Louis R. Avallone

Category: Columns

  • Why Barbara Norton’s Comments Matter

    Why Barbara Norton’s Comments Matter

    By now, many of you have heard about Louisiana State Representative Barbara Norton’s comments about how the Declaration of Independence is “unfair” and “not the truth”, regarding her opposition to a bill in the state legislature mandating that schoolchildren in Louisiana be taught the Declaration of Independence.

    Some have been upset, to say the least. Others, not so much.

    But what she said matters, and it matters a lot, and not just because so many disagree with her. Here’s why it matters so much more than this one particular issue itself:

    You see, our elected officials can’t just show up and “check the box” without the same level of careful preparation and practice that a musician requires to play a musical instrument well, or that a pilot needs to fly an airplane safely, or that doctor must have before performing a surgery competently. But unlike the musician who plays out of tune, being an unprepared state legislator (or school board member, member of Congress, etc.) can have far more significant consequences, because of the number of lives affected in our communities, sometimes in the millions – and this incompetence has nearly bankrupt our nation financially, morally, spiritually, and diminished our national security around the world.

    Yes, our elected officials have a great responsibility, regardless of whether they are prepared or not. They can support legislation to encourage businesses to relocate to our community, along with good paying jobs for families, or they cause those businesses to leave through higher and higher taxes. Our elected officials can improve the education system, and provide resources to inspire a love of learning in our children, or condemn them to a lifetime of barely making the grade. They can remain silent to the erosion of our liberties, reduce our national security, or make decisions that will send our nation’s sons and daughters into harm’s way.

    Yet, even with all of this opportunity to “make a dent in the universe” through public service, not only are young people disgusted with politics today, and are skeptical of its usefulness to make meaningful change, there is also now a reluctance of good candidates to run for public office. In fact, only one out of three believe running for public office is honorable, and even fewer feel that the idea of working in some form of public service is appealing to them – and the numbers show it. In 2012, for example, nearly half of state legislative districts in our country did not have any competition from both major political parties, marking the lowest level of competition between the parties, and the fewest choices in candidates for the voters, in over 10 years.

    And if you have an electorate that is increasingly more unaware of our American history, and the principals upon which our nation (and the Declaration of Independence) was written, this only serves to exacerbate the crisis we have in this country of electing competent, honest officials to public office.

    Thomas Jefferson said, “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.” That’s because knowledge is freedom in a democracy. Less engaged voters, plus more and more elected officials who are not prepared for the job they were elected to do, will eventually reduce the pool of talented candidates interested in public service to a handful of those barely worth keeping in office at all.

    You see, as voters, we must be in the “people” business. As Jack Welch, the former Chairman and CEO of General Electric said, “We spend all our time on people,” he says, “The day we screw up the people thing, this company is over.” Unfortunately, the exact same is true for our government, from every city hall, school board, statehouse, and all the way to the White House.

    So yes, when State Representative Barbara Norton says on the floor of the Louisiana House of Representatives that “all men are not created equal”, it confirms what so many already believe: We’ve messed up this “people thing” in government. And it’s time that the voters start doing something about it – like a boss.

  • There’s an Old Saying…

    There’s an Old Saying…

    There’s an old saying, “Tell me to what you pay attention and I will tell you who you are.” So, who are you? Who are we, I mean, as a country?

    We pay attention to what Miley Cyrus twerks, what Jay-Z and Beyonce say, and a hundred other insignificant matters, but fewer than half of all Americans know that there are 3 branches of government, or can even name them. We obsess over an American dentist who shot a lion named Cecil in Zimbabwe and a bison calf that had to be euthanized in Yellowstone National Park, but don’t even give more than a glancing look at the almost 1 million abortions that are performed every year in our country – even with organizations like Planned Parenthood chopping up and selling baby body parts, like a poultry processor, and yet a majority of Americans still view Planned Parenthood favorably and want the federal government funding for them to continue.

    Are you kidding me? But I get it, in a way, though. It’s easy to get spread out too thin, and get distracted from what’s most important. And sometimes the urgent in our life wins out over the important.

    Like how too many in our country are obsessed with making it more acceptable, and accessible, for grown men to go to the restroom alongside our aging mothers and young daughters. The media and Washington, D.C. crowd choose to focus more on the 0.3% of the population in our country that could be uncomfortable going into the restroom of their natural, physical gender, even though there are 40 million more of our young daughters (who are under 18) that may now feel uncomfortable themselves going into the restroom, as a result.

    But what about getting uncomfortable about the senseless killings in our communities? Or generational poverty, or rising incarceration rates? What about becoming uncomfortable with rising unemployment, or a generation of Americans growing up without fathers, or the risk of terrorism here at home?

    Bottom line, you can’t do big things if you don’t know what the big things are in the first place, and you can’t know what those big things are if you’re distracted by all the small things. It’s a bit of a chicken-in-the-egg situation, here.

    It’s like when President Kennedy told Congress in 1961, “I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth.”

    That was a “big thing” and with that vision, Kennedy directed the attention of a country towards what was important, and mobilized the best and brightest our country had to offer, in the process. From medical imaging, to enhanced dialysis, and even the cordless vacuum – all were the result of our country’s commitment to doing a “big thing”.

    What “big thing” is our country doing today? Or, are we so distracted by the insignificant that we are focused on “no thing”. If you feel we’re not doing any “big thing” in our country today, maybe it’s time we start focusing on the lack of leaders in our country, elected or otherwise, who have forgotten that leaders become great, not because of their power, but because of their ability to empower others.

    This is no doubt what causes too many of us to have a sense of helplessness, or to feel we have no influence on what happens in our lives. But it’s not entirely our fault. In fact, Margaret Thatcher once lamented about Great Britain that, “…we are governed by people who care more about feelings than they do about thoughts and ideas.”

    If the same is true about America today, this cannot end well for any American, for freedom anywhere, or the legacy of so many that fought and died protecting this experiment in liberty called America.

    After all, the Bible says, “where there is no vision, the people perish.” But if we don’t pay attention long enough to see what really matters, and are distracted by the inconsequential instead, what other outcome can there be?

  • More Guts Than They Ever Will

    More Guts Than They Ever Will

    The recent twin bombing, terrorist attacks in Brussels that killed 31 people and injured at least 270 sent shock waves throughout Europe.

    About 75 years ago, it was the same. Although the enemy back then was a different one, shock waves were being sent throughout Europe, as Nazi Germany attacked Poland.

    And on the day before the Normandy invasion, D-Day, General George S. Patton Jr. told the soldiers of the U.S. Third Army on June 5, 1944, “We’ll win this war, but we’ll win it only by fighting and by showing the Germans that we’ve got more guts than they have; or ever will have.”

    Fighting and showing. Fighting and showing. It’s not bragging if you can back it up, as Muhammad Ali often said. And of course, America did back it up – throughout the war. The Allies backed-up German forces across Europe, liberating Paris, and 100 concentration camps in Germany, as Hitler found himself defeated; not by chance, but by American grit and determination, and by those who made the ultimate sacrifice, so that man might live free of the darkest atrocities, and live, instead, in peace with one another.

    Today, our nation’s response to threats of terror around the world is very different. Our response today is not to fight, or show. It’s to talk.

    “We defeat them in part by saying you are not strong, you are weak,” Obama declared about ISIS, “We send a message to those who might be inspired by them to say you are not going to change our values of liberty and openness and the respect of all people.”

    Obviously, President Obama forgot the schoolyard lesson that “sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.” How can telling ISIS that they are weak, defeat them?

    BUT, only a few years ago, while campaigning for President, he took a decidedly more forceful tone, when he was at war with his political adversaries (and not terrorists), saying that “(w)e’re going to punish our enemies and we’re going to reward our friends”. When he was running against John McCain, in fact, he was even more pointed, “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.”

    And it’s this preoccupation with politics, rather than peace, or prosperity, or practicality, that is why so many Americans have given up on elected officials, altogether. They know something is missing in our country. And I miss it too. And it’s the ordinary things, admittedly, that we might have always taken for granted.

    I miss a President that wants to win. That doesn’t apologize for the sacrifices that our men and women in uniform have made, for so many nations around the world. That doesn’t go around the world telling everyone that America “sometimes makes mistakes” and that “we are not perfect.”

    I miss the America where genuine difference of opinion was debated without anyone being labeled a racist, bigot, greedy, selfish, or an imbecile.

    I miss a President that encourages the independent, American spirit of ingenuity, hard work, and the pursuit of the American dream.

    I miss a President that inspires success without conditioning its achievement on government bureaucracy or income redistribution.

    I miss a President that doesn’t conduct himself as a politician running for office, when he has already been elected to the highest office in the land and has a duty to all Americans, and not just certain special interests. A President should be the leader of our nation first, and defender of our Constitution, not a leader of a “movement”.

    And that’s why I say I miss what some might have considered ordinary at one time; like fighting for what’s right and best for the cause of freedom, and not what’s only politically correct.

    Only then will those who intend to do us harm know – like the Germans learned from those brave soldiers in Normandy – that we Americans have more guts than they have, or ever will, but to defeat them…we need a president who believes that too.

  • 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.

  • We’re The Establishment

    We’re The Establishment

    ­­It’s like Superman and Lex Luther. Snow White and the Evil Queen. Dorothy and the Wicked Witch of the West. Indiana Jones and the Nazis. The best stories always seem to feature the heroic good guy or gal, who is locked in an epic, heroic struggle for good versus evil.

    Many fictional writers say that if you leave these key characters out of your story you will risk losing your audience, altogether. You see, every good story begins with an initial decision or event that creates conflict of some kind for the protagonist in the story, and this will ultimate test – and reveal – the protagonist character’s strengths and weaknesses. Now, the drama unfolds. For example, Dorothy decided to set out for the Land of Oz, down the yellow brick road and must fight her way past flying monkeys and a witch flying around on a broomstick hurling balls of fire. Superman decided to use his superhuman abilities for the benefit of humanity, and must therefore fight for truth, justice, and the American way wherever wrongdoing is found.

    Once the conflict has been established, the story next needs a hero – someone who will resolve the inequity, end the crisis, or bring balance to the universe.

    And although these are fundamental principles of good fiction writing, sometimes it seems that there is a “story” being told to us, as voters. This is, no doubt, why so many Americans don’t trust our government, and view politicians with great skepticism. In fact, over 80% of Americans don’t trust the government, and feel that public officials put their own interest ahead of the nation’s (in 1965, it was the exact opposite).

    So, consider this election year, which is chock-full of candidate stories wherein the hero-candidate professes to be the “anti-establishment” candidate (or protagonist), while their villain-like nemesis in the race is the “establishment” candidate (or the antagonist), instead. More dramatically, they might say they’re fighting a wrongdoer who can’t be seen (like the Wizard in Oz who is secretly pushing all of the buttons and pulling all of the strings behind a curtain, or Hillary’s “vast, right wing conspiracy” from the Monica Lewinsky days).

    But this year, for some reason, both Democrat and Republican candidates seem to be tripping over themselves to be considered the “anti-establishment” candidate. But why? Because it makes for a good story, like David and Goliath? Or they want to be considered as the one “sticking it to the man” because it’s “the man” keeping so many of us down?

    50 years ago, yes, you could say that there was “establishment” party politics, that included “the man” – you know, old money people, plus bankers, corporate executives, etc. who all worked behind the scenes, and probably had reserved tables in the proverbial, smoke-filled back room. But today?

    Naw. And not only naw, but heck naw. There’s no “establishment” like that today.

    Yes, there are people who want to keep power in Washington and serve the special interests of a few, instead of all who voted for them, but this practice has been the case for centuries. There’s also the media, and people who want to influence the rest of us, but that too, has not changed in modern times.

    In fact, with the Internet, the major media elites have less and less control over what we see, or who gets to be heard and their influence is more diluted today than any time in our nation’s history.

    But still, there’s “anti-establishment” excitement is on both sides of the aisle. In fact, Bernie Sanders professes to be the “anti-establishment” candidate for the Democrats, even though he is, perhaps, the most “establishment” of them all (by his own definition). He was elected Mayor of Burlington in 1981, and has been in Congress since 1988. He’s voted 98% of the time with Democrats during his 34-year political career, has endorsed virtually every major Democrat candidate, and repeatedly refuses to run as an “Independent.” And this is the “anti-establishment” candidate?

    No, you see, that’s all storytelling. The real “establishment” is we the people.

    Our founding fathers established this country for us, and rooted it in rights endowed to us by our Creator. It’s right there in the first sentence of the U.S. Constitution.

    And while we know that every good story needs a protagonist and an antagonist to keep the audience’s attention, this obsession with being “anti-establishment” also appears to be more of a way to blame others for the dire straits that our nation is in, rather than a candid discussion about how a candidate will do it differently, when it’s their turn.

    So, yes, we are the “establishment.” You and me. Others can use that term to refer to some nameless person or persons, or to conjure up stereotypes that play on our emotions, but that’s not any better than railing against “the rich” when someone wants to explain why the economy is doing poorly, and unemployment continues to rise.

    And while running against “the establishment” makes for good drama, it doesn’t often make for good government because instead of telling voters how they will work for the policies we want in Washington, many candidates are just spending too much of their time telling us a good story. The problem is that we’ve all heard this one before and we’re just not interested in the sequel.

  • Wanting It

    Wanting It

    Many admire that he says things other people are afraid to say. The conventional wisdom was that his popularity would fizzle, but instead, it has sizzled. He’s just a showman, they say. He’s been called an entertainer, and criticized as not being a politician. He’s not spent any time volunteering for political campaigns, walking neighborhoods, door-to-door, or spent much time at all in Washington, D.C. or pandering to the political class, or establishment politics.

    In fact, they say he is taking full advantage of the lack of leadership in the GOP, and having a little fun at his fellow Republicans’ expense. He’s been viewed as a growing problem for the Republican Party and a serious liability that continues to damage the GOP brand. He’s even been called “incendiary” and “ugly” by the chairman of the Republican National Committee.

    Many dyed-in-the-wool conservatives feel he has become a clown and a laughingstock to the general public. They say he’s not concerned about being correct, as much as he is about being loud, and that therefore, he’s just not credible.

    As one writer put it, “I think the problem is the Republican leaders…and the other candidates, don’t have the courage to say what they say in quiet, which (is) they think he is a buffoon…(t) hey think he is like a clown coming out of a small car at a circus.  It’s great he is entertaining and all that.  But nobody takes him seriously.”

    Many cringe when he says what he says about the issues, and conservative supporters become almost apologetic to their “more enlightened” family and friends, to excuse his comments. They almost always follow-up nervously, and dramatically, with the reminder that, “He just cares so much about this country, and wants to see it great again.”

    But for others, his success – and his millions of dollars – simply has not translated into any kind of respect, deference, or validation for his positions on the issues facing our country.

    And while many of you may think you know exactly who we’re talking about here, the rest of you think we’re talking about Donald Trump – but we’re not.

    In fact, every comment, which has been recited above, has been said, or written about, Rush Limbaugh. Yes, Rush Limbaugh. And yet it is also being said, almost verbatim, about Trump, as well.

    Even with such criticism of Rush, and after almost 25 years of folks demonizing him, 20 million Americans still tune in every day to listen to Rush, and his message.

    Many say it’s because he lifts the spirit of the average conservative American, who feels that our country’s best days are slipping behind us, and that the American dream no longer exists. Like Trump, and with pep-talk enthusiasm, many say that Rush makes his listeners believe that America is still an exceptional nation, that it’s best days are still ahead, and that Americans are capable of doing the extraordinary, when it comes to their own personal achievement.

    And like Trump, Rush may not be an expert on foreign diplomacy, agricultural subsidies, or military strategy, but his activism produces public action because his message inspires. His listeners also pay attention to what’s going on – even as voter turnout numbers continue to plummet across the country.

    His message is not unlike the one from Ted Cruz, who explained how his father fled from Cuba and arrived in the United States penniless with $100 sewn into his underwear, and that he was grateful to God that some well-meaning liberal didn’t come put his arm around his father and say, “Let me take care of you.”

    Rush’s message is along the same lines of the famous Zig Ziglar who once said, “Building a better you is the first step to building a better America.”

    You see, the message of Ted Cruz, Donald Trump, Zig Ziglar, or Rush Limbaugh is much larger than these men, their fame, or fortune: it’s about we, the people, and realizing our greatest and best potential comes from within us, granted by God – not from what some government bureaucrat decides is best for us. This message is why Rush Limbaugh now has 20 million listeners a day, and why Trump continues to lead in the polls.

    Yes, maybe the message can be said better, or more nicely. After all, the Bible says, “Speak the truth, but do it in love.” But the popularity of Trump’s message is not primarily because of Trump. It never has been, and it never will be.

    Like Rush’s nearly 30 years on the radio, Trump’s message will continue to resonate this year with millions of Americans – not because of his showmanship or his knowing the art of the deal, but because it’s a message that we already know to be true: We can do more for ourselves than we think is possible, and that there is greatness within all of us.

    While many may get distracted by the pundits who offer their critical commentary about Trump’s presidential campaign, his credibility, consistency, integrity, his qualifications, intellect, or even as they ridicule his supporters, and what damage this is all doing to the Republican Party, just remember this has all been done before – including to a man named Ronald Reagan.

    Trump may not be the best politician, or the best choice for a nominee, but as conservatives, we just want it to be morning again in America. And we want a leader, whatever his name, to want it as badly as we do.

  • Finding the Right Words

    It’s important to avoid “stinking thinking”, as motivational speaker Zig Ziglar often said, which is when we allow ourselves to be gripped by negative thoughts and emotions, making us feel defeated, discouraged, and depressed. And “stinking thinking” can do that, indeed. Have you ever heard of the adage, “We are…what we think about?”

    In fact, how we speak to ourselves can be self-motivating and encouraging, or self-defeating and pitying. This is generally when folks remind us that it’s not what happens to us that matters – it’s how we choose to respond. Of course, the Bible tells us this also, “For as he thinks in his heart, so is he.” (Proverbs 23:7).

    Now, of course, we’ve all asked a friend on the phone, or just about anyone in passing, “How are you?” Maybe it’s the clerk at the grocery store, or the server at a restaurant.

    Some folks will say, “Not too bad, thanks.” You know right away that these are the proverbial “glass is half-empty” type of folks – and you know it by the words they use. “Not too bad” implies that there is always something to worry about, in their mind, or nothing is ever quite right.

    Well, what if they said, “I’m fantastic, thanks,” instead? Likewise, you’d know this was the “glass is half-full” type of person – again, simply by the words they chose – whether they really were really doing fantastic, or not. And by responding, “I’m fantastic,” it suggests this is someone who has a positive attitude and tends to look for the silver lining, even in difficult circumstances.

    So as we begin 2017, and a new administration in Washington begins to take its place, our national mood, and the words we use to describe ourselves, as a country, will necessarily change, as well.

    President-elect Trump’s “self-talk” is very different from President Obama’s. Trump uses positive words like “great”, “terrific”, “fortune”, “thriving”, and “huge.” He also says America will starting “winning again” and it will be “beyond anybody’s expectations” and, “we are going to win so much, you will get tired of winning!”

    He compliments those who are successful as “truly great leaders”, he talks about the “tremendous potential” of our country. The day after he was elected, he reminded us all that “America will no longer settle for anything less than the best.”

    He’s seems to always characterize whatever he is doing, thinking, or working on as the “finest”, “smartest”, and  “greatest”.  He talks about how we need the “smartest negotiators”, or how he has built the “best hotels”, or why he celebrates those who are excellent and “most highly sought after”, and why we need to build “the strongest military that we’ve ever had.”

    By contrast, though, President Obama’s favorite phrases over the past eight years seem to be those phrases that include the words “can’t” and “don’t,” and in particular, the word “frustrating.” He talked about how there is real anger and “frustration” in our country. And he often says how “frustrating” it is because he hasn’t achieved everything in his administration, exactly the way he had planned. He’s been “frustrated” with Republicans, with the Tea Party, as well as anyone in small towns who clings to “guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them.”

    Instead of “thriving” in your job, President Obama believes “at a certain point, you’ve made enough money.” If you started a small business in your home, and grew it into a terrific company, he surprised you by saying, “You didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.” Instead of growing the private sector of our economy beyond anybody’s expectations, President Obama was satisfied with it being just “fine”, surrendering to the belief that factory jobs moving to Mexico (like Carrier’s), are “jobs of the past” and “are just not going to come back.”

    Instead of talking about the tremendous potential of our country and taking responsibility as a leader, he still blames “the previous administration” for the economy, and for “less than loving Christians” who do not care enough for others. He appealed to the worst within us, saying his unpopularity is because “there’s some folks who just really don’t like the idea of a black President,” and that America has provoked terrorism because we’ve “meddled” in other countries. Instead of cheerleading for America as the “best”, he apologizes for us, instead.

    The truth is that how we talk to ourselves as a country is the loudest and most influential voice that we will hear. It can work for us, or against us, depending on the messages we allow. It can inspire us, or depress us, and the words we use make all the difference.

    Sure, we all can be guilty of “stinking thinking” at times, and that’s why, from time to time, we all need a “check-up from the neck-up,” in the words of Zig Ziglar.

    And one thing’s for sure: the election last November was our nation’s appointment for a “check-up from the neck-up” and America made a choice between two (2) visions: “winning” (optimism) or continued “frustration” (pessimism). As Winston Churchill put it, “A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.”

    May this new year be filled with opportunities for you and your family in which the difficulties might not seem all that difficult – and may you always find the “words” to say so.

  • 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.

  • Are All Candidates Honorable?

    About 4 out of 10 voters cast their ballots in last month’s run-off election, or had already early voted before Election Day. With such low participation levels, it reminds me of Thomas Jefferson’s saying that, “We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.”

    And in keeping with the Christian roots of our freedom, we love our neighbor and respect his choices, even if we do not agree with him. Although every candidate may not have earned the majority of the voters’ support, they each deserve our respect.

    But a reader commented to me recently, “How can you say that all candidates deserve respect? Does the desire to hold office make a person respectable? Does asking for something, like a vote, automatically earn one a title of honor?”

    No, it doesn’t, and he makes a good point. Of course, the dictionary definition of respect is “a feeling of deep admiration for someone or something, elicited by their abilities, qualities, or achievements”. It comes from the Latin word re- ‘back’ plus specere ‘look at.’

    My respect for candidates is not necessarily in admiration of their choices in life, or as an endorsement of their political views. Far from it. Instead, my respect comes from a realization that far too many of us choose to say, “to each his own,” or “that’s none of my business,” or “it’s not my place to judge”.

    My respect for candidates comes from an understanding that life is a fight for territory, and that once we stop fighting for what we want, what we don’t want will automatically take over. And candidates fight for what they want – instead of just wringing their hands.

    My respect for candidates comes from seeing how many other decent, hard-working people who don’t get involved because they find the cost of running for office, or serving in an elected position, or participating in politics, or taking a stand for anything – is simply too high of a price to pay.

    Of course, the Book of James tells us that “a person is justified by works and not by faith alone”. Yes, many of our neighbors only pray for our nation, and the dilemma we face in our culture. They worry about the erosion of our religious liberty, the decline of our education system, the deterioration of the family, and the fiscal irresponsibility of our elected officials – and yet they don’t go any further than worrying.

    We must do more, however, and this is why I believe candidates deserve our respect, even if only in the spirit of, “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.”

    So from neighborhood association meetings to church groups, from walking miles upon miles down city streets and country roads, knocking on doors and putting up signs – these candidates represent the old-fashioned, pioneer-like grit and determination that is the American way.

    Losing is no fun, of course, and being criticized for losing, or ridiculed for one’s opinions, isn’t either. But there is no shame or dishonor in losing an election – so long as the campaign was run with honor and integrity.

    There have been – and will be – lots of “I told you so” opinions, which will point out this reason or that reason, this issue or that issue, that made all the difference in one race or another, this election cycle. And there will be plenty of time for looking in the rear-view mirror.

    But for now, congratulations to our newly elected officials, and thank you to all of the candidates who ran.

    They deserve all the credit because they were “in the arena”. As Theodore Roosevelt so famously said: “It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena…who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.”

    Whatever our politics, and however elated or disappointed you may feel about the election results this fall, we remain grateful to those candidates who gave us a choice, and the men and women who paid the ultimate sacrifice for there to be one.

  • National Identity

    When the folks in Washington begin talking about increasing the number of Syrian refugees in our country by over 250% from last year, or raising that number next year to as many as 100,000, many Americans wonder how we will be able to afford spending as much as $1.6 billion on these refugees annually, when we have not yet addressed the record number of American families already living below the poverty level in own country, and the historic unemployment levels that continue to weaken our communities.

    Yes, I know. I shouldn’t be concerned with that because of what it says in the Bible: “For I was hungry and you never gave me food, I was a stranger and you never made me welcome…” However, it also says, “Anyone who does not look after his own relations, especially if they are living with him, has rejected the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” In other words, are we taking good care of our neighbors who already call this country their home?

    And before you start saddling up to ride that high horse you are about to ride off into the sunset on, please remember that the U.S. contributed nearly $500 million for humanitarian aid to the Syrian refugees, just this past September alone, and that is on top of the $1 billion contributed last year – more than any other country in the world.

    Even five of the wealthiest Muslim countries have taken NO Syrian refugees in at all, saying that doing so would open them up to an increasing risk of terrorism in THEIR country. Isn’t that what our own FBI and Department of Homeland Security is warning us, as well?

    But in light of the recent terrorism in France, the most stark danger for most Americans is that the profile of the great majority of Syrian refugees to this country do not (will not) meet the profile of the typical refugee family, as was revealed during testimony before a Congressional hearing last month. Instead of family members, more of these refugees are “young, single, males”. 

    And to add to that: The FBI director and the Homeland Security Secretary have admitted that there is not a system in place right now to properly screen and conduct background checks on these refugees, and soon we will have a whole new set of problems to deal with in our country, as a result.

    There have always been refugees, and the U.S. has always given them sanctuary. Times are different today, and at the root of this Syrian refugee matter is the erosion of national identities around the world, especially in Europe, where assimilation has been difficult.

    In fact, as early as 2011, French President Nicolas Sarkozy admitted, “We have been too concerned about the identity of the person who was arriving and not enough about the identity of the country that was receiving him.” British Prime Minister James Cameron said essentially the same, “(W)e have encouraged different cultures to live separate lives, apart from each other and apart from the mainstream. We’ve even tolerated these segregated communities behaving in ways that run completely counter to our values.”

    And while America’s shores once assimilated different cultures and religions into “one nation under God,” today the “great melting pot” in the U.S. often means only more political correctness. Before long, our own nation’s identity will begin to erode precipitously, as well, just as those European countries are experiencing now for themselves.

    And similar to the errors of those European countries, such as France and Great Britain, Obama continues to express indifference, regarding our open border with Mexico, which continues to be plagued by cartel violence, drugs, and other forms of illegal smuggling, illegal immigration, and now, he wants to increase the number of refugees in this country by 250%.

    Even dyed-in-the-wool liberals must see the parallels here with the European nations and the consequences of unchecked, unassimilated immigrants to one’s nation. The proverbial handwriting is on the wall.

    You see, a nation is a group of people who share a destiny, and with that destiny, an identity. The truth is that this national identity needs pride, and a sense of affection that is expressed to the exclusion of any other allegiance. This is the foundation of nation building. As it erodes, so will the nation. This is why it is abhorrent that Obama is not interested in American pride, or in “America winning,” as he recently said.

    Mr. President, we believe that America is exceptional, but not because of what it does or what you have to say about our country.

    It’s exceptional because of what it believes. And that is why, in the words of Ronald Reagan, “We are indeed, and we are today, the last best hope of man on earth”.