The Unholy Alliance

Photo credit: Katy Kildee (Flickr)

FRONT ROYAL, VA — Let’s get one thing straight. Obama could care less about those Hispanic kids coming over the border.

Here’s how we know: his administration has pushed the most savage pro-abortion policies in our history, both at home and abroad.

And at home, Hispanic babies are much more likely to be aborted in America than children of white or Asian descent. The same is true for blacks. Obama fights to allow even more.

Abroad, Obama has launched an unholy partnership with billionaire Bill Gates, forcing Hispanic countries to include “family planning” – out-and-out child eradication – if they want any “humanitarian” foreign assistance at all.

Why, then, does Obama want these children in the United States?

This might help:

On July 23, 1942, Adolf Hitler’s secretary, Martin Borman, communicated the Fuehrer’s views to his henchmen in occupied countries.

“The Slavs are to work for us,” he wrote. “In so far as we don’t need them, they may die. They may use contraception or practice abortion – the more the better. Education is dangerous. It is enough if they can count up to 100. Every educated person is a future enemy.” [William L. Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, p. 939; emphasis added].

Today, school systems across America report that most of the new border crossers now applying for free education this fall – regardless of age – cannot read or write. Many of them speak indigenous tribal languages, and can hardly speak Spanish, let alone English.

For Obama, this dearth of future enemies is all to the good. Moreover, as Dr. Thomas Sowell points out, immigrants bring their culture with them. All of these immigrants come from countries that are among the most corrupt in the world. What party do you think would make them feel most at home in the United States?

Sure – the easy answer to that is “the Democrats!” But that view ignores the stalwart support for amnesty and massive immigration from both the Republican Party establishment and a powerful phalanx of business lobbyists on Capitol Hill.

Alas, the desire for cheap, barely educated, and easily manipulated labor in this country is bipartisan.

A Bipartisan Ministry of Fear

There is a deeper reason. After 9/11, Dick Cheney led a campaign to convert our country’s domestic life into a state of siege. The so-called “War on Terror” would last to the generation of our grandchildren, he said; and it required the phenomenal growth of the domestic National Security State. According to Frontline, Cheney even kept the most sensitive (and possibly illegal) surveillance programs from George W. Bush, instead directing his own lawyer, David Addington, to store the records in his private safe.

Apparently, the president did not have any “need to know.”

All this was built on the climate of fear – and here, the Republicans would not be outdone. Bush’s 2004 presidential campaign was built not on a sense of trust, or community, or confidence, but on out and out fear. The “Two Minutes Fear” theme at the convention was right out of The Ministry of Truth. It can be viewed on Youtube here:

Pages: 1 2

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Who Really Lost Iraq? Democrats? Republicans? Or Both?

Photo credit: The U.S. Army (Flickr)

FRONT ROYAL, VA — The Red-Team, Blue-Team cacophony has reached a crescendo, and its intensity rises in direct correlation to its frivolity.

Now it’s “Who lost Iraq?”

Red blames Blue: “Bush warned that this would happen,” proclaims a former Bush staffer. “Obama squandered Bush’s victory,” grouses another.

Blue blames Red: the “Bush Hangover” hampers Obama’s masterful skills; Obama has done his best to “clean up the mess that Bush left him.”

Behind this predictable dungheap of drivel hides an infection that increasingly debilitates our republic.

Our country has become immersed in a vat of bipartisan, pompous frivolity.

Consider Bush’s callow, meandering hymn of hubris: “We’ll rid the world of evil.” “Saddam was a Madman!” “Heckuva Job Brownie!” “History will vindicate us!”

Ah, but Obama will not be upstaged: “You can keep your doctor!” Let’s fund ISIS in Syria – hey, now let’s fight ISIS in Iraq!” “Lois Lerner’s computer really crashed!” “What difference, at this point, does it make?”

And did I mention hubris? Here’s a headline that will undoubtedly heal the chaotic Middle East in a fortnight:
“Obama Pushes Iraqis to Mend Sectarian Rifts.”

Well, Pope Francis calls on sinners to mend their ways, too. And, while we’re on the subject of His Holiness, Bush and Obama, two idols of vapidity, do share one common accomplishment:

They both defied the pope.

In 2003, Pope John Paul II warned President Bush that his “Preemptive War” on Iraq would throw the Middle East into chaos.

It did.

Ten years later, Obama was pounding the prompter for a war on Syria. While the American Israel Public Affairs Committee stormed Congress advocating war, Pope Francis had other plans.

Millions of Catholics and others of good will worldwide joined the pope in prayer, fasting, and almsgiving in the cause of peace.

Two days later, last September 9, the most anti-Catholic administration in history was cornered by, of all things, a peace overture from Vladimir Putin, who rubbed it in, taunting Obama for supporting terrorist forces – like ISIS – in Syria.

