Betraying Those Who Have Helped Us In The Past

The Washington Free Beacon is reporting today that the 2017 defense appropriation bill would have a devastating impact on the interpreters and other civilians in Afghanistan that worked with our troops while we were there.

The article reports:

Under the Special Immigrant Visa program, Afghans who worked as translators for the U.S. military and support operations are eligible to apply for American visas if their lives are at risk in Afghanistan.

But according to advocates for the SIV program, the latest version of the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act in the House of Representatives would limit eligibility to translators who worked directly for the U.S. military or intelligence agencies. Interpreters in other support roles, such as working with the American embassy in Kabul or for base security, would no longer be qualified for the visa program.

As U.S. troops pull out of the region and the security situation deteriorates for American allies, thousands of Afghans currently under threat from the Taliban could be impacted.

“If this becomes the law of the land, in all intents and purposes there will not be an SIV program anymore,” said Matt Zeller, a former Army captain who runs the interpreter advocacy group No One Left Behind. “And we will be outright turning our backs on a group of people we have made a fundamental promise to.”

Under the Obama Administration, America has been a horrible ally to its friends. In the future, no one will step forward to help our troops because they will not trust us to protect them in the future. Hopefully, our next President will be able to correct some of the misdeeds done by the current administration.

About That Tolerance Thing

One charge the political left is consistently making against the political right is that the political right is intolerant. However, the facts don’t always bear that out.

Yesterday The Blaze reported that Blake University in Des Moines, Iowa, turned down the request of the group Turning Point for official status as a student organization. Students had hoped to establish a Turning Point group on campus. Turning point is an apolitical organization that educates students in free markets, fiscal responsibility and limited government. Evidently these ideas were not welcome at Blake University.

The students who requested that Turning Point be given official status believe that the organization was turned down because of its conservative views. This is another example of a university that is not interested in exposing its students to a range of political thought–our universities have become centers of indoctrination rather than centers of learning.

The article reports:

Jerry Parker, associate dean of students at Drake, said that the Turning Point USA members will be required to go through the approval process again if they appeal the senate’s decision, KCCI reported.

Rachel Paine Caufield, a professor of political science who has taught at Drake for 15 years and is an advisor to the Turning Point USA group, said that she can only remember one other student organization’s application being rejected.

“I’m a firm believer that the university should provide the same opportunities to all organizations,” Caufield said, according to the Register. “I’m hopeful we will be able to meet with the students and talk about what course of action they want to take next.”

North Carolina’s Voter Identification Law Stands

Fox News 29 reported yesterday that U.S. District Judge Thomas Schroeder has ruled that the North Carolina voter identification law is constitutional. The law requires voters who appear in person to cast ballots to show an accepted form of photo identification like a driver’s license, a passport or a military ID The argument against the law is that it discriminates against minorities.

The law was in effect in the March 2016 Primary Election in North Carolina. In that election, 31.6 percent of North Carolina residents who were eligible to vote, voted. In the 2012 Primary Election in North Carolina, 31.5 percent of North Carolina residents who were eligible to vote, voted. (These figures are from the United States Election Project website.) I don’t think the identification requirement had a negative impact on voter turnout. It will be interesting to see if the new law impacts the general election.

Here are some excerpts from the Judge’s decision:

While North Carolina had a sordid history of freezing black voters out of the political process, the plaintiffs didn’t show that the law hampered the ability of minority voters to exercise electoral politics, Schroeder said.

The plaintiffs “failed to show that such disparities will have materially adverse effects on the ability of minority voters to cast a ballot and effectively exercise the electoral franchise” as a result of the 2013 state law, Schroeder wrote. That argument was made more difficult after black voter turnout increased in 2014, he wrote.

“There is significant, shameful past discrimination. In North Carolina’s recent history, however, certainly for the last quarter century, there is little official discrimination to consider,” Schroeder wrote.

North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory released the following statement:

“Common practices like boarding an airplane and purchasing Sudafed require photo ID and thankfully a federal court has ensured our citizens will have the same protection for their basic right to vote,” McCrory said in a prepared statement.

If voter turnout goes down in the general election, I wonder if it will be because only alive, registered people vote. How do minorities board planes, buy alcohol or cigarettes, or buy cough medicine?

 

The Current Administrative Branch Of Our Government Is Ignoring The Constitution

President Obama has played fast and loose with the U.S. Constitution since he took office. All of the executive orders issued altering ObamaCare after it was passed were not constitutional, and many of his other actions were not. The lack of respect for the U.S. Constitution runs rampant through the Obama Administration. The latest example can be found in the Environmental Protection Agency.

The Daily Caller is reporting today that despite the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court issued a stay on actions by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in February, the EPA is going ahead with a key part of the Clean Power Plan (CPP).

The article reports:

The EPA submitted a proposal to the White House for green energy subsidies for states that meet the federally mandated carbon dioxide reduction goals early. The Clean Energy Incentive Program would give “credit for power generated by new wind and solar projects in 2020 and 2021” and a “double credit for energy efficiency measures in low-income communities,” according to Politico’s Morning Energy.

Generally speaking, ‘clean energy’ is more expensive than traditional electricity-generating sources. Companies involved in green energy are generally heavily subsidized by the government and could not exist without those subsidies. If green energy is ever going to be a reality, we have to let the free market come in and play a role in the industry. That way, inexpensive technology may develop that will give us reasonable green energy.

The article further reports:

EPA has been moving forward with aspects of the CPP despite the Supreme Court’s decision. After the court’s February decision, EPA began signalling it would continue to work with states that want to “voluntarily” move forward.

“Are we going to respect the decision of the Supreme Court? You bet, of course we are,” McCarthy told utility executives in February. “But it doesn’t mean it’s the only thing we’re working on and it doesn’t mean we won’t continue to support any state that voluntarily wants to move forward.”

Likewise, the head of EPA’s air and radiation office, Janet McCabe, has also suggested the rule will eventually be upheld.

“EPA utility rules have been stayed twice before, and ultimately upheld,” McCabe said while participating in a panel discussion in Bloomington, Ind., last week. “It’s only smart for states to keep working on this.”

“We stand ready at EPA to help any state that wants to move forward with their planning activities,” McCabe said, noting that some states pledged to cut CO2 after the Supreme Court stayed CPP.

Whether or not the EPA’s plan is valid is not the point–the Supreme Court has ruled it unconstitutional. Does anyone in the Obama Administration listen to the Supreme Court?

Sometimes The Media Just Lies

The HB2 bill in North Carolina has stirred up a lot of controversy. I have been called a bigot because I don’t want men in women’s bathrooms or locker rooms. I have repeatedly stated that I am not concerned about the transgender population, I am concerned with the people who will use transgender as a cloak for nefarious activities. It is instructive that the original spokesperson for allowing men in women’s bathrooms is a registered sex offender.

There was a rally in Raleigh yesterday. There were people there who support HB2 and there were people there who oppose HB2. The people who oppose HB2 made a great show of delivering boxes of petitions supporting their stand. But wait—exactly what was in those boxes?

Governor McCrory’s website posted some interesting pictures of the contents of the boxes:

The anonymously-funded, national smear campaign led by the Human Rights Campaign is grossly misrepresenting information about the petitions delivered to State Capitol today. Contrary to the media reports, the activists only delivered enough petitions to fill two boxes and the overwhelming majority of signatures were from out-of-state. The stacks on the right in each photo consists of out-of-state signatures.

HB2

HB2aIn comparison, here’s a photo of the boxes posted online by a reporter at the HRC press conference:

HB2bIf all you watch is the mainstream media, the above picture is what you saw. The truth is in the previous two pictures. There is some serious manipulation going on here. Most parents do not want boys or men in their daughter’s bathrooms or locker rooms. The aim of this picture is to make those parents feel as though they are a minority. Don’t be fooled.

Something Parents Of School Children Need To Know

The information below is from a friend who has done a lot of research on what is happening in our schools.

A bill called Strengthening Research Through Education Act, (SETRA for short, Senate bill 227) has passed the U.S. Senate through a “voice” vote, but has not cleared the House.

Section 132 of SETRA allows expansion of federal education research into the area of “social and emotional learning”. I find this alarming that instead of focusing on academics, the children will have their thoughts, attitudes, beliefs, grit, perseverance and behaviors up for interpretation in a highly subjective environment. This is data collection at it’s worst, and in my opinion, a violation of the rights to privacy our constitution allows.

Section 157 of SETRA would allow the input of social emotional learning to be input into a longitudinal data system that could potentially follow the children for their entire lives.

Social Emotional Learning has no clear definition in federal law. It is subjective. It is intrusive, and does not belong in the school house.

It is also concerning that NAEP will also be assessing mindsets, another description for the social emotional learning.

The federal government has no constitutional authority (under the 10th amendment) to be involved in education, much less doing research and collecting data on our innocent children.

Note that it passed with a voice vote. That means we do not know who voted for it or who voted against it. How can we hold our elected officials accountable if we don’t know how they vote?

American courts have already ruled against this practice:

The NAEP categories examining “mindsets” directly impact the fundamental liberty interest which parents possess in overseeing the upbringing and education of their children. As the Supreme Court has repeatedly held (as recently as 2000 in Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000), parents, not the state and its functionaries, are the ones possessed with the ultimate authority over the parents’ own children: “The fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments in this Union repose excludes any general power of the State to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction…The child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.” Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925) (Emphasis added). “It is cardinal with us that the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor hinder. . .” Prince v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944). “The history and culture of Western civilization reflect a strong tradition of parental concern for the nurture and upbringing of their children. This primary role of the parents in the upbringing of their children is now established beyond debate as an enduring American tradition.” Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972).

In February, Townhall.com reported:

ESSA also calls for an extensive “family engagement policy,” which, according to a recent policy draft by the U.S. Departments of Education and the Department of Health and Human Services, will begin prenatally and continue “throughout a child’s developmental and educational experiences.”

Along the way, say the bureaucratic behemoths, the government must “prioritize engagement around children’s social-emotional and behavioral health.”

In plain language, this means the government will assess children every single step (or crawl) of the way, from cradle to career, to be certain they acquire all the attitudes, beliefs, and dispositions the omniscient, omnipotent government deems they must have. SEL, baby, SEL.

Uncle Shrink approves, but what about U.S. parents? Are they ready to let the government assume their child-rearing responsibilities?

For further information, see the following articles:

http://edlibertywatch.org/2016/04/constitutional-statutory-privacy-concerns-with-assessing-mindsets-in-the-naep/

http://thepulse2016.com/karen-r-effrem/2016/01/04/13210/

http://edlibertywatch.org/2016/02/new-details-on-the-dangerous-social-emotional-research-in-setra/

http://townhall.com/columnists/emmettmcgroarty/2016/04/15/why-does-your-congressman-want-to-psychologically-profile-your-children-n2148674

http://townhall.com/columnists/robertholland/2016/02/29/do-parents-want-their-children-on-uncle-shrinks-couch-n2126567

Preparing To Steal An Election

Terry McAuliffe has long been associated with the Clinton family and their political aspirations. Now, as governor of Virginia, he is attempting to make sure that Hillary Clinton carries that state in November.

National Review posted an article today about Governor McAuliffe’s efforts.

The article reports:

In what is likely an unconstitutional state action seemingly calculated to ensure that the purple state of Virginia goes blue in the November election, Governor Terry McAuliffe (D.) signed an order on Friday restoring the voting rights of 206,000 ex-felons in Virginia, including those convicted of murder, armed robbery, rape, sexual assault, and other violent crimes. The order also restores their right to sit on a jury, become a notary, and even serve in elected office.

McAuliffe believes that ex-felons can be trusted to make decisions in the ballot booth and the jury box but apparently not to own a gun. He draws the line at restoring their Second Amendment rights; that would be a bridge too far.

So what is the problem with this? First of all, the Governor does not make the laws–the legislature does.

The article further explains:

Having a waiting period, examining each ex-felon’s application for restoration of rights carefully and individually, and differentiating between violent and nonviolent crimes is exactly the system that Virginia had — at least until Friday’s order. In a three-page summary released by the governor’s office, McAuliffe asserts that any claim that he doesn’t have the authority to grant a blanket restoration of rights is “far-outside the weight of constitutional authority across the nation and would read into the text of the Virginia Constitution words that simply are not there.” This is just legal gibberish — the weight of constitutional authority “across the nation” has no bearing on interpreting the Virginia constitution. McAuliffe is reading into that constitution authority he does not have.
The article goes on to explain that this action does not conform to the Virginia Constitution. It overturns a provision that has been in the Virginia Constitution since the Civil War-era. It will be interesting if the Virginia Legislature overturns his action.

How Many Americans Are Actually Working?

We don’t hear a lot about the Labor Force Participation Rate, but it is an important part of the American economy. It is an indication of how many Americans are actually working. The current unemployment rate is somewhere around 5 percent, but without looking at the Labor Force Participation Rate, that number really does not mean much. The 5 percent does not include those people who have given up looking for a job, that is why the Labor Participation Rate is important.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics website includes these two charts that give a clearer picture of the American economy:

LaborForceParticipationLaborForceParticipation2As you can see, we have been losing ground since 2007. It is time to shrink government, limit government regulations, and allow Americans to prosper. Consider this as you decide how to vote in the upcoming election in November. Hillary Clinton would be the third term of President Obama. If we want the above numbers to change, we need to vote for someone who will change our economic direction.

Israel Is Still Under Attack

On Friday, CBN News posted an article about a recent Israel Defense Force action in southern Israel.

The article reports:

The Israel Defense Forces, in tandem with the Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency), discovered and neutralized an infiltration tunnel dug under the border with the Gaza Strip into southern Israel.

IDF Col. (res.) Atai Shelach, former commander of Yahalom, an elite combat engineering unit that destroys the attack tunnels, told journalists in a phone interview that Hamas has acquired “more ability and capabilities than in past years.”

“They’ve proven their ability [and are] using more technologies,” he said. “This is one of the main tools the terror organizations have in their hands.”

Shelach said the terrorists “could do almost anything with this technology, from kidnapping citizens and soldiers to penetrating Israel with ammunition, booby traps and so on.”

A IDF statement said it was the first tunnel discovered since Operation Protective Edge in the summer of 2014.

The article comments on where the terrorists obtained the money to build the tunnel:

IDF Spokesman Lt. Col. Peter Lerner said the discovery points to Hamas’ cynical use of funds and material donated to refurbish homes damaged in the IDF’s military response to Hamas rocket fire in the summer of 2014.

“The ugly truth is that Hamas continues to invest millions of dollars to build tunnels of terror and death,” Lerner said in a statement. “The tunnel uncovered in Israel demonstrates once more Hamas’ warped priorities and continued commitment and investment in tools of violence. This tunnel exposes Hamas’ abhorrent intentions to attack men, women and children in southern Israel.”

This is a glaring example of why America and other western countries need to rethink their policies of aid to the Gaza Strip. The money given to the Gaza Strip does not go where America and other countries want it to go–it goes to fund terrorism and build tunnels for terrorists. If we continue funding these activities (knowingly or unknowingly), then we are partially responsible for funding the attacks on Israel. That is not something we want to encourage.

 

The Attack On Christianity In Turkey

The U.K. Express posted an article on Friday about the attack on Christian churches in Turkey.

The article reports:

President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has taken control of six churches in the war-torn southeastern city of Diyarbakir in his latest move to squash freedom of speech and religious movement. 

The state-sanctioned seizure is just the latest in a number of worrying developments to come out of increasingly hardline Turkey, which is in advanced talks with the EU over visa-free travel for its 80 million citizens.

Included in the seizures are Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox churches, one of which is over 1,700 years old.

The churches are now considered state property.

The article reports the ‘justification’ for seizing the churches:

The order to seize the churches was made on March 25 by Erdogan’s council of ministers, according to the website World Watch Monitor. 

They claim it was made on the grounds that authorities intend to rebuild and restore the historical centre of the city, which has been partially destroyed by 10 months of urban conflict between government forces and militants from the Kurdish Workers’ Party (PKK). 

President Erdogan has been moving Turkey toward a caliphate since he took office. He has replaced many of the top military leaders in the country with Islamists who support Sharia Law. He has moved away from his alliance with Israel and closer to alliances with Muslim Countries. He has also used the Syrian Civil War as a shield to hide his actions against the Kurds. He does not want the Kurds to have their own country, and has been using the cover of the Syrian Civil War to attack them as they have been fighting ISIS.

Christians in the Middle East are under attack. The only country where they are safe is Israel. Israel is also the country in the Middle East where the Arabs who live there have the most freedom and there is a Middle Class. Israel is truly the only free country in the Middle East.

Would This Man Just Please Go Away?

Like a lot of Republicans right now, I am not necessarily thrilled with the way the primary elections are going. I support Ted Cruz, but would vote for Donald Trump before I would vote for Hillary Clinton. Staying home would only elect Hillary Clinton, so I am not interested in doing that. But then, we have the problem (and I do mean problem) of John Kasich.

John Kasich is still in this race because the establishment Republicans are funding him. They hope that he will beat either Ted Cruz or Donald Trump. They support John Kasich because he will do their bidding–Ted Cruz or Donald Trump will not. John Kasich would be a disaster for America. His nomination would probably destroy the Republican party. However, the people supporting him want to hold on to their power, and they see nominating him as the way to do that. Even if he loses, they won’t have to deal with an outsider in the White House who claims to be a Republican. So what are the chances of John Kasich winning the Republican nomination for President? Unfortunately, the chances are better than they deserve to be.

Real Clear Politics posted an article with some interesting quotes:

“And guess what, I’ve got friends who are going to be on the Rules Committee,” the Ohio governor said. “We don’t know who is going on the rules committee yet. And thirdly, people can be nominated from the floor.”

…”They’re not going to be the nominee,” Kasich replied. “Do you you think delegates are going to go to a convention and pick somebody who can’t even win?”

Cavuto presses Kasich on the fact that right now under the current RNC rules, he is inelligible to even be considered for nomination at the convention. Under the rules adopted in 2012 a candidate must have won eight states. Kasich has won one state.

Kasich says no, “that is false information. I don’t know where you guys get this stuff,” he said about the 2012 Republican convention rules.

“There are no rules at this convention,” before it starts Kasich said. “The Rules Committee hasn’t even met. They haven’t even been selected.”

“They’re not going to change any rules. You don’t change rules that haven’t been set,” he argued. The Rules Committee sets whatever rules it wants to before each convention, based subjectively on how the Rules Committee members feel about the candidates, Kasich explains.

Cavuto argues, “you know this governor as well as I,” about the 2012 rules. “There is a rule from the last time around,” Cavuto explains about the eight state requirment. “That would have to be changed to accomodate you.”

“Every convention sets its own rules,” Kasich said.

If the Republican convention nominates John Kasich for President, they will be following their tradition of forming a circular firing squad in an effort for a few people to hold onto power. If they are that stupid, they deserve to lose, and the party needs to disband. The work (and energy) in the Republican party in recent years has been in the Conservative movement, and the party has fought it from the beginning. If the party goes through with a plan to nominate John Kasich for President, I believe a conservative party will form and replace the Republicans.

Using Our Criminal Justice System Against Us

In August 2004, a car was pulled over by a Maryland Transportation Authority Police officer on the Chesapeake Bay Bridge. A woman in the car was filming the bridge, and the officer observed that she was not filming the scenery, but the support structures of the bridge. The man driving the car was Ismail Elbarasse. There was sufficient evidence to get a warrant to search his home. The FBI found a sub-basement in the home that contained the archives of the Muslim Brotherhood in North America. The Muslim Brotherhood planned ‘civilization jihad’ in America–essentially they planned to infiltrate our government and use our freedoms and legal system against us. The eventual goal was to turn America into a Muslim nation with Sharia Law. That goal has not changed. (You can find a synopsis of the Holy Land Foundation Trial–the result of this investigation–at the Center for Security Policy website.) With that in mind, I bring you the following story.

On Friday, Fox News reported that a man in Minnesota charged with trying to join ISIS stated that he wanted to set up an infiltration route for ISIS members from Mexico to America’s southern border. (It’s not like coming across the southern U.S. border actually presents that much of a problem).

The article reports:

Guled Ali Omar told the ISIS members about the route so that it could be used to send members to America to carry out terrorist attacks, prosecutors alleged in a document filed this week.

The document, filed Wednesday, is one of many filed in recent weeks as prosecutors and defense attorneys argue about which evidence should be allowed at the men’s trial, which starts May 9.

The men — Omar, 21; Hamza Naj Ahmed, 21; Mohamed Abdihamid Farah, 22; and Abdirahman Yasin Daud, 22 — have pleaded not guilty to multiple charges, including conspiracy to commit murder outside the U.S. Prosecutors have said they were part of a group of friends in Minnesota’s Somali community who held secret meetings and plotted to join the Islamic State group.

Five other men have pleaded guilty to one count each of conspiracy to support a foreign terrorist organization. A tenth man charged in the case is at-large, believed to be in Syria.

As I said in the opening paragraph of this article, one strategy  of the Islamists is to use our legal system against us. This is very obvious in the way this case is being handled.

The article reports:

Last week, Daud’s attorney wrote that, absent any specific evidence that his client threatened the United States, any references to discussions about attacks would be prejudicial. To permit such references, as well as references to the Sept. 11 attacks or exhibits that show violent images of war crimes, “would cause the jurors to decide out of fear and contempt alone,” defense attorney Bruce Nestor wrote.

But prosecutors said audio recordings obtained during the investigation show the defendants spoke multiple times about the possibility of attacks in the U.S. Among them, Omar spoke of establishing a route for fighters, Farah spoke of killing an FBI agent and another man who pleaded guilty talked about shooting a homemade rocket at an airplane.

Prosecutors wrote that they should be allowed to “play for the jury the defendants’ own words, in which they discuss the possibility of returning to attack the United States.” They also said the defendants watched videos and gruesome images, which they also want to play for the jury, and that a blanket ban on mentioning the 2001 attacks is inappropriate, noting that Omar had pictures of the burning World Trade Center towers and Osama bin Laden on his cellphone.

As I said, they are using our legal system against us. I need to mention here that there is not a direct link between ISIS and the Muslim Brotherhood. In fact, I suspect the Muslim Brotherhood is not happy with ISIS–ISIS is exposing what the Quran says about how infidels should be treated. However, both ISIS and the Muslim Brotherhood have the same goal–establishing a worldwide caliphate. The differences are in how to do it and who will run it. The Muslim Brotherhood believes in civilization jihad–infiltrating the government and taking away peoples’ rights quietly without the population realizing what is being done. That is what the term ‘hate speech’ is about. Eventually ‘hate speech’ will become a term used to describe anything negative said about Muslims or Islam. That is also what the term ‘Islamophobia’ is about. There is no such thing. It is a made-up word to make people hesitate before criticizing Islam. Both words are a means of subtle intimidation aimed at undermining American’s First Amendment rights.

We are in danger of losing our country. There are a few things we need to do. First of all, we need to secure our borders so that we know who is coming in and going out of our country. Second of all, we need to put FBI informers in areas where there is a concentration of people who have historically supported terrorism (there have been a number of young men from the Somali community who have left America and joined ISIS). Third, we need to encourage (strongly) people who come to America to assimilate. Previous groups that immigrated here learned the language and became Americans. They kept aspects of their culture–that’s why we have great Italian, Chinese, Greek, etc. restaurants here–but became Americans. If you choose to live here, you need to live as an American–you may continue to follow your customs–not eating pork, not drinking, etc.–but you cannot expect to impose those customs on Americans. You have come here by choice. If you do not like our customs, please go somewhere else.

Finally, we need a President who will control our borders and take seriously his responsibility to protect Americans.

Speaking The Truth By Accident

Investor’s Business Daily posted an article yesterday about statements made by Lena Moffitt, who runs the Sierra Club’s Beyond Dirty Fuels campaign. The Sierra Club has been very active in ‘the war on coal,’ causing thousands of middle-class Americans to lose their jobs.

The article reports:

Here is what Lena Moffitt, who runs the Sierra Club’s Beyond Dirty Fuels campaign, says: “‎We have moved to a very clear and firm and vehement position of opposing gas. Our board recently passed a policy that we oppose any new gas-fired power plants. We also have a policy opposing fracking on our books.”

The article points out:

natural gas is a clean-burning fuel that is reducing greenhouse gas emissions and real pollutants, too. There have been no reported cases of water contamination from fracking technology, as even the Obama administration has admitted. But facts don’t matter much in this debate.

…In the same interview with S&P Global Market Intelligence, she admitted: “We are doing everything we can to bring the same expertise that we brought to taking down the coal industry and coal-fired power in this country to taking on gas in the same way.”

‎”I look forward to seeing the same success brought to taking down gas plants to ensure that we’re actually moving to a 100% clean energy future,” she continued. “That is the one Sierra Club policy that we are all working toward: getting us to 100% clean energy, which, of course, would include no new gas.”

It would be interesting to know exactly who funds the Sierra Club. Their war on American energy is not helpful either to the American economy or the American national security. Although the idea of sustainable green energy is attractive, it is not yet commercially (or governmentally) feasible. When we discover a perpetual motion machine, we may find the green energy solution for power right next to it. I’m not holding my breath.

Spain attempted a number of years ago to switch from carbon fuel to green energy. The policy nearly bankrupted the country, and Spain was forced to go back to fossil fuels. As of right now, green energy is not reliable twenty-four hours a day–it has to be supplemented. Therefore, you still have to have fossil-fueled energy plants. The war on American energy is a really destructive idea–it hurts the middle-class Americans that politicians keep saying they want to help.

I Guess Reality Is Optional

Breitbart.com posted an article today about some recent statements President Obama made while visiting Britain.

The article reports:

“Saving the world economy from a Great Depression — that was pretty good,” Obama bragged when asked by a student in London what he wanted his legacy to be.

He recalled that when he visited London in 2009, the world economy was in a “freefall” because of irresponsible behavior of financial institutions around the world.

“For us to be able to mobilize the world’s community, to take rapid action, to stabilize the financial markets, and then in the United States to pass Wall Streets reforms that make it much less likely that a crisis like that can happen again, I’m proud of that,” he said.

Obama also touted his Iran nuclear deal as “something I’m very proud of” asserting that he successfully stopped their nuclear weapons program without going to war.

He griped that everybody forgot about his efforts in stopping the Ebola crisis, saving “hundreds of thousands of lives.”

“I think that I have been true to myself during this process,” Obama said, insisting that the things he said while running for office “matched up” with his presidency.

“I’ll look at a scorecard in the end,” he concluded. “Change takes time. Oftentimes what you start has then to be picked up by your successors or the next generation.”

He added that the fight for change was like a relay race and that he was prepared to pass the baton to his successor.

“Hopefully they’re running in the right direction,” he joked.

I don’t know what to say, but I will attempt to deal with one comment at a time.

President Obama did not save the world from a Great Depression, and the financial crisis was not caused by the behavior of the financial institutions. The financial crisis was caused by Congressional action that encouraged bad lending policies. Reforming Wall Street does nothing that is related to the financial meltdown–the reforms only make it more complicated for the people who work on Wall Street to do their jobs.

This is an old video, but it needs to be shared everywhere:

The Iran nuclear deal is a disaster. Use the search engine at the top of the blog to see what I have written about it in the past. It represents a shift in American policy from fighting terrorism to funding it.

The Ebola crisis was stopped–by the Center for Disease Control working closely with doctors. The President had very little to do with it.

I guess in the final year of the Obama Administration, reality will be optional.

Ever Wonder About The People Who Create Holidays?

Townhall.com posted an article today about the founder of Earth Day. The man was seriously into composting.

The article reports:

Ira Einhorn was on stage hosting the first Earth Day event at the Fairmount Park in Philadelphia on April 22, 1970. Seven years later, police raided his closet and found the “composted” body of his ex-girlfriend inside a trunk.

A self-proclaimed environmental activist, Einhorn made a name for himself among ecological groups during the 1960s and ’70s by taking on the role of a tie-dye-wearing ecological guru and Philadelphia’s head hippie. With his long beard and gap-toothed smile, Einhorn — who nicknamed himself “Unicorn” because his German-Jewish last name translates to “one horn” —advocated flower power, peace and free love to his fellow students at the University of Pennsylvania. He also claimed to have helped found Earth Day.

Taking care of the earth is something we should all do every day. I suppose it is nice that we take one day a year and celebrate our home. However, like anything else, taking care of the earth has to be done in a way that respects all aspects of life.

I was at the aquarium with some of my granddaughters yesterday and picked up a book for young readers. It was pure propaganda. Rational human beings need to take over the environmental movement. so far that hasn’t happened.

 

This Used To Be Called Obstruction Of Justice

The Washington Free Beacon posted an article yesterday about the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails and email server. I know everyone is getting sick of this story, but that is by design. The guilty parties in this sordid story have a vested interest in dragging it out until everyone loses interest so that the culprits can go free.

However, the story in the Washington Free Beacon is very relevant to the investigation:

State Department officials removed files from the secretary’s office related to the Benghazi attack in Libya and transferred them to another department after receiving a congressional subpoena last spring, delaying the release of the records to Congress for over a year.

Attorneys for the State Department said the electronic folders, which contain hundreds of documents related to the Benghazi attack and Libya, were belatedly rediscovered at the end of last year.

They said the files had been overlooked by State Department officials because the executive secretary’s office transferred them to another department and flagged them for archiving last April, shortly after receiving a subpoena from the House Select Committee on Benghazi.

If you believe that these files were accidentally lost, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I would like to sell you. You can even have the tolls that are collected. Seriously, this used to be called obstruction of justice. However, it has become routine under the Obama Administration. Note that the files were removed after the congressional subpoena. A charge of obstruction of justice or contempt of Congress would be appropriate. I suspect that neither will occur. This is how you slow-walk an investigation so that by the time the truth comes out, people will be too tired to listen.

The article further reports:

The House Benghazi Committee requested documents from the secretary’s office in a subpoena filed in March 2015. Congressional investigators met with the head of the executive secretary’s office staff to discuss its records maintenance system and the scope of the subpoena last April. That same month, State Department officials sent the electronic folders to another bureau for archiving, and they were not searched in response to the request.

The blunder could raise new questions about the State Department’s records process, which has come under scrutiny from members of Congress and government watchdogs. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, blasted the State Department’s Freedom of Information Act process as “broken” in January, citing “systematic failures at the agency.”

The inspector general for the State Department also released a report criticizing the agency’s public records process in January. The report highlighted failures in the executive secretary’s office, which responds to records requests for the Office of the Secretary.

I hope that in November the American people will clean house in Washington. This total disregard for the law is not healthy for America.

Overlooking The Obvious

The U.K. Express posted an article yesterday about President Obama’s visit to the United Kingdom. The article included some interesting observations:

The article reports:

But senior Tory Iain Duncan Smith said it was “strange” for the president to advocate a surrender of power to Brussels that Americans would never accept.

The former Cabinet minister said: “I have a huge amount of respect for America’s unrelenting commitment to the patriotic principle of self-governance.

“President Obama and his predecessors have ferociously protected the sovereignty of the USA and I wish we could say the same of our leaders.

“What I do find strange is that he is asking the British people to accept a situation that he patently would not recommend to the American population.”

The former Cabinet minister said: “I have a huge amount of respect for America’s unrelenting commitment to the patriotic principle of self-governance.

“President Obama and his predecessors have ferociously protected the sovereignty of the USA and I wish we could say the same of our leaders.

“What I do find strange is that he is asking the British people to accept a situation that he patently would not recommend to the American population.”

The former Cabinet minister is overlooking one basic fact. Regardless of whether or not President Obama was actually born in America (just for the record, I believe he was), he does not represent the basic values of America. President Obama does not have a lot of respect for American sovereignty. He has allowed the United Nations to dictate American policy regarding refugees from Syria, and he has supported United Nations treaties that would clearly undermine American sovereignty and the U.S. Constitution. I think his stand on the United Kingdom and the European Union is perfectly consistent with his core beliefs. Because of the legacy of his father regarding the British, he sees both Britain and America as imperialistic countries. There is nothing in his background that has taught him to respect or value the sovereignty of western countries.

This is another example of President Obama moving away from the friends of America. He has not treated the British with the respect they deserve since he took office. Hopefully the next American President will repair the damage President Obama has done to our relationships with our allies.

Following The Money

Hot Air is reporting today that an Associated Press review of speaking fees paid to Hillary Clinton showed that almost all of the companies that paid large fees had lobbied either the Obama Administration or the State Department.

The article reports:

Part of the premise of the AP’s research seems to be that people paying Clinton $200k plus per speech assumed her career in politics was not over when she left the State Department. As the AP puts it, “Their interests would follow Clinton to the White House should she win election this fall.”

Clinton has been under pressure to release transcripts of some of her speeches, especially by Bernie Sanders who has made it a regular part of his stump speech. Politico reported in February that Clinton’s speeches to Wall Street firms were nothing unusual but were very positive in a way that might not play well in a Democratic primary.

There is nothing wrong with being well paid for making speeches. However, buying influence is a different matter. I suspect Hillary Clinton is not the only Washington politician guilty of accepting large speaking fees from individuals or corporations attempting to influence policy. However, voters need to ask themselves whether they want to elect someone to the White House who has so obviously abused the system. The Clintons seem to have had the ability to leave the White House ‘broke’ and suddenly have a net worth that should make any Democrat blush. It really is time for them to ride quietly into the sunset.

Be Careful What You Support

Investor’s Business Daily is reporting that a week after California Gov. Jerry Brown signed the state’s $15 minimum wage boost into law, UC Berkeley Chancellor Nicholas Dirks sent a memo to employees announcing that 500 jobs were getting cut.

The article reports:

Those workers might want to have a chat with the folks at UC Berkeley’s Center for Labor Research, who just days before Brown signed the wage-hike bill released a study touting the minimum wage as a boon to low-income household breadwinners.

After that report came out, Ken Jacobs, chairman of the UC Berkeley center, told the Los Angeles Times, “This is a very big deal for low-wage workers in California, for their families and for their children.”

It is a big deal, as well, to those soon to be out of work UC Berkeley workers.

But why is anyone surprised about jobs cuts following a wage hike? It’s one of the most basic laws of economics. Any high school kid taking Econ 101 can explain it:  If you raise the price of something, demand goes down.

Keep in mind, too, that a $15 minimum wage is more than twice the federal minimum wage today. And it would set the wage floor higher than it’s ever been. On an inflation-adjusted basis, the minimum wage peaked in 1968 at just over $10 an hour.

In a strong economy, raising the minimum wage might not be as much of a problem, but in an economy that is not rapidly expanding, companies simply do not have a large enough profit margin to handle the increase in the cost of employees. The demand for an increase in the minimum wage also overlooks the fact that most of the people who hold minimum-wage jobs are people who are just entering the work force. It is in that entry-level job that new employees learn basic skills–such as showing up on time, following directions, being responsible, etc. Those minimum-wage jobs give young people the skills they need to move on to higher-paying jobs. Increasing the minimum wage to the point where there will be less minimum-wage jobs accomplishes nothing positive. Unfortunately, it has become a Democratic policy talking point, and because of that, more young people who support this idea will lose their jobs if they succeed in increasing the minimum wage.

This Isn’t Good For Our Society

Breakpoint posted an article today about the intolerance our culture is currently showing toward those who hold Biblical beliefs.

The article includes a wonderful comment about popular conceptions of open-mindedness:

You’ve seen those ridiculous “Coexist” bumper stickers, right? You know, the ones where the word is spelled out using religious symbols from Christianity, Islam, Paganism, Gay rights, Judaism, and so on?

I call it ridiculous because, as someone once wrote: “The C wants to kill the E, X, T, and the O. The O offers peaceful non-resistance, which will be ineffective if real trouble breaks out. The E feels like it’s been oppressed, making it intolerant of the C, the X, and the T. The I and the S are numerically irrelevant, but are just necessary to spell out the word. And the sticker is mostly directed at the T (or the Christian), who ironically poses no threat whatsoever to any of the others.”

In other words, the “Coexist” bumper sticker slogan assumes that each ideology be emptied of its actual conviction if its to work. And according to Colson Center board member Jennifer Marshall, that’s what big business is currently trying to sell to the American people.

The article points out that those who claim that they are in favor of coexistence are not willing to coexist themselves. A recently-passed Mississippi law allows those who hold Biblical beliefs on homosexuality to refuse to participate in homosexual weddings and to allow their religious convictions determine their rental policies if they are landlords. The law simply prevents discrimination against those who hold Biblical beliefs on matters regarding homosexuality.

The article concludes:

“Mississippi’s policy shows that we can coexist,” Marshall says. “Why would big business oppose that?”

That’s a good question given the number of times large corporate entities have entered these hot debates just in the last few years. Think of all of the corporate-led attacks and blackmail against common-sense religious freedom legislation in Arizona, Indiana, Georgia, North Carolina, and now Mississippi. And then think of the bakers, florists, and photographers in places such as New Mexico, Colorado and Washington State who have been forced to choose between their beliefs and ruinous fines forcing them out of business. They were not allowed to co-exist, at least not without compromising their convictions.

As Jennifer Marshall points out, true advocates of cultural coexistence seek conscience protections for all, not just those who adhere to the vision of the sexual revolution. Citing a poll that says 63 percent of state residents support the law, Jennifer writes, “Citizens in Mississippi and elsewhere are looking for solutions that defuse cultural tension over issues of sexual orientation and gender identity . . .The corporate establishment’s campaign against these common sense policies disregards all that. Citizens would do well to see through the big business marketing blitz against religious liberty. This corporate messaging puts neither the common good nor constitutional principle first.”

The First Amendment states:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Living life according to your beliefs is one example of the free exercise of your religion. The group shaming of Christian beliefs is not only damaging to our culture, it is unconstitutional.