Trump’s Inner Child

Standard

In this photo taken Dec. 2, 2015, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks during an interview with the Associated Press at the Trump National Golf Club in Sterling, Va. In television news, a telephone interview is usually frowned upon. Yet Donald Trump's fondness for them is changing habits and causing consternation in newsrooms, while altering traditions of political access. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

We (meaning non-Left-Wingers and Non-Socialists) have a presidential front runner who is forceful, not politically correct, successful, strong and personable — who behaves like a spoiled 12-year old. Frustrating!

On top of that frustration, he is allowing the news outlets to portray him as a right-to-lifer, which he is not. The pretext of the abortion questions that he was asked this past weekend was: if abortion was illegal”. Why he fell for that ploy and then unthinkingly implied, when asked who should be punished for the illegal procedure,  that the woman should be punished, I don’t know. He’s not stupid, but sometimes he appears to be very ‘slow.’

This childishness in Trump’s responses and in his demeanor will eventually sink his presidential bid. His advisors are apparently either not giving him good advice or, most likely, he is just ignoring the advice of everyone except that inner 12 year old child.

Jumping back on the Cruz bandwagon will not be too terribly hard but equally as frustrating because one of my most important political positions is secularism and Cruz is the opposite of a secularist. In spite of that, it is a no-brainer; we, as a nation, cannot afford another 4 or 8 years of a left-wing, or Marksist or a socialist administration. I will, I must vote for the Republican nominee be he an adult who sometimes behaves like a juvenile or a person who seems to prefer his religious beliefs to the  equality promised by the Constitution.

Advertisements

Conservatives Still Playing in the Planned Parenthood Sandbox

Standard

The world is in disarray; our sworn enemies are getting stronger and closer; with the release of the billion$ to Iran (after our Jihadist-in-Chief worked his magic) we are now one of the largest financiers of terrorist networks in the world and, simultaneously, we are assisting our most diabolical enemy in the creation of Nuclear warheads that will be pointed at us; our national Debt is near the breaking point; we have millions of uninvited guest living and working here and using resources that were only intended for U.S. citizens; our unemployment rate is ridiculously and dangerously high.

With all this (just the tip of the iceberg) and even more going on and threatening our existence, the so-called Conservative Republican contenders for President in 2017 are still going to extreme, nauseating lengths, planning a war with Planned Parenthood.

I agree with the basic Conservative principle of limited government, I champion a free market, I oppose excessive taxes and unnecessary regulations on business and I champion a strong national defense, but I loudly and firmly oppose any connection between organized religion and organized politics (only because there IS NO CONNECTION and there should not be one).

Mr or Ms Conservative candidate proudly proclaim, on a near-daily basis, the purely moral position that they are “pro-life.” Does that make them better at making the right political decision when the good of the country is at stake? NO, of course not! Politicians (even Conservative ones) should do their jobs and make decisions on the bases of Constitutionality and relevant law. Yes, we are all moral beings, that’s just part of our better nature and part how most of us were brought up; with ingrained rules that say this is right and that is wrong. A politician who self-identifies as either “pro-life” or “pro-choice” brings NOTHING to the table when it comes to doing the jobs they were elected to do. Yet that seems to be the primary “credential” for many of them in this (and past) election seasons.

Here’s a news flash for citizen, non-politicians who have been drinking the Religious Conservative Kool-Aid for so long that they believe that they can’t call themselves Conservative without being devoutly religious and advertising it! You’ve been duped! If you believe, as I stated above that I do, in the core Conservative values of small government, less regulation and a strong free market a strong national defense and responsible levels of taxation you ARE a Conservative. Don’t let Sean Hannity, Mark Levin or any other Conservative talker tell you otherwise because you disagree with them on the LEAST IMPORTANT issues facing America and Americans.

