Category Archives: Opinion

Obama: Squashing The American Spirit

There is no doubt that Obama cannot come anywhere close to being compared to Ronald Reagan, the closest president he can be compared with would be Jimmy Carter and if Carter is a better president than you, you are in pretty bad shape. I have always said that there could never be a worse president than Jimmy Carter, but I was obviously wrong.

In 1984 Ronald Reagan won a second term as president, Reagan was able to carry 525 electoral votes against Mondale’s meager 13, making it the largest victory margin in a US presidential race ever. It was his TV ad that really hit home for all Americans, his Morning in America ad touched Americans and celebrated the American Spirit, it said in part:

“It’s morning again in America. Today more men and women will go to work than ever before in our country’s history. With interest rates at about half the record highs of 1980, nearly 2,000 families today will buy new homes, more than at any time in the past four years. This afternoon 6,500 young men and women will be married, and with inflation at less than half of what it was just four years ago, they can look forward with confidence to the future. It’s morning again in America, and under the leadership of President Reagan, our country is prouder and stronger and better. Why would we ever want to return to where we were less than four short years ago?”

This successful motivational ad instilled optimism among Americans who, at the time, had just suffered through a tough recession. “It’s morning again in America” was exactly what America needed, and voters overwhelmingly gave Reagan a second term as President and woke up to a fresh start. Ronald Reagan was a strong decisive leader, who took the bull by the horns and led this country to prosperity, he was a true leader, something we are lacking in America today.

Unfortunately, America is stuck with Obama, who should not even be allowed to run a hot dog stand, let alone the greatest country the world has ever seen. As Obama draws “Red Lines” that he ignores, he stumbles his way through scandal after scandal, saying he knew nothing about them, but only heard about them while watching the news on TV, his lies about Benghazi and Obama-Care and who knows what else that will surface in the next two and a half years.

Obama celebrates the unemployment rate, which has dropped to 5.9%, but it went down only because more people have given up looking for work. Incomes have dropped, gas prices (When Obama took office, gas was $1.84 a gal.) and groceries have gone up, over 60% of Americans think that we are still in a recession, home ownership is down and Obama says America is getting back to normal, if this is normal, America is in big trouble.

Obama promised so much, but gave us so little, except for a lot of lip service. If you watched Bill O’Reilly’s interview with Leon Panetta, who pretty much blamed Obama for the stalemate in Washington, saying that if Obama did not change, nothing would get done in the next two and a half years. Panetta also wrote in his book of Obama’s “frustrating reticence to engage his opponents and rally support for his cause” and his tendency to rely “on the logic of a law professor rather than the passion of a leader.”

We desperately need a leader in this country, a leader like Ronald Reagan, a leader that will give us a new morning in America, because we are waking-up from the nightmare of an Obama.

“Hey Alan Colmes I Read Your Book” A Republicans Rebuttal. Available here.

Reagan

This is one man’s opinion.

Are You a Purple Penguin?

ConfusionSignTN

This story goes in my “Administrators gone wild” file. It seems a Nebraska school district is instructing its teachers not to use the terms “boys and girls,” “ladies and gentlemen,” “you guys,” well, you get the idea. Why? Because they don’t include gender non-confirming terminology and therefore causes confusion for those few children who don’t identify with any specific gender. Simply put, it’s just not inclusive of all.

To make sure that we include everyone and no one feels slighted they have decided the proper inclusive terminology for young kids is to call them “purple penguins.” Because that isn’t confusing at all?

Now we have to change everything because a few kids in the class are being told by their parents that they don’t have to “choose” a gender (like you choose a pair of shoes?) until they’re comfortable doing so. Instead of teaching a child what gender they were born into, they make sure the child lives in a sort of “Gender Twilight Zone” until they can decide what direction to go in. Don’t believe me? Look up the movement to stop hospitals and doctors from “pronouncing gender” on a baby when “it” is born. Yes, the crazy train is close at hand.

This is probably that same group of “$%#*%^” people that said “we can’t keep score at Little League games because it makes the losers feel bad. We shouldn’t give letter grades because it makes the kids feel bad. Don’t mark a paper in red pen, it makes the kids feel bad. Really? Stop all the nonsense and just say, “Let’s not challenge our children because if everything goes the way of the Progressive Left they won’t have to excel at anything, the government will take care of them.” The only definite in these people’s lives is that sane rational thought needs to go.

Administrators feel that by calling them purple penguins it allows the children to be free thinkers. They go on to say, that we should stop asking the kids to line up as boys and girls, and instead, ask them to line up by who likes, skateboards or bikes, dogs or cats, summer or winter. Before guiding the kids, consider the question, “will this create a gender spectrum?”

People, the inmates are running the asylum. Though I have great respect for the “shrinks” of the world, they are not all on the same page on this issue. For them, it’s not an exact science. Some doctors tell you kids need definites in their lives, solid boundaries. They need to know who and what they are. Some say noooooo they need to be able to explore their inner self and look at the world in different ways. Ok, sure, now which one is right?

So they chose penguins as an inclusive, gender non-specific option. Penguins are a gender-specific, traditional family-oriented species. According to LiveScience.com, most penguins are monogamous, at a minimum, for the duration of the mating season, and in many cases, for most of their lives (married forever). Researchers have found that penguins re-paired with the same partner 82 percent of the time and certain species of penguins re-paired 90 percent of the time. Better than the human divorce rates.

Each gender has their designated roles, according to LiveScience.com. The male (gender specific) usually starts the mating ritual and will pick out a nice nesting site before he approaches a female. (Wow! All those choices without including her?) After mating, the female emperor penguin will lay a single egg. The female (gender specific) of this species will place the egg on the male’s feet to keep warm in his fat folds while she goes out and hunts for several weeks.

