Retired Gunnery Sargent Jessie Jane Duff in to discuss, Joe take on “Emosexuals” really?
Category Archives: Traditional Values
This story is tragic… for the family of the victims and the shooter, and for a community that will be, for a time, trying to piece this all together. I mean no disrespect to the families, victims, doctors, or responders to this event.
Over the weekend, a very disturbed young man killed 6 people (3 stabbed, 3 shot) and injured several others (some with his car) before turning the gun on himself.
The calls on Facebook went out immediately, “full background checks for all gun sales”, “we need to make it harder for people to get guns”, “high capacity magazines need to be banned”, and “no one needs a gun”. But really America, excuse me, really LIBERAL America, get a grip! This is the perfect case to show how foolish all those comments are!
This piece is going to be a little harsh, so stop reading if you don’t want an in-your-face look at this massacre.
Let’s start with the fact that Elliot Rodger was a very disturbed young man. He had been for some time before this killing rampage. As with many of these types of incidents, I am sure we will find out that many around him were “creeped” out by him and that he showed warning signs similar to those seen in other shootings.
Police had had contact with this young man several times. On one occasion they even said that after they met with him they found him to be, “polite and courteous,” even “timid and shy.” He indicated to deputies that he was having trouble in his social life and would not be coming back to school next semester. No big deal. Basically, a routine call.
Reports indicate Rodger was “being seen by a variety of health care professionals” but those details are protected information. In discussions with some of the locals and on police reports, Rodgers showed signs of aggression and irritation towards anyone that would not accept him. His 141 page manifesto and the video testimonials show a very disturbed young man. Let me repeat, a VERY DISTURBED young man.
Rodger’s friends said the reason he was hard to be around, male and female alike, is that he was constantly whining about either how he couldn’t get a date or bragging about his looks, sense of style, nice car, how well-spoken he was, and so on. In his recordings and writings he was obsessed with having sex and couldn’t understand why most of the women at college wouldn’t want to be with such a wonderful, awesome, handsome guy (him). In one of the videos he indicates this has been building up inside him for 8 years. And no one saw it? Or maybe, no one was willing to say anything?
The system failed the families affected by this tragedy! The police, the background checks, the parents, the neighbors, YES, the whole system.
The parents knew there was something up with this guy. They knew he was seeing a VARIETY of mental health professionals. Why? A family member called the police and alerted them to the many videos he had online that were disturbing and should have set off all kinds of bells and whistles with the college, the parents, the police, and others.
But because we can’t talk about someone’s mental health (it’s politically incorrect, you know) it’s better to keep those issues private than make sure we don’t have college campus stabbings and shootings, elementary school shootings, and mall shootings. Does this sound ridiculous to anyone else?
Rodger got these guns legally. He passed a background check. HOW? The system failed him and the community, that’s how. Regardless of all the calls on Facebook for more gun control, this is not a gun issue. It’s a mental health issue. He didn’t just use guns to do the damage he did. He also stabbed 3 people to death and injured several with his car. Will the next call be to control and ban knives and cars?
Looking around just a little into Rogers you find things like an obsession with YouTube videos like, eight minutes of the gory Game Of Thrones “Red Wedding” episode and Philosophy of the Knife, a graphic film about Japanese torture during World War II. Why didn’t his therapists see this as an issue?
Keep in mind he has his guns legally! He passed the federal gun check. WHY? According to the family lawyer he was being treated by multiple therapists and had been diagnosed as “a high-functioning patient with Asperger syndrome.” So, how did he get guns? Political correctness. We can’t talk about the mental health issue.
Filmmaker Joel Gilbert talks about revealing the dangers of progressivism via his new film and how his previous film landed him on Obama’s enemies list
Honoring those who served and died for us… or are we? A good number of Americans can’t tell you what Memorial Day is all about. While some will tell you it’s about a long weekend, others will say it’s another BBQ day. The real Americans will tell you that it is a day to honor those Americans who died to give us the FREEDOM to forget what the day is about, or to remember what the day was about. The freedom to go out on the lake or to the park with your family. The freedom to do just about anything you want.
The Freedom to call former President Bush a Liar, President Obama a dictator and for former President Clinton to say “I never had sexual relations with that woman” several times. It is the freedom to openly ridicule our President, Government officials and troops to all the world without fear of becoming a political prisoner or being taken out back and being shot. (not as of yet)
I will tell you what I will be remembering… I will remember that it was American soldiers that freed my mother and her family from Italy in WWII, so that she could come here and we could have a better life. By today’s standards America would probably have been told they should have stayed out of that war also because the oppressed people didn’t actually ask for their help.
I will be remembering all the dead American soldiers that died for others all around the world so they could be free from communism or oppression from dictators so that others could enjoy the freedoms that we have.
I will remember how American lives were given on foreign soil, twice, to liberate France so they could have the freedom to come against us in many ways during these last few wars with terrorism. I will remember the how American lives were also given to liberate Germany so they could also have the freedom to come against last few wars with terrorism.
Some may say that we Americans think that we are so good and righteous that we need to be the “Policemen of the World”. I don’t think that is it at all. I think it’s no different than when most good Americans who aren’t wrapped up in their own lives or agendas see another person in real need, stop and help, without any need for repayment.
What I will be trying to forget is all the bitterness that I hear in the news. I read in the paper how the world is outraged at the way we Americans think we have the right to go into any country and occupy as we see fit.
Yet there is virtually nothing written about the many DEAD Americans fighting for the freedom of citizens being oppressed in many of those countries and at the request of those countries leaders. Maybe we should back off and let the world go the way of the Ukraine.
