James L. Paris's Blog, page 134

Glenn Beck: I���m with Her?

As the most bizarre presidential campaign any of us can remember marches on, the fallout from the so-called ���Trump tapes��� appears to have made strange bedfellows of Hillary Clinton and another high-profile Republican. What is so bizarre about this particular fellow, one-time ���firebrand��� conservative media personality Glenn Beck, is that there was a time one might have thought him to be in the camp of ���Anybody BUT Hillary.���

Now, it seems, Beck is proclaiming, ���I���m with her,��� in a fashion.

On Saturday, when the Trump audio was still very fresh, Beck went to Facebook to somberly write, ���It is not acceptable to ask a moral, dignified man to cast his vote to help elect an immoral man who is absent decency or dignity. If the consequence of standing against Trump and for principles is indeed the election of Hillary Clinton, so be it. At least it is a moral, ethical choice.���

To be clear, it does not appear that he is saying an overt vote for Hillary Clinton is a ���moral, ethical choice,��� but that the decision to refrain from casting a vote for Trump, which may, in turn, lead to Hillary���s election as President of the United States, is such a choice.

That said, it does seem as though Beck is awfully comfortable with the idea that Hillary Clinton could be the next occupant of the Oval Office. While Beck may not go out and explicitly cast his vote for her, abstaining from voting entirely, while simultaneously believing that such an abstention would lead to her election, is tantamount to voting for her.

Who knows? Next, maybe Beck will endorse Hillary outright.

By Robert G. Yetman, Jr. Editor At Large

 

In Wake of Already-Infamous Audio, Evangelical Leaders Standing by Trump

By now, no one among us is unaware of the so-called ���Trump tapes,��� and, in the wake of the release of the wild audio, many who claimed to support Trump before his self-described ���locker room talk��� came to light have since declared that they can support him no more. Several high-profile Republican politicians have announced that that they will not be casting their ballots for Trump in November, with some saying they will write in the name of another Republican politician.

Still, in what may be, at first glance, a surprise to a lot of folks, Trump���s support among evangelicals remains strong. According to the website Western Journalism, several conservative, religious figures of the first order have gone on the record to say that despite Trump���s salacious words, they will continue to pull for him this election season.

One of those religious conservatives who reaffirmed his support for Trump is the well-known Ralph Reed, Faith and Freedom Coalition chairman and a member of the Republican nominee���s religious advisory board. Said Reed, ���I���ve listened to the tape, my view is that people of faith are voting on issues like who will protect unborn life, defend religious freedom, create jobs, and oppose the Iran nuclear deal.���

���I think a 10-year-old tape of a private conversation with a TV talk show host ranks pretty low on their hierarchy of concerns.���

For his part, Tony Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council, also said that Trump was still his man. As did Reed, Perkins justified his continued support for Trump on a ���big picture��� basis, essentially saying that while it���s probably no secret that the two men are not in lockstep when it comes to personal values, the willingness of Trump to politically act, on behalf of several issues, in a way that is agreeable to Christian conservatives, means that he is still the man of the hour when it comes to a presidential choice:

���My personal support for Donald Trump has never been based upon shared values, it is based upon shared concerns about issues such as justices on the Supreme Court that ignore the constitution, America���s continued vulnerability to Islamic terrorists and the systematic attack on religious liberty that we���ve seen in the last 7-1/2 years.���

By Robert G. Yetman, Jr. Editor At Large

 

Muhammad Ali���s Family Battling It Out over Boxing Legend���s Estate

Turns out that even when you have a pretty good estate plan, trouble can arise after the event of your passing.

The $50 million estate of the person many believe to be the greatest boxer who ever lived, Muhammad Ali, is the subject of a bitter dispute among members of his family, according to the Daily Mail Online.

One of the primary points of contention concerns Ali���s 73-year-old brother, Rahman Ali, who, it is said, has been excluded from the champ���s will entirely.

According to Ali���s son, Muhammad Ali Jr., Uncle Rahman���s ���banishment��� from the estate is related to a long-running feud with his sister-in-law, Muhammad Ali���s wife, Lonnie. Lonnie and Ali, both from Louisville, Ky., knew each other since 1964, and she served as his nurse in the years leading up to their marriage in 1986.

Rahman Ali was reportedly suspicious of the relationship between Lonnie and Muhammad, although details about those suspicions are limited to speculation that Rahman thought Lonnie���s real motives behind her apparent devotion to the champ were to try to position herself to capitalize on the boxer���s estate as best as possible.

Separately, Ali Jr. says that he and his seven sisters are having it out with Asaad Ali, who was adopted by Muhammad and Lonnie Ali back in 1986. There are no substantive details as to the source of the troubles between Assad Ali and his siblings.

Notably, the legal firm handling the estate is saying that the trust in which all of Ali���s assets are contained has been in place for over ten years, and that Lonnie is merely supposed to administer the estate as it has been written.

The lesson here is not, obviously, to forgo having a solid estate plan in place. In fact, there���s probably no ���lesson��� here at all ��� some things just happen, despite the best of plans; people are unpredictable, and it is really as simple as that. That said, to the extent you can do so, if it is possible to coordinate understanding about your estate wishes among the likely heirs before you die, then so much the better. Granted, given Ali���s diminished physical capacity in his later years, doing so may have been difficult for him, but, to the extent that you can make certain those who will remain after your death know what to expect when it comes to the disposition of your assets, it���s a wise thing to do.

By Robert G. Yetman, Jr. Editor At Large

 

NFL: Combination of Factors to Blame for Decline in Ratings This Season

As you may have heard, TV ratings for National Football League games this season are down���and are down far enough that the NFL has sent a memo to team owners in an effort to relieve any concerns that there might be real significance to the drop.

As reported in Nasdaq.com, audience numbers for NFL games have fallen 11 percent through the first four weeks of the regular season, and, in the age 18-49 demographic so prized by advertisers, ratings are down 12 percent.

The memo sent by league executives to owners was dismissive of the idea that anything of substance was at play in the loss of viewers during the first part of this season, saying, in part, ���While our partners, like us, would have liked to see higher ratings, they remain confident in the NFL and unconcerned about a long-term issue.��� The memo went on to declare that football ���continues to be far and away the most powerful programming on television and the best place for brands and advertisers.���

League honchos have cited a variety of factors as being responsible for the lower numbers, including ���unprecedented interest in the presidential election.��� A lack of star players, due to injury and retirement, appearing on the field this year has also been blamed by the league for the lower interest among viewers.

As for the influence of the high-profile player protests that have typically occurred during the playing of the national anthem before games, the league largely cast the significance of that aside, saying in its memo that ���our own data shows that the perception of the NFL and its players is actually up in 2016.���

Obviously, ratings are down, and in this politically-correct world, it would be unfashionable to say that social justice protests by players are the reason for the drop, but the league���s exampled reasons don���t pass the smell test. While it may be the case that there is greater interest in the presidential election this year, it just seems unlikely that cable news channels are pulling viewers from games, and as far as a lack of star players goes, I can tell you that Patriots fans���and I���m speaking as one here���had a great deal of interest in seeing how their team would fare while star quarterback Tom Brady was serving his four-game suspension in association with so-called ���Deflategate.���

I���m not going to say that the folks at the NFL are entirely wrong about their idea that other factors may be partly to blame for the backslide in TV viewership, but it just doesn���t seem reasonable, given the decibel level of the public outcry over the anthem protests, as well as the dearth of any real evidence supporting the league���s other, conjectured reasons for the drop, that the role of said protests in hurting ratings this season is anything less than compelling.

 By Robert G. Yetman, Jr. Editor At Large

Can We Just Admit the Outrage over Trump���s Dirty Talk is Largely Disingenuous?

Sorry, but the supposed outrage over the so-called ���Trump tapes��� is mostly disingenuous.

I���m not talking about what a nice, church-going, middle-America family might think after hearing what Donald had to say. If they say they are genuinely appalled, I would tend to take them at face value.

It���s these other people, these politicians, from both parties, who are claiming outrage.

They might be claiming it���but what they���re really doing is feigning it.

Arnold Schwarzenegger says he can no longer support Trump because of what he said. Uh-huh. This from a notorious womanizer who, while still married to wife Maria, had a child with the maid.

John McCain is pulling his ���support,��� as well. I put ���support��� in quote marks here to emphasize the fact that McCain never really supported Trump in the first place.

The outraged McCain? He is well known for having called his own wife by what is generally considered the worst of all words that can be used to identify a female, ���c---,��� while he was out on the (senate) campaign trail with her in 1992.

Yes, how could a man who obviously has such respect for women ever see clear to supporting Donald Trump in the wake of this audio revelation?

As for Democrats, anyone on that side of the political line has zero credibility when it comes to objecting to what Trump said, if for no other reason than because of their historically enthusiastic embrace of sexual predator Bill Clinton, as well as, of course, his personal enabler in skating on his misdeeds, his wife.

For his part, Vice President Joe Biden���s reaction would be downright funny if it wasn���t so abominably hypocritical, considering his own notorious behavior has earned him the moniker ���Groper-in-Chief.��� Google ���Biden, groper-in-chief��� or ���Biden, sexual predator��� if you aren���t sure to what it is I���m referring.

No, I don���t support or approve of what Trump said, but being OK or not OK with his words is not the issue, as much as it is the hypocrisy of many of those who have been publicly reacting to those words.

To those people, I say, ���Stop. Just stop. You���re completely embarrassing yourselves, and doing so at least every bit as much as Donald Trump has embarrassed himself.���

By Robert G. Yetman, Jr. Editor At Large

 

Clinton Campaign Pounded for Trying to Take Advantage of Weather Channel���s Hurricane Audience

No major outrage here, but this is worth a small note.

So those Democrats who are so concerned about people���s feelings, insensitivity, etc���what do you suppose their standard-bearer tried to do last week in her effort to reach the White House? She sought to capitalize on others��� misery airing campaign ads on The Weather Channel at precisely the time that viewership would be up because of the ongoing run of Hurricane Matthew up the East Coast of the United States.

As quoted over at The Washington Times, Clinton spokesman Jesse Ferguson made it seem like the decision to air, and then delay, the ads was the plan all along:

���Earlier in the week we made changes to our TV ad reservations across hundreds of stations in several battleground states including Florida. Less than 1 percent of those changes included The Weather Channel. We have requested that stations in Florida delay any of those ads on The Weather Channel until after the storm passes.���

Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus wasn���t having any of it, though, tweeting ���Pulling these ads after getting caught won���t cut it. @HillaryClinton should apologize for using the storm for votes.���

Look, in a vacuum, I don���t think this stuff is a big deal, and I actually think Hillary���s strategy was a smart campaign move. The issue is that the Dems are the ones who are always pointing fingers at Republicans for their perceived insensitivity���and yet, whenever there is political gain to be had, Democrats can be just as, if not more, vile than their GOP counterparts. Think of this as Exhibit A.

By Robert G. Yetman, Jr. Editor At Large

Actress Salma Hayek Tells Hispanics to Vote Hillary for the Sake of ���Undocumented Immigrants���

Hollywood big-shot Salma Hayek thinks Hispanic voters should cast ballots for Hillary this November in order to provide a voice to the voiceless.

In this case, the voiceless to whom she���s referring are illegal immigrants.

You know���the people who aren���t supposed to be here, anyway.

Ms. Hayek cut a Spanish language pro-Hillary campaign ad recently in which she said, in part, that ���those of us who can vote owe it to the undocumented immigrants who don���t have a voice.���

Illegal immigrants are owed a voice in the affairs of the country into which they���ve smuggled themselves?

Also notable was the tone adopted by Ethan Sacks of the New York Daily News in writing about the Hayek video, as well as the understandable outcry from conservatives.

