As media scramble to report on the rapidly developing conflict between the previous Obama Administration, which clings to and tries to amplify whatever residual power it can manage, and the new Trump Administration, which has taken on the job entrusted to them by voters, of restoring American values, and which job is complicated severely by various covert progressive agents of the “deep state” left behind in government by Obama, some of us struggle to keep up, and find ourselves somewhat exasperated trying to stay on top of the story.
But underneath the daily glut of confusing details and lies manufactured by Organizing for Action and liberal media, the story is actually quite simple.
You just have to remember that we are in the midst of a cultural war-
-war tactics are being used.
-war tactics are never what they seem.
-clandestine strategies are essential to winning a war.
So we won’t be seeing President Trump broadcasting his intentions to the enemy, who has access to all the same media outlets we citizens have access to.
President Trump will be holding all his best strategies close to the vest, and will even be releasing some red herrings that send us all scratching our heads.
And his opposition will be doing not only the same, but doing their special Alinsky version of the same—which includes breaking every rule in the book, and spreading a staggering number of lies.
In a war, those who don’t make choices get caught in the crossfire.
We ordinary citizens have to choose sides, realize that we don’t have the clearance to know exactly what is going on behind the scenes, and discern that a certain amount of blind trust and loyalty is not only in order, but is essential to winning the war.
We have to gauge what each side stands for, and where we stand.
This conservative’s first priority is backing the side that adopts Judeo-Christian morality.
President Trump has done enough during his first month in office to demonstrate that he truly holds these values, enough to earn the trust of, and to deserve the support of Christians and conservatives. We have to recognize the lies that being spread about him, and the red herrings being released about him for what they are, and we must rally to his support.
And the Left has done enough during the past month to demonstrate that they are not at all committed to the Constitution of the United States, not committed to Judeo-Christian morality, and certainly not committed to the truth. This is reflected not only in their actions of the past month, but also in the publicly stated platform of the Democrat Party.
The enraged seditious progressive left has now launched an all-out attack on President Trump, using every agent available to them, including most of the press, Barack Obama’s Organizing For Action resistance campaign, and George Soros’ money.
Attacks include felonies committed by organized rioters like those seen at Berkeley, lies spread by unethical left-wing media such as the (zero-evidence) Russia collusion accusations against President Trump, active resistance in Washington against Presidential cabinet appointments, and even character destruction campaigns against Presidential appointees. These attacks are being carried out in a very visibly organized fashion, in all probability led by Obama’s new Organizing For Action, which seems to draw on permanent appointees in government who are prepared to violate their oaths of office and to act seditiously against the Constitution and the President of the United States. Some have called this web of clandestine activists the“Deep State.”
A comical illustration of the “deep state” concept can be found in the British comedy series entitled Yes, Minister, in which the permanent government staff runs circles around and controls the newly elected British Cabinet Minister, who was elected to make changes which the permanent government staff do not approve, and who cluelessly struggles to implement his promises to his voters. The problem is that in real life outside of television comedy, a group of civil servants who thwart the actions of a President is not funny. They not only commit felonies and treason, but also endanger the entire nation by neutralizing its Commander-in-Chief.
And in 2017, all appearances indicate that Barack Obama has indeed planted progressive permanent staff in government, and has organized “resistance” movement called Organizing for Action, which directs well-planned and well-funded “resistance” activities against the Trump Administration.
We now seem to have two governments – the Trump Administration, and the treasonous Obama resistance administration or Deep State, which has offices in Washington, D.C., and colludes clandestinely with government employees in steering it’s destructive agenda.
Regime change and culture change often spawn such seditious opposition. President Lincoln faced similar problems, and upon taking office fired about 1,100 of the 1,500 members of his Executive staff. Problem with 2017 is that it’s not so easy to fire embedded government employees, and President Trump is stuck with passive aggressive and not-so-passive aggressive resistance at every turn. Attempts are being made to clean house, but the house is actually a filthy swamp.
Bernie Sanders, who appeared, at least during the 2016 Presidential Primaries, to be above and outside of the Hillary political machine, is now joining the concerted effort to attack the President and the newly elected agenda.
It looks like Bernie Sanders might even be taking orders from the Deep State.
Bernie has been posting articles maligning President Trump on Medium, a modern app aimed at millennial voters which boasts articles for “readers on the go,” and which spins everything quite progressively.
Bernie recently posted an article on Medium playing the poor Senator who (alas!) knows not what to do, since his President is such a liar! Apparently, in the deep state world led by Organizing For Action, even US Senators are recruited to do the drudge work of maligning President Trump, long after the election. In his article, Bernie laments the inaccuracies in crowd estimates Trump tweeted and portrays them as unbearable lies. This is the same Bernie who has had no problem with Benghazi lies, ObamaCare lies, and Hilary’s email felonies. Now, Bernie is prepared to participate in a traitorous campaign of sabotage and destruction against the President whom America elected, under the deceptive guise of Obama’s “resistance.”
This would be an appropriate place to note that “Deep State” government, although primarily composed of progressives, is not limited to progressives. Deep State can include Republicans as well, complicating the picture further. The Republican Party has been infiltrated over the years by some progressives, and there are stumbling blocks to President Obama’s conservative agenda within his own Republican Party.
This past week, Republicans are struggling over ObamaCare repeal. Established GOP leaders are pushing Paul Ryan’s American Health Care Act, while conservative Freedom Caucus leaders are opposing and calling the proposal “ObamaCare Light” and “RyanCare,” because it does not gut Medicaid expansion, some ObamaCare taxes, Obamacare subsidies, and the individual and employer mandates.
Trump, while appearing to support the proposed legislation, may, with his usual close-to-the-vest style of management, simply be letting the establishment group discover for themselves the folly of losing the support of conservative Republican colleagues, as they refuse to execute the complete repeal that voters expect. Some worry that President Trump has sold out conservative values, and is getting on board with “ObamaCare Light.”
This is an example of complications that can be very nerve wracking, and can shake our confidence in President Trump.
Daily headlines include items like McCain Intensifies Trump Tantrum and Paul Ryan Warns: If We Don’t Pass My Bill, ‘System Going to Collapse.’
With “Republicans” like this, who needs progressives?
We seen to be in a political upside down Alice in Wonderland world where it’s not easy to figure out what is up and what is down. Ironically, Barack Obama started out his Presidency in 2009 with a clandestine, curiously prophetic Alice in Wonderland Party.
At times like this, we have to remind ourselves that so far, President Trump had not sold us out, and there is not one instance yet of his betraying conservative values.
We have to wait and see what his game plan is, and how it turns out.
But back to the progressives, who are violating laws with their “resistance.”
What the left is practicing now is not “resistance,” but felony and treason.
When disagreement, or passive and legal resistance escalates into the breaking of laws and into subterfuge against the Presidency, an obvious line has been crossed.
The radical left has been using Alinsky tactics routinely since the 1960’s to work toward their goals.
And so we are in a civil war.
Not a well-defined one as we were in 1861, with honesty and uniforms defining the opposition. But in a clandestine war of subterfuge, where all the opposition fighters, not unlike ISIS terrorists, are embedded and hidden in the population and in the government. And whenever the legitimate government takes any step to camouflage their own battle plan, they are attacked by Alinskyites who demand complete (one-sided) transparency from them. Yet the Deep State opposition offers no transparency whatsoever in return, and even engages in felonious treason by leaking highly classified information about the President and his staff. Even liberal CBS news has acknowledged that “stunning amounts of classified information are being leaked against the Trump administration.”
And so, one of the most common Alinsky tactics used by the left is challenging their opponent with a violation of the opponent’s own professed values (which the left does not share). If they can’t find a real violation, they invent a violation. If they have zero evidence, they just make an even more outrageous and shocking accusation. Then, when their opponent protests “but you have ZERO evidence,” they say, “but the accusation is so shocking, that it is worth checking out, despite the fact that there is zero evidence. We must make sure that such a heinous thing could not be happening.“
And, presto!, they have entangled their opponent in a snare of furious time, money, and resource-consuming activity, which slows down their opponent, and impedes the opponent’s progress toward the opponent’s own agenda.
This tactic can be summarized as ATTACK, LIE, and REPEAT, or simply as CLASSIC ALINSKY ATTACK.
To translate this into 2017 politics, if the American public just rejected your (Obama’s) rapidly introduced progressive agenda and elected new government officials (the Trump administration) who are tasked with the restoration of common sense American values like respecting the Constitution, religious freedom, protection of life, and fiscal responsibility, and your (Obama’s) opponents have taken office with the obvious intention to SWIFTLY erase your dubious accomplishments of the previous 8 years, you invent a very shocking, very false, completely unsubstantiated claim, like “The Trump Administration has been colluding with Russia since before the election, and therefore they must be purged and stopped.” Then you press on and repeat the accusations over and over, overwhelming all other news with your fake slanderous story, until people half believe that the accusations could be real.
Enter President Trump, an experienced and successful man of the world, who has encountered more than one such scoundrel in his time in the business world, also a serious battleground.
And what does such a man to do?
Does he spend precious time defending himself from such ludicrous and unsubstantiated accusations and derail the work he was elected to do?
No, he goes on the offensive and throws challenges back at his attacker.
