Well, I suppose it is better late than never. It seems that the Democratic Party has once again — now that they are a minority party and the party that hates President Donald Trump — rediscovered the Constitution. However, they have not given up on their victim hunt. So it is that when President Donald Trump decided to ban refugees and residents from seven Muslim nations (Iraq, Iran, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, and Yemen) Democrats went predictably bonkers.
The news media, of course, went looking for victims, and so Trump had to defend his policy.
And in Iraq, a man who had risked his life working on behalf of the U.S. government bleakly wondered about his future and that of his wife and three children. Visas in hand, the family was due to fly Monday to the United States. “It’s like someone’s stabbed me in the heart with a dagger,” he said.
Trump issued a statement late Sunday afternoon that offered little clarity, even as he defended his executive order as necessary to protect the United States from terrorism.
“To be clear, this is not a Muslim ban, as the media is falsely reporting,” Trump said in the statement. “This is not about religion – this is about terror and keeping our country safe. There are over 40 different countries worldwide that are majority Muslim that are not affected by this order.” (from here)
Frankly, since the vast majority of terrorists are Muslims, and those terrorists are trying to kill us in the name of Islam, it is about religion. Nevertheless, Trump did not make it about religion. He just picked countries countries that are hotbeds of terrorism, and he used a list provided by former President Barack Obama.
As the Left and some Republicans lose their minds over President Donald J. Trump’s executive order on immigration, let’s not forget that the list of concerned countries that the Trump administration outlined in the order is based on the one signed into law by the former Obama administration. So, it looks like the Obama White House set the groundwork (viaMic News). (continued here)
Why those seven nations? How do we vet people from nations in chaos? Who are we going to ask — which security services — whether the applicants from these nations are safe to let into our country. When Muslim nations that are at “peace” already send us terrorists, why would we want to take refugees from nations we know are full of active and rabidly dangerous, murderous terrorists?
Anyway, I like what our new president is doing. It isn’t perfect, but it is far better than what the guy he replaced was doing. So I am sending out this note to my elected officials.
Thank you for making a good start on your campaign promises. What a great string of executive orders!
I hope you will stand firm on your commitments. I understand that sometimes you will see that you have made a mistake and make adjustments. I also understand the need for compromise. Sometimes as President Ronald Reagan said we have to give up 20 percent of what we want to get 80 percent. Nevertheless, I pray you will have the courage, fortitude, and wisdom required to withstand the pressure from a partisan news media and your opponents in Congress. I hope our Lord will bless your efforts, and you will continue to forge ahead.
For all intents and purposes, you come across as a Conservative Republican. Yet as a famous commercial once said: “Where’s the beef?” Granted you have had excuses. First it was that the Senate was run by Democrats. Then it was that the White House was still run by Democrats.
Now the Republican Party is out of excuses. You say you are a Conservative? Well, our President could sure use some help, and he is getting more Conservative things done than anyone else. Please follow his example and help him.
Dear Senators Tim Kaine (www.kaine.senate.gov/contact) and Mark Warner (www.warner.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Contact)
I just wanted you guys to know that there are people out there who like what our new president is doing.
Here is a list of Trump’s Executive Orders. Good stuff!
On Friday I got this email from my congressman, Rob Wittman. It left me a bit confused. Wittman is not a bad congressman, and I suppose he should have voted for the Email Privacy Act (H.R. 699). I just wonder why it was necessary.
You know that email you’ve been saving? The one from your dad … or co-worker … or best friend … or daughter? The one they thought only you would see? The one YOU thought only you would see? Well, as the law stands now, law enforcement officials could have legal access to that email without so much as a warrant.
Maybe that surprises you, or maybe it doesn’t. But the fact is that as technology has expanded, the law hasn’t. The Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), the primary law governing email privacy, was passed in 1986—before most of us even knew that email existed. Since then, only minimal reforms have been made to the ECPA, and vulnerabilities in the law have raised significant digital privacy concerns for the public.
It’s not hard to see that the world is evolving around us. We have access to technology that didn’t exist 10 or 5 or even 2 years ago, and that’s a great thing. Technology gives us the opportunity to better ourselves and the world around us. It helps us to connect with people all around the globe in ways we never could have imagined were possible. But tech developments shouldn’t come at the cost of individual privacy and security. The way we protect information should be reflective of the way that we store and share information.
Last week, the House voted 419 to 0, with my support, in favor of the Email Privacy Act (H.R. 699), a bill that would revise the ECPA to require law enforcement agencies to obtain search warrants before gaining access to personal messages and files stored by companies like Google, Yahoo, and Dropbox. Right now, agencies can gain access to emails and other digital files more than 90 days old by issuing subpoenas to technology companies—a very low standard for gaining access to information. This legislation would require law enforcement officers to secure a judge-issued warrant before gaining access to digital information stored in the cloud.
The Email Privacy Act represents the first major update to our digital privacy laws in three decades, and it’s past time for us to make a change. The choice between privacy and technology is a false one. The Fourth Amendment, the Constitutional provision that guarantees privacy and designates it as a fundamental liberty, is strong enough to safeguard our rights in every situation. We have to make sure that our laws conform to that standard, and I believe that the Email Privacy Act takes positive steps in that direction.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I am no legal scholar, but is there such a big a difference between snail mail and email that judges think snooping into our snail mail requires a warrant, but an email doesn’t? Don’t our presidents nominate these judges? Doesn’t our Senate consent to their appointment? Then why do we need this law?
Technology should free us to do things our ancestors never even imagined. Today we can fly. We have visited the moon. Perhaps our grandchildren will settle other planets in our solar system. Who knows? Is it possible that some day Americans will journey to distant stars? Maybe not. Some of those who rule us care about us, but we also have many perverse leaders, and we have the people who vote for them. Instead of protecting our rights and furthering our dreams, too many of those who rule us seek to spend every cent we have, and then they spy on us. They have to make certain they have us under control. How can we dream of reaching the stars when our own rulers seek to bind and enslave us?
You have a congressmen or a senator who is more interested in spending your money than he is in protecting your rights? Have you considered voting for someone else?
Here we will look at our leadership, but first a diversion.
Fun On A Saturday Afternoon
On Saturday afternoon, I attended Delegate Bob Marshall‘s Campaign Kick-Up” Event (Virginians will vote on November 3, 2015.). It was fun, good food, dancing, and politics. Got to watch Delegate Marshall dance with his lady, Cathy, and Senator Dick Black dance with his lady, Barbara. That obviously made the ladys happy. Now my wife is after me to dance. Oh well….
I was there for the food and the politics. In addition to Delegate Marshall, Congressman Rob Wittman, Senator Black, Supervisor Jeanine Lawson, and Willie Deutsch (candidate for Member School Board – COLES DISTRICT) spoke. Clerk of the Court Michele B. McQuigg also attended. McQuigg surprised Marshall a bit when she declined to speak, but she did had little reason to do so. Wittman and Marshall both spoke glowingly of her, and she obviously supports Marshall. And there were plenty of good speeches.
Strangely, however, what I found most memorable was a speech not given by a politician. Instead, the fellow giving the invocation made the most powerful statement, and his quotes of Charles Finney and Noah Webster formed the core of his speech. I then decided quotations from those two gentleman would form the core of this post.
Why Must We Choose A New Leadership?
Many wise and learned men have written about the problem of finding good leadership for a republic. That includes why we must be careful.
It is to deny, what the history of the world tells us is true, to suppose that men of ambition and talents will not continue to spring up amongst us. And, when they do, they will as naturally seek the gratification of their ruling passion, as others have so done before them. The question then, is, can that gratification be found in supporting and maintaining an edifice that has been erected by others? Most certainly it cannot. Many great and good men sufficiently qualified for any task they should undertake, may ever be found, whose ambition would inspire to nothing beyond a seat in Congress, a gubernatorial or a presidential chair; but such belong not to the family of the lion, or the tribe of the eagle. What! think you these places would satisfy an Alexander, a Caesar, or a Napoleon?–Never! Towering genius disdains a beaten path. It seeks regions hitherto unexplored.–It sees no distinction in adding story to story, upon the monuments of fame, erected to the memory of others. It denies that it is glory enough to serve under any chief. It scorns to tread in the footsteps of any predecessor, however illustrious. It thirsts and burns for distinction; and, if possible, it will have it, whether at the expense of emancipating slaves, or enslaving freemen. Is it unreasonable then to expect, that some man possessed of the loftiest genius, coupled with ambition sufficient to push it to its utmost stretch, will at some time, spring up among us? And when such a one does, it will require the people to be united with each other, attached to the government and laws, and generally intelligent, to successfully frustrate his designs. (from here)
Note that Lincoln speaks of only the chief leader. He predicted that some leaders would be controlled with only the greatest difficulty, and we now have a leader who speaks brazenly of the power of his phone and his pen. Yet what is our real problem? Is President Barack Obama a man possessed of the loftiest genius, or is it that at every level of public office we have elected unscrupulous men and women? Thus, when our president does not fulfill the obligations of his office — when he violates his oath and breaks The Law Of The Land — he finds support. Therefore, we cannot stop him. We cannot even slow him down. And so our leader, the leader of the world’s most powerful nation, has set the whole world in turmoil, and we can only watch the unraveling.
What have we failed to do?
Some call Charles Finney the Father of American revivalism. Whether he was such or not, Finney spoke at a time preachers were willing to speak of politics.
The church must take right ground in regard to politics. Do not suppose, now, that I am going to preach a political sermon, or that I wish to have you join and get up a Christian party in politics. No, I do not believe in that. But the time has come that Christians must vote for honest men, and take consistent ground in politics, or the Lord will curse them. They must be honest men themselves, and instead of voting for a man because he belongs to their party, Bank or Anti-Bank, Jackson, or Anti-Jackson, they must find out whether he is honest and upright, and fit to be trusted. They must let the world see that the church will uphold no man in office, who is known to be a knave, or an adulterer, or a Sabbath-breaker, or a gambler. Such is the spread of intelligence and the facility of communication in our country, that every man can know for whom he gives his vote. And if he will give his vote only for honest men, the country will be obliged to have upright rulers. . . . As on the subject of slavery and temperance, so on this subject, the church must act right or the country will be ruined. God cannot sustain this free and blessed country, which we love and pray for, unless the church will take right ground. Politics are a part of religion in such a country as this, and Christians must do their duty to the country as a part of their duty to God. It seems sometimes as if the foundations of the nation were becoming rotten, and Christians seem to act as if they thought God did not see what they do in politics. But I tell you, he does see it, and he will bless or curse this nation, according to the course they take. (from here)
Was Finney right? Is politics part of the religion in a country such as this? All I know is that who we vote for reflects a moral choice. When fail to vote for the welfare of our family, friends, neighbors, and countrymen — when we vote selfishly — God cannot sustain us as a free and blessed country.
Noah Webster is famous as a lexicographer for his commitment to education. He stated our obligation as voters this way.
When you become entitled to exercise the right of voting for public officers, let it be impressed on your mind that God commands you to choose for rulers, “just men who will rule in the fear of God.” The preservation of government depends on the faithful discharge of this duty; if the citizens neglect their duty and place unprincipled men in office, the government will soon be corrupted; laws will be made, not for the public good so much as for selfish or local purposes; corrupt or incompetent men will be appointed to execute the laws; the public revenues will be squandered on unworthy men; and the rights of the citizens will be violated or disregarded. If a republican government fails to secure public prosperity and happiness, it must be because the citizens neglect the divine commands, and elect bad men to make and administer the laws. (from here)
So what should we do? How should we select good leaders? Fortunately for us, the Bible offers us some good advice. A couple of thousand years ago, here is what the Apostle Paul told a young protegé about selecting leaders for the church in Ephesus, which was then a corrupt city.
3 This is a true saying: If a man is eager to be a church leader, he desires an excellent work. 2 A church leader must be without fault; he must have only one wife, be sober, self-controlled, and orderly; he must welcome strangers in his home; he must be able to teach; 3 he must not be a drunkard or a violent man, but gentle and peaceful; he must not love money; 4 he must be able to manage his own family well and make his children obey him with all respect. 5 For if a man does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of the church of God? 6 He must be mature in the faith, so that he will not swell up with pride and be condemned, as the Devil was. 7 He should be a man who is respected by the people outside the church, so that he will not be disgraced and fall into the Devil’s trap.
We tend to overlook Paul’s advice and think only of church leaders. Yet our nation’s borders envelope thousands of churches. Our political leaders ensure the morality of our laws. Like it or not, our leaders impose their values upon society. When our leaders are immoral, they endanger our own values and the values of our family, friends and country.
We also may think of Paul’s advice as quaint, not appropriate for today. For example, when Paul wrote this passage, he wrote to people who would not have seriously considered women as leaders. Paul, however, appointed women to positions of trust, and he readily accepted their help. As 1 Corinthians 9 explains, Paul adapted to the culture of each people he visited. He wanted people to listen to when he preach the Gospel, not argue over side issues.
22 Among the weak in faith I become weak like one of them, in order to win them. So I become all things to all people, that I may save some of them by whatever means are possible.
23 All this I do for the gospel’s sake, in order to share in its blessings.
Thanks to a couple of thousand years of such patient Christian teaching, in this country we no longer allow men to select themselves to lead by using the point of their swords. Instead, we vote. Hence, each Christian now has an obligation to demonstrate how a Christian should participate in politics. When we support our candidates, and when we vote, we can put Paul’s words to action. We can back the candidate we would most like to have in charge of our church. If he (or she) is not fit for that job, he probably won’t do a good job as a leader of our county, our city, our state or our country.
My congressman is Representative Rob Wittman (VA-01). Here is what emailed to my congressman at house.gov
I appreciate your opposition to giving the president fast-track authority for the TPP, and I would like you to continue that opposition. I have several reasons for this.
