Monthly Archives: November 2016

Trump Saves Carrier Jobs

Standard

Give a man credit when credit is due him. President-Elect Donald Trump just saved 1,000 jobs at the Carrier Air Conditioning plant in Indiana. They will stay in American and not relocate to Mexico. Carrier made the announcement Tuesday. An official announcement will be made at a press conference Thursday at the Indiana plant.

Trump has already begun to keep his campaign promises.

Vice President-Elect Mike Pence, the outgoing governor of Indiana, played a key role in the negotiations held at Trump Tower over the Thanksgiving holiday.

Details of the deal are yet to be unveiled, but the astonishing announcement by Carrier, which had been hellbent on shuttering the plant, heralded a remarkable achievement for a man who hasn’t even been sworn in as president yet.

One thousand people once wondering how they were going to provide for their families can now revel in the feast of financial security. They had been looking at a dearth of opportunity in their neck of the broken down Rust Belt, a Midwest and Middle Atlantic region of hard working factory men and women abandoned by corporate flight to dirt cheap Third World countries.

So while members of the Sissy Generation stumble into their professors’ offices, wailing and sobbing about Donald Trump getting elected, vowing to either kill themselves or move to another country (please, someone help them get the visas they need!), the man they vilify just kept their parents, or their neighbors’ parents, working, and quite likely will continue to do so, going even further to make sure that when those students are out of school, they have a menu of jobs from which to choose.

Something to think about as you wipe away your tears with a tissue.

Heartfelt message to The Donald: keep keeping jobs in the US and create new ones, please! Thank you!

Advertisements

Catholic Church Wrong on Illegal Immigration

Standard

Before, during, and after the 2016 American presidential campaign, the Catholic Church has looked with blurred vision at some of the issues facing our people and our government, and at some of the candidates and their proposals, too. I am a member of that church, but the comments made by members of the hierarchy, the partiality of their pronouncements, have disturbed me and many of my fellow citizens. The church has disturbed me both as a Christian and as an American citizen. The moral confusion of the church and its inept application of it stands as the cause of that disturbance.

The Catholic Church’s moral confusion has toxified the issue of illegal immigration. The church has incorrectly mixed the valid notion of helping the poor with the valid notions of immigration law and national security to produce the erroneous conclusion that U.S. taxpayers and the government they fund own a moral and legal obligation to allow people to migrate to these United States illegally and to stay here illegally at the taxpayer’s expense. They encourage American politicians and citizens and their own clergy to flout our immigration laws, to paper over the millions of violations of immigration law by simply changing the law, and to pick up the tab for people who are not American citizens.

In brief, the solution of the Catholic Church is to make what is illegal legal, so you won’t have any lawbreaking, and to water down citizenship to accommodate citizens from a country that did not help their own.

Does the Catholic Church practice what it preaches? Would it embrace such a principle in regard to the spiritual laws it claims to follow? For instance, to reduce sin and guilt, the Catholic Church could make lust and greed virtues instead of vices, or it could pronounce the practice of adultery, promiscuity, and homosexuality to no longer be sins, even venial. That would in turn reduce so much condemnation. It would not do much for the health of peoples’ spirits or of their relationships to God or of their marriages.

That’s the point. The superficial application of a salve will not penetrate to the core and will create problems elsewhere. You can’t really break the law to fix it. You can if the law is unjust, but that isn’t the case here. Immigration laws are not intrinsically wrong. Every nation has adopted immigration laws for the benefit of its citizens and even the benefit of those who may choose to become citizens or to just reside here for an acceptable purpose.

Immigration laws are not designed, however, to remedy the ills experienced by citizens of other nations. In an emergency or severe situation, political asylum can be extended. Even then, that does not always happen, and the country sought for asylum must keep the interests of its own citizens paramount.

Our government was instituted for the common welfare and defense of its citizens. It does not exist for the citizens of other countries. Those countries have instituted their own governments whose concern is the welfare and defense of their own citizens. They are the proper object of whatever ire or sentiment fuels the Catholic Church’s effort to burden the American taxpayer.

