Tag Archives: political correctness

I Am America! NOT!

What is “America?”

A person? A race? A party? An idea?

i-am-america

For decades, leftists have redefined “American” into something else.

Reactions to Trump’s inaugural address reflect the disparate views of America: globalist vs. nationalist; American Exceptionalism vs. Ugly American.

Remember Obama’s apology presidency? He continually found fault with America and courted anti-American nations and tyrants.

The Alt-Right’s WASP America

But first, let’s address the Alt-Right and its identification as WASP.

The Alt-Right views real America as a race. Ann Coulter exemplifies that view. Coulter has asserted, “Most of us have a lot of British ancestry. … of course our two countries are very similar in culture, I mean, down to the genes.” (For years, Coulter has entertained the notion of WASP superiority – at a genetic level.)

While the Left embraces illegals and foreigners as “Americans,” Coulter and the Alt-Right contend that only WASPs descended from colonists are “true” Americans.

Indeed, Coulter sees Americanness as not only a race, but envisions it as a personherself. Coulter boasts “I’m a settler” and a “Native American.” Coulter cherishes her Pilgrim roots, making her a self-identified authority on all things American as well as moral, culturally, and genetically superior to the rest of us mere mortals.

Leftists tend to reject nationalism (and, thus, Americanism) in favor of a globalist, citizens of the world, paradigm. They look askance at patriotism, dismiss concerns for border control and enforcement of immigration laws, and reject the idea of American exceptionalism and the privilege of American citizenship.

In contrast, the Alt-Right holds a very constrictive, nativist view of citizenship.

The Left’s America

For the Left, America is a party as much as it is anything else. The “Women’s March on Washington” was a potpourri of far-left causes and ideologies – all to affirm that they are the real America.

The appropriately named actress America Ferrera inaugurated that anti-Trump event by claiming, “The president is not America. His Cabinet is not America. Congress is not America. We are America, and we are here to stay.”

“We are America” – the “We” being those Leftists who were sufficiently Left to be included in the protest.

As noted by National Review, “While no one claims that the president, his Cabinet, and Congress are in fact, ‘America,’ the president and the Congress (which includes many progressives presumably more congenial to Ferrera’s world view) are duly elected officials, chosen in accordance with our constitutional system. In that sense, they do represent ‘America’ – in the only way that counts in our democratic republic.”

But the Left’s America is, as Dennis Prager notes, “essentially a racist, xenophobic, colonialist, imperialist, war-mongering, money-worshipping, moronically religious nation.”

Cultural Zeitgeist

Benjamin Weingarten, at Conservative Review, asked a series of questions which “speak to a fundamental cultural divide” in American. “How one answers reflects a certain cultural zeitgeist.” Weingarten suggests Trump’s platform “cut across party lines” to answer “some basic questions:”

“Do Americans believe in strength or weakness?”

“Do Americans believe in law and order or license and disorder?”

“Do Americans believe in brash politically incorrect candor or genteel political-speak?”

“Do Americans believe that their well-being is primary, or of secondary importance to the well-being of those of other nations?”

“Do Americans believe that America is the exceptional, indispensable nation, or conversely that it is the unique source of all that is ill in the world?”

Weingarten observed that “conservative policies serve populist ends because conservative policies are about protecting the littlest of “’little guys,’ the individual: His life, his liberty and his pursuit of happiness. Conservatism is about treating everyone equally under the law, ensuring an even playing field for all rather than conferring on individuals, groups or enterprises special benefits and privileges. Conservatism is about what is doing best for all Americans by holding as preeminent individual liberty and private property rights, thereby fostering a vibrant and dynamic culture and economy, and protecting our fundamental rights by way of an impartial justice system and a dominant defense.”

Real Americans

However, the Left would almost uniformly answer Weingarten’s questions choosing the second option – whichever choice accrued to America’s detriment or diminishing of stature and power.

Dismissing American exceptionalism and discrediting America’s Founding Fathers, progressives now champion a new countercultural figure: A female Muslim as representative of America.

An anti-Trump “We the People” campaign produced posters depicting “protagonist” groups “identified as vulnerable in the present political climate – Muslims, Latinos, African-Americans, and LGBTQ people among them – using the tropes of patriotic American campaign posters.” A spokesperson claimed, “Our America is one of equal humanity that does not demean or discriminate.”

1364

Moreover, “These ideas are not partisan. They are the foundation of America, and on inauguration day, with your help, we will make sure everyone remembers them.”

Their campaign expressly excludes the mainstream, Christians, and Western Europeans. The countercultural 1960s are alive and well in the 2010s.

Contrary to their assertions, these propagandistic posters are purely partisan and further an expansive redefinition of what it means to be an American. As for the equality of all mankind, well …

Sharia Law

Linda Sarsour, one of the Women’s March organizers, wants sharia law in America. Sharia law is contrary to the Constitution, the supreme law of the land. It is contrary to the Declaration’s proclamation of the inalienable rights of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” It is contrary to America’s roots and ideals and everything which makes America America.

c2zdxdguuaaljws-jpg-large

Sarsour, a self-proclaimed, “racial justice and civil rights activist,” attacked freedom fighter Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who “was forced to suffer female genital mutilation when she was five years old in Somalia,” tweeting “Brigitte Gabriel=Ayaan Hirsi Ali. She’s asking 4 an a$$ whippin’. I wish I could take their vaginas away – they don’t deserve to be women.”

Nice. American.

c3hshchwcaaqgxz

Sarsour also tweeted, “Nothing is creepier than Zionism.”