I will be trying to forget all the pictures the media shows us of the destruction being caused by the Americans soldiers oversees, Instead I will remember some of the articles I have read about Americans rebuilding schools, hospitals, and homes and the children having places of education, with electricity and hot running water, and the AMERICAN soldiers who put themselves in harm’s way to protect others who can’t protect themselves.
I will be remembering the 9/11 tragedy. Not simply because of all the innocent victims, but because we can’t let it happen again… here or anywhere else.
I will remember those victims, Americans, oversees that were there to help that were tortured, beaten, burned, and God knows what else, Then hung up for all the word to see, again I say, where was the outrage?.
And for all those who say we should not be in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria or anywhere else. Talk to those survivors or the children of those survivors of the Holocaust, there were many who said we didn’t belong there either, and how many would have been saved if we got involved earlier.
I will remember and thank the leadership of that time for getting involved.
A sincere thanks to all the AMERICANS that selflessly gave their time and in some cases their lives, to make this country a safer place for me and my family. I can only try to repay the debt by honoring them ALL year long..
May God continue to bless you and your families.
Don’t take your guns to town son,
Leave your guns at home Bill,
Don’t take your guns to town.
Johnny Cash ‘Don’t Take Your Guns to Town’
Marching on Washington, DC to change the government has not met with success. 150 years ago Maj. Gen. Jubal Early traveled up the Shenandoah Valley in an effort to outflank the Union and attack Washington from the North.
He was making excellent progress until he reached Monocacy, MD. There the campaign began to lose momentum under a blizzard of regulation and EPA requests for environmental impact statements. There was also some concern regarding the potential for Chesapeake Bay pollution due to cavalry manure runoff.
Lacking a parade permit, his 14,000 men were turned away at Fort Stevens just outside the District’s city limit.
Not only did Early fail to set foot in Washington, his march had no effect on the election that November. Abraham Lincoln was returned to office, the war continued and Early — joined by a few other ‘angry white men’ — fled the country when Gen. Robert E. Lee surrendered the next year at Appomattox.
Now retired Army Col. Harry Riley planned to march on DC last week with a group of what The Washington Times describes as “revolutionary–style patriots.” Riley’s goal, like Jubal Early’s, is to change the government starting with Barack Obama, John Boehner, Eric Holder, Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell, Nancy Pelosi and ‘Shotgun’ Joe Biden.
“We are calling for [their] removal … as a start toward constitutional restoration,” Riley explained. “They have all abandoned the U.S. Constitution, are unworthy to be retained in a position that calls for servant status.”
So far, so good, I’d take a walk, too, if getting rid of even three of the seven named was a possibility. But I’m going to sit this one out. The colonel’s effort is called “Operation American Spring” and Riley describes it as the American answer to the ‘Arab Spring’ in more ways than one.
So far he’s not calling for black flags to be flown, but the colonel does envision somewhere between 10 million and 30 million “mobilized militia members” marching down Pennsylvania Ave over the weekend. Arab Spring marchers were known mostly for their propensity to riot, toss Molotov cocktails and fire the occasional RPG. In addition, under Arab Spring rules government change does not appear to be limited to one per customer. Turnover is more like the management suite at an Obama health exchange.
According the Cheryl Chumley, “Col. Riley said he hopes the event will go forward peaceably, but that so far, peaceful protests haven’t brought citizens much luck. He also said that more than 1 million militia members have already mobilized for the event — and that projections of 10 million to attend aren’t pie in the sky.”
No, I would call that crack in the pipe.
Leaving aside Riley’s wildly delusional crowd estimate, just the mention of the word ‘militia’ is enough to cause Starbucks baristas to start calling in sick. The last thing conservatives need is for even 10 gun–toting militia members to cross the Potomac and enter enemy territory.
One picture of a rifle slung over a ‘militia’ man’s shoulder is all it takes to reinforce every misleading stereotype of 2nd Amendment supporters and conservatives. Even if the group is unarmed, when only a handful joins the colonel in his forlorn hope that too will damage our movement, since lack of numbers is an indication of lack of support.
Riley won’t even be able to claim his hardy band drove the targets out of the capital, since everyone knows the House and Senate leaves on the weekend and Obama plays golf.
It almost makes one wonder if Col. Riley isn’t an agent provocateur planted among conservatives by MSNBC.
The reality of Riley’s Raid was somewhat less impressive. His gathering was described as “tens of people” and fortunately none of them were toting weapons any more dangerous than a lawn chair. And as of the date of publication, the same crowd of pretentious hashtaggers was still in power.
Fortunately, I have a better idea for conservatives interested in changing the government and it doesn’t require extensive hydration or risk arrest. Follow my example and make a contribution to the Dave Brat for Congress campaign.
Brat is challenging Eric Cantor in Virginia’s 7th district primary. Cantor is a former conservative that went native in record time. As House Majority Leader he’s surrounded by people who actually call him “leader” as they shine his shoes with their tongue, so it’s no wonder the power and position have gone to his head.
He’s managed to make himself disliked by Speaker Boehner and distrusted by conservatives in the House. He’s betrayed conservative principles, backed a budget bill that gutted the sequester and has gone south on amnesty.
The incomparable Ann Coulter has endorsed Brat and the best part is Brat doesn’t have to win — although that would be best — for Cantor and the rest of the leadership squishes to get the message that conservatives are unhappy and ready to take action.
Incumbents are personally offended by primary challenges. Chamber lobbyists tell them what a great job they’re doing and then some yokel announces for his seat. The nerve of some people! So Brat already has Cantor’s attention.
If Brat can get over 40 percent of the vote, then Cantor gets a message even the self–important can’t ignore. Even if Brat doesn’t win, but is still able to raise a significant amount of money, that money talks, or in this case grumbles, and sends another type of message to Cantor.
