The Silly Season Is In Full Swing

The Silly Season usually occurs a few months before an election, but because of the importance of this Presidential election, it has begun more than a year early. I will be posting comments on the Silly Season as it progresses, but I have a few comments on the early events.

It is interesting to me that both parties have people out of the party establishment doing very well. The Democratic Party establishment does not love Bernie Sanders, and the Republican Party establishment does not love Donald Trump. Neither man would be willing to follow orders from the party establishment if he actually become President. We could debate whether or not that is a good thing, but we need to understand that the party establishments fear that threat.

So what should we learn from this? This is a temper tantrum by Americans on both sides of the political spectrum. People of all political stripes are tired of having their wishes ignored by the political elites who are currently in control of Washington, D.C. We have phoned, emailed, faxed, held rallies, formed tea parties, formed occupy Wall Street, and all but stood on our heads and spit wooden nickels, and Washington has chosen to ignore us. I think it would be a mistake to elect either Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump, but I think the energy around their campaigns is something that the establishment in Washington needs to take note of.

There is another aspect of this campaign season I find interesting. Below is a chart showing voter participation by age:

As you can see, senior citizens vote. If you are 65, in 2012 you were born in 1947. You were part of the generation the lived through major cultural changes in America. Some of you protested the War in Vietnam; some of you served in the War in Vietnam. Some of you attended Woodstock. Some of you did drugs. Some of you didn’t do drugs. Some of you fought for legal abortion; some of you protested legal abortion. You are a very diverse generation that has had a lot of influence from the time you were born because of your size. This is the generation that will determine our next President. It is a generation of diverse politics, independent thinkers, and stubborn mules. It is a generation that has never been afraid to fight the ‘establishment.’ It will be interesting to see what they do next.

Note The Change In The Pictures

The picture below was posted by a friend on Facebook. He noted the lack of American flags at the recent rally. I would also like to mention that The New York Times chose to use the picture on its front page that did not include former President George W. Bush and his wife Laura. The U.K Telegraph posted an article showing how President Bush and his wife were cropped from the right side of the photo.

civilrightsmarch

When American flags are absent from a civil rights rally, we have forgotten who we are. When a former President is cropped from the picture, someone is making an effort to politicize freedom.

The Truth On Climate Change Is Slowly Coming Out

Global warming is the latest gimmick by some establishment politicians (on both sides of the aisle) to gain more control over the way Americans live. Somehow all of the suggested solutions will cripple healthy economies, limit personal freedom in America, and give money to dictators in banana republics. The major polluters–China and India–remain unaffected by any suggested solutions. Those of us who are skeptical have been called everything from morons to the modern day flat earth society. Again I would like to mention that the best scientific website on climate is wattsupwiththat. Meanwhile, some of the scientists forced to skew their results to promote the idea of global warming are beginning to speak out.

A website called JoNova has posted an article about the skewing of science to support the political theory of global warming.

The article states:

David Dilley, NOAA Meteorologist, tells how for 15 years work on man-made climate change was pushed while work on natural cycles was actively suppressed. Grants connecting climate change to a man-made crisis were advertised, while the word went around to heads of departments that even mentioning natural cycles would threaten the flow of government funds. Speeches about natural cycles were mysteriously canceled at the last minute with bizarre excuses.

But jobs are on the line, so only retired workers can really speak, and no one can name names.

We can corroborate David Dilley’s remarks. Indeed, he is probably just one of many skeptics hidden in the ranks of NOAA.  Way back in 2007, David Evans got an email from a different insider within NOAA, around the time he started talking publicly about the missing hotspot. The insider said, remarkably: “As a Meteorologist working for [snip, name of division] it has been clear to me, as well as every single other scientist I know at NOAA, that man can not be the primary cause of global warming and that the predictions of “gloom and doom” due to rising temperatures is ridiculous”.

…Dilley was invited to speak about natural cycles (at the University of Maine), but just before the event mysterious “staff shortages” meant his speech was canceled. Oddly, a different speech suddenly appeared in it’s place.

Considering the cost of college tuition these days, shouldn’t students be allowed to hear both sides of an argument?

A Short Story With A Big Impact

Yesterday CNN posted a very short article that may have a big impact on the politics of the Middle East.

The article reports:

In what could be the largest natural gas discovery in history, Italian energy company Eni says it has unearthed a “supergiant” gas field in the Mediterranean Sea covering about 40 square miles.

The gas field could hold a potential of 30 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Eni says that’s the energy equivalent of about 5.5 billion barrels of oil. The company won’t know the field’s true size until it begins to develop it.

Eni already has a presence in Egypt and expects to be able to develop the field quickly. It is possible that the field could satisfy the natural gas needs of Egypt for decades to come.

So why is this important? As the wealth from this discovery flows into Egypt, we can expect the Muslim Brotherhood to become more active in the country. Egypt has been one of the few countries in the Middle East to deal with the Muslim Brotherhood successfully. This is somewhat ironic since the Muslim Brotherhood began in Egypt. Egypt has been dealing with the Muslim Brotherhood since 1928. The Brotherhood was responsible for the assassination of Anwar Sadat and played a role in the ousting of Hosni Mubarak. At various times in its history, Egypt has jailed and executed members of the Muslim Brotherhood. Since the Muslim Brotherhood government that was set up after Hosni Mubarak was ousted, Egypt has been moving toward peace with Israel and alliances with western countries. This discovery should mean that Egypt will continue to move in that direction.

What Do You Do When The Money Runs Out?

One of my favorite bumper stickers ever says, “The lottery–a tax on people who are bad at math.” We all know that the odds of winning a major lottery prize are pretty much stacked against anyone who buys a ticket. However, the assumption generally is that if you win, you will be able to collect and enjoy your winnings. Unfortunately, lately that is not the case in Illinois.