So with all this exclusive, gender-specific, family-valued system, how did the loons on the Left choose purple penguins to be the “inclusive, non-gender-specific” alternative to “boys and girls?” Coin toss? Everyone loves penguins?
Read more at The Real Side

America’s Oligarchy – The Tyranny of the Federal Judiciary

Judicial_Tyranny-New_Kings.png

Two key decisions rendered by the Federal Judiciary this week severely challenge not only the foundational institutions of our society, but the fundamental operation of our republic.

Judicial_Tyranny-New_Kings.pngThe U.S. Supreme Court announced this week that it opted to not hear appeals by five states regarding their traditional marriage laws. Utah, Virginia, Indiana, Wisconsin, and Oklahoma all had laws on the books defining marriage as a contractual institution including a man and a woman that had been appealed to the Supreme Court from lower courts. The net effect is that judicial decisions at lower levels against those state laws will now stand, opening the way for same-sex marriages in those states.

The Supreme Court’s rationale to not hear the cases may well have been portended by Justice Antonin Scalia last month in Bozeman, MT when he said, “It’s not up to the courts to invent new minorities that get special protections that are not subject to the usual rule that you have to get the majority to agree with it.”

Even more disconcerting is the decision by three judges from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals regarding Idaho and Nevada’s laws supporting traditional marriage. A three-judge panel from the 9th Circuit, consisting of Judges Stephen Reinhardt, a Carter appointee from Los Angeles; Ronald M Gould, a Clinton appointee from Seattle; and Marsha S. Berzon, a Clinton appointee from San Francisco, struck down state laws reaffirming marriage between a man and a woman. Since the Supreme Court will not hear state’s appeals on the issue, same-sex marriage is a fait accompli not only for Idaho and Nevada, but inevitably in all 50 states.

tyranny3Our federal judiciary has become, arguably and disturbingly, an oligarchy. When they rule on the “constitutionality” of an issue it is assumed to be the final say in whether a vote of congress or the vote of the people via referendum or initiative is legitimized or annulled. This is not how the Supreme Court and its substrata of appellate courts were intended to operate, nor is it de facto the way it should be.

The federal judiciary, as it has evolved, has unchecked and unlimited power over the nation by either of the other branches, the executive or the legislative, or even the people. Its members are not accountable to the citizenry, since most of their appointments are for life, and they cannot be removed from the bench by a vote of the people they purportedly serve. Their ruminations and the results of their decisions are insular and they often trump the will of the people with regard to key social issues. Their decisions are presumed to be final, even though they may be at odds with the democratic majority of our citizens.

c2dc1f723d791ab0369b9fdaec38e810Herein lies the fundamental problem about the present construct of our federal judiciary as it has evolved since the founding. If, as stated in the 10th Amendment, all “rights and powers” not specifically itemized in the Constitution are held by the people collectively or by the states, what right does a court have to negate the will of the people? As it relates especially to key cultural issues like abortion, public religious displays, and definitions of marriage, should not the final court be the court of public opinion, rather than an oligarchy of judges insulated from, and not accountable to the citizenry? In most of these cases, state courts have ruled, and appeals are then made to the federal judiciary.

Thomas Jefferson portended this judicial despotism. “To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control.”

Justice Scalia said recently, “I question the propriety, indeed the sanity, of having a value-laden decision such as same-sex marriage made for the entire society by unelected judges.” That sentiment is echoed by Chief Justice John Roberts. “Judges are like umpires. Umpires don’t make the rules. They apply them. The role of an umpire and a judge is critical. They make sure everybody plays by the rules. But it is a limited role. Nobody ever went to a ballgame to see the umpire,” he said. Clearly, though, the judiciary is doing just that, making the rules, when they essentially legislate from the bench.

According to Reuter’s research published in January, 2014, Democrat appointees to the federal bench are a slight majority, at 50.5% of the total federal judiciary. In their book “The Behavior of Federal Judges,” researchers Lee Epstein, William Landes, and Richard Posner, document how Democrat appointees rule on the bench more liberally than Republican appointees rule according to strict constructionist interpretations. Given that verity, and the growing majority of liberal judges in the federal judiciary, the continued unraveling of “democratic rule” by the federal judiciary in America is perhaps a forgone conclusion.

JudicialActivismJefferson clearly understood the system of checks and balances on the respective powers of the three branches of government. As he said in a letter to Abigail Adams in 1804, “The Constitution… meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.” It has obviously become a despotic branch since it can overturn the will of the people as expressed even in referenda or initiatives.

Liberalism and progressivism have been able to successfully advance elements of their agenda through the judiciary that they have been unable to accomplish at the ballot box or through elected officials. Since federal judges are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, those positions should be recognized as the key to preserving the slight semblance of the American republic as envisioned by our founders. As it appears now, that vision is rapidly evaporating.

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].

Love & Hate – We Lost The True Meaning

I was recently reading an article about the couple in Oregon who lost their bakery business because they would not make a wedding cake for a lesbian couple because of their Religious convictions. There is something in that article that stuck out for me, it is this:

“Our culture has accepted 2 huge lies. The first is that if you disagree with someone’s lifestyle, you must fear or hate them. Second is that to love someone means that you must agree with everything they believe or do. Both are nonsense.” Somehow, in our society, we have come to a point, that because we disagree with someone, we are automatically labeled a hater, which could not be farther from the truth.

I myself think that homosexuality is wrong and also same sex marriage, but if someone wants to live that way, knock yourself out, just don’t force me to accept something I know in my heart is wrong. The dictionary has the meaning of hate as:

  1. To dislike intensely or passionately; feel extreme aversion for or extreme hostility toward; detest:  To hate the enemy.
  2. To be unwilling; dislike: I hate to do it.
  3. To feel intense dislike, or extreme aversion or hostility.

If you go by the meaning of hate that is in the dictionary, I can honestly say that I hate no one. There are people I dislike, there are people I disagree with, but do I hate them, not if you use the actual meaning from the dictionary.

