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 TeaParty.net. 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.

Tuesday, October 21, 2014

Admonitions From A Former Altar Boy

     I was born into the Catholic faith and completed 12 years of Catholic education. I was an altar boy in grade school, helping the priests in my parish celebrate mass on the weekends and many times early in the morning before school began. I guess like many Catholic boys I thought about becoming a priest for period of time, but rejected the idea once my hormones really began to kick in. I always thought that my faith was a beautiful expression of God's law precisely because it was not of this world. I did not always keep that faith, but I always thought it was worth keeping.
     The ways in which the Catholic church has prostituted itself to modernity has sickened me over the last few decades. From the enabling and encouraging of gambling amongst their flock, to support by their priests and nuns of Democrats who support abortion, the church which Jesus built upon his Apostle Peter, the "Rock," has lately had a foundation of ever shifting sand. And the worst part is that instead of a Holy Father that is the Vicar of Christ, we have in Pope Francis an unholy alliance with the sins of the world for the sake of progressiveness.
     Pope Francis's recent welcoming of gays and of his blessing of co-habitation by unmarried couples is evidence of a Church that has lost its way in the darkness that is the human heart. The Church was not meant by Christ to be progressive, it did not need to progress, it was already at its destination from the moment Jesus bestowed upon Peter the task of shouldering His Church here on earth. Being His Church meant that its tenets were those of God in heaven, not of man on earth.
     The Catholic Church, through Pope Francis, is becoming transformed from the Church of Christ into the Church of Leftism. The Leftist faith has infected the Vatican with the destructive tenets of "social justice," homosexual tolerance, anti-capitalism, and extreme environmentalism. Instead of living by the credo that Christ left his followers of "If the world hates you, remember it hated me first," the current Church under the leadership of Pope Francis seems to be one of placating a sinful world.
     To Pope Francis, who has changed the mission of the church from being God's rock here on earth, to an ever malleable mudslide of moderation. And to all the Cardinals and Bishops who have allowed themselves and the Church to become one with the world. And to all the priests and nuns who have violated their sacred trust with God by supporting those who do not respect the sanctity of life. And finally to all those Catholics who have turned away from the word of God in favor of the words of fools and charlatans who practice the false faith of Leftism. Your Church is dying the death that all things of the world die.
     As for me, I continue to wander through this world witnessing the death of faith, and it only makes my faith stronger. I continue to see the false prophets in and out of the Church leading their flocks to the barren meadows of sin, and I am steeled in my determination to search for God's meadow of righteousness. I see the Church I once respected for their dedication to God's law becoming disciples of the whims of man, and I am saddened. But there is hope for all those who seek that Rock, and who eagerly hunger for the Word. But you must first abandon the sinking ship of your faith and find a new faith as you cling to the life preserver of your personal relationship with God.

Monday, October 20, 2014

There Are No Conservatives In Crisis, Or So It Seems

     There is an old saying that states, "There are no atheists in foxholes." That is to say everyone, when faced with the possibility of death, has a desire to be saved by a force greater than themselves. I have been thinking much about this saying lately in the clamor and pall that has beset our country as Obama administration scandals and a flaccid economy have been subjugated to the threat of Ebola. My intent here is not to add anymore to the cacophony of information, misinformation, disinformation, or speculation about the virus itself, only what it apparently has done to our country in a non-medical sense.
     If one were to replace atheists from the aforementioned saying with conservatives and foxholes with crisis, it would encapsulate the concern I have beyond the spread of a virus that attacks the human body, to a virus that attacks Liberty itself. I have been absolutely appalled and sickened by the response of Republicans, which I might expect to engage in such behavior, and conservatives, which I would not expect to engage in such behavior, engaging in behavior that is more illustrative of those on the Left.
     What is the behavior I am talking about? It is the weakness of the victim looking for a government cure to what ails us. A case in point is the almost constant clamoring by many on the Right for the Obama administration to implement travel bans on flights making their way from West Africa to the United States. Whether the administration should or should not is not important to my thesis.
     I have not heard any airline, any customers of airlines, or anyone in congress suggesting the airlines self-ban. Why must we sit, helpless to ban flights from Ebola infested countries, waiting for the government to act? Can not the airlines stop arrivals and departures from those countries themselves? And can not the citizens, instead of demanding action from an incompetent and tone deaf administration, demand action from the airlines? And are Republicans in congress not able to call on the airlines in this time of national emergency to stop flights that may bring more Ebola-infected persons into the United states?
     I have been more than a little disheartened lately with conservatives, who claim the belief in small government, but recently have been demanding bigger government to deal with what may or may not be a crisis. I mentioned in a previous post congressman Tim Murphy telling the CDC that what ever additional funds and authority they need to deal with the crisis, congress stands ready to give them. Screaming for a government flight ban is another example. Additionally, the focus on the new Ebola Czar having no medical experience rather than making the case that the position should not even exist, is another acceptance of big government by those on the Right.
     The appearance of what may be a crisis should not in any way enervate conservatism, and its core value of smaller government. It is myopic for conservatives to desire a big government solution to the Ebola problem, and then foolishly think that that expanded federal authority will disappear when the crisis has passed. Ronald Reagan once stated that "the closest thing to eternal life on earth is a government program." And not even the absence of Ebola will eliminate the bureaucracy created to fight it.
    