In the Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 1921 states, “Authority is exercised legitimately if it is committed to the common good of society. To attain this, it must employ morally acceptable means.” No. 1924 also states, “The common good comprises ‘the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily.’”

As part of its commitment to the common good of society, the United States, as every other country in the world, has adopted morally acceptable means, immigration laws, to protect its borders and the security of the American people, to maintain order in the flow of citizens and non-citizens and their goods across the borders with other countries, as well as to create a viable and valuable path to what should be a highly regarded citizenship in this our nation. Not anyone can become an American, and those who can should want it with a fervent, dedicated heart. If your allegiances remain elsewhere, then America is not for you. I suspect citizens of other countries feel the same.

Oddly, the Catholic Church, which should stand against the world system, promotes one in its catechism when it calls for the organization of society on the international level for the good of the human family. While I think the relations between states and cultures should be hashed out to permit commerce and cultural exchange, we do not need some profound organization of the world conducted from the top down by an international government. No, sir! Having one government is more than enough. We do not want or need to transmogrify a bunch of smaller governments into a worldwide beast. Very bad idea, if that was meant.

So does the United States government fulfill its constitutional purpose of common defense and common welfare with liberty and justice for all its citizens and at the same time fulfill the church’s catechetical requirements? Yes.

Would it be fulfilling those constitutional purposes if it acceded to the demands of the Catholic Church and sundry political miscreants by flouting our immigration laws? No, it would not. The government has no right to disobey the Constitution or duly legislated laws. It has no right to flood towns and neighborhoods with people from another country. It has no right to impose a heavier financial burden on taxpayers by forcing them to fund illegal activity and immigrants. None.

Is the United States government fulfilling the catechetical principles we named above when it enforces its immigration law? Yes, it is. The government exercises its authority legitimately when it enforces the immigration laws duly established to protect and benefit its citizens. The good of American taxpayers, already suffering from high unemployment, ever increasing medical costs, a rising cost to live, and a deteriorating infrastructure is achieved by protecting them from the illegal immigration of millions of people and the costly effects of their presence.

If the American government caved to clerical and miscreant pressure, it would sabotage the common good – the social conditions which allow its people to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily. In fact, that is what has been happening. If anything, the church should be scolding the government for falling short of those catechetical principles.

Many in the church genuinely worry about and work to remedy the afflictions the poor and the oppressed. That must be acknowledged. However, some exist who are just looking for a wagon into which they can jump. They treat authentic problems and challenges as a public relations tour and pose as social justice warriors while living in comfort and security, all the while failing to address the origin of the problem.

Mexicans are fleeing Mexico because of… Mexico. They flee Mexico because of the rotten government and socio-economic and spiritual conditions that prevail there. The Catholic Church has been an integral part of Mexican society for 500 years, as has the Spanish system of classes and racial/ethnic distinctions and economy.

Why has the Catholic Church utterly failed in Mexico? Why has the Catholic hierarchy utterly failed to take aim at the government duly constituted and instituted for the common good of its citizens, namely, the Mexican government? Why does the Catholic Church fail to slam the oppression of the masses of destitute millions by Mexican high society and its instrument, the Mexican government, and the godless drug cartels that have littered the landscape with the bowels and blood of the innocents? Where has the Catholic Church been for five centuries as the Mexican overlords dominated and deprived the millions of its common citizens of liberty and opportunity and human dignity?,

I love the genuine Christian church, but how dare you sit on your thrones from afar in gilded churches and halls overflowing with money, behind the walls of a special city-state, and disparage my country’s laws and my president-elect! Tear down the walls that divide Christians before you disparage a proposal to build a wall to protect our nation’s borders!

Yes, Donald Trump has been married three times and said some sexually disgusting things. He’s brash, brazen, and egotistical. He picked on an old lady, and he used the laws to his advantage to accumulate more and more wealth.

Yet take the log, the huge log, out of your own eye! Who owns more wealth than the Catholic Church? Maybe a few, but you know the church is right up there. Whose bishops and priests across every continent conspired and executed a wicked scheme against children to rape them and exploit them and use them as if they were throw-away dolls, leaving in ruins their sense of well-being, their identity, their God-given sexuality, their ability to trust, to love, to be secure?

That is fodder for another post, but Catholic clerics need to stop bashing the U.S. and our citizens, especially when their own garments are so stained.

For now, we can see that a policy to enforce U.S. Immigration laws meets the American constitutional requirement of common welfare and defense and meets the catechetical requirement of the common good of American society achieved by moral means.

Semper fidelis!

Don’t Be Fooled By “Won’t Lead To Lost Jobs”

Standard

Let’s take a microscope to Fortune magazine’s reporting that President-Elect Donald Trump did not really cause or have any influence in Ford Motor Company’s recent decision to keep production of a Lincoln branded SUV in Louisville, Kentucky.

… U.S. jobs were never at stake, according to reports,” said the Fortune account posted at http://fortune.com/2016/11/18/donald-trump-ford-mexico-kentucky/. “Ford currently produces the Lincoln MKC and the Ford Escape at its Louisville Assembly Plant, the Washington Post reports. The company had considered moving production of the Lincoln MKC from Kentucky to Mexico in order to build more Ford Escapes at the Kentucky plant, but Ford had previously said the change wouldn’t lead to any lost jobs in Kentucky.

Now, though, the company is keeping Lincoln MKC production in Kentucky and will not produce additional Ford Escapes there.”

This kind of reporting resembles what was written or spoken about Ford’s move of its small car manufacturing from a plant in Michigan to one in Mexico. No American jobs would be lost, CEO Mark Fields had said, because Ford would replace what it was removing from American soil by closing plants in Canada and relocating their work to America.

It’s a matter of perspective. In Ford’s eyes, they aren’t depriving Americans of jobs because the net result of their actions keeps employment the same, supposedly. From a cumulative perspective, however, Ford is playing a shell game. It is depriving Americans of the new jobs the company is creating. Ford intends to give those new jobs to Mexicans rather than to Americans. The reality stands out for all to see that Ford’s employment is shifting from Americans to Mexicans.

That’s wrong.

What we want to see is that Ford decides to build the plant in which they would manufacture Lincoln MKCs in the United States, moving production there, creating new jobs for Americans, and upping production at the Louisville factory.

Let’s look at Fortune’s reporting, and Mr. Fields’ comments, from some other angles.

First, the subheadline on Fortune’s piece reads: “Ford had only contemplated moving one of its production lines”. In the first paragraph, the author writes, “but the automaker actually had no plans to relocate the plant.” I’m not sure where the bright line is between contemplating and planning – not that one does not exist – but the Ford CEO felt enough about it to call Mr. Trump and offer the news to him as part of an extended olive branch. It may well be an airy offering, but it is worthy to note that, at least superficially, Mr. Fields acted in response to Mr. Trump’s electoral authority.

One cannot blame Mr. Trump for raising Mr. Fields’ consciousness on the issue of depriving jobs to Americans. Indeed, it is to Mr. Trump’s credit that American corporations are beginning to sense the impact of his election and voters’ disdain for such corporate practices.

Second, since Fortune wants to squeeze the air out of Mr. Trump’s balloon, why did it not answer the question of what IS the reason for Ford’s decision? Since making more Ford Escapes was the supplied reason for the contemplated move, why won’t the automaker produce more? Have sales declined? Have sales of the Lincoln MKC declined? Does Ford lack the finances for a new facility in Mexico or anywhere else? The failure of the article to provide a reason for Ford’s decision, while circumstantial, casts doubt on the motivations for the article and the information it presented, which was not complete.

Third, why didn’t the magazine take the time to ask Mr. Fields whether the election of Mr. Trump signals the end of any plans for Ford to relocate or build new factories on foreign soil? Is that not relevant to Mr. Trump’s claim, either in substantiation or contradiction?

Fourth, why is Fortune, whose sole beat is business, relying on a report from The Washington Post, a scandalously biased publication owned by Amazon monopolist Jeff Bezos, a die-hard Trump foe?