President Trump pointed out an equally shocking accusation against his opponent, the Director of the Shadow Resistance in the Shadow White House, Organizer-in-Chief of Organizing for Action, Barack Obama.
Being a conservative who does not use Alinsky tactics, the accusation used by President Trump was a true one.
And for truth, evidence can be found– in the New York Times, the Washington Post, McClatchy and the Guardian:
On Jan. 20, the New York Times’ front-page story was titled, “Wiretapped Data Used In Inquiry of Trump Aides.” That story went on to reveal, “The FBI is leading the investigations, aided by the National Security Agency, the CIA and the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Unit. The investigators have accelerated their efforts in recent weeks but have found no conclusive evidence of wrongdoing, the officials said. One official said intelligence reports based on some of the wiretapped communications had been provided to the White House.”
President Trump brilliantly linked his accusation to the false baseless one that was aimed at him- and thus he charged investigators to pair all potential investigation of false Trump-Russian collusion to a simultaneous investigation of Obama’s well suspected, unauthorized and illegal surveillance of Trump and his allies.
Much has been made of Trump’s accusation, with the inevitable progressive parsing of what the meaning of the word ‘wiretapping’ is. But it’s clear to any normal person with common sense that the Trump campaign was spied on by the Obama administration.
Any investigation that follows will not only clear the false accusations against President Trump, but will now implicate the previous administration and the present Deep State administrator Barack Obama, by exposing their ongoing abuse of power.
President Trump has turned the resistance booby trap into a boomerang.
So this present Cultural Civil War that is being led by President Trump is an unusual battle. It’s by necessity clandestine, involves numerous enemies and the Deep State, and is beginning to involve a whole new set of cyber and media weapons.
The main players would be foolish to advertise their battle tactics.
Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, George Soros and their partners certainly do not proclaim any of their plans or intentions.
President Trump would be foolish to proclaim all his intentions.
And so it follows that we cannot demand to know them.
Our main role is to pray, to screen both participants for the ethics of the methods they use, to choose a side, and to join the battle.
Join the Battle?
Prayer is crucial, and has already played a major role in the events leading up to our present situation.
It is through the prayers of the American people, and through the intervention of God that so many unpredictable and seemingly impossible (“Black Swan”) events have occurred in the past few years.
An outsider has been elected to the Presidency, despite all efforts of the progressive Deep State to defeat him.
This outsider managed to bridge the gap and obtain votes that most candidates could not have won.
He seems to know how to accomplish things with speed and with decisiveness, while remaining fair to those who disagree with him.
The left is really gearing up to go after him.
It’s time for us to quit sitting on the fence, to acknowledge the “conversion of St. Donald,” to put our prayers AND our energetic support behind our Commander in Chief, and to play our parts in this epic battle.
There are many ways we can help:
We cannot expect one man to fight this battle alone, to reverse years of regression single-handedly, and to fight off clandestine attacks by a now vicious sore-loser left.
If we want the restoration of Constitutional and Judeo-Christian values to America, we have to roll up our sleeves & help this courageous man whom we have elected.
Our nation seemed to have succumbed to progressive domination prior to Election 2016. The odds of reversing the direction taken by the Obama administration were low. Yet somehow, through a series of very statistically unlikely events, the duplicity of Obama’s radical progressive administration was exposed, and American citizens rallied to pray and to vote for change during the last few years.
The 8 year stream of scandals and revelations about the Obama administration, from the NSA & IRS scandals, and Benghazi shockers to the ObamaCare lies and failures, to the most recent WikiLeaks (Vault 7) CIA revelations, this unlikely stream of exposures has given us evidence of the extent to which the Obama administration tried to spy on and control not only the population of the United States, but even used a clandestine CIA agenda to control other governments, such as that of France.
We now have a unique opportunity to reverse this damage and domination by a minority of radical progressives, and to restore the values that built America – Constitutional and Judeo-Christian values.
We have to choose sides, we have to choose liberty, and if we don’t choose it and fight for it, we will lose it.
Our predecessors have had to fight wars to keep and to restore America’s freedom through many disasters and attacks.
This is now our generation’s war, and we must rise to the occasion and fight it.
Much of recent political conflict in the United States, as well as in numerous other countries, revolves around the question of refugees, borders and globalization.
Liberals advocate, in the name of compassion, open borders, massive unvetted refugee admission, and a global economy and mentality. They paint conservatives as hard-hearted and selfish when the wisdom of this liberal agenda is questioned.
Conservatives advocate a different form of compassion — compassion for our own citizens, who have to foot the bill for global charitable gestures, and who have to suffer the risks of infiltration by terrorists (who are, by definition, people who try to take what they want by violent means). Conservatives also advocate compassion for those immigrants who have patiently followed immigration laws and procedures and continue to stand in line to enter the US, but are bumped aside by people who simply walk across the border to stay. Conservatives accuse liberals of being unrealistic, and of trying to make the US hand out more than we can handle.
Rather than condemning one group or the other, liberals or conservatives, let us start with the premise that most Americans are reasonable, that neither half of America is evil, and that each group has a piece of the truth.
One truth says that we should care about and assist those in need, our country was built on immigration, and we must offer a helping hand.
The other truth is that we cannot take care of poor outsiders and strangers at the expense of neglecting our own poor, and we certainly cannot increase the population of the US to accommodate all the population of the world who would like to live here.
Framed in these terms, the question becomes not who is evil or wrong, but a much more rational and practical question of balancing two truths, of determining the degree to which we can help others, without damaging ourselves. It becomes a question of Taking Care of Americans and Taking Care of the World, and finding a fair balance somewhere between the two.
This need to balance our own nation’s stability before helping other nations is analogous to airline flight emergency instructions, which tell us to secure our own air supply mask before attempting to assist others. It is also analogous to a lifeguard’s need to develop their own strong swimming skills and lifesaving techniques before trying to assist drowning swimmers, lest two individuals drown instead of one. Any trained lifeguard or water safety instructor will tell you that if a novice approaches a panicked drowning swimmer the wrong way, even if the well-intentioned rescuer is a strong swimmer, the panicked drowning person will climb on top of the rescuer, pushing them BOTH under water and making the rescue impossible. Specific training and cautious techniques must be used to save both people.
When approached from this friendlier and more unifying perspective, the problem of how much to help the world, versus how much to help our own nation, becomes easier to consider. It is transformed from a hate-labeling tug-of-war between political factions to a cooperative effort to find a workable compromise.
Let’s start with some facts, which help to define the problem.
The Gross Global Annual World Product is $108 trillion, or $16,100 per person per year. So most of the world is pretty poor.
The American Gross National Product is $18 trillion, or $56,000 per person per year.
(Note, these are not salaries, but also include everything the government does for us, like building roads.)
So we Americans have 3.5 times more than the average individual in the rest of the world.
This is crucial information in considering the role we as Americans want to play in helping the rest of the world.
If we Americans want to share what we have to help the rest of the world, we have to decide how much we can bring ourselves to part with.
The saints among us who want to share all we have, must realize that to equalize the world, all inhabitants of the world would have to go down to the $16,000 per person per year. This just happens to coincide with our government-determined poverty level in the US. In other words, in order to help the world very significantly, we would have to part with most of what we have, and become impoverished ourselves. There is NOT a huge amount of wealth in the world, and those who want to bring the world up to our American standards not only must realize that this is impossible, but they also must realize that to equalize, we must go down to the world’s poverty level, and we might have to sacrifice more than we first realized. And the rest of the world, including China, would have to do this as well.
Many generous-hearted people who do not want to live a life of poverty themselves look for other sources of income to tap, for elevating the lifestyle of others. They somehow believe that there is some untapped wealth in the world that will make it possible for everybody to live well. They look to the Bill Gateses of the world and the corporate giants of the world to pay for the charity they wish to initiate.
Let’s try to do the pretty simple arithmetic on that. If we take the 8 richest men in the world who were recently in the news (Bill Gates et. al.), who own the same amount between the 8 of them as the poorest half of the world’s population all put together, the total net worth of these 8 men is $427 billion. If we distributed this to the poorest half of the world’s population (the poorest 3.6 billion people), we would only be able to give each person $119, only one time. Everyone working for the 8 men would then lose their jobs, and the next year, we would have no 8 men to take money from to distribute again. And the $119 would not make a huge difference to those whose annual share of the world’s wealth has been defined as an average of $16,000.
Yes, the world has so many poor and so few rich men that this technique would not help much.
Some people get so caught up in their envy of the rich that they want to punish the rich even if that would not benefit themselves in the least. Analogous to the child who rips off their sister’s doll’s head because they cannot have the doll themselves.
If we tried to tax the entire US, every single one of us, down to poverty level, if we allowed the entire US to earn only $16,000 per person, and the government took the rest, the taxes collected would only allow us to give each person in the world $1,700, bringing their $16,000 to $17,700 ONCE, after which the US would be too poor to give them anything again.
Repossessing corporate holdings would have similar results. Most corporate holdings are stocks and they represent the savings of America’s retirees and those preparing for retirement. If we take that money, we, the taxpayer, will have to support those people in their old age, when they have no retirement nest egg left. So taking corporate money or dividends is, at best, a very temporary measure. What you gain now, you will have to shell back out later, to the same people you took it from.
These and other similar calculations show us that the concerns of conservatives are not as evil or selfish as progressive leaders or the press would have us think, but are the valid concerns of responsible people, who do not want to steal from one to give to another, while weakening everyone to the point where nobody can help anybody at all.
And, correspondingly, the concerns of liberals are not evil power plays attempting to steal votes from the poor with false promises, but are the compassionate concern of a good population that has not been informed by their leadership of how little money there actually IS in our national coffers and in the world.
This might be a good place to insert an observation — that the ancient religious practice of tithing, of everyone giving 10% of what they have to their Churches to redistribute to those in need, would do a much better job of equalizing the fate of unfortunate people than any governmental system of taxation could ever do. An additional benefit would be that distribution would be local, and more easily supervised.
And yes, Churches and other charitable institutions have had their share of unscrupulous people who mismanage and even misappropriate those funds, but can any honest person say that our government has ever done a better job of it? Or have they just feathered their own nests and the nests of their friends with our tax money, which was supposedly earmarked to provide essential services to Americans and to other nations in need?
So when we embark on the political exercises of regulating the admission of refugees, the regulation of borders, and America’s participation in globalization policy, when we discuss Taking Care of Americans and Taking Care of the World with what resources we have, let’s remember not to vilify each other, let’s remember that each side has important lessons to teach the other side, and let’s not war with each other, destroying our own stability and making it impossible to help anybody else.
Let’s also remember that some campaign promises and government issued benefits, including free health care (average $10,000 per person per year), free college ($10,000 state & $34,000 private per person per year), old age and unemployment benefits, food stamps, free cell phones, and rent subsidies, that these benefits cannot be handed out to more than the tune of $56,000 per person per year, or the US will go bankrupt. The $56,000 per person per year Gross National Product that we can afford to spend includes our salary, all our government benefits, all services including roads and police protection, maintaining the military, paying for schools, libraries, and community centers, and helping refugees and others in need. And we have not even considered the repayment of the $20 trillion national debt ($62,500 per person) America has yet to repay.
To make the pie any larger, to get any larger slices, requires growing the economy and creating prosperity, so we could have more pie to share.
And it requires putting the unemployed back to work, baking more pies.
President Trump’s economic plans and incentives during his first month in office alone have already grown the value of the stock market by $3 trillion, which certainly increases the size of our national pie.
And the Trump administration is working very hard to create jobs to put people back to work.
So one way to help the poor, both in our own country, and in other countries, is to give President Trump a fair chance.
The more liberal half of America could help the poor simply by refusing to support the recent organized resistance movement against President Trump and his administration, thus giving conservatives the same fair chance liberals just had for eight years.
Shouldn’t I reach into my own pockets when it comes to discussing charity, and shouldn’t I be a bit kinder and more understanding of those who are in charge of keeping this nation fed, defended, employed, and on an even keel?
The bottom line is that there is no magical source of income to tap, our poor are overwhelming in number, and we all have to reach into our own pockets to help as much as we can. One good start would be to tithe and to volunteer at the local Church/charity of our choice. And today, Ash Wednesday, would be a good time to start.
The very obvious epic divide between right and left in our nation, along with any discussion of unification or bridging of that divide, necessitates defining and understanding the world views projected by the right and by the left, and then searching for common ground.
This article seeks not to malign or denigrate any group.
In fact, we begin here with the presupposition that good Americans on both sides truly want what is best for our country, and are passionate about pursuing that good.
The problem comes in defining what is desirable and what is good.
The key to overcoming the divide is reason and understanding.
Also, the best way to defeat your enemy is to make him your friend.
One of the major issues that reflect this divide is the hot-button issue of abortion, which, for the first time in this election, took center stage at the Presidential debates. Quite frankly, in this writer’s opinion, the very grisly partial birth abortion may have been the straw that broke Hillary Clinton’s back in the 2016 Presidential Election. Trump deftly showcased to America Hillary’s cold and rigid position on the killing of a partially born human child. Although certainly not the only issue at stake, abortion is certainly a highly charged and very emotional issue on both sides.
Abortion has, after decades of being relegated to an unimportant “social” issue, bubbled up to the top of the conservative’s priority list, and continues to be a big priority for both sides – not only for Progressives like Hillary, who have been vocal all along on the essential nature of abortion to their platform, but also for the future Trump Administration.
In a mind-blowing first, one of the first actions of the 115th Congress last week was to release a report on the sanctity and dignity of human life, and on the revelations of wrongdoing by Planned Parenthood, particularly in their sale of fetal body parts. To add to the surprise, the report came from a very unexpected source — from the Select Investigative Panel of the Energy and Commerce Committee – from which one would more likely expect reports on fracking or trade, NOT on the sanctity of life or on Planned Parenthood. See the remarkable commentary by John Stonestreet at Breakpoint. Clearly, the Trump administration is prioritizing the issue of abortion from a remarkably different perspective than that favored by Obama and Hillary.
The festering, neglected and unspoken problems of the epic divide, including the controversy over abortion, have been brewing now for decades. These issues have been skillfully skirted by politicians and have been side-stepped by American voters, in a well-intentioned effort at tolerance, an effort aimed at absorbing all views into our American melting pot of freedom and protected human rights. The most important issues, which are the moral issues, were long labeled “social” issues, and were swept under the rug, with varying success, until the 2016 Presidential debates.
And therein lies a possible clue to our big divide—reasonable people rarely go ballistic over mundane issues. However, morality, and it’s definition, IS something that both sides of America can get passionate about.
Despite everyone’s desire to tolerate and to include all Americans in our melting pot, problems surface as our population diversifies, as our morality shifts, and as we pass more and more new laws. The problem boils down to the fact that not all human philosophies, beliefs, or religions are compatible, and in our American melting pot these incompatibilities surface, causing inevitable conflict time and again. The definition of what is good and what is evil is not uniform in all societies, and needs to be defined by the entire nation, if evil is to be contained.
When regulating and protecting human interactions by law, determining what is right or wrong, or defining a person’s “rights” becomes complicated. The “rights” of one person can infringe on the “rights” of another person, and as a society we are forced to choose which “rights” trump which “rights.”
Abortion is one primary place where “rights” of citizens can clash. In abortion, however hard as it might be to imagine that the rights of a child and those of the mother could possibly not be aligned, progressives do insist that the well-being of a mother could be damaged by the existence of a child, and they advocate favoring “rights” for the mother over “rights” for the child.
Another example where the “rights” of citizens can clash is in the treatment of those who have broken the law. The rights of people to be protected from crime must be balanced with the rights of an incarcerated person to be treated decently. Also, the definition of decent treatment, which has to be paid for by the tax payer, is an area of potential disagreement. For example, taxpayers who cannot afford college for their own children could resent paying for college educations for prisoners.
Which brings up the question of defining “rights” altogether. Is a free college tuition a “right?” Does our nation have the budget to provide that? Does going into debt to pay for such “essentials” not steal from future citizens who will have to pay the bills we incur? If free contraception becomes a “right”under ObamaCare, why is free Tylenol not a “right?” Does free food or free housing then become a “right?”
Obviously, rights, and the definition of good and evil become very complicated.
And government gets the job of passing laws to balance those rights fairly, and to enforce the laws that were passed.
Defining rights to intangible things is easier than tangible things.
We can say a person has a right life – to not being killed.
To liberty – to not being locked up.
To the pursuit of happiness – to choose their path in life.
But defining the right to tangible things is much more dangerous ground, because somebody has to actually pay for the thing that we declared everyone has a “right” to.
Finally, the amount of material things we can have varies tremendously, and depends on what is available. During a war, people ration and semi-starve, and may do it willingly. During a natural disaster, same thing. And people with an unrealistic grasp of economy cannot go around passing laws about what everyone has a “right” to have, if there is simply not enough to go around.
Pie offers a good simplistic example.
One can say that everyone deserves a slice of pie.
But if there is not enough pie, what happens then?
We have to redefine how much pie each person “deserves,” or has a right to.
In this life, there is not always enough of everything to go around, and if you throw away the right of ownership of property, and allow anyone who feels deprived, or feels envy, to demand what belongs to others, you have chaos.
The left frequently advocates shaking down the rich for funds, like the recent story put out by the World Economic Forum about the 8 richest men in the world who own as much as the poorest half of the world (that would be 3.6 billion of us). A shocking statistic, for sure, but, sadly, this incompetent (or intentionally misleading) reporting would provide NO SOLUTION to the world economic situation, even if we were to repossess all their wealth, send all 8 to Siberia, and divide up all their wealth among the 3.6 billion poorest.
Why? Because, IF the claim is true and is not FAKE NEWS, then the total net worth of the 8 men, $427 billion, divided by the poorest half, 3.6 billion, equals a grand total of $119 per person. After which the billionaires would be gone, and we would have nobody to fleece next year.
And the jobs they create would be gone, too.
Not mentioned is also the fact that most of these 8 people are Progressives, so why all the hate for conservatives?!?!
AND, the fact the the median American household income, $55,775, would cover 469 poor people if we took this approach.
Nobody mentions that the number of poor in the world is so great, and the number of super-rich is so small, that the rich do not have enough to pay for what progressives want. To pay for what progressives want, the whole world would have to produce more money, and we would have to fleece not only Bill Gates, the #1 richest guy, but you and me and the Americans receiving unemployment checks as well.
Bottom line, we have to be careful about what we define as a “right,” and if we do, we have to indicate who is responsible for providing that right, particularly if that right involves a material thing.
The simplest solution to this balancing act – to the balancing of rights of one citizen against the rights of another citizen, and declaring what is or is not a right—has been provided in the past by religion.
Religion outlined what rights a person had, what infringed on those rights, and what remedies were appropriate when those rights were violated.
The Declaration of Independence of the United States refers to God-given rights which the colonies felt were being violated by the English monarchy, and which colonialists wanted to guarantee for every future American citizen. Those God-given rights included life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
When it comes to defining good and evil, most people in this country used to acknowledge the Ten Commandments, which are actually the foundation and basis of most European and American law.
The moral beliefs of citizens, primarily those of Christian and Jewish citizens, since they were the most numerous, these moral beliefs stemming from their millennia of religious background, were incorporated into the Constitution of the United States and were voted into law via democratic process.
But religion has suffered decline in the United States since the 1950’s.
The Ten Commandments went out the window, one after another.
Despite the fact that 90% of Americans still say they believe in God, and 80% say they pray and they feel that their prayers are answered, many Americans have shifted in their definitions of what is right and wrong. They have shifted from looking to religion for guidance on these issues, to looking inwardly to their own thoughts to define what is right and what is wrong. The word for this is relativism. What is right for you may not me right for me, and I have a “right” to decide what is right for me.
One of the problems with looking to ourselves to define what is right or wrong is that most people are not experts in logic, and are very gullible to the first argument they come across that argues a seemingly convenient particular point. They do not realize that a convincing argument can be made for ANY position and for ALL positions, and that some people spend their lives becoming experts in debate, in law, in ethics, and in morality. Yet, despite all this training, the tendency of the human mind is to choose first what we want, then to find the logical construct that justifies what we want. Very few people truly seek truth and fairness, even when that represents a loss of what they wanted for themselves. Simply stated, our minds play tricks on us, and we seek the argument that gives us what we want, fair or not.
Another problem with looking to ourselves to define what is right or wrong is that it is not wise to assume that I myself am more intelligent, capable and informed than the best minds of history, and, if one concedes that there might be a God, that I myself am more intelligent, capable and informed than God Himself. So the very progressives who respect and deify many medical, legal, engineering and scientific experts, and who would not dream of building a house, curing their symptoms, or even making important life decisions without consulting an “expert,” presume to know how to evaluate the rights of all human beings, and to declare what is right and wrong, based on their own instincts and feelings, without training of any kind.
It makes a great deal of sense to point out that the most fundamental difference between the right and the left, the item that contributes most seriously to the epic national divide, is the disagreement on whether religion, the belief in a bigger super-power, or ourselves are boss.
And before the “Freedom From Religion – Religion is Medieval – Only Stupid Weak People Need Religion” mantra kicks in here, please consider the fact that IF the more religious half (or 80%) of America happens to be right, and there IS a God, and He HAS interacted with humanity and given us some guidelines (such as the Ten Commandments), the idea of following the guidelines of an infinitely vaster intelligence than ours, and of an infinitely kinder heart than ours, might just be a good idea.
An additional point on the Ten Commandments—even in the absence of an all-good and all-intelligent God, there is something to be said for the cumulative wisdom of ages of human beings and societies who have survived by those tried and tested rules for millennia to this day. It would take quite the ego to dismiss the cumulative wisdom of history and presume that I myself have the genius to dismiss and to better the wisdom of humanity with all its faults to date.
This is NOT an attempt to judge those who are not religious, because those who look inward for the definition of moral values might certainly be very sincere. We are trying not to judge, but to point out the shift in values in the United States that has occurred since around 1950.
And yes, this author IS conservative and religious, but is also trying to work towards communication via reason and with good will.
If nothing else, my writing will help progressives understand the thought processes that operate in the mind of one conservative, and realize that conservatives do not deserve the hateful pigeon-holing they have been subjected to following Election 2016.
People on both sides should find this analysis interesting.
There are religious people on both sides of these issues.
Some of the most ardent progressives claim to be religious – Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Al Sharpton, and others.
So read on, and consider what is being proposed.
Let’s document some of the differences in beliefs that have surfaced in much of our nation in recent decades:
(Please indulge the introduction of the Ten Commandments to make this point.)
God is no longer the overriding value superseding all others today.
Many try to ban all mention of God from public life.
The highest value, the top “god” today, is probably MONEY (in Ten Commandments language, the golden calf).
Cursing God is now fine. In fact, much of Hollywood glorifies blasphemy, and even the expression “Jesus Christ” is often used as a curse word.
(I personally apologize to God every time I hear someone use the phrase disrespectfully, and I bow my head every time it is used appropriately.)
Sunday or the Sabbath is no longer holy, nor is Christmas, Easter, etc. For many, shopping has become a higher priority than attendance at Church
Government has started to take over the role of father and mother, for example, with Common Core teaching values to children that are in direct conflict with most Christian religions. Government is trying to legislate how our children are to be raised. Many children have no respect for their parents, and even strike them.
Over 1 million babies are aborted (killed) in the United States each year, and we came very close to electing a woman who supports partial birth abortion, the killing of a full-term baby half-way during birth. Abortion may be a much bigger deal than you think. We are working on legalizing euthanasia, and we are routinely pardoning, tolerating, and releasing numerous violent criminals, particularly if they represent votes.
Marriage has suffered much, and many citizens no longer value chastity before marriage. Adultery, and any form of sexual transgression is considered to be fine, as long as both adults are willing. Recently, prostitution by underage children has been decriminalized in California. This cripples the efforts of law enforcement to convict pimps who manage child prostitution, because then the children cannot testify against the pimps.
Property crime is no longer prosecuted in San Francisco. Stealing is often excused and even justified. Government taxation is headed toward stealing as well – demanding larger and larger taxation “rights” on the income of citizens. The right to ownership of property is very much in question.
Some don’t realize that there was a time in the United States when there was no taxation at all.
Lying is no longer considered shameful, but is celebrated by funny and popular TV shows like Seinfeld. Fake News is widespread and seriously maligns many people. Politicians are re-elected by American voters, even following the exposure of numerous lies and manipulations. Truth, which used to be highly valued and venerated, is now discarded and almost despised. See What is Truth? Does Truth Matter? for an interesting analysis of why Truth might be important, after all.
Your neighbor’s wife is not off limits, provided you both agree to the liaison. Everybody tries to dress and look “hot,” and there is no attempt whatsoever in fashion to avoid being sexually provocative.
10. You shall not covet your neighbor’s goods.
Today, covet away!
Most people don’t even know what the word “covet” means.
Hating those who have more than you and automatically labeling them as evil is common. Glorying in the idea of punishing the rich is very popular, and dismisses realities, such as the fact that the combined total assets of all the rich are not enough to impact the quality of life of the masses, and that the rich actually provide many jobs for the poor. Enjoying the idea of punishing the rich even if it does not help you is a serious form of envy.
Both the Ten Commandments and the Constitution of the United States, which was written by Christians, reflect a Judeo-Christian worldview. For years, the Ten Commandments have been displayed in courtrooms across the United States.
In recent decades we have been passing laws which drift away from that view, and we have been decriminalizing various activities that were previously considered illegal.
These changes have been driven by seeming compassion, and by the drifting away from religious values that has occurred in the United States. The unfortunate result of the drift is that our system of laws now represents a mass of internal contradictions, which require a highly trained lawyer to manipulate, and justice is not always served. The courts can even become a game of manipulation, deception and farce.
At this point we also have people who resent the still obvious Judeo-Christian roots of our Constitution and of our system of laws. The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a testimony to that. Yet the Freedom From Religion Foundation, despite claiming to reject religion, simply promotes religion of a different kind. Every Christmas the Freedom From Religion Foundation places a plaque at the Wisconsin State Capitol which celebrates the Winter Solstice – a pagan religious celebration. Pagan beliefs are being substituted for Christian beliefs, in the name of eliminating religion.
Some might say that religion should be done away with, but those are unaware that religion is actually a belief system or worldview, and ALL of us have belief systems, whether we have given them a name or not. Even the most progressive atheists evolve a system of beliefs that become as passionate as any religious group, including abortion rights, global warming, and other progressive doctrines that are imposed by ridicule and by force.
If we were to abandon Judeo-Christian principles and rewrite the Constitution, something that some progressive leaders and Justices are already advocating, it would be hard to create a value system that is internally consistent and does not contain contradictions– contradictions which lead to chaos.
Adopting other common philosophies, such as Atheism, or Islam, would inflame the sensibilities of numerous Americans who still hold fundamental Judeo-Christian beliefs. And it is not trivial to come up with a new system of beliefs with no internal contradictions and with a consistent logical message.
Atheism is not compatible with the Judeo-Christian worldview. In the Judeo-Christian world, God has placed limits on all people, including leaders and powerful people. A king cannot take the property or the wife of another. The leader is accountable to God for his/her actions, and is expected to observe the rules of justice. The Christian worldview values human life above all, and the taking of innocent human life is not permitted, even if the goals are desirable. Even kings must justify the taking of human life according to specific criteria.
