Things That Just Make Me Mad

The movement to boycott Israel and Israeli goods is simply stupid. Where is the movement to boycott the Palestinians who are teaching their children to kill Jews and instigating stabbing attacks in Israel? The people behind the boycott are either uninformed, anti-Semetic, or simply stupid. Now their boycott has hurt the very people they claim to support. posted an Associated Press story about SodaStream, an Israeli company that has been impacted by boycotts against Israel.

In September of 2014, I posted the following:

According to Birnbaum (Daniel Birnbaum, CEO of SodaStream), SodaStream is the “largest employer of Palestinian people in the world outside of the Palestinian Authority.”

“We employ 500 Palestinians here. Side by side, we have 350 Israeli Arabs and another 300 Israeli Jews. And we get along together. They’re not killing each other! They go to lunch break. We break bread together and we get to know each other,” he said.

SodaStream pays Israeli wages — four times what workers would earn in the Palestinian Authority, where unemployment is 30 percent.  And the workers say they’re happy, too.

Yousef Besharat is a Palestinian Arab who works at the factory. He told CBN News his salary helped him to build a home in just a year. He said there’s no discrimination between Jewish and Arab workers at the plant.

The article at reported today:

The chief executive of SodaStream International Ltd. says he has been forced to lay off hundreds of Palestinian workers after a factory was targeted by an international boycott movement and moved from the West Bank into Israel.

CEO Daniel Birnbaum said the last 74 Palestinian workers left Monday after being denied permits to work inside Israel at the new factory.

The global boycott movement seeks to ostracize Israel by lobbying corporations, artists and academic institutions to sever ties with the Jewish state.

In all, about 500 Palestinians lost their jobs after the factory moved last year following a high-profile boycott campaign against SodaStream.

Birnbaum said Palestinian workers are the main victims of the boycott. But he also criticized the government for not granting the work permits.

Until the stabbing attacks in Israel stop, I think the government is correct in not granting work permits. However, the impact of the boycott is to remove a company where Israelis and Palestinians were working together in harmony. That company was making a good first step toward peace in the region. The boycott also results in economic hardship for the Palestinians that the boycott claims to support. That makes no sense. If the people doing the boycotting were attempting to bring peace to Israel and the surrounding countries, they just shot themselves in the foot.

Some Things To Consider

This is my statement on the current state of affairs in the Republican primary.

I don’t support Donald Trump. I understand the anger of Trump supporters, and I share that anger. I just don’t think Donald Trump is the solution to our current problems. Emotionally, I just don’t like the man. His arrogance and mannerisms are in the same league as Barack Obama’s, and I don’t want to watch another four years of someone who thinks I am too stupid to see what is happening around me. I also haven’t heard any concrete ideas from Donald Trump about how he wants to accomplish what needs to be accomplished. Those ideas may be there, but they are not at the forefront.

I don’t support Marco Rubio because I don’t trust his wisdom. He is too naive. reported on February 26th:

He’s often seen by some voters as not serious, as immature, as a little bit naive,” Conway said on Breitbart News Daily Friday. “You see him at that Gang of Eight podium — and you see Chuck Schumer… You see Chuck Schumer off to his left. You can almost see the saliva coming out of Chuck Schumer’s mouth, because he’s like, ‘We got this guy! This guy will never be president now. We’ve got him dead-to-rights. He is molding, leading, authoring, and shepherding through this amnesty bill that his base will never accept.’ Chuck Schumer knew that. And Marco Rubio didn’t.”

On February 25th reported:

Ken Palinkas—who served as the President of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Council during the Gang of Eight fight and is now a local chapter president for USCIS officers—weighed in on the fight between America’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers and Sen. Rubio.

In an exclusive interview with Breitbart News, Palinkas detailed the dangers a Rubio Administration would pose to national security and U.S. sovereignty—perhaps adding more trouble to an already embattled Rubio campaign.

“He’s the wolf in sheep’s clothing,” Palinkas told Breitbart—explaining that Rubio would “absolutely” represent President Obama’s third term on immigration.

As I said, the purpose of this article is to give readers some things to consider.

I do support Ted Cruz. Here are my reasons:

I think he is the smartest and most principled candidate running. Neither of these traits will ever win a popularity contest (and both traits tend to be disliked by those who do not have them), but I believe they are important traits in a presidential candidate.

Ted Cruz has already proven that he will defend the U.S. Constitution. He respects the Constitution and plans on upholding it. I am not sure Donald Trump understands that as President, he would represent one of three branches of government. Donald Trump does not do well as one of three.

Ted Cruz has already stood up for the values that are important to me. It is up to the voters to decide if those values are important to them. He has pledged to defund and investigate Planned Parenthood, stop the Iranian nuclear deal, end Common Core and defend the Second Amendment. That works for me.

If you are reading this, your vote counts as much as mine. I hope you will consider what I have said. Just vote.


Symbolism Over Substance?

