Now that it has been confirmed that pressure cookers were used in the Boston bombing, Americans will be restricted from owning more than one pressure cooker. The mayor has said “There just is no reason that someone would need more than one small pressure cooker in today’s world”, while the Governor hollered to cheers at a rally, “You don’t need multiple pressure cookers to cook a deer!”

A background check with a fee will be required before you are allowed to purchase one, in an effort to curb “pressure cooker violence.” High capacity pressure cookers will no longer be available to the general public but will still be available to military and law enforcement. Use of pressure cooker ammunition, known by far-right Christian extremists as “electricity,” will be tracked by the Centers for Disease Control as a hazardous substance. This has many (all) states grappling with the effect of lightning in their home states, which for some reason is already criminalized on page 1,657 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Vice President Biden said by Skype conference in an Amsterdam suite, “If someone has the dumb idea of cooking more than their fair share, they are probably one of those people I wouldn’t want to own a pressure cooker of any size… that’s what overpriced restaurants are for!” Sen. Dianne Feinstein, herself a licensed Concealed Pressure Cooker Holder, called them “cosmic weapons of death inspired by AK-47 Glocks.” She was not available to elaborate.

Average citizens will be restricted to low capacity cookers that hold the equivalent of 7 cherry tomatoes, and pressure cookers with more than one handle will require a temporary government permit, so as to mitigate the risk of pressure cookers being carried too far from the home. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has scheduled the vote on the “Pressure Cooker Safety Initiative for Women Now” bill for… 5 minutes from now. The bill is shorter than usual, at only 600 pages, due to draconian sequester cuts. Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner has offered a compromise to accept only up to 800 pages of legislation on this issue. President Obama at a press conference, flanked by a group of children burned by touching either pressure cookers or a stove, urged a “balanced approach” to this partisan bickering, adding that millionaires and billionaires making over $250,000 should be charged a pressure cooker excise tax. President Obama has since issued an Executive Order, ordering himself to appoint a Burn Czar, who will lead a national discussion on “the pressure cooker culture.”

The Environmental Protection Agency has mandated the sale of all pressure cookers to be stopped until global warming is stopped. Said a spokesman: “Baby seals today face the unimaginable horror of the two-pronged human threat of death by global warming, or death by pressure cookers big enough to hold a baby seal and cook it. Therefore, effective immediately, the EPA has classified the steam from pressure cookers to be a hazardous substance, and will assume in an abundance of caution that all water vapor everywhere and at every moment is from illicit steam cooker abuse.” The Department of Homeland Security has ordered 550 Apache helicopters to help monitor… Pressure cooker things. Secretary of State John Kerry has since refused to return a borrowed pressure cooker from Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu, while sending 9,000 “military style” pressure cookers to Palestinian leaders for no apparent reason.

Maryland has brought back the death penalty for anyone caught looking at a pressure cooker while simultaneously wearing a T-shirt with an American flag. New York has organized a pressure cooker Buy-Back program, in which pressure cookers can be turned into law enforcement in exchange for $25 gift cards with “Obama for America” logos. In California, those are $25 IOUs. Ironically, a growing number of states have begun to issue $25 in food stamps for surrendered pressure cookers, in the wake of increased hunger from fewer cooking tools. 11 government agencies are independently and redundantly investigating the cause.

The Department of Justice has issued thousands of pre-programmed cell phones to undocumented (as opposed to illegal) immigrants, from which they can call into a hotline and report any illegal (as opposed to undocumented) pressure cooker activity of United States citizens.

Reporting Live from a fundamentally transformed America, I’m Matthew Ung.

The latest republican capitulation is to give at least $400 billion of deficit spending to the democrats by suspending the debt ceiling debate for three months, at the convenient time that the limit is reached. In exchange, they get back $69 billion of appropriations cuts, apprehensively labeled as “severe” cuts by many GOP insiders and commentators. Even without a calculator, I know that means we are putting an extra $331 billion on another national credit card, and totally ignoring the credit card we already have with a balance of over $16 trillion. Either it’s Obama’s birthday and this is a big present, or we need to bus in some high school math teachers to Capital Hill for the Republican caucus.

Americans who can remember back more than one year know that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) followed up the debt limit increase of 2011 with “Egads! We’ll never do this again! And if we do, the president is going to have to cut something first! Dollar by dollar, I say!” (author’s paraphrase). Unfortunately, the top republican, Speaker John Boehner, still has the spine of the jellyfish, and is still mistaking compromise for capitulation.

Now let’s step back and look at just how bad this “deal” was. First, it not only opens the door to unlimited borrowing for three months, it totally ignores the existing debt ceiling. It is a de-facto deletion of our credit limit, by the party of supposed fiscal responsibility. Second, what was before lining up to be total liability for democrats in the 2014 elections, has now become shared responsibility for more deficit spending. On the bright side, the republicans are finally leading, just for the wrong side… Ok, there is no bright side. And third, the bill says the ruling class (excuse me, the “legislature”) won’t be paid unless the respective houses of Congress pass a budget resolution. Sounds great, stick it to ‘em!!….Except that they just have to propose a RESOLUTION and are not required to in any way, shape, or form, collaborate to get a budget passed. Ask yourself this question: If Obama’s 2013 budget resolution was voted down 99-0 by his own majority in the Senate, how exactly will a U.S. House resolution magically meet a U.S. Senate resolution and make a budget?

We talk about politics being a game sometimes, but to those who advise your representatives on Capital Hill, it really is a game! House Republicans are so bent out of shape that the Democrats in the Senate haven’t proposed a budget in four years, that they literally agreed to surrender all in exchange for just one Senate budget resolution… just so they could feel the power coursing through their veins. Now, we all know the Constitution has served us very well, and when it commands a budget be proposed, the democrats in the Senate should listen. But is it really a deal when we compromise MORE of our bargaining power to tell them to follow something they are already obligated to follow? Speaker Boehner is following the same dumb logic liberals use to take away 2nd Amendment rights. They say: We’ll make a law that says you have to follow existing gun laws! We say: We’ll make a law that says you have to follow the “Supreme Law of the Land,” aka The Constitution.

We are in a time when even the Democrats are surprised at how liberal the Republicans are being. If this “deal” had been proposed by democrats, so-called conservative pundits and commentators would be ripping it to shreds. But when a republican signs off on it, it’s a strategic move, it’s a necessary evil, and it’s long-term thinking.

Our fearless Grand Old Party must decide whether it will stand down and let Obama have his way and give the democrats total responsibility for their collision course, or fight the good fight and take the hits as they come. But this middle ground they’ve chosen, of strong beginning words and 11th-hour retreats, reminds me of the dodo birds in the family movie Ice Age. They don’t get what they want, and when they do, they all fall off a cliff.

G.K. Chesterton rightly said “Tolerance is the virtue of a man without convictions.” We have been tolerating a lot from our Republican Party, and they have been tolerating an awful lot of embarassing abuse from liberals. Chairman Mao-Bama wants us to look for our collective salvation from big government. Let us not leap from the frying pan into the fire by looking for our collective salvation from a shipwrecked Republican Party. Let us rally around principled individuals, and engage the culture war. Culture trumps politics, but our culture is in a parabolic regression.

We could all start by giving our Republican representatives the child’s book “If You Give a Mouse a Cookie…” But they have a hard time reading bills, so you might have to read it to them.