Fifth and finally, to circle back to where we began, why didn’t Fortune ask Mr. Fields about loss of jobs through new job creation overseas and not just lost job avoidance by substitution? Clearly, the Fortune article was written to advance a particular viewpoint and to paint Trump as claiming victory when there was no victory to take. Fortune deliberately omitted other information pertinent to understanding Ford’s situation and the impact of Mr. Trump’s ascension to the presidency. It did not even bother to confirm or disconfirm Trump’s assertions by asking Mr. Field.

As such, the Fortune article neither promotes objectivity nor understanding nor service to readers. It only lends credence to and further grounds citizens’ and readers’ perceptions that the media cannot write or utter a word without engaging in dishonesty, whether it be by commission or omission, flat out lies or half-truths, or by the substitution of facts with fictions and opinion, often accusatory labels bereft of substance.

Don’t be fooled by the euphemism “won’t lead to lost jobs”. It’s a clever contrivance for big American corporations to deflect attention away from the truth that they are creating, or are trying to create, new jobs for foreigners instead of Americans.

Divorce and Holy Communion

Standard

This post delivers a response to an article and comments that appear on The American Conservative website. The link is below:

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/vatican-bombshell-pope-francis/

The church leadership and faithful may want to humbly pray about this issue of communion. Worshiping in spirit and truth remains the vital principle of church life.

The Christian church has struggled for two millennia to maintain a balance between identifying and making understandable God’s truth and practicing that truth in love. In the early years of the church and beyond, identifying and defining what we as Christians believed and practiced assumed the greatest importance. What was the difference between Jews who believed Jesus was the messiah and those Jews who did not? Was believing in Jesus more important than obeying the Mosaic law? Must Christians continue to follow the Mosaic law to be saved? If not, how were we saved? What do Christians believe vis-a-vis the pagans and what in pagan philosophy still held as true within a Christian context?

In its desire to see the faithful take seriously and live the faith presented to them, the church often established rules for, and limitations to, Christian thinking and behavior. One of these limitations has been the right to participate in eating and drinking the body and blood of Jesus Christ from which are received God’s grace for sanctification and salvation. One was not allowed to deliberately abide in unabsolved sin or an unrepented pattern of living and yet enjoy the refuge and strength of the sacrament. In fact, the church determined that such a conjunction could earn damnation.

Because the church wanted to be faithful to Christ, it has been emphasizing this former consideration of identity and definition. Thus, those persons who did not conform to the strict definitions laid down by the church were often shunned and denied participation in the sacraments. If the rebellion became hardened, those persons were excommunicated.

Unfortunately, it neglected the latter consideration, practicing truth in love, and infringed too much on God’s sovereign judgment. It lost sight of the reality of our human state and the abiding grace and mercy through Christ by which we “stride boldly up to God’s throne, the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need (Heb. 4:12).”

As Paul says, “No one is righteous, not even one.”

Now we can deal with the question at hand: May a divorced or remarried person receive holy communion? In the past, the Catholic Church has said, no.

Clearly, if a priest has absolved a person’s sin, the answer would have to change to, yes. By what right would communion be withheld?

We can focus: is a person still committing a sin or stuck in unrepentance if he or she remains divorced or, worse, if he or she remains remarried after having obtained a divorce? Does a person have to partner again with his or her former spouse? Does a person who remarried have to divorce his or her second wife (or third, etc.) and return to the first spouse to be out of a state of sin?

The realities of human living have complicated the resolution of that question. Does the church demand that a man or woman leave his or her new family? Can God’s will be accomplished in that fashion? Does a man’s or woman’s lone sin, divorce, negate what may be the Christian character of the rest of his or her life? Is someone who sins frequently, confesses it and is absolved, never masters his bad habits, but who does not commit adultery of any kind, in a better state than the person whose only sin is divorce and remarriage? I speak in the ideal to make an example.

