Category Archives: featured opinion

Harry Reid Retire Already

There is no doubt in my mind that Harry Reid is mentally off the rails, once again he sticks his nose where it does not belong. Reid renewed his crusade against the Washington Redskins, using time on the Senate floor to decry the team’s name as “racist.” Enough already!

First of all it is a private company, they can call themselves what ever they want, second 90% of people surveyed have no problem with the name Redskins, and third 85% of American Indians have no problem with the name as well. Shouldn’t he be more concentrated on things like our lousy economy, or ISIS invading our shores?

To quote this mental midget, “I find it stunning that the National Football League is more concerned about how much air is in a football than with a racist franchise name that denigrates Native Americans across the country,” he said. “I wish the commissioner would act as swiftly and decisively in changing the name of the D.C. team as he did about not enough air in a football.”

Harry, while you go on a rant about things that a majority of people don’t give a crap about, how about this:

RedskinsWhat about that Harry, anything to say about it. Harry Reid, the most evil man in Washington.

1830523363_2254746936_Harry_the_crook_Reid_84216882653_xlarge_xlarge“What Kind Of Society Are We Leaving Our Kids” Available here.

 

This is one man’s opinion.

 

Word of the day – “MICROAGGRESSION”.

The word “microaggression” has cropped up with increased frequency over the last year, to the point that now I see it almost daily! What does it mean?

Webster’s says it has “no meaning.” It’s not a word. It doesn’t exist! Various blogs, papers, and online source provide a definition, but they’re not “official” dictionaries.

And then, I found www.microaggressions.com. This site was obviously built by people who can’t stand anyone who might, kinda, sorta, could have some kind of privilege going for them. According to this site “microaggression” is defined as:

“Racial micro aggressions are brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioral, or environmental indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative racial slights and insults toward people of color.”

I have said it before… words no longer have meaning and this is another perfect example of why. This definition specifically says it’s aimed at people of color.

Based on the many “microaggression” stories I’ve covered, the definition should read as follows:

micro aggressions are brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioral, or environmental indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative slights and insults towards; __________. (INSERT – anyone identifying as LGBTQ, a woman, a minority, or some other subset of people, no matter how ridiculous).

Recently at Brandeis University, the Asian American Students Association was accused of microaggression for putting up a display to explain microaggression using only Asians… REALLY?

A group at Oberlin University had to issue a warning of microaggression or triggering alerting readers they were about to see “Discussion of rape culture, online harassment, victim blaming, and rape apologism and denialism. REALLY? They needed a warning?

Recently Johns Hopkins University refused to allow Chick-Fil-A to open on campus because the campus LGBTQ club considered it an act of microaggression. So now anyone or anything that offends is microaggression? Well, kinda sorta. It really only seems to apply to certain groups.

If you ask me to remove my Bible from view, you would consider that your right not to be “assaulted” by my belief. But by the definitions above, wouldn’t that be considered a microaggression toward me and my religion?

The latest in microaggressions was reported at Arizona State University. Students petitioned staff to change the name of pedestrian walkways. Why, you ask? Because not everyone can walk and that COULD be viewed as a microaggression to someone in a wheelchair or on crutches. Even the people who were supposed to be offended (those in wheelchairs or on crutches) thought this was ridiculous.

Read the rest at: microaggressions

You Must Be Made to Obey

While actions speak louder than words, words often predict future actions. Secular progressives’ words and actions rarely align. This is because the pseudo-utopian, wholly dystopian perch from which they view the world is so detached from reality that, from a cultural and public policy standpoint, they must disguise their intended actions in flowery and euphemistic language, or face near universal rejection.

When they don’t like the terms, liberals redefine the terms to mean something they do not, never have and never can mean. Consider, for instance, the once meaningful words “marriage” and “equality.”

Other “progressive” doublespeak includes words like “invest” (meaning socialist redistribution of wealth), “tolerance” (meaning embrace immorality or face total ruin), “diversity” (meaning Christians and conservatives need not apply), “hate” (meaning truth) or “The Affordable Care Act” (meaning unaffordable, unsustainable and utterly inferior socialized medicine).

Even so, it’s during those rare moments of candor that our cultural Marxist friends’ rhetoric actually aligns with their intended actions. In other words, every so often, and usually by accident, they tell the truth.

Take this recent declaration by President Obama at Georgetown University. He was discussing his contempt for conservative new media in general and Fox News in particular:

“[W]e’re going to have to change how our body politic thinks, which means we’re going to have to change how the media reports on these issues,” he said.

How Kim Jong-un of him. In sum: Goal 1) Control thought by, Goal 2) Controlling the media.

This is an idea older than – and as well preserved as – Vladimir Lenin himself. How Dear Leader intends to reconcile his scheme to “change how the media reports on these issues” with the First Amendment’s Free Press Clause, namely, “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom … of the press,” is abundantly clear.

He doesn’t.

Our emperor-in-chief will force feed his once-free subjects yet another unconstitutional executive decree – a Net Neutrality sandwich with a side of Fairness Doctrine.

Or take would-be President Hillary Clinton’s comments last month on the “rite” of abortion vs. the right of religious freedom.

Reports LifeNews:

“The comment has Hillary Clinton essentially saying that Christians must be forced to change their religious views to accommodate abortions.

“‘Far too many women are still denied critical access to reproductive health care and safe childbirth. All the laws we’ve passed don’t count for much if they’re not enforced,’ Clinton said, using the euphemism for abortion.

“‘Rights have to exist in practice – not just on paper,’ Clinton argued. ‘Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will. And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.’”

That’s a lot of “have tos.” See the pattern here? Whether it’s Obama saying government will “have to change how the media reports,” or Hillary saying “deep-seated religious beliefs have to be changed,” such despotic demands should spike the neck hair of every freedom-loving American.

And then there are those left-wing extremists whose designs on despotism require that Christians “must be made” to obey. Homosexual practitioner and New York Times columnist Frank Bruni is one such extremist. In his April 3 column titled, “Bigotry: The Bible and the Lessons of Indiana,” Bruni quotes homosexual militant Mitchell Gold, a prominent anti-Christian activist: “Gold told me that church leaders must be made ‘to take homosexuality off the sin list,’” he writes. “His commandment is worthy – and warranted,” he adds.

Of course, if homosexual behavior, something denounced as both “vile affections” and “an abomination” throughout both the Old and New Testaments, is no longer sexual sin, then there can be no sexual sin whatsoever. To coerce, through the power of the police state, faithful Christians to abandon the millennia-old biblical sexual ethic and embrace the sin of Sodom would likewise require that Christians sign-off on fornication, adultery, incest and bestiality. Such is the unnatural nature of government-mandated moral relativism.

“But this isn’t free speech, it’s hate speech!” come the mournful cries of the ill-informed and the ill-prepared, desperately afraid to debate the issues on the merits. “Hate speech is excluded from protection,” opines CNN anchor Chris Cuomo in a recent tweet on the topic. “But there is no hate speech exception to the First Amendment,” replies UCLA law professor Eugene Volohk in a Washington Post op-ed. “Hateful ideas (whatever exactly that might mean) are just as protected under the First Amendment as other ideas.”

Of course this matters not to those to whom the First Amendment is meaningless.

Indeed, one man’s “hate speech” is another man’s truth, and as I’ve often said, truth is hate to those who hate truth.

And boy do they hate it.

And so they mean to muzzle it.

The time of which many of us have long warned is no longer on the horizon. The left’s full-on assault against freedom, most especially religious freedom, is at hand. Oddly, or maybe not so oddly, it’s at once the secular left and orthodox Muslims who lead the charge. These strange bedfellows share a common enemy. He is Truth in the person of Jesus Christ. In order to silence Him, they must silence His faithful followers.

Which brings us to this modern age of American lawlessness. We’re fast moving from a soft tyranny to hard tyranny, and “progressive” leaders like those mentioned above are, chillingly enough, emboldened to the degree that they will openly call for it.

Like our brothers and sisters around the world, American Christians must prepare for suffering.

But, like them, we mustn’t despair.

For there are different kinds of suffering.

Suffering through cancer, for instance, can, and often does, lead to death. Without Christ, who is mankind’s only hope, such suffering is hopeless indeed.

Yet when a young mother suffers through child birth, and while she may experience the same level of pain as the cancer sufferer, her crying out elicits an entirely different response, and her pain serves an entirely different purpose. While one type of suffering leads to death, the other leads to life. While one attends sorrow, the other attends joy.

Similarly, there is a kind of suffering, suffering in sin, which leads to spiritual death, and a kind suffering, suffering in grace, which leads to spiritual life. Anti-Christian persecution, be it efforts to force Christians into disobedience to God, attempts to silence them outright or, worse, the torture, enslavement and even execution of Christ followers – now widespread in both Muslim and Marxist nations across the globe – signifies “the beginning of birth pains” (see Matthew 24:8).

And birth pains lead to new life.

