Friday, September 25, 2015

Do as I Say; Not as I Do

Pope Francis, arguably the most credible figure of hope alive in the world today, descended upon America this week making a splash for the ages. It was truly historical but not without controversy. His remarks were both religious and politically partisan.


“Pope Francis challenged America Thursday to embrace millions of undocumented immigrants and join a global campaign against climate change and poverty, wading undaunted into the nation's volatile politics in a historic address to Congress,” reported CNN.  Notwithstanding the Pope’s recent encyclical on the environment which is political and controversial for which I strongly disagree, I find his comments on immigration more troubling.


“Thousands of persons are led to travel north in search of a better life for themselves and for their loved ones, in search of greater opportunities. Is this not what we want for our own children?” he said. “We need to avoid a common temptation nowadays: to discard whatever proves troublesome. Let us remember the Golden Rule: ‘Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,’” he added.


However, the pope is not only the head of the Catholic Church but also the head of state of Vatican City which has the most restrictive citizenship and immigration policy in the world. It has NO legal or illegal immigrants because immigration is not allowed. In fact, women are allowed as residents of the Vatican only by virtue of their marital status to one who resides there. Comprising 108.7 acres and 1,000 full-time residents only half of whom are citizens, the Vatican, often acting as a corporation called the Holy See, is a fortress in the heart of Rome.


While the Catholic Church preaches placing the needs of the illegal immigrant over the needs of the state-the United States to be specific, unfortunately, that sermon does not seem to apply to the Vatican. On that basis, I cannot help but ask how much credibility can the pope have on this issue? I recognize the enormous good Catholic Charities does around the world and so my observation does not intend to diminish the good and power of the Catholic Church to be a force for good in the world. However, Pope Francis’ application of the Golden Rule to “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” rings hollow when the Vatican simply will not do what it demands of the United States.


Just as the Vatican must preserve its resources for those who reside within its borders, so too must the United States, the largest recipient of immigrants in the world, preserve its sovereignty and resources by controlling the influx the immigration through a legal process. That’s not asking too much of the greatest nation on earth built on legal immigration.

Tuesday, September 22, 2015

Carson Is Right

The question whether Ben Carson is fit to be president of the United States after giving his opinion about the viability of a Muslim president seem to be fair only when one suspends any recollection of a media that never cared that President Obama attended Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s church where racist and anti-American rhetoric was commonplace. So let’s pretend this is a sincere question asked by an unbiased journalist.


Ben Carson, responding to a question from Meet the Press host Chuck Todd about whether or not a Muslim could be considered as president of the United States, Carson responded, “I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that," The media excoriated him for that statement labeling him a bigot. Carson went on to say, "I guess it depends on what that faith is," he said. "If it's inconsistent with the values and principles of America, then of course it should matter. But if it fits within the realm of America and consistent with the Constitution, no problem." While I would have made clear there is no religious test under the Constitution first and foremost, I agree with Carson’s statement because of the implications and potential of the spread of sharia law, a parallel system of laws, under a Muslim president. (Carson later made it clear on FoxNews' Sean Hannity Show he was referring to a radical Islamist.)


It is widely believed in the Islamic world that sharia law is the revealed word of God. Islamic States vary on how sharia law should be applied and whether it extends to non-Muslims but in all cases, under sharia law, women are second class citizens (e.g. cannot vote, cannot drive, and are stoned to death for adultery), homosexuality is punished by death, and a host of other policies inconsistent with American freedom exist under sharia. In any event, a devout Muslim would have to reject sharia law in order to be president. It should also be noted that sharia law is moving across non-Arab nations like England, Germany, France, and Belgium in substantial ways. These European nations have Sharia Law Zones where the Koranic Law controls entire communities. The desire for Islam to spread sharia law around the world is real and present.


On that basis, presidential candidate Ben Carson’s opinion was absolutely correct and he should not capitulate to any special interest, let alone CAIR (widely understood to be a front for the terrorist group Hamas), and offer any apology at all.


The media, on the other hand, is consistently unreliable and biased. They focus on Carson’s opinion while ignoring the worse presidency in American history along with behavior that disqualifies President Obama for his office. He is not disqualified solely because he has made the United States the largest financier of terrorism with his deal with Iran; he is not disqualified solely because he has silently allowed the genocide, rape and beheading of Christians in Iraq while rescuing Syrian refugees; he is not disqualified solely because he consistently lied to the American people about life-altering legislation and policy (e.g. ObamaCare); nor is he disqualified solely because he refuses to protect the unborn or infants born alive by standing with Planned Parenthood no matter what. President Obama is disqualified as president because he violated his vow to uphold the Constitution.


