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....

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 JMS.TheRightTrack@gmail.com

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.

Don't believe the headline hype on tax reform

I was talking with a friend the other day who lives in Europe who told me that, thanks to the one sided news people there are getting, mostly from CNN, most there think President Donald Trump is a terrible tyrant and the US is overrun by Nazis, racists and misogynists (thankfully, she doesn’t share these sentiments). She and I also talked about the lie we’re all hearing here: that poor Americans will be hurt by the Republican tax reform plan. 

It's not just cable news that's at fault. Print and web headlines are perhaps an even bigger problem. We're bombarded with so much information, all at our fingertips, that we now pick and choose what we will read in depth. This means many read a lot of headlines, but few articles.

If a person only reads the headline, though, it appears that the poor (and even the middle class) will have ever so much more tax burden. I’m sure that's exactly what the mainstream media are depending on. Here are just a few gems recently pushed out for all to see: “Poor Americans would lose billions under Senate GOP tax bill;”  “Senate Plan Would Raise Taxes On The Poor, Report Says;” “Senate tax bill would cut taxes of wealthy and increase taxes on families earning less than $75,000 by 2027.”

Here's how one publication put it exactly: "The committee’s (Joint Committee on Taxation) analysis...found that Americans earning $75,000 a year or less would also face large tax increases by 2027 because of the Senate’s plan to allow individual tax cuts to expire at the end of 2025."

So they are saying the bill will raise taxes because people's taxes will return to where they were when the tax cuts expire? Leaving aside the torturous logic behind that conclusion, it also relies on the premise that the cuts won't be made permanent. It's like saying George W. Bush was raising taxes on the poor by removing 10 million people from the tax rolls but having an end date on the plan in order to comply with reconciliation rules in Congress. Those tax cuts, by the way, were made permanent, for which Obama then proceeded to take credit for lowering taxes by virtue of not raising them.

The left is also claiming that, because the tax bill eliminates the individual mandate on health insurance, then, should the bill pass, millions of people would lose their health insurance. Well, that is nonsense. It only means that millions who are suddenly given the option to abandon the unaffordable, ineffective health insurance program that’s been forced on them would do exactly that: run from it in droves. And though Barack Obama and the Supreme Court tried to obfuscate the matter by calling the mandate a “tax”, a better word for a "tax" that is only paid when you refuse to buy service that you don’t want from a private corporation is “extortion.”

The other lie we’re hearing is that the rich would benefit and the poor and middle class would shoulder the burden. But the liberal elites making this claim should be well aware that the top few percent of wage earners in this country pay about 95% of the income taxes. If the rich did get a large benefit, it's because they are the ones paying the majority of taxes now, so any tax cut will proportionately affect them more. That's a good thing, and doesn't affect the poor negatively. It's not a zero sum game and, besides, the tax cut in question is targeted at businesses. Keeping taxes high on corporations – or raising them even higher – harms the poor and middle class even more because corporations simply pass those increased costs onto everyone else in the form of higher prices, higher fees and fewer jobs. Making America more competitive in the corporate world - which enjoys a 22% corporate tax rate on average in comparison with America's 35% rate - can only help more of us, not harm us.

But the liberal elites prefer to play the game of income equality, identity politics, and class warfare -- none of which, by the way, is a firm foundation on which to correctly run a country or, for that matter, an economic system. How nice if they would stop the false rhetoric already so we could work on common sense solutions to get the country back on track.

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

Political usefulness to the left = immunity

Trying to keep straight all the latest allegations of carnal misbehavior among political elites is challenging. Trying to understand why such misbehavior is sometimes ignored and sometimes condemned is just a matter of politics. 

Take Bill Clinton's accusers from the good old 90s for instance. The women bringing accusations against President Clinton were credible. But they were destroyed by a supposed champion of women: Bill's politically ambitious wife. The media largely backed Hillary in her vicious actions to discredit and destroy these women because, like Hillary, the media and other leftists wanted Bill to be president. Even Bill's eventual confession of some of the abuse didn't dilute his support.

Now Judge Roy Moore of Alabama, known as, horror of horrors, a religious conservative, and who was leading the polls in his bid for the US Senate, is accused of assaulting women in one way or another. I have no idea if it's true (and if so, he needs to go, of course), but to the left, and to establishment RINOs, he may as well have brutally raped these women on film for all the hatred, disgust and chagrin being levied against him.  

But if you're a leftist, like Al Franken, you can have a photograph of yourself groping a woman while she sleeps and you will be praised because you owned up to it, as Franken has in his own way. The female staff of Saturday Night Live, Franken's old haunting grounds, even released a letter praising Franken and thanking him for his apology because "everyone makes mistakes." 

