The 2020 American national presidential primary season is in full swing and will continue until the respective political party’s national conventions this summer. The nominee of the GOP is going to be President Trump.
The Democratic nominee is not yet certain, though “Democratic Socialist” Senator Bernie Sanders, a registered Independent from Vermont, is leading at present. However, if he somehow doesn’t get the nomination, the contest will still feature a Socialist, no matter who is chosen to oppose the most successful President in decades and likely fall in ignominious defeat.
Sanders Is the Openly Socialist Candidate
There is no question that Senator Sanders is openly Socialist, though he thinks to call it “Democratic” somehow conceals his love of the heinous doctrine. He is certainly not shy in his admiration for Communist dictators from his youth to the present day.
Sanders’ well-documented honeymoon in Moscow is just the beginning of many times when he has not simply defended but praised the murderous regimes of Castro, the Soviets, and other tyrannical Socialist regimes. He is at the forefront of the new Democratic party which is now under Socialist control.
The ideas embraced by Sanders are blatantly Socialist and align with the rather radical wing of the Democratic party led by Alexandria Ocasio Cortez [D. NY]. He favors the “Green New Deal,” and his pet programs are “Medicare for All,” and tuition-free college for everyone, and universal government child care, and a guaranteed minimum wage of at least $15.00 an hour, any one of which are astronomically expensive by themselves if implemented.
Altogether this massive government expansion would transform America into a fiscal wasteland of forced compliance to an increasingly authoritarian regime. However, Sanders is only unique among the Democrats in two ways.
One is that he is openly proposing Socialism. Two is that his proposals are all-encompassing for American society.
Sanders would make the state the provider for all individuals from cradle to grave. President Sanders (shudder the thought) would do as Marxist-Socialists have always done, put all control into the hands of a central government that can then determine virtually everything about your life.
Yet, make no mistake, none of the other Democratic candidates are free from the Socialist virus, and whatever veneer covers their intentions, it will morph into Socialism sooner or later should any of Sanders opponents overtake him for the nomination. The only significant difference between Sanders and any other Democrat contender is whether Socialism comes all at once or somewhat incrementally to become dominant in America if they have their way.
Sanders Is Not the Lone Socialist on the Stage
Moreover, all of the other Democratic candidates advocate Socialism in some manifestation and any one of those forms would destroy freedom and prosperity in America. The most immediately dangerous of these is the unanimous proclamation of strict gun control even to the extent of disarming the populace.
Everyone in the Democratic debates has proposed violations of the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Calling those violations ‘red flag laws,’ and ‘buybacks by the government,’ doesn’t change the fact that they are violations of sacred human rights.
Some might question whether ‘gun control’ is a Socialist policy, but when the history is examined there is no question. Every truly Socialist government has implemented some kind of disarmament of the people, and those that exist today follow that policy as well.
The same is true about the socialization of the American healthcare system. All the Democrats favor some form of nationalized healthcare, even the supposedly ‘Capitalist’ Mike Bloomberg.
Along with the impossible expense of a fully Nationalized healthcare system comes an inevitable reduction of liberty for families and individuals. Bloomberg himself showed this in microcosm with his infamous “soda ban” while he was mayor of New York City.
Not content with the impossibility of providing cradle-to-grave government provision to Americans, all of the Democratic candidates support expanding that to cover all illegal aliens in the country now and allowing virtual open borders to boot. That is one position Sanders himself has radically changed to cater to the new Socialists in charge of the Democrat party.
Socialism in any manner is opposed to anything but the state having the ultimate authority over individuals. Thus its proponents attempt to replace God as provider, as the Democrats are doing and their candidates are proposing, and sooner or later, this will result in severe limitations on religious freedom.
This is true in any system which tries to shoehorn God into His place within the rule of the government. God is sovereign over all, and attempts to displace Him to a subordinate role under the false pretenses of biblical ‘interpretation,’ are evil and will always fail.
All of the Democrats Embrace the Socialist Anti-Life Doctrine
The most pernicious factor in Socialism is its inherent devaluation of human life while claiming this is necessary because the government wants to preserve life. Total state provision for any life will always mean state control of the existence and length of that life.
This is most evident in the area of ‘healthcare’ advocated by Planned Parenthood, legalized abortion. It is no accident that Planned Parenthood has historically craved government support, especially considering the philosophy of their founder, Margaret Sanger.
Sanger was a proponent of eugenics, a philosophy that places the value of human life according to its usefulness, rather than life having inherent value as sacred to God. Such a philosophy is tailor-made for a socialistic government, and Ms. Sanger, being a racist, favored the NAZI brand of Socialism.
Sanger promoted the goals of eugenics throughout her life, and it led her to associate with truly evil movements such as National Socialism, otherwise known as the Nazi Party. Author George Grant writes, “Because of her [Sanger’s] Malthusian and Eugenic connections, she had become closely associated with the scientists and theorists who put together Nazi Germany’s ‘race purification’ program. She had openly endorsed the euthanasia, sterilization, abortion, and infanticide programs of the early Reich.
There is one question that will not be asked in any of the Presidential debates by any of the moderators, yet there is no doubt as to what the answer would be from all of the Democrats. If asked whether or not they thought Margaret Sanger was a great woman with great ideas, all of them would say “Yes!”
The more any nation implements socialistic programs, the more individual rights are reigned in until the sovereignty of the state is unquestioned and brutally enforced. This inevitably will envelop the God-given right to life and eliminate that very right.
Whoever the Democratic nominee will be, Socialist policies will be proposed under his or her banner. Should that nominee gain an improbable victory, America’s future will move toward tyranny at an astonishing rate and we will all suffer as a result.
You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.” And he said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition!” Mark 7:8,9 [ESV]
Sources: The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, Crossway Bibles, 2001
George Grant – “Grand Illusions, The Legacy of Planned Parenthood,” Wolgemuth and Hyatt, Publishers, Inc., 1988.
Featured and Top Image courtesy of DonkeyHotey’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 1 courtesy of Mark’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 2 courtesy of American Life League’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
There is an incorrect assumption fervently adhered to by the Socialist Left idealists of the world. Simply stated, they believe that the principles of Socialism would work, regardless of the historical record, if only the right people of principle would implement it.
However disillusioning this may be to such idealists, that is false. Socialism has never succeeded and will never succeed as a form of governance because the system itself is evil and fatally flawed.
Socialism is Fatally Flawed by False Promises
There are two fundamental promises of Socialism that are demonstrably false. They form the premises of a pro-socialist argument.
A lesson from rational thought that when the premise of an argument is false, the argument itself is invalid and false.
To clarify any misunderstanding, I use the word “argument” meaning the reasonable appeal someone would make for accepting their claims as true. It doesn’t refer to an argument as in a hostile and angry exchange.
The first false promise is that through Socialism the government will make all things in life free and make all people economically equally well off. Fulfilling that promise is not within the realm of possibility.
There is an old wise epithet that rebukes this promise of Socialism, ‘there is no such thing as a free lunch.’ Socialism promises the government will provide whatever is needed or desired for the lives of everyone at no cost.
It has always failed to do that because the promise itself is not humanly possible to fulfill. The effort required to achieve the ‘ideal’ Socialist society is beyond our powers.
To understand why, we need to examine the meaning of Socialism apart from the emotional appeals made to a false “fairness and equality,” idealism. It must be examined as it is defined in as plain and rational a manner as possible.
The multiple definitions of Socialism in various dictionaries do not equally apply to Socialism on a governmental scale. According to Merriam-Webster online, Socialism means,
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
This is an excellent and comprehensive definition of Socialism as separate systems, each of which are represented in modern society. The shortest definition listed is the one favored by advocates of Socialism within the ‘Christian’ community.
The Leftward Church and their Justification for Socialism
There are those within the ‘Christian’ churches who latch onto Socialism because they latch onto definition number “2a,” which bears a resemblance to the early Church described at the conclusion of Acts chapter 2.
And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. And awe came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were being done through the apostles. And all who believed were together and had all things in common. And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need. And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved. Acts 2:42-47 [ESV]
This journal has delved into the influence of the Left upon the modern mainstream churches in greater detail in previous articles. Leftism today, inside or outside of those churches, has lost any veneer they once had to disguise their blatant Socialism.
As with Socialism in any human incarnation, the Leftward Church picks and chooses the truth to suit their evil end goal. This is what happens when the Word of God is used to justify their phony claims, as is done with this passage in Acts.
However, that interpretive game doesn’t work in this case either, because the Leftist apologists conveniently ignore the context of the passage. The first and most obvious context is that this was a case of God’s intervention directly through the witness of the Holy Spirit.
Outside of an explicitly Spirit immersed Christian fellowship, this is impossible to accomplish in human society, even with a relatively small group of people. Which brings to mind the second contextual parameter, the method necessary to distribute the proceeds of all the donations was a central body of individuals, in this case, the Apostles.
This factor limits the growth of any Socialist group to a small number of people, and this was demonstrated later in Acts when the group grew past 5,000 men and their families. Following the martyrdom of Stephen in chapter 7, the persecution against the first Church increased beginning in chapter 8.
And Saul approved of his execution. And there arose on that day a great persecution against the church in Jerusalem, and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles. Devout men buried Stephen and made great lamentation over him. But Saul was ravaging the church, and entering house after house, he dragged off men and women and committed them to prison. Acts 8:1-3 [ESV]
Saul later became the great evangelist Apostle Paul, who helped bring Christianity to the ends of the Roman Empire, and wrote more than half of the New Testament. The church in Jerusalem had grown to the point that a Socialist system, even with the administration of the Apostles, would inevitably invite greed and sloth and a sense of self-sufficiency that would work against the spread of the gospel to the world.
Incidentally, this factor also mitigates against the mega-church sizes of today, but that is a different article. Suffice it to say that even a heavenly-influenced fellowship needs to realize that utopian visions of society are reserved by God for the fellowship in heaven and the New Earth to come, and were never meant to exist upon this earth.
However, the Socialist Left today is not interested in religion except as it might serve their malevolent interests in the system. They are far more concerned with the aspect of implementing central government control of individual lives.
Unfortunately for their argument, this method exacts a larger cost than any other at the scale of a national government. It cannot take care of anyone without exerting fascistic control over their individual lives, and the provision even in those conditions is pitiful.
Socialism Is Not Free in Any Way
The second false premise of Socialism is that the government can provide for all and do so with no real “cost.” That is not true economically, experientially or spiritually.
The economic costs of a Socialist society obliterate whatever perceived benefits provided in such a society. The lone economic benefit of Socialism is thought to be that the costs of providing equally for the needs of a society are also shared by everyone in society.
