Aside – inliberty.org

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

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

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

“Push Off!”

After an appropriate amount of time on his knees before the Saudi princes, explaining why their perception of his alliance with the Mullahs of Iran was all wrong, President Obama headed to Great Britain to bolster his friend, Prime Minister David Cameron, in his intention to keep Great Britain a member of the European Union (EU).

Queen Elizabeth II was celebrating her 90th, which gave the President and First Lady an excuse to appear sincere, while castigating common Brits for their desired exit from the EU.

Obama’s arrogance and pomposity was on full display as he derided the British for even thinking of their own sovereignty.

How could they refuse to help him in the systematic suffocation of the cultures of their fellow members in the EU by waves of Muslim “migrants”?

Why would Britain abandon its role as partner in his “global climate change” ruse? Couldn’t they see that redistribution of wealth is necessary to punish the rich Western economies?

He even warned of U.S. trade actions, should the British leave the EU: “The UK might be at the back of the queue…”

Sorry, Mr. Prime Minister; you invited him. We side with your countrymen in their wishes to our president: “Push off!”

Originally Published on April 25, 2016

Patriot’s Side

Reviving and defining the concept of Patriotism

While speaking in Paris during the month of April in 1910, Theodore Roosevelt examined his thoughts on the meaning of “patriotism” and how he viewed that concept in an ever more connected world.

Even though he was beginning to develop a progressive ideology, he managed to define the importance of “patriotism” in a very straightforward way:

I believe that a man must be a good patriot before he can be… a good citizen of the world.

Experience teaches us that the average man who protests that his international feeling swamps his national feeling, that he does not care for his country because he cares so much for mankind, in actual practice proves himself the foe of mankind; that the man who says that he does not care to be a citizen of any one country, because he is a citizen of the world, is in very fact usually an exceedingly undesirable citizen of whatever corner of the world he happens at the moment to be in…

If a man can view his own country and all other countries from the same level with tepid indifference, it is wise to distrust him, just as it is wise to distrust the man who can take the same dispassionate view of his wife and his mother.

However broad and deep a man’s sympathies, however intense his activities, he need have no fear that they will be cramped by love of his native land.

Now, this does not mean in the least that a man should not wish to do good outside of his native land. On the contrary, just as I think the man who loves his family is more apt to be a good neighbor than the man who does not, so I think that the most useful member of the family of nations is normally a strongly patriotic nation.

So globalism is nothing new; as we see Teddy Roosevelt recognize the nascent eruption of a “family of nations” at the advent of the 20th Century. Roosevelt addressed the importance of patriotism in a world context and was very direct in his clear understanding of the concept of “patriot” and “world citizen,” and the difference between the two.

People can have that understanding once more – IF we teach patriotism.

Originally published April 18, 2016

A Midnight Ride

The night of April 18, 1775 word had leaked that British general
Thomas Gage ordered 700 of his regulars to march from
Boston to Concord, to seize a weapons cache of the rebellious
colonists and arrest two Patriot leaders: Samuel Adams and
John Hancock.

Silversmith Paul Revere took off on horseback to warn Lexington
and Concord. In Lexington the following day, “the shot heard ’round the world” signaled the beginning of our War for Independence.

Patriot’s Side

Vacationing with his family in Cuba the week before Easter, the president interrupted his press conference in Havana to give a 51second response to the March 22nd massacre in Brussels, Belgium earlier that week. The attacks were perpetrated once again by jihadists of the Islamic State (IS), killing 32 and injuring 270.

President Obama paused praise of the Castro Brothers, commenting from Havana, “The world must unite… We must be together regardless of nationality, or race or faith, in fighting against the scourge of terrorism.”

Possibly unaware that four Americans had lost their lives in the Brussels airport and subway attacks, he did not mention their deaths at the hands of the Islamist butchers of IS. He was concerned with, “Can’t we all just get along?” and… climate change.

Not even a full minute passed, dealing with Islamist attacks in the capital of the European Union and headquarters city of NATO, when he returned to apologies for U.S. oppression toward the people of Cuba.

He waxed poetic, ruminating about the “Two brothers that have been estranged… Cuba built by slaves… as was America.”

Communism enslaved Cuba and turned the former island paradise into a human dungeon. But that was the fault of the U.S. – according to Barack Obama.

When the president commented on “what the Cuban people built… we call it Miami,” he intentionally ignored the fact that Cubans in Miami had been refugees from Fidel Castro’s gulags. These Cubans fled, barely escaping with the clothes on their backs.

Living in Key West, Florida in 1970, I saw the rafts up close, cobbled together with twine, wire and prayers to make it across 90 miles of open ocean to the Keys. These were desperate people fleeing for their lives, not the workers who built a glorious Marxist success story then exported their skills to build Miami. Most perished during the journey, seeking freedom at any cost.

After visiting his comrades in Cuba he tangoed in Argentina, then returned to the U.S. The “Wish you were here!” postcards of President Obama, in front of posters of Che Guevara, will be in your mailbox this week.

Notes to Bernie

1) The First Amendment doesn’t state that if you carry around a “Vote for Bernie” sign you are inoculated from arrest for the federal crime of stopping free speech by a candidate running for public office in a presidential election. Better warn your supporters before the “protest.”

2) Socialism is not about “elevating people.” It’s about controlling them and limiting choice. In its more radical forms, its about reducing people to automatons who accept the State as their master, replacing God as the supreme authority. Socialism limits liberty; holds people down.

Bernie, you’ve been a Socialist all your life. You should know.

Judicial Clarity

There really are no court decisions that are “controversial,” if a justice adheres faithfully to the written intent of the U.S. Constitution. He or she simply cannot err if they stick to the law.

All their decisions will be legally and constitutionally sound, therefore correct under U.S. law.

If one is a strict originalist concerning things constitutional, as in the case of Justice Scalia, one’s decisions cannot be called, in any sense, extreme

So where do progressives get this strange idea that conservatives on the court are extreme?

Law school?