See Upcoming New Bern Events
This is not a joke. It seems as if America is bending over backwards to help those who are here illegally at the expense of those who are here legally and sacrificed for their country. Both senior citizens and veterans are being slighted in order to accommodate those who have come here illegally. We all know about the scandals in the Veteran’s Administration. How much money that should have gone to our veterans has gone to feed, clothe, and provide medical care for those who are here illegally? It gets worse. Now all Americans are about to be put in a position where they will be paying for full healthcare benefits for people who are here illegally.
On Monday, Townhall.com posted an article stating:
The Democratic leadership is apparently this week seeking, in a bill authored by Representative Luis Gutierrez, to change current law. His bill, framed as a denial of benefits (really?) offers illegals “access to the healthcare exchanges in Obamacare under ordinary rules of residency in the states in which they live.” That would, as he says, make them “just like the rest of us.”
Before we get all enthusiastic about new enrollment in ObamaCare, let’s look and see how well it is working.
The article reports:
If we are going to get serious about health care, let us unpack this problem – and this irony – quite succinctly. First, the Obama White House said that the “cost curve” would “bend downwards” for Americans, not upwards. Again, we are presented with incontrovertible proof that this nationalized healthcare idea is morally and economically bankrupt. Bad policy begets waste. This policy wastes taxpayer dollars at an accelerating and incalculable rate, while delivering less and less to a majority of hard working and pension-tied Americans, the operational definition of failure.
The numbers that back up the failure are staggering. In one state alone, Minnesota, the numbers tell a story that should leave every member of Congress embarrassed, shocked or both. 2016 state rate increases are sobering, if not objectively tragic for many seniors. “Almost 180,000 Minnesotans will see increases of at least 45%, which is more than half of all customers” on that State’s exchange. Now multiply that spike nationwide.
Let’s concentrate of fixing (or getting rid of) ObamaCare for Americans. Then we can talk about providing healthcare for people who are here illegally. One thing to remember in this debate is that is it illegal for a hospital to turn away anyone in need of emergency medical care.
In 1986, Congress enacted the Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA) to ensure public access to emergency services regardless of ability to pay. Section 1867 of the Social Security Act imposes specific obligations on Medicare-participating hospitals that offer emergency services to provide a medical screening examination (MSE) when a request is made for examination or treatment for an emergency medical condition (EMC), including active labor, regardless of an individual’s ability to pay. Hospitals are then required to provide stabilizing treatment for patients with EMCs. If a hospital is unable to stabilize a patient within its capability, or if the patient requests, an appropriate transfer should be implemented.
If this law is obeyed, every American, here legally or otherwise, has access to medical care. If this law is not being obeyed, those breaking it need to held accountable. That should be the extent of the government’s involvement in healthcare–uphold the law–not take over the industry.
This story is from Canada, but I wish colleges in the United States would take notice.
On October 5th, The Toronto Star posted a story about a recent incident at the University of Toronto. The college had established gender-neutral bathrooms. Remember, these are college students–not allways noted for their self-discipline and civilized behavior.
The article reports:
The University of Toronto has decreased the number of gender-neutral bathrooms in one of its colleges after two women became victims of voyeurism when they were filmed while showering.
Toronto Police Const. Victor Kwong said Monday that two women in separate instances at the Whitney Hall residence reported that they saw a cellphone reach over the shower-stall dividers in an attempt to record them. Police have yet to find any information about the culprit, but the investigation is ongoing.
At least one gender-neutral washroom remains on each floor.
The obvious questions is, “Why does at least one gender-neutral washroom remain on each floor?” Didn’t these people see “Animal House?”
The article further states:
According to the Varsity campus newspaper, the two cellphone incidents occurred Sept. 15 and Sept. 19.
Scott (Melinda Scott, the dean of students at University College), says the college will be reevaluating the designation of the bathrooms in the coming weeks. “The UC Residences continue to work in close collaboration with the Community Safety Office and Campus Police to ensure that the residences are a safe space for our students.”
With all due respect, Ms. Scott, has it occurred to anyone that gender-neutral bathrooms might simply be a bad idea for college students? Has anyone bothered to consider the feelings of the women who had the experience with the cell phone camera? Has anything been done to prevent women from having that experience in the future? Maybe I’m just old-fashioned, but it seems to me that part of the responsibility of a college is to protect its students from being violated in this manner. Obviously, gender-neutral bathrooms make this rather difficult.
I am not a native southerner, but I enjoy the culture. What I am about to share was patiently explained to me last year by a Civil War reenactor at Fort Macon, North Carolina. The Confederate Battle Flag is part of that culture. The Confederate Battle Flag is not the “Stars and Bars.”
This is the Stars and Bars:
The Stars and Bars was the first official national flag of the Confederacy.
The above flag is a rectangular variant of the Army of Northern Virginia battle flag.
According to Wikipedia:
Despite never having historically represented the Confederate States of America as a country, nor officially recognized as one of its national flags, the rectangular Second Confederate Navy Jack and the Battle Flag of Northern Virginia are now flag types commonly referred to as “the Confederate Flag.”
So why am I mentioning this? On September 30th, MRC-TV posted an article about a newly designed Confederate Flag (designed because the old one has become politically incorrect).