There is a conflict in America right now as to the exact meaning of the First Amendment as regards to religious freedom. One of the questions being asked is whether or not Christians who choose to enter the business world still have the right to act according to their Christian beliefs. Does a Christian businessman have the right to choose who he does business with? In January I posted a story about a couple who is required to do re-education training because they refused to host a homosexual wedding. I had never considered re-education training as an American concept.

The latest chapter in the war against Christian ideas in the marketplace has occurred in Oklahoma. Eagle Rising posted a story on February 27th about a law proposed by an Oklahoma Democrat in the state legislature.

The article reports:

Democrat state Rep. Emily Virgin believes that Christian businesses should be forced to post a public notice that they will be discriminating against homosexuals, if those businesses are to be allowed to claim the right to refuse service based on religious beliefs.

That’s right, if you’re a Christian businessman in Oklahoma and you don’t believe that you should be forced to participate in a gay wedding, Democrats want to force your business to post a public scarlet letter detailing your “bigoted” beliefs!

This is the text of the law:

“Any person not wanting to participate in any of the activities set forth in subsection A of this section based on sexual orientation, gender identity or race of either party to the marriage shall post notice of such refusal in a manner clearly visible to the public in all places of business, including websites. The notice may refer to the person’s religious beliefs, but shall state specifically which couples the business does not serve by referring to a refusal based upon sexual orientation, gender identity or race.”

The law was suggested in response to a Republican bill that would allow Christian businessmen to operate their businesses in accordance with Biblical principles.

The article further notes:

The right to practice your faith as you see fit (as long as you aren’t infringing on the rights of others) is the cornerstone of our nation’s stability and health. Along with that, the right to choose who we do business with and when we do business is the very foundation of free market capitalism. The moment we allow the government (or some fascist group of rabid socialists) to force us to act against our religious beliefs, or force us to work as indentured servants at the beck and call of others… that is the moment that we have LOST our nation.

Something to consider as we approach this election season.

Balance In American Education

One educational issue that has recently come up in American schools is the teaching of Islam. Although most Americans agree that it is appropriate for students to learn about Islam, many parents have been alarmed at what seems to be the indoctrination of students into Islam.

In October 2015, the Clarion Project posted the following about a recent law passed in Tennessee to make sure students are not being indoctrinated:

Charges of indoctrination by Tennessee parents are reminiscent of a case in California where a federal lawsuit was filed against the Byron Union School District concerning a three-week course about Islam seventh-graders that used the workbook, Islam, A simulation of Islamic history and culture.

In the California school, 12-year old students were told:                                                                  

I have never seem a similar lesson in a public school regarding Christianity. Again, I believe that it is appropriate to teach the basics of Islam (as it is appropriate to teach the basics of Christianity and Judaism). Islam, Christianity, and Judaism are considered the major religions of the world, and I believe it is to our advantage to let our students know the basic facts of each. Indoctrination is an entirely different matter.

Tennessee has taken action in this matter.

This is the text of the Tennessee bill:


By Butt

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 49, Chapter 6, Part 10, relative to curriculum for K–12 public schools.


SECTION 1. Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 49, Chapter 6, Part 10, is amended by adding the following language as a new, appropriately designated section:

(a) The state board of education shall not include religious doctrine in any curriculum standards

for grades prior to grades ten through twelve (10–12).

(b) The state board shall provide curriculum standards for grades ten (10), eleven (11), or twelve (12) that teach comparative religion as it relates to history or geography, but no religion shall be emphasized or focused on over another religion.

(c) If the curriculum standards in grades prior to grades ten through twelve (10–12) include a reference to a specific religion or the role and importance of a religion in history or geography, then the state board shall ensure that the reference does not amount to teaching any form of religious doctrine to the students.

SECTION 2. This act shall take effect upon becoming a law, the public welfare requiring it.

In January, the bill was sent to the Education Instruction & Programs Subcommittee. It is not yet passed.

I am not sure exactly what was being taught in Tennessee, but the fact that the California curriculum included declaring Jihad on another group is an indication that this curriculum is not as harmless as it should be.

Part of the teaching of the Koran is the idea that Muslims are obligated to spread Islam peacefully or violently. The ultimate goal is a worldwide caliphate. That is not an abstract concept, and we are not immune from that quest. We need to remember that the Ottoman Empire existed until the early 1900’s. That was the caliphate. The goal is to recreate it with America included in it. Part of the methodology in including America involves the education of our children at all levels. The Muslim Students’ Association (MSA) is operating in our colleges with that goal in mind. Organizations (named as unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation trial) include CAIR, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the North American Islamic Trust and others. For further information on the plan to bring America into the caliphate, please see the official Federal Court translation of Government Exhibit 0036-0085 3:04-CR-240-G in U.S. v Holy Land Foundation, et al. with punctuation, line spacing and spelling intact. You can find that document by googling “Holy Land Foundation exhibits.” It is a document all Americans need to be aware of. It is eye-opening.


Why I Oppose The Relocation Of Syrian Refugees To The United States

On February 9, I posted an article about the vetting of the Middle Eastern refugees that are headed for America.

