September 20, 2014
Wednesday evening, I went up Lohman Ave. here in Las Cruces to a demonstration on the sidewalk in front of Dion’s restaurant, near the location of an abortion clinic due to open in town. The demonstration, a pro-life initiative affiliated with the national 40 Days For Life Project, will actually be going on for 50 days here through November 2. For 16 hours every day, volunteers will be in place, holding signs and making their presence, views and convictions about abortion known, but there is another aspect to this that sets it apart from most other demonstrations. The volunteers are engaged in prayer; prayer for women considering abortion, workers at abortion clinics, our leaders on every level and especially for the unborn children who are in mortal danger whenever a pregnant woman walks into one of these clinics.
At the start of this event on Sunday, there were over 200 people of many different faith-based denominations and many church leaders from many different churches who came out in support of this cause. The main thing these people have in common is a conviction grounded in their faith that abortion is wrong, is the killing of innocent children in the womb and that it has no place in our home town. Catholics and Protestants of all types are standing side by side, unified in principle and prayer.
On Wednesday, I met a woman there named Mickey, a soft-spoken lady with an easy smile and the light of love in her eyes that made it immediately clear to me that, when she spoke about wanting to save the lives of the unborn, it was coming straight from her heart. I thought about the accusations that will inevitably be thrown at these people, mainly that the pro-life crowd is a bunch of bullies trying to force and control women. I suspect that, if they were capable of letting go of their venom and anger for just five minutes to talk to someone like Mickey, they’d realize how empty those accusations actually are. She was holding a sign that read, “Pray To End Abortion” and also a pink rosary. She and several others had been praying the Rosary, one man was going though the Stations of the Cross and another was holding a sign while engaged in deep prayer. Mickey spoke to me about God’s love for these unborn children and also of His love for the women carrying these children and the workers at the abortion clinics. She talked about her love for them, as well. She told me how abortion causes nothing but pain and damage and death and how she can’t understand how so many people shut their eyes tight and ignore it all, hiding behind the false banners of choice and freedom. I heard the pain in her words, but also a strong, quiet conviction when she told me that she knew that God would not abandon them in their efforts; that He would be right there and bless their cause because they were being true to His teachings and to the cause of protecting innocent life.
If you want to see the faces of true warriors, all you have to do is go out to one of these events. They are taking place in countless cities across the nation. In New Mexico, there are events in Las Cruces, Albuquerque and Rio Rancho. For specific information on 40 Days For Life, go to 40daysforlife.com. Meet these people, talk with them and pray with them and you’ll find yourself in the midst of people who take the principles of their faith very seriously. For a Christian, taking a stand like this first means submission; submission to God’s will and to the principles laid out in scripture. It means doing things that are hard and unpopular and that require sacrifice. These people are committed to doing what’s right under any conditions. For 16 hours every day, these people are on that sidewalk, no matter what the weather…and we’ve been getting a lot of rain this week. It’s not the worst thing in the world to be exposed to, but try standing out in the rain for 15 minutes. It will take it’s toll on you very quickly. They are setting aside their personal wants and comfort in order to serve a higher cause: the saving of human life. With over a million abortions being performed in the United States every year* and a more and more permissive attitude toward the ending of life en utero, it qualifies in my mind as an epidemic that is in desperate need of attention and in desperate need of people willing to stand up for those who cannot stand up for themselves. These people have done that and continue to.
Although they are claiming ‘logistics issues’, the fact is that the abortion clinic that was set to open last Monday has still, as of today, never opened its doors yet. You can blame it on coincidence if you like, but the truth is, when people of conviction and principle stand up to be counted, especially those whose faith shines so brightly in the dark…and the rain, others take notice and things do change. Keep watching these groups as the official 40 Days starts very shortly. This is how positive change happens.
* from the Guttmacher Institute and the Centers For Disease Control 2013 numbers.
Aug. 5, 2014
Las Cruces, New Mexico
Yesterday, in the Las Cruces City Council meeting, signatures gathered by the organization, CAFe, were brought to the attention of the council. City Clerk, Esther Martinez-Carrillo brought Resolution No. 15-018: A Resolution Reviewing and Approving the Certification of Signatures on an Initiative Petition Proposing Adoption of an Ordinance Setting Minimum Wages to the floor. This resolution was simply for the council to accept that the City Clerk’s Office had recieved and verified the required number of valid signatures to petition the city council to address the demand of CAFe to increase the minimum wage in Las Cruces to $10.10 per hour. The clerk’s office went through 5,063 signatures in order to reach the required 2,257 valid signatures.
The City Council unanimously accepted the petition as valid and will have a first reading of the proposed ordinance at the August 18th meeting. After that, a meeting will be set no later than September 8th for the Council to decide whether to adopt the ordinance or to vote it down; at which point, it would be placed on the ballot for a special election.
The Las Cruces Sun News quoted CAFe executive director Sarah Nolan as saying, “We’re super thrilled it was a unanimous vote from the council. We’re very excited, and glad they had this discussion.”
The thing is, there was no discussion about the actual minimum wage proposal. In fact, Mayor Ken Miyagishima made it clear in the meeting that arguments for or against the proposal would be inappropriate and not allowed at that time, so any claim or allusion that there was any positive or negative discussion of the issue is false. The unanimous decision that Nolan referred to was only an affirmation of the City Clerk’s ability to validate the signatures. Any attempt to use that vote to claim any council support for CAFe’s agenda is purely propaganda. The fact is that no member of the council voiced either support or opposition regarding the issue itself with only one exception.
While several council members thanked Ester Martinez-Carrillo for her work in verifying the signatures, City Councilor Olga Pedroza also thanked and congratulated CAFe, saying, “I also want to compliment the people who brought together the public participation. We always talk about engagement and engagement of the public, but, uh, I have not been on the council as long as, uh, Councilor Small, but this is the first time that I have seen the numbers of people engaged and willing to participate, so to all who were involved, thank you and congratulations.” While not being an overt endorsement of this minimum wage initiative, the positive message directed at CAFe is not surprising. Pedroza has made her hard left positions clear on many occasions, including her recent campaign for re-election to her city council position. There’s not a lot of doubt about which way she’ll vote once the legislation is brought before the council, but there is no telling how any other councilor will vote. It does seem likely, though, that the Council will not approve the ordinance and it will then be put on the ballot for Las Cruces citizens to vote on.
CAFe has been pushing for a hefty increase in the minimum wage for quite a while now. When the City Council did approve an ordinance to increase by increments the minimum wage to $8.50 per hour by the beginning of 2016 as a sort of reasonable compromise, CAFe made it very clear that compromise was not an option. The damage that this kind of increase could cause, not only to businesses, but also to the employees that groups like CAFe claim to want to help doesn’t seem to be much of a factor to these people. They are firmly locked into the entitlement mentality and can’t seem to grasp the concept that a nearly 35% mandatory increase in pay is going to hurt those minimum wage employees by hurting their employers. The ridiculous idea that business owners are akin to Scrooge McDuck, swimming in vaults full of gold while their workers barely survive has been spread like a virus by liberals. While a $2.60 per hour raise doesn’t seem like much, try multiplying that expense by multiple employees and that small amount adds up to some serious money. These sorts of increases result in larger businesses laying off workers and smaller businesses either doing the same or just simply going out of business. No one is helped, no matter how high the minimum wage is raised, if there are no jobs available for workers to earn ANY kind of wage. In all cases, though, there is also a sharp increase in the cost of goods and services as well. In best case scenarios, after a nearly 35% increase in the minimum wage, as CAFe is wanting, you’ll see prices rise 35% to make up for the extra expense of just making payroll. Often, that increase will end up being even greater, meaning that, while these people that groups like CAFe claim to be trying to help have more dollars in their pocket on payday, they can’t buy as much as they could before. You don’t genuinely help people by selling them an illusion that things are getting better while they stay locked into jobs that were only meant to be entry-level, not something designed to make a career out of and raise a family on.
I’m hoping that business owners who can see the damage that this sort of action will cause, along with clear-headed employees with that same vision, will get out and vote to defeat this measure if (and probably when) it makes it onto the ballot. We already know that there are a lot of people in Las Cruces who believe this kind of minimum wage increase is a good thing, so this is not a time to sit home on Election Day and hope everything will work out. This will be a time where every level-headed Las Crucen needs to get to the polls and do their part to defeat this initiative before the damage can be done. The only possible saving grace is the fact that, on the path to verifying 2,257 signatures on CAFe’s petition, 2,806 signatures were deemed invalid but, since we don’t know why they were rejected, there’s really no reason to gain any reassurance from that. The only way to insure that this increase does not become law is to actively make our voices heard; to get out and vote and get your friends, family, co-workers and bosses to do the same. Get out in November and protect your jobs and businesses from this probably well-intentioned but highly destructive law before it can be enacted.
July 25, 2014
Earlier this week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that the federal government may not subsidize health insurance plans bought by people in states that decided not to set up their own marketplaces under the health care law. That is, in 27 states (and seven others that have partnership exchanges) that opted out of setting up exchanges, the court says that it is illegal to provide federal tax credit subsidies for insurance plans in those states.
The new White House spokesman, Josh Earnest, has criticized the ruling, saying, “You don’t need a fancy legal degree to understand that Congress intended for every eligible American to have access to tax credits that would lower their health care costs, regardless of whether it was state officials or federal officials who were running the marketplace.”
Earnest is right on one point; you don’t have to have a “fancy law degree” to understand what the law says. The problem is that, while intent does need to be take into consideration for understanding a law, the actual wording still carries most of the weight.
In 26 U.S. Code § 36B -Refundable credit for coverage under a qualified health plan, it says (and pay close attention to subsection A):
(2) Premium assistance amount
The premium assistance amount determined under this subsection with respect to any coverage month is the amount equal to the lesser of—
(A) the monthly premiums for such month for 1 or more qualified health plans offered in the individual market within a State which cover the taxpayer, the taxpayer’s spouse, or any dependent (as defined in section 152) of the taxpayer and which were enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State under 1311  of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or
(B) the excess (if any) of—
(i) the adjusted monthly premium for such month for the applicable second lowest cost silver plan with respect to the taxpayer, over
(ii) an amount equal to 1/12 of the product of the applicable percentage and the taxpayer’s household income for the taxable year.
The language is clearly referencing state run exchanges specifically. Earnest wants to assume that the Democrats intended Americans to have access to tax credits, no matter where the exchange was run from, but I see a different intent in their actions. It seems to me that the Democrats tried to be overly clever with their wording in order to force all states to comply and set up those states that opted out to be punished by the law in order to keep them in line. After all, it’s been standard operating procedure for the Democrats, especially during the Obama presidency, to cause a great deal of pain for the average citizen and then blame that pain on the Republicans in order to turn people against the GOP. What better way to do this than to implement a program where everybody is forced to buy into it and if they don’t, they’re punished for not complying. Then, when a state decides to opt out, the citizens are punished and blame is placed squarely on the shoulders of their elected officials (normally Republicans) who chose to stand against something as horrible as Obamacare on behalf of those same citizens.
It’s actually a fairly typical strong arm tactic. Where a criminal might threaten your safely or that of your family, the government is threatening our state elected officials with the possible loss of their voter base. It’s a case of, “Do what I say or else.”
Circuit Judge Thomas B. Griffith wrote, “At least until states that wish to can set up Exchanges, our ruling will likely have significant consequences both for the millions of individuals receiving tax credits through federal Exchanges and for health insurance markets more broadly.” Whether or not Judge Griffith meant it this way or not, the narrative that the left is going to latch onto is clear in this statement. These states must comply with Obamacare or their citizens will be hurt. Further, the liberals can then glue their halos back onto the points of their horns and decry these conservative meanies; they created this wonderful health care system with the sole motivation being to help the American people (right into a pauper’s prison with bars constructed out of entitlements and dependency) and these villains came along to fight against anything our poor, virtuous president does solely because these slavering beasts, who insist on clinging to their guns and religion, can’t stand the thought of a black man in the White House. You’ve heard all this before…it’s like a game of ‘Telephone’ where the message is repeated verbatim every time. It’s almost like the message is being repeated and spread by an army of automatons instead of people…but that’s probably a subject for another article.
So, let me be clear on the conservative point of view on this case, at least for myself and I suspect for the majority of conservatives: Yes; anything that damages and pushes Obamacare closer to repeal is a very good thing, but, no; conservatives are not rejoicing at people being hurt by this court decision, should it stand. The motivation for the right to oppose Obamacare is that it will cause and, in fact already is, causing damage; to companies and employers, to employees, to the rich, but especially to the middle and lower classes. Nothing truly positive can come from something like this that forces people to become consumers of a product, that forces employers to provide services even if those services violate their God given rights and that creates and encourages a system of dependence and discourages excellence and innovation. That is what Obamacare is ultimately about.
No matter how much liberals want to spread the lies that conservatives don’t care about anyone other than corporations and the rich, the truth can’t just be washed away by their loud voices coming from a multitude of directions. There are solid reasons to oppose Obamacare and, because it is a program worthy of being opposed, even the smallest damage caused to it should be counted as a small victory. True conservatives will continue to hold the administration to adhere to the specifics and wording of the law so that people will fully see how horrible it is and that ‘fixing’ and ‘tweaking’ of the passed law are not only not going to make things better, but is illegal. Of course, ultimately, the true victory comes when every vestige of Obamacare is wiped away so that a good system can be built up in its place; one that will encourage economic growth and the desire to excel instead of limiting it and that will protect and help those in serious medical need instead of throwing them to the dogs because they’d be too much of a drain on the system.
It’s true that these legal setbacks, like this decision and the Supreme Court ‘Hobby Lobby’ decision, are affirmations that Obamacare is hurting people and that the Obama administration cannot simply rewrite this bad law as they go to fit their needs or to quiet their critics. There are 6.7 million people, according to the administration, who are getting tax credits to be able to pay their premiums for insurance policies on the exchanges. Yet, they still want to use the word ‘affordable’ in the name of the law. There is nothing affordable about anything that requires that kind of massive financial assistance just to pay premiums. I’ve had different kinds of insurance over my life and I’ve never had to take out a loan or ask the federal government for financial aid to pay my premiums…but maybe I’m just abnormal in today’s America of Obama, Hillary, Reid and Pelosi.
The bigger picture, though, is that Obamacare is simply bad law. One judge on this court, Harry Edwards, in his dissenting opinion wrote, “This case is about Appellants’ not-so-veiled attempt to gut the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.” I submit that the efforts to gut and also to repeal the ACA are not veiled at all, nor should they be. This law has no place in a country like ours and true Americans who understand how horrid this law is should not stop until it has been removed from the books and exists as nothing more than a cautionary tale of what not to do with our health system.
* This current case is far from being resolved, as the Court of Appeals in Virginia ruled hours later that the subsidies were legal and proper, no matter how the exchange was set up. This could lead to yet another case involving Obamacare being brought before the Supreme Court.
More Corruption From Our Elected Officials
July 9, 2014
Former New Orleans mayor, Ray Nagin, was convicted today on 20 counts of corruption, including fraud, bribery, money laundering and tax evasion before and after Hurricane Katrina. He has been sentenced to ten years in federal prison and ordered to pay $82,000 in restitution. Nagin accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes, including not only money, but also free vacation trips and truckloads of free granite for his family business.
While I’m not saying that there are no corrupt Republicans because, obviously there are, the majority of these types of corruption cases, from Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich’s 14 year sentence for eight counts of corruption to U.S. Representative Charles Rangel’s (D-NY) conviction on 11 ethics violations in Congress to California State Senator Leland Yee’s charges of, among other things, gun running, involve Democrats. It’s true that Republicans also get caught with their hand in the proverbial cookie jar. Just look at the current situation in Mississippi with Senate candidate and incumbent Thad Cochran and the voter fraud charges against him. Like so many others with an ‘R’ by their name who have become embroiled in this kind of wrongdoing, Cochran has been immersed in the same liberal-dominated environment as his colleagues with ‘D’s by their names. In fact, his practices in the Republican primary against Tea Party candidate, Chris McDaniel, were much more typical of the Democrat Party than the GOP. For me, I see very little difference philosophically between someone like Thad Cochran and someone like Ray Nagin or Charlie Rangel.
The question in my mind is: Why is this sort of thing becoming so much more prevalent? I would argue that, especially with Democrats, we are seeing the consequences of their embracing and promoting of the entitlement mentality that they’ve championed for so many years. If your average American (and in some cases, illegal immigrant) deserves and is entitled to money, services and things regardless of whether they actually do anything to earn them or not, how can that thought process not translate over to those who consider themselves the political elite of our society? If they want, they’ll reason, they should be able to just take, especially if it’s being offered to them by others. After all, they do work that contributes to the ‘greater good’, so that should balance out against the occasional violation of the laws that many of them feel that, as legislators, they should be exempt from anyway.