We don’t need trade deals. All free trade involves is opening our markets. If another government insists upon giving its merchants government aid, we can protect our home industries by taxing their products or setting quotas on what we import from them. On the other hand, if another government opens its markets, we can reciprocate, and we can do this without any treaties or trade agreements. All we have to do is establish and implement a consistent policy.
Trade deals provide an opportunity to abuse power. Politicians use trade deals to pay off constituencies. That includes foreign interests, even foreign governments who help to finance them.
President Obama’s track record shows he cannot be trusted not to abuse fast-track authority.
Trade deals have a history of being used to interfere in the affairs of other nations. That includes environmental and labor laws. That gives other nations an incentive to interfere with our laws. Why would we want to let other nations do that?
The bottom-line is keep it simple (KISS). Fast-track authority complicates an otherwise simple process. We treat our neighbors the way we want them to treat us.
House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell made the calculation quickly: If Congress didn’t act swiftly to send President Barack Obama a fast-track trade bill, it might never get done.
With that in mind, the Democratic president and the two Republican leaders embarked on their most intense bipartisan negotiating spree in recent memory, speaking on private conference calls, scheduling meetings with supportive Democrats and plotting a process to advance Obama’s top agenda item over the finish line. The back channeling, combined with some complex procedural machinations, might allow the House and Senate to clear both Trade Promotion Authority and Trade Adjustment Assistance before the Fourth of July recess. (continued here)
That’s why Delegate Bob Marshall sent this email out Monday. He says we each need to contact our congressman.
Your Help Needed!
NAFTA promised hundreds of thousands of US jobs and US trade surpluses which did not materialize. The same promises are being made for the Trans Pacific Partnership!
TPA, TPP and TAA
TPA stands for Trade Promotion Authority, also known as “fast track,” by which Congress approves trade agreements up or down without amendments. This bill paves the way for faster approval of the Trans Pacific Partnership. The vote scheduled for tomorrow, Tuesday June 16th, HR 1314, will be on the TPA.
TAA is the Trade Adjustment Assistance which retrains American workers who lose jobs because of the Trans Pacific Partnership. Unions favor it. The House rejected the TAA last week. According toBreitbart News, the assistance will be paid for by fines on small businesses, “that for no fault of their own, they forget to file a piece of paperwork telling the IRS how much someone else owes on their taxes.”
TPP stands for Trans-Pacific Partnership, a specific trade agreement being negotiated by the United States with other countries since 2009. No final vote has taken place on TPP.
Although future amendments to the TPP (the actual trade deal) would have to be approved by Congress after initial passage of the TPP, my question is, will Congress stand up to foreign nations or the U.S. Chamber of Commerce? Let’s look at the record.
“The House voted late Wednesday to remove country-of-origin labels on beef, pork and chicken sold in the U.S. … Wednesday’s 300-131 vote repealing the country-of-origin labels for meat follows a series of rulings by the World Trade Organization finding the labeling discriminates against animals imported from Canada and Mexico. …
Canada has threatened trade restrictions on a range of U.S. products, including meat, wine, chocolate, jewelry and furniture. … Country-of-origin labels … were mandated by Congress in … 2002 and 2008 … and require meatpackers to identify where animals are born, raised and slaughtered. The information is then printed on meat packages sold in grocery stores.”
My wife always reads the food labels! Polls show consumers overwhelmingly favor such labels. Shouldn’t we be allowed to know where our meat comes from? Congress does not always follow the wishes of “we the people!”
Congress Caves on Reining in Obama’s Amnesty
Another example: In the fall of 2014, Congress voted to fund the Department of Homeland Security through February, 2015 (other agencies were funded for a full year.) Speaker Boehner assured us that after January, 2015, when the Republicans would control both Houses, Obama’s amnesty policies would be curtailed by a Budget amendment.
However, in March, 2015, the Republican controlled House and Senate voted to fund the Department of Homeland Security 257 Yeas to 167 Nays WITHOUT a ban on the use of tax money to implement Obama’s Executive Amnesty for persons illegally in the US.
Instead, manufacturing jobs have shrunk dramatically in the United States while trade deficits skyrocketed. Can President Obama give better assurances that TPP will not follow NAFTA’s record?
Congress’ Record Leaves Little Doubt it will Cave Again
Why should anyone think Congress will reject a Trade proposal supported by the US Chamber of Commerce? HR 1314 paves the way to approving the Trans Pacific Partnership by giving the President “Fast Track” authority to negotiate the trade deal. Urge your Congressman to vote against HR 1314. The vote is likely to come up Tuesday, June 16th..
(Sorry for my typo in my previous Alert. I typed “TPA” instead of “TPP” but all quotes and links were accurate.)
Please contact your Representative through the links or at the phone or fax below: