Louis R. Avallone

Blog

  • 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?

  • Nothing Is Better Than Something

    Nothing Is Better Than Something

    It has been said that 10% of something is better than 100% of nothing. And that a positive anything is better than a negative nothing; that it’s better to do something imperfectly than to do nothing perfectly. Or, as Winston Churchill put it, “It is better to do something than to do nothing while waiting to do everything.”

    Maybe that’s why they say the journey of a thousand miles begins with one step or “the secret of getting ahead is getting started.

    In many circumstances, that is precisely correct. Drinking more water, instead of soft drinks, for example. Eating better. Exercising. Donating your time or money to a charity. Saving money going grocery shopping. Being grateful. These are all good examples of where “something is better than nothing.”

    There are some instances, though, where “something” is not better than “nothing.” Take the imminent repeal of the Affordable Care Act in Congress, for example, especially because 80% of us want it “significantly changed or replaced altogether.”

    You see, after nearly $2 trillion in spending, there are just 3 percent more Americans with health insurance today – and even that number is dropping daily – as many Americans simply can’t afford paying their premiums. That comes as little surprise considering insurance companies lost $2.7 billion in 2014 alone, and are now raising premiums on everyone by 60 percent (or more) to keep from collapsing and going out of business altogether (as two-thirds of the government-funded health insurance exchanges have already done).

    But, but, but, some will 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 have flat-out stopped paying the premiums for the very insurance policies intended to afford them the benefits mentioned above, then hasn’t the care and comfort of the least among us has only worsened? And all under the pretense that “something” is better than “nothing?”

    Of course, there are countless other examples of where “something” is not better than “nothing.”

    Remember when the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) lowered lending standards in the mid-1990s, so first-time buyers could qualify for loans that they could never get before? Well, doing “something” back then to increase homeownership resulted in over 10 million Americans being uprooted by foreclosure, with even more still threatened today, over a decade later.

    Remember in 1964, when Lyndon Johnson proposed a conglomeration of federal government welfare programs to assist the poor? Regardless of the reasons why so many were generationally poor or unemployed, the federal government, and the American people, felt they needed to do “something”. And now Congress has spent $15 trillion dollars over the past 50 years on poverty, yet the poverty rate today is virtually the same as it was in 1964. In fact, we are now spending close to $1 trillion per year on doing “something” about the poor, and yet 46 million Americans still live below the poverty line.

    Doing “something” may feel better than doing “nothing” at all, but one only needs to look around to see what decades of politicians doing “something” has done to our nation, and our communities.

    As a new administration goes to work in Washington, “nothing” would be a refreshing change, because something is not always better than nothing.

  • For Crying Out Loud

    For Crying Out Loud

    Good grief, Charlie Brown!

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

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

    Retailers have tried calling Christmas trees, “holiday” or “family” trees. They’ve pressed-on with “Happy Holidays,” even though 67 percent of Americans prefer the greeting, “Merry Christmas.” Advertisers have pushed out “Christ” from Christmas and pushed on with “X-Mas.”

    Last year, a group calling themselves “American Atheists” purchased billboards that proclaimed, “Go ahead and skip church! Just be good for goodness’ sake. Happy holidays!” The year before that, another activist group spent big bucks to purchase a billboard advertisement in New York City’s Times Square – a 40 by 40 image that asks, “Who needs Christ?” and answers that question with “Nobody.” In 2012, there was another Times Square billboard that urged viewers to, “Keep the Merry. Dump the Myth,” with an image of Christ beneath a photo of Santa Claus.

    And as our 2016 elections fade, future candidates for public office will increasingly find that secular voters are the fastest growing minority group in America, all who are committed to keep religion out of government.

    After all, the number of people in America who believe in God has dropped almost 10 percent since 2009. And in our public schools, there is increasingly no room for recognition of any faith whatsoever, Christianity or otherwise. And more than 10% of the U.S. House of Representatives believe that the mere presence of our national motto (“In God We Trust”) on currency violates their Free Speech and Free Exercise Clause Rights.

    Goodness gracious. So what is it about Christ, or Christmas, that is so offensive?

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

    Last year was the deadliest, worst year for Christian persecution than any other time in modern history – over 7,000 were killed. Additionally, over 2,400 churches were attacked, damaged or destroyed last year, which is more than double the number from the year before that.

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

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

    So, while Charlie Brown first asked the question in 1965 on national television, “Isn’t there anyone, who knows what Christmas is all about?!” The answer has been the same for over 2000 years – it’s Christ. And for crying out loud, we ought to put that up on a billboard too.

    Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

     

  • Getting the Third Degree

    Getting the Third Degree

    Since the day after the presidential election, the number of emails I’ve received has steadily grown. Nearly 5,000 emails now, and the number of messages on my Facebook page has risen into the hundreds. All of these communications have escalated into phone calls, and they are even writing letters – nearly a dozen received in the mail, just today.

    The messages all start out about the same. Here’s an example:

    Dear Elector,

    My name is Jeremy Levine, from Brooklyn, NY.

    The founders created the electoral college in order to safeguard the Republic from giving power to someone unfit for the responsibilities of office. Today, in this election, we have such a case. Not only is Donald Trump inexperienced, he is a threat to the safety and stability of our great nation. Trump has already made clear his positions that both disregard the Constitution and threaten huge segments of our citizenry. Furthermore, the people voted for Hillary Clinton by over a million votes. We ask that you, as an elector, honor the majority of Americans and uphold your duties to protect the Republic by preventing Donald Trump from assuming the presidency.

    Thank you for your time and consideration, I appreciate and respect the role you serve in our electoral process.

    Sincerely,

    Jeremy Levine

    So, what’s going on here? After all, for many folks, they think the Presidential election is over, and that Donald Trump won. Hillary Clinton has already conceded the election, saying, “We owe him an open mind and a chance to lead,” and even President Obama referred to Trump as “president-elect” when Trump visited the White House. Furthermore, Trump has already started assembling the leaders of his new administration, for both his cabinet and other key advisors.

    So, what gives? Well, it’s about the Electoral College, and the fact that on December 19, a slate of electors in each state will cast their state’s electoral votes and elect the next President of the United States, all according to Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution. You see, there are 538 electors in all 50 states, including the District of Columbia, and 306 of those electors are expected to vote for Trump on December 19. But if only 37 of those electors, who are expected to vote for Trump, actually vote for someone else – anyone else – or even abstain, then Trump won’t have a majority of the electoral votes available and Congress will decide who the next President will be. Yes, Congress.

    And this is the faint hope that liberals and progressives are clinging onto – to stop Trump from becoming the 45th President of the United States. So they are harassing electors with a constant barrage of emails, phone calls, letters, and social media posts, sometimes evening visiting their homes.

    There are “peaceful gatherings” being called for, in cities across the country, to reject the Electoral College, and there are online petitions, as well. There is a Change.org petition, now signed by almost 5 million people, and a MoveOn.org petition, signed by almost 1 million people – both of which are growing. The petitions encourage members of the Electoral College to cast their votes for Hillary when the college meets on December 19 because Trump is “unfit to serve” and that Hillary “won the popular vote” and should be President.”

    Sure, at first glance, the Electoral College seems unnecessary, at best, and illogical, at worst. After all, why would anyone support any system that doesn’t weight each person’s vote equally, regardless of what state they live in? For example, currently Wyoming gets 1 electoral vote for each 178,000 citizens, but California only gets 1 electoral vote for each 690,000 citizens.?

    What’s up with that? Why do votes in Wyoming count more than 3 times than those in California? After all, that’s not what our democracy is all about, right? Well, first, we’re not a democracy, we’re a republic and we elect representatives who vote for our laws, instead of us voting directly on those laws – which would be a pure democracy, instead. But you see, the founding fathers were actually terrified of a pure democracy (or “mob rule”) and if any of us want to protect the rights of any minorities in our country, we would be terrified too, because in a pure democracy, the rights of minorities can simply be voted away. As John Adams once wrote, “Remember, democracy never lasts long”.

    So, what does any of this have to do with the Electoral College electing the next President? Everything. It’s an example of the genius of our republic form of government insofar as it places the country’s best interest above any individual states’ interest, or balancing the influence of the farmer in Iowa, or the sugar cane farmer in Louisiana, with the powerful and wealthy industrialists and media elites of the big cities. The Electoral College is merely an extension of our republic form of government, no different than the very reason why each state is represented by two (2) Senators, regardless of population.

    It is an honor and privilege for me to participate in the constitutional process of electing the President of the United States next month — a vote cast by the son of an Italian immigrant, whose rights our founding fathers sought to protect with a republic, and long before most any Americans would fully understood why.

  • 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.

  • What Type of Dog Doesn’t Bark?

    What Type of Dog Doesn’t Bark?

    Barking is a dog’s natural means of communication. Dogs bark for many different reasons, such as to get your attention, or because they think it’s a friendly way to greet people or other animals. Most other times, though, it’s when another person or animal enters into an area your dog considers his or her territory – and as the threat gets closer – the barking gets louder.

    Many have considered journalism to be like a “watchdog” of sorts, for the American people. Reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein are well-known for their investigative journalism of the Watergate Hotel break-in, which proved the press could still hold the government accountable – and this ultimately led to President Nixon’s resignation. Then, there are investigative reporters that rely on old-fashioned shoe-leather to uncover everything from public corruption in city hall, to exonerating death row inmates.

    Then, there are the Internet publications, where investigative journalists don’t need to wait and be hired by the New York Times or the Washington Post to make a difference – they can speak directly to the American people, immediately.

    For example, the Drudge Report uncovered the Monica Lewisnky affair with Bill Clinton in 1998. Project Veritas exposed, just this year, Planned Parenthood’s practice of selling body parts of babies it aborts on the open market.

    While these examples of investigative journalism are well-known, they are also rare. Take the failure of journalists to investigate and hold Wall Street mortgage banks, as well as the U.S. government, accountable in the many years leading up to the financial debacle of 2008.

    In that example, it wasn’t that the impending housing mortgage meltdown wasn’t plain to many journalists – it was – but the only ones that wrote about it didn’t work for the mainstream press. As a result, the public was left in the dark, and powerless against what became a very complex and costly crisis.

    As journalist Dean Starkman wrote his book, The Watchdog That Didn’t Bark: The Financial Crisis and the Disappearance of Investigative Journalism, the costs of the mortgage crisis was “10 million Americans uprooted by foreclosure with even more still threatened, 23 million unemployed or underemployed, whole communities set back a generation, shocking bailouts for the perpetrators, political polarization here and instability abroad.”

    This got me thinking. If hindsight is indeed 20/20, and if the best way to predict the future is to look at our past, might we again be left in the dark by the mainstream press today, with whom we are electing to the Presidency?

    In other words, is the mainstream press advocating for Hillary Clinton to be President? Many would not only say “yes”, but “hell yes!” In fact, journalists, reporters, news editors and television news anchors have contributed almost $400,000 to both presidential campaigns of Clinton and Trump, but a whopping 96% of those contributions were for Hillary Clinton.

    Not sure the mainstream press is leaving Americans in the dark this election?

    Well, how much mainstream press reporting do you see that explains that the number of those filing for unemployment benefits is at its highest in more than a year, and the number of layoffs planned this year is surging?

    Or that many Americans simply can’t afford to continue paying their Obamacare premiums, and that insurance companies are now raising premiums on everyone by as much as 60 percent next year? Or that two-thirds of the government-funded health insurance exchanges have gone bankrupt?

    How much mainstream reporting was there when Hillary Clinton said that our “religious beliefs” in our country have to be changed, even though our nation was founded by those seeking religious freedom? Or when she said that the policy of confiscating guns, as Australia did in 1996, is certainly “worth looking at,” even though crimes involving a firearm in Australia have now doubled?

    How much mainstream reporting do you see questioning Hillary Clinton’s support for Planned Parenthood over the past 30 years, even though they have been chopping up and selling baby body parts, like a poultry processor, and yet she still wants the federal funding for them to continue?

    How much mainstream reporting do you see, in the midst of the racial tensions in our country, that exposes the fact that since President Obama took office, black poverty is way up, and black employment is way down.

    The objective answer to these questions is “none”. You don’t see the mainstream press reporting on these issues, just like we didn’t see the mainstream press reporting what we needed to know, in the years leading up to the financial debacle of 2008.

    And I believe, and I trust you may be wondering too, if we’re about to let history repeat itself…and let a sleeping dog lie, again.

  • Just Listen to Me

    Just Listen to Me

    With the swearing-in of the 114th Congress last year, there are more African-Americans in the legislature than in any other period in history. And as you know, America elected its first African-American president in 2008, and then re-elected him in 2012. During this time, Eric Holder became the first African-American to hold the position of U.S. Attorney General, and then last year, Loretta Lynch became the country’s first African-American woman to serve in that role. More significantly, the number of elected officials who are African-American has risen nearly 10-fold what it was in 1970.

    And yet, there are too many in the African-American community who don’t feel heard. Maybe that’s because anyone can talk (especially a candidate asking for your vote during an election year). But not everyone can listen, or knows how to, at least.

    Is it any wonder, then, that this frustration – this anger – is expressed by protesting in the streets, staring down law enforcement, bringing traffic to a stop by standing in the middle of a freeway, or by looting businesses in our own neighborhoods and then setting them on fire? Most Americans – white or black – can understand the anger, whether it’s the seeming lack of equal opportunities or the high incarceration rates, or racial profiling – there’s plenty that needs to be cleared up. But why so much violence, and why now?

    Martin Luther King, Jr. was the pre-eminent advocate of nonviolence and one of the greatest nonviolent leaders in history. Even so, he was urged by many, during the 1950s and 60s, to use “any means necessary” to achieve the civil rights changes needed in our country. He refused. And while the protests he organized gave rise to the viability of black elected officials for the very first time in history, the connection between ordinary black voters and black elected officials, pretending to represent them, has seemingly eroded away completely.

    What other logical explanation could there be after Congress has now spent $15 trillion dollars over the past 50 years on poverty, yet the poverty rate today is virtually the same as it was in 1964? In fact, we are now spending close to $1 trillion per year on government assistance, yet 46 million Americans still live below the poverty line?

    This hardly sounds like a representative government, regardless of skin color.

    And America then elects the first African-American president 8 years ago, but almost one-half (1/2) of Americans believe today that race relations in this country are still getting worse, and that it has been the President himself who has driven us apart? Really?

    But the numbers show it too: During the past 8 years, the percentage of black Americans struggling below the poverty line has advanced, real median income among black households declined, and black food-stamp participants increased almost 60%. The number of black Americans owning their own homes has decreased, and black unemployment is twice that of white unemployment.

    Yes, there’s a lot to be frustrated about, no doubt. And we could go on and on, but you must keep in mind that government cannot “fix” all things for us, whether you are black or white. Government (however big you make it) cannot make you happy, make you feel respected or accepted, confer achievement, build your self-esteem, or eliminate life’s inevitable ups and downs.

    Yet we still need to be heard. As Martin Luther King, Jr. said, “[O]ur lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter,” and he was right. Violence was just never an option for him. He believed, “Nonviolence is a powerful and just weapon, which cuts without wounding and ennobles the man who wields it. It is a sword that heals.”

    So, as we prepare to elect our next president in November, all of us would do well to remember that we must elect candidates who don’t confuse doing something with actually accomplishing something. Or talking, when we just want to be heard.

  • A Fool’s Choice

    A Fool’s Choice

    Manners tell us what to do, and what to expect others to do, in return. We say “please” and “thank you”. We don’t intentionally embarrass one another, or ask personal, prying questions. We hold a door open for someone, give up our seat in a waiting room for someone who needs it more than we do.

    We dress appropriately, and shake hands with others when we greet them, and we don’t chew with our mouths full. These are all good manners.

    We do these things to show respect for other people, and as Emily Post says, because we are “recognizing and acknowledging their worth and value as human beings, regardless of their background, race, or creed.”

    So when San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick refused to stand for the national anthem before games because he believes the United States oppresses blacks and other minorities, many couldn’t stop shaking their heads at just how unmannerly he was behaving (it’s not suprising that 3 out of 4 of us already feel that our country is more rude and less civilized than it was 30 years ago, but that’s another story).

    First, let’s get this out on the table for Colin, and those who feel his pain: The United States enthusiastically elected its first black president in 2008, and the American people, including white folks, decided to re-elect him in 2012.

    Secondly, since 2008, black poverty is up, and black employment is down, even as Democrats controlled both the White House and the Congress. Forty percent of black males are incarcerated, and 72 percent of black children are still being born to unmarried mothers. There are fewer blacks participating in the labor force since 2008, and the unemployment rate among blacks is more than double than it is among whites. And this is all happening under an administration filled with Democrats, whom black voters have supported 95% of the time in election, after election, after election. The same Democratic Party that has spent more than 50 years, and billions of dollars, on social welfare programs of every kind, only to have the poverty rate even higher today than it was back then.

    But the bottom line is this: It really doesn’t matter what he believes or knows about the facts of oppression in our country, or whether he’s unpatriotic, or he is simply wanting attention from the public. It’s unmannerly not to stand during our national anthem. Bottom line. And just because you can do something, whether you have the right or not, doesn’t mean you should.

    If Colin refuses to stand during the national anthem, then it is his freedom of expression to do so, whatever his beliefs. After all, some Americans do agree that our country is oppressive.

    On the other hand, many don’t agree with any of that, but they say they will defend Colin’s right to believe whatever he wants, nevertheless.

    But these are all fool’s choices, aren’t they; when we mistakenly think there are only two options, when in reality there are more? Do we have to choose between supporting Colin’s disrespect of the national anthem or silencing his freedom of expression?

    Of course not. You can pledge allegiance to your country, AND still exercise your freedom of speech. You can honor the United States Flag Code (Title 6, Section 301) which says that, “Everyone present, except those in uniform should stand at attention facing the American flag with the right hand placed over the heart,” and still effect change in your community.

    You can be tactful, or understanding of other people and sensitive to their opinions and feelings, and still assert your own ideas in a well-meaning fashion. But to do otherwise is simply unmannerly.

    Being mannerly means being aware that what you do, or share with others, affects the greater good for us all. It means recognizing that no one should “feel” good at the expense of everyone else’s liberty, whether it’s removing references to God in our schools or disrespecting our law enforcement.

    And if tact is the art of making a point without making an enemy, Colin Kaepernick’s rudeness during the national anthem is proof of what 3 out of 4 us already believe about the decline of politeness in our country and that we’re making enemies of one other as fellow Americans – far more often than not.

    It reminds me of what Abraham Lincoln said: “America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.”

    This is why there’s more at stake here than a football player sitting on his ass. And there’s no more polite way to say that, at all.

     

  • We Talk About the Power of Prayer

    We Talk About the Power of Prayer

    We talk about the power of prayer. About how it can transform a life, enlighten and guide us. Inspire us.

    Many refer to themselves as “prayer warriors”, and they belong to prayer groups in churches all across our country, coming together to pray – everyday. Praying for healing. For peace. For wisdom. For the poor, and those who are hurting.

    But is prayer enough? The Bible tells us that faith alone, without works, is dead, “What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works?” And yes, oh Lord yes, we need both this year, if we ever needed them, for sure.

    This was no more evident in recent days than in the miraculous relief efforts of churches from all over our country, who rolled up their sleeves, packed up 18-wheelers that were full of supplies, drove into Baton Rouge and assisted those who lost nearly every material possession they owned during the historic flooding there.

    The truth is, though, our country has always needed its churches, and prayer. You may not have needed it – but our country has – and still does. It’s right there in the Declaration of Independence, hiding in plain sight. It says, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

    Did you catch it? The reason that prayer is so very needed for our country, and our very way of life, is that without the Creator, there are no rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. None. And because government’s duty is to protect these rights for us, it’s necessary that we elect men and women who pray. You don’t necessarily have to, but those whom we elect must.

    After all, if we continue to elect those who don’t acknowledge our rights come from our Creator, or that there is even a Creator, at all, how can these elected officials possibly pretend to protect our rights, if they don’t believe the Creator is the source of those rights to begin with?

    Put another way, we are all free to believe what we wish, or not to believe at all. This isn’t about your religion, and frankly, that’s a personal matter, anyways. But what matters to every single one of us is that we elect a government that acknowledges our rights come from God because, if they don’t come from God, they must necessarily come from man – and what man can give, man can also take away.

    There is more reason for concern here, though. The share of Americans who identify as atheists has roughly doubled in the past several years – and that’s just the beginning of it. In fact, for every 1 admitted atheist in our country, there are three more Americans that say they do not believe in God or a universal spirit, either.

    This declining faith is most evident in our young people. Consider that 70% of those ages 65 and older express an absolutely certain belief in God or a universal spirit, but only about half of adults under 30 feel the same way (51%).

    In fact, it is estimated that by 2050 the percentage of the U.S. population attending church will be almost half of what it is today. Those that profess no particular spiritual belief already make up 21% of our electorate – and that is up 50% from 2008.

    Non-believers even make-up a larger voting block than Catholics, than Protestants, or any other religious group out there.

    And for some reason, they also make up a significant portion of the Democratic Party – more than 25% of Democrats are non-believers. This influence was reflected in the 2012 Democratic Party Platform which did not mention, whatsoever, our Creator, in any shape, form, or fashion. In the Democrat’s 2016 platform, there were three (3) shorthand references to God, but in the context of an individual’s “God-given” potential (but no mention of any redeeming value that religion provides to society).

    But if it is too unholy of an idea to replace “God” with the arbitrary power of government officials, who pretend to know what is best for us, that limit what we can say, and that minimize the expression of our faith, then prayer alone is likely not enough for you.

    Instead, we must also elect men and women who believe in God (even if you don’t), to preserve our unalienable rights. And not because any of us are less holy, but because elected officials who already believe in God, already know it will never be their right, nor has it ever been, to decide yours.

  • 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.