Why the Left Hates President Trump So Much

Let’s face it. DJT is not an artful speaker. Not totally artless, but lacking in the sophistication of a Bill Clinton or Barack Obama. Those two could read whatever was pouring onto the teleprompter with utter and complete conviction, saying things, in some cases, that they could not possibly have believed were true.

It seems that most of DJT’s comments that are the most attacked are extemporaneous, either spoken or Tweeted. He says whatever is on his mind at the time, pretty much off the cuff — seemingly a public relations nightmare, but it’s also one of the reasons he is so popular.

The Left’s opposition to DJT actually has nothing to do with DJT himself. I know that sounds insane. Oh, they think they hate him, but most of them have been programmed to think that.

The truth is that when BHO was elected, the left totally believed in his “fundamentally change the United States of America” phrase. Rightfully so, as it turns out. Despite some limited pushback from the Congress, he and his leftist backers were incredibly effective at doing just exactly that. The Left had high hopes of cementing those changes by electing Bernie Sanders as the followup, though they would have been somewhat satisfied with HRC.

But when DJT actually won the 2016 election, they saw their dreams circling around the drain. So, in their way of thinking, “If democracy doesn’t work in our favor, we will pull out all the stops and resist”. That’s right, “Resist”. That’s what this is all about. It’s a thing, it’s real, and it’s really what is happening.

Conservatives believe in the rule of law. Leftists believe in the rule of their agenda. They are also, largely, very much like a bunch of spoiled, coddled children who will continue to throw tantrums until they get their way.

Should Christians Resist Infringements of Their Freedoms?

Should Christians Resist Infringements of Their Freedoms?

Those of us who are believers in Jesus Christ know that our war is not with flesh and blood. Paul, in Romans 13, and Peter in 1 Peter 2, admonish us to obey those who have been placed in authority over us.  In their time, it was the Emperor who was "supreme", and his Governors below him who were the authorities.  Of course, both Paul's and Peter's divinely inspired words presuppose that the commands of authority that we must obey are for good and not evil.  Otherwise, should we disobey the commands of our Lord in order to obey the commands of men (Acts 4:19-20)?  May it never be.

But we also hold a unique position as compared to believers in other nations and at almost any other point in history.  As citizens of this nation, we ARE the government.   The Constitution states it succinctly with the words, "We the People", placed at the very beginning of the document.  Since this nation was founded on the rule of law and the Constitution in its own words is the Supreme law of the land (Art. VI, Cl 2), then we are to obey the laws subject to the Constitution, thus giving no one cause for accusing of us of being lawbreakers.

Therefore as citizens of the U.S., we have inherited certain responsibilities.  Responsibilities that go hand-in-hand with the blessings and benefits we have inherited in this nation from our forefathers (and mothers).  There is an oath required to be taken by those who are elected to higher public offices, who serve in the military, and even those are naturalized as citizens of this nation: "I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic... so help me God."  Why this is not required of every natural born citizen at the age of majority or before being allowed to register to vote or receiving public assistance is beyond my understanding.  It is the oath I took when entering the US Navy and I firmly believe it is rightly the responsibility of every citizen.  Who should receive the benefits without being willing to pay a part of the cost?

[Of course, based on that same reasoning, I don't think anyone who doesn't pay taxes, at least some minimal amount, should be allowed to vote.  But I digress...]

As citizens of this nation, we have had certain rights and privileges passed down to us by God himself through those who fought and risked everything, and in many cases, gave everything of their earthly possessions and their lives in order to do so.  These are rights that we tend to take for granted -- but should not ever, even for a moment.  Among them are the rights to elect our leaders, to own and be secure in our property, to speak our minds freely, and to worship our Lord -- by putting our beliefs into practice -- every day of the week in the ways we believe are appropriate.  These are rights that very few people, relatively speaking, in very few nations have ever in the history of the World been privileged to exercise freely.

And as we know (at least intellectually, though not fully and actually by experience), those rights didn't come freely.  And the same Force who meant to keep them from us originally, still today means to take them from us.  Tyranny is very much alive and well.  These rights that are so precious are no more ours to keep than we are committed to maintaining possession of them.  In other words,  the willingness to stand up and resist those who want to take our rights from us (or effectively diminish them) is no less critical than the fight to attain them was in the first place.

Today there are those both outside and within this nation who want to take our freedoms from us and from our children and grandchildren.  They believe they know better than the Founders, than us, and yes, than even God Himself.  They also seem to be the very ones (or are those who are misleading those) who have dedicated themselves to establishing a society that is free from moral restraint, that accepts corruption as inevitable, that revels in degrading practices and that imposes these "lifestyles" on the rest of us.  They seem "hell bent" on dismantling every institution and unraveling every practice of right behavior; and the degree of success they have had to this point is staggering.

The method that these factions have employed so successfully is that of incrementalism, or as they call it, " being progressive".  They will, when forced, compromise but only temporarily.  They have continuously moved the entire makeup of our government in the direction of direct opposition to those who founded it.  And it is always a little step at a time.  One little change here, another there.  And gradually over just a bit more than the past century, they have steadily gathered tremendous power and influence.  They have installed themselves in our institutions of education, both public and parochial, and have thereby usurped intellectual control over our children and grandchildren.

They have done the same in the Courts of Law, right up to, and including, the Supreme Court.  Likewise the media.  And so we have arrived at a point in history when we seem suddenly overwhelmed by a rapidly moving tidal wave of moral, ethical deterioration.  But if you are a student of history and you observe trends, you can see that these changes have been building for a long time.

So what we view now with dismay as seemingly rapid steps of deterioration in our society's moral fiber are really just the increments of incrementalism building upon one another and becoming more pronounced.  And as our opposition wins a success that is a little greater than the last, it emboldens them to push for even more the next time.  And the successes they are having in their attacks on the First and Second Amendments to the US Constitution are stirring up huge responses of fear, controversy, and conflict amongst the American people. 

In the words of that great statesman, Bruce Willis, “I think that you can’t start to pick apart anything out of the Bill of Rights without thinking that it’s all going to become undone... If you take one out or change one law, then why wouldn’t they take all your rights away from you?”  Okay, not very eloquent, but I think we can all agree that his statement to the Associated Press was on the right track.  

A great deal of infringements on our rights have already been accomplished.  The right Mr. Willis was specifically referring to was the right to bear arms, embodied in the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution.  Now even though arms, or guns, as we commonly refer to them, are in many eyes a symbol of violence, they can just as easily be seen as a symbol for peace.  Peace that is protected by strength.  Strength that discourages enemies and lawlessness.  

The members of our very first Congress believed so strongly that this right to keep and bear arms needed to be specifically stated and bound up into the Constitution that they included it as the 2nd of the Bill of Rights.  What was the purpose of the Bill of Rights and why was it ratified by Congress and the States so soon after the ratification of the Constitution?

Those who opposed an unbridled central government felt the original document was not detailed enough in spelling out protection for certain freedoms.  These anti-Federalists essentially forced the Bill of Rights onto the Federalists by threatening a second Constitutional Convention.  James Madison, the staunch Federalist who penned all but one of the amendments had one that he favored over all the others: one guaranteeing absolute sovereignty of the Federal government over the States.  But the Congress specifically struck that one amendment from the package .  Even then, and especially then, our elected leaders were fearful of a powerful central government that could perhaps grow in strength without limitation.

Context is everything.  The purpose of the Bill of Rights, in Congress' eyes, was to counterbalance the strength of the Federal government.  It was no accident or sidebar that the right to keep and bear arms was included in these amendments.  It was not included merely because these arms were commonly used by most everyone as tools for hunting game or for protection against wild animals or lawless individuals.  That was a given, and it really didn't fit the context.  The general context, again, was to explicitly state and guarantee the rights of individuals and the States over the Federal government and the specific context bears this out: the term "militia" was used.  The militias were organized on a local basis and controlled at the State level, though they could be called into service by the President in accordance with the original Constitution.  The word "State" in the amendment has particular significance because it replaced the earlier wording, "country".

Should you doubt the point I'm making, read the words of a few of our founders:

"Before a standing army can rule the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States." -- Noah Webster, Federalist

"[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude[,] that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens." -- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined." -- Patrick Henry, anti-Federalist

Now, as believers, we know we are living in the last days, and we expect deterioration and degradation to come.  But the question is: Do we play right along with the game, or do we resist?  That is a question each of us now must answer for ourselves.  So help us God.

I urge you, if you are then so moved by your conscience and your understanding of God's will for you, to become active in the struggle to protect our freedoms before they are wholly yanked away from us.  Become involved immediately by writing, emailing, Tweeting, Facebooking, calling, and if possible, visiting with your elected representatives, and let them know your mind and heart.  If we do not do this, many of them have no idea of the true will of the People, so they find it convenient to pay attention only to some of the polls, the liberal mainstream media, the rich and powerful, and the vacuous and dissolute mouths of Hollywood.  

And then follow through.  Be involved in the caucuses, primaries, and general elections.  Cast your vote without failure.  Attend school board meetings, even if you have no children in school.  Be involved in the education process because it affects our future, and demand that right decisions be made. 

Don't necessarily expect immediately positive results.  Don't get discouraged when your efforts seem to be ineffective.  Enlist the collaboration and cooperation of your friends in following your example.  And be faithful without ceasing.  These are exactly the methods by which the opposition have achieved what they have.

The US Federal Government vs. Hobby Lobby, et al.