Yesterday Time Magazine posted an article stating:

Big-time Illinois Lottery winners aren’t getting the largesse. They’re getting left out.

Without a state budget agreement two months into the new fiscal year, there’s no authority for the state comptroller to cut checks over $25,000. That means smaller winnings can be paid out, but not the larger lottery wins.

Can you imagine owning a state government more than $25,000 and telling them to wait? I can’t.

A Few Comments On The Tenth Anniversary Of Hurricane Katrina

My daughter and son-in-law were living in New Orleans ten years ago. At that time they had a two-year old daughter and a six-month old daughter. They evacuated the city (with their two cats) the day before the storm and headed to my sister’s house a few hundred miles north of New Orleans. No one could have predicted what happened next. They returned to their home a few days before Thanksgiving.

There are a few things I would like to say about the storm and the aftermath. For a few months they lived in Kansas City where a local church adopted a number of families from New Orleans and helped them deal with their losses. My daughter and her family suffered very little actual loss, but we found out later what the impact of the experience on the young children was. Two years after the storm as they were preparing to move to another city, their older daughter asked, “When we move this time, can I take my bed and my toys with me?”

There were many people after the storm who came forward and helped those who had lost things. There were formal organizations like the Red Cross, the Salvation Army, and Operation Blessing, and there were groups of people who simply saw a problem and did what they could to solve it.

One of my favorite Hurricane Katrina stories was how the city dealt with the abandoned swimming pools in the city that were becoming breeding grounds for disease-carrying mosquitoes.

In July 2006, National Geographic reported:

To battle the bugs, Sackett (Steve Sackett, an entomologist with the New Orleans Mosquito and Termite Control Board (NOMTCB). ) has turned to a natural predator—the western mosquito fish (Gambusia affinis).

The fish can eat up to a hundred mosquito larvae a day. And unlike commercial pesticides, the prolific breeders can replenish themselves.

No pesticides, no chemicals–just fish!

Another inspiring story to come out of this tragedy is that of the Sugarcane Academy. This is a story worth reading about.

Americans are special. We are capable of coming together after a tragic event, and we are capable of coming up with innovative solutions to problems. We need to develop those talents.

Free Speech Does Not Mean The Same Thing To Everyone

One of my favorite lines from “The Princess Bride” is “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.” I think the time has come to understand that when you hear government leaders talk about the concept of free speech, not everyone who is using the term means the same thing..

In June I posted an article about how Muslims view free speech. I pointed out that Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) has been working with the United Nations since 2005 to subtly change the definition of free speech. According to the OIC, all laws, including free speech laws, should be subject to Sharia Law. The law being supported in the United Nations by the OIC includes the statement “but not to criminalize speech unless there is an incitement to imminent violence.” This moves the focus away from what was actually said to any reaction to what was said. This means that any rent-a-mob can be called up claiming to be incited to violence by any statement. Therefore whatever was said was not covered by the concept of free speech.

Yesterday Townhall posted an article about a move in Canada to pass Bill 59, a bill that would grant the Quebec Human Rights Commission (QHRC) the authority to investigate so-called “hate speech”, even without a complaint being filed.

The article reports:

The Head of the QHRC, Jacques Frémont has already openly said that he plans to use such powers, “to sue those critical of certain ideas, ‘people who would write against … the Islamic religion … on a website or on a Facebook page’” according to Canada’s National Post.

The legality of the QHRC asserting jurisdiction over the entire Canadian Internet-using public is under debate, but the growing consensus in Canada appears to be that this bill is a step backwards.

In 2013, the Canadian parliament moved to end scrutiny of Internet speech by its Human Right Commissions when it abolished the infamous Section 13, of Canada’s Human Rights Act. The elimination of that odious and censorious clause followed a successful campaign given voice by Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant after the two were targeted for writings and publications which reportedly “offending” Muslims.

But like a zombie rising from the grave, the idea of censoring “blasphemous” speech, continues to come back, no matter how dead it may have appeared.

The OIC is behind the move to censor speech in Canada. It is important to remember that the goal of the Muslim Brotherhood is to institute Sharia Law worldwide–to put Muslims and non-Muslims under Sharia Law. When governments begin to made free speech laws that are compliant with Sharia Law (as an anti-blasphemy law would be), they are bringing their citizens under one aspect of Sharia Law. This is truly the nose of the camel under the tent.

How The Tax Code Impacts Senior Citizens

After everything we hear about income inequality and tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, it is rather amazing that no one has pointed out the higher rate of taxes paid by senior citizens. This is particularly amazing because senior citizens vote in large numbers. There is an organization called AMAC (Association for Mature American Citizens) which is basically AARP for conservatives that has looked at the tax code in relation to senior citizens and posted an article. At this point I need to mention that I am a member of both AMAC and the AARP. One of those memberships is free to me, one I pay for.

The article reports:

The top 1% of income earners nationally (millionaires & billionaires) pay on average a federal tax rate of 22% yearly. Compare that with the rate paid by most seniors receiving Social Security benefits and currently earning over $32,000.00 each year who are forced to pay a tax rate of up to 28%. At the $42,000.00 yearly income level (hardly considered wealthy,) 85% of Social Security Benefits become taxable up to a 28% rate. Seriously, a higher tax rate (28%) for a $42,000 yearly income compared to a 22% average rate for million dollar wage earners? “This “age penalty” is blatantly unfair, confiscatory, and betrays those who are self-reliant, did the right thing, and saved for their future retirement.

The arbitrary mandatory minimum distribution (forced withdrawal up to 4% of all savings, IRA’s and annuities) every year after the age of 70.5 is clearly and simply unfair age discrimination on the part of the IRS and Congress. Forcing seniors to withdraw up to 4% of their savings each year (also taxed at a higher rate and increasing their total income) is punitive and creates a “double jeopardy” tax penalty not faced by younger tax payers.

Another, even more egregious, travesty cooked into the IRS tax code allows the federal government to pilfer the financial assets of seniors upon the death of their spouse. The surviving spouse must deal, not only, with the emotional loss but also must surrender most or all of the Social Security benefits of their deceased husband or wife. To add further injury, standard deduction and personal exemptions ($10,300) of their spouse are also lost, resulting in a higher income tax rate on less income.

The result of all of this is that seniors are financing a disproportionate amount of federal spending. The current presidential campaign provides seniors with the opportunity to demand that those seeking the office explain how they will remedy this government sanctioned “senior abuse.” It’s time to lift the heavy hand of government, reform this unfair depletion of senior American’s assets, allow them to reap the benefits of their retirement planning, give seniors a fair shake, and revitalize the American dream.

It might also be relevant to mention that the majority of senior citizens’ income (with the exception of IRA’s) has already been taxed at least once. Stock dividends, for instance, have been taxed at least once before people receive them (through corporate taxes). Also, just for the record, I am not in favor of raising taxes on the wealthy–they already pay more than their fair share. (In 2013, CNBC reported “the top 40 percent of wage earners in America pay 106 percent of the taxes. The bottom 40 percent…pay negative 9 percent.”)  I am, however, in favor of raising taxes on lower income people so that they begin to take an interest in changing the tax code. The American tax code is a tribute to special interests–it is time to change that.

The AMAC article was written by State Representative Charles “Doc” Anderson, a veterinarian,  who has represented  District 56 (Waco and McLennan County) in the Texas House of Representatives since 2005.

Who Gets Green Energy Money

Yesterday Steven Hayward posted a story at Power Line about a Haas School of Business at the University of California at Berkeley study showing who gets the tax credits associated with green energy. The results of the study are not surprising, but provide another example of excessive government spending helping people who really don’t need help.

The article reports:

Since 2006, U.S. households have received more than $18 billion in federal income tax credits for weatherizing their homes, installing solar panels, buying hybrid and electric vehicles, and other “clean energy” investments. We use tax return data to examine the socioeconomic characteristics of program recipients. We find that these tax expenditures have gone predominantly to higher-income Americans. The bottom three income quintiles have received about 10% of all credits, while the top quintile has received about 60%. The most extreme is the program aimed at electric vehicles, where we find that the top income quintile has received about 90% of all credits. By comparing to previous work on the distributional consequences of pricing greenhouse gas emissions, we conclude that tax credits are likely to be much less attractive on distributional grounds than market mechanisms to reduce GHGs.

Logically this is not surprising. Lower income people are not likely to pay the extra money for an electric car (or have a charging station). Lower income people are less likely to own their own home. People on welfare have no incentive to reduce their energy bills–welfare is paying for them. On the other side of the equation, most upper income people are in the habit of taking advantage of any ‘free’ money offered to them. Many upper income people have financial advisers who are paid to follow government tax programs and rebate programs. Upper income people may also have the money on hand to do the capital improvements required to get the tax credits, lower income people may not. Generally speaking I favor tax credits, lower taxes, etc., but I resent the fact that the tax code is used to control behavior–that is why it is so long. It really is time to build a tax code with two or three deductions that everyone can understand and that results in everyone paying some taxes. We all need skin in the game so that when our legislators start giving money away to people who do not need it, everyone will complain,.

Political Correctness Meets Mental Illness

Political correctness has become acceptable in recent years. Television shows that we watched as children or young adults would not be allowed on the air today. I loved the show “WKRP,” but I doubt that show would be allowed on the air today because of the stereotypes of women, blacks, disc jockeys, newscasters, etc. However, it was a very entertaining show because of the way the characters were drawn. It was not meant to offend any one group of people–it simply laughed at who we all are.

So what happens when a person who is mentally ill decides to take political correctness to its limit?

The New York Post posted a story today about the recent killing of a newswoman and a news cameraman in Virginia. The story is a clear illustration of political correctness run amok. The story also illustrates what happens when a disturbed person decides to be offended by something that is not meant to be offensive or that most of us would not consider offensive.

The article reports:

The words are a part of everyday conversation — “swinging” by an address and going out in the “field.”

But in the twisted mind of Virginia gunman Vester Lee Flanagan II, they were pure racism — and saying them became a death sentence for Alison Parker.

The 24-year-old white reporter, who was murdered on live TV along with her cameraman, used the phrases as an intern at ­WDBJ TV in Roanoke in 2012, according to an internal complaint filed by Flanagan, who was black.

“One was something about ‘swinging’ by some place; the other was out in the ‘field,’ ” said the Jan. 21 report by assistant news director Greg Baldwin, which refers to Parker as Alison Bailey (her middle name).

The article goes on to explain that Flanagan interpreted out in the ‘field’ as a reference to cotton fields. In his twisted mind, that was a racist statement.

The article further reports:

“This guy was a nightmare,” Fair (Trevor Fair, a 33-year-old cameraman at WDBJ for six years) said. “Management’s worst nightmare.”

Flanagan assumed everything was a jab at his race, even when a manager brought in watermelon for all employees.

“Of course, he thought that was racist. He was like, ‘You’re doing that because of me.’ No, the general manager brought in watermelon for the entire news team. He’s like, ‘Nope, this is out for me. You guys are calling me out because I’m black.’ ”

Flanagan even declared that ­7-Eleven was racist because it sold watermelon-flavored Slurpees.

“It’s not a coincidence, they’re racist,” he allegedly told Fair. 

How do you deal with a person who is constantly offended by the world around him? Do you refer him for mental testing? Do you put him on some sort of watch list? It seems to me that Flanagan was going to explode at some time. It is a shame that explosion could not have been prevented (without infringing on his civil rights).

Do We Want To Purposely Bring Terrorists Into America?

Investor’s Business Daily posted an editorial yesterday about President Obama’s efforts to close the terrorist prison at Guantanamo. The article reports that ‘the Justice Department is quietly renovating a maximum-security prison in Illinois.’ The Justice Department is also examining other American prisons as sites for terrorist prisoners.

There are a number of problems with moving terrorists to America. First of all, do we really believe that their allies won’t attempt to get these people out of American jails by kidnapping Americans, threatening attacks on Americans, etc.? Moving Guantanamo prisoners to America will put American civilians at risk. The advantage of Guantanamo (among other things) is that even if you manage to escape, you really don’t have any place to go that would get you anywhere. Also, if you managed to get away from the Navy base, you had to speak Spanish. In America, all you have to do is get to Dearborn and blend in. The other problem with bringing terrorist prisoners to America is the fact that those of the liberal persuasion will immediately call for trials in civilian courts. If you read the history of World War II, you realize that civilian trials are not appropriate for prisoners of war–the rules of evidence in a civil trial are different than the rules of evidence in a Military Tribunal. In a civilian trial, lawyers would be required to share classified information with lawyers who most likely would have terrorist connections. Also, since when is a terrorist entitled to a civil trial? How much civility did he show his victims?

The prison at Guantanamo is not a perfect solution, but terrorism does not have a perfect solution. If you read The Looming Tower by Lawrence Wright or Catastrophic Failure by Stephen Coughlin, you discover the roots and goals of terrorism. The basic goal of Al. Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood is to set up a worldwide caliphate under Sharia Law. The Koran, as the current Muslim leaders have interpreted it, condones any action that will move toward that goal–including murder, lying, and terrorism. Unless we want the prisoners at Guantanamo to continue killing American civilians and American soldiers, we need to leave them where they are.

One final question: Does anyone else see the irony of a President who is very comfortable killing terrorists with drone strikes and no trial at all protesting the treatment of terrorist prisoners at Guantanamo?

This Really Isn’t Much Of A Defense

The Daily Caller posted a story today reporting that Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, who fired the bullet that killed Kate Steinle in San Francisco on July 1, has stated that he did not intend to kill Ms. Steinle. My question is simple, “Why was he firing a gun on the San Francisco Pier in the first place?”  As you know if you read this blog regularly, I fully support gun rights, but I don’t support people being stupid with guns. I support things like gun safety courses in high schools, and people being taught to respect guns and the damage they can do. Mr. Lopez-Sanchez belongs in jail for many reasons, one of which is firing a gun in a public place.

The article reports:

According to the Associated Press, Gonzalez (Matt Gonzalez, who is representing Mr. Lopez-Sanchez) said in court that Lopez-Sanchez “mishandled” the gun.

But a San Francisco police ballistics expert said that the gun was in good condition and would not have been prone to an accidental firing.

Pulling the trigger, however that trigger was pulled, was the only way for that gun to discharge,” the expert said. “This gun could not just be sitting on a table and all of a sudden, due to some malfunction, go off.”

Aside from the fact that this is a very serious matter in which a woman was killed, I put that excuse on about the same level as “the dog ate my homework.”

 

The Path To National Prosperity

 

Investor’s Business Daily posted an article today citing the results of a recent National Bureau of Economic Research study by MIT economist Daron Acemoglu and University of Chicago economist James A. Robinson.

The study reports:

It’s long been a truism that democracy brings benefits and flexibility to an economy that help boost growth. But some theoretical work “suggests that not all the mechanisms unleashed by moving political institutions from autocratic to democratic are positive for economic growth.” The economists built a model that controlled for possible unexpected influences — such as recessions and negative economic shocks, which often take place before a nation turns democratic. It’s tricky.

After doing the necessary number fiddling, what they found was pretty remarkable: “Our central estimates suggest that a country that switches from autocracy to democracy achieves about 20% higher GDP per capita over roughly 30 years.” That’s a huge difference.

The article mentions that after the fall of the Berlin wall, there was a movement around the world toward democracy. Unfortunately, some of the countries that attempted to become democracies have slipped back to their totalitarian ways. Russia, Venezuela, China and Argentina have all encountered major financial crisis since moving away from democracy. The statistics indicate that one of the most basic solutions to those financial problems would be a move toward democracy. The other kingpin of national prosperity is private property rights (rightwinggranny). That is an area where Americans need to be paying attention to what their government is doing. Less private property rights means less prosperity for the citizens of a country. Freedom breeds prosperity. We need to make sure we guard our freedoms.

 

 

Who’s Who In The Middle East

CBN News posted a story today that provides a little bit of background about the continuing conflict in the Middle East. It seems rather ironic that ISIS and Iran, (Shia vs. Sunni) Islam agree on “death to America” and “death to Israel,” but are fighting each other to the death. So what is going on?

The article explains:

“The Sunni and the Shia now are very much at loggerheads,” he (Matthew Levitt, with the Washington Institute) explained. “And while they may share hatred of Israel, they may share hatred of the West — certainly, suspicion of the West, this sectarianism is the dominant issue right now.”

The main battleground right now for this intra-Islam conflict is Syria.

On the Sunni side, there are ISIS, al Qaeda, and other terrorist groups. These groups, who’ve also been known to battle each other, have been supported to various degrees by Sunni governments in the region, such as Turkey and Saudi Arabia.

On the Shia side are Iran and its proxy, Hezbollah, both of whom are propping up the regime of Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad.

This Sunni-Shia conflict is also raging in Iraq, Lebanon, and Yemen.

Mr. Levitt explained that Sunni Muslims make up about 85 percent of the world’s Muslim population, while Shia make up about 15 percent.

Although the Islamic governments in the Middle East all tend to be repressive, not all of these governments support terrorism. One of the interesting consequences of the ongoing conflict between Sunni and Shia and of Iran’s continuing push to obtain nuclear weapons is the alliance that is growing between Israel and Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia. Egypt has dealt with the Muslim Brotherhood, and Jordan and Saudi Arabia are in the sights of the Brotherhood. The plan the Brotherhood voiced a few years ago was to take down the dictatorships in the Middle East, then take down the governments ruled by royal families. That was to be the basis of the new caliphate which both the Sunni and Shia Muslims would like to establish. The debate is not about establishing the caliphate–the debate is over who will control it once it is established. All things considered, ISIS is no more brutal than the government of Iran–they are simply more pubic about it. It won’t matter whether the Sunnis or the Shia control the caliphate–the caliphate will be brutal.

Trying To Turn Turkey Into An Islamic State

This article is based on a Wall Street Journal Article and a Wall Street Journal Editorial from today’s Wall Street Journal.

If you have been reading this website for a while, you are familiar with what has been going on in Turkey recently and how it relates to the end of the Ottoman Empire. So please forgive me for repeating myself, but this is relevant to today’s events.

On 29 October 1923, the Republic of Turkey was proclaimed. Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, a Turkish Army officer, was the first President of Turkey. His goal was to set up a secular state rather than an Islamic state. The Ottoman Empire, which Turkey had been part of, was an Islamic Caliphate. Ataturk was looking toward the future and felt that it was in Turkey’s best interests to become a secular state aligned with the West. Ataturk banned the growing of beards by men and the wearing of headscarves by women. He banned the call to prayer by muezzins, abolished the Turkish script and replaced it with the Latin alphabet. In response to the secularization of Turkey, Hassan al Banna founded the Ikhwan al-Muslimin, the Muslim Brotherhood, in Egypt with the goal of forming a new Islamic caliphate.

President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has been in office since 2014. From 2003 to 2014 he was the Prime Minister of Turkey. During his time as Prime Minister and during his time as President, he has attempted to move the country back to an Islamic state. He has purged military leaders that opposed him, and moved his diplomatic ties away from Israel and toward the Arab countries in the region. In June, the election in Turkey undermined his control of the nation and the direction in which he was going. The Justice and Development Party (AKP) lost its majority in parliament.

The article in the Wall Street Journal states:

President Recep Tayyip Erdogan called the snap election on Monday but didn’t set a date.

On Tuesday, Mr. Erdogan tasked his handpicked successor Ahmet Davutoglu with heading an interim administration. Mr. Davutoglu heads the biggest bloc in parliament, the Justice and Development Party or AKP. He will run the government through the vote and until the next national assembly is seated.

In the last election in June, voters delivered Turkey’s first hung parliament since 2002. Following two months of fruitless coalition talks, Mr. Davutoglu failed to form a government.

Mr. Erdogan then broke with political custom and refused to offer the main opposition party the chance to cobble together its own coalition.

The Wall Street Journal editorial states:

Now Mr. Erdogan seems to hope that an electoral do-over will flip enough marginal seats back to the AKP to restore the party’s simple majority. Politicians in parliamentary democracies often resort to such a tactic, sometimes to good effect. But Mr. Erdogan’s bad faith since his June defeat suggests this is another attempted power grab. The same goes for his efforts to demonize, falsely, the HDP as the political arm of militant Kurdish separatists who have been staging terror attacks inside the country.

All of this is happening as Ankara finally seems to have gotten serious about the Islamic State menace. In the meantime, Turkey’s economy is faltering and peace talks with Kurdish separatists have collapsed. Turkey could use a leader capable of taking his electoral lumps and working within the parliamentary system. Too bad Mr. Erdogan is mainly interested in boosting his own power.

Turkey never really reached its goal of a totally secular state. A friend of mine who worked with a Christian church in Turkey a few years ago told me that it would have been unwise to put a sign in front of the church designating it as a Christian church. Theoretically there was freedom of religion, but it was also suggested that Christians keep their heads down.

We have to find our allies where we can in the Middle East, but we need to remember that the only Middle Eastern country that truly practices freedom of religion is Israel. Israel is the only ally that we can actually count on in that region of the world.

Project Veritas Strikes Again

The video below was posted on YouTube today. It is an undercover video done by Project Veritas.

There are a couple of things to note here. The video opens with a campaign worker telling the journalist from Project Veritas that they are no longer allowed in Hillary Clinton’s Iowa offices. Okay. I suppose that is their right–it is private property. But the question immediately comes to mind, “What are they trying to hide?” The video then goes on to explain that the focus of the campaign cannot be voter registration because they only want to register voters who support Hillary. That makes sense, but it is illegal. The video explains why–Iowa election law 39A.2 (1)(b)(5), states that “A person commits the crime of election misconduct in the first degree if the person willfully … deprives, defrauds, or attempts to deprive of defraud the citizens of this state of a fair and impartially conducted election process.

There is some great irony in this entire situation. States that have passed voter identification laws to combat voter fraud have been accused by Democrats of suppressing voter turnout and disenfranchising voters. Here we have a concrete example of Democratic campaign workers failing to register voters because they do not support the correct candidate. The video shows one clear example of this–the Bernie Saunders supporter was given a flyer–no one offered to register her to vote.

I am not sure how common this sort of biased voter registration is, but the fact that the people who are complaining about voter suppression are doing it is hilarious.

Welcome to the silly season. Get out the popcorn.

One Side Of The Story

The has been a lot of discussion among the political class lately about the concept of birthright citizenship. At the present time, the policy seems to be that any child born in America is an American citizen, regardless of the status of the child’s parents. There are valid arguments on both sides, but I would like to present the argument that says the child’s status depends on the status of the parents.

The quotes are from an article in the Conservative Review by Daniel Horowitz. Please follow the link to read the entire article.

The article points out what we would have to accept to say that any child born in America is automatically an American citizen:

Let’s put aside everything we believe as conservatives for a moment and take the activist ruling of Wong Kim Ark [169 U.S. 649 (1898)] as impregnable constitutional law.  As such, the 14th Amendment would compel Congress and the Executive agencies to grant citizenship to all children of legal immigrants.  Although we all agree as a matter of policy that it is a good idea to grant children born to legal permanent residents citizenship, by accepting the 1898 court decision as settled law, thereby enshrining birthright citizenship into our Constitution, we’d have to swallow the following ridiculous notions:

We’d be adopting one-directional stare decisis of an activist court that overturned two previous court decisions: the 1873 Slaughterhouse Cases and Elk v. Wilkins (1884).  In those cases, the Supreme Court made it clear that the original intent of the 14th Amendment was primarily to grant equal rights to freed black slaves and that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” required that the petitioner for citizenship be “completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.”  These cases excluded children born to foreign diplomats and Native American Indians and were quite clear that the meaning of the 14th Amendment would not include all children of immigrants – most of whom would have been covered by less political jurisdiction than even those born on Indian reservations, which were partially under U.S. jurisdiction.

Immigration transformation pursued outside of the democratic process is even worse than having courts decide societal issues, such as abortion and gay marriage, in what Justice Scalia calls “societal transformation without representation.”  The courts have now empowered themselves to unilaterally and immutably change civil society itself – without any recourse from those the Constitution vested with making such decisions.  How far we have deviated from the Founders’ vision that even so-called conservatives support the idea of changing the civil society without the consent of its citizens.

Indeed, the issue of birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants is not just a tangential topic within immigration.  It cuts to the very core of how illegal immigrants are able to coerce their will on the American citizenry and the broader issue of sovereignty.  This runs much deeper than the 14th Amendment.  The question for policy-makers has moved beyond whether we will survive as a nation as our Founder’s envisioned.  We have already deviated so far from that vision.  It’s a question of whether we are a nation at all.       

When told that we need automatic citizenship for all children born here regardless of the status of their parents, you might want to consider what the policy is in other countries. In most countries, enforcing the border is considered a natural thing to do. It is not a matter of debate. If an American went to Mexico illegally, he would be jailed or sent home–no other options. If we are to remain a nation, we have to begin to act like one. Acting like a nation includes taking responsibility for enforcing our borders and knowing who is in our country. We do need to change our immigration system to allow for legal immigration, but before we do that, we have to end illegal immigration.

This Is What A College Is Teaching???

American laws are based on a Judeo-Christian ethic–the Ten Commandments form the basis for our legal standards. They are rather simple–don’t steal, don’t kill, honor your parents, etc. Admittedly they are old standards, but they have served humanity fairly well over the years. However, every now and then someone comes along who thinks they have a better idea. Generally they don’t, but they think they have.

Yesterday the Independent Journal Review posted an article about a statement made by Everett D. Mitchell, the Director of Community Relations at the Madison campus of the University of Wisconsin.

Mr. Mitchell stated:

“I just don’t think they should be prosecuting cases for people who steal from Wal-Mart. I don’t think that. I don’t think that Target, and all them other places – the big boxes that have insurance – they should be using the people that steal from there as justification to start engaging in aggressive police behavior.”

Let’s just stop a minute and take this statement to its logical conclusion. Such as, “I don’t think people who steal from houses in X neighborhood should be prosecuted. The people in those houses have insurance–there is no reason to aggressively pursue the people who steal things there.” Doesn’t that make you feel safe?

The article goes on to explain that there have been cases where shoplifters who fled have been pursued and the shoplifters have been injured by the police. Again, what responsibility does the shoplifter bear for their own injuries sustained while fleeing police?

Theft is theft. It really doesn’t matter what is stolen (other than the jail sentence will be decided based on the value of the item taken). If someone consistently is not prosecuted for shoplifting, what incentive do they have to stop stealing things? Will they graduate to bigger and better things? What about jewelry stores, banks, etc?

When he was mayor of New York City, Rudy Giuliani instituted what has been known as “Broken Window Theory.” The basic concept of the theory is that if you deal with the minor crimes, the major crimes will decrease. There is a whole lot more to the theory–if you deal with the minor crimes, people will care more about their community, they will be outside more, and the crime rate will go down. If you ignore the minor crimes, the criminals will continue to commit them, and crime will become a standard feature of the community.

I don’t like the idea of police shooting people for any reason, but all of us need to understand that if you don’t obey a police officer, you run the risk of having force used against you. Failing to prosecute shoplifters at Walmart or Target does not move society in a positive direction–it takes us many steps backwards.

This Is Not The Way The Internal Revenue Service Is Supposed To Operate

I will admit that I do not love the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). I don’t think that is a particularly unique point of view. My husband and I were audited a few years ago after making a small donation to the Tea Party. Nothing in our returns had changed, and it was the first time we had been audited in forty-seven years. They examined our small amount of paperwork for about a year before they finally told us that nothing was wrong. They are a government agency that has acquired a lot of power over the years, and I believe that in recent years that power has been successfully used against political enemies. Now we are discovering that the IRS was ignoring the rules that were supposed to govern it.

Yesterday The Washington Times reported that as a result of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by Judicial Watch, IRS lawyer Geoffrey J. Klimas has discovered another personal email account used by Lois Lerner for IRS business. Judicial Watch is a non-profit organization that strives to hold our government accountable. Over the years they have been responsible for exposing transparency problems in administrations of both parties.

The article in The Washington Times reports:

IRS lawyer Geoffrey J. Klimas told the court that as the agency was putting together a set of documents to turn over to Judicial Watch, it realized Ms. Lerner had used yet another email account, in addition to her official one and another personal one already known to the agency.

“In addition to emails to or from an email account denominated ‘Lois G. Lerner’ or ‘Lois Home,’ some emails responsive to Judicial Watch’s request may have been sent to or received from a personal email account denominated ‘Toby Miles,'” Mr. Klimas told Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, who is hearing the case.

It is unclear who Toby Miles is, but Mr. Klimas said the IRS has concluded that was “a personal email account used by Lerner.”

…In the wake of the scandal Ms. Lerner retired from the agency. She declined to testify to Congress, citing her right against self-incrimination, but also said she did not break the law.

The Obama administration has declined to pursue the contempt of Congress case that the House brought against her.

The House Ways and Means Committee also approved a criminal referral asking the Justice Department to look into Ms. Lerner’s conduct, but its status is not clear.

 Americans will only find out what happened at the IRS if a Republican becomes President. I am not convinced any Democratic candidate would be willing to pursue this case. The use of the IRS as a political entity to target conservatives goes against the basic principle of free speech. The lack of prosecution of those guilty of abusing their power in the IRS goes against the American concept of all men being equal under the law. It is time to clean house in this organization.

If It Looks Like A Duck…

The War on Terror has never been a conventional war. ISIS has moved it in that direction by actually taking over countries and attempting to govern them, but generally speaking the soldiers in the war on terror have been individuals. Sometimes they are people who have been through terrorist training, and sometimes they are simply people who have taken the violent scriptures of the Koran to heart. Because these terrorists often commit their crimes as individuals rather than in a group, they are harder to track down and stop. Sometimes the only barrier to a successful terror attack is the people at the scene of the attack. We saw that in Texas at the “Draw Mohammed” contest and recently on the train from Paris to Amsterdam.

Robert Spencer, a well-known expert on Islamism, posted an article at Frontpage Magazine today about the attack on the Paris to Amsterdam train. The article illustrates the Muslim principle of war called “taqiyya.” “Taqiyya” is defined as lying for the sake of Islam. It is permitted and encouraged in the Koran and the Hadiths (Koran 3:28 and 16:106). With that in mind, let’s look at the background of the assailant on the Paris train.

The article reports:

El-Khazzani (the attacker) is “dumbfounded” that he is being accused of being a terrorist? Any sane person should be dumbfounded that he is dumbfounded. A bearded, caftan-wearing Muslim carries a Kalashnikov, an automatic pistol, ammunition and a box cutter onto a crowded train in a country where the Islamic State has repeatedly called for lone wolf jihad attacks, opened fire with the Kalashnikov, and he is “dumbfounded” that anyone thinks he is a terrorist? How stupid does he think Western authorities are?

It gets even better. El-Khazzani claims that he found the Kalashnikov and the pistol in a park in Brussels. He claims that he only wanted to rob the people on the train because he was hungry.

The article reports the truth:

Here’s the reality. The Express reported that “a Spanish anti-terrorist official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, revealed El Khazzani had lived in Spain until last year, moved to France then traveled to Syria where he is believed to have trained with ISIS before returning to France.” 

And a neighbor recalled: “He and his brother were very devout; they dressed like Afghans and all that, but I can’t believe this. He would sit with us while we smoked joints, you know? He didn’t smoke, but he didn’t mind that we did.” It also turns out that el-Khazzani and his brothers were “regulars” at a local mosque.

Most robbers don’t carry Kalashnikovs, automatic pistols and box cutters. Just sayin…

Good Police Work Prevented Something Awful

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted a story today about some recent events at the Hynes Convention Center in Boston. There was a Pokemon convention there. I don’t know anything about Pokemon, but it seems that there were some attendees with nefarious intentions. James Austin Stumbo, 27, and Kevin Norton, 18, had posted on Facebook, ““Boys an girls this is going to be a guns and stripper weekend!!!” The convention center security called the Boston Police, who sent two officers to check on the two men. When he was questioned, Stumbo claimed that the quote was taken out of context, but told the police where their car was and that it had weapons inside. The police found a shotgun, an AR-15 assault rifle, a hunting knife, and 250 rounds of ammunition inside the car. This doesn’t sound like normal cargo for a trip to Boston for a Convention.

There are a few things at play here. Massachusetts has strict gun laws. Neither man had the proper gun permits for the weapons they were carrying. Obviously the strict gun laws had no impact on them or their intentions. Thank God they chose to brag on Facebook. Also, thank God for the diligence of the Hynes Convention Center security staff.

I now live in a state that has more relaxed gun laws. Had the men tried this in North Carolina, chances are they would have been met by concealed carry permit holders who would have dispensed with them quickly. I don’t like gun violence, but it seems to me that we are at a point where restrictive gun laws are not accomplishing what they are supposed to accomplish. Obviously, these two young men were not affected by Massachusetts’ strict gun ownership policy. It has taken me a while to get to where I am on gun control, but I am coming closer to the idea that the only gun permit that should be needed is found in the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Other gun permits may seem to have some value, but it is obvious that they do not–people with nefarious intentions don’t seem to be deterred by gun laws.

Following The Money On The Iran Treaty Public Relations Campaign

Kyle Shideler posted an article at the Center for Security Policy on Wednesday about some of the campaigns supporting the nuclear deal with Iran. Recently the Iran deal was endorsed by three-dozen retired flag and general officers. This sounds a little odd, but makes perfect sense when you consider who composed the letter and asked for the signatures.

The article reports:

Adm. Barnett’s support for the deal is not necessarily surprising. Barnett has repeatedly taken public positions on military or national security related issues that align closely with those of the Obama White House, including opposition to “enhanced interrogation techniques,” in favor of changes to DOD’s Transgender policy, and applauding the use of national security as a reason to support school lunch changes proposed by First Lady Michelle Obama. In his capacity as a Venable employee, Barnett also worked a high profile case on sexual abuse in the military during a period at a moment when the White House was seized with the topic.

Barnett solicited signatures for the letter from his Venable work email, but denies that his employer played any role in the letter.

Given that Barnett had denied what appears to be obvious White House involvement, his other denial seems worthy of further investigation as well. Is there reason to believe that the firm has an interest in ending Iran sanctions?

Oddly enough, there seems to be a financial connection. The article goes on to list some of the companies that Venable is associated with–the Public Affairs Alliance of Iranian Americans (PAAIA), an Iranian-American group, with its own political PAC is one of Venable’s non-profit clients, According to the article, One of PAAIA’s “Founding Donors” was Venable Partner Robert S. Babayi.

The article further reports:

Babayi is also the co-founder of the Iranian American Bar Association (IABA). Venable held presentations for the IABA on Iranian Americans living in or doing business in Iran and Iran sanctions laws. In March of 2010, IABA screened the anti-Guantanamo Bay detention facility movie “The Response” which was executive produced by Venable LLP. Venable representedEgyptian detainees at Guantanamo (the subject of the film), and Babayi’s email is listed as the RSVP email.

Babayi apparently left Venable to become Managing Director of Vector IP, a boutique Patent law firm in June 2014. Babayi is also a U.S. Advisory Team member for IBridges, an organization that works to promote High Tech entrepreneurship in Iran.

Venable may also have other interests in Iran:

A 2013 article by Asharq Al-Awsat identifies one Majid Javedani-Tabrizi as a lawyer representing Venable LLP who announced Iran was preparing to reinstate direct flights to the United States. While Iran denied this, it subsequently signaled that a new nuclear deal may open the door for direct flights. Venable reportedly did not reply when questioned about its role in the announcement.

…Either way, their letter underscores the fact that powerful financial interests at work in securing approval of the Iran deal, interests that would appear likely to profit from seeing Iran sanctions end.

Inquiring minds want to know: Were such interests at Venable and among its clients disclosed to the senior military officers before they signed on?

As with most things in the Obama Administration, following the money tells a whole lot more than what is actually being said.

I Really Hate What This Child Did, But Is It A Crime?

Today’s Boston Herald posted a story about Michelle Carter, a teenager who is on trial for sending text messages encouraging a fellow student to kill himself.

The article reports:

The lawyer for a Plainville teen — accused of goading her friend via text into killing himself — is defending his client in the wake of a slew of new records released by prosecutors, insisting her callous messages to the dead boy are protected under the First Amendment.

“I continue to maintain that no crime was committed,” Michelle Carter’s lawyer, Joseph P. Cataldo, said in an emailed response to questions from the Herald. “Michelle took no actions and her speech in the form of text messages and telephone calls do not amount to a crime. … Although the district attorney’s office does not like the content of the speech, it is speech which is constitutionally protected by the First Amendment and is not criminalized under our laws.”

What Michelle Carter did was horrible–she encouraged Conrad Roy III to kill himself–complete with instructions, challenges, etc., through text messages. Many of the text messages have been released, and they paint a picture of a calloused, uncaring person who encouraged someone to kill himself. There is no excuse for that–it is horrible behavior, but is it a crime? Doesn’t Conrad Roy III have to take the responsibility for his actions?

I am not defending what this teenager has done, but what law can she be convicted under? She did not lift a hand to help her friend commit suicide–she just encouraged him. I would strongly suggest that someone get her some sort of emotional help to find out why she did such a thing and to prevent her from doing it again. But, what law was broken? You cannot convict someone of a crime unless you can name the crime. A jury is required to rule on the evidence and the law. The evidence may be clear, but what is the law? I realize that what she did was awful, but is it illegal? Should it be? You can change the law if you choose, but you cannot make it retroactive.

American Soldiers Are Very Special People

John Hinderaker posted an article at Power Line today that is an update of an incident that occurred on a Paris to Amsterdam train on Friday. Two American military men in civilian clothes were riding a high-speed train from Paris to Amsterdam on Friday.

The article reports:

A friend of the heroes, Anthony Sadler, also was aboard the train and saw what happened. He identified them as Spencer Stone, of Sacramento, who was injured and Alek Skarlatos of Roseburg, Ore., who was unhurt.

“We heard a gunshot, and we heard glass breaking behind us, and saw a train employee sprint past us down the aisle,” Sadler told the AP.

Then they spotted a gunman entering the train car with an automatic rifle.
“As he was cocking it to shoot it, Alek just yells, ‘Spencer, go!’ And Spencer runs down the aisle,” Sadler said.

“Spencer makes first contact, he tackles the guy, Alek wrestles the gun away from him, and the gunman pulls out a box cutter and slices Spencer a few times. And the three of us beat him until he was unconscious. The gunman never said a word.”

A military friend of mine reminded me that the American military is trained ‘to run to the sound of guns.’ These men did exactly that. All of us should be grateful for their training and for the lives they saved that day.

There Seems To Be A Total Lack Of Common Sense In Government Policy

Yesterday Mary Katharine Ham posted an article at Hot Air about how government regulations are impacting the Ocheesee Creamery in Florida.

The story reports:

Sometimes government’s dishonesty, incompetence, wastefulness, and misguided nannyism combine to make a perfectly ridiculous story. Today’s comes to us from Florida, where the Ocheesee Creamery is being forced to dump gallons upon gallons of good, natural skim milk because the state is requiring the business to label its good, natural skim milk “imitation” because they haven’t added anything to it.

Paul and Mary Lou Wesselhoeft have been fighting this in federal court with the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Affairs, which had formerly allowed them to sell their skim milk while calling it skim milk. No one seemed confused by this except the state government, which changed its requirements.

This is not the first time a state government or the federal government has regulated something in a way that defied common sense.

The article cites a 2012 Colorado case:

Communities lose jobs, entrepreneurs lose dreams, and consumers lose great products for the silliest of reasons. The story of the Wesselhoefts reminded me of the closing of Il Mondo Vecchio in Colorado in 2012— an “Old-World-style salumeria” similarly dedicated to natural processes. The FDA was having none of that, requiring that these sausage-makers, adored by Denver foodies, add nitrates, nitrites and preservatives to their meats.

I’m all in favor of keeping America’s food supply safe. I also like the idea of labeling products correctly. However, this is ridiculous.