I felt so good after giving money to Brat that I also donated to Anthony Riedel who is challenging Rob Wittman in Virginia’s 1st Congressional District where I live. After he supported the budget sellout I wasn’t voting for Wittman anyway, so rather than sit the election out, I’ll vote and contribute to Riedel. That sends two messages to Whittman, too.
So here’s my advice: If you want to visit a colonel this weekend, go to KFC. And if you want to change GOP leadership thinking in Washington, contribute to Dave Brat and Anthony Riedel.
Who defines what “equality” is? And how does it get implemented? Will it work? It hasn’t yet. Other countries have tried to no avail. Marius Forte joins Joe to discuss the issue today. Call in or join us in the chatroom.
I am often accused of hate for many reasons. My stance on gay marriage, abortion, minimum wage, illegal immigration, or the war on women. You know, all the hot buttons that immediately label you as a hater. So says “the tolerant group.” Interesting!
By definition of the left, a hater is one that doesn’t agree with you, period! (Have you heard that before?) The most recent example of this was during a Dallas talk show where 4 women were discussing the terrible things a football player tweeted out when he saw Michael Sam kissing his boyfriend. The women were split. Two held the notion that they felt too big of a deal was being made about everything. Why did we have to see the kiss over and over? Why did the football player who Tweeted out his comments have to take “sensitivity” training? His Tweets were classified as hate speech.
Webster’s defines hate as:
1.. to feel intense or passionate dislike for (someone), “the boys hate each other”.
2.. have a strong aversion to (something). “he hates flying”,
3.. express strong dislike for; criticize or abuse. “I can’t hate on them for trying something new”
Since we are talking about hating people here, let’s stick with the first definition. The assumption is that because I don’t agree with “same sex marriage”, “abortion”, and “immigration” that I HATE all those involved.
If we are going to communicate with each other, and we know communication can make or break a relationship, we need to speak the same language. If you are going to call me a hater, racist, homophobe, or bigot should we not be using the same meaning from the same widely accepted dictionary?
Let’s break it down. Based on Webster’s dictionary, if I don’t agree with and feel strongly against abortion and/or dislike abortion then a true statement would be I hate abortion. However, also based on the Webster’s definition I do not hate the person who performed or had the abortion because I don’t have an intense or passionate dislike for the person, just the act!
To communicate clearly we have to speak the same language with the same understanding. Definitions for racist, homophobe, bigot, and so on have to have the same meanings for all or they mean nothing.
On the Dallas talk show, 2 of the women felt it was more than appropriate that Dolphins defensive back, Dan Jones, was fined, suspended, and ordered to go to sensitivity training over his “terrible” remarks on Twitter. The other 2, one an older woman (can I say older woman without being fined) felt that this was a very slippery slope and that the idea that one was not free to voice their displeasure with the action of another person in the view of the public was knocking at the front door of suppressing free speech. I agree.
The Left keeps gnawing at you when they don’t like your opinion about someone or something adding “ist” and “phobe” to the word so others will get the impression that you are a very bad person.
This tolerant, understanding, forgiving, big-tent group only has tolerance for those who don’t have a conservative bone in their body, as is evidenced on Twitter every time a conservative takes a stand on the issue!
Liberal journalist Juan Williams was fired because he said he felt nervous when he was on a plane with a group of “Muslim” or “Arab”-looking men. That’s the hypocrisy of the Left.
If they are offended by seeing a crucifix on the wall at an Easter event, and Easter bunny at a school Easter event, a nativity scene at a Christmas event, the ten commandments on the courthouse wall, a picture of a man and woman with the caption “traditional marriage” and, in response, we immediately have to take it down, cover it up, and apologize, then why is it when a conservative is offended by a same sex kiss, Jesus on a crucifix placed upside down in a bottle of urine and called art, a Planned Parenthood advertisement, Jesus on a cross with tattoos and a joint in his mouth and complains about it, we are chastised for being uptight and out of the mainstream? Double standard? Hypocrites, that’s all it is, old-fashioned (I said it) hypocrites. Just to be clear, Webster defines hypocrite as “a person who claims or pretends to have certain beliefs about what is right but who behaves in a way that disagrees with those beliefs.”
Read the rest at http://therealside.com/2014/05/political-correctness-is-a-form-of-hate/#pdMaJhoVmrYKkDQA.99
A New Jersey execution was recently videotaped and posted on YouTube. Instead of using a simple, painless pill authorities in New Jersey opted for an invasive mechanical method that took longer and carried risk. Yet the resulting video was awarded a prize and greeted with shouts of joy by the left and other cultural arbiters.
For those coming to this story late, Emily Letts is the new face of abortion after taping hers and winning the Abortion Care Network’s Stigma Busting video competition. Letts is an actress with three IMBD credits (‘Hallows’ Eve,’ ‘Ivy’ and ‘Clap on Clap Off’) and since Capital One wasn’t exactly beating down her door to flog credit cards, Emily opted to raise her profile by endorsing death.
Of course this doesn’t rule out a call from Capital One in the future, Emily just has to make sure she doesn’t offend the Gaystapo.
Letts is a ‘patient advocate’ at the Cherry Hill Euphemism Factory in New Jersey. Whoops, make that ‘Women’s Center’ — but only if the woman taller than a travel mug. When Emily became pregnant she didn’t think of her abortion as losing a child. It was gaining the role of a lifetime!
Letts’ wrote an explanation in Cosmopolitan that gives insight into a shallow, confused individual for whom an abortion is a good career move. She explains, “I was a professional actress for many years. I loved acting, but I felt fairly depressed most of the time…I felt completely alienated from myself and everyone else because I was intent on being successful.”
In reality Letts was lost and deeply disturbed, but she did have a friend “who was a birth doula, and she fascinated me with her stories about giving birth and growing life.” (For those of you unfamiliar with the term, a doula is a type of life coach, except I don’t think they use LinkedIn and their cards are always recycled from sustainable trees. Doulas are frequently found cluttering up delivery rooms or cheerleading during a home birth.)
So after being exposed to the wonders of life, Emily decides to become a volunteer sonderkommando working in an abortion mill. Maybe because she avoids long–term commitments and didn’t want to agonize over buying age–appropriate birthday presents.
Letts job is to support and reassure women during the abortion process, turning a grave sin into something like pre–emptive liposuction. After she went to work for the center, “I fell into this perfect world that fulfills me in so many different ways.”
By day Emily counsels women — somehow the advice is always to kill the baby — and dispels rumors surrounding the abortion process, because in her words, “The misinformation is amazing. And she helps women rationalize the consequences their decision by stressing, “they are still wonderful and beautiful.”
By night she’s personally tormented by rumors and misinformation regarding the pill. “(H)ormonal birth control scared me because of complications I’d heard about from friends — gaining weight, depression, etc.” That’s why Emily adopted the rhythm method and prevented awkward, calendar–based inconvenience by sleeping around and avoiding long–term partners.
Then she became pregnant. Here the timeline in her story becomes vague. Outsiders have to consider four distinct actions while evaluating “her story.”
1. Finding out about the Abortion Care Network’s video competition.
2. Discovering there were no videos that featured a woman going through an abortion and happy about it.
3. Getting pregnant even though Emily checks her ‘Ovulation App’ almost every day.
4. Starring in Emily Gets Her Abortion a mere two weeks after learning she was pregnant.
I suppose the order could have been 3 – 2 – 1 – 4, but somehow I doubt it.
After finally getting top billing in a movie, Letts video commentary proves she needs help, the kind unavailable at the ‘Women’s Center.’ During the video Emily says she’s “in awe that I can make a baby. I can make a life.” After which she snuffs it out like a candle, while bizarrely humming during the abortion.
A reporter writing for the UK’s Independent was impressed. “In filming and sharing her experience with the world, Letts has not only dragged from their caves the dank and sordid unmentionables who still think a woman a murderer for choosing her own life over a cluster of cells, she has shown that an abortion can be a positive experience.”
Unfortunately for the reporter, we are all a “cluster of cells” it’s just some clusters are larger than others. Evidently somewhere deep inside a conflicted Emily knows that too, because she also says, “I still have my sonogram, and if my apartment were to catch fire, it would be the first thing I’d grab.”
Our nation’s Media–Entertainment–Cultural opinion setters are an iron triangle of license and irresponsibility that we are supposed to rectify. Last week in Oklahoma it was outraged that a man responsible for murder and multiple rapes experienced some discomfort during an execution held before a handful of witnesses. And now it celebrates a performance art video of the brutal dismemberment of an innocent, unborn child, who was only responsible for being both alive and inconvenient.
After forcing her baby to pay the price for Letts’ own irresponsibility, Emily claims to be entirely free of guilt. “Still, every time I watch the video, I love it. I love how positive it is.”
Emily Letts is lost and in need of our prayers, but she’s certainly not alone.
For a brief moment I almost believed the mainstream media when I read: ‘Oklahoma Execution of Murderer Went Horribly, Horribly Wrong.’ ‘Oklahoma Governor Calls for Independent Review of Botched Execution.’
My initial response was horror, too: You mean that violent sadist is still alive?!!!
But the execution wasn’t botched. Clayton Lockett is dead, dead, dead and good riddance. The ceremony may not have been esthetically pleasing to capital punishment opponents, but any execution where the murderer winds up dead is, by definition, a successful execution.
According to hysterical coverage by USA Today (Headline: Botched execution could slam brakes on death penalty) “Clayton Lockett, 38, struggled violently, groaned and writhed after lethal drugs were administered by Oklahoma officials Tuesday night, according to eyewitness accounts. State Corrections Director Robert Patton halted the Lockett’s execution, citing vein failure that may have prevented the deadly chemicals from reaching Lockett. He eventually died of a heart attack.”
In a sane world the inefficient Oklahoma execution would slam the brakes on frivolous death penalty appeals. The goal of the left is to step–by–step end capital punishment. First the electric chair was deemed ‘inhumane.’ So government switched to lethal injection. In return the left attacked the chemicals used.
Since no subject has ever walked out of a lethal injection meeting alive, it would appear the original chemical cocktail works fine, but I’m not a judge that grants spurious legal relief. Over the years drug manufacturers have been under relentless legal assault.
Today the proven, effective drug, thiopental, is unobtainable and states are forced to experiment. This is fine with opponents, because rather than taking the blame for banning the effective and humane drug, they shift blame to the state for using a substitute.
Leading to an interesting pharmaceutical contrast. The same political class that is morally outraged by lethal injection, is equally outraged when the state of Oklahoma bans the off–label use of abortion–inducing drugs by requiring doctors only administer the drug in accordance with FDA protocols.
It’s exactly the same strategy the murderer’s lobby uses to prevent the use of thiopental. Yet regulation that saves a truly innocent baby’s life is unacceptable, because it impedes a woman’s ‘right to choose.’ While the other instance is a barbaric throwback to savagery when it restores balance and justice.
In fact Richard Dieter, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center, made an unintentionally hilarious comment in the wake of Lockett’s passing, “Somebody died because of the state’s incompetency.”
The second contrast involves medical professionals. Doctors with a sense of justice have been prevented from participating in executions by means of a leftist perversion of the Hippocratic oath. State medical societies threaten doctors with penalties and loss of medical license. Yet abortionists have no problem with ‘first do no harm’ during their procedures, even though harm is the goal. As a result executions are conducted by penal employees who may or may not have adequate training.
Which justice opponents also use to attack governments like Oklahoma.
This problem lends itself perfectly to a genuine ‘bi–partisan compromise: let late–term abortion doctors perform really late term abortions on murderers. Of course the left won’t agree.
The campaign against the death penalty has all the trappings of modern gestures of misplaced moral authority: Achieving the goal comes at someone else’s expense.
Arguments against the death penalty have three main components: The death penalty is not an effective deterrent, it is cruel and unusual punishment and life in prison is a more severe than death.
But since when did deterrence become the benchmark for a law’s utility? Prevention is an equally valid way to judge a law’s effectiveness and the death penalty has a 100 percent success rate in preventing future murders. Laws against robbery don’t always deter robbers. Laws against sawed–off shotguns didn’t deter Lockett. And, laws against speeding don’t deter the readers of this column, yet the laws remain on the book.
Death is the final earthy punishment, but that doesn’t make it cruel. Dennis Prager has made a strong case for the moral authority of the death penalty based on the Bible and the fact we are made in God’s image.
The facile counter–argument that ‘eye for an eye’ law no longer applies because of its savagery is historically ignorant. Lex talionis, outlined in Exodus 21:24, is actually a legal innovation that restored fairness in the law by holding everyone responsible regardless of his station in life. Eye–for–an–eye meant that a rich man could not buy his way out of punishment, while the poor man suffered severe consequences as happened in pagan cultures. It made the law truly impartial and just.
The final argument has always been incoherent. If the death penalty is inhumane how can these compassion tourists advocate a punishment that’s worse? Simple, they are lying. I’ve driven by Huntsville prison in Texas more than once and I have never seen inmates hanging bed sheets out of the window demanding they be put our of their misery.
If murderers were offered a chance between death and life in prison, almost every one would choose life. Then murderers would be free to endanger the guards, medical staff and other inmates in the prison, but the exhibitionist left can’t be bothered with that petty detail.
In spite of years of anti–death penalty propaganda in the mainstream media, 55 percent of the public still favors the ultimate punishment. But reporters keep trying. In January Oklahoma executed Michael Lee Wilson with another mysterious drug cocktail. In an effort to elicit sympathy for the unsympathetic reporters say his last words were, “My whole body is burning.”
But I don’t think that was in reference to the execution. I think he was referring to his destination, because not all near–death experiences are glowing lights and fluffy bunnies.
I have had this mindset that truth prevails and I believe truth will always win, eventually, not always at first, but it will always win. The Bible calls the truth “light” and light always drives out darkness.
It seems in today’s society truth is a fleeting 140 character or less thing. Mainstream media can’t find it if you put it in a bag marked with flares. The president, being the constitutional scholar that he is, can’t even spell it.
When President Obama interviewed with Bill O’Reilly he said there were no scandals. I guess he doesn’t know what a scandal is. According to Websters Dictionary, a scandal is:
an action or event regarded as morally or legally wrong and causing general public outrage.
“a bribery scandal involving one of his key supporters”
synonyms: (outrageous) wrongdoing, impropriety, misconduct, immoral behavior, unethical behavior, discreditable behavior, outrageous behavior
Let’s focus on the synonym “wrongdoing.” The IRS targeted 99% of applications received from conservative-sounding applicants using keywords like, liberty, constitution, and freedom (very nasty words!) According to IRS rules, that was WRONG and evidence of this can be found in MANY emails sent by Lois Lerner and the other IRS personnel. Mr. President, that, according to the dictionary, is a classic example of a scandal.
Remember in the interview, Mr. Obama said there were no scandals. I guess they were just “FoxTales” (my words not his.)
He might as well just say, “I have a pen and I’ll pass my own laws.” Those of you who are going to tell me that President Bush (and others) signed more executive orders than Obama, wake up! There are executive orders, and then, there are EXECUTIVE ORDERS.
Pardoning the turkeys on Thanksgiving is done by executive order, really deep. Re-writing the healthcare law by executive order circumvents the value of the three branches of government. That’s a problem. Mr. Obama sees this as a dictatorship, not a democratic republic, where he can say or do anything he wants because he is king. He has issued over 22 executive orders to modify a LAW. That is not the intent of an executive order.
Why doesn’t he follow the law he swore to uphold? Why not just acknowledge that we need to fix this law that was passed too quickly? Why? Because this administration has never done anything wrong. They take responsibility for nothing.
He has a default script in his teleprompter. The Republicans are blocking us. It’s because of climate change and if the Republicans would pass the bill we could fix this. If the speaker could get control of his members we could pass my jobs bill (that doesn’t exist.)
We should move the White House to Walt Disney World and put it in the land of “make believe” where it belongs under this administration.
According to Forbes, “frustrated by the inability of Congress to pass immigration reform, Obama kicked off his own set of reforms by executive order, halting the legal deportation of thousands of immigrants in the U.S. illegally.” Another shining example of King Obama writing law on his own.
Read the rest at: http://therealside.com/2014/05/is-truth-alive-anywhere/
I read a story last week about a couple… I mean a “trouple,” that recently got “married.” Now, I know there will be a few of you jumping all over my stuff because you think I am coming down on this because they are three lesbians! Their sexual orientation has nothing to do with this. It has to do with many like me saying that the way the fight came down about same sex-marriage, the catch phrases and alike would demean and trample all over the institution of marriage. It has!
Recently, in Massachusetts, three lesbian women decided they wanted to be married to each other. Yes, THREE PEOPLE wanted to enter into marriage together. Why? Because they love each other.
One woman admitted after several failed male relationships she just couldn’t see herself being monogamous. So what happens when she decides she is tired of or falls out of love with wife A, but is really into wife B and John’s wife next door is not looking so bad either? We will deal with that later.
How do they live in the same house? And please don’t give me that garbage that they will make it work! Can you imagine the atmosphere in that home after the breakup? They’re talking about having three kids so each can have one. What?! Sure, that’s why my ex-wife and I had 4 children (2 girls, 2boys) so we could each have one child of different genders when we split up. That’s just RIDICULOUS!
You see, some of us were screaming that the argument about same-sex marriage wasn’t that we wanted to tell you “who to love.” By simply making marriage a legal contract between people who love each opened it up to all kinds of issues… as we see in Massachusetts.
So again I ask, what next? One man and two women? Three men and two women? Six women and one man? The possibilities are endless! CAN YOU IMAGINE VISITATION SCHEDULES? How do you split up the kids? How do you split up the assets? We do enough damage to our kids under normal divorce proceedings. Can you imagine these kinds of unions ending any better?
Marriage was never meant to be like this. It was always meant to be between two people, and according to my faith one man and one woman. Why? You’ll have to wait for another column for the answer on that. Today, I want to deal with the destruction of marriage.
Shortly after the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) tossed out the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA, signed into law by Bill Clinton, how easily Dems forget these things) Justice Anthony Scalia warned his colleagues of the potential for this kind of foolishness in his dissent in United States v. Windsor. He went on to say, “By formally declaring anyone opposed to same-sex marriage an enemy of human decency the majority arms well every challenger to a state law restricting marriage to its traditional definition.”
According to the Washington Times, Justice Scalia also predicted (in the 2003 majority decision in Lawrence v. Texas) that striking down a law making sodomy illegal, would become the battering ram to eliminate prohibitions on bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, bestiality, and obscenity, among other things. I don’t want to deal with any of that other behavior, just yet. Simply, what is Marriage anymore?
Can a young girl dream of her prince charming or will that be abnormal? Should she dream of her Princess Charming (is that PC?) To be real “normal,” should she leave the possibilities open to a Prince Charming, Princess Charming, two handmaidens, and one court jester?
Foolishness. It’s just foolishness! The attitude of a spoiled and mixed up generation that says if I can have it my way, you can’t have it yours. Society then folds under the PC pressure because it doesn’t want the minority to feel bad (in this case minority means the three people who want to get married.)
In an interview in Sydney Australia, self-proclaimed Lesbian activist, Masha Gessen stated same-sex marriage is “a lie. Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we’re going to do with marriage when we get there. It’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist.” HOLD THAT THOUGHT WE ARE NOT DONE YET! She went on to say that she has “three children with five parents,” (I can’t get that to add up on all my fingers and toes.) She said, “I don’t see why they shouldn’t have five parents legally.”
This December it will be 42 years since the last male was drafted into combat, but it looks like the fun is just starting for women. Not that they will be going to the post office to register anytime soon. Instead woman already in the military — who thought they were being all they can be by typing 130 WPM or checking PowerPoint presentations for typos — will find themselves assigned to combat arms to meet a quota designed by a wide–load Member of Congress whose most strenuous activity is the Pilates class she makes once a month.
Still, they won’t be seeing the elephant overnight. Right now only a handful of the 203,000 women currently in the military can pass the physical for combat infantry or Marines. When faced with the reality that women can’t pass the test, Congress and Pentagon paper–pushers will change the test until they can pass.
(For details see the shifting metrics that define Obamacare. Currently the administration has ruled that if a patient is able to get an appointment with the foreign–born medical professional she’s stuck with in the new, severely limited health care network — and the doctor doesn’t recommend bleeding as a cure — the program is a success!)
Unfortunately, when you lower standards by definition you get substandard material. This is not to say women as a group are substandard. I’m married to one that’s outstanding, but even in her twenties she wasn’t ready for combat.
The Marine Corps, which I was counting on to maintain standards, is showing signs of going wobbly. CNS News reports the Corps has delayed a requirement that female Marines do a minimum of three pull–ups. The postponement came after 55 percent of females in boot camp couldn’t meet the standard. By comparison, only 1 percent of the males failed.
This test is important for the future of our military’s combat effectiveness because upper body strength is vital both in combat and on the front line where soldiers carry ammunition, lift the wounded, manhandle sandbags and tote weapons.
I suppose we could allow women to push a shopping cart into combat or issue ‘spinner’ luggage. But that won’t work either because after she fills the bag with shoes there won’t be any room for equipment.
The deadline for degrading the combat arm is 2016 and as the date approaches, and the lack of qualified women becomes obvious enough for even a Democrat to see, that’s when the pressure to change the test will be the most severe.
Pentagon mouthpieces may continue to reassure an anxious public that physical standards won’t be lowered to pass females into the combat arm, but recruiters also telling female recruits they can keep their doctor.
What’s really strange in all this is the left’s inability to maintain a consistent story line. On one hand every female recruit is a potential Lt. Ellen Ripley. On the other, current female troops are already engaged in hand–to–hand combat with members of the opposite sex and they’re losing. The female that’s ready to put her life on the line in defense of her country is evidently incapacitated by a pat on the behind.
The Pentagon recently released the results of a survey that showed 6 percent of the women in the military (a total of 12,000) were victims of unwanted sexual contact. This covers everything from rape to following too closely in the chow line. (Maybe the left wants women issued rifles so they can defend themselves when they’re on the receiving end of sexual friendly fire.)
But as The Washington Times Rowan Scarborough has pointed out the Pentagon’s results are wildly out of step with overall US statistics. The Bureau of Justice Statistics survey showed that in contrast to the Pentagon’s 6 percent, only “one-fourth of a percent of women ages 18 to 34 had suffered such abuse in 2010. Preliminary numbers for 2012 show a rate of just over four-tenths of a percent.”
The difference in the numbers reflects methodology. The Pentagon survey, so beloved by sexual harassment axe grinders, used email for results. The Bureau survey used 146,570 in–person interviews and follow–up telephone sessions. In–person and telephone interviews are the gold standard of survey research. By comparison if cheap email surveys were accurate, politicians would use them in their campaigns, but they don’t.
The Pentagon survey even manages to have a larger total of victims than the total of completed surveys. One item that was particularly interesting is the 14,000 men that claimed they were victims of sexual assault, which means some men were evidently telling in spite of official policy not to ask.
Of course inaccurate results are no obstacle for leftist social engineers if the numbers can be used to advance an agenda. The Obama administration likes to depict our fighting arms as havens for macho cavemen that need to be curbed. One gets the feeling they are shocked the military, of all places, attracts men with a high testosterone count.
The Soviet Red Army had political commissars assigned to every unit, maybe the Pentagon plans on assigning sexual commissars to tell soldiers how much fraternizing is allowed with your battle buddy. I’m thinking commissars will prove invaluable during those unfortunate times when females are captured by the enemy and the captors are agonizing over the knotty moral question of whether a simple rape or the more inclusive gang rape is allowed.
Leftist social engineers never account for reality in their planning. The enemies we are most likely to face don’t have women in combat slots and they aren’t making the barracks safe for lavender. The fact that no successful military in history has put women in combat has escaped Pentagon HR planners completely. Brunhilde, and Ripley for that matter, were only a myth.
When conflict occurs armies aren’t matched according to brackets or seeds. If that were the case we could volunteer to fight the Isle of Lesbos and leave it at that. The obvious solution for sexual assault in the military is fewer females in close proximity to males or at least a more accurate survey, but with this administration neither is likely to happen.
No, No, No silly. Not the Illegal aliens. The ones grazing on grass.
We have all been hearing about Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy who has been fighting the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for almost 20 years now. He feels that because his family settled the land in the early 19th century and has been using it since then, he has the right to ignore court orders, many court orders, and just keep the cattle there.
Bundy sights the bogus claim that a “federally protected” desert tortoise started all this back in 1993. As of late, I understand these tortoises are, in fact, not in danger and that the cattle in a “step” test didn’t step on one of them when the tortoise and the cattle where released in a small area.
Eventually, Bundy also decided, because the property rights belonged to his family (and other technical issues), that he would stop paying grazing fees to the government. Try not paying your taxes for a few years and see what happens.
The government claims it has cost them plenty to take this issue to court and get the judgments against Bundy. They also claim there has been damage to property by his cattle that trespassed and grazed on federal land.
Many cattle ranchers pay grazing fees. Why doesn’t Bundy?
Let’s be clear. I am not in agreement with the way the government is handling this issue and the amount of force used by the BLM. But we conservatives keep screaming we are a “nation of laws.” Do we only do that when it’s convenient? We get mad when the government and others don’t follow the law. We take up the pitch forks and torches and set off to right the wrong.
Mr. Bundy has had support from all over the country. Many have come running to his aid to fight the big bad government. Good for them! But wait!
Mr. Bundy has already lost this case several times in a court of law. He has, several times, been told to keep his cattle off government land, yet they continued to cross over from his property to theirs. Why didn’t he put up a fence to protect his cattle? It may have stopped a lot of unnecessary aggravation and cost.
Why did he stop paying grazing fees to the tune of over 1 million dollars that over 1600 other ranchers pay? Is he special? Did his family get special dispensation from Thomas Jefferson or Washington?
We can’t have it both ways and those of you “running” to protect him, be careful. Rather than spending money help him on-site, the people running out to help and the 1600 other ranchers should pool their money and sue the government? Take them on and push back! Fight it from within the law. Make sure you do everything right and then go after them.
And to you Mr. Government… SWAT teams? Really? Two hundred armed BLM agents! My God, if we could only get those agents on the borders. Wouldn’t it be great if, instead of you trying to stop cattle from grazing on public land, you used those same armed BLM agents to keep legal, taxpaying, land-owning American citizens safe on their own property rather than being trespassed and violated by illegal immigrants? Wouldn’t it be great if you upheld and protected Americans at our borders with those same laws you are trying to use against Bundy?
To the 200+ “Bundy Cowboys,” just your presence caused the government to stop and think about what a disaster this could be. The Feds stood down and made arrangements to return the cattle.
Read more at http://therealside.com/2014/04/round-em-up-theyre-illegal/#QJhUuEtkq90L62EZ.99
The biggest problem Christians and conservatives have in making the case for marriage to the younger generation is we don’t speak the same language, and I’m not referring to the number of ‘likes’ inserted into each sentence that replace thought. Our frame of reference has only a tangential connection with that of the younger generation.
The default authority for Christians when explaining their opposition to homosexual marriage is the Bible. But it’s not for the generation born after 1980. The Washington Times reports, “More Americans are doubting the infallibility of the Bible, treating it as a guidebook rather than the actual words of God, according to a survey released Wednesday.”
This belief (no pun intended) puts that generation in agreement with Episcopalians, Methodists and Unitarians who also don’t understand what the big deal is when Rev. Adam and his wife, Steve shake hands with the faithful as they leave the sanctuary on Sunday.
This finding was part of a survey conducted on behalf of the American Bible Society. In the Times its president, Roy Peterson explained, “I think young people have always questioned their parents, questioned the church…Today the skeptics are saying, ‘It’s just like any other piece of literature, and it’s no different from that.”
It shouldn’t come as a surprise that when a Christian references the Bible, the youngster counters with, “You may like the Bible, but I’m partial to the Epic of Gilgamesh. However, if there was a modern language translation, the Egyptian Book of the Dead also has some value for those who want to increase their spirituality quotient.”
This declining interest is an indication there’s a real chance the Bible may lose it’s spot as the perennial number one best–seller, although this is not sufficient cause for Ellen to hope her bio will take its place.