Unfortunately a federal court has already ruled against Hobby Lobby's request for injunction for protection against the fascist Affordable Care Act.  See Citizenlink.  The judges' opinion is -- How can words adequately describe it?  It is stunning and almost breathtaking, as you can see in this excerpt:

The purpose of the free exercise clause is “to secure religious liberty in the individual by prohibiting any invasions thereof by civil authority.” Sch. Dist. of Abington Twp. v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 223 (1963) (emphasis added).  Churches and other religious organizations or religious corporations have been accorded protection under the free exercise clause, see Hosanna–Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & Sch. v. EEOC, ___ U.S.___, ___, 132 S.Ct. 694, 706 (2012); Lukumi, 508 U.S. at 531-32, because believers “exercise their religion through religious organizations.”  Corp. of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints v. Amos, 483 U.S. 327, 341 (1987) (BRENNAN, J. concurring) (internal quotations omitted).  However, Hobby Lobby and Mardel are not religious organizations.  Plaintiffs have not cited, and the court has not found, any case concluding that secular, for-profit corporations such as Hobby Lobby and Mardel have a constitutional right to the free exercise of religion.

Therefore the court is attempting to sidestep the whole question of the First Amendment's protection of the rights of individuals (the owners) to the free exercise of religion and focus only on the "rights" of the corporations.  What the court is effectively saying is that the free exercise of religion is protected by the US Constitution ONLY if that exercise is carried out through a "religious organization".  And since these corporations have purposes in addition to "religious" purposes (such as earning a profit for their owners), they do not qualify as "religious organizations".  And therefore, the rights of the individuals who are owners of those organizations to the free exercise of religion within the operation of the corporations are not protected by the Constitution.  Talk about twisted logic!  

The First Amendment doesn't mention anything about the venue in which religion is exercised.  It states simply: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

I think most people have no idea what the government, particularly the Federal Government, has been and is doing.  I say "has been doing" because courts are theoretically constrained to base their rulings on precedent.  Because of this long-established principle, it would have been very difficult (though not impossible) for this court to have ruled as it did were it not for the preceding rulings it has built its opinion on.  This trend has been ongoing for many decades, and the American people have literally been asleep at the wheel.

The Constitution and its plain wording still remain.  But the interpretations that judges have made of that document are anything but plain -- and those interpretations have the binding force of law!  So now we live in this strange, almost surreal, world where the "Supreme Law of the Land" has been superseded by what a few judges say that it says.

Fortunately I do not place my faith in the Constitution nor any other man-ordained law.  As that great hymn states, "My hope is built on nothing less than Jesus' blood and righteousness."

Nonetheless, if we do not rise in opposition to what is taking place, we will be judged by our successors, our children and grandchildren, of being willing parties to it.  They'll rightly wonder why we sat by and did nothing as this nation was destroyed from within --  and their liberty along with it. 

Isaiah 5 states, "Woe to those who draw sin along with cords of deceit, and wickedness as with cart ropes, to those who say, 'Let God hurry;  let him hasten his work so we may see it.  The plan of the Holy One of Israel—  let it approach, let it come into view,  so we may know it.' Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.  Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and clever in their own sight.  Woe to those who are heroes at drinking wine and champions at mixing drinks, who acquit the guilty for a bribe, but deny justice to the innocent." -- Isaiah 5:18-23.  I pray for God's mercy on those who are on the wrong side -- especially since my own daughters are currently in that crowd.  I pray for the mercy of Jesus who hung on the cross and said, "Father forgive them for they know not what they do."  I live in hope He will draw a distinction between the leaders and the misled.

Yes, I think we need to get the word out to as many people as we can.  We certainly can't trust the mainstream media to get the people's attention on this while this Administration is trying to quietly slip it through.  We also need to be actively writing our Congressmen and Senators and yes, the Administration, too.

How Should We Prepare?

How can we prepare for the coming collapse of the US dollar?  I know -- to most US citizens, this is still just unthinkable.  But to those who have been following and studying the circumstances surrounding our current economic debacle, it is not only thinkable but also likely.  In fact, an unprecedented default by the US government on its debt now seems unavoidable.

So in the coming posts I plan to outline the steps I intend to take to help safeguard the relatively small amount of savings my wife and I hold against the impending disaster which lies ahead.

Extraordinary Quotes

Alfred A. Knopf once noted that some people intentionally obfuscate in an attempt to elevate their own intellectual prowess, as perceived by others.  He said such a person  "... states the obvious in terms of the incomprehensible"

Nothing succeeds like...

Nothing succeeds like success. 

AMOR - Amazon May/June 2008

John and Enrique aboard Beatriz. Wow, look at those white legs. Where are my shades?









Yeah, it was pretty informal...











Denny and Dan discussing the major issues of the day...

















Some local flavor in the city of Itacoatiara.















Is Roth causing trouble again?