Sunday, January 22, 2017

I Know...It's a POLITICAL Blog...BUT

The problem with our country today is NOT guns, knives and bludgeons. It is NOT poverty. It is NOT right wing or left wing politics.

The problem with our country is that we have a broken moral compass. The part of our compass that DOES work is warped by almost 54 years of rank relativism resulting in a compass that cannot point us in the right direction.

It reminds me of the old pun that tells of a man who had a compass. The compass was of a special kind called a Tates. It had the North pole marked on the East side of the compass, the South pole on the North side, the West at the South and the East on the West. The moral of the story is that in the middle of a forest, he who has a Tates is lost.

Facts are funny things. They are what they are. Facts are facts. The problem comes not from facts, but from the proper, logical straight-line thinking when understanding those facts.

One of the MAJOR factors that has resulted in the warping of America's moral compass was a Supreme Court ruling in 1963 which said, effectively, that for a public school to have and engage in a specific time of prayer was unconstitutional. The argument for it centered around what was supposed to be some "...wall of separation between church and state," something that is not even obliquely addressed in our constitution.

The phrase comes from a letter penned by Thomas Jefferson to a church in Danbury, Connecticut. Its intent, according to Jefferson, himself, was to ensure the members of the church that the government would not be engaged in violating their freedom to worship as they please.

The whole idea was twisted by "progressive" minds to mean the EXACT opposite of what Jefferson meant by it, and that twist continues to this day.

People who imagine the greatness of their own minds and thought processes will vehemently disagree, but the facts are the facts. While the letter meant to keep government out of the church, the twist made it seem like the church should be kept out of government. (Kinda weird, since Jefferson actually held worship times in the capitol and wrote his very own version - if greatly subverted - of the Bible).

Today we have organizations whose sole purpose for being is to keep religious thought and practice out of the "public" arena. That, in spite of those who practice convoluted thought patterns that result in false conclusions, is a perversion of what this country was SUPPOSED to be about, according to those who formed it.

Let's take a brief moment to look at the actual phrasing of the Constitution of the United States of America. It won't take too long, and it's pretty easy.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Four items are mentioned: religious establishments, speech, the press and peaceful assembly for the purpose of addressing grievances against the government. 

Notice that it does not say that I cannot make a law, that you cannot make a law, that local and/state governments cannot make a law. It says CONGRESS shall make no law. Since the Constitution is a federal document, it is obviously referring to the federal government, not other entities.

It says that Congress can make NO law. NONE. NADA. The Congress of the United States of America, whether the House of Representatives or the Senate, cannot make a law that has to do with (respecting) an establishment (not the establishment) of religion or its free exercise, abridges (affects) the freedom of speech, or of the press or the right of people to gather together to express disagreement with what the government is or is not doing.

That's it! Done! Constitutionally, Congress just can't get involved. Period.

"Well we all know that you can't yell 'Fire" in a crowded theater."

Actually, you can. At least you cannot be prevented from doing so by the federal government. Not according to the Constitution.

Having said that, it is a very bad idea, unless there really is a fire, but Congress can't keep you from doing it. The local gendarmerie, can. Just not the feds.

All of that being said, for the Supreme Court to have ruled anything about prayer at all violates both the word and the spirit of the Constitution.

Since that time, a wild series of crazy "progressive" restrictions, rules and regulations about a myriad of issues has brought us to a time of so-called, political correctness, that has resulted in societal intrusion into freedoms and fear among the nation's inhabitants.

Each intrusion resulted in moving the moral compass's directional indicators to a place they don't belong (like the Tates, above).

Thus we are lost.

So I say again: The problem with our country today is NOT guns, knives and bludgeons. It is NOT poverty. It is NOT right wing or left wing politics. People with a good moral compass don't ever even consider using a weapon of any kind to inflict harm on another without just cause. It just does not happen.

The problem with our country is the total lack of any national moral compass at all.

I don't know how far is too far from which to return. We might already be there. If we are (and both Clinton and Trump give some evidence that we might be), then we are doomed to dissolve into the annals of history, replaced by some unrecognizable entity that lacks both liberty and freedom.

Neither you nor the federal government can keep me from praying, so I pray that we soon discover that our moral compass is found in, and only in, a right relationship to God through His son.

Yep. That's my prayer. It's even my prayer for you.

Thursday, January 19, 2017

This Has Never Happened Before?

Look, there have been four presidents before President Elect Donald Trump who lost the popular vote and won the Electoral College vote. They were:

John Q. Adams

Rutherford B. Hayes

Benjamin Harrison

George W. Bush (Florida notwithstanding).

They all turned out to be "legitimate" presidents and served the country in that office.
o now we have:

Donald Trump

Donald Trump, by ANY measure, is the legitimate next president of the United States of America. Anybody who says otherwise is a stupid box of hot air, and probably a Democrat hack.

So tomorrow he will be today he yesterday he was inaugurated.


Tuesday, January 17, 2017

Speaking of John Lewis

"It will be the first one that I have missed."

John Lewis is a liar.

He missed George W. Bush's inauguration.

In typical Democrat fashion, Lewis believes something is true because he said it, whether it is really true or not.

Why do you suppose Jake didn't call him on this? Maybe he hadn't done real journalism and didn't know it. Maybe he just was so bent on Lewis being believed that he didn't want to expose him.

Guess which.

Watch the whole video HERE.

Monday, January 16, 2017

Dr. Martin Luther King and John Lewis

It was 1964, in St. Augustine, Florida when Dr. Martin Luther King came to town. I was there.

Dr. King had always been one of my heroes, so when I heard he was coming, I decided to join him in his cause.

It was not a safe thing to do, as racist feelings ran deep in St. Augustine. I was accosted by some local vermin as I sat at the lunch counter during a "sit-down" rally, to show my support for them.

Later, I was approached by three toughs who threatened to "...take me out back and cover me with black shoe polish." Fortunately a sheriff's deputy drove up at just the right moment to encourage them to leave me alone.

Later that day, I joined Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s march through St. Augustine. I was way back in the back of the group, but I didn't care. I was part of what I thought was a just cause.

I never met Dr. King, nor did I always agree with him, but I always respected him and held him in high esteem.

Enter Congressman John Lewis.

Back in the march on Selma, Alabama, John Lewis was attacked and beaten by police. He was a staunch ally of Dr. King and seemed to be a real spokesperson for the ideals Dr. King held to.

In ensuing years, Lewis has usually approached civil rights calmly and with at least a semblance of reason and determination. Although we are on different sides of the political fence, I have always thought him to be one who represented the ideals of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

I have changed my mind about Congressman Lewis, something about which I doubt that he cares in the least.

His recent decision to call President-Elect Donald trumps looming presidency "illegitimate" is just absolute sophistry.  It is born, not of reason, but of reverse racism and self-pity because his side lost the election.

President-Elect Donald trump will be a legitimate president. He was elected in accordance with the Constitution of the United States of America. You might not agree with him. You might not like him. You might wish he would go away. That's how I felt about President BO (the amateur president). But in the end, Donald Trump will be the president.

I remember liberals wailing about how we conservatives needed to get over it. President BO (the amateur president) was our president and we should accept it. That's what they said...some of them right here on this blog.

So I say to you liberals, "Donald Trump will be our president. Accept it and let's move on to what we need to do to heal our land."

But what I say won't matter a whit. Liberals are who they are, and they are spoiled, temper-laden, hate-filled brats.

So is Congressman John Lewis.

Today, my hero, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. is rolling over in his grave because of the likes of John Lewis and his cohorts.

I'm sorry, Dr. King. They just never were smart enough to really understand what you were all about.

Friday, January 13, 2017

Wait! Can't I Make You Answer My Question?

You can see the whole video HERE.

CNN and other members of the Main Stream Media just can't understand why whoever is at the podium should not absolutely have to recognize them and answer whatever "pointed" question they may have.

For years the MSM has forsaken journalism for ideology and called it "news" and/or "journalism." But what they have done is neither.

Here's the way it has been working:

When a liberal is interviewed by MSM, he/she is usually given softball questions. When the question is something of controversy, the question is phrased in such a way as to invite the one being interviewed to answer in a way that is either a side-step or an answer to a question not asked. Then, whatever the answer, the interviewee goes unchallenged or is asked in a benign way to "clarify." The "clarification" is never questioned.

On the other hand, when a conservative is interviewed by MSM, he'she is given questions that ask for a liberal answer. If one is not forthcoming, the interviewer challenges the interviewee over and over, asking the question several different ways and not being satisfied with any answer the conservative gives.

That all happens because of a hard-core bias of the individual members of the MSM.

It is a bit meaningless to attack MSM as though it exists as a sort of organism. MSM is made up of individuals. Each of its members have been taught to "report" a certain way or have "learned" over time to write from a certain perspective. However, since through the hiring process, those with ideologies that do not fit the editor/owners' points of view are culled out of the recruitment process, the result is a sort of collective that behaves like a single organism.

It is the bent of individual members of MSM to present a leftist perspective, even if it means being inconsistent. That is either how they have been taught or else it is what their editors or owners require.

I once applied for a job with a newspaper known for liberal leanings. As a part of the application, I was given a topic on which to write an article. The article I wrote had a subtle, but discernible, hint of conservatism. When I went for the live interview I was told that my "approach" to the subject was not in keeping with the "approach" that this publication preferred. When I pressed a bit, the interviewer told me that my article was "...a little outside of the views of our newspaper."

At any rate, the result of years of developing leftist perspectives has left self-proclaimed journalists with a bias that is decidedly left leaning and with a sense of power that exceeds the limits of what true journalism is or should be.

With the election of Donald Trump, reporters are going to find themselves in a quandary. Those who have been used to being able to bend the "news" to fit their narrative might well find themselves left out of the press-corps loop.

For many years we have been in a "we have the right to insist that you answer questions they way we want them answered" mode.

With the advent of Donald Trump, hopefully, those days are gone forever. Or at least for a while.

Wednesday, January 11, 2017

Monday, January 9, 2017