackle together once she assumes the throne, ah I mean presidency. Attainment of these five goals will usher in a new, golden era of fairness and economic kumbaya.
May 13, 2016
“My main job is to keep my job, to get reelected. It takes precedence over everything.”
So says Congressman X in a soon to be published kimono-opening book entitled, “The Confessions of Congressman X”. Congressman X is a current or recent Democrat member of the U.S. House of Representatives who has chosen to remain anonymous for obvious reasons.
He describes how he is so busy fundraising that he seldom reads any of the bills he is voting on and has no idea how much they will cost the taxpayers nor how they are to be implemented. His staff briefs him and tells him how to vote just before he goes to the House floor. On more controversial bills, he sometimes votes yes on a motion and then votes no on an amendment so he can make the claim that he is on either side of the issue depending on what is politically expedient.
Does the Obamacare fiasco not confirm this is how our legislative branch runs? One can now understand how a former House speaker could utter the words that will forever hang in infamy, “We have to pass the bill to see what’s in it.” It all makes perfect sense under the Capital rotunda.
May 5, 2016
I believe I understand now why conservative supporters of Donald Trump’s candidacy are so ardent and so energized. I understand now why they continue to support him despite his floating the most absurd and despicable accusation in modern politics. I speak of Trump’s implication with zero proof that Ted Cruz’ father, Rafael, was involved in the assassination of President Kennedy. He did this despite knowing that he was going to win the Indiana primary in a landslide. Such cruelty. However, Trump supporters remain undeterred.
I understand now why conservative Trump supporters will continue to pledge allegiance to his candidacy despite his campaign making it clear that he will be moving decidedly left. His statement this week in support of increasing the minimum wage confirms this latest strategy and will be ignored by his many conservative devotees. Trump’s confessed support for gender confused men using women’s bathrooms will just fade into a fog of cognitive dissonance.
I understand now why certain conservatives will continue to back Mr. Trump despite his questionable and potentially disastrous economic policy pronouncements. His supporters will not flinch when Trump in an effort to “make America’s economy great again” promises to weaponize tariffs much like Herbert Hoover did prior to the Great Depression. Or when he boasts that he will make Apple bring iPhone production back to the United States or punish any company that would move operations to lower cost areas outside the country. Nothing to see here, dude!
April 28, 2016
The left wing bias of the mainstream media has been responsible for much of the decline we see in our civil society today. They have been the mouthpiece and the cheerleaders for leftists pursuing the “transformation” of America for decades now and have been highly successful in tearing the country from its Constitutional moorings.
However, it is not just ideology that we need to be concerned about. I believe the problem of the media was compounded when news operations became major profit centers for the networks. This is especially true with the TV/cable news. News operations today especially Fox News have become ratings driven revenue generators just like their entertainment media brethren. This has a dramatic effect on what news stories are covered and how they are covered.
When I was growing up, pursuing and reporting the news was considered a higher calling. There was a responsibility and an obligation to be the watchdog of government for the good of the people. News operations weren’t pressured for ratings, so stories that were covered were meaningful and of greater substance.
Today, instead of inspiring meaningful discourse, today’s news outlets present the sensational designed to maximize the bottom line, not to provide real value to citizens. It doesn’t just have to bleed to lead. Whatever will get viewers to sit through another Geico commercial is fair game. An especially heinous murder, a high profile Christian pastor embezzling funds, or a celebrity up skirt photo are especially good attention getters and maintainers. I wish Prince had been as good in life as they made him out to be in death.
April 21, 2016
When is a five foot nine white guy not a five foot nine white guy? When he asserts to today’s college kids that he is a six foot five Chinese woman. What’s hard to figure out about that? The recent Internet video by Jason Backholm of the Family Policy Institute shows our children have been conditioned to accept just about any ridiculous declaration out of political correctness.
When I was a kid, I was told over and over again that I could be whatever I wanted to be. “Whatever I wanted to be” was understood to refer to an occupation or a station in life. Today “whatever I want to be” is taking on a far different meaning. It means much less about what I might make of my life to instead, who and what I identify myself to be. Physical identity is now up to the individual and is no longer constrained by objective reality.