Matt Barber is founder and editor-in chief of BarbWire.com. He is an author, columnist, cultural analyst and an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. Having retired as an undefeated heavyweight professional boxer, Matt has taken his fight from the ring to the culture war. (Follow Matt on Twitter: @jmattbarber).

How the Left Uses Racism, and Will Use Sexism, to Stifle Dissent

Ever since the junior senator from Illinois announced his candidacy for the presidency eight years ago, those who have criticized his politics and his ideology have been pummeled with a charge of “racism.” It’s been the perfunctory, knee-jerk response – devoid of intellectual integrity or factual relevance – to avoid the substantive issues, while attempting to simultaneously stifle dissent and silence critics. And it’s clear from early indications with regard to the 2016 presidential race, that the same modus operandi will be employed against those critical of Hillary Clinton. Only this time it will be gender based – the charge of sexism.

Tea-Party-RacistDuring the Obama tenure, the charge of “racist” has been unavoidable to any who were critical of the president. Whether it was criticism of Obamacare, lack of transparency, fiscal profligacy, inscrutable foreign policy, class-envy fomentation, and anti-capitalist policies, it didn’t matter. Regardless of the logic, data, facts, or strength of argument, if you opposed the administration policies and initiatives, you were a racist. At least according to the sycophants, who were either oblivious to logic, data, or facts, and had an empty logical quiver from which to fire back with anything except blanks.

And what’s pathetic, from a free speech, open discourse, and cogent political discourse perspective, is that it worked. The millions of Americans who flocked to Tea Party rallies, Glenn Beck confabs, and other conservative functions, were successfully labeled “racists” because of their opposition to the liberal, destructive policies of the administration. It didn’t matter what color, race, creed, or socio-economic status they hailed from, they were all racists.

democrats-racist-end-is-near-cartoonFor some reason, the fact that the policies propounded and foisted on the nation the past six years are not race-based seems lost on the vapid purveyors of the “racist” tactic. Big government, massive debt, onerous regulations, expansive government control, and the concomitant loss of personal liberty are naturally opposed not because they might be advanced by someone of a certain color, ethnic background, or native language. They’re opposed because they’re antithetical to the founding principles of our republic! It matters not who is foisting the destructive policies and ideology on the nation; it matters that they’re distinctly anti-American. Conservative Ben Carson’s current lead in the crowded GOP primary race underscores that fact.

racist_0What’s brilliant about the tactic, is that you don’t have to worry about any facts, data, or common sense to employ it. Just by hurling the accusation several things have been accomplished with one fell swoop. 1) The argument has been misdirected, so it’s no longer about the policies or the substance of the disagreement, it’s now whether the dissenter is truly racist or not. 2) It neutralizes and diminishes the objections of the dissenter, for now the greater issue is whether he is in fact racist, or not. And 3) it successfully stifles dissent, since no one, probably even real racists, likes to be called one, so why go out on a limb and face the probability of such an accusation?

And now it appears that Hillary Clinton supporters will use the same tactic. Just last month a pro-Hillary group, self-dubbed the HRC Super Volunteers, warned journalists that they were going to be watching vigilantly how the media reports on Hillary’s campaign. Group member and co-founder, John West, was thoughtful enough to serve as an early warning system on the words that cannot, I repeat, cannot be used to describe the probable Democrat candidate for president. According to West, “polarizing,” “calculating,” “disingenuous,” “insincere,” “ambitious,” “inevitable,” “entitled,” “over-confident,” “secretive,” “will do anything to win,” “represents the past,” and “out of touch,” are all apparently sexist code-words that the media are to not use when describing the candidate.

hillar_c_wordsAccording to West, “Already we have seen the coded language of sexism and innuendo used by major news outlets and we are not happy,” followed by a list of examples from major news sources and their egregious use of such sexist vernacular. As a student of language and etymology, I have to admit I was unaware those words and phrases were definitionally sexist.

But alas, I shouldn’t let myself fall into their misdirection and accusatory trap. It’s not that those words are sexist, it’s just that they’re so accurately descriptive of the presumptive Democrat nominee that using the terms will earn the consternation of Hillary devotees, hence justifying accusations of sexism. By couching those terms in a sexist context, they can as easily avert factual criticism of Hillary as they did in protecting Obama. Just like the accusations of “racism;” it has nothing to do with what is true or what is factual, it has everything to do with ensuring electoral success and neutralizing the opposition by attempting to shape and control the language.

UnknownThose of us who are bitter clingers to our freedom, our liberties, and the principles the nation was founded on, shouldn’t allow ourselves to be rebuffed or silenced by the non-thinking Alynski devotees who utilize these nefarious and polarizing tactics. And remember, if that’s their primary tool to fight back with, you know that logically you’ve already won, because their only defense is casting aspersions ad hominem.

There are two things even more disturbing than a group attempting to regulate political speech. One, that the liberal-biased media may well comply, and play their game; and two, that for a large segment of our unenlightened and uninformed electorate, their “sexist” tactic will work.

Associated Press award winning columnist Richard Larsen is President of Larsen Financial, a brokerage and financial planning firm in Pocatello, Idaho and is a graduate of Idaho State University with degrees in Political Science and History and coursework completed toward a Master’s in Public Administration. He can be reached at [email protected].

Can A New President Unravel Obama’s Mess?

There is no doubt that Obama is one of the worst presidents this country has seen, his domestic policies and foreign policies have weakened this country so that America has become a joke around the world. I feel sorry for the next president.

There is no doubt that Obama inherited a bad economy, a recession that the majority of Americans say never ended. American history has shown us that the more severe the recession, the stronger the recovery, but Obama has prevented growth in this country with his anti job growth policies, A.K.A Liberal-Progressive policies. In Obama’s recovery, annual growth has been the slowest since the U.S. began compiling economic statistics, a measly 2.9%. This year is off to an even slower start, with GDP growing 0.2% in the first three months.

Jobs also will be on that list, it took from June 2009 to April 2014, almost five full years to get back to having the same number of people working as when the recession began in December 2007. A third of Americans between 18 and 31 last year were living with their parents, the labor participation rate was at the lowest point since 1978. The Bureau of Labor Statistics says 4.5 million Americans were working part time for economic reasons in December 2007, meaning they could not find full-time work. Last month the number was 6.6 million, a 46% increase. More part-time workers are getting fewer than 30 hours a week.

Let’s not forget the size of Americans paychecks. Inflation-adjusted median household income has dropped, from $54,059 in 2009 to $51,939 in 2013, the only time this has happened during an economic recovery. According to a recent Brookings Institution study, every year of Obama’s presidency more American businesses have closed, merged or gone bankrupt than have been created.

The national debt has risen to 74.1% today from 40.8% the month Obama took office. The Congressional Budget Office says that within 25 years the public debt will exceed 100% of GDP unless Washington changes its policies. Obama wasted six years by refusing to make reforms to hold down growth in entitlement spending, which means programs that will go bust are Social Security disability trust fund in 2016, the Medicare hospital trust fund in 2030 and Social Security’s Old Age and Survivor’s trust fund in 2032.

Let us not forget Obama has made us less safe around the world, calling ISIS the JV team, pulling out of Iraq when all the generals told him not to. Not helping the Ukraine after they were invaded by Russia. Foreign leaders think he is a joke and insult him when ever they can, drawing red lines that mean nothing, and our enemies know it.

Yes there is much more, you can fill in the blanks, Obama-Care which is a disaster, and let’s not forget his unconstitutional executive orders, many have been shot down by the Supreme Court. Obama came into office and divided a nation, I have not seen this country so divided since the mid-1960’s.

Yes, Obama is leaving one hell of a mess and no matter who the next president is they are in for a rough ride, it is gonna take many years to undo the damage this Liberal-Progressive president has done. Will the American people finally learn that Liberal-Progressive policies don’t work and are destructive to our country? Some how I don’t think so.

“What Kind Of Society Are We Leaving Our Kids” Available here.

Responsible

This is one man’s opinion.

Our very own Baghdad Bama!

Yes, we have Baghdad Bama and his trusty sidekick John Kerry! As national and satellite pictures were showing American troops taking over Baghdad airport and moving towards the city, Baghdad Bob proclaims, “There are NO AMERICANS infidels in Baghdad. Never!” on live TV… as you can hear the shells going off in the background! Reports came in from various news sources with Baghdad Bob saying, “I blame Al-Jazeera – they are marketing for the Americans!” When asked by reporters how the Iraqi army would do against the Americans he replied, “My feelings – as usual – we will slaughter them all.” And let’s not forget, “Our initial assessment is that they will all die.” Baghdad Bob had so many gems that he tries to sell but failed.

I believe we are seeing that same thing here in America. We consistently hear from the White House that the economy is good, jobs are on the rise, people are feeling better, and the biggie… we are living in the safest time in history! In what universe? Consumer confidence is down, most jobs created are part-time, the economy can’t maintain a 2% misery index, credit card debt is up, home sales are down. Do you need more?!

This Administration also goes on to say there are no scandals, and no issues at the IRS. Benghazi, though a tragedy, was played out by the U.S. perfectly and it all happened because of a movie maker. We are stuck in a Twilight Zone marathon featuring the Obama Chronicles.

The economy, after the (real) Great Depression of 1930 made a strong comeback. The US saw growth rates of 11, 8, and 13 percent over the 3 years it took to recover. Most experts agreed, if the government had gotten out of the way recovery would have been so much quicker! What wouldn’t I give for a 5 or 6% recovery today?

Read the rest at:  Baghdad Bama

Decades of Liberal Policies Have Decimated Baltimore

Culpability for the events in Baltimore over the past couple of weeks has perhaps inappropriately been directed exclusively at the police department. In all likelihood, the charges against the police involved in the tragic death of Freddie Gray are only symptomatic of the greater underlying problems of the once booming city. The greater tragedy is the destructive policies of over fifty years of liberal governance, which created the environment of disparity, poverty, and victimhood.

baltimore-riot-police-car-AFP-640x480The city has been hemorrhaging jobs at an alarming rate for decades. And the most hard-hit have been the city’s black youth. Over 37% of 20-25 year-old black males are unemployed, versus 10% for white males of the same age. Black household median income is nearly half what it is for white households, at $33,610 and $60,550, respectively.

City policies have shrunk the population of the city by heavily penalizing the productive and earning households. Steve Hanke and Stephen Walters of Johns Hopkins University wrote in the Wall Street Journal earlier this week, “Officials raised property taxes 21 times between 1950 and 1985, channeling the proceeds to favored voting blocs and causing many homeowners and entrepreneurs — disproportionately Republicans — to flee. It was brilliant politics, as Democrats now enjoy an eight-to-one voter registration advantage.”

Rising Taxes and Declining Population

Rising Taxes and Declining Population

The result is a declining population, declining business enterprise, declining jobs, and severe blighting of the infrastructure. The city now has an estimated 16,000 vacant buildings and over 14,000 vacant lots. In the area of Sandtown-Winchester and Harlem Park, where Freddie Gray lived, more than 25% of the buildings are now vacant.

More than 40,000 residents have fled from the high tax, low job-opportunity confines of Baltimore, to the more favorable economic climate of Virginia. According to the Washington Times, they took a whopping $2.17 billion with them. No wonder Gallup found last year that 47% of the residents of the state said they would leave if they could. Interestingly, the only two states that registered higher in their 2014 poll were the states of Illinois and Connecticut, two more bastions of liberal tax and anti-enterprise policy.

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

Over 16,000 Vacant Buildings in Baltimore

Hanke and Walters explain that in order to counterbalance the high taxes that have driven so many jobs out of town, the city has been attempting to lure “developers with subsidies, and the developers, in turn, contribute to politicians to stay in their good graces. This makes for fertile ground for the city’s corruption.” The city’s ruling elite for decades has been pumping literally billions of dollars into development projects that were to mysteriously “trickle down” to the impoverished sections of town.

One example is the highly anticipated Inner Harbor project. As Todd Krainin wrote in Reason magazine, “Instead of revitalizing the city’s fortunes, the rise of the waterfront has paralleled the decline of basic functions. Violent crime remains high, public schools underperform, and the cityscape is blighted by the presence of tens of thousands of vacant buildings.”

Yet the visionary liberals ruling the city are pinning their hopes on yet another big-ticket project. They’ve committed $400 million in public subsidies to Harbor Point, the latest boondoggle of the city fathers.

UnknownMeanwhile, city residents have been losing their homes at an alarming rate. Especially hard hit are those most involved in the looting and rioting after Freddie’s death. Baltimore County Public Schools reveals that they’ve seen a 28% increase in homeless student enrollment over the past three years. According to Labor Department Data, 61% of Baltimore’s children live in poverty.

President Obama was surprisingly accurate in his assessment of the underlying issues which fostered the failures in Baltimore. He suggested that “the police alone can’t solve the problems of communities where there are no fathers who can provide guidance to young men; communities where there’s no investment, and manufacturing has been stripped away; and drugs have flooded the community.”

But then his liberalism kicked in. “I’m under no illusion that out of this Congress we’re going to get massive investments in urban communities,” he said. “And so we’ll try to find areas where we can make a difference around school reform and around job training, and around some investments in infrastructure in these communities trying to attract new businesses.”

West.jpg.pagespeed.ce.NGkhqN1J13The ideology which has governed Baltimore, Detroit, Illinois, California, and the nation for the past several years, has always been to create a new policy or social program, or additional taxes and spending (aka “investments”) to address our socio-economic ailments. It’s not “school reform,” “job training,” or “investments in infrastructure” that elevate and strengthen communities, it’s a thriving economy. And nothing douses entrepreneurism and economic growth like the massive taxing and regulatory burdens the leftist ideology is so totally invested in.

Perhaps none have addressed the issue as frankly as former Congressman Allen West has. He said last week, “Yes, the dirty little secret that no one wants to admit is that Baltimore, and so many other urban areas and inner city communities in America, are a reflection of the abject failure of liberal progressive socialist policies as advanced by the Democrat party. The truth is that it is a culture of dependency … that has created what we’re seeing play out in Baltimore.”

The policies that have shrunk Baltimore’s economy, stymied the job market, and blighted the cityscape are liberal policies. The policies that have created a lack of trust with law enforcement are liberal policies. It is highly improbable that city officials would ever fess up to their ownership. It’s much more convenient to cast blame wherever they can make it stick, in an obvious obfuscatory misdirection to avoid culpability. Exactly like the president did blaming congress for his own failures in broaching those issues on a national level.

Associated Press award winning columnist Richard Larsen is President of Larsen Financial, a brokerage and financial planning firm in Pocatello, Idaho and is a graduate of Idaho State University with degrees in Political Science and History and coursework completed toward a Master’s in Public Administration. He can be reached at [email protected].

Victims Deserve to Get Attacked Because They Ask for it

The long heard line from the left about rape victims is that regardless of how a victim dressed or acted – rape is solely the fault of the attacker – and I agree. But now, when an event featuring cartoons of Muhammad is to blame – it’s the victims fault, because she asked for it.

Winning-cartoonPamela Geller put on an event in Garland, Texas to find the best cartoon art of the prophet Muhammad. Muslims believe that any depiction of Muhammad is blasphemy. In America, we call it free speech.

Two ISIS-backed terrorists attacked the event and were stopped by a 45 caliber pistol-wielding cop (aka Hero.)

Now, liberal pundits, main stream media talking heads, democrats in-general and even the Garland Mayor are saying that Geller – the victim – basically goaded those muslims into going all jihadi on the place. Basically, they say she was asking for it.

The Mayor of Garland castigated Geller for choosing his town as the place for her event:

Mayor Douglas Athas said he wished Ms. Geller, co-founder and president of the American Freedom Defense Initiative, hadn’t picked Garland as the site for Sunday’s event, the Dallas Morning News reported.

“Certainly in hindsight, we as a community would be better off if she hadn’t,” he told the paper. “Her actions put my police officers, my citizens and others at risk. Her program invited an incendiary reaction. She picked my community, which does not support in any shape, passion or form, her ideology.

 

Of course the mayor spends no time admonishing the two body armor-clad wanna-be-mujaheddin who would definitely have struck somewhere else if not there, some other day if not that night.

Terrorists are looking for a reason to attack and need their deeds to bear symbolism. It Wasn’t about drawing Muhammad cartoons, it was that Americans were doing something Islamists didn’t like – and they needed to be punished for it.

The media and this ill-thought mayor are saying that if a scary person tells you not to do something, do NOT be brave – just do what they say. Then again, that’s exactly how Sharia law works.

Who’s up for a good stoning?

Piss-ChristNow turn the tables again. Remember “Piss Christ” where an artist submerged a crucifix into a jar of urine as an art exhibit? Christians were outraged at what they saw as blasphemy and the display was ultimately vandalized. The media – blamed the vandals, not the artist.

It’s a double-standard. Islamic terrorists are becoming some sort of protected class. Our political correctness will be the weakness they exploit so they may expand, strengthen and attack – over .. and over .. and over.

Then again, it’s our fault – because we asked for it.

The US Needs To Immediately Trash the INF and New START Treaties

Last year, Obama administration recently – and very belatedly – announced it had found Russia in violation of the INF treaty, which prohibits Moscow and Washington from developing, testing, deploying, or otherwise possessing ground-launched missiles with a range between 500 and 5,500 kilometers.

Last week, the Republican-controlled House Armed Services Committee passed its version of the annual National Defense Authorization Act, which would seriously address those blatant Russian violations – something the Obama administration has refused to do.

Russia has been flagrantly violating the treaty since at least 2010, and we conservatives have been warning about this since 2011-2012, when credible reports of such violations first emerged. However, until now, the Obama administration and the pro-arms-control crowd have long been denying this fact – until this violation became too obvious and too easily provable to deny it.