The Website About.com has an excellent “Overview of Political Conservatism”. What is excellent about this particular definition of Conservatism is the fact that it correctly identifies Conservatism as a two-part philosophy:

Part 1 is identified as “core tenets” of Conservatism. For me, these core tenets define what I call “Secular Conservatism. The “core tenets” of Conservatism are the basic beliefs in three principles: (from the article): “1) Economic liberty and the central role of free enterprise in American society, 2) A small, non-invasive government, (and) 3) A strong national defense focused on protection and the fight against terrorism.”

Part 2 consists of the “Ancillary Principles & Ideologies” of Conservatism. These ancillary principles are the things that Religious Conservatives see as potential threats to their religious beliefs: Attitudes about “traditional family values”, marriage, the commitment to faith and religion and the assumed right to life for still un-born potential citizens. Even the strongest Religious Conservative would have to scratch pretty hard to find an “Ancillary Conservative Principle” that will help them do the main job they were elected to do.

Nothing wrong with morality or religion, but my point is, when these things become the focal point of an elected official’s political life the importance and connotations of the words ‘freedom’ and ‘liberty’ as they were intended by our forefathers can become too easily lost in admonitions from bible verse. Also, when Religious Conservatism is forced down the country’s throat as the ONLY alternative to Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders or Joe Biden, it begins to ‘taste and smell’ like sour milk.

One more thing, all this ranting and raving against Planned Parenthood is based solely on some videos that were produced by a group whose primary (and perhaps ONLY) goal is to cripple Planned Parenthood. Sounds suspicious to me!

Recommended:

Washington Post: “Why the war over Planned Parenthood will hurt the GOP in 2016

Huckabee and the Law

Standard

Huffington Post Headline: “Mike Huckabee On Kim Davis: Obey The Law Only ‘If It’s Right'”
(The GOP presidential hopeful wants citizens to disobey the Supreme Court ruling.)

Mike (God is my Vice President) Huckabee, already out of the running for president, except in the eyes of the most other-worldly Evangelicals), has now effectively trashed his credibility as a presidential candidate.

“Only if it’s right,” Huck? In whose eyes?

There are many thousands of American’s who still think that, in spite of existing laws, openly selling highly-addictive drugs to all who want them is ‘right.’ Should they just go ahead and do their thing? Go ahead and break the law because they don’t think it’s ‘RIGHT?’

Of course not; and I know Huck would agree with me on that because that could not, even in a Disney movie, be depicted as a victimless crime. But neither is the crime that Huck is so readily encouraging his minions to commit, a victimless crime; the crime of taking away the legal rights of tens-of-thousands of gay Americans because HE and his church disagree with their lifestyle.

For everyone, except those with their eyes firmly closed, it’s obvious that the “Free Exercise Clause” of the First Amendment was being misinterpreted as permission to mess with the lives and Constitutional rights of those who fall outside of “accepted religious belief and ritual.”

When Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion was written into law, the Supreme Court was recognizing and responding to the fact that the clear majority of states (37 out of 50) had already legalized gay marriage; but it’s pure folly to hope that the religious far Right will ever agree with the clear (and growing) majority on the subject of religion.

Speaking of the Religious Far Right: Justice Scalia, in the meantime, is bouncing off the walls. Scalia’s dissenting opinion is a scathing attack; surprisingly not attacking the majority opinion itself, but attacking the right of the Supreme Court to write that or any opinion into law.

Following is an excerpt from “The Big Think” titled: “Scalia’s Dissent in the Gay Marriage Ruling is a Dangerous Attack on American Democracy Itself:”

“(Scalia) is rejecting the very right of the Supreme Court on which he sits to adjudicate disputes where the answer requires interpretation of the Constitution, (which is of course precisely what the court did when it interpreted the Second Amendment to enshrine the personal right to own guns, an opinion Scalia wrote), a role that has proven to be a corner stone of American democracy. Because he is upset by this ruling (legalizing gay marriage), Justice Scalia directly rejects the authority of the court itself.”