In that article, I quoted a article:

Two houses in the village (Sankt Johann) are used to house Syrian refugees, but among the opponents of the Assad regime living there SPIEGEL TV tracked down a suspected commander of the Islamic State terror group after tip offs from other Syrian activists. They had identified him as a man called Bassam, a notorious commander said to be responsible for the deaths of dozens of people.

…As Breitbart London recently reported, German security forces have received more than 100 tip-offs that Islamic State fighters may be hiding among migrants currently staying in the country.

Because the government of Syria has dissolved, there is no way of vetting any of these refugees. We allow them to enter our country at our own risk.

Meanwhile, posted the list of American cities that ISIS has listed as targets. In North Carolina, Fayetteville and New Bern are listed as targets.

Recently, the Craven County (which includes New Bern) Board of Commissioners passed a Resolution stating that until there is a way to vet the refugees from countries where terrorists are in charge, Craven County should not accept any refugees from those countries.

Compassion for these refugees is needed, but it would actually be more compassionate to help them find safe places near their homelands where they can live safely until it is safe to go home.


When Politics Becomes More Important Than Justice

On Wednesday, The National Review posted an article about the recent legal case against Texas Governor Rick Perry.

The article reports:

On Wednesday, Texas’s highest criminal court threw out the charges against Rick Perry, which came as no surprise. Lehmberg’s (Rosemary Lehmberg,Travis County prosecutor) predecessor, Ronnie Earle, pulled the same sort of stunts, with the same outcome, in his partisan campaigns against Kay Bailey Hutchison, a U.S. senator at the time, and Tom DeLay, who was the House majority leader. The point of such prosecutions isn’t to get convictions — Texas Democrats are a stupid lot, but they aren’t that stupid — but to ruin political careers, as DeLay’s was ruined, and to bankrupt and harass political opponents.

The lawsuit began when Governor Perry, following Lehmberg’s arrest for drunk driving and her subsequent inappropriate behavior, cut funding to her department unless she was removed.

The article further reports:

Governor Perry, being a reasonably responsible chief executive, judged this state of affairs to be intolerable. But Lehmberg is not a state employee subject to gubernatorial dismissal; she is an elected official of Travis County. Her office, however, is funded by the state government, and Governor Perry made it clear that he would veto that funding so long as the person in charge of the place was — let’s reiterate — an out-of-control criminal misusing her official prosecutorial powers in an attempt to suborn misconduct from law-enforcement personnel.

Governor Perry carried through on his promise, and Lehmberg retaliated by indicting him on felony charges, alleging that his use of the veto — an ordinary part of his prerogatives as governor — constituted an abuse of power. That Rosemary Lehmberg, of all people, was developing innovative theories about the abuse of official power is the source of some grim mirth. But politically motivated felony prosecution of governors and presidential candidates is no joke.

Texas is known for this kind of shenanigans. If I were to criticize Rick Perry for anything during his time as governor, it would be failing to deal with the legal system in Texas that allows the use of legal actions to destroy political careers. The population of Texas is increasing as people and corporations from states with higher taxes move there. Now is the time to fix a legal system that has too often been used for political purposes.



If It Won’t Work, Why Is The Government Funding It?

One of the biggest problems in the American economy right now is crony capitalism. Rather than a free market system where innovation is rewarded, we have devolved into a system where the federal government picks which companies will receive money from the government to become successful and which companies will simply have to rely on their own abilities to become successful. One of the places where this has been the most obvious has been the ‘green energy‘ industry. On Thursday, The Daily Caller posted an article stating some basic facts about green energy.

The article reports:

Researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have confirmed what many in the energy world already knew: Without government support or high taxes, green energy will never be able to compete with conventional, more reliable power plants.

…The MIT study also noted that solar and wind power are more than twice as expensive as natural gas, and tax on carbon dioxide emissions could increase electricity prices enough for green sources to compete. Even environmental groups such as The Sierra Club worry increasingly cheap energy will make the case for green power weaker.

The article goes on to explain that fossil fuel is cheap and reliable. As of yet, green energy is neither. We would probably have a better chance of developing green energy if the government would get out of the way and let the inventors take over and be rewarded for their efforts. Until change becomes extremely profitable (outside government subsidies), it is unlikely to happen.

A Solution Is Needed–I’m Not Sure This Is The Right One

This is not a new article, but I think it is something that needs to be looked at in view of the current presidential campaign.

In October 2015, CNN reported statements made by John Kasich about Social Security. There are some serious problems with Social Security and no obvious solutions, but while we are looking for solutions, young workers in America are still having Social Security deductions taken out of their paychecks despite the fact that they will probably never see a penny of that money. There are a few reasons for the problems with Social Security funding. The first problem is the declining birth rate. We need more workers paying into Social Security to keep the system going. Those workers may never see the money, but we need them paying into the system. That is dishonest, but that is the way it is set up. President Obama and some members of Congress are trying to avoid the problem by importing workers.

In November 2014, Fox News reported:

Illegal immigrants who apply for work permits in the U.S. under President Obama’s new executive actions will be eligible for Social Security and Medicare, the White House says.

Under the sweeping actions, immigrants who are spared deportation could obtain work permits and a Social Security number, which would allow them to pay into the Social Security system through payroll taxes.

No such “lawfully present” immigrant, however, would be immediately entitled to the benefits because like all Social Security and Medicare recipients they would have to work 10 years to become eligible for retirement payments and health care. To remain qualified, either Congress or future administrations would have to extend Obama’s actions so that those immigrants would still be considered lawfully present in the country.

So for ten years we will have more people paying in, and then after ten years many of those people will be looking for money–a temporary solution at best.

Another reason for the problems with Social Security is that there is no Social Security trust fund. Since the 1960’s, Congress has spent the money deducted from paychecks for Social Security. Anyone who served in Congress is responsible for allowing this to continue.

So what does John Kasich say about Social Security. The CNN article reports:

“We can’t balance a budget without entitlement reform. What are we, kidding?” Kasich said when asked about his opponents who say they won’t touch entitlements.

Kasich said he was part of the effort to reform Medicare and Medicaid in the ’90s, and that he also had a plan to change Social Security so that initial benefits were lowered for individuals not yet near eligibility.

He asked audience members to raise their hands if they were far from receiving Social Security, asked them if they knew yet what their initial benefit would be and then asked them if they would be bothered if it were a little lower for the good of the country.

One person said it would be a problem.

“Well, you’d get over it, and you’re going to have to get over it,” Kasich joked.

First of all, Social Security is not an entitlement–the people currently working have been paying into it since they started working. The majority of the people currently collecting it have paid into it during their entire working career. Entitlements are things that people get for free that they never worked for or paid into. I think our welfare programs should be seriously cut before any cuts are made to Social Security. I also think that younger workers should be given the option of setting up tightly controlled individual retirement plans that would be out of the government’s reach when it comes to spending money. A large part of the problem with the current Social Security system is that Congress has not acted in a fiscally responsible way. We cannot change the past, but we can fix the future. I don’t believe I want John Kasich to be the person attempting to fix the future of Social Security.


People In Glass Houses…

Yesterday The Washington Free Beacon reported that the Federal Election Commission has sent a letter to Bernie Sanders‘ campaign committee about illegal donations to the campaign.

The article reports:

The campaign’s January financial disclosure filing listed contributions from foreign nationals and unregistered political committees, the FEC said. Other contributions came from donors who exceeded the $2,700 per-election limit.

“Although the Commission may take further legal action concerning the acceptance of [excessive or prohibited] contributions, your prompt action to refund the prohibited amount will be taken into consideration,” the FEC told the campaign.

Sanders’ campaign has relied on small-dollar individual contributions to a far greater extent than any other presidential campaign, including the Super PAC- and dark money-fueled efforts of Democratic rival Hillary Clinton.

The Vermont Senator and self-described socialist is running on a platform of transparency and campaign finance reform, contrasting his grassroots support with Clinton’s high-dollar donors and use of loopholes in federal election laws that allow her campaign to coordinate with outside groups that can accept unlimited contributions.

However, Sanders’ donors have also run afoul of federal campaign finance laws, and his financial disclosure reports have been riddled with errors.

Many of the foreign donations come from people in countries that support socialism and want to help the Sanders’ campaign. However, the campaign needs to follow the law and practice the transparency that it preaches.

An Interesting Endorsement

Many public figures are endorsing their candidates for President. In recent days Franklin Graham has endorsed Donald Trump, as has Chris Christie. On February 16th, Allen West posted an article indicating the choice of Thomas Sowell.

The article reports:

Thomas Sowell has been an intellectual giant in the conservative movement for decades. Despite rarely making appearances in the media, the economist and author has managed to become a household name among conservatives.

Many of the candidates currently running have received criticism from Sowell in prior columns, but none more than Donald Trump. Sowell’s criticism was featured in National Review’s now-famous (or infamous) issue “against Trump.”

The article further states:

If the Republicans are to avoid having Donald Trump lead them — and the country — to disaster, they are going to have to have the majority of non-Trump supporters get behind some given candidate.

Senator Ted Cruz has been criticized in this column before, and will undoubtedly be criticized here again. But we can only make our choices among those actually available, and Senator Cruz is the one who comes to mind when depth and steadfastness come to mind.

Donald  Trump has been accumulating celebrity endorsements at an impressive rate. It’s about time someone received an endorsement from a different kind of “celebrity.”

Ted Cruz would be better for America than Donald Trump. I understand the anger of American voters–I am angry too–but voting out of anger will not get us where we need to go. Donald Trump is an accomplished businessman, but that does not guarantee that he will be a good President. I honestly think that he would be a bad choice.

Telling It Like It Is

The Hill reported Tuesday that Representative Justin Amash has endorsed Ted Cruz. Representative Amash previously supported Rand Paul.

The article reports Representative Amash’s comments published in an op-ed piece in the Independent Journal:

“It’s easy to withdraw from politics when the positions and priorities of the candidates do not precisely mirror our own,” Amash wrote in an op-ed published by the Independent Journal.

“But we owe it to our beliefs to find constitutional conservative political allies who not only respect our philosophy but also fight for our views to be heard,” he added.

“Ted is not a libertarian and doesn’t claim to be. But he is a principled defender of the Constitution, a brilliant strategist and debater who can defeat the Democratic nominee in the general election, and the only remaining candidate I trust to take on what he correctly calls the Washington Cartel.”

America needs to get back to the Constitution. Ted Cruz is the candidate who can take us there. If we do not return to the structure of the Constitution, our government will disintegrate into a group of crony capitalist elitists who have total disregard for the wishes and general welfare of the American people. We may already be there, but Ted Cruz would be the President with the best chance of leading us out.

An Interesting Twist In The Guantanamo Story

Yesterday, posted an article stating the following:

Testifying in front of the House Appropriations Subcommittee Wednesday, Attorney General Loretta Lynch reiterated that transferring detainees from Guantanamo Bay Prison to the United States is against the law. From the Washington Times:

Attorney General Loretta Lynch said Wednesday that federal law flatly prevents President Obama from sending of the the detainees from Guantanamo Bay to U.S. territory, hurting his ability to follow through on his new closure plan.

“That is the state of the law,” she said, pointing to the most recent defense policy law passed late last year, which cleared Congress on a bipartisan vote and which Mr. Obama himself signed into law.

Lynch also pointed this out during testimony in November of last year.

“With respect to individuals being transferred to the United States, the law currently does not allow that,” Lynch testified in front of the House Judiciary Committee. “Certainly it is the position of the Department of Justice that we would follow the law of the land in regard on that issue.”

Now you do have to be aware of the weasel words in that statement. The weasel words are, “With respect to individuals being transferred to the United States, the law currently does not allow that.” I suspect President Obama will attempt an executive order to supersede that law or find another way to get around it. I seriously doubt he will be stopped from moving Guantanamo prisoners here.

However, so far the Republicans do not plan on making the transfer of terrorists to America totally easy. The article reports:

Speaker Paul Ryan immediately pushed back on the proposal, reminding President Obama about bipartisan legislation recently passed in the House and Senate banning detainees from being transferred. Today, Ryan threatened the White House with a lawsuit should President Obama proceed unilaterally.

Really? A lawsuit? Really? How is that any different than a strongly worded letter or an idle threat? If President Obama attempts to bring terrorists into America, he needs to be impeached. End of story. He will have broken his Oath of Office and needs to be removed.


I’m Sure There Is A Logical Explanation For This

Politics is a nasty business, particularly just before the primary elections. You really cannot believe anything you read or see. Sometimes, however, the dirty tricks are not well thought through and strange things happen. The picture below taken from the Young Conservatives website is one example of a dirty trick that should have been better planned:

KKKTrumpNow maybe I missed something (which is quite possible), but I wasn’t aware that the KKK membership was now open to black people. Look closely at the picture. At least one of the alleged KKK sign holders is black. It makes you wonder who is actually responsible for this protest (or whatever it is).

A Sad Commentary On Where We Are As A Country

CNS News posted an article yesterday about Secretary of State John Kerry‘s appearance before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on the Department of State and Foreign Assistance.

The article reports:

Secretary of State John Kerry told the House Appropriations Subcommittee on the Department of State and Foreign Assistance today that he is having an “additional evaluation” done to help him determine whether the systematic murder of Christians and other religious minorities in the Middle East—at the hands of the Islamic State and others—should be declared “genocide.”

“I will make a decision on it as soon as I have that additional evaluation and we will proceed forward from there,” Kerry said.

Kerry was responding to a question put to him by Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (R.-Neb.), who is the sponsor of a resolution that would declare on behalf of Congress that it is in fact genocide.

The article includes part of the transcript of the hearing. This is an excerpt:

Kerry: Well again Congressman thank you for a very moving and eloquent description of the problem. And I appreciate, you were lucky to be in that room to witness that, and I certainly appreciate your reactions to it. And I share just a huge sense of revulsion over these acts, obviously. None of us have ever seen anything like it in our lifetimes. Although, obviously, if you go back to the Holocaust, the world has seen it.

We are currently doing what I have to do, which is review very carefully the legal standards and precedents for whatever judgment is made. I can tell you we are doing that. I have had some initial recommendations made to me. I have asked for some further evaluation. And I will make a decision on this. And I will make a decision on it as soon as I have that additional evaluation and we will proceed forward from there.

I understand how compelling it is. Christians have been moved in many parts now of the Middle East, I might add. This is not just in Syria, but in other places there has been an increased forced evacuation and displacement, which is equally disturbing, though it’s not—you know, they aren’t killing them in that case, but it’s a removal, and a cleansing ethnically and religiously, which is deeply disturbing. So we are very much focused on this. And, as I say, I will make a judgement soon.

I am amazed at the Secretary of State’s ability to ignore the obvious. I am reminded of President Clinton’s comment that he regretted not intervening in the genocide in Rwanda in the 1990’s.

ABC News reported in 2014:

But in the years since, the former President Clinton has called the failure to intervene in Rwanda one of his biggest regrets.

“I do feel a lifetime responsibility,” he told ABC in 2008, while on a trip to the country. “I feel like a lot of people … had something to do with it.”

In March 2013 Clinton again talked Rwanda, when he told CNBC that he believes had the U.S. intervened, even marginally, at the beginning of the genocide at least 300,000 people might have been saved.

Admittedly, this statement may have been made with Hillary Clinton’s political future in mind, but the fact remains that sooner or later, all of us have to live with the consequences of our actions.


What’s The Magic Number?

Charlotte, North Carolina, just passed a law allowing transgender people the right to use the bathroom that corresponds to their gender identity. Simply put, that means that regardless of what sexual equipment you were born with, you can choose the bathroom of the gender you identify with. It sounds harmless enough until you consider the risks of putting a man with all of his parts intact (regardless of who he identifies with) in a closed bathroom with women and young children.

If you wonder exactly what the risk is, The Toronto Sun posted a story in 2014 about a sexual predator who posed as a transgender in order to gain access to women’s restrooms.

The article reports:

A sexual predator who falsely claimed to be transgender and preyed on women at two Toronto shelters was jailed indefinitely on Wednesday.

…He (Justice John McMahon) noted the Montreal man, 37, attacked four vulnerable females between the ages of five and 53 in Montreal and Toronto over the past 12 years.

“He has demonstrated from the age of 12 until the present an inability to control his sexual impulses,” said McMahon.

Hambrook served four years in prison for sexually abusing a five-year-old girl and while on bail for that crime, raping a 27-year-old intellectually-challenged woman in Montreal.

This man may be the exception, but the fact that he exists is cause for concern. What is the magic number? I know that we want to be kind to people who struggle with transgender issues, but what is the number of young children who will be sexually assaulted before we either set up separate restrooms for trans-gendered people or simply demand that they use the restroom corresponding to the equipment they have? Are we putting our children at risk to accommodate something that can be addressed in a way that does not endanger our children?


It’s Not About The Children–It’s About The Money

If you read this blog on a regular basis, you are probably aware that I am strongly opposed to Common Core. There are many reasons for this, and I need to review a few before I get to the current article regarding Common Core.

Reported here in November 2015:

Bill Gates himself has stated, “It would be great if our education stuff worked, but that we won’t know for probably a decade.” 

Reported here in July 2014:

On the Microsoft Web site, a webpage dated April 22, 2014 entitled “Tech Essentials for Testing Success” describes in considerable detail how schools using computer-based, Common Core-aligned tests will now need to spend a bunch of money — on Microsoft products.

…Microsoft additionally advises schools to upgrade “all units” “to a minimum of 1 GB of internal memory” and to make sure their screens and processors are up to snuff. (Wouldn’t you know it: in some cases, “Power Macs are not supported.”) Schools might also need to outlay tax dollars on Internet connections and hardware such as headphones.

The primary purpose of Common Core is not to educate our children–it’s to force schools to buy Microsoft technology. There are billions of dollars at stake here, which brings me to my current story. When schools originally began buying computer products, most schools bought (or were given) Apple products. The students trained on Apple products went on to buy Apple products as adult consumers. That lesson was not lost on Bill Gates at Microsoft.

On February 12, 2016, the New Boston Post reported:

A lawsuit that aims to prevent Massachusetts voters from weighing in on the controversial Common Core educational standards has backing from people connected to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, a major sponsor of Common Core.

Since 2010, the year the Massachusetts Board of Elementary and Secondary Education voted to implement Common Core, through last year, the Gates Foundation donated $776,431 to the Massachusetts Business Alliance for Education. The Alliance, a strong supporter of Common Core, is currently coordinating the lawsuit, filed last month, to block a citizen initiative that would allow Massachusetts voters in November to decide whether the state continues to use the federally approved Common Core standards or revert to its own pre-Common Core standards.

In 2007, prior to the implementation of Common Core, Massachusetts was the highest-achieving state in the country.  Opponents of Common Core, an unusually bi-partisan group of parents, teachers, education specialists, conservative activists, and anti-testing activists, say that after the state adopted the federally backed standards in 2010, Massachusetts achievement levels started to decline.

End Common Core Massachusetts, the citizens group behind the ballot question, earlier this year garnered enough signatures to advance the measure.  But on Jan. 22, ten plaintiffs sued to stop the question from reaching the voters. Plaintiffs include William Walczak who is a director of the Alliance, and Jack Dill, who is on its advisory council.

If Common Core was about improving education, why have the achievement levels in Massachusetts schools started to decline since Common Core was implemented? Common Core is a scam put over on parents and teachers that does nothing to improve the education of our children. I does, however, improve the bottom line profits of Microsoft Corporation. Parents need to begin to work to remove it. I am hoping Massachusetts will be successful with its ballot question, but in other places, school boards need to be pressured to take action against something that is detrimental to our children’s education. If it really was about the children, would any school administrators be supporting something that lowers achievement rather than raises it?