However, that so-called benefit is subject to the control of the central government in Socialism for every individual’s income is determined by the state for distribution by the state. In a truly Socialist society, everyone works for the central government, and each person must adapt to a certain level of income and position as doled out by the government.
Economically, this system is unsatisfying to the workers, and never provides enough revenue to cover the normal expenses incurred within the nation’s society. It is also detrimental to life experientially for everyone except the ruling authorities.
Total control of economic production also makes the control of individual lives necessary. Rationing of goods and services will eventually be practiced anytime a fully Socialist model is in place.
For example, universal ‘free’ health care suffers from this inevitable circumstance because the government pays the care providers a basic stipend to cover salary and supplies. This means care is rationed out according to government priorities including the physician’s time and the treatments available.
The results of rationing mean waiting times for serious treatments become longer and longer, as has been seen with the American health care system under the Veterans Administration. The new changes from President Trump have helped alleviate this by allowing physicians outside of the VA to be chosen by veterans if needed.
The final way that Socialism fails is in the provision of the human soul and spirit. Socialism fails here, and in reality in every way, for one very large reason that most critics of the system fail to recognize; the fact that Socialism claims territory reserved for God in human affairs.
To illustrate this, take the example of present-day China and how that Communist nation handles the religious needs of its people. A “Christian” religion of sorts is permitted in China, but with very serious restrictions added so that the attendees are continually reminded that ultimate loyalty goes to the state and not to God.
This is true in any system which tries to shoehorn God into His place within the rule of the government. God is sovereign over all, and attempts to displace Him to a subordinate role under the false pretenses of biblical ‘interpretation,’ are evil and will always fail.
President Trump has noted this particular aspect of human nature that has been incorporated into America’s national heart from the very beginning. He has said on several occasions that,
…in America we don’t worship government, we worship God.
This is the primary cause of the rise of various “underground church” movements within places like China growing in tremendous numbers despite all efforts by the Chinese Communist Party to stamp them out. Socialism can never provide for anything other than a poor and bleak existence for the “masses” in society.
Socialism Cannot Escape the Verdict of History
Former President Obama meets with former Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez in 2009
The third very significant false promise of Socialism is the promise that this time, it will be immune from its history. It is hoped that if the right people are implementing it, Socialism will work regardless of its 100% rate of historic failures wherever it has been ‘tried.’
Incidentally, the use of the words Socialism and Communism as basically interchangeable terms is not accidental or inaccurate. I agree with the late Vladimir Lenin when he said,
The goal of socialism is communism.
Therefore, any system which names Socialism as a part of the system is doomed to eventually become Communist in operation if not in name. The most recent example of a nation falling apart under Socialism is the case of Venezuela.
Venezuela was once the envy of South America and the wealthiest nation on that continent. The wealth was amassed because of the gargantuan oil reserves within Venezuela and made the nation a powerful and prosperous country in the later years of the 20th century.
This level of prosperity was erased in just over two decades and Venezuela was plunged into a hell on earth for its citizens while making the late dictator Hugo Chavez and his family incredibly rich at the same time. In fact, as the following video notes, the daughter of the dictator left the country with a personal worth of 4 billion dollars, while the people succumbed to the fatal infection of Socialism!
Chavez has passed on but his hand-picked successor, Nicolas Maduro, is every bit the tyrannical Socialist dictator Chavez had been. Moreover, that is the historical pattern of all nations that have gone all-in for Socialism as their method of governance.
The historical record of truly Socialist countries is one of death, deprivation, and tyranny.
Together with Germany’s National Socialism, the Communist Socialists such as the old USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) and Communist China have racked up a body count of over 150 million people!
But …What About Sweden?
One of the modern objections to this is to cite the record of pseudo-socialist countries in Scandinavia, such as Sweden, Denmark, and Norway. This is one of the favorite talking points of the Left, and especially from the self-declared “Democratic Socialist” presidential candidate Senator Bernie Sanders [I-VT].
Since these nations seem to be doing well while providing things such as a Socialist model for health care, something along the lines of Sanders’ proposed “Medicare for all” plan should do fine in America. However, a closer examination of the facts puts that lie to rest.
How do these nations pay for the government services they provide, and how good are those services? First, the tax rates and structure are far different than those in America.
The various Scandinavian countries tax individuals at very high rates which are also flat rates. Thus in Sweden, the marginal income tax and payroll tax rates are 56.9% for everyone earning 1.5 times the national average of income.
Contrast that with America where we have a ‘progressive’ income tax which increases as income levels rise. The top marginal income tax rate is now 37% but doesn’t kick in until someone is making 8.5 times the national income average.
Moreover, Scandinavian systems also charge a tax that is non-existent in America, a VAT, or Value Added Tax, on its businesses that is passed down to the consumer. A VAT is a system that taxes businesses at various stages of production which they must add in as a part of the product cost to the consumer.
This is a very efficient way to raise revenue quickly for the government, however, it has a serious drawback.
many …see VATs as a regressive tax because they fall more on those that spend a larger share of their income, mainly the poor.
These are various Socialist tactics that increase the economic burden of individuals. Conversely, at least until recently, the corporate tax rates and structure have been lower in Scandinavian countries than in the United States, thus favoring a Capitalist model.
In 2015, the highest corporate tax rate among Scandinavian nations was found in Norway, who taxed businesses at 27% of income. At that time the United States had a 39.1% corporate tax rate, which made Norway a far more attractive place to do business and made its policies more Capitalist than Socialist.
The only way for a Socialist model to survive is with very high individual taxes and a stream of income brought in from outside of the system. That is what is happening in Scandinavia, along with the fact that these nations use little or none of their budgets for defense spending.
Thanks to the tax cuts under President Trump, America has lowered its corporate tax rates below the levels of any Scandinavian country. In fact, we have gone from the third-highest corporate tax rate in the world to the 83rd-highest rate, and among the very lowest of large industrialized nations worldwide.
The results of those very Capitalist policies in America have proven wildly successful as the business arena has seen outstanding growth reflected by record levels of unemployment in every area. As has been seen in this brief review, Socialism can only boast of failure and will never be anything but evil and a failed government system with ruinous results for the citizens under its sway.
The night is far gone; the day is at hand. So then let us cast off the works of darkness and put on the armor of light. Romans 13:12 [ESV]
Sources: The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, Crossway Bibles, 2001
On February 4, 2020, I listened to the best State of the Union address ever given by a President of the United States of America. It was so exceptional that I did something I never do; I listened to the speech again.
The speech itself began with a notable moment of enthusiasm from the Republican contingent in the House chamber who chanted “Four more years,” for about 30 seconds before the President even began speaking. One might have thought this would be a rare highlight during a speech that is traditionally lengthy and boring.
However, as President Trump began speaking it soon became clear that there were many more significant highlights to follow. The theme of his speech was “the great American comeback,” and he provided more than enough substance to justify adopting this theme.
America’s Comeback to Greatness and More
President Trump’s introduction was a sweeping view of all that has been accomplished for the betterment of America under his leadership, beginning with the economic boom resulting from his policies, the rebuilding of America’s military, and the successful efforts to secure our borders. He then pronounced that the “State of our union is stronger than ever before.”
There are those among Americans who may have assumed that the President was engaging in hyperbole with that statement. However, any fair-minded individual, friend or foe of the President, was going to be treated to a solid and enthusiastic defense of his characterization of the state of America’s union.
President Trump moved seamlessly from one topic to another in a tour-de-force of American optimism backed by actual results in measurable terms that came because of specific policies he enacted as the Chief Executive. In terms of economics, he cited the results of job growth that hasn’t been seen in over 50 years, as well as historic lows in the unemployment rate in every category!
He tied those gains directly to the massive tax-cuts and the unprecedented de-regulation of his administration with surgical precision and pride in American accomplishment. The pattern was repeated with every subject from the rebuilding of the military through a historic investment, which enabled the destruction of ISIS and removal from the earth the two terrorists Al Baghdadi and Soleimani, to the measurable improvements in health care and the new price transparency laws for the medical industry.
There wasn’t a single arena of important public policy that the President didn’t address in the speech. Immigration, education, religious freedom, foreign policy, trade, the 2nd Amendment, and more were all addressed from a common-sense, results-based Conservative philosophy.
Moreover, the President showed that by fulfilling the promises he made in the campaign on these kinds of issues, there has been a large measurable improvement in every area. His resume is impeccable, and he made a dynamic case for re-election in November.
However, that wasn’t what vaulted this speech to the best SOTU I’ve ever heard. It was rather the extraordinary personal stories attached to the achievements so effectively throughout Trump’s address that convinced me in the end.
The Personal, Life-Changing Stories Moved the Heart
Throughout the speech, the President presented special guests whose personal stories reflected the success of his vision for making and keeping America a great, no, the greatest of nations. For instance, President Trump honored exceptional service and patriotism with two military and one civilian who were his guests.
The youngest of this trio was Army veteran Tony Rankins, who was the beneficiary of economic “opportunity zones” provided by Trump’s policies in Cincinnati, Ohio. He was formerly living a life of drug addiction, losing his family and homelessness, but through found a construction company investing in “opportunity zones,” and is now a tradesman with that firm, drug-free and reunited with his family.
Later the President introduced Iain Lamphier, a young man who is the top graduate of the Aerospace Career Education Program and desires to one-day attend the U.S. Air Force Academy and become of member of the newest outgrowth of the Air Force, the “Space Force,” created by Trump.
Then he introduced the lad’s great grandfather who is 100 years old, a World War II veteran, and former member of the famed Tuskegee Airman, a historic all-black squadron of pilots during the war. To further honor Charles McGee, already the recipient of multiple military honors, the President announced that he had earlier promoted McGee to Brigadier General and he has now retired as General McGee.
The third special honoree of President Trump was a civilian who was completely surprised by being awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom during the speech. It is the highest civilian award given in America and the man who received it has been most responsible for the entire resurrection of the conservative movement in our time, beginning as a lone voice 32 years ago.
Rush Limbaugh is the greatest pioneer in modern radio broadcasting and has been the most influential spokesman for liberty and conservative thought for more than three decades. In this brief video clip, the President makes the announcement of this award, and why he is doing the presentation at that time.
While watching this presentation, I was genuinely touched because of the influence of Rush upon me since I first heard him. I began listening to this man shortly after he was syndicated on national radio and I was instantly hooked by his wisdom and humor, as were millions of others, and conservative talk radio was reborn.
Rush’s reaction was one of genuine shock melting into humble gratitude and joy for being so honored. He had announced being diagnosed with advanced lung cancer the day before on his program and now received both an honor and a great encouragement from the President. It was one of a series of wonderful moments featured in Trump’s address.
