Category Archives: featured opinion

Obama: Still A Legend In His Own Mind

Another State of The Union address has gone by, if you replayed Obama’s first one, then you have seen all the rest. Oh, the words are different, but his message is the same in all of them; tax and spend, tax and spend, that has been his agenda from day one. According to Obama, the world loves us, al-qaeda is on the run and all is right with the world.

We live in a country where the top 10% pay 70% of taxes, but that’s not good enough, Obama will not be happy until the top 10% pays 100% of taxes, and he talks about being fair, give me a break. More taxes and more government regulation is what Obama is all about, he truly believes that government is the answer to all things.

Obama said in his speech, “The shadow of crisis has passed, and the State of the Union is strong.” I guess he overlooked the poll that said over 60% of Americans believe we are still in a recession, along with the 60% who think America is heading in the wrong direction. The labor force participation rate is now 62.7 percent, the lowest level since 1978. Wages are not really growing much either, median family income dropped nearly 4 percent under Obama’s rule. Yes the unemployment rate has dropped to 5.6%, mainly because so many people have dropped out and gave up looking for work. The economy is certainly better, but the shadow of the crisis is likely to be with the U.S. for at least a couple more years.

“The verdict is clear middle-class economics works. Expanding opportunity works. And these policies will continue to work, as long as politics don’t get in the way,” says Obama. Policies continue to work? He said before this past midterm election, that his policies were on the ballot and his party got their ass handed to them because Americans did not think much of his policies. As far as politics is concerned, that is what Obama lives by; he doesn’t make a move unless politics is involved.

More free stuff is what Obama is calling for, after all Democrats have been using that same strategy for the past 200 years, promise free stuff to get votes. On the one hand he wants an initiative providing free community college for two years for students who keep up their grades, yet as part of his tax plan, he is calling for ending a tax break for college savings plans known as 529 plans. Under the change, earnings on contributions could not be withdrawn tax-free, as they can be now. I don’t get it, if someone can pay for their own college they get penalized, but if you didn’t save for college, you get rewarded with free college; there is something wrong with that picture.

Again he is calling for infrastructure spending, saying our roads and bridges are collapsing. What happened to that Trillion dollar stimulus package that was supposed to go for our infrastructure? You remember, all those “shovel ready jobs that were not quite shovel ready as we thought.” That money went to failed “green” companies such as Solyndra. You can bet that Obama’s friends are already standing in line with their hands out.

   “We can’t slow down businesses or put our economy at risk with government shutdowns or fiscal showdowns.” Hey, Obama, what about all your government regulation, how much has that slowed our economy, you are the reason this country has taken so long to rebound. He consistently says he is for the middle class, yet his policies have only made the rich richer and the poor poorer.

There is nothing new in what Obama has to say, he says free stuff, but most of us know there is nothing free in life; someone is going to have to pay for it, and if there are people out there who think the other guy is going to pay for it and not you, you are living in a fantasy world, just like Obama, because his hand will be in your pocket too.

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

This is one man’s opinion.

 

 

 

Speaker Vote Brings Out Worst in Some Conservatives

Compromise

CompromiseThe recent reelection of John Boehner as Speaker of the House brought to light a disturbing trait among some who self-identify as “conservatives.” Boehner has been perceived as a thorn in the side of conservative interests since his first election four years ago, as he has continually acquiesced, or as some say it, “caved” to the left in his chamber, and to the president. The sentiment is captured in a landmark political cartoon showing an elephant reaching across a dangerous precipice toward an indifferent president, titled merely, “The Compromise.”

The sentiment is understandable, and shared by nearly all of us on the right of the political spectrum. But what was disturbing was the reaction of some toward their own congressmen who supported Boehner.

John-Boehner-debt-showdownRaul Labrador (R-ID) won reelection from Idaho’s 1st Congressional District in November and is as steeped in his conservative ideals, and the classical liberal precepts the country was founded upon, as any conservative in Congress. There can be no question that his loyalties lie with the Constitution, the enumerated powers of the federal government, and the rights ostensibly assured thereby.

But after it became known publicly that Labrador had voted for the Speaker, an outpouring of obstreperous denunciations ensued. Comments on Labrador’s Facebook wall accused him of being a traitor, a turncoat, of betraying his conservative values, and betraying all conservatives who voted for him. Many declared they would never support him again, while others called for his recall.

Anyone with a modicum of political savvy, knows, or at least should know, that our chosen candidates, and elected officials, are not always going to vote the way we want them to, or the way we would if we were there. But the very notion of removing, or refusing to vote again for, the congressman because of one vote, even though he may a Freedomworks conservative rating of 90, on a 0-100 scale, is nothing short of idiocy.

This is a dangerous mentality that seems to be common at extremes of any ideology. “Unless you agree completely with me, or refuse to vote precisely the way I would have you vote, I’m not going to support you.” The only way to assure that your representative votes precisely as you want them to is to hold that position yourself. No one sees issues and solutions precisely the same way, except perhaps pure ideologues.

Working together to Build Bridges

Working together to Build Bridges

The derision heaped upon Labrador for his Speaker vote is a perfect example of how illogically and ideologically rigid some can be. Labrador’s conservatism is indisputable, and yet because of one vote, he’s called every pejorative epithet in the book, and many who share his ideological orientation throw him under the bus. This is where the ignorance of governance is so blatantly manifest. A viable educational tool might be to consider what other forms of extremism employ the same tactic that ostracizes and divides based on ideological “purity.”

A critical component to our efforts in working together in this democratic experiment is the didactic process of refining tactics based on efficacy. That includes identifying the destructive tactics that preclude the very notion of compromise, (which is essential in a constitutional republic), and contribute to the increased polarization of the body politic. This is clearly one of the most detrimental tactics; when we are so rigid in our ideological convictions that we destroy the relationship shared with others who think mostly as we do. It’s destructive to the political process, and its nascence and impetus, is based in ideological rigidity.

saul-alinsky-obama-luciferIt’s also a tactic of some on the left, as superbly promulgated by Saul Alinsky. “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Conservatives should realize that the consequences of implementing the tactic on themselves vitiates the advantages of a conservative voting block by dividing and parsing tranches based on perceived fealty to our founding principles. The result basically culls the “nonbelievers” from the “believers,” by lashing out, maligning, and condemning those who are perceived to not agree entirely, essentially ostracizing those who should be our allies.

It should be disturbing to conservatives when they learn that they employ the same tactic as other extremists, but many seem to revel in it, as if it’s a badge of honor of how “conservative” they are. That’s not a measure of political ideological integrity – it’s a measure of political ignorance of how the system works and how we have to work together in this republic of ours.

We should express our disapprobation to our elected officials when we disagree. But it’s totally illogical, and self-destructive, when we marginalize and alienate those with whom we share values, but may differ occasionally on specific votes. There aren’t many affirming or positive adjectives that can be used to describe someone who can only be supportive of, or civil to, someone with whom they agree 100% of the time.

If conservatives continue these tactics, they will succeed only in splintering and dividing themselves, granting the left victory after victory at the polls. It’s so often quoted that I hesitate to say it again, but apparently some need the continual reminder. As Ronald Reagan once said, “He who agrees with me 80% of the time is not my enemy.” Or his variation on that theme, “My eighty-percent friend is not my twenty-percent enemy.”

A Positive Constitutional Right: Your Child is Village Property

Parental_Rights

“We need to break through this private idea that kids belong to their parents, or kids belong to their families and recognize that kids belong to their whole communities.” – MSNBC Host Melissa Harris-Perry states

Children today are considered village property. While some believe parental rights depend on elected official’s vote, this conjures up images of communist or fascist youth. As Hilary Clinton declared, “It Takes A Village To Raise A Child.”

Alexander Hamilton described the people’s rights best be in “a treatise of ethics than in a constitution of government.” Government “is merely intended to regulate the general political interests of the nation, than to a constitution which has the regulation of every species of personal and private concerns.” Big government advocates advocate for positive rights, parental rights granted by government. In other words, children become property of the state.

The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights declares that everyone has a right to education. Article 26 states “Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.” In 1989, the UN Convention on the Rights of a Child declares states are responsibility to eliminate “ignorance and illiteracy throughout the world.” It goes on that “education given in such institutions shall conform to such minimum standards as may be laid down by the State.” The Parental Rights Amendment establishes such parental responsibility.

In 1992, Lawyers capitalize on children’s rights with Gregory K as the first child in American history to sue his parents for a divorce. Judge Kirk declared that the boy has the same constitutional right to protect his fundamental interests as an adult. This established “a precedent for other cases.”

In 1992, Gregory K sued his parents for abuse. In 2014, young adults are suing for college tuition. 21-year old, Caitlyn Ricci sued her parents for college tuition despite neither parent seeing her for the last two years. 18-year old, Rachel Canning sued her parents for financial support and college tuition. Her parents said she left home because she didn’t want to obey their rules.

United States has yet ratified the United Nations treaty but NGOs are still pushing for the Parental Rights Amendment. The Parental Rights Amendment declares “The liberties of parents to direct the upbringing, education, and care of their children is a fundamental right.” This amendment grants positive rights to the parent. It provides the liberties of parents “the right to choose public, private, religious, or home schools, and the right to make reasonable choices within public schools for one’s child.”

NGOs seek to establish a “Big Brother” using the history of children’s rights to collectivize children. The true question is whether our children belong to the family or are collective property organized under “the State.”

Obama to go on Offense – with nothing to lose

obama_evil

obama_accessory_to_murderPresident Obama made clear to Democrats, in a closed-door meeting, that he intends to do everything possible to obstruct the newly-elected Republican congress.

Politico reports, Obama is going shock-and-awe to stop the popularly-elected Congress:

According to several sources at the Thursday summit in Baltimore, Obama vowed to defend his agenda against Republicans in Congress, promised to stand firm against GOP efforts to dismantle his agenda and called on his Democratic colleagues to help sustain his expected vetoes. The president also was explicit over his administration’s opposition to an Iran sanctions bill, promising to veto legislation with his administration in the midst of multilateral nuclear negotiations with the Middle Eastern regime.

This President has nothing to lose. As a second-term, lame-duck and largely unpopular leader has no political capital, prestige or honor left to give up. He cannot be re-elected, no Democrat wants them on their campaign stops and every leader in Congress that supported his agenda is… no longer a leader (R.I.P Harry and Nancy.)

The difficulty the President faces is that many other re-electable Democrats don’t actually agree with him. It would seem that about 40% of Democrats support the Keystone XL Pipeline and moderate Dems are ready to bump heads with the lame-duck President:

Centrist Democrats have criticized President Obama for the time it has taken to review the project, and are trying to pass legislation to approve Keystone XL.

These Democrats are in-danger of losing their seats as their constituents face real day-to-day costs like gas and groceries. Obama’s policies have done nothing to help them and the President’s new obstructionist stance just infuriates those already tired of the inability of Washington to do much of anything.

The President of change and working together is now the President of “My way or the highway.” Then again.. hasn’t he always?

Facebook CEO Pushes Freedom of Expression While Censoring Content

facebook-nasdaq-board-1-200

facebook-nasdaq-board-1-200Facebook CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, has made statements in support of free expression while dealing with the hypocrisy of censoring content on his own social media site.

Zuckerberg’s status update on 9 January promising “a service where you can speak freely without fear of violence” sparked a debate about Facebook’s own censorship, from breastfeeding photos to a post by Pakistani actor Hamza Ali Abbass that questioned the value of “insulting” speech.

 

Mark’s comments at a public comments event in January centered on how freedom of expression should be protected regardless of whom it might offend. Facebook’s CEO believes that a person should be able to express themselves and perhaps make a living saying and doing things that others may find offensive – like Hedbo’s cartoons.

He was asked why he had spoken out about the Charlie Hebdo attack, but not about other violent events around the world, including in Iraq and Palestine.
“It wasn’t just a terrorist attack about just trying to do some damage and make people afraid and hurt people. This was specifically about people’s freedom of expression and ability to say what they want,” said Zuckerberg.

Then again, this is the social media company that cowered from China instead of fighting for the Chinese people’s right to free expression.

Zuckerberg also prohibits businesses involved with firearms from purchasing ads on his network while allowing those that promote sex chat sites to advertise regularly. Psst, Mark, firearms ownership is protected by the same constitution that protects the speech you so readily pretend to defend.

It would appear that Mark Zuckerberg’s idea of standing for free expression ends when someone puts the tamest of controversies in front of him.

They Don’t Even Deserve Minimum Wage

Over the weekend I did some food shopping, I like to go to Wal-Mart because you can’t beat the prices. I do a large part of my shopping at Wal-Mart, and then I finish up at the local supermarket, which is called Publix. The other day I noticed something I hadn’t noticed before, the difference in the workers between the two stores.

In Publix the workers were dressed nicer, more courteous, friendlier, and more helpful. In Wal-Mart when I asked for help, I got a look that said, what are you bothering me for, plus, I could never do a complete shopping because the shelves are never fully stocked. I’m not saying that everyone was like that, there were friendly people there, people with smiles, but it was enough to make me take notice.

As I was driving home, it dawned on me that these were the same people who were protesting all over the country for a $20 minimum wage, well let me tell you something, some of the people I have seen do not even deserve the money they are making now. Does anyone think that by paying someone more money that it is going to make them better workers? I don’t think so. Call me old fashioned, but I think a person should be paid what they are worth, not what the government thinks they should be paid. The old way was first show me how good of a worker you are, then you get the raise, not get the raise and hope you are a good worker.

I have never been a fan of a minimum wage, the idea that the government can tell a business owner what they have to pay an employee does not sit well with me. It seems that this government is bent on destroying the American spirit, working hard to move up the ladder does not seem important any more, in a land where the government wants to hand everything to you at the start, only takes away the motivation of the individual.

It’s great if everyone would make $50,000 a year, live in a nice house and have a new car in the driveway, but where is the feeling of accomplishment? I had my first job when I was 14, I worked for a dry cleaner delivering clothes for $25 a week, plus tips, on a good week I would make $35. The feeling of pride I would have every Friday when the owner would open up the cash register and hand me two tens and a five is something I can’t explain, but it was a good feeling. It wasn’t that easy of a job as you might think. I had to deliver in the rain and snow, I was like the mailman, I delivered in any type of weather.

If you can stock 5 shelves an hour making $8 an hour, but now I turn around and pay you $20 an hour and you are still stocking 5 shelves an hour, where is the justification for that, I am getting nothing more for that extra $12 an hour you are being paid. Should a person be paid $15 an hour to hand me a sack of burgers at McDonalds? I don’t think so.

The free-market should be taking care of this, we used to have one in this country, but it is slowly slipping away. We should find a way to put all workers on commission that is the only way you can find out what a person is truly worth.

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

minimum-wageThis is one man’s opinion.

I Hated My Kids!

looney-left

Did that get your attention? First, let me say Happy New Year! I hope you had a great Christmas and holiday season and that you have come back to reality and the rhythm of life whole and healthy.

I’ve been on vacation for a few weeks. And while it was more like dropping off social media and the web for a while than actually going on vacation, it was just good to have some down time.

Unfortunately, the PC police and the Hard Left Loons didn’t take a day, or even an hour, off. They were and still are out in full force.

The first day back I ran a piece about preachers in Canada being arrested for simply teaching Biblical principles as it pertains to homosexuality. There was nothing about hating the person. No comments about beheading the person. No comments about stoning the person. No reference to acting out in a violent way against anyone in the LGBTQ community. They were simply teaching what God said about homosexuality according to the Bible.

Yet that is considered “hate speech” because it calls the actions of another human being sin.

Well, first I have to say, if you don’t believe in God, then you don’t believe in sin. So why are you upset? Next I would ask, how is it hate speech to say the actions of a person are against God?

Is it hate speech if I say I don’t like Mexican food? It gives me bad gas and I really just don’t like it. Does that mean I hate Mexicans? Because I think the Mexican border should be secured and people should come here legally, does that mean I hate Mexicans? How petty of you to think that I want the border secured to keep out Mexicans when it’s been proven that people from all over the world come over the border illegally.