The importance of the Bible for moral instruction has also declined. In 2013 almost a third of respondents “blamed a lack of Bible reading as the problem” behind a decline in American morals. This year it’s only 26 percent, but that decrease may be explained by the corresponding number of Americans who purchased 70” TVs in the intervening months.
So how does one explain opposition to homosexual marriage in terms the young can grasp? How does one put in context the aggressive demand that Christians conform to an unprecedented definition of marriage that didn’t exist even 25 years ago and flies in the face of all of human history?
How can they relate to our rejection of this absurd definition of marriage that completely upends an accepted way of life in the interest of pleasing an intolerant minority and its cheering section.
There are essentially no sexual taboos today, so approaching the problem from a Biblical angle is like expressing your opposition to the healing power of crystals by using the Physicians Desk Reference, when your audience hasn’t read either one.
Fortunately in today’s brave new culture food taboos have replaced sex taboos and it is here Christians can make our case in a way that duplicates the situation we encountered with homosexual marriage and is simultaneously understandable by the younger generation.
My analogy works regardless of whether you’re locked in debate with a smug and superior homosexual marriage supporter or you’re simply answering a question from one of those ‘love and let love’ types unable to understand why we feel so strongly about the issue.
The demand that Christians completely redefine marriage and accept a radical new definition that institutionalizes and affirms a form sexual practice the Bible specifically forbids, is the exact equivalent of pork lovers demanding that vegan restaurants serve bacon.
If America’s homosexuals can demand “marriage equality” then bacon lovers can demand “flavor equality.”
A vegan’s unconstitutional exclusion of bacon is simply elevating personal preference over a fundamental human right to have food that tastes good. And even diners who aren’t eating bacon because of an irrational fear of being attacked by their heart, can still feel the pain and humiliation of being ostracized.
Just try wearing an Arkansas Razorbacks’ Hog Head hat into your nearest Busboys & Poets restaurant if you want to see how a real second–class citizen is treated by kale bigots.
And who says vegans get to define what qualifies to be labeled as “vegan?” Flavor is flavor, people. Just as we’ve been told “love is love.” You may like the slimy feel and hay–infusion aftertaste of tofu, but I like the crunch of crispy, fried bacon and how can that be so wrong?
One doesn’t choose to love bacon any more than one chooses whom to love. It’s fried into my DNA.
I should be able to go into Sweet & Natural bakery and ask them to whomp up a delicious quiche Lorraine and not get a bunch of sanctimonious static about beliefs, animal rights and cholesterol.
Who are these Pharisees to tell me I can’t eat pork?
And the same goes for the photographer who refused to document my family’s annual fall hog butchering reunion and hoe down. If she/he (I think the photographer was undergoing some sort of transformation) is open for business to the public, then the photographer should not be allowed to discriminate based on unscientific belief and superstition. Go down that path and the next stop is Montgomery and Bull Connor.
Separate but equal is inherently unequal. If Western Sizzlin’ can offer food for vegans then its only fair that Arugula ‘R We be forced to offer a BLT.
A few weeks ago President Obama decided to insult Pope Francis by giving the blessed rosary beads given to him by the Pope to Nancy Pelosi.
The first insult, re-gifting something that a leader of one of the largest religious groups in the world gave him. Really? It’d be like giving Quran’s signed by Osama bin Laden to the families of 9/11 victims. Why didn’t he just save them and to include in his Presidential library? Does he not understand the gesture and value? Does he care?
The second insult, last September, Vatican Chief Justice Cardinal Raymond Burke said that Pelosi must be denied communion under the law of the Catholic church because of her longstanding support for abortion. She was shunned when she went to Rome. It doesn’t really sound like Nancy’s a treasure to the Catholic church. She openly states that she disagrees with the church’s stance on abortion. Really? How? What scripture is she using to base that belief on? Does she study?
Nancy seems to know more about what’s best for us as it pertains to healthcare, religion, and abortion. Maybe she should be the “Grand Pubah” of the universe. Hey Nancy, here’s a hint here for you. The Bible, yes, the scripture you say you live by as a Catholic says (I will paraphrase) that if anyone adds a word or deletes a word the same will be done to their lives.
It would appear the other supreme ruler (President Obama) seems to feel that “no-thing” applies to him. Yes, I said “no-thing” because it doesn’t matter whether it’s the law, social graces, or just good manners, he is above it all! I believe he knew exactly what he was doing with the Pope’s gift, he just doesn’t care!
To further add insult to injury, Nancy then goes on to accept one of the highest awards bestowed by Planned Parenthood, the Margaret Sanger Award. Oh joy!
That’s an organization started by a racist, black-hating woman named Margaret Sanger. Margaret didn’t care about a woman’s right to choose, nor did she care about “female reproductive health”. She didn’t care about overpopulation. She wanted to keep the blacks and other less desirable (her view, not mine) people from populating the planet in any way.
Does my pointing out the history of Planned Parenthood aggravate you? How about a few quotes from the award’s namesake herself, Ms. Sanger, as a reminder:
“[We should] apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring. Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race.”
Can you imagine if these words were associates with a Republican? I was guilty by association for allowing a person who is against gay marriage speak at a prayer event I chair! OMG! How evil am I? (The speaker was Brad Dacus from the Pacific Justice Institute.) I wasn’t getting or giving an award (unlike Nancy Pelosi). I just allowed him to speak about his personal life.
Here’s another gem!
“We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”
How do you who lean Left and extoll the virtues of Planned Parenthood for “the great things they do” not know about this woman’s agenda? Personally, I think you do, you just don’t care! Shame on those who know this and continue to support Planned Parenthood. They don’t care about women’s rights or health. They care about making sure the “less desirables” don’t keep procreating.
And last but not least: