Category Archives: Opinion

“When The Rise Of The Oceans Begin To Slow…” Barack Obama, June 3, 2008. And The Lies Have Just Kept Coming.

When Barack Obama made this obscene, self-serving speech in 2008 liberals were still using the term “Global Warming”, and Obama’s reference was to the melting of the polar ice caps and the flooding of the earth’s islands and coastal areas from the excess water that was a result of the ever-rising heat in the world (caused, of course, by evil Americans and their comfortable homes and dependable cars).  Since Obama made this speech, over 6 years have passed and I have a question to ask of him and his liberal pals: What streets in New York City are now underwater?  What part of Honolulu is underwater?  What beaches in Florida, California and Massachusetts are underwater?

According to Obama the situation has become increasingly more critical.  In his recent State Of The Union address he said that global warming/climate change presents a greater threat to mankind than the escalating threat of global terrorism.  Really?  Then 6 years later why hasn’t he fixed it?

Obama has had 6 years to halt his beloved “global warming” and with his recent statement he still admits that he has done nothing to improve the situation (probably because he has spent all of his time “fundamentally changing” America, running up our debt, opening our borders to the world, denying us a choice of healthcare and destroying jobs).  So if he admits that the situation is still a threat to the world, please inform us what part is newly underwater?

Of course liberals have revised the lie of global warming to “climate change” because for the first 40-plus years they were screeching about warming (in the 1970s Ted Danson said we only had 10 years before the oceans died and the fish would disappear, and in the 1960s Paul Ehrlich said that within 10 years the world would have no food left), and now that that myth has evaporated they have revised the dialog to a change in the weather (which, of course, naturally happens all the time).

Who is still listening to these fools?  All they want is greater control over the U.S. economy and over our personal lives.  All they want is to be able to halt the prosperity of the Western world and make everyone equally impoverished (which sounds disturbingly like what ISIS also wants).

Just ask a liberal what streets in Miami are open to boat traffic now and they will change the subject.  And, of course, they get mad when they are reminded of the record cold and snow we are currently experiencing.  They are unfamiliar with the term “winter”.

Americans are being lied to by 21st century snake oil salesmen.  We’ve traditionally been smarter than to be made fools of by this flashy, fast-talking trash.  Let’s start demanding answers to legitimate questions that will refute the lies elected officials are shoving down our throats.

Rudy Giuliani Was Right: Barack Obama Doesn’t Love America!

Although Rudy Giuliani has back-tracked somewhat from his original statement that he believes Barack Obama doesn’t love America, he nevertheless said it, and I agree with his original statement.  He shouldn’t have backed-off on his position because someone in a position of influence, such as he, must take Obama to task for the things he’s said and the actions he has (or has not) taken in regards to the terrorists who are killing innocents all over the world. I would take Rudy’s statement one step further and state that Obama not only hates America, but he hates our closest allies even more, and admires our direst enemies.

How can a thinking person assume that Barack Obama loves a nation that he is “fundamentally transforming” during his presidency?  Why else would he consistently defame our system of capitalism (which has not only made America and its citizens the most prosperous in the world, but also supports our poorest citizens so they can live better than most of the populations of the world who work at slave labor wages and who appreciate the low-wage jobs that they are able to find)?  Why else would he allow the EPA to repeatedly handicap our capitalist system with harmful regulations?  Why else would he make excuses for the terrorists plaguing the world and blame America for the “grievances” of these animals?   Why else would he have begun his presidency with a round-the-world apology tour abusing America?  Why else would he display his dislike for our closest ally (England) by returning the bust of Winston Churchill that had been in the White House for years? Why else would he blame Israel for their problems with the Palestinians, and who can justify his insulting treatment of Benjamin Netanyahu?  Why else would Obama dip back into history 1000 years and blame Christianity for things that occurred long ago, as part of a discussion/justification for the current abuses of Muslim terrorists?  Why else would he have said that the most beautiful sound he’s ever heard was the sound of Muslims being called to prayer in Indonesia?  Why else would he declare that there was not a “smidgeon” of scandal in the IRS abuse of and discrimination against conservative Americans?  Why else would a president repeatedly lie about the proposed healthcare laws of the nation while denying citizens the liberty to make their own choices for their own healthcare, while at the same time concentrating all medical care into the federal government? Why else would the administration illegally sell weapons to Mexican gangs with the hope that when used as murder weapons they would be traced to legal American dealers, which in turn would allow the Obama administration to make a case that American laws that permit private ownership of weapons are causing mass murders to be committed, thereby undermining all Americans’ right to buy and own their own weapons?  Why else would an administration, while pretending to be negotiating with Iran to stop developing nuclear weapons, halt the sanctions that were pressuring Iran to negotiate seriously, and jeopardize the entire project?  Why else would a president state that the lie of global warming/climate change is more of a threat than terrorism, thereby giving credence to the former and undermine the absolute urgency of the latter?  Why else would an administration release to the public, plans for a future attack on terrorist positions, thereby alerting the enemy of our plans to attack them and endangering the lives of Americans involved in the action? Why else would a president be AWOL while his staff in Benghazi was being attacked and killed?  Why else would a president allow the law to be openly broken and permit illegal aliens to freely cross the border, allowing terrorists to enter our nation and often reintroducing diseases which had been eradicated years ago, back into America, thereby threatening that health of American children, possibly fatally?  Why would a president who is running for re-election lie by stating that he only wants marriage to be between a man and a woman, then after being safely re-elected states that he has “evolved” and now favors homosexual marriage (David Axelrod’s recent book informs us that Obama always favored homosexual marriage)?