American?

Contrary to Barack Obama’s assertion that Islam was part of the fabric of America at her founding, it wasn’t. Sharia is hostile to the freedoms proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence and enshrined in the Constitution.

What leftists offer is the antithesis of the American ethos.

America – an Idea

Both the Alt-Right and the Far Left dismiss the notion that America is an idea when, in fact, America was birthed by an idea enshrined in the Declaration of Independence.

The idea – freedom – is at the heart of the American Dream. That idea encompasses the biblical understanding that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.”

Our forefathers – whether genetically or ideologically – took a virgin continent to create a New World. Not like Hitler’s Fatherland or Stalin’s Mother Russia. Theirs was not a blood and soil philosophy, but one which built upon the collected wisdom of Western Civilization, the principles and precepts of the Bible, and the surety of God’s Providence.

The Framers of our Constitution and Founders of our Republic created a nation and a government which maximized political, economic, and religious liberty to an extent never before seen.

America’s Founders believed in the idea of liberty and equality – not race! Abraham Lincoln eloquently spoke of the “proposition that all men are created equal.” A proposition is an idea or an ideal, not a race!

[A new book, #NeverTrump: Coulter’s Alt-Right Utopia, sheds some light on the #OnlyTrump movement and its Alt-Right constituency. It is now available on Amazon at http://amzn.to/2fzA9Mr.]

Advertisements

Word Rage

Donald Trump’s presidency began with a bang.

Scary!

Leftists hated his words. And they will hate his actions even more.

word-rage

Trump actually puts America First! – and the Left has gone bonkers. Leftists recoiled in reactionary horror.

Trump has tapped into a patriotic fervor which terrifies the Left and exposes its anti-American values and anti-democratic impulses.

Trump’s (First) Inaugural Address

Trump’s inaugural address was short, a mere 1,459 (powerful) words. The longest address, at 8,460 words, was given by William Henry Harrison, who died 31 days later from complications due to pneumonia. Franklin D. Roosevelt’s fourth address was the shortest at a meager 559 words.

In his address, Trump drew a line in the sand – a demarcation line between patriotism and globalism, between national sovereignty and cosmopolitanism, between American exceptionalism and obeisance to a New World Order.

Trump posits American primacy and polity above international diplomacy and appeasement. And Americans love it!

Charlie Kirk observed, “Donald Trump’s speech used the word ‘we’ 45 times and the word ‘I’ three times,” suggesting Trump’s ego may succumb to his new role as Commander-in-Chief.

(Will Trump’s new position as President transform Trump into a better man as he seeks to Make America Great Again? Will he grow into a selfless leader for a higher purpose? We can hope and pray.)

I tweeted: “Impressive #inaugural address: God country liberty fraternity TRUE hope & change #GodBlessAmerica.”

The Hartford Sentinel highlighted these inaugural words: “Will (40), America (17), American (12), people (9), nation (9), country (9), again (9).”

Patriotism. Nationalism.

Trump’s Dark, Dark, Dark Inaugural Address

Responses to Trump’s inaugural address varied: hysterical fear from the Left, jubilant enthusiasm from the #AmericaFirst crowd, and cautious optimism from formerly #NeverTrump.

Open borders enthusiasts like Forbes bemoaned “the most bellicose inaugural address ever given” with its “incendiary rhetoric,” “dark vision of America,” and “extraordinarily dark rhetoric.”

Hearkening back to the alleged “angry white males” of the Bill Clinton era, Forbes claimed: “Trump’s angry, determined, and take-no-prisoners speech was astonishingly dark in tone, matching his campaign speeches – and by far the darkest inaugural of the past half-century.”

(How would Leftists have responded if Forbes had used that very same dark language to describe any of Obama’s speeches?)

The Washington Post also lamented Trump’s dark choice of words, which included:

 “sprawl, ignored, windswept, overseas, tombstones, rusted-out, trapped, neighborhoods, landscape, flush, carnage, unrealized, robbed, stolen, likes, listening, hardships, transferring, politicians, reaped, stops, subsidized, disagreements, bedrock, Islamic, reinforce, solidarity, unstoppable, brown, mysteries, arrives, politicians, hire, infrastructure, trillions, depletion, allowing, disrepair, redistributed, tunnels, stealing, ravages, issuing, bleed.”

Zero Hedge similarly grumbled about Trump’s word choice, providing its own list of words never before used in a presidential inaugural address:

trump-speech-cloud_0

Many deplored Trump’s use of “carnage,” a word wholly appropriate and accurate in describing the violence in America’s Democrat-run metropolitan areas.

Trump testified to the blunt reality many Americans face from inner-city violence, race riots, terrorist attacks, and the consequences of the massive influx of illegal aliens.

Snowflakes want the whole world to be a safe space. Normal people in the real world want freedom.

(Quartz Media provides a database of every presidential inaugural, listing the most frequent words used in each one. Homework assignment: compare the inaugurals from Reagan to Trump.)

America First!

The most jarring moment for me was in Trump’s salutation: addressing and thanking, among others, the “people of the world.” That phrase, reminiscent of Obama’s “citizen of the world” rhetoric, ran counter to Trump’s America First! theme.

Trump’s appeal to the hearts of Americans – America First! –is neither unhealthy nor immoral.

Nevertheless, Leftists responded in typical fashion. Blue Virginia offered up an inaugural word cloud showing the predominance of America, American, country, and people in Trump’s speech.

trumpinauguralwordcloud

Blue Virginia also condemned the substance of Trump’s message, writing: “Donald Trump’s inaugural address: will go down in history as the infamous, hyper-nationalist, chest-thumping ‘America First’ speech, I bet.”