Atheism, in contrast to Christianity, places no limits on the power of leaders or of individuals. Atheism frees leaders to impose their will on the nation without justification. Under atheism, the ends justify the means. If the government feels it can accomplish some good by sacrificing me and my family, it is free to do so. My Lithuanian grandparents were sent to Siberia by the atheist/communist Soviet Union, upon its occupation of Lithuania, and they had done absolutely nothing wrong. They were declared to be “capitalists” because they owned a 1-acre farm, one cow and a sewing machine, their possessions were taken away from them, and they were sent to Siberia.
Sharia Law is also incompatible with the Judeo-Christian world view, and with the Constitution of the United States. Sharia law does not acknowledge inviolable human rights for family members, and permits severe corporal punishment, including punishment to the point of death, by the heads of families.
Under Sharia law, there are no limits on the power of heads of families, religious leaders, and heads of state.
A new (experimental) morality has been creeping into our nation, one law at a time, and supplanting the Judeo-Christian values we used to have, without internal consistency. It has not been well planned, is not systematic, or even internally consistent on any new modern moral plane.
For example, the killing of a fetus/baby is permitted even after partial birth, but the killing of a pregnant woman counts as TWO killings by law. Can the murder of a human being, and the jail term of a killer, truly be dependent on what that woman was thinking? Was she walking home or to Planned Parenthood for an abortion? Can the number of crimes committed by a killer be determined by the thoughts that were going through the murdered woman’s mind? Can a murderer go to jail for the same action for which the abortionist is extolled?
Consider another example, sex with underage children, which is, understandably, a crime. Yet teachers are required to illustrate condom use to young children in classrooms, and the very children who are taught to be “Healthy, Happy and Hot” in their classrooms, become felons when one of the young couple turns 18 and becomes guilty of statutory rape of their younger girlfriend or boyfriend. Our sexual standards impose many confusing inconsistencies on young people today.
Numerous such inconsistencies exist in our new and jumbled morality, and many conservative Americans object to the newly introduced (experimental) morality, and have concluded that the experiment has failed.
As the failings and drawbacks of the new experimental morality surface, those who want that new morality very badly simply ignore truth and science, they sweep the damage done to other people under the rug, and they make sure that facts and science take a back seat to their progressive agenda.
The progressive leadership of our country has misquoted and swept science under the rug habitually, as problems with the new morality surface.
Government-sponsored sex education does not educate children about the data on sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), misleads children into thinking that a condom will take care of everything, and fails to tell children that in 2011 the United States Center for Disease Control pointed out on their website that abstinence is the best form of prevention for STDs (this important fact has since even been removed from the CDC website).
President Obama, a big sponsor of the new morality, withheld release of the results of a government-sponsored survey on abstinence, the results of which did not support Obama’s progressive agenda. The United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) performed a study (National Survey of Adolescents and Their Parents) which showed that 70% of parents and 60% of teens favor abstinence before marriage. The study was ready for publication on Feb 26, 2009, but the Obama administration delayed its release for 1-½ years, until August 23, 2010.
The study results were theb released very quietly, and were later buried deeper on the HHS website, in such a way that searching obvious phrases such as “abstinence” did not call up the study, and a knowledge of the study title or project number was needed to access the study. Finally, a warning is posted for those who have succeeded in tracking down the study: This is a historical document. Use for research and reference purposes only.
Yes, the government feels it must clarify that the document is historical, lest it be used to formulate current policy. By no means can we acknowledge that most of America disagrees with the progressive government’s promiscuous agenda for our children.
Where can we see the National Survey of Adolescents and Their Parents?
The two alternatives, Judeo-Christian morality, and self-invented modern morality, are in complete contradiction.
(Most people do not have the time to do their own analysis, and media fails to do the analysis for us, but this author HAS done the analysis— spreading 100% of the wealth of the United States today would not solve our financial problems or poverty, and we would then still be faced with zero wealthy people to tax next year. Most of us are not aware of how few really wealthy people and how many poor people there are,)
We cannot cater simultaneously to all groups, when their beliefs on what is right and what is wrong are in direct conflict.
We cannot hand out more pie than there is.
We have to acknowledge that we can’t always have what we want, NOBODY can always have what they want, and sometimes my getting what I want can step on the toes of somebody else not getting what they want.
Decision mechanisms when people cannot all get what they want include:
My preference? Democracy.
Even when my (conservative) side was losing the battle, during the last 8 years of Obama administration, I respected the system and tolerated a government which violated my world view and my view of what is right and what is wrong.
I thought sadly that if I live in a country that rejects my values, I must put up with it, or move elsewhere. Or pray that my fellow citizens see the light, begin to see things my way, and vote to restore my worldview.
I became a blogger, and have spent the last decade trying to persuade people with reason of the validity of my beliefs.
Now the tide of public opinion has turned, and the conservatives must be given a chance at government.
And yes, I have heard that many say the popular vote has NOT given conservatives a majority mandate.
Most are familiar with the issue of the popular vote versus the electoral votes.
Hillary Clinton got more popular votes, but Donald Trump won the election because he earned more electoral votes. The electoral votes allotted to each State do not correspond directly to the number of voters in that state, so in close elections it is possible for a candidate to win the popular vote, but not the electoral vote, nor the Presidency.
An important point needs to be made about the electoral system.
The founders of this country were actually wise in choosing the electoral college instead of the popular vote as the method for selection of the President.
They did not want the choice of President always to be decided by the largest, most populous State, with little regard for the smaller ones.
The structure of the Electoral College can be traced to the Centurial Assembly system of the Roman Republic, and is similar to that used by classical institutions. The Founding Fathers were well schooled in ancient history and its lessons. See the US Election Atlas for more details on the evolution of the Electoral College plan.
The concept can be simplified by example.
If the colonies wanted more rural, less populated States to join the union (and to provide food for the nation from their farms), they had to offer those States a guarantee that their rights would not be trampled and they would not be dominated by the States which were more populous and which had larger cities.
The same principle applies today—should the population of one State be able to dictate the fate of the the entire United States?
Hillary Clinton won California by such a large margin in 2016 ( 4.6 million votes) that her entire advantage came from just that one State. Should Californian values be permitted to steer the values of the entire United States?
No, even if Hillary did get 2-3 million more popular votes, the election was NOT stolen.
The electoral college system protects all of America from being dominated by one State – in the case of 2016, California.
An added point about the popular vote:
Conservatives are just as unhappy about the closeness of the election as progressives are.
While progressives point out that Hillary won the popular vote by 2-3 million votes, conservatives point out that if we corrected the popular vote totals for frequently demonstrated massive voter fraud and for illegal immigrants with illegal voting cards, Hillary would have had at least 3 million fewer votes.
According to PEW Research, 24 million (one of every eight) voter registrations in the United States are no longer valid or are significantly inaccurate, more than 1.8 million deceased individuals are listed as voters, and 2.75 million people have registrations in more than one state. That’s almost 30 million votes that are very susceptible to potential fraud.
These figures, combined with the frequently documented voter fraud exercised by “community organizers” and practitioners of “Alinsky tactics” of the left, call into serious question the exact numbers of the 2016 popular vote.
It is well documented that Hillary Clinton was a student of Alinsky, and that Barack Obama taught Alinsky tactics in the past. And Alinskyk tactics are Satanist Saul Alinsky’s 13 rules for political warfare, which are described in a book that Alinsky dedicated to Lucifer (Satan). Needless to say, Alinsky tactics violate all rules of fair Christian behavior, and they describe how a minority can fight, lie, manipulate, and finagle their way against the despised majority, which limits themselves to Judeo-Christian rules of behavior.
Hillary’s recent collection of scandals– Benghazi lies, security breeches to escape accountability for email communications, the Clinton Foundation traitorous pay-for-play allegations, which are being proven just 2 months after the election, as well as the unethical tactics used against Bernie Sanders—this documented track record of “Alinsky” (in Judeo-Christian language “immoral”) behavior on the part of the progressives in the Democrat Party, certainly make election fraud allegations towards the Democrat Party credible.
Although nobody claims that conservatives are free of any misdeeds, it is still more likely that people who support Judeo-Christian morality might have a lower incidence of illegal deceptive tactics than those who actively teach, advocate and employ Alinsky tactics and “community organizing.” Just this week, news surfaced of progressives plotting to disrupt President-Elect Donald Trump’s inauguration by deploying butyric acid at the National Press Club during what they call the “Deploraball” event scheduled for January 19th. These progressives were meeting at the Washington D.C. pizza place that was mentioned in the Hillary-Podesta emails. Today, the news holds more on shocking progressive tactics — progressives held a training camp on disrupting the inauguration and how to handle being arrested, and hundreds of the LGBT community held a dance party in the street outside Vice President-Elect Mike Pence’s home. CNN has even gone so far as to point out that if Donald Trump were to be killed during the Inauguration, an Obama appointee would become President. The right has never planned and executed such interference and disruption of progressive events, discussed the killing of a progressive opponent, or targeted progressives in their homes.
Many of the most contentious issues today do not lend themselves to compromise.
Abortion, gay marriage, and sex education (chastity versus promiscuity) are examples of things that cannot go both ways.
A choice has to be made.
This is why some advocate leaving these most difficult issues to the States, so that, for example, a progressive State such as California could allow progressive policies, and both liberals and conservatives could live in States which offered the policies that are most important to them.
The idea that the Federal government should not control issues that Americans struggle to agree on is one that Trump has been proposing. On these issues, local control would be local.
Think, dear progressive co-Americans—wouldn’t it be great if we could make room in America for both sides of the ethical and political spectrum?
In Trump’s language, that would be HUGE!
What are the main issues that the left to panic when considering a conservative or a Trump Presidency?
Abortion: There is little danger of abortion becoming unavailable in the United States.
I must honestly admit that I would like it if we were forbidden by law to kill inconvenient unborn infants the same as we are not permitted by law to kill inconvenient elders or spouses or children who have already been born.
But I also realize that we live in a democracy, and so long as so many Americans support abortion, abortion is not likely to go away.
The worst case scenario for progressives is that they may have to pay for their abortion themselves, instead of making me pay for it, which is against my ethics (It’s only fair– I have to pay for my own thyroid surgery and my own childbirth!).
They may have to shift to less permissive sexual behavior and more self control—something all of us should strive for constantly.
They may have to travel to a neighboring State for their abortion.
These might not be progressive first choices, but progressives must also realize that it is not the conservative first choice to pay for other people’s children to be aborted, particularly when a disproportionate number of those victims are minority babies.
It is also not the conservative first choice to live in a country where our children cannot be doctors, pharmacists or lawyers, because our Federal laws demand everyone in those professions to participate in abortion-related activities which are against our moral beliefs.
Whose right is more important—the right of a woman to enjoy unlimited sex, including premarital sex and promiscuous sex, or the right of a tiny human being not to be killed by his/her mother?
The job of the government is not to give progressives ALL their wishes, but to balance the rights of all citizens against each other in an ethical way.
We can’t always get what we want – progessives, OR conservatives.
And Christian doctrine always requires that the needs of the weakest be considered first – and who is smaller and weaker than an unborn child?
We appeal to progressives to realize that abortion is advocated only by people who have already been born. The unborn have no voice, other than the voice of conservatives.
Gay Marriage: There is little danger of homosexuality returning to the criminal status it previously held in this country decades ago.
The worst case scenario is that homosexual couples may be limited to civil unions, which do not threaten those of us who believe that marriage is central to the health and security of children and of our future society.
Progressives must realize that their wish for homosexual marriage has some unintended consequences on the rest of us. The moment we allowed homosexual marriage, Catholic adoption agencies had to close their doors, because the federal government requires them by law to do something their faith forbids: to place adoptive children with homosexual couples.
Whose rights are more important—gays to call their union “marriage,” or orphans to get free adoption services that the Catholic Church provides?
See Gay Marriage and Homosexuality for more ways in which the redefinition of marriage hurts the rights of Christian Americans.
Progressives need to realize that their wish to have homosexual unions be called “marriage” impacts the rights of conservative citizens not to have progressive doctrine forced on their Church charitable adoption programs, on public school sex education programs, and on bakeries which prefer not to bake cakes featuring images of homosexual unions.
Welfare: There is no danger of Social Security or Medicare being cancelled by conservatives.
The ObamaCare that is being repealed is a fiasco and failure, and WILL be replaced.
The worst case scenario is that some welfare programs will be streamlined to eliminate fraud and favoritism, and that more efforts will be made to offer jobs to those who are now dependent on welfare.
Word One about anarchy –
Of those who want to ignore the results of the 2016 election and attempt to delegitimize President-Elect Trump, we ask – what does Anarchy accomplish?
In what ways does the use of Alinsky Tactics such as riots, property damage and butyric acid terrorism accomplish anything?
What is your desired result?
Do progressives think that the Inauguration will be cancelled?
Do they think that Hillary will be given the Presidency?
By what mechanism could that be done?
Even if that was done, is Hillary’s moral history anything to pin our hopes on?
If the progressive goal is to weaken President Trump, so that he would make less progress on the progressive action items we’ve mentioned above, do progressives not realize that a weakened President and administration will not only be weak on abortion, but also in every other area, including our economy and our safety from terrorism? Do you really want to sink the ship you are sitting in?
Word Two about compassion –
Progessives are very admirable in their stated compassion.
But consider the opposite of compassion – heartlessness.
Do progressives not realize that some of their priorities are only compassionate towards one set of people, and only compassionate on the surface?
That some of their priorities become very heartless when the needs and rights of another group of citizens is considered?
Compassion towards a pregnant woman can also be heartless cruelty towards her partially born baby?
All Americans, progressive and conservative want to be compassionate.
We pick different issues on which our compassion focuses, depending our life experience.
We can’t always get what we want, and we can’t be compassionate to all at the same time.
The wishes of citizens and prisoners are opposed to each other and need to be balanced.
The wishes of Christians and Atheists are opposed to each other and need to be balanced.
The wishes of men and women are different, and need to be balanced.
The needs of parents and of children, as well as of teachers, need to be balanced.
Isn’t it time to start realizing that we all intend good, we are all compassionate, and we all have different perspectives that need to have a chance to be tried and to be heard?
The Constitution of the United States has set up a framework for this balancing exercise to take place, and has served us reasonably well for centuries.
It is time for progressives to accept a temporary correction and to allow conservatives to have a hand in the game.
Let us all root for each other, pray for each other and, above all, pray for the new President of the United State, Donald Trump.
For the anti-Trumpers, you can always pray for your enemies- prayer helps everyone concerned.
One of the best attributes of conservatives is that they do not have to resort to butyric acid, but can pray.
It’s now time to give conservatives a chance.
I recorded these prayers for my Mama, who is 92, and who recently suffered a stroke and a heart attack. She also has severe vision impairment, so an audio Rosary is something she really wanted. Please pray for my Mama, for my Dad (Tėtis in Lithuanian), who passed away last summer after Mama’s stroke, and for our whole family.
These recordings are copyrighted and are only for free distribution with acknowledgment.
English “How to Pray the Rosary” pdf is also available at http://sytereitz.com/2013/10/how-to-pray-the-rosary/ .
|MP3 #0 begins with “Svenciausios mergeles Marijos Rozancius….” This track goes ~80 minutes with continuous rosary, doing ALL the 20 mysteries in sequence.
CLICK HERE TO LISTEN #0, ALL 20 mysteries, 80 minutes, 35 MB.
|MP3#1 begins with “Dziaugsmingos Paslaptys…” This track goes ~20 min with 5 Joyful mysteries, customarily prayed on Monday and Saturday.
To download mp3, right click above link and “save link as.”
|MP3#2 begins with “Kancios Paslaptys…” This track goes ~20 min with 5 Sorrowful mysteries, customarily prayed on Tuesday and Friday.
To download mp3, right click above link and “save link as.”
|MP3#3 begins with “Garbes Paslapyts…” This track goes ~20 min with 5 Glorious mysteries, customarily prayed on Wednesday and Sunday.
To download mp3, right click above link and “save link as.”
|MP3#4 begins with “Sviesos Paslapyts…” This track goes ~20 min with 5 Luminous mysteries, customarily prayed on Thursday.
To download mp3, right click above link and “save link as.”
The virtual flood of tears, fears and laments poured out by liberals since the election of Donald Trump cries out for reassurance.
Here is some input for all my liberal friends from a friendly opponent.
Just as Obama’s 8 years did not turn America into a Christian-hating and unborn baby slaughtering hate haven, so too Trump’s years will not turn America into a woman-hating or LGBTQ-hating or non-white-hating hate haven.
I really DO feel for you — you are expressing feelings that conservatives have felt for a long time under progressive “rule.” Particularly feeling “forbidden” to express our views publicly, in my case, even afraid to have a frank political conversation in a restaurant!
But I want to point out two things.
One is that most conservatives are NOT like the fringe you fear.
That is a thought that saved me during Obama’s two administrations. Most liberals are NOT like the radical fringe of progressives that I would be very tempted to attack and to ridicule, but have pretty successfully restrained myself so far.
The other is related to restraining ourselves.
Radical extreme action on the part of any American, conservative or liberal, only serves to alienate the rest of America, not to persuade them.
It does one’s cause no good.
So the idea that most Americans are in the middle, and that most Americans are reasonable people, both on the right and on the left, plus the idea that if you find yourself in a political minority you only damage yourself by getting too in-your-face, may help liberals survive what is to come and to avoid subjecting themselves to excessive and unrealistic anxieties.
America has prospered so far by taking turns and making corrections in both directions when one group takes the nation a bit too far, and we will continue to do so.
You will survive.
It’s our turn, and you can be sure we will be nice.
For both groups, liberals and conservatives, you can’t always get what you want.
And just as you don’t want us to view all liberals as baby-slaughterers and Christian-haters, please do not view all conservatives as intolerant bigots.
Please also realize that Donald Trump is not an intolerant bigot, despite the liberal medias attempts to spin him that way.
Many people across the political spectrum are not sure where Donald Trump is headed– he has a very mixed history.
We have elected him, it’s now time to support him, and time will show us what we will get.
If you do your best to take him down, all of America, and that includes YOU, is coming down with him.
Pray for Success – for America and for Donald Trump.
The beauty of prayer is that you can pray both for those you support and those you are afraid to support.
First and foremost, praise and thanksgiving be to God, who is all Good!
Our confidence in Him, and in the American majority who pray to Him and who seek truth, decency and fairness, and the God Who answers them, has been borne out.
Our confidence in the Constitution of the United States, which was founded on Judeo-Christian morality, is also borne out.
The United States is still a democracy, under God, and the system, despite abuses, still works.
Imagine how even more impressive the results would have been if all voter fraud had been absent!
We thank God that now the slaughter of abortion will not continue to be encouraged and funded by our tax dollars, nor will that slaughter of our unborn future citizens be condoned by the highest court in our land.
We thank God that religious freedom for Christians, which has already been curtailed under President Obama, will not be further curtailed, but will be restored.
And now we roll up our sleeves to pray for our new President and for our nation.
We pray that Donald Trump, after spending the last year talking with rural America and campaigning with his evangelical Catholic Vice-President, will undergo a conversion mirroring that of St. Paul the Evangelist.
And if he doesn’t, we emboldened religious citizens of America, and the decent men and women with whom Donald Trump has surrounded himself, will do our best to keep him on track.
We also pray that our opposition eventually realizes that this election result is a blessing, even for them.
We pray that they do not fear the monstrous false image of conservatives that their media has created for them, and we pray that our charitable behavior towards all will dispel that false image.
As numerous October surprises unfold on the eve of Election Day 2016, we conservatives can set aside the feelings of futility and helplessness we sometimes felt as we watched the progressive takeover of our nation that has been grinding slowly since the 1960’s.
There IS now great hope and opportunity for the restoration of the Judeo-Christian values on which our nation was founded, and which have brought us to the prosperity that we have worked for and enjoyed until recently, for over 200 years.
We now have the opportunity for a very rapid reversal of the moral slide in this election, provided we ride the Black Swan.
We actually hold power WAY beyond the sum of our cumulative votes, if only we would realize it and use it.
So let’s get to the background and clarify what this means.
For those unfamiliar with the term, “black swans” refer to a serious political theory which holds that some most significant events in human history are not the result of careful human planning by professional politicians or by democratic elections, but are steered instead by completely unpredictable, seemingly almost random events which can alter the course of history very dramatically.
So CNBC appears to view the most recent Hillary email scandal as potentially game-changing, and certainly not proceeding according to plan.
This is where I like to interject the observation that Black Swans, both in nature and in political theory, are NOT necessarily considered negative, evil or dark. Black Swan analogy was introduced simply because the Black Swan is so rare that at one point in history it was thought not to exist. The Black Swan represents a very rare and very unpredictable event, which can be either good or bad, but which defies all odds and probabilities.
In my world view, which is based on a strong Faith in a very good, very brilliant, very invested and very accessible God, Black Swan events represent the influence of the ever-present war between Good and Evil, between God and Satan, on human events.
And what only those with very strong faith realize, is that the tides if this war are seriously affected by the moral standards we humans adopt and the prayers that we pray as the people of God.
Yes, WE can control the Black Swans, albeit indirectly and only God willing. But we fight back evil with courage, hard work, and most importantly, PRAYER.
The media has recently begun acknowledging the existence of God, although intermittently, and recently The Daily Mirror even acknowledged that Britain’s Brexit appeared to be affected by an “Act of God.” Now, CNBC seems ready to acknowledge at least the role of rare and unpredictable Black Swan events in elections, and to suggest the possibility that Hillary Clinton’s election may be threatened by such Black Swan events.
So let us summarize briefly why the recent Hillary email developments seem to defy all odds, then move on to the question of how we can contribute to the course of American history in ways that make us feel less powerless.
If we took the trouble to calculate the odds of each of the above events happening, and to determine the probability of all of them happening in a series, you would probably find that the probability is so low that it’s comparable to the probability of a meteor hitting the earth this afternoon.
And that is the definition of Black Swan events.
Events that were not planned by politicians or other groups of people, events that defy all odds, and events that have transformative power over human history.
An example of such an event is the Christianization of Europe by the Emperor Constantine, who, it may comfort us conservatives to know today, as we conservatives chew our fingernails over Mr. Trump, it may comfort us to know that the Emperor Constantine was not particularly saintly at the time. Yet he ended the era in which Christians were fed to lions, an option that Hillary Clinton might even find attractive today, if the recently found emails of her staff ridiculing Catholics and attempts to infiltrate and change the Catholic religion from the inside are any indication of Hillary’s views.
It is not surprising to people of Faith that God often uses human individuals who are not close to or “inside” the Church for His purposes. This is where I start chuckling, and admire immensely the sense of humor God so obviously has.
We have to recognize a good black swan when we see one.
We have to welcome and ride the numerous Black Swans that are arriving.
We do NOT say no to the lifelines God is sending.
And we have to keep praying for more Black Swans, or they will stop arriving.
We all have to VOTE
* We MUST go to the polls.
* WE HAVE TO VOTE FOR TRUMP, who officially supports the Constitution and the Judeo-Christian principles on which it was based. Who has defended Christianity and the unborn publicly more than once.
* We have to vote Republican down the line– THIS election is not about parties, but about choosing a system of ethics. Judeo-Christian ethics, or the Dictator-of-the-Day ethics that progressives represent?
If you don’t want Hillary and Abortion set up as our new Gods, you have to vote for Trump.
We all have to PRAY
* Pray for the Election
* Pray for the re-Christianization of the United States
* PRAY FOR TRUMP, that his “conversion” to conservative principles and his pledge to protect Christianity and unborn children in the United States is sustained and supported by action on his part.
I got an important reminder from a friend, Nancy Bartlett, President of Republican Women of Dane County: prayers of thanksgiving and praise are always due to our very awesome God, before, during and after all our crises.
Even if Donald Trump and the ethical Republican Platform don’t win this election, this 2016 election has already brought the most important issues to the forefront of discussion- the dismemberment of unborn babies and protection of the religious freedom of Christians. Being able to talk about these things publicly and in political circles is an important first step. And Donald Trump is responsible for this change. Praise be to God! How mysterious are His ways.
Last weekend’s very public dredging up of both Presidential candidates’ decades-old sins and abuses against women demands some discussion before the November 8th election.
And there are some things, in the present political climate, that only a woman can say.
Also, in the present climate, with the NSA cataloging each of our phone conversations and keyboard strokes, not only only a woman can speak, but only a woman with nothing to lose, or a woman who is willing to lose everything can speak out.
(Something to which I can personally attest- my blog sustains regular DoS attacks, and I have been harassed by my progressive Madisonian neighbors and “community leaders” via telephone and email.)
And so I continue to speak.
This election situation can be analyzed simply and logically, provided we are willing to lay the truth bare and to say what needs to be said.
We have before us two candidates.
Both have vividly shocking and progressive backgrounds.
We should not be surprised.
In a nation that encourages promiscuity in both sexes from childhood, teaches a promiscuous version of sex ed in grammar school and through the girl scouts, and labels all proponents of traditional Judeo-Christian morality as medieval relics, there should be no surprise that we have the Presidential candidates that we now have, who epitomize these sexually irresponsible values.
And the product of all this promiscuity is a disconnect between the unbridled sexual abandon which is encouraged by the culture and the resultant disregard for the value of human life, both that of unborn infants, and that of objectified women. This disconnect, this inconsistency, has led to the situation we are confronted with today.
So we have two vividly shocking and progressive candidates, who will be digging up mud and slinging it at each other in accelerated fashion during the coming month.
But there is still a fundamental difference between the two candidates.
One openly promises to further de-Christianize the United States, the Constitution, to expand the abortion of unborn children, to ridicule and marginalize religious Americans and to cut Catholic and Evangelical values out of the public forum in the United States. She advocates the elimination of religious freedom, use of the Presidency to dictate Church teaching in our country, and most recently (according to Russ Feingold) has expressed the intention to violate the Constitution by banning all guns by Executive Order. This would, incidentally, disarm all opposition to her radical agenda.
The other candidate seemed primarily motivated by the financial and security dangers that we face as a nation today. But that candidate has also cut a deal with the Republican Party, agreeing to support of the Republican Party Platform. This Party Platform supports the Constitution of the United States, supports religious freedom, opposes facilitation of abortion with federal funds, opposes the redefinition of marriage, and effectively supports the preservation of the Judeo-Christian principles that are embodied in our Constitution.
This candidate has taken further steps to indicate the sincerity of his support for the Republican Platform (which is now the only major platform supporting the Constitution of the United States). He has chosen a very capable and respected conservative as a Vice President. He has promised to appoint Supreme Court Judges like Anton Scalia, who will support the Constitution. He has even given us a list of candidates to illustrate his sincerity. He has vowed to protect Christianity in the United States, and has met with serious religious leaders after getting the Republican nomination, demonstrating his continued dedication to Judeo-Christian values. He has met with the Prime Minister of Israel, has acknowledged the dangers of Radical Islamic terrorism, and acknowledges the disconnect between the illogical concept of open borders and White House fences, Clinton compound walls, Paul Ryan walls, and all of America’s locked front doors.
I, as a woman and as a Catholic, have refrained from endorsing Donald Trump, primarily because I worry about the sincerity of his “conversion” to conservative values. After all, we have just lived through 8 years experiencing what promises from progressives mean. A progressive is, by definition, someone who believes that the ends justify the means. That’s a polite way of saying that a progressive is a liar and can never be trusted.
Now, in the light of Donald Trump’s sexual transgressions, I again worry about his suitability for the very honorable office of President. I appreciate the chivalry of people like Paul Ryan, who are presumably trying to protect us ladies from boorish male behavior.
