Louis DeBroux

Recent Posts From Louis DeBroux

Politicizing Ferguson before a grand jury has had a chance to review the evidence is a roadblock to justice

Jay Nixon

On October 27, 1838, Missouri Governor Lilburn Boggs issued Missouri Executive Order #44, also known as the “Mormon Extermination Order.” At that time The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, known by most then, as now, as simply the “Mormons,” was less than a decade old as a formally organized religion. Founded in Fayette, New York, in April 1830, the church quickly came under severe persecution, surprisingly so for such a tiny, obscure church, in large part due to outrage from many Protestants at the claim of Joseph Smith, the religion’s founder, to have seen the resurrected Jesus Christ, and God the Father, in the flesh.

Over the next eight years, the Saints would be persecuted and driven out of New York into Ohio, and from Ohio to Missouri, and from there to Illinois and eventually out to the Utah territory. The persecution in Missouri was particularly grievous, when initially it seemed the state might be a peaceful home for them.

Missouri was a slave state, and deeply so. The Mormon Church was anti-slavery, and deeply so. The first Mormons first began settling in Jackson County in 1831, but before long were attacked by mobs, their leaders dragged from their homes, beaten, tarred and feathered. The Mormons fled from Jackson to Clay County, but persecution followed and soon drove them from Clay County to Caldwell and Daviess counties. For a short time, there was hope of peace, the Missourians believing the Mormons effectively corralled into these two counties.

What’s So Great About America?: Well, freedom and pretty much everything the Left hates

I recently finished Dinesh D’Souza’s book What’s So Great About America, a book which looks at America past and present and does so with a sense of history and moral clarity which is sorely needed in our day and time. It has become increasingly popular in recent decades for the political left to point to every real and perceived sin committed by America in order to advance the idea that America is no better than any other nation, or worse, that America is actually a force of evil in the world

In doing so, the left intentionally distorts the past, and omits discussion of the tremendous good, often done with great sacrifice in blood and treasure, to advance the cause of liberty throughout the Earth. Written in 2002, What’s So Great About America seems even more relevant today, with the world aflame in chaos and violence, than it was a dozen years ago.

While it is proper to have a discussion of our national sins (slavery comes to mind, first and foremost), it is not just intellectually dishonest, but downright suicidal to breed such contempt for the very nation which, for the first time in history, declared that all men are created equal in the eyes of God and the law, and which declared our rights come not from man, but from God Himself. No longer would we live under the idea of a Divine Right of Kings, but instead would propose that government is the servant of the people, not the master.

Obama Lecture on Playing by the Rules is Utter Hypocrisy

In a recent weekly address, Barack Obama uttered ten words which every conservative in the nation immediately recognized as absolute truth in a constitutional republic which provides for separation of powers among the branches and levels of government. To quote, Obama stated “You don’t get to pick which rules you play by.”

His statement was made regarding the growing trend of “inversion,” whereby U.S. multinational corporations merge with foreign companies and move their headquarters overseas in order to avoid the double taxation that the United States levies on its companies, a burden suffered by the corporations of no other industrialized nation, which therefore puts American businesses at a competitive disadvantage.

The irony of those words, coming from THAT man, should be lost on no one with an IQ above room temperature.

Obama, more than any president in American history, has shown complete and utter contempt for any constitutional restrictions on his power, and openly mocks and taunts those that express deep concerns for his brazen disregard for the tradition of compromise (as ugly as the process is to get to that end point) that has guided our government for more than two centuries.

Obama talks about having “a phone and a pen,” a reference to his numerous Executive Orders which often bleed over into powers reserved for the other branches of government. Obama has repeatedly claimed this year that he will act unilaterally when Congress refuses to give him his way, and when Congress protests such abuse of power, he glibly responds, “Sue me!”

To the Political Left, Dissent Equals Hatred

A recent Twitter exchange between the Heritage Foundation’s Ryan T. Anderson and New York Times reporter Josh Barro perfectly captures the growing political polarization in America today.

Anderson, rapidly becoming the go-to voice in defense of traditional marriage (his book was cited twice by Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito in last year’s same-sex marriage cases), is about as unassuming a character as one can imagine for a defender of such a suddenly controversial issue. He is, by his own estimation, “bookish,” and your never hear him raise his voice during debate, nor hurl a personal insult at someone who disagrees with him, even when he is being attacked.