Is it the church’s place to make these all these decisions to have an ironclad faith, or shall it leave at least some resolutions and outcomes to the Most High God who sees every person’s heart and who knows all but from a position of goodwill and justice.

I know about the scriptures, what we loose here, etc. I get it. Were those words meant to push us to create a vast body of new law like Moses’ and judgments therefrom, or were they meant to humble us and infuse within us caution and care as we exercised liberty, lest we sinners be the first to cast stones, each one of us, and we be no better than the blind Pharisees?

One must believe in God and his Christ to participate in the Christian life, of which the sacraments are key. Does one have to live perfectly? If not, how much imperfection is tolerable? Isn’t the purpose of participation in the sacraments to receive the grace needed to be sanctified and secured in one’s salvation? If so, why do we deny them to anyone? Will not God deal with the unrepentant sinner? Most of the time we don’t know what the exact spiritual state of a person is. People are great actors. We may think them great and eulogize them loftily at their funerals, yet they might be burning in hell.

How many of the church’s annulments of marriages are bogus and bought?

Do we want to refuse the sacrament to folks who are doing their best to honor God with the realization that they fell quite short the first time they spoke their vows? Or do we make it so that their confessed and repented sin survives and thrives and continues to besmirch them, disqualifying them from the sacrament?

Granted, in some sense we should be cooperating with God in the work he does; but how do we require that a person “earn” the sacrament in whatever fashion when what is “earned” is grace, an unmerited gift freely given to all of us, we the needy, already mired in our trespasses and sins?

Jesus explicitly forgave the adulteress without her asking while he exhorted her spiritual improvement in John 8.

Jesus did not say he forgave the Samaritan woman at the well in John 4, but he did not reject her. He praised her for what was truthful in her reply to him about not having a husband, and, in a rare deviation from his usual pattern, presented himself as the ultimate reality which she understood her people had been waiting for, even though she had been married five times and at that time had a lover!

Christian liberty is an awesome gift. Like any liberty, it can be misused. Sometimes it needs to rest rather than to be exercised. The church and faithful should be aware of what Christ taught about marriage and divorce and they should pass it on energetically. They should not be energetic about denying someone grace or the means to grace, if that is even possible in God’s universe. The Most High will deal with the person who wastes or perverts his grace.

A Reply to Journalist Michael Voris

Standard

This piece is a response to an article written by journalist and Catholic Michael Voris on the website churchmilitant.com, so it would be well to read his writing first. The link to his article lies below:

http://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/too-many-secrets

I’m not sure how to take your article, Mr. Voris. I get the basic question: Why isn’t Raymond Arroyo reporting on the Catholic establishment’s partiality in the presidential election? Is it a sign that Arroyo is beholden to them and can’t or won’t?

As a veteran journalist, however, you should be aware of the tensions involved in reporting, the personal dimension journalists have and their right to act within it, and the process and techniques of developing a story.

Besides, your own story is unsourced. Were you there? Did you see and hear the things of which you wrote? You made no mention of that.

Is it possible that Mr. Arroyo is working on just such a story about a cabal of clattering clerics who were out to derail the Donald Trump train? Is it possible he does not have enough evidence yet that he can use? In another vein, don’t journalists agree to embargo information or to listen to sources off the record some of the time as they build their stories?

Journalists assume different roles within the profession. Some are field reporters; others, anchors. Some write features, entertainment, sports, business, tech, general assignment, etc., and some assume the role of investigative journalist. Working at EWTN (itself a bit rogue and not friendly to some of the new, dissolute theology of the church), Mr. Arroyo has become a jack-of-all-trades for the network in news and probably mixes in a fair amount of tact with his reportorial frankness.

Mr. Arroyo’s situation does not differ from that of any other journalist in the business. There is a balance to be found and maintained between what the journalist as professional deems worthy of pursuit and what his editors or the ownership of the organ for which he works deems worthy of pursuit.

Perhaps in a perfect world, these pursuits would be congruent; in today’s factious and truculent times, they loom nigh impossible.

So you’re right, Mr. Voris. It’s tough to report on your bosses, and Mr. Arroyo would not be anywhere near the first journalist to encounter that wall (hhhmmm… think about that, Francis). I have not watched Mr. Arroyo enough (though I did watch his Trump interview and the wonderful “bigly” or “big league” finish) to grade him on how well he has done. I did watch some of his coverage of the process by which Pope Francis was elected, etc., and thought he did well to identify different factions within the church and how they were jostling for position and controlling the flow of information.

This is what I would contend, Mr. Voris: You have a much deeper problem in journalism and in the church than you have in your elementary rebuke of Mr. Arroyo.

At one time, the facts may have reigned supreme. Today, message reigns supreme, and people, including journalists, cannot get out of the way of facts fast enough so they can write and speak their stories. The message is no longer tailored to the facts; the facts are tailored to the message, and when those facts are inconvenient, they are simply tossed into the rubbish and replaced with labels, vague ideas like “dangerous”, divisive”, and “xenophobic”.

In that light, Mr. Arroyo may not have fared as badly as you suggest.

That the Catholic hierarchy stood against Mr. Trump does not surprise me much. It seems a number of bishops and priests, not to mention Francis himself, have long derogated Mr. Trump and the policies he has been supporting, all the while turning a blind eye to faux Catholic Nancy Pelosi and anti-Catholic Hillary Clinton, the proponents and enablers of Molochian policies like baby-killing and draconian policies like sucking the financial life and self-esteem out of American middle class workers they’ve dumped on the unemployment line.

The church has a long and rich spiritual, scriptural, intellectual, and pragmatic tradition. That tradition has been and is being sabotaged by the currently accepted biblical criticism. This criticism, known as “historical criticism”, promotes the idea that each of the New Testament writers cooked up fictitious stories or details to get a message across. It is the message, taken as a vital spiritual truth that only can be ascertained and gleaned and communicated by the Magisterium, that is eternal and truthful, not the facts, er, fictions, used to convey it!

In fact, the vital spiritual truth in the message allows one to alter both the facts and the accepted understanding of the facts and to create new ones!

Thus, eating and drinking the body and blood of Christ isn’t eating and drinking his body and blood so God communicates the power of his grace to believers visibly and tangibly through his son’s unjust torture and execution; it is a community meal of love and warmth and mutuality, blah blah, in which we accept our humanity and the humanity of Jesus.

That same warped principle weaves its way through today’s news reporting and rhetoric in all their ramifications. I don’t know how many news people stated as fact that Mr. Trump said on the Access Hollywood recording that he groped women “against their will.” During the presidential debate he moderated, CNN’s Anderson Cooper claimed that Mr. Trump said he was sexually assaulting women, then asked him if he ever had. Fox News’ Megyn Kelly also used the phrase “against their will” on one of her shows and suggested Mr. Trump was a “sexual predator”, if he had practiced what he talked about on the recording.

On the recording, Mr. Trump states exactly and explicitly that women “let” him grope them because he was a star. “Let” means permission granted, allowed. That’s NOT against their will.

And Megyn Kelly’s use of the legal term “sexual predator” during an exchange with former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, later despicably echoed by shill and outgoing Senator Harry Reid, was completely inaccurate and incorrect and unethical. She used the false label as a ploy to grab ratings and create the illusion of toughness. She claimed that if Mr. Trump was a sexual predator, then it was a huge story that should be covered. She then added that she did not know that he was a sexual predator. So she brought up the term, not to cover it because it was a fact, but because it was a conditional, which if it were a fact, would justify coverage. She was covering possibility so she could repeat the term.

It’s nothing more than salacious sensationalism, a message the embittered Kelly wanted to get out (likewise with Clinton surrogate Cooper on the network that gave Clinton debate questions in advance) to harm Mr. Trump and affect the outcome of the election.

Feel free to surf the archives to check for posts about faulty reporting where the message took precedence over the facts. It continues in this post-election frame.

Mr. Voris, please scrutinize the “message” state of affairs in both journalism and the church. Mr. Arroyo is hardly the problem. Some of those bishops and priests might be. What happens to the Catholic Church – what happens to believers – when someone’s message gets propped up by the ultimate justification: the notion of infallibility?

Amen! Come, Lord Jesus!”

How Fragrant and Musical Is Victory!

Standard

 

Ah! The sweet sounds of Victory! The sweet smells of Victory!

Small, angry protests have been breaking out across the country, the lamentations of the losers, usually in fairly liberal cities, sparked by the ultra left wing extremists of community organization.

Rock and bottle throwing and some setting of fires have been accompanying the dithyrambic displays. Some 225 persons have been arrested, according to one report.

Their complaint: Mr. Donald Trump won the presidency, fair and square, and that is unacceptable. That is to them, mind you.

The smoke rising from the burning effigies of Mr. Trump emit such a sweet, incensial fragrance! Likewise, the polyphony of wailing and shouting by those who did not get their errant way seems like a symphony! The wild policies of de facto open borders, illegal immigration and an invitation to terrorism, benefits for the illegals, refugees, and the shiftless, are about to be dismantled, stacked high on a rubbish heap, and disintegrated in a firestorm of renewal, if Mr. Trump keeps his promises.

So, so sweet! We can begin to breathe again!

The people who are NOT Americans, and their allies among deluded citizens, do not want Mr. Trump as their president. Of course, he cannot be, because they are not Americans. Mrs. Clinton could not have been their president, either, even though they may have slipped in more than a few votes for her.

Therefore, we shout in agreement with them: “Mr. Trump is not your president!” We would just add that he is OUR president, and that they can “Get out!”

Yes, return to your own countries, illegal immigrants and refugees, and compel THEM to fulfill their duty to you, which is to provide political, economic, and security services to you. Such is NOT the burden of the government of these United States. We are not merely weary of assuming that burden, we are angry that it was imposed on us by oily leaders who sought the benefit only of the elites.

Mr. Trump should worry about the only protests that matter: those of we the people who voted for him, if he fails to deliver on the reasons we voted for him.

Now that could get ugly, if it were to happen, and it is the danger that lurks as Mr. Trump seeks counsel and cabinet members from among those who hail from the very establishment we voted to throw out.

Choose wisely, Mr. Trump, and be the man you said you were and would be.

Elites and Media Don’t Get It

Standard

A vital block of Americans cast off the chains of anti-Americanism, elitism, political correctness, and media dishonesty to drive 70-year-old Donald Trump to triumph in the 2016 presidential election Tuesday night.

With votes still being counted and confirmed, Trump had earned at least 276 electoral votes, six more than necessary, while Clinton was at 218. The popular vote was neck-and-neck, with both candidates earning over 59 million votes each so far.

Trump and his supporters swept aside the narrow-minded concerns of the political and media elites like a purifying white squall across the bloody deck of a slave freighter. Supporters refused to give answer to reporters and pollsters who sought a predetermined outcome. Instead, each took cover in his or her personal privacy, waiting for early voting or election day to pull the lever for Trump.

The Trumpers pulled it mightily again and again. Their votes tore down the so-called “Blue Wall” of the Democrats, the imaginary boundary Democrats believed protected them from defeat in those states.

The result bestowed an astonishing mantle of victory on the shoulders of Trump, the never-say-die candidate and accomplished billionaire who overcame the media’s monstrous partisanship and endless effluent of innuendo: the false or unsubstantiated accusations about his finances, businesses, taxes, campaign and debate statements, marriages, and sexual habits.

It seemed a mountain too high to climb, and the media, particularly national outlets like CNN (oft dubbed the “Clinton News Network”), MSNBC, CNBC, The New York Times, The Washington Post, network news, etc., doubled up on the shots they took at Trump by turning a blind eye to Hillary Clinton’s reckless, criminal email behavior, the sordid pay-to-play scheme of her Clinton Foundation, her pimping the media for debate questions against Sanders and Trump, and her salacious campaign operation designed to bring out the most sordid unsubstantiated details about Trump and present them even to the eyes and ears of children through their media minions.

Instead of journalistic investigative reporting into any of those aspects of Clinton’s character and practices, the major media rode the bench while Wikileaks and Russian hackers did the job the media should have done.

The media decided it had a more important job to do than communicate facts to voters. Their job was to assuage the “deplorables” with faux sympathy while paying no heed to what they were saying. Instead, the media portrayed voters’ support for Trump as at best a misdirected emotional venting of a barbarous and baleful national pride that led down a slippery slope of xenophobia, racism, and general hatred and national endangerment.

This distillation denied any value to what citizens – those drawn to Trump and his message – held in their hearts and in their minds: the policies of the last 25+ years had deprived them of jobs, income, opportunity, freedom, personal and national pride, and their sense of society and culture while bestowing all kinds of benefits and attentions on special interest groups and illegal immigrants and Middle Eastern refugees with no amity for the American political and religious culture.

Trump advocates were Americans unwelcome in their own country, Americans who could find no succor and respect in their country’s policies, Americans abandoned because they were deemed expendable by the elites and their minions, the collateral damage of today’s ineluctable global, social, economic, and technological evolution hailed as the natural progress of things.

So bad have circumstances become, and does the future look, that one columnist at The Washington Post has proposed the government provide a living wage to all Americans who are no longer needed in the workforce. 

Of course, the elites and their minions seem themselves to be immunized from the tumult of such evolution. 

In short, the ivory tower, elitist, leftist media didn’t get it. They didn’t get it that citizens have not conceded that this evolution is natural. Rather, government policies have artificially induced these conditions. Further, those who made the choice to support Trump have adduced correctly and rightfully that the constitutional mandate that infuses the American government is to make laws and policies that promote the common welfare and defense of American citizens, not foreigners.

The American government was not established to promote globalism, open borders, big corporate tyranny and license, and immigration just for the sake of immigration. The purpose of American government has always been to promote liberty and justice for each and every one of its citizens through the common welfare and defense.

No person would know this by reading the election reporting, especially that perpetrated by the national media outlets. If one reads their journalism, one sees that Trump supporters are ignorant, emotional, and prone to grave biases and prejudices, all of which produced an irrational choice to vote for Trump, a man whose flaws, the media crowed, were too profound and essential to permit him to win the presidency. On top of that, Trump offended the media’s sense of good taste. 

No. While Trump supporters may have entertained distaste for some of Trump’s personal qualities, they greatly preferred his ideas and proposals to Hillary’s. They did not want terrorists to have an easy time entering their country, and Hillary stood for that. They did not want illegal aliens staying in America, and Hillary stood for that. They did want our existing laws enforced. They did want illegals to be held accountable to the law, just like everyone else is. They did not want free trade agreements that robbed them of their jobs and devalued their labor. They did want American companies to build and operate factories in America. They did want to be able to pay their bills and have some left over for fun with their families. They did want their kids to be proud of them. And we all have wanted to see more “Made in America” print on products. 

Furthermore, Hillary’s experience was contrived, and she herself was deeply flawed. Hillary’s handling of Benghazi was both a substantial and a public relations disaster. Americans, including our ambassador, paid for her blunder with their lives. Like Trump, she offended many Americans’ moral sensibilities. Beyond Trump, however, Hillary engaged in criminal email activity but got away with it because of who she was. The media will argue she has never been convicted of anything; but in the court of public opinion, many, if not most, believe she has flouted the law repeatedly over the years. As a member of the elite, she was inoculated from prosecution. The perceived stain of criminality, however, sullies her person.

Good sense, good ideas about policies, and different ideas about what it means to be American and what the purpose of American government is, propelled people to support and vote for Donald Trump. He was the one person, the one candidate, with the possible exception of Bernie Sanders, who heard them and who identified what the problem was: an elite, stuck-in-the-mud establishment used to running the show on its own and shaming those who dissented with labels of political incorrectness.

As of today, that time is over. The fight will continue, but that time is over for now. It is the elites who better get used to the natural order of things, and that means the adoption of a true civic spirit that includes their fellow citizens.