In addition, the President showed support for the struggle against tyranny in Venezuela by featuring the newly-elected President in exile, Juan Guaido, the leader of the opposition to Socialist dictator Nicolas Maduro. He touted his pro-life stance by introducing a woman and her daughter who was born pre-mature at an almost unheard of 21 weeks and is now a healthy two-year-old child and announcing a grant of 50 million dollars for advanced neo-natal research on her behalf.
President Trump highlighted his policy of expanded school choice in education with the story of a young woman who would now be allowed to attend the school of her choice due to an “opportunity scholarship,” provided by his program. And in another especially touching moment, he reunited a soldier who had been deployed to Afghanistan four times with his wife and children who were special guests of the President.
The Speech Effectively Showed Failures of the Political Left and Highlighted the Solutions
The President effectively showed the policy failures of the Democrats and contrasted them with his successful solutions throughout the speech. One of the most effective demonstrations pointed out that the drop of over 75% in illegal border crossings since May of 2019 was partly due to the bravery and service of the Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement or ICE officers.
He went on to show that with the old “catch and release” policies of the Obama administration, which he ended, and the current policies of “sanctuary cities” and even “sanctuary states,” criminals pose real threats and cause real harm to American citizens. The President told the story of one criminal illegal alien who was detained by California sheriffs and then released per the state’s sanctuary laws in December of 2018.
This criminal went on a crime spree a couple of days later in which three people were shot, and one died as a result with the criminal firing eight bullets into his body. President Trump featured one of the grieving brothers, Jody Jones, as his guest and had him stand to lengthy applause.
President Trump then mentioned that Senator Thom Tillis [R-NC] who had just introduced legislation that would allow individuals and families such as the Jones family to sue sanctuary cities and states for losses if family members are hurt or killed as a result of those policies.
In much the same manner, when introducing the mother whose child had survived premature birth at 21 weeks, the President took the Democrats to task for their support of abortion until the point of birth, and in some cases beyond the time of birth.
On issue after issue, it became clear throughout the SOTU presentation that the Trump presidency was delivering sensational results, and that the policies advocated by the Left had failed before and promised only failure in the future.
President Trump Cast a Strong Vision for a Stronger America Going Forward
President Trump isn’t one to rest in his past accomplishments, and in this speech laid out concrete actions that are already ongoing or proposed to make an even stronger America possible in the future. For example, he is laboring to put into place a revamped system of immigration based on merit so that America will be attracting those persons who can contribute to the benefit of the nation and not become a perpetual burden on the taxpayer.
On the front of judicial court appointments, the President highlighted the incredible success already achieved by confirming almost 200 judges to the federal bench, including two Supreme Court Justices that are constitutionalists. His goal is to continue that trend and return the courts to their Constitutional roots insuring a stronger republic in the future.
At another point in the address, President Trump asked Congress to support a new program called “Artemis” and put America at the forefront of new space exploration. He called it “America’s manifest destiny in the stars,” and plans are to put the first woman on the moon and become the first nation to plant our flag on Mars!
Moreover, the President did not mention something almost everyone thought he would mention, the sham impeachment process. On the eve of a vote in the Senate to possibly remove him from office, President Trump ignored the failed sham and exuded stern confidence that was its own rebuke of the phony process born of the Left’s vindictive heart.
Finally, I must mention that the President touted new efforts in his administration to protect religious liberty in public education. Trump announced the plan in January of this year.
The White House said the plan is to “help safeguard students’ rights by giving education providers and students the most current information concerning prayer in public schools.” …The Education Department also will update 2003 guidance regarding prayer in public schools and streamline a federal complaint process for students alleging discrimination by authorities. …Kelly Shackelford, chief counsel for First Liberty, was at the White House for the announcement along with clients Hannah Allen and former football coach Joe Kennedy. “We commend President Trump for his strong efforts to protect America’s first freedom – religious freedom,” he said. “These revisions to the Guidelines on Prayer and Religious Expression ensure that the religious liberty of students in public schools is protected.”
This effort has the potential to shape a new generation in faith and morality and produce results that tend toward a more civil and righteous society in America. That is a future that can only enhance America’s greatness as a people by elevating our goodness as a people.
Much more was packed into this ‘triumph deluxe’ than I can relate in this writing. However, the future under a renewed President Trump and a second term promise to unleash the almost unlimited potential for an even greater and stronger America going forward.
Any American with a heart to see the nation stronger and more prosperous could not help but be encouraged by the speech. The President’s address was a spectacular reminder of what our nation has already accomplished under his leadership, with God’s help, how the future is bright and beckoning us to new heights of greatness as the world’s firebrand of freedom.
For I know the plans I have for you, declares the LORD, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope. Jeremiah 29:11 [ESV]
Sources: The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, Crossway Bibles, 2001
America is currently buried knee-deep in the muck of the ‘Impeachment’ trial on the floor of the U.S. Senate. The next item of business after President Trump’s defense team makes their case will be debate and a consideration of whether or not to allow witnesses.
The inevitable and tedious demands of the Democrats for witnesses should be rejected outright by the Republican majority. Moreover, they shouldn’t even consider continuing after that point.
The First Article Doesn’t Meet the Constitutional Burden for Impeachment
This is the most relevant portion of this political performance-art fraudulently labeled ‘impeachment’ process. This factor alone should have resulted in the immediate motion to dismiss the farce.
The Constitutional requirements for using impeachment are that the President must have committed “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” Neither of the two House Articles fits any part of those designations because neither Article is a crime.
Some have tried to argue that it doesn’t have to be a crime to be an impeachable offense. The plain language of the Constitution tells us they are incorrect.
It is obvious that treason and bribery are crimes, and the very words “high crimes” tell us they are criminal acts. Misdemeanors are crimes as well, not “high” crimes, but considered criminal nonetheless.
The two Articles of Impeachment are charging “abuse of power” and “obstruction of Congress” on part of the President. Neither of these is a crime as they are described in the charges.
The particular incident the Democrats cite as President Trump’s “abuse of power” is his supposed pressuring of the President of Ukraine to investigate the son of a political rival, former Vice President Joe Biden. The alleged pressure was a threat to withhold military aid unless an investigation was publicly announced.
The problem is, no announcement was ever made and the aid was not withheld. The military aid was delayed while the President had corruption within Ukraine examined and then the aid was delivered.
There was no crime here. President Trump executed the legal delivery of aid while looking out for the interests of the taxpayer’s money. He didn’t want the aid possibly being swallowed into a known environment of corrupt behavior, such as that found in its largest energy company, Burisma, who employed the son of the former Vice President for an exorbitant amount of money while Biden was in office and serving as the Obama administration’s ‘point man’ on Ukraine.
As for the phone call with the President of Ukraine that the phony “whistle-blower” said showed that President Trump was pressuring Ukraine, that narrative was blown to smithereens when the transcript of that call was declassified and revealed by President Trump himself. In fact, the President was actually working within the legal constraints of a treaty agreement for cooperation between the U.S. and Ukraine on criminal investigations which was approved during the Clinton administration.
Moreover, on several occasions, President Zelensky of Ukraine denied any pressure from America to open any investigations contingent upon the delivery of military aid. So much for any “abuse of power” charge.
What this charge boils down to is a political policy disagreement by the Democrats with a president they hate and fear. He is hated because he beat their darling and latest criminal nominee for president, Hillary Clinton, in 2016.
He is feared because any further investigation in Ukraine will expose the deep corruption of much of the Democratic elite connected with Ukraine, including Clinton herself, and the family of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi as well as others. The public information we already have seems to strongly implicate them in nefarious activities with Ukraine.
The Democrats are attempting to impeach the President for what James Madison, the founder most influential to creating the Constitution, objected to as “impeachment for maladministration.” He rightly feared that this would make impeachment a political cudgel and risk using impeachment on every president in the future.
Madison’s response to Mason’s proposal mattered. He told the delegates that “so vague a term” as maladministration “will be equivalent to tenure during pleasure of the Senate.” That was apparently enough to persuade Mason to back down. …Why did Madison’s intervention work? The answer lies in its observation that the vagueness of “maladministration” would normalize impeachment, and thus effectively give the Senate the power to recall a president.
The Second Article Is More Deficient than the First Article
The second “Article of Impeachment” is so deficient that the House had to invent a new term, “Obstruction of Congress” as its label. Yet that term itself is absurd on its face for the House is only half of Congress.
The Senate makes up the other half of Congress, and no one there suggests they were ‘obstructed’ in any way. The specific reason for this ‘charge’ from the House is the potential use of the president’s constitutional power to exert “executive privilege” to prevent his close advisors from testifying in the House.
Of course, this would mean, as it has in the past, that any congressional challenge to using “executive privilege” would wind up in the federal courts. The House didn’t want to wait for judicial review, which is the legal mandate, so they withdrew their threat to subpoena those who had worked with the President closely in foreign policy, such as former advisor John Bolton.
Their stated reason for haste was the absolute urgency to impeach President Trump as he was causing a “constitutional crisis.” However, that reasoning falls apart when considering that after such haste, it took over a month for the Articles to be delivered to the Senate for trial.
The real reason for the haste was twofold. One was to scar President Trump with the label “impeached” so as to damage his chances for re-election later this year.
The second reason for the delay was that the House knew they would lose badly in a court challenge to “executive privilege.” They would have to claim that it was unconstitutional to use the constitutional avenue of the courts in asserting a constitutional right on behalf of the president.
Yet, they put forth the mythical “obstruction of Congress” tale as if “executive privilege” doesn’t protect classified and privileged communication between the President and his advisors as well as classified communications between him and other world leaders. “Executive privilege” has a long history of legal precedent and has been used by many presidents in American history, including former President Obama who used it to stop congressional action against former Attorney General Eric Holder in the “Fast and Furious” scandal.
There are those who attempt to argue that President Trump should waive executive privilege and allow any witness the House wants to call to testify. The rote reply to justify this is “If he doesn’t have anything to hide, what harm can having witnesses who knew about this come and testify?”
There are two very good reasons for asserting executive privilege here. The first is that President Trump has already given the House millions of documents, and taken the unprecedented step of declassifying not one but two phone conversations with another world leader, and allowed hours of grueling testimony for the Mueller probe including 30 hours given by his own son, Donald Trump Jr.
In other words, President Trump had already provided far more transparency in his dealings than was necessary, and I believe he has decided that enough is enough! No longer was he going to weaken the Executive branch of the American government to kowtow to half of the Legislative branch as if one branch was answerable to another when carrying out its constitutional duty.
The Constitution brilliantly designs our governing powers to be balanced between three separate but equal branches that each have distinct functions and powers granted to enable those functions. Impeachment is only to be used as a last resort, not as a way of firing a duly elected president for a policy difference.
This is why witnesses should not be allowed in the Senate trial. Neither Article of Impeachment can justify more witnesses to try and drag out this farcical procedure.
