Patriot’s Side

I find it odd that the state-run media thinks it’s more important to have the endorsement of a popular basketball coach, who knows little about the national or international issues that would face a president, rather than any organization representing a portion of the voting populace; say, the NRA or VFW or FFA.

What does a famous coach know about national security? What does he know about a rapidly crashing culture and the steps needed to rescue it from oblivion? Can the coach voice his beliefs in the virtues of smaller government, reduced spending to match tax revenue, military preparedness, or welfare and entitlement reforms? Maybe.

The coach is a celebrity because, as many believe, he was a legend in his field of endeavor. Extremely proficient at what he did, in this case coaching a formidable sports team, he remains beloved and revered among Hoosiers. In the eyes of those who treasure the game of basketball he is an icon. And Donald Trump is fortunate to count Bobby Knight as a friend.

And Donald Trump’s acceptance of Bobby Knight’s endorsement simply means Donald likes basketball. That’s it.

Where I will part company with some who believe in “celebrity endorsements” is in the realm of voter education. There are those who say, “If Bobby Knight votes for Donald Trump, why, that’s all I need to know. I’ll vote for Donald too.” That’s a problem unless you know the coach personally.

Electing officials based on their expertise and proficiency, to represent citizens in their local, state or federal government, should not be based on celebrity endorsements. If I were on the Left, I would not cast my vote for Hillary Clinton because George Clooney “endorsed” her candidacy.

I didn’t hear news of any endorsements of candidates made by the VFW, the FOP, American Legion, or other organizations that represent the beliefs and values of their members, and would vouch for a candidate who shares those… Maybe I missed them.

We have enough “celebrities” in America without making them acceptable spokesmen for presidential candidates.

Originally Published May 2, 2016

Advertisements

Promises, Promises

We heard it back in 2000, in Bush vs. Gore. And again in 2004, the voices were raised when Kerry challenged Bush.

The same celebrities repeated the oath in 2008… If Barack Obama lost to John McCain in the presidential election they would flee the country.

Now, in 2016, if Donald Trump wins the presidency many celebrities swear they will emigrate to Canada: Whoopi Goldberg, Cher, Rev. Al Sharpton, Rosie O’Donnell, John Stewart, Samuel L. Jackson, and Lena Dunham have all made the promise: “Trump wins, we’re gone!”

If only they will keep their word this time. (Don’t hold your breath, they are progressives!)

Originally Published May 2, 2016

Tepid Two-step

A mild-mannered governor almost takes a stand

Later that day, George F. Will, columnist and media pundit, described the  governor’s understated behavior as “tardy, timid, late and inconsequential.”

Earlier, Indiana governor Mike Pence had been at the microphone of WIBC in Indianapolis. A lack of excitement in the governor’s statement that afternoon, unfortunately, is typical; standard fare for Hoosiers hearing pronouncements from their mild-mannered chief executive.

“Well, this is a very exciting time for Indiana…” he sighed, dispassionately.

Ostensibly, Governor Pence went on air to tell the residents of his state which presidential candidate in the Republican Party he would support. That is, almost.

“I like and respect all three of the Republican candidates in the field…” He opened by heaping praise upon Donald Trump. “I particularly want to commend Donald Trump, who has given voice to the frustration of millions of working Americans… and I’m also particularly grateful that Donald Trump has taken a strong stand for Hoosier jobs… I’m grateful
for his voice in the national debate…” He acknowledged his admiration for neighboring Ohio governor John Kasich, but was really grateful for Trump. Then Governor Pence admitted who he would vote for; matter-of-factly, as if an afterthought.

“I’ve come to my decision about who I’m supporting and I’m not against anybody, but I will be voting for Ted Cruz.”

When I viewed the video coverage from the WIBC studio, I discerned no appreciable change in expression on the governor’s face; just the same concerned look he always wears; no enthusiasm.

Pence went on, in the course of the radio interview, to praise Ted Cruz for his unwavering stands on principle and “the courage of his convictions.” The same conservative principles, Pence said, that drew him to “the party” so many years ago.

One would get the impression, however, if one listened while preoccupied, that Governor Pence was actually supporting Donald Trump for the Republican nominee. After the time spent lauding Trump versus the time he used to highlight the case for Cruz, it would be an obvious conclusion.

“I respect the views of every Hoosier… I urge every Hoosier to make up their own mind… I wanted to make my decision known.” He offered to support “our party’s nominee, whoever that might be.” When prompted, “Who can beat Hillary Clinton?” Pence responded, “I’m for anybody.”

Contrast the lukewarm behavior of Governor Pence regarding Ted Cruz and the genuine enthusiasm of Wisconsin governor Scott Walker, toward the same candidate, and the difference is stark. When Governor Walker used the word “endorse” it was emphatic, no explanation necessary. Pence, however, never intended to use it.

Indiana’s primary election on May 3, at least in the presidential sense, may very well decide the “presumptive” nominee in the Republican Party’s presidential race. And this is the level of excitement a sitting
Republican governor of that state exhibits?

Governor Pence reminds me of the old, Cold War Potemkin Village concept so favored by the masters of the once-enslaved Eastern Europeans; presentable frontage, but when you peer behind the façade there’s
little structure; sometimes none at all.

His failures to take “Alamo” positions on critical issues over the last four years (Common Core, natural marriage, the RFRA, and this session, the SO/GI debacle) exemplify his reticence toward endorsement… or a tepid non-endorsement. But then, he did say, “I’m not against anybody.”

Originally Published May 2, 2016.

 

The Panic Persists

Desperate Times at the Party of Accommodation

Over the last seven years (and the G. W. Bush years prior) conservatives have watched Republicans in Washington cut deals with Democrats, violating our Founding Principles and ignoring the Constitution. Weakening our nation causes them no discomfort.

They break promises repeatedly, yet continue to make promises they have no intention to keep. They abandon their responsibilities under the Constitution, offering no actions to check the growing power of an increasingly dictatorial president. Although they have constitutional authority to check activist courts that redefine or invent law and can override the Supreme Court, no effort comes from a Republican Congress.

Yet, when an election comes around, the RNC extends its hand, asking for our support to fund the continuance of the status quo and careers of moderate incumbents.

Washington, DC will never be free from the corruption of progressive, incumbent Republicans, who are the crux of the problem, if we keep electing them. These careerists are more interested in “cutting deals” with Democrats than defending our Constitution or restoring of our culture.

The last thing constitutional conservatives need is the perpetuation of establishment Republicans who now hold office; who daily betray our principles in the pursuit of expediency of an agenda. And the RNC plans to do all within its power to preserve the “Party of Accommodation.”

Depending on how far the RNC wants to go, they can again ignore voters (as the RNC has in the past, rewriting rules at the 2012 convention in Tampa to shut out Ron Paul supporters and Tea Party activists), rewriting the rules as often as necessary.

But, in the world of the RNC and their consultant dependency, the donors fuel the machine, literally. Trump can complain about “rigging the election” and Cruz can scoop up available delegates every day, but the donors feed the RNC.

The “American Unity Fund” is a consortium of political donors to the Republican Party who are pressing that the official
party platform accommodate liberal inventions such as same-sex “marriage” (or, more accurately, mirage) and other immoral issues that are certain to widen the party’s growing chasm between establishment (moderate) party stalwarts and the evangelical (and conservative) base. You know, the base Jeb Bush loved to loathe. Platform writers at the RNC are heavily influenced by the donors. Principles are sidelined in favor of accommodation. So, in essence, it’s business as usual for 2016.

The middle-class bulk of the electorate is looked upon as an economic negative. As some RNC consultants proclaim, it’s just the “angry, white middle class.” Repeating from the Democrat script, “It’s all those uneducated, Bible-thumping hicks.”

RNC fear of Trump and Cruz is palpable. They are afraid that, if either of them is elected in the primary, their nomination will cause an electoral backlash in the 2016 general election, handing Mrs. Clinton a resounding win. GOP leadership is even afraid that a Hillary victory will have a landslide effect; an avalanche that will also return control of the House and Senate to the Democrats in 2018. No proof of this exists; it’s all conjecture. But they’re in panic mode; grasping for excuses.

On April 26, Trump took primaries in all five states that day; all 60 counties, some with wins as large as 60% of votes cast. GOP consultants dismissed it as “expected.”

Even Ken Cuccinelli with the Cruz campaign, when asked about the 5-for-5 Trump sweep, excused it as, “We don’t win in those states anyway.” No big deal…

The anti-Trump forces at the RNC are becoming desperate; they still think the outsider phenomenon is temporary, that they can “ride it out.”

News for the RNC… this isn’t just a splash in the ocean.

It IS the ocean. And high tide is Cleveland.

Originally Published May 2, 2016

Please Explain

Why is it that our children are forbidden to read the Bible in a government school but, if they land in a federal prison as an adult, are encouraged to read it?

Couldn’t the formerly accepted practice help to avoid the later incarceration?

And why do we take an oath upon the Bible when testifying in a court of law but, outside that very courthouse, a display of the Ten Commandments is “illegal”?

Wouldn’t more exposure to the laws displayed outside keep some from ending up on the “receiving end” of the law inside?

Originally Published on May 2, 2016

Patriot’s Side

As the 2016 presidential primary election season unfolds, it’s amazing how many American voters don’t understand the primary election process of either major political party.

