Progressive Compassion and Charity: Neither Compassionate Nor Charitable

There’s a misconception that’s been around for a long time regarding charity and it doesn’t exist by accident but by design. It’s the concept that liberals are charitable and conservatives are selfish and greedy. It comes from misinformation put out by liberals trying to rebrand themselves and their agenda to make it sound less offensive to the American mindset…and it’s worked very well. I’ve come across many conservatives as well as liberals who have accepted it as fact, even though it’s based more on the Orwellian concept of “Newspeak”, redefining words and changing language, than on truth. I heard these sentiments on a now cancelled local radio talk show, Speak Up Las Cruces, a while ago and I’ve been thinking about it ever since. The host, Keith Whelpley, was talking with a woman who’s very active with charitable activities in the community. He said:

 

“That proves to me charity isn’t a political thing. Progressives like to institutionalize it in the form of laws and federal dollar handouts. That doesn’t mean they’re more compassionate. Conservatives tend to want compassion to be organic. They don’t want it institutionalized. In both cases it gets the job done but this is a community that really cares and it should be proud of how it does kind of take care of itself.”


Now, his actual point was to talk about how he’d witnessed impressive acts of charity from conservatives. Whelpley is a liberal. He has proven himself to more fair and open to truth than many liberals, but he is still firmly anchored in the socialist narratives of the left. He’s the kind of liberal who has been well indoctrinated, as opposed to the ones who actively, purposely indoctrinate others. Because of his indoctrination, his words echo regularly with false narratives, such as that charity can somehow flow from the fount that is liberalism.


 

Let’s break down what he said:



 

“That proves to me charity isn’t a political thing.”

 

That’s true. Charity is supposed to be a matter of heart and conviction, but liberals use charity as a political tool; alter its meaning and try to use it as a bludgeon to beat up conservatives. According to the left, conservatives only care about themselves and amassing wealth at the expense of others. This position relies on accusations that just aren’t true and a perversion of the word, ‘charity’.

 

“Progressives like to institutionalize it in the form of laws and federal dollar handouts. That doesn’t mean they’re more compassionate.”

 

I agree with that second part. It really doesn’t mean that progressives are more compassionate. In fact, if you take a look at what liberal ‘compassion’ is made of, you realize that there is nothing compassionate about it at all. The soft words he used actually don’t sound so bad until you take a look at what they really mean. He is talking about the fact that liberals want to label government programs and handouts as ‘charity’, but that’s really about as far from charity as you can get. The truth is you cannot institutionalize charity. What you can institutionalize, and it’s what progressives have had a great deal of success with, is theft. All pretty words, over-intellectualized arguments and political double-speak aside, what the left calls charity is actually very simple to understand. It’s the act of taking money from one group of people (mainly through taxation), deciding who has a need that makes them worthy of that money and then giving it to them. The liberal approach versus the conservative approach can be illustrated like this:

 

Let’s say you’re walking down the street and you see someone you identify as being in need (veteran, homeless person, single mother unable to feed her kids, etc.).

 

As a conservative, you would recognize the need, reach into your own pocket to give your own money or reach into your own schedule to give your own time, or both. Maybe you decide to contact other people to let them know about the need and they step up to help, too. It’s simple, personal and honest.

 

But as a liberal, you’d see the need, find someone else walking down the street dressed nicely and demand that they give you their money so you can help the first person. To follow along with the level of government coercion that liberals rely on to enforce their programs, you’d probably do it at gunpoint. Ideally, you’d want to find a cop to actually perform the shakedown for you. Ultimately, what liberals refer to as charity involves coercion by force, namely the force of the government and legislation, brought to bear. It is neither charity nor is it compassionate. It turns the person who the funds come from into essentially a victim of robbery and the person in need into a receiver of stolen goods who eventually becomes dependent on those goods. It should be pretty clear, following this line of thought, how those in the middle are defined.

 

“Conservatives tend to want compassion to be organic. They don’t want it institutionalized.”

 

While I’m not sure exactly what he meant by this, ‘organic’ would normally mean that conservatives want compassion (charity) to just happen on its own. <Poof!> Let’s be clear. We don’t want or expect to sit around and hope that someone somewhere will get inspired to help someone out of the blue. True conservatives believe that charity must begin and end with each and every one of us as individuals. That means it’s the responsibility of each of us to give and do for those we recognize as being truly in need. This is very problematic for liberals because an individual with a job who is very aware of the time and effort it requires to acquire the money they have is going to have a very different definition of ‘worthy’ than the government would. In other words, by the liberal standard of ‘institutionalized charity,’ someone of working age who is able to work but chooses not to can be considered just as worthy as others who are unable to meet their basic needs. When a person with real disabilities or who is looking for work but still needs to take care of their family in the meantime can’t get enough to take care of their basic needs, then liberals claim it’s a case of not enough funding in the system. Their response at that point is to take even more from the employed. It will never even occur to them to try to reform the system or even refine the definition of ‘worthy’. They’ll especially focus on taking from the wealthy, those who are working, making money and creating jobs and, for good measure, they’ll also vilify them and target them for higher and higher taxes, taking more and more from them that they would’ve been able to use for creating businesses, hiring others and simply buying things and feeding our consumer based economy

 

“In both cases it gets the job done…”

 

That’s simply not true. The liberal approach is so much like trying to get a $1.50 soda out of a vending machine by throwing $20 in change (that you got from someone else) at the slot and hoping enough will make it in to get what you want out of it. It doesn’t get the job done. It jus throws away money and, very likely, won’t even get a single coin in the machine, much less enough for a soda. It’s the conservative approach that actually gets the job done, like actually pulling $1.50 out of your pocket and putting it in the machine by hand, precisely and deliberately. In other words, identifying specific problems and executing action specifically aimed at those problems.

 

The problem is that, when government tries to discern need and worthiness, it will always fail because, in order to do that, you need discernment. Only individuals possess that particular ability. Government may be of, for and by the people, but it simply doesn’t possess the human characteristics necessary for discernment. Instead, it uses formulas, guidelines and sliding scales…the sorts of things that notoriously give incomplete pictures and can result in false conclusions, whether intentional or not.

 

In a speech delivered at Hillsdale College, William Voegeli said,

“…the real point of liberalism is to alleviate the suffering of those distressed by others’ suffering…”

The focus of progressives is their own feelings. Because of this, they really don’t put much value on whether the programs they advocate for even work or not…and, most of the time, they don’t. It’s more important to them that they did something, whether it makes any positive difference or even if it caused harm, either to those they claim compassion for, or others. When your focus is so intensely on yourself, your actions are nothing but selfish and ego-centric.

 

The results of liberal “charity”:

 

  • Commerce is slowed because of a lack of consumer confidence and fear of how much the government will decide to take.
  • There are less jobs available and fewer new businesses because those who would’ve created those jobs don’t have as much money to do so and no confidence that they can survive more of the same in taxation.
  • Those who have jobs keep less of their income and that creates financial hardships which can lead these people to find themselves in need, too. They then either suffer through on their own or they use government assistance and stress the system further.
  • Those who are capable of working but choose not to are encouraged to keep doing what they’re doing. After all, if your needs are being met by others and you don’t particularly have a drive to excel, then the status quo is enough to keep you happy.
  • There is less available to help those in genuine need because the system is stretched by the sheer number of people who simply qualify for assistance.

 

In essence, the liberal version of charity has as much in common with actual charity as bait in a trap or a worm on a hook has with a meal. It’s a ruse designed to ensnare and subjugate. Once you become dependent on socialized government, it becomes easier and easier to sink deeper into that dependency and harder and harder to break free of it. Charity is not supposed to become a crutch or a lifestyle as the liberal/socialist agenda desires. It’s supposed to be a chain reaction of good will, designed to give a hand up to one who is in need and who will then, once they’re in a position to be on the other side of the equation, provide that kind of help to another in the same sort of circumstances. It’s the practice of human compassion and kindness passed from one person to the next. Liberals can claim charity as the motivation behind their actions all they want, but saying it doesn’t make it true. Charity is action that illustrates selflessness while liberalism is founded and grown in an atmosphere of selfishness and control.
Advertisements

Happy Birthday, Obamacare!

aca birthdayIt’s time to bake a cake and stick five candles in it and celebrate the fifth birthday of Obamacare! Wait a minute. On second thought, you might not want to do that. After all, assuming that you currently do have health insurance and you’re not one of the nearly three million Americans who lost their plans, chances are that your government-approved plan won’t cover minor injuries like burning yourself, tripping and falling while carrying the cake in a darkened room or having your butt mistaken for the donkey’s by a blindfolded child, assuming you’re prone to playing Pin The Tail On The Donkey. (By the way, I understand that’s not a very popular game with the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid…although I know many Americans would love to play if those two played the roles of the donkeys.) Besides, even if you have a plan, you might not be able to afford treatment as deductibles tend to range from $3,000 to $5,000 for individuals and from $6,000 to $10,500 for families. Plus, Michelle Obama wouldn’t be happy with us eating cake, so we’d best pull out some kale and watch a low-fat, low-carb, gluten-free, smoke-free candle video on YouTube.
But don’t be down about all this! After all, a birthday is a cause for celebration and besides this train wreck of a health care system (It’s ok; everybody likes trains!), the Obama administration fulfilled one major promise by bringing us Hope and Change. So many of us just Hope that Obama and his allies will stop trying to ‘help’ us before they end up ‘helping’ us into either the poor house or the grave and everyday, as Obama tries to be even more ‘helpful’, we find that these government programs are leaving us with little more than a little change in our pockets. So I suppose that’s one promise Barack Obama has kept.
Now, we should probably take a minute to reflect back on the past five years of Obamacare. It was a hard struggle just to get the bill passed in the first place. After all, not a single Republican in either the House or the Senate deigned to vote for it. Apparently, those bigoted, elitist, rich Republicans are too good to vote for a bill like Obamacare for such petty reasons as party rivalry, the fact that it has the potential to crush business and disenfranchise millions of Americans from their health plans while expanding the Medicaid rolls and putting even more strain on an already overstressed system and the loss of our individual liberties, whether it’s business owners being told that their freedom of religion has to be put on the back burner for the ‘greater good’ or citizens being forced by government mandate to buy something whether they want it or not. I mean, where do those evil Republicans get off trying to look out for our economy and our liberties?!
Thank God for those wonderful Democrats who stood their ground and didn’t even hesitate to vote for a bill they hadn’t even read. After all, like Nancy Pelosi said, we’d all find out what was in it by passing it. If we had more publishing houses that approved projects under those criteria, we’d have so many books of equal quality to Hillary Clinton’s last book and that’d be great for bookstores. After all, that way, they’d never have to worry about going through the hassle of ordering new inventory because their shelves would always be stocked with books that no one has any desire to read and inconvenience anyone by having to sell them.
Now we have the sort of change that the President has been striving for. Just look at some of the changes:
From January to September of 2014, 8.38 million more people gained coverage! Of course, only  893,000 of those signed onto private plans while 7.49 million signed onto Medicaid. That means that 89% of the coverage increase was due to expanding Medicaid. Yes, that puts a lot more stress on the system, but there’s a simple solution: We’ll just raise more taxes. After all, everyone’s just fine paying more taxes. That way, the government is better able to take care of us…much like a nanny.
On the taxes front, the government is already way ahead of us. Obamacare has already lead to 18 new or increased taxes, that will draw $771 billion from Americans from 2013-2022.
Of course, paying your taxes may prove to be a challenge, but challenges build character, so that’s ok. You see, 800,000 people on Obamacare health plans were sent the wrong tax information from the federal government. Don’t worry though; most of those corrected forms have now been sent out…except for about 80,000, whose corrected forms have still not come out.
But things could be worse. Around 7.5 million people on Obamacare are receiving subsidies because the only way that the Affordable Care Act is affordable for so many is if the government that mandates it also helps pay for it. So, if those subsidies were to go away, there’d be 7.5 millions Americans suddenly without coverage again…in addition to the roughly three million who already lost coverage before…and then those poor unfortunate souls will have to be fined money they can’t afford to pay because they don’t have insurance they can’t afford to pay for while gaining no benefit by paying those fines other than providing more funds for the government.
So, everybody take a little time to sing Happy Birthday to Obamacare, quit worrying so much about losing those pesky little individual freedoms that this country was built on, eat your kale chips and blow out the candles on your computer screen.

News From Santa Fe on Gun Bill HR44

NM Representative Yvette Herrell, Chair: Regulatory and Public Affairs Committee

NM Representative Yvette Herrell, Chair: Regulatory and Public Affairs Committee

It’s the start of a new year in the New Mexico legislature and much has changed. For one, with this past election, the state House of Representatives finds itself with a Republican majority for the first time since 1953. At the same time, some things continue to repeat themselves. Once again, Miguel Garcia (D, Bernalillo County) has introduced his pet gun control bill, HB44, in spite of it being defeated last year. There are a few minor changes, but the substance of the bill remains basically the same: regulating firearms sales and transfers, creating greater government controls, increasing the possibility for misuse of federal database information and opening the door wider for an overall ability for the government to decide who merits being allowed to keep and bear arms and who doesn’t. Like most gun control legislation, it uses violent crime as its motivating factor while actually doing nothing to actually diminish violent crime or keeping guns out of the hands of either criminals or the mentally unstable. It simply focuses on putting greater burdens on law abiding gun owners; the ones who don’t commit most crimes. But this is nothing new. It’s the nature of gun laws. Their main focus is on curtailing, infringing and, ultimately, removing the right to keep and bear arms from the citizen under the guise of protecting our rights, but making us ‘safer’ at the same time.

So, here’s the good news about this bill: We now have a Republican majority in the State House as well as a Republican governor. The bad news: The Senate still has a Democrat majority and, sadly, we’ve seen that just because a legislator has an ‘R’ by their name doesn’t mean we can predict where they’ll stand on any particular issue. While it is the job of our senators and representatives to propose, debate and vote on legislation with consideration for their constituents, it’s our job as constituents to make our wishes known. We have a responsibility to call, to write, to show up and make our voices heard to those who represent us so they can effectively represent us. With that in mind, there are things we can do to support those in Santa Fe who are on the same page and get the attention of those who aren’t.
I had a chance to speak with Representative Yvette Herrell (R, Otero County) last Friday morning about HB44. With this new session, she has been named chair for the Regulatory & Public Affairs Committee, the first committee to discuss this bill. Herrell has scheduled a hearing on Saturday, February 7 at 1:30 pm in Room 307 of the State Capitol for anyone to have their say. She told me, “I wanted to do it on a weekend because I know it’s going to be a big bill that a lot of people want to come out for testimony and I want to make sure that whoever wants to be a part of that process has the opportunity and this way people at work will actually be allowed to come up and testify on behalf of the bill whether they support it or oppose it.”
If you’re wondering where she stands personally, she had this to say: “My position is I do not plan to support this bill for a couple of reasons. Number one, my constituents, they have been very vocal about their position and very few people in my distinct alone support it which I understand. My vote affects everybody in the state, but of the emails I’ve received, a far majority of them have been in opposition to it.”
Herrell put out a survey in her district a couple of years ago regarding this bill. “…they did not support it then and they don’t support it now.”
Far from simply opposing HR44, Representative Herrell also sees a more effective course of action to bring positive change to our current concerns about violence. “I think New Mexico would be better served if we would put a little more effort into looking into our behavioral health and counseling programs. I mean, we all understand that firearms are dangerous or can be dangerous but we also understand in this state that we are, I don’t think, addressing behavioral health issues and counseling issues the way that we need to.” She said, “We do already have in place some background checks for when you purchase a gun, but the thing of it is, people want to get their hands on a firearm, they’re probably not going to go through the process. I just think we’re missing the mark on where we’re focussing our energy.”
Herrell made it clear, though, that the committee will treat all speakers fairly. “But again, even with that being said, I do respect our process here. You know, this is the people’s House and I do want everybody that wants to have a voice in this process, [to] have that opportunity. And I can’t speak for the remainder of the members on this committee, so I don’t know, but I do think it’s important that folks that have a passion for this bill either way have the opportunity to come up and have their chance to speak to it and so that’s why we’ve moved it. Really, as it moves closer, I’m sure we’ll see a lot more email activity and we’ll see a lot more activity in the capital as we get closer to that seventh of February.”
While Representative Herrell and, I would suspect, the majority of the other Representatives on the committee may embrace fairness and a respect for all views, experience tells us that those sentiments won’t be shared by all speakers who turn out, especially those on the left. There’s already been drama brought to the Capitol this year from the hard left group, ProgressNow New Mexico in a hearing on right to work legislation. With gun control being another sore issue for liberals, it’s a pretty good bet that this group and possibly others will do whatever they can to gain an upper hand in this meeting, including resorting to being disruptive to the proceedings.
There is a sure way to make sure that your voice is heard on this. If you are able to make it up to Santa Fe on February 7, please do so. This is a perfect opportunity to express our desires to our elected officials and at the same time, present a positive image of ourselves in both word and deed of just who we really are. It’s good to remember that all the spin in the world does no good with those who get to see firsthand the difference in behavior between two very different types of people when they’re in the same room, addressing the same issue. What people see with their own eyes trumps all the false narrative in the world.
In the meantime, you can also contact the members of the Regulatory & Public Affairs Committee at:
Rep. Yvette Herrell
 
Rep. Bob Wooley
 
Rep. Deborah A. Armstrong
 
Rep. Nora Espinoza
 
Rep. D. Wonda Johnson
 
Rep. Patricia Roybal Caballero
Rep. James E. Smith
 
Or, you can send a single automated email expressing your opposition to HR44 by going to the website:
 
The form on this site is simple, short and takes less than a minute to fill out and send on its way. So often, we complain about how our elected officials don’t do what we want them to. This is a situation where we can easily have an impact. Light up the phones. Load up the inboxes. Fill up the meeting rooms. There’s one thing I can guarantee you: If we stand up and speak out, we will be heard.
 .

**UPDATE:

On February 7, after hearing from everyone who took the time to travel to Santa Fe, the Regulatory & Public Affairs Committee voted 4 to 3 to table the bill. HB44 is dead for another year. Thanks in large part to the citizens who took the time to call, email, text, fax and speak their minds in person, this attempt to infringe further on our 2nd Amendment rights has been thwarted again. Of, course, this story never ends. Expect this bill to pop back up next year. All the gun control side has to do is win once, so please don’t let your guard down and don’t ever underestimate the value of the individual to make a difference. It was individuals who made a huge difference on this.

Spiritual Warriors Take a Stand Against Abortion in Southern New Mexico

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.

-Randy Lynch

* from the Guttmacher Institute and the Centers For Disease Control 2013 numbers.

IMG_0344.JPG

IMG_0343.JPG

IMG_0342.JPG

More Corruption From Our Elected Officials (Ray Nagin convicted)

(Photo: Associated Press)

(Photo: Associated Press)

More Corruption From Our Elected Officials

July 9, 2014

-Randy Lynch

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.

 

My personal course of action should Allen Weh win the Republican primary

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.

 

 

 

50 Years After “I Have A Dream”, What Would Dr. King Think?

ImageAugust 28, 2013

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

Source:

The writings of Martin Luther King, Jr.
Bureau of Labor Statistics
U.S. Census Bureau
American Community Survey
Michael Novak
Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation
Kids Count Data Center

CBS News
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