Category Archives: politics

You’re Fired!

Standard

trump-fires-yates

President Donald Trump fired the acting attorney general, Sally Q. Yates, after she refused to perform her duty to defend the legality of his temporary ban on immigrants from terrorist-spawning countries. The purpose of Mr. Trump’s executive order was to help protect Americans from terrorist attacks. Trump has said existing vetting procedures were flimsy and inadequate, and he wants to see strict vetting procedures in place before he lifts the ban.

Ms. Yates’s grandstanding for the media exacerbated her failure to do her job. Mr. Trump had elevated her to acting attorney general pending the drawn out confirmation of Jeff Sessions as attorney general. Instead of turning down Mr. Trump’s offer privately and civilly, she chose to accept his offer, then air out her disagreement with him on immigration policy publicly.

The Declaration states the People may institute a government built on the principles and forms of power “most likely to effect their safety and happiness.” The Constitution echoes and builds on that when it says its purpose is “to form a more Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity… .”

Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution grants the president “the executive Power”. Section 2 names him the Commander-in-Chief. Section 3 makes it the president’s duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”.

The president not only has the authority to see our duly enacted immigration laws executed, he has the duty to do so. Nothing in the immigration law and the president’s execution of it violates statutory or constitutional law. If a ban on immigration from violent or ideologically violent countries in the world obtains the defense, safety, and tranquility of the American people, then it is lawful.

When Ms. Yates complained she could not defend Mr. Trump’s ban, she had to defend her warrantless position by asserting she had “to do the right thing.” It’s an irony, because so many people have argued for the severance of law from morality. While I would agree that morality must be weighed when reflecting on law and policy in regard to fundamental questions, prudence and pragmatism play their roles in others.

Do citizens and foreigners own the same privileges, rights, and responsibilities under American law? No. That would be absurd. The government was instituted of the people, by the people, for the people, the people being the citizens. The only way for a foreigner to appropriate the rights, privileges, and responsibilities under American law is to become American, and that means rejecting what he or she was and his or her allegiances. It means accepting what an American is and what our way is as a body politic and as a culture.

Finally, let’s deal with the claim that we cannot ban Muslims from entering the country. The proponents of this position cite two reasons: first, it constitutes a religious test; second, it will inflame terrorist passions and make them terrorize more.

The answer to the first reason is a ban on Muslim entry into our country isn’t based on most of what Islam is but is based on one of its ideologies or tenets: that it is holy and just to kill people who reject Islam or Mohamed. That belief is not merely un-American, it is anti-American. It violates our law. It assaults our Constitution. It transgresses our culture and our reason. The laws of God, of Nature, of man, of our Constitution do not permit murder on religious grounds. Thanks to both our Rationalist and Christian perspective, we reject utterly any such principle. Similarly, we reject those people who bear such a perspective from entering our country and plying their bloody beliefs here.

We are absolutely under no obligation – moral, legal, constitutional, etc – to permit such individuals to enter our country. If the safeguards for preventing the entry of such individuals are defective or deficient, our president has a duty to ban such folks, even en masse, from entering our country and endangering our safety.

Ms. Yates doesn’t understand that simple, legally correct position. Addled by a foreigners first mentality, and having abandoned and lost sight of the people whom she swore to protect, Ms. Yates elevated her personal feelings to the pinnacle of consideration.

As citizens, the members of the Justice Department have the right to agree or disagree with this person or the other and this policy or that policy. They may express their agreement or disagreement among private friends or at the ballot box.

As members of the federal Justice Department, however, every attorney maintains an obligation and responsibility to do his job. They are not advocating for themselves or for a particular political persuasion, they are advocating for the people through the executive branch of the government. The lawyers in the attorney general’s office were not elected by the people; the president was. If for some particular matter the conscience of a member of the Justice Department has become so strained he cannot follow the directives of his chief executive, then he should do the honest and honorable thing and quietly resign.

Yates was warped. She was so warped that she could neither fulfill her duty nor act honorably. She chose to make a scene. The president acted swiftly and decisively: Mr. Trump fired her.