It seems to me, that the owners of the bakery were denied their First Amendment right of freedom of Religion. They did not refuse to sell the lesbian couple a cake, they refused to decorate it with a same sex couple. Why didn’t the lesbians just go to another bakery, instead they pushed to close down the business, they seem more like the haters in this story.

It is the same with love, the meaning of love in the dictionary is as follows:

  1. A feeling of strong or constant affection for a person
  2. A attraction that includes sexual desire : the strong affection felt by people who have a romantic relationship
  3. A person you love in a romantic way

To say that we must love one another seems ridiculous to me, if you go by the meaning in the dictionary. Love and hate are two intense opposite words; I think we use them without thinking about their true meaning. It is the same with the word racist, which the Liberals love to throw around at the drop of a hat. The dictionary defines racist as the doctrine that a certain human race is superior to any or all others. Yet, people are called racist because they disagree with Obama’s policies.

I have to admit, the Liberal-Progressives have perfected this kind of attack, and everyone that disagrees with them is automatically branded as a hater, when all people are doing is voicing their own views and opinions. In this upside down world of political correctness we live in today, it seems what is right has become wrong, and what is wrong has become right.

In the movie The Godfather, there is a scene where drug dealer Virgil Sollozzo meets with the Godfather to ask for protection for his drug business. When the Godfather turns him down, the Godfather says something very profound. “It makes no difference what a man does you understand, just as long as your interests don’t conflict with mine.” In other words, do what you want to do, but leave me alone. If Liberals can only learn to live by that rule, think how much better the world would be.

 

“Hey Alan Colmes I Read Your Book” A Republicans Rebuttal. Available here.

SpeechThis is one man’s opinion.

 

 

Unemployment at All-Time Low 5.9%… Just Kidding!

unemployment-line

Government math takes on many forms. I think it’s the basis for Common Core math. In Common Core, 2 plus 2 plus 2 doesn’t always equal 6. Just like 18% of employable people in the U.S. equals a 5.9% unemployment rate.

The 5.9 %number is usually arrived at by simply looking at how many Americans file for unemployment every week, both new and continuing claims. You hear about the numbers of people dropping off the rolls but you never hear why. The assumption is that they found a job.

Do you ever hear them report about the number of people who drop off the unemployment rolls because they ran out of time? Or the ones who got discouraged and gave up looking because they couldn’t find employment. What about the ones who switch to disability because they are now having physical and mental issues as a result of their job search? (Insert crickets sound here.)

Most economists use another set of numbers that the government Bureau of Labor Statistics calls “U-6.” It defines the “total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of all civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers.”

This number takes into account, by that definition, the underemployed, discouraged, and unemployed workers. This number actually did fall for the first time below 12% to 11.8%. Hey, don’t get too excited yet.

Remember, just before the election period in 2012, we were told unemployment was down. Many government math “adjustments” were made to the unemployment numbers all summer leading up to the November 2012 election. But fudging the numbers shouldn’t be a big surprise. I mean, look at the other “adjustments” that were made : Benghazi was “not” another 9/11 anniversary attack, the Obamacare rollout debacle was really just a few “minor” glitches, much like that whole “keeping your doctor” thing.

Now, back to government math. In September, the unemployment rate dropped by 0.2% to 5.9%. The number of people unemployed dropped by about 329,000 to 9.3 million.
Read more at THE REAL SIDE

Holder As a Supreme Court Justice? It Is Scary and It Is Plausible

Holder & Obama

With the resignation of Attorney General Eric Holder, unquestionably the most activist – and most divisive – attorney general in the history of the country, everyone seems fixated on who will replace him, and rightly so. The position of nation’s “top cop” is one of extreme importance. As was witnessed with Mr. Holder’s tenure, a biased, activist and agenda-driven attorney general can tear at the fabric of our society. But while everyone seems pre-occupied with who his successor will be, the possibilities of Mr. Holder’s future is what has some forward-thinking people concerned.

If Pres. Obama is swift of feet – and with Valerie Jarrett as his task-master it is hard to believe that he won’t be, he will see his next nominee for US Attorney General fly through the Senate confirmation process. This will happen courtesy of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s manipulation of the confirmation vote process. Susan Ferrechio writes in The Washington Examiner:

“Democrat changes to the filibuster last year should give President Obama’s attorney general pick a gliding path through the Senate in the lame-duck session.

“Last November, Democrat Majority Leader Harry Reid changed Senate rules so that nominations for Cabinet positions and most judicial posts needed only 51 votes, instead of the 60 that had been required. That means the person President Obama nominates to succeed Attorney General Eric Holder will not face a potential Republican filibuster.

“Lawmakers plan to return Nov. 12, and no matter who prevails in the Nov. 4 elections, Democrats will remain in the Senate majority until the end of the year. Democrats control 55 votes, while Republicans make up 45 of the chamber’s lawmakers.”

No doubt, We the People will have to suffer through two more years of an activist Department of Justice, one too pre-occupied with “social justice” to give a second thought to “justice for all” or “blind justice.” Of course, it is hard to imagine a more divisive social justice activist than Eric Holder. Nevertheless, I am sure the man – or woman – who takes the helm at the DoJ will provide adequate protection for the Obama Administration, just as Mr. Holder did.

The question now is this. What is Eric Holder going to do? Mr. Holder, as it the case with the total of the Obama Administration sans Joe Biden, is a young man in political terms. His has a long and influential future ahead of him as the first Black activist US Attorney General. My fear is that Mr. Obama may want to reward his political “bag man” with a nomination to the US Supreme Court. And while it is not a sure thing, it is a possibility.

New York Magazine’s Jonathan Chait reports that while Progressives wish to see Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg retire so that President Obama might seat another Progressive activist on the US Supreme Court, Justice Ginsburg is none too fast to agree:

“If I resign any time this year, he could not successfully appoint anyone I would like to see in the court. [The Senate Republicans] took off the filibuster for lower federal court appointments, but it remains for this court. So anybody who thinks that if I step down, Obama could appoint someone like me, they’re misguided.”

Mr. Chait continues:

“The facts Ginsburg describes are true, but the conclusion she takes away from them is almost certainly wrong…

“It is true that Republicans retain the right to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee. They may use this power to restrain the president from nominating a particularly objectionable figure, as both parties have done in the past. But if they use it as a generalized blockade, stopping Obama from nominating any mainstream Democratic figure, then Senate Democrats would almost surely enact another rule change. If Senate Democrats won’t sit still for Republicans using the filibuster to take away Obama’s right to appoint a federal judge, they surely wouldn’t sit still as Republicans prevent Obama from filling a Supreme Court seat…”

To wit, it is not only possible, but plausible that Mr. Obama, at the insistence of Valerie Jarrett and the Chicago Progressive machine, could nominate his trusted social justice foot soldier – before the new Congress is convened – to his just reward as a candidate for the position of United States Supreme Court Justice. All they need to do is to move the arguably less radical Ruth Bader Ginsburg out of the way to usher in Eric Holder, who would unquestionably serve as the most radically ideological justice ever to serve on the court.

So, the ultimate question for those who honor the Constitution is this. What is to be done to defend against this scenario becoming a reality?

One avenue to travel is to execute an all-out assault on every incumbent Senate Democrat running for re-election; an assault that would send the message that should they agree to confirm Mr. Holder as a Supreme Court Justice, extremely well-funded recall campaigns will be launched in the most vicious of manners against each and every one of them.

Another avenue that could be traveled is to take a page out of the Texas Legislature’s Democrat handbook. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell could instruct the total of the Senate Republicans to refuse to return to Washington, DC, after the 2014 Midterm Election in an effort to refuse Mr. Reid a quorum call. Of course, Mr. Reid being the slippery politician that he is might find a way around that.

But one solid avenue would be for Republicans to thoroughly examine the constitutionality of the idea of the impeachment of a United States Supreme Court Justice. Fortunately, there is a wee bit of latitude in the US Constitution for this measure.

Article III, Section 1 of the US Constitution states clearly:

“The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.” (Emphasis mine)

That Mr. Holder was found to be in Contempt of Congress during his tenure as the attorney general, it is fair to say that he exhibited “bad behavior” during that time. In accepting a nomination to the US Supreme Court – and assuming the Reid-led Senate would confirm him, he would be taking the Oath of Office as a US Supreme Court Justice under false pretenses, as his past performance proved beyond doubt that he repeatedly violated the US Constitution by ignoring equal justice under the law for all Americans.

None of these choices are optimal but each presents a possible solution. And each should be considered seriously. An Eric Holder nomination to the US Supreme Court would be a direct threat to the United States Constitution, and one we can ill-afford.

Whose Balls Did Obama Borrow?

There is no doubt that Obama has always shirked from confrontation, as a matter of fact, he always unapologetically ran from it, so where did he find the balls to start bombing Syria? How did Obama go from saying, “I don’t want to put the cart before the horse? We don’t have a strategy yet,” to saying, “America is always stronger when we stand united, that unity sends a powerful message to the world that we will do what’s necessary to defend our country.”

Why did it take him so long to strike our enemies, was he looking for a pair of balls all that time, after all, he knew about these animals since January and chose to do nothing until Americans heads were being cut off. If he had left troops in Iraq, like all his generals advised him to do, would any of this have happened? When he drew a red line for Syria and that red line was crossed, he should have found some balls then, instead of back peddling. Why didn’t he find some balls when Putin slapped him in the face a couple of times by invading Ukraine?

Why has Obama come so late to the party, even left wing Tom Brokaw said, “What most people say is we got started way too late. We’ve known about ISIS moving out of Syria and into Iraq for sometime. The time to hit them was when they were on the move before they got themselves positioned in Iraq and had taken over cities and created an infrastructure for the military.”

There is no doubt, that if two Americans heads were not cut off, Obama would never have lifted a finger against ISIS or ISIL as Obama prefers to call them. There could be no doubt in anyone’s mind, that Obama is a weak president, he does not have leadership qualities and should not be running this country. The world is too dangerous to have a president who has to scramble to find a pair of balls every time America is threatened. Recently, when giving a speech at the U.N. Obama seemed more concerned about global warming then he cares about terrorism.

What a big mistake this country made, in hindsight, Romney saw everything before it happened, he was ridiculed and laughed at as he talked about Russia, ISIS, Syria and many other things that Obama still refuses to see, or does he see them, but chooses to ignore them. Even Romney’s remark about the 47%, which many say cost him the election, people are saying he was right about that as well.

After six years, Obama has found a pair somewhere, but we know they are not his and he will eventually have to give them back at some point. However, whose are they, they can’t belong to anyone on his staff, because it seems they are all yes men. The only people that were on his staff that had any all left, because Obama thinks it has to be his way or the highway, and look where that has gotten us.

How long will Obama keep them? Who knows, it seems to me, he does not have the balls to keep them, it seems it is not in his DNA. Having a weak president at times like these is only a recipe for disaster, unless Obama has the balls to keep the balls, America is in for a rough ride ahead.

“Hey Alan Colmes I Read Your Book” A Republicans Rebuttal. Available here.

AppeaserThis is one man’s opinion.

 

Our Current Unknown Soldier !

MarineSgtTamor

At the time of this writing Marine Sergeant Andrew Tahmooressi will have been in jail six full months… 180 days. A soldier, in the United States Marine Corps. His crime? Accidently making a wrong turn into Mexico, our friends, our neighbors to the South. Yes, they claim to be our friends.

Sgt. Tahmooressi was in San Diego to get the medical treatment he needed for combat-related PTSD, among other things. He had parked on the American side while joining friends for a few drinks. Not being very familiar with the border area, he chose the wrong lane in which to turn around. When he realized his mistake he immediately told the guard what had happened and he was simply looking to get back to the US. He also immediately disclosed that he had guns in the back of the pickup, legally owned in the U.S. The guard understood the mistake called for an escort car to take the Sergeant back across the border. However, an overzealous Mexican military official decided he was not going to let this injustice happen!