Allowing witnesses at this point would only justify the House’s actions rather than rebuke them, and cause untold damage to the delicate balance of power between governmental branches. The best answer to such a demand by the House managers should be a symbolic ‘talk to the hand’ and refuse to admit witnesses, and either move to dismiss the Articles or simply acquit the President.
For those on the conservative side who desire that witnesses should be allowed so as to reveal the extent of the corruption by Democratic officials, I would say this. There has already been enough damage done to the process and the nation as a result of this immoral ‘impeachment.’
The investigation of the criminal involvement of Democratic operatives in Ukraine can be resolved in a separate legal action by the Senate alone, or by such action as the Department of Justice may deem necessary. While I would strongly urge such an investigation to take place, it is extremely unwise to drag the impeachment trial into these waters and perhaps plunge us into Constitutional anarchy as a result.
For the LORD gives wisdom; from his mouth come knowledge and understanding; he stores up sound wisdom for the upright; he is a shield to those who walk in integrity, guarding the paths of justice and watching over the way of his saints. Then you will understand righteousness and justice and equity, every good path; Proverbs 2:6-9 [ESV]
Sources: The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, Crossway Bibles, 2001
Featured and Top Image courtesy of Ben Taylor’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 1 courtesy of Lisa’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 2 courtesy of Kurt Bauschardt’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 3 courtesy of Smabs Sputzer (1956-2017) Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Watching the performance “journalism” of the supposed ‘Mainstream’ media during Trump’s presidency often evokes reactions from laughter to rage among supporters of the President. However, this is a significant moment in the history of journalism itself, for we are witnessing the death knell of the MSM, and are on the precipice of an entirely new era of media journalism which is rising to fill the void.
The fall of MSM journalism began in earnest a little more than a half-century ago during the turbulent decade of the 1960s. The event that became the impetus for journalism’s wholesale embrace of Leftist activism was the Vietnam War.
Leftist Journalism and The War in Vietnam
Photo shows soldier lying down in high grass during patrol on Jan. 10, 1966 in Vietnam, soldier is unidentified. (AP Photo)
The Vietnam War was unique in the annals of journalism in that it was the first time journalists could cover a war in close to real-time and deliver that coverage to the entirety of America via video reports on television. Prior to this, most news was disseminated via the newspaper and on the radio or in short news clips that preceded a movie showing at the theater.
This meant that the destruction and horror of war were starting to be beamed into living rooms across the nation and the globe on an almost daily basis. Moreover, the analysis and commentary of media stars such as Walter Cronkite began charting a leftward media course that was instrumental in ignominiously ending the Vietnam War.
The February 1968 assessment by Walter Cronkite, the anchor of the CBS Evening News (known as “the most trusted man in America”), that the conflict was “mired in stalemate” was seen by many as the signal of a sea change in reporting about Vietnam, and it is said to have inspired Pres. Lyndon B. Johnson to state, “If I’ve lost Cronkite, I’ve lost Middle America.”
The influence of network journalists on the “big three” alphabet stations, CBS, ABC, and NBC continued to grow and continued to inch ever-leftward through the 1970s. The Watergate hearings in 1974 seemed to permanently place MSM journalism as the news authority and raised the Washington Post to greater fame than ever after reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein broke the story wide open with information obtained by a secret informant known then as ‘Deep Throat.’
However, that dominance was soon to become threatened by the advent of cable television, and the innovative and determined mind of a media mogul named Ted Turner. His creation of a 24-hour news channel was a brand new invention that changed the journalistic landscape forever.
The Emergence of Cable News and the Case of Richard Jewell
CNN was created by maverickbroadcasting executive Ted Turner as part of his Turner Broadcasting System (TBS), allegedly because industry professionals had told him it could not be done. After four years in development, CNN signed on the air June 1, 1980, with a news telecast anchored by the husband-and-wife team of Dave Walker and Lois Hart.
Ted Turner was enamored of Leftist causes throughout his career, most notably as a champion of ‘environmentalism.’ Early hints of other left-wing views like globalism emerged right from the beginning of CNN’s existence.
Endeavouring to accommodate its worldwide audience, CNN adopted a policy of banning such exclusionary words and phrases as “foreign” and “here at home” from its newscasts.
The fledgling news network struggled to gain much of an audience for the first few years after its premiere. CNN began to climb in the ratings when it scooped the networks on the Challenger Space Shuttle disaster in 1986, and especially with its in-country coverage of the Gulf War in the early 1990s.
The world got a glimpse of the power of the leftist MSM and how that power can be abused on July 27, 1996, with the bombing at the Summer Olympics in Atlanta, Georgia. A man by the name of Richard Jewell discovered the bomb, notified law enforcement and helped clear the area before the bomb detonated.
However, within two days Jewell went from hero to prime suspect of the FBI, which was reported first in headlines from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution on July 30. The networks and print media began to descend upon Jewell like a pack of ravenous wolves, beginning with Atlanta-based CNN.
For the next few months, Jewell was hounded by reporters from all three national networks as well as CNN and vilified in national newspapers as the likely bomber. In one particularly egregious case of journalistic overreach, an August 1, 1996 column by David Kindred of the AJC linked Jewell to a convicted murderer.
Once upon a terrible time, federal agents came to this town to deal with another suspect who lived with his mother. Like this one, that suspect was drawn to the blue lights and sirens of police work. Like this one, he became famous in the aftermath of murder. His name was Wayne Williams. This one is Richard Jewell. …Richard Jewell sits in the shadows today. Wayne Williams sits in prison forever.
It wasn’t until October 26 that Jewell was officially cleared. Years later the actual bomber was arrested and convicted of the Olympic bombing as well as several other bombings in the area.
The Rise of Social Media
During this same period, another technological breakthrough took place which would change the media universe and bring a host of other players outside the normal circle of journalism into play. That was the ascendance of the internet and the subsequent explosion of ‘social media’ onto the scene.
The development of the internet began in the 1960s as an American military effort to link computers together in the event that a nuclear attack destroyed the telephone-based communications of the time. However, the internet as we know it today came about in 1991.
That year, a computer programmer in Switzerland named Tim Berners-Lee introduced the World Wide Web: an internet that was not simply a way to send files from one place to another but was itself a “web” of information that anyone on the Internet could retrieve. Berners-Lee created the Internet that we know today.
The next social media platform came out in 2002 and was called “Friendster.” It became the first such site to claim over 100 million users but eventually went bust in 2015.
Then the floodgates began to open. In 2003 it was “MySpace,” followed by “Facebook” in 2004 which grew to the largest social media platform ever with 2.45 billion active monthly users so far in 2019. “Twitter” came along in 2006 and has now grown to 330 million monthly active users according to figures from the first quarter of 2019.
This explosive growth did more than simply make people like Mark Zuckerburg and Jim Dorsey extremely wealthy. It opened up a brand new media arena for journalism in the digital age and the Leftmedia quickly took full advantage of that.
The fact that the heads of the social media giants such as Facebook and Twitter were also of Leftist persuasions tended to favor a Leftmedia slant toward what has been allowed and what has not on both these platforms. This slant remained relatively unnoticed until the 2016 election of Donald Trump.
The 2016 Election, the Birth of ‘Fake News’, and TDS
Donald Trump became the GOP nominee for President in July of 2016, and the Leftmedia hasn’t stopped howling about him ever since. However, since most of the “experts” gave Trump no chance to defeat Hillary Clinton, that howling was a mere murmur compared to what was to come.
Since the election of Donald Trump, the Leftmedia has earned the label of “fake news” that the President employs with such success. However, the term was not one he invented.
In the 2016 campaign for President, the term “fake news” was first used by the Clinton camp speaking about the Wikileaks release of emails from Hillary’s campaign manager John Podesta. They claimed these released emails were not authentic and called them “fake news.”
President Trump masterfully appropriated and used this term to reveal bit-by-bit the duplicity of the Leftmedia as a whole for the last three years. Moreover, it likely contributed to the creation and spread of another term used to describe the anti-Trump crowd in society as suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome or TDS.
I have written about the reality, danger, and spread of TDS on several occasions in this journal. Though this pernicious disease is not limited to Leftmedia ‘journalism’, TDS is expressed there more starkly and in more abundance than anywhere else.
The relationship between TDS and “fake news” as one of its symptoms can be demonstrated through a “thread” which I found while sifting through the muck on my Twitter feed. A “thread” is a series of posts from one user concerning the same subject.
Since Twitter has a strict limit on how many characters a person is allowed to put into one post, a “thread” is a way to write a longer story with a series of shorter ‘chapters’, so to speak. These are employed by most who use Twitter, however, this “thread” was unusual for both its length and content.
It consisted of over 100 postings and the content was mainly side-by-side screenshots of headlines from both digital and print Leftmedia ‘news’ stories highlighting the hypocrisy and deception employed by their ilk.
Here is how this posting by user “Incarcerated_ET” begins:
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Anons present to you:
THE FAKE NEWS
-their coordinated efforts
-and out right lies
>>side by side for easy dissemination
>>just like Q asked
This example is a mild introduction beginning with the obvious TDS of Ms. Wellington gushing over the “dream come true” of HRC in a plain white pantsuit and then declaring that Melania’s white dress was equivalent to the GOP being for whites only!
These instructive comparisons continue on and reveal many which seem petty, like the one above, and others that are outright furious and hostile towards the President or anything associated with him.
Here is one item in the same stream from the Leftist site “Slate,” on why the electoral college is a great idea, and then why it is not only terrible but was a racist idea from the beginning.
Note how Slate’s opinion changed dramatically when it was Obama winning in 2012 versus when Trump won in 2016. Here is another example of the 100+ samples in the thread from dear old reliable CNN.
CNN begins with the assertion that “paid family leave” is a wonderful concept which should be embraced by everyone. But then, Trump agrees and places it in his budget and viola, “paid family leave” is suddenly a bad thing!
Here is the last piece I will share from the thread demonstrating both TDS and “fake news” on the very same page.
The “fake news” was the large headline printed directly under the actual truth about the President’s statement which did condemn “white supremacists” and everyone else involved in the violent protests at Charlottesville. Guess which one of these assertions is still being used as ammunition against President Trump even today.
TDS and “fake news” have been the SOP of the Left from the very start of Trump’s presidency, including the failed “Mueller Report,” and has continued into the current phony “impeachment inquiry” in the House of Representatives. Here is a brief video ensemble showing why this is simply another dose of “fake news” and TDS by the Leftmedia.
Dear members of the media, if you want to understand why no one cares about impeachment and minds are not being changed, watch this and understand.