Senator Bernie Sanders won the New Hampshire presidential primary election for the Democrat Party, but Hillary Clinton grabbed the majority of delegates. She will continue to build her lead, whether in elections or caucuses, because of the loyalty of her pledged “super-delegates.”

Republican Party presidential primary candidate Senator Ted Cruz captured delegates in Wyoming and Colorado by convincing fence-sitters at state conventions to pledge to his candidacy. These legal actions, performed by candidates throughout Republican Party primary history, were met with shouts of “Foul play!” and “Unfair!” by candidate Donald Trump. His supporters, when interviewed by the state-run news media, were certain the “system is rigged.”

Of course it’s “rigged.” The leadership “establishment” in both major political parties has long manipulated delegates in a system designed to deny outsiders who challenge the party hierarchy’s hold on power and prestige. The 2012 RNC National Convention rule changes to favor Romney are an example. Candidates such as Trump, Cruz and Sanders are not supposed to be the presidential nominees of their parties.

Pamela Adams, writing on April 19 at Constitution.com asked, “We complain about the system but what have we really done to stop it? We moan and whine about the establishment running everything but what have we really done to change it?”

If you haven’t been paying attention or understand the process, you think it’s rigged. If you feel that way but don’t change the primary election process of your party, don’t bother complaining.

In his Farewell Address of 1796, President George Washington warned Americans of “the baneful effects of the Spirit of Party”… groups seeking power at the expense of the common good and the rights of others. Once more, we have not heeded the warnings of our Founders.

Originally Published on April 25, 2016

Bathroom Nonsense

‘And Now for Something Completely Different’

Many of us are well aware of the heights that can be achieved by virtuous human nature; the achievements possible given opportunity, skills and desire. We are surprised though, when we are faced with examples of the depths. Perhaps shock is a better word, although the cultural perversity we see on an increasingly regular basis has left us questioning, “How bad can it get?”

With the new victimhood culture built by progressives, no depth is unreachable, no behavior unacceptable. This time, they have manufactured chaos out of a desire to reorient bathroom biology, creating new victims of…restroom discrimination.

Can men frequent women’s restrooms? “Of course,” say Leftists. Could a woman use the men’s facilities? “Why not?”

Right, wrong, and the entire concept of absolutes have been replaced with an illegitimate political construct, drawn from nothing factually determined. It’s what you feel at a given time; truth is relative. The permanence of tradition has been replaced by expediency. Reason and common sense have been overturned by emotion.

The objective of progressive ideology is to dismantle morality; remove the cultural foundation based on truths and human experience. Replace it with the construct of a random system based on whatever is popular, preferred, or accepted at the time.

Do you hold a belief or have an opinion that is contrary to progressive orthodoxy? Or simply have no opinion one way or another because, as in the bathroom follies, the whole premise is ridiculously obnoxious? Then brace yourself for an onslaught of epithets from those on the Left who despise your “indifference.” Words such as “bigot,” “extremist,” and “racist” will be launched at you with unrelenting regularity, for any perceived sleight against any dogma of the Statists. These recent examples illustrate the increasing “push” by the Left:

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia just overturned a local school policy that determined access to restroom facilities based on biology. In other words, where you take care of “nature’s business” is determined by Nature… your God-given gender.

What students perceived themselves to be on any given day didn’t enter into the school’s policy, as it shouldn’t. According to the radical Left, however, that was the school’s error. The administration didn’t consider changing conjecture, so the school is now deemed to be full of bigots.

The court’s ruling was, of course, unconstitutional. But no attention was paid to that inconvenient fact, so it wasn’t addressed. Our courts no longer deal with things lawful or unlawful; no respect for reality or the basis for the law is seen. Everything is gray; perceptions and feelings.

British Prime Minister David Cameron, during President Obama’s recent visit, warned gender-uncertain Brits that they may be “discriminated against” should they decide to travel to that bigoted colonial backwater of North Carolina and use a restroom. No mention was made of vacations to the NC Outer Banks five years ago, when no problems were noted. What had changed since? An agenda had been launched, to create chaos and division in the U.S.

Parents of a child in Great Britain, enrolling their four year-old in school for the first time, were asked to assist in deciding which of 23 gender “identity” choices fit their child best!

If one asks for proof of any prior discrimination, denying restroom access to a “transgender,” progressives will stiffen, accuse, and launch epithets once more. You are not allowed to question their agenda. They claimed it happened, so it must be true; and rights were certainly abridged or abused… even if those “rights” never existed before today.

Once you push a culture beyond the bounds of credibility, past the boundaries of reason, it may not snap back.

It’s time to stand and stop the nonsense.

Originally Published April 25, 2016