Getting Along In The GOP





Photo credit: DonkeyHotey (Creative Commons)

Recently, I’ve heard some resounding influential voices of the Republican Party repeating that tired old line that we must, as a party, all get along, regardless of our differences.

To a point, I would agree that this is true. We of the GOP do need to be careful not to “strain on a gnat, to swallow a camel,” as the old expression goes.

That said, if we are still a party that believes in the traditions of our founding and the Constitution, we do need to hold true to these principles that are still overwhelmingly held as standards among the party’s voting base.

These days, though, it seems that many who brand themselves with our party’s name believe that it is more important for them, as politicians, to get along with each other than it is to get along with those who vote them into, or out of, office.

In recent months and weeks, surely unrelated to their aspirations for election and re-election, some politicians have reiterated these talking points.

Just among the Texas politicians I’ve personally voted for, there is one gentleman in Washington who continues to paint himself as a dyed-in-the-wool conservative in spite of his voting record that has, of late, increasingly proven otherwise. Then, there is a local politician who votes with his conservative base 97% of the time, but is often afraid to consider himself a conservative Republican. In his view, it seems that labels such as “Mainstream Republican” or “Moderate Republican” are safer bets in pleasing the masses.

In my view, I’m not sure which is worse.

The latter of these two examples has personally related to me that we need to discontinue the usage of labels such as “R.I.N.O.” (Republican in Name Only) when describing those with whom we disagree on key issues among our party’s ranks.

I couldn’t help but notice this line of thinking, as it was recently repeated by Governor Mike Huckabee on his regular Fox News show.

He likewise expressed his disdain for the term “RINO,” saying that “I’d rather go to battle with someone who isn’t perfect than with someone who thinks he is.”

He went on to say that we shouldn’t waste our time quarreling with those we agree with 90% of the time, but that we should unify against those forces that stand in stark contrast to our convictions.

I continue to believe that Mike Huckabee brings presidential material to the table in any election cycle, especially when compared to the one who currently holds the office; but these words from him struck a negative chord with me.

When there is no other choice, such as in the conclusion of a recent campaign, I tend to agree with Mr. Huckabee on his point.

However, it occurs to me that there are only two ways by which any two disagreeing individuals or groups of individuals ever come to agreement: You must either compromise your convictions for those of others, or you must convince the other to compromise his convictions for yours.

Either of these two scenarios can be realized through sincere conviction or coercion.

I’m not a one (or even two) issue voter, but I believe that disagreement on a single issue should be a deal breaker within our party when the decision on that issue stands to either follow or disregard the U.S. Constitution.

If you haven’t noticed by now, I’m on the side of the Constitution.

Compromise is a double-edged sword. When you’re right, you’d better be sure that the sharpest edge is the outer rather than the inner.

Photo credit: DonkeyHotey (Creative Commons)

 





Sports Broadcaster And Former NFL Player Fired For Christian Beliefs





Craig James SC Sports Broadcaster and Former NFL Player Fired for Christian Beliefs

Former ESPN sports broadcaster and onetime New England Patriot Craig James was fired by Fox Sports Southwest a few weeks ago for his public declaration of his Christian views in opposition to same-sex marriage.

As unlikely as it may seem, this termination, only days after his hiring, was not based upon any on-the-job infraction, but upon statements he made last year during his bid for a Texas U.S. Senate seat that was ultimately won by Ted Cruz.

Among his statements during that campaign, James said that “People choose to be gay. I think it’s a choice, I do. Same-sex marriage, if someone chooses to do that, that’s done, and God’s going to judge each one of us in this room for our actions. And in that case right there, they’re going to have to answer to the Lord for their actions.”

It’s hard to imagine that a major network, such as Fox, would not have known about James’ political and religious stances prior to his hiring. In fact, in an August 30, 2013 announcement from Fox Sports Southwest (that has since been removed), executive producer Mike Anastassiou declared that, “We’re excited to add Craig to the Fox Sports Southwest team. He’s a talented broadcaster who I’ve admired throughout his career. His knowledge of college football and the experience he brings as an analyst will be a tremendous asset to our coverage.”