The second complaint, growled and whined by the likes of senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, states that in appearing to single out Islam or Muslims, Mr. Trump inflames their hatred and determination to commit more terrorism, serves as a recruiting tool, and because of those two points, will make Americans more unsafe and ultimately lose the war against terrorism.

One of many good ways to dissolve this line of thinking is to use the analogy of the man who says he loves his wife, so he stalks her and beats her for every real or imagined offense while he lives exactly the way he wants to live. She has to be “made” to love him. He does not really love her as a woman; he loves her as a thing to own and do with as he pleases. His real goal is domination, not love.

The wife develops a mentality that if she can just please him in everything, he will stop beating her. It’s her fault he loses control. She isn’t doing enough. Of course, she never will. And he’ll keep slapping and punching and kicking her, because that is who he is.

It’s the same thing for the Muslim who takes the errors of the Koran to heart. The infidel must be threatened, tortured, killed, or at least extorted for money. The infidels keep thinking it’s their fault. They aren’t diverse enough, they aren’t multicultural enough, they are too trapped in their own biases and prejudices, so they don’t want to make the Muslim mad, because he’ll just threaten, torture, and kill more. The reality is the Muslim will never admit to his own evil and his own problem, the propensity for the Mohamed-sanctioned inhuman violence which is the only commodity with which he trades. Convert or die. Be like me, or die.

The superficial way Mr. McCain and Mr. Graham approach Muslim terror will never solve the problem, which perhaps is not solvable anyway as long as human beings are sinners. The only way to obtain and to keep the upper hand, however, is a mix of force and construction. The United States must meet the violence directed at its citizens with the force necessary to defeat that violence and deter those who would think twice about renewing it. The United States must also take a more proactive approach to remedy the ills of the Muslim nations, if they will allow it. That does not mean abandoning a ban on Muslim immigration; such a ban should be enforced and maintained for as long as necessary. However, it does mean helping to relieve the poverty and oppression of Muslim areas through joint operations to create economic growth and an infrastructure of opportunity.

Nothing remedies misery like opportunity and profit. These should be sought for the good of all, and not just in Muslim lands, but in lands elsewhere around the globe where it is desired by the local people.

It is not the job of Americans or our government to make Muslims part of our country, nor to take on their burdens here. It can be our job, however, to help them take on their burdens in their own countries, to help them develop their own success and profit. Why Muslim countries have not been doing this but instead have wasted their time in religious and political war after war is beyond the ken of the rational mind. Had they channeled the same energy into building up instead of tearing down, who knows how successful those Muslim countries might have become?

Senators McCain and Graham think themselves clever with their superficially softer, more diplomatic approach. The truth is that it has not worked but has only inspired more Muslim mayhem. Former president Barack Obama applied the softer approach for eight years, yet Muslim butchery reached new heights in the United States and in countries around the world, and the Muslim Middle East and North Africa are more war-torn than ever. Mr. McCain and Mr. Graham think their clever artfulness will make the problem smaller. That is a lie, as are their disloyal denunciations of the Republican president.

The truth is, much like with Mrs. Clinton, neither McCain nor Graham, individually or with each other or someone else, has been able to even reduce the problem of Muslim violence, despite their decades of “service” in the Senate. To follow their “lead” is to follow the same ole same ole, which just keeps circling around back to more bloodshed.

A fresh approach, such as the one Mr. Trump is taking and which is placing Americans and America first, is long overdue.

Advertisements

No Compassion for Bad Thinking

Standard

An administrator at the Ohio State University has drawn outrage after a Facebook post she made in the wake of this week’s brutal attack of 11 people on campus.

Stephanie Clemons Thompson, the assistant director of resident life, wrote that people should have “compassion” for Abdul Artak Ali Razan, the 18-year-old Somali Muslim OSU student who ran over several pedestrians and cut and hacked at others when he went on a rampage Monday. All victims have survived.

Students and others became angry when they learned Thompson had expressed sympathy for the violent perpetrator of the terror acts. They want the university to fire Thompson or Thompson to resign, according to various reports. Others have expressed support for her.