This is the equivalent of a judicial nervous breakdown, as is illustrated by this excerpt directly from Scalia’s minority opinion:

“… the Federal Judiciary, which consists of only nine men and women, all of them successful lawyers, is hardly a cross-section of America. Take, for example, this court, which consist of only nine men and women, successful lawyers who studied at Harvard or Yale law school. Four of the nine are natives of New York City. Eight of them grew up in east- and west-coast States. Only one hails from the vast expanse in-between. Not a single Southwesterner or even, to tell the truth, a genuine Westerner. (California does not count.) Not a single Evangelical Christian (a group that comprises about one quarter of Americans) or even a Protestant of any denomination. … To allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation.”

How about that as an example of allowing personal opinion to trash the rights of others and even the right of the Supreme Court to exist.

That said, I can’t help but agree with his unstated accusations that 1) The concept of Supreme Court Justice For LIFE is one that needs a closer look and 2) The Supreme Court inserting itself into the question of marriage is ludicrous.

A Rational Look at Abortions and Planned Parenthood

Standard

Let’s start with Planned Parenthood.

Except in the case of medical necessity, abortion is a life choice that should be made by a woman and a medical professional; not by a politician, religious official or a government agency. As a life choice, unless the mother’s life or health is endangered, the choice to abort should be paid for by the woman, not by taxpayers. How or why Planned Parenthood ever started getting paid by the feds for performing abortions is irrelevant, that funding should stop! Not all funding!

Apparently Planned Parenthood performs many helpful services for women who cannot afford testing or medication on their own, Personally I have no problem with them getting our money for that, as long as the people who use their services actually need that financial help.

Unfortunately, some people who are well off financially got that way and stay that way by cheating the system: getting charity, assistance, food stamps, tax breaks, etc. that they don’t need or deserve. Those are the people who should be ‘cut off!’

As I started out saying, I believe that abortion or no abortion is a decision that belong solely to the prospective mother. I find it bizarre  that, when the prospective mother makes the decision to terminate her pregnancy, suddenly every moralistic idiot in our society finds something to say about it.

Born or Not Born

If a woman made the decision to “have a baby”, not one of the aforementioned moralizing idiots would know about that child until it is born (born defined by Websters: “brought into life by the process of birth”) The well being of that child would be the mother’s ‘legal responsibility. It would be a life protected under our laws and our Constitution. If that child then died by normal circumstance: disease, organ failure or accident, it’s a tragedy for that mother and for that family unit. If that child died through neglect or an intentional act, the law would attempt to bring someone to justice for the act.

If a woman decides, for whatever reason, NOT to have a baby, but she is already pregnant, I believe she should have the right to terminate the pregnancy at some point before the baby is born, i.e., “brought into life . . .”. That decision does not give anyone else a moral responsibility for that baby’s life. That decision does NOT make a woman’s baby public property — that decision does not suddenly make that baby EVERYONE’S child, everyone’s concern or everyone’s problem. The unborn baby is still inside the mother, still feeding on her nourishment, still requiring her blood and respiration. To assume, at that point, that ANYONE but the mother has ANY moral claim to that unborn baby’s existence is completely illogical as well as morally absurd.

The social rules were made centuries ago: women have children or do not have children the circumstances of either case should not be open to discussion or governed by anyone’s moral code, except for the woman’s and, in most cases, the biological father’s.

Planned Parenthood Selling Baby Parts??

(Selling Baby Parts: That’s what Planned Parenthood”s opponents call it because they want the public suitably shocked!)

Having watched some of the videos that have come out it seems that some of Planned Parenthood’s activities may border on illegality, if that is the case, the people who are acting illegally should be brought to justice, like every else who breaks the law. That may justify a federal government supervised reorganization, (since they are using tax money), but as usual the moralizers want to whip everyone into a frenzy and will continue to pretend that totally de-funding the organization is the only option.

Shutting down Planned Parenthood is a poor option. Their mission statement emphasizes reproductive health and education as well as abortions, unless you are ready to assume that Planned Parenthood does NO GOOD for the community, there is no reason to judge it based only on their ability to perform safe, legal abortions or based on someone’s self-righteous opposition to abortion.