The article reports that New York station WNYC, an independent public radio organization, commissioned a design company to come up with a replacement for the Confederate Flag. This is the result of that commission:
The quote that comes to mind is, “A camel is a horse designed by a committee.” No further comment is necessary.
Yesterday Investor’s Business Daily posted an article about the Syrian refugees coming to the United States. The article brings up a rather obvious but somehow unmentioned fact–Homeland Security has no way to vet the refugees because Syria has no police or intelligence databases to check the backgrounds of incoming refugees against criminal and terrorist records. Syria is a failed state at this point. There is not enough order to keep a reliable database.
The article reports:
Senior FBI officials recently testified that they have no idea who these people are, and they can’t find out what type of backgrounds they have — criminal, terrorist or otherwise — because there are no vetting opportunities in those war-torn countries.
Syria and Iraq, along with Somalia and Sudan, are failed states where police records aren’t even kept. Agents can’t vet somebody if they don’t have documentation and don’t even have the criminal databases to screen applicants.
So the truth is, we are not vetting these Muslim refugees at all. And as GOP presidential front-runners duly note, it’s a huge gamble to let people from hostile nations enter the U.S. without any meaningful background check. It’s a safer bet just to limit, if not stop, their immigration.
“If I win, they’re going back,” Donald Trump vowed. “They could be ISIS. This (mass Syrian immigration) could be one of the great tactical ploys of all time.”
Ben Carson, for his part, said that he would bar refugees from Syria because they are “infiltrated” with terrorists seeking to harm America. “To bring into this country groups infiltrated with jihadists makes no sense,” Carson asserted. “Why would you do something like that?”
The Obama regime claims to have no evidence of terrorist or even extremist infiltration. But Sessions made public a list of 72 recent Muslim immigrants arrested just over the past year who were charged with terrorist activity.
This seems to be a rather large gamble for a national security issue. The other untold part of the story is the unwillingness of the stable Muslim countries in the Middle East and elsewhere to take in these refugees. Saudi Arabia offered to build mosques in Germany for the refugees; why didn’t they offer to build them houses in Saudi Arabia?
There is a political element in the Middle East that thrives on using refugees as pawns. The Palestinians were not Palestinians until 1967. They have never been able to settle in the lands they actually came from–they have been kept in refugee camps and blocked from forming a viable non-terrorist state.
The following quote tells it all:
One wonders what purpose the political forces in the Middle East have in releasing all of these Muslims to western countries.
California has just passed and Governor Brown signed a law that allows doctor-assisted suicide. I have a problem with that. I don’t want people to suffer, but I am opposed to actually taking someone’s life because they are suffering. I believe that medicine can alleviate the suffering and allow the patient to die peacefully on their own. I see no advantage to simply killing a patient before their body is ready to die.
Assisted suicide has been legal in the Netherlands since 2001. We might take a look at their experience with the practice of euthanasia to see how it works.
According to a Daily Beast article from February of last year:
Their law, which went into effect in 2002, allowed doctors to end the lives of their patients in the context of a state health care system that emphasized close consultation with family physicians over many years. The termination of life was supposed to be limited to those with “unbearable and hopeless suffering” whose mental faculties were not impaired and who had no other hope of relief.
But recent revelations about the way euthanasia is practiced by one group in The Netherlands, especially for those suffering from psychiatric illnesses, is making even the Dutch feel uncomfortable. The new debate raises questions about the way appointed commissions judge these life-ending practices, and echoes the kinds of ‘slippery-slope’ criticisms often made by right-wing and religious parties in the United States.
…But where does one draw the line? Because these patients are not physically ill, the evaluations of independent psychiatrists are under scrutiny. Does this mean any person suffering from serious depression can shop around until he or she finds someone willing to help with suicide? And euthanasia is not only for old people. How young can you be and still get legal help if you want to die? How far should society go to overcome the biologically inbuilt threshold that makes it hard to take one’s own life by aiding someone to do so?
The controversy surrounding the Life-Ending Clinic’s activities has caused the Dutch press to look at some of the other cases from recent years. In one particularly disturbing case a 35-year-old woman, the youngest to die since the Dutch law was introduced, got help killing herself in 2012. Excerpts of her file were published by Dutch national newspaper Trouw and read like a sad story of clinical depression. But the file also shows an extended period of hopefulness. Not enough apparently. A team of doctors decided there was no cause to wait, and ended her life.
I have heard reports of elderly patients in the Netherlands going into the hospital for a minor matter and being euthanized in the interest of saving money for their families. I cannot personally attest to these stories, but because of the sources, I am inclined to believe them.
It would be ironic if in America the first generation to kill their children in abortion because those children were inconvenient were also the first generation to be euthanized by their children because having an elderly parent was inconvenient.
It was really nice of Vladimir Putin to offer to help out President Obama in the effort to stabilize Syria. The problem may be that both men have very different ideas as to what constitutes a stable Syria.
On September 29th, Yahoo News reported the following statement by President Obama:
US President Barack Obama said Tuesday that Syrian counterpart Bashar al-Assad must go if the Islamic State group is to be defeated, as he rallied world leaders to revitalize the coalition campaign against the jihadists.
…”In Syria (…) defeating ISIL requires, I believe, a new leader,” Obama told the gathering, held on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly.
