The Money Making Media

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.

Continue reading “The Money Making Media”

When He Is A She And She Is A He

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?

A Tree Of Life? Not Exactly!

April 12, 2016

I bet about right now you are getting a little weary from all the political chaff exploding around us. How about something a little different this week?

Here goes. A team of scientists from the University of California at Berkeley using a supercomputer have generated a vastly more complex model of the Darwinian “tree of life”. In a report published online in Nature Microbiology, the researchers explain how they have dramatically expanded the amount of diversity included in the new tree by incorporating new genomic data from 1000 little known organisms, primarily bacteria.

This latest version of the tree of life (which looks more like a bird to me) has three main branches that encompass all known life forms – Eukarya which includes animals, plants and us; Bacteria and Archaea, cellular life that live in extreme or harsh environments.

Darwin conceptualized his theory of natural selection acting on random mutation as a tree, a tree that took root when a collection of complex molecules in a totally random, unguided way self-organized into the first living cell. This first cell then began replicating and random changes in the DNA contained in its nucleus produced changes that were either beneficial or detrimental to its progeny. The beneficial changes survived to reproduce and the detrimental changes died out. This process extended for hundred of millions of years, life upon life, resulting in what could be characterized as a tree with increasingly intricate branches as is described in the Nature Microbiology report.

I do appreciate the work and effort it took to classify and catalog the incredible number of genomes we know of today. However, I have a real problem with Darwin’s original idea of a tree of life that these scientists expand upon. The concept is simply not supported by the archeological data we have. A more accurate botanical description of life arising on the planet would be that of a lawn, not a tree.

The fossil record clearly shows life in many forms arising independently, not from some common ancestor. From over 500 million years ago, the data we have from the Cambrian Explosion confirms that many of the body plans present today sprang into existence independently in parallel and in a period of time far too short for Darwinian evolution to have been the mechanism.

If Darwinian evolution was responsible for all life as it proponents assert, then there should be innumerable transitional forms that lead from lesser complex animals to more complex animals, in turn forming the tree of life. However, there is a dearth of transitional forms that have been found. The only confirmed data we have about life is the end of the tree’s branches. The larger connecting branches and the trunk are just scientific inference. The actual archeological data connecting all life forms together is not there and easily should be if Darwinian evolution was really responsible for all life.

What we know for sure is that the fossil record is characterized by sudden appearance and stasis of organisms. Life forms just show up in the fossil record suddenly, fully formed. They exist for a while with minor changes due to environmental pressures (like Darwin’s finches) and then die out. There is no directional progression from less complex to more complex that Darwinism insists on.

So the fossil record is a big problem for Darwinian proponents. The information contained in DNA is an even bigger problem. DNA, contained in the nucleus of cells, is very much like the software that enabled me to type this article and enables you to read it – only it is far more advanced according to Bill Gates. While computers run on a two character language, DNA is based on a four character language and constitutes the instructions for how a cell manufactures the proteins it needs to exist. Without the information in DNA, proteins don’t exist. Without proteins, we don’t exist.

The salient point about the information content in biology is that we know of only one mechanism capable of generating such complexity – a mind. And materialistic scientists avoid this conclusion at all costs. Evolutionary biologist Richard Lewontin states that a majority of scientists will not consider an intelligent origin for life because “…materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine foot in the door”. I thought science was about a search for causes wherever the data leads. Clearly that’s not true in the world of highly politicized science today.

We’ve seen this before. At the beginning of the last century, science assured us that the universe was static and eternal. However, through Einstein’s theoretical work and Edwin Hubble’s empirical data, it became clear that the universe had a beginning a finite time ago. Scientists then had to face the fact that there was a cause of the universe beyond time, space, and matter/energy with obvious theological implications. They’re still fighting those implications today.

Now the information foundation of biology again is pointing clearly to a Creator yet so many try to suppress this truth. The apostle Paul describes this clearly in his letter to the Romans. He teaches how men will suppress the truth, their thinking then becomes futile and they descend into depravity.   Yeah, I think I’m seeing that.

 

Personhood? That Is The Question!

April 8, 2016

Donald Trump may have inadvertently helped the Republican cause this year with his stumbling over a hypothetical gotcha question about the abolition of Roe v. Wade.

During an interview with MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, Trump stated that with abortion illegal, women seeking abortions should face “some form of punishment”. (Why is Trump taking questions from Matthews and ducking Mark Levin? Doesn’t strike me as conservative.) Trump later recanted his initial response and restated his position as only a doctor performing an abortion should face prosecution and not the woman undergoing the procedure.

I can’t begin to fathom how Trump could be so ill prepared for such a question. He should clearly understand that abortion is part of the Left’s fictitious “war on women” playbook and be ready with a thoughtful response. However, this is another example of his lack of understanding and shallow thinking on many serious issues he should be well prepared for.

Hillary Clinton couldn’t wait to pounce. And pounce she did…and then fell flat on her face.

In an interview on NBC’s Meet The Press with Chuck Todd, Hillary while trying to burnish her image as a champion of women’s rights, managed to give a response that incensed everyone on both sides of the issue.

In responding to Todd’s question about the constitutional rights of the unborn, Clinton stated, “the unborn person doesn’t have constitutional rights.” And with just these seven words, Hillary alienated virtually everyone concerned about the abortion issue, an amazing feat even for the world’s smartest woman.

On the one hand, she is denying constitutional protection to a “real person” and on the other she refers to what abortion promoters call an unviable lump of cells as a “real person”. Wow, what an amazing, non-sensical conflation! I would love to have the commission on all the Republican ads that will be run highlighting her incredible faux pas.

Asserting that the unborn is simply an aggregate of cells like some superfluous tumor is the bedrock of the Left’s justification for ending a pregnancy. There’s nothing of value associated with a rapidly growing fertilized egg. Just get rid of it before it becomes a real inconvenience! Besides, you ladies have the right to choose whether to permit this valueless aggregate of cells to develop into, well, a life.

And that is the question, isn’t it? When does that the growing pregnancy transition from worthlessness to pricelessness? Abortion proponents are all over the map on the question. The more reasonable assert that up until the end of the first trimester the growing pregnancy is of no value and can be destroyed. After this, abortions should be prohibited. However, more ardent supporters promote much later term terminations that require gruesome techniques I will not describe here.

There are even others that think termination of babies delivered full term is acceptable. Peter Singer, professor of bioethics at Princeton University, believes parents should be able to kill infants up to thirty days after their birth: “Human babies are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons”; therefore, “the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee.” Dang, it’s a girl! We have two already, so let’s get rid of her!

So is Singer right that what constitutes life is self-awareness and a sense of time? Or is there a set of biological parameters that instead define personhood? This is the question we as a society must answer.

However, the pro-abortion forces avoid at all costs any kind of definition of what constitutes life and instead deflect the argument to one of women’s rights. They sloganize about a woman’s right to choose and proclaim a woman has a right to decide what she does with her body. Would that mean then that a woman can choose to charge money for the sexual use of her body too? I believe we have laws against that.

The left has controlled the focus and the language of the abortion debate for too long and we must bring it back to where it belongs – when does life begin?

Singer’s assertion that personhood begins with self-awareness and a sense of time could extend well into infancy and clearly leads to state sanctioned infanticide. If we say that life begins at the second trimester, we need to have a set of biological parameters that justify the claim. Just what happens physically at an instant into the second trimester that makes a growing pregnancy life when it wasn’t just prior to that instant?

You see, we can’t answer that question. Therefore, the only way to make sure that we do not take innocent life is to define conception as when life begins.

The Left is staunchly against the death penalty because we could possibly execute an innocent man. Yet they are very cavalier when defining when abortions are permissible. With our lack of understanding when life begins, how do we know that every abortion does not kill an innocent? Isn’t the most enlightened thing we can do is to insure no possibility of innocent life being taken by affirming that life begins at conception? Of course it is.

Hopefully, Hillary’s Freudian slip will help elect a conservative this year, one who will begin rebuilding the Judiciary with solid conservative judges. Then maybe, just maybe, down the road, we can begin to eradicate this stain on our society.

Are You Ready For Madame President?

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.

On Islamists, Liberals, And Idiots

March 24, 2016

Did you see them? In the sky, hundreds of them, flying everywhere. Donkeys. All around the world donkeys took flight when uber-liberal, Piers Morgan, in a piece for the UK Daily Mail stated that maybe Donald Trump was not so wrong in his approach to dealing with escalating Islamic violence. I thought surely donkeys would become lighter than air before I would see such an admission from a prominent member of the liberal intelligentsia.

Seeing the European multi-cultural delusion shattered by the attacks in Brussels must have shocked Piers into a moment of clarity (probably not for long though). He admitted that the modern world is losing the battle against ISIS and there are no good ideas coming from the current crop of world leaders (can you name a conservative among them?). He further stated: I see a global paralysis driven by fear, confusion and woeful lack of leadership.” Can you spell “The Obama Administration”?

Let’s review the salient facts about Islam, the ideology fueling the violence that has world leaders so afraid, confused and paralyzed.

First, Islam is not just a religion. It is a complete iron-fisted, authoritarian form of government that includes a religious component. It grew out of the life and sayings of the Prophet Muhammad as recorded in the Qur’an to now include a complete system of laws called Sharia that govern all cultural, financial, and moral aspects of behavior of the population it afflicts.

Next, Islam is not in any way peaceful. While the Qur’an does contain verses from Muhammad’s early Meccan ministry calling for peace and accommodation, those verses have been abrogated or overwritten by the later Medinan verses that call for violence and hostility in the furtherance of Islam.

Muslims are instructed to see the world as divided into two spheres, the Dar al Islam (House of Islam) where Sharia law rules and the Dar al Harb (House of War) where Islam has yet to take control. Muslims are commanded to subdue and conquer the Dar al Harb and bring it into the Dar al Islam. This is exactly what the terrorists are trying to accomplish with their attacks.

The late, great Ayatollah Khomeini summed up Islam’s violent nature this way:

“Islam says kill all unbelievers….kill them and put them to the sword and scatter their armies….There are hundreds of Qur’an’s Psalms and sayings of the Prophet Muhammad urging Muslims to value war and fight.”