But these are times of war. Even though women definitely have the precious gift of nurturing gentleness which is essential to the rearing of decent future citizens, and which it is very right for our men to protect and to cherish, women can also rise to the occasion and tolerate and bear much when the occasion calls for it.
In fairness, it also must be mentioned that the moral transgressions leveled against Hillary are even more disturbing that those leveled at Donald Trump. The enabling of rape and threatening of rape victims is morally worse than using lewd language or groping the opposite sex.
Let’s remember several things.
I am not defending Trump’s behavior, but trying to evaluate it and to compare it to that of Clinton.
I am also pointing out that much of the reported behavior has not been proven, that Trump’s accusers could be progressive liars and could even be funded by Soros. We must remember that all are innocent until proven guilty.
Finally, even if all accusations against Trump and Hillary were true, groping women like an oversexed juvenile is not in the same league of sinfulness or lawlessness as aborting babies, enabling rape, stealing from Haiti, attacking Christianity, and violating the Constitution of the United States.
One candidate supports the eradication of Judeo-Christian values as we know them.
The other candidate supports the Constitution, and the protection of Christianity in the United States.
Despite the demonstrated personal sins of both candidates, the values they promote publicly represent radically different visions for America.
The urgency of participating in the election, and the choice between candidates, is morally very clear, although it will take some courage. Standing up for morality usually does demand courage and tough unpopular choices.
It is my reluctant conclusion that on November 8th we will have to vote for Trump.
It will be at very least a vote against the destruction of America by professed progressives.
And there is the small chance that the conversion of Donald is genuine, and we could get a very good President.
I will not pretend that going into that booth on November 8th will not hurt.
And so, this woman has spoken.
There are many like me who are laying low, usually keeping it close to the vest, but who will definitely show up on election day, after first storming heaven with prayers.
We must also support all the other conservative candidates on the ballot, on whose shoulders the future of America rests.
This election season has already supplied us with unprecedented numbers of Black Swan surprises. We wait to see how many more game-changing events can fit into the next four weeks.
We need to remember that battles are won, and Black Swans are tamed by prayer!
Reasonable Americans who understand that in a democracy we cannot all get exactly what we want all the time, make every effort to remain open to all possibilities, as long as justice and fairness are served and players play by the rules.
In this spirit, many conservatives, including this one, have remained open to the possibility that the previously liberal, progressive, Hillary-loving Donald has had a change of heart/conversion experience, and is now poised to lead America into greatness by embracing traditional conservative American values. Albeit nervously, we have refrained from joining the NeverTrump movement.
The previous article here acknowledged recent positive steps taken by the Trump campaign, supporting the conservative Republican Platform, and the concomitant surge in support that Donald Trump enjoyed following that. This apparent commitment to conservative values was further supported by Trump’s choice last week of a conservative pro-life, pro-traditional marriage Mike Pence as his running mate/Vice President. We optimistic fair conservatives imagined that the previously progressive Mr. Trump was cutting a deal, agreeing to support Republican
social moral values in exchange for support of his economic and homeland security agenda. Only fair, after all, that Donald not hijack the Republican Party, discard its decades old conservative values, and use it to run as a progressive against another progressive.
As we nervously watch the development of events at the Republican Convention which began yesterday, however, and continue to evaluate the sincerity of Donald Trump’s apparent late life conversion at age 70, things are beginning to look bad for conservatism, for democracy, and for the Republican Party.
Yesterday, RNC Rules and procedures were blatantly violated by both the RNC officials and by Trump representatives, in a clearly illegitimate effort to squash conservative input into the nomination process.
The crooked effort included a false call on a voice vote, an attempt to dismiss consideration of a proposed Rules Committee conservative rules package, an outright lie by the acting chair Steve Womack on an absence of dissent, the turning off of microphones of dissenting delegates, the dismissal of a Rules change petition signed by a majority of delegates from 10 States, the walking off stage of the acting chair, the ignoring of calls for points of order, and the drowning out of democratic proceedings which Trump supporters did not like with repeated chants of USA, USA… by Trump supporters.
Combined with the accusation that Mrs. Melania Trump’s convention speech yesterday contained verbatim plagiarism of Michelle Obama’s convention speech, these events bring into question whether the Donald Trump campaign, or the segment of Republicans who are supporting him, are actually hijacking the Republican Party.
Is Donald Trump actually a progressive candidate, and intending to strong-arm America into whatever agenda Donald Trump favors, just as Trump supporters yesterday strong-arming the entire convention, broke the rules, and bulldozed legitimate process and legitimate opposition?
The process is terrifyingly reminiscent both of Mitt Romney’s underhanded hijacking of the Republican nomination four years ago, and of Barack Obama’s vague yet hopeful campaign promises which were rapidly discarded as soon as the nomination and election became events of the past.
Donald Trump’s frequent past accusations of rigging at the Republican Party were fallacious to begin with. They were simply a campaign ploy designed to garner sympathy for Donald Trump.
A political party has the legal and moral right to uphold it’s values, and not to put them up for hijacking by non-Republican voters in primaries, or by non-Republican candidates like Trump who want to hijack a convenient national election apparatus.
Donald Trump never obtained the support of the majority of Republicans, and even if he had obtained it, it has been the decades long policy of the Republican Party to require the rubber stamping that presumptive nomination at the convention.
This procedure, protected by the Rules of the Republican Party, and driven by the consciences of delegates recently elected in each State all over America, allows the dismissal of rogue candidates who refuse to buy into decades old Party Platform values, or who disgrace themselves in some way during the six months between primaries and the convention.
The convention provides a final vetting of a candidate before nomination.
Donald Trump has been calling this age-old sifting process “rigged,” and now, apparently, is not prepared to subject himself to the age-old process. He has organized his own supporters into “rigging” the convention to ensure Donald Trump’s favored outcome, by hook or by crook, even if that entails drowning out legitimate procedural business and turning off of microphones.
The issue that was drowned out is the same Rules issue that Mitt Romney used to steal the nomination four years ago.
What the Rules committee could not agree on several days ago, was whether to keep Romney’s crooked 2012 Rules which were designed to defeat conservative Ron Paul in 2012, and which also worked to defeat 16 conservatives in this present Republican nomination process.
The Rules committee was also trying to determine whether a clearer conscience clause needed to be adopted, allowing delegates to vote their conscience, rather than feeling bound by the results of the primaries. The previous rules were not sufficiently clear on the point of free conscience, and there has been conflict on that issue in the RNC for decades.
Simply stated, a return to the decades old reasonable rules of 2008, before Romney supporters strong-armed a change, as well as a clarification of the conscience clause, would have allowed more than one candidate into the present convention, and would have required a confirmation of Donald Trump’s support within the Republican Party. Not support of “establishment” Washington Republicans, but support of man-in-the-street Republicans elected just a few months ago as delegates to the convention.
The Rules committee could not find agreement several days ago on these issues. The stringent 2012 Romney rules remained in place, and no clarification of the conscience language occurred. An effort to continue deliberations on the Rule issues was squashed by Trump supporters in the Rules committee meeting. By extending discussion for 15 hours and refusing to reschedule a continuation of discussion, the reconsideration of Rules was squashed.
The legitimate way for supporters of Rule Change to address the blocking was to collect signatures from the majority of delegates from 10 States, which would allow the Rule question to be reconsidered on the floor of the convention yesterday, and the result to be determined by a roll call vote on the convention floor.
This is the legitimate democratic valid procedural option that was shut down yesterday by false calls and walking off the stage by the chair, by turning off of microphones of delegates demanding valid procedural votes, and by Trump supporters yelling to drown out demands for justice from delegates.
The crooked subjugation of a valid democratic process that occurred yesterday was shameful, and it illustrated the complete subversion, beyond Donald’s accusations of “rigging,” of the democratic process – by Trump supporters, and by those in the RNC who have signed on with him.
Most of the media underemphasized and underreported the significance of yesterday’s floor fight.
Those who reported cast the Rules Change people as Never Trumpers, which is not at all correct. Although some of them were Never Trumpers, there have been Rules Change advocates for DECADES. These are the conservative supporters of keeping non-Republican voters out of Republican primaries (DUH!), and of allowing delegates to use their conscience, as electors in the Presidential General Election are allowed to do, to rubber stamp any potential candidate selection that occurred in the primaries. The convention has always been, in BOTH parties, the final place where the suitability of a candidate is finalized.
Well, if I was a delegate on the floor of the Republican Convention yesterday and today, there are two things I would realize.
I would realize that the tactics utilized by Trumpers yesterday- bulldozing the democratic process and plagiarizing Michelle Obama’s speech – betray the values the Republican Party represent. I would question the honesty and integrity of Donald Trump and of his supporters.
I would also realize that the conscience language of the Rules of the Republican Party was put there decades ago precisely for this kind of situation- to give honest delegates who are faithful to the values represented in the Republican Party Platform – to give these delegates a last minute opportunity to reconsider which candidate represents the direction true conservatives what to take this nation. In the absence of Rules clarification, the situation still stands that reasonable Republicans still interpret Roberts Rules of Order and the Rules of the Republican Party as allowing delegates, and even requiring moral patriots, to exercise their conscience in choosing the next President to lead the United States of America.