The Murder of Chris Kyle

Chris Kyle

Chris Kyle

U.S. Navy Seal Chris Kyle, the most prolific sniper in U.S. military history was murdered the weekend before last, and his memorial service was held today at Cowboys Stadium in Texas.  For those of you that do not know Kyle, he is a Seal that served his country in the Iraq War.  I feel like I know him only because when I heard the news of his murder, I was in the midst of his autobiography, “American Sniper”.  I was obviously shocked when I heard this terrible news, and doubly shocked that I had been reading his book when it happened.

This is a man who gave everything for his country. When I mean everything, it’s not figuratively, it’s literally.  The man gave his heart and soul for us, for his country, for his people.  He was the elite among elite warriors.

These men that fought for us, these Seals, are fearless.  Kyle describes the firefights, and nighttime raids of the places that terrorist were expected to be hiding, and it makes me feel that these were almost suicide missions.  To conduct a war under the restrictions, with the police SWAT team tactics, and extreme duress these men were under is unbelievable to read, let alone imagine someone doing.  But they all did it, and it wasn’t just the Seals, but our Marines, and Army as well.

If I wouldn’t have read Chris Kyle’s autobiography, I might not have been compelled to comment about his death.  I would have been shocked, and saddened by it still, but maybe it wouldn’t have hit me so hard.  This is a man who survived against terrible odds, the worst hell holes in Iraq, and in the process attained honors and medals for bravery in combat.  Chris came home, and built a business that gave advanced training to police officers and security professionals in defense and combat weaponry.

Chris also counseled wounded veterans.  He and his friends would take vets out to the gun range, and socialize with them, and make them feel normal. Again, it seems Chris was always giving of himself.  Unfortunately, Chris and his friend were murdered senselessly while he was helping another fellow veteran.  It makes me sick to think that Chris survived four tours in Iraq, and then finally comes home to be with his wife and children, and he is taken from them, at home no less.  I can’t imagine the pain.

Some people may ask why, like I did in the beginning.  But now, as I write this, I realize that why does not matter.  Chris gave of himself every chance he got.  That was who he was.  And in times like these we must remember, John 15:13: Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

RIP U.S. Navy Seal Chris Kyle.   Thank you.



Bob Costas Says a Whole Lot of Nothing to Jon Stewart



Bob Costas was interviewed by Jon Stewart of the Daily Show recently. Costas was following up on remarks he had made a couple of months ago during halftime at a football game about a murder-suicide involving a certain NFL football player and his girlfriend. During the halftime commentary, Costas really only repeated remarks by another journalist that indicated if a gun wasn’t involved then the “tragedy” would have never happened.

My question is: For whom exactly is this event “tragic” Mr. Costas? He practically apologizes for the perpetrator, apologizes for that fact that the perpetrator got his hands on a gun, and took a human being’s life, and then cowardly took his own. You see, according to Costas, the gun is at fault, not the player. It was a “tragic” set of circumstances that the gun was available to this unstable, and dare I say it evil individual. According to Costas, the inanimate object, the gun, should be indicted in this case. In addition, Costas never mentions the murder of the victim, which is the real tragedy.

On the Daily Show, it seems Costas tried to formulate his own thinking on the gun control debate, and came up with a convoluted correlation between guns, violence, and NFL football.

During this particular excerpt of the interview, Costas rambles about black athletes basically worshipping guns, and talks about the “gun culture” that exists among black athletes, and mixes some elements of the fact that guns are glorified in hip hop music, and that some black players are influenced by this. He also disparaged the new Sylvester Stallone movie, “Bullet to the Head”, ostensibly also giving Hollywood a half-hearted critique on glorifying guns in the movies as well.

Now Costas jumbled together a lot of phrases and ideas, but didn’t say a thing. He acknowledges there’s a problem, but pushes the wrong solution. Taking the guns away isn’t the answer, especially in the case of a domestic murder-suicide. You’re telling me that if this player did not have a gun, he wouldn’t have carried out the crime? Ridiculous! Ask OJ, he had no use for a gun, did he?

Though I do applaud Costas for bringing the urgent matter of gun violence among black athletes to issue, he fumbled the narrative at the goal line. He used an opinion that probably fit the narrative his network wants to push.

Bob, you should really keep to what you’re good at, sports casting, not shaking your finger at the American people over gun rights. You’re way out of your league in that arena.






Lance Armstrong was a person any red-blooded American could believe in. Or, at least, he used to be.

Some have criticized Armstrong’s move to appear on the Oprah Winfrey Network to confess his sins.  Let me remind these critics, these name callers, and all the people that have claimed he is a ne’er-do-well to read John 8:7.

When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.”

By seeing the ubiquitous yellow arm band on countless people from all walks of life in the last ten years or so, I know that this man has touched millions. He’s touched not just cancer survivors, those living with cancer, and those who have survived family or friends that have died of cancer. He’s touched us all. He inspired everyone around – from those of us that are weekend warriors, to those that are serious cyclists, to those that are professional athletes. He changed the way people thought about themselves. He made the impossible seem possible. If Armstrong could win seven Tour de France titles and survive testicular cancer, then I could at least get off my ass and go outside, play a sport, or go for a walk. He inspired us by his courage and his determination to live life to its full potential. This gave us all a new outlook on life. Since the inception of the LIVESTRONG Foundation, Armstrong gave all these things to millions of people at one time or another over the course of his cycling career. Is Lance a disappointment to these millions? Yes.

Lance is a disappointment because he lied about the very essence of what we thought he was. We thought that he was a guy that pulled himself up by his bootstraps and came back from cancer better than ever. We thought he was the definition of excellence in athleticism. His training regimens were supposed to have been legendary. The man was an irresistible force; nothing could stop him. The last thing that I, or anyone else who was a fan, could believe was that he would cheat. I remember when I first heard of the allegations a couple of years ago; I felt it was all nonsense. I didn’t want to believe it. I couldn’t believe it because I believed that Armstrong embodied everything that was the antithesis of a cheater.

I support Lance’s decision to come clean in a public forum. I admire his taking accountability for his actions. That is courageous in and of itself.  I think Armstrong is still showing us what he’s made of. He’s not a quitter. He’s not an excuse maker. Has he fallen from grace as a cyclist? Yes. However, as a man, I believe he’s just getting warmed up.

Besides the over $470 million his foundation has raised for cancer research, Armstrong still has more to give.  He will continue to be an inspiration. Armstrong is human and has flaws like us all, even though he fooled us for a while into thinking he was more than that.

 Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you. (Ephesians 4:32)


A Family Problem, Not a Gun Problem



The recent evil and tragic events in Connecticut at Sandy Hook Elementary School serve as a reminder that evil is alive and well in our society. And it’s not just our American society that is suffering from evil. Some people, like Michael Moore, want you to believe that evil is endemic to America.

This thinking is ignorant and irresponsible. Evil is everywhere, and it’s not going away anytime soon. As citizens of not just America, but of the world, we have to stand against evil. Believe it or not, this is done every day. The street cop that protects and serves, the soldier that guards and fights, the teacher that educates and instills values, the clergy that strengthen faith and moral character, the husband that loves his wife, the wife that loves her husband, the parents who love their children. These are the everyday heroes that keep evil at bay.

We have a responsibility to keep people like Adam Lanza from becoming people like Adam Lanza. I’m not sure of his mental health history, but I do know that Adam Lanza’s father was not around and did not communicate with his son. This is devastating for a son. There are deeper issues that are present here, deeper than a debate about gun control. They are the issues of family and God. Where was God in Adam Lanza’s life?

These are things all families have to address and examine. Regardless of a divorce, both parents must try their hardest to stay active in their child’s life. A child needs structure and direction. Lanza had neither. I believe his parents gave up on him, which is a tragedy of its own.

Former Governor of Arkansas Mike Huckabee tweeted that this event happened because the public schools have expelled God from the classroom. Huckabee endured vitriolic responses to his tweet, accusing him of suggesting that this was God’s punishment for keeping Him out of the schools. What is the public’s problem with God? Why is he rejected by so many? Huckabee was merely pointing out that the public education system is devoid of teaching morality. He may be right on point.

Was it the availability of the guns? Was it the violent video games? Was it the vile and gratuitous movies or music? Was it the disregard for the sanctity of human life that is prevalent in society? These all play a role, but it all comes down to this: Teaching morality and introducing God into your child’s life starts at home. This shield of faith that your child adorns will protect him or her from the evils that seek the ruin of society.

I cannot imagine the pain of the parents, and no words can ever come close to easing that pain. This event should never have happened. Adam Lanza should not have been allowed to get to the point in his life where he was prepared to take lives and then end his own. And if a person like Lanza does get to that point, we as good citizens must have that last line of defense to prevent or mitigate tragedy. A police officer, an armed security professional, or armed and trained volunteers. We must protect the future at all costs.


Are They High?

no marijuana

As you may know by now, Colorado and Washington states have legalized “recreational” marijuana use. The citizens of these states have done a great disservice to their children’s future. I’m not concerned about the morons that are already smoking marijuana on a regular basis; they’re pretty much hopeless. What I am concerned about are the children. And not just about the children of these states, but the children of the entire nation.

I blame the pothead adults that voted for these so-called referendums. These selfish people disgust me. They don’t disgust me because they smoke pot; they disgust me because they want EVERYONE to smoke pot. They want everyone to take part in their misery and slavery to this toxic substance. They’re part and parcel of the denigration of the culture of this great land.

I know all the nonsense arguments about pot: “It’s not addictive.” “It’s safer than alcohol.” If it’s so safe, then why does virtually every nation on the earth deem it an illegal and harmful substance? Could it be that marijuana is a psychotropic drug that’s actually classified as a hallucinogen? Marijuana severely alters the state of your mind, and in some cases causes psychosis. It also leads to lower intelligence levels. Cliff Kincaid outlines it all of this and more in his article “Soros Remakes America into Narco Nation.” As well as the damaging psychological effects of smoking marijuana, it can also cause lung cancer.

The health and cultural problems of legalizing marijuana are obvious, but consider the legality of passing such legislation, which is in direct conflict with U.S. federal law.

The Supremacy Clause contained in the U.S. Constitution declares that the U.S. Constitution, Federal Statutes, and U.S. Treaties are “the supreme law of the land.” When a state passes a law that is contradictory to federal law and, in this case, a U.S. treaty as well, the state law must be pre-empted by federal law. All state judges are bound by the U.S. Constitution and acts passed by Congress.

So, in order to make this a state law, Colorado and Washington would have first had to challenge the constitutionality of The Controlled Substances Act passed by Congress in 1970, as well as several International Treaties to which the U.S. is a signatory. That challenge would then need to be successful in order to pass a state law that clearly undermines the “supreme law of the land”.

This law is a terrible move by these states who disregard the future and security of their children. These marijuana legalization laws are invalid and need to be declared so by the federal government, thereby saving the young people of both states.


Where’s Mitt?



Well, where is he? We’re at the edge of the “fiscal cliff,” Obamacare is our mandate, we’re in crisis mode with Israel, the second amendment is under siege, we have Unions bought and paid for by the President, and a nuclear Iran still looms.

All of this is going on and the “standard bearer” of the Republican brand is nowhere to be found. No mention of him in the media except for a recent lunch with the President. This is strikingly odd behavior from a man that over 59 million people voted for to become the leader of the free world, a man who is vehemently opposed Obama’s policies, and a man who is, essentially, the antithesis of Obama. 59 million Americans hinged their hopes on a man of values and morality, and now these same Americans can’t find him anywhere.

Why is Romney not out there opposing the misguided conception that the rich should pay more? Why is he not chiding the constant spending and the empty promises that go with it? Why is he not advocating and encouraging the movement of the poor and the working poor into the middle class to expand the tax base? Why is he not railing against the millions of illegal immigrants that work here and don’t pay a dime in taxes? Why is he not opposing enemies of the 2nd amendment and their pathetic excuses for evil persons who commit evil acts? Why is he not railing against the lukewarm support the US is giving Israel or the constant war on Israel by Islamists and the media?

Mr. Romney has to come out of hiding. He has to continue the fight. He can’t let the opposition become comfortable.

We want our America to be one that is not in a constant state of war when we don’t have to be. We want our America to have a vibrant economy. We want our America to encourage all classes to strive for greatness and reject handouts from the government. We want our America to not promote divisiveness and derision with its constant class baiting, race baiting, and fairness baiting. Is this possible? Was the election just a brief glimpse into what could have been?

Is that it, Mitt? Did you just tantalize us with fantasies of an America we’ve been dreaming of for twelve years? Was it just a sideshow, a distraction that gave us false hope that we would get our country back?

Maybe that lunch you had with the President said it all. Maybe you’ve raised the white flag. They beat you, so now you’re going to join them? There are 59 million Americans out there that sincerely hope not.


Stuck in the Middle

Senator Elizabeth Warren

Senator Elizabeth Warren

What is the middle class?  And why does the topic of the middle class seem to rule the political conversation in this country? Why does the middle class seem to be talked about over all other classes?  It’s an interesting thought that if you take the phrase “middle class” out of the political debate, and substitute it with “American people,” it has an astounding affect.

The following is an excerpt from a recent interview of Democrat Senator-elect Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts (who recently defeated Republican Scott Brown’s bid for re-election) by CBS news, which can be found here.

“What it’s really about is an America that works again for the middle class, an America that’s about…expanding opportunity,” said Warren, offering herself as an example. “Look at me, I’m the daughter of a maintenance man and a woman who worked the phones at Sears, and I ended up as a professor at Harvard Law School. How’s that happen? It happens because we had good public schools, because America invested in its kids when I was growing up, and I think that’s the kind of thing people want now”

Let’s see what happens when “American people” is substituted for “middle class”:

What it’s really about is an America that works again for the American people, an America that’s about…expanding opportunity,” said Warren, offering herself as an example. “Look at me, I’m the daughter of a maintenance man and a woman who worked the phones at Sears, and I ended up as a professor at Harvard Law School. How’s that happen? It happens because we had good public schools, because America invested in its kids when I was growing up, and I think that’s the kind of thing people want now.”

Pretty extraordinary isn’t it?  When you don’t differentiate between classes of people, you’re bringing all groups into the conversation as a nation, not a class.  I invite you try this experiment whenever a politician uses this term. Especially take note when a Democrat politician uses it, since the Democrats are known for the overuse of this label.

This is one of my favorite definitions of being middle class.

As the article points out, being middle class is earning between $20,000 and $100,000 per household, depending on where you live in the USA. I think it’s safe to say that this range encompasses most American families, so let’s stop defining them as a class of people, when they are the majority of Americans.

As the article illustrates, Romney and Obama both basically defined the middle class as having a ceiling of $200,000 to $250,000 per household.  I believe this is a bit generous, and a bit out of touch. Then again, they’re both RICH men. You already know that Mitt Romney is rich. He has made $42,562,419 in 2010 and 2011, according to his filed tax returns. But did you know that the Obamas have made approximately $10,680,081 in income since 2008.  Surprised? Even President Obama is rich, despite his populist pining, and his posturing that the middle class is always getting the shaft.

Am I faulting these men for being rich? Absolutely not.  The issue is not about them being rich; the issue isn’t about anyone that is rich. The issue is that because of the over-bloated and over-reaching federal government, we, the American people, are all getting the shaft. The bigger government gets, the more we’re losing our freedom. All you have to do is look at the expensive massive bureaucracies and unnecessary mandates imposed on the American people. For an example, just look at the “Affordable” Care Act.

Sad to say, but the plight of the middle class platform is just a ploy for votes.  It sounds good.  It’s a tag line.  No one will bother to research the truth, so whatever comes out of a politician’s mouth becomes fact.  So, let’s stop blaming the rich for being rich.  Let’s get our spending and entitlement programs under control, without raising taxes on anyone. Enough is enough.

If you stop playing this class game, you can see that we’re all on the same side. We can have different ideological ways on what policies are better, but better for all Americans, not a contrived individual group.


Justification for a Just War

Cardinal Gianfranco Ravasi

Cardinal Gianfranco Ravasi

While the mainstream news agencies are busy covering Black Friday nonsense, smaller news and blog sites have recently reported on comments made by Catholic Cardinal Gainfranco Ravasi, President of the Vatican Council for Culture.  In referring to the recent hostilities between Israel and Hamas in Gaza, he said, “I think of the ‘massacre of the innocents.’ Children are dying in Gaza, their mothers’ shouts is a perennial cry, a universal cry.”

In response to this comment, Israel National News stated, “The Catholic Church high official equated Israel’s operation in Gaza against terror groups with the New Testament story of Herod’s slaughter of Jewish babies in his effort to kill Jesus.”

Whether or not this quote was taken out of context and the Cardinal was merely lamenting the destruction of life is not known. However, it doesn’t even matter because his comments are in step with virtually every mainstream media outlet in this country that label Israel as the aggressor in the conflict.

To know the true reality of the situation is to see that calling Israel the aggressor in this conflict is a fallacy.  According to Catholic teaching, the killing of innocent life is unforgiveable. However, Catholic teaching also states that there are instances where waging war is a just and necessary option.

I want to make clear that I myself am not a war hawk. I am not cheering for Israel to invade and kill her enemies or put Israeli soldiers in harm’s way.  What I want to demonstrate is that according to the Cardinal’s own faith, Israel has a definitive right to defend herself against aggressive attacks.

The full explanation of Just War Theory can be found here.

St. Thomas Aquinas provided the basic tenants of a Just War based on three things:

1)      War must be waged by a lawful public authority in defense of the common good

2)      War must be waged for a good cause

3)      War must be waged with the right intention-not vengefully nor to inflict harm

There are also two methods of waging war: defensive and offensive. Defensive is defending against a direct attack. In this instance, no special moral justification is needed in taking up arms to defend one’s country.  Offensive war, on the other hand, has to be justified.  The conditions for this state of war are these:

1)      A just cause, to correct a wrong to a nation

2)      All other means of defending a nation’s rights have been ineffective

3)      There is a good possibility for success

4)      The good that will be achieved by waging war must outweigh harm caused

5)      War is the last resort

A war is not justified if it is waged in order to gain new territory, increase wealth, subjugate peoples, or expand spheres of influence.

A war is justified in response to an affront to the right of a nation to merely exist, or a threat to its self-preservation, property, or freedom in its own borders.

I’m not going to illustrate all the failed peace treaties between Israel and its neighbors throughout the decades, or the state of the daily, constant threat that we all know Israel lives under. Let’s just say this, Hamas is clearly an illegitimate aggressor that is constantly threatening and attacking a legitimate nation. This legitimate nation of Israel is exercising its right to existence and self-preservation.

The Cardinal would do well to examine Just War Theory as laid out by St. Thomas Aquinas and decide for himself whether it applies in this conflict.  I believe it does.


Bombs, Blame, and Bad Guys



CNN’s Ashleigh Banfield said it herself with the first sentence out of her mouth to Ron Prosor, Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations.  She asked Prosor about how he felt about Hamas missiles landing near Jerusalem for the first time since 1970. However, she failed to ask him how he felt about the sustained rocket attacks on southern Israel from Gaza by Hamas this year alone.  She also failed to ask him how he felt about the constant barrage of verbal threats by Israel’s longtime enemies that share her borders.

Aren’t these good and just reasons for Israel to defend herself against her enemies?  Would our own country not act in a similar fashion if we were constantly threatened and attacked by our neighbors?  Of course we would.

This opening statement was just the beginning of what I saw as fairly evident bias against Israel at CNN.

The transcript of the interview aired on CNN on November 16, 2012 concerning the recent hostilities in the Middle East can be found here.

From the start, Banfield criticizes the fact that the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) has conducted air strikes in Gaza, and that the aftermath of the strikes were causing “children bleeding” and “mothers that are dying”.  She then describes the IDF strikes as a “sledgehammer” approach to the “problem” Israel is having.  It seems she is suggesting the IDF military operation is causing too many civilian casualties.

This is the basic tenor of her interview.  She was aggressively degrading the just nature of Israel defending herself, while ignoring the aggressiveness of the Islamic extremism in the region as the cause of the region’s instability.

Again Banfield blames Israel when she says, “what we have been told is that the trigger for this ground assault and the breach of the Gaza border would be increased missile attacks”.  In other words, if Israel attacked Gaza, Hamas promised to attack more Israeli cities, which is what happened.  It’s kind of like a little kid that’s bullied at school every day. Banfield is saying that if the bullied kid defends himself, he will sustain more bullying because he has now angered the bully. This is reverse common sense.  Common sense tells us that when you defend yourself against an aggressor, this will stop the aggressor or at least deter the aggressiveness.

In another line of dialogue, Prosor attempt to be clear and make a point by saying, “It’s very simple. Missiles are falling…” He is defending his country’s stance that as long as missiles are falling on their cities, his country must defend its citizens. Prosor continues and makes a stark analogy to missiles falling on Manahattan, Paris, and London.  Wouldn’t the US defend itself from such an attack? Banfield confuses his point and suggests that if Manhattan, Paris, and London were occupied (purportedly such as Hamas believes Israel is their occupier) then they would want to fight against their occupiers.

Banfield concludes the interview with discussing the killing of Hamas military leader Ahmed al-Jabari.  Banfield states, “we saw the targeted killing, the assassination of the military leader of Hamas earlier this week that has led to what we’re seeing now”.  Again, Banfield shows Israel as the bad guy, and continues to blame Israel for Hamas attacking Israeli cities.  In actuality, Israel is asserting its right to self defense, as the New York Times reported,

“Israel had already been facing growing tensions with its Arab neighbors. Israel has confronted lawlessness on its border with Sinai, including cross-border attacks. It recently fired twice into Syria, which is caught in a civil war, after munitions fell in the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights, and it has absorbed more than 750 rockets fired from Gaza into southern Israel this year. The rockets have hit homes, caused injuries and frightened the population. On Saturday, Gaza militants fired an antitank missile at an Israeli Army Jeep patrolling the Israel-Gaza border, injuring four soldiers.”

Banfield closes her interview with Prosor by sayng, “And I hope that both sides in this combat can reach some kind of resolution soon. And my best to, not only your side, but the Palestinians as well.”  Good luck to Hamas, a designated terrorist organization by the Israelis and by the United States State Department, who is bombing Israel as we speak?

Now tell me again who the bad guys are?


Fanning the Flames of Racial Unrest?



I’m not a regular listener to Geraldo Rivera’s radio show. I’ve caught a couple of minutes of it here and there, and he seemed to be a reasonable, middle of the road personality. I know he had a television program years ago; and, if I remember correctly, he was involved in some violent foray on one of the shows in which he sustained a broken nose. Whatever his history is, I do know that he is a journalist and has been around for a considerable amount of time.

My attention was recently drawn to Mr. Rivera during a commercial in which he was promoting his radio program. In it, he stated that the re-election of President Obama shows that our country is divided along racial lines. At first, I was angry at the comment because, at the very least, it oversimplifies the reason for the outcome of our most recent presidential election. Then, being of mixed racial heritage myself, I wondered where I fell within his paradigm. I know I didn’t vote along racial lines. Does that make me an exception?

Right before the election, Rivera claimed on his website ( that race would be the most “obvious determinant of the election” (posted October 26, 2012). Call me crazy, but I think at least some, dare I say most, of Americans give some thought to their vote before they make a decision. Suggesting otherwise is an insult to the intelligence of a nation. And I’m willing to bet that the majority of people voted for the guy that they thought would do the best job, despite his color or race. People have brains, and even use them occasionally.

Now, I am not one to state my opinions as facts. To disprove Rivera’s assertions, let’s look over some simple statistics. According to the 2010 U.S. Census, 72% of the U.S. population identified their race as white, 13% identified their race as black, 5% identified themselves as Asian, .9% identified themselves as American Indian or Alaskan native, .2% identified themselves as Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander, 6% identified themselves as “some other” race, and 3% identified themselves as multi-racial. According to these numbers, if this country was divided along racial lines, President Obama should have never captured the White House at all.

In 2008, 43% of white voters voted for Barack Obama, which swept him into the White House. In 2012, Obama received 39% of the white vote, only down 4% from his first-term election. This was enough to give him an edge to victory in an extremely close contest. If America were truly RACIALLY divided, Governor Romney would have won in a landslide victory in 2012 by just over 70% of the popular vote, which would have beaten the combined percentage of every minority group if they, too, voted strictly along racial lines.

Basic statistics prove that people don’t let mere race swing their vote. Saying that it does is a disservice to the country. It is irresponsible and damaging to the psyche of a country. As far as I can see, the country is divided by political ideology NOT race.

Watching the President’s victory celebration on TV on November 6th, I observed something extraordinary. People of various races and colors were in the crowd, and they were all sharing a happy experience, waving American flags and cheering. That scene is indicative of the America of today, regardless of political preference. Let’s not get bogged with old ideas, such as race is the ultimate arbiter of all things. People are tired of it. Let’s not cheapen the political debate and fan the flames of racial resentment and unrest by making politics a battle between races instead of a battle of ideas.