SHOULD BARBIE BE SUPER-SIZED?

I just became aware of one of the great issues of the day.  It seems that many of our fellow citizens are deeply concerned that certain toys are not reflective of the culture as a whole.  Previously, I suppose that my view of such controversies was that they  were so jejune as not to be items worthy of any sort of anxiety.  But, once again, when it comes to pop-culture I am an out-of-the loop guy.

Judging by the polls, Americans are overwhelmingly in favor of super-sizing Barbie dolls.  The thinking on this problem is that a slim Barbie may bring about feelings of inadequacy for little girls who might be somewhat overweight.   Looked at in retrospect, that those responding to the polls with such sentiment is not at all surprising, because, since the 1980's, Americans have been diligently super-sizing themselves.  This is reflected in the average sizes for Americans, numbers which have significantly shot up since the 1960's.

The average American woman now weighs around 165 lbs. and wears a size 14 dress.  That's about 24 lbs. more than the average-sized woman in 1965
.

THE AVERAGE AMERICAN (ON THE LEFT)
COMPARED TO AVERAGE JAPANESE, DUTCH
AND FRENCH MEN

As for American men, the average male is almost 5'9," weighs in at 195 lbs. and has a waist size of 40.  Wearing a size 40 regular off-the-rack suit, which has a waist size of 38", most American men would need to have the pants let out.  But, perhaps that's academic, as most American men no longer seem to wear suits.

On our first day in Paris, during what was my wife's first trip to Europe, she exclaimed, "Honey, where are all the fat people?"  I pointed out to her that it was much more common to see the French walking and bicycling than what one would see of Americans at home. And, besides, the French were noted for cutting all their fat and cholesterol with their daily consumption of red wine.

The Frito-Lay Corporation had at one time sought to gain a foothold in the European market.  In Holland, Frito- Lay undertook a gigantic marketing campaign, which failed abysmally.  When seeking to discover what went wrong, Frito-Lay's man on the spot undertook to survey the Dutch population.  The most common answer given by respondents was that they were averse to Frito- Lay products because they did not want "...to look like Americans."

Sadly, in the U.S., we have evolved into a culture in which it is expected that people should never give offense.  Consequently, we have brought up an entire generation which cannot stand the thought of ever having their feelings hurt.  But isn't that what life is about, learning to deal with disappointment,  hurt and sadness and then having the strength and resilience to pick up the pieces and move on?  And, then, what about the health consequences for a society which is so fearful of hurting feelings that the overweight and obese are not made aware of what they are doing to themselves?

No, dear readers, I, for one, do not think it is a great idea to super-size Barbie.  Let's face the hard truth:  fat is bad!   Fat may lead to diabetes.  Fat causes hyper-tension and high blood pressure.  Fat is a contributing factor to heart disease.  Fat limits one's longevity.  Fat opens one's system to all sorts of ailments which may cause absence from school and work.  Fat stymies intellectual ability.  To summarize, fat is just plain bad!  And to offer up a fat Barbie as a sop to dreary little people who might get their feelings hurt just makes no sense at all.  A fat Barbie would be a terrible example. And so, dear readers, what else needs to be said about Barbie and fat?

Deo Vindice!

May God bless Texas, and may the Lone Star State remain forever red!

OUR BRAVE NEW WORLD OF DOUBLESPEAK, NOSPEAK, OBFUSCATION AND INNUENDO

AGENT JOHN DODSON

A mere 5 years ago, we were promised the most transparent presidential administration in history.  It is now more than apparent that, instead, we were lied to, deceived and misled.

Last fall, despite the attempts of our government to suppress the story, news got out of a Bureau Alcohol, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) agent who was determined to tell his version of Fast and Furious.  Agent John Dodson faced intense opposition from the ATF, which was determined to block publication of Dodson's book on Fast and Furious, Unarmed Truth.

Still employed as an agent, Dodson has been assigned to the Tucson office of the agency, where he is treated as a "pariah."  Dodson's book, however, has seen the light of day.

Fast and Furious, which saw almost 1,500 weapons purchased in America through an ATF operation which sent firearms to Mexican drug cartels, caused an unknown number of Mexican fatalities and figured into the shooting death of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.  Incredible as it may seem that our government was complicit in putting illegal arms into the hands of drug cartels, it is mind-blowing to learn that the Drug Enforcement Administration was complicit with FBI operatives in informing the criminals who killed Agent Terry of a drug shipment that would be moving through Peck Canyon, located approximately 12 miles from the U.S. border with Mexico, near Nogales, Arizona.  Terry, who was part of an elite Border Patrol unit, was in the canyon, owing to the area being rife with criminal gangs specializing in stealing illegal drugs from individuals engaged in transporting the drugs into the U.S.  Finally, thanks to John Dodson, we are learning what Eric Holder and his Justice Department lackeys were attempting to conceal, viz. how collusion between the ATF, DEA and FBI resulted in a nefarious web of death and destruction.

In a particularly peculiar twist, we now know, too, that the ATF and DEA gave carte blanche for the Sinoloa Cartel to transport substantial shipments of illegal drugs to the Chicago area in return for the cartel's cooperation against other organized Mexican drug rings.

In thinking of all the chicanery of Fast and Furious, my mind somehow returned to Brave New World and 1984. Those of us who were exposed to Aldous Huxley and George Orwell could not but help see during the past 5 years so many parallels which augur ill for the future of our country. Cover-ups, lies, ill-considered legislation, executive-decrees and end-runs around Congress, much of it linked to Fast and Furious, Benghazi, the IRS, the NSA and Obamacare.  But, don't worry, because it is clear that we are incapable of making our own decisions, and Big Brother and his administration are more than capable of taking care of us, even though it might be a bit painful, as in Obamacare.  After all, who are we to know what is best for us, and it is all too obvious that ordinary citizens cannot handle the truth of the great undertakings of the day! And the end of it all must be the enjoyment of power by our political elite.

Just as Huxley and Orwell envisioned worlds in which materialism ran rampant and religion was expunged, we see our own country moving in such a direction in the 21st century.  So, too, do we see the rearrangement of language in which words that are considered "offensive" are adjusted or removed from public consciousness.  Along with the alteration of language comes the revision of history, done to such an extent that government becomes the arbiter of what is acceptable or unacceptable.  Will our own Big Brother eventually call for a Ministry of Truth, just as the fictional Big Brother engaged his own bureaucrats in the fabrication of history?