So it's not the horrendous action that's at play. It's how well loved you are - and how useful you are -- to the left that will get you a pass. After all, Franken is a huge supporter of leftist feminists' main prize possession: the right to abortion. They simply cannot lose him, so by no means, should he step down. 

But President Trump's vile comments made to Billy Bush, that didn't involve actual illicit physical contact with women? Well, ask Kathy Griffin and her ilk what should be done with him.

The key, in fact, is that one indeed be politically useful to the left. Now that Bill Clinton is considered expendable by the the leftists who protected him during his predator-while-attorney general-governor-president days, leftist feminists can now take the moral high ground and condemn his behavior. But if he were still in office and could have an impact on leftist (abortion) policy? Save him and condemn his victims at all costs.

Then again, his victims may just get their validation now that Bill is no longer in office. Juanita Broaddrick, who accused Clinton of rape while he was Attorney General of Arkansas, and who was absolutely vilified by women, including Hillary Clinton, who claimed to be pro-women -- is now being apologized to by feminists like Chelsea Handler, who suddenly believes Juanita. I wonder, though, was it worth the wait for Jaunita? Does she need feminists' support now? I doubt it.

Let's face it. If Al or Bill or now the latest one to be accused of sexual misconduct, John Conyers - were Republican or anti-abortion, they'd all be torn apart by the left. So the question is, while the left accuses Republicans of the "war on women" does the left really care about abuse of women, or is it okay as long as the guy doing it has something to offer them politically? I think the left has answered the question quite resoundingly.

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

Are feminists ok with men taking their place? Seems so...

Earlier this year, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) announced that transgender athletes should be allowed to compete in the Olympics and other international events without undergoing sex reassignment surgery, according to new guidelines adopted by the IOC. Medical officials with the IOC said they changed the policy to adapt to “current scientific, social and legal attitudes” on transgender issues.

Under the previous IOC guidelines, approved in 2003, athletes who transitioned from male to female or vice versa were required to have reassignment surgery followed by at least two years of hormone therapy in order to be eligible to compete.

Now, surgery will no longer be required, with female-to-male transgender athletes eligible to take part in men’s competitions “without restriction”.

Meanwhile, the IOC contends, “male-to-female transgender athletes will need to demonstrate that their testosterone level has been below a certain cutoff point for at least one year before their first competition.”

Hmm. I wonder what 'scientific' research was used to conclude that the only difference between men and women is the level of testosterone? Sexual dimorphism and basic biology seem to have completely passed these medical “experts” by in their rush to demonstrate politically correct inclusiveness. Besides, just how low in testosterone does a man need to go before he is rendered physically weak enough to compete as a “woman” without it being unfair to women?

What I want to know, in fact, is where are the feminists on this? For almost a century now, leftist feminists have been trying to undermine the value of femininity by encouraging women to stop having babies, to abandon domestic home life in favor of work life, and to basically deny their own nurturing nature – all while demanding that society recognize their “true worth”, whatever that is once you strip away all the unique traits that make women, well, women.

But now, it’s gone so far that real women aren’t even necessary. Men are taking their place, at least on the athletic playing field, and actual women are supposed to be okay with pretending that no matter how low the male hormone goes, men will still be physically stronger, and therefore, more successful in physical competition. Where is the feminist roar on that? I don’t hear it.

Diversity and national security: Where do we draw the line?

In response to the terrorist act committed by Sayfullo Saipov on Halloween, President Donald Trump was right to say political correctness has no place in the war on terror. Unfortunately, it appears political correctness has played a big role in this war in a way that undermines our efforts to stay safe. Back in 2014, for instance, the New York Police Department dropped a program that monitored potential suspects of Islamic extremism.  

Created in 2005, the program, known as the "Demographics Unit", was a simple monitoring initiative that sent plain clothes detectives to mosques and other gathering places for Muslims to see if anyone was pushing extremist rhetoric on the community. While it might seem a bit intrusive, let's not forget that in a city of 8.5 million people with as many as 800,000 Muslim residents in the greater metro area, thousands of people died in an Islamic terror attack in New York City.

The monitoring program was going well until 2014 when Sharia Law advocate and female liberal activist, Linda Sarsour, spoke out against the program. (If her name sounds familiar, it’s because she is the one who organized the Women’s March in DC earlier this year after calling for a “Jihad against President Trump” and publicly expressing her hatred for Israel).

According to Sarsour, as quoted in the New York Times in 2014, "The Demographics Unit created psychological warfare in our community.” She didn't offer any evidence to support that claim, but apparently it was effective enough to get the NYPD’s intelligence chief, John Miller, to agree that the program had to go.

But after Saipov ran his rented truck into pedestrians this past Tuesday, killing eight and injuring about a dozen, it was revealed that he frequented a mosque in Paterson, NJ, that used to be monitored as part of the Demographics Unit program as a possible destination for, “budding terrorist conspiracies."  

Unfortunately, because Linda Sarsour convinced the NYPD that it was politically incorrect for its detectives to monitor “innocent” people, they were unable to monitor at all. But without proper profiling initiatives, how can we expect law enforcement to detect possible nefarious players who want to do us harm?

The people who call such profiling “racially insensitive” first need to be informed that Islam isn’t a race. They then need to be informed that there is nothing “xenophobic” about a real problem that deserves no-nonsense attention and action.  As Americans have proven from the beginning of time, we don’t fear foreigners. We embrace them. In fact, the ones murdered by Saipov this week were foreigners. But we can’t be foolish about the issue. Just ask the Europeans who have been told it’s wrong to put any limits on immigration. 

Too bad Senator Chuck Schumer doesn’t agree. Despite yet another terrorist attack in New York City, he is still pushing the “Diversity Lottery” visa program that brought Saipov to our shores, while pointing a finger at those of us who dare to demand reasonable monitoring of who enters our country, either before they get here or after they arrive. 

But to Chuck, “every immigrant is special,” as he announced this week. Tell me, just how special is an immigrant who murders innocent people? Are we supposed to celebrate him in the name of diversity while continuing to allow an open-border approach to letting anyone in? I don’t know. Maybe we should ask the surviving victims of Saipov for their thoughts on the matter.

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

Women's Convention is anti-woman

In case you haven't heard, a weekend of workshops and strategy sessions are currently underway at the Cobo Center for the Planned Parenthood co-sponsored Women’s Convention in Detroit, an off-shoot of the Women's March that took place following President Donald Trump's inauguration earlier this year. 

The event website landing page announces women are "Reclaiming Our Time" and states participants will learn "strategies for working towards collective liberation for women of all races, ethnicities, ages, disabilities, sexual identities, gender expressions, immigration statuses, religious faiths, and economic statuses." But what exactly is it that these women are reclaiming and from what is it that they want to be liberated? 

It seems to me the only thing women in America need to reclaim is the dignity they squandered with the ushering in of the sexual revolution which took women from being objects of respect and honor (e.g. men used to stand up when a woman entered the room), to objects of sexual expression for men who now have a larger pool of available and willing women who have bought into the notion that "sexual freedom" is an equalizer of the sexes without consequence. We can thank things like The Pill and abortion for that. 

Today's American feminist-protester woman fiercely guards these forms of "reproductive rights" because she claims they allow for the freedom to pursue careers and education without the burden of pregnancy and child rearing, and because they allow women to "be like men" in unfettered promiscuity (of course, I'm not saying that all men, by default, engage in such practices themselves). 

Truth be told, the only ones made "free" by these contraptions of contraception are the men who now no longer have to marry a woman in order to have conjugal relations with her, since the reduced risk of pregnancy causes both men and women to feel a false sense of freedom to be "casual" with one another. But from a strictly physical sense, due to different hormone levels released during intimacy, many men have no problem being physical with a woman he does not love, and then moving on to the next willing partner. Women being women, however, will never be free from the hormone-induced emotional attachments that form during such types of physical intimacy, and so they are often left feeling abandoned, hurt, and used. Anything but equal.

They're also the ones holding the bag in terms of physical consequences. Artificial oral contraception is a known carcinogen, and just one abortion in the first trimester increases a woman's chance of developing breast cancer by huge margins. In fact, over 120 studies conclude this fact, but the National Cancer Institute and other prominent organizations refuse to even acknowledge these findings, let alone push for government mandates to warn women of the risks. 

It's funny how just seven studies showing the link between tobacco and cancer was enough to prompt federal regulations mandating a warning on all cigarette packages, but something so bad for women goes unchallenged. Isn't that what's really anti-woman? 

As far as "liberation" of these women goes, aside from, say, extreme military front-line combat-type situations, tell me one right denied to today's American woman that is granted to a man. To me it seems, then, that what these women want to be liberated from is their responsibility to pay for their own abortions and contraception. It seems they demand to be liberated from others' rights to live religious beliefs in the public square. Perhaps they demand to be liberated from those who live by a Judeo-Christian worldview who refuse to participate in same-sex "wedding" ceremonies. Perhaps "Woman Marchers" don't want believers to be able to preach God's commandments regarding killing when it comes to things like abortion. Or maybe they don't want a man who once said something gross about women to be our president, but they, like Rose McGowan who spoke today at Cobo Hall, remain silent about true sexual predators like Bill Clinton and Harvey Weinstein. Perhaps being liberal gives perverts a pass, while these protesting women demand liberation from phantom oppression. 

But what about those women who believe in God and try to live according to His law? The convention website may say the event is open to women of all "faiths", but would women who are pro-life and who live by biblical principles actually be welcome at this Women's Convention? Or is it just for those who reject the Bible's teachings and who cling to every false cause they can embrace in order to have something to complain about? 

If you want to find out, plan on being at Cobo Hall tomorrow, Oct. 28, from 8:30-11 am for the counter-convention gathering of  pro-life women who reject the leftist worldview and embrace true womanhood and the sanctity of life, as designed by God. Let's let it be known that the "Women's March" women don't represent all women, not by a longshot.

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

The protest of decency

Governor Rick Snyder’s office said it will not ask the Michigan State Police director to resign after she shared a meme on Facebook critical of NFL protests, calling protesters degenerates.

Col. Kriste Kibbey Etue, the highest ranking official at the MSP, posted the following on her private Facebook account late last month:

"Dear NFL: We will not support millionaire ingrates who hate America and disrespect our Armed Forces and Veterans. Who wins a football game has ZERO impact on our lives. Who fights for and defends our nation has every impact on our lives. We stand with the Heroes, not a bunch of rich, entitled, arrogant, ungrateful, anti-American, degenerates. Signed, We the people."

She apologized for it shortly thereafter following an outcry from those who can dish it out, but cannot take it. Said Etue, "It was a mistake to share this message on Facebook and I sincerely apologize to anyone who was offended."

Still, calls for her to resign were loud and clear. As state Rep. Sheldon Neeley, D-Flint, put it, "It is clear that Col. Etue does not understand the nature of the protests, nor respect the constitutional rights of citizens to peacefully protest."

But what exactly is being protested? The protests are springing from the “Black Lives Matter” movement, which was founded on a false premise. Protesters claim that Michael Brown of Ferguson, MO, was shot to death by police as he held his hands up in surrender, yelling, “Don’t shoot!” Not true. According to black witnesses who testified under oath, Brown was leaning in the open window of the police car pummeling an officer, who then shot him in self defense. Another white police officer in a separate case shot to death a black man in the back as the victim was running away. That police officer, rightly so, is in jail. Every case is different, and when a police officer does something deliberately wrong he should be dealt with to the full extent of the law. When thugs deliberately threaten the very lives of police, they should be stopped.

Yes, there is individual racism in our country, there are some bad cops, and there are jerks in general. But let’s look at the double standards here. Very financially well-off and coddled athletes want to kneel to protest non-systemic grievances, and expect support and applause in the name of freedom of speech - while men and women much less wealthy are dying to protect their freedoms. But when a police official exercises that same right on her personal social network, she is excoriated and expected to resign. When a high school coach kneels on the football field, not in protest, but in praise of God, he is fired. But to kneel in protest of false premises? That’s supposed to garner worldwide support.

It's funny how NFL athletes don't want to protest the violence against police, or the domestic violence and other deviance committed by members of the NFL themselves, or Hollywood moguls, for that matter. But maybe they think they're above actual degenerate behavior. So instead of fighting real evil, they need to find some other cause to embrace. 

Unfortunately, the only thing the anthem protesters are accomplishing is further division, and the stripping of one more piece of Americana from America, one more bit of innocent tradition, one more chance at unity. The national anthem stands for all of us and is a way for all of us to acknowledge the freedoms that few others in the world enjoy. But like the rest of the left, if it's something patriotic and decent, then it is something that should be protested.

Latest from the left: Conservatives worse than predators

In a recent interview, veteran actor, Ed Asner, was asked what he thought about the disgraced abuser of women, mega-Hollywood producer, Harvey Weinstein. In a real head-scratcher, Asner was quick to blame President Donald Trump. After all, Asner basically expounded, when you have people of authority like a sitting president abusing women, what are poor, helpless people like multi-millionaire, powerhouse little Harvey Weinstein supposed to do but follow the lead?

It didn't matter to Asner that Weinstein's long-suspected escapades date back years and years - long before Trump ever even was on the national stage. It doesn't matter that, while Trump was caught on tape saying something truly revolting, there have been zero substantiated claims that he ever actually abused women. It doesn't matter that an actual president, Bill Clinton, admitted to sexually abusing women. And it doesn't seem to matter that nobody is responsible for Weinstein's antics but Weinstein himself. But if a leftist can help a fellow leftist, what the heck. Let's blame a Republican. And let's especially never miss an opportunity to blame Trump, of course.

Meanwhile, Jimmy Kimmel, the self-proclaimed and self-righteous 'expert' on all things political and cultural, did a stupid shtick in front of his live audience about having something hidden in his pants, telling a woman to "feel around with both hands" to guess what's in his pants (it was a zucchini, by the way. Nice.). But there is nothing gross or inappropriate or abusive about this, right? No. Not unless Trump or some other Republican tried that stunt. Then Hollywood would be calling for their heads on a platter. Or worse.

And don't you just love how Ashley Judd had a mental breakdown in Washington, DC, last January about the "despicable" Trump's and Republicans' alleged abuse toward women in general, but she remained silent about her now publicized allegations against Weinstein? She only came forward in the past day or two after Weinstein was fired from his own company. Why was she willing to keep quiet beforehand about Weinstein, but was willing to publicly excoriate Trump for something that never even happened to her?

Incredibly, even Weinstein himself admitted he had this problem with abusing women. In fact, his own company had it written in his company agreement that he was allowed to sexually abuse women as long as he repaid the company for any settlements they had to pay, in addition to paying a fine of his own. In light of the sexual abuse being made public, Weinstein said he was going to get therapy. He then said part of his therapeutic healing would be to make a documentary about (against) the NRA and use the funds from that to finance efforts to remove Trump from office. So in the sick, hypocritical world of the left, it's ok to sanctify abuse of women because it's worse to be a conservative than a sexual predator.

I don't know about you, but I am really sick of the hypocrisy of these self-righteous, holier than thou leftists preaching about what's right regarding a supposed war against women by the right, but remaining silent on, and even committing, gross acts themselves.

If only they could just keep their hypocrisy to themselves rather than expose their blatant double standards on most things. It would be a lot easier to 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 JMS.TheRightTrack@gmail.com

Prayers not enough, or not enough prayers?

I've obviously been remiss in keeping up with my blog. For those of you aware of this, my dad is doing quite well following his open-heart surgery - thanks for all the prayers and support. It was a lot of care-taking for a few weeks, but now he is mostly self-sufficient, and walking a little more every day.

It's been an interesting conflation of events since his surgery. Since he has been going through so much in his recovery, our world and our country have faced a lot of challenges as well, especially with the hurricanes, flooding, wildfires, and, most recently, the sickening evil in Las Vegas last Sunday. 

It's common for many to wonder where God is in the face of tragedy and evil. And those who believe in God, Christians in particular, are often mocked for our beliefs, especially when we continue to believe in God during times of evil.

It's no surprise, then, that following the latest event in Las Vegas, people started asking "where was your God" in this, and politicians - past and present - like Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi -- were quick to say prayers aren't enough - we need more control of guns. 

Aside from the fact that God gives us free will, and all the control of inanimate objects in the world won't stop evil, the other fact is that in a society that more and more diminishes God, we can only expect more heinous crimes like the one in Vegas. 

Simply put, it seems pretty clear that the more we've banished God from our culture, the more we've ushered in an anything-goes ideology that worships the individual's "freedom to choose" above all else. But maybe it's time we start looking at what a deadly combination Godlessness and self-gratification really is. After all, with no God, there are no consequences - like hell - and so why shouldn't those with a desire to kill just do what they want? The flip side, of course, is that it makes us all vulnerable to the whim of the one who feels there is nothing to lose.

It's remarkable that people like Hillary and Nancy have no problem with the murder of innocent humans in the womb, but they are horrified over the murder of people by guns...to the extent they can use it as a chance to exert control over everyone, that is. And of course, they feel duty-bound to remind us that turning to God for help is not the answer. 

Look at how that dismissal of God is working for us. Before we accept the random political premise that prayers aren't enough, though, at the very least, isn't it time we acknowledge that what we need is more of them? 

NFL whiners more interesting than attack on Christians

(The following is an article from Christian News Alerts)

The NFL players boycotting the national anthem have overshadowed the more disturbing story of a mass shooting at a church on Sunday, which the media doesn’t seem to want to talk about.

According to The Blaze, this is because the mass shooting doesn’t fit the liberal narrative many in the media are trying to promote. NFL protesters opposing Trump is “sexier and more watchable” than a black immigrant from Sudan who killed a white woman and shot at a church full of Christians before he was stopped by a man with a legally owned gun.

Sunday morning, Emanuel Kidega Samson — who immigrated to the US from Sudan — shot and killed Melanie Smith in the parking lot of the Burnette Chapel Church of Christ. He proceeded to enter the church and fire upon those in attendance, injuring seven.

His attack was stopped when Caleb Engle, an usher for the church, attacked Samson. During the struggle, Engle was pistol-whipped but continued struggling with the gunman. Engle managed to escape, and went to his car to retrieve his own gun. He used it to keep Samson — who accidentally shot himself — compliant until police arrived.

This terrible tragedy was largely ignored by the media over the weekend. Instead, the mainstream media spent countless hours covering the supposed heroism of NFL players protesting Trump by disrespecting the national anthem.

Matt Walsh, the author of the article on The Blaze, believes that liberals in the media outlets took a look at the two stories and realized the NFL protests better fit with their narrative and ran with that, burying the mass shooting story.

In Walsh’s words, the church shooting flew under the radar of millions of Americans because it wasn’t deemed important enough. “That’s because a terrorist attack at a church, which was cut short due to the incredible heroism of an usher, is a minor and insignificant event compared to political demonstrations of millionaire football players, according to the media and a large portion of our society.”

Unfortunately, this is nothing new. USA Today reports that Americans were more obsessed with the videos of Miley Cyrus twerking at the Video Music Awards than the hundreds of Syrians gassed to death by their own government. At that time, Americans decided a celebrity making a fool of herself was more important than mass murder.

Yet Americans are not the only ones to blame for fixating more on the NFL controversy than the attack on Christians. The liberal media was responsible for diverting the attention away from the terrible tragedy in Tennessee, and instead toward millionaire football players apparently standing up to the President.

As Walsh states, the media ran with the NFL story because it is “vastly more politically convenient” when it comes to promoting the liberal agenda. A story of a true hero using his Second Amendment rights to keep fellow Christians safe from a madman — who happens to be a Middle Eastern immigrant — does nothing for the liberal narrative.

This bias and cherry picking of pro-leftist stories is a prime example of why many Americans distrust the media.

It also raises the moral and ethical questions regarding why those in the media — whose responsibility it is to inform and notify Americans of important events — decided disrespectful, unpatriotic athletes were more interesting than a mass shooting at a Christian church.

Demands for minimum wage hike put jobs at risk

While many Americans spent Labor Day taking some well-deserved rest from their daily work duties, other workers across the country spent the day demanding an increase in the minimum wage. 

Dubbed “Fight for 15”, the rallies centered on raising the minimum wage to at least $15 an hour. In Chicago, for instance, several thousand people rallied against Gov. Bruce Rauner’s recent veto of a bill to raise Illinois’ minimum wage to $15. The state’s minimum wage is currently $8.25 — except in Chicago, where it has been set at $11. 

“Hold the burgers hold the fries … make our wages supersized!” a crowd of fast-food workers chanted in Connecticut as they marched outside a McDonald’s in Hartford. Never mind that McDonald’s has recently raised wages and begun to offer paid vacations for its employees. 

“We hope to get the message that $10.10 an hour [Connecticut’s minimum wage] is not enough and we need more and we deserve more. That and union rights,” said Richard Grimes, who works at a Burger King in Hartford. 

Sounds good on the surface, but it seems that entry-level workers miss the mark in asking for this kind of pay raise. Don’t they realize that they could very well find themselves with lower wages when their hours are cut back because small business employers simply cannot afford them, or worse, their jobs are replaced by robots altogether? 

This is not to knock these types of jobs, but an entry level, fast-food type job was never meant to be a career in and of itself. Like anything, it’s meant as a starting point to build upon and excel, either within the original workplace, or by taking the knowledge learned there and applying it in other areas as a worker grows his professional experience, resulting in higher pay along the way. In other words, a worker should earn higher pay, not be handed it upon demand. 

If an existing job’s pay is not enough to meet financial obligations in the meantime, how about taking on a second job until things improve? I’ve had plenty of experience working a full day in an office and waiting tables at night back in the day. Nobody owes us anything, and demanding employers make things easier for us at the cost of reduced hours or the job itself is not the solution.

Our diminishing safety in a leftist world

The anti-Christian Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), the well-funded left-wing extremist group, has begun targeting Christian, pro-family, pro-traditional values organizations in earnest, especially since President Donald Trump’s inauguration, and particularly since the violence in Charlottesville, VA.

Of note, in the aftermath of the Charlottesville, VA, tragedy, the SPLC's "fake hate" has targeted the pro-family group, Liberty Counsel, with vile lies that have spread far and wide through potentially thousands of news outlets, including CNN, which has joined forces in attacking Liberty Counsel. This defamatory attack equates Liberty Counsel with the most radical elements of society (including the person who drove the car into the crowd in Charlottesville) in a blatant attempt to link Liberty Counsel to violent, extremist radicals.

Unfortunately, major players are jumping on the bandwagon, such as Apple CEO Tim Cook, who just announced he is donating $1 million to SPLC, and Amazon, which has just banned Liberty Counsel, along with other traditional organizations, from partaking in its Smile Amazon program, which allows consumers to choose a charity to receive a donation with every purchase. Liberty Counsel is now banned from being a potential charity to choose on Amazon's site.

Apparently, SPLC didn’t learn – or more likely simply doesn’t care – that its aggressive hatred of Christian groups has already led to at least one violent scene of attempted murder when, in August 2012, Floyd Lee Corkins walked into the lobby of Christian-based Family Research Council and began shooting.

Corkins later told police that he wanted to methodically kill as many people as possible because the FRC was listed as an SPLC “hate” group. Another victim, Dr. Charles Murray of the American Enterprise Institute scholar, was targeted in a violent outbreak earlier this year at Middlebury College after the AEI was identified as a “hate group” by the SPLC. In neither incident did the SPLC apologize or even acknowledge any regret.

It has become a common tactic of the Left to aggressively label groups that promote conservative and Judeo-Christian values as “hate groups” and “fringe” – rather than try to win in the court of public opinion. The goals are to demean religious belief and values and to shame and intimidate pro-family people into silence – and thus keep them out of the public forum.

The SPLC’s tactics against Christian and conservative groups is reminiscent of how Nazis worked to dehumanize Jews by producing movie clips showing Jews interspersed with rats and other vermin, to produce the message that they were all part of the same polluting society.

The SPLC employs a similar strategy using a series of “hate maps” for each state, interspersing Christian and conservative groups alongside neo-Nazi and KKK groups. They also use a lot of Nazi and KKK imagery on their website and list pro-family organizations and individual leaders among neo-Nazi and other white supremacy groups and leaders. Of course the goal is the same: to present these groups as all being equally vile. This fans the flames enough to assist them handily in raising huge amounts of money from gullible liberals to help fund their efforts to silence and sue anyone not in line with leftist thinking.

Not surprisingly, the SPLC fails to list actual hate groups – such as Black Lives Matter, which has advocated murdering police, and all leftist violence against Trump supporters, conservative speakers on college campuses and other hateful activities. And is it any surprise that since the SPLC started listing innocent, pro-Christian groups as hate groups that there have been numerous attacks on churches and gatherings of conservatives? 

The SPLC doesn’t just leave the furthering of its agenda in the hands of those activists who fund it. A major tool for pushing its message of hate against conservative and Christian values is its “Teaching Tolerance” magazine, a truly creepy publication that basically teaches that true “tolerance” demands the rejection of traditional religious and cultural values. Because thousands of copies of “Teaching Tolerance” are sent to schools across America, how frightening to think that children are being fed the type of propaganda that could one day turn them into advocates for “protecting society” from "hateful" conservatives by any means, at any cost - just like the many 1930s-era Germans who bought into believing that they should be afraid of Jews.

The Left knows it can never win the war of public opinion using facts and reason, so the only choice is to lie about, shame, intimidate, and harass conservatives and people of faith who dare to speak out. It’s a classic bullying tactic. But like any bully, if you stand up to this boldly and aggressively, they will begin to back down. Bullies always do because deep down, they’re basically cowards. That’s why it’s so important to keeping fighting with the truth, because the truth eventually wins - and if we don't fight for it, conservatives will be facing, in fact already are, a very real and increasing threat to our safety.

Anti-monument thugs need history lesson

Takiyah Thompson, the 22-year-old college student who toppled a monument of a Confederate soldier in Durham, North Carolina, instantly became a hero of the liberal media. She became even more of a hero when she was arrested at a news conference in which she demanded amnesty for the protesters.

For instance, Huffington Post hailed her in its headline, saying, “Takiyah Thompson, Hailed As ‘Hero,’ Showered With Support For Toppling Confederate Statue.” The media hung on her every word at the news conference, an event put on by the Workers World Party, a group that Thompson belongs to.

