Socialism and a Tale of Two Countries – What Will We Do?

In his 2019 State of the Union Address, President Donald Trump said, “America was founded on liberty and independence – not government coercion, domination, and control. We are born free, and we will stay free… America will never be a socialist country.” Republicans in the chamber cheered the remarks and the political right lauded the President for weeks after as the confirmed, and now certified, champion of conservative values they had already told us he was.

Around that same time, Americans were being shown pictures of empty store shelves in Venezuela and told it was the result of socialism. Threats of possible military intervention were being made as a means by which the U.S. might rescue the people of Venezuela from the horrors of socialism and the deprivation resulting from its draconian, totalitarian, central control. Continue reading “Socialism and a Tale of Two Countries – What Will We Do?”

Foreign Aid, Usurpation and Treachery: A Real Case for Impeachment

Though conservatives cheered the recent acquittal of Donald Trump on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, treating him as now fully vindicated of any wrongdoing, we should understand that the President actually did commit what should be deemed an impeachable offense. The President participated, together with Congress, in a usurpation of power not granted to the federal government under the U.S. Constitution, thereby violating his oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States,” and committing an act of treachery, a “violation of allegiance.” Of course Congress itself stands equally indicted.

The United States Constitution is not a document whereby limits are placed on an otherwise all-powerful central government. Rather, it is a document whereby specific, enumerated powers are granted to an otherwise powerless central government. Continue reading “Foreign Aid, Usurpation and Treachery: A Real Case for Impeachment”

Qasem Soleimani, Iran, and the Rule of Law

As with most political issues, there are those who praise the United States assassination of Iranian general, Qasem Soleimani, and those who decry it. And, as per usual, the division is mostly along party lines, with some calling it wise, virtuous, and a necessary act that will prevent war with Iran, while others call it foolish, evil, and an unnecessary act that will lead to war with Iran.

What is also as per usual is the fact that most are merely arguing for or against the act, but few are asking questions and even fewer are discussing matters of principle and the rule of law. My friend, Jake MacAulay, of the Institute on the Constitution, was the first that I’m aware of to actually drag the U.S. Constitution into the debate in his weekly commentary.

The first questions that Christian people committed to honoring God, upholding the U.S. Constitution, and maintaining the rule of law must always ask are, 1) What does the word of God say? 2) What does the U.S. Constitution say? 3) What will limit the power of government and maximize liberty? To fail to ask these three questions is to throw ourselves open to Godlessness, lawlessness, and tyranny. Continue reading “Qasem Soleimani, Iran, and the Rule of Law”

You Can’t Just Legalize “Some” Forms of Immorality

My friend, Riley J. Hood, published the following article today. Riley gets to the core of the matter when he says, “The fact is you lost the war when homosexual acts were decriminalized.” The point is that once you decriminalize something on any level whatsoever, you forfeit the moral grounds for criminalizing it on any level at all. Once you decriminalize the camel sticking its nose under the tent, you forfeit the moral grounds for criminalizing any other part of the camel being in the tent and it’s only a matter of time before you’re sleeping with the whole camel. Continue reading “You Can’t Just Legalize “Some” Forms of Immorality”

Some Points We’re Missing About the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act

Democrat blockage of the “Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act” has prompted plenty of commentary, from the right decrying Democrats as baby killers, to the left labeling it a win for women’s reproductive rights, to some calling the whole affair a brilliant strategy by Republicans to secure victory in 2020. However, some of the most important aspects of this matter are being overlooked.

The subject is S. 130, a bill in the U.S. Senate that would have prohibited, and prescribed punishment for, the killing of a child who survives an attempted abortion and is “born-alive,” living and breathing outside the womb. It also would have prescribed penalties for failing to provide medical care to such a child, thereby causing the child to die by means of neglect. Democrats blocked the bill from coming to a vote by means of a filibuster which Republicans failed to override.

It should be noted that this legislation is nothing new, having already been introduced three times in the last session of Congress when Republicans held full control of the legislative process. H.R. 37 and S. 220 appear to have both died somewhere in the committee process with H.R. 4712 actually passing in the House, but failing to receive any action in the Senate. The most recent iteration of this legislation appears to be the only to actually suffer defeat at the hands of Democrats, which defeat has caused quite the uproar among conservatives, though the previous failures under Republican control seem to have gone unnoticed by the right. Continue reading “Some Points We’re Missing About the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act”

Blaming Third Parties for Major Party Losses Ignores the Elephant in the Room

In the wake of Republican losses in the recent election, I ran across an article suggesting that third party candidates may have contributed to the defeat of some Republicans. Everyone’s entitled to an opinion. However, to simply blame third parties and independents for major party losses is to miss a much bigger point.

First – third party and independent candidates very rarely take enough votes to be the deciding factor in an election. Even when a third party candidate takes as many votes as the difference between the two major party candidates, the third party candidate’s votes do not come exclusively from voters who would have all voted for the same major party candidate had the third party candidate not been in the race. Some who typically vote D will on occasion crossover to vote R, while an R might vote for a D under certain circumstances.

Then there’s the 39 percent of the public who identify as independent. Some of those people will vote for the D, some for the R, and some for a third party or independent candidate. Continue reading “Blaming Third Parties for Major Party Losses Ignores the Elephant in the Room”

Will We “Vote for Principle” or Choose to “Just Win Baby!”

Is everyone else’s mailbox getting stuffed with as many campaign mailers as what I’ve received this year? At the beginning of the election season I was tossing some of the mailers in the garbage, but then I decided to start a collection. I now have a pile of over 40 mailers on the table, 14 of which are for a single candidate, and it’s not over yet.

Last week, I was about to comment that the incumbent Republican U.S. House candidate was sending me a mailer every day, but this week I have to update that as they’ve picked up the pace and I actually received two mailers the same day. I can’t imagine how much money it takes to so saturate a Congressional district with advertising. I’m sure it’s well beyond what ordinary citizens and mere voters can comprehend.

While counting up the mailers for the incumbent Congressional candidate, it occurred to me to look at the “paid for by” section. To my surprise, all but one was paid for by the state Republican Party. The other one was from the NRA.

I haven’t made a habit of looking at sponsor ID in the past, but I really can’t remember ever receiving campaign mailers paid for by the Republican Party. Continue reading “Will We “Vote for Principle” or Choose to “Just Win Baby!””

Is the Lord Building This House or Is It Just Us Laboring in Vain?

When the Constitutional Convention of 1787 found itself in gridlock, Benjamin Franklin urged his fellow delegates that daily prayers should be made “imploring the assistance of Heaven.” Franklin observed that:

We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that “except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it.[Psalm 127:1] I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel . . .

The popularity of such religious sentiment may have waned in recent years, but the truth of God’s word, and the veracity of Mr. Franklin’s statement, remain unchanged. Labor expended on any house that is not of the Lord’s building is wasted effort that will not produce the desired results. Continue reading “Is the Lord Building This House or Is It Just Us Laboring in Vain?”

What Has the Supreme Court Done for Conservatives?

A review of the Masterpiece Cakeshop case and the performance of the Republican majority court.

I’m not a negative nitpicker determined to find fault, but I am committed to putting things in proper perspective, comparing them to fixed, objective standards and timeless truths. That includes giving an honest assessment of the Masterpiece Cakeshop case recently decided by the U. S. Supreme Court, and of the performance of the court in general.

Though the court found in favor of the side that the Christian right had hoped for, it did so in a manner that was not actually a victory for religious liberty and freedom of conscience. In fact, the decision actually serves to cement the idea that homosexuals have a “right” to be served by individuals and businesses, even when providing those services violates the personal convictions of the service provider. Continue reading “What Has the Supreme Court Done for Conservatives?”

Perspective on Syria: The War, the Weapons, the Players, the Principles, the Christian Response

Though the bombs have already fallen and the U.S. response to the April 7 alleged use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government seems to be behind us, the Syrian civil war is far from over, and so is America’s involvement in that far away and little-understood corner of the world.

Unfortunately, most Americans know very little about the real nature of the Syrian civil war, its history, its scope, or the players involved. Worse yet, almost no one is discussing the proper application of the rule of law or the moral principles that should be considered before interjecting ourselves into another country’s internal affairs. Most of us only know what can be learned from the sound bites served up by the six o’clock news or the party line being proffered by our favorite pundits.

Given that the Syrian civil war is ongoing, that the U.S. has troops on the ground, and the deep state political establishment seems to have long-term plans for that country and region, we would do well to get ourselves apprised of the facts, the history, and the players involved, then consider the sound principles that can guide us to a wise, lawful, and moral course of action. Continue reading “Perspective on Syria: The War, the Weapons, the Players, the Principles, the Christian Response”