The narrative of the Leftmedia is crumbling under the onslaught brought about by those
who actually pay attention to the Leftist’s diatribes on social media. Moreover, that
number of people is growing by the day and portends the death of Leftmedia
What is also being slowly realized by those same people is that the “media” is no longer what is spoon-fed to us by the elites in the mainstream. We will explore the recent declaration of this new phenomenon by the phrase, “We are the media now,” in part two of this series.
“Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive. The venom of asps is under their lips. Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness. Their feet are swift to shed blood; in their paths are ruin and misery, and the way of peace they have not known. There is no fear of God before their eyes.” Romans 3:13-18 [ESV]
In the past few weeks, the world has witnessed a series of historically unique political events courtesy of the Leftists occupying the United States Congress. All of these events are honed in on their last-ditch, desperation shot to stop the juggernaut that is President Donald J. Trump.
It is evident that the Left realizes the truth of the situation heading into a presidential election year in 2020. Each day Trump succeeds in any area, whether a speech electrifying mammoth crowds or his foreign policy victories, hammers home the understanding within the progressive psyche that no Democrat can defeat the President in this election.
This has whittled the choices of the Left down to three measures. Their chances of succeeding with these are slim and none and, as the saying goes, ‘slim just left town.’
The choices are first, that the Left can somehow engage in enough widespread voter fraud to snatch a phony ‘victory’ from the jaws of defeat. That possibility should not be taken lightly and measures such as a mandatory voter-ID law should be passed to help prevent this.
However, this avenue of attack is almost certain to fail should the forces on the Left attempt it. The 2020 elections will likely be the most scrutinized in history, and conservatives in all arenas have become much more aware of potential voter fraud since 2016.
Second, the Left can put its full efforts into influencing the vote through social media manipulation, however, this is also a vain effort 2020. The recent testimony of Dr. Robert Epstein revealed that millions of votes had been influenced toward Hillary Clinton through the machinations of the giant internet platform in 2016.
Of course, that hidden effort did not result in Hillary winning the presidency. Now that this information is public going into 2020, it is highly unlikely that another such attempt would be successful in defeating the President.
This leaves choice number three, which is the course the Left is currently embarking upon, to attempt to impeach President Trump. In their view, if somehow they can get rid of Trump in this manner, then the election will be theirs by default.
I’m not one to rain on the Left’s parade, well actually I am, but this effort is also doomed to failure for three big reasons. It is a pseudo-Impeachment that is illegal, immoral, and idiotic.
It Is Illegal
The U.S. Constitution gives the Impeachment power to the House of Representatives with but one statement within Clause 5, Section 2 of Article 1;
The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.
Section 3 of Article 1 deals with the functions of the Senate. The Impeachment process is explained in more detail concerning the role of the Senate in Clause 6 and 7.
The Senate shall have the sole power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be under Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment, and Punishment, according to the law.
Article 2 of the Constitution establishes the working rules of the Executive Branch of the Federal government. Section 4 of Article 2 provides the conditions under which a President could be impeached and removed.
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, and other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
The current ‘Impeachment’ inquiry by the House Intelligence Committee violates the Constitution with its limited and secretive procedures and is thus fundamentally illegal. The legal requirement is that the House, not a committee in the House, has Impeachment power.
Rep. Adam Schiff [D-CA], the Committee Chair invoked rules keeping testimony ‘secret’ and not allowing subpoenas or ‘witnesses’ other than from Democratic sources. This is an unprecedented procedure by the House when dealing with the Impeachment of the President.
In prior Impeachment proceedings of any sort, nothing was conducted in secret and advocates for the President were allowed to participate. That was rightly the case because of the unique importance and seriousness of Impeachment.
Impeachment is arguably the most important criminal procedure in the nation for it seeks to remove the choice of the people who voted. Thus every part of the procedure should be open to public observance and legal participation by both sides of the argument which has been the case until now.
Moreover, the failure to even name a potential charge for any particular crime and keep the proceedings cloaked from view is more reminiscent of secret courts in tyrannical regimes throughout history.
Schiff and his allies have attempted to justify the secrecy by likening the Committee’s sessions to Grand Jury indictment proceedings. These are secret and designed to indict and move forward with criminal prosecution.
However, Impeachment functions more as a pre-trial hearing then as a Grand Jury indictment. When actual Impeachment happens, the real trial begins in the Senate, and both procedures are rightly public with representation for both accused and accuser.
To deny all of this is to foist an illegal pseudo-Impeachment upon the people of the United States. The determination of the Left to do so regardless of this and other destructive consequences renders the effort immoral as well.
It Is Immoral
The intent of the Left is simply to gain unassailable political power over America and its citizenry. Much like the Borg of Star Trek fame, they possess a hive mentality toward that end such that any means, moral or immoral to accomplish its goal is justified for the Left.
The pseudo-Impeachment attempt is one of those immoral means employed by the Left against America. It is immoral because it is aimed at forcing the removal of a duly elected President illegally without due cause and thus usurping the will of the people of the nation.
The accusation against President Trump is both ludicrous and fallacious. He is accused of pressuring the Ukrainian President Kesleyev to investigate a political rival for corruption in order to gain a political advantage in the 2020 election in a phone conversation in July of this year.
We know this accusation is bogus because President Trump provided the actual transcript of the phone call to the public, including the members of the House of Representatives. The transcript reveals that nothing resembling the Left’s preposterous claims is true.
At this point, some readers might ask, “What about the ‘whistleblower’ complaint?” First of all, the ‘whistleblower’s’ complaint which began this newest fiasco is a moot point since we have the transcript of the call.
In fact, the so-called ‘whistleblower’ is now so clearly irrelevant that Chairman Schiff has decided he or she might not need to testify at all.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) on Sunday said that testimony from the intelligence community whistleblower at the center of the House impeachment inquiry against President Trump may no longer be necessary. “Given that we already have the call record, we don’t need the whistleblower who wasn’t on the call to tell us what took place during the call,” he told Margaret Brennan during an interview on CBS’s “Face the Nation.”
It is telling that this pseudo-Impeachment is the culmination of the TDS infected Left’s efforts since before Donald Trump became the President. This was evidenced by a ‘celebrity’ video attempt in December of 2016 to convince the electors to change their pledged votes and go against Donald Trump.
The celebrity video was accompanied by numerous street protests demanding electors not support the then President-elect, against the voters of their respective states. As seen in the video, electors received a lot of pressure from Leftists in the form of calls, letters, emails to abandon their trust regardless of their promises.
The first national public official to call for impeachment was Rep. Maxine Waters [D-CA]. In a recent interview with ESSENCE online, Waters stated,
I have been calling for and talking about the impeachment of this president since his inauguration.
When that statement is considered closely, it actually means that Waters believed it was a right or moral action to impeach a President who had literally not done anything in the office of the President! She would have been deliriously happy if formal Impeachment hearings would have begun on January 20, 2017, immediately after Trump took the oath of office.
Moreover, as can be seen from the top photograph, public demonstrations pushing for Trump’s Impeachment began a month after his inauguration.
Essentially for the Left, the entirety of Trump’s presidency has been an Impeachment investigation searching for a crime. Any possible crime, even with invented evidence, is tossed to the salivating Leftmedia and they invariably use it to excoriate the President and his supporters, while calling for Trump’s destruction.
It is immoral to visit political and personal destruction upon this President as the Left is doing with their pseudo-Impeachment. It has been so since the calls for Impeachment began.
It Is Idiotic
The Left’s illegal, immoral, pseudo-Impeachment is also an idiotic political move. Moreover, there is already evidence that simply efforts at an ‘Inquiry’ concerning Impeachment have backfired with increasing support for President Trump.
For instance, since the rhetoric of Impeachment became incessant, Trump’s re-election campaign coffers grew by 125 million dollars last quarter, which is a record and many times the DNC’s fundraising efforts.
“President Trump has built a juggernaut of a campaign, raising record amounts of money at a record pace,” said Trump campaign manager Brad Parscale. RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel credited Democratic attacks on Trump for motivating supporters to donate in record numbers.
This surge was a reflection of over 300,000 new donors added to the RNC in the third quarter as well.
President Trump’s 2020 re-election effort raised $45 million online in the third quarter on a surge of small-dollar donations driven by 313,000 first-time donors, campaign officials said. The money, which the campaign raised jointly with the Republican National Committee, was part of the $125 million overall raised in the quarter. The online amount wasn’t previously disclosed and represents a 29% increase over the second quarter.
The reality is that going through with this pseudo-Impeachment only ends badly for the Democratic party. If they manage to actually vote to ‘Impeach’ and can’t get the votes, they look petty and Trump wins 2020 in a landslide.
If they vote for Impeachment’ it is dead on arrival in the Senate, and Trump remains in office. The Democrats look foolish and petty and Trump destroys them in 2020.
The President is already packing out stadiums and campaigning at a furious pace. The Left’s ‘Impeachment’ furor is only serving to create a backlash that increases his support.
However, the political Left may now be cornered by reality. They cannot beat Trump at the ballot box, so they hope against hope to damage him with a pseudo-Impeachment.
The attempt will be futile, but that fact won’t stop the attempt from being made. Moreover, it is what the Left may try after failing with pseudo-Impeachment that is perhaps more concerning, but that is another article.
Why do you boast of evil, O mighty man? The steadfast love of God endures all the day. Your tongue plots destruction, like a sharp razor, you worker of deceit. Psalm 52:1-2 [ESV]
Sources: The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, Crossway Bibles, 2001
The recent ‘impeachment inquiry’ farce has revealed the corruption of the Leftist Democrat machine to a greater degree than perhaps ever before. Moreover, in recent weeks it has also once again brought forth the darkness the Democrats matron of evil to haunt us as we head into the 2020 election year.
It is fitting that in October of 2019, the political horror of 2016, Hillary Rodham Clinton has been revived from near-death. Many doubted she would ever recover from her embarrassing thrashing at the hands of that despicable Donald Trump and his “deplorables.”
However, some recent media appearances and statements concerning the impeachment fever of the Left by Ms. Malevolence, aka HRC, have altogether dispelled the rumors of her demise. Yes, Hillary is back and, unfortunately, she will remain high-profile long after Halloween.
A Brief History of Hillary’s Evil
Entire books have been written concerning the nefarious exploits of HRC. For the sake of brevity, we will cover only two areas of Hillary’s vast catalog of heinous behavior.
The first area covers a series of horrible acts that have yet to be legally pinned to Hillary, but they are virtually certain to be actions she participated in by one means or another. The latest of these involved the ‘suicide’ of pedophile Jeffrey Epstein in August of this year.
There were connections between Bill Clinton and Epstein’s infamous “pedophile island,” as has been revealed in specific flight logs when the former President joined Epstein on excursions to that den of filth. That itself would only cast a shadow of suspicion towards the Clintons if not for the fact this makes almost 50 “associates” of Hillary and Bill which had died under suspicious circumstances, many of which were ruled a “suicide.”