That’s because the concept of objective truth is now being discarded. Truth is now what we decide it is for ourselves. It’s personal. It’s situational. What’s true for me may not be true for you. Therefore, you should not try to impose your views on others since there is no universal truth. You have no right to deny what I decide I am or what’s right for me to do.
So if Senator Elizabeth Warren decides she’s a Native American, then we must accept and treat her like she’s a Native American. If Sylvester Stallone gets up one morning and decides he’s now Sylvia Stallone, then ladies you must accommodate him in your bathroom. It would offer a great opportunity to teach your daughter how to honor his (or her) choice. Welcome to the Left’s post-modern utopia!
You have to hand it to the Left. They have worked for decades to destabilize our society and we are now wobbling like a gyroscope running out of spin. Barack Obama just before the 2008 presidential election boasted that the transformation of America was about to begin with his election. Nonsense. This country has been in a state of transformation since the end of World War 2, maybe earlier. Obama was just lucky with his timing to be in office near its culmination.
While the Left has been relentless in its pursuit of a post-modern transformation of the country, they are quite selective though in how the idea of individualistic truth and morality are allowed to play out. It is considered courageous to set aside your actual physical composition as a man and live in a psychologically generated identity as a woman. This is your truth and only you can decide that truth.
However, if your belief is that when you are born a man, you stay a man and can never be a woman therefore making the ladies room off limits, well that kind of personal truth just can’t be tolerated.
Famed baseball pitcher, Curt Schilling, can testify to that. He simply expressed his “personal truth” that, “A man is a man no matter what they call themselves.” Oh the horror! He went on to comment that the respective bathrooms reflect the differences in anatomies and it is pathetic that states now need to pass laws to keep three hundred pound Gus from urinating next to your sixty pound daughter. Of course, ESPN was compelled to deprive Schilling from making a living under their employ. How brave and courageous that is. I wonder when ESPN will promote young, Caitlyn Jenner types playing in the lingerie bowl. It has to happen, right? Kind of gives a whole new meaning to their “drag” racing coverage!
Even our leading Republican presidential candidate (Trump) has stated his support for psychologically defined gender. In a clear attempt to pander to northeastern liberal sensibilities, he castigated North Carolina for messing with the issue and declared, “People go, they use the bathroom that they feel is appropriate.” How come we didn’t hear such candor prior to the North Carolina primary?
The one true conservative in the Republican race (Cruz), responded that, “Grown adult men, strangers, should not be alone in a bathroom with little girls.” He labeled his view as just “basic common sense.” What narrow-minded bigotry!
The Republican vice-presidential candidate (Kasich) when asked about the controversy began his comments with how his father was a mailman and the mike suddenly went dead.
Political correctness has become the Left’s most effective weapon for societal change. It is a despicable, Marxist inspired method to effectively neutralize the First Amendment’s free speech provisions and promote a mob rule mentality that is completely antithetical to our founding.
However, political correctness cannot be effective without the appropriate societal conditioning. It cannot be effective against a population composed of individuals who are capable of critical thinking, who understand that all truth is objective, and who believe that the individual is sovereign.
Instead, Marxist tyranny depends on a society of individuals that can be easily nudged and coerced by the masterminds. It depends on individuals that have little understanding of world history or the true nature of man. It depends on individuals with no foundational beliefs about the true nature of reality.
Look at what has unfolded during the last several decades. The fact that we are no longer a nation of freethinking, sovereign individuals is undeniable. America has been transformed. The question is, can we awaken the hive-minded drones in time?
April 1, 2016
You know what’s scaring me? Hillary Clinton is still in the running for president and there is no other viable Democratic candidate in play. Forget Sanders. He would make Walter Mondale look competitive in the general. With all the super delegates in play in the Democratic process, despite the Sanders surge, he will never sniff the nomination. The Democrats’ establishment is all in for Hillary and they have full control of the nomination outcome.
