I was sitting directly under a television in a Caribbean airport yesterday when Trump got inaugurated, so I inadvertently heard his speech.
The bad news is that Trump didn’t say much about liberty or the Constitution. And, unlike Reagan, he certainly didn’t have much to say about shrinking the size and scope of Washington.
On the other hand, he excoriated Washington insiders for lining their pockets at the expense of the overall nation. And if he’s serious about curtailing sleaze in DC, the only solution is smaller government.
But is that what Trump really believes? Does he intend to move policy in the right direction?
Well, as I’ve already confessed, I don’t know what to expect. The biggest wild card, at least for fiscal policy, is whether he’ll be serious about the problem of government spending. Especially entitlements.
What appears to deprive the populace of its power to decide a president is the very mechanism that preserves its power. The Electoral College works that way because the United States isn’t a pure democracy.
Professor Tom W. Bell
…consider the fact that balanced budget requirements haven’t prevented states like California, Illinois, Connecticut, and New York from adopting bad policy. Or look at France, Italy, Greece, and other EU nations that are fiscal basket cases even though there are “Maastricht rules” that basically are akin to balanced budget requirements…
This is why it’s far better to have spending caps so that government grows slower than the private sector.Which is why we’ve seen very good results in jurisdictions such as Switzerland and Hong Kong that have such policies.… show more
If you asked a bunch of Republican politicians for their favorite fiscal policy goals, a balanced budget amendment almost certainly would be high on their list. This is very unfortunate. Not becaus…
The narrative goes like this. Violent extremists are everywhere and throughout history all religions are equally represented among the perpetrators. The next point is to remind the listener about all the ethnic cleansing and politically-motivated attempts to exterminate those that don’t agree with a certain political agenda or that stand in the way of power; all of this is held up as proof that there is nothing new going on here and no need to point fingers.
The point that the elite-minded want us commoners to grasp is that the problem of terrorism is not unique to anyone religion or a certain part of the world. Therefore, we should not focus on just one religion or just certain parts of the world for, oh I don’t know, maybe for clues as to motive or targets.
I guess connecting the dots is just too sophomoric for them; somehow akin to “profiling” and that is just not the way sophisticated intellectuals are supposed to think. And let’s not forget the Crusades. Those Knights were “Christians” you know. Never mind that Christians stopped that practice almost 1000 years ago and the closest I’ve come to seeing a Knight was when I attended a Mason’s meeting 20 years ago. And there were no chants or slogans calling for the death of any groups or religions. Just saying.
I’m fed up with being told how I should think about the Orlando shooting and all the other violent acts against people of certain beliefs or lifestyles. With the recent murder by ISIS of a French Catholic priest during mass services, I couldn’t stay silent any longer.
We are told over and over again by progressives that Violent Extremism isn’t about Religion. Well if some manner of religious belief is not juxtaposed to the radical part, then where does the EXTREMIST part come in??? How then does one become “extreme” if there are no reasonable core beliefs to begin with. I guess someone could just simply start out crazy and skip the whole religious part. That would explain some of it, no doubt.
I’ve had it up to my eye balls with all the comparisons ostensibly trying to prove the moral equivalence between ANY gun violence, shooting or mass murder ANYWHERE, by ANYONE with that of the ideological/theocratic-based hatred exhibited by radicalized jihadists; the same who target specific people or groups just because of beliefs or lifestyle which doesn’t coincide with their own.
And the repartee wouldn’t be complete if apologists didn’t mention Timothy McVeigh as an example of “home-grown” terrorism. “So how is what he did any different”, they opine? Well, it isn’t when it comes to death and destruction. It is vastly different when it comes to the target and the motive. As sick and disturbed as this act was, he was not advocating death to Jews, Christians, Muslims, Gays or any certain groups. Of course he was wrong to do what he did and deserved to be convicted. His motivation, reckless and violent as it was, was to strike out against what he thought was a police state in the making.
Someone in a recent post on LinkedIn actually tried to compare the 30,000 people killed by “gun violence” in the U.S. every year with that of religious-based sharia hatred that we see carried out against Jews and Christians even still in the 21st century. Their point was that almost all of the gun violence in the U.S. is carried out by Christians! No kidding?! WOW!!! Now think about that statement for a millisecond, which is all the time you should need for your jaw to drop off of your face. At last count, about 83% of the population of the U.S. identified themselves as Christian. So by the same logic, all the rapes in Saudi Arabia are committed by Muslims, right?
Do you see how silly that sounds when we turn it around? But this is supposed to silence the opposition. Well, I’m not buying it and I’m not going to be quiet.
The vast majority of gun violence in America is a combination of domestic squabbles, money and drug-related violence; and not related to an attempt to extinguish an entire lineage of people or annihilate western way of life and its governance.
I actually had someone warn me about all those violent Hindus that might stone me if they catch me eating beef, which in her mind is evidently NO different from the killings in Orlando. Now maybe I’ve been living under a rock, but I’ve not heard of nor seen any Hindu groups attacking Golden Corral or Wendy’s lately. Did I miss that on CNN?
Here is the ideological imperative that we must come to grips with: Not all violence is created equal, neither is what we label as terrorism.
Yes, the end result is equally horrible for the victims and the justification of each act are the ruminations of uncaring-unfeeling humans.
This is why it is of paramount importance to distinguish and call out ideological/theological based terror for what it is: An attempt to destroy cultures and civilizations and eliminate lifestyles that are considered infidels just for their belief system and replace them with a Theocratic – Sharia system. These Theocratic systems of government do exist in multiple countries in which women’s rights are trampled, being treated as second class citizens and where gays are tortured or worse.
Sharia is against everything that we as Americans hold dear. It violates are basic principles and flies in the face of our constitution and Bill of Rights. It should not be tolerated; those who love liberty and understand the role of government know this.
It matters not that the Orlando shooter was “domestically radicalized” with “no direct ties or support from ISIS”, as the FBI was so quick to point out. It was still the same ideology that spawned that hateful act (radical Islamic jihad-ism) whose hate knows no borders.
And just recently, the murder of an 86 year old French Catholic Priest by ISIS cut-throats. They over-ran the church and slit his throat during Mass, killing him almost instantly and mortally wounded another.
The last time I checked, there were no radicalized Quakers, Mormons, Baptists, Buddhists, Hindus or Zionists that were committed to, let alone accused of, destroying entire cultures or groups of people just because of lifestyle and belief systems.
Had we lived through it, I hope we wouldn’t apologize for the tactics of the Crusades and would have called it by what it was: Radical Christian Religious Cleansing.
We need to have the same clear stance against Radical Islamic Jihad-ism, which is the “Crusade” of the 21st century. It would be nice if we had a president that could utter those words.
Given a choice between a government-managed economy and a free-market economy, millennials overwhelmingly chose the latter. It seems young people realize that putting bureaucrats in charge of Uber wouldn’t work too well. Still, it boggles the mind that anyone can see the folly of having the government take over Amazon or Facebook but be blind to the problems of having the government run health care.
It has been a couple of weeks since Pope Francis released his encyclical about the environment, and liberals are just now recovering from their collective swoon. The organs of the left lavished it with praise, calling it everything from “authoritative” and “compelling” (The New York Times) to “powerful” and “revolutionary” (Salon). Humanity has sinned against the planet, they agree, and must take urgent, collective action to repair the damage.
Liberals took a decidedly less deferential tone when the craft-store chain Hobby Lobby sought a religious exemption from Obamacare’s contraception mandate.
Corporations can’t have religious beliefs, they said (ignoring the fact that thousands of incorporated entities, known as churches, clearly do). Even more emphatically, they insisted Hobby Lobby’s owners wanted “to impose their religious views on employees” (The New York Times again, echoing countless others). This was histrionic nonsense, given that employees remained perfectly free to buy contraception on their own.
Moreover, progressives insisted that the owners of Hobby Lobby faced no burden on their faith because they could still worship as they chose when they went to church. That also is the argument regarding religious objections to gay marriage: Individuals who disapprove may do so within the four walls of their church, but they should not be allowed to act on their convictions outside church by, say, declining to bake a cake for a gay wedding.
A few have even suggested churches that oppose gay marriage should lose their tax-exempt status: “We’ll let you practice your bigotry, at least within the confines of your own church,” went a piece in Fusion. “But we’re not about to reward you for doing so.” Even the ACLU has dropped its support for the Religious Freedom Restoration Act because while “religious freedom needs protection,” it should not be used “to impose one’s views on others.”
This is a pretty broad definition of “imposing.” By similar reasoning, one might argue that a Christian bookstore is imposing its views if it prefers not to carry Playboy and Penthouse. (After all, the baker is not refusing to serve gay customers outright. She is refusing only to provide a certain message on a cake.)
But if we’re going to accept that broad definition of “imposing,” then we should not be taking orders about environmental policy from the pope. To be consistent, progressives should have responded to his encyclical by lecturing Catholics that religious arguments for environmental stewardship are fine in church, but not as a basis for public policy.