Liberals Should Be in Favor of Sanctuary Cities for the Innocent Unborn

Featured

The mayors of two sanctuary cities, Chicago and San Francisco, have spoken recently about continuing to defy federal law when Trump takes office.

Rahm Emanuel of Chicago: “Now, administrations may change, but our values and principles as it relates to inclusion does not.” and Ed Lee of San Francisco: “Being a sanctuary city, for me, is the DNA of San Francisco.”1,2

Granted, it becomes a matter of compassion and practicality to even consider trying to deport all “illegals.”  HOWEVER, these cities create an indefensible morality of their own when they also fail to detain undocumenteds with criminal records:

“In a recent column published in the Omaha World-Herald, Michelle Root called on the Nebraska legislature to bar sanctuary city policies that allowed a drunk illegal alien driver to kill her 21-year old daughter, Sarah, on January 31.
Prosecutors reported that the 19-year-old was charged with motor vehicular homicide, but was released on just a $5,000 bond – and then quickly disappeared.”3

And it’s not a recent phenomenon (12 years ago):

“In Los Angeles, for example, dozens of members of a ruthless Salvadoran prison gang have sneaked back into town after having been deported for such crimes as murder, assault with a deadly weapon, and drug trafficking. Police officers know who they are and know that their mere presence in the country is a felony. Yet should a cop arrest an illegal gangbanger for felonious reentry, it is he who will be treated as a criminal, for violating the LAPD’s rule against enforcing immigration law.
The LAPD’s ban on immigration enforcement mirrors bans in immigrant-saturated cities around the country, from New York and Chicago to San Diego, Austin, and Houston. These ‘sanctuary policies’ generally prohibit city employees, including the cops, from reporting immigration violations to federal authorities.”4

—  With all of this “compassion” in opposition to federal laws which protect the innocent, the next natural step would be for these rogue cities to stop the killing of unborn babies who have not broken any laws!… You’re right.  No chance of that in this upside-down culture.

 
1 – “Mayor says Chicago will ‘always be a sanctuary city’ in face of deportation threats,” by http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/15/mayor-says-chicago-will-always-be-sanctuary-city-in-face-deportation-threats.html, 11/15/2016.

2 – “Mayor Lee: SF will remain sanctuary city despite Trump presidency,” by Michael Barba, http://www.sfexaminer.com/mayor-lee-sf-will-remain-sanctuary-city-despite-trump-presidency/, 11/10/2016.

3 – “Illegal aliens in sanctuary cities getting away with murder,” by Chad Groening, http://www.onenewsnow.com/national-security/2016/11/10/illegal-aliens-in-sanctuary-cities-getting-away-with-murder, 11/10/2016.4 – “The Illegal-Alien Crime Wave,” http://www.city-journal.org/html/illegal-alien-crime-wave-12492.html, winter 2004.

4 – “The Illegal-Alien Crime Wave,” http://www.city-journal.org/html/illegal-alien-crime-wave-12492.html, winter 2004.

If You Are Opposed to the Electoral College, Then You Must Also be Against Having the Senate

Featured

Hillary Clinton’s supporters are pushing for the abolition of the electoral college after she became the fourth candidate to win the popular vote, but lose the electoral college.  (The other elections were in 1876, 1888 and 2000.1 ) They say it would be justice for a democracy.

First of all, the United States is not a pure democracy where all eligible voters would vote personally on all legislative matters.  We are a constitutional republic.  We elect people to represent us in the decisions at the federal, state and local levels.

Our founding fathers created an ingenious legislature consisting of a Senate and House of Representatives.  Why two sections of Congress?  Because they understood the need to respect each state and they didn’t want the largest states dominating the smallest ones. They wanted to limit the impact of inevitable factions within our nation.  Consequently, for a law to be enacted it must pass both houses:  one which is based on population (House) and one which gives each state two representatives regardless of its population (Senate).  When the states agreed to be connected into one nation, it was with the understanding that their autonomy would not disappear — something the Democrats who push for bigger and bigger federal government seem to have forgotten.

If the electoral college were to be abolished, presidential elections would be relegated to “ten pockets of population” as Larry Arnn, president of Hillsdale College, described today on Fox News.  It would make those areas all-important and render the rest of the nation irrelevant when it came to campaigning.  Without the electoral college, we would have had twenty states deciding for the other thirty in this election.  Our founding fathers had a wise idea.

 

1 – “Presidents Winning Without Popular Vote,”  http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/presidents-winning-without-popular-vote/

2 – “By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.

There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.

There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.

It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it was worse than the disease.  Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires.  But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.

The second expedient is as impracticable as the first would be unwise.  As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed.  As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves.  The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests.  The protection of these faculties is the first object of government.  From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties.”

Part of Federalist paper #10, http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/1786-1800/the-federalist-papers/the-federalist-10.php

According to Progressives I am Racist, “Backward” and “Deplorable” Because, as a Catholic, I …

Featured

  1.  Am pro-life and know that all lives matter :“Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense… (The Church) makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society… The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation… These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do represent a concession made by society and the state…” 1Archbishop Charles J. Chaput of Philadelphia: ““Black lives matter because all lives matter — beginning with the poor and marginalized, but including the men and women of all races who put their lives on the line to protect the whole community.”2

  2. Want immigration policies which join compassion and common sense:

    “The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin…Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants’ duties toward their country of adoption.  Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.” 3“Family‐based Immigration Reform:  It currently takes years for family members to be reunited through the family‐based legal immigration system. This leads to family breakdown and, in some cases, illegal immigration. Changes in family‐based immigration should be made to increase the number of family visas available and reduce family reunification waiting times.”4Pope Benedict XVI:  “Every state has the right to regulate migration and to enact policies dictated by the general requirements of the common good, albeit always in safeguarding respect for the dignity of each human person.”5

     

  3. Understand that marriage did not come from the state; therefore, cannot be defined by the state:

    “The parties to a marriage covenant are a baptized man and woman , free to contract marriage, who freely express their consent…”“Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that ‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.  They are contrary to natural law… Under no circumstances can they be approved… The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible.  This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial.  They must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity… Homosexual persons are called to chastity…”6
  4. Believe that the government should only do for us what we cannot do for ourselves:

    “Excessive intervention by the state can threaten personal freedom and initiative.  The teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which ‘a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order… The principle of subsidiarity is opposed to all forms of collectivism.  It sets limits for state intervention.”7“In effect, the federal government has underwritten massive irresponsibility on the part of low-income fathers. They don’t need to act responsibly because the federal government has woven together a massive financial assistance system for single mothers with kids. The result is that multiple generations of low-income Americans have now grown up in neighborhoods almost entirely bereft of a responsible male presence… In fact, spending on these programs has exploded over the past three decades. Ron Haskins of the Brookings Institution recently testified that spending on the ten largest federal programs for the poor increased from $126 billion in 1980 to $626 billion in 2011. That’s a $500 billion jump in spending, in real terms (after controlling for inflation). The idea that the entirety of this massive run-up in outlays is off-limits and should not be subject to budgetary scrutiny defies common sense.”8

  5. Know that freedom of religion does not mean that the practice of faith is to be held hostage inside church walls:

    “This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits…”
    “Furthermore, society has the right to defend itself against possible abuses committed on the pretext of freedom of religion. It is the special duty of government to provide this protection. However, government is not to act in an arbitrary fashion or in an unfair spirit of partisanship. Its action is to be controlled by juridical norms which are in conformity with the objective moral order…”
    “Religious communities also have the right not to be hindered in their public teaching and witness to their faith, whether by the spoken or by the written word…”9


Bishop Fulton J. Sheen: “If by ‘interference in politics’ is meant the interference by the clergy in the political realm of the State, the Church is unalterably opposed to it, for the Church teaches that the State is supreme in the temporal order.  But when politics ceases to be politics and begins to be a religion, when it claims supremacy over the soul of man, when it reduces him to a grape for the sake of the wine of Moloch, when it denied both the freedom of conscience and freedom of religion, when it competes with religion on its own ground, the immortal soul that is destined for God, then religion protests.  And when it does, its protest is not against politics but against a counter religion that is anti-religious.”10

6.  Understand that contraceptives, in vitro fertilization and human cloning are contrary to the dignity of human life because they relegate human reproduction to mere animal breeding: 

Contraception
“The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood.  Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).11

“Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection… The right and lawful ordering of birth demands, first of all, that spouses fully recognize and value the true blessings of family life and that they acquire complete mastery over themselves and their emotions.  For if with the aid of reason and of free will they are to control their natural drives, there can be no doubt at all of the need for self-denial.  Only then will the expression of love, essential to married life, conform to right order. This is especially clear in the practice of periodic continence.  Self-discipline of this kind is a shining witness to the chastity of husband and wife and, far from being a hindrance to their love of one another, transforms it by giving it a more truly human character.”12

In Vitro Fertilization

“It is quite legitimate, indeed praiseworthy, to try to find ways to overcome infertility. The problem causes great pain and anguish for many married couples.  Since children are a wonderful gift of marriage, it is a good thing to try to overcome the obstacles which prevent children from being conceived and born… But the Bible tells us there are limits to acceptable methods for conceiving a child.  Recall the story of Noah’s unmarried daughters who tried to get their father drunk so that they might have children by him! Obviously not any means can be used to achieve pregnancy… Obviously, IVF eliminates the marriage act as the means of achieving pregnancy, instead of helping it achieve this natural end.  The new life is not engendered through an act of love between husband and wife, but by a laboratory procedure performed by doctors or technicians.  Husband and wife are merely sources for the “raw materials” of egg and sperm, which are later manipulated by a technician to cause the sperm to fertilize the egg.  Not infrequently, “donor” eggs or sperm are used.  This means that the genetic father or mother of the child could well be someone from outside the marriage. .. But even if the egg and sperm come from husband and wife, serious moral problems arise.  Invariably several embryos are brought into existence; only those which show the greatest promise of growing to term are implanted in the womb.  The others are simply discarded or used for experiments.  This is a terrible offense against human life.  While a little baby may ultimately be born because of this procedure, other lives are usually snuffed out in the process… Never are they to be used as a means to an end, not even to satisfy the deepest wishes of an infertile couple.  Husbands and wives “make love,” they do not “make babies.” They give expression to their love for one another, and a child may or may not be engendered by that act of love.  The marital act is not a manufacturing process, and children are not products.”13

Cloning

“There are a number of reasons why someone would try to engender a new human life through cloning. None would be morally legitimate.  For example, a couple may want to use a cell from a dying child to clone another baby as a way of perpetuating the life of the first child.  Obviously, this would not be a continuation of the dying child, but the bringing into being of a new child.  The dying child would become the “progenitor” of a new life without having agreed to it; the new child would not be treated as a unique individual with his or her own identity, but as an extension of another person.

A man or woman might also want to have a baby without getting married or involving a parent of the opposite sex.  Some homosexual people have said that cloning would be a perfect way to have children, because they would not have to marry someone of the opposite sex.  This would be terribly unfair to the child, depriving him or her of a natural father and mother… Most disturbing of all, some researchers want to use cloning to create human beings solely for experimentation and destruction.  They propose to supply genetically matched tissues for treating various diseases by making human embryos from patients’ body cells, then dissecting these developing embryos for their “spare parts.”13

7.  The first responsibility of educating children goes to the parents.  The parents allow the state to educate their children, not vice versa. Therefore, education policies should be made at the state and local level, not federal:

“Parents are the principal and first educators of their children… ‘The role of parents in education is of such importance that it is almost impossible to provide an adequate substitute.’… Parents should teach their children to subordinate the ‘material and instinctual dimensions to interior and spiritual ones.’… The state may not legitimately usurp the initiative of the spouses, who have the primary responsibility for the procreation and education of their children.” 14


“In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, neither the state nor any larger society should substitute itself for the initiative and responsibility of individuals and intermediary bodies.”15

“Government, in consequence, must acknowledge the right of parents to make a genuinely free choice of schools and of other means of education, and the use of this freedom of choice is not to be made a reason for imposing unjust burdens on parents, whether directly or indirectly. Besides, the right of parents are violated, if their children are forced to attend lessons or instructions which are not in agreement with their religious beliefs, or if a single system of education, from which all religious formation is excluded, is imposed upon all.”16

 — Given this, the problem is not with Catholicism, but with the group more accurately called “regressive.”

(emphases in the above quotes were retained from the originals, not added)

1 – Excerpts from paragraphs 2272 and 2273 from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd edition, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 25th printing, November 2013.

2 – “USCCB president says violence calls for ‘moment of national reflection’,” by Catholic News Service, http://iobserve.org/2016/07/08/usccb-president-says-violence-calls-for-moment-of-national-reflection/. 7/8/2016.

3 – Excerpt from paragraph 2241, Ibid.

4 – “Catholic Church’s Position on Immigration Reform,” Migration and Refugees Services/ Office of Migration Policy and Public Affairs of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/immigration/churchteachingonimmigrationreform.cfm, August 2013.

5 – “Immigration:  A Principled Catholic Approach Avoids Emotionalism,” by Samuel Gregg, http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/immigration-a-principled-catholic-approach-avoids-emotionalism, 7/25/2014.

6 – Excerpts from paragraph 1625 and 2357-2359 from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd edition, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 25th printing, November 2013.

7 – Excerpts from paragraphs 1883 and 1885, Ibid.

8 – “Are Catholics required to support a continually expanding welfare state?,” by Carl E. Olson, http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Blog/1341/are_catholics_required_to_support_a_continually_expanding_welfare_state.aspx, 5/11/2012.

9 – Excerpts from Sections 2, 4 and 7 of “Dignitatis Humanae” (Of Human Dignity) encyclical by Pope Paul VI, http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html, 12/7/1965.

10 – “The Quotable Fulton Sheen,” edited by George J. Marlin, Richard P. Rabatin and John L. Swan, Doubleday, New York, 1989.  Quote was found in “Characters of the Passion, New York.  P.J. Kenedy and Sons, 1946.

11 – Paragraph 2399 from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd edition, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 25th printing, November 2013.

12 – From sections 17 and 21 of “Humanae Vitae” (Of Human Life) encyclical by Pope Paul VI, http://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae.html, 7/25/1968.

13 – “Begotten Not Made:  A Catholic View of Reproductive Technology,” by John M. Haas, PhD, S.T.L., http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/reproductive-technology/begotten-not-made-a-catholic-view-of-reproductive-technology.cfm

14 – Excerpts from paragraphs 1653, 2221, 2223 and 2372 from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd edition, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 25th printing, November 2013.

15 – Paragraphs 1894, Ibid.

16 – Excerpt from Section 5 of “Dignitatis Humanae” (Of Human Dignity) encyclical by Pope Paul VI, http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html, 12/7/1965.

 

 

Trump’s Victory: Tears and Fears from the Left?

Featured

A news commentator mentioned yesterday that a college dormitory had contacted him and described how they were in tears when Trump’s win became evident.  He was also told that many experienced fear as a result of the Trump’s victory.

Tears of sadness are understandable when one’s candidate loses. People of faith shed their share after the previous two general elections.  However, the presence of fear is interesting.

Are they afraid that “sanctuary cities” will be eliminated, thus making all of our lives safer?  Or that undocumented foreigners will be deported if they commit a serious crime, as law specifies – as it should?

Perhaps they are concerned that the Hyde Amendment will be retained which will prevent taxpayers from being forced to pay for the murder of unborn babies?

Do they fear that existing laws which make it illegal for parents to get help for their children suffering from gender identity will be rescinded?  (No matter that psychologists say that a majority of these children outgrow of this. 1)

What about our borders?  Do the liberals fear policies which will make less likely that terrorists or drugs will enter the U.S.?

It could be that the plans to replace Obamacare are scary for those who want it to proceed to its natural goal of socialized medicine. 2

Or, maybe they are worried that Trump will fix the atrocious agreement we have with Iran. It’s OK to say that Catholics need to change their backward values 3, but we don’t want to offend any Islamic nations.  They would retaliate whereas we don’t have to worry about any Christian group because they are kept in their place in the U.S.4

Fear a Trump presidency?  You can get some help through the (Non-)Affordable Care Act.

 

 

1 – “Dr. Paul R. McHugh, the former psychiatrist-in-chief for Johns Hopkins Hospital and its current Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry, said that transgenderism is a ‘mental disorder’ that merits treatment, that sex change is ‘biologically impossible,’ and that people who promote sexual reassignment surgery are collaborating with and promoting a mental disorder… he explained that transgender surgery is not the solution for people who suffer a “disorder of ‘assumption’” – the notion that their maleness or femaleness is different than what nature assigned to them biologically… Dr. McHugh further noted studies from Vanderbilt University and London’s Portman Clinic of children who had expressed transgender feelings but for whom, over time, 70%-80% “spontaneously lost those feelings.”
From “Johns Hopkins Psychiatrist: Transgender is ‘Mental Disorder;’ Sex Change ‘Biologically Impossible’,” by Michael W. Chapman, http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/johns-hopkins-psychiatrist-transgender-mental-disorder-sex-change, 6/2/2015.

2 – “Coloradans to vote on ‘single payer’ health insurance proposal,” by Joe St. George, http://kdvr.com/2016/08/05/colorado-to-vote-on-single-payer-health-insurance-proposal/, updated 8/5/2016.

3 – “Podesta… seems to say that Catholicism, especially in this conservative form, is nothing more than a set of misunderstood ancient beliefs that are mere window dressing for high society types on the Right to justify their ‘backwards’ views on marriage, the family, abortion, contraception, etc.”  By Nate Madden and Joe Koss, https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/10/hey-catholics-this-is-what-team-hillary-really-thinks-of-you

4 – “Hillary: ‘Deep-seated … religious beliefs’ have to be changed for abortion,” by Ed Morrissey, http://hotair.com/archives/2015/04/24/hillary-deep-seated-religious-beliefs-have-to-be-changed-for-abortion/, 4/24/2015.

Major Burden is Not on Trump to Mend Relations with Republicans in Congress

Featured

Trump won without the full support normally given to a party leader in a presidential election. The Republican party needs to be unified.  As President, he will naturally be the leader of that effort. However, the non-Trump Republicans bear the burden of making peace with the winner they rejected.

Trump’s message last night shows he is approaching this healing with a conciliatory spirit:

“For those who have chosen not to support me in the past – of which there were a few people (crowd laughter), I am reaching out to you for your guidance and your help so that we can work together and unify our great country.” 

The responsibility now rests on the non-supporters to set aside destructive pride and focus on fixing the nation as they have been charged to do so by their constituents.

 

No Practicing Catholic Will be Fooled by Hillary Clinton’s Claim She “Has Spent Her Life Fighting for Children”1

Featured

One of the current television ads promoting Hillary Clinton for President has her saying that she will make sure every child “has a chance to live up to his or her God-given potential.”

But, can she really expect us to believe that when she also proclaimed on January, 10, 2016:

“First of all, I will always defend Planned Parenthood, and I will say consistently and proudly, Planned Parenthood should be funded, supported, and appreciated, not undermined, misrepresented, and demonized. I believe we need to protect access to safe and legal abortion, not just in principle, but in practice.”2

We can start by recognizing the absurdity of her claim that abortions can be “safe” when 50% of the patients end up dead.  To Hillary:  How can a child realize his/ her potential if killed before birth?  Another thing, you mention is “God-given potential.”  At least you seem to understand the origins of life.  However, how can you rationalize the taking of an innocent life when only the creator of life, God, has the authority to do so?

The right to life is paramount.  “The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation… 3

Hillary Clinton’s opponent, Donald Trump, is far from ideal in proposals and character.  His ungentlemanly comments about women must be rejected outright.  (Although, it is surprising that the culture which accepts contraception and its resulting dehumanizing of women should be so holier-than-thou on this subject.  See footnote #4).  Fortunately, despite his overly assertive personality, he has enough humility to defend human life in addition to freedom of religion and other key positions which Clinton abandons.

Without this foundational attitude toward life, all other policy proposals are mere attempts to win votes and cannot be taken seriously.  Therefore, despite what data may come out of tomorrow’s election, we can be sure that few who support Hillary Clinton are practicing Catholics.

 

1 – From https://www.hillaryclinton.com/feed/hillary-clinton-has-spent-her-life-fighting-for-children-here-are-8-ways-shes-changed-their-lives/

2 – “3 Things You Need to Know About Hillary Clinton’s Record on Abortion,” by Frank Camp, http://www.dailywire.com/news/10024/3-things-you-need-know-about-hillary-clintons-frank-cam

3 – Excerpt from paragraph 2273 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, second edition, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 25th printing, November 2013.

4https://cartaremi.wordpress.com/2013/02/03/the-pill-has-increased-women-being-treated-as-sex-objects/

Electing Hillary Over “Dangerous Donald” Would Be As Detrimental as Chamberlain’s Fateful Appeasement of Hitler

Featured

For those with a passing knowledge of history, it is clear that despite society’s claim to be advancing, a disturbing amount of history’s blunders have a way of repeating themselves. A parallel potential is available in our upcoming election amid the haunting memories of British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain’s doomed appeasement of Hitler seventy-eight years ago.

Some  of  Hillary’s  Criticisms  of  Donald  Trump

He Depresses National Pride:  Hillary Clinton cannot refute Donald Trump’s assessment of the negative impact  the Democrats have had on the economic and social health of our nation over the last fifty years.  So, she fabricates that Trump is trying to depress people as her campaign chairman John Podesta said: “Tonight, Donald Trump painted a dark picture of an America in decline.”1  She added last night in Cincinnati, “He has a dark and divisive vision for America that could tear our country apart.”2  Hillary sees herself as the beacon of hope and national unity to counter this.

She also takes issue with Trump’s “Make America Great Again” slogan by declaring, “America is already is great. But we are great because we are good, and we will respect each other.”3
[That’s true except for the unborn, when religious freedom clashes with the pagan morals of secular world, etc.  But that’s for another article.]

The “1%” is Our Enemy:  Despite the large fees and other concessions she has received from speaking to the world of Wall Street and others (see footnote #4), she claims to be on the side of the little guy in the financial world.  Hillary Clinton pretends solidarity with the average American by declaring that our economy requires the “toppling” of the top 1% of earners because their real income (including hers as she likes to ignore) has risen dramatically unlike the rest of the stagnant economy.5 

Give  Hillary  What  She  Wants  and  We’ll  Be  Safe:    Her biggest push is that Trump is a threat to world peace.  She feels he should not be trusted with the codes to our nuclear arsenal and, “He’s not just unprepared — he’s temperamentally unfit to hold an office that requires knowledge, stability and immense responsibility… We cannot put the safety of our children and grandchildren in Donald Trump’s hands. We cannot let him roll the dice with America… I will leave it to the psychiatrists to explain his attraction to tyrants… You know, there’s no risk of people losing their lives if you blow up a golf-course deal, but it doesn’t work like that in world affairs.”6

In other words, give Hillary what she wants – the presidency – and the world will be stable and safer with the threat of major war eliminated.

What  Does  This  Have  to  do  With  the  1930’s?

After World War I, the victorious Allies (of which the U.S. was a part of) wanted to ensure that the “war to end all wars” would never be repeated.  Consequently, the penalties on the Axis powers (of which Germany was a member) were significant.

Restoring national pride and establishing a common enemy:  Unfortunately, the severity of the surrender terms made it likely that a leader would rise to reinstate the Germans sense of national pride which had been severely bruised.  Thus, it produced Adolph Hitler who attained the title of chancellor in 1933 and began his quest for multinational dominance.  Needing a target to rally his people further, he blamed the Jews for Germany’s economic woes.  At that time, the Jewish people which were about 0.75 per cent of the German population.7

In effect, Hitler made the Jews the “One Per Cent” villains of his time.  Wall Street anyone?

Hitler’s Ego and Plan for Domination  Cause  Great  Concern:  Hitler began his quest for territory by cleverly pulling off an annexation of Austria through political pressure, then with troops.8  After that, he decided to look elsewhere to add natural resources to his control.  He turned to the Sudetenland.  It had become part of Czechoslovakia as a result of the World War I surrender agreement.  Of its three million people, a high percentage was Germans.  The conditions were ripe for trouble as a result of “the German nationalist, anti-Czech, anti-Semitic propaganda disseminated by the Sudeten German (or Nazi) Party during the mid-1930s.”9

Background  of  the  Road  to  Appeasement,  Simply:  Give  Hitler  What  He  Wanted  and  We’d  Be  Safe

Therefore, “starting in 1938, the Nazi propaganda machine fabricated false stories of the three million ethnic Germans being oppressed in Czechoslovakia, and demanded to gain control of these lands.”  Hitler decided, “”It is my unalterable decision to smash Czechoslovakia by military action in the near future.”  But this would be more difficult as Czechoslovakia counted Great Britain, France and the Soviet Union as friends.

Because Hitler was aware of much appeasement sentiment among the leaders of Great Britain and France, he proceeded with pressure.  In September 1938, “France, for example, went as far as demanding Czechoslovakia to cede the territory to Germany, otherwise France would not honor the mutual protection treaty that they had previously signed.”  Here comes British leader Neville Chamberlain who convinced Hitler that a multi-national power convention be held to settle this.

Hitler got his way in that two Czech representatives were allowed in the building of the convention, but only in an adjacent room and were not permitted to take part.  According to Wilhelm Keitel, [French leader Edouard] Daladier was adamant in doing what it takes to avoid war, saying “[w]e won’t tolerate war over this, the Czechs will just have to give way. We will simply have to force them to the cession.” The four decided the fate for Czechoslovakia by granting Germany Sudetenland.10

It  Didn’t  Work  Then  and  It  Won’t  Now

History shows how badly appeasement works.  The concentration camps had been in existence for six years11 already when, twelve months later, Germany invaded Poland and the worst world war began.

If we choose Hillary over Donald because of the fear he would shatter a fragile world peace, what are our chances for a better life?

Health  Insurance:  Let’s see, with Hillary we know we’ll have an acceleration of the health industry debacle known as Obamacare.  It must be remembered that the poorly named “Affordable Health Care Act” was never the end game of Obama and the Left to begin with.  The ultimate goal was a “single payer system” which means socialized medicine.

How can we believe this?  Look at Colorado.  The financial disaster caused by Obamacare (and which the President and his chief architect knew all along) has resulted in huge losses for insurance companies.  Since pride discourages legislators from going back and replacing this feel-good idea, we have:

Amendment 69 would establish Colorado Care, a single-payer government-run health insurer that would be the first of its kind in the country… Under the plan, private health insurance would likely cease to exist in the state.  Instead a 21-member elected board would administer the coverage on behalf of the government.”

“It would cost more than $30 billion and it would be paid for with a 6.6 percent increase in employers’ payroll taxes and a 3.3 percent increase in employees’ payroll taxes.”12

So is this bad?  This is total government  control over one-sixth of the entire economy and the imposed priorities regarding what “health care” choices will be required.  It includes abortion, contraceptives and abortifacients, gender “reassignment” (which ultimately does not solve the emotional problems causing the individual’s turmoil 13, 14) and human/ animal hybrid research (already in progress 15).  It also forces citizens to pay for these morally reprehensible items and implements the rationing of medical services only for those deemed useful enough for society to receive them.  In other words, a true war on human life from conception onward.

By the way, Hillary defends abortion all the way up to birth.  This legal form of murder has accounted for more than 55 million deaths in the U.S., or about six times the number of Jews and Russian prisoners killed by Hitler.16

Freedom  of  Religion:  We need to be reminded that Hillary has said

“…deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.” 17

Enough said.

Peace  in  the  World:  There are many others serious concerns about the impact of an H. R. Clinton presidency, but this one must be addressed because it was mentioned in this article’s title!  She paints the picture of Trump as one who is out-of-control and likely to blow up the world one way or another.  Perhaps she doesn’t recognize what being assertive is – something the current administration is unfamiliar with (“red line” in the sand for Syria, caving in to Iran’s wants by not using the strength we had during the negotiations then giving them ransom money later, promising to help Ukraine and under-delivering 18, etc.).  Regarding Hillary herself, there’s the inaction on Ambassador Stevens’ multiple requests for security in Benghazi then doing nothing as the four were killed while directives kept changing regarding our military’s attire which might upset the lawless nation.

Hillary Clinton’s proposals include irresponsible immigration from terrorist nations which will bring the war to our doorstep.  With her Democratic platform in place, we will be able to choose between more frequent attacks overseas or at home.  If that isn’t enough, there’s control of 20% of our uranium ending up in Russia’s hands while money from the Canadian company owners flowed to the Clinton Foundation. 19

Knowing all of this, why would we pull a Chamberlain and elect Hillary Clinton because she is trying to scare us into ignoring the real dangers she poses?

1 – “Clinton: Trump ‘painted a dark picture of America’,” by Ben Kamisar, http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/288834-clinton-trump-painted-a-dark-picture-of-america, 7/22/2016.

2 – “Hillary Clinton Hints of Civil War, Nuclear War if Donald Trump is Elected,” by Charlie Spiering, http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/11/01/hillary-clinton-hints-of-civil-war-nuclear-war-if-donald-trump-is-elected/, 11/1/2016.

3 – “Clinton blasts Trump: ‘We are great because we are good’,” by Dan Mangan, http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/09/clinton-blasts-trump-we-are-great-because-we-are-good.html, 10/9/2016.

4 – “The speech in 2013 was one of three Clinton made on behalf of Goldman Sachs. According to public records, Clinton gave 92 speeches between 2013 and 2015. Her standard fee is $225,000, and she collected $21.6 million dollars in just under two years. Clinton made 8 speeches to big banks, netting $1.8 million, according to a CNN analysis… According to the memo, Clinton requires travel by private jet, and even specifies that she prefers a Gulfstream 450 or larger. Her staff requires first class and business class tickets. And two members of her staff require up to three days on site to prepare, with all local – “with up to three separate rooms attached.”  From “The truth about Hillary Clinton’s Wall Street speeches,” by Drew Griffin, David Fitzpatrick and Curt Devine, http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/20/news/economy/hillary-clinton-goldman-sachs/, 4/20/2016.

– ”Hillary Clinton called for ‘toppling’ the 1%,” by Colin Campbell, http://www.businessinsider.com/report-hillary-clinton-called-for-toppling-the-1-2015-4, 4/21/2015.

6 – “Hillary Clinton’s evisceration of Donald Trump,” by Stephen Collinson and Dan Merica, http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/02/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-foreign-policy-speech/, 6/3/2016.

7 – “Germany:  Jewish Population in 1933,” https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005276

8 – http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/germany-annexes-austria

9 – https://www.britannica.com/place/Sudetenland

10 – “Munich Conference and the Annexation of Sudetenland,” by C. Peter Chen, http://ww2db.com/battle_spec.php?battle_id=87

11 – “CONCENTRATION CAMPS, 1933–1939,” https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005263

12 – “Coloradans to vote on ‘single payer’ health insurance proposal,” by Joe St. George, http://kdvr.com/2016/08/05/colorado-to-vote-on-single-payer-health-insurance-proposal/, updated 8/5/2016.

13 – “Dr. Paul R. McHugh, the former psychiatrist-in-chief for Johns Hopkins Hospital and its current Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry, said that transgenderism is a ‘mental disorder’ that merits treatment, that sex change is ‘biologically impossible,’ and that people who promote sexual reassignment surgery are collaborating with and promoting a mental disorder… he explained that transgender surgery is not the solution for people who suffer a “disorder of ‘assumption’” – the notion that their maleness or femaleness is different than what nature assigned to them biologically… Dr. McHugh further noted studies from Vanderbilt University and London’s Portman Clinic of children who had expressed transgender feelings but for whom, over time, 70%-80% “spontaneously lost those feelings.”
From “Johns Hopkins Psychiatrist: Transgender is ‘Mental Disorder;’ Sex Change ‘Biologically Impossible’,” by Michael W. Chapman, http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/johns-hopkins-psychiatrist-transgender-mental-disorder-sex-change, 6/2/2015.


14 – “And so at Hopkins we stopped doing sex-reassignment surgery, since producing a “satisfied” but still troubled patient seemed an inadequate reason for surgically amputating normal organs.”

“It now appears that our long-ago decision was a wise one. A 2011 study at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden produced the most illuminating results yet regarding the transgendered, evidence that should give advocates pause. The long-term study—up to 30 years—followed 324 people who had sex-reassignment surgery. The study revealed that beginning about 10 years after having the surgery, the transgendered began to experience increasing mental difficulties. Most shockingly, their suicide mortality rose almost 20-fold above the comparable nontransgender population. This disturbing result has as yet no explanation but probably reflects the growing sense of isolation reported by the aging transgendered after surgery. The high suicide rate certainly challenges the surgery prescription.” From “Transgender Surgery Isn’t the Solution,” by Dr. Paul McHugh, http://www.wsj.com/articles/paul-mchugh-transgender-surgery-isnt-the-solution-1402615120, updated 5/13/2016.

15 – “NIH Plans To Lift Ban On Research Funds For Part-Human, Part-Animal Embryos,” by Rob Stein, http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/08/04/488387729/nih-plans-to-lift-ban-on-research-funds-for-part-human-part-animal-embryos, 8/4/2016.

16 – “The Holocaust death toll,” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1481975/The-Holocaust-death-toll.html, 1/26/2005.

17 — “Hillary: ‘Deep-seated … religious beliefs’ have to be changed for abortion,” by Ed Morrissey, http://hotair.com/archives/2015/04/24/hillary-deep-seated-religious-beliefs-have-to-be-changed-for-abortion/, 4/24/2015.

18 – “U.S. Hasn’t Kept Ukraine Aid Promises,” by Josh Rogin, https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-02-05/u-s-hasn-t-kept-ukraine-aid-promises, 2/5/2015.

19 – “At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family… Beyond mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative in the world, the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife,Hillary Rodham Clinton…”

“As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million… And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock…”

“Whether the donations played any role in the approval of the uranium deal is unknown.´ —  [note:  Why?  Weren’t the receipts sent to the Government Accounting Office like all good Secretary of States do?]  From “Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal,” by Jo Becker and Mike McIntire, http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html, 4/23/2015,