Does freedom of religion mean freedom to discriminate? That’s the wrong question!

Standard

That was, however, the question asked by CBS News  and by other Liberal news organizations.

The Unholy Furor (excuse the pun) surrounding the Indiana Religious-Freedom Law is as inappropriate as the law itself.

The underlying implication of this law (and almost every other law involving “discrimination” issues) is: A business owner does not really own his/her business. The business owner has limited power over who he/she hires or what customer(s) that business serves. If I was a business owner who invested my own “sweat capital” and either my own financial capital or an investor’s capital in my business, I would expect to decide these issues for myself. Actually I would demand these rights but demanding would do no good (unless I had at least one Legislator “in my pocket.”)

Today, creating a business in the “Land of the Free” and actually running that business is a pipe dream — we are living in the ‘Land of Limited Freedom,’ limited by government overreach and by the self-centered morality of the religious lobby.

The Religious-Freedom law does not just protect religious freedom for the religious, it takes away personal freedom from all citizens, religious and non-religious.

The ORIGINAL Religious Freedom legislation, signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1993, was only created to allow Native Americans to use Peyote (classified as an illegal drug) in their religious observances. That was a good use of the law, it actually confirmed the First Amendment freedom of religion. Later our legislators (apparently blind to what they were doing) applied this law to every incident involving religion; they effectively  broadened the law to include all religious thought and belief. From that point the simple words of the First Amendment (prohibiting the “making of any law respecting an establishment of religion (or) impeding the free exercise of religion”) went ‘out the window.’ At that point our Legislators stopped PROTECTING religion and began IMPOSING religious thought and belief on every American.

Harvey

Political Identity: Secular-Conservative

Standard

I used to have an internal debate going over my political identity. I’ve self-identified at times as a Republican, a Conservative,  a Libertarian and an Independent. I’ve come to the conclusion that, if I was forced to decide on an an official title it would probably be none of those, it would be hyphenated: Secular-Conservative really fits me. I agree with the basic Conservative principle of limited government, I champion a free market, I oppose excessive taxes and unnecessary regulations on business and champion a strong national defense, but I loudly and firmly oppose any connection between organized religion and organized politics (only because there IS NO CONNECTION and there should not be one).

Mr or Ms Conservative candidate proudly procaim, on a near-daily basis, the purely religious position that they are “pro-life.” Does that make them better at making the right political decision when their political decision is required. NO, of course not. Politicians (even Conservative ones) do their jobs and make decisions on the bases of Constitutionality and relevant law. Yes  we are all moral beings, that’s just part of our better nature and part how most of us were brought up; with ingrained rules that say this is right and that is wrong. A politician who self-identifies in their private life as either “pro-life” or “pro-choice” brings NOTHING to the table when it comes to doing the jobs they were elected to do. Yet that seems to be the primary “credential” for many of them in an election season.

Here’s a news flash for citizen non-politicians who have been drinking the Religious Conservative Kool-Aid for so long that they believe that they can’t call themselves Conservative without being devoutly religious and advertising it! You’ve been duped! If you believe, as I stated above that I do, in the core Conservative values of small government, less regulation and a strong free market a strong national defense and responsible levels of taxation you ARE a Conservative. Don’t let Sean Hannity, Mark Levin or any other Conservative talker tell you otherwise.

The Website About.com has an excellent “Overview of Political Conservatism“.  What is excellent about this particular definition of Conservatism is the fact that it correctly identifies Conservatism as a two-part philosophy:

Part 1 is identified as “core tenets” of Conservatism. To me, these core tenets define what I call “Secular Conservatism. The “core tenets” of Conservatism are the basic beliefs in three principles: (from the article): “1) Economic liberty and the central role of free enterprise in American society, 2) A small, non-invasive government, (and) 3) A strong national defense focused on protection and the fight against terrorism.”