And that’s what concerns me. We are this far down the nominating process and there is no realistic alternative to Hillary for Democrats. That means that Obama will make sure that the FBI investigation into Clinton’s egregious use of a personal server for her governmental business will go nowhere. Despite overwhelming evidence of felonious mishandling of top secret information, Clinton will be allowed to skate and run in the general election.
I had always counted on the much-publicized animosity between the Obamas and the Clintons to insure Hillary’s campaign would eventually be derailed by the president. The fact that the Oval Office allowed Clinton to use a personal server in what could be construed as giving Hillary “the rope to hang herself with” had seemed to confirm that Obama would not allow her to carry on his legacy. However, here we are and it sure looks like she will be the Democratic nominee.
What we hear of the FBI investigation certainly sounds ominous for Clinton. One hundred and fifty dedicated agents will get to the bottom of the Secretary’s chicanery and a finding will be issued to the Attorney General. However, I believe Loretta Lynch will be prevented from issuing a formal indictment. Certainly Clinton can continue to run under criminal indictment and can even be elected president while defending herself against the charges. Realistically though she would lose enough support that an indictment would cost her the election. Therefore, without another viable candidate to Hillary, Democrats must not allow her to be indicted.
The only thing I can figure as to why Obama is acquiescing to her candidacy is that Clinton must have enough dirt on the president to keep him from preventing her nomination. I can’t begin to speculate about what Hillary could be holding over Obama’s head. There’s not much more that can be added to his obvious failure as a president, so maybe it’s something of a more personal nature. Whatever it is, it looks like Obama has been stiff-armed into allowing her nomination.
And here’s the even bigger problem. As hard as it is to believe that Hillary could beat anybody in the general, very sound polling is showing that she will trounce the most likely Republican nominee, Donald Trump. The latest numbers show that over seventy percent of women voting in the general would oppose Trump! And he just keeps digging the hole deeper. From Megyn Kelly to Carly Fiorina to the latest dustup with Breitbart reporter, Michelle Fields and his campaign manager Corey Lewandowski, Trump keeps worsening his chances with women voters. It almost seems to be a strategy.
I’ve speculated in previous writings that Trump doesn’t appear to really want to be president. His continued lack of preparation and knowledge of critical issues and policies certainly lend credence to this. I could understand being a little green when he first started his campaign last June, but by now nine months later with access to the best advisors, his knowledge and desire to understand the job of president more thoroughly seems to be actually ebbing. He’s looking less enthusiastic.
However, despite his negative polling and questionable interest, Trump looks to be the nominee. The Cruz surge is unfortunately coming too late to prevent Trump getting the delegates he needs. The RNC is stuck even if Trump fails to get enough votes to win on a first ballot at the convention. The rule the RNC put in place at the 2012 convention mandating that a candidate must have a majority in a minimum of eight states all but guarantees a Trump nomination. Therefore, it will be Trump versus Clinton and as I mentioned, the polling strongly favors Clinton.
Just think what a Hillary presidency would be like. Despite the damage Obama has done from the Oval Office, he still was much more passive than I believe a President Hillary would be. She will be much more aggressive in attacking Second Amendment rights. No doubt she will begin persecuting gun manufacturers.
There’s no doubt she will pursue a much more strident global warming initiative doing further damage to our already staggering economy. She will drag oil companies into court and prosecute them as global warming deniers. She will double down on Obama’s war on coal and in turn escalate energy prices.
She will make a now dangerous world even more dangerous with her ineptness at foreign policy. You can expect more nuclear proliferation, more Islamist incursions around the world, more Russian and Chinese expansionism, and misuse of our armed forces.
I have been a staunch Ted Cruz supporter during this primary process. To my great disappointment I do not see a way from him to win the Republican nomination. I do intend to vote for Trump if he is the nominee. I urge all of you Rubio, Kasich, Carson, Fiorina, Bush, etc., supporters to not take your ball and go home and get behind the nominee. And you Trump supporters, demand that he start taking this job more seriously, please.