A university police officer shot and killed Razan at the scene when he refused to obey orders to drop his knife and surrender. Bystanders took pictures of Razan’s body and circulated them on the Internet, and massive numbers of people rejoiced in the police officer’s actions and in the killing of the attacker.

Thompson’s Facebook post read, “If you think it is okay to celebrate his death and/or share a photo of his dead body, and I see it in my timeline, I will unfriend you. Think of the pain he must have been in to feel that his actions were the only solution.”

She included these hashtags: #BuckeyeStrong, #BlackLivesMatter, #SayHisName. #BuckeyeStrong refers to the sentiment of solidarity and shared grief among students, faculty, and staffers in the wake of the terror act. #BlackLivesMatter refer to the group that rails against police shootings of black persons whether they are justified or not. #SayHisName similarly refers to saying the name of the black victim of a police shooting and the perceived sense that police shoot blacks because as members of a different race they don’t know them.

Razan was black, and the Facebook page with Thompson’s comments has since been deleted.

Is compassion a proper sentiment to hold in relation to someone who tried to bludgeon and flatten people to death, then carve up a few more after he crashed his car?

Thompson erred in the thinking that produced her statements, and she displayed a gross insensitivity in her choice of when to make them.

First, compassion means to share in the sufferings of another, literally or figuratively, to pity what a person is undergoing. We cannot share in Razan’s alleged suffering because we do not know that he suffered at all and because, even if he had, we suspect his mind may have created a degree of suffering disproportionate to what he experienced.

Second, we cannot feel compassion for Razan because the “solution” to his suffering, to which Thompson so glibly alludes, stands as misplaced or disproportionate to the action he took. Attempting to kill people will not make Americans friendly to Islam or Muslims. Rather, attempting to kill people will make Americans hate Islam and Muslims.

If a person wants to raise his voice in protest, march in protest, or conduct some civil disobedience, that is one thing. If a person wants to run people over and slice and dice them, that is another, and Thompson should have grasped that.

Thirdly, we cannot feel compassion for Razan because he did not seek a positive way to remedy whatever inequities or social ills he perceived and which may have existed.

Razan claimed that the way the United States treated Muslim countries disturbed him and worried at how he would have been looked at if people had seen him pray in the open, which he wanted to do.

I would suggest the real problem for Razan and other violent terrorists and Islamics isn’t the way America or Americans treats Muslim, rather it is in his eyes that kuffars (infidels) seem to have a better life, greater advantage, and more leverage than Muslims: Muslims seem second class to the first-class kuffars when it should be the other way around in Muslim ideology.

It is precisely this bizarre reasoning and classism that has infiltrated and found purchase in Thompson’s thinking. Not content to contend for genuine cases of bad police shootings, Thompson feels that any police shootings of blacks is wrong, and that blacks as a class, even if they are engaging in criminal behavior, should not be shot at by police.

This is the burgeoning racism of the 21st Century to which Thompson adheres. Because they are black, blacks do not have to follow the law, and when they don’t, they must not suffer the consequences that anyone else would suffer. If a police officer shoots a black, particularly if it is a white police officer, then the officer is guilty of wrong. Thompson seems to live among those who think police officers, whites, Hispanics, and others, should offer themselves up on the altar of black privilege, because blacks have suffered. It is the only way to repay for past racial sins.

The argument is prima facie irrational and, frankly, stupid. It is racist.

The truth is that blacks, whites, Indians, orientals, Hispanics, etc., have been slaughtering and enslaving, not only each other, but their own for millenia. Blacks played a key role in the lucrative slave trade, such as the Dahomey, and willingly and eagerly sold their brothers and sisters into vile servitude. To this day, blacks slaughter each other across the whole continent of Africa, including Somalia, the country from which Razan hailed, a veritable cauldron of violence and death made the more so by the sulfuric tenets of Islam.

Razan came to this country after he and his family spent seven years at a refugee camp in Somalia.

Think about it: he and his family had to flee their Muslim homeland, probably because it was too dangerous to live there and the people were drowning in poverty. Razan’s family did not want to stay in another Muslim country, Pakistan, likely because their fellow Muslims didn’t want them: they would not tolerate the Somali refugees or provide them with opportunities to integrate and prosper, even though they held the same faith.

