How Will History Judge Us?

Photo credit: shutterstock.com

It is so hard to see what is going on unless you are able to take a step back and get the panoramic view.

It’s like fighting the problem with an ever-increasing waist line.  Usually, it goes unnoticed to the one who’s growing the belly until some old pictures of past times are pulled out of the scrapbook.

“Wow!” I often respond when looking at old pictures of myself. “Look how skinny I was back then.  How did I gain so much weight?”

Eating and sitting on my butt is the short answer.  Every day that I overeat and eschew exercise, I provide an opportunity for my belly to balloon.  That is why exercise is a billion dollar industry. Trying to undo the effects of undisciplined behavior becomes very heavy lifting. Loose living is not easily overcome.

As I, and millions of others, slowly roll into our seventh decade upon this earth, it becomes harder and harder to blame others for the condition that America finds itself in. No longer can we blame our parents’ generation; but we must come to understand that when the ‘torch was passed’ to a new generation of Americans, the responsibility for the fruit grown in the vineyard must now rest upon those of us who were supposed to be ‘tending the garden’ of America.

We’ve dropped the ball. My generation, the baby boomers and the hippies, are now great grandpas and must bear the blame for what America has become. America has grown lazy, self-indulgent, and apathetic as our waistline continues to sag over our belts.  In covetousness and greed, we have eaten the inheritance of ‘our children’s children.’

How will history judge us? Well, I have a few thoughts that I’d love to share today. It has been said that hindsight is 20/20. Perhaps it is time we took a peek in the review mirror; for history will be our judge.

A century from now, if there is still a planet here, historians will look back at the latter half of the 20th century and first two decades of the 21st and scratch their heads as they ponder, “What were they thinking?” Indeed, what WERE we thinking? Those who study us will ask:

How could a nation built upon such clear-cut Christian principles have so openly and purposefully rejected the values of their forefathers?

How could the wealthiest nation in the world have allowed their currency to be removed from the gold-standard and believe that the ‘full faith and credit’ of the government was enough to keep evil men from destroying the financial system?

How could a nation built upon the nuclear family redefine that institution in such a way as to make the term nearly meaningless?

How could a nation whose laws were built upon two tablets permit the wrecking ball of litigation to remove those teachings as foundational, generational beliefs from the hearts of their children?

How could the false teaching of separation of church and state become so ingrained in the minds of Americans that public prayer would be ruled illegal?

How could a nation of laws have permitted unelected judges to determine what law is?

How could the Christian churches be so willing to yield the moral education of their children to an amoral, atheistic system designed to install the God of Government as the granter of all liberties?

How could the people have possibly fallen for the folly that there was no difference between a man and a woman, or a father and a mother, and that children would not be affected by the absence of either?

How could we have possibly allowed our children to be taught that all relationships were the same and that sex was normal no matter which appendage you chose to insert in what opening?

How did we permit ‘rights’ to be judged on such base unnatural behaviors?

How could a man with three Muslim names be elected President of the United States in the midst of the greatest surge of Islamic extremism in the history of America?

How could Christian churches permit the nation to be taught that Christians and Muslims serve the same God?

How could a nation buy into the lie that spending more than one earns will lead to financial prosperity?

How did the defense of Biblical morality become ‘hate’ while the drive for debauchery and licentiousness become loving and tolerant?

How could the churches actually believe that non-Christian governmental leaders would lead to a society where Christian values and laws would be supported?  And how could they believe that the Republican Party would become the standard bearer of the truth for millions of Bible believers?

How did the minority become powerful enough to bully the majority?

How did the preaching of sin and repentance give way to the gospel of tolerance and personal fulfillment? How did the threat of hell-fire damnation go the way of pay-phone booths?

How could America have permitted the slaughter of unborn children in the womb of their mothers for no other reason than the inconvenience of motherhood? How could they possibly have thought that there would be no consequence to such barbaric behavior?

How could the American people have permitted electronic voting in an age when computer hacking was as easy and common as the dialing of a telephone?

How could a nation that was birthed by The Black-Robed Regiment give way to pulpits filled with man-pleasing, corporate, government-controlled churches?

How could the nation embrace and teach to their children as normal a lifestyle that is incapable of reproducing progeny? How could a religion replete with examples of the ‘judgment of God’ so easily capitulate to the sinners’ cry to “Judge not?”

How did we expect God to ‘bless America’ when so much of what we did flew in the face of everything He taught us?

How will history judge us? How did my belly get so big?

How, indeed.

Photo credit: shutterstock.com

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

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

Today’s Speaker Vote A Losing Situation For America

Photo credit: speaker.gov

“Today is tomorrow; there are no more tomorrows.” I learned that expression in the Marine Corps many years ago. It reminded us that some days bring us to decisive points in history. In terms of the future of the Republican Party, “Today is tomorrow”; and what a small band of men and women do this morning will determine whether we as a nation can continue to have a true two-Party political system or not.

The stage for this crucial moment in history has been set by the fecklessness of current Speaker John Boehner and his cohorts in leadership positions. Over the past six years, to the great consternation of rank-and-file Republicans, they have moved closer and closer to the Democrat Party’s positions. Not even the historic victory delivering total control of Congress to Republicans has changed the minds and hearts of the Republican leadership.

On the contrary, they have brazenly lied to conservatives and mocked them both behind their back and to their face. Boehner has forced this showdown on us; now we can only watch and pray that God will protect America one more time.

Today’s vote for Speaker can bring us one of three possible outcomes. Only one will signal the continuation of America’s two-Party system of government; the other two will bring either immediate death to the Republican Party or a slow strangulation of the once powerful alternative to socialism.

In the best case, somehow a conservative will be elected Speaker; and the Republican Party will become the true representative of the American people in Washington.

In the second scenario, John Boehner is re-elected; and by outward appearances, nothing will change. Nevertheless, things will change because the support of the rank-and-file will begin a slow and steady decline that will culminate in the death of the Republican Party. While this will not be immediately recognizable, it will manifest in a stunning drop in turnout in 2016.

The final possible result of today’s vote is by far the worst of the three. If John Boehner’s lust for power so blinds him that he will do “anything” to keep it, he could appeal to Nancy Pelosi for Democrat votes to win re-election. Doing that would plunge America into a destructive form of European coalition government. It would deliver Chairmanships to Democrats and would immediately end the Republican Party as a factor in our government.

For America, the Republican Party, and us, today is tomorrow; there are no more tomorrows.

 

Get your free PDF of Coach’s book “Crooks Thugs& Bigots: the lost, hidden and changed history of the Democrat Party.” If you don’t know the truth, all you’ll have are Democrat lies.

Just ask at kcoachc@gmail.com

 

Photo credit: speaker.gov

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

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

Faith-Based Voters And The 2014 Midterm Elections: Is The GOP The Religion Party?

Photo credit: shutterstock.com

National exit polling from Congressional races tells us some interesting things about the role of religious values in the 2014 midterm elections. It also sends a signal to the Republican Party about its supporters now and in the future.

The most obvious piece of information about religious voters is that a majority of them voted for Republican candidates a few weeks ago. Of voters who identified themselves as Protestants, 61 percent voted Republican and 37 percent Democrat. Catholics voted 54 percent Republican, 45 percent Democrat. Conversely, those who identified their religion as “None” voted 69 percent Democrat and 29 percent Republican.

The correlation between religious faith and voting Republican was even more pronounced among certain subgroups. White Protestants voted 72 percent Republican and 26 percent Democrat; white Catholics voted 60 percent Republican and 38 percent Democrat. White voters who identified themselves as evangelical/born-again Christians made up 26 percent of the electorate and voted 78 percent Republican, 20 percent Democrat. It should be noted that voter turnout was abysmal, about 36 percent. This is the lowest turnout since World War II.

The more often the voter attends church, the more likely the voter is to vote Republican. Voters who attend church weekly broke Republican 58 percent to 40 percent; those who attend occasionally leaned 52 percent to 46 percent Republican. Protestants who attend religious services weekly voted Republican 67 percent and Democrat 31 percent. Catholics who celebrate Mass weekly voted Republican 55 percent and Democrat 43 percent. On the other hand, those who never attend church services voted Democrat by a 62 percent to 36 percent margin. The Democratic Party is the home of those with a secular worldview.

The exit polling asked questions on two moral issues: same-sex marriage and abortion. In response to the question, “Should your state recognize same-sex marriage?” 48 percent of voters said yes and 48 percent said no. Among the yes votes, 67 percent were Democrats and 31 percent were Republicans. The no votes strongly tilted Republican, 72 percent to 27 percent. The exit polling confirmed that Democrat voters are at least twice as likely to have a positive opinion on same-sex marriage.

On abortion, exit polls showed that 52 percent of voters thought abortion should be legal. Of these voters, 65 percent were Democrat and 33 percent Republican. Of those voters who said abortion should be illegal, 73 percent were Republicans and 25 percent were Democrats. These results conform to the stated platform positions of the two major parties.

Among this data, given the clear teachings of the Catholic Church against homosexual conduct and abortion, one wonders why the split in the overall Catholic vote only favors Republicans by nine points, 54 percent to 45 percent. One reason is that 2014 voters identified the economy as the most important issue, and that same-sex marriage and abortion played only minor roles in the campaigns. The candidate who tried to make abortion rights a centerpiece of his campaign, Democrat Mark Udall, lost in the Colorado senate campaign to pro-life candidate Cory Gardner. Gardner blunted the “war on women” attack not by speaking out against abortion, but by calling for contraceptives to be available over-the-counter. Gardner’s approach typified an election cycle where Republicans spoke very cautiously about moral issues.

A number of atheists sought political office in 2014; all were Democrats. Daniel Moran lost a race for the Texas House of Representatives, James Woods lost a Congressional race in Arizona, and atheist Juan Mendez won reelection to the Arizona legislature.

In the state of Washington, state senate candidate Mark Miloscia ran as a pro-life Republican after serving as a Democrat state representative for 14 years. Miloscia, a Catholic, was attacked in a Democrat political ad that depicted him wearing a papal mitre, praying the rosary, and taking orders from the Vatican. He won his race by 13 points.

The Democratic Party continues to advocate abortion, same-sex marriage, and secularism. It continues to be the political home of Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, and the Freedom from Religion Foundation. As a result, it continues to push religiously faithful voters to the GOP. Two questions face religious voters going forward:

First, will the GOP maintain social as well as fiscal conservatism so as to give religious voters a lasting home? Substantial numbers of Republicans polled in 2014 favored abortion and same-sex marriage, and the eastern establishment of the party deliberately downplays moral issues. Second, can a Republican Party platform reflecting the traditional views of Christian conservatives attract enough young and independent voters to win elections with a higher turnout than the 2014 mid-term?

 

Brad Tupi is an attorney in Pittsburgh, Pa. He has spoken at Grove City College’s 2008 and 2014 Vision and Values Conference on the subject of Religious Freedom and the First Amendment, and has published in the Grove City Journal of Law and Public Policy.

Photo credit: shutterstock.com

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

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

Obama Announces Immigration Plan, Opponents In Both Parties Cry Foul

Obama - Signing

In a speech the New York Times asserted was defined by “confrontation,” Barack Obama laid out the details of his executive action regarding immigration reform Thursday evening.

In all, his plan would affect at least five million illegals currently living in the U.S. He announced a new program that would qualify the illegal parents of American citizens for deferred deportations while granting them the ability to work freely in this country. These criminals will also receive a Social Security card, reports indicate.

Obama also plans to shield at least one million other illegal immigrants from deportation through his unilateral order.

Leading up to his planned speech, Republican leaders have discussed how best to respond to his expected action. Sen. Ted Cruz, for example, urged GOP legislators to block any nonessential Obama nominee until the program is overturned.

For his part, however, Obama claims what he has presented is completely legal, blaming his political rivals for the necessity of his executive order.

“The actions I’m taking are not only lawful,” he alleged, “they’re the kinds of actions taken by every single Republican president and every Democratic president for the past half century.”

He went on to call out those who oppose his position and liberal use of executive orders.

“To those members of Congress who question my authority to make our immigration system work better or question the wisdom of me acting where Congress has failed, I have one answer: Pass a bill.”

Though Republicans made up the largest united voice of opposition to Obama’s amnesty plan, plenty of Democrats felt it was the wrong move as well.

“I am as frustrated as anyone that Congress is not doing its job,” explained Democrat Sen. Joe Donnelly prior to Obama’s speech, “but the president shouldn’t make such significant policy changes on his own.”

Fellow Democrat Sen. Joe Manchin said he expressed a similar position to a group of White House aides Thursday.

“To put it through now is the wrong thing to do,” he said. “I told them I wasn’t comfortable.”

Republicans as a whole offered an even more scathing indictment of his plan. Conservative firebrand Trey Gowdy blasted the action in a statement released Thursday evening. The South Carolina congressman wrote:

“The thread that holds the tapestry of our country together is respect for and adherence to the rule of law.  The law is our greatest unifier and our greatest equalizer.  Attempts to undermine the law via executive fiat, regardless of motivation, are dangerous.  President Obama may seek a fight with Republicans in Congress, but in reality he is fighting with founders of this republic and the carefully crafted separation of powers.

“Whether previous administrations acted outside of constitutional boundaries is not license to do the same.  The President himself recognized his inability to do what he just did – 22 separate times. This action is not only detrimental to any chance in the new Congress for a sustainable, long-term solution on immigration, but also to the bedrock of our system of government— respect for the rule of law.

“When the executive branch acts outside of constitutional boundaries the legislative branch must use all powers afforded it to respond and restore the constitutional equilibrium.  This is not a Republican or Democrat issue.  Rather, it should hasten the resolve of all Americans to make certain her elected officials honor the foundational document they swore to protect and defend.”

Photo credit: The Speaker (Flickr)

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

Exposed: The Ridiculousness Of The Kumbaya Temptation

Photo credit: 360b / Shutterstock.com

Nov. 4 was a national vote of no confidence in Barack Obama.

Had a British prime minister received a vote like this, he would have resigned by now.

The one issue on which all Republicans agreed, and all ran, was the rejection of Obama. And by fleeing from him, some even refusing to admit they voted for him, Democrats, too, were conceding that this election was about Obama, and that they were not to blame for his failures.

Yet, though this was a referendum on Obama and his policies, and though both were repudiated, some pundits are claiming that America voted for an “end to gridlock” and a new era of compromise and conciliation.

How so? If the American people were truly saying that, why did they vote to turn the Senate over to Mitch McConnell? Why did they vote to send more Republicans to strengthen the hand of John Boehner and those in the House who had “shut down” the government?

Did America vote for the GOP to go back to Washington and work with Obama? Or did America reward the GOP for promising to return and continue to oppose Obama’s policies?

Is the answer not obvious?

What Republicans are hearing now is the siren song of a Beltway elite that just got its clock cleaned, an elite that revels in Republican defeats, but is ever at hand to give guidance and counsel to Republicans when they win.

And that counsel is always the same: Time to put the acrimony behind us. Time to reach out and take the extended hand of the defeated. Time to come together to end gridlock and move forward. And invariably, this means move in the same old direction, if a bit more slowly.

Consider several areas where the kumbaya temptation is strongest.

The first is the rising clamor from Corporate America for the newly empowered Republicans to grant Obama fast track authority and support his Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement.

Fast track would be a unilateral surrender of Congressional authority, yielding all power to amend trade treaties to Obama, and leaving Congress with a yes or no vote on whatever treaty he brings home.

This would be a Republican ratification of the policies of Bush I and II that produced $10 trillion in trade deficits, hollowed out our manufacturing base, and sent abroad the jobs of millions of Reagan Democrats.

Globalization carpet-bombed Middle America and killed the Nixon-Reagan coalition that used to give the GOP 49-state landslides.

Why would Republicans return to that Bush-Clinton-Obama policy that ended the economic independence of Eisenhower’s America?

The party should re-embrace economic patriotism, stand up to Japanese protectionists and Chinese currency manipulators, and put American workers first, ahead of corporate outsourcers.

Immigration reform is a second area where the GOP is being urged, even by some of its own, to compromise. In return for Obama agreeing to improve border security, Republicans will be asked to go along with amnesty for millions here illegally.

But did any Republican run on amnesty? Is the nation demanding amnesty? If not, then who is?

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 WesternJournalism.com.

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