Category Archives: featured opinion

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.

We Live In A Mad House, A Mad House

Who could forget the scene from the original Planet of The Apes when Charlton Heston was in a cage getting hosed down by one of the apes; he shouted “This is a mad house, a mad house.” Well it seems the whole world has turned into “A mad house, a mad house.

It seems for the first time in US history, a judge has granted two chimpanzees a petition  through human attorneys to defend their rights against unlawful imprisonment, arguably bestowing the status of “legal persons” on the primates. Just last week, Manhattan

Supreme Court justice Barbara Jaffe granted a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of two non-human plaintiffs, Hercules and Leo, chimpanzees used for medical experiments at Stony Brook University on Long Island.

But this is not the first time this has happened, in one failed bid to remove another chimpanzee, Tommy, from captivity in a trailer in Gloversville, New York, an appeals court argued that chimpanzees do not participate in society and cannot be held accountable for their actions. I guess this judge forgot that in 2009 a chimpanzee in Connecticut, bit both hands off a woman and also ate her face off. Chimpanzees are animals and should be treated as such, I think this judge needs to go back to law school, or get a mental evaluation. A person is a person and a chimp is an animal.

chimp_suit-300x180

In another event that proves the world is going mad, a traditional values leader is exposing the Girl Scouts for its continued move toward far-left causes. The latest announcement, says Linda Harvey of Mission America, is that little boys from kindergarten through high school can join the Girl Scouts, if the boy considers himself a girl. “In other words, he calls the shots,” Harvey says of young males. “He is the one that determines the rights and privacy of authentic girls.”

So let’s see, a 16 year old boy can get up one day and say he thinks he is a girl and they have to let him in the Girl Scouts. I don’t know about you, but if my daughter went on a camping trip with the Girl Scouts and I found out that a boy was gonna sleep in the same tent, there would be hell to pay. A while back I was reading that there are parents that actually ask there kids “What do you feel like today, a boy or a girl,” if that ain’t child abuse, I don’t know what is. It’s the same thing with the Boy Scouts allowing homosexuals in the group. Do I want my son sleeping in the same tent with a homosexual, hell no?  I won’t even mention trans-gender bathrooms.

Over the years the Girl Scouts have been trying to push a liberal left wing agenda by pushing liberal sex education, as well as ties to Planned Parenthood. But out of this madness comes a bright spot, a pro-family rival organization to the Girl Scouts, who believe in family, God and country, American Heritage Girls, is celebrating 20 years this year. Also a chapter is being organized for homosexual and lesbian families, see there is a solution for every thing if we just use our heads.

In a resent news article, the headline read; U.S. Army FORCES Cadets to Wear High Heels to Promote Feminist Campaign –  Army ROTC cadets are complaining on message boards that they were pressured to walk in high heels on Monday for an Arizona State University campus event designed to raise awareness of sexual violence against women. How demeaning is this to our future soldiers.

“Attendance is mandatory and if we miss it we get a negative counseling and a ‘does not support the battalion sharp/EO mission’ on our CDT OER for getting the branch we want. So I just spent $16 on a pair of high heels that I have to spray paint red later on only to throw them in the trash after about 300 of us embarrass the U.S. Army tomorrow,” one anonymous cadet wrote on the social media sharing website Imgr, IJReview.

For those of you who watch the O’reilly Factor know that on Wednesday nights he has on Dennis Miller, one thing he is always saying is the world is going mad, I have to agree with him.

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

images

 

 

This is one man’s opinion.

The LEFT wants facts, but just THEIR facts!

This week Hillary’s “misspeaks,” “misleads,” and “what difference, at this point, does it make” sagas continue to be in the news. And I mean, the REAL news.

The news gods may be having a little change of heart. ABC, NBC, CBS, and, yes, even MSNBC have been asking questions and making comments about Hillary’s blatant disregard for the law and her failure to think things through when it comes to taking money from countries and questionable characters. Just when I thought the clouds were going to part and some sanity set in, in steps George Stephanopoulos, a very left-wing journalist, who, after speaking with the author of “Clinton Cash” basically said, “Move along nothing to see here.” His whole premise is that since we have no hard evidence that money changed hands for favors through the White House for the Clinton’s that all is well in OZ.

Well, Mr. Stephanopoulos, all is not well in OZ. And you, sir, are a MAJOR part of the problem. It used to be that journalists gave us all sides of the issue and allowed us to draw a conclusion. They didn’t decide what the truth was and then paint a picture that would lead us to their truth.

This same group of mainstream media people made many assumptions about George W Bush and had no problem accusing him while “misspeaking” their facts as truth.

HillaryCoverUp

Mr. Stephanopoulos is floored that anyone would draw any conclusion of wrongdoing starting with Mrs. Clinton’s email issue. She simply made a mistake and since the president knew about it, all is well! Really? Turn the tables and see what would have happened if it was done by a Republican.

Nothing “fishy” about Mr. Clinton getting on average $70,000 for speaking gigs before Hillary became Secretary of State. But after her appointment, all of a sudden he is worth $500,000 to $1.3 million per speaking gig. Did he take a speech writing class? Get better teleprompters? That’s not important. And no worries, most of those were events with some connection to donors.

In the immortal words of Yul Brynner in the “King and I”… “iz a puzzlement.”

Here’s a quick rundown… Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, $25 million to the Clinton Foundation for the betterment of the Clintons. Australia, $10 million to the Clinton Foundation for the betterment of the Clintons. Sultanate of Oman, $5 million to the Clinton Foundation for the betterment of the Clintons. And the list goes on to the tune of $150 million to the Clinton Foundation for the betterment of the Clintons (CFFTBOTC).

Who else? What other legislator? What other past president? What other past legislator has received this kind of money from foreign entities? I’ll save you the time… NO ONE! Donations are made to Presidential Libraries for the purpose of upkeep and purchasing artifacts for the library, not the presidential families. But Georgie says you have nothing that actually ties to an agreement to provide services.

A uranium (shell) company donated big bucks to the CFFTBOTC. Shortly after the donation, coincidentally, Mrs. Clinton changed her mind about the U.S. blocking the uranium mining deal and even encouraged such deals in some of her speeches.

Then, there is the “re-filing” of past tax returns. Since it was brought to their attention that they forgot to include many, if not all, of the Canadian deal-based donations on their reports. Let’s pause here a minute. Hillary says she is a person of integrity and ethics. They have an elite team managing this foundation. How did they miss MILLIONS of dollars in donations with such an experienced team of employees at The Foundation? Not once, not twice, but 4 years in a row! Tax experts say it’s highly unusual for a foundation to refile this many years because of omissions.

Well, not to worry. Hillary stepped down from the foundation’s board of directors this month but her husband, Bill, and their daughter, Chelsea, remain directors. I’m sure she will keep and arm’s length (or at least a bedroom length) away from Bill and the foundation. After all, she has always been honest and up front with us on all issues. Right?

That whole, Benghazi debacle where she swears they never refused to send help. Oh wait… never mind! OK, then there is the “I turned over all the correspondence and emails pertaining to Benghazi and my term as Secretary of State” thing. Oh, wait… never mind. At least she only erased the emails that had to do with her daughter’s wedding, her aunt’s death, her yoga routines, and her personal transactions on the homes they purchased. Yup, all 33,000 of the personal emails. Oh, wait… never mind. OK then, we’ll just track down the entities and people she probably sent emails to and ask them for them… guess what? The first dozen or so refused to share. Can you see my shocked face?

Read the rest at CantFindTheTruth

Worshiping Gaia On Her Holy Day

Establishment ClauseEvery year at this time, schools at all levels and all across the nation violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution. That’s the clause that proscribes state-sponsored institutions from advancing any religious organization or movement, and is usually cited (though incorrectly) as the “separation of church and state.” Not only does academia fully embrace religion the week of Earth Day observance, but it actively works, knowingly or not, to indoctrinate a whole new generation of adherents to a pantheist green religion.

The notion that we are stewards of our planet, and that we must nurture and protect it as we utilize the resources she provides us is both logical and moral, and should be universally embraced. But Earth Day, and the environmental movement behind its evangelism, has advanced far beyond the logical and moral. It is now a full-fledged religion, a worship of Mother Earth, or Gaia.

gaia8838detailAs one Earth Day source proclaims, “Our Earth, as known in Greek mythology is Gaia. The Greeks were considering Earth acknowledgment years before we started our Earth Day Affair. The first Greek god was actually a goddess. She is Gaia, or Mother Earth, who created herself out of primordial chaos. From her fertile womb all life sprang, and unto Mother Earth all living things must return after their allotted span of life is over. Gaia, as Mother Nature, personifies the entire ecosystem of Planet Earth. Mother Nature is always working to achieve and maintain harmony, wholeness and balance within the environment. Mother Nature heals, nurtures and supports all life on this planet, and ultimately all life and health depend on Her. In time, Nature heals all ills.”

In 1979, a NASA employee, James Lovelock, formulated the Gaia hypothesis. It states that “all life, and all living things on this planet, are part of a single, all-encompassing global entity or consciousness” which he named Gaia. “It is this global consciousness, Mother Gaia, that makes our planet the mother of life.”

Worthip the Earth DayMany in the movement have elucidated the mystical relationship of man to Mother Earth. The British writer, William Golding, said, “We are the children of that great blue white jewel [Mother Earth]. Through our mother we are part of the solar system and part through that of the whole universe.”

The eco-theologian Thomas Berry has been perhaps most explicit in defining the divine-feminine relationship of Gaia to man. “What does the Earth Desire? I will put it in just a few short sentences… To be admired in her loveliness, To be tasted in her delicious fruits, To be listened to in her teaching, To be endured in the severity of her discipline, To be cared for as a maternal source from whence we come, a destiny to which we return. It’s very simple…As humans we are born of the Earth, nourished by the Earth, healed by the Earth.”

Clearly, Mother Earth, or Gaia, is ascribed theological properties, with teleological implications, including creation, veneration (worship), and a maternal relationship with earth’s inhabitants, her children.

UN Mother Earth DayThis relationship is even codified in the resolutions of the United Nations, a full listing of which can be found on the UN website under the title “Mother Earth Day.” These resolutions form the religious equivalent to a catechism on deference toward Mother Earth on a secular philosophical basis.

Another revelatory document from the UN even identifies the natural enemies or apostates to the green religion. In a document that was mandated by the UN-sponsored Convention on Biological Diversity, the Global Biodiversity Assessment, Christianity is explicitly identified as heterodox to Gaia. The document blames Christianity for subverting some indigenous people’s sense of “affinity with the natural world,” leading to destructive practices deemed crucial to saving the planet.

Christianity, to the UN, is therefore antithetical, and constitutes the ideological “root of ecological evil.” The document goes on to praise Buddhism and Hinduism as they “did not depart as drastically from the perspective of humans as members of a community of beings including other living and non-living elements.”

This should not be a surprise to any who are paying attention to the political correctness trends, which make Christianity and Christians acceptable targets as dregs of society and banes to civilization. That’s why it’s the only religion that is acceptable to be criticized, be the brunt of jokes, and even faddishly ridiculed by bigots and secularists.

Earth Our Home Not Our GodThe Mother Earth religion has its prophets, like Al Gore, James Hansen, Gaylord Nelson, Michael Mann, Kenneth Watt, and Paul Ehrlich. And the EPA appears to serve as the High Council to enforce and regulate all human activities to ensure fealty to Gaia, employing pseudo-science and half-truths as justification.

Unlike organized ecclesiastical organizations, however, Gaia’s followers, and supporting industries and academics, don’t just get a tax break from Uncle Sam. They actually do one better: they are on the receiving end of tax-free loans, seemingly endless tax-credits, and grants for “research” and industries that support the faith.

Some may scoff at the notion of this hallowed international holy day as representative of pantheistic dogma and a veritable religion. But as averred by the inductive-reasoning “Duck Theory,” if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it probably is one. Educators and the government in general certainly should encourage responsible citizenship as it relates to the environment. But it’s gone far beyond that. The Mother Earth pantheism, the essence of a state sponsored religion, really should be treated no differently than any other religion.

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].

It’s time for hard assets

waste_of_moneyI spend a great deal of time sorting through PMI reports, GDP releases, key corporate financials and more – at this point – I’m just moving money into hard assets.

Cash is not a hard asset. It has no intrinsic value – only that assigned to it by an arbitrary entity.

Gold does not feed a hungry person or keep a cold man warm. It is .. just a soft metal that looks “perty.”

Ultimately, if things get upside down – which they are likely to do – tangible assets will be the most useful.

Tangible assets are things that have value regardless of an arbitrary government entity saying they are worth something. Chickens have value, cows, guns, ammo and whiskey all are worth something because there is a demand for them – not simply because the government says some piece of paper with a president on it is worth a buck.

I am not telling you that the end is near – who could know that?

I’m just saying that if you are concerned, cash in the bank may not be yours much longer and the government has confiscated gold before. This time, go hard.

Obama Lunches Suck – School Chefs Skirt Regs to Feed Kids

school-lunch-michelle-obamaMichelle Obama’s lunch menu sucks and the “lunch lady” lobby joins the rest of America in telling President Obama’s wife where she can stick her terrible food.

The LA Times reports that the ingredients school cooks are forced to use are terrible:

A school system’s nutritional director finds there’s one advocate for healthy food whose demands she just can’t meet — Michelle Obama.

 

 

“We have tried every noodle that is out there,” said Gitta Grether-Sweeney, the Portland nutritional director who says she is exasperated by the federal school lunch rules the first lady champions.

 

 

“Whole-wheat noodles just don’t work in lasagna. We are having to go lawless to use regular pasta.”

The locally sourced macaroni and cheese the schools had been serving turned to mush when it was made with whole-grain macaroni to meet the new rules, Grether-Sweeney said.

Mrs. Obama has the advantage of having her children in expensive private schools and fed by well-paid White House chefs. Professing from the balcony that America’s kids should eat crappy food just seems kind of …. crappy.

Equal pay starts at home!

Equal pay starts at home, at least that is what his Highness King OBLAMO thinks. In a speech this week, the guy who claims he knows the Constitution, knows what the people want, and, well, he just plain knows everything, hasn’t figured out that we didn’t elect his wife. She wasn’t on the ticket. OK, you got me. There are a lot of things he hasn’t figured out yet and, with any luck, won’t before the end of his “kill America” campaign.

This woman (yes, I said it, deal with it) started off by saying, when her husband ran for office, this was the first time she was proud of America or proud to be an American. Was that because they finally pulled off one of the biggest scams on the American public? Was it because they were able to use the legal tools at their disposal to seal Oblamos records and make sure that no one really knew about his upbringing, school experience, girlfriends (if he had any), boyfriends (if he had any), college scores, attendance, drug or alcohol abuse, and so on? All the things the Dems want to know about every Conservative candidate that has and ever will run? And they get nasty if it’s hidden or covered up! One-sided justice, but I digress. equal-pay-cartoon-mckee-495x327

Her Majesty, Mrs. Oblamo, has stated openly that being in the White House is like being in prison. That one of the reasons they stopped attending church is because they needed down time from their very demanding schedules. Down time away from God? WOW! A “Christian” family who says they need time away from God so they can just to be together. Very confusing. I guess they must have missed the scripture that speaks about forsaking fellowship or the gathering together of other believers. Again I digress!

Mrs. Oblamo consistently complains about her role, about her prison, about American, and now she wants to be paid for it? Really? She has more “aids” than any 20 prior First Ladies combined! She wastes more taxpayer dollars on personal vacations and shopping sprees around the world than any 40 First Ladies combined.

Mr. Oblamo tried to gain sympathies (and more of the women vote) by saying:

“I want to make sure that when she’s working she’s getting paid the same as men. I gotta say that First Ladies right now don’t get paid, even though that’s a tough job!”

Hey, professor, she has a voluntary job! One that she knew required a lot of work to represent this country. It’s called public service. When you spoke to Michelle before you ran the first time didn’t you guys agree that it would be a sacrifice, one worthy of the work for this great country? Didn’t you discuss the significance of you being the first REAL Black president (Clinton being seen as the first honorary black president) and the first black family to inhabit the White House… a house that you live in free of charge, on top of your salary, with full protection for your entire family.

Did you guys agree on the office? Or was it a “What the hey, let’s give it a try and see what happens. We’ll figure out the rest later,” kind of moment. I would bet it was the latter.

Michelle, your job is voluntary. Volunteers get nothing but recognition. You don’t like it, QUIT! Hang out. Lay around all day. Do nothing. You’d save us a bundle. People would give their first born to have that job, yes, the volunteer one. To have the power you have to influence education, children’s health (in a good way,) to go to foreign lands, and not for the shopping, but to influence governments for women’s rights, children’s rights, and bring light to the sex slave industry. Your volunteer job is an honor, not a nuisance.

Your role as First Lady is to be an ambassador for America, not a slug for America. Your husband is already getting paid more than he’s worth. Have him give you some of his money.

People, I have never seen two individuals who are so out of touch with the reality of the American people and the safety of the world than Mr. and Mrs. Oblamo. And they back it up with their actions.

I can’t find one real initiative they’ve done in the name of the United States. They’ve done many in the name of His High and Mighty Oblamo, but NONE in the name of this country. Only constant complaints about and apologies for America while in foreign countries and Mrs. Oblamo’s constant whining about how tough her job is.

NEW FLASH… you have NO job! You have an honorary position that you chose to accept. You don’t like it, LEAVE! And don’t let the door hit you on the way out……..

Read the rest at TRS

The Devil Has Taken America

Recently I read something that sent shivers up my spine. How could someone in 1965 predict what America would be like today? As I read the article I was shocked at how much this man said back then, is so true today. The mans name was Paul Harvey, who was a conservative American radio broadcaster for the ABC Radio Networks. Read the transcript of his commentary below, it is amazing how true it is and shows how much America has fallen.

“If I were the devil, I wouldn’t be happy until I had seized the ripest apple on the tree—Thee. So I’d set about however necessary to take over the United States. I’d subvert the churches first—I would begin with a campaign of whispers. With the wisdom of a serpent, I would whisper to you as I whispered to Eve: “Do as you please.” “Do as you please.” To the young, I would whisper, “The Bible is a myth.” I would convince them that man created God instead of the other way around. I would confide that what is bad is good, and what is good is “square”. And the old, I would teach to pray. I would teach them to pray after me, ‘Our Father, which art in Washington…’

And then I’d get organized.  I’d educate authors on how to lurid literature exciting, so that anything else would appear dull and uninteresting. I’d threaten TV with dirtier movies and vice versa. I’d pedal narcotics to whom I could. I’d sell alcohol to ladies and gentlemen of distinction. I’d tranquilize the rest with pills.

If I were the devil I’d soon have families that war with themselves, churches that war that themselves, and nations that war with themselves; until each in its turn was consumed.  And with promises of higher ratings I’d have mesmerizing media fanning the flame.  If I were the devil I would encourage schools to refine young intellects, and neglect to discipline emotions—just let those run wild, until before you knew it, you’d have to have drug sniffing dogs and metal detectors at every schoolhouse door.

Within a decade I’d have prisons overflowing, I’d have judges promoting pornography—soon I could evict God from the courthouse, and then the schoolhouse, and then from the houses of Congress.  And in His own churches I would substitute psychology for religion, and deify science. I would lure priests and pastors into misusing boys and girls, and church money. If I were the devil I’d make the symbols of Easter an egg and the symbol of Christmas a bottle.

If I were the devil I’d take from those, and who have, and give to those wanted until I had killed the incentive of the ambitious. What do you bet I could get whole states to promote gambling as the way to get rich? I would question against extremes and hard work, and Patriotism, and moral conduct.  I would convince the young that marriage is old-fashioned, that swinging more fun, that what you see on the TV is the way to be.  And thus I could undress you in public, and I could lure you into bed with diseases for which there is no cure.  In other words, if I were to devil I’d keep on doing on what he’s doing.  Paul Harvey, good day.”

Amazing isn’t it? We have the Liberal-Progressives to thank for that.

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

devil

This is one man’s opinion.

 

America Is No Longer the “Land of the Free”

Is America really the “land of the free?” We may have been initially founded and constructed as such, but each year the land of the free becomes increasingly the land of the regulated, oppressed, disparaged, and dependent.

Gallup Poll.tiffGallup regularly conducts global polls to assess citizen’s perception of their levels of freedom around the world. In 2006, 91% of US residents were satisfied with their “level of freedom,” which was among the highest in the world. Last year’s iteration of the survey indicated only 79% of Americans are satisfied with their level of freedom. Such a precipitous drop in a few short years dropped the US to 36th place among the 120 nations sampled. Cambodia, Uzbekistan, Paraguay, and Rwanda are among the 35 nations more satisfied with their levels of freedom.

This seems to be confirmed by Heritage Foundation’s Index of Economic Freedom, which has seen the U.S. slip to number 12 this year. Countries with greater economic freedom, based on ten criteria, from personal property rights to personal financial freedom, include Chile, Estonia, and Mauritius, none of which could be considered bastions of liberty, as the U.S. historically has been.

bl-economic-freedom-fiscal-cliffAmerica was founded differently than any other nation in human history, which is what we refer to as American exceptionalism. Our founding documents guaranteed rights of free exercise of religion, free speech, free association, freedom from government oppression and illegal searches and seizures, among others. These rights and freedoms, our founding documents asserted, were “inalienable rights” derived from God, not granted by government. That “all men are created equal,” and that among those precious rights were “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (property).”

Every year those liberties are assaulted afresh by an ever-expanding governmental reach into our personal lives. Even those fundamental rights that are codified, by constitutional amendment as our Bill of Rights, are under assault. Freedoms of religious expression, speech, assembly, arms, illegal search and seizure, and due process are eroded with every congressional, legislative, and council bill, act, and statute, and are increasingly rarely upheld through judicial review.

imagesIn short, it seems that the machinations of government, politicians, and the courts, are arrayed broadly against the interests of individual liberty, personal accountability, and private freedoms. Our nation can only loosely be identified as a republic, where the enumerated powers of government are narrow and defined, with all non-enumerated powers residing in the states and the citizens, as the Tenth Amendment declares. The nation has morphed, and can be categorically and definitionally identified as a statist system, concentrating “extensive economic, political, and related controls in the state at the cost of individual liberty.”

This devolution of the republic and our individual liberties has only accelerated over the past several years, since the despicable attacks of 9/11. It was deemed necessary to relinquish some individual liberty for the defense of the realm, as the Patriot Act and other anti-terrorism measures sliced away at individual liberties for security purposes. In spite of the sunset provisions incorporated into that measure, they were extended in 2011, and have been expanded by NSA surveillance, more expansive monitoring of financial transactions, and even more circumvention of the 4th Amendment with the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2012. Sections 1021 and 1022 of the NDAA essentially classify the entire country as a battlefield, allowing extraordinary rendition, indefinite detention, and enhanced interrogation against U.S. citizens here on American soil.

The omnipotence of government today certainly contrasts sharply with what our founding fathers envisioned for this “land of the free.” As Thomas Jefferson said,

Quotation-Benjamin-Franklin-freedom-security-trade-people-Meetville-Quotes-230658“A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have.” Or, in the context of abrogation of 4th Amendment rights, any government that is powerful enough to do everything we allow it, certainly is powerful enough to get away with everything it does.

Which also brings to mind Ben Franklin’s astute observation, “Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.” Clearly, the more ground we cede collectively as a citizenry to security, the less freedom and liberty there is. And that applies not just to issues of national security, but also to domestic fiscal policies as well.

Patrick Henry famously mirrored that sentiment, when he said, “Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!” I’m sure the good governor would be aghast at the sacrifice of liberty for thralldom to government that has ensued these past several years.

FoundersExtremists1Every election from here on out is a referendum on the future of our republic. Will we choose to elect those who embrace our founding principles based on liberty and freedom, or will we continue to cede our liberty for “security” provided by a statist government which is increasingly less attune to the concerns and interests of the individual citizen?

For those of us who are lovers of liberty, there has never been a more critical time to reassert our founding principles and the constitutional limitations of governmental power than today. If we want to have anything even remotely resembling the American republic surviving for future generations, it’s time to quit being a doormat to the politically correct progressive and statist agenda, and to proactively engage in the political process. Most of the statist “accomplishments” can be unwoven, but we need the electoral majorities to do it. Passivity and acquiescence are no longer options for those who would concur with Patrick Henry, “…give me liberty, or give me death!”

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].

“Woe to those who call evil good and good evil”

Recently, when it serves him well, the president has resorted to beating on Christians with ridiculously out of context scripture references. Well, Mr. Obama, I have one for you.

“Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!” ~ Isaiah 5:20 English Standard Version (ESV)

Basically, woe to the confused who think right is wrong and wrong is right! Mr. Obama, I have been listening to your carefully chosen words with these 2 major boondoggles you have going on.

good-and-evil-streets-12942748772ij1vv

First, there’s Iran. You stated in a recent interview that you thought it was crazy that the legislators were out there “spinning” the Iran agreement that hadn’t happened yet (but then you said it did happen over a week ago.) You are concerned that the legislators are saying that Iran will not live up to the proposed agreement. Not that that matters. Iran won’t put it in writing and the legislators wouldn’t sign it anyway!

You also say that the way we’ve been handling Iraq isn’t working and hasn’t worked for 30 years. Shouldn’t we use an entity’s previous track record or “MO” (modus operandi) anticipate how they will respond? Our military experts do it. Financial experts do it and you’ve even cited them many times. Business experts do it to predict the market and consumer buying trends. But Obamavision seems to be blind to this. It seems you believe that you have the Midas touch and everything you do is golden. Actually, I think you’re more like Schleprock from the Flintstones. You have a dark cloud that follows you around and everything you get involved with fails!

And now you want to give Iran a chance because you say this time they will actually stick to the agreement. Interestingly, almost every Middle Eastern leader thinks otherwise, but your crystal ball must be clearer than theirs. The fact that in the past they have cheated and lied to U.N. inspectors doesn’t concern you. The fact that they built an enrichment facility deep inside a mountain so we couldn’t see it doesn’t concern you. The fact that they have been playing war with their navy ships while bombing replicas of American ships doesn’t concern you. And what about the fact that their leader says there is no agreement, says you are lying, and says that they will not do anything until ALL restrictions are removed? Remember, you said restrictions would be removed gradually. Why don’t you call him out? Prove you’re not lying to us and that you have a spine. Never mind. I knew you wouldn’t.

The agreement says we won’t be able to inspect their military installations. Does that mean they promised us with a cross my heart and a kiss up to Allah that they will not be having any uranium on the bases? To coin an old seventies term, “Sure, I’ll still love you in the morning.”

Then, there is Cuba. Mr. President, you say we have been handling them the same way for 50 years and it has changed nothing. You’re right, I agree! They still oppress their people. The Castro brothers are still vicious dictators. They still imprison and torture political prisoners. Their 1% percenters are the Castro brothers. They still imprison homosexuals (so much for human rights.) But none of those things bother you. And you think that if we just lighten up and start doing business with them again all that will change?

Don’t you think if they really wanted freedom for their people they would have installed, or allowed to have elected, a democratic government? Just sayin’!

What do you think normalizing relations with an oppressive, communist, human rights offending government will do for them, and for that matter, us?

BS Grows Fat on the Rolling Stone

The Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism has issued a 12,866 word report that literally shreds Rolling Stone magazine, convicting the publication and its employees of gross negligence and ethical malfeasance in the publishing of a story that falsely accused the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity members at the University of Virginia of gang-raping a freshman coed. Yet, no one at the magazine will lose their job, not the editors or the reporter. Evidently it’s a good time to be a Progressive media hack in the United States.

The Washington Times reports:

“In a stinging report released Sunday evening, an independent review by the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism said the magazine was reckless in vetting its sources, including the purported victim, identified only as ‘Jackie,’ and neglected ‘basic, even routine journalistic practice.’

 

 

“Rolling Stone Managing Editor, Will Dana,…said the publication was ‘committing ourselves to a series of recommendations about journalistic practices that are spelled out in the report’…However, he spelled out no consequences for any staff members involved.”

Well, isn’t that special. They’ll try to do better. And we’re supposed to believe that in the smear-merchant industry that is today’s magazine media Rolling Stone is suddenly going to transform from a publication whose genesis was high times and Hunter S. Thompson into a 2015 interpretation of the 1950s Wall Street Journal. Don’t hold your breath.

Liberal offerings like Rolling Stone are great for entertainment reading, but they aren’t serious news magazines; they aren’t balanced in their reporting or the injected opinion pieces, and they do not prompt any critical thinking for their readers. They publish narratives most often based in pure ideology and let the facts fall where they may. This is not news reporting or traditional journalism in any fashion of the imagination.

Today’s magazine journalism – and increasingly newspaper and television journalism – is activist journalism; journalism meant to persuade the consumer to a specific point of view or ideological affection, often not providing the total of the story and/or cherry-picking sources to craft a narrative sympathetic to achieving the ideological goals held by the author and the publication. Such is the case with Sabrina Rubin Erdely and Rolling Stone magazine.

Isn’t it time that we – as a people; as a society – recognize that we should not be gleaning our news information from entertainment publications and programs? Rolling Stone was originally a magazine glorifying the 60s drug culture. The Daily Show and The Colbert Report were both comedy shows. Late night talk show monologues are jokes crafted on current events meant to be entertaining and witty, not journalistic missives crafted to educate the public on the facts surrounding news events. One has to question when the transition was made that allowed comedians and the drug culture the arbiters of truth.

In Rolling Stone’s refusal to fire all involved in this public deception – this ideological manipulation of the people, they have relegated themselves to the lowest rung of the tabloid sphere. In fact, the warped cynicism of Mad Magazine now has more ethos than Rolling Stone. And the need for serious news outlets remains…and that’s no laughing matter.

They can only win by lying!

It seems like the party of “the people” can only win by lying to “the people”.

Senator Harry Reid admitted this week that he lied to help Mr. Obama win. He, at this point, is the most honorable man in the Democrat party.
You see he is the ONLY Democrat to really come out after being caught and basically say… yup, I did it and I got what I wanted, so sue me. He knew the information on Obama’s opponent, Mitt Romney was false. There was no “insider” at Romney’s company. But he, and the rest of the Dems, were OK with lying about it.
The Democrats should change the name of the party to the “Whatever it takes to win” party. Tell the people whatever it takes to get them “in bed” with you and then you can say “I didn’t mean it that way.”
The now ever-famous and haunting words, “if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor” was clearly a LIE! “If you like your plan, you can keep your plan,” also a LIE. Then he tried to “clarify” with “What I meant was, if it fit our parameters,” yet another LIE!

obama-pinocchio-president-political-cartoon-art-comic
I think when the NEW edition of “The Book of Lies” gets published the first group of pages will be all Democrats, and mostly Mr. Oblamo! It will be followed closely behind by Billy “where’s the free sex island” Clinton, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman” and “it depends of what the meaning of is, is.” Not far behind is the oh-so-loving spouse, Hillary “what difference does it make” Clinton.
If a Republican did one-tenth of what the Clintons have done to the public there would be rioting in the streets, courtesy of the Reverends Sharpton and Jackson.
Recently, Representative Gutierrez from Illinois said, “If the Republicans got in the way of the amnesty order there would be militant action from the immigrants.” WHAT?!
Hey, Mr. Gutierrez, did you just threaten American representatives and citizens with militant action from NON-American citizens? Did you just sanction an act of violence to perpetuate the breaking of laws? Aren’t you a lawmaker, sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution? Isn’t this a form of treason?
A bunch of Democrats screamed “discrimination” about Indiana’s new law protecting peoples’ religious beliefs and the practice thereof. Interestingly enough, it’s the same reason the original settlers came here… to get away from religious persecution. This group of Dems said no one should patronize, support, or take part in any event or action to support Indiana. Curious! Some of these same Dems made a trip to Cuba to support the illegal actions of President Obama. In case you haven’t figured it out, Mr. Obama and clan believe the Constitution and the laws of this country don’t apply to them. They let the Castro Crew know they are in support of Cuba normalizing relations with America. Well, if the Dems hold true to their belief system then will that would only occur AFTER the Castro regime changes its laws and treatment of homosexuals, right? And after they change their laws on treatment of political prisoners.

Read the rest at TRS

« Older Entries Recent Entries »