The government’s 4th Quarter (2012) unemployment figures came out recently. We went from 7.8 to 7.9% unemployment, but if the most inclusive government number was used, it’s almost 15%. Our Gross Domestic Product shrunk, despite $98 billion more in total federal spending than the previous quarter, according to the Treasury Department. You know, when we’ve spent more borrowed money under President Obama than any human being in world history ($6 trillion), when we’ve borrowed to “invest” trillions every year in failed subsidies, and when we’re inflating the currency with $85 billion of created Federal Reserve Notes every month, I think the “common sense approach” (to borrow the president’s phraseology) is to expect our recovery won’t be the most anemic in U.S. history. A supposed recovery which just officially ended.

As a sidenote, I also think it’s only reasonable for the president to issue an executive order to his narcissistic self to appoint someone to lead a “national discussion” on the national debt–much like he did at the Sandy Hook press conference to mandate a “national discussion” on gun violence. We know that Gallup says 4% of Americans think gun control is the biggest issue of the day, and that the vast majority think the national deficit IS, but what does a private sector company know about the federal government anyway? The government’s surveys are higher than our surveys, and their accounting is higher than our accounting…

Press Secretary Jay Carney recently cited 54 straight months of job creation in Obama’s presidency as evidence for their economic success, notwithstanding the obvious fact that Obama has only been in office for 48 months. But it’s not only their counting skills that are lacking, it’s their ideology: When Carney cited 2 million jobs created in 2012, he left out the glaring counter-fact that 8.5 million people have dropped out of the workforce in the last four years. Did you know we have lost more people from our workforce than any time in modern history, and that we have less people in our workforce than in 1948? It’s not because people sent a form to the government saying they don’t like earning money anymore, but because the government arbitrarily thinks they don’t want to be in the workforce anymore. Also, if you have a part-time job, the government assumes that you will never, EVER IN YOUR LIFE, want a full-time job. So you don’t count, just because you’re so content.

Guess who else has low unemployment but whose economy is in decline? North Korea. Their official government number of 3-4% unemployment is the envy of all nations with biased government statisticians. Why? Because they keep dropping people from their workforce. I rest my case.

There is a great deal of accelerated emotions involved in this particular debate, which are not necessarily helpful when addressing an issue of legality, crime, and moral prosecution.  The knee-jerk reaction of well-intended souls, who operate almost exclusively in an environment of church government (where the art of human reconciliation is the ultimate driving objective and communication skills are paramount), does not translate very well in a sphere of civil government (where the art of retribution is the ultimate driving objective in order to administer proper justice through punishments). Reconciliatory thinkers are wonderful, valuable, precious people. They are capable of literally “saving the whole world” with what is often promoted to be “good news”.  They want to give everyone a sincere and loving hug, but please understand they are quite possibly the most dangerous people on earth when errantly put in charge of a maximum-security prison system (or anything that has to do with crime and punishment – law-making – or becoming the next American President).

In contrast with reconciliatory thinkers, retributive thinkers are wonderful, valuable, precious people, too. They are literally capable of “protecting the world” with what is often misconstrued as “bad news”.  Alas, their “Go to jail!” command is very necessary and valuable to society. They can also be the very most disastrous people on earth if they are mistakenly asked to develop a curriculum for training airline stewardesses, concierge etiquette, or running the help-desk at the Department of Transportation licensing bureau…but I digress.

It is my charge that the “I was a stranger and you took me in” initiative is an aberrant attempt of reconciliatory thinkers to solve a criminal problem they seem uniquely unqualified to solve. Are they sincere? Yes. Are they compassionate and well-meaning? I have no doubt. Are they noble and reputable church-leaders in their own right? Sure. Is their premise built upon sound biblical doctrine anchored by divine authority? ABSOLUTELY NOT. They are misguided – in layers.

Here’s the link to what is clearly a misleading commercial provided to me by the interviewing reporter.  Once you have viewed this commercial and have seen the reading of a Bible passage by various ministers from many backgrounds known and unknown, you will be better equipped to consider what follows in this writing. My thoughts are based upon what I was able to sleuth out about the group, beginning with the most obvious problem – their inappropriate and misleading use of the passage being read when applied to the subject of crime (more on that in a moment).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hW8lSzGYl_U

I cannot affirm this movement, because it appears to be out of step with the authentic Christian doctrine of justice. When I say it is out of step with authentic Christian doctrine, keep in mind that the popularity or common sentiment among Christians may or may not necessarily determine whether such a belief is actually in agreement with sound Bible instruction. We do, after all, live in an age where, sadly, false doctrine is widely accepted as “truth” and our pagan culture has done a far better job of “discipling” the last four generations of church-goers than the other way around. I think all of us that deal with reality know that very well, particularly ministers who are dealing with a full deck of cards.

As a pastor of what has been called a “neo-Pentecostal” independent church, feeling the constant gusts of every “wind of doctrine” only describe another average day at the office. I am always skeptical, in a healthy sort of way, I hope, of the latest political, social, musical, doctrinal, or dietary…even culinary fads. It’s my nature. With that said, I am quite opposed to any intellectually dishonest warping of scripture which pretends the phrase, “I was a stranger and you took me in”, should be misconstrued as either harboring, aiding and abetting offenders of divine (higher) law, or the lower man-created laws that remain in harmony with them. Ponder the previous sentence well before allowing yourself to be emotionally drawn into a vortex of illogic and drama. I don’t take any misapplication of the authoritative words of Jesus Christ lightly, especially when they are used in public marketing as a ploy for support. Nor should you.

So let’s briefly get into the weeds on this so we can move on to the other problems with the messaging of the “I was a stranger and you took me in” initiative. The use of Jesus’ words are misleading and inappropriate, because it is well known that the word stranger is originally translated from the Greek word xenos, and the implication of the word’s usage in the text of Matthew 25:35 would be best described as guest foreigner. I should not need to explain the difference between a law-breaking (illegal) foreigner and a guest foreigner, should I? No, I should not – especially not to Christian religious leaders of the caliber brandished by this commercial – ministers we expect to be approved by their diligent and studied obedience to the command of Paul, who wrote, “Study to show thyself approved.” But I do have to say it, don’t I?

Conclusion thus far? The mantra of the initiative is your first glaring red flag. Proceed with caution.

I am a pastor, and I understand where these pastors are coming from, even though I realize they are misguided.  I have personally endured more than one bad scenario where a wonderful would-be citizen attending my church was ground to powder by our horrible, bureaucratic circus of kookiness we call the “legal immigration process.” Those painful, inefficient scenarios were hard to bear, were harsh on the innocent children caught in them, and spiritually and emotionally difficult to navigate. The fact that I felt anger in defense of these warm and kind people who immigrated in an unsavory way many years before they came to Christ did not necessarily help my ability to determine that lady justice should be allowed to do her proper, God-ordained work in the earth. In fact, the average pastoral experience with immigration in the United States is usually similar to what I’ve just described above. Add that fact to our pastoral penchant for reconciliation, and we are easily biased to a fault on the subject of illegal immigration. In this arena, pastoral objectivity is usually lost amidst the sea of suffering parents and children, and the God-ordained demands of justice, if left to us in our tearful state, are absolutely impossible.

Why? Because, you see, there is another side to illegal immigration than what is most often experienced by experts in reconciliation (pastors). There is a very dark, dangerous, and damnable side of this tragedy, which few ministers encounter, and even if they do, they are unlikely to be publicly willing to address it with appropriate candor for fear of seeming unloving to a mostly biblically illiterate American public. As pointed out earlier, with the exception of the unique ministry of a biblical prophet, pastors are not typically wired (or willing to be wired) for anything beyond reconciliation.

