It Wasn't an Election, It was a Revolution, by Daniel Greenfield

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.

  This wasn’t an election. It was a revolution.

It’s midnight in America. The day before fifty million Americans got up and stood in front of the great iron wheel that had been grinding them down. They stood there even though the media told them it was useless. They took their stand even while all the chattering classes laughed and taunted them.

They were fathers who couldn’t feed their families anymore. They were mothers who couldn’t afford health care. They were workers whose jobs had been sold off to foreign countries. They were sons who didn’t see a future for themselves. They were daughters afraid of being murdered by the “unaccompanied minors” flooding into their towns. They took a deep breath and they stood.   They held up their hands and the great iron wheel stopped.

The Great Blue Wall crumbled. The impossible states fell one by one. Ohio. Wisconsin. Pennsylvania. Iowa. The white working class that had been overlooked and trampled on for so long got to its feet. It rose up against its oppressors and the rest of the nation, from coast to coast, rose up with it.

They fought back against their jobs being shipped overseas while their towns filled with migrants that got everything while they got nothing. They fought back against a system in which they could go to jail for a trifle while the elites could violate the law and still stroll through a presidential election. They fought back against being told that they had to watch what they say. They fought back against being held in contempt because they wanted to work for a living and take care of their families.

They fought and they won.

This wasn’t a vote. It was an uprising. Like the ordinary men chipping away at the Berlin Wall, they tore down an unnatural thing that had towered over them. And as they watched it fall, they marveled at how weak and fragile it had always been. And how much stronger they were than they had ever known.

Who were these people? They were leftovers and flyover country. They didn’t have bachelor degrees and had never set foot in a Starbucks. They were the white working class. They didn’t talk right or think right. They had the wrong ideas, the wrong clothes and the ridiculous idea that they still mattered.

They were wrong about everything. Illegal immigration? Everyone knew it was here to stay. Black Lives Matter? The new civil rights movement. Manufacturing? As dead as the dodo. Banning Muslims? What kind of bigot even thinks that way? Love wins. Marriage loses. The future belongs to the urban metrosexual and his dot com, not the guy who used to have a good job before it went to China or Mexico.

They couldn’t change anything. A thousand politicians and pundits had talked of getting them to adapt to the inevitable future. Instead they got in their pickup trucks and drove out to vote.   And they changed everything.

Barack Hussein Obama boasted that he had changed America. A billion regulations, a million immigrants, a hundred thousand lies and it was no longer your America. It was his.

He was JFK and FDR rolled into one. He told us that his version of history was right and inevitable.

And they voted and left him in the dust. They walked past him and they didn’t listen. He had come to campaign to where they still cling to their guns and their bibles. He came to plead for his legacy.   And America said, “No.”

Fifty millions Americans repudiated him. They repudiated the Obamas and the Clintons. They ignored the celebrities. They paid no attention to the media. They voted because they believed in the impossible. And their dedication made the impossible happen.

Americans were told that walls couldn’t be built and factories couldn’t be opened. That treaties couldn’t be unsigned and wars couldn’t be won. It was impossible to ban Muslim terrorists from coming to America or to deport the illegal aliens turning towns and cities into gangland territories.

It was all impossible. And fifty million Americans did the impossible. They turned the world upside down.

It’s midnight in America. CNN is weeping. MSNBC is wailing. ABC calls it a tantrum. NBC damns it. It wasn’t supposed to happen. The same machine that crushed the American people for two straight terms, the mass of government, corporations and non-profits that ran the country, was set to win.

Instead the people stood in front of the machine. They blocked it with their bodies. They went to vote even though the polls told them it was useless. They mailed in their absentee ballots even while Hillary Clinton was planning her fireworks victory celebration. They looked at the empty factories and barren farms. They drove through the early cold. They waited in line. They came home to their children to tell them that they had done their best for their future. They bet on America. And they won.    They won improbably. And they won amazingly.

They were tired of ObamaCare. They were tired of unemployment. They were tired of being lied to. They were tired of watching their sons come back in coffins to protect some Muslim country. They were tired of being called racists and homophobes. They were tired of seeing their America disappear.

And they stood up and fought back. This was their last hope. Their last chance to be heard.

Watch this video. See ten ways John Oliver destroyed Donald Trump. Here’s three ways Samantha Bee broke the internet by taunting Trump supporters. These three minutes of Stephen Colbert talking about how stupid Trump is on the internet. Watch Madonna curse out Trump supporters. Watch Katy Perry. Watch Miley Cyrus. Watch Robert Downey Jr. Watch Beyonce campaign with Hillary. Watch fifty million Americans take back their country.

The media had the election wrong all along. This wasn’t about personalities. It was about the impersonal. It was about fifty million people whose names no one except a server will ever know fighting back. It was about the homeless woman guarding Trump’s star. It was about the lost Democrats searching for someone to represent them in Ohio and Pennsylvania. It was about the union men who nodded along when the organizers told them how to vote, but who refused to sell out their futures.

No one will ever interview all those men and women. We will never see all their faces. But they are us and we are them. They came to the aid of a nation in peril. They did what real Americans have always done. They did the impossible.  America is a nation of impossibilities. We exist because our forefathers did not take no for an answer. Not from kings or tyrants. Not from the elites who told them that it couldn’t be done.

The day when we stop being able to pull off the impossible is the day that America will cease to exist.  Today is not that day. Today fifty million Americans did the impossible.

Midnight has passed. A new day has come. And everything is about to change.

  “Tolerance is the last virtue of a dying society.”   Aristotle

Coerced Oaths vs. Coerced Silence, by Whitney Galbraith

In his essay on House Bill 1425, which would compel all military oaths of allegiance to include "... So help me God," Barry Fagin laments (Gazette, April 23) that it would force military personnel "who cannot say those words in good conscience must either disobey, lie, or be drummed out of the armed forces as unfit for military service."

"Imaginary threat to religious freedom?" "Higher standards within the professional of arms?" "Freedom of conscience" for military members? The "horror of suffering, carnage and death " of co-mingling religious ends such as the "Crusades....and to ISIS?" I like to think, Barry, that you and I have read many of the same "history books that should not be ignored." But just what are those lessons?

You are no doubt correct that such legislation will not pass constitutional muster and that many of your fellow Americans will share your vision that the American military should not become an "Army of God."

But, is it fair for us to ask what motivates such a legislative initiative, even if "misbegotten." Could it be that HR 1425's sponsors share your vision of freedom of conscience and religious expression and fear for our liberties precisely as you do? Are they reacting just as you are reacting to perceived injustices?

Take, for instance, Navy Chaplain Lt. Commander Wes Modder, who was arbitrarily "fired" and physically removed from U.S. Naval Weapons Station, South Carolina, for daring to uphold his Christian beliefs regarding marriage and human sexuality.

Or, the campaign by the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute, whose mission is to give a “world-class human relations education” to convince military personnel that "The Bible, the Constitution and the Declaration Of Independence, All Perpetuate Sexism" and should not be referred to within the ranks.

Or, the Houston National Cemetery preventing Christian prayers from being said at military funerals and where the honor guard from the Veterans of Foreign Wars was prohibited from referring to "God."

Or, the Chief of Staff of the U. S. Air Force issuing a service-wide memorandum "Maintaining Government Neutrality Regarding Religion" forbidding commanders to "openly support" chaplain-run events which might lead to a "unit's morale, good order and discipline."

Or, when Walter Reed Medical Center attempted to physically ban the presence of Bibles as part of its official patient and visitor policy.

Or, when deployed soldiers in Afghanistan were ordered to remove crosses and cross-shaped windows on chapels while being ordered to keep chapel "religiously neutral (!)"

Or, when Army Master Sergeant Nathan Sommers, a U. S. Army Band member at Fort Myer, FL, was ordered to stop reading books by Mark Levin, Sean Hannity and David Limbaugh "while in uniform" and to refrain from serving Chick-Fil-A at his home promotion party.

Or, when an Army Chaplain's assistant in Colorado Springs was forced to remove from her personal Facebook account her "hostile and antagonistic" opinions regarding homosexual behavior and "holding to orthodox Biblical instruction."

Or, when Senior Master Sergeant Phillip Monk was relieved of his duties at Lackland AFB and denied further access to base facilities, and subjected to punishment under the Uniform Code of Military Justice for refusing to endorse same-sex marriage when ordered to by his commander, a self-proclaimed "lesbian."

Or, when a Catholic chaplain at the U. S. Naval Submarine Base at Kings Bay, Georgia, was threatened by the Department of Defense with arrest for celebrating Holy Mass on the base.

Or, when soldiers attending a counter-intelligence pre-deployment briefing at Fort Hood were told by the command that soldiers who contributed to Christian or Tea Party organizations were "tearing the country apart" and that the soldiers would be subjected to disciplinary procedures under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Or, when two chaplains were subjected to "months of abuse and ridicule" by the director of the San Diego VA-DOD Clinical Pastoral Education Center for their Biblical beliefs, forcing the two to withdraw from the facility.

Or, the DEOMI forcing the 158th Infantry Brigade at Camp Shelby, MS, to stop using the word "Christmas" to promote a Christmas football tournament.

Or, the Charlie Norwood VA Medical Center in Augusta, GA, refusing a student choral group permission to sing Christmas carols to veterans.

Or, the VA Medical Center in Dallas rejecting Christmas cards for veterans because of "unacceptable" language of "Merry Christmas" and God Bless you."

Or, a cadet at USAFA forced to remove a quote from Galateans 2:20 from his personal white board because it violated the Academy's "leadership" standards.

All of which, Barry, is but a sampling of the episodes that for many Americans represents a strategic frontal assault by the Department of Defense and unhappily the Services themselves, a campaign orchestrated by the Barack Obama administration whose command five years ago to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell is reaping its bitter fruit. You refer to ISIS metaphorically to describe what excessive religion can lead to. Allow me to walk that line with you for a moment. Do we dare to imagine a shortening of the gap between what is happening to Christians in the Muslim world and what we are seeing happening to Christians in our own country, in an attempt to redesign society itself by placing people of faith defined by their time-honored convictions in a ghetto from which they can never return - at least alive?

Tell us, Barry, as a seasoned political scientist with your understandable reaction to coerced oaths, where, in as pure a cause-and-effect paradigm as either of us can imagine, we should place your vocabulary of "threats," "good conscience," "higher standards," "horror of suffering," and "drumming out of the service." Should all the above service members enjoy the same "optional" speech, as is "....So help me God?"
Let's talk!

Whitney Galbraith
Colorado Springs

God Will Provide ---- Unless the Government Gets There First

During my ten years serving in the Colorado State Legislature, first as a State Representative and then as a State Senator, I was constantly faced with bills that directly usurped the traditional role of the church by providing functions that the religious community had done for two thousand years, and families before that.  

Several years ago, a friend of mine sent me this article, by W. Bradford Wilcox which highlights this continuing and troubling trend.  While I realize we will never get back to these past era, our awareness of the continual usurpation of church functions by government should be ever on our minds. -- Sen. Dave Schultheis

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123690880933515111.html

Secularism seems to be on the march in America. This week, a new study from the Program on Public Values at Trinity College found that the number of Americans claiming no religion now stands at 15%, up from 8% in 1990 and 2% in 1962.

The secular tide appears to be running strongest among young Americans. Religious attendance among those 21 to 45 years old is at its lowest level in decades, according to Princeton sociologist Robert Wuthnow. Only 25% of young adults now attend services regularly, compared with about one-third in the early 1970s.

The most powerful force driving religious participation down is the nation's recent retreat from marriage, Mr. Wuthnow notes. Nothing brings women and especially men into the pews like marriage and parenthood, as they seek out the religious, moral and social support provided by a congregation upon starting a family of their own. But because growing numbers of young adults are now postponing or avoiding marriage and childbearing, they are also much less likely to end up in church on any given Sunday. Mr. Wuthnow estimates that America's houses of worship would have about six million more regularly attending young adults if today's young men and women started families at the rate they did three decades ago.

Now, President Barack Obama seems poised to give secularism in America another boost, however inadvertently. This may come as a surprise to some, given Mr. Obama's outreach to religious voters last fall, his strong showing among them in the election and his eagerness to cultivate the faithful since. The White House has even been opening many of Mr. Obama's public appearances with a prayer, sometimes surpassing presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton in displays of public piety.

Nevertheless, the president's audacious plans for the expansion of the government -- from the stimulus to health-care reform to a larger role in education -- are likely to spell trouble for the vitality of American religion. His $3.6 trillion budget for fiscal 2010 would bring federal, state and local spending to about 40% of the gross domestic product -- within hailing distance of Europe, where state spending runs about 46% of GDP. The European experience suggests that the growth of the welfare state goes hand in hand with declines in personal religiosity.

A recent study of 33 countries by Anthony Gill and Erik Lundsgaarde found an inverse relationship between religious observance and welfare spending. Countries with larger welfare states, such as Sweden, Norway and Denmark, had markedly lower levels of religious attendance, affiliation and trust in God than countries with a history of limited government, such as the U.S., the Philippines and Brazil. Public spending amounts to more than one half of the GDP in Sweden, where only 4% of the population regularly attends church. By contrast, public spending amounts to 18% of the Philippines' GDP, and 68% of Filipinos regularly attend church.

"For many centuries, average citizens and local communities have often relied upon the support of religious organizations to meet their various social needs, including assistance for the poor, counseling in times of crisis and education for the young," explains Mr. Gill, a political scientist at the University of Washington. "But as the welfare state has expanded, many people have found that they can get these same services from the government without having to give a time commitment to the local church."

Other research indicates that religious giving also falls when the welfare state increases its spending. MIT economist Jonathan Gruber and Notre Dame economist Daniel Hungerman found that charitable spending by churches declined 30% in the wake of the New Deal and that nearly all of the decrease can be accounted for by increases in public spending in the 1930s. They conclude that "government spending does crowd out private charity, at least through churches."

A successful Obama revolution providing cradle-to-career education and cradle-to-grave health care would reduce the odds that Americans would turn to their local religious congregations and fellow believers for economic, social, emotional and spiritual aid. Fewer Americans would also be likely to feel obliged to help their fellow citizens through local churches and charities.

This is not to say that the health of the American religious sector depends only on some level of economic or social dislocation to attract people to congregations. Many Americans are religious for reasons that have nothing to do with the mutual aid found in churches and charities, such as the desire to be in a personal relationship with God or to keep faith with important family traditions. But the reasons for going to church are not so easily separated. And many of those who initially turn to religious organizations for mutual aid end up developing a faith that is as supernatural as it is material. But first they need to enter the door.

Mr. Wilcox is a professor of sociology at the University of Virginia.

What Inspired Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s Passion to Risk His Life for the Civil Rights Movement?

During my prior eight years as a Colorado Legislator (6 as a State Representative and 2 as a State Senator) I was exposed to the annual Legislative celebration of Martin Luther King's birthday.  Each year, I saw the Republicans remain mostly silent as the Democrats made political "hay" over this great man, while they seemingly using it to draw recognition to themselves as aligning their Party to MLK and to the Civil Rights Movement.  Never once was there reference to what drove this great man to stand so firm against injustice.

Not unlike other great men and women in history such as William Wilberforce and others, something inspired MLK to put his life on the line for his beliefs.  What was that "something?"  It seemed to e that what actually gave this great man so much courage should be the main focus of any celebration, because without it there may never have been such a profound change in the civil rights movement. .  Many of us have goals we would like to fulfill, but most of those goals are not pursued because of the fear of retribution, fear of criticism, and other forms of resistance;  understanding MLK's source of drivenness may also inspire us.

So...inspired by that thought, I decided to prepare the following remarks for four Senators to be first delivered on the Colorado Senate floor, January 15th, 2009.

Senator Schultheis' remarks:

Legislators...Watch those Bills

Vigilance Needed from Legislators to Protect Liberty

During my decade as a Colorado legislator, it became evident that most legislators fail to use a limited-government filter when drafting legislation.  To further our freedoms, individual liberties must be considered first and foremost when evaluating legislation.  Much legislation is simply created as a response to current events of the day with little or no regard to long-range consequences.  The result, most often is a growth in the power and control of the bureaucracy over the individual. While legislation is generally proposed with good intentions, it is too-often crafted at the expense of the personal liberty of the citizens represented.

Observing this trend, caused me to develop a heightened sensitivity to the erosion of personal liberty, which in turn led me to adopt the philosophy of voting NO on bills that could not be proven to advance liberty or prevent its erosion in some way.  To create a degree of voting consistency based on limited government, I developed a set of filters which I used when analyzing each piece of legislation.  Some will say the list is too long; I submit, however that its very length indicates the many ways our personal liberties can be usurped. 

 Although this list was initially crafted as a guide for Colorado's state legislators, many of the questions would equally apply to  City Council members and County Commissioners as they too pass regulations, resolutions and the like that affect the individual liberties of the citizens they represent.

The following is a list of "filters" that if considered by politicians would hopefully reduce the frequent erosion of our personal liberties.

A “YES” to ANY of the following questions should  trigger a “NO” vote from conservative legislators.

        

• Does the bill limit personal liberty/freedom, personal responsibility or free enterprise?
• Does the bill exert greater government influence over our personal lives or that of the business community?
• Does the bill allow the government to meddle in free enterprise?
• Does the bill increase taxes, fees, or regulation costs on individuals or businesses?
• Could the bill eventually lead to an increase in taxes/fees or violate the spirit or intent of the Taxpayers Bill of Rights? 
• Does the bill erode an individual's property rights in any form?
• Does the bill redistribute wealth?
• Does the bill promote equality rather than equal opportunity?
• Does the bill concern itself with groups rather than individual citizens?
• Does the bill infringe on the rule-of-law?
• Does the bill in any way promote illegal immigration? 
• Does the bill fall outside the purview of the U.S. or state constitution?
• Does the bill negatively impact the traditional family?
• Does the bill lessen the authority of the parents over their children?
• Does the bill negatively impact the faith community or an individual’s right of conscience?
• Does the bill usurp the historical role of the religious community
• Does the bill run counter to traditional moral values?
• Does the bill negatively affect the sanctity of life?
• Does the bill further entangle the state with the Federal government? (or receive Federal funds)? see WSJ Article:
  http://www.wsj.com/articles/james-l-buckley-how-congress-bribes-states-to-give-up-power-1419541292
• Does bill increase the state’s budget over that of the previous year?
• Does the bill allow for funding through gifts, grants and donations?(i.e.by special-interest groups) 
• Does the bill increase a citizen’s dependency on government services?
• Does the bill allow increased government influence on K-12-aged children (i.e. Pre-Kindergarten, Full-day Kindergarten, or daycare?) 
• Does the bill require one or more government agencies to collect personal or business data?
• Does the bill reduce transparency of government operations?
• Does the bill diminish local control?
• Does the bill reduce a person's right to self-defense?
• Does the bill decrease the integrity of the voting system in any manner?
• Does the bill refer to "comprehensive" changes? 
• Does the bill transfer money from a specific-use cash-fund account for a non-related use?
• Does the bill’s passage seem to be advocated by organized “stakeholder” groups (stakeholder groups almost always require taxpayer dollars to further their future income under the guise of "helping" others.)