In our own post- 1960's society, we have witnessed an ongoing "dumbing-down" of standards.  It is not uncommon to encounter high school graduates who lack basic skills in reading, writing and computing. Rather than being educated, students are more likely in modern day curricula to be conditioned from an educational blueprint that would rival Big Brother in the production of brain-dead individuals, incapable of marshaling any thoughts in opposition to the propaganda of the day,

Our own political elites seem to be moving us along toward less and less freedom of expression.  Those who would object are frequently shouted down as being out-of-touch and weighted down with the burdens of racism and privilege, ignoring all the while the wholly boorish and vicious elements in society which have been nurtured on a pagan pop culture of sadism, drugs, alcohol and a sense of entitlement to government benefits.  With a growing base of ignorance, the politically elite vassals who feed from the slop dished out from the District of Columbia nourish their unquenchable desire for power with a general lowering of expectations and standards for the lower elements.

And so we return to Fast & Furious, simply the tip of the iceberg in the saga of an administration, which, if left unchecked, will succeed in altering forever this great and wonderful land that we call the United States of America.  Try as hard as I might, dear readers, I cannot ignore this. Sometimes I feel as if I live under a cloud that causes me the pain of knowing what is happening to my country.  There are even times when I wish I could know the joy of ignorance in which I could live a life centered on obliviousness as to the disastrous course that is upon us.  But I cannot in good conscience do that. My own opposition has become extremely personal. I must know why a government that hides and distorts truth, such as in Fast and Furious, seeks to keep its people ignorant and uninformed.  I love my country.  I cannot do otherwise than to oppose those who pose as the servants of the people while suppressing candor and integrity.

Deo Vindice!

God bless Texas, and may the Lone Star State remain forever red!

HAVE TRADITIONAL VIEWS BEEN TOTALLY SUBSUMED BY THOSE WHO DOMINATE OUR CULTURE?

WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE WALTONS?

If an extraterrestrial suddenly fell to earth and landed in the USA, he would likely get the idea that the society he found himself in was clearly a non-theistic society.   All indications would point toward Americans having no consciousness of a god , or of any recognition of a power limiting their own.

Despite that, however, America is still a land in which the vast majority (75%) acknowledge a supreme being. And, probably, a majority of that 75% adheres to traditional values.

One would never suspect such a large number being traditional in their views, given what passes as entertainment in 21st century America.  As Hollywood continues to spew out sex-and violence- filled spectacles, television, pop music and the print media are not far behind with their products, which cater to the basest of instincts.

On several fronts, traditional values, and especially Christian values, are ridiculed by the Moguls of pop culture.  Even government has jumped on the band-wagon, with certain Christian groups being marked for discrimination by laws that require them to pay for government-sanctioned abortion and birth-control.

In promoting its programs, government now has a tendency to sink to the lowest of  pop-culture levels.  Cases in point abound in the disastrous Obamacare roll-out, which seems to be pulling out all the stops in appealing to gays, promiscuous millennials and other very non-traditional folks.

DID WE TRADE THE MARLBORO MAN
FOR PAJAMA BOY?

In many instances, political correctness has invaded the public schools, to such a point that Christmas has become a dirty word.  Concomitantly, in some states school bathrooms are now open to choice rather than to the obvious gender of students.

Handbooks designed for the indoctrination of new recruits in the armed forces designate the Roman Catholic Church and evangelical and fundamentalist Christians as "extremist groups," while Islam gets a free ride.

Increasingly, the media have become so sensitive to the likes and dislikes of shrill minorities that have made a career out of supposed oppression that traditional views have been muzzled.  Many of the younger cohorts of our population have no recollection of a time when divergent views were openly and freely discussed without fear of economic or political retribution.  Those who take pride in branding themselves "liberal" are now most illiberal in shouting down or silencing those who might disagree with them.  And, of course, there is always the liberal fallback of tarring alternative views as "racist."


And let us not forget the inane "Life of Julia"  series put out by our government.  This severely dumbed-down production assumes to follow the life of a pathetic female, whose life is circumscribed from cradle to grave by government dependency.  Poor Julia, her education, her security, even her birth control and eventual pregnancy are influenced by government.  But, what is even sadder is that there are multitudes of young Americans who, no doubt, believe that it is government's role to make certain there are no bumps in the road of life.

What a strange world we now live in.  The majority has been pushed into minority status.  What are traditional views still held by a majority are now outside the approved realm of political correctness.  People of faith are dubbed as outcasts, to be ridiculed and made light of.  The concept of tolerance has gone by the wayside, to be replaced with a new "truth," which is almost as rigidly and severely enforced as the truth of long-ago New England Puritans.  Is it possible that those of my own persuasion will eventually be called upon to wear a "scarlet letter"?

Deo vindice!

May God bless Texas, and may the Lone Star State remain forever red!

FOR UNTO US A CHILD IS BORN..............

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder:  and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace.    
                                                    Isaiah 9:6

NDAA 2014 PASSES WITH LITTLE NOTICE: ARE YOU AWAKE, AMERICA?

With little fanfare just before the Christmas recess, the National Defense Authorization Act was overwhelmingly passed by our Congress.  Although providing for the defense of our country, the legislation is deeply troubling from the standpoint of the Constitution of the United States.

The NDAA for 2014, just as the 2013 legislation, allows President Obama to detain indefinitely any American citizen suspected of terrorist activity.  What is alarming is that such action may be undertaken without due process, as prescribed in the Constitution.  

Combined with the heightened surveillance and technological prowess of the NSA, the potential for abuse is clearly in place.  Americans should rightly be concerned that a steadily expanding government chooses to maintain the underpinnings of what could be utilized to bring into being a police state.

It does appear a bit odd, don't you think, that while our southern border remains unsecured our government continues to ramp up its surveillance ability and passes a law that conceivably could affect every American citizen.

With the diversions of the Christmas season, combined with a tendency of Americans to be uninformed about their government, the likelihood of the legislation attracting little attention is great.  Furthermore, we should be more than a little concerned that a mere 15 U.S. senators went on record as voting NO.

One of the dissenting 15 was Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, who stated, "...[the bill] does not ensure our most basic rights as Americans."  I, for one, wish there were about 60 more senators like Cruz in the District of Columbia.  But, alas, Cruz clones seem to be few and far between.

Deo Vindice!

God bless Texas, and may the Lone Star State remain forever red!

HEY, NONE OF THAT STUFF WAS EVER THE FAULT OF HILLARY!

FROM freakingnews.com

The next presidential election is shaping up, and, by golly, it looks like it's going to include Mrs. Hillary Clinton.  Her diehard supporters just never seem to learn from past experience, and past experience indicates that a President Hillary would be a total disaster.  But, if you like the train wreck of the Obama presidency, Hillary is just the candidate for you!

From her time as a freshly-minted attorney who behaved in most unethical ways in proffering her legal expertise to the Watergate proceedings and got herself fired, Mrs. Clinton has schemed, fibbed and never missed a trick to point herself on the upward thrust of opportunism, power-grabbing and greed.  And she's gotten away with it, because it was, after all, part of her record of "public service."

How could we ever forget Whitewater and the Clinton family's friends who took the rap, while Bill and Hillary came out smelling like a rose - or was that smell coming from the Rose Law Firm? Then there was the troubling death of Clinton minion Vice Foster, which to this very day summons up too many unanswered questions.  Then, too, Hillary was a mastermind of investments, turning $1,000.00 into a cool $100,000.00 from cattle futures in a mere 9 months., probably as a result of her bovine studies at Wellesley and Yale. Always known for rewarding friends and punishing enemies, Hillary sought to turn White House travel into a bonanza for her cronies with Travelgate.  And, more recently, there was Benghazi and Hillary's "What difference does it make?" arrogance displayed in all its glory before a Congressional committee.

Never averse to bending the truth, Hillary was caught red-handed during her 2008 presidential campaign.  Perhaps attempting to extol her own bravery, Hillary spoke at least two times on the campaign trail of having had to "evade" sniper fire during March of 1996, when, as first lady, she made a visit to Bosnia.  Subject to fact-checking, it turned out that she never experienced sniper fire during the trip.  Even the Clinton-friendly Washington Post awarded her "4 Pinocchios" for her whopper of story.

More is being learned each day about Hillary's backroom political deal with Barack Hussein Obama, in which, for Obama's backing for the Democratic nomination in 2016, Hillary agreed to head the Department of State.  Just as we were regaled with elaborate excuses of how Hillary was worthy of no blame for the tragedy of Benghazi, we can just imagine that the Clinton spin-masters are even now busily spinning elaborate concoctions of rationalization to account for the lack of professional stewardship at State during her tenure.  Any unbiased evaluation of the Department of State during Obama's 1st term would have to conclude that Secretary Clinton either did not know what she was doing, or was pathetically out of the loop.

Known far and wide for her foul-mouth and her authoritarian management style, Hillary Clinton is a rough character who will spare no effort in advancing herself and aggrandizing political power. The upcoming presidential campaign should see her in fine form.  However, unlike President Obama in 2008, Hillary is a known quantity.  If she accedes to the presidency, Americans will have only themselves to blame.

Deo Vindice!

God bless Texas, and may the Lone Star State remain forever red!

ARE WE WITNESSING THE END OF TOLERANCE?

It is a strange new world in which we are living.  Certain religious points of view are now taboo for public discussion; and,  no doubt, certain philosophical and political dispositions will also soon find themselves out of bounds in our brave new politically correct world.  Accordingly, will "don't ask, don't tell" be the new watchword for Christians and others who dissent from prevailing attitudes?

I would certainly never go to a Muslim restaurant and demand that the proprietor roast my Christmas pig.  Neither would I insist that a social hall connected to a mosque host a same-sex marriage reception. Nevertheless, Muslims may be next on the gay hit-list; and, just like Christian bakers and photographers, they may be forced to do business - or else.

There was a time in the U.S. that, out of respect for one another, there were limits to expectations and demands.  In other words, people did not force themselves on one another.  We all have encountered individuals of differing views who felt compelled to speak out.  If others did not wish to hear what was being said, they could simply walk away.  Freedom in America did not include the compulsion of being exposed to ideas that did not mesh with those of another.

However, now, the effete elitists of political correctness are so determined that certain elements that were once thought to have been discriminated against should not be offended that a new totalitarianism of intolerance is in the process of being put in place to curtaiL expression.

If an idea offends you, don't quash it.  If the offense is so great that it causes pain, simply do not expose yourself to it.  But, if the idea is such that you would wish to debate it in civil discourse, then, by all means, feel free to do so.  After all, this is America, a place whose citizens have taken pride in the concept of free speech.  Hopefully, civil discourse is still an option in our land.

Will we soon be a land where ideas thought to be politically incorrect must be confined to sanctuaries of worship?  Will we allow minorities to silence and censor ideas of the majority?  Will Americans fear the consequences of answering when they are asked about their beliefs?

Although my own personal views might not be in accord with those of Phil Robertson, I certainly feel that he should be free to express himself, no matter how offensive I might find his words.  As Voltaire felt strongly that he might be opposed to the views of another person but  would fight so that the person would be free to state what he wished, so feel I that Americans who value freedom should not allow the right of expression to wither away in this country.  However, I am somewhat dubious that the shrill voices of thought control have ever heard of Voltaire and might, also, be somewhat in the dark as far as the 1st Amendment is concerned.

Deo Vindice!

God bless Texas, and may the Lone Star State remain forever red!

IS THE GAY MAFIA A NEW AMERICAN ORTHODOXY?

Fundamentalism is a word which calls forth all sorts of negative connotations in 21st century America.  How many times parallels have been drawn by media figures between Christian fundamentalists and Islamic fundamentalists is anybody's guess, but, unquestionably, they are numerous.  And, of course, there is always the tired old cliche about those poor, ignorant rubes who cling to their guns and Bibles.

Pomposity and arrogance seem to thrive on the left portion of the political spectrum; and, for the life of me, I have never been able to figure out just why that is.  The dons of the Ivy League, judging by queries of basic knowledge submitted to their graduates from certain quarters of the media, appear to be badly failing in educating their charges.  Be that as it may,  one of the major causes du jour on the left is that of gay rights.  And the shrill voices of the LGBT movement have absorbed much of the arrogance of the radical left.  

From the time of the Stonewall riots in 1969, American gays have become increasingly militant. That militancy, however, is a double-edged sword.  While the American populace generally favors fair play, along with basic rights and liberties for minorities, the idea of a strident minority becoming so influential as to silence differing points of view is not an attractive one. 

In terms of the demographics of sexual identity, approximately 4% of Americans, or around 9,100,00, distinguish themselves as being of an LGBT identity.  However, in terms of power 
wielded, the LGBT community's influence far outstrips its numbers.  With wide-ranging support in the Democratic Party, liberal mainline Christianity, the media and Hollywood, the gay push to legalize same-sex marriage, combined with a supportive and celebrity-conscious presidency, presents gays with almost unlimited potential to achieve their goals, while gay strategists continue to rationalize an equivalence with the civil rights movement.

In comparison, the strength of the 35,000,000 American Christian fundamentalists is more limited. With a dominant popular culture, which at every opportunity derides Christian fundamentalism, Christians of that persuasion are more often than not viewed as cranks who would seek to usher the U.S. back into the Dark Ages.  Thus, when push comes to shove, it's usually the fundamentalists who get the shove.

In the recent controversy erupting over the comments of a fundamentalist who had achieved celebrity status from a television program, it should be remembered that his comments were solicited by a journalist representing a major magazine.  In answer to the reporter's question concerning the gay lifestyle, the fundamentalist expressed, in a straightforward manner, his opposition to the behavior of gays, letting it be known that he was opposed.

It is hard to believe that anyone would find it unusual that a Christian fundamentalist would respond in such a way.  With a view of the scriptures as infallible, fundamentalists would be hard- pressed to find a biblical basis for supporting homosexuality.  Furthermore, with a penchant for witnessing, a fundamentalist would not be of a mind to avoid the question.

In the furor that ensued, the fundamentalist in question found himself suspended by his program's originator.  The cause:  a highly concentrated and robust attack from the gay community.

Is this a case with ramifications for the 1st Amendment?  Looked at from one side, employers are legally well within their rights to curtail ill-advised utterances from employees.  During our careers, the vast majority of us knew that we were on thin ice with our employers if we voiced opinions inimical to the interests of those who were paying our salaries.

But looked at from another perspective, there is great risk in a small minority brandishing such power as to strike fear in the hearts and minds of employers to the extent that they might dismiss someone who, from a position of conscience, attempts to answer a journalist's questions.  

From a practical standpoint, the gay community might be better served by ignoring predictable replies from sources known to have deep doctrinal differences with the gay lifestyle.  Our society is now so fragmented, that clamorous rejoinders seem the order of the day.  But for those who consider themselves to have had origins as a movement of individuals whose rights had been violated, the tendency to suppress others who differ bespeaks of bullying tactics. Why should intolerant thugs shut down a TV program over comments made concerning a topic that should be freely discussed? Could it be that the LGBT movement has become so strong that it has now assumed the power of an established orthodoxy?  Or, could we now be witnessing the emergence of a new form of  Mafia - a gay Mafia?

Deo Vindice!

God bless Texas and may the Lone Star State be forever red!

THE MYTHOLOGY OF HOPE AND CHANGE

With another year rapidly coming to a close, thoughts naturally turn to a review of developments of the past year having the potential to affect our Republic in significant ways.

Of all the occurrences of 2013, none was so sudden and with such immediate repercussions as President Barack Hussein Obama's rapid fall from public approval.

 It seems such a long time ago, but it was just early 2009, when a dynamic young president took office and enjoyed widespread support. Americans wished the new president well and hoped that he would be able to unite a country, which overwhelmingly favored racial solidarity and harmony.  Fast-forwarding to 2013, we find that such hope has been dashed, while change has gone in a direction inimical to the expectations of most Americans.

Those who now prevail in the Obama administration are an odd mix of leftists and individuals whose experience has tended to be in the realm of the theoretical rather than the practical.  The Obamaites excel  at communicating via drawing boards and ephemeral schemes, but few, if any, have ever had to meet hard and fast deadlines in the private sector. The consequence of this deficiency is the crowning failure of the Affordable Care Act which, if not repealed or significantly revised, will have negative results for years to come.

Those presidents who have succeeded admirably in the role of chief executive have been individuals noted for their ability to persuade. The presidency is not a royal institution from which one merely throws out commands in expectation that things will be accomplished and projects will be implemented.  Instead, the presidency demands hard bargaining skills, an ability to compromise and a strong aptitude for swaying diverse elements. None of this would appear to be in the skills-set brought to the office of the presidency by President Obama. And this should not be terribly surprising.  Such facility would not come naturally for one whose experience was limited to a few years as a community organizer and a short stint as a legislator.  The pitfall of such inexperience is a naive belief that the office is such that unlimited power awaits the one who occupies the oval office.

Seemingly, an awakening to the reality of the presidency has occurred for the president, but rather than own up to failure and engage in good faith efforts to remedy shortcomings, we are overwhelmed by excuses and rationalizations and are subject to diversions that invariably touch on race and equality.  To outrageously throw out such drivel to the media says more about the bigotry of sham presidential rhetoric than about the prejudices of a society.

For those who know something of the world, it is a sine qua non to affirm that the U.S. is the most equitable and least racist nation on earth.  Could it be imagined that the United Kingdom would ever be led by a Prime Minister of African origins with the most un-British surname name of Obama?  Could there ever be a French president whose parentage was in Algeria and was known as Ben-Bella?   With a large minority of Turks, could there ever be an Erdogan serving as a German chancellor?    A great big "NO" will suffice to answer these questions.  And with the answer being so evidently obvious, the lie is exposed of the bogus efforts to reform a supposedly racist and inegalitarian  America.  Sadly, many of us have been duped by a presidency that prefers the counterfeit to the genuine.

Lately, a "respected journalist"  of some 60 years of experience has admitted to expecting President Obama to be a "messiah."  Talk about astounding, that someone who has covered the ends and outs of Washington for 6 decades was expecting to turn up a messiah in a gaggle of politicians simply boggles the mind! Even individuals of limited intelligence know full well not expect to find a messiah in the District of Columbia, much less in the morass of Chicago politics.  But there you are, and here we are with a decided lack of political sophistication in 21st century America.

Trust is a commodity in short supply these days.  It is ordinarily assumed that trust is a condition that allows certain individuals to express the general will by acting in such a way as to benefit others.  It is something that we in America have expect of our presidents.  But, after 5 years in office, President Obama has forfeited the assumption of trust from his countrymen.  On multiple fronts, trust has been broken.  Besides Obamacare, a catalog of presidential trust-busters and prevarications must include Benghazi, the IRS, Fast and Furious and a disastrous Middle Eastern policy.  All in all, the legacy of this president is scandalous.

President Bill Clinton was certainly known for breaching trust through his scandalous sexual behavior.  However, that was a type of personal scandal, somewhat different from the Obama scandals which have directly and negatively affected Americans.  While Americans were able to forgive Clinton his many and varied personal scandals, it is likely that the Obama scandals will work against trust ever again being restored between Americans and the 44th president.  And this, rightly so, should be President Obama's legacy.

And, finally, back to hope and change.  To be sure, there has been much change, but negative change in terms of traditional American freedoms and liberties.  As for hope, hope may be seen in the strong possibility that now exists that Americans will, through their ballots in 2014, turn back the tide of left-wing failure and deceit.  If the House is purged of more Democrats and if the Senate is returned to sane leadership, those of us who believe that America is an exceptional nation that must be nurtured and preserved will be vindicated. It is time that we should begin resolving to accomplish this all-important task in the New Year.

Deo Vindice!

God bless Texas and may the Lone Star State remain forever red!

ISLAM AND 2013 ELECTIONS IN MALAYSIA

Elections this year in Malaysia have had a decided effect on the United Malays National Organization (UMNO), the ruling party in the Southeast Asian nation of 28 million.  Normally supportive of the UMNO, the defection of Malays of Chinese descent, who make up 25% of the population, and Muslim ethnic-Malays led to unanticipated losses.

PRIME MINISTER NAJIB RAZAK

Under political pressure, Prime Minister Najib Razak has taken a decidedly Islamic turn, hoping to win back solid support from ethnic Malays.  What had been considered a liberal-leaning government will now place emphasis on its Islamic base and will dispense with reforms that promised to make the country more open economically.  Now, however, more austere measures seem to be in store for Malays, as their government will devote more attention to diminishing the country's rising deficit.  Also expected is a government effort to amend the Malaysian constitution to make Sunni Islam the official religion of Malaysia.  Also reflective of religious tensions in Malaysia was a recent court ruling to the effect that only those affiliated with Islam may use the word "Allah," despite traditional use of the word by Malaysian Christians.

Internationally, Malaysia has been viewed as an example of "moderate Islam," and a Muslim nation which accorded a degree of toleration to the 35% of Malays not adhering  to the official religion, of which affiliation is mandatory for all ethnic Malays. The hard-line Muslim party, the Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party (PAS), has attained majority status in one of the Malaysian federated states, Kelantan, and bills itself as a force to be reckoned with in an Islamic push to make Shariah law and the Koran the official source for Malaysian law and governance.  Since the Malaysian constitution was originally based on British practices and presently only cases of a strictly religious nature are adjudicated in Shariah courts, any prospect of  the PAS gaining national power will naturally send chills down the spines of non-Muslims.

CYRISTAL MOSQUE

A question repeatedly asked in the Western world is:  Is it possible for Islam to govern moderately from the perspective of majority status?  Malaysia, seemingly, had enabled an answer in the positive to that question; however,  Malaysia will now undoubtedly occupy center stage for those concerned about the continuing resurgence of militant Islam.  Perhaps serving as a base for those in Malaysia wishing to support the rise of a totally Islamic state, the Shariah religious courts have carried on their deliberations with traditional Islamic views.  Men are entitled to 4 wives, and inheritance can be a thorny legal matter for Muslim women.  Furthermore, although the Malaysian constitution includes rights of freedom of assembly and expression, for all practical purposes these rights are under the thumb of police.

That the UMNO has been in power since 1957 and has not yet totally tilted toward extreme fundamentalist Islam may be taken as a challenge to Muslim hardliners. Will the UMNO's concessions to Islam forestall an Islamist takeover, with all of the usual attendant ills for non-Muslims?  Only time will tell if Malaysia will resist moving toward becoming a Southeast Asian version of Pakistan.

THE MEDIEVAL CHARACTER OF THE 21ST CENTURY AMERICAN POLITY

For several years, I taught an upper-division course in the history of the Middle Ages in a university setting. Early on, the course was fully enrolled, but as time passed and student interest began to focus on the making and acquisition of money, more and more students left the liberal arts for the College of Business.  My course in the Middle Ages, which had been taught in both the spring and fall semesters, was, consequently, taught only in the fall.

Lately, as I have continued to observe our present American politics of gridlock and the prevailing leadership style of self-absorption, it has occurred to me that interest in the Medieval era might stand a good chance of reviving; and, if I am correct, the paradigm of the Middle Ages might neatly fit into a template of our contemporary manner of what we euphemistically call "governance."

Of the social order of the Middle Ages, the ranks of top standing were filled by monarchs and those in the uppermost levels of the Church.  When Church and monarch were in accord, the symbiotic relationship that followed could bring with it mutual advantages in which great wealth could accrue to both sides.   By the 13th century, multiple echelons of the Church were dominated by descendants of the nobility who sought wealth and power, just as their progenitors in the aristocracy had devoted themselves to  gaining dominance in feudal politics and manorial economics.

By the late Middle Ages and with the growth of towns and cities, a new basis for the ordering of society was developing with the rise of the middle class, or, as the textbooks would express it, the bourgeoisie.  With the growth of the middle class came capitalism and emphasis on the individual and his right to strive for independence, freedom and dignity.  And, correspondingly, there came with middle class dominance the decline of the old orders of the Middle Ages. A good case may be made, in fact, that the apex of this development may be seen in the United States and in its unique and matchless Constitution.

If it is true that history is a cyclical process, the 21st century may be witnessing the historical process coming full circle. With the presidency becoming more imperial in its outward manifestations, the prerogatives of monarchy are becoming more apparent.  With a tendency to be selective in the enforcement of the law and a continuing trend toward governing by executive decree,  the presidency is now assuming powers that tend to be of both legislative and executive natures. Such power exercised by narcissistic personalities - and it is undeniable that unchallenged power relates well such personalities - invariably undercuts individual rights and liberties.

As power is concentrated and enlarged in Washington, so it is that those who presume to represent the people evolve into a self-perpetuating aristocracy.  This aristocracy, along with its retainers of lobbyists and influence peddlers, form a modern day feudal or manorial class that endures from one generation of family members to another.  Confirmation of this may be seen in how frequently the same surnames keep cropping up on the rolls of Congress.  For this sort of aristocracy, success is not to be determined by positive legislative output, but instead by continuation in power. The ranks of this aristocracy are rife with those whose wealth has grown astronomically during their years of "service" to the people. It is no accident that 21st century zip codes of the wealthiest venues in America are concentrated around the District of Columbia.  Yes, the elite political class knows very well how to live it on the upside.

As for a priestly caste, perhaps a parallel exists with the judicial branch, which, if properly "packed," guarantees sanction for the actions of the president.  Just as Roman despots sought to control the pontifex maximus and the divinations of his his college of pontiffs, much now hinges on the divinations of our robed pontiffs occupying the highest rungs of the judicial system.

If today's invective in Two for Texas does not alarm you, dear readers, please consider the present plight of the American middle class, whose dwindling numbers give all too apparent signs of an essential malady. Middle class values and the middle class work ethic made an exceptional nation, which now finds itself in the crosshairs of those who are determined that our country should no longer be a land of opportunity for those committed to hard work, family values and religious liberty.  Unfortunately, those who wish to usher us into the dustbin of history are open to any and all means to entrench themselves in power for generations to come.  For those of us who love America, we must resolve to meet the challenge of collectivism and mediocrity head on.  To do any less would dishonor the memories of previous generations whose precious legacy we must not waste. Failing in that, we shall merely make clear the road to F. Hayek's vision of serfdom. 

Deo Vindice!

God bless Texas, and may the Lone Star State remain forever red!

CAMERON COUNTY REPUBLICAN EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE HOSTS CECILIA ABBOTT

CECILIA ABBOTT

THE CAMERON COUNTY REPUBLICAN EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE WILL MEET TODAY  (DEC. 17) AT THE LAS  FUENTES ROOM AT THE VALLEY INTERNATIONAL COUNTRY CLUB IN BROWNSVILLE. CECILIA ABBOTT, WIFE OF OUR ESTEEMED TEXAS ATTORNEY GENERAL GREG ABBOTT, WILL BE THE FEATURED SPEAKER.  ALL ARE WELCOME AND ENCOURAGED TO ATTEND.

1OO THOUSAND CHRISTIANS MARTYRED EACH YEAR THROUGHOUT THE WORLD

In divine services this morning, congregants were reminded by our priest that Christianity is the most persecuted religion in all the world. Father Reese was absolutely correct in saying that most American Christians have no idea what price their brothers and sisters in foreign lands must pay every day of the year in witnessing for their faith.

Each Sunday, we automatically drive to church, not fearing that we will be met by police or thugs ready to bloody us or eager to send us to a martyr's death.  Certainly, we cannot conceive of regimes that would have prison cells or firing squads springing into action, simply because we practice our faith.

For most Christians in the world, our freedom to worship freely would be idyllic, yet we take it for granted.  Despite the growing tendency of our government and our pagan society to malign the Christian faith and to undermine our tradition of religious freedom, we are still free to gather with other Christians and to practice our faith as we see fit.

The ultimate act witnessing, of course, is that of bearing testimony in the face of suffering and death. According to the highly referenced work of Italian journalist Antonio Socci, in the 2 thousand years of history of the Christian faith, 70 million Christians have surrendered their lives rather than to become apostates to their faith.  Of that number, 45.5 million suffered martydom in the 20th century.  And, in the 21st century, the numbers give no indication of slacking off.

Hotspots for persecution in the 21st century include the Molucca Islands of Indonesia, Cuba, East Timor, Bangladesh, Saudi Arabia and a host of Muslim countries such as Pakistan.  Also included are India, Vietnam, Nigeria and China.  As for ideological and religious sources of persecution, Socci cites Communism and Islamic fundamentalism.


At this time of year, thoughts go back almost 3 decades to the six Christmases I spent in Saudi Arabia, each of which saw me worshiping secretly on Christmas eve with Christians of several nationalities.  Did we feel persecuted?  Yes, but the persecution was more of an inconvenience than it was a possibility of physical suffering hanging over our heads.  In most instances, foreign Christians caught practicing their faith in Saudi Arabia were expelled from the country.  In a few instances, Christians were lashed, but physical punishment was infrequent. However, Sharia law, which is the law code of the country, provided for the death penalty for any Muslim converting to another religion.  And such conversions were not unheard of.

Most of us - and this includes our government - are heedless to the suffering experienced by Christians daily throughout the world.  We are quick to apologize for an isolated instance of the burning of a Koran, but our government virtually ignores atrocities committed against Christians in Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Pakistan and Iran. At the same time, through our immigration laws, we admit thousands of immigrants into America who have no frame of reference as to the meaning of toleration and freedom of religion in a pluralistic society.  In many ways, it would seem that we are our own worst enemies.

As Christmas nears, let us pray for Christ's Holy Church, and let us in our prayers give especial attention to the plight of Christian martyrs in our 21st century world!

Deo Vindice!

God bless Texas, and may the Lone Star State remain forever red!

"OZYMANDIAS" (Annals of the West,Vol. 1, No. 4)

In a time of celebrity-obsession in which those who pose as leaders strut, preen and are distracted from the difficult task of governing over concern of their "legacies," the poet Percy Bysshe Shelley may have something to tell us in his work called Ozymandias.

Ozymandias is a secondary name for the Egyptian Pharaoh Ramses II.  Shelley's theme of decay and ruin in the sonnet may be seen as a warning to leaders who would seek to immortalize themselves through great works and monuments, whereby future generations would shout hosannas to their names.  To the contrary, however,  their fame is likely to be as lasting as that of Ozymandias, whose legacy in the present is merely a pile of stones, perhaps viewed by tourists who are not even conversant with his name.

In the United States, the concept of the "Imperial Presidency" threatens the very foundations of our Constitutional Republic.  If we seek to confer responsibility for this state of affairs, we need look no further than ourselves, for it is we who have allowed the Republic to fall into the hands of individuals whose extreme vanity means that they are out of their depth in presiding over and preserving an exceptional nation governed by the most enduring written constitution in the history of the world.  If our present course is not altered, the ruin and decay that awaits all things human may come sooner than later.

Deo Vindice!

God bless Texas, and may the Lone Star State remain forever red!

OBAMACARE REDUX: "WHY IS THE GOVERNMENT DOING THIS TO ME?"

With more and more Americans being negatively affected by the Byzantine provisions of ObamaCare, the plaintive cry of "Why is the government doing this to me?" is likely to be heard from more and more individuals who are experiencing pain and, sometimes, even the possibility of death.  But don't expect the mainstream media to devote much coverage to the ObamaCare horror stories that are daily becoming more numerous.  After all, the left-wing media invested as much effort as the left-wing political establishment in getting this monstrosity imposed on the American people.

Millions more of Americans are destined to lose their health insurance.  The number, which is already significant, will go higher  and higher in 2014.  The only rainbow on the horizon as a result of this travesty is the hope that the electorate will rise up in record numbers for an off-year election to take revenge on the leftists who enacted the worst piece of legislation to come out of Washington in my lifetime.

We are just now seeing the tip of the iceberg in terms of the economic consequences of ObamaCare.  The cost of health insurance is going up, up and up.  At the same time, skyrocketing deductibles will cinch the general impression that government-inspired health care is a terrible burden to be borne.  And it must also be admitted that ObamaCare is coming at the worst time economically, because the unpredictability of its effects will cause employers to move cautiously in adding full-time workers.

Lately, I have had to rely on the professionalism of three outstanding young physicians, none of whom was enthusiastic about prospects, given the vagaries of ObamaCare.  These young men, who have invested untold amounts of capital and time to be at the top of their game, no longer see themselves practicing for as long as they had imagined.  This, unfortunately, will be a trend that eventually will cause rationing of health care services.   It is undeniable that ObamaCare will serve as an impetus to severe doctor shortages, and all of us will suffer the consequences.

The failures of ObamaCare will likely generate billions of additional tax raises.  The scheme is not going to generate the funds originally budgeted, and the leftists will view the only solution to be boosting taxes.  And, with more capital leaving the private sector in the form of taxes, less will be available to create jobs and boost the economy.  And, as businesses get hit with more government taxes, guess who is going to pay?  The answer is more than obvious.  You and I will be paying in the form of increased prices  for consumer goods.  And this, dear readers, is what is called inflation.

To enforce ObamaCare, it is not just going to take the IRS.  Expect more government and more bureaucrats.  And with more bureaucracy, expect more onerous regulations and a maze of rules demanding more and more time to obtain coverage and access to any medical care at all.  I recall just three short years ago when so much ridicule was dished out to those who warned of "death panels," which would decide who received medical care and who didn't.  Wake up, America:  There are death panels in Ontario, and the friendly people who have brought you ObamaCare have included just the sort of verbiage in the act that will eventually sanction death panels.

Finally, are you concerned about our ever-growing deficit?  ObamaCare will likely add 7 trillions more of debt, to add on to the 17 trillion that already prevails.  Can you imagine what this will do to generations of yet-to-be-born Americans?  In all honesty, Sarah Palin was correct when she opined that our growing national debt will condemn future generations to a form of mass slavery.

Combined with all the lies that have surrounded this Frankenstein creation of a law, more disasters are in the making.  We cannot afford to let up in our opposition to ObamaCare.  The freedoms and liberties for which our forbears fought are now imperiled.  Vote in 2014 as never before.  The fate of our nation is hanging in the balance.  Just say no to ObamaCare and the socialist maelstrom from which it has been inflicted upon us,

Deo Vindice!

God bless Texas, and may the Lone Star State remain forever red!

REALLY, ARE THERE NO LONGER ANY STANDARDS OF BEHAVIOR?

OUR PRESIDENT HEEHAWS IT UP WITH PRIME MINISTERS OF
UK AND DENMARK AT MANDELA MEMORIAL SERVICE

Many of those who comment on what passes as "culture" in 21st century America perceive a land where there are no longer any standards to break.  In other words, virtually all of what were earlier thought to be society's standards have been violated; therefore, a culture without standards has become the new paradigm. And it has all become so monotonous and uninteresting.

WHAT'S THE BIG DIFFERENCE, PRAY TELL?

Jonah Goldberg, writing in National Review, suggests that the common culture in America, has no decency left to its name. And, in fact, if one wanted to truly be "counter-culture,"  in 21st century America it would mean adhering to the standards of conduct that applied perhaps 4 or 5 decades ago.

Looking for shock-value and hoping to gain name and fame, the Miley Cyruses of the world have virtually no new ground to break and nowhere to go, as Madonna, Janet, Gaga and the other grande-dames of vulgarity have already been there and done that.

Even what used to be sacrosanct is now subject to the tasteless and the shabby.  It is not unusual to view individuals entering church who appear as if they are dressing for an evening in a disco.  And, rather than flying the Christian flag, some parishes are now running up banners having to do with what are euphemistically called "civil rights," but more properly relate to matters of sexual preference.

If popular culture consists of all the ideas, images and attitudes that permeate society at any given time, then, dear readers, we are in a great deal of trouble.  One need only browse through the offerings of various cable channel providers to be convinced that the overwhelming mass of programming is of a tasteless and offensive manner.  

Formerly, dignity was to be expected of those who occupy the highest offices in the land; however, that would no longer seem to be the case.  Now, it is all about "me," and to be seen and to make an impression.  The flippancy of Hollywood has now invaded the corridors of power, and gravitas would appear to have gone with the wind.  And, with our current president's proclivity to pass as much time as possible with the denizens of tinsel-town, the dissolute celebrity life-style receives further endorsement to be aped by the millions who are captivated by popular culture.

OBAMA CUTS UP WITH DANISH BLONDE P.M. AT
MANDELA MEMORIAL, WHILE 1ST LADY LOOKS ON

That President Obama is a through and through narcissist is undeniable.  Nevertheless, it is to be hoped that the man could curtail himself on occasions of state.  Recently, at a memorial service honoring the late Nelson Mandela of South Africa, our president was caught taking a "selfie" photograph of himself, along with the prime ministers of Denmark and the U.K.  Prime Ministers Thorning-Schmidt and Cameron, along with President Obama, look like three buffoons out on a lark, not like representatives of three countries at the   funeral of an eminent personage.

From an historical perspective, the persona of Barack Hussein Obama may be seen as a metaphor for 21st century America.  In the guise of a public figure who is supposedly focused on the eradication of the evils of poverty and inequality, our president, in fact, is a creature of his age, self-centered, other-directed and totally fascinated with himself.  So fascinated, actually, that the resulting defect of character has led from one policy disaster to another  in his administration and has brought on a diminution of power and prestige of the greatest country in the world.  If one is so engrossed in oneself, how can proper attention be rendered to affairs of state?

Would that my fellow Americans will eventually recognize the image of Obama as a representation of too many of us, who are self-absorbed, self-indulgent and unable to grasp how the lack of standards and decency will severely affect the fates of future generations of Americans.  At this juncture of history, perhaps we should reflect on how far we have come from the stirring words of John F. Kennedy: "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country!"  If our American Republic is to survive and prosper, it is a matter of no little importance that decency and uprightness should be restored to both the social order and to the body politic.

Deo Vindice!

May God bless Texas, and may the Lone Star State remain forever red!

CONSERVATIVES, CHRISTIANS AND THE BRICK WALL OF ACADEMIC POLITICAL CORRECTNESS

FRANCOIS -MARIE AROUET  (VOLTAIRE)

Somehow, brought up with an appreciation of the guarantees of the U.S. Constitution, I had always thought of myself as a liberal.   I assumed that I was a liberal, as I was for freedom of expression, academic freedom, equality of opportunity, religious freedom and all those wonderful liberties enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

However, eventually reaching college age, I quickly found that professors professing to be liberal in their politics were those most likely not to be liberal in their classroom style.  Some deviated from announced course outlines to talk left-wing politics for a semester, while others even ventured as far as to fail students whose views diverged from their own.

Early on, I was exposed to the 18th century French philosophe Voltaire, whose  passionate words came to serve as an ideal for me, as I began to seriously consider the possibility of undertaking a career in higher education:

      Although I may disagree with what you have to say, I will fight for your right to say it!

      If one loathes another's idea, do not try to quash that idea, but challenge the idea in 

      open and civil discourse.

Consequently, I determined that I would never use a classroom as a bully pulpit and seek to indoctrinate rather than to stimulate thought and discussion.  Students enrolling in my courses were told that the professor did not care what they thought, as long as they made the effort to think and were able to logically support their various points of view.

Unfortunately for students of the present generation, their freedoms of expression are even more under fire than when I was an undergraduate.  And this is especially true for students who are of conservative and Christian persuasions.

ATTORNEY TRAVIS C. BARHAM

Recently, I  became aware of an organization devoted to defending religious liberty, as well as student & faculty rights to academic freedom and expression on American campuses, which more and more are under the mind-conforming and stultifying effects of the constantly metastasizing authoritarianism called "political correctness." Headquartered in Scottsdale, Arizona, the Alliance Defending Freedom and its lead counsel, Travis C. Barham, defend students and faculty who, because of their political or religious views, have experienced discrimination to the point of having their careers placed in jeopardy.  Attorney Barham's record of defending clients subject to academic harassment is an eye-opener to just how prevalent such abuse is in the ivy-covered halls of American higher education.

Julea Ward, who was a graduate student at Eastern Michigan University, is a prime example of those helped by Alliance Defending Freedom.  Because of her steadfastness in her Christian faith, Ms. Ward was expelled from a counseling program in 2009, owing to her reluctance to counsel a client involved in a type of sexual relationship inimical to her faith. Seeking to act professionally and in accord with standards of conduct for the counseling profession, Ms. Ward declined to take the case and asked that the concerned clinic assign the client to a counselor who would not have a conflict of conscience in taking the case.  

JULEA WARD

Unfortunately for Ms. Ward, the graduate program under which she was studying demanded that she undergo remediation to adjust her views on homosexuality to "societal norms."  Subsequently, in meeting with a faculty committee concerning Ms. Ward's attitude adjustment, her Christian faith was ridiculed and faculty members engaged in inappropriate discussion about Christian standards.  Shortly thereafter, Ms. Ward was dismissed from her graduate program.

After seeking assistance from Alliance Defending Freedom, legal action was commenced, which eventually overturned a district court ruling against Ms. Ward and resulted in a federal court returning the case for retrial.

PROFESSOR MIKE ADAMS

Michael Adams is a tenured associate professor of criminology at the University of North Carolina at Wilmington.  With a doctoral degree from Mississippi State University, Professor Adams is widely recognized as an authority in his field and has more refereed publications to his credit than most of the members of his department at the university in Wilmington.  In addition, he has garnered awards for his excellence in teaching, a quick perusal of student evaluations revealing the high regard in which he is held by students taking his courses.  Furthermore, he is the recipient of the university's highest award for service.

However, Professor Adams is also an avowed Christian and a political conservative.  In fact, in addition to his scholarly articles, Adams is a regular columnist of conservative opinion for Townhall.com., not an especially attractive blogspot for campus leftists.  Furthermore, his membership in the National Rifle Association did not endear him to "progressive" colleagues at UNCW.

Michael Adams' application for promotion to full professor status in 2006 began a struggle in which it was obvious that resentment for his personal views was impeding the promotion which he deserved.  After an initial setback in which a district court ruled that the First Amendment did not protect the freedom of expression contained in his conservative columns, Adams, with the assistance of Alliance Defending Freedom, prevailed upon the Fourth Judicial Circuit to rule in his favor, the court stating that there was overwhelming evidence that Adams had not been granted the promotion because of the conservative views contained in his political columns.  It therefore followed from this ruling that Professor Adams was deserving of a trial presented before a jury of his peers.

The foregoing examples are only too common these days and represent the "tip of the iceberg" of the sort of bias faced by conservatives and Christians in higher education.  In effect, the old definitions distinguishing liberals and conservatives have been turned upside down by the coarse push of leftists to purge traditional values from our social order.  In many ways, those whom we call conservatives are the liberals of the 21st century, for now it is they who stand for the freedoms and liberties that have made Americans and their exceptional country great.

Deo Vindice!

May God bless Texas, and may the Lone Star State remain forever red!

MERRY CHRISTMAS, EVERYBODY!

During the several years I lived in the Middle East, I grew to appreciate not only my Christian faith but also the freedom of religion that I knew in my native land.  As I was a foreigner and a Christian in a land that officially allowed no other religion but Islam, I secretly worshiped with other Christians, avoiding the surveillance of the authorities but making certain that we did not fail to observe the special days of our liturgical calendar.

Nevertheless and despite being a member of an officially banned faith, I did not fail to wish Muslim colleagues a Happy Ramadan or a Happy Eid al-Adha.  In fact, I relished opportunities to visit Muslim homes when Ramadan fasts were broken,  and when some of the most delicious food I had ever tasted was available. You may be sure that, if the occasion presented itself, I would still convey best wishes to Muslims, even though, I am very much aware of the sad history of persecution that characterizes the lives of religious minorities residing in many Muslim lands.

As for Jewish friends,  throughout my life they have never failed to wish me a Merry Christmas, or a Happy Easter; and I, in turn, have reciprocated with regard to their holidays, such as Hanukkah.  And, as one who considers himself an Abrahamic Christian, the Jewish holidays have a special place in my own personal faith outlook.

If I knew anyone who celebrated Kwanzaa, I would gladly wish them well.  Certainly, any feast day emphasizing faith, family and culture is well worth encouraging.

In 2012, approximately 74% of Americans identified themselves as Christians.  Quite naturally, then, there would be more identification with Christmas.  Fortunately for religious minorities in the U.S., Americans are the most religiously tolerant people in the world; and, having lived in foreign lands and traveled through much of the world, I feel very secure in making that statement.

As an American, I find it more than a little insulting that those of the politically correct elite in the U.S. have crusaded to expunge acknowledgement of religious holidays in common human discourse.  To say, for example, "Happy Holidays!" is such a bland, boring and weak cop-out from recognizing the importance of religion in people's lives.  But, as liberals and progressives seem to all have been cut from the same bolt of cloth, they do tend to be bland and boring people who have nothing better to do than to inflict their opinions on others.  By their use of "Happy Holidays!" they are rendering their ultimate insult to organized religion.  They are, in effect, informing people of faith that their most deeply held beliefs are as nothing and, as such, are not even worthy of mention.

As a Christian who values religious freedom in a time of increasing encroachment on that freedom, I say with all of my heartfelt conviction, "Merry Christmas!" And I will say it because, truly, Christmas is essential to my faith.  And, as an American, one of those strangely old-fashioned people who are religiously tolerant, I will say to others not of my faith that I wish them God speed in their observances!  If they would like to bid me "Happy Ramadan!" Happy Hanukkah!", or "Happy Kwanzaa!", I shall most happily accept that wish and respond with "Merry Christmas!"  

Deo Vindice!

God bless Texas, and may the Lone Star State remain forever red!