March 4, 2016
I am beginning to believe that if Ronald Reagan were alive today and running for president, he would never be elected. He might not even win the Republican nomination given the state of our culture today. His landslide victories are fading fast in our rearview mirror and I doubt we will ever see such unity again in this country.
We have the most principled conservative since Reagan vying for the Republican nomination and yet so many of those that should be staunchly supporting him have been seduced away by a media persona of questionable substance.
Make no mistake, Tea Party conservatives and evangelicals are propelling Mr. Trump to the Republican nomination. They are casting aside what should be core principles and the certainty of action guaranteed by Senator Cruz in exchange for some vague idea of strong-arming the elites in Washington. They are willing to pass on a rock-ribbed conservative who has proven he has the courage, stamina, and integrity to challenge and win against the Washington establishment. Instead, they cast their support for a candidate who up until very recently was essentially a liberal New York Democrat.
I’ve heard many defend their choice by saying Mr. Trump is more electable than Senator Cruz. I have to ask them where are they getting their data? Every head-to-head poll I’ve seen shows Trump losing to Secretary Clinton in the general election. Trump’s undesirable ratings are even higher than Clinton’s, the same Clinton that is a possible felon and a known liar! Senator Cruz on the other hand wins against Clinton in the general election and his negatives are much lower. So how is Trump more electable than Cruz?
The Tea Party really took flight with the passage of Obamacare. This unconstitutional, coercive legislation that mandated citizens purchase government-approved health insurance was the catalyst that catapulted the Tea Party into national prominence. Many regional organizations coalesced around the country. There were marches on Washington to demand Obamacare’s repeal. The Tea Party energy propelled Republicans into majorities in the House of Representatives and the Senate with the understanding that repeal of Obamacare would soon follow.
Of course, the scourge of Obamacare is still with us. However, why do so many Tea Partiers support Mr. Trump when he has stated many times he is for a government mandate on health insurance? A mandate is the essence of Obamacare and is what should make it so objectionable to conservatives. Yet many, many Tea Partiers continue to support Trump over Senator Cruz. Tea Partiers should be running from Trump’s campaign on this issue alone.
Mr. Trump has made it clear that he is very soft on abortion and even extols the virtues of Planned Parenthood. He tries to thread the needle by saying he doesn’t support Planned Parenthood’s abortion business but then commends them for doing a lot of other good for women.
Well, last year in Congressional testimony under oath, Planned Parenthood CEO Cecil Richards had to admit that 86% of Planned Parenthood’s revenue comes from abortions. That doesn’t leave a lot of room for “other good for women”. When they are not performing abortions, they appear to be trafficking in baby body parts. I simply do not understand how evangelicals can support any candidate who is not committed to the demise of this vile organization and Mr. Trump clearly isn’t.
Mr. Trump says he going to get the government moving and makes a point of how good a negotiator he is and how skilled he will be in making deals with Congress. He prides himself on how he will be able to get everyone in a room and work out a “great deal”.
What Trump fails to realize is that his opponents will not be other businessmen. They will be Marxist ideologues. They will be Muslim Brotherhood zealots. They will not be interested in making a deal or compromising. They are ruthless, relentless, and committed to their agenda. His “Art of the Deal” will be of little value against such opponents. Senator Cruz’ approach will be like that of Reagan’s, “we win, they lose”.
With Mr. Trump, I’m afraid we are exchanging one cult of personality for another. Like Obama eight years ago, many people are processing Trump’s shallow rhetoric and are fashioning an image of the president they imagine he will be. He presents a history that is disjointed and contradictory and his followers are grabbing on those facts that fit who they want him to be and then ignoring the rest.
We must not allow our anger at the current administration to affect whom we choose for our next president. We have to look clearly and unemotionally at Mr. Trump’s history and not just listen to who he says he is. We must look at what he has supported in the past, what he has said in the past, and what he has done in the past. His past serves are prologue for what he will do as president and all of it must be considered.
We should all fear this continuing descent into populism. We are substantially unmoored from the Constitutional constraints on the presidency and we cannot allow any president to operate outside of his Constitutional limits no matter how good it makes us feel. The next president must pull executive branch power back into the proper balance the Framers prescribed. Senator Cruz understands this and will.
February 19, 2016
Is what we are hearing out of the Republican Senate leadership surprising to you? Do you really think they will stand firm and uphold an eighty-year precedent of not confirming Supreme Court nominees in a presidential election year?
Initial comments out of Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell seemed encouraging, but yet he did say “should not be confirmed” not “will not be confirmed” about any potential Obama nominee. In Washington-speak, this leaves the possibility wide open.
Senator Chuck Grassley, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, initially stated that there would be no hearings for an Obama nominee. He is now backtracking and saying maybe the Senate should wait to see whom Obama nominates before deciding what to do about confirmation hearings.
Just like when we gave Senate Republicans a majority and they passed Obama’s budget funding every crackpot, Marxist scheme of the president, we are going to get full blown hearings and I’m betting confirmation of Obama’s pick. Do you really think that when Obama nominates a black female for the Supreme Court, our Republican Senate leadership is going to block confirmation? Not on your life.
There is a tremendous contrast that exists between the Republican leadership and the Marxist left that now controls the Democrat party. The Republicans have abandoned conservative ideology and are instead rudderless on the rough sea of special interests and government cronies. Cowed by political correctness and having little principled foundation, their actions and interests are heavily modulated by the corporatists that fund them and the Marxists that intimidate them.
The Leftists however pursue their transformation of this country with an ideological zeal that would make Lenin or Chairman Mao proud. They never stop pushing their agenda. They do not look to reach across the aisle. They do not seek compromise. They are single-minded and relentless in pursuit of the destruction of the United States as it was founded.
Therefore they must be utterly defeated. We should not look to work with them. We should not look to compromise with them. We should strive with the same energy and courage they display to completely vanquish them. The problem is we simply do not have the right people in office to win this battle.
Most Republican office holders in Washington should be primaried in their next election. They must be replaced with people of stout character who will courageously fight for our conservative founding principles. We want the very purists and ideologues that the current Republican leadership likes to rail against. As Reagan said, we want no more pastels just bold colors.
Therefore, we must have a new team. Like an NFL franchise, we need to start drafting better players. And I believe the best well to draw candidates from is the conservative Christian one. And not only do we need solid Christian candidates, we need the Christian world in general to get involved backing them and getting seriously involved in the tremendous issues we face. Christians must engage to a much greater extent if we are going to roll back the evil tide that confronts the country.
However, too many Christians and pastors have the erroneous idea that it’s not Biblical to get involved in politics. Too often, the Christian body is content just to do church, sing songs, pray and then repeat it all next Sunday. These are certainly good things to do. However, these are not all what Christians are called to do.
Consider what Jesus said when delivering the Sermon on the Mount as documented in Matthew chapter five in the Bible. Jesus calls his followers to be “salt and light” in the culture. Jesus exhorts Christians to engage society and use his teachings to influence it for His Kingdom. We are not to hide our light under a basket but let it shine for all to see. We are to add flavor and improve the quality of the culture in which we live not to cloister ourselves in buildings.
Christians are called to be like Jesus. If you examine the Gospel narratives, much of what is recorded there depicts Jesus challenging the Pharisees who were essentially the political leaders of the day. Jesus did not spend all his time just teaching his followers in a pastoral setting. He boldly engaged the leaders and culture of His day. Jesus violently turned over tables of the moneychangers that were defiling His temple. Over and over again He clashed with the Pharisees challenging and admonishing them for their hypocrisy and failure to understand the true meaning of the Scriptures.
This is our example to follow. We must become the salt and light in the culture the Bible calls us to be. Christians withdrawing can explain much of the deterioration of our culture and society. The good news is that when we show up, we win. We just need to start showing up.
To pastors and church leaders that are afraid to speak up on political issues because of the possibility of losing your tax-exempt status, forget it. The government will not come after you. They know they will lose in court. Even if this were a possibility though, would you want to explain to Jesus that the reason you didn’t fight to stop abortion or to keep prayer in schools or preserve Biblical marriage was to maintain your tax exemption?