He was not going to let that arrogant American soldier who dared to bring guns into Mexico get away with it and he was going to administer justice.

Is that the same military that fires on American border patrols when they are close to the Mexican border but still on the American side? YES! The same Mexican military known for taking bribes from the cartels to allow tonnage of drugs to be smuggled over the border in America? YES! Could this be the same Mexican military that can’t seem to see the tens of thousands of illegal immigrants passing through Mexico on the tops of buses and trains? The same illegals they used to shoot and abuse in times past when they crossed the southern border into Mexico with the intent of staying in Mexico, but since they are continuing on to the U.S. they are ushered along without incident? YES! The same! But they can’t seem to find an ounce of humanity towards Marine Sergeant Tahmooressi.

The Mexican government and especially their president, who decries the inhumane U.S. treatment of his people, who incidentally are running away from him because of his corrupt government’s inhumane treatment of them, are hypocrites. He is appalled that we didn’t set up water facilities in the desert for his people as they break our laws. He was upset because we deport his people who intentionally break our laws. We jail them for repeatedly breaking the law when they get past the border patrol. He wants us to welcome them in with open arms and without exception or background check. Hmmm, I’m surprised the United States of Obama hasn’t issued them weapons yet.

The Mexican president can’t even, in a gesture of good will to show how “open armed” he is, push along the Sergeant’s legal process and make sure he is safe. Maybe we should treat the Illegals coming over the border the same way they are treating the Sergeant. Let’s capture them, put them in a hot, non-air-conditioned tent or room, have them stripped down, chain them to their beds for four days with little food and water, and should they need medical treatment, deny it. That must be what he means by humane treatment because that’s how he’s treating Sgt. Tahmooressi. He couldn’t complain if we treated his law-breaking citizens illegally entering our country the same way, right?
Read more at The Real Side

Islam Needs A Reformation and to Denounce Extremism

6a00d8341c60bf53ef014e60557d9c970c-600wi

It must be extremely disconcerting to Muslims to see their religion defined by the extremists of their faith. Regrettably, history is replete with examples of small minorities of adherents defining public perception of a sect. Christianity is often disparaged for the violent crusades of the Middle Ages. But Christianity went through a reformation, renouncing genocidal practices engendered and fostered by theological dogma. Likewise, at some point, the violent extremism within certain fringe groups who claim to represent the ideals of Islam, must be rejected by the whole if it is to ever be believed to be the “religion of peace.”

islam_religion_of_peace_022It’s critical to make a distinction between the faith of Islam, and Islamic extremism. Islam, as a religion, is faith-based, while the sectarian-defined extremism of the Wahhabist movement, or Salafi, is more of an Islamo-Fascist political movement. Even though it has its theological roots in Islam the religion, they are more of a politically ideological sect within Islam that goes far beyond what is reasonable in their interpretations of key scriptures in the Koran and the Hadith or sayings of Mohammed.

Abdallah Al Obeid, the former dean of the Islamic University of Medina and member of the Saudi Consultative Council, confirms that this is politically ideological, rather than sectarian. He calls this extremism a “political trend” within Islam that “has been adopted for power-sharing purposes.” He says it cannot be called a sect because “It has no special practices, nor special rites, and no special interpretation of religion that differ from the main body of Sunni Islam.”

Lt. General Thomas McInerney, who serves on the Iran Policy Committee, said a few years ago in an interview, “Islamic extremism is an ideology just like Fascism and Communism, and it must be fought in much the same way. The West has not acknowledged this and consequently we have not educated our population that it is an ideology rather than a religion. This is confusing people because of our tolerance for the diversity of religion.”

Islam-DominationGeneral McInerney declared in the same interview, “Islam needs a reformation just like Christianity had, plus they need a cultural renaissance to bring them into modernity. This must come from within driven by moderate Muslims.”

Dr. Tawfik Hamid, an Egyptian scholar and reformed terrorist, who maintains that his religion has been hijacked by the extremists, wrote a historically insightful book titled “The Roots of Jihad” in 2006, where he describes our challenge with the jihadists. He wrote that Islamic Terrorism has the support of the majority of Muslims and that Islam must be reformed to become a religion of tolerance. Muslims are killing more of their own people than westerners, and until the Muslim world acknowledges this and destroys this cancer from within there will be continued conflict that will continue to spread. This, he states, is catastrophic for the Islamic religion.

Dr. Juhdi Jasser, who heads the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, expressed his frustration last week in an interview. He expressed consternation that the talking points of the administration have been based on the oft repeated line that “the Islamic State is neither Islamic nor a state,” referring to ISIS (Islamic State in Iraq and Syria). The President, Secretary of State John Kerry, Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest, and Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel have all reiterated the statement over the past week.

6a00d8341c60bf53ef014e60557d9c970c-600wiDr. Jasser takes umbrage at their fallacious premise. “Please, if anybody in the administration is listening, stop telling us Muslims what is Islamic. I mean, so he’s saying this is compounding the sin? How about when he shakes the hand and hugs the king of Saudi Arabia for their being the custodians of the Holy Mosque and yet they have imprisoned apostates, liberals, [and] Muslims. They’re a misogynistic nation that treats women as third class citizens. Or the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, or the Islamic Republic of Iran. Hundreds of millions of Muslims running governments all over the world that line their prisons and torture Christians and Jews and Muslims, and that’s Islamic? And ISIS sort of came out of thin air? ISIS is a by-product of those ideologies. And to deny it and dismiss it, they’re trying to bury us Reformers from having a seat at the table.”

Dr. Jasser continued, “The main laboratory that we can do our reform work against Sharian government and this draconian law that’s still in the 13th century is in the West. So if the West is too busy being labeled as ‘anti-Muslim bigots’ and is on the defense and we’re all victims as Muslims, you can never have this conversation. So moderate Muslims acknowledge that the Islamic State is a threat, that we don’t want to live in Islamic States. Moderate Muslims acknowledge that Sharia, as is interpreted today, is misogynistic, is anti-Western, anti-freedom. And the Islamists want to not have that conversation and want to marginalize us from the mosques and Islamist representation and our voices.”

Obama-With-MuslimsMuslims worldwide must eventually reject and foreswear the jihadists and their beheading, rapacious, and murdering tactics. The cry must be loud and strong from the faithful to reclaim their religion from the extremists who taint and tarnish it. Reformers like Dr. Jasser and Dr. Hamid must be embraced and supported by their Muslim brethren, as they attempt reformation, and adaptation to the Koran’s standards of moral behavior.

And this reformation must include educational curriculum as well, that teaches primary school children the terrorist mentality. They need to take the reigns of their faith, denounce the 72 virgin myth for martyrs, and expunge those who seek to murder and destroy. By so doing, they can reclaim the heart and soul of their faith. How best to show they are a “religion of peace” than by proving 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].

Good Riddance to a Race-Baiting Divider

Eric Holder

Attorney General Eric Holder, the first Black man to be appointed as United States Attorney General, has resigned. Americans who suffered the slings and arrows of rising above the racial divide since – and before – the enactment of Civil Rights legislation are jubilant in his departure. Never before has an Attorney General belittled the American citizenry as Mr. Holder has in his comments on racism. Never before has an Attorney General abused the power of his office as Mr. Holder has in the pursuit of racial retribution. And never before has an Attorney General overseen such an aggressive division of our citizenry based on race as has Mr, Holder. To put it directly, Mr. Holder, don’t let the door smack you in your racist behind as you leave.

I was raised in the 1960s and 1970s. My parents taught me, in no uncertain terms, to consider individuals through a lens that evaluated their character, not their skin color. When I didn’t, my attitude was “adjusted” and I am thankful for their unyielding insistence on that issue.

I remember all too clearly the evening when my Father returned home from his office the day he found one of his best friends – a Black man – dead on the office floor. He was devastated. Eddie Cain was more than an employee to my Father. Each day as he arrived at his fledgling business – a new and struggling metal manufacturing company – he was greeted by Mr. Cain. Each morning they took the time to have a cup of coffee, or two, and discuss family, life, and current events. It was irrelevant that my Father was the boss and Mr. Cain was the custodian. Both men looked upon each other with respect, as family men both struggling to achieve so as to take care of their respective families. They were men of equal honor talking like the friends that they were.

Many times, my Father would confer with his friend on business realities that weighed heavily on my Father’s mind. Many times the common sense advice that Mr. Cain offered my Father – as a friend – was advice that helped to ease my Father’s mind. I like to think that it was out of the catalyst of their friendship that my Father was moved to institute a profit sharing plan that included all of his employees. Mind you, this was in a day and age when such things were considered revolutionary. The harder everyone worked – from the custodian to the CEO – the more everyone would financially benefit; capitalism at its purest; everyone has “skin in the game.”

On the day that my Father arrived home from the office after having found Mr. Cain dead on the floor from a heart attack – the water for their morning pot of coffee together spilled across the floor – I could see, even at my young age, the heartbreak a man feels for the loss of a great friend. He was devastated and at a loss. He made arrangements for Mr. Cain’s family to be provided for and lumbered through the grieving process; a process which not only took a long time to complete (if it ever did), but one that taught my Sister and I an important lesson. Skin color doesn’t matter. Character matters.

I carry that experience with me today as I travel the road that is my life. I have had the pleasure to have performed with some of the most talented and revered jazz musicians the art form has to offer, most of them Black. I have worked, played, entertained, debated and counseled with Blacks, Latinos, Europeans, Asians, Indians and American Indians, many of whom have been very dear to me, not because of a superficial tally of acquired racial diversity, but because of the elevated level of character I demand of myself in choosing who I call friend. In each instance the idea of skin color was non-existent. We appreciated each other for our talents, our character, our knowledge, our counsel and our developing friendships. Over the years I have been graced to have been able to call many of these old friends “family,” if only in the extended definition.

So, pardon me if I believe that Eric Holder and his race-baiting, activist agenda have harmed the United States; have done an incredible disservice to the multiple generations who have already risen above the stain of racism. I find it pathetic and unintelligent that Mr. Holder is so stained by the inequities of eras past; so stained in the blood of racism that no longer exists in mainstream America (but for the corners of our society where it will never be expunged), that he wears racism like a birthmark; never to be removed, always an identifier to who he is. Sadly, or perhaps ironically, it is the very racism of Mr. Holder and his ilk that feeds the racism that exists in the extreme corners of our country. One would think an educated person like Mr. Holder would understand this. Or, perhaps he does understand this and rising above racism was never his true agenda…perhaps.

So, as the Progressives amongst us celebrate the end of the tenure of our first Black Attorney General, I weep for our nation and the American culture. Mr. Holder and his racist, biased, activist pals have set race relations back almost 50 years, and for what, retribution? Payback? So another generation can “feel the pain”?

To all of those who have existed on this planet blind to racism and acutely dedicated to evaluating a person by their character over their skin color, I say stay the course; teach your children; be the example that would serve to influence all generations to come. Condemn thuggish behavior from all who exhibit it – regardless of the color of their skin, and hold dear to you people of good character, loyalty and friendship, like my Father held dear to Eddie Cain.

As for Eric Holder and his gaggle of race-baiting dividers, it is they who are the real cowards. Goodbye and good riddance. May our culture heal from your poisons.

Being A Racist Is Confusing

I don’t know about you, but all this talk about race confuses the hell out of me. First I know I am a racist, because Liberals tell me that I am, and as we all know if a Liberal says something, it must be true. It seems to be simple things that make me a racist, for example, I did not vote for Obama, I think his policies are hurting America and I think Affirmative Action is a thumb in the eye on our society. How this makes me a racist I don’t know, but Liberals think it does, but it confuses the hell out of me.