Obama’s planned war flopped. But his flaccid frivolity brings to mind Orwell’s Doublethink: we are at war with Eastasia. Eurasia is our ally.

Oh wait – the Ministry of Truth says that it’s the other way around!

Meanwhile, cagey Bush old-timers adroitly distance themselves from their bellicose past, reading from the same script. Iraq War architect Paul Wolfowitz moans, “don’t blame me” and then adds, “look forward, not backward.” Richer Perle (richer every day) blames Bremer. Tony Blair chimes in. “Don’t blame me,” he bristles – and, by the way, we now “have to act” to save Iraq.

Kid Kristol, always smirking, always wrong, seconds Tony’s notion. He wants to fight the war again, apparently expecting a different result this time around.

Ten years ago, Kristol wanted to invade Syria, now that Iraq had been “conquered.” No wonder he baptized Obama as “A born-again Neocon”!

The Clash Of Ideologies

The truth will make you free, but falsehood

always brings violence in its wake

–Alexandr Solzhenitsyn

Pages: 1 2

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

The Party, The Plunderers, And The People

FRONT ROYAL, VA — I still remember the day – June 2, 1964.

My new banjo arrived in the afternoon (on Railway Express – this was pre-Woodstock, remember);  and, late that evening, the news came in that Barry Goldwater had won the California primary, defeating New York Gov. Nelson Rockefeller by two percentage points.

I’m still playing that banjo, and that election is still changing history.

On June 10, another earthquake hit, this time shaking the Seventh Congressional District of Virginia to its core.

And it’s going to make history too.

Last week, Republican Majority Leader Eric Cantor, who had been tipped as the natural successor to House Speaker John Boehner, was soundly defeated by Dave Brat (an economics professor) for the Republican nomination.

I remember when Democrat Majority Whip John Brademas – my Congressman – lost his longtime seat to a Republican businessman who, like Brat, was a political novice in 1980.

It was a pretty big deal; but Brademas’ loss was drowned out by the Reagan victory, a political earthquake that would never have happened with that California primary 16 years before.

Like Cantor, Brademas was accustomed to being reelected almost automatically – until he wasn’t.

If past is prologue, the defeat of Cantor by a political unknown does not augur well for the Republican Establishment – or for the Democrats: it’s hard to tell, on any given day, which of them hates conservative upstarts like Brat the most.

It is clear that the GOP Hot Tub crowd will fight fiercely to maintain its control of the party. Yes, they owe their majority to the Tea Party; but they’d rather rule in the minority than be backbenchers in a conservative majority.

After all, they’d still get their share of the swag; and the Plunder Pie just keeps growing.

For his part, Cantor has made no secret of his contempt for the Tea Party. After all, he has no incentive to accommodate them.

In fact, the harder he fights them, the more money he will make as part of the K Street lobbying machine. The starting bid for his services from the Beltway Bandits will undoubtedly be in the mid-seven figures.

Speaking of money, Cantor outspent Brat by a factor of some forty to one. In fact, the New York Times reports that Cantor spent more money on steakhouses than Brat spent on his entire campaign.

Cantor’s big money came from the Crony Capitalist machine – especially the US Chamber of Commerce, whose members desperately want amnesty for illegal aliens so their members can continue to enjoy a surfeit of cheap labor in these hard economic times.

But Brat didn’t win on the issue of amnesty alone. Obama’s frivolous disregard of the law regarding illegals was emblematic of his overall disregard – his outright contempt – for the Constitution and the rule of law.

Conservatives have tired of their party leaders who have gotten comfortable splashing around in the Hot Tub to keep their own private party going.

And it’s quite a party. It’s no secret anymore that Big Government has made the Washington region by far the richest in the country. Real estate agents are stunned when selling prices for average homes are bid up by ten or twenty percent within days of being listed by eager buyers moving to town to cash in on the plunder.

Pages: 1 2

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Gratitude, Government, And Gall

FRONT ROYAL, VA — Voluntary Christian charity results in the natural gratitude of both the benefactor and the beneficiary.

“Thank you,” says the man robbed and thrown in the ditch; “No, thank YOU,” says the Good Samaritan — “for giving me the opportunity to serve a brother in Christ.”

That’s the way it’s been for centuries in Christendom. But recently, society’s gratitude for the generosity of the voluntary benefactor has been quietly turned upside-down. In fact, today’s welfare-state liberals view their benefactors with a thinly-veiled contempt.

It used to be called “biting the hand that feeds you.” Today, it’s called business as usual.

According to ABC News, Rollin-Eyed Joe Biden and his wife gave an average of $369 to charity per year over a ten-year period.