Saturday, October 18, 2014

Republicans Set To Give Obama Unlimited Power In Wake Of Ebola

     On Wednesday, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, in an effort to show the American people that they have no clue what to do about the spread of the Ebola virus, held hearings. After the hearing Republican Congressman Tim Murphy told the director of the Center for Disease Control that congress stands ready to give his bureaucracy all the money and authority he needs to battle the Ebola virus. Of course the CDC is part of the executive branch, so whatever is given them by congress is actually given to President Obama.
     There are other Republicans like Rand Paul who said that Ebola is easier to contract than the AIDS virus, further ginning up the hysteria and making it more likely that the CDC and Obama administration will gladly take up Congressman Murphy's generous offer. Senator Paul irresponsibly said that one can contract the Ebola virus at a cocktail party. I am not sure what kind of cocktail parties Mr. Paul attends, but I assume they are the kind where guests go around depositing Ebola infested loggies into each other's drinks. For the rest of us I think we are fairly safe.
     I have been a conservative most of my adult life, and have tried to be fair minded about giving those on my side of the aisle the scrutiny that I give those on the other side. With that spirit in mind I have to question the motivations, more specifically the political motivations, of those I respect in talk radio and elsewhere on the Right, spreading hysteria over the outbreak of Ebola in the United States. I challenge my side by asking if their response would be the same if there were a Republican administration in control and everything else remained static. I have to say in the cleansing light of intellectual honesty that I do not think it would be so.
     Do not mistake my supposition as letting Obama or anyone in his bumbling basket of buffoons off the hook for their very visible incompetence in the handling of this issue. It pains my heart to think that my friends on the Right have taken to politicizing something like Ebola to push an agenda, an agenda that does not need to be surrounded by political gimmickry. The Left must do such things because their ideas and policies do not withstand the winds of truth and reality. But I have always felt that conservative ideas did not need cheap political theatrics to recommend them.
     In the spirit of self-examination, because as Socrates said, "The unexamined life is not worth living," those on the Right spreading panic over Ebola for political gain must then take partial responsibility for the increased government control that results from it. In my opinion those in congress like Mr. Murphy and Mr. Paul, as well as those in talk radio, have played into President Obama's hands.
     Barack Obama, being a votarient of Saul Alinsky, advances his agenda by creating and using crisis to "do things you think you could not do before," as his first Chief of Staff, Rohm Emanuel phrased it when speaking to a group of donors just after the 2008 election. I am sorry to say that many on the Right have become part and parcel to the crisis mentality needed by the president to further "Fundamentality transform America" and sublimate the individual Liberty of the American people.

Friday, October 17, 2014

"Obama The Magic Negro" Strikes Again

     When Los Angeles Times columnist David Ehrenstein, a black journalist and political pundit, published an article in the aforementioned newspaper entitled "Obama The Magic Negro" in March of 2007, he had no idea how right he was. Even though Mr. Ehrenstein's reasoning was faulty, his conclusion was right on-the-money. His theory was that Barack Obama was magical because he appeared out of no where to assuage white guilt by allowing them to vote for, in the words of Joe Biden, "a clean articulate black man." But the real magic of Mr. Obama is not in the result of his presence on whites, as Mr. Ehrenstein suggested, but in how he performs this and other "magical" tricks.  
     A case in point is his slight-of-hand in distracting Americans from the alacrity with which constitutional rights are being eroded, with the hysteria over Ebola. While the crazies are preparing to make war against an "out of control" government to resist being sent to "FEMA camps," which we all know is the reason that Barack Obama deliberately spread the Ebola virus in the U.S. (I say with my tongue firmly planted in my cheek) the Mayor of Houston is assaulting the Constitution with vim and vigor unmatched in the modern era.
     Mayor Annise Parker, an openly lesbian woman, recently demanded that the pastors of Houston's churches hand over their sermons containing any references to gays. It stemmed from a new city ordinance that forces public restrooms to accommodate transgender and wannabe transgenders, which the pastors have refused to abide. The Mayor, and her supporters, are claiming that since the churches have tax exempt status they are restricted from engaging in political activity. Gee, I wonder why this law does not apply to Leftist groups like the NAACP.
     The Houston case is demonstrative of the Left trying to re-categorize issues of faith as political issues so that they can control free speech and the free exercise of religious faith. It is also illustrative of the brilliance with which Barack Obama has distracted the nation with his left hand of crisis and scandal, while he quietly rips away God-given rights protected by the Constitution with his right hand. The real fear of the Ebola "crisis" is not the numbers of persons that will ultimately be infected, or the institution of martial law and FEMA camps being turned into "death camps," but it is the fundamental changes to our system of government that will be implemented in "fighting" the crisis.
     After all, Barack Obama from the beginning said he wanted to "fundamentally transform America." That transformation comes at the expense of freedom, Liberty, and the very founding of this country. But almost as importantly, that transformation is being achieved by distraction and the slight of hand masking the political magic of Barack Obama.
    

Wednesday, October 15, 2014

The Most Inconsequential Election Of Our Lives

     For about the last ten years or so we have heard that the next election is "the most important" of our lives. The last two presidential contests have certainly fallen into this category, and I can not say that I disagree, to a certain extent. But next month's mid-term elections are shaping up to be the most inconsequential of our lifetimes. No offense to those on the Right and the Left who wish to energize their respective bases to motivate them to vote, but what happens next month is not really going to change America for the better or the worse.
     The Republicans have said that they "must" gain control of the United States Senate in order to "save" the country. But even they have admitted that the Harry Reid lead Senate is the least productive in history. So are we to believe that the Republican establishment is going to save us from a body that basically is doing nothing? About the only activity in the Senate these days is the storage of the 350 bills that have been sent over from the House of Representatives that Mr. Reid refuses to allow to the floor of the Senate for debate.
     Some on the Right have suggested that it is imperative for Republicans to win the majority in the Senate in order to moderate the president's Supreme Court nominees, if there be any in the next two years. I am not sure where these folks have been the last six years, but there is nothing moderate about Barack Obama, especially not his nominees to any position in government. Any Supreme Court nominee from President Obama will most probably be black, Hispanic, or female, and most definitely will be radically Left. Even under the most generous predictions Republicans will have control of the Senate by 2 or 3 seats. Democrats will always be able to peel away the 3 or 4 Republican votes needed to confirm any nominee the president proffers.
     Let us just speculate that the Republicans gain control of the Senate and keep their majority in the House. Any bill that is passed by both Houses of congress and lands on President Obama's desk to be signed into law, will not receive his signature if it does not comport to his agenda. Therefore, there will be no net gain for the American people if the Republicans wrestle control of the Senate away from the Democrats. Either the same "do nothing" Democrat-controlled Senate will remain or a "do something" Republican-controlled Senate will essentially be neutered by a veto-happy president.
     Finally, let me address the issue of impeachment. Some slap-happy Republicans actually are holding their collective breaths thinking that if they gain control of the Senate, impeachment of Barack Obama will be a foregone conclusion. In order for that to happen the Republicans would need a gain of 21 seats, and then all vote in lock step to impeach. Furthermore, even if this little miracle happened, there is no way Chief Justice Roberts would allow the impeachment of the first black president. We have already seen how he took extraordinary and unprecedented steps to make sure the president's health care law remained law even though it was a blatant violation of the Constitution.
     On November 4 I will be dutifully casting my vote and yawning the whole time. I do not expect anything to change until there is a new executive. The control of congress only matters with a president that respects the constitutional form of government that the Founders created, which Barack Obama does not. He has a pen and a phone, and unfortunately his pen and phone are not on the ballot.
    

Tuesday, October 14, 2014

Why Indigenous People's Day?

     Yesterday, as the sensible and historically accurate minded celebrated Columbus Day, some of the politically correct and historically delusional made up their own holiday called "Indigenous People's Day." Beyond the fact that these misguided souls have completely missed the importance of the North American continent's first discovery by the civilized world, is the provocative nature of wanting to celebrate their day on the same day as some else's holiday. The thought would never occur to them to celebrate their holiday on a different day, because their effort is not so much about celebrating indigenous people, as it is about besmirching the peoples who brought the progress of civilization to an untamed continent.
     The American Indian (or Native Americans if you prefer) is said to have inhabited the North American continent for 14,000 years. Before that point it is anyone's guess where they originated, although some recent studies in anthropology have suggested they came from the Asian continent during a period when there was a land bridge connecting the two geographies. One thing is clear, they did not exist on the North American continent prior to 14,000 years ago. So I guess indigenous all depends on one's definition of that word.
     The supporters of "Indigenous People's Day" claim to want to give them credit for their contribution to mankind. Okay, fair enough. Can anyone outline for me what those contributions are? I can list chapter and verse the overwhelming contributions of the United States of America. I can even articulate contributions made by the Italians, the French, certainly the Germans and Spainards, and just about every other culture on earth all the way back to the Romans and Egyptians. But what is the great contribution to the human condition made by Native Americans?
    In fact, when Europeans first stepped foot on the North American continent, the "indigenous people" they found had not progressed as a society for the 14,000 years they had resided here. A thousand years ago when the peoples of Europe were building magnificent cathedrals that spired hundreds of feet into the air, Native Americans were still living in animal skin tepees. And when the Vikings and Saxons were creating intricate and detailed art and jewelry from gold, silver, iron, and bronze, the Native Americans were stringing dried berries on animal guts and hemp. And when the Romans were manufacturing high tech swords and shields, the Native Americans were affixing sharp rocks to the ends of spears as weapons.
     To the casual reader it may sound like I am unfairly criticizing the Native American culture. But it is not my intent. I am a realist, and as such I am willing to change my opinion if anyone can articulate contributions by Native Americans to science, medicine, technology, or any other field of human endeavor. I know it is popular in today's politically correct world to ignore truths that are uncomfortable to admit, especially when those truths are about a favored victim class. But if we are to accept "Indigenous People's Day" on a wholesale basis in this country, there must be some compelling reason to do so. And beating the Europeans to the North American continent by 14,000 years is just not a good enough reason.

Monday, October 13, 2014

The Ebola Factor

     I have tried in recent years to limit my beliefs, reactions, and analysis to logic, reason, and facts. I have not always succeeded, but I feel if one lets his emotions and fears dictate his actions and decisions in life he will forever be subject to the tyranny of ignorance. This theory has been on full display in our country as it relates to the current Ebola scare. And with two cases out of a nation of 300 million, some are calling it an epidemic, further proving the need for my disposition outlined above.
     Some have suggested that the spread of Ebola is just a matter of exponential math, e.g. one case turns into two, two turns into four, four turns into eight, etc., ad infinitum until some significant portion of the population is infected and dies. But viruses do not follow the rules of mathematics and their courses are determined by thousands of variables. Besides, many of those advancing the "it is just about numbers, and numbers do not lie" theory, are the same people saying President Obama should take aggressive action against the virus. Well, if it is just a matter of numbers, and the outcome of the virus is based on invariable math, then it does not matter what anyone does.
     It is the illogic of the "numbers people" that I have tried to avoid in situations like the one in which we currently find ourselves. The other group of individuals that seem to have abandon any desire for perspicacity are the Hysteria addicts. These are people who have some sick and twisted belief in end-of-the-world scenarios and will pounce on anything they think will advance that notion. So they are the first ones to jump on global cooling, global warming, AIDS, bird flu, Avian flu, swine flu, Hong Kong flu, Obama's re-election, over-population, deforestation, Ecoli, mad cow, Ebola, or anything else that they can convince others is going to kill mass numbers of human beings on the planet.
     When it comes to hysteria, I tend to hold fast to an attitude I heard advanced by conservative author, commentator, and radio talk show host, Dennis Prager. Mr. Prager said if he was on an airplane that was crashing, and death was imminent, his death would not bother him as much as the hysteria of others on the plane. Hysteria is not going to right the plane, or increase one's chances for survival one iota. It only makes the last minutes on earth more horrifying than they would otherwise be.
     Mr. Prager's reasonable response to the inevitable is even more relevant to situations like Ebola where the outcome is not so inevitable. It shocks the conscience how many Americans are ready to declare, "the end is near" with so little provocation. As for me, I will continue to live my life like Dennis on that plane. I will choose calm over calamity, reason over rashness, and prayer over pandemonium. Because in the end, the best tool we have to deal with anything in life is sanity, something that seems to be in short supply in the Ebola madness that has gripped our nation.
    

Saturday, October 11, 2014

The Lefts Quiet War On HOAs

     Home Owners Associations (HOAs) are a vital representation of personal Liberty and freedom. For those who wish to live in condominiums or homes in planned communities, they allow the residents the ability to ensure domestic tranquility through rules and bylaws. And while many may find the rules protected by an HOA to be overbearing, those individuals are more than welcome to live in non-HOA communities.
     In recent years there has been a quiet and almost imperceptible war on condominiums and home owners associations. A war conducted by members of the Left who wish to strip these organizations of their freedoms and rights. The war is part and parcel to the Lefts rabid desire for equality at the expense of fairness. The Lefts war on HOAs is being conducted with their usual weapons, i.e. regulations, laws, and the help of the professional whining class.
     The first phase of the war was the federal government requiring states to have advocacy boards which have the authority to levy enormous fines against HOAs for the most minor infractions of anti-discrimination laws. For example, an Ohio association was fined $50,000 for having a sign in their lobby prohibiting children from playing and riding their bikes in that area of the building. A family with children that had moved in had taken over the condominium's lobby as a playroom for their children. The association's reasonable response with the signage was a violation of age discrimination laws, which in this ever increasing Orwellian society of ours, not only protect the elderly, but the "rights" of children.
     The way it works is one of these professional whiners who have been emboldened by Leftist policies finds a violation and brings it to the attention of the advocacy board, who almost always succeeds in fining the association or requiring them to add some feature to their building to bring them into compliance with ridiculous and far reaching anti-discrimination regulations. Exemplary of this scam is a handicapped woman who moved into a second floor condo of a two story condominium building, then demanded that an elevator be installed for her use. The board refused and was  forced to allow the woman to radically alter the exterior of the building to provide her a lift to her suite.
     The Leftist in state government have pushed for laws that would make condominium board members, most of whom volunteer their time and effort for the betterment of their community, to be liable with fines and jail time for infractions against an ever increasing list of anti-discrimination regulations. This is a blatant attempt to dissuade individuals from running for their associations' boards, thereby requiring the state to assign their own people to run the association.
     The Lefts war on HOAs is being conducted in order to further erode personal property rights. The tyrannical Left can not stomach HOAs because they see them as elitist and in violation of their twisted and mangled definition of "equality." It is a definition that is in violation of the tenets of Liberty and are the handmaiden of tyranny. It is a definition that cloaks itself in the robes of "fairness" while underneath lies the heart of miserable oppression. It is one more step towards a society where its members are fearful of constitutional participation, and punished for living free. 

Friday, October 10, 2014

Republicans: The Lame Horse In The Stable

     Many have advanced the theory that the people of the Middle East are subject to following the strong horse. The strong horse is a leader, who even though he may be a tyrant, is nonetheless supported by his countrymen because he is seen as having conviction. He is the one who is perceived to have the power to remain in power by repelling any who would challenge him.
     The strong horse theory does not only apply to the Middle East, but is in full bloom in our republic. Unfortunately the strong horse theory is understood by Democrats, but not by Republicans. It is why the former has been winning more and more elections and consolidating power in their party, and the latter has been standing in their own failure dumbfounded as to what has happened. Democrats are seen as having convictions that the Republicans do not counter as much as they try to claim as their own.
     Democrats in recent years have been radicalized by Marxist ideas, and they are seen as committed to those ideas even though they are not based in values that most Americans hold dear. The Republicans, in an effort to appeal to Democrat voters, have not been as vigorous in advancing their values, therefore Democrats are seen as the strong horse and Republicans are seen as the track on which they run. One of the core tenets of being a strong horse is being passionately committed to your ideas, which the Republicans have abandon in favor of "being liked."
     The dilution of the Republican  message is expressed by the "Big Tent" moniker. One can hear moderates in leadership roles in the Republican Party and in talk radio advocate for the "Big Tent" almost on a daily basis. But a tent that is too big and inclusive perplexes those that enter who are not sure if inside the tent is a bible-thumping revival or a whore house. And if the "Big Tent" was the pathway to electoral victory, why is there never any mention of it on the Democrat side of the aisle. 
     Additionally, the Republican Party has bought into the notion of one being a fiscal conservative and a social Leftist, completely ignoring the fact that these two concepts are mutually exclusive. Fiscal conservatism leads to conservative social values, and conservative social values  will likewise lead to fiscal conservatism. The two concepts are inextricably linked at the hip. For example, one who says he is fiscally conservative, but believes in gay marriage, is living in denial. The redefinition of marriage away from the traditional model that has been the cornerstone of stable society since the dawn of man, will necessarily lead to broken families and more dependence on government. And government dependence equals fiscal policy that is anything but conservative.
     If Republicans are to ever have any hope of winning elections and regaining the control of the federal government, they must be seen as the strong horse. Instead of constantly being fearful of offending moderates with a passionate defense of core values, they must embrace those values and articulate why they are superior to the culture of dependence that Democrats have created. Otherwise they will forever be seen as a weaker version of Democrats, and given the choice, the American people will most likely always choose the strong horse on the track over the lame one in the stable.

Thursday, October 9, 2014

Who Is The Real Bully?

     One of the biggest pet issues of the Left in recent years has been the trump card called bullying. A trump card because once they have convinced a willing populace that bullies must be eradicated by government edict, they can then classify any behavior or speech they do not like as bullying. Instead of teaching our children to be strong by standing up to bullies as Andy Griffith told his young son Opie to do, the Left has inculcated weakness in our youth and an instinct to enlist the help of government in any situation which makes them feel uncomfortable.
     The bullying issue is just one more way in which the Left has limited free speech on issues that they do not wish to debate in the arena of ideas. It is why they created the destructive and oppressive practice of political correctness. Those who can not defend their beliefs must work to outlaw the beliefs of others. The Left has convinced many that bullying is worthy of government action, then they characterize many forms of free speech with which they disagree as bullying.
     A case in point is the posture of the rioters and looters in Ferguson, Missouri. They have emphatically stated that if officer Darren Wilson is not indicted by the grand jury for shooting and killing the thug Michael Brown, they will engage in rioting that will make the Rodney King riots look like a Girl Scout meeting. If this is not bullying, I do not know what is. And this bullying by rioters and looters has been encouraged by no less a symbol of law and order than the Attorney General of the United States. This is what happens when the destructive force of the Left infests the timbers that support the edifice of Liberty.      
     Additionally, the bullying in Ferguson can also be classified as mob rule. They intend to visit upon officer Wilson the same kind of lynching in which Democrats engaged shortly after the Civil War against black voters. It is the same kind of mod rule that created an acquittal for O.J. Simpson after he brutally murdered his ex-wife and her friend.
     It is not only in Ferguson, Missouri where the Lefts bullying tactics are evident, but in Washington D.C. for the last six years as well. This country has suffered at the hands of Barack Obama and his fellow bullies in the United States Congress on every issue from health care reform to the budget. A corollary to the Lefts bullying is a devolution of the culture and a corruption of the virtues of honest public debate. Thanks to the Left, gone are the days of disagreements of good will. There is only the Leftist position and there is the position that is racist, sexist, homophobic, and generally bigoted. It is this bullying through labeling that is a favorite pastime of the Left.
     Not only is the Lefts entire persona built upon bullying, but without the practice their ideology would be exposed for the fraud that it is and fall into the ash heap of history. From global warming to political correctness, the only way for the Left to advance their agenda is through the practice of bullying. Any opposition to their oppression is silenced through some of the same kinds of bullying tactics that they say they deplore in others. But then I am sure just like the playground bully shaking down the other kids for their lunch money, those on the Left do not see themselves as bullies, but as somehow superior. And this feeling of superiority masks the weakness of a belief system that can only destroy everything it touches.