Specifically, Russia has repeatedly flight-tested a new ground-launched cruise missile (R-500) of a range prohibited by the treaty (500 to 5,500 kms) and utilizing Iskander ballistic missile launchers; has flight-tested and deployed Iskander ballistic missiles also within that range envelope (exactly 500 kms, to be specific)[1]; and has flight-tested the Rubezh ICBM at a range of 2,000 kms – again, within the treaty’s envelope. (Some arms control advocates, such as Hans M. Kristensen, STILL deny that Russia has violated the INF Treaty, because, supposedly, the R-500 missile hasn’t been deployed, only tested. This is dead wrong, however.[2])

Now that Russia has effectively made the INF treaty a dead letter and a worthless piece of paper, the administration and its supporters in the pro-unilateral-disarmament community (including the Ploughshares Fund, the Arms Control Association, and other groups) are calling on the US to continue to unilaterally adhere to the treaty and to cut its own arsenal even further – even as Russia continues to build up its own and deploying missiles banned by the INF treaty. They denounce any proposals by strong-defense advocates in and out of Congress to develop America’s own intermediate-range ground-launched missiles.

This article will rebut their claims and thus make an irrefutable case as to why the US should immediately withdraw from the INF and New START treaties.

The Urgency Of The Threat

Firstly, they – spoken for by Ploughshares President Joe Cirincione and ACA’s Thomas Collina – falsely claim the Russian violation is not a grave or immediate threat to American and allied security.

This is dead wrong. Russia’s INF Treaty violation IS an immediate threat to the US AND its allies. These intermediate range missiles allow Russia to target its allies in Europe and Asia (and all US bases there) with very accurate missiles carrying very deadly payloads (nuclear and conventional). With ranges measured in hundreds (Iskander-M/K) and thousands (R-500, Yars-M) of kilometers, these missiles allow Russia to hold all US allies in Europe, and most in Asia, hostage to their nuclear weapons WITHOUT involving Russia’s strategic missile force. This is a very urgent threat.

Russia Will Never Comply With INF – It Faces A Grave Chinese Threat 

Secondly, the advocates of unilateral disarmament falsely claim that there is still time to “resolve this issue” through “patient diplomacy”, and that enough pressure can force Russia to scrap the forbidden missiles and come into compliance with INF. Says Cirincione:

“Concerns are raised privately in hope of resolving them. When that fails, they are made public. When that fails tougher diplomacy is tried. (…) This violation is more than a technical violation, but since it is not an immediate threat to the U.S. or our allies, there is time to use the established arms control mechanism to pressure Russia to halt the cruise missile program, verifiably dismantle any missiles tested in violation of the limits and agree to abide by the treaty’s terms. (…) Congress could back the administration’s efforts and add some clout by confirming into office the man in charge of verifying Russian compliance with arms control treaties. Frank Rose has been patiently waiting more than one year – 384 days – to be confirmed in his post as the assistant secretary of state for verification and compliance. (…) We have cajoled the Russians back into compliance before and – with the right staff in place and a united approach – we can do it again. In the process, we can prevent the Russians from rebuilding the weapons that Ronald Reagan so painstakingly destroyed.”

This is also utterly wrong. There is no way in hell that Russia will come into compliance with the INF treaty and dismantle its intermediate range missiles. Why? For two reasons.

Firstly, Russia has NEVER complied with ANY arms control treaty. On the contrary, it has violated EVERY arms reduction treaty it has ever signed, from the SALT I and II treaties, to the Limited and Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, to the Chemical Weapons Convention, to the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaties.

Secondly, and even more importantly, abiding by the INF treaty is decidedly NOT in Russia’s national interest; on the contrary, it is in its security interest to violate the accord. The reason why is China’s deployment of over 1,200 short-range, and over 120 medium and intermediate range (DF-4, DF-21, DF-25, DF-26C), ballistic missiles, as well as hundreds of intermediate range (DH-10, CJ-10) ground-launched cruise missiles (GLCM). China has literally hundreds of such weapons, and they can deliver nuclear or conventional warheads to anywhere in Russia – WITHOUT the need to involve China’s intercontinental missiles.

PLA_ballistic_missiles_range-590x362

(Source: Department of Defense, Military Power of the People’s Republic of China, Washington DC, 2008.)

So Russia, like the US, is facing a huge threat from China’s ballistic and cruise missiles – and unlike the US, Russia is facing that missile threat right on its doorstep. Yet, Russia, like the US, is prohibited from fielding any intermediate-range ground-launched missiles to counter China, with which it shares a border and with whom it fought a short border war in 1969.

No wonder, then, that for years Russian leaders have called the treaty unjust and have been grousing about withdrawing from it. As they have said, the treaty prohibits only Russia and the US – but not China or anyone else – from fielding intermediate-range ground-launched missiles.

It is absolutely NOT in Russia’s NOR in America’s interest to continue to adhere to such an unequal treaty that only binds two countries in the world and no one else, while other nuclear powers continue to deploy intermediate range missiles and China continues to amass a large arsenal of these.

The difference between the US and Russia is that Russian leaders will do what is in their country’s interest, while America’s leaders will continue to insist on slavish, unilateral adherence to useless arms control treaties no one else observes.

North Korea Doesn’t Succumb to US Pressure – Neither Will Russia

Moreover, if anyone truly believes Russia can be “pressured” into compliance with the INF treaty, they should look at North Korea. That country has been a world pariah – subject to the world’s harshest international sanctions regime – for decades. It is shunned even by its sole formal ally, the PRC, which is now buddying with South Korea instead. It is the world’s most isolated and most heavily sanctioned country.

Yet, many decades of the world’s harshest sanctions regime have completely FAILED to force North Korea to stop, or even slow down, its nuclear weapons programme. Now North Korea has 20 miniaturized nuclear warheads (which it can mate with missiles) and enough highly-enriched uranium to build another 20 – plus missiles capable of reaching at least Alaska. In fact, North Korea’s regime is immensely proud of the fact that it has successfully defied the entire world’s pressure and developed that arsenal.

Does anyone really think Russia will succumb to American pressure and comply with arms control agreements, when the world’s greatest pariah, North Korea, has not?

So there is absolutely ZERO chance of Russia complying with the INF Treaty. It won’t, because it is not in its national security interest. Nor in America’s, for that matter.

It Is In America’s Vital Interest To Withdraw

Cirincione also falsely claims that:

Pulling out of a treaty that blocks the Russians from deploying weapons that we don’t have and don’t need would be foolish. (…) We have nothing to gain from pulling out of the INF treaty. We already have long-range nuclear weapons trained on hundreds of targets in Russia. We don’t need a few dozen more.”

This is also utterly wrong.

Russia now has more ICBMs, strategic bombers, and nuclear warheads than the US, and plans on adding still more, so the US DOES need to build up its nuclear arsenal – and fast. Moreover, deploying IRBMs (nuclear- or conventional-armed ones) in Europe and Asia would enable the US to hold at least some Russian and Chinese targets at risk without involving America’s intercontinental missile or bomber force – thus freeing up those intercontinental missiles and bombers for being aimed at other targets. More broadly, it would allow the US to counter China’s large deployment of short-, medium-, and intermediate ballistic and cruise missiles in East Asia (including the DF-16, whose range is 1,000 kms, the DF-21, whose range is 1,770 kms, and the DF-26C, which boasts a 3,400 km range).

Withdrawal from the INF Treaty would also allow the US to expand its conventional precision strike options against any targets. Right now, the US relies singularly on conventional-armed, subsonic JASSM-ER and Tomahawk cruise missiles (whose range is just 1,000 and 1,700 kms, respectively) for attacking soft targets and on its tiny fleet of strategic bombers for attacking more distant and hardened targets. But those missiles and bombers are subsonic and thus not good at attacking fleeting or otherwise time-sensitive targets.

Contrary to Cirincione’s false claims, America has nothing to gain by remaining a party to the INF treaty, to which only America adheres, thus essentially disarming itself. But disarming the US unilaterally, so that it will be vulnerable to Russia, is precisely Ploughshares’ and ACA’s goal.

Moreover, the INF treaty is not blocking Russia from anything – even though it formally prohibits Moscow to deploy intermediate range missiles. But the Kremlin is simply not complying with it, and there is no Earthly force which can force it to. Treaties are worth something ONLY if all parties adhere to them; if one or more party violates them, they’re worthless. It’s time to recognize that the INF Treaty is a dead letter.

Fact: the useless INF and New START treaties are not barring Russia from anything.

Beyond INF, Moscow is also violating a host of other arms limitation agreements, including the Biological and Chemical Weapons Conventions, the Open Skies Treaty, the Missile Technology Control Regime accord, the Budapest Memorandum, and the Vienna Memorandum, and has recently withdrawn from the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty.

Trash New START, Too

Likewise, it is in America’s best interest to immediately withdraw from the Obama administration’s utterly failed New START treaty and to start building up, not cutting, its strategic nuclear arsenal. It is utterly foolish to adhere to treaties Russia violates; it is even more foolish and downright suicidal to abide by treaties which require only the US – not Russia – to cut its nuclear arsenal.

Unsurprisingly, the pro-unilateral-disarmament crowd opposes this idea. ACA’s Tom Collina falsely claims that:

“Releasing Russia from existing limits on strategic nuclear forces makes no sense, especially at this time of severe tensions between the West and the Kremlin. (…) If the United States were to stop reducing its nuclear forces under the 2010 New START treaty, Russia would likely do the same, and could even build up its forces. (…) Rubio and his colleagues* go too far with a March 25 resolution that would hold Russia accountable for “being in material breach of its obligations” under the treaty by calling for a halt to U.S. implementation of further strategic nuclear reductions, a move that would likely trigger a similar Russian response.”

Collina’s claims are patently false, just like everything else ACA and Ploughshares claim. Russia is NOT reducing ANYTHING – except reducing arms control treaties to dead letters.

Russia is ALREADY building up its nuclear arsenal, and has been for several years – with the Russian nuclear buildup ACCELERATING after New START was ratified. That’s because New START obligates only the US – but not Russia – to cut its strategic nuclear arsenal, and doesn’t even limit Russia’s tactical nuclear arsenal at all.

It is RUSSIA that is building up its nuclear arsenal, while the US is disarming itself unilaterally.

Moscow is currently:

  • increasing its total number of deployed strategic warheads;
  • replacing single-warhead Topol and Topol-M missiles with 6-warhead Yars ICBMs;
  • replacing 4-warhead Skiff sub-launched missiles with Bulava and Liner missiles capable of carrying 10-12 warheads;
  • building a new class of guided missile submarines;
  • resuming the production of Tu-160 strategic bombers, capable of carrying 12 nuclear warheads each;
  • in sum, adding greater quantities of warheads and warhead carriers of all types.

As with the INF treaty, the US needs to reconsider whether or not to slavishly and unilaterally adhere to an arms control treaty that leaves it completely disadvantaged vis-a-vis Russia.

Cirincione And Co. Claim to Follow Reagan, Yet Bash His Policies

But Cirincione and Co. don’t just insist on America’s unilateral compliance with INF; they openly claim Ronald Reagan’s deployment of intermediate range missiles was a “failed policy” that should not be revisited:

“If we built new intermediate-range missiles, where would we deploy them? Europe? The last time we tried that, millions of citizens took to the streets of Europe in protest of U.S. and Russian weapons. There is no reason to revisit the failed policies of the past.”

Actually, the REALLY failed policies of the past (and the present) are the arms control policies Ploughshares, the ACA, and the Obama administration advocate: disarming the US unilaterally, and unilaterally adhering to arms control treaties. This is supposed to encourage others to be nice and disarm themselves. In practice, it has never worked. It has always failed spectacularly.

Russia has NEVER complied with ANY arms control treaties it has signed. It has flagrantly violated every one of them. That previous US presidents have allowed Moscow to get away with that is NO justification for letting Russia off the hook today. THAT is one of the failed policies of the past.

By contrast, Reagan’s deployment of US intermediate-range missiles in 1983 – which Cirincione falsely claims was a “failed policy” – actually reestablished nuclear balance between the US and the USSR in Europe, countered Russia’s 1,200 intermediate-range missiles there, and in 1987 forced the Kremlin to come back to the negotiating table and agree to dismantle all of these missiles. Gorbachev wanted to stop the arms race and reduce Soviet military spending to try save the stagnant Soviet economy. But he couldn’t do so unilaterally, so he had to agree to a treaty.

Because you can bring Russians into agreement ONLY when negotiating and acting from a position of STRENGTH, not weakness and appeasement. Unilaterally adhering to arms control treaties nobody else complies with leads to America’s weakness and dramatically REDUCES America’s security. This is precisely what the Obama administration has been doing, and precisely what the arms control crowd advocates.

Cirincione is advocating an alternate version of history where Ronald Reagan was an anti-nuclear peacenik. Urging conservatives not to attack the international arms control regime, he falsely claims:

Before letting loose the wrecking ball, they should check in with one of the principle architects of the regime and one of the toughest and most pro-arms control presidents in U.S. history: Ronald Reagan. (…) This was never President Reagan’s approach.”

Dead wrong again. While Reagan did (wrongly) indulge in arms control bargaining, he never allowed arms reduction policies and accords to cut America’s defenses to inadequate levels or to leave the US at an inferior military position vis-a-vis its adversaries. He never signed any agreements, nor implemented any arms reduction policies, that he feared would leave the US disadvantaged. He rejected calls for a nuclear freeze and for abandoning the SDI and his large-scale nuclear arsenal modernization programme. For Reagan, arms control talks were subordinate to the US military’s needs and to the need to win the Cold War against the USSR – not the other way around.

ReaganPeaceQuote

Most importantly, when Ronald Reagan caught the Soviet Union cheating, he did not hesitate to withdraw the US from useless arms control accords. Such was the case with the SALT-II accord: when Reagan found the USSR in violation of the treaty, in 1986, he withdrew the US from it.

As Reagan himself said: “No violations of a treaty can be considered to be a minor matter, nor can there be confidence in agreements if a country can pick and choose which provisions of an agreement it will comply with.”

Cirincione invokes Reagan’s failure to withdraw the US from the ABM treaty in the face of Soviet violation of it as supposed “proof” Reagan would support his position, rather than urge INF treaty withdrawal.

This is completely wrong. The only reason Reagan didn’t withdraw the US from the ABM treaty was because liberals in the federal government, especially in the State Department, fiercely resisted the idea, and continued to until George W. Bush finally withdraw the US from that useless treaty. A fight against the entrenched liberals in the federal bureaucracy over the ABM treaty was, alas, beyond Reagan’s strength, time, and patience.

Cirincione also falsely accuses the US of violating the INF treaty:

The Russians have their own complaints about us. We have actually built a brand-new intermediate-range missile. But we don’t call it a missile. We call it a target and use it to test our anti-ballistic missile interceptors in the Pacific. The Russians think it violates the treaty; we disagree.”

But this is utterly false. The mock missiles used to test American missile defenses do NOT violate the INF treaty, because that treaty allows for mock missiles to be used as targets. Article VI, paragraph 3, of the treaty clearly states:

3. If a GLBM is of a type developed and tested solely to intercept and counter objects not located on the surface of the earth, it shall not be considered to be a missile to which the limitations of this Treaty apply.

Paragraph 11 of the same article also clearly states:

11. A ballistic missile which is not a missile to be used in a ground-based mode shall not be considered to be a GLBM if it is test-launched at a test site from a fixed land-based launcher which is used solely for test purposes and which is distinguishable from GLBM launchers.

Cirincione also complains that reintroducing American intermediate range missiles in Europe or Asia could spark protests like those of 1983 against American Pershing and cruise missiles. But these protests were financed by the Soviet Union, and in any case, America’s military deployments should be determined solely by America’s and its allies’ security needs, NOT European popular opinion.

****

So, to close, the question before US policymakers is quite simple:

Russia is flagrantly violating the INF treaty (and a host of other arms limitation agreements) by testing and deploying missiles banned by that accord, and has been doing so for years. In so doing, Moscow is gravely threatening America’s and its allies’ security. Should the US continue to UNILATERALLY adhere to treaties Russia is not abiding by and has no intention of abiding by?

This writer says no. The Obama administration, the Democratic Party, and arms control advocacy groups, however, say “yes, the US should continue unilaterally adhering to arms control treaties nobody else abides by.”

*******************

Footnotes:

[1] The INF Treaty prohibits both the US and Russia from producing or deploying any ground-launched ballistic or cruise missiles which have a range equal to or exceeding 500 kms but not greater than 5,500 kms. The Iskander (SS-26 Stone) missile’s range is exactly 500 kms, putting it squarely within the INF Treaty’s jurisdiction and thus making it illegal.

[2] Kristensen is dead wrong, because the INF Treaty doesn’t merely prohibit the production, stockpiling, and deployment of ground-launched missiles of such range; it also prohibits maintaining any production, maintenance, storage, or test facilities for them (the treaty calls them “missile support facilities”):

9. The term “missile support facility,” as regards intermediate-range or shorter-range missiles and launchers of such missiles, means a missile production facility or a launcher production facility, a missile repair facility or a launcher repair facility, a training facility, a missile storage facility or a launcher storage facility, a test range, or an elimination facility as those terms are defined in the Memorandum of Understanding.

The Elimination Protocol attached to the treaty further stipulates that any test or training missiles and the associated equipment is ALSO subject to elimination:

3. For both Parties, all training missiles, training missile stages, training launch canisters and training launchers shall be subject to elimination.

 

4. For both Parties, all stages of intermediate-range and shorter-range GLBMs shall be subject to elimination.

Article IV of the treaty requires that not only the banned missiles themselves, but also their support facilities and support equipment be completely dismantled and never reconstituted:

Article IV

 

1. Each Party shall eliminate all its intermediate-range missiles and launchers of such missiles, and all support structures and support equipment of the categories listed in the Memorandum of Understanding associated with such missiles and launchers, so that no later than three years after entry into force of this Treaty and thereafter no such missiles, launchers, support structures or support equipment shall be possessed by either Party.

Yet, Russia has tested the prohibited R-500, SS-26, and RS-24 Rubezh missiles on some of its military proving grounds – which makes these test facilities a violation of the treaty – and has produced test examples as well as retained production facilities for intermediate range missiles – all of which is a violation of the above provisions of the treaty.

Liberal-Progressive Policies Equal Devastation

 

If anyone wants to see how destructive Liberal policies are, they only have to look at the worst cities in the country. As if we didn’t learn anything from the collapse of Detroit, a once thriving city where the birth of the automobile industry began, but after decades of Liberal Democratic leadership has become a waste land.

What about the other cities, not only Detroit, but also Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, and Washington, DC, among other cities have all become riddled with crime and poverty. All these cities have one thing in common; they have been run for decades by the Liberal Progressives.

Now we see Baltimore, a once vibrant city also run by Liberal Progressives for decades. On MSNBC, Michael Eric Dyson said, “Society refuses to help [young blacks] in a serious fashion,” Is this guy kidding or what, we have spent trillions of dollars since the 1960s trying to help, but Liberal Progressives seem to be blind to that fact, all they seem to cry for is more money.

Instead of looking into the heart of the problem, black leaders seem to be content making excuses for the rioters. The mayor of Baltimore walked back calling the rioters’ thugs, as well as many other black leaders did as well. Making excuses and not prosecuting these thugs will only ensure one thing, more violence.

Matthew Hennessey of the City Journal said; “Who owns Baltimore’s rage? Some facts: Every member of the Baltimore City Council is a Democrat. Every mayor since 1967 has been a Democrat. Such political homogeneity invites corruption. If some element of the city’s police department is brutal and corrupt, it’s because no one in Baltimore has lifted a finger to stop them.”

Over the past couple of years the one thing that these black men who were shot by cops all have in common, they were all criminals, but they seem to be glorified instead of calling them what the really are, a menace to a civilized society. More money is never the answer despite what those Liberal Progressives say.

U.S. Army lieutenant colonel Allen West said it best:

West

“What Kind Of Society Are We Leaving Our Kids” Available here.

This is one man’s opinion.

It’s the LEFT who keep racism alive!

This week, among all the garbage that was going on in Baltimore, we saw something we don’t see very often… a parent taking charge of her teenage child who was going down to where the riots were happening. Once the vandalism started it turned to from protests to riots. But she marched through the crowd not caring about her safety to save her child’s life. God bless that woman!

She was a real hero doing something that we don’t see much of today… a parent saying “no, no way, not my child, not today.” She said she wasn’t going to allow her son to disrespect property, disrespect the police, and destroy the community. She said he promised her he would not go down there! So, as SHE said, he lied and went where he should not have been.

This single mom of 6 children took time off from work to be involved. She said when she saw him with his face covered and a brick in his hand she knew he was up to no good. She grabbed him and started smacking him around (with an OPEN hand.) She told him if he wanted to protest he should be a man, show his face, and do it the right way… using nonviolence. (Remember, all you who love Dr. King – nonviolence.)

She did a good thing. She held her son accountable for his actions!

But did she really? The loons on the Left say “no”! They say what she did was wrong. And now Baltimore child protective services is investigating her out. Their statement, “If she would do this to her son in public, what is she doing to her kids in private?” WHAT?! Are they serious?

Read the rest at:  Responsability

Immigration Then and Now Part 2-Obama The Great Destroyer

immigration-protest-arizona-060510jpg-94515b31f37572ea_large.jpg (432×306)
140406protest.jpg (379×238)
Rush Limbaugh’s brother David, a highly respected lawyer, wrote a book on Obama few years ago called “The Great Destroyer” How right he was about that title. As I said in my previous blog, Obama was brought up to a hate this country and blames it for all the problems in the world. He is setting out to turn us into a third world socialistic banana republic and eventually a Muslim state I bet with letting77,000  Muslims a year in here.

He has been acting with impunity like a third world dictator by ruling by executive order thus bypassing congress. He did the Bergdahl  trade  without consulting congress, he recently granted amnesty to 5 million illegals without consulting congress and now his latest act which enrages me to no end, that of now granting 353,000 refugees from these war torn and third world countries food stamps along with welfare, free education ,free healthcare and other benefits all paid for by the taxpayer you and me and he intends to fly more here for free.

A joint program between the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security called the In Country Refugee and Parole Program is reuniting children from Central America with their parents or just one parent who is now living in the US. And you get to pay for it.

The US State Department confirmed in a call with reporters earlier this month that US taxpayer dollars are being used to fly illegal aliens into the United States.

And once the arrive in the US they children and families will qualify for free education, food stamps, medical expenses and living expenses.

Recently Rush Limbaugh commented on Obama’s rush to amnesty saying:

The Obama administration is facing new accusations that the president’s amnesty-for-illegals program is focused on getting enough immigrants to  register as Democrat voters to keep his party in power in 2016.

According to J. Christian Adams, a former Department of Justice attorney who writes at PJ Media, President Obama’s “amnesty by edict has always been about adding new Democrats to the voter rolls, and recent action by the Department of Homeland Security provides further proof.

“Sources at the Department of Homeland Security report to PJ Media that the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services is reallocating significant resources away from a computer system – the ‘Electronic Immigration System’ – to sending letters to all 9,000,000 green card holders urging them to naturalize prior to the 2016 election.”

Two comments I recently saw sums Obama and his plans up:

 How much data does one need to figure out that Obama is no more a Christian then Judas Iscariot was. Obama would claim anything if it meant getting votes. His whole life is a fraud.

We don’t even know the guy’s legal name. You see his mother was supposedly married to a guy Barack Hussein Obama Sr and then divorces the guy. Obama only saw the guy once or twice. The guy was a deadbeat drunk and ultimately killed himself in a car wreck(look it up).

Fast forward, Stanley Ann Dunham(no kidding that was his mother’s name … look it up) was remarried to a Lolo Soetoro. They moved to the predominant muslim nation of Indonesia. Obama lived there during him formative years of 6 to 10. Gee I wonder what sort of non-USA worldview he acquired in Indonesia. So did he lose his citizenship? Um unless he knew the future, and given that Indonesia DID not allow for dual citizenship, inquiring minds would like to know. Oh and what became of his legal name?

Barry Soetoro named after his stepfather.

So how exactly does the guy leave his mother at age 10 and arrive back in the USA? Was he even legal. And what alias or name did he go by?

We don’t even know the guys legal name. Explains a lot when your whole life is living in the shadows. Also explains why a supposed Harvard Law grad would take up community organizing in one of the most corrupt cities which DOES not vet.. Chicago.

BobDes • 

Obama knows simple logic and that is to win an election it takes achieving the greatest quantity of votes. It is not important to him of how the votes are gained, “by hook or crook”, or what the unintended consequences will be with achieving a win! What he did not anticipate is the serious debacle Hillary has put herself in so he is now in a panic to capture the illegal immigrant votes by whatever means to offset what Democrats Hillary will lose. Also, what might be lurking in the shadows in Obama’s thinking is if he gains sufficient democratic control he just might be able to pry the door open enough for a third term in the future.

 He is right. There has been a lot of talk lately about here not being any elections and Obama will declare martial law and have a third term. It can’t happen here you say? Only time will tell. When the National Guard was called out in Baltimore they were quick to say this is not martial law. Think about it.

 The real reason for Obama’s executive amnesty

Powdered Wig Society 353,000 refugees now on food stamps, and the number is gr

 

Oral Arguments at SCOTUS on Same-Sex Marriage

The oral arguments before the Supreme Court this week stimulated vigorous legal discourse not just between the counsel for the represented parties, but amongst the justices themselves. The questions posed to counsel cannot reliably serve as tealeaves, prognosticating the court’s ultimate ruling, but they did indicate some of the struggles the court faces when they rule on same-sex marriage.

marriage_dictionaryAt issue is whether several state’s referenda or state statutes defining marriage as between one man and one woman shall stand. Based on public opinion trends on the issue, the ruling may be a moot point, but the legal arguments before the court clearly indicate why the rush toward a redefinition of marriage will have a significant impact on our society and the republic.

Justice Anthony Kennedy pointed out that thinking marriage is the union of a man and a woman “has been with us for millennia. And it—it’s very difficult for the Court to say, oh, well, we—we know better.” He went on to observe that even the concept of same-sex marriage has “only been around for 10 years,” and compared with human history, he conjectured, “I don’t even know how to count the decimals when we talk about millennia.”

Chief Justice John Roberts echoed that observation, by stating, “Every definition that I looked up, prior to about a dozen years ago, defined marriage as unity between a man and a woman as husband and wife.” He then correctly observed, “You’re not seeking to join the institution, you’re seeking to change what the institution is. The fundamental core of the institution is the opposite-sex relationship and you want to introduce into it a same-sex relationship.”

700Making the case that the definition of marriage really has nothing to do with “discrimination,” Justice Stephen Breyer observed that the male/female definition “has been the law everywhere for thousands of years among people who were not discriminating even against gay people, and suddenly you want nine people outside the ballot box to require states that don’t want to do it to change … what marriage is.”

Justice Samuel Alito made the same observation when he declared, “There have been cultures that did not frown on homosexuality. … Ancient Greece is an example. It was well accepted within certain bounds. People like Plato wrote in favor of that.”And yet, ancient Greece and people like Plato never thought a same-sex relationship was a marriage. Alito concluded: “So their limiting marriage to couples of the opposite sex was not based on prejudice against gay people, was it?”

Justice Roberts clarified another significant issue as well, when he alleged that what the petitioners are arguing for in this case is not freedom from government, but government affirmation. Roberts explained that in a previous Supreme Court case, “the whole argument is the State cannot intrude on that personal relationship. Now people are suing saying “the State must sanction. It must approve that relationship. They’re two different questions.”

supreme-court-gay-marriage_mtJohn Bursch, the lawyer defending the traditional marriage laws in Michigan, echoed this point. Based on precedence, he noted that while “the government cannot interfere in private, intimate conduct, the Court cannot as a constitutional matter … force the State into these relationships by forcing them to recognize and give benefits to anyone.”

Bursch made another critical point in his oral arguments. He said, “the marriage institution did not develop to deny dignity or to give second-class status to anyone. It developed to serve purposes that, by their nature, arise from biology.” He pointed out that the same-sex marriage argument is significantly different. “Now, the marriage view on the other side here is that marriage is all about love and commitment. And as a society, we can agree that that’s important, but the State doesn’t have any interest in that.”

He continued by illustrating that redefining marriage to say that it’s primarily about emotional commitment would have consequences. “When you change the definition of marriage to delink the idea that we’re binding children with their biological mom and dad, that has consequences. The consequences of redefining marriage won’t happen overnight, but the law will have an impact. We’re talking about something that’s going to change the meaning of the institution over generations.”

Chief Justice Roberts tendered perhaps the most significant indicator on how the court may rule. He noted that a court-imposed 50-state solution would not lead to civil peace, but to anger and resentment. “If the Court unilaterally redefined marriage, there will be no more debate. Closing of debate can close minds, and it will have a consequence on how this new institution is accepted. People feel very differently about something if they have a chance to vote on it than if it’s imposed on them by the courts.”

MW3_My_Parents_Divorce_and_Video_Games1The premise of the same-sex marriage argument is that adults have the “right” to marry whomever they choose to, regardless of gender. But there is no such premise inherent in the institution of marriage. It is, rather, based in natural law, lex naturalis, which is the system of law that is determined by nature and is thus universal. Same-sex marriage is therefore, logically, preternatural. It has no logical basis in nature, nor can a presumed right can be extrapolated constitutionally, based on equal protection.

Based on logic and strength of arguments, and the types of questions the justices posed during oral arguments, it would seem the court may be inclined to defer such matters to the states respectively. If they do so, given the Roberts Court’s tendency to enjoin the legislative branch, they’ll likely encourage making provision for universal recognition of same-sex couples rights by states which uphold traditional marriage. But that’s logic, which can merely be presumed from the Court, based on precedence.

Associated Press award winning columnist Richard Larsen is President of Larsen Financial, a brokerage and financial planning firm in Pocatello, Idaho and is a graduate of Idaho State University with degrees in Political Science and History and coursework completed toward a Master’s in Public Administration. He can be reached at [email protected].

Evidently, ‘Black America’ Doesn’t Get It

One Baltimore protester exclaimed to FOX News’ Geraldo Rivera, “I want to tell White America to stop not giving a damn about Black people.” And there you have it in a nutshell, the underlying sentiment trying to be vocalized by a violent, frustrated Black urban demographic that has taken to the streets in cities areas across America. There is just one thing wrong with that narrative. It is based in obliviousness of a cultural reality that has been prevalent for the last two to three generations. And it is truly sad.

I grew up in the 1960s. I remember full well the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. The 1960s and the 1970s were decades of true and real change; change that reshaped and redefined American culture in many ways, some for the better, some for the worse. Those years gave way to the Civil Rights movement and the understanding of a need for gender equality, to name but a few of the good things that came from that era. But it also gave way to a degradation of the importance of personal responsibility, civility and a need to be a productive and positive member of a community.

During those years, children were taught to be painstakingly aware of what today would be referred to as racial privilege. In our schools and in our homes, Americans of all racial backgrounds began to understand, fully, the brilliance of the words of Civil Rights movement leaders, especially Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. We were brought up – taught in our schools and by our parents – that we were to form our judgments of other people not on the color of their skin but on the conduct of their character. It made sense. And for at least two to three generations now that is the way White American children have been raised, the first of those generations now in their mid- to late-50s.

But where in the 1960s and 1970s, there was a real issue with racial disparity and discrimination, today we face a moment in time when an entire faction of American society – urban “Black America” – either won’t acknowledge or is incapable of acknowledging the fact that racial disparity and discrimination – societally and systemically, as history accurately recalls – has ceased to exist in the form they have been led to believe.

That sounds like a denial that racism exists in today’s culture. It is not. Rather, it is an observation – based in reality – that systemic racism and discrimination against Black Americans does not exist today, not in the form in which they are led to believe. Are there racists among us? Yes. That intellectually stunted way of thinking, sadly, will always be with us. It is human nature, and humans – no matter how dedicated Progressives are to perfecting the human race (even going so far as to practice eugenics, which is intrinsically detrimental to Black Americans) – will never reach perfection. But that societal malady is not systemic. It is a malady that affects individuals, not the entirety of cultures. Three generations of White Americans have been taught and conditioned to see past race; to see past the color of a person’s skin. Three generations have learned and benefited from a simple idea, that people should form opinions of other people based on their character, the actions, their deeds and the way they interact with others, not their skin color. But, evidently, sadly, urban “Black America” doesn’t seem to get this fact.

“I want to tell White America to stop not giving a damn about Black people.”

I don’t doubt that the person who made that statement truly believes in what he says. In fact, I am certain that he does. I am certain that he believes that every single White American that he passes on the street sees a difference between them. But that is a perception issue based on assumption, not a racial issue. And therein lays the crux of the problem we are facing today in Baltimore, New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Ferguson and elsewhere. Entire urban Black American communities are judging the entirety of “White America” by the sins of eras past (even though over 600,000 men, mostly White, died in pursuit of eradicating slavery in the US Civil War) and by the intellectually stunted actions of individuals today. The sad irony in all of this is that Black America is judging White America by the color of their skin and not the content of its character. Black America – especially urban Black America – is being racist against White America. Where post-Civil Rights Movement White America has learned from the wisdom of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., it appears urban Black America has jettisoned his wisdom in preference to special interest racial privilege, at least in a macro sense.

“I want to tell White America to stop not giving a damn about Black people.”

Logic mandates that there is no possible way that one person can ever truly know what is in another person’s heart – regardless of their race – unless they engage them one-on-one. I would suggest that the man who made that comment has never taken the time to actually talk to the average “White American” about the issue; that he has never had an honest “conversation” about the issue outside of his own like-minded community. Instead, the person who made this statement has been conditioned by the opportunistic politicians and the permanently disgruntled to believe a false narrative, one that divides the nation along racial lines for the purposes of acquiring and maintaining power, and one that will be hard to remove from society unless we all – not just White Americans – start looking past skin color and more towards the character of all Americans, individually.

As for me, I will not be bullied back into the false narrative. I do not judge anyone on the color of their skin, nor do I know anyone, anywhere who does. It is an antiquated thought process that serves no good thing. Instead, I judge people on their actions, their deeds; the way they interact with others, whether they are kind and supportive or jaded, uncaring and indignant, whether they live by the rule of law, working to affect change through a peaceful process, or use violence to destroy, to bully, to intimidate and coerce…I judge them on their character.

Today, as I watch Baltimore burn, I can’t say much for the character of the urban Black American community. Their actions speak for themselves. They are, sadly, disappointingly, trapped in the death-cycle false narrative that institutional racism still exists in the United States…blind to the fact that they could, alternatively, truly be “free at last.”

Rebuttal of Doug Bandow’s Blatant Lies About Ronald Reagan

ReaganPeaceQuoteTwo days ago, the leftist The National Interest magazine published a ridiculous screed by leftist libertarian Doug Bandow, titled “Betrayed: Why Reagan Would Be Ashamed of the Neocons.” Therein, Bandow completely falsifies the history of the Reagan years, falsely claiming that the Gipper was a peacenik who opposed peace through strength and standing up against aggressors, imperialists, and other potential threats to US and global security.

Bandow falsely claims that (emphasis mine):

“Alzheimer’s robbed Ronald Reagan of his memory. Now Republican neocons are trying to steal his foreign-policy legacy. A de facto peacenik who was horrified by the prospect of needless war, Reagan likely would have been appalled by the aggressive posturing of most of the Republicans currently seeking the White House. (…) Indeed, he routinely employed what neocons today deride as “appeasement.” (…)

Worse from the standpoint of today’s Republican war lobby was Reagan’s response to the Polish crisis. Lech Walesa and the Solidarity movement were a global inspiration but the Polish military, fearing Soviet intervention, imposed martial law in 1981. Again, Reagan’s response was, well, appeasement. (..) Indeed, from Reagan came no military moves, no aggressive threats, no economic sanctions. Reagan did little other than wait for the Evil Empire to further deteriorate from within. Little other than talk, that is.

These are blatant lies.

President Reagan NEVER employed a policy of appeasement or anything even remotely resembling it. On the contrary, the Reagan years were eight years of continous, sustained, and relentless effort to bring the Soviet Union down – which eventually succeeded less than 3 years after he left office.

President Reagan did far more than moral posturing; he used every measure short of actual war to bring the Soviet Union to its knees. Specifically, besides condemning the USSR and Communism as evil, he:

  • Rebuilt the US military after 12 years of disastrous cuts, expanded it, and equipped it with thousands of new, cutting-edge weapons which gave the US military a technological edge over the Soviet military; in particular, F-117 stealth attack jets (which rendered all previous Soviet SAM systems obsolete), AH-64 tank-killer helicopters (which threatened to obliterate the massed Soviet tank armies in Europe), Tomahawk cruise missiles (nuclear- and conventionally-armed), stealthy air-to-ground nuclear-capable cruise missiles, MX Peacekeeper ICBMs (capable of carrying 10 warheads each), B-1 bombers (America’s first bombers since 1962, although these are woefully obsolete by now), Ticonderoga class cruisers, M1 Abrams tanks (which, excluding the British Challengers, are arguably the best tanks in the world), M2 Bradley infantry fighting vehicles, and many others. Weapon programs that were initiated during the 1970s were significantly expanded, and many new weapon programs were started.
  • Computerized the US military, which the Soviet Union was not able to do for its own armed forces.
  • Began development of a National Missile Defense System, against which, again, the Soviet Union could not respond.
  • Imposed a slew of harsh sanctions on Moscow after the introduction of martial law in Poland in 1981 and after the Soviets shot down an unarmed Korean airliner in 1983.
  • Introduced American Pershing-II MRBMs and Ground-Launched Cruise Missiles in Europe to counter the Soviet deployment of SS-20 IRBMs, even though the Europeans themselves protested en masse against that and even though many in the US Congress, and even some in his own administration, were opposed to that step.
  • Greatly expanded American aid to anti-Communist movements and US proxies all around the world, including Solidarity in Poland, the mujahedeen in Afghanistan, and anti-Sandinista (anti-Ortega) proxies in Nicaragua.
  • Intervened in Grenada to prevent it from becoming a second Communist outpost on America’s doorstep after Cuba.
  • Convinced Saudi Arabia and other Arab states to greatly increase oil production and thus dramatically reduce the price of oil – which threatened to kill the Soviet economy.
  • Successfully pressured Western European countries into scaling back the Yamal Pipeline project from two lines to one and into delaying it significantly – so much so, in fact, that it wasn’t completed until 1999… 8 years after the Soviet Union’s collapse.
  • Increased and modernized the US nuclear arsenal in response to the Soviet nuclear buildup.

This is a far cry from a policy of “appeasement” that Bandow alleges President Reagan followed. But the Gipper’s tough anti-Soviet policies should be no surprise, given that, as Professor Robert Kaufman reminds us:

“President Reagan’s National Security Decision Directive 75, signed in the summer of 1983, made changing the Soviet regime, which it identified as the root cause of the Soviet Union’s insatiable ambitions, the object of American grand strategy. President Reagan sought to achieve this goal by applying unrelenting and comprehensive political, economic, ideological, and military pressure.”

This was unprecented in US history: a sitting US president had identified a foreign regime as a threat to the peace and security of the whole world, and made changing that regime the highest goal of American foreign policy.

As regards the Polish crisis of 1981 specifically, President Reagan imposed a slew of economic and diplomatic sanctions on the Soviet Union and its puppet regime in Poland and significantly increased American aid to Solidarity in response. Also, Bandow is blatantly lying when he claims that the Polish communist regime of the time “feared Soviet intervention.” No, it did not fear it – it knew that such intervention was NOT forthcoming, because their Soviet puppet masters told them bluntly to their faces (as documents available today demonstrate) that they would NOT send troops to Poland and that Polish communists would have to deal with Solidarity themselves. In addition, both Polish communists and their Soviet puppet masters knew that a second military intervention would’ve been very hard for the Soviet economy – already burdened by the Afghan war – to bear.

Bandow also claims that “Reagan devoted more of his foreign policy time to arms control than to any other subject.” But unlike the “arms control” policy employed by the Obama administration today and advocated by its sycophants at the Federation of American Scientists, the Arms Control Association, the Council for a Livable World, and other pacifist, anti-military organizations, Reagan employed arms reduction policies only when they benefitted the US and only for that purpose – not for the totally unrealistic, fairy tale purposes of “ridding the world of nuclear weapons”, his rhetoric notwithstanding.

President Reagan negotiated and signed, with Mikhail Gorbachev, the first treaty that obligated both the US and the Soviet Union to completely scrap an entire class of nuclear-capable missiles – specifically, medium- and intermediate-range ground-launched missiles (defined as having a range between 500 and 5,500 km).

But this treaty came with a very tough verification protocol attached – something the USSR had stubbornly resisted until Gorbachev agreed to it. And under that treaty, the USSR had to verifiably dismantle almost 1,000 more missiles than the US had to, so the treaty was an American diplomatic victory… achieved, of course, when the USSR was in a position of weakness, with a declining economy burdened by the Afghan war and the 1980s oil price collapse.

Also, the USSR knew it had to comply because President Reagan had earlier shown he would not tolerate cheating on arms limitation treaties. When he caught the USSR cheating on the SALT-II treaty and Moscow refused to comply with it, he withdrew the US from the treaty.

That’s a stark contrast from the Obama administration, which knew of Russia’s violation of the INF treaty as early as 2009-2010, but concealed that information from the public and the Congress in order to goad the Senate into ratifying the (cretinous and treasonous) New START treaty (which has not resulted in Russia scrapping a single nuclear warhead, missile, or bomber). Last year, the Obama administration belatedly acknowledged Russia’s blatant violation of the INF treaty, but to this day, it refuses to do anything except admonish Moscow and “hope Russia returns into compliance.”

Also, Moscow is in violation of many other arms limitation treaties – but the Obama administration is not even willing to acknowledge that fact.

Finally, Bandow falsely claims that:

“Reagan was willing to switch rhetoric and policy when circumstances changed, in this case, the nature of the Soviet regime. (…) Reagan understood that Mikhail Gorbachev was different. A reform Communist, Gorbachev nevertheless humanized the system and kept the military in its barracks. Reagan worked with the Soviet leader, despite heartfelt criticism from his own staffers and fevered denunciations from activists—dissention that Reagan acknowledged in his diary. Gorbachev later wrote that Reagan “was looking for negotiations and cooperation.” Or, in a word, appeasement.”

Again, Bandow’s claims are blatant lies. Again, as Professor Kaufman reminds us (emphasis mine):

“True, Ronald Reagan and British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher recognized sooner than most other hard-liners—or realists such as former President Nixon and his Secretary of State Kissinger—that Gorbachev was a different type of leader. When circumstances changed during Reagan’s second term, he adjusted his policies—but not the premises underlying them. He responded positively to the changes in the Soviet regime during Gorbachev’s tenure. Ultimately, Gorbachev and the Soviet Union agreed to end the Cold War not on their terms, but on Ronald Reagan’s.

 

 

American pressure on the Soviet Union did not abate at any point during the Reagan presidency, despite his view that engaging Gorbachev could facilitate the implosion of the regime. Reagan refused to abandon SDI or the Zero Option calling for the elimination of all intermediate-range nuclear weapons in Europe; Gorbachev capitulated. American defense spending continued to rise, peaking at $302 billion in 1988 (6.6 percent of GDP). The Reagan Administration continued to aid freedom fighters, draining Soviet resources in Asia, the Middle East, and Latin America.

 

 

Nor did Reagan relent in his assault on the moral legitimacy of the Soviet Regime. In June 1987, over the objection of his so-called more realistic advisers, he called on Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall, excoriating it as the symbol of Soviet totalitarianism.”

But don’t take my word, or Professor Kaufman’s, for it, Dear Readers. Here’s what President Reagan himself said about how he brought about America’s triumph in the Cold War:

“Plain talk, strong defenses, vibrant allies, and readiness to use American power when American power was needed helped prompt the reappraisal that the Soviet leaders have taken in their previous policies. Even more, Western resolve demonstrated that the hard line advocated by some within the Soviet Union would be fruitless, just as our economic success has set a shining example.”

Those are President Reagan’s words, not mine.

Doug Bandow’s screed is nothing more than a pathetic attempt to falsify history in order to politically attack Republicans who support an assertive American foreign policy instead of appeasement. Bandow would have us believe that appeasement is what won the Cold War, and that President Reagan practiced it. None of that is true – nor is anything else that Bandow has ever claimed.

« Older Entries