Instead, the Razans wanted to come to the Christian and Renaissance United States, America, land of the free and home of the brave, the land and people which gave Razan’s family a way to make a living and was giving Razan a chance to receive a university education.

In gratitude, Razan betrayed the security of his fellow students and faculty because of his warped, fantastical, bizarre, sick Muslim ideology. He tried to murder them.

No, Ms. Thompson, we are not going to feel compassion toward Razan. As a Christian I will pray for him. Within the context of what happened, of the choices Razan made, however, I am glad he is dead, that he was shot and stopped from further violence. I celebrate the end of an evil. It’s a natural human response. It is Razan himself who incited that response. It’s as much a gigantic sigh of relief as a celebration of joy.

Do I wish that Razan had been different or that he had made different choices? Yes. I wish he had chosen to respond with gratitude to the people and the country that took in him and his family instead of turning traitor on people who trusted him to be their neighbor in peace.

Do I feel pity for the people whose minds and hearts have been poisoned by Islam? Yes. It’s tough to liberate oneself from the beliefs and culture in which one was trained and raised. To one extent or another, we all have to go through that process of experience and exposure, of skepticism and self-reflection, of discovery, of growth. We have to emerge from the sea of culture, society, and religious belief in which we were raised to walk on dry land as our selves.

That is why America is a free market of ideas country. You can freely, emphatically, peacefully put forth your ideas and back them up with the facts you can find. You can try to persuade others but you cannot compel them to think as you do. You can vociferously critique or criticize others or yourself, and it isn’t a sin.

That isn’t tolerated in Muslim countries, but you are not in a Muslim country. If you try to change us by force, we will stop you by any and all means necessary. The only thing America does not tolerate is the subversion of what America is and stands for.

And for you, Ms. Thompson, you need to examine your own conscience and your support for any movement that blames police officers or white people for everything and exonerates blacks engaged in violent, criminal activity. The movement you support has spurred the mindless murders of police officers all across this country.

Each shooting is a discrete case. Where fear or prejudice is at work in one, we must end it. Fear and prejudice are as much a part of the black psyche as the white because it is an element of our humanity. If you were as compassionate toward police officers as you want to be toward a terrorist, maybe you could help eradicate the shootings you lament instead of promote them.

For that to happen, Ms. Thompson, you must improve and change your thinking.

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!

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.

The Racial Chasm

Standard

The chasm between white and black views of racism widens. The perspectives from which Americans are viewing the drama playing out between police officers and some members of the black community on city streets and in neighborhoods move further away from each other. Each side looks at the spectacle from a different frame of mind, and the intellectual editing produces divergent understandings and feelings.

The politician Hillary Clinton, whose currency of falsehood and deception anchored in her selfish interests and self-absorption, and the profoundly superficial media that craves explosive stories and moralizations, exacerbate the conflict with their pious platitudes, race-baiting, and incendiary reporting and commentary.

What is happening in Charlotte, North Carolina, stands out as a perfect example. The cacophonous and premature protests drown out reason and sober investigation. The story about the protests eclipses the story of a police shooting. Without any investigatory results, the screecher Hillary Clinton pours flames on the crowds’ fires and declares that the shootings of black people are intolerable. She wants to appear the moral judge, even as she issues a verdict before all the facts are known. Will she retract her statements for all the cases about which she is wrong?

What Clinton does and says compromises the effort to create a society and a body politic not merely free of racism but one of citizens who hold and behave toward each other with genuine goodwill and equity.

That’s where some of the problem lies. It lies in the phraseology and the imagery often used. Who wants to object to the “shootings” or the “killings of black people”? I don’t. Does the phrase not seem to imply that police officers drive around looking for black people to pick off? Yes, phrased in that way, I object and refuse to tolerate the shootings or killings of black people, walking by the street, getting out of their cars to walk up the path to the front doors of their homes, shopping, getting an ice cream cone at the drive-through window of Dairy Queen, strolling through the park, etc. In fact, I object to and will not tolerate the shootings or killings of anyone engaged in such activities.