Wednesday, October 8, 2014

The President Phones It In

     In this time of national malaise there have been two recent stories that seem to be incongruous with each other. One was the FBI Director's comments about Americans who fight along side ISIS and return to this country. The Director said that they could not keep these fighters from re-entering the United States. The other story was about an Illinois 19 year old who was stopped and arrested before leaving the country with the intent to travel to Syria and fight along side ISIS.
     Does any other normal intelligent person think that these two postures by the U.S. authorities is 180 degrees out of phase? To me it is like arresting a bank robber on his way to the bank, but a robber who actually commits the crime and is heading away from the bank is given immunity by the police. And maybe the Director of the FBI has not been paying attention, but the government has been able to restrict the sale of certain types of light bulbs, compel citizens to by health insurance, and force those opposed to gay marriage to participate in such ceremonies by taking photographs or baking cakes. But are we to believe that same government can not prevent those who have fought along side our enemy from repatriating?
     The Obama administration's action against ISIS to secure the safety of the United States and our allies has been analogous to a professional golfer trying to win a tournament using only his putter. The bombing missions that the administration has crowed about being so successful have been waged against the rear of the fighting, and not the front lines where the majority of ISIS fighters could be eliminated. So far we have taken out a few armored personnel carriers and a tank or two, but not much else.
     God forbid we bomb too close to the Turkish border and risk upsetting that weakest of all allies. The Turks are trying to stack the deck in their favor by giving lip service to the U.S. airstrikes against ISIS, while turning a blind eye to the terrorist group. Recently, Turkish authorities ignored ISIS fighters selling their group's memorabilia in the public spaces of Istanbul. But it will only be a matter of time before the group that the Turks hate somewhat less than the Kurds, turns their wrath on them.
     Meanwhile, everyone who has even an inkling of honest intellectualism can surmise that President Obama is doing the absolute minimum he can to satisfy his duty to protect the security of the United States, while keeping the lid on his radical anti-war base by "phoning it in." Problem is that with more and more American ISIS fighters returning to the United States from their terrorist education abroad, and who knows how many ISIS members taking advantage of the Obama open border policy in the South, the president's feckless and lackluster defense of this country will create a security risk long after his tenure in office expires.

Tuesday, October 7, 2014

The Minimum Wage: A Win-Win For Democrats

     One of the favorite drumbeats of Democrats and others from the Left is constant increases in the minimum wage. It is the centerpiece of congressional campaigns like next month's mid-term election, as well as presidential contests. It is the Democrat Party's way of standing firmly behind the working poor while standing on top of them. They use phraseology like "Let's give Americans a raise." And "Providing a living wage." But with all the rhetoric surrounding the Democrat's use of the minimum wage as a political tool, it really does nothing to lift those at the bottom up, only free markets can accomplish that task.
     The minimum wage in the United States began about a hundred years ago, before there was the slew of labor laws we have today. In those days, as the country was maturing its manufacturing base, women and children were employed to perform many jobs on the factory floor. The minimum wage was instituted and applied only to females and children so as to place a premium on their labor in order to discourage it.
     The originators of the minimum wage, first in Massachusetts and then spreading to the rest of the country, knew that when higher wages were required for women and children and not men, companies would hire fewer of the former and more of the latter. It is simple economics about which  the early 20th century supporters of the minimum wage were intellectually honest, but today's Democrats and others on the Left are not.
     Today's Democrats preach the false sermon of the minimum wage helping those at the bottom end of the labor force, in contradiction to the economic science on the minimum wage that has been settled for the last hundred years. The director of the Congressional Budget Office, Douglas Elmendorf, recently stated that it is accepted economic fact among economists that raises in the minimum wage lead to job loss. Not to mention an increase in prices of goods and services that is the constant companion to higher labor costs.
     Most of those working for minimum wage are teenagers, housewives with a primary bread winner husband, and persons working a second job, There are very few in the "head of household trying to support a family" category into which Democrats lump all minimum wage earners. And most of those who begin working for minimum wage receive raises in their pay within six months if they stay at the same job.
     The loss of low wage jobs that accompanies every raise in the minimum wage is an economic fact that is not missed by Democrats. They thrive on the government dependence that is created by such policies. They additionally help their union buddies, since many union contracts base union pay on it being a certain amount over the minimum wage. So raises in the minimum wage means automatic increases in union wages. It is what is called a Win-Win for Democrats and a devastating loss for those they claim to want to help.

Monday, October 6, 2014

The Eleven Principles Is A Highly Glossy Brochure

     In a continuing effort to make themselves even more irrelevant than their lack of political prowess over the last 6 years has already made them, the Republican Party has released their Eleven Principles. It is the establishment's way of telling voters what the party believes, sans any specificity. The Party bosses are hoping to urge a reenactment of 1994's Contract With America that gave the Republicans control of the House of Representatives for the first time in forty years. Sort of like a Contract 2.0.
     The problem with the Republican establishment's attempt to create a populace movement in the direction of their party, is that their contract is not a contract, but a list of duhs. They state fairly obvious "principles" with which no good American can argue, but they do not give those good Americans any inkling of how they will achieve them if they are handed over the reins of power to the Senate next month. The Eleven Principles merely says to voters, "This is what we believe." But it does not tell voters how those beliefs translate into legislative goals that will make the lives of Americans better.
     What made Newt Gingrich's Contract With America a winning strategy in 1994 was that it spelled out ten specific legislative goals for which the Republicans were going to strive if given the majority in the House. They were not couched in flourishes of campaign rhetoric, which is the core characteristic of the Eleven Principles. Do not mistake my criticism, I agree with the Principles, but they are not going to inspire anyone to vote for Republicans. They are the kind of rhetoric that should be in a convention speech made by a nominee.
     The release of the Eleven Principles is illustrative to me how the Republican Party has become the junior varsity team in politics to the Democrats professional operation. The Eleven Principles is not even analogous to bringing a knife to a gun fight, but bringing a flower to an all out war. I am flummoxed as to where all the competent Republican political strategists have gone. Since 2008, the Republican Party has not even "phoned it in," they have sent it in by pony express.
     The mistake that the Republican establishment makes with its Eleven Principles that Newt Gingrich and the boys did not make with the Contract with America is that the former is a brochure about a wonderful destination, the latter, a map of how to get there. And with more people out of the work force than ever before, the national debt hovering around 18 trillion dollars, a completely impotent foreign policy that makes the world more dangerous ever day, the loss of Americans' faith in their own government because of ineptness and scandal, the voters next month are looking for a map, not a highly glossy brochure.
    

Saturday, October 4, 2014

EBOLA-MANIA

     Not since the Beetles landed in America fifty years ago and created a hysteria with their three minute ditties about love and lost love, has this country been in the grips of such delirium as the last 10 days has brought us with the Ebola "crisis." To say the fever is rising faster than our ability to uncover actual facts about the virus, is an understatement equal to saying that beheading is a cure for a sore throat. That is not to say that Ebola is not dangerous, contagious, or even deadly. But it may just turn out to be the biggest overreaction since FDR interred Japanese-Americans behind barbed wire during World War II for fear they were all going to pick up Samurai swords and start killing their fellow Americans.
     As I have stated, all the facts are not in on Ebola. But what we do know is that there have been multiple outbreaks of the virus over the last 28 years in African countries, and in total about five thousand persons have lost their lives to it. Not exactly an end-of-the-world scenario. Also a substantial amount of the virus is needed to infect a healthy person, and that amount must enter the healthy body through vomit or feces from an infected one.
     The Ebola at present can not be transmitted through the air, sweat, or by simply looking at an infected person. It is also not some nefarious plot by the New World Order crew to wipe out ninety percent of the world's population as some have suggested. If there was an actual New World Order, and for some unknown reason they wanted to wipe out ninety percent of the population, they could do it much more efficiently than with the Ebola virus. On a scale of infectious, communicable viruses, Ebola would place in the bottom half of the most likely to cause a pandemic.
     Even with all the facts, there are the usual end-of-times goofballs, and conspiracy theorists ready to jump on the opportunity created by the Ebola scare to promote whatever it is they are promoting. These folks are always there, ready to use the latest manufactured crisis as a reason to increase traffic to their websites, or sell their brand Armageddon. What surprises me are all those in talk radio and elsewhere, who usually are level-headed, but now are contributing to the hysteria with dire predictions and warnings.
    If there is a conspiracy that exists in relation to Ebola it is the lackluster response by the Obama administration. I think this, like every thing else this president has done, is deliberately calculated to advance his agenda. Ebola is no different. The administration acts aloof and almost incompetent, Keystone Cops-like I have heard it described as, so that after a few deaths from the virus the nation clamors for government action.
     The President then creates more government bureaucracy to deal with the "crisis." The virus burns itself out after a few dozen deaths, but the increased government created to combat it never disappears. Government programs, after all, are the closest thing we have to eternal life on earth. Even Ebola, or more precisely, the lack of Ebola, can not eradicate the bureaucracy created to confront it. And that, my friends, is the real virus we should fear.

Thursday, October 2, 2014

A Thirty Year Drought For Conservatives

     The mid-term election is just over a month away, and Republicans are hoping they can maintain their majority in the House and wrestle control of the Senate away from Democrats. Democrats are pleading with their base to get out and vote or else, in the words of Nancy Pelosi, "It will be the end of civilization as we know it." The former Speaker of the House's hyperbole aside, this election is very important to the future of the United States. But is also an anniversary of sorts.
     This mid-term election marks the thirtieth anniversary of the last time that the Republican Party ran a conservative for the presidency, a man by the name of Ronald Reagan. In the subsequent seven presidential elections, the Republicans' moderate candidates only came out on top three times. One of those electoral victories was in 1988 when George H. W. Bush benefited from being President Reagan's number two for eight years, as well as the Democrats running the thoroughly unelectable Michael Dukakis.
     The other two presidential wins for the Republicans was George W. Bush, who benefited in 2000 from having as his opponent, Vice President Al Gore, who was sullied by the stain of President Clinton's impeachment. In 2004, Mr. Bush benefited from being a wartime president whom the public did not want to kick out of office mid stream. He also benefited greatly from the Democrats decision to run John Kerry, the man who could have been the understudy to Lurch on the Adams Family.
     Even though this year's mid-terms are not about the president, they are a prelude to the presidential campaign of 2016. An election that Republicans are going to have a hard time winning if they choose a moderate. The Democrats have the distinct advantage of having thoroughly transformed the agencies of the federal government, like the Internal Revenue Service, into electoral shills for whomever is the Democrat nominee in that election. The Republicans are going to have to win convincingly to counter the cheating in which the Democrats are sure to engage.
     The road to an overwhelming victory for Republicans is paved with the concrete of conservatism, not the loose gravel of moderation. We will know the outcome of the 2016 election by the end of the Republican primary process. If a Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, or Rob Portman is the nominee, the election is lost. If the Republican base is successful in choosing the nominee instead of the establishment, then the 32 year drought for conservatives will end with the deluge of electoral victory and the long dry spell will be washed away. This will not only be a victory for conservatives, but for the country and the cause of Liberty.

Where Are The Moderate Muslims?

     The question has been asked, "Where are the moderate Muslims?" The assumption has been granted that there are moderate Muslims. And I am sure that there are, just not enough to make any meaningful inroads toward moderating Islam. Those who are not part of Islam have been fearful of speaking out against the violence perpetrated on the world by radical Islamists, the fear among members of the faith that may have some moderation of that faith, is even more ubiquitous.
     In 1988 when Bin Laden and Zawahiri formed the terrorist network known as Al Qaeda, they did so with the intention, in their estimation, to reform Islam back to its roots of jihad. They felt that the Muslim world had become corrupted by Westerners and had lost their fire for Islamic dominance through violent battle with those they considered infidels. At that time there were three groups with the radical beliefs of Bin Laden and Zawahiri, today there are 49. They have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams in radicalizing much of Islam in less than a generation.
     Not only has the radical ideology of Al Qaeda's founders taken up residence deep in the tissue of the Islamic body, but it has extinguished the fire in others to resist it. President Obama recently stated that it is ultimately the job of people in the Middle East to reject terrorism. But this assessment is made in the vacuum of denial, completely ignoring the fact that terrorists have infiltrated most societies in the world. The peculiar institution of terrorism is inherent in the Muslim religion. There is no other major religion in the world today which supports the violent spread of their faith, and death to those who do not accept it.
     The case is made in the Quran for the violent conversion of infidels and death to those who are Muslims and leave the faith. The passages pointed to by the apologists for radical Islam as proof of the religion's peaceful nature are earlier in the text. Muslim scholars state that the holy text was revealed to Mohammad in sections throughout his life and that the later, and much more violent portions, supersede the earlier passages. It is this purer form of Islam (because it came to Mohammad in later visions) that the jihadists are not only trying to spread to non-believers, but to those in their own faith whom they have determined have turned away from the true practice their religion.
     Some have tried to make the case that the Judeo Christian scriptures have violence as part of their text, with regular mention in the Old Testament of stoning sinners. This is true, however, there are no instances in modernity of Jews or Christians engaging in a world-wide campaign of stoning those not of their faith. And the soft bigotry of low expectations by the Left practiced against radical Islam is evident in their defense of not only their turning of a blind eye to Islam's treatment of women and homosexuals, but their exculpation of beheadings and other murderous acts as responses to bad behavior by the West.
     So where are the moderate Muslims? They are all around us, silent to the sins of their more radical brethren. Their silence speaks volumes and lends its laconism to the cause of terrorism through its tacit support.

Wednesday, October 1, 2014

The False Prophets Of Our Republic

     As a Christian I have been taught to be aware of false prophets. False prophets are those individuals who use the scriptures and any other forms of Christina doctrine to advance their own selfish goals. The false prophet will make his followers believe that he will advance them down the path of righteousness to the promised land, but too often he just takes the faithful further away from their spiritual goals. As a patriotic American I have likewise been instructed in the methods used by  the false prophets of our republic.
     I am sure many reading this will recognize the persons I am referring to, the supporters and advocates of secession by their state. It is hard to make the case that someone is being both patriotic and secessionist, the concepts after all are mutually exclusive. But the secessionists use the founding documents of this country, and the political beliefs of Madison and Jefferson to support their proposition of breaking from the union created in part by the concepts proffered by those two men. Neither of which believed in secession, the union being of paramount importance to the principles they burned into the founding.
     In their time, the Founders faced the issue of secession. First with Rhode Island, which did not even send a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, and then during the War of 1812 when the New England states met to decide on the issue of seceding from the union. Later the issue of secession was so important to Southern states, and preserving the union so important to the Northern states, that a bloody civil war was fought over it.
     The modern day secessionists have much passion, but little else. They do not seem able to think beyond the act itself to what happens after. Do they print their own money, have their own relationships with foreign governments, raise an army of their own, etc.? More importantly do they deny those in their state, who were not in favor of secession, their United States citizenship and the benefits thereof, and force them to join their now "liberated" country? Or do they simply deny these persons the right to live in their state?
     I would not want anything I have written here to suggest that those who believe in secession are in any way nefarious with mischievous intentions. It is that their passions have inflamed them beyond the bounds of rational thought. And these passions have been fueled by the profiteers of discord, disjointedness, and disunion. These political conmen prey on those burdened by the excessiveness of government to push their own personal agendas, usually rooted in making money.
     Our hope as a nation is not in smashing the boulder of our union into much weaker pebbles, but remaining intact and changing those things which threaten individual liberty. A boulder is much less likely to be moved than a pebble, which can be kicked down the street by even a child. Situations are never as bad as the worse assessment, nor as good as the most positive one. A true patriot does not abandon his country, especially in perilous times. The mark of a true patriot is the ability to persevere through the storm and help guide the ship of state to the shores of reasonable governance and personal liberty.