February 11, 2016
Republican presidential candidate John Kasich enjoys a significant distinction over his rivals in the running for the nomination of the Grand Ol’ Party. The surging governor of Ohio has received the endorsement of not just the Boston Globe but the New York Times as well.
In their endorsement, the Times stated that Kasich was “the only plausible choice for Republicans tired of the extremism and inexperience on display in this race.” ( Have you ever heard the Times critique Obama for his extremism and inexperience?)
The Globe opined, “…John Kasich, whose record as governor of Ohio shows him to be a pragmatic, fiscally responsible executive, but one who is also concerned with helping the poor”. (Are they implying that pragmatism and compassion are mutually exclusive?) The Globe went on to say that Kasich is a moderate conservative willing to compromise in pursuit of results.
Real conservatives reacted with disgust to this endorsement of Kasich by the liberal media establishment. When questioned about it, he defended himself by saying, “What conservatives have to know is they have to say, ‘look isn’t it nice to have a conservative like me liked?’ And, maybe they ought to think about it because if I get elected president, the Republican Party and the definition of conservatism is going to change.” (I thought by definition the definition of conservatism can’t change.)
During the last debate in New Hampshire, Kasich was asked just how he would change conservatism. After rambling through his usual canned speech about his accomplishments in Ohio, he did get off to a good start with expressing the need for economic growth. However, he then morphed into the big government monster we all should fear. He pleaded about reaching out to those in the shadows, helping the mentally ill, the drug addicted, and the working poor. He then asserted we must reach out to the developmentally disabled and minority communities. He then ended with saying, “…conservatism should mean not only that some rise through conservative principles, but everyone has a chance to rise…” (I bet this guy has a picture of Franklin Roosevelt on his bedroom wall.)
Donald Trump was then asked by the moderator to state why he should be considered a conservative. And he made it abundantly clear that he has no idea what conservatism is. Trump stammered and stuttered about the root of the word conservative and then blathered that we want to conserve our money, our country, and our wealth. This was followed by the obligatory boast that no one can do that like he can. In all seriousness I have to ask, has this guy put any effort into understanding our founding principles and the responsibilities of the position he’s running for?
Conservatism in the context we are discussing here is very easy to define. Conservatism is about putting this massive, malignant enterprise we now call the federal government back into the box called The Constitution. The Constitution grants only seventeen powers to the federal government. Just seventeen. It now seems that there are thousands.
For instance, the Constitution grants the federal government the power to tax and spend to provide for the nation’s defense and general welfare but not to bury us in mountains of debt nor use this power as a weapon to silence those that would challenge its hegemony.
The Constitution grants the federal government the power to establish the rules of naturalization that define citizenship. It does not grant the power to open the borders in order to change the complexion of the electorate and guarantee it unassailable power.
The Constitution grants the federal government the power to regulate commerce with other countries and between the states. It does not grant the power to mandate that citizens must buy healthcare that the government certifies as acceptable.
Big government statists defend this gross mutation and attack conservatives as being cold, uncaring and heartless. Yet it’s their big hearts that have left us massively in debt and created an unimaginable burden on citizens yet to be born. Their lives will surely be diminished from ours. How compassionate is that?
Conservatives believe the framers of the Constitution were right in very specifically and severely limiting the power of the federal government. They were determined to avoid the certain tyranny of our current course and they knew that the success of the country depended on decentralized power and decision-making. That’s why most of the powers of governance were left to the states. Conservatives want to again set the balance back to where the Framers had originally placed it.
How are we going to accomplish this with candidates that want to water down conservatism by relabeling it moderate or compassionate? How are we going to accomplish this with candidates who can’t even coherently define it? We can’t.
The next president must be a rock solid conservative who will not be looking to make a deal. We have to have a president that understands that government as prescribed in the Constitution is far more compassionate than the socialism we are careening into. We have to have a president that is willing to stand on principle and not compromise away the future of our children. We have to have a president that will articulate and promote our Constitutional foundation to an ignorant nation.
I believe there is just one man that can do this. Ted Cruz.