I am pleased with the class and honor that Hillary and Obama showed following the election. They showed humility and honor to the process and principles that have maintained this country’s greatness.
HERE Obama’s remarks on peaceful and smooth transition.
HERE Clinton’s concession speech
There is a cynical part of me that wants to not trust the genuine nature certain pieces of Hillary’s speech but I must avoid that temptation. Her and Tim Kaine both quoted from the Bible and with humility and tact she reached back to traditional American values of hard work and perseverance encouraging people to never give up on what they know is right. She also used pro-Constitutional language when praising the First Amendment with its freedom of religion and expression. She lauded our tradition of following the rule of law.
My cynical question is, where was all of this on the campaign trail? She did not show any preference toward the constitution or traditional pro-American values. It was all divisive pandering to the fringe left. She knows that she lost 85% of the evangelical vote to Trump. She knows that evangelicals care about the First Amendment and that the amendment has been the recipient of constant attack under Obama for the last 8 years. I would hate to think that she somehow used this speech as the beginning of new a campaigning outreach tool for the DNC so that they can capture more evangelicals next time.
Again, I think her humble approach and sincere demeanor in her speech is admirable. I hope that she was sincere and I hope that people rioting in the streets in protest to the election outcomes can take her example as the right response.
Over the past several months I have been encouraged by finding self-identified “classical liberals” calling for more dialogue between opposing views in response to the volatile political climate. One of these voices is Dave Rubin. I respect what he is trying to do even though I disagree with him on many levels in terms of policy. He is […]
Hillary Clinton is a threat to religious liberty (Washington Post)
In a speech not long before she launched her 2016 presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton made a stunning declaration of war on religious Americans. Speaking to the 2015 Women in the World Summit, Clinton declared that “deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.”…
…They must be attracted to the systematic thought and severely backwards gender relations and must be totally unaware of Christian democracy.”
Palmieri responds that Catholicism “is the most socially acceptable politically conservative religion. Their rich friends wouldn’t understand if they became evangelicals.” “Excellent point,” Halpin responds, adding that “they can throw around ‘Thomistic’ thought and ‘subsidiarity’ and sound sophisticated because no one knows what the hell they’re talking about.” Podesta is included on both emails.
Albert Mohler comments here on how it is apparently the worst of the worst to be considered an “evangelical”. So much for tolerance!
On a side note: the idea of subsidiarity is an amazing idea and represents of how the framers of the Constitution and many founding fathers viewed the role and responsibilities of the federal government compared to local and state authority. Very libertarian and limited government oriented.
“If we must have an enemy at the head of Government, let it be one whom we can oppose, and for whom we are not responsible, who will not involve our party in the disgrace of his foolish and bad measures.”
This is Alexander Hamilton’s (a Federalist) view on the vicious and divisive election season of 1800 to vote for who would be the 3rd president of the US. The quote implies he would rather have Jefferson (an anti-federalist) win as opposed to the enemy within his own party (John Adams).
The advice seems pertinent in our current context of the 2016 election as many true conservatives and small government libertarians see both major party candidates as an enemy.
This is not a call to actually vote for Hillary if you are a conservative but it is a call to NOT VOTE for Trump.
Definition of Satire:
the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people’s stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues. (Google search “Satire”)
Definition of Sarcasm:
the use of irony to mock or convey contempt. (Google search “Sarcasm”)
*the following remark is meant to be taken sarcastically but I predict that many in North Carolina will begrudgingly align with it in coming months because of external pressures:
Wow! with all of this new pressure from so many organizations it is now obvious to me that those who disagree with the moral and sexual revolution are akin to southern racists in the Jim Crow era and should be coerced into obedience and acceptance of the new and correct views of sexuality. How could I have been so blind until now? Thanks to the help of well meaning and principled organizations, I have been convinced and can finally shake off the tired old views of past generations that have impeded social progress. Only now, after these organizations have taken hundreds of millions of dollars from the economy of North Carolina (my state) do I see how foolish and ignorant I was in my views related to bathrooms. Thank you ACC, NBA, and NCAA and the hundreds of other socially relevant groups who are taking an exemplary stand for doing the right thing.
In today’s marketplace of ideas it is easy to get bogged down in the game of name-calling. The idea being that it is much easier to discount someone’s argument once their personal reputation has been soiled. Unfortunately, this seems to be “winning” strategy on all sides of the political spectrum and the election season IS its […]