Whether its Obama’s countless revisions to the Affordable Care Act without Congress, his recess appointments found by the Supreme Court to be an overreach of his authority, his administration’s (IRS) political profiling of conservative groups, his attacks on religious freedom (of Christians), or his executive orders amending immigration law without Congress, Forbes chronicled Obama’s lawlessness and it is pervasive.


While the president’s spokesman demands the Republican presidential candidates repudiate Carson’s remarks about a Muslim president and apparently endorses the opposite view, they might stop and think for a moment. If the United States ever had a Muslim president who practices sharia, all of the LGBT domestic and foreign policies, including same-sex marriage, pushed by this White House would be wiped away in an instant. Instead, the White House, with the Main Stream Media’s help, is more interested in scoring political points against a very smart and decent man whose traditional values and success story are “the stuff” our nation needs in a president.

Sunday, September 13, 2015

Shame on the Smithsonian

The Smithsonian Institute refuses to remove a bust of eugenicist and Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger from its “Struggle for Justice” exhibit from the National Portrait Gallery despite the demand from Ministers Taking a Stand (“MTS”), a group of black pastors led by Bishop E. W. Jackson.  While acknowledging Sanger’s involvement in the eugenics movement, in a letter to MTS, Director Kim Sajet responded, “There is no ‘moral test’ for people to be accepted into the National Portrait Gallery.” While allowing Sanger’s bust to remain alongside Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King, Jr., Sajet said, “[Sanger’s] association with the eugenics movement shadowed her achievements in sex education and contraception…”

The Smithsonian’s response to MTS is offensive to anyone who understands the history of eugenics and Planned Parenthood and comparable to the symbolic requests to remove the Confederate flag in South Carolina after the horrific mass murder in Charleston.  By refusing to place the memory of Sanger in its proper place alongside Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Josef Mengale, the Smithsonian celebrates the founder of race suicide.

The following is an excerpt from my book The Prodigal Republican which provides an historical perspective on Sanger to underscore the Smithsonian’s naïveté: 

“Before the Roe v. Wade decision was handed down in 1973, white women were responsible for having 80 percent of all illegal abortions.

Since Roe v. Wade, the abortion rate among black women is five times that of white women in the United States, according to the Guttmacher Institute.  Black women (15-44) are responsible for 40.2% of all abortions in the United States.

But there was a long, dark history before Roe v. Wade that led to the genocide in the black community we see today. The efforts of the American Eugenics Society… began right after the Emancipation Proclamation took effect….

Every aspect of the American economy was invested in the slave trade, so first and foremost, there was a general fear of retribution by the four million freed slaves. The North feared a massive migration. White elites also feared that freed slaves would flood the economic system with new costs for welfare, medical care, and education… [and they also feared] an increase in crime and the prison population.

The first response was colonization (shipping the Negro back to Africa), but the idea didn’t have wide support. Then [some of] the white and wealthy schemed to wipe out the Negro race in America. Eugenics was the answer.  Eugenics was a movement to shrink the future Negro populations by controlling the birth rate…

Eugenics failed over time but not for lack of trying. The movement imposed sterilization on black people by the thousands… [but ultimately] faced constitutional challenges.

Adolf Hitler mimicked the American eugenics playbook and exterminated Jews. Eventually, eugenics slithered below ground after getting a bad name from Nazi Germany… Reducing the growth of the black population around the world, but especially in America, was still the goal...

Negative eugenics followed. The idea was to create an environment that would convince blacks to limit the number of their children, in effect to accept “race suicide.” This movement was carried out by crusaders like Margaret Sanger, the founder of the American Birth Control League which became Planned Parenthood in 1942 the largest operator of abortion clinics in the United States...

In 1922, Sanger, referring to the Negro, said “we are paying for and even submitting to the dictates of an ever-increasing, unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all.”  This is the person who occupies space in the “Struggle for Justice” exhibit in the venerable Smithsonian Institute.  How can this be?


Sadly, the Smithsonian only portends to celebrate a pioneer of sex education as it explains in its response to MTS; rather, it misses the point that as a repository of history, the museum fails to recognize Sanger as the monster she was, highlights only her role in contraception while ignoring her intent to annihilate the black community and in so doing offends those of us who are informed. The museum owes the public a duty to tell the truth; it deliberately fails with respect to Margaret Sanger.  Shame on the Smithsonian!