Let’s change the phrasing. Should we tolerate those instances in which police shoot people engaged in criminal activity, particularly violent criminal activity, when they are black? When a person attacks a police officer, leaves, and returns to attack him again, and that person happens to be black, does the police officer have the right and the duty to shoot him? When the police ask a citizen to exit his vehicle with his hands in the air or clasped behind his head, and instead he exits his vehicle with his fist wrapped around a gun, does the police officer have the right and the duty to shoot him, whether he is black or not?

Is not the blame for the situations just described squarely on the shoulders of the person who made the decision to attack or threaten to attack?

Sometimes, perhaps many times, a predisposition to ascribe police actions to racism itself produces racism in the person who feels that way. The converse remains true, too. White people often hold an emotional view of black people that effects and confirms the violent characteristics they just “know” exist in “those people”, and nature’s Oedipus effect generates the self-fulfilling prophecy to which such people clung.

This may have been the principle that operated in the case of a South Carolina state trooper in 2014 who shot a 35-year-old man, who was black, as the man complied with the officer’s command to get his license, and in the case of a deputy in North Charleston who shot and killed a black man as the black man ran away from him during a traffic stop. The former was arrested and charged with what appears to be the most serious form of aggravated battery under South Carolina law (the victim recovered, and the charge carries a maximum 20-year sentence upon conviction). The latter was arrested and charged with murder.

In spite of appearances, every case should be soberly and fully investigated. Every case should be soberly and equitably prosecuted, without passion or prejudice. The process and the verdict should conform to law, and the law should conform, in my opinion as best as possible, to a higher integrity. The presumption is innocence, whether the defendant is black, a police officer, oriental, Middle Eastern, a Ku Klux Klanner, a black panther, a creepy looking fellow, a person with a disreputable or disagreeable personality, a Muslim, a communist, rich, poor, or somewhere in between, etc.

We need – all of us – to live up to the standards embedded in our Declaration and in our Constitution, standards we claim to cherish. We may need to discover some synthesis or refinement of those moral and legal principles that most everyone can accept and support and live with; not a perfect synthesis, but an acceptable and supportable one that contains shared ideals. Then, we have to start living those standards in our hearts, in our minds, with our tongues, and with our actions.

If the protests are meant to push for a lively, open, and honest debate from all sides about racial attitudes, let them be kept peaceful, and let us heed the protests and get to work. If the protests are little more than police baiting or an opportunity to engage in or support criminal activity, then conflict will ensue and discussion be derailed. In the latter case, the chasm would only grow.

Both sides, or the many sides, have the obligation to come to the table and listen. Both have truths to convey and both have illusions to dispel. While I reject the notion of “white privilege”, I do accept the notion that more whites have enjoyed a more advantageous position in American social, political, legal, and economic structures and more blacks a less advantageous one.

I would be classified as “white” (I am half Hispanic and half Celtic), so I will say this: It is incumbent in a special sense for we whites not to blow this opportunity to help bridge the racial divide and heal this nation’s wounds. We’ve been patching them up for too long. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., appealed to white people through our faith, the Western faith, of Christianity and our Western philosophy of the Greeks and Romans via the Renaissance with great power and eloquence. We rewarded him with disdain, twisted our own faith to accommodate our biases and bigotries, and we attempted to discredit Dr. King by labeling him a communist and an adulterer.

It makes no difference whether he was or wasn’t. If you can find a perfect man outside of Jesus Christ (and some would disagree with me there), please let me know. We have accepted or allowed plenty of blemished leaders, even among our Founding Fathers. The question is whether Dr. King spoke truth and love and reason. Did he have America’s best interests at heart? He did, and we foolishly and mulishly rejected his pleadings for peace, equality, and unity.

In spite of our foolishness and mulishness, we made progress. We elected a black president. More blacks than ever are involved in political bodies across the nation and nationally and in our economic, legal, and social structures. While this is good, some stress too much the quantity of blacks involved or black involvement. What has really been missing is the quality of our civic life. Races will relate well and equality be achieved when hearts are right and goodwill is expressed routinely. When that happens, the effects will be more profound and longer lasting.

Reject Elitist Conservatism!

Standard

Rich Lowry is a fucktard.

The editor of the National Review is sitting among four intelligent, attractive women on Outnumbered on the Fox News Channel today and spouting his high falutin’ conservative principles. Pope Rich decides what conservative dogma is and who is a true conservative and who isn’t, and thus anathema.

Fortunately, Andrea Tantaros is punishing him with her poignant questions.

Lowry and his fellow constipated conservatives at National Review calumniated against Donald Trump prior to the Iowa caucus and now smugly believe they affected the race’s outcome. Let’s see if he and his cabal of blowhards take the blame when Trump blasts Cruz in New Hampshire.

Here’s the real key that fucktards like Lowry still don’t get: the people aren’t listening to you any more. They reject your determination of what conservative is. They will define it and its range. Getting things done, and done well, is far more important than sticking blindly to some predetermined political philosophy.

The problem is that people like Lowry are against the majority. They want to control what others think and believe and rattle them into voting properly by declaring something or someone “not a true conservative.”

A vote for Lowry’s draconian, elitist-serving principles and for the people who represent them is a vote for the elitists and their security, benefit, and financial enhancement at the expense of their fellow citizens rather than for the American people as a whole.

It’s time to oust the self-proclaimed high priests of conservatism and to redefine conservatism so that it benefits all and not a few.

Reject Rich Lowry! Reject elitist conservatism! Let freedom ring!

A Defense of Trump and His Supporters with an Attack on National Review

Standard

Conservative magazine National Review marketed a special issue today devoted to the destruction of Donald Trump’s campaign to win the Republican nomination for president. The issue’s cover features ornate, three dimensional appearance, gold lettering in relief that proclaims “Against Trump”. The lettering sits on a royal purple background underneath a cluster of golden leaves and blooms. The magazine amassed the cogitations of 22 conservative purists who denounced Trump as a faux conservative who would destroy conservatism, the Republican Party, and these United States.

The issue “hit” news stands today and was previewed yesterday by news outlets like CNN and Fox News. One source described National Review’s circulation as limited and has having fallen since 2010.

As volcanoes vomit lava, so the editors and the contributors enlisted to pen essays for the magazine spewed sulfur from their bellies at Trump and anyone who supports his candidacy.

During an interview Friday morning with Martha MacCallum on Fox News’s America’s Newsroom, conservative L. Brent Bozell called Trump a “shameless self-promoter and huckster.”

The Editors described Trump as “a menace to American conservatism who would take the work of generations and trample it underfoot on behalf of a populism as heedless and crude as the Donald himself.”

Mona Charen lists a litany of sins that cry to conservative heaven for vengeance and asks “whether [Trump’s] recent impersonation of a conservative is just another role he’s playing.”

Their answer to the question of who should be the Republican nominee for president is, by and large, Ted Cruz; yes, that Ted Cruz, the gargoyle of gridlock that his Republican colleagues hate.

Within the criticisms one can detect hypocrisy, snobbery, and a destitution of pragmatism.

As a voter, I don’t care about strict ideology. I tend to be conservative, socially and fiscally, but I want policies that will achieve efficiency, profitability, and strength. I am not against all social programs. I want to take home as much of my check as I can, but I can support some programs if they achieve a civic benefit and am willing to be taxed for them. And I understand that there are many Americans who disagree with me, so I cannot in good conscience say my ideology always owns the answer for every challenge. Compromise is necessary, not as an evil, but as a good, a give and take that makes allowances for everyone and achieves vital goals. The last seven years we have seen what a failure to compromise reaps: virtually nothing. The gridlock that Cruz and these conservative purists stand for will keep us chained, enslaved to polarity.

American government should work for Americans and their benefit. “Free trade”, which benefits a few investors and robs Americans of jobs, isn’t free. It costs workers tons. It costs them their livelihoods, their ability to feed and shelter their wives and kids, their self-esteem, and the respect of those who don’t suffer as they do. They are our neighbors, our fellow citizens, not objects on a philosophical landscape. Yet greed stylized as a “principle” insists that investors make a few cents more on a share of stock in a year, even if it means several hundreds or thousands or tens of thousands of their fellow citizens lose their $30- or $40,000 a year livelihood!

No “conservative principle” nor “liberal principle” should dictate how a president or congressman governs, but rather a constitutional pragmatism. The Constitution does not call for the employment and application of “conservative principles” or “liberal principles”. It calls for the formation of a more perfect Union, the establishment of Justice, the insurance of domestic Tranquility, provision for the common defense, the promotion of the general Welfare, and the securing of the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and to our Posterity. The government should make these their goals to accomplish, honoring and promoting the rights of the people, collectively and individually, along the way.

Because they enjoy the right to speak and write freely, the Sanhedrin of conservative purity may say what it wants. We do not have to give it permission to define conservatism for us nor to accept any of the principles upon which it insists for good government.

When it makes claims, however, the soundness of those claims should pass muster with our Reason. Let’s examine a few bits.

Bozell claims Trump is a shameless self-promoter and huckster. One fails to see how that designation does not apply to any candidate in the race for the presidency. Each and every one of them is promoting themselves. They always spotlight what they have done or said that achieved good or constancy while turning the lights off on the bad or inconstancy they achieved. Their self-promotion includes the derogation of those who are running against them. They aggressively sell themselves and do so by ridiculing their opponents, all hyperbolically.

Bozell’s claim has little more than its colorful wording.

Similarly, the Editors’ claim that Trump is trampling underfoot conservatism and its works with a crude, heedless populism belies the fact that the people who comprise that populism are thoroughly disgusted with the political establishment and the ideological purists who haunt it. Actually, it is the conservative and the liberal ideologues, stuck in a perpetual tug of war based on their ideas instead of the people, who have given birth to the populism the National Review finds so threatening. Ideology in Washington has bred inefficiency because of its tolerance for polarity and its intolerance for compromise, despite the fact that statistics show the country split into thirds.

From what I can see on the web, the percentage of Americans who identify as conservatives runs between 35 and 40%. The percentage of Americans who identify as moderates runs about 35%. The percentage of Americans who identify as liberals runs between 20 and 25%. Presumably, those left over do not identify with any ideology.

Those are generalities. People likely shift their ideological identification based on the issue presented to them, and their concerns are likely pragmatic. How many governing conservatives decry welfare but want states to offer businesses incentives to relocate there, a form of corporate welfare, and a slap in the face to businesses already there? Don’t “right-to-work” laws diminish the free market by crippling a worker’s ability to compete? Aren’t workers a part of the supply and demand equation? How many conservatives are fiscally so but socially not and stand with the pro-abortionists, even though faith and science declare that life begins at conception and the Declaration lists the order of predominance as “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness”?

Liberal ideologues are no better, and while many have led the fight to prevent “legislating morality”, they engage in it themselves, crafting “hate” laws and compelling people to pay for other peoples’ insurance and thrusting gay marriage on a nation through endless nagging and condemnation. It’s laughable until it becomes murderous: Hillary boasts of her defense of women, yet her support for the legalized murder of the unborn has exterminated the lives of millions of women!

Where were conservative purists when illegal aliens began crossing the border to satisfy their needs and the greed of Big Agriculture for cheap, sometimes slave, labor? Now they want to expel the illegals and offer no pathway to citizenship, after winking and looking the other way for decades!?

I suppose somewhere sometime a conservative columnist or two may have raised the issue over illegal immigration in what they wrote, but what did conservative purists do?

Nothing! If only they had made as big a stink back then as they are now about Trump! It’s easy to denounce another. Why don’t you denounce yourselves for your failures, conservative purists!?

The answer is simple: Everyone compromises. You can throw ideological purity out the window like dirty water or three-days old coffee. That’s where it belongs, just like the condemnation of Trump!

It’s time to be constitutional. It’s time to be pragmatic. It’s time to get things done. Let Trump’s desire to win, his respect for the common citizen, his ability to negotiate, and his efficiency, productivity, and profitability work for us and our country.

The “purists” have had their chances the last seven years and failed miserably. Let them sit in their plush leather chairs on thickly carpeted floors behind closed doors to sip cognac, puff on cigars, and fume about the lack of ideological purity amid the smoky wisps.

Keep them there!