Fortunately, most followers of Islam do not get kinetically involved in the war against the infidels as their ideology implores them to. However, while not engaging in violence, far too many passively support the murder and mayhem of the true believers providing what national security experts term “a safe ocean the jihadis swim in”.

The political correctness the Left reflexively curls up in when attacks like those in Brussels occur will insure more innocents die senselessly. When the weak-kneed political leaders Piers rails against fail to call the attackers what they are, the Islamists see that as capitulation. The Qur’an tells them when they see this reaction to redouble their efforts to make the Dar al Harb “feel subdued”. The more we ignore the truth about what we face, the greater the peril we place ourselves in.

What liberals have to come to understand is that we are not dealing with twenty-first century minds here. We are dealing with a seventh century mentality. Just because we today would reciprocate kindness and accommodation with kindness and accommodation, that does not mean you will get that response from a true adherent to the Qur’an. Kindness and accommodation from an infidel represents weakness and encourages Islamists to engage in their seventh century behavior.

When we agree to take in a stream of refugees even though ISIS says they will infiltrate it with terrorists, Islamists believe we are being subdued.

When our administration agrees to a sham of an agreement that insures Iran will become nuclear, Islamists believe we are being subdued.

When our school children dress up in Islamic garb and recite verses from the Qur’an, Islamists believe we are being subdued.

When liberals are willing to allow Sharia law to be practiced in our courts, Islamists believe we are being subdued.

Liberal passivity and political correctness are being interpreted by Islamists as submission to the will of Allah and will bring far more violence. It is absolutely certain. Therefore, it is WE who need to redouble OUR efforts to neutralize this scourge.

First, we have to militarily clean up the Middle East. No more politically correct warfare. We fight with everything we have and win the damn thing. We have to totally destroy any idea that a caliphate can be re-established.

Second, in this country we need to step up the surveillance on mosques that could be preaching and inciting violence. This is not Muslim persecution. If mosques are centers of peace and thoughtfulness, they have nothing to be concerned about. However, those that choose to teach the violence of Islam need to be dealt with vigorously.

Third, we need to defeat the ideology of Islam and its accompanying Sharia. We have to begin the long-term effort of showing how the virtues of individual sovereignty and liberty as enshrined in our founding documents make for a much better life. Without this, we will continue to play Islamic whack-a-mole around the world.

Losing Our Youth

March 17, 2016

The successful continuance of our country depends on our youth and with what we see happening today, I am very concerned if America as we have known it will even exist in a couple of decades. So many of our future leaders do not have even a basic understanding of our founding documents and the principles they enshrine. They do not understand how the concepts of self-governance and personal responsibility have led to the freedom and prosperity they enjoy today.

Their ignorance and lack of critical thinking skills make them easy prey for avowed socialists promoting absurd societal models that have produced nothing but misery, poverty, and death wherever they have been instituted. I fear the kind of violence seen last week in Chicago will continue to effervesce as the hateful Left steps up its efforts to stoke ignorant rage and unjustified hatred to burn down America and remake it into their own personal utopia.

Our youth for some reason have become increasingly more anxious and depressed despite the prosperity and opportunity they enjoy. Jesse Singal documents this in a recent article at nymag.com. In the piece, Singal states: “Ever since the 1930’s, young people in America have reported feeling increasingly anxious and depressed. And no one knows exactly why.”

Singal quotes social psychologist, Dr. Jean Twenge, who has done significant research into this phenomenon, saying, “I think the research tells us that modern life is not good for mental health.”   Twenge has researched results obtained from the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) that has been given to high school and college students since the 1930’s. The MMPI assesses the level of anxiety and depression and the results of her analysis are unmistakable – there has been a significant rise in the symptoms of these conditions in young people over the last eighty years. The question is why?

Twenge believes a main cause is the lack of interaction and connection with others as a condition of modern life today. It seems though we are more and more connected with our electronic appliances, we are less and less connected with our own species. There is a basic need we all have for human contact and intimacy that our electronics is stripping away.

Twenge also blames smaller families, the higher divorce rate, and couples marrying later in life. She also identifies that our youth’s preoccupation with money, fame, and image lead to higher levels of depression and anxiety. She then goes so far to cite increased female autonomy as another anxiety producing factor and states that: “…the potential tradeoff for our equality and freedom is more anxiety and depression because we’re more isolated.”

I can agree with the causal factors Twenge cites in Singal’s article, but I believe they are secondary in nature and not the principle reason for the increasing uncertainty and anxiety in our youth. I believe the true cause lies with the secular humanistic worldview that has been thrust upon them. Our kids are indoctrinated in our schools to believe that they are here through a long series of accidental, totally random events and that they have no more worth than an earthworm or the bird that eats it.

Objective, universal morality has been displaced with what’s expedient and individual. Truth has become malleable and situational. Even our sense of who we are as individuals is questioned. The late Nobel Prize winner and co-discoverer of the structure of the DNA molecule, Francis Crick completely undermines the idea that we are autonomous individuals with free will. In his book on the nature of consciousness, “The Astonishing Hypothesis”, he states this about the true nature of the human experience:

“The Astonishing Hypothesis is that ‘You’, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules.”