Epstein would make the list of suspicious deaths three years after the last ‘victim,’ DC staffer Seth Rich who was murdered on July 10, 2016, in what was ruled a robbery attempt in which nothing was stolen. They are currently number 47 and 48 on the list.
Here are a few more outstanding examples of suspicious dying while having dirt on the Clintons:
James McDougal – Clintons convicted Whitewater partner died of an apparent heart attack, while in solitary confinement. He was a key witness in Ken Starr’s investigation. Mary Mahoney – A former White House intern was murdered July 1997 at a Starbucks Coffee Shop in Georgetown .. The murder …happened just after she was to go public with her story of sexual harassment in the White House. Vince Foster – Former White House counselor, and colleague of Hillary Clinton at Little Rock’s Rose Law firm. Died of a gunshot wound to the head, ruled a suicide. Ron Brown – Secretary of Commerce and former DNC Chairman. Reported to have died by impact in a plane crash. A pathologist close to the investigation reported that there was a hole in the top of Brown’s skull resembling a gunshot wound. At the time of his death Brown was being investigated, and spoke publicly of his willingness to cut a deal with prosecutors. The rest of the people on the plane also died. A few days later the Air Traffic controller committed suicide. Suzanne Coleman – Reportedly had an affair with Clinton when he was Arkansas Attorney General. Died of a gunshot wound to the back of the head, ruled a suicide. Was pregnant at the time of her death.
The sheer volume of the questionable deaths of those close to the Clintons defies any reasonable explanation other than somehow, they were involved in at least some of them. It resembles the body count of a Mafia boss who systematically eliminates his foes.
The second piece of Hillary’s sordid history is connected with a new revelation by Judicial Watch in their investigation of Hillary’s e-mail scandal. It shows communication between the Department of Defense and the State Department on the evening of September 11, 2012, concerning military support of Americans under fire in Benghazi, Libya.
The newly released email reads:
“From: Bash, Jeremy CIV SD [REDACTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2012 7:19 PM
To: Sullivan, Jacob J; Sherman, Wendy R; Nides, Thomas R
Cc: Miller, James HON OSD POLICY; Wienefeld, James A ADM JSC VCJCS; Kelly, John LtGen SD; martin, dempsey [REDACTED]
I just tried you on the phone but you were all in with S [apparent reference to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton].
After consulting with General Dempsey, General Ham and the Joint Staff, we have identified the forces that could move to Benghazi. They are spinning up as we speak. They include a [REDACTED].
Assuming Principals agree to deploy these elements, we will ask State to procure the approval from host nation. Please advise how you wish to convey that approval to us [REDACTED].
Jacob Sullivan was Deputy Chief of Staff to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at the time of the terrorist attack at Benghazi.
“Spinning up as we speak,” meant that they were ready to take off and awaiting the go-ahead order. According to congressional testimony by Gregory Hicks, this aid would have arrived in time to prevent American deaths. Hicks was the,
Deputy Chief of Mission of the U.S. embassy in Tripoli at the time of the Benghazi terrorist attack. According to Hicks’ 2013 testimony, a show of force by the U.S. military during the siege could have prevented much of the carnage. Said Hicks, “if we had been able to scramble a fighter or aircraft or two over Benghazi as quickly as possible after the attack commenced, I believe there would not have been a mortar attack on the annex in the morning because I believe the Libyans would have split. They would have been scared to death that we would have gotten a laser on them and killed them.”
The help never arrived and Americans Tyrone Woods, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty, and Ambassador Christopher Stevens likely could have been saved. Hillary knew about all of this and left them to die anyway.
Moreover, President Obama knew about it as well and both of them repeatedly lied, as well as told their underlings to lie about the attack both concerning its nature and cause, as well as denying that help could have been sent and lives saved. Bill Whittle provides more details in the following video.
A weeks-long cover-up of this horrific crime commenced, but the truth eventually came out despite Hillary’s insistent rant of,
What difference does it make?
Benghazi alone disqualified Hillary for the office of the President and should have bought her a ticket to prison. However, as we all now know, Hillary’s evil acts continued and it appears that the e-mail scandal could finally prove to be her downfall.
However hopeful that sentiment is for the sake of some justice, Hillary has once more resurfaced to torment us with her pearls of perverted wisdom. Here are some samples of Hillary’s latest “hits.”
Hillary’s Latest “Hits”
Perhaps the most astonishing thing about Hillary is how morally obtuse she is regarding the death and destruction she had already visited upon America even before she ran in the 2016 presidential election. In the annals of American history, Hillary was the most corrupt candidate ever to run for President of the United States, period.
She has learned nothing in the interim which would grant her a conscience in the time since her trouncing by Trump. Her latest ramblings remain full of elitist arrogance and ooze royal entitlement to a throne she still believes was stolen from her.
Hillary Clinton said that Donald Trump is an “illegitimate president” during a Wednesday appearance on ABC’s “The View.” The former presidential candidate made the comment after host Joy Behar asked what she made of Trump leading “lock her up!” chants at campaign rallies. “I do think that [Trump] knows that he’s an illegitimate president,” said Clinton to applause from the studio audience.
That is, of course, another lie spouted from the political queen of deception. President Trump not only scored a decisive defeat of HRC, but he also did it completely legitimately in full accord with the Constitution of the United States.
To no one’s surprise, Hillary has enthusiastically jumped aboard the “impeachment” train, which hasn’t legitimately left the station and is actually headed nowhere. However, for Hillary and her supporters, this is a step toward a bigger opportunity laid before them.
Hillary has to date claimed she is not interested in running for president again in 2020. Yet in a recent social media exchange, she strongly hinted at wanting a rematch, claiming she would win.
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has trolled President Donald Trump, joking that she can defeat him in a 2020 rematch after he mockingly said that the former first lady should run for the president again. “Obviously, I can beat him again,” Clinton joked during an interview on PBS News Hour on Tuesday when asked about a tweet from Trump in which he suggested that she run against him in the 2020 polls.
This reference may indeed have been a joke, but make no mistake, the only thing Hillary would like more than a 2020 rematch would be if President Trump were impeached and removed from office. Then she would be able to run against a President Pence.
Could Hillary actually run as the Democratic nominee in 2020? Absolutely, and this is how it could come about.
Consider first the current crop of Democratic candidates. The frontrunners are former Vice President Joe Biden and Senator Elizabeth Warren.
Neither these two nor any of the remaining contenders are any real challenge to President Trump’s re-election, despite current political polling. Hillary could step in to try and ‘rescue’ the Democratic party given her wealth, popularity on the Left, and the promises of future power in her administration she could make to the other candidates.
Most importantly to the elitist Left, this is what they really want because they need to refute the 2016 election. They agree with Hillary that Trump should not ever have been elected President and only if Hillary triumphs over Donald Trump will they feel vindicated for the 2016 defeat.
At this point, a run by Hillary for 2020 seems unlikely for one reason, she has a lot more to lose than just another election. Hillary is facing a lot of heat already with the continuing e-mail revelations from Judicial Watch and the investigations of the Attorney General into the origins of the ‘Russia collusion’ hoax.
However, she has proved adept at avoiding the legal consequences of her evil actions in the past. If she does step back into the race, it will be quite a show, but I predict she would suffer an even more lopsided defeat this time, and I sincerely pray I would prove prophetic in that circumstance.
Your tongue plots destruction, like a sharp razor, you worker of deceit. You love evil more than good, and lying more than speaking what is right. Selah Psalm 52:2,3 [ESV]
Sources: The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, Crossway Bibles, 2001
It didn’t take the New York Times long to implement their newest strategy in the Left’s holy quest to dispose of President Trump. Their intent to pursue a plan labeling Trump and his supporters as purveyors of ‘pseudo-racism’ and ‘white supremacy’ is beginning with a large false premise they are spending hundreds of thousands of words to promote.
It is called “The 1619 Project,” and it is a deliberate attempt to revise American history and portray America as founded upon slavery itself. It is a series of articles, a photo essay, and poems presented in the New York Times Magazinethat total 100 pages.
This ambitious effort carries its title because 1619 is the year when the first slaves were sold at the Jamestown colony in what would become America. This publication happens to be both 400 years later and just in time to begin maligning the nation prior to the 2020 elections.
The Fake News Deliberately Tells Fake History
This initial offering of the Times race-baiting history series proposes that we should re-view the America founding from 1619 instead of 1776. The claim is that America’s founding actually began with slavery and racism, moreover that America was built upon slavery and the racism that has outlived that horrible institution.
The “1619 Project” supports this contention with some factual information, for example specifically about the contributions of blacks in all of America’s wars. However, though facts are given, the whole truth is not.
There are some very glaring omissions from the list of black Americans who have bravely served in the United States military. For example, the lone mention of a Revolutionary War black soldier was Crispus Attucks, yet the following brave fighters were left out.
James Armistead was a spy for Lafayette who had access to General Cornwallis’s headquarters. Back in 1996, the New York Times wrote about the First Rhode Island Regiment, who fought at Newport and Pine’s Bridge, and in a regrouped form, Yorktown. By one account, one-quarter of the American forces at the battle of Yorktown were black. The 1619 Project does not mention the Battle of Yorktown.
There is an amazing number of facts which would tell an accurate history and are left out of the “1619 Project.” Here are a few other such omissions concerning black Americans who have served the nation in military service.
There’s no mention of the Harlem Hellfighters fighting in World War One, and no mention of Dorie Miller’s heroism at Pearl Harbor. The horrors of the Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male are discussed, but the Tuskegee Airmen are never mentioned.
Dedication of Tuskegee Airmen Historic Museum
It is beyond comprehension that a group of black soldiers who were so renowned as to have a major movie made about them is not mentioned in a purported historical account like this. It seems that tales of heroism on the battlefield by Americans of African descent don’t quite fit the portrait the “1619 Project” is trying to paint.
But the fake news history doesn’t stop there. Here is a partial list of famous black Americans who have contributed to our history in enormous ways up to and through the civil rights movement of the 1960s, that are simply left out of the “1619 Project.”
Harriet Tubman-founder of the Underground Railroad during the Civil War. Sojourner Truth – a prominent abolitionist during the Civil War Jesse Owens – Olympic athlete in the 1936 games Jackie Robinson – First American of African descent in Major League Baseball Booker T. Washington – Prominent intellectual and advisor to American presidents RosaParks – The famous woman who refused to give up her seat and “go to the back of the bus,” in Montgomery, Alabama in 1955. This triggered the beginning of the civil rights movement by spurring Martin Luther King Jr. to lead a yearlong boycott of buses in Montgomery.
The obvious question is this; How can any true account featuring the struggles of black Americans throughout history not include these names? The answer is that this can only happen if what is being produced is a revised history to be used as propaganda for a malevolent cause.
The “1619 Project” is Designed to Justify Claims that Everything Is Racist in America
The historical propaganda of the “1619 Project” is designed to advance the false narrative that America was born as an inherently racist nation that, despite all the progress toward racial equality in America, remains racist today. They try to do this by questioning what it is that made America’s real founding exceptional.
Where the 1619 articles go wrong is in a persistent and off-key theme: an effort to prove that slavery “is the country’s very origin,” that slavery is the source of “nearly everything that has truly made America exceptional,” and that, in Hannah-Jones’s words, the founders “used” “racist ideology” “at the nation’s founding.” In this, the Times steps beyond history and into political polemic—one based on a falsehood and that in an essential way, repudiates the work of countless people of all races, including those Hannah-Jones celebrates, who have believed that what makes America “exceptional” is the proposition that all men are created equal.
There are those who claim that since slavery isn’t outlawed in the original Constitution, it was evidence of essential racism. However, that ignores two critical facts.
First, though slavery wasn’t outlawed outright, the Constitution did provide for the future outlawing of the slave trade. Article 1, Section 9 prohibits Congress from making any laws against maritime trade until 1808.
Second, as Professor Charles Kesler points out to Mark Levin in a recent interview, the first day the Congress could outlaw the slave trade according to the Constitution, they did so under this clause. That was a portion of the Founder’s vision to gradually remove slavery by lawful and peaceful means.
Rewriting history is always a perilous proposition because it paves the way for future tyranny. It has been used as a prominent tactic by all Socialist and Fascistic movements from Marxists to National Socialists, aka Nazis, in modern history.
The same motivation lurks behind the New York Times’ efforts at fraudulent, fairy-tale American history. The editors and authors of this Leftist bastion publication believe that if America can be portrayed as a racist nation throughout history, people will realize that the nation needs to be “fundamentally transformed,” as former President Barack Obama declared just before assuming office.
It doesn’t concern the Left that the historical narrative presented is patently false and based on false assumptions. All that matters to them is setting and controlling the narrative so that enough people believe the lies to aid in overturning liberty in the land.
It doesn’t matter to the Left that pushing the ‘racism is endemic to America’ myth could easily result in violence that threatens to racially divide the country and perhaps permanently damage the fabric of society. The one thing that matters now for the Left is to eliminate the biggest obstacle to their plans of domination and that is President Trump and all of his supporters.
It Is Also Designed as a Weapon Against President Trump and His Supporters
The “1619 Project” is intended to set the basis for racist attacks against President Trump and all of his supporters ahead of the 2020 election. Hints of this have been around throughout Trump’s first term.
For instance, witness the retorts of Leftists to the Trump campaign motto, Make America Great Again. The response was and remains a disdainful “America was never great!”
The “1619 Project” reinforces that dismissive claim with bogus historical evidence that itself dismisses some of the most noteworthy accomplishments of black Americans in history.
Another dangerous tactic of the Left, especially of the Leftmedia in particular, has been enlarging their hatred of Donald Trump to include his supporters. There has been a flood of vitriol over social media castigating Trump supporters and even calling for violence against them for the better part of the last four years.
It is seen on protest signs, featured on CNN and MSNBC and the networks, and actual violence has been committed against individuals simply for wearing a red MAGA hat! Moreover, in an excellent article last summer by John Nolte, he catalogs over 600 incidents of violence and harassment against Trump supporters from September of 2015 to July of 2018.
One of the best refutations of the claim that America is racist comes from one American of African descent who supports President Trump and proudly believes in the actual and potential greatness of America. He was confronted by a Leftist woman who saw his Make America Great Again hat and asked, “When was America great?”
This man’s stern and valid defense of America’s greatness is a fine example of how all supporters of the President must respond to these Leftist attacks. The “1619 Project” is but the beginning of the onslaught against Trump and all who stand with him.
As supporters of the President, we must know and defend the truth that America is exceptional today because it was declared at her founding that indeed, “All men are created equal.” That was and remains a rare and exceptional ideal which America has striven to fulfill as no other nation on earth has and we have come closer to doing so than any nation on earth.
For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery. Galatians 5:1 [ESV]
Sources: The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, Crossway Bibles, 2001
I recently read this quote attributed to legendary actor Clint Eastwood,
If you could reason with Democrats, there wouldn’t be any Democrats.
I immediately thought that truer words have never been spoken. This same idea has rolled around in my brain concerning the Left in general for many years and I have wondered why that is so.
Why can’t reason sway a Leftist? Why is it that using reasonable speech to counter a Leftist talking-point is met with verbal, and sometimes beyond verbal, attempts to silence you?
After much consideration and observation of Leftist behavior, I think I have at least a partial answer.
Why Reason is Unconvincing to Leftists
There are several reasons the Left can’t be reasoned with. However, they can be summed up by the elevation of emotion over truth by the devotees of Leftism.
It is important to understand that emotions are not inherently unreasonable. For instance, it is not unreasonable to have strong negative emotions toward someone who has harmed you or your loved ones.
However, emotions become unreasonable when they are allowed to dictate beliefs and actions to such an extent that seeking harm to another is the result. This is, in part, why God’s Word rails against seeking vengeance against an enemy.
Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” Romans 12:19 [ESV]
A specific example of using emotion over reason was analyzed in this journal last year concerning the disgusting behavior of the Left against Justice Brett Kavanaugh. In that drama, the presumption of innocence was tossed aside in favor of a political agenda while smearing an honorable man before Congress.
Moreover, two of the current Democratic candidates for President, Sen. Cory Booker [D-NJ] and Sen. Kamala Harris [D-CA], were exceptionally defamatory and ridiculous at the same time. Recall that the Kavanaugh hearings were where Booker became a self-proclaimed ‘Spartacus.’
Worse, they also did real damage to those who are the vast majority of victims of sexual crimes. Which makes it easier for those who are truly guilty to prey on the innocent.
Moreover, this terrible farce will not serve to help real victims of sexual crimes. Instead, it will make it harder for accounts to be believed even if the stories are credible. So much for the Democrats helping women.
It is unreasonable to advocate for an emotional response which, if successful, would harm those who they claim are their staunch allies.
The Left today epitomizes and advocates incoherent and unreasonable policy in society with enforcement by the state in a number of areas. The attempt to justify this is full of emotional appeals designed to castigate logic and reason.
The current press of “transgender rights” into society and law is a perfect example of emotion over reason. Reason would recognize the biological reality of male and female and not accept the concept of ‘gender fluidity.’
The emotional appeals of imagined victims who claim their right to ‘identify’ as any sex they wish anytime they wish are used as attacks against not allowing the mentally disturbed to have their way. The impact of the emotion on some drives them to attempt the patently absurd.
For example, witness the infamous case of a Canadian man who now ‘identifies’ as a woman that wanted to have “her” genitals waxed, but was refused service by a real woman who wasn’t comfortable doing that. He is suing the business on the basis of gender discrimination.
The fact that both high-ranking politicians and ‘gender-challenged’ people will engage in totally unreasonable and even deranged behavior invites an important question. What is their motive, that is, what do they have to gain through this?
The Motive Is Power
Put simply, the motive is power. In the case of the man convinced he is really a woman, the motive will be personal power, specifically power to legally invade the privacy of real women and children.
In some particular people, the personal power of gender ‘identity’ is specific to athletic endeavors. The recent domination of several women’s sports on the high school level is evidence of that.
In some, those of means or already in positions of power, such as politicians, the motive is gaining power over others. The Leftist politicians will say that they should be given more power to be used for the creation of a more perfect, humanistic utopia.
Some of those political figures might truly believe in the Socialist ideal of a man-made paradise on earth. If so, they are also exhibiting unreasonable faith in a system that has never worked despite many, many attempts in the real world.
Their misplaced faith is even more deluded given that there are real-time examples of Socialism’s inherent failure going on around the world today. Venezuela is the most recent prominent example of such yet that does not dissuade the enthusiasts of the Left at all.
This faith of the Left, or as they might call it, “progressivism,” is very much like a religious cult without a real Diety. This false faith is placed in imperfect humans in authority with the expectation that somehow a more perfect government and society will be the result.
The Founders of America did not see humanity as capable of perfecting itself, which is why they placed limits on the power of government in the Constitution. The cult of the Left sees the Constitution very differently and the consequence of adopting their view has been leading steadily toward tyranny in America.
Professor Charles Kessler explains this clearly in a portion of his appearance with Mark Levin a few nights ago. Pay particular attention to the last two minutes of the video for some real enlightenment on the Left’s view of the world.
Kessler says that Leftism is really like a medieval religion with an inquisition, an index of forbidden books and thoughts, and a “moral patrol” to ensure no one reads forbidden books or expresses forbidden thoughts.
All three of those qualities are manifested today by the Left on social media. The “moral patrol” on social media can be called the morality police that put those who express forbidden thoughts into ‘Twitter jail,’ or ‘Facebook jail.’
The inquisition can be seen unfolding through the flurry of hostile ‘tweets’ viciously attacking anyone who disagrees with the Left, especially if they can characterize it as ‘offensive.’ The attacks are consistently low on substance and high on overwhelmingly emotional accusations of ‘racism,’ ‘xenophobia,’ ‘Islamophobia,’ ‘Anti-LBGTQ+,’ etcetera, etcetera, which make up the lexicon of forbidden words and thoughts.
However, these qualities of Leftism are not unique or restricted to social media. As has been seen particularly in Portland, Oregon with the dangerous antics of Antifa, the Left’s morality police on the street will enforce their decrees with violence against innocents.
It is evident the Left is so entrenched in their completely illogical and unreasonable positions that they can’t be argued out of them. So why should conservatives continue to bring logic and reason to the fore to refute the Left?
Reason Is Still Necessary to Combat the Unreasonable Left
Reason is absolutely necessary as a tool to combat the Left and their agenda, despite the fact that it will not convince a committed Leftist to abandon their faith in the cult of Progressivism. There are three key considerations favoring the use of reason against the unreasonable Left.
First, consider that not all Leftists are equally committed to the cause. Because it takes a large amount of blind faith to completely swallow the illogic of Leftism, there are those among them who can be convinced by solid reasonable evidence.
The evidence for this is found in many places online. Examples include the #walkaway movement filled with testimonies on YouTube and FB and Twitter of former Leftists who have “walked away” from that view, and encourage others to do so as well.
Another example is influential broadcaster Candace Owens, a black woman who was a young believer in the Leftist agenda and became a convert to conservatism a few years ago. She is at the forefront of a multitude of black conservatives expressing themselves with both emotion and reason online, some of whom have recently seen the light of conservativism.
Second, consider that there are uncommitted people who are listening and some are looking for reasons to get out of the middle of the road. In many cases, those people are also getting tired of being run over especially by the strident and incessant clamor of the Left in society.
These are the people who just wanted to live a peaceful, non-political life raising a family and perhaps gaining some relative prosperity in the process. That is until they found out that their kids were being forced to support the delusion of ‘transgender identity’ in the classroom of their public school.
These parents were living and enjoying life and just minded their own business. But now, the Left has begun to push into their own lives and that makes it their business, thus they are listening for ways to combat the Left.
Third, consider that it is always right to present the truth against falsehood even if the odds seem to be against you. That is the example provided by God in His Word to counter the greatest falsehood of all, the falsehood of hopelessness.
The gospel of Jesus Christ is the greatest truth in history which banishes the lie of hopelessness against the reality of sin. All people know and are bothered by the fact that in some way, they are imperfect and incomplete both without and within.
However, not all understand that this condition is really the inherent sin common to all. Some will react with a denial that there is a problem, even going so far as to unreasonably deny the existence of God, and abandoning any hope or effort to find the truth.
By the way, denying the existence of God is an unreasonable position. But that is a subject for another time.
Others will try almost anything to remedy their imperfections both physically and spiritually from cosmetic surgery to psychic “ascended masters,” without success. That leads to a sense of frustration and hopelessness.
However, the gospel presents the truth that there is hope in Jesus Christ and relief from the imperfection and destruction of sin is found for each of us through faith in His sacrifice on the cross. A sacrifice prompted by the perfect love of God to bring hope to humanity.
The truth that as you or I grow in faith, we can with renewed hope see the time when faith comes to completion and we are made perfect in Christ. That hope is one good reason among many to accept the gospel truth.
For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known. 1 Corinthians 13:12 [ESV]
Sources: The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, Crossway Bibles, 2001
The recent mass shootings in El Paso, TX, and Dayton, Ohio this past weekend have once again turned the political spotlight on the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Left always has its attacks primed for these eventualities, and as usual, their arguments are forceful demonstrations of folly.
Of course, that does not discourage the Left from screechings at conservatives, directly blaming President Trump, to calling for completely unconstitutional measures that would demonstrably violate the 2nd Amendment. None of those actions are unexpected from the Leftist core believers as well as their political shills.
This journal has warned before of the danger of trying to infringe on the 2nd Amendment rights of Americans. In this instance, the danger may be taking a surprising twist.
What is surprising, and alarming, is the reaction of some conservative law-makers and frankly, some statements from President Trump himself. He gave a critical speech about the shootings and gave some proposals which are ostensibly tailored to help reduce or prevent such horrific happenings in the future.
However, before I delve into the President’s words, I need to confront the absolute false narrative of the Left that Trump is a racist white supremacist and responsible for the shootings. Those on the Left, at whatever level of government or media they exist, are simply lying to advance their evil agenda.
Trump’s speech more clearly than ever should have satisfied the most ardent critics that he is not a racist or a white supremacist. He could not have more forcefully denounced both claims on a comprehensive level, but that doesn’t stop the malicious Left from lying about him and trying to silence him.
Not only has President Trump never said the racist things the Left keeps lying about, but his actions also demonstrate that he is not racist in any way. He spoke with sincerity, grace, and firmness in his response to the shootings.
His speech contained many statements that were both correct and consoling to the victims of these shootings. However, some of the proposed “solutions” are cause for real concern.
A Warning About The Mental Health Warning
President Trump called for legal action which would deny the possession of firearms to people who are determined to be ‘mentally ill,’ in some manner. This certainly sounds like a reasonable proposition, however, as with many such measures, it is far more complicated and fraught with danger than most realize.
The first problem is akin to almost any type of government ‘solution’ proposed to almost any problem in society, the problem of abuse. It is not stretching the truth to say that for most laws if someone wants to abuse it in their favor, they can find a way to get what they want.
There are already forms of such laws denying firearms to those deemed mentally ill in certain places around America. One example is Florida’s “Baker Act” law, which provides for temporary commitment to a mental institution up to 72 hours with a minimum of due process.
The Baker Act is an existing law that provides for temporary institutionalization of individuals who meet certain criteria. It can only be used by specific authorized persons, including judges, mental health professionals, law enforcement personnel, and doctors. More importantly, the law is limited by the fact that those officials must have sound evidence suggesting that the individual might meet the Act’s definition for mental illness. In addition, he must pose a risk of harm to himself or others – or demonstrate self-neglect.
With this existing statute, there are at least some reasonable legal safeguards determining who can be subject to being held in custody. For instance,
people cannot be involuntarily institutionalized simply because they’re acting strangely, refuse to seek psychiatric examinations, or have occasional mood swings or outbursts.
The questions looming over this new proposal is ‘On what basis, and by whom, is someone to be declared too mentally ill to keep freedom and their 2nd Amendment rights?’ Moreover, if the existing measures are not adequate now, how far is the government willing to go to in this area?
Perhaps more frightening and direct measures will be deemed necessary. Which brings us to another, and more concerning subject, the idea of so-called ‘Red Flag’ laws.
The Red Flags About ‘Red Flag’ Laws
‘Red Flag’ gun laws function as gun confiscation orders. In his speech, President Trump called them “extreme risk protection orders.”
They are designed to deny access to, or possession, of firearms to those deemed at extreme risk to commit violence with those firearms. They could be deemed as an ‘at extreme risk’ individual according to certain ‘red flags’ which those close to the person had determined might be dangerous.
John Lott, the president of the Crime Prevention Research Center and an expert on ‘Red Flag’ laws commented on the nature of these laws during an interview on “The Buck Sexton Show,” from August 5, 2019.
You’re trying to predict whether somebody’s going to go and commit a crime. …It’s kind of like the old Tom Cruise movie “Minority Report,” without the psychics.
This moves beyond the mental illness warning criteria to include things such as criminal history when evaluating whether or not someone should have a firearm. However, as Mr. Lott also points out, we already have access to criminal records and felonies as well as some misdemeanors already disqualify a person from owning a gun, so this is superfluous.
The potential for abuse lies in the additional legal measures these laws propose in order to confiscate someone’s guns. Some have suggested that simple arrests, even without a conviction, should be considered as possible ‘red flags’ to trigger the seizure of firearms.
The abuse comes into play easily when, for example, a disgruntled spouse or employee is the target. They can be essentially flagged as a threat to commit violence on the say-so of someone who doesn’t like them and is looking for an excuse to punish the offending party.
Some might ask, ‘Won’t these individuals be assessed by mental health professionals?’ Even if that is true, the record of mental health professionals in predicting future criminal behavior is abysmal. As author Rob Morse notes,
Psychiatrists who have access to complete medical records often have to assess if a patient will be violent. They make that assessment for the safety of the patient and for the safety of hospital staff. These doctors make the correct prediction 60% of the time when they are predicting behavior for the next 24 hours. That means they are slightly better than flipping a coin while they are looking a day into the future. Psychiatrists have no idea if the patient will be violent in the next week, the next month, or the next year. These highly educated and dedicated specialists can’t predict the future. That record will get worse as red-flag laws let non-professionals disarm near strangers with a phone call.
Moreover, this could easily result in making situations worse rather than better. Morse goes on to make this salient point.
Concealed carry holders are several times less likely than the police to shoot innocent people. Who is at risk when the police knock in the dark of night to confiscate legally owned firearms?
The danger of this becoming law is rapidly coming upon us, as Senator Lindsey Graham is already proposing ‘red-flag’ legislation. No details of his plan are available at present, except that he makes a point of mentioning that Trump seemed ‘supportive’ of it.
The Hate Crime ‘Death Penalty’ Threat
This is perhaps the most disturbing part of President Trump’s address. In a brief but powerful sentence, he called for the death penalty for both mass shooters those who commit “hate crimes.”
Admittedly, there is little time in such a short speech to elaborate on the meaning of this declaration. No real details about the proposal were presented there.
The danger lies within the very nature of the ‘hate crime’ designation. It is far too ambiguous a label to use for this extremely important issue.
…a traditional offense like murder, arson, or vandalism with an added element of bias. For the purposes of collecting statistics, the FBI has defined a hate crime as a “criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or gender identity.”
The FBI is quick to add that hate itself is not a crime, and thus they are committed to also protecting a person’s right to free speech. To be blunt, the FBI has not inspired a lot of trust among regular Americans since the exposure of their spying operations against a sitting president and the hate their operatives have displayed against Trump and his supporters.
So please forgive me if the assurances of the FBI do not really reassure me at this point. Moreover, the expansion of hate crime accusations and arrests in many nations are alarming, to say the least.
In fact, in 2013 the Canadian Supreme Court actually declared that certain types of religious speech qualify as hate crimes. In this case, it involved biblical speech against teaching homosexuality in public schools.
Should such offenses as these be punishable by death? Or would that only apply to certain groups in society, perhaps of the Christian variety?
Lest one think that this could not happen in America, consider this. In 2012, just seven years ago, no one was even considering banning people from social media for ‘misgendering’ a transgender man who claimed he was a woman.
Real Problems and Solutions Are Ignored
The true tragedy of this is that there are real problems with the amount of gun violence overall, and some real solutions to them which are being completely ignored while potshots are being taken at the 2nd Amendment, pun intended.
For example, in just the cases of mass shootings in the United States, one factor is more common in all of them since Colombine in 1999. The environment of the home and family.
If there’s a thread, it’s young men whose biological father was missing in their lives. After the Parkland school massacre in Florida, the Heritage Foundation cited a study showing that among the 25 most-cited school shooters since Columbine, 75 percent were reared in broken homes. Most, according to psychologist Peter Langman, an expert on school shooters, came from homes that also experienced infidelity, substance abuse, criminal behavior, domestic violence and child abuse.
It’s not racism, not ‘white supremacy,’ not even mental health, video games, and certainly not those who support the 2nd Amendment the most, law-abiding gun owners! It’s the absence of a father in the home.
Isn’t it strange how this particular metric is also a great predictor of criminal activity as well as mentally disturbed behavior? For instance, witness these statistics,
85% of all children who show behavior disorders come from fatherless homes – 20 times the average. (Center for Disease Control)
80% of rapists with anger problems come from fatherless homes –14 times the average. (Justice & Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26)
Perhaps our political leaders should focus more on that very real problem if they aim to slow gun violence and violence itself in society. In fact, a large number of problems could be ameliorated if more families remained intact, but that is fodder for another time.
But the one who looks into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer who forgets but a doer who acts, he will be blessed in his doing. James 1:25 [ESV]
Sources: The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, Crossway Bibles, 2001