New Jersey Congressman Votes not to Allow Medical Care for Infants Born Alive

It is very alarming to this writer than any US Representative could vote against a law that would require that a baby who survived an abortion at an Abortion Clinic or elsewhere, and is outside the womb alive, should receive the same level of care as any other infant. To vote against the bill is to legally allow infanticide by neglect. The delivered infant is allowed to lie in a basin, unattended, until it dies. Further, non enforcement of required medical care to live born infants denies their status as babies alive outside the body of the mother. It denies their rights as a living human being. Even worse, it allows that since the living infant outside the womb of the mother is not a person, therefore, it can be treated as a thing. While still breathing and with heart beating, it can be butchered to remove its vital organs.

Yes, there are some who will defend those who voted against passage of this bill. They will say that the vote tally already indicated that the bill would pass and that Representatives merely voted “no” in order to play the Democrat party line or to cater to the whims of their several constituencies. So what.! To vote that a living infant outside the womb of its mother does not require mandatory medical attention by those performing the abortion is a vote in favor of murder.

Failed Abortions — Passage – Vote Passed (248-177, 1 Present, 8 Not Voting)

The House passed a bill that would require health care practitioners to give the same level of care to an infant born alive during a failed abortion as they would give to any other infant born at the same gestational age. The bill also would require health care practitioners to ensure that these infants are immediately sent to a hospital.

Rep. Bill Pascrell Jr. voted NO

Planned Parenthood Funding Moratorium — Passage – Vote Passed (241-187, 1 Present, 5 Not Voting)

The House passed a bill that would bar, for one year, federal funding for Planned Parenthood and its affiliates unless they certify that, during that period, they will not perform abortions or provide funds to other entities that perform abortions. The prohibition would apply to all federal funds, including Medicaid. The bill would provide exceptions for abortions provided in the case of rape, incest, or threat to the life of the mother.

Rep. Bill Pascrell Jr. voted NO

What Happened to Ross Perot?

There was a man named Ross Perot. Remember him? He was very much like Mr. Donald Trump. He was a business man. He was a billionaire. Both of them ran for President. What was Perot’s attractiveness? Perot gave expression to the fear and anxiety of the middle class of his time.
In his book titled, They Only Look Dead, E.J. Dionne Jr. (1996) called those attracted to Ross Perot the “Anxious Middle”. In a very fine chapter about the Politics of the Anxious Middle, Mr. Dionne wrote, (p.67)

The Anxious Middle set the terms for the 1992 and 1994 elections. It destroyed a Republican presidential coalition that seemed invulnerable only a few years earlier. It made Ross Perot possible, ended George (H.W) Bush’s political career, sent Bill Clinton to the White House – and rebuked Clinton and helped make Newt Gingrich one of the central figures of American politics. Perot spoke instinctively of the American Middle. Bush never understood it. Clinton saw it coming long before most politicians, shaped his campaign to respond to its concerns – and then confronted its ire after only two years in office. Gingrich sought his own radical language to speak to its anxieties

(p. 72) Almost as important as Clinton’s candidacy, of course, was Ross Perot’s, and his rise proved to be an essential component of Clinton’s victory. In the spring of 1992, as discontent against Bush was growing, Perot’s sudden availability as a candidate shook loose millions of previously Republican voters. Before he dropped out of the contest, Perot had risen to first in the polls and had driven Bush down to about a third of the potential vote. In his withdrawal statement in July – in the midst of the Democratic National Convention – Perot gave Clinton a large boost when he explained that his candidacy might no longer be needed , “now that the Democratic Party has revitalized itself.” Clinton soared in the polls.

Can we call the politics of Mr. Trump an appeal to the feelings of the Angry Middle? His confrontational style, his harsh criticisms, his stand against media and news reporters, his comments to Megan Kelly at the debate, and his repeated statements of anger and frustration place him as their spokesperson. Many of his supporters praise his fearless engagement with and rebuttal of the news reporters. They like when he gives simple answers to, for instance, the immigration problem. They admire that he is willing to say to anyone who disagrees with him, “you’re Fired.”

But as Mr. Dionne highlights, Ross Perot voluntarily left the race and abandoned his supporters. He threw his support to Clinton. He said that his candidacy was no longer needed now that the Democratic party was revived. Was that it? Did Perot play the American voters for fools? Did he care about the voter’s or only about the revitalization of the Democrats? Was he really just a rich old man who hated Bush and would do whatever he could to insure that Clinton won? However you might feel about that analysis, the fact remains that Perot’s candidacy was phony and he never really cared about the “Anxious Middle.” He cared about himself, the Clinton’s and the Democrat Party.

The parallels between Trump and Perot are startling. Trump’s campaign is to feared because like Perot’s, Trump’s billionaire financing, his bitter anger at the press and media, and his threats of reprisal against those with whom he disagrees are enjoying the same kind of support that sent Perot to number one. Plus, there is already talk among people that if Trump is not on the ballot, millions of voters will opt to stay home on Election Day. Such an action of silent protest will throw the election to Mrs. Clinton and the voter’s will have been played twice the fool.

Why Donald Trump?

Why is so much attention being focused on Mr. Donald Trump? The other candidates are barely getting any press coverage. It is not because they do not have something to say. It is not because they do not have programs and solutions to offer. It is not because they do not have excellent campaign organizations. It is because the press and the major media are giving Mr. Trump so much coverage. Why do they do this? Mr. Trump is a flashy candidate who they find entertaining and therefore as someone who will help them sell their news. The other candidates with more political knowledge and experience are forced out of the news by the antics of the often clownish antics of Mr. Trump. That is too bad. It would be an injustice to America to promote one political upstart just because he is entertaining while ignoring the others who may have things of more substance and importance to contribute.

My Ideal Candidate for President

Frankly, it is myself. But that is not reality. So, I decided to think about my ideal candidate. WARNING: My choice for President is Senator Rand Paul. Why? I think of Senator Rand Paul as a principled leader who has a solid principle of government, and will be guided by high morality and the ethical principles of a Judeao/Christian heritage.
But this is about a blending of candidates into the ideal President. For me, it would start with the qualities I admire in Senator Paul. He is a moderate conservative in government philosophy viewing the federal government as too large to be effective and too big to be considerate of the needs of individual citizens. His foreign policy is a philosophy of applying the same freedoms and principles of governance to other nations as we apply to ourselves. Senator Paul, unlike some others, does not consider it a virtue to bomb and drone other nations under the pretext of defending freedom. He understands that bombs kill innocent people and that even targeted drones have been used to kill fifty men, women, and children under the idea that one of them may be a terrorist.
The second candidate whose qualities I admire is Dr. Ben Carson. Like Senator Rand Paul, Dr. Carson lives by the principle ethical imperative of all doctors, namely, do no harm. Dr. Ben Carson is a quintessential American who’s exemplary life highlights him, as it does Dr. Rand Paul, as a person who’s pro life stand is not just anti Planned Parenthood, but forcefully affirmative of all that America and Western civilization has always held dear, namely, the freedom of the individual to chose and the freedom of the person to move forward into the future under the warm light of God’s sun.
Thirdly, I sincerely appreciate the passionate convictions and forthright honesty of Senator Ted. Cruz. He is a pioneer who has been helped by Senator Rand Paul to find his place in the spectrum of political life and who has distinguished himself as a shining beacon of light in a sea of tumult and storm.
Fourthly, I admire the stamina, intellect and language ability of Governor Jeb Bush. He speaks fluent Spanish and I admire his ability at a second language. But Secretary of State Kerry speaks fluent French and I do not admire him. So, I am forced to wonder if a President Jeb Bush will hold his press conferences and deliver his State of the Union addresses in English and in Spanish? The languages spoken in the USA are many and all are good. However, for this citizen, the language of America is English. It is not Arabic. It is not Korean. It is not Hebrew. It is not Spanish. The people who speak two or more languages are to appreciated. But the language of America for Koreans, Jews, Hispanics, Arabs and all others, is English.
Fifthly I admire Governors Walker and Kasich. They are administrators and leaders of sovereign states within our federal union. As governors, they are responsive to the needs of large citizen populations and their elected representative in the state legislatures. This, all by itself, indicates leaders who fully understand and support the principles of freedom for which our founders fought the American Revolution.
Sixth , I have a deep appreciation for Governor Huckabee. He is a gentleman through and through who exemplifies the values, culture and morals of Christian faith and its daily application to life.
Seventh, I like Donald Trump. He is forthright, candid and brutally opinionated. I believe that his brand of angry opinion reflects the frustration, anger and disappointment of Americans who are on the verge of giving up on the American dream and the principles of American freedom. But I do not believe we should select a leader because he reflects our anger. I do not believe we should follow the lead of someone because he represents our frustration. I do not feel comfortable empowering a man who’s demeanor is one that says, “You’re fired”. As ventilating as that demeanor may be, it is not a characteristic under which I want to live four years.
Can we get all of this in one President. I pray that we could. However, short of that, I pray that our next President will call upon the talents, experiences, abilities and insights of all the many candidates, appointing them to positions of power so that America will be served not by one excellent candidate who knows how to win elections but by many candidates who love America and will spend their lives making America better tomorrow than it is today.

Donald Trump?

“People respond to Donald Trump because he has tapped the anger that people are feeling about their leaders.” These are the words of a good friend of mine with extensive USA travel experience and a very large client list. He then said, “But I feel that Trump will prove to be someone who is really not to be taken seriously as a candidate for President, no matter his polling numbers.” I asked him why he felt that way? He replied that he thought people were reacting emotionally and sensationally to “The Donald” because they are very frustrated with their elected officials who they feel do not care about them. Somehow, Mr. Trump has convinced some people that he cares about them…it is something personal..something visceral… He continued that in the end they will realize that the billionaire Trump cares very little about them and a very lot about himself.

This writer is also amazed that Mr. Trump is given any credibility. However, there seem to be thousands who are chanting that they want him to be the Republican nominee for President. But, there are many others who sincerely doubt if Mr. Trump is a sincerely Republican candidate. For them, he is a phony candidate seeking to divide the Republican party in order to insure that the wife of his friend wins the election. Yesterday, a friend of mine who has a small plumbing business said that many of his customers are enjoying the entertaining ways of Mr. Trump, but they quickly follow that with their opinion that he will not be able to just “fire” the Congress, the Supreme Court and just about anybody who disagrees with him.

Sadly, his popularity and media depiction as a super mogul is detracting from real discussion and honest intellectual debate. The debate on the topics that are angering Americans should be presented in the public square. This presentation needs to be civil, courteous, and without slogans or cute but meaningless sound bites. Sound bites might curry the favor of the angry and disillusioned but they do not present any meaningful plan to address the real problems we are experiencing today.

Do We Really Understand the Impact of our Presence?

Think of Iraq, Syria, Libya, Chad, Ethiopia, Sudan, and places like that. Maybe you have traveled and been to some of these countries. I have been to several. Well, not to the whole country, but to a tiny part of them that is reserved for the tourist trade. I was in part of Egypt, Syria and Israel in 1971. I was in Morocco in 2013. Nice places to visit, but to me they were very different culturally, ethnically and in terms of religion. Frankly, I admit that I was merely a tourist, and my exposure to the people and their world was miniscule.

So what do we think we are doing when we bring the massive United States military into a country and topple their government (Iraq and Libya) or attack their leadership, (Egypt, Somalia)? This writer suggests that we are bringing instability and rapid change, (too rapid) to areas of the world very much different than our own. Face it, the USA is comprised of people of European ancestry, Western culture and traditions and Jewish or Christian religion. When we enter the countries listed, we bring into these places the impact of that ancestry.

Is our bringing our ancestry and all its parts a bad thing? No, it is not! However, ponder if it is a bad thing when it comes uninvited, under the flag of war and with the power of bombs and boots. For my part, I think that the impact of our forced entry into South West Asia, (I think that is the official geographical designation of the area) is unnecessary turmoil, too rapid change and fear. Fear? Afraid of the USA? How can someone say such a thing? We are not a people to be feared.

Agreed, Americans are a wonderful people. They are not fearsome nor should anyone be afraid of us. However, America is the greatest military, economic and industrial nation of the world and our bombs and boots are to be feared. Afraid of our military? Yes, and it should be so because ours is the mightiest and most effective military in the world. However, we really do not intend, at least at the level of the rank and file, to destroy and dominate the world. Nonetheless, our military does destroy and it does dominate. It is what the military does.

America is the greatest, free democracy on planet earth. We are truly an exceptional nation. We are an exceptional people. All things being equal, I believe that the vast majority of people on our planet would like to be like us, enjoy the blessings that we have been given, and live in peace and freedom, as we do. Maybe it is time for us to forget the Post WW II decision that we are the sole defenders of freedom and democracy. Maybe it is time for us to forget the Cold War decision that we are the last and best hope against international communism. Maybe it is time to simply be proud of who we are, of what we have accomplished and to offer our example to a world that very much wants to be like us.

Just Stop the Bombs

Recently I saw a photo on the Internet showing ISIS terrorists in a parade of US military vehicles including tanks, armored personnel carriers, trucks, HumVees, and the like. The terrorists were dressed in the green US army camo uniform. Many carried US made Tow missile carriers, and other sophisticated US weapons. With the photos was a video of the parade of the terrorists through the town they had captured from the Syrian government. Please note that we were able to photograph and videotape the parade. It was at least a mile long and was manned by hundreds of terrorist drivers, militants and criminals. If we wanted to do something about ISIS this was our chance but the parade continued on its way with no terrorist ever in danger.
On the same day I saw a photo of a USA bombing raid on Damascus the civilian city and capital of Syria. It was reported that hundreds of civilians in the capital were killed or injured. It looked like the bombing was extensive and brutal. So, we bomb the capital city of the sovereign nation of Syria while we videotape the terrorist ISIS militants. Innocent people in the Capital die from our bombs but the bloody terrorist criminals are celebrating.
I think that B. Assad is a dictator, as was his father. I believe that his government, however, is recognized by 105 nations and had a seat in the United Nations General Assembly. I think an international business that wanted a contract for Syrian oil would get Assad’s signature and the contract would be considered legally binding and could be defended before the world court in Geneva.
So what gives us the right to bomb Assad? It is because the USA says he is a dictator and as our President said, “Must Go.” I guess, therefore, if we were fair, then if Assad said Obama is a terrorist who bombs innocent civilians in Damascus and therefore, “Must Go.” it would be okay for him to bomb Washington so as to get at B. Obama!? I guess there is no crime for either them or us. It’s just the business of Superpowers and nation states.
However, I do not remember reading that Assad or his government declared war on the USA. I do not remember Assad or his government attacking US military personnel at any time. I do not remember Assad arranging for bombs to go off in Washington. He does not bomb the USA embassy in Damascus. I think it would be fair to say that Syria and the Assad regime are not in any way a threat to the USA or USA international interests. So why are we bombing Assad? Why are USA bombs killing innocent Syrian civilians in the capital city?
The USA has not moved to remove the Assad government from the United Nations. It has not moved to have the 105 nations deny diplomatic recognition to the Assad government. The USA has not declared war on Syria. And the last time I looked, I think that the definition of criminal aggression is when one nation (USA) attacks a sovereign nation without provocation. Criminal aggression is a International war crime.
One more thing, there are many in the USA including venerable Charles Krauthamer of Fox News, who promote the idea of sending armaments and sophisticated weapons to the so called “Syrian Free army” in order thereby to topple the Assad government. The so called “Syrian Free Army” has been shown to have morphed from a groups of Syrian rebels with leadership in Paris, France, into a front group for Al Qaeda in Syria. It has also been shown that massive amounts, the guesstimate is 600,000 lbs of arms have been shipped to the “Syrian Free Army” but these were sold or given by them to ISIS. ISIS, in turn, uses these to invade Iraq, capture many Syrian cities, kill Christians and behead people, put people in cages and burn them to death and the like.
This writer says stop the bombs. Stop the massive arms shipments to ISIS. Stop the illegal criminal aggression against the Assad regime. Offer help to the hundreds of thousands of Christians displaced, persecuted, tortured and murdered by ISIS.
We toppled Hussein, what happened? ten thousand American dead and wounded and it is now a haven for ISIS. We toppled Mubarak. What happened? Eqypt was handed over to a leader of the Muslim brotherhood, a terrorist group and was becoming a haven for terrorists. But Egypt has a powerful national military and the Muslim brotherhood was toppled by Egyptians and is now ruled democratically by a religiously responsible activist Muslim leader. We toppled Qaddafi. What happened ? Chaos and Benghazi- an American Ambassador murdered as President Obama, and Hilary Clinton watched it on TV in the White House.
Stop the bombs. Stop the millions in funding to the so called Syria Free Army. Stop international military arms shipment to ISIS. Let’s see if these people, left to their own cannot solve their problems without interference from USA.

Are Old Line, Hard Line, Republicans and Their Minions Trying to Trash Rand Paul?

Are Old Line, Hard Line, Republicans and Their Minions Trying to Trash Rand Paul?.

Are Old Line, Hard Line, Republicans and Their Minions Trying to Trash Rand Paul?

I follow Senator Rand Paul’s run for the nomination of the Republican Party. I find the lack of coverage for Senator Paul to be not merely amazing but alarming. It seems to this writer that the powerful and the entrenched interests of the Republican party are working very hard to trash Senator Paul’s campaign.
Senator Paul is a powerful political figure in his own right. He is the person who is setting the agenda for the campaigns of all candidates. This is because he is the most original, freedom minded, logically consistent candidate among an overcrowded field. His political positions on the issues that most matter, namely: race and prison, drugs and mandatory sentencing, legalized marijuana, ISIS and the Middle East, Planned Parenthood, and refashioning our income tax system …
Well, his proposals are original, and based upon a freedom loving, individual rights, anti politically correct stance which is forcing the other candidates to take positions contra-Rand Paul. The fact that so many hard line, old line, entrenched members of the political class are attacking him indicates the power of his innovative proposals.
Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O Reilly and to a lesser extent, Megan Kelly, have set up a kill zone of ambush and attack against Senator Paul. All of these people are directly responsible as contributors to Barrack Hussein Obama’s victory in 2012. In that election cycle they all set absurd “conservative” standards for Governor Romney which when unmet insured his rejection by the conservatives. Mitt wasn’t conservative enough, so said Hannity. Mitt is not a Limbaugh conservative, so said Rush. O Reilly was a little more fair but constantly intoned that Romney couldn’t win, and well, Megan Kelly wasn’t really influential back then.