Part 2 is the “Ancillary Principles & Ideologies” of Conservatism. These ancillary principles are the things that only threaten Christian Culture: Attitudes about “traditional family values”, marriage, the commitment to faith and religion and the assumed right to life for still un-born potential citizens. Even the strongest Religious Conservative would have to scratch pretty hard to find an “Ancillary Conservative Principle” that will help them do the job they were elected to do.

When you think about it, vocalizing their pro-life stance is just a way to coerce votes from the minority of religious people who have long since substituted religious texts for the U.S. Constitution and relevant law. Even the majority of the religious community must understand that the word “Religious” before the word “Conservative” is a ploy.

The Corruption of a Political Entity

Standard

Here’s some great advise for Conservatives (we need not use the term “Religious Conservatives” any longer, the word “Religious” is implied if not flat-out stated by virtually every Conservatuve I’ve listened to or read for the past several years. The very term “Conservative” has been corrupted and redefined; Conservative no longer stands for ‘smaller government and free trade, it stands for “In God We Trust.”

The following is is a quote from a Fox News opinion piece. The title of the piece: “Jesus hates religion. He really does” is rather shocking considering it was written by Dr. Alex Himaya, the founding and Senior Pastor of one of the fastest growing churches in America: theCHURCH at BattleCreek, located in Tulsa, Oklahoma.

Here’s the quote:

“I think we as Christians have a reputation as conversation stoppers. When we engage people on the other side of an issue, most of the time, the conversation doesn’t end the way we want it to. It (either) gets stopped short or our side of the issue ends up being misrepresented. And that’s largely our fault.  We prefer to be heard, as opposed to actually listening. We want the benefit of the doubt, but we’re reluctant to give it. Instead, we lead with our idea of what’s right and wrong, in our belief, instead of leading with love.

The best way to stop a conversation short is by being judgmental and ‘religious.’ By that, I mean we come off as confrontational and condemning, rather than relational and loving.

It happened just the other day when Dave Bratt beat out Eric Cantor for his seat in the House of Representatives. Here’s the lead-in for information about Dave Bratt from the New York Daily News: “Bratt, 49, casts himself as a Ronald Reagan conservative with a deep suspicion of government power. He’s also a devout Christian whose win demonstrated how “God acted through people on my behalf.” (What a conceited, obnoxious statement!)

Apparently ‘Dave the Bptist’ feels that the secret to his success is Divine Mind Control: i.e., God’s will was to have Christian/Baptist Dave Bratt beat out the man who the Jerusalem Press (http://jpupdates.com/2014/06/10/breaking-news-jewish-republican-congress-defeated-primary/) pointedly calls “the only Jewish House Republican”, Eric Cantor. (Who would have thought that God would hold a grudge that long.)

Okay, I’m just having a bit of fun poking fun at Dave Bratt but I don’t want to get too far away from the point of this post and that is:
The apparent underlying message in virtually every Conservative speech in recent years seems to be: Only Christians have morals, only Christians ‘do the right thing’ in regards toward their actions and attitudes to their fellow man.

Here’s a News Flash: Morality came along centuries before Christianity and you can be sure that anywhere you went in those BC days you would find kind, gentle and honest people who happened to worship idols, superstitions, animals, trees and anything else you might imagine including rock formations. In spite of what Conservatives seem to insist, the Christian religion does not have a “lock” on morality.

I’m NOT saying that Bratt’s Christian morals will in any way make him less of a great public servant or that there is anything wrong with Christian morals, what I’m saying is it’s stupid for Conservatives to take a public stance that implies that only Christian Conservatives can be trusted or, beyond that, that there is any logical link between being a Christian and being a Conservative (or a Liberal for that matter.) Who or what you worship has no guaranteed effect on your behavior or attitudes; who you REALLY ARE under your ‘holy garment’, where the ‘rubber meets the road,’ is all that really counts.

It may be a cheap shot but I can’t help being reminded of the countless number of children who have been molested and corrupted by men and women who wear those ‘holy garments’ while publicly proclaiming that they are servants of God.