I agree with President Obama that ISIS (the term ISIL President Obama is using denies the existence of Israel) must be defeated. However, if Bashar al-Assad is deposed, do we have any assurance that what replaces him will be either a stable government or a humanitarian government? Are we creating another Libya?
Meanwhile, Russia has agreed to help us defeat ISIS. They have moved some serious weaponry into Syria supposedly for that purpose. It is a really interesting move when you consider that Russia’s goal in Syria is diametrically opposed to our goal in Syria. Bashar al-Assad is an ally of Iran. Russia is an ally of Iran. Russia does not want Bashar al-Assad deposed–they would very much like to keep him in power. Under the guise of helping defeat ISIS, Russia has been able to move serious weaponry into Syria that might coincidentally be used to defeat the enemies of Bashar al-Assad. Unfortunately, the enemies of Bashar al-Assad are the troops we are training and supporting.
Today’s Wall Street Journal reports:
Russia has targeted Syrian rebel groups backed by the Central Intelligence Agency in a string of airstrikes running for days, leading the U.S. to conclude that it is an intentional effort by Moscow, American officials said.
The assessment, which is shared by commanders on the ground, has deepened U.S. anger at Moscow and sparked a debate within the administration over how the U.S. can come to the aid of its proxy forces without getting sucked deeper into a proxy war that President Barack Obama says he doesn’t want. The White House has so far been noncommittal about coming to the aid of CIA-backed rebels, wary of taking steps that could trigger a broader conflict.
Vladimir Putin has again successfully eaten President Obama’s lunch.
Investor’s Business Daily posted an article today about new information about Hillary Clinton’s emails. Despite the efforts of the Clinton presidential campaign to claim this is political, the use of private servers in sending or receiving classified information is a serious offense.
A letter sent to Mrs. Clinton’s lawyer by Patrick F. Kennedy, the State Department‘s under secretary of state for management, included the following statement, “To the extent her emails might be found on any internet service and email providers, we encourage you to contact them.”
The article reports:
She has said that she used the personal account(s) because she didn’t want to juggle multiple devices. That was untrue.
Clinton has also said she had no classified material on her personal email. Again, this is not true.
Also untrue is her claim that she turned over her emails because of a general State Department request asking for emails of several prior secretaries. The request was for hers alone. She was targeted because of suspicions.
And while Clinton has admitted that she employed a private server for personal email accounts used by her and at least one other State Department aide, some say evidence points to the existence of a second server.
Believing the Clintons has become a task too difficult for the average person. Across a quarter century of national public exposure, they have nurtured and refined a special brand of dishonesty. There’s really not anything they can be trusted with, and that includes another shot at the White House.
I suspect that there are many Democrats currently praying that Joe Biden will enter the Democratic primary.
The article reports:
In 2012, the Chilean government invited a group of journalists to the South American country to show off its innovations — language programs, new uses for llama fur, greenie aquaculture, microfinance, quake-proof skyscrapers and the world’s most powerful telescope.
But there was one thing missing amid all these new ideas: recognition for Chile’s most spectacular innovation, the one that made the country’s development into a first-world country possible.
That concept? Chile’s 35-year old private pension program, which a new report confirms is working spectacularly well.
Sergio De Castro, the dean of Santiago’s Catholic University, became Finance Minister of Chile in 1976. He began a free market revolution in the Chile. Jose Pinera designed and implemented the profoundly innovative private pension system, which up until then had never been tried — and which was copiously praised Milton Friedman?
The article further reports:
Pinera, who was Chile’s labor minister in 1978, knew that the idea of private pensions would have to be sold to the public. Economic ignorance was widespread, and he utilized the most important media outlet of the day, radio broadcasting, to give five-minute talks for the citizens on savings, ownership, control, responsibility and wealth building — which are the pillars of the Chilean Model — and have as their ultimate reward a comfortable retirement, which Chileans now do.
His daily broadcasts led to sign-ups for the new private pension option that went well beyond expectations. At the time, Chile’s leaders had expected 4% of the population to sign up, but got 25% right off the bat.
I am somewhat convinced that the problem in America is not economic ignorance–it is people who are wrongly informed on the subject of economics.
So what were the results:
A Wharton professor, Olivia Mitchell, recently went down to Chile to sort the complaints out, and found that there was nothing to complain about — the system worked exactly as advertised, creating wealth and providing a dignified retirement for millions of people well beyond what the state could accomplish and, in fact, a much better one than Americans get with Social Security.
We need a leader with the courage to copy what has already proven successful rather than continue with the current ponzi scheme that we call Social Security.
This is a graph taken from a Power Line article posted yesterday:
The article reports:
We are on a course that will radically transform the United States of America, a course that we have never voted for. Can this radical transformation be averted? Not as long as our politicians talk only about illegal immigration, which is a small part of the issue. Existing laws will make the U.S., already the world’s third most populous country, much more like China and India, and much less like Switzerland and Japan. Isn’t it obvious that this is not the direction in which we should be going?
We need legal immigration, but we need to make sure we are bringing in people who want to assimilate–not people who want to change our laws to create the conditions they are fleeing. America is an idea. It is up to us to protect that idea.
Last year Bono made a speech at Georgetown University that expressed what America is. He did a better job of explaining America than most Americans. This is the speech (from YouTube):
The article reports:
They based this request on their belief that national security faces a greater threat from armed citizens than from “foreign terrorists,” and they singled out the NRA as the bulwark preserving citizens’ right to keep and bear arms. They suggested, “The NRA should take its rightful place on the State Department list of terrorist organizations, because its influence is more of an immediate threat to the lives of our citizens than foreign terrorists.”
To be on the State Department’s list of designated terror organizations a group has to be state-sponsored for terrorism–which the NRA is not. Moreover, they do not exist for terrorist reasons. Rather, they exist to defend the civil liberties protected by the Second Amendment. Undaunted by these things, the NYDN simply declares the NRA a “terrorist group” and suggests it falls under the State Department’s purview by being “nearly-state sponsored.”
The NYDN added, “Although the NRA is not an officially state-sponsored organization it is the supporter of the state with its massive member and lobbyist donations to our elected officials.”
I am not personally a member of the NRA, but I appreciate the fact that they are trying to protect the Second Amendment rights of American citizens. This statement by The Daily News is truly an example of a small group of people attempting to deny the rights of free speech and political activism of a group they not not agree with. That in itself is un-American.
The problem with school shootings is not guns–the problem is that all of the gun-free zone signs are not heeded by criminals. Why do politicians believe that laws that take guns away from law-abiding Americans will be followed by criminals?
On Thursday, a lone gunman opened fire at Umpqua Community College in Oregon. As usual, the College was a gun-free zone, and the gunman knew that he would meet no resistance. He is alleged to have questioned students as to their religious beliefs and shot the students who claimed to be Christians. There are no clear answers as to the roots of his hatred of Christians, but the hatred was obviously there.
President Obama immediately made a statement that included the following:
There is a gun for roughly every man, woman, and child in America. So how can you, with a straight face, make the argument that more guns will make us safer? We know that states with the most gun laws tend to have the fewest gun deaths. So the notion that gun laws don’t work, or just will make it harder for law-abiding citizens and criminals will still get their guns is not borne out by the evidence.
We know that other countries, in response to one mass shooting, have been able to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings. Friends of ours, allies of ours — Great Britain, Australia, countries like ours. So we know there are ways to prevent it.
And, of course, what’s also routine is that somebody, somewhere will comment and say, Obama politicized this issue. Well, this is something we should politicize. It is relevant to our common life together, to the body politic. I would ask news organizations — because I won’t put these facts forward — have news organizations tally up the number of Americans who’ve been killed through terrorist attacks over the last decade and the number of Americans who’ve been killed by gun violence, and post those side-by-side on your news reports. This won’t be information coming from me; it will be coming from you. We spend over a trillion dollars, and pass countless laws, and devote entire agencies to preventing terrorist attacks on our soil, and rightfully so. And yet, we have a Congress that explicitly blocks us from even collecting data on how we could potentially reduce gun deaths. How can that be?
This is a political choice that we make to allow this to happen every few months in America. We collectively are answerable to those families who lose their loved ones because of our inaction. When Americans are killed in mine disasters, we work to make mines safer. When Americans are killed in floods and hurricanes, we make communities safer. When roads are unsafe, we fix them to reduce auto fatalities. We have seatbelt laws because we know it saves lives. So the notion that gun violence is somehow different, that our freedom and our Constitution prohibits any modest regulation of how we use a deadly weapon, when there are law-abiding gun owners all across the country who could hunt and protect their families and do everything they do under such regulations doesn’t make sense.
This is disingenuous at best. First of all, gun ownership is enshrined in the United States Constitution. The only way the right to bear arms can be changed is through a Constitutional Amendment–it can’t be done by Congress, and it can’t be done with a pen and a phone. The Second Amendment was put there to protect Americans from a tyrannical government. It may become a critical Amendment in the future.
Second of all. The answer to shootings on college campuses is to increase security on campuses. Allow concealed carry by those who qualify. Let a potential murdered know that if he attempts to shoot up a campus, he will meet resistance.
Third of all. Violent crimes are fewer where gun ownership is not restricted. Texas, where even almost every grandmother is armed, has a lower murder rate than Chicago, which has some of the strictest gun laws in America. Criminals don’t obey gun laws–law-abiding citizens do.
The following chart was posted at National Review today:
Oddly enough, more people have bought guns since President Obama was elected than in the years before. One NRA member has joking referred to the President as “Gun Salesman of the Year” on various occasions.
Seriously, the answer to the shootings at colleges is more security personnel carrying guns on campus–not less guns. To use this event to push a political agenda that is contrary to the United States Constitution is unseemly.
The Middle East is rapidly changing–in the past three years tyrannical dictators have been deposed in the name of the “Arab Spring” only to be replaced by chaos. The only stable country with a new stable government is Egypt. They are stable, but won’t win any more human rights awards than the government that existed before the Arab Spring.
So what is the solution? Fred Fleitz at the Center for Security Policy posted some good ideas on Thursday. Here they are:
- Recognize that Russia and Iran are the problem, not the solution. The United States needs to maintain dialogue with Russia but stop talking about working with Russia and Iran to fight ISIS since their goals are counter to American interests and regional security. Mr Obama needs to realize that an expanded and entrenched Russian/Iranian presence in the Middle East will have dire long term consequences for America and the region.
- Work with our European and regional states to form a better military alliance to combat ISIS and to counter Russian and Iranian influence. This should include creating a safe haven protected zone in northern Syria and intensified air strikes against ISIS targets. The refugee crisis probably has made Europe more willing to participate in such an alliance. France conducted its first airstrikes in Syria last week.
- End the limitations on fighting ISIS in Iraq. Let U.S. troops leave their bases so they can operate behind the lines in Iraq and support Iraqi security forces. Provide better weapons to the Iraqi Kurds or let our allies arm them. Incredibly, the Obama administration blocked Gulf states from sending heavy weapons to the Iraqi Kurds in July.
- President Obama must stop making demands he has no intention of enforcing. The world correctly sees Mr Obama’s demands that Assad leave office and Russia stop its military aid to the Assad government as idle threats. Every time the president makes such demands, he further undermines American credibility and emboldens U.S. enemies and adversaries. The word of the leader of the world’s superpower must be enough to change international events and not viewed as chatter that can be safely ignored.
The chances of any of these suggestions being followed is about the same as the chances of a snow storm in July in North Carolina. However, these suggestions are an example of how a strong leader would handle the current situation. In 2016 we need to elect someone who has this kind of insight into how to solve the current problems in the Middle East. Hopefully the situation will be salvageable at that point.
The Washington Examiner reported on Wednesday that Congressional Democrats have introduced legislation to raise the smoking age to 21. I don’t smoke, but this is ridiculous. If you look back over the past thirty years, you can see the slow cultural demonization of smoking and smokers. It began with the culture–movie heroes were no longer shown smoking, anti-smoking campaigns began in our schools, and eventually smokers were huddling in door ways trying to have a cigarette after lunch or dinner. Again, I don’t smoke. I hate the smell of cigarette smoke, but I regard this as an assault on personal freedom.
The article reports:
The act would cover conventional cigarettes, as well as smokeless and vaporizing options, ascendant in national popularity, especially among millennials. The bill notes this phenomenon.
“Young adults aged 18 to 24 are more than 2 times as likely to use smokeless products as compared to older adults aged 45 to 64.”
After the “Tobacco to 21 Act” was introduced, an adjoining campaign, #TobaccoTo21, was launched on Twitter and other social media. The campaign is supported by a gauntlet of health groups, including the American Heart Association and the American Lung Association.
If smoking is so horrible, make an offer to tobacco growers to switch to another crop. As far as I know, we are still subsidizing tobacco farmers. Our policy on smoking is schizophrenic–if tobacco is a dangerous substance, it should be banned. Also, why are we legalizing marijuana, which is more dangerous to the lungs, while restricting tobacco? It’s time for a new Congress–this one is broken.
Yesterday The Daily Caller reported that U.N. Ambassador Samantha Power was instructed to skip Benjamin Netanyahu‘s remarks at the United Nations on Thursday. Secretary of State John Kerry was also not present at the United Nations for Netanyahu’s speech. The U.S. delegates who did attend did not applaud the speech.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Thursday delivered a fiery address here condemning the Iranian nuclear deal, largely unbowed in his opposition despite losing steep political ground to President Barack Obama over the issue this year.
In his speech to the General Assembly, Mr. Netanyahu thundered that Iranian threats to destroy Israel have been met in the world body by “utter silence, deafening silence.”
Evidently the Obama Administration did not want to hear the truth.
The Wall Street Journal further reports:
Still, Mr. Netanyahu’s supporters don’t see the debate over the nuclear agreement as over. U.S. lawmakers are drafting new legislation to target Iran’s support for international militant groups and to limit the ability of foreign companies to invest in Iran.
Much of the congressional debate over Iran is focused on trying to dry up funding for Iran’s elite military unit, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which dominates the Iranian economy.
Israeli officials and many Iran watchers in Washington say they believe there is a high likelihood that Iran will cheat on the nuclear agreement, and that the West must be prepared to move quickly with punishments if it does.
“The next phase is not just enforcing the nuclear accord, strictly, but putting in place new mechanisms to guard against the cancer of Iran spreading across the region,” said Josh Block, president of The Israeli Project, which campaigned against the nuclear deal.
Releasing billions of dollars to a country that has supported terrorism since the 1970’s is not a path to peace. Hopefully those who support this agreement will realize that before it is too late.
This is not a local interest story–if it can happen here, it can happen anywhere. It is not a Republican story–if the Republican establishment can do this, then the Democratic establishment can do it.
The following is taken from today’s Beaufort Observer:
Our friends and neighbors in Craven County, Hal and Raynor James, we have found to be principled conservatives and very active in Republican Party matters. In short, we trust them. They sent out the following email newsletter we thought many would not only appreciate but have been expecting such. They write:
Dear Fellow Citizens,
Hold on to your hats. This is ugly, and your help is needed.
A new chapter in the HB 373, SB 119 (shadow parties in the NC House and Senate, plus additional shadow parties in the Council of State for the Governor) fiasco has been revealed today.
Like many of you, we got an email purporting to come from NC GOP Chairman, Hasan Harnett today speaking of party unity and explaining that the affiliated party committees would not be activated.
We replied countering the arguments that everything is all right, and stating in no uncertain terms what we believe the real situation is and why. (We’ll send you a copy of that email if you’d like it.)
We got a reply, not from Hasan, but from Dallas Woodhouse who said, “Thanks for your comments. We are working to keep all the republican elements together making the law changes moot.”
A proper translation of that email might read, “The RINO establishment has succeeded in usurping control of the NC GOP, so it will be unnecessary to activate the affiliated party committees unless the grassroots gets control back.”
We talked to a friend who had gotten exactly the same reply from Dallas Woodhouse when he tried to reply to Hasan Harnett and smelled a rat, so we wrote to Hasan on his personal email. That led to a long phone conversation.
Hasan Harnett and Michele Nix have been “played” by the RINO establishment.
In most state parties, the party chairman selects his or her staff. They select an Executive Director and pull together an office staff, and the team thus formed works effectively together.
North Carolina is odd in that regard. The Central Committee hires the Executive Director and he/she hires the staff. Games were played in the Central Committee. The top 5 candidates for Executive Director were to be interviewed, but somehow the 6th candidate on the list was interviewed as if he had been one of the top 5, and (are you ready for this?), he was hired. He is the aforementioned Dallas Woodhouse.
The rest of the staff is left over from the prior team.
Guess what? The new Executive Director, Dallas Woodhouse, and the rest of the “team” have frozen Hasan out. They have changed the passwords and user names on the email accounts, and Hasan cannot sign checks. How’s that for a helpful staff?
The RINO establishment types have been prodding Hasan to raise funds, and at the same time they’ve been asking the usual big donors to hold back on donations, so they can chastise Hasan for “failure to be a good fund raiser.” The truth is that the GOP is in about the usual situation with respect to funds raised at this time in the campaign cycle. This is an artificially created situation. The establishment is trying to manufacture a crisis and use it to do what they’ve been planning to do ever since Hasan and Michele were elected.
Hasan has never received a salary as Chairman, and to put the icing on the cake, the Central Committee has refused to continue paying his travel expenses. So here’s their message to Hasan, “Don’t travel. Don’t have control of your office and email. Do raise money. Why haven’t you raised it yet?” If you were faced with that situation, would you find the job doable?
So what are we going to do about it? Let’s email (firstname.lastname@example.org) and call (704-526-9432) Hasan and ask him to set up a new bank account to work with. Let’s send him $5, $10, or whatever we can afford regularly. Let’s ask Hasan what else we can volunteer to do that will help.
Let’s also get this information to as many people as we can and urge them to do the same. Let’s form our own network of support to help Hasan help Constitutional conservative candidates get elected, and let’s shine bright sunlight on the evil deeds of the schemers. It’s time their divisive tactics are exposed.
Yours in freedom,
Hal and Raynor James
I understand that this is happening in North Carolina; however, there is a message here for all Americans. Get involved. If you don’t get involved, you probably won’t like the people who do. If you want America to be ruled by a political class, ignore what is happening around you. If you want the America our Founding Fathers envisioned, where average Americans had a voice in their government, get involved.
This is a link to a list of a sampling of election fraud cases across America. If you think election fraud does not happen, feel free to look up the cases in your state.
Some excerpts from the Indictment:
Company A was not a signatory to any collective bargaining agreement with Local 25. Company A hired its own employees (“the Crew”), including drivers, to produce and participate in the filming of the show and did not need any work performed by Local 25.
…On or about June 9, 2014, an individual from the Omni Parker House notified Company A that, despite their prior agreement, the Omni Parker House would no longer permit Company A to use its location to film because the hotel did not want to be associated with a Local 25 picket. As a result, Company A found a new location for filming outside the City of Boston.
…Restaurant A is a restaurant located in Milton, Massachusetts. At around 9:00 a.m. on June 10,2014, defendants REDMOND, HARRINGTON, JOHN FIDLER (“FIDLER”), ROBERT CAFARELLI (“CAFARELLI”) and RICHARD JEFFREY (“JEFFREY”) showed up at Restaurant A. REDMOND, HARRINGTON, FIDLER, CAFARELLI and JEFFREY are all members of Local 25. Two or three of the defendants entered the production area and began walking in lockstep toward the doors of the restaurant where they chest-bumped and stomach bumped Crew members in an attempt to forcibly enter the restaurant.
Throughout the morning, the defendants continued to use and threaten to use physical violence against members of the Crew and others. The defendants yelled profanities and racial and homophobic slurs at the Crew and others. The defendants blocked vehicles from the entryway to the set and used actual physical violence and threats of physical violence to try and prevent people from entering the set. On one occasion, the defendants prevented a food delivery truck from delivering food. The defendants were also observed by the Crew standing in close proximity to cars belonging to the Crew, nine of which were later found to have had their tires slashed.
Unions have a place in America when they act within the law. This sort of behavior is simply unacceptable. Unfortunately there are unions who do this sort of thing during election campaigns. While working on a campaign in Massachusetts, I encountered union political activists that blocked supporters of other candidates from entering the parking lot of a building where a candidates’ debate was held. I also witnessed attempts to intimidate supporters of the candidates the union did not support.
I have no problem with protest. I have no problem with picketing, but I do have a problem with threatening people and damaging their property. Unfortunately, if these men are sent to jail, the union will support their families while they are away, and they will pay no lasting penalty for their misdeeds. The men involved need to be required to make serious restitution for the tires they slashed and any other property they damaged. If that happens, it will come from union funds, but it still needs to happen.
Yesterday The Blaze posted an article about the testimony of Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards before the House Oversight Committee hearing. Ms. Richards is quoted as saying, “I think everyone has agreed they were heavily edited.” The problem with that statement is that it is not true. The videos have been shown to be accurate by both supporters and foes of Planned Parenthood.
The article reports:
Alliance Defending Freedom hired tech firm Coalfire Systems to perform a forensic analysis of the undercover videos, in order to disprove claims they were “highly edited.” Planned Parenthood doctors discuss harvesting and selling aborted fetuses to researchers in the footage.
“Coalfire’s analysis of the recorded media files contained on the flash drive indicates that the video recordings are authentic and show no evidence of manipulation or editing,” the report released Tuesday states.
The article further states:
An earlier analysis commissioned by Planned Parenthood also found the videos were not meaningfully edited, in spite of the brief cuts and skips. Planned Parenthood hired Fusion GPS — a Democratic opposition research firm — to perform the analysis.
“This analysis did not reveal widespread evidence of substantive video manipulation, but we did identify cuts, skips, missing tape, and changes in camera angle,” the report concludes. And the analysts “found no evidence that CMP inserted dialogue not spoken by Planned Parenthood staff.”
The videos are accurate. The question now is, “Do Americans want to continue sending taxpayer dollars to an organization that is selling aborted baby body parts?”
What kind of a nation are we going to be?
The Founding Fathers attempted to create a government that included checks and balances to prevent one branch of government from becoming too powerful. Unfortunately they did not prepare for a powerful bureaucracy that would do anything it could to protect itself.
In October I posted an article about problems within the Secret Service. Various scandals have been or are being investigated by Congress. The Washington Post posted a story today about the actions taken by some employees of the Secret Service in retaliation for the investigation.
The article reports:
The Secret Service’s assistant director urged that unflattering information the agency had in its files about a congressman critical of the service should be made public, according to a government watchdog report released Wednesday.
“Some information that he might find embarrassing needs to get out,” Assistant Director Edward Lowery wrote in an e-mail to a fellow director on March 31, commenting on an internal file that was being widely circulated inside the service. “Just to be fair.”
That information was part of Chaffetz’s personnel file stored in a restricted Secret Service database and required by law to be kept private.
The House Oversight Committee is there to investigate misconduct by government agencies. It is unfortunate that the Secret Service chose to respond to an investigation into their misbehavior in this manner.
The thuggery that one associates with Chicago politics has been given free rein in Washington since the Obama Administration came to town. We have a chance to change the culture in Washington in 2016. Our freedom is at stake.
As the refugees stream into western countries, we need to think about the implications of this influx of Muslims. Most of the refugees are Muslim, for whatever reason America and Europe do not seem to be reaching out to the Christians. Accepting refugees is the humanitarian thing to do, but there are some things we need to consider. One of these things is the willingness (or unwillingness) of the refugees to adapt to western culture. There is no problem with their keeping their religion if they choose, but the refugees need to know what is acceptable behavior and what is not.
Yesterday the U.K. Daily Mail posted an article that shows what happens when Muslims bring their culture into the west and continue with those practices that are not acceptable in western culture.
The article reports:
A Muslim man has confessed to strangling his 19-year-old daughter to death with his bare hands after learning from police she had been caught shoplifting condoms to have sex with her forbidden boyfriend.
Asadullah Khan and his wife Shazia then dressed dead daughter Lareeb, a dental technician, in her clothes.
Under Sharia Law this conduct is acceptable. In western countries this is not acceptable behavior. This is one example of why Sharia Law should never be accepted in America.
The article reports:
Barack Obama told the U.N.’s General Assembly on Monday he’s concerned that “dangerous currents risk pulling us back into a darker, more disordered world.” It’s nice of the president to notice, just don’t expect him to do much about it.
Recall that it wasn’t long ago that Mr. Obama took a sunnier view of world affairs. The tide of war was receding. Al Qaeda was on a path todefeat. ISIS was “a jayvee team” in “Lakers uniforms.” Iraq was an Obama administration success story. Bashar Assad’s days werenumbered. The Arab Spring was a rejoinder to, rather than an opportunity for, Islamist violence. The intervention in Libya wasvindication for the “lead from behind” approach to intervention. The reset with Russia was a success, a position he maintained as late as September 2013. In Latin America, the “trend lines are good.”
“Overall,” as he told Tom Friedman in August 2014—shortly after ISIS had seized control of Mosul and as Vladimir Putin was muscling his way into eastern Ukraine—“I think there’s still cause for optimism.”
I like optimism, but I am also a big fan of reality. President Obama’s foreign policy has been an unmitigated disaster. His latest ‘accomplishment’–the Iran Treaty–will bring a nuclear arms race to the Middle East and eventually war. The Treaty will fill the coffers of terrorists and lead them to new heights of terrorism. Great.
The article further states:
In late-era South Africa and the Soviet Union, where men like F.W. de Klerk and Mikhail Gorbachev had a sense of shame, the Obama theory had a chance to work. In Iran in 2009, or in Syria today, it doesn’t.
(The Obama theory is was expressed in his 2009 contention in Prague that “moral leadership is more powerful than any weapon.”)
Then again, that distinction doesn’t much matter to this president, since he seems to think that seizing the moral high ground is victory enough. Under Mr. Obama, the U.S. is on “the right side of history” when it comes to the territorial sovereignty of Ukraine, or the killing fields in Syria, or the importance of keeping Afghan girls in school.
Having declared our good intentions, why muck it up with the raw and compromising exercise of power? In Mr. Obama’s view, it isn’t the man in the arena who counts. It’s the speaker on the stage.
Finally, Mr. Obama believes history is going his way. “What? Me worry?” says the immortal Alfred E. Neuman, and that seems to be the president’s attitude toward Mr. Putin’s interventions in Syria (“doomed to fail”) and Ukraine (“not so smart”), to say nothing of his sang-froid when it comes to the rest of his foreign-policy debacles.
I do believe that moral leadership is important, but I question how we can be moral leaders when we are killing over one million babies a year, selling their aborted baby parts for profit, and funding the organization doing most of the work. I believe that we have lost our morals and need to find them before we suffer the consequences of our deeds. Just because we choose to call ourselves moral does not mean that we are.
On September 23rd, The Daily Caller posted an article about Abdul Shalabi, a Guantanamo detainee and former bodyguard of Osama bin Laden. Shalabi has been released from Guantanamo and sent to Saudi Arabia.
The article reports:
Near the end of December, authorities transferred Shalabi over to U.S. custody, who then was sent to Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, where he stayed for 13 years.
At the time, the assessment determined Shalabi was too dangerous to release, but the board changed its mind in June, clearing him for release.
One wonders what caused the board to change its mind. There are now 114 prisoners left at Guantanamo. Fifty-two of those have been cleared for release.
The article further reports:
There are 52 detainees left who have been cleared for release. The rest require further detention. President Barack Obama still wants to close the prison before his term is up, and so the Pentagon has investigated domestic facilities to hold detainees in the long-term if the administration manages to shutter Gitmo.
The war against radical jihad is unlike any other war ever fought. The war is not only against America–it is a war against western civilization. It is a war that will not end until the jihadists realize that they have no hope of winning and are not gaining power. Until then there is no reason to close Guantanamo or to let any of the remaining prisoners leave. The actions of President Obama in regard to Guantanamo will cost American lives–either in the near future or the distant future. In closing Guantanamo and letting its prisoners free, President Obama is neglecting his duty to protect the American people. The President will be in office for another year. Hopefully the damage he has done to the country can be repaired after he leaves office. However, that depends on the votes of the American public.
There is a statement in the article that I really like:
In sports, if a team isn’t doing well, you fire the manager. You do this because you have to do something, and it sends a message. The fact that you can rarely blame all a team’s struggles on the manager hardly matters (which is why the Nats should fire their manager and the general manager — for giving him that sticking bullpen).
Sometimes change, in and of itself, can shake things up. Sometimes winning is as much about chemistry as it is about substance. If you like a guy personally, you’ll give him more leeway. If a guy wronged you in the past, you’ll be skeptical of him forever. Who cares if he’s no more conservative than the last guy?
As a New York Jets football fan, I can relate to that statement. However, it may be really accurate in the battle to replace John Boehner.
The odds-on favorite to be the new Speaker of the House is Kevin McCarthy, who represents a district in California. Representative McCarthy is well-spoken, handles the media well, and seems pleasant enough in dealing with the media, but he is not a conservative. The Conservative Review gives him a Liberty Score of 45 percent (hardly a passing grade). The Liberty Score® grades members of Congress on the top 50 votes over the past six years.
The Daily Signal posted an article yesterday about the possibility of Representative McCarthy as Speaker.
The article states:
If the torch is passed on to McCarthy, he will face challenges with lawmakers on both sides of the political spectrum. The Wall Street Journal said, that if elected, McCarthy “would inherit a series of messy legislative problems that could require him to risk alienating colleagues before he even acclimates to the new job.”
Mulvaney said McCarthy is a “ground-up” type of leader. But that “the important question is, will things change? Will they change for the better or will we simply replace Mr. Boehner with somebody else who will do the same thing.”
Obviously, time will tell if Representative McCarthy will be any better for conservative causes than John Boehner. However, from what I have seen, Representative McCarthy will be more accessible to conservative news outlets and has a style that works better in communicating with people of all political stripes. I want to see conservative causes advanced, but I am hopeful that in the process conservatives will be able to soften our image with the American public. I firmly believe that conservative ideas are better for America, I also firmly believe that the liberal media has so totally demonized conservatives that our ideas are not being heard. I had an interesting experience at a recent high school reunion when someone who evidently had a very negative opinion of conservatives talked to me for a while and was amazed to find out that I was actually a rational person. Representative McCarthy is a very personable politician, and I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt before reaching a conclusion about his conservatism. Admittedly, his rating from the Conservative Review is horrible, but I think we have to go back to the “Buckley Rule.” The Buckley Rule (invented by William F. Buckley) is to support the most viable conservative candidate.