So, yes, these so called pundits and commentators allow Senator Paul to be interviewed but each time they try, as Miss Megan did, to undermine his integrity and political acumen. Miss Kelly even had the female Bush press secretary, what’s her name again?, come on and say that Senator Paul didn’t have the courage and fortitude to be President. (Shame, Shame.) As a fact, I remember Miss Megan wagging her finger in scold as she accused Senator Paul of scolding. (She kept the wagging finger below the camera angle but it still could be seen)
Am I angry? Well, I try not to be angry. But I am getting resentful of TV personalities telling me what to think, how to think, or even worse, not to think!
It is as though these good folk, as O’Reilly calls us, well, referring to them, it seems to these good TV folk that us folks at home are uninformed and ignorant. Not so, Bill. We know what we are about, and we are beginning to wonder what you folks are about? Are you censoring Senator Paul because in “you’s all folks opinion” he is not the “man”?
Friends, just for information, as I write this I am listening to, Madonna, Lady Gaga, Led Zepp, the Righteous Brothers, Pink, Nate Ruess, Michael Jackson, Cher, Mahalia Jackson, and the like. Just a hour ago I was listening to Brahms violin concerto and last night I viewed Princess Micheal of Kent on YouTube. She has a very interesting new book. Why do I include this? I just thought to let you know a little about me. It seems that a survey site called You Gov. is always asking me about my preferences in music and movies.
Anyway, if you have read this far, I thank you. Your time is precious and I appreciate that you found this interesting enough to wade through it all. You are a friend. I do not intend to insult or disparage others. I only intend to put out my thought into the public square, or as my friend Rev. Father John Neuhaus called it in his book, “the Naked Public Square”. By the way it is a book worthy to be read. (Yes, the title is The Naked Public Square.” )
So friends, peace to you and God bless. Let’s keep up our vigilance and not let others decide who will be in the White House. We have the vote, and although I am beginning to wonder as to the integrity of the vote tally, I still will stand fast for our rights as Americans.

Sean Hannity’s Problem with John Boehner

On the December 16 Sean Hannity show, he once again attacked Speaker John Boehner. It was in a segment with former congressman Allen West. Hannity attacked Speaker Boehner for not consulting the so called conservative base of the Republican party. Hannity has a serious personal problem with John Boehner. Why do I say this? It is because at every opportunity Sean brings up Boehner as not doing what Hannity wants him to do. Speaking of Presidential politics, Sean Hannity repeatedly raised Speaker Boehner as an example of weak leadership, poor judgement and a refusal to adhere to conservative Republican party principles. One had to wonder why Sean Hannity thought that John Boehner was running for President? One wondered why he thought that speaker Boehner should be obeying the dictates of Senators Cruz and Lee? There was no opposition to Sean Hannity from LTC West or from Karl Rove. They were either silent (Rove) or totally agreed (West). This writer likes Congressman West, and I was disappointed by his obsequious head nodding to Hannity’s attacks on Speaker Boehner.
I remember how the conservative talk show hosts helped to win the 2012 election for President Obama. First, they talked about Obama every day while ignoring Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan. This meant three hours of talk about President Obama from Rush Limbaugh, three hours from Sean Hannity, and three hours from Mark Levin. Second, they did not endorse Romney/Ryan until the very end, and then only with reservations and warnings. All three called Romney a RINO, which means a Republican In Name Only. They helped defeat the Republican candidates in 2012. Their constant rant against Romney in the primary season could not be withdrawn in the election cycle and was not forgotten by their millions of listeners.
So, now, we have all three attacking the Republicans, namely Speaker Boehner, because he will not conduct himself in obedient adherence to what Hannity, Limbaugh or Levin tell him. This infuriates Sean Hannity and he daily brings Speaker Boehner into every discussion. Tonight, at least, he did not call Speaker Boehner a coward or someone who acts cowardly. Hannity did that last week. Instead he called Speaker Boehner, weak, uninspiring, and incapable of enforcing the conservative Republican agenda on the House of Representatives.
Sean Hannity has a personal prejudice against Speaker John Boehner. Because of his persistent harping on his dislike for Boehner his feelings seem like irrational anger. Sean Hannity has to stop his relentless small-minded and highly personal attacks against John Boehner. He cannot hide his dislike for the speaker by using politics. He has a problem with Boehner. He daily reminds his viewers of his problem. One wonders if he thinks that we all agree with him or that he can bludgeon us into agreeing with him. He cannot, and should stop treating his viewers as though they are stupid.