You’ve probably heard the term “identity politics” but let’s talk about exactly what that means and how it could affect you. Identity politics is basically the notion that a candidate’s credibility has more to do with various attributes or identifiable descriptions than the person’s actual qualifications, experience, personal ethics, or policy positions. In the new world order of the increasingly far left, what you have successfully done, how well you’ve done it, or what you propose to do is of less importance than is your gender, race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or level of disability. In other words, it’s the opposite of an America as designed where all of us were created equal, endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, among these life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It’s also the opposite of the kind of nation that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr dreamed of when he longed for the day in which his children would be judged by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin.
Listen to many of the candidates for President from the left, and they focus on being a woman, a gay, being either non-religious or non-traditional in whatever their faith is, or being a black or Hispanic rather than in expressing their qualifications in terms of what experience they bring to the office, how they have achieved their life-goals so far, and what specifically they plan to do to create a “more perfect union.” Some express a greater desire to make sure that law-abiding citizens are prohibited from owning firearms than stopping law-breakers from entering the country illegally. And the latest is proposing that we go well beyond allowing people to earn back their rights following the successful rehabilitation from prison to demanding that those currently serving in prison for crimes even of murder, rape, or child molestation have the right to vote. Let that sink in a minute. Do we really think that the Boston Marathon bomber should vote? Bernie Sanders and some of his colleagues running for President think so. I certainly am open to the notion that when a person adjudicated of a non-violent crime has completed his or her sentence and demonstrates a life of reform, we should consider restoring certain rights of citizenship that were lost during the criminal sentence. But the idea that someone still incarcerated for murder, armed robbery, selling drugs, or rape should vote while in prison seems ludicrous. If we restore voting rights, what other rights must we restore? Free speech so the inmate can make speeches in the prison yard advocating overthrow of the guards? Do we restore 2nd amendment gun rights and allow current inmates to be armed? Of course that’s absurd and extreme, but any notion of people voting from their prison cell is absurd and extreme.
We are one of the few places on earth where we get to choose our leaders by voting. Hopefully we would choose our leaders prayerfully and carefully—not because we are the same color, same gender, same religion, same ethnicity, or same hair color, but because we share common Biblical values, have the same hopes for coming generations, and desire similar improvements in our society. You’ve figured out that I don’t like identity politics. I think it cheapens our freedom and makes us slaves to external characteristics rather than internal character. Voting for someone because she’s a woman is sexist as much as voting for someone just because he’s a man. I want a government that actually works for the diverse people rather than one that’s only about having diverse people hold the offices. I don’t care so much if a candidate is male or female, white or black, Christian or Jew, or even straight or gay. I care that they tell me what qualifies them for office, what they’ve done to give me confidence they can lead, and some proposals that will make us a better nation.
Roger L. Simon on Joe Biden's dilemma: he'd normally agree with Trump on a lot of things, but he has to go NeverTrump because his party has gone insane.
From The “Well, Duh” Desk: After larding taxes onto everything, especially gas, CA officials launch an investigation to find out why California has the highest gas prices in America.— Gov. Mike Huckabee (@GovMikeHuckabee) April 26, 2019
They bet it's those evil oil companies! Yeah, that's gotta be it!
Some of the herd of Democratic Presidential candidates are being questioned about their qualifications for the most important office in the land (indeed, in the world), when their backgrounds include running South Bend, Indiana, or a coffee house chain. Do they really believe their accomplishments are greater than those who have served in the House and Senate? But that only holds if you consider showing up in the House or Senate and warming a chair for years to be an “accomplishment.”
In this eye-opening article, Max Diamond at the National Sentinel looked into the legislative "accomplishments" of the Congressional Democrats seeking the Oval Office. They are thinner than a fashion model on an ice cube diet.
In what I frankly take as good news, these world-shakers are vowing to wave their arms and remake America into a liberal utopia, yet after years in the House or Senate, they’ve barely managed to pass any bills at all. The greatest records of success belong to Sen. Amy Klobuchar, who has sponsored 365 bills since 2007 and 14 became law (a 3.8% success rate) and Joe Biden, who in 36 years in the Senate sponsored 351 bills and 20 became law. That’s a 5.7% success rate, or in baseball terms, a lifetime batting average of less than 0.06.
Probably the least impressive record is Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, who’s sponsored 302 bills and just one became law – a bill to name a post office. In fairness, though, that’s a common thread among several would-be Presidents: “Beto” O’Rourke sponsored 65 bills in six years in the House, and one became law: renaming a post office. But for sheer longevity of ineffectiveness, nobody can touch Bernie Sanders. He’s been in the Senate since 2007, sponsored 214 bills, and two became law. One of them was - can you guess? - to rename a post office.
As Diamond notes, there are extenuating circumstances for failure to pass bills, such as the opposing party having the majority. Also, in this toxic partisan atmosphere, a candidate who actually works across the aisle to pass laws might be attacked by his own party for insufficient purity, that being far more important than effectiveness.
I keep hearing from the left about how unqualified Donald Trump was to be the chief executive, despite decades of experience as a chief executive. Now, I understand what they mean. I’ll bet that guy has never renamed a post office in his life.
Former Gov. Scott Walker, R-Wis., recently became the national face of the state-led movement to propose a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. In his role as national honorary chairman of the Center for State-led National Debt Solutions, Walker will champion an issue that first came to nationwide prominence when then-President Ronald Reagan recognized that “We don’t have a trillion-dollar debt because we haven’t taxed enough; we have a trillion-dollar debt because we spend too much.”
Ultimately, Reagan’s leadership led to the crafting of a balanced budget amendment proposal, which passed the Senate in 1982 but failed in the Democratic-controlled House. In 1996, House Speaker Newt Gingrich led a similar effort, which passed in the House but failed in the Senate by a single vote.
As Walker takes up the challenge advanced by his predecessors, he will be facing an entirely different fiscal landscape. The $1 trillion in federal debt that prompted the Senate to take action in 1982 is roughly equivalent to the amount Congress now borrows every year to fund its deficits. The national debt has soared past $22 trillion, or $180,000 per taxpayer, and the interest alone is soon projected to surpass spending on national defense.
So why hasn’t Congress fixed this problem? The Gramm-Rudman-Hollings balanced budget act, the debt ceiling, and pay-as-you-go were all designed to control government spending. Yet none of these instruments interrupted the steady acceleration of debt. As legislative restrictions became uncomfortable, Congress simply softened their language or replaced them with new, more accommodating budgetary policies.
This abuse of congressional power is exactly the kind of scenario our Founders tried to protect against in the intricate system of checks and balances they designed in the Constitution. Among those balances was their design for constitutional amendment. Under Article V, either a majority vote in both chambers of Congress may advance a proposal, or, on the application of two-thirds of the states, a convention for proposing amendments may be convened. Whether passed by Congress or by state-led convention, any proposed amendment must be ratified by a three-fourths majority of the states.
The effort Walker is now leading will encourage the use of the state-initiated method for the proposal of a balanced budget amendment. Though the high threshold of consensus required to trigger such a convention has never been achieved, the debt crisis may become its inspiration. According to Congressional Budget Office projections, unprecedented debt to GDP levels will lead to lower productivity and wages, higher interest rates, and increasing fiscal instability.
Almost 40 years ago, America passed on an opportunity to prevent the dangerous debt vulnerabilities we now face. Walker realizes that, on its current path, this nation doesn’t have 40 more years of stability to make up its mind. Whether proposed by Congress or the states, timing has now become critical for constitutionally mandated fiscal reform.