Monday, January 22, 2018

The latest Trump threat to women: Declaring life is sacred

President Donald Trump has declared today National Sanctity of Human Life Day (fittingly, it is, of course, also the anniversary of Roe v. Wade).

The White House proclamation says in part, “Today, we focus our attention on the love and protection each person, born and unborn, deserves regardless of disability, gender, appearance, or ethnicity. Much of the greatest suffering in our Nation’s history — and, indeed, our planet’s history — has been the result of disgracefully misguided attempts to dehumanize whole classes of people based on these immutable characteristics. We cannot let this shameful history repeat itself in new forms, and we must be particularly vigilant to safeguard the most vulnerable lives among us. This is why we observe National Sanctity of Human Life Day: to affirm the truth that all life is sacred, that every person has inherent dignity and worth, and that no class of people should ever be discarded as ‘non-human.’”

The President announced this proclamation this past Friday, the same day the annual March for Life took place to protest the Roe v. Wade decision that made abortion legal in all 50 states. While the proclamation was largely well received by the pro-life march participants, the other “Women’s March”, which took place the next day, did not lavish so much praise on Trump’s declaration of a National Sanctity of Human Life Day. 

While the women in this protest were busy hollering for rights that they already have, they showed little interest in the president’s insistence that all human lives have dignity. After all, to make that claim is an unspoken acknowledgement that even lives in the womb matter, and angry women who are protesting – I’m still not sure what they’re protesting - don’t want to hear the president they despise say all lives matter. It makes their demand for the right to abortion on demand an inconvenient contradiction to the president’s claim that all lives have value. In other words, it gives them one more bit of fodder for despising the president, because, clearly, to them, not all lives do matter as long as some women promote the false premise that women are the sole determiners of which lives do matter, e.g. the ones they choose to give birth to.

To them, the president asserting that all lives matter is just another proof of the misogyny that women despise him for – while they turn a blind eye to the real louses – the Harvey Weinsteins and Al Frankens of the world – who actually do devalue women. But to the "Women's March" protesters, protecting human life is a catastrophic threat to their well-being which simply must be stopped.

As one woman at the “Women’s March” this past Saturday put it when asked about Trump’s declaring Jan. 22 National Sanctity of Human Life Day, “it’s just more proof that we have to fight for equality!”

What a pitiable state we’re in when declaring the worth of every human life is seen as somehow inequitable and threatening. I think the pink “feline” hats (and the stupid "Handmaid's Tale" bonnets from the equally stupid book) have been pulled over their eyes. These women aren’t seeing a thing except the darkness that’s descended upon them.

Saturday, January 20, 2018

Bailing on climate change in the face of reality

Despite bashing the President Donald Trump administration’s decision to withdraw from consideration of the Paris accord on climate change, none of the industrialized countries that have aligned themselves with the accord is on schedule to meet their respective targets for carbon emissions reduction. Now Germany, who was particularly vocal about its disapproval of Trump's decision, has announced it is altogether preparing to abandon its 2020 climate targets.

As reported in The Daily Signal, Germany has an aggressive plan to cut its greenhouse gas emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels by the year 2020. But last November, a leaked document from the country’s Environmental Ministry projected the country would miss the mark by 8 percent without additional action. It's speculated that, in other words, even with generous subsidies for renewable power, the Germans would have to implement some form of economy-restricting policy to curtail emissions-and just doesn't want to have to do that.

No matter. Even if the United States and the rest of the developed world were to meet their intended targets, it wouldn’t make any meaningful impact on global temperatures. The temperatures will change on their own. They always have. They'll go up and they'll go down. But the desire to use this normal fluctuation as justification for higher taxes and control of human behavior is just too good to pass up by those who love money and power.

But to state this plain truth about the real motives will get you slapped with the "denier" label. That in itself is insulting because it's the type of language that attempts to conflate those who question the "settled science" on climate change as a bad thing with those who would deny things like the Holocaust. Deny one bit of nonsense and it must mean you're willing to deny real evil - and that, of course, is evil of you. So the voices of the sane who refuse to fall for man-made climate change and man-made mass hysteria are marginalized and targeted for silencing.

This rhetorical trick against "deniers" reveals all you need to know about the desperate manipulation the climate planners are willing to engage in to realize their plot regardless of popular and justified skepticism concerning their regulatory and redistributionist policies.

It'll be interesting to see how it all plays out. Countries like Germany can talk a good game about their eagerness to embrace policies for a "sustainable planet," but when it comes down to it, they realize the strangling conditions placed upon them in the name of "climate change" are anything but sustainable. It's more than most can take. 

What do you think?  Click on the comments link in the bar below to share your thoughts. No registration necessary. Or, email me at

Saturday, January 13, 2018

What's a $1000 to an uber-wealthy "public servant"?

When asked what she thought about the fact that many companies have announced wage hikes or $1000 holiday bonuses for their employees as a result of the President Donald Trump tax cut, wealthy, leftist Democrat Nancy Pelosi basically scoffed at the actions, calling them “crumbs”.

Forget the fact that Pelosi lavished praise on Barack Obama for his $40 payroll tax cut back in the day. She called it a “victory for all Americans” and attributed the accomplishment to “Obama’s leadership.”

But tax cuts in addition to wage hikes and bonuses? Nothing to see here, according to Pelosi. Then again, I imagine being a multi-millionaire who has never held a job outside of taxpayer-funded political positions qualifies Pelosi to think of these actions as nothing. After all, what’s $1000 to someone who never has to worry about making it to the next paycheck just to pay the electric bill? One thousand dollars wouldn’t pay for one of Pelosi’s shoes (though I bet one of her many maids could use a crumb like that), so what's the big deal about a measly grand? What's particularly nauseating is how Pelosi mocks real money that real people may really need, while spewing the rhetoric that the republicans are the greedy and uncaring ones.

Speaking of leftist hypocrisy, they’re going apes over Trump’s alleged “s-hole” comment about nearly demolished places like Haiti. (Which, if he really said it, is so harsh and unfair, because we all know how pleasant and delightful the conditions of third-world countries are). This has a few people asking if the left would have been less offended if Trump had used the word “deplorable.” Apparently so, since we never heard a peep from the left when their golden child Hillary described Trump supporters as such.

Somehow, though, they still expect us to see them as the party of love. Sure, okay. As my high school French teacher would say, donnez-moi a break.

Friday, January 5, 2018

An insane president? Okay, fine...

Just a year into President Donald Trump's administration, we have major tax reform, reduced regulations, lower illegal immigration, fewer criminal aliens, GDP growth of more than 3 percent (which President Barack Obama was unable to achieve in eight years in office), ISIS severely hampered (another thing Obama, who said ISIS was basically a reality we had to live with, could not achieve), confirmation of a Constitution-supporting Supreme Court justice and several federal judges, record stock market highs, expansion of the pro-life Mexico City policy, obliteration of the freedom-strangling HHS mandate, less crime, more jobs, less unemployment, removal from the disastrous Paris Accord, reduced wasteful money to the UN, the removal of the ObamaCare individual mandate/tax penalties, and a better standing for America on the global stage. And, in response to the threat by North Korean President Kim Jong-un that he would destroy us with his nuclear capabilities, our president promised him we would strike back bigger and better than Kim Jong-un could ever possibly imagine.

And what does President Trump get for these accomplishments and willingness to stand up to global bullies? The declaration by leftist intellectuals and establishment RINOs that he is insane and unfit for the presidency.

I assume that means higher taxes and unemployment, reduced national security, bowing in fear to global bullies, overtaking 1/6 of the national economy through government takeover of healthcare, unlimited and unabashed support for Planned Parenthood and late-term abortion, adoption of bogus and economically absurd 'climate change' policies, and an open border policy are all signs of the "sanity" that Obama possessed. 

If that's so, I'll take the "unfit, insane" president we have now, any time, every time. Keep up the good work, Mr. President, and thank you.

What do you think?  Click on the comments link in the bar below to share your thoughts. No registration necessary. Or, email me at  

Friday, December 22, 2017

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

It's hard to believe another year is coming to a close in just over a week. I am looking forward to a little downtime over the next several days, but before I sign off, I just want to wish a very Merry Christmas to all of you. It's been quite a year with lots of challenges, but also, at least for me, a lot of blessings as well. I hope that has been true for all of you and I wish you continued blessings and peace in the new year.

Thanks, as always, for reading "The Right Track" -- God's graces and blessings to all of you, and I look forward to "seeing" you in 2018!

Remember the Reason for the Season....

Tuesday, December 19, 2017

Decency: Reaping what we sow?

I was out with a group of friends for a girls' night out this past Saturday night, complete with dinner and a musical. The show was actually about a "girls' night out" just before Christmas. I figured it could be cute, in a warm and fuzzy Christmas kind of way. Boy, was I wrong. On the contrary, I left feeling ashamed and wondering, in reference to the Mel Gibson movie, what, exactly, do women want?

As a quick aside, right before the show was about to start, I had run out to the lobby to buy a bottle of water. There was a bit of a line and not much time, but a very elegant, distinguished looking gentleman in front of me kindly gestured to let me go ahead of him. Once he returned from the lobby, I noticed he was there with his wife and they were sitting near the front of the stage. Just before the show started, one of the cast members came out on stage, asked for the house lights to come on, and proceeded to scan the audience for the men (there were about five of them). She zeroed in on the man from the lobby, whose name turned out to be Barry, and warned him he'd regret being there.

The show's cast consisted of five women and took place in a bar as they chatted, sang and danced during their "girls' night out". What could be the harm, right? Except for the fact that it was filthy. I don't mean foul language. There was actually shockingly little of that. I am talking about the dialog itself. There was not a sexual reference, a private body part, or a bodily function left unmentioned. In short, it was vile.

It didn't stop with just puerile references to everything sexual and anatomical. Men in general were not spared a thing. If anyone were to base their image of men on the conversation by these women, they would believe all men are cheaters, idiots, cads, and mentally challenged. 

Poor, sweet Barry from the audience became an unwitting, invisible character in the show as one of the cast member's fiance was magically named Barry. Barry was an idiot. Barry was a cheater ("of course he cheats. He's a man!"). Barry's choice of underwear was described for all to hear. After intermission, the real Barry and his wife were gone. I was jealous.

It saddened me how these five cast members so willingly squandered their own dignity by taking part in such a gross, base depiction of women. While the songs they sang and danced to were actually good displays of talent and entertainment, after each song's completion, the conversation quickly resumed and returned to its pathetic level. 

What was even more sad was wondering if the women in the cast - and several hooting and hollering women in the audience - even knew their dignity was something worth preserving. Are women even being taught about dignity in a world that puts so much importance on a woman's ability to attract the opposite sex, as if that is a female's only value?

But as these women depicted in the show, women are miserable victims of awful men, yet must try harder and harder to get their attention by dressing and acting in provocative ways. So then I wonder, if women try so hard to attract the attention of men based on over-the-top physical allure, do they have room to then complain for being treated like sexual objects? And when the outward appearance is accompanied by the type of appalling talk that would make a sailor blush, or a decent guy like Barry flee, do women really expect to attract decent men?

I wished I could have caught up with Barry to apologize to him on behalf of the women who are horrified by the type of talk we heard that night, and to let him know that many, if not most, of us absolutely recognize and value the decency of the vast majority of men. Yes, there are some men who are cads, of course, and they need to be held accountable for any lines they cross. But as for those women who reject the premise that most guys are decent, I can only ask, if these women really want men to "behave" well, shouldn't it begin with women behaving themselves?

What do you think?  Click on the comments link in the bar below to share your thoughts. No registration necessary. Or, email me at

Tuesday, December 5, 2017

Should 1st Amendment apply to certain people only?

If a homosexual baker were asked to bake a cake for an anti-homosexual event, should he be forced to do so even if it completely violates his own beliefs? If your answer is "no", then you support freedom of speech across the board, right? Or does it depend on whose freedom is in question?

Jack Phillips, the petitioner in the case currently being heard by the US Supreme Court, is a Christian business owner who welcomes all customers gladly, but occasionally he is asked to create something that violates his conscience, e.g. Halloween themes, divorce parties, Satan's birthday, and most recently, a same sex "marriage" reception. 

Though he offered the homosexual couple in question his services for anything else (meaning he wasn't discriminating against the couple for their homosexuality - just the event that violate his beliefs) that wasn't good enough. After being flipped off by the loving homosexual couple, Phillips promptly learned of the complaint filed against him. The complaint has led to the case currently in front of the Supreme Court.

This is not only a religious rights case, but also a freedom of speech one. In the case of Phillips, the First Amendment protects his work - which is art (a form of expression). To be forced to create art that violates an artist's belief system is a violation of his speech. If that's not true, then a Jewish baker should be forced to bake a Swastika case for a Nazi event. A black sign maker should be forced to make posters supporting a KKK rally. A vegetarian cheese maker should be forced to use rennet, rather than microbial enzymes.

But in Colorado, where this case originates, the state has actually supported bakers' rights to not bake cakes with anti-gay messages if it offends them to do so, because the state of Colorado recognizes that type of freedom of speech. Shouldn't they apply that same standard to Jack Phillips and other Christian business owners?

For those who aren't involved in any type of bakery, photography, banquet or other businesses that may be asked to accommodate same-sex ceremonies on some level, why should this case matter? Because we're already seeing how expansive it's become. 

Aside from Colorado's already demonstrated actions of picking and choosing whose freedoms should be respected, recall the CEO of Firefox, who was fired from his own company for making a financial contribution to California's Proposition 8 to uphold traditional marriage. HGTV cancelled an upcoming real estate show because it was discovered that the two scheduled hosts had previously vocalized their support of traditional marriage. Emergency Services' former top fire official in Atlanta was fired for supporting traditional marriage in Bible study on his own time. In Michigan, a farming couple was recently banned from selling their produce at the local farmers' market because they declined a request to host a same-sex "marriage" ceremony on their farm. It goes on and on.

The homosexual couple in question in this Supreme Court case ended up getting a rainbow cake from another vendor so they could express their support of LGBT activities. That is their right to do so. But don't private business owners have the right to not partake in it? If not, and if instead they are forced to provide work against their will, doesn't that make them slaves? 

The First Amendment specifically allows for and protects our differences. The Supreme Court just needs to uphold that.