Louis R. Avallone

Category: Healthcare

  • 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.

  • 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?

  • Seeing the Trees for the Forest

    Seeing the Trees for the Forest

    You’ve heard the saying, “Don’t miss the forest for the trees,” right? That’s when someone is trying to make the point that you shouldn’t get so caught up in the small details that you fail to understand the bigger picture. Well, in the case of this whole healthcare debacle in our country, and the shenanigans in Congress, the “bigger picture” doesn’t mean a darn thing here without getting caught up in small details, and here’s what I mean:

    I know that many think that anyone proposing the repeal of Obamacare is a heartless so-and-so, or an insensitive you-know-what. But Obamacare is already repealed – for all intents and purposes – because it’s collapsing under its own weight.

    With or without any political party approval or bipartisan support, irrespective of the mainstream media’s stance, and regardless of how many protests are organized, or members of Congress vocally express their distaste for President Trump – Obamacare care is repealing itself.

    The average health insurance premium on the individual market has soared by a staggering 75 percent – just in the past four years. 31 million Americans can’t afford the deductibles because of these rising costs, and have flat-out stopped paying the premiums. We were supposed to have saved $2,500 per year if Obamacare became law, but premium costs today are $2,000 more today than they were just in 2013, and double-digit premium increases are expected in 2018.

    The reason for this is that health insurers lost over $2 billion dollars in 2016 and rather than expand coverage, these same insurers are pulling out of the exchanges set-up by Obamacare, altogether (and just so you know, two-thirds of the exchanges have already gone out of business, too). Ironically, the exchanges were set-up so people could “shop” for insurance plans, often with the help of government subsidies.

    But for 1 out of 3 Americans today, there is no “shopping” for insurance plans, unless your idea of shopping is like when Henry Ford famously told his customers they could have any color they wanted, as long as it was black. You see, with so many health insurers leaving the marketplace, too many of us have only one choice of an insurer under Obamacare – and that means we have essentially no choice, at all.

    If you’re wondering if it could get any worse, the answer is yes. The number of insurers applying to serve the federal marketplace has dropped 38% for 2018, and it’s now reported by the Kaiser Family Foundation that just over 25,000 people in Ohio, Indiana and Nevada are at risk of having no options in the exchanges next year.

    To add even more confusion, we’re told that repealing Obamacare now will result in nearly 32 million uninsured in this country, but the Associated Press reports only around 10 million Americans are paying any Obamacare premiums, whatsoever.

    But, some will interrupt here to say: Isn’t some increase in the number of Americans with health insurance better than “nothing” at all? And, even though “Obamacare” is not perfect, isn’t it better now because you can’t be denied coverage for any reason, or be charged more based on your health status or gender, or be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions?

    Yes, theoretically, yes.

    But if 31 million Americans can’t afford the deductibles because of rising costs, and millions of others have flat-out stopped paying the premiums for the very insurance policies intended to afford them healthcare coverage, then hasn’t the care and comfort of the least among us only worsened? And all under the pretense that something is better than nothing?

    You see now why sometimes it’s better to see the trees, instead of the forest? Getting caught up in the details is not something that Congress has done in a very long time. And that explains a whole lot, doesn’t it?

  • Basic American Values

    Basic American Values

    By now, you know that Louisiana Congressman Steve Scalise was wounded, along with two Capitol Police officers, a congressional staffer, and a lobbyist, after a shooter opened fire at a congressional baseball practice in Alexandria, Virginia. The shooter’s motive is thought to be related to his expressed grievances online about President Donald Trump and Republicans. Our prayers continue for a speedy recovery of all that were injured during the shooting.

    Unfortunately, this has all tragically happened before, though.

    You know – a member of Congress being shot.

    Remember in 2011, there was Rep. Gabby Giffords, who was shot in the head during a shooting rampage at a public event outside a grocery store in Tucson. Six people were killed, and 13 wounded, including Giffords.

    In 1968, New York Senator Robert F. Kennedy was shot and killed by Sirhan Sirhan in Los Angeles, moments after declaring victory in the California Democratic presidential primary. Five other people were injured in the shooting.

    Then there was Louisiana Senator Huey Long in 1935, who died in Baton Rouge after being shot in the Louisiana state Capitol, allegedly by Dr. Carl Weiss.

    These are all isolated examples, in the long history of the world, that acts of violence will always be with us, however random or nonsensical they may seem. Violence, actually, is an expression of the need for survival in all living things.

    Perhaps liberals feel their existence is being threatened into extinction after last year’s elections.

    Maybe that is why Hillary Clinton’s former running mate Tim Kaine called for Democrats to “fight in the streets against Trump.” Or that the New York Times is currently sponsoring a play that features the assassination of President Trump. Perhaps the “need for survival” is why former CNN host Kathy Griffin posed for an ISIS-inspired photo holding Trump’s decapitated head.

    But is violence the only way to survive? For some, it obviously is.

    Is that why Madonna told the Women’s March on Washington, the day after the inauguration in January, that she fantasized about blowing up the White House. Is survival the reason that Snoop Dogg references assassinating President Trump in music video?

    If so, then this may explain why so many of our fellow Americans tweeted thousands of messages like this one, after the shootings: “Will the @SenateGOP reflect on today’s shooting and invite the Dems into the political process that’ll shape our healthcare system? Doubt it.”

    Others justified the shooting by tweeting, “The shooting today today is horrible but what the GOP is trying to do to Americans with health care is also horrible.”

    So if violence has always been with us, and will always be with us, why does violence feel so much more likely to happen today, in places where we least expect it, for doing nothing more than expressing our opinion on the issues? Whether it’s a bumper sticker on your car, or wearing a t-shirt, or sticking a campaign sign in your yard?

    Maybe it’s because our basic American values now seem so diluted in our culture. There seems to be less empathy and optimism, and more uncertainty and indecisiveness.

    There’s less congruency between how we want others to see us, with how we actually are. Our faith in God has declined, and there’s less a sense of community, or belonging, than ever before.

    There’s an interesting study that looked into the shift of our basic American values. The study analyzed the values expressed on the most popular television shows, from 1967 to 2007, namely: Andy Griffith, The Lucy Show, Laverne and Shirley, Happy Days; Growing Pains, Alf, Sabrina the Teenage Witch, Boy Meets World, American Idol, and Hannah Montana.

    For these television shows, the most expressed values were community feeling, benevolence, tradition, and popularity. The least expressed values included fame, physical fitness, and financial success.

    In the last decade, though, those values expressed have flipped – from top to bottom. The new top values expressed include: fame, achievement, popularity, and financial success (with self-centered, attention getting, comparison to others, and power, all following close behind). It seems we’ve become more narcissistic than ever before.

    So, is this why the recent shootings feel like so different? Like it may be a sign of things to come – unless we can return to the basic American values that made America great?

    If being self-centered or attention-getting are the values that are growing in our country, then such acts of violence will surely continue, and the number of Americans justifying such horrific crimes will only grow, as well. Too many people place blame on others today – but not themselves – for everything that isn’t right in their life, whether it’s shooting at a police officer, or blocking city streets in protest, or setting a neighborhood on fire and looting.

    Have we become so enamored with ourselves, or self-absorbed in what we think, that common sense and decency has evaporated? And that lying, cheating, or hurting others doesn’t seems so out of place, as long as the ends justify the means?

    Well, call me old-fashioned, but maybe it’s time to turn Laverne and Shirley back on.

  • What Took You So Long?

    What Took You So Long?

    Psychologists call it “confirmation bias,” which is the tendency to search for, or otherwise interpret information in a way that confirms what you already believe, regardless of the facts. You may call it “rationalizing.” Others may call it “missing the forest for the trees.” I call it “denial,” and as the saying goes, denial is not just a river in Egypt.

    But do we really prefer illusion, to the truth? Many do. The truth hurts, after all, and even when we hear the truth, our defenses seemingly kick in to keep the illusion alive – and the pain away.

    So, is this why as many as 1 million women showed up in marches across the country, with not just one grievance, but many? Was the truth of the past 8 years exposed with the inauguration of President Trump, and the protests an attempt to keep the illusion alive – and the pain away?

    Some marched for equal rights for women and against sexism. For minority groups and against racism. For better jobs and higher pay. For environmental responsibility and against global warming. For peace and to end all wars.

    Yes, the conventional wisdom is that these millions of women were expressing their discontent over the election of President Trump. But discontent over what, exactly? He had only been sworn in as President for less than 24 hours before the protests began. And after all, tens of millions of women had voted for him in November. In fact, many say it was women voters in Ohio, Wisconsin, and Michigan that gave President Trump the votes he needed to win the White House.