Nothing, however, was said about the Workers World Party itslef, the Marxist-Leninist group that has taken credit for organizing the monument-toppling. There was a reason for that: the Workers World Party’s history needs to be hidden in order for Thompson to be hailed as a hero.

As The Daily Caller points out, “the WWP has some very dirty secrets. It’s a pro-North Korean, anti-American organization that often espouses violence and crime to get its way…founded in 1959, it’s a hardline offshoot of the more moderate Socialist Workers Party.”

But as the WWP put it, “Organizers and protesters in Durham sent a clear message: Love does not trump hate; only mobilized people’s power can tear down white supremacy.” So vandalizing of property is suddenly unlawful?

These WWP folks seem to assume that the monuments were originally meant to signify oppression or hate or approval of slavery. But could they possibly consider that monuments could have been meant as a sign of repatriation, bringing those that had set themselves apart from the Union back into the fold? At the very least, can they not see these monuments as a reminder of our shared history, good and bad, and what we can learn from it? What a concept to actually see these monuments as a sign of actual unity of past.

Unfortunately, corrupt, divisive and uninformed people have recently sought to muddy the waters and propose a different meaning for those monuments, while fanning the flames of real hate by their horrible, violent actions. Perhaps it’s time they be reminded of what the monuments’ original purpose was. And, while I'm at it, if they want to eradicate real hate, how about at the very least starting with a protest of organizations like Planned Parenthood, which aborts close to 300 black babies every single day?

But no matter. People like Thompson are protesting on false premises, committing crimes, and making demands as if they deserve it. They are what is wrong with this country. I hope Thompson does face consequences for her actions. I’d settle for her being sentenced to at least one year of authentic history study and a reality check on what real hatred is. In the meantime, the only statement she and her ilk are making is that “we are thugs and the laws don't apply to us." That's not exactly a recipe for peace.

Are people finally seeing through Gore's lies?

Why did Al Gore think he could delude the public again after his first effort, "An Inconvenient Truth," was debunked? After its first weekend in theaters, “An Inconvenient Sequel” came in a humiliating 15th place in the US box office. But rather than acknowledge that maybe people finally see through Gore's bold attempts to further pad his coffers by hocking lies, his supporters are simply blaming Paramount Pictures for sabotaging the movie. How it would be Paramount's fault I don't know, but that's who they're blaming.

But what do Gore and other leftists have to gain from pushing the global warming hoax? Power. As one reporter put it, “By attempting to unite the entire planet under the ruse of battling ‘climate change’, globalist billionaires can consolidate political power into the hands of a few international leaders. This, in turn, allows for a much simpler manipulation of currency and resources, allowing men like George Soros to garner an unacceptable amount of influence throughout the world…all at the expense of international sovereignty.”

This mindset has been in place for a while now, of course. In 1988, then-Sen. Timothy Wirth, D-Colo., said: “We’ve got to … try to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong…we will be doing the right thing anyway in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”

While US-taxpayers are saddled with about $25 billion a year in funding the hoax, climate “experts” can’t even agree on what the crisis is. Recall that in the 1970s the panic centered around an impending new Ice Age. The proposed remedy for that non-crisis was unilateral disarmament, a call to nationalize everything, and the desire for a UN-supervised world socialist government “to spread the wealth around”.

When the ice failed to form by the 1990s despite years of cooling trends, the climate alarmists needed a new scapegoat: heat (despite the aforementioned years of cooling trends). Not surprisingly, the Global Warming alarmists proposed the same remedy: taxes and consolidated control.

Carrying the climate crisis baton, our former (thankfully) Marxist president, Barack Obama, dutifully bestowed $50 million of our money to the UN Climate Change fund organized by the absurd Paris Climate Accord. Thankfully, President Trump put an end to that nonsense by pulling us out of that agreement.

Nonetheless, the left is still working hard to create their one world utopia complete with the UN as the world’s government. Sadly, many of these people actually believe they’re crusaders who are working to change the world into a better place. The truth of course is that those behind the curtain are working on a new and hideous form of feudalism where there is only a ruling class and serfs. That’s exactly what happens when you give the bulk of power to a few, while dominating the many.

As for Gore’s movie failure, the box office tanking of his on-screen falsehoods couldn't have happened to a more perverse, lying fraud. With his private jet and multiple homes using more energy than an entire small town, his is the biggest carbon footprint of all. Yet his hoax has made him a billionaire thanks to all the gullible people that supported him – and, in some cases, still do. But maybe the dismal performance of his sequel is a sign of hope that more eyes are finally opening? We'll see.