Besides the dangers of our elected officials using their positions to consciously impose tyranny upon us, there is also the insidious danger of becoming desensitized to moral and legal absolutes when they come into conflict with our growing “I want…I need…I deserve” mentality. It’s really not such a stretch since the government regularly engages in theft, taking larger and larger amounts of money from those who earned it in order to funnel that it into whatever programs or purposes they deem to be deserving, sometimes even having the gall to call this theft “charity”.
Add to that the government’s most recent foray into both theft and control through intimidation known as Obamacare. This is a program designed to force every citizen to buy something (in this case, insurance) whether they want it or not. It rips away anything (what Obama refers to as ‘inferior plans’) that people have decided they want and have spent their own money to acquire if it doesn’t meet the standards set by these elites in Washington. It has also demanded that employers meet the needs that the government has decided are vital, even when those demands violate the liberties of those employers. Thankfully, the Supreme Court has offered up at least a small amount of opposition to this last part.
It’s these sorts of practices, plus things like the intimidation tactics of the IRS against conservative groups, the huge data mining operations by the NSA and the blatant circumventing of our governmental system by Obama with his phone and pen that would gain the respect of the likes of Al Capone, were he alive today. He might even go into politics to get his piece of this very dirty pie, assuming that he could put aside his own conscience to do so.
So, the question that we all have to ask is, what do we do about, not only the blatant disregard for morality, decency and the law by our elected officials, but what do we do about the liberal mindset that has created an atmosphere where these sorts of actions aren’t seen as being such a big deal as they would have been in the past. For me, that answer is simple: Dissipate the entitlement/victimhood mentality that has been used to explain away the demotivation of our citizens and to justify acts that once we would’ve considered deplorable and unthinkable and replace it with an atmosphere inspired by our founding fathers and those that came after to build on those original concepts and the sense of American exceptionalism that all that effort led to.
I wrote the following after voting in the New Mexico Republican primaries on June 3, 2014. I made a choice not to publish it until after the polls had closed and some of the dust had settled.
I haven’t posted much here in the last several months, but that’s about to change. My time and attention has been pulled and stretched in a lot of different directions, but I feel a burden to write now on something that is weighing very heavily on me.
Today is Primary Day here in New Mexico, as it is in so many other states. Anybody who knows anything about me knows that I’ve been passionately promoting David Clements for U.S. Senate for the past seven months, since he first declared his candidacy. In that time, I’ve gotten involved in the political world in ways I’d never considered. I was asked to become a Vice-Director of an amazing group, New Mexico Conservatives For Freedom, with some of the most inspiring local conservatives I’ve ever met. I’ve served as a delegate for the first time ever at the state Republican Pre-Primary Convention. I’ve participated in fund-raisers and rallies and gotten to meet and talk with people I would’ve thought were beyond my reach. I was even given the label of ‘conservative activist’ (two words you don’t normally put together) by a member of the Clements campaign and decided to embrace that. Yes, consider me Randy Lynch, conservative activist. I’m owning that! The point is that I feel so blessed by my experiences over the past seven months.
There’s another point I feel I have to make, though. I have addressed from the beginning why I believe that David Clements is the best possible candidate that we could hope for; that he’s a man of knowledge, principle and conviction. I also addressed, when he entered the race, how Allen Weh was a much less desirable candidate and, as I learned and saw for myself more about who Weh is, I also addressed why I believe that he is simply bad candidate who exhibits poor character and principles that are way too flexible depending on circumstances.
I’ve been asked multiple times what I will do if Allen Weh wins this primary tonight; will I support him against Democrat and incumbent, Tom Udall. Sometimes it’s been asked by people who honestly want to know, but more often, it’s been by those with a pro-Weh agenda who want to paint me as the kind of person who, when I don’t get my way, tries to ‘burn the Party to the ground’. Putting aside those childish and over-simplified accusations, here’s my answer, covering every aspect I can think of that applies.
First, regarding the kind of support I’ve given the Clements campaign: No, I will not come out and tell people what a great guy Allen Weh is. I couldn’t even say that he’d good for New Mexico or the nation. Understand that what I’ve said and written about both Clements and Weh was not just campaign rhetoric to be discarded and forgotten after the election. I don’t function that way and I really don’t understand those who do. Many have said very nasty things about Clements, then, in the same breath, say how, if David gets the nomination, they’ll get fully behind him. To me, that smacks of an incredibly arrogant level of hypocrisy. The kind of man that I’ve said that Weh is; that’s the kind of man he is. I didn’t talk about his embarrassing run against Susana Martinez in 2010 or his lukewarm positions on issues like Obamacare or his cowardice in directly engaging his primary opponent on the issues or the fact the he and his people have tried to limit the public’s ability to hear what he has to say to certain groups because I was looking to present Allen Weh in a worse light than David Clements. While that was a factor, the main reason I talked about all of that and more is because it’s true. An electoral victory doesn’t magically change any of that. It doesn’t mean that he’s suddenly the best choice for the job. Truthfully, he’s just the candidate who got the most votes.
I can’t in good conscience start promoting Allen Weh as a good man or even as a good candidate. It would be inconsistent and hypocritical of me to do so. I can talk about how horrible a senator Tom Udall has been and all that he’s done to help limit our liberty, steal our land and destroy our healthcare system. It’s true that I want Udall out of office because of the damage he’s caused and the damage he still has the potential to cause in the future. It’s also true that there have been many occasions where I’ve cast my vote for candidates while figuratively holding my nose. After all, I voted for Mitt Romney in the last presidential election and I have even said that I’d probably even vote for Chris Christie should he get the Republican nomination in 2016, God forbid, especially if he’s running against Hillary. I have always maintained that the worst and/or most liberal Republican is normally still a better choice than the best and/or most conservative Democrat. It’s just the reality of modern politics that has seen me vote for the lesser of two evils a lot of times. With David Clements, I haven’t had to worry about being stuck in that awful position. If he wins tonight, I can easily give my whole hearted support, time and energy to his campaign and, of course, gladly give him my vote in November. However, if Allen Weh wins the primary tonight, I’m not even sure how I’ll vote in November, as I don’t know that he would even qualify as the lesser evil, compared to Udall. What I do know is that I would not be supporting Weh’s campaign on any level except to point out the shortcomings of Tom Udall. I focus on the truth and the truth is something that will never be a beneficial ally of someone like Allen Weh.
Of course, that night, Allen Weh did win the primary election, but it was not an easy victory for him. In the course of a few months (he entered the race well after Clements did), Weh spent $372,622 while Clements only spent $43,967 and yet Weh got 41,455 votes to David’s 24,390. The media is portraying it as an easy victory, but that is the last thing it was. Weh spent months running scared, doing everything in his power to avoid direct interaction and comparison with Clements, including canceling two scheduled debates. His campaign also engaged in attacks and accusations against Clements that were very reminiscent of his 2010 gubernatorial run against Susana Martinez. There was nothing easily won about this primary.
Fifty years ago today, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. delivered his “I Have a Dream” speech from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial to over 250,000 attendees of the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom. He talked about his desire to see America become a nation that truly lived up to the concepts and principles laid out in our Constitution; in the broadest strokes, that all people are created equal, are endowed by their creator with the unalienable rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness and that these rights must be protected for all Americans in order for them to have meaning for any of us.
In so many ways, our nation in the fifties and sixties was a completely different place from the America of today. It was a world of segregation; of separate restaurants, schools, bathrooms and even drinking fountains. It was the world of Bull Connor, Orval Faubus, the proliferation of the Ku Klux Klan and the murders of Emmett Till and Medgar Evers.
It was also the world of Rosa Parks, Thurgood Marshall, the Little Rock Nine, the Congress of Racial Equality, the formation of the NAACP, Nina Simone, Charles K. Steele, Fred L. Shuttlesworth, A. D. William King, Sr. and, of course, Martin Luther King, Jr. It was a world where blacks were intimidated, assaulted and devalued on a regular basis. While the Emancipation Proclamation had changed the career status of blacks 100 years previous, remarkably little had actually changed since. Blacks were still seen and treated by so many, manly those associated with the Democrat party by the way, as unimportant, deserving of hatred and derision and even as sub-human. When Dr. King took to that microphone 50 years ago, he carried within him the frustration of fighting a long a painful battle that often yielded more heartache and sorrow than success, but he also carried within him the bright burning flame of hope; hope for a better world where people wouldn’t be separated by what they are, but would be valued for who they are (i.e.. character over color). In his words, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”
The world of today is much changed from that world, although not always for the better and often not as much as we might wish. We still have racial division and inequity. While the overall national unemployment rate is 7.4%, the unemployment rate among blacks is 12.6% while the rate for blacks between the ages of 16 to 19 is 41.6%. The overall poverty rate for blacks in America is 35%. While black women only make up 14% of the female population of the country, black women have 36% of all abortions in the nation. On average, 1,876 black babies are aborted in America daily. It’s been estimated that since 1973, black women have had around 16 million abortions. 67% of black children are being raised in single parent homes and one in fifteen black men are behind bars.
So the question occurs to me, one that’s been asked over and over with many different answers: How would Martin Luther King Jr. view this country if he was alive today, 50 years after speaking his explosively powerful words? Now, I know that it’s truly folly to claim to know what’s in the heart and mind of another, but this man exposed so much of his heart and mind in his writing, his speaking and his actions that I think it’s relatively safe to draw some pretty solid conclusions.
I don’t think there’s a simple answer of either positive or negative to the question, either. Truthfully, there is so much that he would be happy to see. Our college campuses welcome students of all races to study side by side. Black Americans like Oprah Winfrey, Russell Simmons, Kenneth Frazier, Sean Combs, Tyler Perry, Robert and Sheila Johnson, Don Peebles have excelled in business to become incredibly successful and wealthy. No sport is off-limits to black athletes, nor is the entertainment industry. Blacks take an active role in our government, from local, state and federal legislatures to the court systems, including the Supreme Court, to government posts throughout the White House and ambassadorial positions to other nations and to the United Nations. Dr. King would also be overjoyed to see that we live in a time where a black man can even find the position of President of the United States of America within his grasp.
Now, that being said, there is plenty that I believe Dr. King would be devastated to see, as well. Our public schools are failing and, instead of working to fix them, the government is more focused on keeping those students they claim to want to protect locked into those schools, hiding behind the concept of equality and claims of trying to prevent a return to segregation. Instead of teaching kids to think and giving them the keys to better themselves, the school system, all the way up to and including most colleges and universities, are more akin to indoctrination centers focused on instilling the liberal agenda on impressionable minds. In the words of Dr. King, “The function of education is to teach one to think intensively and to think critically. Intelligence plus character – that is the goal of true education.” In today’s school system, the function has become to fill one’s head with propaganda to further the cause of our increasingly socialistic government. It doesn’t help that the majority of our various celebrities use their notoriety to further that agenda even more.
I believe that the casual approach to human life that we’ve taken would horrify him as well. We’re killing each other for money or designer footwear or a desire for fame or for religious beliefs or just to combat boredom and, of all of this casual violence, the biggest epidemic is the explosion of black on black crime. With all the threats and dangers that have been leveled against black Americans over the years, the threat from other blacks may be the worst and definitely the most out of control.
Add to that the fact that we’re killing our unborn at such a high rate and with such efficiency as to make the most blood-thirsty despot envious and I suspect Dr. King would positively have tears in his eyes. In 2012, there were more than 1.2 million abortions in the U.S. and it’s been estimated that there have been 54,559,615 reported abortions in America since 1973 (based on reported information from the Guttmacher Institute) Dr. King was a man who valued his faith and dedicated his life to fighting for those who were being victimized. His heart would bleed for the unborn as well as the living victims of injustice. As he said, and this applies to all races, “The Negro cannot win if he is willing to sacrifice the futures of his children for immediate personal comfort and safety. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”
While we do have blacks in this country that are now in positions to influence or make laws, policies and judicial rulings, the majority of them are using that power to strengthen the new chains of slavery: entitlements, dependence on government and victim mentality, while those blacks (mainly conservative blacks) who stand up against the implementation of these chains and vilified, marginalized and subjected to some of the most hateful, bigoted, intolerant attacks to be seen since the days of Dr. King. And this is where we come back to the biggest point that’s been weighing heavily on my mind. While I did say that I felt that Dr. King would be overjoyed to see us reach a point where a black man could become President or where others, both black and other minority ethnicities could achieve high level positions in the government, whether they be appointed or elected, I suspect that the actual people in those positions, including President Obama, would create a much different reaction within him. To repeat once again what he said in his speech that we’re commemorating, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” When dealing with our current batch of liberals, be they black, white or any other color (although the focus is mainly on black liberals, due to the subject matter), there is very little that is positive in their characters. These black liberals, from Barack Obama to Attorney General Eric Holder to politicians like Representative Sheila Jackson Lee and Bobby Rush to members of the self-proclaimed black leadership like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, excel at race baiting, dividing instead of uniting, berating and bullying those who disagree with them and attempting to change the culture, laws and structure of America into something counter to how America was created. Dr. King would never have gone along with their shenanigans. His focus was on putting an end to racial divisions and hatred. He wanted to see both sides come together, “I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.” Dr. King regularly cited from the Constitution, using it as the touchstone from which to launch the campaign for true equality for all, paying homage to the importance and value of the document, not looking for ways around it to get his way or citing it only to further his agenda, as so many liberals do today.
President Obama has even tried to claim this past Tuesday that Dr. King would’ve liked his Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare. On the Tom Joyner Morning Show, Obama said, “I think he understood that health care, health security is not a privilege, it’s something that in a country as wealthy as ours, everybody should have access to. And starting on October 1, because of the Affordable Care Act — Obamacare — anybody who doesn’t have health insurance in this country is going to be able to get it at an affordable rate.” Well, I see two major problems with that assertion. First, Dr. King was a very intelligent man, both in terms of academic intelligence and common sense. I don’t believe it would’ve taken him long to see through the carefully crafted veneer to the rotten core of this bill that is designed to attack and cripple, if not outright destroy business in America, both small and large. He would see that this destruction would imprison the individual, blocking them from career growth and the ability to reach upward toward excellence. I don’t believe that he would ever have accepted the premise spread by Nancy Pelosi and others that we had to pass the bill in order to find out what was in it. That sort of ‘logic’ may be accepted by many today, but in Dr. King’s time, where a hand held out in friendship could still be hiding a knife meant to do harm, quite literally at times, those sorts of assertions would’ve been viewed as naive idiocy at best. Then, once he looked at the heart of the bill and the layers designed to gradually drop the nation further and further into dependence on a government controlled monopoly until there could be no climbing back out, he would’ve spoken out strongly and passionately. The concept of being taken care of by the government was completely opposite to his message. He held that everyone should be treated equally, be treated with respect and dignity and given a fair opportunity to put out the effort to improve their lives. “Whatever your life’s work is, do it well. A man should do his job so well that the living, the dead and the unborn could not do it better.” He was a man who understood the difference between a handout and a hand up. The damage that Obamacare is poised to cause all Americans is the sort of damage that he spent his life speaking out against. Obama must be either delusional or simply grasping at anything to lend legitimacy to his bill to claim that Dr. King would approve of such a thing.
Now, I know that a lot of this has been very negative in the face of observing such a wonderful historic milestone, but hiding from the truth or sugar coating it was something that Dr. King never did. He met the reality of injustice and wrong-doing head on at every opportunity. He stood up and fought the enemies of liberty at every turn. In his day, those enemies were racism, hatred and those who grasped for power and wealth by walking on the backs of those they deemed to be worthy only to be victims, suited only for serving their purposes. Today, our enemies are divisiveness, the erosion and eventual collapse of our values and principles, and those who grasp for power and wealth by walking on the backs of those they deem to be worthy only to be victims, suited only for serving their purposes. The more things change, the more they stay the same. It’s always good to remember the giants in our past, to celebrate their brilliance and courage and sacrifice, but if we want to honor the memory of people like Martin Luther King, then we have to get up and follow his example. Stand up for what’s right. Oppose the victimization of our people and the tyranny of those trying to take on the role of our masters. Protect the foundation of this nation which was founded on freedom for all; the concept that all of us were created equal and were endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, among which are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Most of all, fight, fight and then fight some more. Never quit fighting for what’s right. Never quit fighting against what is wrong. Dr. King was arrested 30 times in his fight for civil rights and he never quit. Never fail to fight for our brothers and sisters to keep them free from victimization and slavery, even if they’re going along with the program happily ignorant to where they’re heading.
I know that my words are not as strong as others, so I’ll leave you with strong words from a very strong man that I greatly admire and am so grateful to for standing up and fighting:
“The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy” – Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Written by Randy Lynch
The writings of Martin Luther King, Jr.
Bureau of Labor Statistics
U.S. Census Bureau
American Community Survey
Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation
Kids Count Data Center
National Institute of Justice
Pew Center On The States
The Guttmacher Institute
“Abortion Statistics: United States Data and Trends” by NRLC education director Dr. Randall K. O’Bannon
July 15, 2013
I’ve backed away from commenting on the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin case very much outside of the race baiting and bias of the media and the majority of left-wing celebrities and politicians and a little on the actual mechanics of the case, which so few seem interested in anyway. The main reason for that is because I knew that many people, no matter what position they’d chosen to take, would find what I have to say very harsh and probably offensive. Still, here’s what’s been rattling around in my head ever since this trial started:
I’ve noticed that there seem to be three types of people talking about the Zimmerman verdict: those who believe that Zimmerman was a racist piece of trash just out to kill a black kid, those who believe that Zimmerman was totally justified and was only defending himself in a situation that was unavoidable, and those who have been fooled into buying this narrative that Martin was just an innocent, harmless little boy who was victimized by big mean George who apparently ‘took the law into his own hands’ by getting out of his car (which is not a crime, so can’t actually be defined as taking the law into his own hands any more than me taking the law into my own hands by disagreeing with an elected official after being told not to). Oh, there’s also a fourth type: a very tiny group who are addressing the merits of the case and evidence as presented in court. But that group doesn’t really matter to most because they’re not being driven by emotionalism. They’re the type who wait and see instead of taking a hard position on an incident they couldn’t possibly have enough prior knowledge about and then getting happy or angry depending on the outcome, regardless of any facts.
To put a fine point on this, both men were stupid…both made wrong decisions. But there is no one, unless they’re trying to fool themselves or others, that shouldn’t be happy that being dumb isn’t illegal! We’ve all done stupid things and we’ve all done stupid things after being told not to.
The fact is that guilt or innocence is supposed to be decided in a court of law and, if you want to argue that Zimmerman was proved guilty in that trial and the jury just made the wrong decision, then I challenge you to cite what evidence was introduced that proved that Zimmerman committed an actual crime when he drew his gun and fired…that’s where the actual crime in question would’ve taken place. I’d even be fine with saying the jury did a bad job if there was evidence that damned Zimmerman, but that the jury chose to ignore, a la OJ. I don’t see how you can say that here, though. I was waiting for the prosecution to introduce something that would point to Zimmerman’s guilt and make their case beyond the shadow of a doubt that is required by law. They didn’t. Yes, they were both stupid; both made bad decisions, but the truth is, from what was brought out at the trial, Travon Martin did not break the law up until he hit George Zimmerman and Zimmerman did not break the law up until he drew his gun and fired. And, according to the jury, Zimmerman didn’t even break the law then. Don’t like it? Think the prosecution couldve done a better job or introduced more evidence? That’s fine, but the fact is that they didn’t. Whining about what a horrible injustice it was or threatening to riot or trying to raise Zimmerman up as some kind of hero or man of virtue ALL falls into the same category of ignorance. You have to be careful with that sort of attitude; it just shows that agenda takes precedence over everything else.
So, here’s something that might just anger and offend almost everyone:
Trayvon Martin was a thug with a bad attitude and criminal background, an affinity for marijuana who was constantly in fist fights. George Zimmerman had also has run-ins with the law. He had a history of aggression and even a charge of abuse and may very well have a hero complex that led him to be in situations he shouldn’t have been in. He chose to believe he knew better than the police dispatch (not always a bad thing) and exercised what would prove to be very bad judgment. Neither were saints and neither were blameless, so neither should be elevated now, not Martin in death and not Zimmerman in his legal exoneration.
There were good things about both. Martin had been a good student at one point, although with the fighting and school suspensions, that may not have been the recent case. He was good to his family and loved by them. Zimmerman has a reputation for helping those in need in his neighborhood, especially in relation to his neighborhood watch duties. Besides his volunteer work with neighborhood watch, he also served as a mentor to several kids of different racial makeups. So neither of these men were horrible, irredeemable monsters, either.
Did Zimmerman commit 2nd degree murder or manslaughter? We’ll never know. There were only two people who witnessed all of the situation and one is dead. Was it a waste of life that could’ve been avoided? Absolutely. Was a crime committed by George Zimmerman in the eyes of the court? No. And, by the way, on another subject that has started coming up, that also means that his gun should be returned to him. Because the court system found him innocent, in the eyes of the law, no crime was committed by him. There are no due process grounds to deprive him of any of his rights. You can, of course, not like it, but you must accept it.
Now, let me be clear. No matter how you feel about the outcome, rioting is a crime and a cowardly attempt to manufacture an excuse to do what’s already in your heart anyway. Also, putting a price on Zimmerman’s head, as the New Black Panthers have announced that they’ll do, is also a crime and identifies you, not as some kind of crusader for the greater good, but as the kind of criminal filth that needs to be tried, convicted and locked away from the rest of society. Finally, those who want to become morally outraged over this case but refuse to condemn these types of actions above or seek to explain them away as understandable, are hypocrites, cowards and/or complicit in these other crimes. Whatever happened to us discussing issues passionately, but also intelligently and with respect for the rights of the opposition to be the opposition? To know when something’s over and not to escalate and make things worse and create a whole other group of victims?
Written by: Randy Lynch
Senator Dick Durbin, on Fox News Sunday this past weekend, made a very disturbing remark about the definition of journalism:
“…the media shield law, which I am prepared to support and I know Senator Graham supports, still leaves an unanswered question which I’ve raised many times. What is a journalist today in 2013? We know it’s someone that works for Fox or AP, but does it include a blogger? Does it include someone who ‘s tweeting? Are these people journalists and entitled to constitutional protection? We need to ask 21st century questions about a provision in our Constitution that was written over 200 years ago.”
Here is a case where what he didn’t say is just as important to look at as what he did say. Durbin says he wants to protect journalists, but he also wants to define what a journalist is. He’s asking about who is entitled to constitutional protection. That means he also wants to know who isn’t entitled to that protection; who can be targeted outside of any safeguards set in place by our Constitution. He’s looking at removing constitutional protections from who he (or the government) deems aren’t ‘real journalists’.
Now, how would the government decide who’s an actual journalist and thus deserving of first amendment protection? There would have to be some sort of licensing process. In order to invoke Freedom of the Press, you would have to be approved to do so…by the very government that, in part, it’s the job of a free press to keep in check. That is not freedom; not what the founders ever had in mind. That is tyranny on the same level as the Soviet Union’s relationship with Pravda during the time of the Cold War.
Durbin also said,”We need to ask 21st century questions about a provision in our Constitution that was written over 200 years ago.” This is a typical attack tactic used by the left. They tried it recently with the debates on gun control, claiming that, when the second amendment was written, the founding fathers only had knowledge of ‘muskets’ and not our modern semi-automatic, so-called ‘assault rifles’, then assuming that they would never have wanted ownership of those firearms protected. Let me make this very clear: CHANGING TECHNOLOGY AND THE PASSAGE OF YEARS DO NOT TRUMP OR CHANGE PRINCIPLE! The Constitution does not have an experation date. It contains concepts that were decided on, not just from current events in their day, but also from a vision of tyranny and governmental abuses throughout history. The rifles of 200 years ago were the military standard of the time. The newspaper reporters and pamphleteers of 200 years ago used what was cutting edge of technology for the time. It’s not the tech that defines a journalist; it’s the action.
The First Amendment says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
If you take a look at the wording, you’ll see that this is actually divided into three subjects:
1) Freedom of Religion: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”
2) Free Speech: “or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;”
3) Freedom of assembly: “or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
In the case of Freedom of Speech, the issue of the press is a secondary concern, falling under the umbrella of free speech. In other words, whether Mr. Durbin likes it or not, the issue of who is and who isn’t protected constitutionally as a journalist is irrelevant, as all Americans are protected under the encompassing concept of Freedom of Speech. Remember that many of the architects of our Constitution were revolutionaries. They brought their revolutionary ideas to play in their efforts to create a nation where revolution could take place without bloodshed. The reason the press was specifically important to them was not because they saw the press as some specialized and properly trained and approved group who brought news to the masses in a specific manner. No, they were important because they represented a voice that could reach the people and shine a light on their government, for good or ill. Our entire government is built on checks and balances and this is simply another one of them. The press was never meant to be an instrument to protect the government or certain political forces within it, but instead to keep that government from trampling the people’s liberty. I suspect our founding fathers would be very dissappointed in us today in that regard.
And don’t think that Dick Durbin is just some lone voice in the Democrat party. He’s not known for independent thought; he’s known for following his marching orders from the DNC. This is a common line of thought among those on the left. They’re only supportive of freedom in ways that benefit them.
Finally, you might be thinking that your readership is too small to be noticeable. Don’t fool yourselves. When it comes to exerting control, letting some voices stay free is never acceptable, no matter how small that voice may be. And, here’s a warning for you liberal bloggers out there that, quite frankly, even if you do happen to read this, you’re still likely to believe yourselves safe from these sorts of tactics because you happen to share the ideology. I figure you’ll just dismiss this, but the cold truth is that the liberal Democrats in power in America don’t possess a single ounce of respect for any media. It’s all just a big dog to them that, when it does what they want, gets petted but, when it crosses them, will get hit in the nose with a newspaper. (Yes, I’m aware of the irony in that statement.) Just look at Bob Woodward. And if you think for a minute that those liberals will abide a nation of voices that they have absolutely no way of controlling, you are far beyond delusional. If they’re allowed to seize the power to define and regulate the press, they will use it to put the entirety of the media, in every possible incarnation, under their thumb. These ‘little people’ out there posting criticisms of the liberal establishment and giving light to stories considered undesirable will be targeted if they can get away with doing it. And don’t fool yourselves into thinking they’d be any friendlier to voices that are on their side today, but whose agendas and thoughts they cannot know, who they have no power over, so they have no way of knowing where they’ll stand from tomorrow. Tyrannical power built on control breeds paranoia that allows for absolutely no one to be above suspicion.
Think I’m being paranoid or giving into a conspiracy theory mentality? Take a look at the current batch of scandals coming from the Obama administration: Benghazi and the lies told to the American people about it, the IRS targeting specific organizations based on their political standing, the overt attacks on the press by the seizing of phone records from the Associated Press and Fox News, etc. God knows that, by the time you read this, there may very well be more scandals, as well. This is the world we live in and these are the people in power. They are not honest. They are not to be trusted, especially when they ask us to trust them.
We’ve been complacent for way too long regarding our rights and, the longer we remain that way, the more our rights will slip away. As hard as it is to fight to hold onto our freedoms, the more we relinquish, the harder it will be to get them back. There is no more time for waiting, for trusting our elected officials to do the right thing all on their own. We have to stand up right now and claim our freedoms, embrace the principles embraced by our founding fathers, and take back our country that is of the people, by the people and for the people.