Even more confusing, there is a group called the NAACP, which stands for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, yet if I call a black person a colored person, I am automatically deemed a racist. The group has colored people in its name, yet you are a racist for using the term, it confuses the hell out of me. There is also a foundation called The United Negro College Fund, but once again if I say negro the tag of racist is once again clipped on to me, go figure.

To make things even more confusing, even if you compliment someone’s race, you know, say something nice about them, once again branded a racist. I have always heard that Chinese people were good at math, but I am called a racist if I say it. Also, black people are good at sports, is that a bad thing, saying that they are good at something? Well according to Liberals, that automatically makes you a racist, talk about being confused.

Let’s look at another confusing statement. A man from France is called a Frenchman, that’s OK, a man from England is called an Englishman, that’s OK, a man from Ireland is called an Irishman, that’s OK, but God forbid I call a man from China a Chinaman, that is not OK, that is being racist. Do Liberals have any rational for that, or is it just another way for them to have something to bitch about and cause a little trouble?

Even the term African American is in question. A while back I was talking with a client, who was black, the term came up in conversation, when he said to me “Hey mon, I am not African, I am Jamaican.” He told me not all black people come from Africa, and he hates when people refer to him as African American, it’s not his heritage. OK, it seems no matter what you say today in this politically correct world, you get in some kind of trouble.

How can I not mention the Washington Redskins, that has been the name of that football team since 1933, but now, if you use the term, once again you are a racist, which is strange because only 10% of the Indian population find it offensive. There is one common thread that runs through all of these subjects, it is always the white Limousine Liberals that not only start the trouble, but always shout the loudest.

So, let’s face it, in today’s PC world, no matter what you say, there will always be some nutty Liberal saying you shouldn’t say it. You can do one of two things, you can do what the Liberal says and shut your mouth, or you can ignore them and keep saying what you want to say, I choose to ignore them.

To top it off, we have an Attorney General, Eric Holder who once said that America is a nation of cowards because they won’t talk about race, but when someone brings it up, he calls them racist, like I said, confusing as hell.

“Hey Alan Colmes I Read Your Book” A Republicans Rebuttal. Available here.

Racist

 This is one man’s opinion.

 

Like Them or Not, They Do Know How to Message

NRA RNC

Depending on the programs you watch on television – or the media avenue of your choice, it is hard not to have seen the commercials produced by the National Rifle Association (NRA). They are well crafted and thought provoking. In fact, if they didn’t include the final branding of the NRA in their closes, even the liberal Democrats amongst us would be hard pressed to find anything to object about in their messages. Without a doubt, the NRA knows how to communicate to the average American. So, why hasn’t the Republican National Committee (RNC) learned from the NRA’s effort?

One of the most paralyzing deficiencies of the Republican brand is the fact – the fact – that they couldn’t brand their way out a wet paper bag. Never mind their other short-comings – the combating of the Progressives’ individual targeting of voters with another old, crusty get-out-the-vote effort, or insisting on attacking a core constituency of the GOP in the TEA Party, or failing to reach out effectively to the Libertarians – messaging has, and most likely always will be, the GOP’s Achilles heel. When compared to the Progressive messaging apparatus, or the Democrat spin machine, the RNC comes in a distant fourth, behind the Progressives and Democrats, and trailing the public awareness campaign for the retirement home for blind squirrels. I won’t even get into how they fair against the Islamic State.

But the NRA has struck a chord. They have crafted thirteen segments, each addressing an issue that has become problematic in a nation that is supposed to sanctify opportunity, individualism, justice and liberty. In each, they state facts and make an argument, something inside-the-beltway 30-something “strategists” obviously ignored during “spin class” when they navigated their ways through “establishment Republican school.”

The issues include:

Anger: The rage that is infecting our society
Courage: The unethical, the cowardly and the apathetic
The Golden Rule: The self-serving element of our society
Honest Broker: The culture of deception and spin
Media Dishonesty: The failure of the free press
Mom & Dad: The abandonment of parental responsibility
Money: The tyranny of the oligarchic elite
Neighbor: The demise of the neighborhood
Privacy: The encroachment of government on privacy
Safety: The failure of government to protect its citizenry
Selective Law Enforcement: The Balkanization of our society through legislation
Service: The government’s betrayal of the US military and veterans
Speech: The attack on free speech and thought
Work Ethic: The culture malaise of celebrity worship and sloth

After spending just thirteen short minutes viewing these commercials – these indictments, it is hard not to see that our society has devolved into much less than what was bequeathed to us from just the generation before. We are rife with apathy, egotism, entitlement and falsely elevated self-esteem. We are far from the people our Founders and Framers were (and no that’s not a good thing) and closer to the dependent Socialists that the Progressive Movement quests for us to be. We exist on the precipice of the completion of the fundamental transformation that then-Senator Barack Obama spoke of five days before the 2008 General Election.

And who stands between our demise and our road to recovery? What group stands as champion to the freedoms and liberties left to us by our forefathers; paid for with blood and treasure of free men? The modern day Republican Party, a group of beltway insiders who have no talent – and no desire to obtain or exploit those who possess that talent – for communicating to the citizenry.

For almost two generations now, Progressives and Liberal Democrats have understood the power and the necessity for controlling the narrative. The “spin doctor” the “pundit” and the “strategist,” are all byproducts of a quest to control the narrative; to message effectively with the people. Progressives have known from the days of Woodrow Wilson that messaging that targets peoples’ emotions or the individual’s financial wherewithal – whether it’s to promise “a chicken in every pot” or to fear-monger about war and big business – is not only motivating, it is effective in moving the populace to vote a certain way, especially the non-engaged and no- and low-information demographic. The Republicans, but for a very few bright spots in history, have been dismal at learning this lesson and exist as followers when it comes to innovations in communicating.