Biden apparently does not believe in private, voluntary charity. However, he endlessly struts and brays as a champion of “government” charity.

And every time he lambasts the taxpayer, Joe takes a victory lap, eyes rolling, teeth shining.

This seems to go with the territory. Joe and his lefty pals are always cawing that other people – especially those greedy rich folks who criticize his boss – don’t give enough to the poor.

Joe wants you to help the poor by giving your money to the government. Then, he can give it away.

And that makes Joe feel pretty good about himself – after all, the con job always sticks the taxpayer with the bill, while Joe takes the credit.

Joe, a Catholic, is not alone. Bishop Stephen Blaire (D – Stockton) routinely attacks Paul Ryan, also a Catholic, for his proposed budget that includes “immoral” cuts (which aren’t cuts) in future welfare-state programs.

I find no indication that Bishop Blaire has ever suggested that welfare recipients should thank the taxpayers for their support.

And Joe hasn’t either. And he gets paid by the word!

Here’s the issue: Currently, Joe and his pals loudly congratulate themselves for forcing those stingy taxpayers to pay for “poverty programs” – dozens of them, costing hundreds of billions a year. They are funded every year, whether they work or not.

Curiously, after the taxpayer coughs up all that money, Joe and his pals treat him not as a beloved benefactor, but as a greedy malcontent.

But it’s the taxpayer’s money, not Joe’s. And Joe uses that money to get him and his welfare-state pals elected again and again and again.

That’s a pretty big deal.

Why aren’t they grateful, Joe?

In 2011, there were 108 million Americans receiving means-tested welfare benefits (note, please, that these don’t include Social Security, Medicare, unemployment, or veterans benefits.)

In fact, America’s welfare recipients outnumber the full-time workforce – by several million!

Forget the budget battles for a moment. Let’s assume that the welfare state will go on forever.

Shouldn’t Joe and Bishop Blaire and all those “champions of the poor” at least suggest that the recipients of all these welfare billions might want to thank the taxpayers who are paying them?

Perhaps they should be thanking the taxpayer, and not Joe.

Pages: 1 2 3

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Catholics, Capitalists, And Cronies

FRONT ROYAL, VA — “Many leftists cheered when Benedict issued his first encyclical, Deus Caritas Est, in 2005.” So writes Rocco Buttiglioni, one of Europe’s foremost Catholic lay leaders. “They ignored most of the document, naturally, which insists that true charity is inseparable from Christ and His Church. They focused instead on his condemnation of ‘unbridled capitalism with its cult of profit.’”

Well, the cheering has only increased with the election of Pope Francis – and some prominent conservatives have taken the bait, charging that the new pope was a true-blue socialist.

Recently, New York’s Cardinal Dolan tried to set the record straight in his local newspaper, the Wall Street Journal.

“From media reports,” he wrote, “one might think that the only thing on the pope’s mind [is] government redistribution of property, as if he were denouncing capitalism and endorsing some form of socialism. This … overlooks the principal focus of Pope Francis’ economic teaching-that economic and social activity must be based on the virtues of compassion and generosity.”

Simply put, Francis, like Benedict, rejects all views of man that reduce him to a paltry pygmy in a material world.

Buttiglione puts it bluntly:

The leftist progeny of earlier Liberation Theologians deny what Benedict affirms: that his critique is inseparable from what he calls a ‘Christian anthropology,’ a view that is threatened by the modern resuscitation of an ‘ancient material hedonism’ that flows from ‘a purely horizontal and materialistic view of life.’

Inseparable indeed. After all, the virtues of generosity and compassion are pre-economic: they are noble virtues inherent in man’s social nature, and the good man exercises them in whatever economic and political order he participates.

For Benedict and for Francis, these virtues are uniquely Catholic, in the universal and spiritual sense of the word. Again, Buttiglioni clears the air with refreshing candor:

The world of today wants a Christianity that is kind to everybody and is ready to take at face value whatever everybody wishes in terms of their fulfillment, the meaning of their life. It wants a Christianity that is ready to help everybody to reach their goals. But what they do not want is the Church to have an idea about the truth of man. …They want a love without truth.

A love without truth! The Dictatorship of Relativism – that postmodern spirit so keenly perceived by Benedict – deftly hijacks the Holy Father’s condemnation of a soulless search for profit; but its alternative is just a soulless search for power.

In condemning the deadly sin of greed, it substitutes envy, the engine of socialism.

Benedict will have none of it, says Buttiglione:

The message of Benedict XVI is that true love is a passionate interest in another, a passionate interest that is aimed at the true happiness, true fulfillment of each individual human being. If you really love someone and see that he is destroying himself, you have not only the right but the duty to tell him he is doing wrong.

But wait – isn’t that pretty judgmental?

Pages: 1 2 3

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom