Tuesday, February 3, 2015

Who Can Win? We’ll Be The Judge Of That

Albert H. Teich / Shutterstock.com  Albert H. Teich / Shutterstock.com
Throughout at least the past three consecutive extended presidential campaigns and election cycles, the majority of related TV news and commentary has continually played an unethical role with voters that has shirked its responsibility in honestly vetting candidates.
Personalities across the spectrum of all media, to varying degrees, have repeatedly assumed the role of deciding for prospective voters of their audience who can and cannot win presidential elections, especially for those running as Republicans.
Yes, even some Fox News commentators have been among these voices. It seems to have become quite predictable for viewers and listeners that when you hear a line such as “This is the candidate with the best chance of winning the presidency,” it is used to describe the prospective candidate with the least in common with the conservative Republican base.
This phenomenon (already unethical) has also become so one-sided that it is as if a long-term dirty pact has been made among weak Republican candidates, the media, and the Democrat party–that would appear to be fully funded by the latter.
The still relatively new (yet already tired) concept is that, among modern American Republican voters, the only viable candidates with a shot at the presidency are those who have at least partially aligned themselves with the Democrat platform.
Those in the media’s trusting audience who have taken this advice with them to the polls have shown that this concept is 50% effective.
Their influence has successfully helped to determine the Republican presidential nominees. It has not, though, ever won a single general election for president throughout this dangerous experiment, as of yet.
Thus, all conservative and Republican voters have been left with the choice between a weak Republican candidate and not voting at all.
Independents, moderates, and blue-dog Democrats have been left with the choice between semi-liberal candidates and full-on liberal candidates.
These past general elections have proven that few voters throughout the political spectrum care much for indecisive leaders. Most folks would rather vote for someone who leans strongly toward their party’s platform as either liberal or conservative.
Even though the Republican establishment’s push of weak, moderate, fence-straddling candidates has never worked in a single general election, they keep on plugging away, trying the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.
I’ve heard that as a definition of insanity, and it seems as fitting in this case as any.
So, even though we’re still over a year away from the next presidential elections, the moves now being made by the Republican Party seem to be business as usual, yet again.
For a while, to the dismay of the conservative base, it seemed that we might have Mitt Romney as a choice that, at best, could have inevitably provided the clear choice against Jeb Bush, the liberal Republican the establishment continues to push upon us.
Now we’re left with a few others, thus far, to choose from. Among these are Marco Rubio, an overall pleasingly conservative candidate, but one who is weak on illegal immigration; Rand Paul, a reform-minded conservative, but one who is a bit scary to the base on foreign relations and national security issues; Mike Huckabee, who is very articulate with the conservative message but scares some away who view him as too populist; and possibly Ben Carson, an energizing conservative figure, but one who is weak on gun rights issues.
Standing head and shoulders above the rest, with all considerations toward his constitutional eligibility aside, is Senator Ted Cruz–but that’s a subject for another time.
Then, there’s Scott Walker, who is beginning to build upon the following he first created in his political career, as a charismatic figure who arguably presents the party’s platform as well or better than anyone we’ve seen in a long time. Although he has yet to prove himself to the conservative base as a leader who would tow the mark across the spectrum of issues that matter to them, time will tell if he can sell himself as such.
On a recent Fox News segment of The O’Reilly Factor, Bill O’Reilly commented that Marco Rubio would have to concede on the front of immigration in order to win the Hispanic vote–and thus have a good shot at the White House.
This is just the type of mindset that’s destroying the Republican Party, and frankly the country itself.
How long until we and our leaders as a majority finally learn the lesson taught by Ronald Reagan–that in order for the Republican Party to survive, we must present “bold colors, not pale pastels”?
We must give the people drastically different, clear choices at the ballot box because, to additionally quote country music legend Aaron Tippin, “you’ve got to stand for somethin’, or you’ll fall for anything.”

Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/can-win-well-judge/#wkqpZ3a6QBdKeuLQ.99

Monday, January 26, 2015

It's not all about politics. That's actually secondary.