Allow me to quote Dan Zak of the Washington Post, reflecting on America’s fascination with two particular criminals of our national past. “How do two reckless losers — amateur stickup artists who killed at least 10 people on a haphazard spree across six states — remain celebrated icons capable of inspiring this current glut of [Hollywood movie] projects?”[i]

The answer to his question may be complex, but the reason Bonnie and Clyde were able to murder so many is quite simple. Ten innocent citizens were murdered because a naive farm couple, by the names of Ivan and Avie Methvin, helped hide the criminals on their rented farm, no doubt justifying themselves each time through a warped application of the biblical command to ‘love thy neighbor’. Ivan and Avie may have been well-meaning old folks; no one but God really knows. What we do know is they were naive, ignorant, and disobedient to the Bible, whether they meant well or not. As an aside, as an Iowan, every four years I look presidential candidates in the eyes and ask them important questions about this subject. It doesn’t take long before I see they have the same intellectual problem as Ivan and Avie, and that will explain why I have only publicly endorsed one presidential candidate in the last 18 years of ministry. I digress, again.

Common sense should tell us that aiding and abetting a criminal is not only against American law, it’s against biblical law. When you aid and abet a wrong-doer, you partner with them against the righteousness of God. That is what Jesus and John taught very clearly. (See Matthew 18 and 2 John 1:11.) Let me describe it another way: from a relational standpoint, it is evil and disobedient to give mercy to the unrepentant. From a theological standpoint, it is not the role or purpose of civil government to distribute mercy in the first place. I digress. Meanwhile, with regard to the relational standpoint I just mentioned, there is not one verse in all of Scripture that says mercy should EVER be given without repentance. This will be a shock to many who fly their kites in every wind of doctrine, but it’s still a fact. Don’t believe me? Do a word-study on mercy in a good Geneva or King James Bible and see what you find concerning that other word always found near it – the word repent.

And what could be the result of the unbiblical naiveté of those who might be tempted to warp the phrase “I was a stranger and you took me in”? Our institutionalized resurrection of the proverbial “Methvin Farm” will ensure the illegal immigration problem to continue and grow worse in the following ways: 1) overcrowded and inefficient hospital emergency rooms; 2) unsupportable numbers of students financially crushing the public education system; 3) cavalier disrespect of Americans through identity theft; 4) disproportionate contributions of violent crime committed in large cities; and 5) a rate of untenable population saturation devoid of any responsible, measured assimilation to principles of Americanism, and much more. Offended that I have just compared illegal immigrants to Bonnie and Clyde? Not so fast, bleeding heart. Iowa 4th District Congressman Steve King once released data showing that an average of 4,380 Americans were currently being murdered by illegal aliens every year. If the congressman was correct, that means illegal immigrants reproduce the equivalent of Bonnie and Clyde’s entire lifetime of criminal escapades every twenty-four hours.

Illegal immigration will inevitably result in a loss of freedom, as statist thinking (the reason Mexico is a civic disaster many wish to escape) penetrates our society. If illegal immigration is not stopped, an un-American (corrupted) worldview will continue to be applied by disrespectful immigrants upon our legal and political culture. When a nation of any people apply their errant worldview of the relationship between the individual soul and the state, the results are always unsavory. The people ( in this case Mexican citizens) who do not appreciate their own reflection (in this case Mexican government) will do one of two things: 1) they will address the ugliness and change it; or 2) they will hate the mirror, deny reality, and shop for a new mirror.

The danger this poses my law-abiding neighbors is anything but kind, gentle, or remotely godly. The act of illegally crossing the sovereign border of any nation is sinful, and it is disrespectful to the God who pre-determined the fixed-boundaries of national habitations, according to Acts 17:26.   Illegal immigration is irreverent, harmful, selfish, and uncaring for the common good of the nation whose laws are dishonored and broken. It is unkind and abusive to my fellow American neighbors. The Great Lawgiver – Moses – a prophet of God revered by both Christians and Jews around the world…quoted, endorsed, and defended by the doctrines of Jesus Christ…that deliverer of the Hebrew children from Egypt and messenger of the two tables of stone…Moses, whose genius was hallowed in the musings of the celebrated minds of Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates…described illegal immigration as a threatening curse of disobedience, the spawn of a spirit of lawlessness, holding destructive powers with national consequences, in Deuteronomy 28:43 & 52.

As it turns out, some time long ago, our fathers decided freedom could not co-exist in an environment of lawlessness, so we became a Republic – a nation of laws. Laws in America are the reason we enjoy liberty, and they must be enforced if we love our neighbors and seek the common good. Ironically, the enforcement of laws has produced the atmosphere men of other nations so desire that they are willing to become criminals to achieve it. Should we reform our immigration system? Does it need reform? Yes and yes, but not before we enforce current laws with integrity. Who can guarantee, after all, that proposed reforms would be enforced afterward if we allow the unjust habit of non-enforcement happening now to continue?

Laws that are not enforced are not laws at all; they are suggestions in legal dress. No nation can survive the twaddle of suggestions.

I have shared these thoughts and more with my local and state representatives and the presidential candidates that frequent my state every four years, and I will continue to do so.

The Republican Party, from its inception in 1856, has stood for conservative pro-family and pro-Constitutional values. Those values are what first drew me to the Republican Party and they are what have led me to be engaged in my unwavering support of same.

I have opposed those Republicans who support abortion, homosexual marriage, expanded government, increased spending and other political positions that others and I argue are antithetical to what our Party has long stood for.

But the Republican Party we have supported and fought for is no longer the same. We have elected candidates who have behaved – and supported policies – more in line with Democrats than those standards we expect from true Conservatives. And, specific to that point, we have paid dearly as a nation for it.

Now, in the aftermath of back-to-back humiliating presidential losses, we would think that the Republican leadership has learned its lesson and is going to turn back to the conservative principles that made the Party of Lincoln the Party we once knew. But it appears that isn’t the case.

The concerns and values of the Party that gave us President Eisenhower and President Reagan have been abandoned and, despite the evidence that conservative values gave us the greatest off-year election victory in decades in 2010 – the Republican hierarchy appears to be committed to doubling down on a shift to embrace those issues conservatives have always opposed.

There are renewed calls for what they view as a more “broad-based and compassionate” Party. They appear more determined than ever to embrace amnesty for illegal aliens in an attempt to erode Hispanics support for Democrats. They are increasingly more favorable to the spending programs designed to show they care about blacks.

There is now open contempt for grass-roots activist programs and the Tea Party in favor of becoming more like the Democrats.

We do not need another Democrat Party. The one that exists has done nothing but set us on the path to the fiscal and social abyss.

The attempted transmogrification of conservative values into the values of the late John Murtha, the late Arlen Specter, and the former Congressman Mike Castle of Delaware are not the values that made this nation the greatest in the world.

We have a decision to make. As Ronald Reagan famously said, “You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and our children’s children say of us we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done.” (A Time For Choosing; 10/27/64)

For many of us, that decision is now clear. Capitulating to increased taxes, debauchery, the murder of the unborn, big government and increased spending, rewarding those who have blatantly violated our sovereign borders, courts that no longer adhere to boundaries prescribed by the Constitution, ad nauseum – is not the way to restore the great and noble experiment called the United States of America.

Just as a small band of men took it upon themselves to fight to insure our freedoms at the creation of our nation, so too must those who agree with what I am saying do today.

If the Republican Party hierarchy refuses to understand that, then our decision has been made for us, and we must divorce ourselves from them in favor of supporting new paths to electing those who will.

Barack Obama is not our problem as such – albeit, he is a malignant parasite who openly schemes to suck the lifeblood from America in favor of government dependency and a Socialist State.

We are the problem if we continue to support the party and party hierarchy who have made this possible. Republicans have made this possible by abandoning the core principles that America was founded upon. They have abandoned truth for a lie and our children will pay for it.

If the Republican Party hierarchy refuses to understand that, then our decision has been made for us, and we must divorce ourselves from them in favor of supporting new paths to electing those who will. After all, unfaithfulness has always been adequate grounds for divorce.

And we are blown-away because they look us in the eyes at family reunions and tell us they don’t agree with their own party’s proclivity for promoting homosex, abortion, Marxism, “living constitution” crap-ola, etc…

And we are blown away with them BECAUSE they are unwilling to stand up or leave, based upon sensible principles of morality and patriotism…yet, we ourselves are not willing to do the same to our own pagan, man-worshiping, secularist, humanist, scoundrel-filled Republican Party, then we have no credibility to criticize our Democrat friends and relatives at all.

What’s more, we have no use of ANY political party, because the “two-party system” seems to have been reduced to something meaningless, like a preference between silly football teams. The reality is, however, that, unlike football, political brands make decisions that kill people, steal from them, and incarcerate them for trespasses.

What’s the point? Party-worship is simply this: the unwillingness to PUNISH evil in your own dirty little club. In the light of what I just shared about my own relatives who INSIST on remaining “life-long Democrats,” for a Democrat-loathing Republican to sweep betrayals of his own Party’s platform (what separates him from the Democrat) under a rug, in order to defeat a Democrat, is morally and intellectually inconsistent!

Frank Marshall Davis, Operative of the Communist Party USA

If Democrats had stood-up to their own religion and God-hating members in the late 1950s, I posit to you that this nation would NOT be headed for the graveyard of forgotten empires right now! Conservapedia describes the beginning of the infiltration and ruin of the Democratic Party that began to take place in 1950: “Andrew Walden of the Hawaii Free Press has said the story of Frank Marshall Davis” [at one time a leading communist in Hawaiian politics, and mentor of young Barack Obama] was “completely intertwined with the story of the Hawaii Democrats rise to power. Communists controlled the ILWU [International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union], the ILWU controlled the Hawaii Democratic Party, and in 1954, union-based election campaigns launched the Hawaii Democrats into control of the legislature. Walden quotes Hawaii’s first Democratic Governor Jack Burns, “Every guy in the ILWU was at one time or another a member of the Communist Party of America. This is where they got their organizational information and how to organize, and how to bring groups together and how to create cells and how to make movements that are undetected by the bosses.”

In 1959 Hawaii was admitted to the Union. After Burns captured the governor’s office in 1962 the Democrats created a one-party state unbroken for four decades until the election of Republican Governor Linda Lingle in 2002. During those decades in some sessions sat as few as one Republican legislator. In 1976 the Democratic-controlled Hawaii State Legislature passed a resolution honoring Koji Ariyoshi. Herbert Romerstein, formerly head of the office to Counter Soviet Disinformation at the United States Information Agency commented, “this was the atmosphere that young Barack Obama grew up in…We honor Soviet spies.”"1

God forbid my children and grandchildren ever say that about me and the blasted Republican Party that is being over-run with platform-trouncing, biblically illiterate, and constitutionally ignorant little deceivers, who give disingenuous lip-service to the most precious and sacred beliefs that make being a Republican worth ANYTHING to me in the first place!

The first book I ever re-published was written by a leading American Democrat in 1951, named Dr. Clarence Manion. I GUARANTEE you he was more conservative than the last 40 years of Republican presidents, including Ronald Reagen, yet he was a REGISTERED DEMOCRAT! That little nugget will tell you exactly where this country is headed, regardless of who wins the presidential election this year. WE’RE HEADED TO THE LEFT…YET AGAIN!

I commend my fellow conservative Republican patriots, for loving America and the Republican Party enough, to tell members of your own fraternal order the truth. Too bad the Democratic Party didn’t have more people like you 70 years ago. We had all better hope that more Republicans begin to emerge from the ashes with enough courage to do the very same thing to their own estranged Republican Party very soon.

God save America!

Adam Clarke, the eighteenth-century protege’ of John Wesley, had this to say about the destruction of the nation of Israel: “Reproving a brother who had sinned was a positive command under the law, [according to] Leviticus 19:17. And the Jews have a saying, that one of the causes of the ruin of their nation was, ‘No man reproved another’.”  

“And when the Lord raised them up judges, then the Lord was with the judge, and delivered them out of the hand of their enemies all the days of the judge…And it came to pass, when the judge was dead, that they returned, and corrupted themselves more than their fathers, in following other gods to serve them, and to bow down unto them; they ceased not from their own doings, nor from their stubborn way.” – Judges 2:18-19.

Endnotes:

1) http://conservapedia.com/Frank_Marshall_Davis#ILWU

We expect leftists, liberals, and other miscreants to pounce opportunistically, to lie, cheat, and twist (all the while drooling) over a phrase like “legitimate rape” when uttered by a strong conservative Christian politician. But should we expect the same from alleged conservatives?

Yet this is exactly what we’ve seen from several prominent conservatives in the wake of a media gaffe from U.S. Senate candidate Todd Akin (R-MO) in regard to alleged “legitimate rape” and abortion.

What could have been quickly and easily handled with a consolidated response correctly interpreting Akin’s unfortunate phrase was instead a rare cause of bipartisan hazing.

It’s an old and reliable political reality: liberals care for even the criminals in their midst, while conservatives shoot their wounded. So, for example, Joe Biden can put all three of his left feet in his mouth twice a week and the media performs damage control (and perhaps leash training as well). The Right can scream and howl but the matter gets buried in no time. And thus, the male-prostitute hiring Barney Franks of this world retire from Congress as alleged civil rights heroes.

Meanwhile, let a conservative utter an awkward phrase, and it’s ready, aim, fire—not only from the leftist media, but from alleged conservatives like Ann Coulter, Scott Brown, the Romney-Ryan campaign, and the RNC itself. “We’re not associated with him!”

And in this case, the volley of verbal bullets came with disproportionate verve. It’s almost like the GOP establishment is more than eager to get rid of the most conservative tea-party types among them. (This is not to endorse Akin myself. I find his views on foreign policy and unlimited military-empire spending far less than biblical.)

Here’s the Akin incident, as reported by the Wall Street Journal:

Mr. Akin prompted the uproar with his response to a question in a KTVI television station interview in St. Louis about whether abortion should be legal in cases of rape.

“It seems to me, first of all, from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare,” he said. “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”

Ann Coulter blasted Akin in numerous ways, saying she would “hate” him unless he withdraws from the race. More on Coulter in a minute.

Romney-Ryan stated they “disagree with Mr. Akin’s statement, and a Romney-Ryan administration would not oppose abortion in instances of rape.” More on their pro-choice exception in a minute.

RNC chairman Priebus called the remarks “dumb,” “biologically stupid,” and “bizarre.”

Needless to say, the leftists are in high gear and their attacks are as numerous as they are fallacious. There are two chief parts to the criticism from both sides: the phrase “legitimate rape,” and the issue of the rape exception for abortions.

“Legitimate Rape”

The left immediately ran with the idea of “legitimate rape” meaning that Akin must believe that only some rapes are carried out legitimately and others are “illegitimate,” and this an unacceptable “blame-shifting” and “sexist” view.

Now, this would have been a wonderful time for the Right to engage is education, courage, and square, powerful refutation: exposing how stupid and devious liberal politicians are. Expose their lunacy and lies for all to see! This is an opportunity!

Nope. Instead, they savaged the truth and bent, like quivering grass in the winds of assumed political fallout, before the left’s claims.

Coulter didn’t even get the position right: she says Akin should have responded “Yes, it’s still a life, but more people are killed in drive-by shootings in Chicago every year. You give us the 2 million abortions that aren’t a result of rape and incest and we’ll give you the few thousand that are.” Not really. Akin’s position is that of denying exceptions for instances of rape also; so this imaginary compromise may be what partial-pro-life moderates believe, but it certainly doesn’t represent how Akin could have said his view more clearly.

But what she’s really upset about is the rhetoric of it all. Politicians “should have a clear, nonthreatening answer at the ready.”

“Nonthreatening.” Right. Not to unborn babies, of course, but to potential voters. Thus do we sacrifice both life and truth on the altar of rhetorical fear. This is an insult both to true conservatism and the right to life, but also to the sense of most voters. Coulter and her likes in the party are assuming that most people vote purely on mindless, uninformed, ignorant emotion. And she is making this, rather than principle, the operating assumption of her political rhetoric. Thus we need good, quick, “nonthreatening” rhetoric, even at the expense of truth.

Coulter is, of course, an expert at rhetoric. It’s all she’s ever done.

Priebus also assumed the left’s argument when he said “whatever an illegitimate rape is—you know that’s not even something that we could conceive of.”

But it is very easy actually.

Akin was likely relying on the work of physician and former National Right to Life president John C. Willke, who wrote a three part series, “Assault Rape and Pregnancy” (3 parts), National Right to Life News, July 17, August 21, and October 9, 1986. This series is condensed at the website of Physicians for Life.

Willke began that piece with what is a well-known position on the definition of “rape” and how it is reflected in statistics:

We should use the phrase “forced rape” or “assault rape” for that specifies what we’re talking about. Rape can also be statutory. Depending upon your state law, statutory rape is intercourse with a girl under a certain age, often 16. Statutory rape can be consensual, but it is still statutory rape.

Another category is “date rape”. For some reason, this is supposed to be different, but, forced rape is still rape, regardless of whether it occurs on a date or behind the bushes. If a college woman is raped on a date, she should report it to the police and pursue charges. Further, she should undergo a medical examination and treatment, just as she would in the aftermath of an assault rape. It is not a separate category.

He then added, “Assault rape pregnancies are extremely rare. . . .”

We’ll cover more on why he concluded this in a moment, but from this much we can see exactly, clearly what Akin meant when he used the phrase “legitimate rape.” He was referring to cases of actual, criminal, forcible rape as opposed to several other conceivable definitions that are not actually “rape,” but only legally, socially, or anecdotally reported so, or claimed as such for whatever reason—true or otherwise.

There is, after all, the distinct possibility that if abortion were outlawed but with an exception for “rape,” that many of the women who buy abortions purely out of convenience today would then simply claim to have been raped in order to procure the legality.

For some reason, even to mention the possibility that a woman may lie about being raped is supposed to be politically incorrect—untouchable. It enrages leftists, and for some reason, therefore, frightens conservatives. Are a woman’s intentions never to questioned—completely off limits—when she claims to have been raped?

The answer is generally yes, but there is a least one major exception to this: When she intends to use that claim as justification to murder an innocent third party, a baby. The right to life trumps the right to privacy.

Liberals may wish us to believe that no woman would ever stoop so low as to lie about being raped. But this simply does not comport with what we Christians know about fallen human nature. We, conservatives, all agree that millions of women annually conspire to commit murder on their unborn babies. So do you expect me to feel it unacceptable to believe they would lie about why? This is political correctness run amok. Why, after all, would someone willing to kill out of convenience not also lie for various reasons out of convenience?

But liberals hate both the idea that some alleged “rapes” are not “rape” in the true sense, and the fact that because this is so, the statistics of rape and pregnancy are not as high as they would like to claim. Thus, some liberal at Slate Magazine blasts Akin: “tens of thousands of women are impregnated by rape annually.” The link takes you to the “proof” of this “tens of thousands” claim.

The Holmes Study

But that proof—also now featured on Fox News and Reuters, among others—is a government-funded report carried out with an eye toward solving what it calls an “national epidemic” of “unintended pregnancy”—with a clear reference to “objectives” from the Department of Health and Human Services in this regard.[1]

And it’s quite flawed in methodology and reporting. On the first count, it’s a purely anecdotal study not supported with any legal, medical, or forensic evidence. The basic empirical data of the number of rapes and victims was collected by a series of phone interviews completed with 3,031 women at random. The questions used to define rape seem legitimate enough, but there were absolutely no critical controls upon verification of the claims. None. As such, this is a purely anecdotal study (relying not only upon honesty, comprehension, and possibly interviewer bias, but in some cases also distant memories).

There was also no control or verification upon whether the alleged pregnancies were actually a result of the alleged rapes reported by these random interviewees.

Even at that, the results are not quite what the study reported them to be. The actual percentage of rape-related pregnancies (assuming they are all verifiably rape-related) was 3.2 percent. This was for the total number of reported pregnancies (20) resulting from the total number of reported rapes (616) among the sampled women.

The report then sorts for age-specificity and finds that for all women in the study 18 years of age or older, the rate increased to 4.7 percent—an unimposing number in appearance, but actually a 47 percent increase.

And then comes another big sneak: The study reports that there is a “weighted prevalence” of 606,690 rapes annually among all adult women (18+). It says nothing about how it derived this figure save to compare it to an equally high number reported for one year by the same “National Women’s Study” within which this rape-related pregnancy study was drawn. The problem here is that this number is extremely high compared to most others. RAINN, the nation’s largest anti-sexual assault organization states there are around 207,000 annually.

But the Holmes study reports the 606,690 figure, and then also applies its higher 4.7 percentage to that apparently inflated number. This is how it determines that “there may be 32,101 rape-related pregnancies annually.”

So whence the inflated number of rapes, for one? And second, why use the controlled 4.7 percent instead of the actual 3.2 percent which the overall study concluded? Here’s my guess, from later in the study:

With >32,000 rape-related pregnancies occurring each year among adult women in the United Stats [sic], . . . rape-related pregnancy is a significant problem that warrants closer attention. . . .

[T]he occurrence of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest holds important public health and policy implications. For example, policy debates surrounding abortion funding for cases of rape and incest have historically lacked scientific foundation as they have been based on data from the small proportion of reported cases.[2]

In short, this is a classic academic-government collusion to inflate the nature of a problem in order to justify an ideological government “solution,” throw more money into another government program, and pay “closer attention” (translation: fund more academic studies).

But let’s not take my ideological word for it. Hear what an academic peer reviewer published with the very study itself has to say:

When evaluating this study, one must initially consider the difficulties associated with interviewer bias. The interviewer had the discretion to classify an event as a rape even if the woman did not identify it as such, seek medical care, or notify police authorities. In accordance with the wording and interpretation of the questions, some variability in the classification of individual cases could occur. . . .

Furthermore,

Dr. Holmes reports that 32% of women who became pregnant as a result of a rape were not aware of the pregnancy until the second trimester. A recent study that used deoxyribonucleic acid [DNA] analysis techniques reported that 60% of women who became pregnant after an assault were instead pregnant by a consensual partner. Inasmuch as 64% of the women in this study were either married or cohabitating, it must be assumed that these individuals were exposed to consensual intercourse. Therefore without the appropriate deoxyribonucleic acid [DNA] analysis the pregnancies cannot conclusively be ascribed to the rape incident. The issue is further complicated when the reported assailant is either the victim’s husband or her boyfriend and sexual relations were at times consensual and at other times forced. In the latter circumstance it is impossible to differentiate whether the pregnancy was a result of consenting versus forced sexual exposure.

The reviewer has the same criticism I did: the evidence of rape is anecdotal, interpreted and possibly biased, and the claims that the pregnancies resulted from the rapes are not verifiable.

This latter problem is exacerbated by the fact of simultaneous cohabitation which was widespread as this very study notes. Indeed, only 40 percent of post-rape pregnancies were from the rape itself (as 60 percent were from consensual partners).

Taking all of these legitimate controls into account, the number of actual pregnancies that can be said to result for actual cases of forcible rape are much lower than liberals would like to admit. Doing some easy math, even using this study’s questionable anecdotal numbers, we can see that rape results in pregnancy in only about 1.3 percent of cases:

(3.2 percent overall post-rape pregnancy rate) x (40 percent actually resulting from rape) = 1.28 percent.

But this means that rape-related pregnancies do not occur in about 98.72 percent of rape cases. Heck, even assuming the full 3.2 percent is representative, this means rape-related pregnancy is still relatively rare—not occurring in 96.8 percent of cases.

In short, comporting with what Todd Akin said, pregnancies as a result of rape are justifiably be called “rare.”

What about that “female body” claim?

What sounds strange at first, especially when listening only to the mainstream media and the neoconservatives who give the mainstream media too much credit, is the second half of Akin’s claim that “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”

Again, this statement came straight from the former president of the National Right to Life, Willke, in his series, “Assault Rape and Pregnancy.” Willke provided a list of considerations to prove that pregnancy resulting from forcible rape is extremely rare. This list culminates with the “woman’s body” claim as one consideration among many:

• A woman is capable of being fertilized only 3-6 days of a 30-day month. Multiply our figure of 133,000 by 0.3. Three days of 30 reduces to 1 of 10. Divide 133,000 by 10, and we have 13,300 women remaining. If we use 5 days of 30, then we have 1 of 6. Divide 133,000 by 6 and there are 22,166 women remaining.
• One-fourth of all women in the U.S. of childbearing age have been sterilized, so the remaining three-fourths comes to 10,000 (or 15,000).
• Only half of assailants penetrate her body and/or deposit sperm in her vagina1, so cut the remaining figures in half. This leaves 5,000 (or 7,500).
• Fifteen percent of men are sterile, which drops that figure to 4,250 (or 6,375).
• Another 15% of women are on the pill or already pregnant. That reduces the number to 3,070 (or 4,600).
• Now factor in the fact that it takes 5-10 months for the average couple to achieve a pregnancy. Use the smaller figure of 5 months to be conservative and divide the above figures by 5. The number now drops to 600 (or 920).
• In an average population, the miscarriage rate is about 15%. In this case, we have incredible emotional trauma. Her body is upset. Even if she conceives, the miscarriage rate will be higher than in a more normal pregnancy. If 20% of raped women miscarry, the figure drops to 450 (or 740).
• Finally, factor in what is certainly one of the most important reasons why a rape victim rarely gets pregnant, and that’s psychic trauma. Every woman is aware that stress and emotional factors can alter her menstrual cycle. To get and stay pregnant a woman’s body must produce a very sophisticated mix of hormones. Hormone production is controlled by a part of the brain that is easily influenced by emotions. There’s no greater emotional trauma that can be experienced by a woman than an assault rape. This can radically upset her possibility of ovulation, fertilization, and implantation.

What further percentage reduction in pregnancy will this cause? No one knows, but this factor may well cut this last figure by at least 50%, which would make the final figure 225 (or 370) women pregnant each year from forced rape. These numbers closely match the 200 that have been documented in clinical studies.

Now probably the most important figure in all of this is that last sentence: “These numbers closely match the 200 that have been documented in clinical studies.”

Despite such correlation, the liberal at Slate dismisses the “woman’s body” claim as “selective use of numbers and citations” and thus “junk science.” Well, when junk journalism claims “junk science,” consider me less than persuaded. See how that type of argumentation works?

This Slate is the same publication relying on the Holmes study—which we’ve seen is flawed, unscientific, and questioned by other secular peers—for its perception of the problem. Talk about “selective use of numbers”!

I say junk science is as junk science does.

Willke’s study, which correlated with documented (not mere anecdotal) data, could conclude, “So, assault rape pregnancy is extremely rare.”

Indeed, this is nothing short of the National Right to Life’s position. Speaking of “rape, incest, and fetal abnormality” as a group, one publication notes:

First of all it is critical to remember that the vast majority of abortions do not happen as a result of any of these reasons. In fact, according to a study in Family Planning Perspectives (published by the Alan Guttmacher Institute, which is the research arm of Planned Parenthood), less than 6% of all abortions done in the United States are done for all of these reasons combined.

If all combined account for 6 percent, then rape alone must account for far less. Thus the same publication can call rape-related pregnancy “a rare but possible occurrence.”[3]

So why neoconservatives are in knee-jerk reaction mode against this position makes no sense—if they truly are pro-life. Akin was not unwarranted in citing these claims, and conservatives should stand with them just as Akin and, according to the Wall Street Journal, Willke himself have done.

Should conservatives make an exception for even “legitimate” cases of assault rape?

Why kill the child?

Again, we expect liberals to lie, spin, and twist, but why should conservatives wage a propaganda attack against a man holding the very position of the National Right to Life on rape-related abortion? Here’s more of that position:

But while society is finally recognizing that rape is an act of violence against an innocent victim, it still fails to recognize that abortion is also an act of violence against another innocent victim. . . .

Irrationally, society expects her to kill her unborn child, not for something the child has done, but for the crime of his/her father. Once again the mother is pitted against her child.

Yet, the Romney-Ryan campaign, among others, could not respond fast enough to Akin’s alleged gaffe, not by criticizing the clumsy use of language, but by denying the right to life in cases of rape: “a Romney-Ryan administration would not oppose abortion in instances of rape.” That’s a categorical statement, categorically at odds with the right to life. This is a semi-pro-choice position.

Unlike the moderates on pro-choice, Akin upheld this view faithfully, even in his response to the fear-motivated uproar:

“In reviewing my off-the-cuff remarks, it’s clear that I misspoke in this interview and it does not reflect the deep empathy I hold for the thousands of women who are raped and abused every year,” Akin’s statement said.

Akin also said in the statement he believes “deeply in the protection of all life and I do not believe that harming another innocent victim is the right course of action.”

Exactly. As emotional an issue as it is, why in the world do we think it’s acceptable to murder a child because its father committed a crime and its mother is physically and emotionally shaken?

Since when does being physically and emotionally shaken give one the right to kill someone else?

If the unborn have a right to life, from what or whom does that right derive? God? Nature? Man? We know it’s God, and nothing else. And what has the God-given authority to take away that right from an unborn child? Man? Circumstance? We know it’s nothing but God. Thus, why would we think we can determine, based on any circumstances, why one child in utero deserves that right and another does not? Again, while the thought of carrying a rapist’s child is an emotionally difficult issue, that fact does not negate the child’s God-given right to live.

And thus anyone denying that right, even in cases of rape, is not pro-life. They are worse, in fact: trying to play God by setting determinations for when that right applies and when it does not.

Thus, those neoconservatives who have blasted Akin and demand he step down have done little more than identify themselves as weak on the pro-life issue—as moderates and potential compromisers, in fact. This is an indication that a Romney admin and its bucket carriers will melt the Republican platform further into moderatism, and thus drift the nation closer to the liberal agenda.

Of course, politicians like Akin, who represent the clear contrast and strong conservatism desired by the tea party, are a real threat to the old Northeastern establishment Republicans like Romney. And thus that establishment savages him—violently and in unison. Call it a political gang rape—a legitimate one.

If more conservatives would begin to realize that the Republican party is nearly being held hostage by these establishment types—who are working hard either to co-opt or suppress the much more strongly conservative tea party types—we would see we have the numbers and power to establish real change for the good, including in the area of abortion.

And if we could just get the Todd Akins in that camp to realize that their warmongering and militarism are just as much pro-life issues as abortion, then we might really make so headway.

Endnotes:

1. Holmes et al. “Rape related pregnancy: Rape-related pregnancy: estimates and descriptive characteristics from a national sample of women” American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1996 Aug; 175(2): 322. [↩]
2. Holmes et al, 322. [↩]
3. “Olivia Gans and Mary Spaulding Balch, “When They Say. . . You Say: Defending the Pro-Life Position and Framing the Issue by the Language We Use,” National Right to Life Committee, Inc. [↩]Joel McDurmon, M.Div., Reformed Episcopal Theological Seminary, is the Director of Research for American Vision. He has authored four books and also serves as a lecturer and regular contributor to the American Vision website. He joined American Vision’s staff in the June of 2008. Joel and his wife and four sons live in Dallas, Georgia.

by Matthew Ung

I’ll be frank. Republicans are compromising where democrats are not. Republicans are buckling where democrats are not. It’s a good thing I’m a conservative before I’m a republican.

The actions of the Obama Administration and the democrats are very easy to decipher. They are about imposing utopian statist power-grabbing. There was no compromise on Obamacare! On the most unconstitutional single bill of our time that needed to be crushed, the democrats did ZERO compromising, ZERO pandering, ZERO negotiating. And they succeeded. While many Americans were still debating if healthcare was a right or privilege, the bill was passed into law with planning and precision. Despite many democrats being promptly voted out of office and a reversal in the public support for Obamacare, the law still threatens our freedoms today.

The actions of republicans are harder to decipher, because the Republican Party is proudly a “big tent party,” which can be good or bad. I’ll get to that later.

During this last legislative session in the Iowa House, the beginning of budget negotiations had Republicans calling for a $6 billion state budget and the democrats calling for a $6.2 billion budget. I remember reading that in my newspaper. Conventional wisdom would put a typical compromise at $6.1 billion, unless my math is off. But my eyebrows furrowed a day or two later, when the headline said the republicans announced the beginning point for further negotiations would be the full $6.2 billion the democrats started with. The 60-40 republican majority in the Iowa House would now be arguing which extra programs would be funded with the spending increase, instead of which programs DESERVED to be a funding priority for the Iowa taxpayer. I looked at my newspaper, staggered at how quickly the French surrendered… I mean the Iowa House Republicans.

I had a deep thought I’d like to share. RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) are well known and often mentioned. They are well known because establishment republicans typically compromise, whether it’s on minor issues, sacred issues, or Constitutional issues. Here is my deep thought: Why is there not talk amongst the opposite camps of “DINOs”? (Democrats in Name Only). It’s just as catchy and clever as “RINOs”, is it not?

I’m not just being silly, this is a serious point. DINOs don’t exist, and not because they went extinct. DINOs don’t exist because establishment democrats push the same issues that hardline, left-wing, radical democrats push. Democrats are not known for compromising their values. They typically vote the same when they are in the minority as when they are in the majority.

Why do the liberals constantly clump the entire Republican Party together  and ridicule them all as the “far right,” the “right wing,” or the “ultra-right” for their lack of compromise? Because it works so well. Unlike their counterparts on the savannahs, political RINOs have very thin skins, and fragile egos. They don’t want to be called a party-pooper, so they “go along to get along” all the live-long day, just going with the flow like migrating sea turtles. After 39 years of RINO migrations, we still have taxpayer funding of state-sanctioned murder, complete with ongoing sex-selective abortions, despite Life-at-Conception wording being in republican platforms on all levels.

I hate to see social issues like abortion deliberately brought up for debate towards the end of a legislative session simply because it’s considered a “divisive social issue.” Couple that stigma with all the legislators wanting to wrap up the session before the deadline, and the argument becomes “OH MY GOSH IF WE DON’T COMPROMISE ON THIS THE GOVERNMENT WILL SHUT DOWN!!!” At least, that’s what happened with the 60-40 Iowa House majority last year when taxpayer-funded abortion was supported by 53 of the 60 republicans.

While the RINOs debate how many more adoption pamphlets and consultation services we can get into Planned Parenthood facilities… the real debate is whether or not Obamacare will successfully overwrite state law and use your tax dollars AND health insurance premiums for outlawed late-term abortions.

I don’t mean to imply the conservative republicans are standing idly by while their party is crumbling. If they were, there would not be such terms such as “republicrats,” “RINOs,” and “repubicans” constantly repeated by disappointed conservatives. This has been a festering problem for decades–as with any group, there has always been a small sect which opposes everything. Back in the 1930s and 1940s, these RINOs were called “Me-too Republicans.” Me-too Republican Thomas Dewey ran against Franklin D. Roosevelt, not on the promise to oppose the New Deal, but on the promise to administrate it (a democratic idea) in a republican way. Whatever that means!

The problem is this: In the case of moderate republicans, who care more about re-election than their party platform, they have become the majority, which puts true conservatives in a very uncomfortable position. The regular political issues are labeled “divisive social issues.” Traditional marriage? “Wait until next year; it’s a divisive social issue!” Pro-life? “Wait until next year; it’s a divisive social issue!” 2^nd Amendment rights? “Wait until next year; it’s a divisive social issue!”

But notice when the left pushes their issues, they are not social issues, they are human rights issues. Free contraceptives? “Human rights issue!” Amnesty for illegal immigrants? “Human rights issue!” Forcing private citizens to enter into contracts against their will? “Human rights health issue!” Abandoning the federal Defense of Marriage Act? “Human rights issue!”

The left does not compromise. If they can’t get it through the ballot box, they want it through the courts. If they can’t get it through the courts, they want it through government fiat and bureaucracy. If they still can’t get it, they want an Imperial President to stamp it with an executive order. But as a caucus, they never say no and never accept defeat. If you don’t like Obama pardoning unrepentant criminals, *gasp* You’re a racist! If you don’t like Eric Holder perjuring himself before Congress, *gasp* You’re a racist again! If you don’t want to pay for a lesbian’s birth control (that is probably next), I suppose you’d be a *gasp* Homophobe who wages war on women!

We have politicians who surrender before they even run for office. Let’s put conviction over compromise, or what are we fighting for? Do we go into politics with the goal to compromise? Does anyone? Is that a mark of nobility… or just the easy way out?

I’ll quote Archbishop Fulton Sheen of the Catholic Church:

There is no other subject on which the average mind is so much confused as the subject of tolerance and intolerance… Tolerance applies only to persons, but never to principles. Intolerance applies only to principles, but never to persons.

Reagan ran as a principled conservative against the establishment, in three republican primaries. It’s not enough to win elections, republicans have to elect leaders. That’s what we did with Reagan, and it started in the primaries.

When I ran in the June 5th, 2012 Iowa House District 6 Republican primary as the more conservative candidate, I received some hate mail from RINOs, one of which compared me to my opponent by saying,

“You and your fellow cohorts, on the other hand, actually take yourselves seriously and are, thus, more dangerous to society at large.”

I responded by asking the RINO if he actually took himself seriously, because if he didn’t, I am definitely wasting my time formulating any responses for him. I further questioned him as to whether it was a mark of honor for him to “not take himself seriously,” if indeed he did not. He didn’t take that so well, and started with the typical threatening verbiage. In this case, RINOs often act just like their savannah-trodding counterparts–they charge, even if it’s at their more conservative brethren.

RINOs are slow. Slow to get it. But on the bright side, it sure makes them predictable!

We will probably never see the extinction of the RINOs. But for goodness sake, let’s stop compromising with the compromisers. Let’s work the primary election process like it was supposed to work.

Godspeed and happy RINO-hunting.

Matthew A. Ung currently works in healthcare administration. He is a Graduate of Creighton Universtiy, in Omaha, Nebraska, and holds a  Master of Business Administration. He is also a graduate of PeaceMakers Institute: School of Theology, in Sioux City, Iowa, and has earned an Associates Degree in Theology. He resides in Sioux City with his wife Nheylin.

Family Court Violates the Purpose of Courts and Fathers’ Unalienable Rights! The purpose of court is to reveal truth so as to administer justice to maintain liberty of the innocent, punish the guilty proportionately to his offense and compensate for damage done if possible to the aggrieved. The court’s process for accomplishing this must be recognized as a fair process. Family court ignores all of this. This process requires exposing the truth in order to administer appropriate justice. That’s because liberty is impossible without justice; and justice is impossible without truth. Truth and Justice are inseparable and support each other.

Establishing truth invokes the maxim that ‘the certainty of a thing arises only by making it a thing certain’. This implies that the court should seek clear proof of allegations made against someone and not rule on just the allegations or weakly supported ones. The importance of discerning the truth directly relates to the deprivation of rights and punishment that the court may order. Any court that ignores the ‘due process’ that would bring out the truth and punish falsehood is a kangaroo court.

A court action requires a justifiable cause to impose its orders:

Courts are in the business of resolving a dispute or a ‘wrong’ done – civilly or criminally. In order for people to know that they are in trouble, laws must be clear – not vague – so a case can be decided fairly ‘for or against’ one of the litigants. The cause that justifies a court action must be clear. A criminal complaint must allege all ‘elements’ that must be present for it to be considered a crime of a particular sort like theft, or murder. Severe deprivation of rights are at stake so the burden of proof is ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’. Civil actions (i.e. not criminal) which can deny or simply reduce any fundamental right of a litigant must require a burden of proof that’s ‘clear and convincing’ and also must have a clear constitutional criteria that must be met before any denial can be imposed.

Civil torts (i.e. wrongs) also, have characteristic ‘elements’ that must have occurred for the case to continue and not be dismissed. Implied or actual contracts are often at issue. Since only money is at stake the burden of proof is ‘preponderance of evidence’ – 51% or more of the evidence must be on the winner’s side. All these requirements are necessary to assure that people are not punished or deprived of rights at the whim of some judge or plaintiff. Otherwise, we wouldn’t have any rights -which, in fact, we do because we are a Republic with guaranteed constitutional rights.

Family Court: Elements of the Complaints:

Though all courts have previously required certain characteristic elements in all complaints be present to justify the court’s action and, if proved, its ordered deprivations, punishments, or awards among the litigants, the family court complaints make deprivations, punishments and award under no-fault divorce! This is anti-law. It’s the mark of state tyranny. No wrong need be committed for one litigant to be punished, denied his rights, and virtually enslaved while the other is rewarded at the expense of the first.

The judgment of complaint for a no-fault divorce severely deprives the unalienable rights of a fit father to parent his children, to use his property as he sees fit, and to earn income as he sees fit. These very deprivations work to benefit and award the mother. Parental unfitness is an unnecessary criteria for allocating the ‘noncustodial’ status – most often to fathers. To repeat, for a father to be denied physical custody of his child, he doesn’t have to be found unfit or commit any wrong. The judge invokes a completely arbitrary criteria to what he thinks is ‘the best interests of the child’ to determine what judgments he’ll issue. The state uses this ‘excuse’ to deprive a father of all his unalienable rights. That constitutes a tyranny.

Most all the father’s property can be transferred to the mother including his children. She receives child support payments from him which supports her, the children, and often much more while leaving the father destitute, if not nearly so. A complaint for modification of a no-fault divorce judgment generally requires a material change in the relevant circumstances that the previous judgment was based upon.

When there is no marriage but there is a child, then a complaint for paternity can be filed. The state allows this since it claims that it has an interest in the child. At issue is the same as for divorce accept there is no distribution of (marital) assets. The father will still be deprived and punished.

How the family court ignores due process in divorce and paternity-related actions:

First, family court deals exclusively with fundamental rights of litigants. At stake is your right to parent your child, to control and choose your income and profession, your right to maintain your professional and driver’s licenses, your right to have or maintain your passport and travel as you see fit. And of course there is jail waiting for you if you don’t comply. So you would think that the highest level of ‘due process’ should be operating to protect the rights of each litigant. Wrong! There is virtually no due process to assure truth and preserve rights. Family court makes no adherence to the constitutionally required due process when fundamental rights are at stake. Violations of maxims and all higher laws abound and all judgments have no burden of proof.

There is no jury trial in family court. There is only a ‘bench’ trial which means that the judge is both judge and jury for you. Determination of the issues of divorce (except the distribution of assets) is assigned at a temporary order hearing without benefit of a trial and evidence.  Under such scenarios, lawyer and judge-threatened agreements are common place experiences for fathers without the protection of a jury. Absent an agreement by the parents, judges generally assign only one parent as the custodial (having full physical custody) parent.  The other – noncustodial – parent has virtually or operationally no parental rights as we all understand what parenting implies. You should recognize that such a setup will necessarily lead to injustice! With all protections gone, special interest groups will take over how certain judgment outcomes will prevail. In fact a whole divorce and domestic violence industry has done just that. And that’s the tyranny that fathers face.

Special interest groups and their influence in court financial interests:

First, they have interest in setting larger child support orders. The court coffers and DOR (Department of Revenue)/CSE (Child Support Enforcement) receive federal incentive payments and there are Court-DOR agreements for DOR money that goes to the court systems. County jails make money by more inmates – alleged to deadbeat dads. Women and lawyers love this.

Second, VAWA has made abuse allegations more easily allowed and prosecuted.  Visitation centers and lawyers benefit by this as well as do battered women shelters and batterer’s groups – for men only. Incidentally, battering is relatively rare; accusations are very common.

Third, they foster aggravating parental exchanges and unequal allotment of rights – as the court imposes. This makes a lot of money and job security for lawyers, family services officers, psychologists, GALS, parenting class coordinators, women’s groups, and affiliated VAWA organizations who receive some $5 Billion over 5 years  – and mothers too.

—————————————————-