Detailing some of their reactions on Twitter, Sacks referred to them derisively as ���red-staters seeing redder��� and ���fuming right-wingers.���

Apparently, Mr. Sacks does not think that having illegals in the country is anything about which to be concerned, and thus thinks it is silly that anyone should take a stand against a Hollywood Latina messaging American Hispanics in Spanish to vote in a way that provides solidarity to illegal aliens.

Sacks mentioned that Trump���s ���rhetoric on immigration��� has served to ���alienate many in the Latin community,��� but when you cut through the lamestream media-generated noise, the Republican presidential nominee���s rhetoric is simply this: illegal immigration to this country should be curtailed, and people who have come here illegally should not be rewarded for having done so.

Why would any nation-state���that still sees itself as a nation-state for at least the foreseeable future���have any problem with such a posture?

That any do, or that any of the citizens of this country do���says far more about them than it does about the rest of us.

By Robert G. Yetman, Jr. Editor At Large

 

Theologian Asks: Can a Conscientious Christian Vote for Trump?

Christians, particularly conservative Christians, have a tough road this general election season. For them, the Democratic nominee for president is not a viable option, and as long as the Democrats remain such enthusiastic cheerleaders for abortion, same-sex marriage, and assume other moral stances that Christians find odious, there really won���t be a supportable candidate in that party for the foreseeable future.

That should not be a big deal, normally, but this has been anything but a normal election season this time around. Typically, the Republican nominee for president maintains a conservative bearing, if not a reliably conservative political outlook, and represents a party that espouses ideas and values much more in line with those of Christians. Accordingly, that party is usually able to provide a nominee that, while hardly ideal, is reasonable enough.

The Republican nominee this time around, however, presents a bit of a challenge to many Christians. I don���t think many would disagree that Donald Trump has often exhibited behaviors, at a variety of levels, that would not pass muster when evaluated on the basis of the ���What would Jesus do?��� test. Beyond that, political positions that he has historically held are hardly in lockstep with those assumed by tried and true Christians.

On that note, in an op-ed piece for the Christian Post, theologian E. Calvin Beisner, Ph.D., talks himself���and us���through the possible embrace of a Trump candidacy.

I���ll not repeat all of what is contained therein, and you would be doing yourself a great service to read the article, because it is very good.

In nutshell, Beisner reminds us that Christians now live in a largely secular nation, and that while it may be possible to maintain a fairly strict adherence to Christian values in our own lives, the moment we have to interact and otherwise ���deal��� in the world outside of our own personal spaces, it becomes infinitely more difficult to do so while remaining fully oriented on the Word. This includes the matter of electing leaders for the country. If there is no viable candidate in the mix who is reflective of at least predominantly Christian values, ideology, and temperament, then we have no choice but to select the person we see as the better candidate from the available options. On that point, Beisner writes, in part:

���To put it starkly, if I were in a situation in which I faced a choice between stopping a man with a machine gun from mowing down a hundred innocent victims and stopping a man with a handgun from shooting ten, and I couldn't do both, I'd choose to stop the man with the machine gun. That choice would have a trade-off ��� allowing the man with the handgun to shoot the ten. It would also have the effect of having saved a net ninety lives.

���That's what the choice of the lesser of two evils means. So long as neither Jesus (the maximally good) nor Satan (the maximally evil) is on the ballot, the lesser of two evils exactly equals the greater of two goods, and in this fallen world that choice is inevitable.���

This excerpt does not do the piece justice ��� as I said, I think the article is excellent, and should be read in its entirety. However, it does provide a small glimpse into decision-making process in which folks like Dr. Beisner are engaging this time around. The bottom line is that while a ���lesser of two evils��� basis on which to select a leader seems like a raw deal, as long as we have every intention of waking up and moving forward as U.S. citizens on November 9 and beyond, then we have to steel ourselves to that outlook when each of us shows up at the polling station to cast a ballot on November 8.

Pragmatically speaking, what else can we do?

By Robert G. Yetman, Jr. Editor At Large

Chicago Cop, Fearing Public Backlash, Takes Beating Rather Than Pull Her Gun

An unidentified Chicago police officer who took a beating at the hands of a suspect cops allege was loaded up on drugs and behaving violently���is saying that she declined to use her service weapon out of deference to the public outcry that would have ensued had she done so.

This past Wednesday morning, police were responding to an automobile accident on Chicago���s West Side when they came upon the suspect. The resulting altercation did not end well for the officers on site, three of whom had to be hospitalized afterward. The Superintendent of the Chicago Police Department, Eddie Johnson, was reportedly told by the one officer who suffered a terrible beating that while she was in fear for her life during the incident, she could not bring herself to pull her weapon in light of the current climate regarding police-involved shootings.

In the words of Supt. Johnson, ���She thought she was going to die. She knew that she should shoot this guy, but she chose not to, because she didn't want her family or the department to have to go through the scrutiny the next day on national news.���

Observers have speculated that we would begin to read more frequently about this kind of situation coming to pass. The sad fact is that given how cops��� lives are now so frequently ruined in the wake of a shooting event that occurs on the job, we will most certainly see more incidents like this until such time that the broad narrative about police shootings is reoriented on at least a modicum of common sense.

By Robert G. Yetman, Jr. Editor At Large

 

Tim Kaine: Another Un-Catholic Catholic Politician

Over at Religion & Politics, author Megan Sweas adopts a middle-of-the-road tone in her piece about Democratic vice presidential nominee Tim Kaine and his ���conflicted Catholicism.��� The basic theme of the article is that Tim Kaine is a devout Catholic who struggles with elements of devout Catholicism. The idea conveyed, without regard to whether Sweas is really trying to say this, is that these struggles are a sign of a complexity that we should see as being complimentary of Kaine.

Yeah, right.

For his part, the director of the Initiative on Catholic Social Thought and Public Life at Georgetown University, John Carr, is clearly a big fan of Kaine���s, and is quoted in Sweas��� article, saying about the senator that he���s ���the real deal, he is genuine. [His faith] is very much a part of who he is, what he believes and what he brings to public office.���

Except���I���m not sure what that means, or what I���m supposed to do with Kaine���s ���faith,��� more broadly, in light of his well-documented positions that are reflective of anything but traditional Catholic/Christian doctrine.

Most notably, there is his stance on abortion, perhaps the single most confounding issue to those politicians in America who wish to simultaneously be both Catholic and liberal. As the article points out���and this is well-known���Kaine has earned a 100% vote rating from both NARAL and Planned Parenthood, and a 0% vote rating from the National Right to Life Committee.

How Catholic of him.

There���s more. Kaine has also been outspoken in his support of both women���s ordination and same-sex marriage. Indeed, as Sweas��� article mentions, Kaine received a bit of a ���beat-down��� from his own bishop when the senator said that same-sex marriage might one day receive the approval of the Catholic Church. Responding to Kaine���s suggestion in no uncertain terms, Bishop Francis X. DiLorenzo said, ���More than a year after the U.S. Supreme Court���s ruling on marriage, and despite recent statements from the campaign trail, the Catholic Church���s 2000-year-old teaching to the truth about what constitutes marriage remains unchanged and resolute.���

Well, so much for that.

The sense one gets is not that Kaine���s Catholicism is conflicted in the reflective, introspective sense, but merely in terms of political expediency. The problem with political expediency, of course, is that it is practically the definitional equivalent of disingenuousness. It is the tool of the panderer, rather than the principled. Kaine wants the votes of the Catholics, and so attempts to cloak himself in Catholicism just enough to gain their support, but no more than necessary, in order that he may also be well-received by those whose own belief systems, such as they exist, are anathema to traditional Catholic doctrine.

Sweas��� article may seem like a sober, thoughtful look at Kaine���s ���conflicted Catholicism,��� but, ultimately, it serves as a primer for the pandering liberal politician who happened to be raised in the church and wishes to retain the ability to say, ���Hey, look at me, I���m a Catholic, too.���

But who isn���t, really.

By Robert G. Yetman, Jr. Editor At Large