Is it too much to wish for that the media gurus of the RNC would exhibit some humility in contacting the marketing firm that produced the NRA’s media campaign so as to gather knowledge on how to affect emotion in their messaging ahead of the 2014 and 2016 elections?

The results of the 2012 General election prove that the RNC media team needs some continuing education in Messaging 101. They should have been out in front of this election cycle with an NRA-styled messaging campaign three months ago. But then, we are talking about a small group of people who turned a potent TEA Party revolution, born of the tenets of the original Republican Charter, into an internal confrontation between a small group of elitist inside-the-beltway oligarchs and the rest of the entire Conservative demographic.

To borrow from the NRA campaign:

“Hey, RNC leadership, we are the 55 million members of the Republican Party. If you’re one of the good guys too, then join us.”

Illegal Aliens Get Ready To Vote

Well, we all knew it was coming, it was only a matter of time and now it looks like it is about to become a reality. I do not understand these Democrats, do they not understand the term illegal, the dictionary has the definition as follows:

  1. forbidden by law; unlawful; illicit
  2. unauthorized or prohibited by a code of official or accepted rules
  3. a person who has entered or attempted to enter a country illegally

Yet the Democrats seem to turn a blind eye and intentionally disregard the laws of the land. Illegal aliens in New York could score billions in Medicaid and college tuition money, along with driver’s licenses, voting rights and even the ability to run for office, if Democrats get their way. Democrats are pushing a new bill, called “New York is Home,” a bill that would give all illegal’s the same rights as any US citizen, why should anyone even take the time to become a citizen anymore?

Not only would the bill allow all illegal immigrants all of the above, but it would also bar police from releasing any information about them to the feds, also under the proposed legislation, undocumented immigrants could also apply for professional licenses and serve on juries. All this could happen if the Democrats win control of the Senate, Senator Marty Golden, a Republican from Brooklyn said “This is astounding. This undermines our nation’s immigration laws and procedures,” something Democrats just do not give a crap about.

New York City is my hometown, I was born and raised there, I am ashamed at what it has become, but what can you expect with a Communist for a mayor. Already the Communist Mayor Bill de Blasio pushed through a new city law that created a municipal ID card that provides some benefits to noncitizens. I have said many times, if you want to stop illegal immigrants from coming to this country, you only have to stop giving out all the freebies, why should anyone put in the time and effort to become a citizen, if you get everything you want by sneaking into the country.

Mayor de Blasio is no different from Obama, as I said in a previous article, they are cut from the same hunk of wood. There is no doubt that once the 2014 election are over, Obama is going to pass some sought of amnesty executive order, he already indicated as much. These Democrats do not seem to understand that they are devaluing US citizenship with every illegal they grant amnesty too. Illegal immigrants recently demonstrated in front of the White House and not one was arrested, even though they are law breakers, what kind of country have we become?

Democrats continually try to undermine the laws of this country, we even have a president and an attorney general who seem to pick and choose what laws they want to defend, after they took an oath to defend all laws, not just the one’s they agree with. More than ever we all need to get out and vote, Republican, Conservative, Independent need to join together and vote Democrats out of office, that is the only way we will be able to get this country back to sanity.

“Hey Alan Colmes I Read Your Book.” A Republicans Rebuttal. Available here.

untitled

This is one man’s opinion.

The Pledge of Allegiance is Political?

1one-nation-under-god

Now, I have heard it all! CBS Sports banned a commercial with a little girl reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. The ad promoted something very American, “The Rodeo,” around September 11th. The little girl in the commercial was the granddaughter of the owner of the company running the ad. He though it was a really cool idea.

Well, the PC police at CBS Sports had other ideas. At first I thought “here we go again.” It has the words “under God” and we don’t want to offend the 20% of the country who doesn’t believe in God and we certainly don’t want them to feel left out. But that wasn’t the problem. Then I thought they must have been tight on time and a 15-second Pledge would have caused them to have to bump one of those commercials with a hamburger-eating, sauce-dripping, car-washing, bikini-clad woman who uses the top part of her bikini to wipe off the BBQ sauce. Nope. That wasn’t what happened either. OK, then WHAT?

The knuckleheads at CBS Sports decided that it was too political. Yup, the Pledge of Allegiance is too political. They won’t return any news organization’s phone calls. They’re CBS. Why should they?

This is just another example of an ungrateful company not understanding what the Pledge actually means!

For those of you who may need a refresher, the Pledge simply means that as Americans we will stand up for the American way of life, it’s freedoms and it’s opportunities and it’s liberties. Hey CBS! Those are the same ones that you used to build your companies! The American tax laws that you take advantage of and the security you feel, in most cases, going to other countries knowing that, as Americans, your company and employees have the United States of America’s resources to protect you!

Unlike some of those 3rd world nations who dictate what news gets broadcast and when and who you hire and fire and if they decide you’re not so good at it they simply take it away from you, you have freedoms here. Go ahead and try to appeal to that 3rd world country’s supreme court. That’d be a joke!

How would you like it if our military refused to take the Pledge and only fought if and when they felt like it and for whatever cause they felt was worthy? With no allegiance to a country, there’s no real reason to fight or uphold its laws.

CBS Sports you are an embarrassment. You have spit in the face of many that came before us to fight and died protecting what the flag and the Pledge represents.

This madness is happening all around the country. I can count no less than 5 recent stories on City Councils that refused to say the Pledge because “there wasn’t enough time.” And even more stories on school districts that have decided reciting the Pledge “once in a while” is good enough.

And what the heck is political about the Pledge? Does it only apply to Republicans? Or only Democrats? Maybe just the decline-to-state or Libertarian or Green Party? I know the Communist Socialist Democrat Party of America finds it offensive. Who cares! If you don’t like it, shut up and sit down because that’s the freedom afforded you the Pledge and by those who came before you who fought and died for your right to disagree without being taken out back and being beheaded.


Read more at The Real Side

« Older Entries Recent Entries »