This is only a partial list of the many things Obama has done that equate to an attack on America and its citizens.

Crowded Early Presidential Field is Healthy for Democracy

Though the 2016 election is approximately 16 months away, the list of declared presidential candidates is already lengthy.

On the right, George Pataki, Ted Cruz, Rick Santorum, Rand Paul, Lindsay Graham, Marco Rubio, Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina, Mike Huckabee and Rick Perry have announced their candidacy. The left’s field is smaller, limited so far to Hillary Clinton, Martin O’Malley, Linc Chafee and Bernie Sanders, but may soon grow, as prominent national figures on both sides of the political aisle have announced they will soon announce their candidacy.

With the 2012 Republican primary carousel still prominent in the mind of many voters, the herd of declared and exploratory candidates is already wearying. To many, it promises intense intra-party bickering, the inundation of the airwaves with attack ads and wasted money on campaigning.

All of these things are frequently characterized as yet another example of a broken system.

But, this view is narrow and shallow; it does not take into account the complexity of national politics.

Impassioned pundits will often wax poetic about federalism and the devolution of power. But, the emphasis on localism that is such an important part of the American political lexicon is never translated into the language of the electoral system.

Diversity in small communities demands power be kept at a level where people’s stake in the outcome makes it more likely they act and debate prudently. This is exactly how the primary system works.

A political party is a community which people join of their own volition and act in to an extent they deem appropriate for their interests.

However, this does not guarantee unity of interests. Though there are overarching principles that bind party members in office and the electorate together, that does not mean they think alike in regards to particulars. So long as these differences are real and legitimate, there is a need for debate, not only so that the merit of ideas becomes evident through contrast, but in order to find which approach is most prominent since action has to be consensus drive to some degree.

The American political system is unique in that parties are bifurcated primarily not on values or ideas, but their belief in the strength of government. Yes, values are a hugely important part of a given party’s constitution, but they are more informed by what societal entity should take responsibility for a given need.

When this is the chief dichotomy and there are only two major parties, a host of beliefs that are similar at a macro level and different at a micro level must necessarily arise. And this is a wonderful thing because it forces debate over real and substantive matters. Ultimately, this cannot but help to strengthen personal ideologies and the political class, in turn making government more sound and more efficient.

In practice, this is obviously a flawed system. Sophistic rhetoric and venial platitudes often come to the forefront in debate, but this does not change the basic fact that substantive discussion is necessary. It is the responsibility of voters to weed out the serious, meritorious politicians from the bloviating, self-seeking hacks.

Long exposure to the public is the dominant tool through which this is accomplished. The primary system with its debates and campaign speeches exists to serve this function. And rather than looking upon this as some necessary evil where the failings of democracy are flouted, voters should see this as a system that empowers their voices.

If Republicans Allow The Destruction Caused By Obamacare To Be Blamed On Them, Then They Are Idiots And Deserve The Blame

Obamacare was forced on Americans under cover of night with only Democrats voting for it, and they strutted like roosters in celebration of their taking over one-sixth of the U.S. economy and forcing every American to knuckle under to their leftist dream bills.  Repeat: No Republicans voted for this unread, lengthy piece of legislative crap!

But now that Obamacare is threatened, either because its provisions are failing or because the Supreme Court finds it to be unconstitutional, CNN, MSNBC and other leftist groups are suggesting that Republicans will suffer along with Democrats when it dies.

If Republicans allow any argument from the left to affix blame to them for a lack of insurance coverage or increased medical costs resulting from the ACA, then they’re fools and deserve the blame they will get.

Republicans voted one-hundred percent against the bill; they tried to repeal it or defund it; conservative radio, TV and print groups constantly argued against it and warned of the destructiveness of its provisions and alerted all who would listen of the destruction to America’s healthcare that would result from it.  So when leftists try to blame Republicans to cover their rear ends at the demise of the ACA, Republicans must shove the blame right back down the progressives’ throats.

Nancy Pelosi said we had to pass the bill to find out what’s in it, and after finding out how destructive the bill is and after living under its provisions for some years now, we all know it’s a socialist failure and that it will eventually consume the entire nation if it’s allowed to progress as Democrats want it to, and becomes a single-payer system under total government control.

Obamacare is a wholly-owned dream of the Democrats/progressives, and we must all write to our legislators and tell them to defend themselves with the truth about the ACA and its destruction when the deluge of blame comes from the revisionist Democrat leftists.

When A Community Organizer Tries To Address Difficult International Issues Bad Things Can Happen, And We See Evidence Of Them Daily

It’s obvious to all who honestly observe current domestic policy and Obama’s executive actions, that liberals (Democrats in other words, and Obama in particular) have caused great harm to our nation, and particularly to America’s poorest citizens with its vote-getting handouts of goodies and welfare payments.  The third-world neighborhoods created by Democrats in the slums of the most prosperous nation in the world (America) is solely the responsibility of leftists in the Democrat party, and Obama, the experienced community organizer who is currently destroying America, has added greatly to the abuse of poor people through the imposition of Obamacare, Obamaphones and the frightening increase of welfare and unemployment.

But when our petulant, know-it-all president addresses international problems we see not just abuse and poverty, but also death, rape and slavery as the result of his liberal decisions.  Because Obama removed all U.S. troops from Iraq and laughed at the ISIS uprising when it began, we now see the rape and enslavement of women, the murder of homosexuals, the arming of children who are forced to go into combat for ISIS and the wholesale elimination of Christians in Iraq, Syria and other middle east countries where ISIS is winning one battle after another, while Obama claims ISIS is on the decline and will soon be defeated.  But in spite of this disastrous series of events that threaten millions of people abroad and the entire population of America, which ISIS has promised to reduce to rubble, Obama thinks that the lie of climate change is the most serious challenge facing the nation today, and he spends more time making speeches about it than he does about defending this nation and working to help our allies defeat terrorism.

What streets in Miami and Manhattan are underwater due to climate change?  Which beaches in California and Hawaii are inundated by waves that weren’t there 50 years ago?  Certainly not the Hawaiian beach housing the Obama’s recently obtained mansion.  And when Obama is not lying about climate change and trying to control the lives of Americans and their use of gasoline and electricity with punitive EPA regulations and a new carbon tax, he’s blaming the police forces in one city after another for violent outbreaks and rioting, and threatens to nationalize the nation’s local police forces, while denying them weapons they need to defend themselves, and their cities’ citizens, against criminals.  Obama is making the world more vulnerable, both internationally and domestically, by his idiot executive rulings and non-policies, most of which are unconstitutional.  When will this man’s stupidity end and allow America to rebuild in his absence again to the great nation it was prior to his arrival?


Hillary’s Positions Are Just Dumb And Economically Thoughtless, But Her Democrat Voters Don’t Object. Why?

Hillary, a woman who is worth hundreds of millions of dollars, argues that the rich have too much power and influence and that they must be brought into line by the federal government that she will administer as president, in order to gain economic justice for all citizens.  Why doesn’t this un-American, unconstitutional, hate-the-rich position of Hillary make her rich, influential,  liberal supporters afraid of the confiscation of personal wealth she seems to be in favor of?  Because they know that she is liar and will impose no such policy on her friends.  She just uses this argument to get votes from the traditional Democrat voters who depend on government for their housing, food, and cell phones, and who are jealous of everyone who has worked hard and accumulated some wealth through working and saving their money.  Under Hillary, rich Democrats who are paid by the government, work as liberal reporters or as actors in Hollywood will retain and probably gain more of the influence that she pretends to dislike.

In addition, Mrs. Clinton complains that the rich get too many benefits from their wealth and elite positions, which conflicts with the fact that she used her influence to obtain a six-figure job with NBC for her daughter, who had recently graduated from college.  Chelsea did nothing to deserve her elite, fake job, and did nothing to earn her fat income while she had the job. And just recently Chelsea bought a 10 million dollar penthouse in Manhattan, probably using the money she made from her fake job with NBC, and all because she has an influential, rich mother.  So Hillary’s supporters know she is a liar who will not reduce her own nor her rich pals’ influence and power in the real world if she is elected president.

Another of Hillary’s most idiotic and illogical appeals for votes is that she wants to restore trust in government, after she illegally ran emails from her own personal server as Secretary of State, then illegally erased the email data base of messages she didn’t want anyone to see, lied about the cause of the attack on our embassy in Benghazi which resulted in the deaths of four of her employees there, and lied about an airplane landing in Bosnia, supposedly made under sniper fire while she was first lady in the Clinton administration.  She’s not only a flaming liberal, she’s a liar and a law-breaker and must not be elected to the Oval office.

A Stupid President Is Preferable To An Evil President

Edward Banfield once said that criminals are people who can’t foresee the logical results of their bad actions.  They are unable to predict that prison will result from their stealing or killing.  They are doomed to keep making mistakes that hurt people and will keep paying the price.  Likewise, liberals/Democrats/progressives can’t foresee the bad outcomes of their liberal decisions and policies: they can’t see that appeasement to Iran and ISIS will result in real harm to America one day (like Neville Chamberlain could not predict that “Peace in our time” would lead to World War II, the destruction of Europe and the deaths of millions of people).

Similarly, in the United States, leftists could not predict that unlimited welfare would result in the virtual enslavement of millions of American citizens who grew up dependent on a big government that hands out just enough money to keep them sheltered and alive, in exchange for these entrapped citizens voting for Democrats in every election in order to keep the goodies flowing.  Even Democrats who recognize that their welfare policies are destructive to those on the receiving end will not propose that welfare be reduced so that these American citizens can become self-sufficient and proud of their economic success in life. Democrats want to continue to get the votes and exercise the power that comes from this dependent class, so they will continue the immoral policies that assures their continued, assured votes.

Likewise, a stupid president (Joe Biden comes to mind) would be preferable to an evil president (Obama).  A Republican legislator recently made the statement that he would not vote to bring impeachment charges against Obama because Biden is so stupid.  But I would argue that a stupid president would occasionally make a decision that favors the United States, its citizens and our allies and would further our prosperity and our liberties, unlike the evil Obama who will always make decisions that are destructive to  our nation and the world.  For example, Obama will always favor regulations from the EPA and the FCC that cause great harm to American citizens (like taxing carbon, which causes higher electric bills for already-hurt citizens, and diverting water from California’s Central Valley and sending the water into the Pacific Ocean, at a time when water is desperately needed to grow the crops that the entire nation needs for food, and that the local valley farmers and workers need to remain employed.  Obamacare has caused the same disruption to America’s medical and general employment situation, all because an evil president wants power and control, and because liberals can’t see the logical results of their actions and policies, and will never, ever admit they made a policy error and take steps to correct the problems they have caused.  But the most outrageous example of Obama’s pure evil is his string of Executive Orders, the worst being to open our borders to all comers, because he is undermining our entire system of government by excluding the House and Senate and dictating his personal will on the entire population.  A true liberal/ progressive will always seek to destroy America when it advances his/her personal power and control over the citizens.


Is John Kerry Really An Idiot, Or Does He Just Play One On TV?

Recently the Secretary of State, John Kerry, said that the world has never been safer than it is today.  Really Mr. Kerry?  Could you possibly be more wrong?

James Clapper, our Director of National Intelligence, stated immediately after Kerry made his ridiculous statement, that “2014 will have been the most lethal year for global terrorism in 45 years”.  Does that sound like a pretty safe world to you, Mr. Kerry?

And recently James Comey, the Director of the FBI, stated that ISIS is now in all 50 states of America.  Does this statistic make you more comfortable, Mr. Kerry?

The entire Obama administration in not only at odds with reality, they border on absolute derangement.  Remember when Marie Harf, spokesperson for the Department of State, told us that all the terrorists need to deflect them from their murdering ways is a good job? These people are straight-up fools.  And they reflect the opinion and position of their anti-American boss, Barack Obama.  With these people in charge our nation is in great peril.  The entire Obama administration is at odds with reality, the truth and the American people.  And now that Obama has taken control of the internet with over 300 pages of new regulations, the voices raised against him and his ridiculous ideas will be increasingly silenced.

It’s indisputable that Obama has achieved his goal of “fundamentally transforming America”.  He is silent on the subject of external threats to the security and safety of America, lies every time he opens his mouth, and he is taking giant steps to silence peaceful, loyal opposition from Conservatives to his own perverse ideas of how America should conduct the business of state and protect America from foreign enemies.

What’s Wrong With Obama Wanting To “Fundamentally Transform America”? Let Me Count The Ways.

When someone wants to “fundamentally transform” something it means that they hate the current existence of the thing and want to make it completely different from what it is today.  For a professional community organizer like Barack Obama, this kind of thinking comes naturally.  He has always hated the way things were and wanted to organize and change them to something of his own liking.  Here are some of Obama’s “fundamental” changes:

So now we have an internet that the government is in control of and will modify to its own liking, not to the wants or needs of the users.  We now have an IRS that limits tax deductions to conservative groups but not to leftist groups.  We now have the government in control of healthcare (and medicine in general) because the public was not allowed to see what the Affordable Care Act’s proposals were, and the president lied about what the bill contained every time he spoke on the subject.  We now have a State Department that believes that all ISIS needs to make them decent citizens-of-the-world is a good job.  We now have IRS and FCC commissioners who lie under oath and tell congressional committees that they will not behave as congress originally defined their duties as being, and now must currently behave.  We now have an EPA that is willing to destroy the industry and prosperity of America by defining carbon dioxide (among many other alleged “threats”) as being hazardous to our health and edicting that it must be controlled and limited.  We now have a situation in which the federal government is seeking to give new homes to people who can’t afford them (and this idiocy is the exact cause of the real estate crash under which we are still suffering).  We now have a dithering, golf-addicted president who will not seriously attack the ISIS groups who are threatening the U.S., Europe and all of the Middle East.  We now have a government which year-after-year runs up a trillion-dollar debt with no end in sight.  We now have an administration who not only will not try to stop illegals from crossing our southern border, but actually encourages this behavior and makes every effort to welcome and transport the invaders once they arrive.  We now have an administration that illegally gives illegal aliens documents that allow them to get driver’s licenses and jobs (and eventually vote, illegally).  We now have an administration that illegally creates IRS rules that will entitle illegal aliens to large income tax “refunds”.  We now have an administration who is going to illegally entitle illegal aliens to healthcare under the ACA bill.  We now have an administration that threatens border agents with punishment if they do their jobs in compliance with current law, and don’t perform according to Obama’s illegal policy edicts.

The United States of America is in deep trouble because Obama hates this nation to its core and insists on making it into a banana republic. And he’s succeeding.  Decent Americans who just want to go to work, pay their taxes, enjoy their families and set aside some money for retirement are being subjected to the most corrupt, un-American administration in the existence of this great nation.

Unfortunately The Question Isn’t “Can We Trust The Iranians”, The Question Is “Can We Trust Obama”

It goes without saying (except when Kerry or Obama are saying it) that Iran cannot and must not be trusted to be honest in their dealings concerning their development of nuclear weapons.  Just like the Nazis and Communists before them, Iran will cheat and lie and will not allow any verifications or inspections to confirm that they have ceased work on a bomb.  But what has never before been suspected of a president of the United States is that Obama will deal for the benefit of Iran and not for the wellbeing of the United States, Europe or Israel.  Obama is a veteran, repeat, professional, well-rehearsed liar, and he cannot be trusted to deal firmly with Iran, nor to tell the American people the truth about whatever agreement is reached with the Mullahs.

Therefore it’s encouraging to know that our wussy Congress has found the courage to press the issue against Obama and are demanding input on the agreement over Iran’s nuclear weapons development.  Obama has always treated Iran and others among our enemies as the good guys while threatening to punish or outright attack our allies and friends (he threatened to shoot down Israeli jets if they attacked Iran’s nuclear facilities). The man is pure evil and must not be trusted to conduct himself as one who has any fond sentiments toward America, our allies or our military.

Elon Musk and the Questionable Good of Government Subsidies

To many, technological visionary Elon Musk, who has promised to birth such marvelous feats as “space internet,”  embodies the American spirit of entrepreneurial innovation.

While the federal government traps itself in the quagmire of over-regulation and bloated spending in green energy and interstellar research, Musk’s endeavors in commercial space flight and driver-less electric cars seem to be the rallying point for advocates of free market solutions to society’s exigent crises.

However, the delineation between private and public sectors is not so clear cut. Recently, $465 million in low-interest loans from the Department of Energy have led to the questioning of Tesla’s real merit. And, of course, much of SpaceX’s success is due to its contract with the government to launch supply missions to the International Space Station.

All of this begs the question: what is the proper relationship between private business and the government?

Congress does have some interest in business since Article I, Section 8 gives the legislature the authority “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” However, to suggest that the government then has any interest in underwriting the success of innovation by using taxpayer money to subsidize services politicians deem to be in the nation’s “general welfare” is obviously an over-extrapolation of a very limited power.

The Obama administration’s electric-car subsidy debacle has incontrevritably proven what happens when government becomes a venture capitalist. The underwriting of green-energy companies ended in taxpayers seeing red. One by one, the government’s pet investments, most infamously Solyndra, folded to an unwritten universal economic truth- market demand cannot be artificially stimulated.

Tesla, however, managed to survive, pay back its loan and is now estimated to be worth $12 billion. The fact that is survived while other electric car company failed is perhaps a testament to Musk’s ingenuity and somewhat invalidates questions of the company’s true merit.

But, if Tesla’s model really is that good, free market principles dictate it should have been able to survive without government support. Could it have? Impossible to say because the subsidies cast a pall over market functions, ultimately making trends harder to analyze.

SpaceX presents a similar problem for the delineation between private and public markets. While questions about the desirability of electric cars to average consumers exist, there is no doubt that most people have no needs serviceable by space flight.

Yet, there is scientific good, the benefits of which to the lifestyle of the average American cannot be tangibly measured, in exploration.

The contract SpaceX has with NASA is helping to fund other research and missions. And Musk’s ultimate aim, incredible though it seems, is to one day open up mining colonies on Mars. Just four years ago, Newt Gingrich was mocked in a GOP debate for suggesting such a possibility. Today, one of America’s preeminent thinkers is actively working to make this a reality.

At the same time, other byproducts, such as the “space internet” Musk suggests could provide fast, cheap access to the web for people around the world, present a free market solution to supposed problems the government is threatening to regulate into parity.

It would be an interesting upending of centuries of state-capitalism, to see government contracts subsidize market innovation. If anyone is poised to do so, Musk is that person. Should he succeed, the monopoly of government force over economic powers will be irrevocably severed.

But the question of morality still remains. And while it’s easy to run away with fanciful dreams of science-fiction made reality, the government, since it is funded by the hard-earned money of its citizens, owes it to them to ground its decisions in practicality.

The ultimate outcome, and the morality of the degree to which it is underwritten by public dollars, remain to be seen.

Enough With The Gender Neutral Crap

I have truly had enough of the gender neutral crap, I just don’t understand it.

News flash: men and women are different.

There are people out there that have to come to the realization that men are better at some things and women are better at others, that’s just the way things are, nature has seen to that.

The political correctness of pushing women into jobs they do not qualify for is making Americans less safe, take New York for instance. One woman applied for the fire fighters test, she tried six times to pass New York’s Functional Skills Test within the 17-minute, 50-second deadline. Five times she couldn’t finish at all; on the sixth try, she needed 22 minutes. Women’s groups claim the test is needlessly difficult and unfairly bars women. Trainees wearing 50 pounds of gear and breathing through an air tank must climb six stories, raise ladders, break down doors and drag a dummy through a dark tunnel, all at breakneck speed. Sounds like firefighting to me.

Not only in New York, are court orders compelling Chicago to relax its standards? Two federal class-action lawsuits brought by women who flunked that city’s firefighting tests claimed that the exams required more than what is actually needed to be an effective firefighter. Women’s groups are always shouting that they can do the work same as a man, if that’s the case, let them pass the same test that a man does.

What about that woman in New York? “They’re going to allow the first person to graduate without passing because this administration has lowered the standard,” said insider, who is familiar with the training. Lowering standards in any field makes no sense what so ever, women and minorities should have to pass the same test that everyone else does.

Recently, the Army allowed women to participate in Ranger School. The Army Times reported in February that 100 women went into the pre-training phase, and in April, 19 women qualified for the Darby Phase, which is the next step, all failed but three, those three will be allowed to start over from the beginning of the first phase of Ranger School. If the Army Rangers start lowering standards, we are in trouble.

There was a report out not to long ago which said women, after three years of fighting fires, their bodies start to break down, women are just not built for that kind of physical work. There is no shame in that, that is just the way nature intended, I couldn’t be a trapeze artist and there is no shame in that either.

We need to get back to some kind of reality in this country, political correctness has gone crazy. Genders are different and races are different, lowering standards and pushing people into positions they do not qualify for is not only harmful to our society, but is downright stupid.

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


This is one man’s opinion

Mercantilism in Campaigns: Good or Bad for the State of Politics?

Branding is an important part of presidential politics. A candidate needs a unique platform and must be able to communicate it clearly and quickly.

Thanks to the wonders of modern production, this need increasingly manifests itself in branded campaign merchandise.

In many ways, there is a lot of good in political merchandise. For non-moneyed supporters, the purchase of campaign goods is an equitable exchange of value. Their purchase of a t-shirt or bumper sticker not only helps in publicizing a campaign, but gives the supporter the intangible pleasure of asserting their ideology and annoying those who do not agree.

But, while there are myriad meritorious free-market principles on display here, can such a transaction go too far, say, when complex political issues are encapsulated in pithy t-shirt slogans or highlight a candidate’s perfunctory personal attributes?

Rand Paul, whose campaign has capitalized on his opposition to the Patriot Act, is currently selling t-shirts that take a somewhat facetious jab at bulk data collection:

On the other side, Hillary Clinton supporters can purchase a t-shirt made to look like one of her trademark pantsuit jackets:

Those who bemoan the state of money in politics can surely find cause for alarm here. And they may be right, not because votes are being bought, but because American politics requires substance beyond that which can be screen-printed and worn on someone’s chest.

Modern campaigning, with its emphasis on partisan politics and “gotcha moments” divorced from context, is already insulting to the intelligence of the average voter. The veniality of merchandized politics runs the risk of making it more so, especially if this is the sum total of engagement the average voter has with candidates and issues.

On the other hand, when people are made free to decide for themselves what political choices are most advantageous for their interests, they are also made free to act superficially, to disregard serious political discourse. Individualism, then, would dictate, that the risk of degradation to the health of the body politic presented by certain actors is something that must be combated by attention and volition.

After all, capitalism and democracy share the same strengths and weaknesses. Chiefly, their virtue lies in their organic nature. Only a plurality of individuals with united vision have the power to direct greater definitions of right and wrong. And this does not infringe on the rights of dissenters.

So, when it comes to mercantilism and political messaging, the ultimate affect upon broader political health is something for the American people to decide by individual discretion. And that’s a wonderful thing.


FIFA Indicted – The Clinton Foundation Should be Next

It was not much of a surprise to some to see the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) bring corruption charges against the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) this week. After all, the granting of World Cup hosting rights to Russia (2018) and Qatar (2022), appeared highly suspect, along with several other apparent “pay to play” coincidences. Considering the nature of the charges against FIFA, it seems only logical to wonder if, or when, such charges will be levied against Bill and Hillary Clinton, and the Clinton Foundation.

Wonder what FIFA got for their contribution to the Clinton Foundation

Wonder what FIFA got for their contribution to the Clinton Foundation

The DOJ indictment alleges that FIFA officials “abused their positions of trust to acquire millions of dollars in bribes and kickbacks,” according to Attorney General Loretta Lynch. The graft is alleged to have influenced World Cup host nation selection, marketing rights for sports marketing companies, and broadcast rights for television coverage of FIFA events.

Prima facie, it doesn’t appear that FIFA did anything more legally dubious than did the Clinton Foundation. According to Hillary Clinton last year, the First Family of the 1990’s left the White House “dead broke,” in 2001. They made up for their White House poverty years from 2001-2006, when, according to Mrs. Clinton’s Senate disclosures, the couple made $87.3 million, from book deals to speaking fees. As long as none of those paydays bought influence, that’s just fine, unless of course one’s ideology requires disdain and class-envy of those who are financially successful, for the Clintons are clearly “one per centers.”

imagesThe Clinton’s financial waters become much more murky when their Foundation is brought into the picture. The Clinton Foundation is classified under IRS Code 501(c)(3) as a “non-profit” foundation, comprising several separate “initiatives,” or areas of focus, including health, economic opportunity, and climate issues. In just over 13 years, the Foundation has raised nearly $2 billion from U.S. corporations, especially Wall Street firms, political donors, and foreign governments.

The nebulous financial arrangement and political nature of the Foundation was of sufficient concern to the Obama administration that Mrs. Clinton was required to sign a disclosure agreement with the White House before her nomination as Secretary of State in 2009. According to the Washington Post, Obama required her “to disclose all contributions to the Clinton Foundation, and that there be a process to vet donations that were coming in. They violated that agreement almost immediately. They took multi-million dollar donations from foreign businesses that had interests before the State Department. Those were never disclosed.”

Clinton Donors Got Weapons DealsAccording to Bloomberg earlier this month, there was a lot of non-disclosure going on at the Foundation. “There are in fact 1,100 undisclosed donors to the Clinton Foundation, [Clinton Foundation board member Frank] Giustra says, most of them non-U.S. residents.  ‘All of the money flowed through to the Clinton Foundation—every penny—and went to the [charitable] initiatives we identified,’ he says.”

Clinton-Foundation-2013-BreakdownBut even that raises significant issues, since according to the Foundation’s own tax filings, only 10% of their donations ultimately make it to “charitable grants” for their professed causes. That’s a whole lot of donations that go for expenses (34%), salaries and benefits (33%), travel (10%), office supplies (6%), and rent (5%). And don’t forget the 2% that goes to IT (information technology), for that’s where all of Hillary’s emails were stored, in two separate email accounts, until they were erased.

That’s likely where much of the hard evidence alleged in Peter Schweitzer’s book, “Clinton Cash,” would have been found. Absent the hard evidence, most of the public evidence is circumstantial. Charges that official State Department policy toward countries like Libya, Saudi Arabia, and India, were altered or softened after contributions by those countries to the Foundation certainly raise serious questions of paying for influence, not unlike those leveled against FIFA officials this week.

Clinton_Family_Corruption_1_495x750The most serious, however, is well documented. As explained by the New York Times, a Canadian businessman was purchasing up to 1/5 of the U.S. uranium assets, while making millions of dollars in contributions to the Clinton Foundation. The Canadian firm, Uranium One, was then sold to Russia’s atomic energy agency, Rosatom, which was celebrated in Russia’s Pravda with the headline, “Russian Nuclear Energy Conquers the World.” An acquisition of this size and nature had to be approved by the U.S. State Department, which was easily done with Mrs. Clinton at the helm.

To make this even more salacious, a Kremlin-linked bank that was promoting the stock of Uranium One, paid Bill Clinton $500,000 for a speaking engagement. But the contribution went not to the former president, but to the Clinton Foundation, as many of the speaking fees are funneled for non-taxable reporting purposes.

money_laundering-101The Clinton Foundation meets all of the criteria for a money-laundering entity: placement, layering, and integration, while enjoying the benefit of tax-exemption. They collect millions in donations (placement). Then through layering (or structuring) distance is created between the donation and the source, to obscure the audit trail. And finally the integration stage, which in the Foundation’s case, is the returning of favors and influence to donors.

Operationally, the Clinton Foundation functions as a shell corporation for the Clintons, and the pass-through conduit for buying influence and tax avoidance. Thanks to the IT staff at the Foundation, and Hillary’s obfuscation, we may never fully grasp the breadth and reach of the corruption. No wonder only 38% of us believe Hillary is honest.

If FIFA bribery and corruption is worth investigating, certainly the similar practices of the Clinton Foundation are as well. After all, the implications are much greater.

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].

People of Honor and Integrity Need Not Apply!

It seems like the more I do stories about our institutions of higher learning, the more I come to the conclusion that there are no real standards for those teaching our young people. You may need a degree in order to teach, but that’s about all. Honor and integrity are no longer required.

Once again, my home state of Massachusetts shows that no matter how bad one’s character is, as long as they have a degree and are flaming liberals, they’re in! Boston University first realized they had an issue with incoming BU sociology professor Saida Grundy when a Tweet she sent out was brought to the administration’s attention: “white male college students are a “problem population”” and “white masculinity is THE problem for America’s colleges.” She is a black college professor, not that that should matter. As a professor, she is supposed to have open dialogue with her students. Can you imagine if a white college professor Tweeted ”black male college students are a problem population and their entitlement mindset is a MAJOR problem for American colleges?” They’d be fired before the moving truck got there!

Well, OK. So we are a little sensitive about the color thing. She got a little heated, we can just overlook her one indiscretion, right? But it wasn’t one or two or even three. And let’s not stop at four, but six… that we know of! You see, Professor Grundy thinks (like Hillary) that rules, guidelines, and basically good behavior do not apply to her.

The professor decided to mercilessly ridicule a white rape victim on social media with the following;

“^^THIS IS THE S**T I AM TALKING ABOUT. WHY DO YOU GET TO PLAY THE VICTIM EVERY TIME PEOPLE OF COLOR AND OUR ALLIES WANT TO POINT OUT RACISM. my CLAWS?? Do you see how you just took an issue that WASNT about you, MADE it about you, and NOW want to play the victim when I take the time to explain to you some s**t that is literally $82,000 below my pay grade? And then you promote your #whitegirltears like that’s some badge you get to wear… YOU BENEFIT FROM RACISM. WE’RE EXPLAINING THAT TO YOU and you’re vilifying my act of intellectual altruism by saying i stuck my “claws” into you?”

HELLO! The woman was raped as a child. And when the rape victim under attack tried to bow out gracefully, the professor tried to pull her back in with more nasty comments. Since the professor makes $82 thousand and is above the raped woman’s pay grade, shouldn’t she have taken the high road? She could have taken her educated backside out of the conversation and drop it. Is this really someone we want teaching our young people? Maybe someone with a little empathy or compassion?

Read more at HONOR

« Older Entries Recent Entries »