Karma Is Always Interesting

Someone much wiser than I once said, “Always keep your words soft and sweet, just in case you have to eat them.” That man was Andy Rooney. Eating your words is something no one likes to do, but in this age of digital information, everything a public figure has said can be easily discovered.

On Monday, Truth Revolt posted the following statement made by then Senator Joe Biden in 1992:

JoeBidenSCOTUSIf you follow the link above, it includes the C-SPAN video of Vice President Biden making this statement.

When Man Interferes With Nature

John Hinderaker at Power Line posted an article yesterday about a wildlife plan in Massachusetts that seems a little unwise. Massachusetts had made some bad decisions in the past concerning wildlife–resulting in a rabies problem in certain areas of the state and an overabundance of raccoons, skunks, coyotes, and fisher cats, but this decision is really a bit over the top.

The article reports:

A plan by the state to establish a colony of venomous timber rattlesnakes on an off-limits island in Massachusetts’ largest body of water has some rattled by visions of dangerous serpents slithering through the surrounding woods, attacking hikers, fishermen and hunters.

…There are only about 200 of the endangered snakes indigenous to Massachusetts left in five scattered pockets from greater Boston to the Berkshires, French (Tom French of the state Division of Fisheries and Wildlife) said. Loss of habitat and human-caused deaths means they could disappear altogether, which is why the Quabbin project is so critical.

When Massachusetts built Route 128 around Boston, they discovered nests of rattlesnakes. Those nests are pretty much gone now. I suspect that most residents of the state consider that a good thing.

The article concludes:

The public’s concerns stem from the fact that rattlesnakes can swim and the island is connected to the mainland by a pair of narrow causeways, French said.

I think we can expect property values on the mainland overlooking the island to decrease rapidly. This is simply not smart.

Making The World A More Dangerous Place

President Obama has again announced his plans to close the terrorist detainee center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Politico reported yesterday that the Pentagon planned on releasing its plan to close the facility and move the prisoners to the United States.

Yahoo News reported today on the President’s plan to close down Guantanamo. The article explained:

President Barack Obama presented a long-shot plan Tuesday to shutter the Guantanamo Bay detention center, hoping to fulfill an elusive campaign promise before he leaves office next year.

Describing the jail as a stain on America’s reputation and a catalyst for jihadists, Obama said “I don’t want to pass this problem on to the next president.”

“For many years, it’s been clear that the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay does not advance our national security. It undermines it,” Obama said from the Roosevelt Room

…The Guantanamo Bay closure plan, which took months to produce, offers no specifics on where a US facility would be, but military officials have previously listed Fort Leavenworth, Kansas or the US Navy brig in Charleston, South Carolina among the possible destinations for inmates.

Those locations, however, face objections from local politicians.

The US leader has long argued that many Guantanamo prisoners should be transferred overseas and some should be tried by military courts.

A small number — those deemed too dangerous to release but too difficult to prosecute — would be held in the United States.

So what is the problem with this? In the closing, some prisoners would be released to various countries.

In January 2015, Fox News reported the following:


As of July 15, 2014, 620 detainees have been transferred out of the detention facility.

Of the total, 107, or 17.3 percent, have been “confirmed of re-engaging,” which is defined as being directly involved in terrorist or insurgent activities. Nearly half of those — 48 — are now dead or in custody.

Of the total, 77, or 12.4 percent, are “suspected of re-engaging.” This category comprises detainees for whom it’s plausible that they are directly involved in terrorist or insurgent activities, but it can’t be verified or is based only on information from a single source. Sixteen of these 77 are now dead or in custody

Many of the former detainees have attained ‘superstar’ status in the terrorist groups they now lead.

Closing Guantanamo is a really bad idea. Unfortunately, the prison could have been a valuable asset in ending the war on terror had it been properly used during the Obama Administration. The Obama Administration did not send anyone to Guantanamo, instead they used drones to simply kill terrorists. At least sending them to Guantanamo to be questioned might have given us some of the intelligence we needed to predict the rise of ISIS. There is also the problem of putting terrorists in prison on American soil. The lawyers will have a ball claiming civil rights that non-combatant terrorists are not entitled to (under the Geneva Convention or any other convention). There is also the risk of a nearby school, mall, airport (pick your target) being taken hostage so that the terrorists will be freed to commit more terrorism.

All in all, closing Guantanamo is a really bad idea. It will make America less secure–not more secure.

Occasionally Someone In Government Makes A Statement Illustrating The Concept Of Common Sense

North Carolina Lt. Governor Dan Forest posted the following on his website today:

RALEIGH — In light of tonight’s scheduled Charlotte City Council vote on redefining bathroom ordinances, Lt. Governor Dan Forest releases the following statement:

“Girls’ bathrooms are for girls, boys’ bathrooms are for boys. The fact we are even debating this is a sad commentary on where we are as a society.”

I realize that there are children and teenagers who may be confused about their gender. It might not be a bad idea to give them their own bathrooms, but allowing teenage boys (regardless of whether or not they are confused about their gender) into teenage girls’ bathrooms is creating a situation that has risks for beyond the simple sexual confusion of the person using the bathroom. I agree with Lt. Governor Forest’s statement.

Moving Responsibility As Far As Possible From The Person Who Is Actually Responsible

Our culture has some very strange ideas about who is responsible for what. Somehow we have forgotten that as people we make decisions all of the time and that those decisions have consequences. Sometimes those decisions have horrible consequences, but when all is said and done, the consequences are the result of an individual’s decisions. A recent lawsuit against Freedom Group, the owners of both Bushmaster and Remington Arms, relating to the tragic shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut illustrates the fact that we no longer allow individuals to be held accountable for their actions.

Hot Air posted an article about the lawsuit today.

The article reports:

The mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School had a huge impact on the national discourse and, to some extent, the electoral battlefield, but there’s another fight dragging on as a result of it. Some of the families who lost loved ones during the attack by a deranged madman filed a lawsuit as a result. They weren’t going after the shooter’s estate or even that of his mother, but the parent company of the manufacturer who produced one of the guns used in the attack. Freedom Group, the owners of both Bushmaster and Remington Arms (among others) was their target, claiming that they knowingly sold a dangerous product which wound up being used against the children and teachers at the school. This week the company is pushing back, seeking the dismissal of the case on grounds that it is essentially baseless and conflicts with current law.

I love the way the article explains exactly how the current law is written:

The law in question here is the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which we’ve covered a number of times in the past. It’s a piece of legislation which really never should have needed to be passed, but Congress was forced into a rare bit of productive action when relentless nuisance suits by anti-gun rights groups threatened to bankrupt smaller members of the industry. It essentially says that the manufacturer or retailer can’t be held liable for the production, distribution and sale of safely designed, properly functioning, wholly legal products simply because they are put to an illegal use by criminals or the insane. It’s no different than saying you can’t sue the manufacturer of a properly designed and operational toaster just because your angry girlfriend throws it in the bathtub with you. (The italics are mine.)

You can argue that the guns were not properly secured and got into the hands of a dangerous person, but that is not the fault of the manufacturing company. Had there been a person in the school with a gun manufactured by the same company, there would have been fewer lives lost–does that mean that the product is no longer dangerous, but a safety item?

The article concludes:

It’s easy to understand the sorrow and anger felt by the Sandy Hook families, just as it’s obvious how and why anti-Second Amendment groups would seek to use them as pawns to further their cause. None of that changes the facts on the ground, however. This was an ill considered venture to begin with and we’re in a lot of trouble as a nation if the courts manage to bend reality enough to allow them to prevail.


Yesterday In South Carolina

Yesterday Donald Trump won the primary election in South Carolina. These are the numbers (from

SouthCarolinaPrimaryElectionAfter the primary, Jeb Bush suspended his campaign, so there are essentially five candidates remaining–the top three are Donald Trump, Marco Rubio, and Ted Cruz. So what can we conclude from this? The only Republican establishment candidate left is March Rubio. He is not the Republican establishment’s first choice, but he is the only remaining establishment candidate. The only true conservative in the race is Ted Cruz. We can expect to see more vicious attacks against him in the coming weeks both from the media and the Republican establishment.

This is the current delegate count in each party:

DelegateCountFebruary21*Party leaders who are free to support any candidate.

This is the beginning. If you truly want America to move in a positive direction in the future, I believe that Ted Cruz is your candidate. Be ready for the Democrats, the media, and the Republican establishment to go after Ted Cruz in a noticeable way. He is the candidate that is truly a threat to the status quo.

He Didn’t Even ‘Phone It In’

It bothers me that President Obama chose not to attend Justice Scalia’s funeral. Evidently I am not the only person bothered. Charles Lipson is the Peter B. Ritzma Professor of Political Science and the founder and director of the Program on International Politicis, Economics and Security at the University of Chicago. On Thursday he posted an article at Real Clear Politics about President Obama’s absence from the funeral.

The article reminds us:

President Obama’s decision not to attend Justice Antonin Scalia‘s funeral is shameful. It mirrors his decision to skip the state funeral for Margaret Thatcher in 2013. On these somber, formal occasions, the president is called upon to represent our country as the head of state. He is not representing his party, his political agenda, or himself personally. He is representing our country—or at least he should be. On Saturday, it is his duty to mourn a man who sat on the Supreme Court for decades. He is shirking that duty.

President Obama missed the opportunity to bring the nation together. Unfortunately, during his term as President, he has generally missed opportunities to unite Americans.

The article concludes:

President Obama need not reach these rhetorical heights. But he ought to behave with quiet dignity and represent our nation at Scalia’s funeral. He does not have to pretend he agreed with Scalia’s decisions. He does not have to praise the justice’s judicial philosophy. But he ought to honor the life of a man who spent three decades on the Supreme Court and five years before that on the U.S. appellate bench.

Refusing to attend the funeral does more than insult the memory of a life-long public servant. It is a failure to perform a basic presidential duty. Obama has shirked his responsibility to all of us.

President Obama has not handled the office of President with class. He has exploited the office and divided Americans rather than uniting them. Hopefully, Americans will elect a President in November who will unite us and respect the office of President.