Apparently, that sentiment was soon lost as a network spokesman recently told a Dallas Morning News reporter that “we just asked ourselves how Craig’s statements would play in our human resources department. He couldn’t say those things here.”

James maintains that in his 24 years of broadcasting, he’s always been respectful of his colleagues regardless of their personal beliefs or lifestyles, and that “it is essential in our business to maintain professional relationships with people from a diverse background and have tolerance for those of different beliefs.” He also stated, “I have never discussed my faith while broadcasting, and it has never been an issue until now.”

Recently, in a Breitbart News report, James also said, “I was shocked that my personal religious beliefs were not only the reason for Fox Sports firing me, but I was completely floored when I read stories quoting Fox Sports representatives essentially saying that people of faith are banned from working at Fox Sports. That is not right, and surely someone made a terrible mistake.”

During his 2012 Senate campaign, James offered his testimony of personal faith in a video posted at YouTube.

James’ legal counsel at the Liberty Institute recently sent a letter to Fox Sports Southwest demanding an ultimatum that he be reinstated within 48 hours, or that they will be met with further legal action.

As a former NFL player and broadcaster for CBS, ESPN, ABC, and now Fox Sports Southwest, Craig James has arguably more than proven himself as an able and professional expert in his field. In spite of this, though, he seems to be one of the latest victims of political correctness and DC agendas that seek to strip American citizens of their First Amendment constitutional rights to freedom of speech, religion, and religious expression.

Photo credit: Bexar Republican (Creative Commons)

 

 

 

More Human Than Humane?

abortion is murder More human than humane?

Throughout recorded history, one stark reality remains: humans must dehumanize other humans in order to condemn them to an inhumane institution.

Otherwise, the backlash from such an objective would surely be halted in its tracks within a single family unit or circle of friends. It would definitely never receive public support.

This phenomenon proved true in the context of slavery in America. Subjected to their own and/or others’ consciences, most slave owners could not bear to consider their subjects as being as human as themselves and continue to engage in this historically worldwide practice. Preserved documents and life wills of the period bear out this proof, often referring to male slaves as “bucks” and female slaves as “house wenches.”

The same has proven true with the practice of abortion. Proponents of abortion on demand always refer to an unborn child, not as a child or a baby, but as a fetus. Accepted definitions of the word “fetus” with consideration toward its origin vary, but among their descriptions are the words and phrases “little one”, “young one”, “young child”, and “offspring”. So where’s the argument here?

The reality of abortion is that the practice usually consists of the murder of unborn babies as a matter of convenience, enabled by a society that has offered it acceptance and legality.

Abortion has become a big business in our country, with the misleadingly-named Planned Parenthood at its core. Millions upon millions of dollars are made each year through the willful murder of innocent unborn children (and as recent developments have shown, even in the latest period of their human development.)

We have probably all personally known of young people who have been faced with the reality of unplanned pregnancy. Most of us probably even know those who would choose to kill their unborn child rather than face the embarrassment and scrutiny of their parents and peers that would come with the admission to this growing life.

Those involved in the big business of abortion are very aware of these individuals and their situations as well. That’s why the proponents of abortion fight tooth and nail against any legislative measure that would require the parental consent of minors before they are legally allowed to have an abortion.

These proponents would also rather that we the public did not realize that their go-to Roe v. Wade court decision left to the public and the courts the final say as to what point in the human condition life begins. Historically, the people of the world have always recognized conception as this point where human life begins.

This tradition is lost on those of the majority of abortion supporters who also believe in the “right” of individuals to be subjected to late-term abortions. In varying levels of intensity, this fight is raging across our nation.

Recently, in Texas, state legislators vied for a vote on a bill that would outlaw late-term abortions and place additional restrictions on abortion-on-demand. Democrat State Senator Wendy Davis presented a 13-hour filibuster last Tuesday, June 25, in hopes to thwart this bill.

Although her filibuster was finally disqualified after a decision that she was guilty of three infractions against the rules of the floor in her filibuster, she still managed to run down the clock to the point that a final vote on the bill could not be reached. As always, it seems that yet another liberal politician would readily sacrifice their own honor and reputation for a larger cause.

