Michelle Obama spoke at the Obama Foundation Summit in Chicago last Tuesday. She spoke of overcoming the challenges she experienced.
She said that “people” doubted her ability to make it at Princeton. She offered this advice, “All you can do is put your head down and do the work and let the work, your truth, speak for itself.”
In other words, do not let the opinions, or perceived opinions, of others hold you down. Put your best into what you are doing. That is wise counsel.
But then she continued:
“I can’t
make people not afraid of black people. I don’t know what’s going on. I can’t
explain what’s happening in your head, but maybe if I show up every day as a
human, a good human, doing wonderful things, loving my family, loving our kids,
taking care of things that I care about — maybe, just maybe that work will pick
away at the scabs of your discrimination. Maybe that will slowly unravel
it. That’s all we have, because we can’t do it for them, because they’re
broken. Their brokenness in how they see us is a reflection of this brokenness.
And you can’t fix that.” (Michelle Obama – Obama Foundation Summit
Chicago, Il. October 29, 2019)
When she talks about “how they see us,” I assume that “us” is a reference to herself and other black individuals. I wonder, however, who are “they?” Who are “people” who are afraid of black people? Who are the “broken?”
I am not afraid of black people. Most people I know are not afraid of black people. As far as I can tell, black people are not afraid of me and they do not feel that I am afraid of them.
We live in the same neighborhoods. We go to the same schools. We cheer for the same football teams. We go to work together. We worship God together. We have the same concerns for those around us. We grieve when a loved one dies. We suffer and persevere through life’s difficulties and rejoice in life’s celebrations.
In other words, we don’t focus on each other’s skin color. We see each other as valued human beings.
I heartily agree with her wise advice to “do the work.” This is not black advice, white advice, or advice limited to any other racial or ethnic group. This is wise advice for all.
But she undermines that wise advice by making the blanket statement that black people are feared. She leaves the impression that anyone who is not black is afraid of black people.
The idea that everyone whose skin is a different color, is afraid of you, creates defensiveness. It does not build trusting relationships and working together to build a stronger community.
By making undefined broad generalizations, Michelle Obama plants a seed of victimization. That seed sprouts fear, division, and prejudice.
Whatever it is that Michelle Obama sees in “people” who are afraid of black people, it does not reflect the truth. Perhaps the truth is that what Michelle Obama sees is actually a reflection of her own perspective.
If you have wondered why the Democrats in Congress seem to be in such a rush to remove President Trump from office, wonder no more. They have been in a race against an impending dangerous storm warning.
The storm warning is not President Trump. It is US Attorney General William Barr, US Attorney John Durham, and Inspector General Michael Horowitz.
First, IG Michael Horowitz wrote Congressional leaders that his report on the secret surveillance warrants used by the FBI during the investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential campaign was “nearing completion.” The next day, news broke that the investigation by US Attorney John Durham into the origins of the Russia investigation was now classified as a criminal investigation.
Over the past three years, mainstream media reports made bold predictions about impending revelations of treasonous behavior by President Trump. One by one these claims were thoroughly debunked.
During the same three years, conservative investigative reporters reported on unelected bureaucrats colluding to remove, disable, or impair a duly elected President. These investigations focus on what Donald Trump called “the swamp.”
The swamp is more than political parties or political philosophy. It is a controlling culture composed of elected officials, bureaucrats, lobbyists, consultants, and contractors who had a free run of Washington, DC.
Donald Trump ran on a platform of draining the swamp. He represented a clear and present danger.
The swamp used the power of the United States intelligence and law enforcement agencies to try to stop Trump before the election. When the people elected him, the swamp tried to keep him from being inaugurated.
Since the day Trump took office, the swamp used every weapon available to cripple or destroy his service as President. Every attempt has failed.
President Trump stood up against the swamp, He has also done his job leading the American people.
Real median household income continues to rise as wages rise. More Americans have jobs today than ever before.
The unemployment rate continued its drop to record lows not seen in half a century. African-American and Hispanic unemployment is at record low levels as well.
The people in mainstream America are better off than ever before. They are experiencing more freedom and opportunity to invest and enjoy the fruits of their labors.
This is all the more threatening to the swamp. Adam Schiff and House Democrats, as the defenders of the swamp, are dug in deep in the bowels of the Capitol basement. In this inquisition, they are frantically searching for something – anything that they can call an impeachable offense.
The dragnet of justice is closing in on the swamp. The threat is imminent and real, and they know it. This is Adam Schiff’s last stand.
Democrats continue to shock and anger the nation with their assault on truth and justice in their ongoing coup attempt to remove Donald Trump. News outlets are calling the latest efforts an impeachment, but this is not an impeachment, it is an inquisition.
A two year, multi-million dollar fishing expedition by Robert Mueller came back with no catch on Russian interference or obstruction of justice. The best Mueller could do was say that he could not file charges but neither could he exonerate President Trump.
The latest attempt came with an unauthorized discussion about the President’s phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky last July. Conversations between the President and leader of another country are classified.
Someone who apparently was authorized to be involved in the conversation broke the law and talked about it with an unauthorized individual. That second-hand party, who is referred to as a “whistle blower,” then talked to Congressman Adam Schiff and his staff.
They helped the second-hand whistle blower craft a formal letter to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees. Schiff himself is the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.
That letter, then went to the Intelligence Inspector General (IG) as a “whistle blower” complaint. What the IG received, was, at best, a second-hand report of an allegation about the President.
It would seem that the IG would want to get someone who actually heard the call to corroborate the story. If he could not get a first-hand account, it should be “case closed.”
On September 18, the Washington Post published a story, based on an anonymous source, about the existence of a “whistle blower” report on the President’s phone call. That was the trigger in the Democrat playbook for Schiff, Pelosi, and the Democrats.
On September 24, Nancy Pelosi met with the Democrat caucus behind closed doors to discuss impeachment. In order to begin an impeachment process, the House of Representatives must vote. Newly elected Democrats who ran as moderates did not want to go on record voting for an impeachment.
Shortly after Pelosi had her closed door meeting, President Trump, who was at the United Nations, announced that he would be releasing the unredacted transcript of his phone call with the Ukrainian President. The Whitehouse also announced that the second-hand whistle blower complaint would be released by the end of the week.
Later that afternoon, Pelosi addressed Congress. She said, “I am announcing the House of Representatives is moving forward with an official impeachment inquiry. I am directing our six Committees to proceed with their investigations under that umbrella of impeachment inquiry.”
There was no vote then. There still has not been a vote. I do not believe that there will be a vote.
In spite of having no vote for an impeachment inquiry, some Democrats were quick to jump on the bandwagon calling for Trump’s impeachment. Among the followers of the left was my member of Congress, Sanford Bishop, from Southwest Georgia’s 2nd Congressional District.
Even after President Trump announced that he would be releasing the unredacted transcript of the call, Sanford Bishop published a statement saying that it was “imperative” that Congress begin an impeachment inquiry. He stated:
“The President has admitted publicly to asking the Ukraine President to investigate Hunter Biden and has instructed his Director of National Intelligence to withhold the whistleblower’s complaint from Congress, which is illegal.”
Sanford Bishop made up his mind without getting any facts. He pre-judged the reported allegation before knowing the details or even seeing the complaint itself.
The next day as President Trump promised, in an unprecedented display of transparency, he released the totally unredacted transcript of the call. Later that day, the second-hand whistle blower complaint was also declassified and forwarded to Congress.
Democrats were so caught off guard by the release of the transcript that Congressman Adam Schiff made up his own version. In a meeting of the House Intelligence Committee on September 26, Schiff read into the record a totally fictitious transcript of the call.
Republicans called his hand. He said that it was just a parody.
When the second-hand whistle blower complaint was declassified, Sanford Bishop was quick to update his website with a link to the second-hand account of the whistle blower. In a blatant display of deceit, Bishop did not include a link to the transcript of the call itself.
The transcript was released before the whistle blower’s second-hand account and complaint. Nearly one month later, there is still only a link to the second-hand account made by the whistle blower.
Sanford Bishop has made no acknowledgement of the transcript. He has not provided a link that would allow a constituent to read the transcript of the call itself.
Sanford Bishop should provide the transcript so that his constituents can get the complete and accurate account. He is presenting only one side. This is a calculated and disingenuous ploy to mislead.
Democrats, with their loyal followers like Sanford Bishop, are seeking neither truth nor justice. They are carrying out a duplicitous, devious, dishonest inquisition.
This one hurts. I know the truth. I know the hope. I know the assurance. I tell it to others all the time. But this one hurts. I am angry about this one.
Jody Slocum – 1949 – 2019
Yesterday morning, Jody Slocum stepped into eternity. Just a few weeks ago he was teaching his Sunday School class at Pinecrest Baptist Church in Cordele, Georgia.
I met Jody on a Saturday evening in 2006 in Sylvester, Georgia at a campaign event for Sonny Perdue. My wife and I sat at the same table and had a nice conversation. Jody could talk to anyone about anything. It was his gift.
The next morning, I decided to visit Pinecrest Baptist Church. I remember getting out of the car and not knowing where to go for Sunday School.
A little boy was passing by and I asked him where adult classes met. He pointed over to a door and said that he thought there was an adult class in that room.
I eased the door open to see a class filled and the teacher announced that we met the night before. You know how it is when you see someone in a different place and do not connect the person and place immediately.
Jody immediately recognized me. It took a moment for the search engine in my brain to connect the Sunday School teacher with a political event the night before.
That began a deep friendship. We shared a common faith, a common political philosophy, and a common enjoyment of the lives of those who were involved in politics.
Jody was an avid reader of the Wall Street Journal and kept up with the latest reporting and editorials. He talked about the writers and subjects with such a grasp of understanding that it seemed as if he talked with them over breakfast every morning.
If I wanted solid analysis of a particular issue, I called Jody to see what he knew. He always knew the latest and did not hesitate to share his opinion.
When it came to church involvement, he was all about mission and commitment. He did not have time to complain or nitpick over non-important issues.
He had a compelling obligation to support the men and women called of God to serve, especially missionaries, pastors, and staff members. He believed that these individuals had been called by God and invested their lives.
He often spoke of them “leaving their nets” in a reference to the first disciples who walked away from a profession as fishermen to follow Christ.
We were having dinner with a friend shortly after a hurricane or flood that was in the news. Jody began to talk about the Southern Baptist disaster relief operation that had developed such a reputation, that they were the first to be called. He proudly described the logistics in detail.
Jody’s wife, Beth, served as a trustee of the Georgia Baptist Children’s Home and Family Ministries. He was there with her at every trustee meeting to learn the needs.
Jody was more than just active in church. He knew why he was active. He had a firm grasp on why he was there and why a relationship with Christ was the most important relationship that anyone could have. He had a firm grasp on matters of eternal significance.
The Apostle Paul, in his letter to the Philippians, shared his daily struggle about life here in this fallen world and stepping into eternity. “But I am hard-pressed from both directions, having the desire to depart and be with Christ, for that is very much better; yet to remain on in the flesh is more necessary for your sake.” (Philippians 1:23-24)
Jody was also torn between stepping into eternity with Christ and staying here to keep carrying out the mission. He was “hard pressed” in both directions. One truth he knew beyond a shadow of a doubt – he was fully prepared to be “absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord.” (II Corinthians 5:8 NASB)
This one hurts. Not Jody! His death reminds me of the brevity of this life and the hope for eternity.
The Apostle Paul had a lot to say about this kind of thing. In the 15th chapter of his first letter to the Corinthians, he wrote of the return of Christ and the assurance of our resurrection as believers. Right now, Jody is in the presence of Christ and seeing everything with perfect clarity.
Paul closed that 15th chapter with an exhortation and hope. With those same words to the many friends and family who are feeling the same thing right now, I close this commentary:
“Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your toil is not in vain in the Lord.” (I Corinthians 15:58 NASB)
Crisp County recently joined the ranks of hundreds of other communities around the nation offering a course in religious instruction to students who are in public school. The Crisp County Center for Christian Learning, or C4 as it is commonly known, is a local organization of community leaders who desire to provide parents with an expanded educational option for their students in the public school.
Parents want the best for their children. They want them to have opportunities to learn and have a well rounded education. This is a universal desire that applies to demographic groups across the board.
Students in First Class of Crisp C4
In 1962 a New York state law included the text of a prayer for public schools. New York public schools were to begin each day with the prayer along with the Pledge of Allegiance. The United States Supreme Court, in Engel v. Vitale, ruled that the prayer was an unconstitutional violation of the 1st Amendment prohibiting government from establishing a religion.
For the vast majority, the public school system is the primary educational provider. Religion is one area where public schools are restricted.
That ruling led to more rulings which included prohibiting a one minute period of silent reflection, prayer at graduations, and prayer before events such as football games. School administrators often established even more restrictive policies in a precautionary mode to avoid litigation.
The 1962 decision addressed the first clause of the 1st Amendment that prohibited the government from establishing religion. It did not address the 2nd half of the clause, “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
The Supreme Court ruled on the free exercise clause ten years earlier in the 1952 case, Zorach v. Clauson. In that case the state of New York offered a program of “Released Time Education.”
Released time allows parents to voluntarily enroll their children in a religious education program conducted off the school grounds. The public school does not pay for the facility, material, or faculty and the program is completely voluntary.
Justice William O. Douglas, in the majority opinion wrote, “We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being. We guarantee the freedom to worship as one chooses.”
He went on to say that the Released Time program, “follows the best of our traditions. For it then respects the religious nature of our people and accommodates the public service to their spiritual needs. To hold that it may not would be to find in the Constitution a requirement that the government show a callous indifference to religious groups. That would be preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe.”
The case established three basic requirements for released time: (1) The classes had to be off the school grounds, (2) The classes had to be voluntary, and (3) no public funds could be used to support the classes.
There are no fees required to take the classes. This is a positive option. The families of Crisp County along with school administration welcomed the idea with open arms.
I first witnessed this concept in Wilcox County. Last October, I wrote a commentary entitled, “The Solution,” about one of their community events.
In Crisp County we began last January when a group of interested citizens formed the founding Board of nine members. I was asked to serve as Chairman of the Board.
The community response has been positive in every corner. Pinecrest Baptist Church offered the use of their facilities for classroom space and their vehicles for transportation. Volunteers signed up to help with scheduling volunteers to drive.
We recruited qualified teachers. Individuals and churches are donating financially to support this faith-based initiative.
The classes meet during the elective periods. We send a van to pick the children up at school after home room, transport them to the off-campus classroom, and return them to school for their next class.
Our teacher provides attendance and grades to the Middle School. The time counts toward attendance requirements as it is part of their learning experience.
Our inaugural class of 8th graders will complete the 9 week course on October 3. We already have 35 students who want to take the class in the next nine weeks.
We are asked if it will be available for high school. Our answer is that we intend to expand the program as long as the funds are available to support it.
Funding does not come from a government program. Funding comes from churches, individuals, businesses, and others who agree that this is an important investment for the community.
I see something else in this initiative in our community. It brings the community together for a positive and edifying purpose.
Over the next year, our nation is going to be bombarded with political ads and messages of division and discord. These go beyond differences in policy and political philosophy. Many of these messages will sow the seeds of class envy, victimization, fear, and prejudice.
C4 is one of many endeavors taking place across Crisp county to work together for a stronger, uplifting, vibrant, community. It is a worthy investment.
If you want to know how you can help, send me an e-mail: don@doncole.com or give me a call at 229-291-7114 and I’ll tell you more.
The Philosophy of Crisp County Center for Christian Learning (C4)
The Crisp County Center for Christian Learning exists to provide Biblical based instruction in the areas of character, leadership, and personal discipline to the students of the Crisp County Public Schools.
We believe that students should be and can be an example to others in speech, in life, in love, in faith, and in purity, and to that end, offer instruction in such Christian concepts as honoring parents, respecting authority, purity before marriage, developing trust in friendships, living a life of integrity, all while teaching leadership using biblical doctrine, examples and role models.
It is the desire of the Crisp County Center for Christian Learning that each Student be given the education in character studies, historical context, and moral reasoning using the Bible and Christian doctrine as the foundation to ensure that each student is instructed in a way that their uniqueness is embraced, and their success is promoted, with the understanding that they are valued as a Creation of God.
The New York Times unveiled their new project named, “The 1619 Project” in their August 14, 2019 issue of the New York Time Magazine. The 1619 project is a series of essays that looks back to the 400th anniversary of the first slaves from Africa brought to the American colonies.
The Times made no effort to hide the project’s intent and primary thesis. Times stated that its purpose was to “reframe the country’s history, understanding 1619 as the true founding,” of America.
These essays are neither good journalism nor sound historical analysis. The heading of the first essay reads,
“Our democracy’s founding ideals were false when they were written.”
Nikole Hannah-Jones – 1619 Project – NY Times Magazine August 14, 2019
The problem with the series is with the thesis itself. The essays blame every societal issue today affecting the minority population in the United States on slavery. One essay even relates the interstate highway system during the Eisenhower administration to the institution of slavery that had been abolished a century earlier.
The 1619 Project, in “reframing” history has both a short term and long term objective. Dean Baquet, Executive Editor of the Times, said that after Robert Mueller’s testimony before Congress, the Times was caught “a little tiny bit flat-footed.”
Before the Mueller testimony, the New York Times staff expected Mueller’s testimony would finally put Donald Trump out of office. They were more excited than a six year old on Christmas eve.
After Mueller’s stumbling testimony, their hopes and dreams were dashed. There was nothing under the Christmas tree – not even a lump of coal in the stockings.
In a town hall meeting with his newsroom staff, Baquet revealed the new strategy to end the Trump Presidency. They would turn from the failed Russian collusion story to a strategy of racial division. Baquet exhorted them to join him in the new vision.
“That, to me, is the vision for coverage. You all are going to have to help us shape that vision. But I think that’s what we’re going to have to do for the rest of the next two years.”
Slate Magazine – Transcript of NY Times Town Hall – August 15, 2019
The short term objective of The 1619 Project is to stoke the fires of race in the left’s ongoing war against President Trump. The strategy is historical revision and a division of the American people based on race.
There is a long term objective as well. The liberal media’s assaults look beyond President Trump. They are an assault on the greatness and exceptionalism of the United States.
The 1619 Project has already published student curriculum for young students including reading guides, activities, and other teaching resources. Media outlets and professional journals will present stories and hold workshops on The 1619 Project. Higher educational institutions, especially those who train teachers and write curriculum, will incorporate quotes and conclusions and use them to shape new curriculum for public school students.
Democrats played the race card against Republicans for decades. That well is running dry. President Trump’s policies have led to a booming economy and record high job and wage growth for black Americans.
Democrats can no longer point to economic indicators and accuse Republicans of racial discrimination. Their new approach is to go back 400 years and “reframe” America’s history.
Their strategy is a sign of misery and fear on the part of Democrat leadership. They know that they cannot win if even a small percentage of black voters leave the fold and vote Republican.
Democrats presumed that the black vote belonged to them. That presumption is evaporating before their very eyes.
The 1619 Project is an example of the last gasp of desperation. It may sound good to the New York Times, but it won’t work for Americans who are standing up and rejecting the strategy of revision and division.
Our nation mourns the innocent victims of the murders on Saturday in El Paso, Texas and Dayton, Ohio. A terrorist murder such as this happening once in a lifetime is too often. Now when news breaks of another murder, our first reaction is, “again?”
The news media carries interviews of various experts who share opinions on how to put a stop to this. Some call for gun control and banning of assault weapons. Others call for more treatment of mental health issues. Others call for strict controls on social media and video games that glorify violent behavior.
There are those who cast blame on President Trump. Still others will blame the hostility displayed in public discourse today.
All will be calling for some solution that requires action by the government. You can sum these up in two words, “fix it.”
These two words describe the early 20th century American-born philosophy of Pragmatism. This philosophical view of the world puts man as the center and ultimate in all things. Pragmatism as a world view is not the same has being a pragmatic problem solver.
Americans have been “can do” from our beginning. We had the audacity to declare independence from Great Britain, but in that action, our Founding Fathers acknowledged God. In the Declaration itself, they wrote that they were, “appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world.”
Americans tackled Westward expansion. They connected East to West with the railroad. The future path of the Panama Canal was first a railroad, built by Americans, to move people and goods more quickly to California for the gold rush. The Wright Brothers conquered flight. Edison invented the light bulb. Charles Lindbergh made the first solo flight across the Atlantic. Americans were the first and only ones to walk on the moon.
These bold achievements were built on the foundation of a nation that acknowledged a Supreme being. Not only did the founders make an appeal to the Supreme Judge, but they also acknowledged and declared their “firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence.”
Something began to change in America at the end of the 19th century. At first it was barely noticeable.
Institutions of higher education became enamored with European philosophers. The thought leadership in these institutions, with few exceptions, had one thing in common. They held that man created the idea of God in order to explain the world and nature. Man, through his great accomplishments and advances in science, would solve the problems of the world and usher in a bold and grand new age.
World War I threw a fly in the ointment for the grand hopes of a Utopian world but as that war came to end, it was tagged as the war to end all wars. That tagline was moot within two decades.
Political Science thinkers such as Woodrow Wilson promoted a new brand of government where trained and skilled professionals would carry out the wishes of the elected officials. John Dewey developed the philosophy of Pragmatism which basically declares “whatever works” as being ethical and proper.
Public administrators were presented as professionals who had the knowledge to solve public problems in a scientific manner. The belief was that the citizen elected to public office would make political decisions based on the options presented by the professionals in public administration. The secular/humanist philosophy in higher education would take decades to filter down into American society.
In the 1960’s America was racing to the moon in the technical scientific arena. In the social science arena, the Johnson administration declared War on Poverty. The technocrats in government, coupled with a strategic political move to capture blocks of votes based on race, ignored basic realities of fallen human nature.
The policies of the 60’s blamed poverty as the root of crime and all social evils. The solution was to “fix it” by giving money to single mothers based upon the number of children she had. Marriage meant less in monthly payment.
The policies punished marriage and promoted childbearing out of wedlock. Young girls in lower income populations became little more than baby machines with growing dependence on government welfare payments.
Courts began to rule against religious activities in the public square. It also became popular in the entertainment industry to mock Christians.
What does this overview of the changing world view in America have to do with the shootings in El Paso and Dayton? Consider this. Recent shooters have all been in their twenties.
As they came of age, prayer in public schools was unheard of. In some cases even Bibles were removed from school libraries. Saying “Merry Christmas” was socially frowned upon in the media. Christmas manger scenes in most communities were removed. Prayer before a high school football game was no longer allowed. Abortion was freely available. Condoms were distributed in schools. Families were disintegrating.
When a society adopts a world view that puts man at the center and attempts to relegate God to mere folk lore, there are consequences. The prophet Hosea delivered a piercing message to the people of Israel in his day. They turned from the law of God. Their culture and society was crumbling. Hosea summed it up “For they sow the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind.” (Hosea 8:7)
If we are wise, we will connect the dots. We will return to that “firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence” not only in our individual lives but in the governing of our nation. Our secular/humanist culture sowed the wind and now we are reaping the whirlwind.
They gathered in Philadelphia. They had requested, appealed, and beseeched the King and Parliament for fair treatment. Like Pharaoh dealing with Hebrews in Egypt, Great Britain only doubled down.
Among themselves, they debated fiercely about whether or not to do what they were about to do. No one had ever succeeded. What made them think that they would be different?
They knew the risks were great. How would others react? How would their own fellow colonists react? How would they protect themselves in the challenges they would face in the future?
It was evident that they stood at a crossroads in human history. They would either live without liberty as subjects of the King or they would take action that some would call treason.
Patrick Henry summed it up the year before in an address to the Virginia Convention. His closing words are a reminder today of the magnitude of what took place in Philadelphia a year later.
Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come. It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle?
What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death! (Patrick Henry, Second Virginia Convention March 23, 1775)
They came to a conclusion. The time for asking for relief from the King was over. Now, they were going to declare their freedom and independence.
Their right to stand as a free and independent nation came not as alms from a beneficent King. The right to freedom and liberty was a right from God, the Creator and Supreme Ruler of the universe. They claimed that right and set forth for the world and posterity to see their reasoning and their stand on the matter.
No one had ever stood against the King and succeeded. The signers of the document knew that they had to put forth sound reasoning, but they also knew that they could not count on reason alone.
The Colonies had abundant natural resources, but they knew that they could not count on natural resources alone. There was hope that other nations, like France, would support the Colonies, but they knew that they could not count on the support of other nations alone.
The signers of the Declaration were committed to the cause, but they knew that they could not count on their commitment alone. The signers knew that all other sources of reliance are like sinking sand. There was only one source on which they could firmly rely. They recorded that truth for the world and posterity to see.
Perhaps the best known phrases from the Declaration are, “all men are created equal” and “life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
The closing words of the Declaration are not as popularly known but they contain a phrase of ten words that is the bedrock, foundation, and most important words of our nation’s founding.
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
Almost two and a half centuries later, the United States of America is a powerhouse in the world. The United States rescued England from Germany in two World Wars. The United States stood strong in the Cold War and caused the Soviet Union with its Communists puppet nations to fall.
The USA built railroads across the continent, connected the Atlantic and Pacific with the Panama Canal, and put men on the moon. The United States is the first to respond around the world when disasters strike. The United States is once again the energy powerhouse of the world.
In all of these strengths and greatness, those ten words, “with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence,” still constitute the bedrock of the greatness and exceptionalism of America.
Happy Independence Day. May God continue to richly bless you and may God bless America.
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.
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.
by 