The life I'm leading these days is not how I would have planned it. Even so, lately I've been thinking about some of the ones I've hung out with or worked with in the past.
The ones I'm remembering were in their early to mid-twenties when I met them, and they've since moved on to different jobs and/or different towns and cities.
At some point, I've ran into these guys again or seen their FB pages, and it's dawned on me that, in some cases, it's likely that at this point in their lives they might not have been as hopeful or have been posting certain artistic or spiritually related things to social media if I had never met them, or if I had been too timid to share my thoughts on life and such things.
With new acquaintances, I continually try to relate my own failures and hardships to things they're going through and how I overcame those things. I also try to remove possible preconceived notions they may have about Christianity's being judgmental, reserved, unrealistic, or unattainable all while standing firm upon the principles I know to be right and true.
I'm in no way trying to brag on myself, because I know I'll always be a work in progress, and I give God all the glory. I've just come to the place where I'm realizing that wherever I am in life is where I'm supposed to be, as long as I trust in the Lord to lead me on.
When you're willing to simply live life that way, and you can then see positive influences you've had on others as a result, it's a feeling that can't be matched, and I highly recommend it.
I'm now just glad that I'm not the final authority when it comes to the direction of my life.

Wednesday, January 21, 2015

Fence Riding Proves Difficult For Spineless Boehner

We now have a visible and consistent pattern of behavior from the speaker of flip-flopping on the issues and inevitably siding with Obama and his liberal lawmakers on key bills and issues.

Photo credit: Talk Radio News Service (Flickr)
Early on in his speakership, I was inclined to give John Boehner the benefit of the doubt, assuming that my then-more demanding conservative peers were simply too quick to condemn him.
Maybe it was his copious production of tears, his emotional rags to riches story, or his formerly more consistent tough language on the House floor that once convinced me of his overall commitment to conservative values. I’m not entirely sure.

Along with a growing number of others, though, those days are over for me. We now have a visible and consistent pattern of behavior from the speaker of flip-flopping on the issues and inevitably siding with Obama and his liberal lawmakers on key bills and issues.
In each instance, Boehner and other establishment Republican leaders have volunteered to do most or all of the compromising, with the left-wing laughing all the way to the bank as they watch the Republicans’ own speaker selling out the party at the expense of the conservative base that first placed him in his position of power.
Many of these shady deals have been carried out privately, behind closed doors, revealing him and his cohorts as the cowards they truly are.
One such example is their treatment of Rep. Thomas Massie’s amendment to block the NSA’s unconstitutional spying on private American citizens.

Speaker Boehner cut a backroom deal to ensure the amendment never became law.
Although Boehner was recently awarded a third term as Speaker of the House, it was narrowly won with 216 votes.
Republicans needed 29 “no” votes to defeat Boehner, and the House vote closed with 24 defectors and one “present” vote.
Although his closest rival, former speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) received 164 votes, 13 others received a handful of votes, including Rep. Daniel Webster of Florida, Rep. Louie Gohmert of Texas, and Rep. Ted Yoho of Florida, all of whom voted against Boehner as speaker.
Less than a month before this vote was cast, Boehner disrespected the voters who had first awarded him the historic House majority by pushing and endorsing the “Cromnibus” bill that fully funded both Obamacare and Obama-Amnesty.
Two days after his re-election, at a Washington press conference crowded with leftist reporters, Boehner stated, “It does pain me to be described as spineless or a squish,” and “I’ll tell you what pains me the most is when they described me as the establishment. I am the most anti-establishment speaker we’ve ever had.”
In an apparent effort to momentarily back up these unfounded claims, Boehner took to the House floor on January 14 in defense of the House Homeland Security bill that defunds Obama’s recent Executive Amnesty.
The good book says that “For where you treasure is, there will your heart be also”; and, well then, in that case, Boehner’s already shown us where his heart is on this and many other issues. He hasn’t put his money where his mouth is.
There will no doubt be those who are convinced that Boehner’s finally taken the hint from his constituents in Ohio and across the nation, as well as from the dissenters in his party; but with a spine such as his, there should also remain little realistic doubt that he will slide off onto the wrong side of the fence again someday soon.

Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/fence-riding-proves-difficult-spineless-boehner/#fAu0yDisFgygO7Pw.99

Tuesday, December 9, 2014

Even Vegas Won’t Bet On Obama

You know you’re in trouble when even Las Vegas isn’t willing to gamble with you anymore.

After Obama’s recent unconstitutional and illegal amnesty proposal, few cities would rush to welcome him with a red carpet party, and it seems that even Las Vegas is now among them.
One would think that Sin City, with its often questionable ethics and morals, would be a last bastion of support for the embattled prez. But apparently their state’s relatively close proximity to the southern border makes for a deal breaker when it comes to Obama’s current immigration policy.

As Obama arrived at the same Vegas high school he’d visited twice before as the first stop on his amnesty peddling tour, he was met with an angry assembly of protesters with signs in tow.
Lesley Clark, White House correspondent for McClatchy Newspapers’ Washington Bureau, posted on Twitter that the crowd of protesters who met the president outside the gym were chanting, “Worst president ever, Obama!” Signs could also be seen outside the venue with such messages as, “Impeach Obama,” and, “No Amnesty.”
The Review-Journal misleadingly described the less than cheerful crowd as “dozens of protesters” who seem to be most displeased with Obama’s imperialism with respect to amnesty for illegal immigrants.
The protest didn’t stop outside of the event, though, as Obama was also heckled during his speech. But this has become rather commonplace these days for our dear leader.

This is not the first time the president has received a chilly reception in Las Vegas, either. Back in 2010, Obama was forced to proclaim his love for Las Vegas in reparation for the outrage of local citizens, business owners, and politicians at his defamatory comments about Las Vegas being a place of “excess and overindulgence when Americans should be tightening their belts.”
At that time, Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman was one of the president’s most outspoken critics.
He remembered Obama’s similar depiction of the city a year earlier when he spoke to a crowd in Elkhart, Indiana, about excess and corruption on Wall Street.
During prior Obama visits, Goodman decided against welcoming him at the airport and turned down a White House invitation to meet with the president.
“I have told some folks who have asked under what terms I would meet and I said, ‘If he calls me and indicates he will rectify the situation,’” the mayor said at his weekly news conference at the time, “‘and buys me a martini, then I would certainly honor that request.’”
Goodman also stated at the time that “The president had a real psychological hang-up about the entertainment capital of the world.”
If Obama is received this way in Las Vegas, where can he catch a break? Well, at least he’s still loved in Hollywood, even though it’s not unanimous.
Although it would no longer be inconceivable that this president might assume the role of King of the United States at some point, it’s a good thing for him that he’s now only campaigning for his destructive policies and not for another presidential term.
You know you’re in trouble when even Las Vegas isn’t willing to gamble with you anymore.

Photo Credit: YouTube

Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/even-vegas-wont-bet-obama/#IkLKbpfUhu3dWFzl.99

Wednesday, November 26, 2014

Ferguson Is What It Is

Photo Credit: Twitter/Ray Downs
The nation has long anticipated the St. Louis grand jury decision regarding the fate of Officer Darren Wilson after the controversy that followed him fatally shooting Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, last August.
But even now that it has been decided that Officer Wilson will not face indictment, in this current local and national environment, few if any are left at ease with the fallout now present in the wake of the decision.

Personally, as I listened to St. Louis County prosecutor Robert McCulloch’s public statement Monday, it all seemed to fall into place for me as an unfortunate outcome resulting from a police officer simply doing his job. It still appeared to me that the situation was trumped up to be an example of white police violence against black victims.
Then I hung on McCulloch’s account that the likely final shot fired at Brown struck him over 100 feet away from Officer Wilson’s police cruiser, and that the blood evidence from that shot was found over 20 feet further behind Brown.
I thought to myself, “Wait a minute! Isn’t this backwards? Shouldn’t the final shot have been within the window of Wilson’s cruiser, instead of that shot being the first close-range shot to Brown’s hand?”
Then I remembered that the autopsy reports agreed that all of Brown’s wounds were to the front of his body. I also realized that, as a cop, if a confrontational man had already attacked you through your car window, flees, and then turns around to return in your direction, you can’t afford to take any chances.