I posted the statement on social media “It’s already happening in Canada, pastors being arrested for preaching against homosexuality.” A follower named Chris responded after I asked people to define “hate speech.” I got the usual “low IQ” responses; “anything that comes out of your mouth,” “anything a Republican says,” “anything a conservative says” and so on. But at least Chris took an honest stab at it… well, as honest as a left-leaning progressive can.

“hate speech is anything that incites violence … also specifically its hate speech when you do things like compare gays to pedophiles and people who have sex with animals. 

“…if they weren’t producing hate speech there would be no problems.”

Well, I have never heard any preacher (except the right Reverend Al Sharpton) advocate violence.  Inciting violence in today’s society is easy. Make fun of someone’s baseball team in the parking lot after a game and you might get your head bashed in and end up in a coma (like what happened at a Los Angeles Dodgers game a few years back). Were the attackers charged with hate crimes? No!

A liberal professor tore up an “anti-abortion” display on campus while calling the young men and woman there all kinds of names. Was she brought up on hate charges? Nope!

So, in all honesty, he should have said when a “conservative religious type” says something that offends, they should be brought up on hate speech charges.

Webster’s says, Pedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children, generally age 11 years or younger. Not Joe’s definition. So are you saying that no gays or lesbians are pedophiles? And if that is what you’re saying, would you say the same about heterosexuals? Or do the same rules not apply?

This is classic, “…if they weren’t producing hate speech there would be no problems.” Where do we live in “Who-Ville” where we all eat rainbows and poop butterflies?

Wake up! Someone, somewhere will always be offended by something someone somewhere says. Why? Because they choose to be offended and intolerant!

What Left-logic says is that if I don’t accept the way you want to live, the things you want to do, and your belief system over mine, then I’m a hater. Period!

If I believe that abortion is wrong and that you actually take a human life, I’m a woman hater. If I don’t believe in same sex marriage, I hate same sex couples.

According to Left-logic I hate my children. And so did many of you reading this. I have promised the kids I would not give away their deep dark secrets, and I won’t. But, when one was dabbling in drugs I told them I wouldn’t support them. I even had them arrested for having drugs on them. OMG where is child protective services when you need them? According to Left-logic, ……

Read more at” TheRealSide

Americans Are Brave Enough to Say It, Why Not Their President?

Charlie Hebdo

The contortions to which those in the Obama Administration will submit themselves in order to avoid calling Islamist terrorism just that would be comedic if the subject matter weren’t so deadly serious. Case in point comes to us in an announcement by the White House that a “summit on how to counter violent extremism” will be held next month amid fears amongst the American populace that Islamist terror attacks on US soil are all but certain.

The Washington Times reports:

“The White House on Sunday announced it will host a summit next month on how to counter violent extremism amid renewed fears among Americans that terror attacks on the homeland are inevitable.

 

 

“A Rasmussen poll released Sunday shows that 65 percent of Americans believe it is at least somewhat likely an attack ‘on those critical of Islam’ in the US will occur over the next year. Just 26 percent said such an attack is not likely, the survey shows…

 

 

“‘The [ani-extremism] summit will include representatives from a number of partner nations, focusing on the themes of community engagement, religious leader engagement, and the role of the private sector and tech community,’ White House press secretary Josh Earnest said in a statement Sunday. ‘Through presentations, panel discussions, and small group interactions, participants will build on local, state, and federal government; community; and international efforts to better understand, identify, and prevent the cycle of radicalization to violence at home in the United States and abroad.’”

Missing in this grand overture was the words “Islamist” and “terrorism”. Go figure.

The Rasmussen poll cited as the catalyst for this “summit” (as Mr. Obama would say, “Just words. Just speeches…”) centered on the American population’s concern about terror groups executing attacks on institutions of free speech here in the United States. It didn’t ask about “extremist groups,” which the Obama Administration has bastardized to include TEA Party groups and Second Amendment groups. It focused solely on Islamist terrorism, period. But, as then Obama Chief-of-Staff Rahm Emanuel famously (or infamously) said, one should never let a good crisis go to waste. So, the Obama Administration widens the focus area from Islamist terrorism to “extremism” providing a wider blanket of topic coverage, and purely for political gain. It is sickeningly disingenuous.

It is sad, really, that the American people possess the courage to call Islamist terrorism what it is, even as their elected President bobs-and-weaves to avoid even using the terminology, all the while conniving, manipulating and distorting the issue at hand to affect marginalization of his political foes. His actions are not only beneath the dignity of his office and a stain on American history, they are a harsh and wicked slap in the face to everyone affected by Islamist terrorism, and especially those affected by the slaughter at Charlie Hebdo and the people of France, America’s oldest ally.

I would identify Mr. Obama as a coward for his refusal to state the obvious where Islamist terrorism is concerned. But I fear his motives are much more nefarious that cowardice. They are political. I don’t really know which is worse.

‘The Prophet Has Been Avenged’

Charlie Hebdo

Masked gunman stormed the offices of a satirical French magazine, Charlie Hebdo (The Weekly Charlie), and slaughtered 12 people in cold blood. Their perceived “crime” was to have published caricatures of Muhammad. And let’s be clear, this was no act of the deranged. The terrorist gunmen were heard screaming, “Allahu Akbar” as they shot, with one assailant shouting, “The Prophet has been avenged,” as they escaped the scene. This was a terrorist act carried out by ideological barbarians over a cartoon.

Aside from the deadly serious problem Islamists have with invoking violence at every turn – in protest, in conquest, in celebration of their “religion” – this incident stands as a pointed reminder that Islamists purposefully calculate these murderous actions; plotting them meticulously down to the second. But even in the perfection of their plans one thing is always a constant for the Islamist. They are willing to wait a lifetime to affect the moment, a concept antithetical to the Western “sitcom attention span” culture. To wit, the management of Charlie Hebdo was first warned of reprisals for their publishing of the Muhammad cartoons eight years ago.

As Daesh (the Islamic State) continues its conquest of the Middles East – leaving fathers crucified and dismembered, mothers sold into slavery or used as concubines and children’s heads left on pikes as warnings against any refusal of subjugation, Yemeni suicide bombers kill scores each day. As Boko Haram kidnaps, rapes and slaughters Christian girls in Africa, axe wielding “lone wolf” Islamists slash people on subway platforms in New York and “home grown” terrorists are routinely thwarted in their murderous plans, but for the grace of God, by law enforcement around the world. Myriad evidence is provided every day that the Islamic ideology has a potent, malignant and metastasizing cancer for which the patient itself must seek treatment. Yet, but for a very few brave voices, the Islamic community does nothing to address the problem. There is no defense for their inaction or their deafening silence.

One excuse given for Muslim inaction – and “excuse” is an accurate portrayal of the abdication of responsibility practiced by many Muslims around the world, is that the Quran is the literal word of Allah; scripture from which deviation is forbidden. Of course, this contention is absurd for the fact that Muhammad was not literate – he could not read nor write:

“According to the traditional narrative, several companions of Muhammad served as scribes and were responsible for writing down the revelations. Shortly after Muhammad’s death, the Quran was compiled by his companions who wrote down and memorized parts of it. These codices had differences that motivated the Caliph Uthman to establish a standard version now known as Uthman’s codex, which is generally considered the archetype of the Quran we have today. However, the existence of variant readings, with mostly minor and some significant variations, and the early unvocalized Arabic script mean the relationship between Uthman’s codex to both the text of today’s Quran and to the revelations of Muhammad’s time is still unclear.”

For an edict to be literal the transcription can have no variance between versions; no competing narratives. By virtue of the competing narratives between Muhammad’s scribes, and even the Uthman’s codex, the “literal word of Allah,” narrative stands as a patently false one. Yet, the excuse emanating from the Muslim community remains. The facts don’t matter.

It is well past time that true leaders within the Islamic community emerge to brave the slings and arrows – or more accurately the suicide bombings and beheadings – of the Islamist fanatics in order to affect a radical and historical transformation of their beliefs; a reformation of Islam. This reformation can only commence from within the Islamic community for the movement to have any legitimacy.

The declaration of Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi calling for a “religious revolution” within Islam is a promising event. And the work of people like Dr. Zuhdi Jasser and Dr. Walid Phares to motivate and educate is noble. But until rank and file Muslims take to the streets by the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, around the world in protest; until Muslims of every class, sect and faction start rooting out the violent amongst them for punishment and ridicule; until the Muslim community itself starts teaching their children – all over the world – that martyrdom and violent jihad send them to Hell and not to virgins, nothing will change. Islamist conquest will continue. Innocent blood will continue to run in the streets. Liberty and freedom will continue to be denied.

As we contemplate the slaughter in France – a slaughter that happened in the name of Muhammad and because of a cartoon, let’s also contemplate the concept of “enough.” We, as a people emanating from the free world, must say, “enough.” No more excuses. No more “religion of peace.” Enough. Enough.

Obama: Brain Dead In Chief

I could not believe the headline I just read. “Obama says US less racially divided since he took office.”  Do we have a commander in chief that is brain dead?  Is he ignoring what is going on in this country?  Or is he doing what he does best, lying to the American people to protect his own ass?

How can anyone in this country think that race relations are better off now?  Obama has divided this country more than it has ever been. Obama said, “I actually think that it’s probably, in its day-to-day interactions, less racially divided.”  A Bloomberg Politics survey out this month found a majority of Americans – 53 percent – feel interactions between white and black communities have deteriorated since Obama took office.  He knows what he is doing. He came into office to divide.  No one is going to tell me any different.

Obama has not only lost respect in this country, but around the world as well. “Obama always goes reckless in words and deeds like a monkey in a tropical forest,” said the North Koreans. It wasn’t the first time North Korea has used crude insults against Obama”s administration. Earlier this year the North Koreans called U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry a wolf with a “hideous” lantern jaw.  In May, North Korea’s news agency published a dispatch saying Obama has the “shape of a monkey.”

How long will the American people put up with a president like this?  With an approval rating at 36%, I guess not long.  This country has been falling apart for the past six years, more than I have ever seen it, and I lived through the 60’s when I thought this country was really falling apart.  We need a uniter, not dividers, as long as the Democratic Party is in office we will never see a united country. We have in Obama and Holder, the two biggest dividers,  Speaking of Holder, if there was ever a racist, it is him.

The America that I used to know is no longer, and I am not the only who feels that way.  Can we get it back? Yes, if we get another Reagan, a man who spoke of the greatness of America, for the greatness of America, not a division of America, which Obama has constantly done.  All anyone has to do is look at the speeches Obama has given to see how he has divided our country, how he dislikes this country.  Once Obama is gone, and his crony Holder is gone, America will get back to greatness, hopefully, Not only here, but around the world. There was once a feeling that America was great.  That disappeared 6 years ago. We have not yet felt the destruction Obama has done.  In the coming years, we will see.

“What Kind Of America Are We Leaving Our Kids”  Available here.
creepy-willy-wonka-meme-generator-so-you-think-voting-for-brain-dead-liberals-will-change-anything-vote-obama-if-you-think-being-stupid-is-a-way-of-life-4def39

This is one man’s opinion.

Another Black Man Kills A Cop

Well it has happened again, another black man kills a cop, but where is the outrage, where are the protests, is there an epidemic of blacks killing cops in this country? I don’t expect to see any outrage or protests, because in today’s upside down society the criminal, the bad guy, is the one that seems to get all the sympathy, the cops, the good guys, are the one’s being treated like the criminals.

In May of 1971 Officer’s Joseph Plagentini and Waverly Jones were gunned down while responding to a fake 911 call by three black gunmen laying in wait.

In January of 1972 Officer’s Rocco Laurie and Gregory Foster were gunned down by three Black Liberation Army members, shot in the back as they were on patrol.

In April of 1972 Officer Phillip Cardillo was gunned down by a gang of black men when he responded to a fake 911 call at a Nation of Islam Mosque.

In February of 1988 police officer Eddie Byrne, just 22 years old was gunned down by four black men, on orders by a black drug dealer named Howard “Pappy” Mason.

Now, in December of 2014 two officers Wenjian Liu and Rafael Ramos, who were working overtime as part of an anti-terrorism drill, were gunned down in their squad car by a lone black gunman. Liu, 32, a newlywed of only two months, had seven years on the force; Ramos, 40, dad to two sons, had two years on the job.

These murders happened in New York City, but there were many more around the country. Police Commissioner of New York City William Bratton said, “No warning, no provocation, they were quite simply assassinated, targeted for their uniform.” These murders were in retaliation for Eric Garner and Michael Brown, the two criminals who died while resisting arrest. Eric Garner and Michael Brown had a chance, they would be alive today if they had only followed the cops orders, what chance did those two officers have, none.

Black leaders are quick to condemn the police when a black criminal dies, but where are they when a cop is killed, not a peep. Over the past month we have heard protesters shouting “Black lives matter,” why don’t the lives of cops matter? Cops are there to protect the community, while black criminals destroy a community, where is the justice.

Here is a novel idea for the black leaders, instead of protesting when a black criminal dies, why don’t you teach young black men not to be criminals. Communities would be safer, jails would not be over crowded and lives would be saved. Making martyrs out of criminals will only make way for more criminals.

Black leaders keep shouting that there is an epidemic of police killing young black men, which makes as much sense as saying that there is an epidemic of black men killing cops. Black leaders refuse to accept the fact the majority of crimes are committed by blacks, and you wonder why people profile. When you pick-up a newspaper or watch the news on TV and 90% of the criminals you see are black, you can’t’ blame people for profiling, I do, and I don’t feel guilty doing it, it’s better to be safe than dead.

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

1510740_10204698185407725_8963164865782158878_nThis is one man’s opinion.

Celebrate Christmas – Don’t Be Offended By It

MerryChristmas2012

“I’m offended every time I hear a Christmas Carol, or see a nativity scene, or see a cross, especially if it’s all lit up. Even the Santa Claus and decorations bug me because I know that it all has to do with Christmas.” Such was the comment made on a California radio talk show a few years ago, by a fellow who chose to take offense at the season, rather than look for the good.

It really is disconcerting that there are some who suffer great angst over a national holiday that is intended to acknowledge not just the birth of Jesus Christ, but our humanity and commonality.

RV-AJ582_BKRV_C_G_20130208124716Calvin Coolidge said, “Christmas is not a time nor a season, but a state of mind. To cherish peace and goodwill, to be plenteous in mercy, is to have the real spirit of Christmas.” When explicated in those terms it’s hard to imagine anyone taking umbrage at the celebration of Christmas.

Some are quick to take offense at various elements of our culture, and this time of year such relapses seem to increase significantly. Confucius is credited with saying, “He who takes offense when none is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a bigger fool.”

That seems appropriate consideration for any who take offense at what is not intended to offend. Some, like the aforementioned caller, take offense from displays like nativity scenes or menorahs, appellations like “Christmas Trees,” or greetings like “Merry Christmas,” and even music that may make reference to He whose birthday we celebrate as a national holiday. No offense is intended, but a free and open expression of anything with a hint at religiosity creates an anxiety for some even as our celebration of Christmas continues to morph into more of a secular celebration.

MerryChristmas2012Each of us determines for ourselves whether we will be offended. And it’s not just about Christmas or religious expression; it’s about everything in life. When we are offended, we’re making a conscious decision to grant someone else control over our attitude. If we allow others to offend us, whether intentional or otherwise, we sacrifice control of our attitudes to someone else.

Contrast those who are so quick to take offense at the drop of a “Merry Christmas,” with an atheist philosophy professor I had an ongoing discussion with on a blog a couple years ago. After commending him for wishing readers “Merry Christmas,” he responded back, “By the way, if there’s a ‘war on Christmas,’ I’m not part of it. It’s fine with me if people want to put a manger scene in front of City Hall. Being an atheist doesn’t mean I can’t enjoy holidays and traditions.” What a healthy, mature, and tolerant attitude! He obviously has learned the great lesson of life that he can choose to be offended or not, it’s strictly voluntary, and that going through life with a chip on his shoulder, just waiting for someone to knock it off, is no way to live.

I appreciate Coolidge’s perspective on Christmas, for certainly there is an increase in sensitivity to others at this time of year in spite of the often-hectic schedules we maintain as we shop for just the right gift for each of our loved ones. But the foundational motivations for finding that gift are love and gratitude. That principle of love can and should be shared by all people, not just this time of year, but throughout the year. If there were a way of packaging this spirit of love and sharing that as our gift to everyone, think how much better the world would be. Surely, most of the world’s problems could be solved.

imagesCharles Dickens, in 1843, penned the now immortal “A Christmas Carol,” that played a significant role in making of our Christmas observance the overt celebration that it is today. But it was also instrumental in transforming a holiday from one disavowed by many Christian sects because of its communal hedonistic excess to one of personal goodwill and compassion. If one man can, through his creativity and power of communication, do so much to transform Western holiday observance, how can we deny the potential of each of us, within our spheres of influence, to create such a transformation of our Christmas observance?

Surely we can each be “Dickens” in our homes, neighborhoods, and communities, by redoubling our focus on the charity that is at the heart of our observance. Surely we can, through our individual acts of kindness, and increase in sensitivity, mollify the malcontents, touch the lives of those who may think they are forgotten or unappreciated in our society, and somehow ameliorate the temporal conditions of those who may have less than we.

Said Dickens of Ebenezer Scrooge, “…he knew how to keep Christmas well, if any man alive possessed the knowledge. May that be truly said of us, and all of us.” A fitting end for his tome, and a noble goal for each of us.

Regardless of your theological beliefs, may the spirit of Christmas fill your home, so you can find joy in extending charity, service, and heart-felt comfort in reaching out to the lonely and the needy. Even the secularists amongst us would be hard pressed to criticize our observance of Christmas if it translated to such universal, humanistic altruism, which is what He whose birthday we celebrate would desire of us. To each of you, Merry Christmas, in the full, inclusive context of all the good that Christmas represents.

Lt. Clint Lorance: A Hero Not Criminal

Our soldiers are the defenders of our freedom, they protect us from enemies foreign and domestic, and without them there would be no America. So why does it seem that our very own government are turning their backs on these hero’s?

In the news recently, was a story about one of our soldiers, a former Army lieutenant sentenced to 20 years in Leavenworth for ordering his men to shoot three civilians in Afghanistan. Lt. Clint Lorance, 29, was convicted of murder in the 2012 incident, in which he ordered his platoon to shoot the men approaching a checkpoint on a motorcycle when they refused to stop. Two died, and military prosecutors at Lorance’s court martial said he acted recklessly in violation of the military’s rules of engagement, which requires soldiers to hold fire absent evidence of hostile action or hostile intent.

Hostile action or intent? There is a war in Afghanistan, suicide bombers are an every day thing. Maybe my thinking is a little screwed-up, but if you are running a check point in a war zone and unknown men are approaching on a motorcycle and refuse an order to stop, there is a good possibility that they might be unfriendly people, shooting them seems like the logical thing to do.

Did the government railroad this hero?  “The Army has in its possession evidence linking Afghan military-aged males involved in this general court-martial to improvised explosive devices as well as IED attacks and terror networks in Afghanistan,” reads a memo from Lorance’s attorneys. “The government failed to disclose this information to the chain-of-command, counsel for the defense, and the court-martial. These significant failures strike at the very heart of American due process and show that the government violated its discovery and disclosure obligations.”

Let’s add this to the list of how the government mistreats our soldiers, along with the VA scandal, where soldiers were left dying waiting for treatment in the hands of managers who were only interested in getting bigger bonuses instead of treating our hero’s. Let’s not forget the Fort Hood shootings, where the Obama administration refused to call it a terrorist attack and denied those soldiers due compensation.

Lt. Clint Lorance is a hero, not a criminal; he saw what he perceived to be the enemy when he ordered his men to shoot and rightly so. The old saying that war is hell is true; things don’t always go the way they are supposed too. Imprisoning a soldier for doing what he thought he had to do to save his men, is a great miscarriage of justice, if it were me, I’d pin a medal on his chest.

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

Lt. Lorance

This is one man’s opinion.

 

Can America Come Back After Obama?

As we come to the close of another year, we are one year closer to ending the Obama years and it cannot come soon enough. There should be no doubt that he has been one of the worst presidents this country has seen. I am not a presidential historian, so I don’t know about every president, but he is without a doubt the worst in my lifetime and I was born when Truman was in office.

When Obama came into office the economy was in shambles, but did he concentrate on rebuilding it? No, he threw all his attention on his healthcare law, which was unpopular then and still remains unpopular today, there is no doubt in my mind it will either fall apart on its own or be repealed. We now know that everything he told us about Obama-Care was a lie, it seems this president has a hard time telling the American people the truth. People wanted jobs, but he chose to shove healthcare down our throats. We now have an unemployment rate of 5.8%, but many economists say the real number is still in the double digits.

He passed a Trillion dollar stimulus package that was supposed to create shovel ready jobs, and then laughed and said “Shovel-ready was not as shovel-ready as we expected,” big joke on the American people. He went on to create tons of new regulation that only kept our economy from growing.

Then, how can we forget the 2011 S&P downgrade, it was the first time the government was given a rating below AAA. S&P had announced a negative outlook on the AAA rating in April 2011, downgraded to AA-. Let’s not forget that the National Debt is now up to 18 trillion dollars and it is expected to reach 20 trillion by the time Obama leaves office. Obama once said it was ‘unpatriotic’ and ‘irresponsible’ to add $4 trillion to the debt. The debt was at $10.6 trillion when Obama took office in 2009 but has increased by 70 percent during his roughly six years in office, I guess that means Obama is the most unpatriotic president in the history of our country.

From the day that Obama first walked into the White House, he has done nothing but drive a wedge through the heart of America; we are a more divided country then I have ever seen. How can we forget that incomes have decreased since Obama has taken office. Obama twice ran for the White House promising to reduce the gap between rich and poor, instead it expanded across the board. The rich are getting richer and the poor, poorer because of his failed policies.

Obama has done great harm to this country. I used to think he was incompetent, but he knows exactly what he is doing, on October 30th, 2008 at a campaign rally in Columbia, Missouri he said, We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”  Most people believed he meant for the better, but many of us knew exactly what he meant, he wanted a more Socialist type of society, which he has worked hard to achieve.

There are two things that make a good leader:

  1. A leader must know how to bring people together
  2. A leader must take responsibility for his actions.

Obama is a failure on both points; he has divided a nation and always passes the buck when things go wrong. The only way I think America can come back after Obama, is to repeal everything that he has done and start over, otherwise we may be doomed.

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

obama-lying

This is one man’s opinion. 

 

Senate Democrats Increase Threat to the Nation

cia_torture_report_0

News reporting and the compilation of historical narratives are different than opinion pieces – or at least they should be. They should include all relevant facts and data, and include as many valid and qualified primary sources as possible. Regrettably, that is becoming increasingly rare.

In the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, MO, media promulgated a story of a compliant young man who was shot execution style based on partial, and apparently disreputable, sources. The full story, including reputable eyewitness accounts and supporting evidence, was intentionally withheld perhaps because it didn’t comport with the desired narrative, but it made sensational news.

The fraternity gang-rape story emanating from the University of Virginia, was published by Rolling Stone based on the victim’s account only. The “reporter” made no attempt to contact other primary sources to establish the viability or veracity of the claim. As that story continues to unravel, the egregious faux pas of the reporter, as well as the publication, have been clearly evidenced. But it created a sensational story, even if it was largely fictitious.

635537254221604057-AP-CIA-Torture-ReportNow this week we have the outgoing chairman, Senator Diane Feinstein, of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, releasing a partisan 500-page report on enhanced interrogation techniques (EIT) conducted by the Central Intelligence Agency. The report is a summary of a more detailed 6,000-page document that was not released. As with the aforementioned situations, this report intentionally excluded key primary sources, full contextual relevancy, and insubstantial data.

The report was constructed with an obvious bias, cherry-picking references, and both overtly and by inference, made accusations against the CIA that were clearly fallacious. Drafters of the report, Democrat staffers to the committee, allege that the CIA was not honest to the oversight committees or the Bush administration about EIT’s; claim no actionable intelligence was derived thereby; claim there was no internal dissent over the use of EITs; claim EIT’s were more brutal than the oversight committees and administration were led to believe; and that the CIA misrepresented the physical effects of the interrogations.

165cee2a9926f330670f6a706700bf8a_c0-275-4986-3181_s561x327Current CIA Director John Brennan, former CIA directors George Tenet, Porter Goss and Michael Hayden, along with deputy directors John McLaughlin, Albert Calland and Stephen Kappes have all written or testified at varied times debunking the charges leveled by the report. Director Hayden went so far this week as to say that the evidence invalidating the reports assertions is found in the very documents the Democrat staffers poured through to cherry-pick their evidence.

I know of no one who has the stomach for, or condones, torture or the methods identified as EITs. But conversely, no one should condone our own government, or a small segment of it, wasting $40 million to pour through a million pages of documentation, to produce a clearly biased and prejudicial report that is as potentially damaging as this is to our security relationships around the globe. Especially since the allegations occurred over seven years ago, and have been since discontinued! What can possibly be gained by such a report?

President George W. Bush ended most of the aspects of the CIA’s EIT program before he left office. This effectively ended the interrogative procedures included in the CIA’s Rendition, Detention and Interrogation program, which President Bush authorized after the September 11 attacks.

Rep. Mike Rogers, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said, “We have U.S. personnel, both intelligence officials and military special operators, in harm’s way. Why would we release [this report] now? What did we have to gain? All of this has been debated. All of this has been settled. … Clearly the administration knew it was going to cause trouble as they sent out warnings all across the world.”

cia_torture_report_0Before the report was released, Obama administration officials placed military and law-enforcement personnel on high alert that it might spawn terrorist attacks around the globe and across the country. Since the program has long since ended, it’s unconscionable that Senate Democrats and the White House would intentionally subject the nation to potential terrorist attacks for what can only be considered political purposes.

It’s become political sport to some to denigrate America. And since there was no practical purpose behind the release of the flawed report, we can only surmise that it was done for political purposes to curry the favor of those who play the “revile America” game. There was clearly an agenda behind the release, but it had nothing to do with “protecting and defending” the nation and the Constitution, which oath these public officials have all taken.

There’s also an unsurprisingly duplicitous component to this as well. This administration denounces the EITs previously engaged in, yet has used drone strikes more extensively than ever, to kill terrorists and civilians. Which is more “humane,” to try to extract actionable intelligence from a terrorist, or to just expunge them and their friends and family?

We expect the mainstream media to misrepresent the truth, tarnish reputations fallaciously, and put people at risk, as they do so often. But we expect more of our government, and those who serve in it.

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].

« Older Entries Recent Entries »