Now Francis Crick is smart and our kids are told they just need to accept what he says without debate. Scientists have become our high priests of reality and our kids are pressured to just accept what they say and do not question anything.

Think about what such a view does to a young person’s developing sense of self. There is no ultimate meaning or purpose to your life. There is no right or wrong, good or bad, righteous or evil. Things just are. This robs kids of their initiative and their confidence to act in any capacity.

Kelly Monroe Kullberg in her book “Finding God At Harvard” described many of today’s college students this way:

“Students feel safer as doubters than as believers, and as perpetual seekers rather than eventual finders.” 

Our youth has no foundation anymore to base their beliefs and actions on. When there is no right or wrong, how do you make a decision on anything? When nothing is good or evil, how do you make any kind of behavioral judgment? Most people will just acquiesce into passivity but others can spiral into frustration and violence.

Our greatest defender of Christianity today is philosopher William Lane Craig. He makes the point that life without God is absurd. Without God there is simply no grounding for objective moral values that make life livable and gives us certainty and confidence on how to live. Take this away and you see what happens – anxiety, uncertainly, hostility, and depression. It’s becoming all too clear.

Give Me An F150 Or Give Me Death

March 10, 2016

I picked up my shiny, new Ford F150 last night. You know there’s just something good and right about getting behind the wheel of such a classic American machine. I couldn’t resist keeping the turbocharger whining all the way back to the homestead. I like the idea of recklessly expanding my carbon footprint too. I have to admit that I revel in being accused by Al Gore acolytes of being a climate change “denier”. It’s half the fun of getting a new truck that only gets 20 miles to the gallon and eats “smart cars” for breakfast.

However, admitting to being a denier of anthropogenic global warming could soon become hazardous if our perpetually irritated leftist bureaucrats in Washington have their way. Yes, Attorney General Loretta Lynch in an exchange with climate change zealot and all around wackadoo, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, admitted that there are discussions within the Department of Justice about taking civil action against those that would deny that prosperity and capitalism are destroying the planet.

Lynch stated this week at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, “This matter has been discussed. We have received information about it and have referred it to the FBI to consider whether or not it meets the criteria for which we could take action on”.

Has been discussed? Has been referred to the FBI for further consideration? Dear readers, this should have been laughed right out of the Capital building. Instead, our cranky leftists have conjured up using the RICO statutes against “deniers” in much the same way as was used to fleece the tobacco companies. Do you really think the FBI will not find criteria to take action on?

Whitehouse justified the strategy by saying, “The similarities between the mischief of the tobacco industry pretending that the science of tobacco’s dangers was unsettled and the fossil fuel industry pretending that the science of carbon emissions’ dangers is unsettled has been remarked on widely, particularly by those who study the climate denial apparatus that the fossil fuel industry has erected.”

 Despite that fact that reams of data clearly show the rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide FOLLOWS temperature rise and does not precede it, despite the fact that there really is a consensus that global temperatures HAVEN’T RISEN for over eighteen years, and despite the fact that there HAVE BEEN WARMER PERIODS in pre-industrial times, these boneheads are moving full speed ahead with a scheme to wreck our economy.

Whitehouse in an op-ed in the New York Times last May stated the energy industry was following a three-part strategy to mislead Americans. Quoting from his piece, the strategy consists of:

  • Pay scientists to produce studies defending your product
  • Develop an intricate web of PR experts and front groups to spread doubt about real science
  • Relentlessly attack your opponents.

Does this look familiar to you? It should. This is exactly the strategy the global warming wingnuts are following. The Left does that a lot, accusing their opponents of doing just what they do.

The Left owns academia and lavishly funds it to produce the data it wants. If you’re a professor who wants tenure or a department chair, just produce a study that shows a looming sea ice catastrophe or that some cute animal’s mass migration patterns are being devastated by soccer mom SUV use. Do that and you’re in, baby!

They use their long labored on political correctness mechanism to silence us with the charge of “Denier!” They’ve seeded the media with nattering nabobs that spread bumper slogan deep claims of scientific consensus, settled science, and sure calamity straight ahead! Yet their stewards live lives of limousines, private jets, and mansions measured in tens of thousands of square feet, an ever-expanding carbon footprint of decadence.

However, since their efforts to alarm and stampede the American people have failed, now we see the leftists ratcheting up their attack by bringing the ultra-coercive power of the Federal Government to bear on those that would deny them and their efforts to reduce the United States to neo-feudalistic misery.

My fellow Patriots, this can’t stand. The Left is becoming more brazen in showing their desire to rule us with an iron fist. Their decades long effort to reengineer the electorate for an unassailable majority is near completion. We must have a wave election in November for Republicans at all levels of government. We must reverse the tide now or being forced to accept climate change nonsense as true will be the least of our worries.

Reagan Couldn’t Get Elected Today

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.

Apple v. The FBI

February 26, 2016

Something really stinks about this dustup between the FBI and Apple. Don’t you wonder why their dispute was made public by the government? If the FBI was really concerned about protecting we the people, wouldn’t they want to keep secret the fact that they cannot crack into the latest Apple software? Why would our government announce to the world that they can’t get into any iPhone and in turn confirm to terrorists that they have a secure communications channel shielded from U.S. Government surveillance?

Not only did the FBI confirm to terrorists that they’re communications are safe using iPhones, they then publicly impugned Apple’s response and motives in an apparent attempt to threaten their business if they don’t deliver on what the government wants. This kind of fascism would have Mussolini nodding in approval.

Make no mistake, this is not about cracking just the one iPhone used in the San Bernardino attacks despite what Marco Rubio and other establishment pundits are proclaiming. The FBI wants to be able to break into any type of secure consumer communications anytime, anywhere. And they are using the “terrorism trumps personal privacy” play again as it has been used to erect the vast surveillance apparatus that continues to metastasize. Don’t fall for this disinformation.

The FBI and Apple would not even be in this “contest” if both the city of San Bernardino and the FBI had handled things right. The phone belongs to San Bernardino and if they had installed the basic administrative software available for the iPhone, they could have been in complete control of the phone and have access to the totality of its contents today.

And then somewhere in the chain of custody between San Bernardino and the FBI, the iCloud password gets changed making it impossible to gain access to the backed up information there. Is this just incompetence or perhaps a chance to create an opportunity?

Setting the concern about government surveillance aside for a moment, if Apple is coerced into providing a key that will unlock iPhones as the FBI insists, this will create an exploitable crease in the security software on the device. Criminal hackers and hostile governments seeking to steal our personal information or instigate potentially damaging mischief could then exploit this crease. This is what Apple fears and what our government seems willing to accept. I understand Apple will soon refine their security capability to the point where iPhone software will simply be uncrackable. I applaud their efforts.

Getting back to the surveillance state issue, this week I happened to catch “America’s Mayor”, Rudy Giuliani, on my formerly favorite fair and balanced channel. Of course, he was promoting the establishment line about terrorism trumping privacy and Apple just needs to open just this one phone, yada, yada, yada. He then proclaimed that our government is only grabbing the “metadata” from our communications and that there is not one case of the government misusing the information. Well, let’s unpack that statement.

First, metadata literally means “data about the data”. So the government now admits it is capturing phone metadata that includes details about the call but not its content. In other words, the government knows when you made a call, what phone you made the call from, where you were when you made the call, who you called, their phone number, their location, date, time, duration, etc. However, they say the content of the call is not being captured.

In addition, this data surveillance mechanism is sweeping up all your web transactions as well. All of your FaceBook postings, the various web sites you peruse, and internet news sites you visit are all being captured and stored. The NSA very openly now admits they do this and they cheerfully explain it here: https://nsa.gov1.info/data/

So, if that’s all they are capturing, why then do they need data repositories the size of the one in Utah? Affectionately called “Bumblehive” by the NSA, this site cost us over 1.5 billion dollars and occupies about a million square feet. The data servers installed at the site take up about one hundred thousand of that million square feet. It consumes 1.5 million gallons of water per day just to keep the servers cool. Bumblehive’s storage capacity is estimated to be between a few exabytes to one or two yottabytes. The actual capacity is classified.

Understand when talking about exabytes or yottabytes, we are describing mind-boggling amounts of data storage capacity. Let’s say that Bumblehive can store one yottabyte of data. This would enable the facility to store a high definition video of every second of life for everyone who has lived in the United States for the last forty years. Patriots, even just a few exabytes in capacity so far exceeds the storage requirements for metadata gathering as to make those claims a ridiculous joke.

Couple this with the fact that the government is hiring behavioral specialists as fast as the can to develop search algorithms to sort through all of the social media data they are gathering to understand, predict, and ultimately to influence our behavior.

Is the picture becoming clearer now? I fear that the billions of dollars of our money that are being spent under the guise of protecting us from terrorism are really being spent to protect the government from us.

We Need A New Team

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?

Will The Real Conservative Please Stand Up

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.

Islamic Conflation

February 5, 2016

While the Republican candidates for president stepped up their inane and idiotic scrum over nothing of consequence, the man they want to replace methodically continued advancing his plan to transform America.

This week, our president once again assumed his role of Muslim apologist-in-chief while speaking for the first time at a mosque in Baltimore. Obama apparently was motivated to rebut the “anti-Islamic” proclamations being made by the Republican presidential candidates.

As expected, there was nothing new with the rhetoric he expressed – Islam is a religion of peace that has been hijacked by a few misguided radicals and shame on America for thinking it could motivate followers to violence.

Obama ineptly tried to make the case that the name Islam conveys a meaning of peace and non-aggression. Serious Islamic scholars are clear that Islam means “submission” and not in the peaceful, cooperative way as Obama alludes.

The history of Muhammad makes it pretty clear that without violent coercion, Islam may not even exist today. Muhammad initially tried to gain a following through a message of peace and cooperation while in Mecca. His message failed miserably to gain followers and ended up antagonizing the locals to the point where he had to flee for his life to Medina.

It was in Medina where the light went on for Muhammad. His message of peace and harmony quite suddenly changed dramatically to one of violence and subjugation. He started raiding and pillaging caravans on their way to Mecca and then gave the booty to those that would follow him. Those that wouldn’t convert got the tip of a sword. And so bingo, you got a rapidly growing religion.

The Qur’an clearly states that the earlier peaceful Meccan verses have been abrogated or cancelled and replaced by the later violent Medinan verses. This can’t be argued. It is a fact. So the Qur’an specifically calls for violence by its followers to spread Islam to the entire world. Those that are killing non-believers are correctly following the admonitions that Muhammad passed down through the Qur’an.

Despite these facts of history though Obama stuck with his usual subterfuge, And since 9/11, but more recently, since the attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, you’ve seen too often people conflating the horrific acts of terrorism with the beliefs of an entire faith.

The real conflation that is going on is that which promotes Islam as just another “spiritual” worldview like Christianity, Judaism, or Hinduism. Islam is not just a religion. It comes complete with an entire system of societal laws and institutions called Sharia that govern every aspect of Muslim life. Islam is not just another faith but instead is a complete governing mechanism with a state religion that all must accept. You cannot separate Islam from Sharia.

Sharia law stands in direct opposition to our Constitution. While our founding documents are rooted in the principles of individual freedom and sovereignty, Sharia inculcates the submission and subjugation of the individual to the state under the threat of violence. The two worldviews could not be in greater opposition.

Therefore, Muslims and sympathizers who support the establishment of Sharia here in the United States are violating our laws against sedition. The Constitution clearly states it is the only law of the land and promoting Sharia here is an act of subversion. We must very assertively stamp out any effort to its establishment here.

With this understanding then, does it not make sense that we prevent any Muslim from entering this country who cannot be thoroughly vetted? Does it not make sense that any Muslim entering our country must accept our Constitution as their governing system? This is not discrimination or Islamophobia. It is prudence.

With that said, understand that I do agree with Obama when he describes most Muslims as fine citizens who make great contributions to our society. I have had many interactions with Muslims and they are good people. They are welcome as neighbors and they are welcome in my home. I’d be more than happy to watch a sitcom with Muslims as the leading characters.

However, the problem is with those that are the true followers of Islam. The ones that are prone to commit violent acts. They indeed cast a shadow on the wider Muslim community.

This is where I believe Muslims have an obligation to speak out against Islamic violence. However, so far the silence is deafening. Muslims must come together to begin a reform movement that brings Islam into the twenty-first century. There are only a relatively few Muslims standing up and calling for Islam to reject its violent tenants and modernize. We need tens of thousands so committed.

All Americans need to encourage, support, and protect any Muslim that stands up and speaks out for a peaceful version of Islam. Without such sincere reform, nothing will change and all Muslims will continue to live under a shadow of doubt.

Vigilance Or Reticence?

January  28,2016

Are you as sick and tired of this presidential campaign as I am? It has descended to a level more typical of a student council election than one to choose the leader of the greatest country in the history of our planet.

Every day it’s some new drama that has little to do with the monumental challenges we face as a nation. We are presented scenarios that are designed to feed insatiable egos and generate hollow ratings for media outlets that proclaim they are “looking out for us”. It makes me wonder if Vince McMahon has moved on to politics.

Look at how the current leader in the Republican polls differentiates himself from his nearest rival – “nyah nyah, nyah nyah nyah, nobody likes you!” This is grade school stuff. And then we have the media purveyors of punditry validate such drivel as substantive and pander and pontificate endlessly about the critical effect it will have on this campaign or that campaign. This is nonsense, patriots. We deserve better.

Tragically, the country has left its moorings of objective values and critical thinking. We no longer think. We react. We have been conditioned not to think through, or analyze, or weigh arguments. Instead, we are programmed to jump to the conclusion the stimuli intended without any neurons firing. I’m amazed at how many “thoughtful” conservatives and evangelicals have succumbed.

Everything we see and hear from the political world and the remora-like media is focus grouped and rehearsed and designed to elicit the desired response. We the people are no longer respected as sovereign, thinking individuals. Instead, we are a mass that needs to be manipulated, maneuvered, and molded into compliancy.

Therefore, we are not offered reasoned, thoughtful arguments about the serious issues we face. Instead we get a rumble of personalities worthy of the WWE. I guess the strategy is – “the less people know about the real issues, the less we really have to do something and we can just be in charge”. This can only go on for so long and I believe the severity of our challenges will soon demand real action. Obama appears to have timed his exit very well.

Take for example the poor state of the economy. No longer can the coming slow down be papered over with the typical platitudes of “hitting a rough spot” or “it’s just a mild downturn”. We have a deficit freight train coming at us and it’s barely mentioned in the media. It’s not just the $19 trillion operating deficit. We also have over $200 trillion in unfunded liabilities that we have no way of supporting.

We have the lowest rate of worker participation in the last several decades and yet our president gave a glowing report on the economy during his State of the Union speech. Social Security is in real trouble just based on demographics and yet the media “trumpet” one candidate’s decision not to attend a debate as what we really need to know.

The threat of Islamic terrorism is channeled into a narrow story line that bloodthirsty radicalized killers are bent on our destruction. Through political correctness, the establishment censures any substantive discussion about the true nature of the Islamic threat. We can only focus on the near term danger and destroying ISIS, while proclaiming that Islam is a religion of peace.

The fact is that today’s ISIS terrorists are following Allah’s dictates as recorded in the Qur’an correctly. Killing the infidels and securing the world for Islam IS what the Qur’an implores the followers of Islam to do. We can utterly destroy ISIS as many candidates promise to do, but that does not defeat the ideology. Destroy ISIS and another group will just pop up elsewhere in pursuit of Islamic conquest. We have to have a strategy to defeat the IDEOLOGY of Islam. Have you heard anything like this in the mainstream media? No, our establishment class allows no discussion of it.

As the world grows more dangerous, our ability to contend with the danger diminishes. While we scale back every part of our military capability, the Russian Bear becomes more ferocious. Putin has out-maneuvered us in Ukraine. We have allowed him a Middle East foothold through incompetence and fecklessness. And while we have had substantial reporting on these events other critical developments have been ignored. Are you aware that Russia is building a class of submarine with massive nuclear tipped torpedoes that could wipe out much of our military capability? Do you know Russia is rapidly spreading into the Arctic and is claiming its vast resources? Why don’t you? Maybe because the establishment media is too busy focusing on how many senators don’t like Ted Cruz.

The freedom, liberty, and prosperity we enjoy in this country come at a price. The price is vigilance. We can no longer continue to sit back and settle for what our establishment class wants to feed us. We must get engaged, informed, and involved. We can no longer slumber through our responsibilities as Americans and just react to stimuli like some lab animal. We must demand better from our politicians and those charged with being their watchdog. We can lose this thing if we don’t.

As far as who to vote for in the coming elections, I like to consider whom the Founding Fathers would vote for if they were here today. I believe I know who it would be.

Principle v. Expediency

January 22, 2016

The 2016 election offers our best opportunity since 1980 to put a real conservative back in the White House. Given the direction of our economy, the mess the present administration has made of our foreign policy, and the laughable slate of “Demarxist” candidates in the race, there’s no way a Democrat will be elected this year.

I am a Ted Cruz supporter but I intend to wholeheartedly support whomever the Republicans nominate. The stakes are too high to sit home and sulk on election day if my candidate isn’t the Republican nominee.   That strategy got us Obama’s second term.

The way the race is unfolding, the choice boils down to either Cruz or Donald Trump. The rest of the Republican field is rapidly losing the interest of the electorate, so the nominee is going to be either of these two men.

Both Trump and Cruz would stop our slide into socialist mediocrity and get us back on a path to prosperity and strength. However, there are significant differences between them and these differences will have a big impact on how much progress we make in getting back our representative republic.

The next president will most likely have Republican majorities in both houses of Congress and the opportunity for real progress is great. Therefore, we don’t want to elect just a very good candidate. We want to elect the very best candidate, the one that can best restore our faith in government.

Many of my fellow Tea Party conservatives are fiercely behind Trump and I absolutely understand and appreciate his appeal. Nobody personifies better giving the Washington establishment and our enemies abroad the figurative “middle finger”. There is an anticipative satisfaction about getting back at those that “done us wrong” that is very seductive. However, is that what we would really be getting with “The Donald”?

As of late, I have been very disappointed and concerned with what I’m seeing out of the Trump campaign and it makes me question just what kind of president he would be. The attacks on Senator Cruz are pure Washington establishment in their technique and mean spirited in their intent. The accusations have become personal, harsh, and meant to distract the less informed voter. Taking issue with policy positions is fine but Trump has allowed himself to wade into the mire of personal innuendo. He boasts about his big national lead in the polls but his latest fusillade at Cruz indicates fear and doubt.

Trump has totally overplayed the attack on Cruz’ eligibility based on his Canadian birth. This will never be successfully challenged in court yet Trump keeps pounding the drum. For Cruz not to be eligible would mean that any child born to those in military service overseas would not be eligible. An employee of a large multi-national corporation working an ex-pat job in Malaysia could not have a child that would be eligible for president.

So what if there are challenges mounted in court against Cruz’ eligibility? Obama had many lawsuits challenging his citizenship and they went nowhere.

Trump attacks Cruz as being unlikeable. He states everybody hates Cruz, that he’s a bad guy. Well, just who is it that hates Cruz? Many in the Senate certainly. Here comes a freshman senator who staunchly honors the commitments he made to the people of Texas who put him in office, who challenges the cronyism that permeates Washington, and who stands on principle and the Constitution. Of course most of the Washington cartel hates him. That’s a great attribute!

What about Trump though. Is he so likeable? The line of people in Manhattan that hate Trump would wrap around the island three times. Ask that poor sound technician at a recent Trump rally if he likes the candidate. When the mike malfunctioned, Trump was bellowing for him to be fired. Think that guy finds Trump likeable?

Trump likes to pontificate about how fierce a leader he is and how he will bring Washington under control. Yet out of the other side of his mouth, he describes his leadership as bringing people together, cajoling them, and doing a deal. We’ve had nothing but deals out of the Republican led Congress and conservatives always get screwed.

My Tea Party brothers and sisters, this is not what we want. Cruz has shown himself to be a man of rock solid principle, willing to stand and fight alone if necessary for conservatism. Is that not what the Tea Party is about?

Why is the Washington establishment now gravitating to Trump? Why do they prefer Trump to Cruz? Could it be because Trump is much more like them? Maybe Trump is more likely to keep the deal making and cronyism alive and well in Washington. Why else would they coalesce around him?

Clearly, Trump is not man of conservative principles but of popular expediency. He is a man of New York and the media. His attempt to refute Cruz’ argument about his New York values with 9/11 did nothing to diminish the very point Cruz was making.

We Tea partiers are ideologues. We are purists like the establishment labels us. We see things in the bold colors Reagan spoke of not the pastels of Washington deal making. Trump would make a good president but we have the best conservative candidate in decades in Ted Cruz. He IS a product of the Tea Party. Let’s get behind him.

Will We Have A New President In 2017?

January 13, 2016

The start of a new year always brings hope and optimism for better times ahead. And conservatives should be especially excited for better things unfolding this year. While we get a chance to make a fresh start on many aspects of our personal lives, this year we will elect a new president and Obama will not be on the ballot. He just gave his last State of the Marxist Union speech. The euphoria overwhelms me!

Not only is Obama slated to be gone by this time next year, the possibility of electing a real conservative to the White House has never been greater since 1980. Don’t let the mainstream media and the incessant, slanted poling temper your enthusiasm for conservative chances in November. The electorate is more engaged than it has been in decades and is hungry for an outsider to drain the swamp in Washington. The Rove bunch will not be able to sleaze their way into a nomination this year.

And the Democrats are so bad that I swear I hear the “Benny Hill” theme music playing at their debates. I can’t keep a straight face looking at what’s up on stage. That Debbie Wasserman Shultz sure is a genius! Come on conservatives, do you really think we can lose this time?

The fact that Hillary’s lead over the paleozoic Bernie Sanders is evaporating is astounding. She is rapidly losing ground to a candidate that openly declares his allegiance to socialism. And what is Hillary’s strategy? She decides to go more left! Talk about tone deaf. Even her rapidly fossilizing husband is not going to be able to help her. Times have changed and much of today’s electorate finds Bill Clinton tawdry and gross.

If Hillary is able to hold on and get on a path to secure the nomination, she will certainly be indicted for her self-enriching shenanigans while Secretary of State. There’s no way Obama is going to allow his legacy to be left in the Clinton hands and the evidence of multiple felonies will easily justify her indictment. The Democrats will then be in disarray going into the convention and who knows at that point what happens.

Even if the Democrats had a credible candidate, look at the world landscape today that they own. Our foreign policy is in shambles. The Middle East has descended into a seething caldron with nuclear weapons soon to be part of the mix. We’ve abandoned long term allies and have encouraged and aided bloodthirsty jihadis who have now become uncontrollable.

We have allowed Russia to gain dangerous new footholds in the Middle East and Eastern Europe. At every turn, we have backed away and chosen to “lead from behind” since we are the bad guys in the world. Yeah, we may be bad guys but we are the best bad guys.

Take a look at our economy. We are closing in on nineteen trillion dollars in debt. What do we have to show for it? The real unemployment rate is in excess of ten percent not the five percent our deceiver-in-chief crowed about Tuesday night. We have fifteen million more people on food stamps than when this administration started. Median income is significantly below the level it was at in 2009.   The only jobs being created are part time, minimum wage jobs. High paying professional job growth is nowhere.

On top of this, throw in gay marriage, open borders, Obamacare and you see what the independents are looking at. The Democrats have totally overplayed their hand the last eight years and the independents are going to make them pay for it.

Obama knows this. He knows the Democrats have no chance and his precious legacy is going to fall to a conservative who will unravel everything it rests on. Given his malignant narcissism, he may decide to take unprecedented action. What action might that be? In Obama’s mind, who would be best to carry on his legacy? Barack Obama, of course.

Think this can’t happen? On March 16, 2012, Obama signed “The National Defense Resources Preparedness Executive Order”. In times of national emergency, this order gives the president practically unlimited power over we the people and our property. And the president essentially decides what constitutes a national emergency.

The White House stated that the purpose of the executive order is to delegate authority and address national defense resource policies and programs under the Defense Production Act of 1950. Sounds reasonable enough, but there are very astute analysts that believe this gives the president unilateral authority to declare a national emergency, suspend elections, and seize control of every aspect of our society.

A national emergency today is not that hard to envision. Some sort of massive, multi-site terrorist attack or a deadly virus released from a defense lab by “accident” could justify it. A massive “natural disaster” could provide the premise for the president taking such action.

Don’t you wonder why so many federal agencies have armed up under this administration? Why did the EPA, the FDA, and the National Weather Service spend millions of our dollars on ammo and body armor? I see no justification for agencies like these to have law enforcement capabilities.

Understand that I’m not saying this is going to happen but you can’t argue that it isn’t possible. That in and of itself tempers my optimism for a house cleaning in Washington.