Even Bill O’Reilly called Trump’s speech “militant.” But it’s only divisive or militant if you disagree with the content.

Trump’s America First! Agenda

What does “America First!” mean?

Is it a nefarious plot to create a racist authoritarian state? Does it inspire national hubris? Or is it a response to the anti-American ethos of so many of America’s political, cultural, and economic elites?

In reality, American First! is both populist and conservative.

It is populist in that it is popular with the average America-loving American who believes in American exceptionalism, American values, and American ideals.

And it is conservative in seeking to restore and preserve the best of what America was and can be.

How will Trump translate his words into actions?

Trump proclaimed patriotism, protectionism, and nationalism. Patriotism and healthy nationalism are good things. Protectionism is not.

Unfortunately, in being America First!, Trump misapplies some American principles. His protectionist instincts are counterproductive and contradict the very principle of liberty upon which America is based. Free markets deserve to be free. Liberty necessitates the free exchange of ideas and of products.

Moreover, America is not an island and must not become isolationist.

Evil was allowed to fill the vacuum left by Obama’s retreat from world affairs. Obama’s “leading from behind” failed abysmally. Absent an American presence of strength in the world, evil will continue to grow and thrive, inevitably becoming an ever clearer and more present danger to this nation.

Trump also must not ignore the reality that America needs her allies and other relationships which are mutually beneficial. To neglect or discourage them would be disastrous. Fortunately, Trump pledged, “We will reinforce old alliances and form new ones and unite the civilized world against radical Islamic terrorism.”

Trump appears to recognize that the United States is much more than an “I” – it’s also a “We.”

We, the People – with deep roots and relationships with our allies (e.g., Britain, Israel) and certain alliances (e.g., NATO). (In contrast, Trump is correct in diminishing – or abandoning – the United Nations, which is not an ally and is more often than not anti-American.)

Nevertheless, our new president’s prioritization of American interests at the head of the queue is both laudable and a necessary course correction from the previous administration and decades of progressive dominance in politics.

A Re-United States?

Michael Barone argues that Trump’s nationalism can ultimately reunite the American people, noting, “a healthy nationalism can bring people together.” Barone quotes Trump, who said, “When you open your heart to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice. Whether we are black or brown or white, we all bleed the same red blood of patriots.”

For a strong America, we need to restore and strengthen the American identity, American values, American ideals, and American independence.

Trump concluded his address:

“Your voice, your hopes and your dreams will define our American destiny. And your courage and goodness and love will forever guide us along the way. Together, we will make America strong again. We will make America wealthy again. We will make America proud again. We will make America safe again. And yes, together, we will make America great again. Thank you, God bless you, and God bless America. Thank you. God bless America.”

As Captain Jean-Luc Picard was known to say: “Make it so.”

[A new book, #NeverTrump: Coulter’s Alt-Right Utopia, sheds some light on the #OnlyTrump movement and its Alt-Right constituency. It is now available on Amazon at http://amzn.to/2fzA9Mr.]

Left Behind

Donald Trump’s inauguration is hours away and the Left remains stupefied.

The Left remains stunned by Hillary Clinton’s defeat. (Snowflakes are melting.) Her defeat, and Obama’s legacy, augur ill for the progressive agenda.

left-behind

From Obama and Hillary to identity politics and bumper stickers, the Left is in need of not just a new messenger, but a new message.

Hillary Lost – Get Over It

Hillary, the worst candidate Democrats could have nominated, lost to the worst GOP candidate ever.

Analysis by Dan McLaughlin strongly suggests that Trump won despite himself and that a far more traditionally conservative GOP nominee “would have fared far better.” According to McLaughlin, “A candidate with nothing but the historical wind at his back would have fared far better than Trump. Only his singular underperformance of the historic trend kept this race even close.”

But Hillary still lost!

Hillary had “an astoundingly poor performance,” according to McLaughlin, winning “a majority of the popular vote in only thirteen states, the fewest of any major-party nominee since Bob Dole in 1996.” Indeed, though she faced the “deeply flawed” GOP candidate “that Democrats were visibly salivating over running against,” Hillary “carried a popular majority in half as many states as Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012, barely more than half as many as Mitt Romney.”

Indeed, “Hillary managed the worst Democratic performance as a share of eligible voters over the past five elections in 17 states, almost all of them states with above-average white populations: West Virginia, North and South Dakota, Wyoming, Tennessee, Missouri, Oklahoma, Iowa, Arkansas, Kentucky, Wisconsin, Michigan, Rhode Island, Alabama, Louisiana, Kansas, and New York.”

To whom did Hillary lose? Donald Trump.

McLaughlin observes, “All told, across the 765 counties in 28 states where Trump got fewer votes than the Republican candidate for Senate, he received 2.176 million fewer votes.” Moreover, in “counties Trump lost by 10,000 or more votes, we get a much longer list of 52 counties, in which more than 21 million votes were cast and Trump got 1,377,179 fewer votes than Republican Senate candidates.”

Trump was extremely unpopular; Hillary even more so.

Obama has Left Liberalism in Crisis

What was Hillary message? She as going to out-Obama Obama. America has rejected that agenda.

President Obama’s legacy is one which has actually left liberalism in crisis. Michael Barone points out: “Republicans have now won House majorities in 10 of the past 12 elections, leaving 2006 and 2008 as temporary aberrations.”

Barone continues:

“Republican success has been even greater in gubernatorial and state-legislature elections, to the point that Democrats hold both the governorship and legislative control only in California, Hawaii, Delaware, and Rhode Island. After eight years of the Obama presidency, Democrats hold fewer elective offices than at any time since the 1920s.”

Ramesh Ponnuru addresses the leftward momentum of the Left: “On criminal justice, on entitlements, on immigration, on abortion, on religious liberty, Democrats staked out positions and adopted rhetoric that were much less moderate than they had previously been. The new Democratic consensus included Hillary Clinton, who ran in 2016 as the heir to Obama rather than to her own husband.”

As Rich Lowry notes, Obama’s “favorite rhetorical crutch was to portray his positions as the centrist path between two extremes, although this was convincing only to people who already agreed with him. His inability or unwillingness to seriously compromise proved devastating to his party, which got wiped out in 2010, 2014, and most importantly 2016. This puts much of what he accomplished legislatively and unilaterally in jeopardy.”

Straightjacketed by Identity Politics

The Left has become straightjacketed by the identity politics for which both Obama and Hillary are poster children. The Year of the Woman failed in 2008 and 2016. Appealing to voters on the basis of race, gender, and class is becoming increasingly counterproductive.

Hillary and the Left lost in large measure due to the politically cancerous identity politics it is obsessed with and which taints everything the Left does.

The Million Woman March slated for the day after Trump’s inauguration epitomizes the nonsense that permeates the Left. Organizers for these protests in the name of all women actually exclude those who are neither liberal nor pro-choice. They also reject white women, claiming their oppression is significantly less than that of minority women.

Heather Wilhelm notes, “There are many different types of oppression, intersectional feminism teaches – based on race, class, sexual identity, and more  that layer upon each other. In the world of intersectionality, victimhood is sorted by category, tallied, and ultimately ranked.” Sounds a lot like those good old days of apartheid in South Africa.

“Apparently, at this point,” writes Wilhelm, “the way forward involves a cavalcade of left-wing causes – abortion, as usual, is taking top billing – buckets of vague platitudes, lots of hectoring, and endless, obsessive, identity-based infighting.” As usual in situations like this, the loudest bully wins, kind of like in Lord of the Flies.

Leftist Political Dynasties

Progressives are always seeking progress – moving forward. Hence their disdain for tradition, especially in traditional values, religious beliefs, and patriotic fervor. For them, we must get beyond the foibles of nationalism and embrace a globalist citizen-of-the-world ethos.

But progressives also like to anchor their progress and their victories in hero worship. Hence their love for political dynasties.

Leftist admiration for political dynasties is particularly undemocratic and peculiarly foreign to the precepts upon which America was founded. (Remember the Declaration of Independence?) Once leftists have power, they are loathe to give it up.

In the 1960s, the Left dreamed of a Kennedy dynasty (John, Bobby, Ted). Now they fervently desire an interwoven dynastic reign by Obamas and Clintons.

Lowry observes, Obama “will be remembered – and revered – by his admirers as his generation’s JFK. Lasting substantive achievements are beside the point when ascending to this iconic status.” As I pointed out, “At least JFK loved America, fought against communism, valued free market, tough on crime.”

One bumper sticker encapsulates this self-destructive pathology on the Left. It read: Hillary 2016, Michelle 2024, Chelsea 2032, Malia 2040, Sasha 2048.

What qualifies any of the (exclusively female) names on this list to be President of the United States?

Hillary’s singular accomplishment was to be more hated and less trusted than Donald Trump. HillaryCare bombed during her husband’s first administration. She was a lackluster senator and an abysmal Secretary of State who presided over the collapse of stability in the Middle East and the mushrooming of Islamism. Her singular achievement (apart from Benghazi and her secret email server) was setting a Guinness world record for frequent flyer miles.

Michelle Obama is indeed accomplished – at decimating public school lunch programs across America.

What are Chelsea Clinton’s accomplishments, credentials, and qualifications to be Commander-in-Chief? She received “an eye-popping $600,000 annual salary for an irregular stint as an NBC special correspondent.” Yes, she’s a “political heiress” engaged in crony capitalism.

Finally, in case it escaped anyone’s notice, Malia and Sasha Obama are children!

What do all these wonderful people have in common? They are all women and they all share the name of Clinton or Obama.

Obama’s Unraveling Legacy

Obama’s legacy is unravelling even as Trump prepares for his inauguration. Hillary’s political ambitions are effectively dead. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has again become her party’s standard-bearer in the House. Leftists continue to pursue their leftward momentum even as most Americans reject their policies.

President Obama’s “central case for government’s existence,” writes David Harsanyi, “rests on the notion of the state being society’s moral center, engine of prosperity, and arbiter of fairness. Obama speaks of government as a theocrat might speak of the Church, and his fans return the favor by treating him like a pope. This was true in 2008. And it’s true now. Just check out liberal Twitterdom.”

Some delusions die hard.

Is Brian Williams Crazy?

In the immediate aftermath of the ISIS terrorist attack in Munich, Germany, MSNBC anchor Brian Williams mused, “And why does it feel so strange to kind of root for it not being ISIS?”

Is Brian Williams Crazy

Let me respond to his question. It should feel strange to root for such a thing. Why root for the enemy? Would Christian terrorists or crazy right-wingers be preferable culprits?

Can you imagine anyone during World War II saying, “It feels so strange to kind of root for that bombing of London not being the work of the Nazis?” How many different enemies does Williams want?

