Louis R. Avallone

Category: American Values

  • Cause and Effect

    There’s a lot of debate over gun control these days, especially after the Parkland, Florida murders. And let’s call it “murder” because that’s what it is…yes, it was also “shooting” (as the media prefers to put it), but that doesn’t adequately describe the unjust, cowardly, selfish, and evil act of taking an innocent life.

    Why does the media always characterize these tragedies as mere “shootings?” They did it at the Mandalay Bay concert in Las Vegas last October. They did it at the movie theater in Aurora in 2012, and at the Orlando nightclub in 2016. It was just a “shooting” at Columbine in 1999 (according to the media), as well as when churchgoers were murdered in Charleston in 2015, and then again, just last year, in Sutherland Springs.

    To describe it as a “shooting” glosses over the fact that a person was the ultimate cause of the murder and the “shooting” was merely the end of a chain of decisions that started with that person deciding to murder.

    Those who are calling for Congress and state legislatures to “do something” about gun control are starting with protests and marches. A nationwide school walkout is being organized for March 14, by the same people behind the Women’s March (you know, the one where Madonna said she’s been thinking about blowing up the White House). They’re asking students and faculty members to walk off their school campuses at 10 a.m. for 17 minutes ― one minute for each person killed in the Parkland shooting.

    And then there are the schools across the country who are planning a march on Washington, D.C. with sister marches in other cities also ― to demand more gun control legislation. That’s taking place on March 24. Then on April 20, there will be a “National School Walkout” on the 19th anniversary of the 1999 Columbine High School shooting murders in Colorado.

    From reading the headlines, and the protesters signs, it seems more gun control legislation is the answer. After all, if the “wrong” people in our country had less accessibility to guns, then these shootings murders would decline, and that’s why we just have to “do something,” regardless of whether it actually achieves the intended result.

    But what if the intended result we’re seeking isn’t an elementary, cause-and-effect? What if our accessibility to guns was unrelated to the causation of people murdering one another? For example, did you know that only the United States and Yemen have more guns per capita than Switzerland, and that despite 2 million guns in circulation in Switzerland, guns were used in less than 120 murders over the past 10 years? That means the murder rate is 17 times more in the U.S. than in Switzerland, where there is also wide accessibility to guns.

    What if our murder rate is not a result of a single “cause” (accessibility to guns) but an “accumulation” of factors within a society that increasingly views human life as subjective and revocable? Or that condones and funds abortions, looks the other way on euthanasia, and glorifies violence in movies and video games, while diminishing our ability to empathize with the plight of others, and to choose convenience over preserving and protecting life?

    And just because a person murders “after” acquiring a gun does not always mean they murdered “because” of the gun. That’s like saying where there is punishment, there must have been a crime.

    And look, government cannot “fix” all things for us. Government cannot make us content, make us feel respected or accepted, confer achievement upon us, build our self-esteem or eliminate life’s inevitable ups and downs.

    The bottom line here is that whatever you call it, a “murder” or a “shooting” or whatever, pretending that passing another law will somehow make it all better is precisely what got us here, in the first place.

  • Doesn’t Make Sense

    None of this fits together. None of it. It’s like Mark Twain said, “It’s no wonder that truth is stranger than fiction. Fiction has to make sense.”

    So, here’s the truth: Last month, 183 members of the House of Representatives voted against a bill in Congress that would have imposed penalties on abortion providers who didn’t give medical care to any child who was born alive, after an abortion procedure. These 183 elected officials chose to make the intentional killing of a born-alive child inconsequential, insofar as there are currently no criminal penalties, or even fines, for such an unconscionable, immoral, and brutal act.

    Those 183 men and women opposing this bill (called the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act) would not subject abortionists to even a fine. I mean, if you’re late with a payment to your credit card company, you pay a late fee. If you don’t return your library book on time, you have to pay a reconnection fee. But if you intentionally kill a born-alive child, while in the commission of an abortion, you get to go home for the day, pick-up some dinner, watch some Netflix, AND come back the next day, where you will likely do it all over again, and get paid, too.

    In fact, this happens more often than you may have ever considered. According to the Centers for Disease Control (“CDC”), between 2003 and 2014, 588 infant deaths were reported by abortion clinics with the cause of death being “termination of pregnancy, affecting fetus and newborn.” And that’s just the numbers from the clinics who reported these killings at all. After all, as doctor for Planned Parenthood explained, reporting born-alive, infant deaths depends on “who’s in the room” when the baby is born, and who will keep silent about it all.

    But you remember Planned Parenthood, right? Back when they admitted that babies born alive, after an abortion procedure, were sometimes being killed, and then sold to medical research firms? You remember when Planned Parenthood’s medical directors admitted to Congress that their abortionists were sometimes altering their abortion procedures, just to increase the likelihood of a live birth, because intact babies can be sold for even more money than if they weren’t?

    But whether the CDC’s numbers are understated or not – if there’s 1 child lost, that’s too many. The fact that 183 members of the House of Representatives voted to allow this conduct, without even so much as imposing a fine to be paid is gut-wrenching.

    Nevermind that all 183 opposition votes were Democrats. They are children of God, nevertheless. They are the same ones that ran for Congress and stopped by one afternoon to wedge their campaign flyer into your front door. They had the slick websites which showed them kissing babies, craving apple pie, and posing for idyllic portraits with their family, all to say, “You can trust me.”

    But who among those 183 Democrats would possibly try to justify the killing of a born-alive child? Or would even tell their children that you shouldn’t try and help someone when they are in need?
    It’s not clear whether such a bill will advance in the Senate. It would likely require at least 60 votes to break a filibuster there. President Donald Trump has already praised House Republicans for passing the bill, saying “I call upon the Senate to pass this important law and send it to my desk for signing.”

    You see, being pro-life is more than being anti-abortion. It’s not just supporting a political candidate who shares your views. Being pro-life means we are advocates for life because there is greatness within each of us, and we are created in the image of God.

    But when we stop protecting the weak and the vulnerable, we’re extinguishing them – instead of caring for the least among us all.

  • Skin Deep

    In his 1957 speech entitled, “Give Us The Ballot,” Martin Luther King, Jr. did not advocate for the right to vote simply because he wanted to see more black people in office. No, not at all. He wanted more than that – he wanted to be able to choose men “of good will” who would “do justly and love mercy.” He wanted to be able to select men and women based on their character, and who exhibited “strong, moral, and courageous leadership.”

    Even after 60 years, it’s timeless advice that still rings true today.

    And yet, the voters in Shreveport will still spend most of this glorious new year talking about the skin color of their mayoral candidates in their upcoming election this fall. They’ll talk about why this color candidate or that color candidate can’t win, shouldn’t win, and ought not even try.

    Before considering the content of a candidate’s character, or deciding which candidate is best suited to lead our city, most Shreveporters will look first to the color of the candidate’s skin, instead. Although this may not be shocking to you, it’s just not right.

    I mean, you’ve overheard the conversations about how a white candidate cannot possibly be elected Mayor of Shreveport. It’s the “city’s demographics,” they say, and about how black candidates will be universally supported by the lion’s share of black voters anyway. Whomever is mayor, according to these folks, won’t need much support from white voters, at all, to get elected into office.

    But is it just me? Isn’t it immoral to disqualify a candidate based on the color of their skin? I mean, it’s 2018, for goodness’ sake. Instead of finding common ground, learning from one another and coming together, we’re still dividing ourselves in the most uncivilized, elementary, and ignorant way – by our skin color.

    In essence, we’re discouraging candidates, however qualified they may be, from running for Mayor – based simply on the color of their skin. Aren’t there countless, real reasons that ought to disqualify candidates, instead? Like are they decisive or wishy-washy? Do they get the right things done, or do they just make a lot of noise? Do they follow-thru on their commitments, or is it just all hot air?

    But if all you need to know is only skin deep, why bother talking about any of this?

    Why ask if a candidate has the attention span or the dogged determination needed to concentrate on the details (and not just the “big picture”) of the large-scale changes needed so desperately in city government?

    Why bother to find out if the candidates are persistent enough to see those changes through to completion, even in the face of great opposition? Are they transparent in their dealings? Are they capable of gaining a detailed understanding of their elected position, and how it works? Will they act prudently for the long-term needs of our citizens, or will they choose short-term popularity, instead?

    If all you see is the color of my skin, none of that really matters to you.

    And while that is not to say most black Americans think alike – they have voted alike, historically. For example, blacks have backed Democrat candidates almost 90% of the time since 1980. And this is why most folks, from the coffee shop to the barbershop, say white candidates for mayor simply “need not apply.”

    There’s a University of Chicago professor, Michael Dawson, who thinks he understands why, though. In his book, Behind the Mule: Race and Class in African-American Politics, he calls it “black utility heuristic” and it’s basically how, when you belong to a group, you often feel your individual prospects for success are ultimately tied to the success of your group.

    This is referred to as “linked fate” and you can see this principle at work in your family, your company, your church, etc. Linked fate is also one of the reasons why 2 out 3 black Americans, according to a Pew Research Survey, see their black community as a single group (or a monolithic voting bloc), even though political views among blacks are as diverse as any other group.

    While we’re all in this together, how can we be sure we’re choosing men “of good will” (in the words of Martin Luther King, Jr.), if we’re sorting them first by race?

  • Good Grief, Charlie Brown!

    Good Grief, Charlie Brown!

    In December 1965, nearly 15 million viewers, or one-half of the television viewing audience, tuned in to watch “A Charlie Brown Christmas.” It has become the longest-running cartoon special in history, but it almost was canceled before it ever was aired. You see, the CBS network executives were less than impressed. Aside from the technical criticisms, resulting from a rushed production schedule, the executives did not want to have Linus reciting the story of the birth of Christ from the Gospel of Luke. It was thought that viewers would not want to be preached upon by an animated cartoon, especially from biblical passages. Obviously, after 50 years of airing every Christmas, receiving an Emmy and a Peabody award, those CBS executives got it wrong.

    “There will always be an audience for innocence in this country,” said Charlie Brown’s creator, Charles Schulz. Nonetheless, the religious celebration of Christmas continues to face trivialization by an increasingly vocal and secular strain of society today.

    Retailers have tried calling Christmas trees “holiday” or “family” trees. They’ve pressed on with “Happy Holidays,” even though almost 70 percent of Americans prefer the greeting, “Merry Christmas.” Advertisers have pushed out “Christ” from Christmas and pushed on with “X-Mas.”

    Last year, a group calling themselves “American Atheists” purchased billboards that proclaimed, “Go ahead and skip church! Just be good for goodness’ sake. Happy holidays!” Another activist group spent big bucks to purchase a billboard advertisement in New York City’s Times Square – a 40-by-40 image that asks, “Who needs Christ?” and answers that question with “Nobody.” The Christmas before that, there was yet another Times Square billboard that urged viewers to “Keep the Merry. Dump the Myth,” with an image of Christ beneath a photo of Santa Claus.

    And just last month, the Transit Authority in Washington, D.C., rejected an advertisement on their buses and subway cars that simply urged Christians to “find the perfect gift” with the image of the Three Wise Men. The ad was rejected because it “depicts a religious scene and, thus, seeks to promote religion.” Really?

    Yes, really. So what is it about Christ, or Christmas, that is so offensive?

    It’s not about Christmas at all – it’s Christ that’s the issue. While many might deny the existence of God, it’s much more difficult to deny Jesus, for whom we have historical evidence of his existence, even from secular sources that are outside of the Bible. Still, the life of Jesus is so powerful, and His words so meaningful, that even atheists cannot seem to get Him out of their minds. They must find it helpful to mock the religious beliefs of Christians everywhere with their billboards, even as they encourage non-Christians to do the same.

    The year before was the deadliest, worst year for Christian persecution than any other time in modern history – over 7,000 were killed. Additionally, over 2,400 churches were attacked, damaged or destroyed last year, which is more than double the number from the year before that. Church shootings happen often enough that there is even a church-shooting database. We’ve seen church bombings in Egypt, Pakistan and across the globe.

    North Korea remains the most dangerous place to be a Christian (for 14 straight years), and Islamic extremism remains the global dominant driver of persecution, responsible for initiating oppression and conflict in 35 out of the 50 countries on the 2017 list.

    And while it is true in America that 96 percent of Americans celebrate Christmas, only 51 percent consider it a “religious” holiday – and that number is declining. That means the odds are pretty good that, when you are out Christmas shopping, the person ahead of you in line, or the person behind you, probably doesn’t consider Christ’s birth as the significant “reason for the season.”

    They may not realize either that buying more and more expensive gifts or all that “stuff” we buy at Christmas doesn’t mean we “care” more about our family or friends, especially when the teachings of Christ can demonstrate that love so much more than buying another gizmo or gadget. In fact, the person in line with you may not know the life of Christ very well at all, or his teachings of tolerance and respect for one another and the goodness of life. Or of gratitude and humility.

    So, while Charlie Brown first asked the question in 1965 on national television, “Isn’t there anyone who knows what Christmas is all about?” the answer has been the same for over 2,000 years – it’s Christ. And for crying out loud, we ought to put that up on a billboard, too.

    Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

  • Perfect Candidates

    Perfect Candidates

    There’s the U.S. Senate race in Alabama where the Republican candidate is being pressured to drop out of the race due to allegations of sexual misconduct from 40 years ago. Then there’s the sitting U.S. Senator Bob Menendez, in New Jersey, who has just been on trial for eight counts of bribery, three counts of fraud, one count of conspiracy, one count of making false statements, and one count of violating the Travel Act.

    How about Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky? Or former Louisiana Congressman Bill Jefferson who stashed $90,000 in cash, in his freezer, that he intended to use as a foreign bribe? What about former New York Congressman Anthony Weiner couldn’t stop sending lewd photos to women on Twitter? And did President Obama tell the truth when he said, “If you want to keep your doctor, you can keep your doctor?”

    Then there were the Democrats in 1960 who may have manipulated the votes in Cook County enough to let John F. Kennedy beat Richard Nixon. Remember when President George H.W. Bush’s ended up not fulfilling his promise of, “Read my lips, no new taxes?” And of course, there was Hillary Clinton, who only forked out $10 million to control the votes of the largest political party in our country.

    And at a time where our country needs only our best and brightest in our elected offices, what sane person would deliberately choose to get involved in politics, and associate themselves with all of this mess? After all, don’t birds of a feather, flock together?

    I mean, if you’ve lived a life that’s been on the straight and narrow, why would you subject yourself – and your family, your business, your job, your very livelihood – to associate yourself with such a crowd, and possibly a litany of fabricated accusations from political rivals who have a “scorched earth” philosophy when it comes to winning?

    If you’re wondering the same, you’re not alone. In fact, a recent study of 18-29 year olds by Harvard University showed not only are young people disgusted with politics, and are skeptical of its usefulness to make meaningful change, but there is also now a reluctance of good candidates to run for public office.

    So, from where will the next generation of public servants be inspired to serve our communities, when only 1 in 3 believe running for public office is honorable?

    That’s hard to say. We have fewer engaged voters today, than ever before, and this will eventually reduce the pool of talented candidates to a handful of those barely worth keeping in office at all. But our country must also decide if convicting candidates and elected officials in social media or otherwise via the Internet, regardless of the veracity of the charges alleged, is what’s best for our country.

    Sometimes, does it feel that we are simply castigating one politician, whose sins are known, for another politician, whose sins we simply haven’t discovered yet?

    Now, please understand, I’m the first one in line to expect a higher standard from myself, as well as from those whom we cast our ballots to lead our cities, represent us in Baton Rouge, and make our nation’s laws in Washington. But having high standards, and electing less-than-perfect public servants are not necessarily mutually exclusive, either.

    I mean, do we all need to be defined by where we came from, or should it be about where we’re going? Unless you allow it to, why does your future need to look like your past?

    So, yes, it’s important to hold folks accountable, whether it’s a high crime or moral transgression – but there’s no man or woman who is without a defect, or burden. A more accurate indicator of someone’s future should be present moment, and what they are doing right now.

    Searching for a perfect public servant may be expecting something that never was – and never will be. And unless our country decides differently, the folks willing to run for office and put up with that expectation, will go find something else – more honorable to do.

  • Don’t Bet Against Us

    Don’t Bet Against Us

    Last August 1, 2016 – just days after the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia – I wrote a column right here about Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee. Hillary was finally the Democratic Party’s nominee, but none of it made sense.

    For starters, I wrote about how in-the-world could 68% of Americans believe that Hillary Clinton is not honest and trustworthy – which was an all-time worst in her political career – yet the Democratic Party still nominated her as their candidate for President of the United States?

    To put that into perspective, consider that even a CNN poll – before the election – found only about 1 out of 3 Americans would have felt “proud” to have her as President. In fact, Hillary’s approval rating today is even lower than Donald Trump’s – and that’s with unprecedented media bias against Trump, according to a national Quinnipiac University poll.

    Even after Hillary was the nominee, almost one-half of Democratic primary voters still wished Bernie Sanders was the Party’s nominee. So how did Hillary still manage to “pull a rabbit out of the hat” and win the nomination?

    It just didn’t make sense – at least not to honest people – as to why Hillary would immediately hire the former (and disgraced) chair of the Democratic Party, Debbie Wasserman Schultz last summer, even after 19,000 hacked emails were uncovered, showing that the Democratic Party (through Debbie) had favored Hillary all during the primary season, and virtually sabotaged Bernie’s presidential ambitions completely.

    In fact, Debbie Wasserman Schultz even relayed questions ahead of debates to Hillary during the Democratic primary.

    None of this made any sense, at all. Until now.

    And a few days ago we learned exactly the reason why – Hillary Clinton “bought” the Democratic Party for $10 million, long before she ever won the nomination.  

    Here’s how it happened, according to Donna Brazile, the former interim chair of the Democratic Party: You see, the Democratic Party was $24 million dollars in debt after the 2012 election, and President Obama was raising money too slowly to keep up with the Party’s financial obligations. And by 2015, the Party was spending almost $4 million per month.

    And that’s where Hillary Clinton stepped in. She offered to pay off that remaining debt, but it would come with strings attached, including control of how the Party spent its money going forward. Additionally, Hillary would use the Party as cover for skirting around campaign finance laws because now donors could contribute the maximum to her campaign directly, and then to the Democratic Party, which in turn would be funneled back to Hillary’s campaign.

    She then concocted the same scheme with each of the state Democratic parties, whereby she would send them the donors and they would send her back the cash.

    Ridiculous. But even though this was well hidden from the American people last year at this time, the American people still got it right. They knew that often “where there’s smoke, there’s fire” and there has been a lot of smoke when it comes to Hillary – almost 30 years of it.

    From the Benghazi murders to the FBI investigation of her handling of classified information – to the millions of dollars donated by foreign governments to the Clinton Foundation, and the lack of transparency in how those dollars were spent, not to mention the rigged Party nomination process, the American people knew something was wrong, even as the delegates on the floor of the Democratic national convention last summer were chanting, “I’m with Hillary!”

    You see, the American people got it right. Just like Warren Buffet once said, “It’s never paid to bet against America” and to the chagrin of liberals everywhere, Donald Trump is living proof of it.

  • Kept Equal

    Kept Equal

    Think about it: There’s not a single day that passes where the headlines don’t include a story of growing racial tensions, such as the removal of civil war monuments. Or the NFL players protesting during the singing of the National Anthem. Or reporters and Hollywood-types calling out President Trump (and all of his supporters) as racists and bigots. You could go on and on, with example after example.

    Many had hoped that the 2008 election of the nation’s first black president would improve race relations, especially among black voters – but it didn’t. Today, nearly 3 out of 4 Americans say race relations in this country are bad. Compared to 2008, this this number has more than tripled.

    For some, this uncomfortableness in our country is what what we need right now, if we are going to achieve meaningful change – especially if you listen to San Antonio Spurs coach, Gregg Popavich. Just last month he said, “There has to be an uncomfortable element in the discourse for anything to change…People have to be made to feel uncomfortable. And especially white people, because we’re comfortable.”

    But are white people really “comfortable?” Then why would whites commit suicide at twice the rate of blacks? And why do white men, who are presented as the most privileged of all in America, commit 70% of all suicides and yet they represent only 30% of our population? Whatever the reasons, clearly more whites than blacks consider life not worth living.

    From protest to protest, though, it’s inequality of outcomes at the heart of our racial tensions. Unequal justice in our courts. Unequal education. Unequal pay. Unequal footing.

    But is inequality of outcomes inherently wrong? If you are a Christian, or otherwise religious, you may remember Jesus’ “Parable of the Talents” in Matthew 25. In this parable, each of the workers was given money to manage, “according to their abilities,” and as the parable unfolds, the results were different for each of them. So, if Jesus recognizes that we all have different abilities, and therefore we will all have unequal outcomes, then are we trying to make equality of outcomes into what it never was, and never will be?

    Consider this: During the 19th century, and especially after the Civil War, equality meant everyone should have the same opportunity to make what he or she could of his or her capacities, regardless of race, religion, belief, or social class. But later, into the 20th century, this changed.

    Equality became more about the idea that we should all be equal in terms of income or living standard. In other words, more and more folks began thinking that life should be arranged so everybody will end at the finish line at the same time, instead of just making sure everyone begins at the starting line at the same time.

    But can we remain a free people if we guarantee equal outcomes? I mean, if we are all going to end up at the finish line at the same time, some people will need to be held back after the race starts, because no two of us are the same, and this raises a very serious problem for freedom. Most times, whenever societies have put equality before freedom, they end up with neither, and yet “equal outcomes” seems to be the objective of the racial discord in our country.

    Some of you may not be convinced that we can’t end up at the finish line, all at the same time, and still remain a free people. But think about this: Would you take much pleasure in watching sporting events if the players were not among the best in the world? Or would you enjoy movies as much if they didn’t cast the very best actors?

    Of course not. That’s the same reason why there’s no equal opportunity for me to play guard alongside LeBron James with Cleveland Cavaliers, or co-star alongside Harrison Ford in his next movie. The fact is, life is not fair, and I’m okay with that because I’d rather it be free, than fair.

    You only need to look at societies like China and Russia, where equality of outcomes has been their basic goal, and you’ll see the tyranny foisted upon their people, in the absence of putting freedom above all else.

    If liberty is embodied in the creed, “all men are created equal,” does that likewise mean that we shall all be kept equal, as well?

  • Shame on You

    Shame on You

    A recent survey found that more than 96% of women feel guilty at least once a day, and almost half of them experience guilt up to 4 times a day. If you are a woman, you know exactly what that’s like. Culturally, women are encouraged to empathize, or otherwise take the perspective of the other, so much more than men. Susan Carrell, author of Escaping Toxic Guilt, says, “Women feel guilt when they don’t think they are being good enough in their various roles – especially as wife, mother and daughter.”

    Psychologist Benjamin Voyer explains, “Guilt is what psychologists call an ‘other-focused emotion’ – that is an emotion that involves thinking about others,” and it’s typically a female trait. Maybe it’s balancing life as a working mom, or eating chocolate, or spending too much money – whatever it is, women are likely storing up guilt everyday like a last-minute squirrel collecting nuts before the first snowfall of winter.

    So what do women do with all this guilt? They make up for their actions in some way to repair whatever “mistake” that made them feel so guilty in the first place.

    They may overcompensate by spending more time with their children (and less at work), or eating more carrots (instead of chocolate), or clipping every coupon (instead of spending). Or, they vote Democrat (instead of Republican) during the 2018 mid-term elections. Really?

    Yes. And if the Democrats’ tactics start to work, the same women who supported Trump in 2016 won’t be voting for anyone who even resembles Trump in the 2018 mid-term elections.

    Not out of being an informed voter, but out of being shamed.

    Within just the last 30 days, the Democrats have stepped up their offensive on women who voted for Trump. First, Hillary Clinton said women who support Trump are “publicly disrespecting themselves.”

    Then former first lady Michelle Obama added, “Any woman who voted against Hillary Clinton voted against their own voice,” and not only do these women dislike themselves, but she said women voted for Trump because “they only like the things they were told to like.”

    And if that wasn’t enough, even Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg chimed in and said yes, sexism was a “major, major factor” in Hillary Clinton’s loss to Donald Trump last November.

    And then came along tennis icon Billie Jean King who slammed a whole group of women because of their skin color and said, “I’m upset with the white women that voted for Mr. Trump. I think they really don’t like themselves…”

    Look, none of these attacks on women are coincidental. I believe it is part of a concerted strategy for the 2018 mid-term elections. It started in January, when Democratic women in Congress wore white during President Trump’s first major Congressional address. White was chosen because it is the historical color of the suffrage movement, but also because it “shows we don’t want to go back” or roll back women’s rights, said Representative Lois Frankel, at the time.

    Roll back women’s rights? How about starting with not shaming women for the free exercise of their right to vote? Seriously.

    But Democrats have lied to women for years. Remember in 2010 when the Democrat Party warned everyone of the impending Republican “war on women?” They predicted how Republicans were bent on restricting women’s rights, from reproductive rights to protecting women from violence to making it easier to discriminate against women in the workplace. 

    Well, Democrats lost that argument in the 2010 elections – by a landslide – it was all fake news. But that’s not stopping them now from pivoting that war on women and shaming women for what they have done to themselves by voting for Trump.

    What they have done to themselves? Really? What about what was done to women during 8 years of the Obama administration? The poverty rate among women is at a 20-year high. The labor force participation rate of women is now the lowest in more than 25 years. More women today are out of the labor force and not collecting a paycheck.

    Actually, under the Democrat’s watch, 3.7 million more women fell into poverty, and the median annual wages for women dropped. And to add insult to injury, 92.3% of the jobs lost during Mr. Obama’s first term were lost by women.

    And now Democrats want to add to the guilt so many women are carrying around by shaming them as subservient, non-thinking, self-loathing, “do-as-I’m told” voters, all because they didn’t support the Democrat candidate?

    No, it’s Democrats who should be ashamed of themselves. The women who supported Trump aren’t guilty of anything – other than the good sense to know the difference.

  • The Power of Taking a Stand

    The Power of Taking a Stand

    Are you a people-pleaser? If you’re not, I bet you know one.

    You know the person I am talking about, right?

    That person in almost everyone’s life who tries to make sure that everyone is happy – or that no one is disappointed. It’s the person in your life that intervenes whenever something is wrong, and tries to make peace wherever there is conflict.

    And we tend to vote for “people-pleasers,” too. Our government is filled with them. These are the candidates that promise everything to everyone.

    And while we may differ significantly on our opinion of President Trump (pick any subject), virtually every Presidential tracking poll confirms he is not a “people-pleaser,” at least when it comes to his job approval rating by most Americans. Nearly 54% of Americans “disapprove” of Trump’s job performance as President, and the polling shows it’s because he’s taken a stand on so many politically incorrect issues.

    For clarification, though, what does it really mean to take a stand? It means that one must take a firm position on an issue. For example, the demonstrators in Tiananmen Square who protested for greater freedom in China, or Martin Luther King, Jr. who sought to end racial discrimination and segregation in our country.

    Well, President Trump has definitely taken a stand on the issues, and it’s making a difference.

    He took a stand against illegal immigration, and within 60 days after he was inaugurated, the number of people apprehended while crossing from Mexico fell to its lowest level in 17 years (according to Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly).

    He took a stand for “America first” and that he would create good jobs for American workers, and the jobless rate is now the lowest since 2001. In fact, our country is almost at full employment today (the best in 16 years), according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

    He took a stand that he wanted lower tax rates for Americans in every tax bracket, and to simplify the tax code for businesses, and now the stock market has hit record highs. In fact, the market has hit new closing highs 23 times during during the Trump administration.

    He took a stand to defeat radical Islamic terrorism, and now ISIS has suffered severe losses recently, including the recapture of the Iraqi city of Mosul by Iraqi government forces, plus the U.S. led coalition forces have now regained close to a third of the territory previously controlled by ISIS in Syria.

    Trump also took a stand against wasteful government spending, explaining in his inaugural address that the days of “reap[ing] the rewards of government” were over. And today, regulatory costs imposed on Americans has been reduced by $70 billion.

    The bottom-line to all of this is that sometimes in life you just have to take a stand and say “no.” “No” to continued deficit spending by the federal government, “no” to government-run health care, “no” to higher and higher taxes, “no” to the redistribution of wealth by the government, etc.

    Taking a stand may be hard for people-pleasers. Or the optimists who see the glass as half-full and that every cloud has a silver lining. I get it.

    But I figure it like Martin Luther King, Jr. put it: “Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about the things that matter.” And whether that’s immigration policy, or an election, or deciding whether your town will build a multi-million dollar sports arena, it all matters. After all, as they say, if you don’t stand for something or you’ll fall for anything.

  • Dear Shreveport…

    Dear Shreveport…

    Dear Shreveport,

    I know you have been through some really tough stuff. The drop in oil prices in the 1980s, the bankruptcies and foreclosures – you have really never been the same since then. The 7,500 jobs lost at the Western Electric plant – that was a rough patch, too, I know. I mean, so many good people have left you behind for greener pastures, and after 40 years, some just never came back.

    I was happy to hear the news, though, about your discovering the Haynesville Shale in 2008, and just couldn’t believe when the drop in oil prices came so fast, and caused so many rigs (and jobs) to leave for other states. Then you had to cope with the GM Plant closing in 2012. I was so sorry to hear about those thousands of jobs disappearing – good paying ones, too, I know. And even though you knew it was coming, you’re really never prepared for something like that.

    But enough of all that talk…it’s important to remember the good times, too, right? Like when the census came out in 1970 and it showed no growth in population? That’s when you came up with a plan to develop an interstate highway from Shreveport to south Louisiana (I-49), and to complete the Inner Loop, and get graduate courses at LSUS – and population did grow.

    But before that, in the late 1960s, remember how you would go down to Baton Rouge to meet with Governor John McKeithen, over and over? That’s how LSU-Shreveport and Southern University got started here, and most importantly, that’s how you got the medical school started. And none of that would have happened without you believing in you.

    Now, I know you are probably feeling hurt, angry, frustrated, or shut down with how everything is around you today. Maybe there’s not much that could make you feel better at this point. But I know this: you have to start treating yourself better, like the best Shreveport you’ve ever been.

    And from what you’ve been saying about yourself recently, it makes me very sad.

    Ever since this Pelican’s “G-League” proposal has been out there, you’ve let everyone know how much you stink.

    You’ve posted on social media about how “the people that sit on the selection committee have sense not to select such a crime ridden city for any new ball team” and that you’ve “never fully understood what creates a successful venue.” And then you posted, “Get out now, folks. It ain’t gonna get better in Shreveport!”

    Look, you can’t keep talking to yourself this way. I don’t know if this Pelican’s “G-League” is a good idea or not, but this stinking thinking has to stop. All that stinking thinking does is make you feel defeated, discouraged, and depressed. Haven’t you ever heard that you are what you think about?

    Instead of all this negative talk, how about asking, “What can I do differently this time, to make sure I don’t mess up again?” Yes, over the last 20 years, seven semi-professional teams tried to make Shreveport-Bossier their home. But again, the question is not how horrible you think you are or unworthy. The question is, “Can it be done differently, this time, to get a better result?”

    Perhaps this just isn’t the right time for you to do this basketball deal. That’s okay, but that’s no reason for you to bad mouth yourself to the world. How you speak to yourself is important. The Bible tells us this also, “For as he thinks in his heart, so is he.” (Proverbs 23:7).

    And I do think some of it is the people you are hanging around. You keep letting people lead you around every 4 years or so who don’t have a plan, and it has to stop. They may intend to do good, but if intentions are all that were needed to be successful, or to stop smoking or to lose weight, then we’d all be a lot happier and healthier.

    You had a plan of action back when you were going to Baton Rouge and meeting with Governor McKeithen in the late 1960s. And you had a plan when you wanted to build I-49 and make the Red River navigable in the 1970s, and attracted General Motors.

    You have been at your best when you’ve had a game plan, and players on your team who could execute the strategy. Right now, you simply don’t believe you can win.

    For too many years, I know you feel like you have been living in the shadow of your more successful brother in Dallas, and that you’re not as fun and pretty as your sister, south Louisiana, but it doesn’t have to be that way, Shreveport.

    I know there is greatness within you, and you should remind yourself of the same, because it’s time to change not only how you talk to yourself, but the way you look and your so-called friends, because you’ll never become what you need to be by remaining what you are.