“America is already great”: What the oblivious and those with low expectations say.

Donald Trump’s motto is “Make America Great Again.”  Those with whom this phrase resonates understand its implications and support either Trump or another “outsider.”  Those who respond to that motto with the comment “America is already great” are either Obama himself  (who has actually said that), Obama supporters, liberals/progressives, or the generally clueless about America’s problems and opportunities. 

What do those who want to “Make America Great Again” understand that those who mock that expression fail to grasp?

Here are some clues for those having difficulty with the concept:

• National debt:  Total gross national debt of $18.96 trillion or about 104% of the previous 12 months of GDP.^[7]
• Illegal immigration:  12 to 20 million illegal foreigners in this country and our government will not enforce existing immigration laws.   Thousands more cross our borders illegally every month.  And taxpayers are paying billions in aid to keep them here.
• Workforce participation rate:  The labor force participation rate in October 2105 reached its lowest point in 38 years, with 62.4 percent of the U.S. population either holding a job or actively seeking one.
• Loss of manufacturing:  In the 2000s, American manufacturing experienced the steepest losses in employment in American history and serious decline in output.
• Growing deficit in the balance of trade:  Loss of manufacturing and the trade deficit go hand in hand.  The trade deficit grew to $458 billion in 2013.   Additionally, trade in advanced technology products, which in 1990 represented a $35 billion trade surplus for the United States, became a deficit in 2002 and has since declined even further, becoming an $81 billion deficit by 2013.
• Poor agreements:  Our trade and our foreign policy agreements have developed a trend of placing our country at a marked disadvantage.
• Misdirected foreign policy:  Our foreign policy has favored and incited our enemies and  harmed and discouraged our allies.
• Islam:  Our federal leadership has ignored the truth about basic Islamic doctrine and Islam’s intentions to subvert our country.
• Misuse of our military:  Our military has been used to “nation-build” instead of winning wars.  Our rules of engagement for our troops have made a mockery of our vets and have ended or ruined the live of thousands of our soldiers.
• Nationalism and patriotism:  These formerly noble traits are now being portrayed as unwelcomed behaviors.
• Civics and American history: These are not taught in public schools, or if they are, curriculum ridicule the role of many of our nation’s founders.  Most people under the age of 40 are ignorant of our founding principles.
• Our nation’s Christian heritage and values:  These are being dismissed and excluded from public influence as if it were some foreign and dangerous ideology while Islam is being portrayed as a value to be defended.

Continuing these trends does not portend a bright future for this country.  These trends will make our existence as a “great” or “prosperous” or “strong” nation unsustainable.  We are now sucking off the values, hard work, successes and prosperity of past decades. 

Yes, we are still a “great nation”, but our greatness is withering under the weight of a miss-managed, corrupt, and self-serving government, and an excessive proportion of our population that would rather receive a government handout than muster the self-discipline to be productive citizens.  Our “greatness” is not what it used to be.

Those who dismiss the need to  “Make America Great Again” are apparently either happy with the decline we are in, or are simply oblivious to the declining and unsustainable condition of our nation.

Donald Trump is the only one who has both recognized these nation-stunting problems and has the energy, will, and ability to turn these problems around.

“Make America Great Again” is certainly a more substance-filled sentiment than Obama’s and Hillary’s “Hope and Change.”  We “hoped and changed” into an inferior nation that needs to be made “Great Again.”

Freedom of religion, freedom of worship and Islam

Ted Cruz’s dad, Raphael, reminded us recently about the difference between “freedom of religion” as our Constitution sets forth, and “freedom of worship” as Obama and communist countries set forth.

The difference is freedom of religion allows us to practice our faith outside of church – prayer in schools, symbols in parks and in the public square, prayers before events, evoking the name of deity in public discourse.

Freedom of worship confines the practice of our faith to inside the walls of the church.  Read more of what Raphael has to say about this HERE.

How far should the practice of someone's faith be allowed to go?  How about Islam and Islamic sharia?  How about  lashings for not walking behind your husband, cutting off of fingers, hands or feet for stealing, and cutting off heads for insulting Muhammad, being homosexual, or leaving Islam?  These “religious practices” might be considered by some to fall under the definition of “freedom of religion.”

How about a religion whose central doctrines require submission to a religious deity and its human hierarchy and enforcers?  And not just for believers in that “religion” but those of other faiths as well.  How far, really, should freedom of religion go?

Well, it can truthfully be said that it depends on the definition of “religion.”  Is “religion” what we understand from Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Sikhism, and Buddhism?  The doctrine and practice of these religions are relatively passive, benign, peace-loving, and personal.

Or does “religion” also include Islam which is not passive, peace-loving, or benign, in spite of what its propagandists lie about.  Islam is aggressive, supremacist, intolerant, and violent in its core doctrines and throughout most of its history.  Islam has become prominent more for its coercive and violent political practices than any sense of “religion” envisioned by the drafters of our Constitution.

Based on the understanding of “religion” by our founders, these characteristics should disqualify Islam from the religious protections of our Constitution.

But do they?  No, they don’t.  Why not?

When was the last time you’ve heard of a civics class being taught in our public schools?  When was the last time you’ve heard of immigrants coming to this country learning about our founding, our Constitution, and the Judeo-Christian values that provided the foundation of our history?

We have lost our history.  We have ignored the values that made us a great nation.  Many believe that because of this loss of historical and religious perspective that we are now a nation in decline.

Too many of us believe that all religions are alike – even Islam – and they all deserve the protections of our Constitution.  Are they ?  Do they?  Hell no!

Islam was no more in the mind of our founders in the “religious” context than was Communism or Fascism.

Raphael Cruz has it right about the superiority of “freedom of religion” over “freedom of worship.”  But I’ve heard him speak.  Neither he nor his son Ted have a clue about Islam and the fact that Islam is an anti-religious political system that is a threat to this nation.

Justice Scalia was the Supreme Court’s stalwart for understanding and promoting the basis for interpreting the Constitution based squarely on the religious heritage of our country.  The Republicans in Congress better damn well prevail in seeing to it that appointment of Scalia’s replacement is NOT made by Obama.  This country does not need another socialist Supreme Court justice who does not give a flip about the reasons for and value of this nation’s founding principles.

Donald Trump was the most pointed of all the candidates when asked who he wants to replace Scalia (from Newsmax):

“Trump, appearing on NBC, was more direct when asked what he would want in a nominee: "Someone just like Justice Scalia."”

Freedom of religion, freedom of worship and Islam

Ted Cruz’s dad, Raphael, reminded us recently about the difference between “freedom of religion” as our Constitution sets forth, and “freedom of worship” as Obama and communist countries set forth.

The difference is freedom of religion allows us to practice our faith outside of church – prayer in schools, symbols in parks and in the public square, prayers before events, evoking the name of diety in public discourse.

Freedom of worship confines the practice of our faith to inside the walls of the church.  Read more of what Raphael has to say about this HERE.

How far should the practice of someones faith be allowed to go?  How about Islam and Islamic sharia?  How about  lashings for not walking behind your husband, cutting off of fingers, hands or feet for stealing, and cutitng off heads for insulting Muhammad, being homosexual, or leaving Islam?  These “relgious practices” might be considered by some to fall under the definition of “freedom of religion.”

How about a religion whose central doctrines require submission to a religious diety and its human hierarchy and enforcers?  And not just for believers in that “religion” but those of other faiths as well.  How far, really, should freedom of religion go?

Well, it can truthfully be said that it depends on the definition of “religion.”  Is “relgion” what we understand from Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Sikism, and Buddhism?  The doctrine and practice of these religions are relatively passive, benign, peace-loving, and personal.

Or does “religion” also include Islam which is not passive, peace-loving, or benign, in spite of what its propagandists lie about.  Islam is aggressive, supremacist, intolerant, and violent in its core doctrines and throughout most of its history.  Islam has become prominent more for its coercive and violent political practices than any sense of “religion” envisioned by the drafters of our Constitution.

Based on the understanding of “religion” by our founders, these characteristics should disqualify Islam from the religious protections of our Constitution.

But do they?  No, they don’t.  Why not?

When was the last time you’ve heard of a civics class being taught in our public schools?  When was the last time you’ve heard of immigrants coming to this country learning about our founding, our Constitution, and the Judeo-Christian values that provided the foundation of our history?

We have lost our history.  We have ignored the values that made us a great nation.  Many believe that because of this loss of historical and religious perspective that we are now a nation in decline.

Too many of us believe that all religions are alike – even Islam – and they all deserve the protections of our Constitution.  Are they ?  Do they?  Hell no!

Islam was no more in the mind of our founders in the “religious” context than was Communisim or Fascism.

Raphael Cruz has it right about the superiority of “freedom of religion” over “freedom of worship.”  But I’ve heard him speak.  Neither he nor his son Ted have a clue about Islam and the fact that Islam is an anti-religious political system that is a threat to this nation.

Justice Scalia was the Supreme Court’s stalwart for understanding and promoting the basis for interpreting the Constitution based squarely on the religious heritage of our country.  The Republicans in Congress better damn well prevail in seeing to it that appointment of Scalia’s replacement is NOT made by Obama.  This country does not need another socialist Supreme Court justice who does not give a flip about the reasons for and value of this nation’s founding principles.

Donald Trump was the most pointed of all the candidates when asked who he wants to replace Scalia (from Newsmax):

“Trump, appearing on NBC, was more direct when asked what he would want in a nominee: "Someone just like Justice Scalia."”

What should the Republican Party do if they were cheated in the General Election?

OK,  I’ll lay it on the table.  The Republican Party has been rightly accused of being whimpy, lacking conviction, resolve and caving to the left on many issues.

That’s why the heading above is called “What SHOULD…” the Republican Party do; not “What WOULD…” it do if they got unjustly screwed in the General Election.  They probably would do NOTHING.  But they SHOULD do what Trump is doing relative to the Iowa cheating.

More to the point, what would Cruz have done if he was the one against whom dirty tricks were played prior to the Iowa caucus?

How legitimate is it for Cruz to accuse Trump of  “Trumper Tantrums” in response to the Cruz crew cheating prior to the Iowa caucus?

What, exactly is Cruz accused of doing in Iowa?  Here it is:

1)  Misrepresenting a CNN story about Carson going back to Florida to get a new suit – inferring instead he was dropping out of the race and his supporters should vote for Cruz.

2)  Mailing out thousand of deceptive and misleading forms to Iowans just before the caucus.  As reported by the not all that conservative New Yorker Magazine, “Ted Cruz’s Iowa Mailers Are More Fraudulent Than Everyone Thinks.”

From the New Yorker:

“At the top of the mailers, in a bold red box, are the words “VOTING VIOLATION.” Below that warning is an explanation:

You are receiving this election notice because of low expected voter turnout in your area. Your individual voting history as well as your neighbors’ are public record. Their scores are published below, and many of them will see your score as well. CAUCUS ON MONDAY TO IMPROVE YOUR SCORE and please encourage your neighbors to caucus as well. A follow-up notice may be issued following Monday’s caucuses.”

There is no doubt that the mailer is misleading, inaccurate, and fraudulent.

Yet Cruz dismissed the fraudlent mailer by stating:

“I will apologize to no one for using every tool we can to encourage Iowa voters to come out and vote.”

And instead he reverts to name calling against a fellow candidate whose voting outcome was negatively impacted by the fraud.

This demonstrates stark contrasts among the two candidates:

Trump, who is personally offended by fraudulent behavior and takes assertive action to draw attention to it and seeks justice, and

Cruz, who excuses and justifies fraudulent behavior and resorts to name calling against anyone who complains about it.

HERE is the complete time line of the Cruz shenanigans from Diana West’s excellent analysis.

Let’s bring this closer to home:

Imagine that you were cheated by someone who contributed to your loss of money or reputation.  Imagine further that you brought the cheating to the attention of the media or the authorities.  Imagine that it was confirmed by the authorities that you were in fact cheated.  Yet the perpetrator mocks you for “whining” or complaining about his cheating actions.

How would you feel?

One of Trump’s apparent “character flaws” is that he hates injustice.  He despises a just cause being sabotaged.  He complains and takes action when he observes laws being ignored.

Apparently  a Cruz character flaw is that he relishes cheating as an essential ingredient to win, and will defend his tactics even to the point of mocking those who call him out on his cheating.

Before this incident I would have had no qualms about supporting Cruz if he won the Republican nomination.  After this incident I need to seriously reconsider.

Does Trump criticize others who deserve criticism?  Sure he does.  But he doesn’t use name calling to defend fraud and dirty tricks.  Cruz does.

Trump is despised by the Republican establishment because he hates injustice, dirty tricks and corruption.  He speaks out and takes action against it.  The Republican Party over the past decade or so would prefer to ignore corruption, or better, be a part of it.  Cruz is acting just like Republican Party, choosing to play the same sort of game.