Wednesday, October 29, 2014

Americans Have Been "Next Thinged" Out Of Their Country

     Recently the commandant of the Republican Party, Reince Priebus, had a conference call with members of During the conversation, Mr. Priebus promised concerned Tea Partiers that if and when the Republicans take control of the United States Senate, that they would use every authority available to them to stop the president from granting illegal aliens amnesty with the stroke of his pen. He enumerated these authorities as legislative, legal, and defunding of certain activities which would hurt President Obama's illegal activity. Sure.
     The fact that the Constitution gives Congress the authority over immigration and naturalization means little to President Obama. And forgive me for not believing Reince Priebus, but I have heard this song and dance from Republicans for six years. They have been acquiescing to the Obama agenda for that long, and then telling their base that they would find the intestinal fortitude to stand up to the out-of-control president on the "Next thing." We have waited for the "Next thing," which has come and gone, and left the Republicans curled up in a fetal position after giving the president what he wanted. We have been "Next thinged" out of basic Liberties and have lost the core principles of self-governance that made this country great.
     It is suspicious to me, and should be to those Tea Party members on the conference call with Mr. Priebus, as well as it should be to every Republican and conservative, that the Republican establishment has been downright adversarial with Tea Partiers, and now that it is time for an election, they come with their hat-in-hand full of promises to secure the votes of their base. They are like the abusive boyfriend, and we the put upon girlfriend who knows her partner does not have her best interest at heart but thinks that maybe, just maybe this time his promises of change will bear fruit.
     After acquiescing to the president on every continuing resolution over the last six years, every debt ceiling increase, and every other issue where they promised to make a stand, establishment Republicans now expect us to believe that they will "do everything in their power" to stop the president's unconstitutional amnesty for illegal aliens. It is that phrase, "everything in our power" that is the placation of the base used by the establishment to quell the rumblings of revolution within the party. But the revolution is a quiet one, in 2012 for instance, an estimated 4 million Republican voters stayed home on election day rather than vote for Mitt Romney.
      Mitt Romney the man was honest and decent. Mitt Romney the campaign was just another limp-wristed, establishment-influenced exercise in political futility. It may just be, when it comes to establishment selected nominees, the base is saying, "We will support the next thing."

Tuesday, October 28, 2014

Republicans Set To Lose The Mid-Terms

     The 2014 mid-term elections that so many on the Right have been anxiously awaiting are just a week away. And while Republicans are already planning on what actions they will take once they maintain their control of the House of Representatives and wrestle control of the United States Senate away from Harry Reid and his band of Democrat Party miscreants, they have forgotten one very important detail. They still must win the majority of seats in both houses of Congress next week, and that is far from the forgone conclusion some may want to delude themselves that it is.
     In  most of the races where Republicans must win, the polls are fairly tight. No Republican in those races is leading by more than a couple of points, and in many cases it is a dead heat. And knowing the Democrats well substantiated proclivity to commit election fraud, a few point lead for any Republican means a loss on election day. The races where the polls show the Republican ahead by only several points is very surprising to me, it also spells disaster considering the current situation.
     With a continuing economic malaise caused by Democrat policy, the fecklessness of bureaucracies like the Center for Disease Control and the Veterans administration, and the general incompetence of Democrats who have been running the government for the last six years, one would think Republicans would be 20 points ahead in every congressional race. Well maybe not 20, but they should be at least 10 points ahead in each race. There are some governors, like John Kasich of Ohio who have commanding leads over their Democrat challengers. But for the most part the Republican field has had a lackluster showing.
     Maybe it is because Republicans know their proclivity towards snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, and decided to remain silent and let the Democrats implode. The only problem is that Democrats may not be imploding as much as Republicans thought they would. It is the same mistake the Republicans made in 2012. Thinking that one of the worst economies in post-WWII history would sink the Obama bid for re-election. We are all painfully aware how their non-involvement in that campaign turned out.
     Even if what Republicans see as the best case scenario happens, they would pick up only enough seats to bequeath them a 1 or 2 seat majority in the Senate. The population of moderate and even  Leftist Republican Senators may neuter any advantage election victory may bring them in that body. Also, they will not have enough seats to override any veto, which are sure to come from the president if the Republicans pass any legislation that does not conform to the Obama agenda.
     Some think that having both Houses of Congress (assuming the Republicans win the Senate and keep the House) will force President Obama into cooperation. I do not know where these people have been for the last six years, but Barack Obama does not have to cooperate. He can veto any Republican efforts and has his ten pound hammer of executive orders to force upon the country anything he sees fit. It is going to be a long two years whether Republicans are successful next week or not.

Monday, October 27, 2014

The Coming Ice Age....Again!

     I have maintained from the beginning of this Ebola "crisis" that it was hyped in an effort by those on the Left to spend money we do not have, and expand government into areas of freedom that have previously been undiscovered by government. Beyond the fact that the Left is in love with huge, unwieldy government bureaucracies and limited individual Liberty, is that their last "crisis", i.e. global warming/man-made climate change, has been recently shown to be a bust.
     Do not get me wrong, they have been successful at inculcating in the na├»ve and the younger generation for the need to keep spending an estimated 22 billion dollars of taxpayer money every year to "fight" a non-existent environmental Armageddon. But global warming devotees are becoming increasingly tougher to recruit in this time of global cooling.
     It appears the only warming that has occurred, especially over the last 18 years, has been that of the fevers generated in the rabid believers of the climate change religion. In fact, according to NASA, the earth has only warmed 0.36 degrees in the last 35 years, most of which happened from 1979 to 1998. Since the late 1990s the earth has actually cooled. As has the general acceptance of this specious science and its mandate in the minds of Americans that we must spend gobs of money and restrict a plethora of freedoms to fight it. In addition to federal government outlays of tax money, it is estimated that the global warming hysteria costs individual and corporate Americans 1.75 trillion dollars in added costs every year due to climate regulations.
     With the cooling of the earth in the last 18 years, and the recent satellite study by NASA that showed the polar ice cap has actually increased by 43% (Remember Al Gore saying the entire ice cap would melt away and cause a rise in sea levels by now?), I fully expect the Left to turn 180 degrees on a dime and begin to proffer the notion that we are in danger of a new ice age, as they did back in the 1970s.
     Even though the general population has become wise to the Lefts environmental subterfuge, they now have in place the ability to suck up tens of billions of dollars a year to fund efforts to "fight" non-existent calamities. That is why government should never be placed in control of something as unlimited as the environment. In so doing we have given them unlimited power and have shattered the Founders notion of enumerated federal authority.

Saturday, October 25, 2014

Do Gay Rights Rise To The Level Of Civil Rights?

     In an effort to impose the tyranny of the "gay rights" oppressive agenda on the whole of American society, its defenders have equated "gay rights" with the hard fought civil rights for minorities. And while it almost borders on despicable to proffer the idea that someone being lynched for being black and wanting to vote Republican is synominous with a homosexual couple demanding that an unwilling baker create their "wedding" cake, this is the argument "gay rights" supporters expect the public to swallow whole.
     Primary to discovering whether "gay rights" are equal to civil rights is defining what a civil right is. Any civil right is about choice. The choice to sit anywhere one wishes on public transportation that is specifically designated as public seating, without regards to race, ethnicity, or sex. Have gays been denied this right? Basically civil rights are being allowed to make choices about one's participation in public life that lie within the realm of possible choices for all citizens.
     Some may say that gays are being denied their civil rights by states that support, via law, traditional marriage. But I would like those who support gay marriage to explain how gays are being denied what is readily a choice for anyone else in society, i.e. the right to marry anyone of the opposite sex that is of age and not already married. If anything, the supporters of the militant gay position which seeks to impose their life style on those who have a religious difference with it, such as bakers, caterers, and ministers, is analogous to denying the civil rights of those persons.
     Not only is the radical gay lobby insisting on denying the civil rights of those who disagree with them, but their Constitutional right of free association. The greatest violation of civil rights is the absence of choice, which is what is being imposed on those who do not support gay marriage. As it is with most of the Lefts agenda, the homosexual life style is not supported by the majority of Americans, and so the tiny minority must impose itself on the vast majority through the implementation of manufactured "rights."
       The argument that gays are having their civil rights violated by not having government support to do something for which no one has a government sanction to do, i.e. marry someone other than one person of the opposite sex, is a specious argument at best. A group of persons or an individual is not being treated unequally simply because they say they are. Furthermore, civil rights are not so much about having equal outcomes but equal access to choices. A Founding concept that those pushing the radical gay agenda, as well as the entire Left, refuse to understand.

Friday, October 24, 2014

The Heresy Of The Non-Judgmental

     The Founders of this great nation, some of whom were not especially religious, created a system of government that respected and enshrined the free exercise of religion into the Constitution. They knew that a secular government could only succeed if it were populated with religious men. Since the time of the Founding, the pollution of Leftist thought has convinced many that expression of religious faith should be cloistered in private and not shared publicly for fear that it might violate someone's rights, and the non-existent constitutionality of separation of church and state.
     The Left has redefined deviancy as normal by essentially outlawing judgment of it. And the path of righteousness has, under the guise of being "enlightened," become a road less traveled by those afraid of being judged bigots by the very ones who have outlawed judgment by everyone else. The resulting debasement of virtue in our society has resulted in an out-of-wedlock birth rate of 43% in the United States, the spread of the impoverishment of the culture, over 50% of the populace dependent on government handouts in one way or another, and most importantly the rise of radical Islam and radical Leftism which are the twin barbarians to the coming age of darkness and oppression.
     Even the traditional arbiters of virtue and Godliness, the churches, have joined the fray of the non-judgmental. Choosing to be liked over spreading the laws of God, of leading their flocks down the path of damnation over doing the hard work of saving souls, and of being one with the world instead of making the world one with the laws of God. Many of these faiths have chosen the ephemeral nature of modernity over the eternal nature of God's righteousness. And in so doing, in not taking upon themselves the burden of judgment, they have fallen short of their promise to God.
     True judgment based on the laws of God is a burden, especially in a world that becomes ever reticent to the message of salvation. If we as a nation, and more importantly as God's representatives on earth, do not judge sin, then we are as guilty as the sinner of those sins. For of what use is preaching the forgiveness of God if there is no sin having been judged worthy of forgiveness? And what value is there in preaching the Good News if we are unwilling to acknowledge, i.e. judge, the opposite? For there can not be light without first judging the darkness, and there can not be good without judging what is evil.
     The heresy of the non-judgmental has cleared a path for the inequities of myriad sins. And in so doing has lead the people of God into darkness and hardship. There is no greater void than that of the Godless life, and without the cleansing power of judgment the chasm of sin swallows the rock of salvation and weakens the ground upon where humans stand.

Thursday, October 23, 2014

From Civil Rights Movement To Civil Rights Industry

     At the exact moment when the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. lay slain by an assassin's bullet, and Jesse Jackson smeared the blood of this great man on himself for the benefit of media photographers, the civil rights movement transformed from a movement into a big business. Since then, those like Mr. Jackson who claim the desendency of Reverend King, have engaged in the thuggery of nickel and dime hoods operating a protection racket, and the hallowed halls of government have been infiltrated by a sort of racial constranada.
     The modern day civil rights movement is about civil rights like the modern day environmental movement is about the environment. Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, et al have engaged in a shake down operation where money is redistributed from businesses to their organizations, and to Democrats running for office. The way it works is that Jackson, or whom ever, approaches a business and accuses them of engaging in discriminatory hiring practices. The corporation, in order to avoid the embarrassment of picketing and boycotts agrees to pay a butt-load of money to Jackson's organization in the form of high paying jobs in the company's newly created "diversity" department.
     The shake down process works much the same way in government agencies which threaten to use the force of government to "take down" a company which refuses to "donate" money to advocacy groups or pay direct fines to a government agency. The latest of these shake downs was exposed several years ago in the Eric Holder Justice Department. The Attorney General intimidated banks into paying hundreds of millions of dollars in protection money or be charged with civil rights violations. And as someone once said, every American commits at least three felonies a day, so if the government wants to get you they will.
     The modern day civil rights industrial complex is fueled by myths and lies about slavery and racism in America. Primary to these myths is that white men originally brought slavery to America. Not true. The first American slave was John Casor who was owned by a black man named Anthony Johnson. The year was 1654 and Johnson had indentured Casor for a period of seven years, which had expired. Johnson refused to release Casor, and the latter left and began working for another farmer named Parker. Johnson sued Parker and the court found that he had the right to hold Casor indefinitely, thus creating slavery in America and making the black man Anthony Johnson the first slave owner.
     Another myth about slavery is that America was the most prodigious of slave nations. Not true again. There were more white slaves brought into North Africa by the Ottomans than there were ever black slaves brought into America. And the African white slave trade lasted until long after America had become the first nation in the world to ban the barbaric practice altogether. Many wrongly think it was Great Britain that was the first country to ban slavery, but they only banned the slave trade. Many within the UK held slaves long after the American Civil War had essentially eradicated slavery in the United States.
     Race has become such an industry in this country that there are those who owe their careers to the fomentation of racial divide, such as our current president and those in the media like Chris Matthews, who are bereft of any intellectual heft sans the charge of racism. It was recently estimated by the Kato institute that the race industry in this country, in the private and public sectors, generates over a hundred billion dollars in revenue for various groups who depend on perpetuating that which they claim they are against. And it all began when the blood of a Godly man was used by an un-Godly one to forever enslave a nation in racial divide for the material benefit of a few. 

Wednesday, October 22, 2014

The Controlled Burn Of A President

     There has been recent examples of those on the Right pointing to less than flattering statements about President Obama in various media outlets. The most recent has been that of Tina Brown, founder of the Leftist "news" website, the Daily Beast. Ms. Brown espoused the theory that women in particular have not felt safe with Barack Obama, domestically, economically, or in the arena of national security. These outbursts by the media against President Obama are really about saving their future credibility and giving those on the Right like Rush Limbaugh something to point to as proof that media support for "The One" is on the wane.
     Do not think that the Obama votarients in the media have engaged in this criticism of their own volition. I am sure that the administration has given them the high sign that it is OK to criticize the president, now that he no longer needs their support. Barack Obama will not run for political office ever again, and therefore a slavish media just is not that important. His future after leaving office will be dominated by million dollar speeches and golf.
     Those in the media gain from criticizing the president by having "fair and balanced" credibility with the public. If criticized by those on the Right, they can point to the stories they do in the out years of the Obama administration as proof that they were not in the tank for him all along. And since the president no longer needs public or media support to advance his agenda, having his pen and phone and needing nothing else, criticism of him or his policies by media is irrelevant.
      Barack Obama is in an enviable position, where most presidents in the final stages of their presidencies are lame ducks, he will be a charging bull. These next two years may prove historic in the amount of policies enacted by any president, and all without the aid of Congress. Even if the House remains in Republican hands, and the Senate falls out of Democrat hands after next month's mid-term election, the president's only opposition will be the Supreme Court, if they choose to act.
     Executive orders that President Obama may pen can be overturned or revoked by a successor or by the Supreme Court, as they did with President Truman's Executive Order 10340, which essentially gave the federal government authority to seize private steel mills whose workers were on strike. Executive orders have three levels of standing. An order has the most standing when it supports the explicit will of Congress. It has dubious standing when its issuance is on that which Congress has not ruled. An Executive Order has the least standing when it contradicts the will of Congress on either something it has ruled for or ruled against.
     The increased criticism of President Obama by the media is a controlled burn meant to save the forest of journalism from years of blind support for a president that has been by far the biggest presidential detriment to the economy, foreign policy, and the Constitution. The media has already done their part in destroying the very fabric of freedom in this country, and now, with permission from the administration, they are trying to save any shreds of their integrity that may remain.