Williams explained his irrational rationale – his deep desire – “to break the cycle [of ISIS] even though every death is an absolute tragedy and this just means we have deranged people without the affiliation?

He would prefer this attack had been committed by “deranged people” not affiliated with ISIS. Is Williams a “useful idiot” for a global terrorist network, a “fellow traveler” with those who seek to destroy Western Civilization?

Is Williams serious? In addition to being at war with a vast army of cruel barbarians intent upon destroying us to achieve their religious/ideological utopia based upon the Koran, Williams also wants more “deranged people” not affiliated with ISIS for us to combat.

Why? So he can feel good about being inclusive and dismiss the reality of Islamic jihad?

Williams’ sense of right and wrong requires believing that all religions are equal and all religions are capable of the barbarism on display almost daily in the news. No! They are not.

The Left’s constant moral equivalence during the Cold War between the West and the Evil Empire has shifted to an equally insane and suicidal moral equivalence between Muslim jihadists and Christian conservatives peacefully engaged in the political process.

Ever on the alert for mythical Christian terrorists to condemn, the Left is willfully blind to the Islamist threat we face every day.

But Williams merely follows in the footsteps of his ideological predecessors and comrades and who have been redefining terrorism for years.

In the immediate aftermath of the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing, many commentators and members of the mainstream media jumped to the conclusion that that terrorist attack was committed by the “extreme right,” anti-government groups, or the Tea Party.

Few considered the most obvious culprit: a radicalized Islamic jihadist. An astonishing banner headline appeared on the Salon website: “Let’s Hope the Boston Marathon Bomber Is a White American.” Williams’ musing mirror Salon’s perspective.

The time has come to end the identity politics and political correctness which have plagued our nation for so many decades. Identity politics and political correctness have weakened America in every area of life and placed our nation and our people in jeopardy.

Let’s stop this nonsense!

Let’s recognize the enemy, name him, and defeat him!

While we still can!

In Defense of Kim Davis and the Rule of Law

Some have likened Kim Davis to Rosa Parks. Others, to the Devil.

You will recall that Davis came under fire for putting her newfound faith into practice. Her refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples has prompted foes to bring out the long knives.

The furor surrounding Kim Davis’ refusal to issue same-sex marriage licenses overlooks the obvious: Kim Davis is being faithful to both her conscience and the rule of law.

KimDavis

How can that be, you ask? Let me explain.

Conscientious Objector

The Left cherishes civil disobedience when it is for a politically correct cause, but not when Christians stand up for traditional values and faithful adherence to biblical teaching or when they seek to defend the original intent of the Constitution.

Davis, a fairly recent convert to Christianity, cited her allegiance to her Christian faith as the overriding factor in her decision not to issue same-sex marriage licenses in Rowan County, KY.

As reported by Eagle Rising,

Davis “has declined to sign her name to marriage certificates that defy God’s natural design for the timeless institution and has requested, as a simple accommodation, that either her name be removed from the marriage licenses, thus eliminating her personalized acquiescence to the Supreme Court’s novel attempt to usurp God’s authority and redefine this cornerstone institution, or, alternatively, ‘to allow licenses to be issued by the chief executive of Rowan County or [by] developing a statewide, online marriage license process.’”

In other words, Davis does not want to be forced to affirm an action which she regards as illegal and immoral. At the time, any marriage licenses issued in her county would bear her name. This is very similar to the government forcing pastors and priests, rabbis and imams, to perform same-sex marriage contrary to their theological beliefs.

(An often overlooked aspect of compelling people to attend or ministers to perform a same-sex wedding is that one of the questions asked is, ‘Does anyone object to this wedding?’” Silence is assent.)

Bryan Fischer, from the American Family Association, explained why Christians should decline a gay wedding invitation: “For exactly the same reason a Christian baker should politely decline to bake a gay wedding cake. It sends a message of affirmation for something God has plainly condemned.” He added, “How much more the pastor sanctioning ungodly behavior?” Or, for that matter, government officials putting the imprimatur of the government on that behavior.

Davis was jailed for six days for doing the right thing. Since then, an accommodation was made: “the Office of County Clerk of Rowan County no longer puts Davis’s name on marriage licenses but instead uses ‘Rowan County’ where her name is supposed to go.”

Davis’s attorney, Matthew Staver of Liberty Counsel, issued the following statement: “We are pleased that Kim Davis has been ordered released. She can never recover the past six days of her life spent in an isolated jail cell, where she was incarcerated like a common criminal because of her conscience and religious convictions. She is now free to return to her family, her coworkers and the office where she has faithfully served for the past 27 years. We will continue to assist Kim and pursue the multiple appeals she has filed.”

Just because it’s “the law” does not make it either constitutional or right!

Allegiance to the Rule of Law

Not only is Davis following her conscience, she is also obeying the rule of law. As noted by Godfather Politics, “Davis took an oath to uphold the Kentucky Constitution which forbids same-sex marriage.”

That’s right, the current Kentucky Constitution forbids same-sex marriage.

As Eagle Rising reports:

“When she took her oath, United States law, the Kentucky Constitution and the Kentucky Revised Statutes all reflected the millennia-old definition of natural marriage: ‘Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky.’”

“The Kentucky Legislature has yet to change this law one jot or tittle. Instead, five left-wing extremist lawyers in Washington, D.C., issued an opinion presuming to move the goalposts mid-game. Court opinions are not ‘the law of the land.’ Judges don’t make laws – only the legislature can do that. Kim Davis is not defying the law; she is upholding it as codified.”