While defending the position of traditional marriage, Anderson has also made it perfectly clear that he believes that ALL human beings have intrinsic worth, and should be treated with kindness, respect, and civility. The NYT’s Josh Barro, on the other hand, disagrees mightily. In that recent Twitter exchange, Barro accused Anderson of being “anti-LGBT,” and declared “some people are deserving of incivility.”

Think about that. To the liberal left, people who disagree with them on certain topics are worthy of condemnation, disrespect, and incivility. No longer can reasonable people approach the same issue from different perspectives, with different worldviews, philosophies, and political or religious viewpoints, and still be friends. No, for the left, to disagree with someone is to attack them personally, to discredit their intrinsic worth, to demonize them. Barro, exposing a deep sense of insecurity, claims that Anderson’s differing view on the topic means that he thinks “you’re better than me.”

Leftists are absolutely shocked that conservatives actually revere the Constitution

In a recent article, the Washington Post’s E.J. Dionne whined that “For too long, progressives have allowed conservatives to monopolize claims of fealty to our unifying national document.” He goes on to talk about how conservatives and TEA Party-types walk around with their pocket Constitutions and cite its passages in defense of their political positions, and declares it is high time that liberals use the Constitution to rebut conservative political arguments.

Reading the article, I was reminded of a recent debate with a liberal friend who was blasting the Supreme Court ruling in the Hobby Lobby case, saying that it was setting a dangerous precedent to allow people to exempt themselves from laws based on religious objections, in this case “denying” women of their birth control. In response, I asked him to cite the passage of the Constitution which guarantees women the “right” to taxpayer-funded birth control. He responded by saying that the Constitution is not the only source we rely on to determine what government can and should do.

Actually, that is the ONLY thing that we can rely on to determine the proper role of government.

And therein lies the massive gulf between the conservative and liberal understandings of the Constitution. Liberals see the Constitution as a “living” document which can be amended by judicial interpretation to bring it more in line with societal and cultural preferences, a document infinitely malleable with endless interpretations.

#IAmUnitedLiberty: Louis DeBroux’s life-long love of the Constitution and progressing journey to the liberty movement

Louis DeBroux and family

Note: This is one in a series of profiles of UL contributors and how they became involved in the “liberty movement.” Share your story on Twitter using the hashtag #IAmUnitedLiberty.

How did I get involved in the liberty movement? I guess it started when I was but a wee lad of no more than six or seven. My father would take me with him when he went to Patriots meetings in the big backroom area of that old Ryan’s restaurant. I would sit and listen to the men and women discuss the Constitution and government abuses of power. At the time I only understood it on an emotional level; these people loved their God and country, they swore allegiance to the Constitution, and were mad as hell that those in power were corrupting their country.

There were always copies of the Declaration of Independence, and of the Constitution, and pamphlets with new words and phrases that I did not yet fathom, like “sovereign” and “federalism” and “separation of powers,” and in time I would gain a better knowledge of what these things meant and why they were important. My father and I had a tumultuous relationship to say the least, but the one thing I can never deny that he instilled in me is a love of my country and a righteous anger for those that seek to undermine this grand experiment in self-government and individual liberty.

Hillary Clinton is a terrible person: Destroying a young girl’s life is not a laughing matter

The Democrats have had great success over the years in rallying votes from women, especially single women, by claiming that the Republicans are waging a “War on Women.”

In 2012, Obama won the vote of unmarried women by 67% to 31% using this tactic (although Romney won the vote of married women by 53% to 46%, who presumably either could take care of themselves, or rejected Big Daddy Government in favor of a traditional protector and provider, a husband).

As “proof” of this war Democrats point to the oft-debunked myth of a 77% “wage gap” between men and women in the workplace, GOP opposition to forcing taxpayers to fund contraception and, of course, the long-standing GOP support for the right of unborn children to take their first breath, as opposed to Democrats, who demand an uninhibited “right” to abortion under the rubric of a “woman’s right to choose.”

Yet if one wants to see the true face of a War on Women, one has to look no farther than the presumed front-runner for the 2016 Democrat Party presidential nomination, Hillary Rodham Clinton who, in 1975, volunteered to defend Thomas Alfred Taylor, one of two men accused of raping a 12-year old girl. Despite not being a public defender, and therefore under no obligation to take the case, Clinton readily accepted the case and attacked the task of getting her client acquitted.

To be sure, every accused person deserves a vigorous defense if they are going to be deprived of life, liberty, or property at the hands of the government. However, the justice system is ostensibly in place to find the truth, and punish the guilty.

That is not the path Hillary Rodham took.

Incompetent and Corrupt: Scandals Pile Up for “No Drama” Obama

Six years into his presidency, Barack “No Drama” Obama has been anything but drama-free. His presidency has been one series of scandals after another, the magnitude of each increasing with each successive revelation. Initially, these scandals centered around partisan bullying, political cronyism, and general corruption, but as his second term unfold, more and more the scandals involve dead Americans.

One of the most fascinating aspects of the scandals surrounding the Obama presidency is that the sheer volume seems to inoculate him from being brought down by any one scandal. No sooner do we start making progress investigating one scandal than another one breaks. It’s like watching a dog chase a ball but suddenly stop and change directions moments before retrieving it when another ball is tossed in the opposite direction.

The current scandal involves Obama’s decision to negotiate with terrorists. In violation of the absolutely clear requirements of the law, the Obama administration revealed last week that it had negotiated the release of Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl, who had been held by Taliban forces for five years. In exchange for Bergdahl, Obama released five senior Taliban fighters who are responsible for the deaths of countless Americans.

The outrage surrounding this exchange is multi-faceted. First, there is the fact that Obama broke long-standing U.S. policy of never negotiating with terrorists. Even were that not the policy, Obama’s negotiating skills were exposed as horrendously deficient considering the Taliban gets five hardened fighters in exchange for one relatively low-level American soldier.

The Republican Party needs a new Ronald Reagan to sell the message of liberty

Sometimes being a conservative in the Republican Party is like being Bill Murray in the movie Groundhog Day. You get up each day, go through the same motions, and watch disaster strike over and over again, never seeming to grasp the underlying truths necessary to make a clean break from a checkered past and take acquired knowledge and use it to progress.

It is all the more infuriating because, no matter how many times you watch your party leadership do idiotic things, you know that there is not really anyplace else for you to go if you want to realize your dream of a limited, constitutional government based on the principles of the Founding Fathers.

As a conservative, you know that your principles have been applied to policy for hundreds of years, and when applied properly they have led to spectacular the expansion of financial prosperity, and the securing of individual liberties.

This is why you work within the Republican Party. This is why you spend your Saturdays knocking doors for candidates you support. This is why you stay informed on history, politics, economics, and current events. This is why you attend monthly party meetings, Precinct Mass Meetings, and multiple party nominating conventions each year. This is why you freeze half to death in the middle of the night the first week of every other November, driving around the district and putting out yard signs at the election precincts. This is why you do phone banking and fundraising. This is why you do the hundreds of little things that you do each day, each week, each month, and each year, to do your best to do your part to advance the cause of liberty in the best way you know how.

Baseball great compares Republican Party to the KKK

Hank Aaron

Earlier this week, baseball legend Hank Aaron was honored on the 40th anniversary of home run #715, breaking the record long held by Babe Ruth. Aaron earned that record the old fashioned way, through hard work, dedication to his craft, and most of all, endurance. Aaron’s achievement was marked by perseverance rather than the stain of steroid use. He hit thirteen home runs his first year in Major League Baseball, as few as ten home runs his final season, with a high of 47 home runs in 1971.

“Hammerin’ Hank” was the consummate professional, enduring the hatred and racism of past generations who hurled vitriol and racial epithets at him. He went about his work with a quiet dignity and grace that was laudable considering the mistreatment he endured. I was but a boy of four when he completed his MLB career, but as a lifelong Braves fan who grew up watching them play every night from spring to fall on TBS, I was immersed in the legend that was Hank Aaron. Yes, this includes the dark days of the mid-to-late 1980’s when the Braves were so bad you could buy nose-bleed seats for $5 and walk down and sit behind the dugout by the third inning because the stadium was so empty. If they were getting beat badly enough, they may grab you out of the stands and throw a jersey on you and send you into the game.

Recent Comments from Louis DeBroux

Louis DeBroux

Contributor


The views and opinions expressed by individual authors are not necessarily those of other authors, advertisers, developers or editors at United Liberty.