If you flee the scene, you not only shirk your responsibilities as a police officer; but you also make yourself look terribly guilty. And we should also remember that, in spite of the details of the initial altercation, there was no way for Officer Wilson to absolutely justify in his mind that this very large, angry, and violent young man was not armed.
I then realized that my initial reaction to these details provided for a personally teachable moment.
Just as easily as I had looked at one or two details of this case—and at first thought I had found an anomaly—how much easier would it be to run with these first assumptions if I had already wanted Officer Wilson to be an evil, guilty man of the system?
Unfortunately, in this upside-down world, no one wins in any part of the aftermath of this incident.
A family has lost a son; a police officer has lost his identity, freedom, and safety; the city of Ferguson lies in ruins; and the nation’s race relations are further strained, in spite of the facts of the case.
Although the fallout destruction in Ferguson is not as severe as some had projected and many had feared, with at least 4 burning buildings, 2 burning police cruisers, looting, and multiple shots fired, this predominantly black St. Louis suburb is obviously not Mayberry. The violent protests have also spread to other major U.S. cities.
It’s interesting that St. Louis County Prosecutor McCulloch is a white Democrat, and it would be even more interesting to know his private thoughts about the success of Obama’s and Holder’s intervention in Ferguson for race relations as ever benevolent representatives of the federal government.

Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/ferguson/#1mr0fxbu5BlDCHqe.99

Tuesday, October 28, 2014

Houston, We Have A Problem!

At least in Houston, such discriminating forces are not getting their way without a fight.

Photo credit: Ed Schipul (Flickr)
Under the direction of Mayor Annise Parker, Houston’s first openly lesbian mayor, the City of Houston has launched an attack on area pastors’ First Amendment rights to free speech and the free exercise of religion.
In a whirlwind of recent developments, with subpoenas, the mayor first demanded that five local Christian pastors relinquish sermon outlines and other private communications related to the mayor or the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance (HERO).
Then, after these demands began to receive national media exposure, the mayor and the Houston City Attorney began to backpedal, with later statements to reporters expressing that the language of the original mandate was “too broad,” and “it should have been clarified.”
According to the amended blanket subpoena, city officials now simply require that any of the pastors’ “speeches” related to HERO, or a petition to repeal it, must be relinquished for their review.
It would be interesting to know how the city would differentiate between “sermons” and “speeches.” In fact, the subpoena still requires that 17 different classifications of the pastors’ communications must be submitted.
It should be noted that just a day before her last corrective statement, Parker tweeted that “If the 5 pastors used pulpits for politics, their sermons are fair game.”

After only three days had passed by since that social media comment, the Houston Chronicle recorded the mayor as saying, “We don’t need to intrude on matters of faith to have equal rights in Houston, and it was never the intention of the City of Houston to intrude on any matters of faith or to get between a pastor and their parishioners.”
The origin of this battle has been centered upon the passage of Parker’s HERO ordinance, also known as the “Bathroom Bill,” that would allow individuals who claim to more closely identify with the opposite sex to use the public restrooms of their choice.
Apparently, city officials are angered that a voter lawsuit was filed by Houston citizens against the city after a baseless attempt of officials to invalidate the majority of 50,000 signatures of a petition aimed at repealing the HERO ordinance.
The city’s anger was also kindled against these five pastors, when they received word that the pastors had actively encouraged parishioners and citizens to sign the petition.
It seems to make no difference to the mayor’s office that the pastors have never been involved in the lawsuit.
These pastors have thus far expressed no intention to relinquish their sermons or other communications; and their stance is backed by Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), whose attorneys have filed a motion in a Texas court to stop the subpoena.
Other organizations, including Texas Values, Family Research Council, and the American Family Association, have also expressed their support for the pastors and outrage at the intrusive subpoenas.
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott and Senator Ted Cruz have also expressed outrage at the city’s actions. At a rally in support of the pastors, Cruz stated, “Caesar has no jurisdiction over the pulpit. When you subpoena one pastor, you subpoena every pastor.”
To many who are following this situation, it seems quite evident that the City of Houston is not only in violation of the Federal Constitution, but also the Texas State Constitution’s clauses related to freedom of speech and freedom of religious practice.
It’s also clear that this is the sort of abuse of power Americans everywhere should come to expect when representatives of special interest groups rise to positions of power that they then use to dictate which individuals’ rights really matter.
At least in Houston, such discriminating forces are not getting their way without a fight. Hopefully, this is a fight that many more will be willing to repeatedly fight across the nation–because these types of situations aren’t going away any time soon.
Photo credit: Ed Schipul (Flickr)

Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/houston-problem/#HpjXkHgiQdmVJqK1.99

Thursday, October 23, 2014

The attack on national morale and morality

Though it should now be painfully obvious that the policies of those in our government’s highest offices are initiating a decline in America’s national security and economy, increasing evidence suggests that these concerns are only subsidiary effects of a much deeper, more sinister attack that is being unleashed upon the country.

As evidenced through social media and public polls, a growing number of Americans believe that this national erosion of prosperity and personal liberties cannot be explained away as the result of rampant incompetence in poor leadership, but that it is all a part of an intentional attack on the fundamental makeup of our country.

What’s worse, is that the heart of the attack is focused upon social issues, and more importantly, the traditional family unit.

Throughout a decades-long gradual slope, the size, scope, influence, and power of our federal government has grown by leaps and bounds at the expense of the individual liberties of private citizens.

The progression of this slippery slope has only accelerated, at unprecedented levels, under the direction of the country’s current leadership.

While it was founded by noble but imperfect men, America’s entire system of government, a new republic, was originally based upon Judeo-Christian precepts that became the foundation for our nation’s laws.

A recurring theme in our Declaration and other founding documents was a recognition of Almighty God as the sole proprietor of this new nation, with “We The People” as it facilitators and an honor system of good will toward our fellow man as we endeavored to build the greatest nation on earth, bound and motivated by a universal pursuit of coexisting freedoms and patriotism, and preserved by our Creator with honor given to him and the founding documents that He inspired.

America’s framers were learned men who took into account the lessons provided by history.
As a majority, they conceded that a democracy, however attractive to the citizenry, could never survive as a system of government that both allowed for personal freedoms, as well as to adhere to an unwavering rule of law.

That is why they decided instead that a republic was a more fitting system for this new government. They knew that it could stand the test of time, so long as the federal government, state governments, and private citizens continued to share their vision and worked in cooperation among themselves to ensure the nation’s survival in the form in which it was originally intended.

As we have witnessed, our government no longer represents the will of the people according to the fundamental laws of the land, but simply finds loopholes in laws, ignores them altogether, and/or works in unison with activist judges and slanted media outlets who have been bought and paid for to help them carry out their dishonest agenda.

Over time, we’ve lost the help of would-be patriots to a lack of overall education (especially an accurate instruction in American and World histories) and they have slowly been brainwashed by these united destructive forces to believe the opposite of what is true, as well as reversed definitions of right and wrong.

Although small victories have been won, we still live in a country where far too many believe that innocent unborn life is expendable for convenience, where the God-given traditional institution of marriage is being rapidly redefined, where freedom of speech and expression now comes with a disclaimer of political correctness, and where anyone’s religion or god is honored in the halls of our government and in our public places except the one our nation was first built upon.

What is most alarming to the student of history is that, in focus, this attack is fundamentally one upon the traditional family unit and freedom of religion.

What’s more, this has always been the method used by authoritarian dictators of history who wished to transform struggling countries into enslaved ones.

They know that this tested method will rob individuals of hope, who will no longer draw their strength from personal faith or their families, making their will much more easily broken by the powerful forces of a tyrannical government.

Let’s not forget the lessons of history and allow them to ruin this nation.

It starts with educated involvement in the political process through the polling places and peaceful discourse, and it ends with the will of unified individuals who refuse to surrender their hope.