Staver added: “Not long ago 75 percent of Kentuckians passed the state’s marriage amendment. Today a Christian is imprisoned for believing what the voters affirmed: marriage is between a man and a woman. Five people on the Supreme Court imposed their will on 320 million Americans and unleashed a torrent of assaults against people of faith. Kim Davis is the first victim of this tragedy.”

Seventy five percent of Kentucky voters approved Kentucky Constitutional Amendment 1, which explicitly states:

“Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.”

Constitutional scholar Mark Levin asked an important question: “How can it possibly be that the law of the land that these judges swear to uphold, the law of the land under which they have whatever authority they have, can be abused by them and then we are forced to live by the law of the judiciary?”

Levin added, “The court had no business whatsoever getting into this issue of same-sex marriage. NONE!” The problem, according to Levin, is not with Ms. Davis, or the State Constitution, or the Federal Constitution. Rather, the problem stems from “five justices who acted outside the law, who violated the law, and now we have people saying ‘follow the rule of law.’”

Remember: judicial activism is, by definition, unconstitutional.

Opposition to Unjust Laws

Our Declaration of Independence clearly reserves for the People the right to oppose unjust laws and, even, an unjust government. It reads, “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it.”

Godfather Politics provides “a biblical case” for a Christian opposing particular government edicts, using biblical examples, and examples from recent American judicial cases, to make its case.

  • Peter and the other disciples were imprisoned for preaching in the name of Jesus, contrary to civil law.
  • Hebrew midwives spared newborn males contrary to the edict of the Pharaoh.
  • Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed‑nego all forsook civil laws which were contrary to God’s law – at pain of death.
  • Justin Martyr and other second-century Christians risked execution rather than worship false gods commanded by the Emperor.
  • Judge Randall J. Hekman refused to permit a thirteen-year-old girl to get an abortion.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer is rightly renowned as a hero for his opposition to the Nazi regime and its usurpation of the German church and nation. He said, “Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.”

The United States judiciary is increasingly acting in a tyrannical fashion, abrogating to itself constitutional prerogatives given only to the legislative branch. It is making law to achieve politically correct outcomes. When it does so, it’s rulings are themselves unconstitutional.

We are urged by World, “Even if you think Davis is wrong (I don’t), she is following her conscience before her God and that is all God requires in debatable matters: “Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind” (Romans 14:5).”

The writer adds: “Kim Davis evidently reasons from the civil disobedience of Peter and John, who ‘greatly annoyed’ (Acts 4:2) the powers that be to the point of getting themselves locked up. Upon release from jail they were warned by the judge (a striking parallel with Judge Bunning and the Davis case) not to violate law again, and they replied, ‘Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge, for we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard’ (verses 19-20).”

Hypocrisy on the Left

The Left is blatantly hypocritical on these clear-cut issues. They condemn behaviors by others that they extol in themselves. Political correctness is the dividing line in all these cases.

Hypocrisy extends to the White House and Justice Department. “President Obama who refused to enforce the Federal Defense of Marriage Act because he thought it was unconstitutional.”

Texas Senator Ted Cruz asks: “Where is the call for the Mayor of San Francisco to resign for creating a sanctuary city resulting in the murder of American citizens by criminal illegal aliens welcomed by his lawlessness? Where is the call for Obama to resign after 6½ years of ignoring and defying our immigration laws, our welfare reform laws, even his own Obamacare? When the Mayor of San Francisco resigns, when President Obama resigns then we can talk about Kim Davis. But for every talking head who goes on TV and says this one county clerk in Kentucky is a threat to our liberty, what they are saying makes no sense.”

Victor David Hanson notes, “Hundreds of liberal sanctuary cities have announced that federal immigration law does not apply to them. That scary, neo-Confederate idea of legal nullification was sanctioned by the Obama administration – in a way it never would have been if a city had suspended the Endangered Species Act, emissions standards, or gun-control legislation.”

Godfather Politics also addressed this blatant hypocrisy:

“Davis’s arrest was met with cheers by same-sex marriage advocates who for some reason did not demand imprisonment of officials who lawlessly issued gay marriage licenses in clear contravention of state and federal laws. Take, for example, Democrat  who is currently the California lieutenant governor. Back in 2004, when gay marriage was banned under California state law, Newsom openly defied the law and used his power as the mayor of San Francisco to force taxpayer-funded government clerks to issue gay marriage licenses.”

“More than 3000 same-sex couples violated the law, and not one of them was fined or went to prison. This says nothing of the clerks who issued them marriage licenses.”

“Why wasn’t anything done to Tonya Parker, a black, openly lesbian Texas judge who refused ‘to conduct straight-couple marriage ceremonies in her state until same-sex couples can wed?’”

Davis is Not Alone

In the Old Testament, Elijah discovered that he was not alone – there were 7,000 other people who had refused to worship false idols. So, too, Kim Davis is not alone in standing up for truth and justice.

CNS News reported: “The belief of the Kentucky County Clerk, Ms. Davis, that the Supreme Court decision in Obergefell interpreting the Constitution as mandating the legalization of same-sex marriage in all American states is an egregious error and distortion of the Constitution is a belief that many other thoughtful persons share.  Her view that the federal government must defer to the states regarding the regulation of marriage is one that has very deep historical, legal, and practical roots.  Ms. Davis certainly has a constitutional right to express those views.  Although those views may irritate Judge Bunning, he cannot jail her for holding or expressing those views.”

In North Carolina, “More than 30 North Carolina magistrates so far have refused to perform weddings since the U.S. Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriages in all 50 states.”

Moreover, “In Oregon, Judge Vance Day has picked up the baton of resistance from Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis. While Davis sits in prison, Judge Day will continue the fight for both religious liberty and resistance to immorality. … The judge recently announced that he will not perform any same-sex marriage ceremonies. A spokesman for the judge said that ‘It’s an exercise of his religious freedom rights under the First Amendment.’”

Resign or Oppose?

For decades, the Left has sought to privatize religion in America, to remove it from the public square. They have falsely asserted a “wall of separation” between church and state and they have rewritten the First Amendment to uphold the concept of freedom from religion, not freedom of religion.

Bill Berkowitz accused Davis of conflating “her responsibilities as an elected official with her self-aggrandizing and idiosyncratic religious notions.” Funny, but those “idiosyncratic religious notions” were self-evident truths for centuries in America. Middle America still believes in them.

Time and time again, Christians – motivated by their faith – have spoken truth to power in the name of justice and freedom. Christians were at the forefront of the abolitionist movement. Christians led the Civil Rights Movement. Today, Christians are spearheading opposition to the countercultural values of the Sixties which have become enshrined in academia, the media, Hollywood, and the government, and they are resisting the unconstitutional, coercive efforts of those in authority who would subvert freedom and the rule of law.

Some argue that Davis is trying to force others to accept her beliefs, when, in reality, it is gay activists and their supporters who are seeking to force Christians (and others) to both accept and endorse the gay agenda, which includes normalization of the gay lifestyle and gay marriage. In reality, the progressively left-wing culture is forcing its beliefs on Christians.

Contrary to assertions by the Left, the Constitution is compatible with biblical precepts because the Bible informed the worldview of the Framers.

Regarding Davis, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy said, “Great respect, it seems to me, has to be given to people who resign rather than do something they view as morally wrong, in order to make a point. … the rule of law is that, as a public official in performing your legal duties, you are bound to enforce the law.”

Kennedy ignores reality: If all the godly people resign from public office, that would leave only ungodly people running the government.” Is that what we want?

American history is replete with examples of people standing up to illegal and immoral governance.

“Law of the Land”

In 1857, the Supreme Court ruled in the infamous Dred Scott case. Prior to and after its decision, abolitionists (led primarily by Christians) fought for the emancipation of slaves, rejecting this flagrantly immoral and unconstitutional decision. Likewise, Abraham Lincoln led the nation in opposition to this grievous injustice which was contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Constitution.

Abraham Lincoln fought a war in defiance of Dred Scott. The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments were put in place specifically to overrule Dred Scott – which, liberals assert, was the “law of the land” at that time.

Are Roe v. Wade (abortion) and Obergefell v. Hodges (same-sex marriage) the “law of the land?” No! The Constitution is the law of the land (see Article VI of the Constitution).

Abraham Lincoln’s nuanced view of Supreme Court decisions is as incisive and salient now as then (emphasis added):

“[Supreme Court] decisions must be binding in any case upon the parties to a suit as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the Government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be overruled and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.”

As Ramesh Ponnuru noted, “the Lincoln administration did not attempt to undo the Supreme Court’s decision with regard to the parties in Dred Scott v. Sandford but also refused to speak or act as though it were correct. It recognized that blacks could be citizens regardless of that decision, and granted passports and patents accordingly.”

The Cost of Discipleship

Isn’t it ironic? The very people most outraged at Davis, accusing her of breaking the law, are the very ones who threaten wanton violence in the name of justice.

As reported by The Federalist Papers, Davis “and her husband have been the target of threats by those supporting gay marriage, including threats of rape, murder and arson.” Vulgarity and death threats populate Twitter and Facebook.

Speaking of these bullies, Davis said, “They told my husband they were going to burn us down while we slept in our home. He’s been told that he would be beaten up and tied up and made to watch them rape me. I have been told that gays should kill me.”

The Family Research Council recently honored Davis with its “Cost of Discipleship Award.”

FRC noted, “Kim isn’t ordering her office to stop issuing marriage licenses permanently. She’s simply asked that, as a Christian with strong religious convictions, her name no longer appear on them. And for that, she was jailed.”

Tearfully, Kim explained, “I am here before you this morning with a seemingly impossible choice, which I do not wish on any of my fellow Americans. My conscience or my freedom.” She choice the former.

Those who love liberty and the rule of law, you should support Davis, who is championing both. If it weren’t for people like Kim Davis, America might still be divided by slave and free states.

Commonsense Guns Laws

President Obama and the Left have recently called for “commonsense gun control laws.” They are right about the need for “commonsense” but wrong about the laws to be enacted.

The operative words in their mantra – “gun control” – reveal their intent and the heart of the problem: they reject “criminal control” laws (which would curb most gun violence) and they refuse to address the mental illness (which animates mass shootings).

GunLaws

What would Commonsense Gun Laws (not “gun control”) look like? Well, the exact opposite of what Barack Obama wants.

Here are a few areas where legislation and implementation of policies would immediately make America safer:

Eliminate gun-free zones. Virtually every mass shooting has taken place in a gun-free zone precisely because the killers knew they could maximize damage while minimizing risk. Federal buildings, banks, convention centers, and other venues have armed security forces which deter crime and prevent mass shootings. Why are politicians and the wealthy protected by armed security forces, but most Americans (even our children) unprotected and told to run for their lives if a madman targets them?

Expand private ownership of guns by law-abiding citizens. Make it easier for citizens to exercise their Second Amendment rights and to thereby protect themselves, their families, and their local communities. Expanding the pool of law-abiding citizens who own guns makes it harder for criminals to do their own thing. As noted by National Review, “The number of guns in the United States has increased by 62% since 1994 but gun violence has decreased by 49% since 1993.”

Increase concealed-carry permits for law-abiding citizens. An armed populace is a deterrent to crime. When criminals don’t know who might be armed, they exercise far greater restraint in their criminal activities.

Stop coddling criminals. Giving criminals and rioters “space” to commit violence is lunacy. Providing politically correct rationalizations for criminal behavior encourages more criminal behavior. Releasing violent criminals in the interests of “fairness” endangers the American people. Get back to basics: If you do the crime, then you do the time.

Robustly address mental illness in America. Mental illness (not guns) is the root cause of most mass shootings.

Deport violent immigrants and illegal aliens. Violent crime by immigrants and illegal aliens is escalating. If they are unwilling to abide by our laws, then they should not enjoy the benefits of living in America. The first duty of government is to protect its citizens.

Reclaim the culture. This will be the hardest task of all. It requires restoring God and America to their proper places in the public school system and higher education, returning to traditional values and respect for our Judeo-Christian, Western Civilization heritage, and championing adherence to the Constitution. (Much of this is cultural, not legislative.)

The Great Society, victim culture (grievance culture), and growing sense of entitlement in primarily urban communities has engendered a culture of violence. Moreover, a culture which reveres cop-killers and promotes killing cops is dysfunctional to its core.

A culture which claims only black lives (and only those killed by white cops) matter, while all others do not, is a thoroughly bankrupt culture.

A culture which defends Planned Parenthood’s grotesque butchery while equating Southerners with Nazis – and gun owners as evil incarnate – needs rescuing.

A culture which tramples on the American flag and finds fault with everything American is suicidal.

The Left would have us do more of the same – extend the ever-expanding welfare state, subordinate local and state control to an all-powerful federal government, and escalate the demise of our American culture begun by the Countercultural Revolution of the Sixties.

Commonsense Gun Laws are indeed commonsense, but they are in opposition to the Left’s agenda of fundamentally transforming America. Most Americans want to restore American greatness and preserve (and expand) liberty, including adherence to the letter and the spirit of the Second Amendment.

Will the Constitution survive? Not if the Left succeeds in stripping it of its power.

Update: Like Socialism, gun control never works (unless, by “works,” one means limiting liberty and growing government). The following four charts demonstrate the fallacy of gun control logic.

imageedit_1447_2367824908

newgunchart.jpg

12079155_10156233379385093_7673665897653919283_n

fbicrime

HOPE in Dark Times

As we remember the shock and terror of 9/11 – and consider the state of the world and of America today – let us not lose hope.

HopeInDarkTimes

As we look upon the world scene, chaos reigns in much of the Middle East, North Africa, Europe, and Central and South America. Tyrannical regimes and terrorist states around the world are expanding their spheres of influence and employing their power for evil purposes.

In America, we are experiencing perils considered unthinkable just a decade ago, from unbridled immigration and race riots to Islamic jihad and domestic terrorism. The White House has become tyrannical and the judiciary is making laws. People who regard America as fundamentally flawed are in power and those who deny American exceptionalism have the loudest (and most heard) voices. The Church writ large is yielding to the world, endorsing homosexuality and promoting narcissism. Identity politics and political correctness have seized our political and cultural institutions.

Nevertheless, God is still on His throne. The supreme ruler of the universe – by whose providence America was founded and to whom America owes credit for her greatness – remains sovereign in the affairs of men. Our Father is faithful to His people and He hears their cries. His promises are sure.

Scripture is replete with assurances from our Creator and Redeemer. Psalm 147:11 declares, “the Lord delights in those who fear him, who put their hope in his unfailing love.”

In Romans 15:13, the apostle Paul offers a succinct prayer for God’s people: “May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, so that by the power of the Holy Spirit you may abound in hope.”

Let us abound in hope.

You Were There

Let me share two songs with you (YouTube videos hyperlinked).

Avalon’s You Were There reminds us of God’s omnipresence. God is everywhere and has always been there in key moments in history. He was there, giving David the courage to slay Goliath “when the hardest fight seemed so out of reach.” He was there, showing Abraham that He “had bigger plans” and provided a sacrifice to substitute for Abraham’s son, Isaac.

And God was there, “during history’s darkest hour,” when He gave His only begotten Son, that we might have eternal life with Him (John 3:16).

God “alone [can] keep the universe from crumbling into dust.” And He can keep our lives from falling apart.

You Raise Me Up

Selah’s You Raise Me Up points to the One who lifts us up when we are weary and overwhelmed. God lifts us up to the mountaintops and empowers us to “walk on stormy seas.” Indeed, our strength derives from the One who rules in majesty: “I am strong, when I am on your shoulders. You raise me up to more than I can be.”

Perhaps not so surprisingly, it is in those moments that our hearts are “filled with wonder” and we get glimpses of eternity.

We now face challenges which can appear insurmountable. We know our own frailty and our own powerlessness in certain circumstances. It is in times like these that despair can fall upon us. But it is at those very times when we must most remember to whom we should turn.

We live in dark times, times where it seems that evil has been unleashed from hell, yet our hope resides in one person – Jesus Christ. Jesus, the Light of the World, entered our world to pierce the darkness, to conquer death, and to redeem humanity. Jesus conquered Satan and death. Nothing is impossible for Him.

Let us keep our eyes on Him as we struggle for what is right and true in this life.