    So, what’s really going on here? I’ll tell you: we prefer illusion to truth, and the bottom line is that these women have been lied to, especially about the consequences of voting for politicians who care more about feelings than they do about thoughts and ideas. Or so-called “leaders” who are more interested in their own well-being, than in ours.

    Instead of promised good jobs for the jobless over the past 8 years, these women see 94 million Americans not even working now – the highest ever in our country’s history. In fact, by the end of 2016, the number of those filing for unemployment benefits was at its highest in more than a year.

    Instead of improving access to healthcare over the past 8 years, and making it more affordable, these women see that there are just 3 percent more Americans with health insurance today, and that the number is dropping every day. They see how many Americans simply can’t afford paying their premiums because insurance companies are raising premiums on everyone by as much as 60 percent to keep from collapsing under the Affordable Care Act.

    Instead of “healing our planet” over the past 8 years, they see that taxpayers are now shouldering more than $2.2 billion in expected loan guarantee defaults from companies like the bankrupt renewable energy company, Solyndra, and at least 36 other taxpayer-funded green energy projects that have vanished like the wind.

    And although we “ended a war” by withdrawing our combat troops from Iraq in 2011, these women see how this single decision to withdraw left the door wide open for ISIS to expand their terror around the world, killing thousands of innocent people, and terrorizing millions more.

    And instead of diversity, these woman saw Obama choose a cabinet overwhelmingly male and white, and racial tensions are higher than ever.

    In 2008, the illusion of “hope and change” sounded like the truth to these women. We were all promised, back then, that healthcare negotiations would be on C-SPAN (they weren’t) and that the budget deficit would be reduced by 50% (but it grew).

    They were promised there would be no earmarks in the $787 billion stimulus bill (but there were). We were promised the “Recovery Act” would save or create jobs (yet unemployment continued to rise to record levels). We were told “if you like your plan, you can keep your plan” (we couldn’t). We were assured Obamacare would pay for itself (but it doesn’t). President Obama said, “I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits — either now or in the future” (but he did and deficit spending rose to over $5.1 trillion).

    Maybe we could all agree now, at least, that when something sounds too good to be true, it probably is. But I get it, about the protestors and I’d be mad, too, if I were in their shoes, waiting on “hope and change” all these years.

    Just one question, for those who marched on January 21: What took you so long?

  • Let Freedom Ring

    Let Freedom Ring

    The 2016 campaign for president is over.

    And for millions of Americans this past election day, our country chose to let go of the past, and start anew.

    Today, it seems easier to recognize the abusive-like relationships that our country has gravitated towards, and clung to, over the past 50 years. Even though we knew better, we kept electing candidates for public office that were more interested in their welfare, than in ours. We supported one political party (or another) because they told us how much they cared, but never really helped us, at all.

    We kept accepting a watered down, blurred-line between what’s right and what’s not, just so that we might keep the peace for one more day, and be liked, rather than laughed at. It’s been more convenient to stuff our true feelings and be silent, or tolerate things that deep inside just didn’t feel right, so we might not be called names, or called into the court of public opinion.

    You see, many in abusive relationships simply don’t know what healthy relationships look like. And if you have grown up in an environment where you feel like you need permission from government to make even simple decisions, such as what doctor to use, or even how to spend your money, such as being forced to buy increasingly more expensive health insurance, then you may not recognize how unhealthy your relationship here is, in the first place.

    If you have only known relationships where you are blamed for others’ problems and unhappiness, by having your income taxed more and more, and still being accused of not doing enough, or putting enough skin in the game, then your relationship may seem normal to you. If you are belittled and trivialized for your feelings, such your concern about our border with Mexico, even though our government refuses to prosecute those here illegally, for the murderous crimes they commit – then yes, it may all seem normal to you.

    But it’s not. Not by a long shot. And if those blaming or belittling you happen to be popular, and likeable, it makes letting go of the relationship even harder, because who would take your side anyway, especially if you might be viewed as a bigot, a racist, or uncaring by speaking out?

    Maybe they call you names like “deplorables”, or humiliate you, put you down, and make fun of you in front of other people, by saying you “cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people” who aren’t like you? Maybe they demean your faith, calling Catholicism “severely backward,” and “a middle ages dictatorship?”

    Maybe it’s their dishonesty or disloyalty to you that make the relationship abusive, such as Hillary Clinton using a private email server, exposing classified, national security information, and putting our families at risk, all while pretending she didn’t know what she was doing. Or how about so-called journalists who secretly championed one candidate, while smearing all the others, cheating during the debates, and still pretending to be impartial stewards of the truth?

    For others, an abusive relationship is being with someone who is consistently irresponsible and unwilling, or unable, to handle their responsibilities. Maybe that is like Secretary Clinton protecting our embassy that was burned-down, and those American killed in Benghazi? Or keeping American forces in Iraq to contain the spread of ISIS throughout the world, regardless of the popularity of doing such. Maybe it’s running up our national debt to nearly $20 trillion since 2009, even though economic growth has been the slowest in our nation’s history, and the number of people unemployed has never been higher.

    Yes, it was inevitable that this day would come. A point where we, the people, became aware that must let go of the abusive relationships of the past and realize that the pain of remaining in them, simply outweigh the desire to just keep “working it out”.

    That time for change is now.

    Today, the continued corruption from the Clintons seems less inevitable, and more intolerable. The media charade of objectivity is even less convincing now, but more contemptible than ever before.

    Career politicians seem more temporary, and the right to bear arms seems more certain. Our faith is less like something we must hide in the shadows, and more like something we can discuss in the town square.

    Our allies, like Israel, will trust again that we have their back, and Iran will never extort our nation again for $150 billion.

    It seems more likely today that genuinely affordable healthcare will be made available for more Americans than ever before, that our border will be secure, the jobs shipped overseas will return, and our laws, like our nation, will be restored to their rightful and respectful position in the world.

    And while I wrote this column several days before the November 8 election, I could be wrong about who is President-elect right now, but I don’t think I am, though.

    For whoever is being inaugurated in January, and for the reasons explained above, they will be President of a country whose voters have been changed forever by this election, for “a mind that is stretched by a new experience can never go back to its old dimensions.”

    So, let freedom ring, and may God bless America.

  • Can’t Get Comfortable With That

    Can’t Get Comfortable With That

    They are not “comfortable” voting for Donald Trump, they say. Ted Cruz. John Kasich. Lindsey Graham. And now more than 75 Republicans have signed a letter urging that the Republican Party spend the party’s money on helping secure the Republican majority in the Senate, and not on Donald Trump’s presidential campaign.

    You are not comfortable? Not comfortable? Pardon me, but I don’t give a damn about your comfort. This election isn’t just about you, or your namby-pamby “wow, I’m a big kid now” culture of “what’s in it for me”.

    How “comfortable” was the First Infantry Division when they hit the beach at Omaha, knowing they would not likely survive the German snipers firing at them, as their landing craft doors swung open, during the D-Day invasion in 1944?

    How “comfortable” is the mother or father who watches their son or daughter go off to war, not knowing exactly where they are, or if they will ever see them again? Not knowing if they are enduring heat and hunger, or surviving mortar fire and roadside bombs?

    How “comfortable” were the American soldiers in the Revolutionary War, who were merely a group of civilians fighting the most formidable and professional army in the world, not to mention the world’s greatest navy? Or how “comfortable” were those who signed our Declaration of Independence, sacrificing their own lives and property, for the belief that our rights are granted unto us by our Creator, while committing High Treason against Great Britain and their sovereign, King George the 3rd, in the process?

    If this is the type of discomfort you feel you are experiencing, perhaps you can muddle through the pain, and choose the candidate most likely to protect our Constitutional principles, because it’s what our country needs, and not just because of what you want.

    Yes, we are all grieving the loss of the America we grew up in, and the erosion of the fundamental values that provided us all with a sense of security, identity and purpose as proud Americans. No, we didn’t always agree, but at least we felt like we could make a difference.

    And now, we no longer feel in control of our own lives. Well, how “comfortable” does that make you feel?

    How “comfortable” are you that government has seemingly crept into every nook and cranny, and that we can’t choose our doctor anymore, or the curriculum being taught in our schools, or even practice our religion in some instances, without being bullied into silence. How “comfortable” are you that we can’t even recite the Pledge of Allegiance “under God” without being sued? Or that we’re paying more and more taxes each year, and that household incomes are the lowest they’ve been in 20 years, and that 94 million Americans are not even working right now – how “comfortable” does that make you feel?

    How “comfortable” are you that any human being, whether they are Secretary of State or the secretary in your office at work, would lie to a grieving mother about how and why their son lost his life, like Hillary Clinton did about Benghazi?

    Some say they still cannot vote for Trump. He doesn’t look or sound the part. Some are considering voting for a Libertarian Party candidate, or not voting at all. Some have even said that they will vote for Hillary. Admittedly, they just aren’t “comfortable” with any of the choices.

    If this describes you, please reconsider how “comfortable” you have been over the past eight (8) years because a Hillary Clinton administration will essentially be the second game in a double-header of a major league baseball game where both teams end up losing.

    She wants to raise taxes on the middle class (saying everyone should pay their “fair share”) and she will continue deficit spending and increasing our federal debt with a $275 billion federal investment in public works spending. Her national security policy will be more of the same that allowed ISIS to gain power and become the world’s most dangerous organization, and her immigration policy will simply promote more sanctuary cities where people in our country illegally can evade prosecution of our laws and conceal themselves long enough to attack our homeland, all while political correctness continues to run amuck and silence the voices of those who should be heard.

    Not everything that feels “comfortable” is what we need, and not everything that is “uncomfortable” should be avoided. In fact, if you look back at your life, the times that you are most grateful for are often those times where you were not “comfortable” because it was in those times that you became stronger. And I believe the same can be true for our country.

    Trump may not be your choice, but he’s the only choice that makes sense. It’s a catch-22 situation, for many, many, principled people. But if you protest his candidacy, you will elect Hillary, and inadvertently preserve the very conditions that gave rise to his campaign (and your objections to it), in the first place. By not voting for Trump, you actually make it less likely that other principled conservatives will ever have a shot again, at least not anytime soon, to be elected to the highest office in our land.

    By then, unfortunately, it may just be too late. And as for me, I can’t just get “comfortable” with that.

  • Our Own Worst Enemy Lives Within?

    Our Own Worst Enemy Lives Within?

    The horrific events at a nightclub in Orlando this month, where 50 people were killed, like those at an office Christmas party in San Bernardino or at a Navy Reserve recruiting station in Chattanooga, the bombing of the Boston Marathon, the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, or the “workplace violence” killing at Fort Hood – too damn many are treating Americans too damn poorly these days.

    But we aren’t helping. You see, we actually teach other people how to treat us. Just ask anyone who is always trying to please others, or who is always putting others first, before themselves, because they would feel “guilty” or “selfish” for doing so. As Dr. Phil said, “You either teach people to treat you with dignity and respect, or you don’t – you shape others’ behavior when you teach them what they can get away with and what they cannot.

    As Americans, though, we aren’t teaching others to treat us well, at all, and we seem to be letting others get away with anything – even burning our nation’s flag, and parading their own, at our country’s political events.

    Instead of treating ourselves with dignity and respect, our news media, political candidates, college professors, and elected officials, including the President of the United States, just apologize incessantly for the flaws in our country.

    They say our economy is bad because the rich are getting richer, and that it’s immoral that we don’t provide free healthcare to everyone, as a right. Or provide a “livable” wage for everyone. They say that we’re a nation that was built upon the backs of slaves, and colonization, and imperialism. They say that our nation is filled with racists, bigots, and those who are so bitter that “they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them.”

    They say you can’t recite the Pledge of Allegiance in our schools because it suggests we are one nation “under God” and that this might offend others. We’re removing the Ten Commandments outside our public buildings because they are “inappropriate, even though James Madison believed that, “We’ve staked our future on our ability to follow the Ten Commandments with all of our heart.”

    And instead of highlighting the sacrifices that our men and women in uniform have made for the cause of freedom around the world, our President tells Arab television viewers that America “sometimes makes mistakes.”

    He apologizes, on behalf of all Americans, to the European countries, by saying that “there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.”

    He even went before the Turkish Parliament to point out that “(t)he United States is still working through some of our own darker periods in our history,” instead of reminding them of how America has served as a beacon for freedom everywhere.

    Attitude just counts for so much. It really does. It’s infectious. It’s like when someone starts laughing uncontrollably, you can’t help but start smiling yourself.

    It’s a principle that works both ways, unfortunately. You see, all of this negative talk has had a marked effect on the morale of our nation. In fact, the number of Americans who think the United States “stands above all other countries” has declined to just 28 percent and the number of Americans who are extremely proud to call the United States home continues to decline.

    So, is America suffering these horrific events because we haven’t taught other people how to treat us, even those here at home? Is it as simple as Dr. Phil says? Perhaps.

    But maybe it’s also that when we repeatedly “bad mouth” or rundown America to ourselves, and around the world, we’re painting a picture of a country that is filled with people who simply aren’t worth treating with dignity and respect.

    So, the next time that you choose to remain silent, rather than standing up for yourself and speaking your truth, whether it’s religious freedom, or the safety and security of your family, remember that your silence may be teaching others that it’s okay to treat you poorly, or threaten you, or otherwise diminish your life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness (in favor of theirs, instead).

    If all of this sounds too mumbo-jumbo for you, just remember psychologists all agree that when we continue to put others first, while feeling resentful or badly about ourselves for doing that, our self-respect will inevitably suffer – and perhaps this is where we are as a nation today, and why it feels we are at war.

    And maybe, just maybe, this is why so many Americans seem so ready to simply make America great again. We want our self-respect back.

  • In 2009

    In 2009

    In 2009, newly elected President Obama said, “Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won.” Unfortunately, though, it is the unborn that has continued to lose. Even as the number of abortions are continuing to drop nationwide – 31,000 fewer abortions last year – and while 53 abortion clinic closed in 2015 alone, black children are still being aborted at 5 times the rate of white children. Abortion is the number-one killer of black lives in America.

    And yet, Planned Parenthood (where a third of their facilities operate in primarily black neighborhoods) continues to receive almost exclusive Democrat Party support and protection, plus over a half-billion dollars in taxpayer money. Actually, taxpayer funding accounts for 41% of Planned Parenthood’s overall revenue.

    And while it claims to provide other, vital medical services for women, abortions make up 94% of Planned Parenthood’s pregnancy services, even though abortions performed to save the life of the mother occur less than 1% of the time. In fact, even when you combine all of the non-life threatening health issues, that number increases only to 2.8%.

    What that means to you and me is that there are over 1 million babies whose lives were taken last year for reasons that were wholly unrelated to the health of the mother. This is important because being pro-life about babies should not come at the expense of being pro-life about women. Obviously, when two lives are threatened and only one can be saved, doctors must always save that life. But this argument – that abortion must remain legal to protect the health of women – is a smokescreen because those instances are almost non-existent, according to the federal government’s own statistics.

    Nevertheless, the pro-life community is making progress in the efforts to protect the unborn, and to support life, even after the past 7 years of pro-abortion policies from Washington, D.C. The incessant prayers, the marches, and events like Bishop Duca’s Annual Pro-Life Banquet, or the Ark-La-Tex Pregnancy Crisis Center Dinner, keep the candle of this miracle-in-progress lit – and burning brightly for even those who might not yet know why we believe what we believe.

    There have been some recent legal developments regarding Louisiana’s Unsafe Abortion Protection Act, which went into effect on September 1, 2014 and I wanted to briefly mention those. This is regarding the law that requires physicians who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of their facility. As you may know, the law was authored by State Representative Katrina Jackson, from Monroe, to combat what she calls “the number one genocide in the African-American community: abortion.”

    And despite being passed with large majorities in the Louisiana legislature, and after being signed into law by the Governor in 2014, abortion providers have repeatedly fought back. This past January, they met with some success, as a federal district judge said that requiring abortionists to have admitting privileges at a local hospital violated the constitutional right to an abortion established by the Supreme Court in 1973.

    Then, late last month, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals went the other direction, and blocked THAT decision, which allowed the law to go into effect –namely, requiring abortionists to have admitting privileges at a local hospital.

    But no sooner than this law was in effect, the U.S. Supreme Court, moved to temporarily block the law from going into effect. This allowed two recently closed abortion clinics to reopen for the business.

    Although we might need to draw a diagram to keep up with the legal back-and-forth here, stay with me.

    You see, this same law was enacted by the State of Texas, before ours, and their law is currently before the U.S. Supreme Court to determine its constitutionality. Meanwhile, there are seven (7) other states with similar laws, just like ours, that no doubt will be affected by the ruling in the Texas matter (which is expected at the end of June).

    And with the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, there are only eight (8) justices now. If there was a tie vote in our case, our Louisiana state law would remain in place and enforceable. The importance of the next Supreme Court justice being pro-life cannot be understated, especially since Justice Scalia was perhaps the most passionate abortion opponent, among all of the justices.

    And one last note: If you feel that being pro-choice is different than being pro-abortion (because you wouldn’t choose it for yourself, but it’s okay for someone else), please remember pro-choice voters and pro-abortion voters, are almost always two peas in a pod, when it comes to voting on election day. But whichever way you nuance it, you either oppose legal protection for the innocent unborn, or you don’t.

    So, yes, President Obama was right on this one. Elections do have consequences, and as the November election approaches, the consequences of this election for the unborn, perhaps like never before, is truly a matter of life or death.

  • Recently…

    Recently…

    Would you rather “feel” better, or “do” better? Your answer will tell a great deal about you, and may even help predict who will be elected our next President in November.

    You see, our brain circuitry is such that emotion overrides reason, and much more easily than the other way around. And while many voters think they are casting their vote based on their logical analysis of the issues, many really aren’t – at least not today, in our non-stop streaming, round-the-clock, always on, television, radio, and Internet news cycles.

    Because of the amount of available information to us on the issues, and the speed at which it is dispatched to us, there simply isn’t enough time in the day to analyze every new development or alert. Suddenly, then, our country is moving away from a cautioned, logical analysis of the issues, to a quicker, knee-jerk, emotion-based decision making process, instead.

    And if you said you would rather “feel” better, than “do” better, perhaps that is an indication that you’ve thrown in the towel, so to speak. Maybe now you’ve decided you won’t try keeping up with the constant barrage of breaking news and will move towards rely more on how a candidate, or an issue, “feels” to you, instead.

    It’s just a basic human principle, really. We like things that make us feel good. We avoid stuff that feels bad. Here are some examples of how emotion-based decisions are dominating our nation’s most pressing issues:

    You want to improve national security, but don’t want to engage in profiling all Muslims, or to turn away refugees coming into our country from Syria.

    You support the Bill of Rights, including the 2nd Amendment, but you feel that increased gun control legislation must be passed in order to “do something” about the rising gun violence in our communities.

    You believe that universal healthcare, controlled by the government, actually reduces access and increases medical costs for millions of Americans, but you don’t want to deny medical care to anyone, or for anyone not to be able to get the medicines they need to feel better.

    You know that the unemployment rate always increases whenever the minimum wage is increased, especially among the poorest Americans, but you feel like everyone is entitled to a living wage, and the dignity of supporting your family.

    You believe in the freedom of religion, but you don’t feel it’s right for any business owner to refuse service to a customer because of their sexual orientation.

    You know the poverty rate has remained unchanged over the past 50 years in our country, even after spending $22 trillion, but you don’t feel right about any legislation aimed to cut entitlement spending because the poorest among us deserve a “hand up.”

    We could go on and on here. All of these examples represent impossible choices for many voters, and the difference is between doing what we know is better, or doing what makes us “feel” better.

    It makes us “feel” better not to profile and to welcome refugees who are suffering, but according to the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), we could “do” better if we did profile. In fact, a former DHS employee testified that the San Bernardino terrorist attack could have been prevented if the Obama administration had not shut down his surveillance investigation on the grounds that he was profiling Islamic groups.

    You may “feel” better to support new gun control legislation because “something” must be done, but study after study has shown that nations with the strongest gun control laws have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not. Chicago has the toughest gun control laws in the country, for example, and they have the highest violent crime rates, as well.

    You may “feel” better to support universal healthcare coverage, but since Obamacare was enacted, there are 31 million Americans who still can’t afford medical care (and won’t for the foreseeable future).

    You might “feel” better advocating for a “living wage,” but the recent increased minimum wage law in Seattle resulted in the loss of 1,000 restaurant jobs within a month following that wage increase.

    Again, we could go on and on here, comparing how we may “feel” with the actual facts. The question is, “How much damage to our country, or lost opportunities to “do” better, is this shift to “feeling” better costing us?”

    How many more laws will the “feel” better crowd propose, that overrule our personal freedoms, from the freedom to worship to our right to bear arms? How much more of our national security will be compromised, because of political posturing? How long will we continue to remain silent, as hard work continues to be replaced with greater and greater entitlements by those who want to “feel” better? How much longer will we allow the government to run our lives based on what they “feel” is best for us, instead of us running them?

    No, good decisions don’t always “feel” good – not at first, at least – but that sure doesn’t stop them from being the best ones, either. Happy New Year to you all, and may God bless America.