All private opinions of Texas Governor Rick Perry aside, all should realistically admit that he does often speak the truth. Recently, liberals, including the subject of his statement, have attacked his words and his position concerning abortion legislation in his state. The most notable content of his statement went as follows: “…The fact is, who are we to say that children born into the worst of circumstances can’t go on to lead successful lives? In fact, even the woman who filibustered the Senate the other day was born into difficult circumstances. She was the daughter of a single woman. She was a teenaged mother, herself. She managed to eventually graduate from Harvard Law School and serve in the Texas Senate. It’s just unfortunate that she hasn’t learned from her own examples: that every life must be given a chance to realize its full potential, and that every life matters.”

Among us as American Christians (not in the loose definition of the term), we recognize the travesty of abortion as a sign of the times, given to us as a warning from the God-inspired prophets and apostles of the Word of God in such passages as the first chapter of Romans. We, as those who truly know the God upon whose principles this nation was founded, realize that we are now witnessing the time in human history when because “…they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient,” as outlined in Romans 1:28. We also realize that we are living in the time when the majority of the world’s inhabitants are “…Without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them,” as verses 31 and 32 go on to explain.

Photo Credit: -nanio- (Creative Commons)

DHS Ammo Grab: No Longer “Conspiracy” But Plain Reality

world mexguns full 6328 300x200 DHS Ammo Grab: No Longer “Conspiracy” but Plain Reality

 

It now seems clear that the Department of Homeland Security’s stockpiling of ammunition and other warfare supplies can no longer be dismissed as “conspiracy theory,” but is a very real development in the actions of an overreaching federal government.

Many have suggested and assumed that the ammo and gun shortage experienced across the country is the result of private citizens’ unprecedented purchases, in recent years, in preparation for impending gun control measures. While this is true in part, it is only half of the logical explanation that can be assessed based upon available facts.

This phenomenon has been described as creating a perfect storm for private gun owners when paired with the reality that the DHS and other federal agencies are buying up once-available guns and ammunition like never before. Mainstream news sources such as Rawstory and Media Matters have attacked Fox News’ Lou Dobbs and others for their statements affirming that the government has indeed purchased at least 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition (especially including hollow points), 7000 fully automatic assault rifles, and 2700 new light armored vehicles, as well as riot gear including body armor. DHS has also invested $2 million with a contractor that recently apologized for its production of shooting targets depicting elderly gun owners and even pregnant women and children in residential settings, after photos and publicity of the targets recently gained widespread exposure.

As it turned out, these claims have proven to be very accurate, as even Media Matters admitted that DHS officials made the 1.6 billion rounds purchase as they were also busy denying it. The organization also insisted that “the order for 2717 new light armored vehicles [came] from the United States Marine Corps – not the Department of Homeland Security.” This claim seems baseless, as all photos have clearly shown the DHS emblem emblazoned on the tanks in question.

All these dismissive reports against the supposedly “misleading” claim of the DHS stockpiling effort can be traced back to a February 14 Associated Press report, lacking any investigative basis, that simply repeated the statement from DHS official Peggy Dixon, who claimed the bulk ammo purchases to have been made in order to save money, and that the bullets were solely intended for military and federal law enforcement training purposes. This claim becomes weaker upon consideration that hollow-point ammunition is significantly more expensive than standard rounds, and military spokesmen and ammunition experts contend that such bullets are unsuitable for training purposes and have never been used for such a purpose.

Seemingly, at the very least, even if the government isn’t preparing to make war against its own people, they are preparing for civil unrest, which is suspect enough for the warranted concern of the American people. The government may well be, however, deliberately attempting to restrict the supply of ammunition, thus the functionality of firearms, from the American people. It has never been a well-kept secret that the Obama administration is no big fan of the Second Amendment. The longstanding fears of many have begun to be shared by several of our elected officials who are increasingly becoming more vocal in their concerns about the government’s attempt to strip citizens of their right to keep and bear arms. Recently, as a guest on Aaron Klein’s radio show, Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Inholfe accused the Obama administration of buying up unprecedented levels of ammunitions as a means to intentionally bypass the Second Amendment until law-abiding citizens “can’t even buy ammunition because government is purchasing so much.” Inholfe cited last month’s testimony from DHS Chief Procurement Officer Nick Nayak who said DHS has the right to buy up as much ammunition as it deems necessary. He mentioned that the ammo grab is an ongoing concern, as even still “they’re planning to buy 750 million rounds. Well, that is more than three times the amount that our soldiers are using for training to defend our nation. So, it’s just another effort to restrict gun activity and ownership.” The senator is in the process of introducing the Ammunition Management for More Obtainability (AMMO) bill that will limit “non-defense, armed federal agencies to pre-Obama levels of ammunition.”

There now seems to be ample evidence that our federal government, namely the Obama administration, is up to no good when it comes to the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding American citizens. Historically speaking, this is a very alarming cause for concern. Hopefully, this concern then will continue to be shared by more elected officials in our local, state, and federal governments, as well as among our military and law enforcement communities. Lou Dobbs likely said it best with the following statement: “It’s like I tell anyone who brushes off what I try to tell them as simple ‘conspiracy theory.’ At some point it stops being a theory, and is in fact a conspiracy. I also remind them that we’re not talking about science fiction or aliens here. We’re talking about the very REAL potential of government misconduct towards its own people; something that has happened time and time again in history.”

Photo: Standard Compliant

The New Yorker Picks On Scalia

Antonin Scalia SC The New Yorker Picks on Scalia

In its March 28 issue, The New Yorker published an article titled “Bitter Scalia Leaves U.S.,” by Andy Borowitz in his Borowitz Report.

The article presents Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s supposed decision to resign from the Court and leave the United States. It also quotes Scalia as saying that this past week of hearings concerning same-sex marriage had been “by far the worst week of my life.” The article went on to include contrived quotes about his considered choices of new national citizenship and described his supposed angry outburst at his fellow Justices upon his dramatic exit. The article closed with an inclusion of a stoic and immovable Clarence Thomas, presented as Scalia’s last and only friend that he was doomed to leave behind.

Though this article was posted under “humor” on New Yorker.com, it reads as a straightforward news story and offers few clues that it is intended as satire when posted elsewhere on the web.

Once an unsubscribed and unsuspecting reader is directed to the web page, the first “Subscribe” tab is seen highlighted at the top left corner of screen instead of the “Humor” tab that is found further to the right. As usual, it seems that the “humor” of this far-left rag has left those of us on the right without even a slight case of the chuckles. The only direct clue left connected to the shared or printed version of the article is the keyword “humor,” found under the keyword “Supreme Court,” underneath the body of the article’s text.

In a modern media that almost universally now attempts to appeal to a younger, “hipper” audience, it’s no wonder that The New Yorker would stoop to this level of supposed humor. This sort of article is no doubt directed to those who would also typically rely on such faux news sources as “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart” and “The Colbert Report” in order to stay connected with current events. They all, at best, provide examples of unethical humor and offer dishonest journalism when measured by any objective standard.

For those of us who understand how the media elite operate, it’s obvious that the New Yorker, which has traditionally catered to a liberal audience, as well as Mr. Borowitz would be quick to cite their First Amendment rights to free speech and expression if they were to be challenged for such things as slander. They would likely offer the excuse that this is “a satirical piece,” not intended to be taken seriously. Our question, then, is why is the joke so well guarded and so devoid of humor for the objective consumer?

The objective consumer already knows the answer to this question. The New Yorker and others are attempting to once again redefine journalism under the guise and protection of satire and the same First Amendment that they so vigorously attack when “freely” expressed by those with an informed or opposing view.

There should also be no wonder that Justice Clarence Thomas is connected to Scalia in this article, as liberal media outlets and their audiences all recognize steadfast conservatives when they see them. Thomas has been attacked since Reagan appointed him to the Court in 1986, including trumped-up charges of rape; and since this piece of satire (P.O.S.) has been published, others have also taken to renewing their attacks against him.

Outnumbered patriots such as Scalia and Thomas deserve our respect and support as long as they exhibit the same for us. To date, it seems that these and countless others have done just that. We would do well to not fall prey to the hearsay and nonsense that is so readily available to us every day.

The liberal powers that exist in our government and in their media mouthpieces are well-organized in their efforts to support causes that were never intended by our founding fathers or our founding documents, nor our Heavenly Father who was revered by both.