Monthly Archives: June 2019

We Had Better Show Up to Vote

Posted on by

Twenty Democrat candidates for President gathered in Miami, Florida to introduce themselves to the American people. For four hours over two nights we heard promises that revealed their underlying foundation of belief about America and the American people.

There were no significant differences in their philosophies and views of governing in America. There were significant differences between the overall philosophies that we heard during those four hours and philosophies that we did not hear.

What we heard from each of the twenty candidates was a constant stream of victimization, class envy, despair, dependence, divisiveness, and denial of individual responsibility. In short, the socialistic theme of the Democrats was, “In government we trust.”

What we never heard were the uniquely American themes of aspiration, freedom, patriotism, liberty, faith, family, prosperity, and acceptance of personal responsibility. The theme of, “In God We Trust” was as absent as light in the depths of Carlsbad Caverns.

The candidates promised that there would be no deportation for those entering the US illegally and, as icing on the cake, free health care. They also wanted to cancel student loans and give free college. With all of these goodies, there was not a single mention of the growing national debt and fiscal responsibility.

Economy – “there’s plenty of money in this country. It’s just in the wrong hands. Democrats have to fix that.” (Bill De Blasio)

On night one, the moderator, Savannah Guthrie opened the questioning on the economy with the observation that, “71 percent of Americans say the economy is doing well, including 60 percent of Democrats.” I found it interesting that she did not make the same observation on night two. The reason likely had to do with the way the candidates answered.

Not a single candidate acknowledged that the economy was doing better for everyone. Elizabeth Warren said that the economy was doing well for a “thinner and thinner slice at the top.” Kamala Harris said, “this economy is not working for working people.” Corey Booker said, “this is actually an economy that’s hurting small businesses.” I suppose that means that 70% of Americans and 60% of Democrats are out of touch with the reality that the candidates obviously knew.

The line that caught my attention was that of New York Mayor Bill De Blasio who proudly displayed his socialist philosophy. In an indirect way, he acknowledged that the Trump economy is booming when he said that “there’s plenty of money in this country.”

As a good socialist Democrat, De Blasio stepped up to the plate to fix the serious problem of individual wealth building in America. He is committed to get the money out of your hands as a free American and into the wise hands of the government where it needs to be.

Immigration – Come on In. We’ll Leave the Light on For You.

On the issue of illegal immigration, every candidate made it a “day one” priority to abolish all efforts of the Trump administration to secure the borders. They advocated a pathway to citizenship for all undocumented people in the United States. Illegal border crossing would be treated as a civil case rather than a criminal case. Deportation is off the table. Instead of deportation, there will be free health care and a pathway to citizenship.

It was pretty clear that to these candidates, the laws of the United States must only apply to US citizens. It raises a question of just exactly what the Border Patrol should be doing. These candidates may as well suggest that they disarm the Border Patrol and issue them summons books and US Government ball point pens. While they are at it, they may as well issue voter registration cards and let them cast pre-marked ballots.

Democrats did have some ideas about how to reduce the number of illegal (no, wait, that’s undocumented) border crossings. Julian Castro said, “we need a Marshall Plan for Honduras and Guatemala and El Salvador so that people can find safety and opportunity at home instead of coming to the United States to seek it.” These governments will, no doubt, graciously accept any handout from the United States while rounding up their most undesirable residents to send our way.

Health Care – “Under our plan people go to go to any doctor they want, any hospital they want.” (Bernie Sanders)

As the great philosopher, Yogi Berra, said, “It’s like déjà vu all over again.” Obama promised Americans that they could keep their health plan but Bernie Sanders is only promising that you can go to any doctor or any hospital you want.

Sanders wants to abolish the private health insurance market and put in a nationwide Medicare to take its place. Sanders is even up front on taxing the middle class, saying, “they will pay more in taxes, but less in health care for what they get.”

Every Democrat candidate promised some kind of universal, government run, health care system. Every Democrat candidate promised free health care for illegal (undocumented) immigrants.

Sanders was the only one openly advocating abolishing private health insurance. When a private system attempts to compete with a government run system, who will win? Private health insurance will be relegated to elective procedures like plastic surgery. Patients with the money will be able to by-pass lengthy waiting lines to go to concierge private hospitals.

Gun Rights – “that’s not confiscation. You could give them the offer to buy back their gun.” (Amy Klobuchar)

Every Democrat went after assault rifles. They all generously offered some kind of buy-back program. The candidates did not get into any direct statements on the 2nd Amendment. Elizabeth Warren made note of a significant difference between “guns in the hands of a collector who’s had them for decades, who’s never fired them” and “guns that are sold and turned over quickly.”

Ironically, Kirsten Gillibrand complained that President Trump had diverted funds away from cross-border gun trafficking. It sounds as if she was in favor of Obama’s Fast and Furious debacle that cost the life of a US Border Patrol agent.

Climate Change – “It’s a climate crisis. It represents an existential threat to us as a species.” (Kamala Harris)

Climate change was the top priority for several candidates and in the top few for the others. All committed to re-entering the Paris Climate Accord after President Trump pulled out in June, 2017.

This is notable because a report in July 2018 by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) released a report showing that the United States achieved the largest reduction in carbon emissions. Meanwhile China led the world with the largest increase in carbon emissions.

No one opposed the Green New Deal. Joe Biden wants to go all electric by 2030 and build 500,000 recharging stations.

Conclusion – We had better show up to vote.

In 2020, the American people will have a clear choice between the socialist agenda of the Democrats and the American dream agenda of the Republicans. The choice has never been clearer and we had better show up to vote for conservative Republicans. Choose wisely.

FacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailFacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

Trump Holsters Missile Strikes on Iranians

Posted on by

He had them in his sights. All he had to do was say, “Go.”

His generals estimated that within 30 minutes 150 Iranians would not go home alive. As hard as the military tried to avoid it, there may have been civilians killed in the strike.

They refer to that as “collateral damage.” That does not make it sound so bad. After all, this is war. 

In the United States, there is one Commander in Chief who makes the decision. President Trump figuratively had the target(s) in his sights and his finger on the trigger. He made a final decision to lower his weapon and re-holster it – for now. 

In an interview with NBC’s Chuck Todd for Meet the Press, President Trump explained his decision. For the average American watching, his explanation was very clear, logical, and simple. There was no Washington-speak. 

He made it clear that nothing was final up until the point that he made the final decision. “Nothing is green-lighted until the very end because things change.” 

I took a double-dose of Alka-Seltzer and forced myself to read and watch media clips on CNN, MSNBC, Washington Post, and New York Times. I wanted to see what kind of spin they would put on President Trump’s decision. 

As I expected, I saw headlines that included phrases like, “dangerous confusion”, “reversal”, “ordered attack, but called it off”, “sloppy handling”, Trump’s tale strains credulity.” The mainstream media, who just days before were clamoring that the President was bringing us to the brink of Armageddon,  were now saying that he was indecisive. 

It takes time to prepare for a strike, but a strike is not ordered until it is ordered. The mainstream media is intentionally misrepresenting what President Trump himself clearly explained. “Nothing is green-lighted.”

President Trump went on to explain to Chuck Todd that he weighed the response. “They shot down an unmanned drone, …. and here we are sitting with a 150 dead people that would have taken place probably within a half an hour after I said go ahead. And I didn’t like it, I didn’t think, I didn’t think it was proportionate.”

The mainstream media obviously cannot, or refuse to, understand plain language. The President prepared to respond and he easily could have responded. He made the decision that only he could make. 

It was a wise decision. The leaders of Iran need to understand what happened and be thankful that the President did not pull the trigger. He was fully justified if he had launched a retaliatory strike. 

In this case, he took another course of action. Iran knows what could have happened. 

Some say that now Iran will be more emboldened to act. I do not believe that is the case at all. Whether they ever publicly acknowledge it or not, Iran knows that they dodged a bullet and they have no one but President Trump to thank. 

Now, if Iran is wise, they will cease their mischievous behavior. This time, President Trump holstered missile strikes. They are foolish if they expect him to do it again. 

FacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailFacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

Trump Wins Again – Mexico Acts Positively

Posted on by

Have you ever been in the grocery store and seen a parent, let’s say a mother, with a small child, let’s say a 3 year old boy. The little boy spots a bright shiny package of candy. The mother says, “you can’t have that, you need to put it back.” You know that this will go one of two ways and what happens next will reveal it all. 

One path could be that the little boy says, “yes ma’am” and puts it back as they continue to shop. End of story. 

Well, I try to keep my commentary short, but this is a little too short. Nowadays, unless the boy is shopping with his retired Marine Drill Sergeant uncle, that ending is a rarity. 

Here is the path this story more likely takes. After hearing, “you need to put it back,” the boy tightens his grip on the shiny package of candy, pulls it close to his chest and turns away from his mother. The mother says, “you know that candy is not good for you, so let’s put it back.”Little boy, “No.”

The mother, while still pushing the buggy down the aisle farther away from the candy, says, “well, you know that will give you a tummy ache and you won’t be able to sleep.” She extends her open hand toward the little boy to receive the package of candy. The little boy turns even farther away from his mother, pulling the candy even closer to his chest. He answers, even a little louder this time, “No!” 

Still pushing the buggy down the aisle and rounding the corner to the next aisle, the mother says, “Now, I’m not going to tell you again, we’ll have to put the candy back. I’ll tell you what, I’ll get a nice little toy for you. Won’t you give me the candy?” The little boy now shouts as other customers in the store turn and look. “No! I want this!” 

Fortunately for the mother, she was finished loading her cart so she continues the conversation with her little boy as she strolls to the checkout line. “You are making me sad and your father will be disappointed in you. Please give me the box of candy.” The little boy holds the candy even closer and twists farther away from his mother with another louder shout, “No! I want this!” 

Just before going through the line, the mother stops the buggy and walks to face the little boy as he has twisted far away from her. Now things are really serious. “Give that package to me now. I’m going to count to three. ………. One ………. Two ……….

Moments later, you see the mother pushing the buggy with everything checked and paid for heading out the door. The little boy is happily eating the candy and holding on to the new toy that his mother bought for him. 

This describes negotiations with other countries by the United States in recent history. China has cheated the world in trade deals and everyone knew it. It might be unfair to China to call it cheating since they were just going as far as they could go. 

Iran and North Korea defiantly developed nuclear weapons. The Obama administration made a deal with Iran that was so bad, it makes the mother in the story above look like a stern disciplinarian. 

Mexico, opened their doors for a pipeline of illegal immigration to the United States. Democrats in Congress refuse to support our Border Patrol to protect our citizens. President Trump declared an emergency and is building the wall in spite of the Democrat opposition. 

Then, Trump played another card to stop the flow of illegals through Mexico to the US. He told Mexico to change their behavior and act in a positive, responsible fashion. In other words, “put the candy back.” 

For decades, Mexico and all of these countries acted like the little boy in the grocery store. During those decades, Democrats and Republicans took turns playing the role of the mother. Predictably, every drama ended with the little boy happily eating his candy and playing with his new toy as they left the store. 

This time, Donald Trump is pushing the buggy. This time he set forth expectations and clear consequences that would take effect on June 10.

The mainstream media exploded with doom and gloom. Democrats and Republicans reacted saying that his move was a blunder. Like the 10 spies that Moses sent to the Promised Land, they were saying , “we became like grasshoppers in our own sight.” (Numbers 13:33 NASB)

Mexico, on the other hand, knew that Donald Trump would do what he said he would do. It would hurt them worse than it hurt the United States. 

Mexico deployed 6,000 troops to their Southern border with Guatemala. They took steps to stop the wide-open pipeline. They agreed to do more in a speedy fashion. 

Once again, Donald Trump put America first. The swamp denizens were shouting the equivalent of passages from the 1950’s child rearing advice of Dr. Benjamin Spock. Trump just looked Mexico in the eye and said the equivalent of, “you need to put the candy back.” 

After over two years with President Trump, Mexico knew what was about to happen. They chose to behave in a positive fashion. They put the candy back. Trump wins again!

FacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailFacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

President Roosevelt Leads the Nation in Prayer as Troops Land on D-Day 75 Years Ago

Posted on by

On June 6, 2019 the entire world will remember the 75th anniversary of the largest military operation in history. It was an epic conflict of good vs evil.

Thousands of young Americans who just months before were securely living in homes on farms and in cities across our nation crowded into landing craft.

The vast armada chugged toward the beaches of Normandy like a cloud of gnats on a South Georgia farm. As these brave young men stormed the beaches, they were charging into the gates of hell itself.

While the invasion was underway, President Franklin Roosevelt, in a nationwide radio address, led the nation in prayer for this undertaking. Take 5 minutes to listen. Share this with your friends and especially young students who are learning about our nation’s history.

Text of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Address and Prayer on D-Day – June 6, 1944

My fellow Americans: Last night, when I spoke with you about the fall of Rome, I knew at that moment that troops of the United States and our allies were crossing the Channel in another and greater operation. It has come to pass with success thus far.

And so, in this poignant hour, I ask you to join with me in prayer:

Almighty God: Our sons, pride of our Nation, this day have set upon a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our Republic, our religion, and our civilization, and to set free a suffering humanity.

Lead them straight and true; give strength to their arms, stoutness to their hearts, steadfastness in their faith.

They will need Thy blessings. Their road will be long and hard. For the enemy is strong. He may hurl back our forces. Success may not come with rushing speed, but we shall return again and again; and we know that by Thy grace, and by the righteousness of our cause, our sons will triumph.

They will be sore tried, by night and by day, without rest-until the victory is won. The darkness will be rent by noise and flame. Men’s souls will be shaken with the violences of war.

For these men are lately drawn from the ways of peace. They fight not for the lust of conquest. They fight to end conquest. They fight to liberate. They fight to let justice arise, and tolerance and good will among all Thy people. They yearn but for the end of battle, for their return to the haven of home.

Some will never return. Embrace these, Father, and receive them, Thy heroic servants, into Thy kingdom.

And for us at home — fathers, mothers, children, wives, sisters, and brothers of brave men overseas — whose thoughts and prayers are ever with them–help us, Almighty God, to rededicate ourselves in renewed faith in Thee in this hour of great sacrifice.

Many people have urged that I call the Nation into a single day of special prayer. But because the road is long and the desire is great, I ask that our people devote themselves in a continuance of prayer. As we rise to each new day, and again when each day is spent, let words of prayer be on our lips, invoking Thy help to our efforts.

Give us strength, too — strength in our daily tasks, to redouble the contributions we make in the physical and the material support of our armed forces.

And let our hearts be stout, to wait out the long travail, to bear sorrows that may come, to impart our courage unto our sons wheresoever they may be.

And, O Lord, give us Faith. Give us Faith in Thee; Faith in our sons; Faith in each other; Faith in our united crusade. Let not the keenness of our spirit ever be dulled. Let not the impacts of temporary events, of temporal matters of but fleeting moment let not these deter us in our unconquerable purpose.

With Thy blessing, we shall prevail over the unholy forces of our enemy. Help us to conquer the apostles of greed and racial arrogancies. Lead us to the saving of our country, and with our sister Nations into a world unity that will spell a sure peace a peace invulnerable to the schemings of unworthy men. And a peace that will let all of men live in freedom, reaping the just rewards of their honest toil.

Thy will be done, Almighty God. Amen.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt – June 6, 1944

Wall at Normandy Cemetery - American Battle Monuments Commission
Wall at Normandy Cemetery – American Battle Monuments Commission
FacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailFacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

Mueller’s Hail Mary and Barr’s Interception

Posted on by

I watched Robert Mueller’s press conference. For over two years, I held on to a glimmer of hope that Mueller was trying to do a thorough investigation to find and report the facts. His press conference confirmed solidly in my mind that his entire investigation was not to find the truth but to find that President Trump committed a crime.

He could not find that President Trump committed a crime so he turned the foundational principles of justice on its head. With glaring hypocrisy, Mueller applied the principle of justice to indicted Russians when he said that he would not comment on their innocence or guilt because, “Every defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.”

In President Trump’s case, however, instead of reporting the facts that there was no evidence to charge the President with a crime, he turned the burden of proof upside down. While he extended the presumption of innocence to Russians, for President Trump he said, “if we had had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.”

This sounds more like the famous swimming test of a witch trial than American justice. In the swimming test, the accused would be bound with ropes and thrown into a lake. If she somehow managed to get to the surface for air, it was clearly through means of witchcraft. If she sank, then she must not have been a witch.

In the Russian collusion investigation, Mueller also attempted to plant a seed of guilt where there was none. He said, “there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy.” Note the modifier, “broader.” He clearly intended to leave the impression that there could have been a conspiracy. It was just that if there was one, it was a county road conspiracy, not an I-75 conspiracy.

Mueller went on to say that he did not come to any conclusion because department policy prohibited charging a sitting President. He said, “we concluded that we would not reach a determination one way or the other about whether the president committed a crime.” Notice the careful use of words when he said that “we would not” not “we could not.”

Mueller’s argument on DOJ policy immediately raises a glaring question. If he was not going to come to a conclusion, then why did he waste millions of dollars over two years to write a 400 page gossip column?

Newt Gingrich quickly knocked down Mueller’s DOJ policy argument. He pointed out that Kenneth Starr’s report on the investigation of President Bill Clinton used the word, “guilty” eleven times with five of those being for obstruction of justice.

In an interview with Jan Crawford, Attorney General Bill Barr said that Mueller could have reached a conclusion. He and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein were both surprised when Mueller did not.

Barr went even farther by pointing out that Mueller’s statement saying that he could not exonerate the President was not DOJ policy either. Barr said that Mueller’s standard of exoneration, “of course is not the standard we use at the department. We have to determine whether there is clear violation of the law.” There was no violation of the law. There was no narrow violation. There was no broad violation. There was no violation.

Mueller also said that the DOJ policy held that the Constitution puts the responsibility on Congress to formally accuse a sitting President. Barr said that he was not sure what Mueller was suggesting but that “the Department of Justice doesn’t use our powers of investigating crimes as an adjunct to Congress. …we are not an extension of Congress’s investigative powers.”

Mueller concluded his press conference by saying that he would not take questions. He went on to say that he had no plans to testify further. Referring to his report, he said, “We chose those words carefully, and the work speaks for itself. And the report is my testimony.”

This raises another glaring question. If the report speaks for itself and is his testimony, then why hold a press conference?

There is a simple answer. Mueller was seeking to find that President Trump committed a crime. He could not because there was nothing to find. Bill Barr released the Mueller report six weeks ago. It was gaining no traction.

Mueller’s press conference was simply a Hail Mary pass. Bill Barr intercepted it in the end zone.

FacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailFacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather