When Their True Colors Show…

Islam is not a tolerant religion–women are stoned for adultery, thieves have their hands cut off, infidels are beheaded, and homosexual men are thrown off the tops of buildings to their death. In an Islamic country, if you don’t fit the Islamic picture of what you are supposed to be, your life can get very complicated very quickly. There was an example of how this principle works internationally this week.

Fox News reported on Wednesday that the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), a major voting block in the United Nations, prevented 11 gay and transgender rights organizations from attending a meeting at the United Nations next month on ending AIDS. The OIC was organized in 1969 with the stated goal of “revitalizing Islam’s  pioneering role in the world.” At that time, it was called the Organization of the Islamic Conference. In 2011, it was renamed the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation. The purpose of the organization is to be the voice of the Muslim world and to safeguard and protect the interests of the Muslim world. Its membership includes 57 countries.

The article at Fox News reports:

In Egypt’s letter, a reason for the OIC’s rejection of the groups was not specified, but Samantha Power, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said the groups appeared to have been blocked for their role in LGBT advocacy.

“Given that transgender people are 49 times more likely to be living with HIV than the general population, their exclusion from the high-level meeting will only impede global progress in combating the HIV/AIDS pandemic,” Power wrote in a letter to General Assembly President Mogens Lykketoft.

U.N. officials told Reuters that the E.U. and Canada also wrote letters to Lykketoft in protest.

“The movement to block the participation of NGOs on spurious or hidden grounds is becoming epidemic and severely damages the credibility of the U.N.,” Powers added.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon – caught in the middle of the battle for gay rights – has been an advocate for LGBT equality but has faced opposition from African and Arab states as well as Russia and China. In February, the countries protested six new U.N. stamps promoting LGBT equality.

The items on the liberal wish list in America are in direct contradiction to Islamic law. It will be interesting to see when the American left wakes up to this fact. When the gay population that supports the agenda of the political left realizes that under Sharia Law they will be killed, they may stop advocating for American courts to accept Sharia Law.

 

Who Is Paying For Our News?

The Associated Press posted an article in the Las Vegas Sun (and other newspapers) today about the selling of the Iran nuclear deal to the American public. There has been a bit of a dust-up about the Iranian nuclear deal because of a rather lengthy interview Ben Rhodes, one of President Obama’s top foreign policy aides, gave to The New York Times.

As I reported on May 10, Mr. Rhodes felt that the White House reporters he was briefing were so inexperienced he could tell them anything and they would believe it. He also managed to set up a media echo chamber to convince the American people that the Iranian deal was a good idea. Well, it gets worse.

The Las Vegas Sun reports:

A group identified by the White House as a key ally in selling the public on the Iran nuclear deal gave National Public Radio $100,000 last year to help it report on the pact and related issues, according to the group’s annual report. It also financed reporters and partnerships with other news outlets.

The Ploughshares Fund’s mission is to develop and finance initiatives “to reduce and ultimately eliminate the world’s nuclear stockpiles,” one that dovetails with President Barack Obama’s arms control efforts. But its behind-the-scenes advocacy of the Iran agreement got more attention this month after a candid profile of Ben Rhodes, one of the president’s top foreign policy aides.

In The New York Times Magazine article, Rhodes explained how the administration worked with nongovernmental organizations, proliferation experts and even friendly reporters to build support for the seven-nation accord that curtailed Iran’s nuclear activity and softened international financial penalties on Tehran.

“We created an echo chamber,” said Rhodes, a deputy national security adviser, adding that “outside groups like Ploughshares” helped carry out the administration’s message effectively.

There are a lot of reasons this infuriates me. First of all, in this discussion I don’t hear any reference to America’s national security and how it will be impacted by the Iran deal. I also don’t see any admission that Iran will use much of the money the agreement frees up to manufacture weapons to be used against American soldiers in Afghanistan and the Middle East. It also hits home because bloggers are not necessarily seen as a valid source of news for the American people. In this case, conservative talk radio, conservative news outlets, conservative publications, and conservative bloggers were the only ones telling the truth about the Iran deal, and the White House worked very hard to portray them as misinformed.

The article further reports:

Ploughshares boasts of helping to secure the deal. While success was “driven by the fearless leadership of the Obama administration and supporters in Congress,” board chairwoman Mary Lloyd Estrin wrote in the annual report, “less known is the absolutely critical role that civil society played in tipping the scales towards this extraordinary policy victory.”

Ploughshares has set its sights on other media organizations, too.

In a “Cultural Strategy Report” on its website, the group outlined a broader objective of “ensuring regular and accurate coverage of nuclear issues in reputable and strategic media outlets” such as The Guardian, Salon, the Huffington Post or ProPublica.

Previous efforts failed to generate enough coverage, it noted. These included “funding of reporters at The Nation and Mother Jones and a partnership with The Center for Public Integrity to create a national security desk.” It suggested using “web videos, podcasts, photo-based stories” and other “attention-grabbing formats” for “creatively reframing the issue.”

The Center for Public Integrity’s CEO, Peter Bale, confirmed the group received a grant.

“None of the funding received by Ploughshares was for coverage of the Iran deal,” said Bale, whose organization received $70,000. “In general, we avoided that subject because the topic did not lend itself to the type of investigative reporting the center does.”

At some point the American people will realize that the Iranian nuclear deal is a bad deal. By then it may be too late, but at some point the truth will come out. Meanwhile, this looks a lot like the Obama Administration working against the welfare of the American people. Unfortunately, the American people played right along.

Some News From The Democratic Side

Last week the media reported that Bernie Sanders supporters booed Barbara Boxer at the Democratic Convention in Nevada. Well, that’s not exactly what happened. Yesterday Salon, a generally Democratic new outlet, posted a first-hand account of what actually happened. The Sanders supporters were not booing Barbara Boxer–they were booing the fact that the convention rules had been changed to marginalize their voice and their candidate.

The article reports:

…It wasn’t long before things took a turn. At 9:30, a full half hour before registration closed, Lange (Chairwoman, Roberta Lange) read the results of ballots that had been passed out to early arriving conventioneers regarding temporary rules for the convention, rules which would discount the results of the county convention (the second tier of the caucus process, where Bernie had won more delegates), rules which would require that all votes at the convention be decided by voice alone, and which ruled that the decision of the chairperson would be final. These temporary rules had passed with flying colors, which did not sit well with the Bernie delegates, many of whom had not been given ballots. Suddenly half the people of the room were on their feet, shouting “No!!!!” My son and I jumped to our feet as well, added our voices to the chorus. It felt good, all those voices of resistance vibrating through my body. I started to feel less like a cloud. I felt myself drop back into my body, surrounded by all these bodies yelling “No!”, feeling alive inside my skin.

Then people began to chant “Recount” and my son and I joined this call, too, throats aching, adrenaline coursing. Lange took the temporary rules to a voice vote. A hearty round of “Aye”s rose up from the Hillary side of the room, but when it was time for the “Nay” vote, the response was so loud, I felt it shake my every cell, felt it alter my heartbeat. The room was explosive with “Nay”s, roaring with it, and yet Lange decided in favor of the “Aye”s, which only set off more yelling. I thought about my dad, how once when I was a kid, I wanted to do something and my sister didn’t, and he said “If someone says no, you need to listen.” Lange definitely didn’t listen to all the “no”s in the room.

No wonder the Bernie Sanders supporters were booing.

The article continues:

From reports from my husband and other conventioneers, and from my own firsthand experience as my son and I wandered in and out of the hall as the day progressed, it appeared that Lange didn’t listen to much of anything the Bernie delegates had to say; she appeared not to count the votes from that side of the room; she ejected dozens of Bernie delegates who didn’t have a chance to defend their eligibility, and who, if they were allowed to stay, would have given Bernie more delegates than Hillary; she didn’t allow for a “minority report”; she cut off microphones when people challenged her.

When I read news stories about what happened that day, I don’t recognize much of what is being reported—while there was plenty of chaos, I witnessed no violence (nor did my husband or anyone else I knew at the convention). Bernie supporters were not trying to change the rules, as some journalists reported: they were justifiably outraged when the chairperson changed the rules without a majority vote, and then more outraged when, later, after a motion for a delegate recount, she shut the whole convention down with a pound of the gavel and threatened arrest to anyone who stayed in the room. So many of the news reports of the convention feel like gaslighting in that regard—stories trying to make it sound as if the Bernie delegates were a bunch of crazy nutjobs, when all they wanted was to be heard and counted.

The Hillary Clinton for President forces are ruthless. They really don’t care who they step on–even in their own party. I hope the Republicans remember this in November. I am not a Trump supporter, but I will vote for him before I will vote for Hillary. Most of all, I want an honest election.

Maybe We Are Screening The Wrong People

In early April of this year, I posted an article about security at American airports. The article was based on a Judicial Watch story and included the following:

In all of the cases, airport workers used their security badges to access secured areas of their respective facilities without having to undergo any sort of check. As if this weren’t bad enough, last month government records obtained by the media revealed that 73 employees at nearly 40 airports across the nation were flagged for ties to terror in a June 2015 report from the DHS Inspector General’s Office. The files identified two of them working at Logan International Airport in Boston, four at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport and six at Seattle-Tacoma International in Washington State. Here’s the government’s explanation for letting the potential terrorists slip by; the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) didn’t have access to the terrorism-related database during the vetting process for those employees. You can’t make this stuff up!

Now we learn that only three of the nation’s 300 airports—Atlanta, Miami and Orlando—require employees to undergo security checks before work, even though there’s an epidemic of illicit activity among this demographic.

Today, the Center for Security Policy posted a short discussion of the recent loss of EgyptAir Flight MS804. This is the discussion:

Frank Gaffney discussed the issue on Secure Freedom Radio with Fred Fleitz, the Senior Vice President for Policy and Programs at the Center for Security Policy. As a former CIA analyst, Fleitz has an extensive background in analyzing such matters. Gaffney asked him to break down what we know so far:

“From what I’ve heard so far Frank, it looks like this probably was not the result of technical difficulties. There’s evidence that the plane tried to make some strange right and left and 360 degree turns shortly before it fell from the air. There are fishermen who said they saw a fireball so obviously the plane exploded before it crashed so it is looking like this is an act of terror and my concern as a former intelligence analyst is that this raises real questions about whether Jihadis have found new ways to penetrate airport security, both by getting their members as employees and possibly by finding technical workarounds to ways to detect bombs placed on aircraft.”

Gaffney pointed out that many American airports have staff members in various positions who may embrace Sharia Law which obliges them to embrace Jihadi philosophy and wonders if we have “lost our minds” on this issue. Fleitz responded:

“Well, you’re raising a question no one wants to talk about, I mean Western societies, we want to be tolerant, we don’t want to tar and feather every Muslim employee as a Jihadi but we know the French and British have identified people with ISIS sympathies working at airports. This is a problem in this country. Congressman Peter King was on the radio this morning talking about how TSA is finding this is a real problem, they’re trying to ferret out people who appear to have sympathies with ISIS or al Qaeda working in these sensitive positions and these are people behind the scenes, baggage handlers and mechanics who could easily put a weapon on a plane.”

Gaffney stressed that they obviously weren’t talking about all Muslims but pointed out that there is a difference between modern post-Sharia Muslims and those who embrace a medieval view.

There is a good possibility that whatever brought down EgyptAir Flight MS804 was put on the plane while it was on the ground. The plane made numerous stops before it left Paris for Egypt. It is time for all countries to take a close look at their airport workers. Planes that are flying at 35,000 feet do not fall out of the sky for no reason. Even if you lose all power, you have a chance to glide down safely. We need to pray for the families of the victims, and we need to learn quickly from the mistakes that allowed this tragedy to happen.

Who Is Actually Working?

The economic recovery under President Obama has been weak. The Heritage Foundation posted the following graph of our unemployment situation:

EmploymentInTheUSThat tells part of the story, but there is another part that is not being widely told. The Washington Free Beacon posted a story yesterday showing that more foreign workers are employed in America than Americans. That is not encouraging news.

The article reports:

A record-high average of 24,963,000 foreign-born workers were employed in the United States in 2015, according to data released Thursday by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

According to the bureau, foreign-born individuals include legally admitted immigrants, refugees, temporary residents such as students and temporary workers, and undocumented immigrants.

The bureau began recording this data in 2002. At that time, there were nearly 19 million foreign-born workers employed in the United States. The number has increased by 31.4 percent since then.

While the average number of native-born workers employed also reached a record high in 2015, it did not increase at the same rate as foreign-born workers. In 2015, there were an average of 123,871,000 native-born workers employed, up from 117,487,000 workers employed in 2002, an increase of 5.4 percent.

Additionally, the bureau found that the unemployment rate for foreign-born persons was 4.9 percent for 2015, lower than the 5.4 percent unemployment rate for the native born.

I suppose there are a lot of reasons for hiring foreign-born workers–foreign-born workers are generally willing to work for a lower wage than American workers, foreign-born workers may have a better work ethic than the one we have been teaching Americans, and foreign-born workers may be more inclined to take jobs Americans are not interesting in doing. It may be in a company’s best interest to hire foreign-born workers for the above reasons.

So what is the solution? One thing that might help would be to link the number of visas available to foreign-born workers to the number of jobs available. I have no objection to a legal alien working in America as long as he is not taking a job away from an American. Disney is the poster child for replacing American workers with foreign workers (see article in the Orlando Sentinel).

Meanwhile, until the American people stand up to our government and ask them to limit the number of foreign-worker visas so that it corresponds to the jobs available, Americans will be out of work. Corporations have lobbyists, and those lobbyists strongly encourage Congress to allow more foreign workers in so that corporations can cut their cost of doing business. That is why no one has closed our southern border–corporations make more money by hiring illegal aliens as workers. Until we have someone in Washington in power who is not bought and sold by corporate interests, we will not have a secure southern border and American workers will not be secure in their jobs.

 

Standing Up For Our Military

The Washington Examiner posted an article today about a House of Representatives vote on housing illegal aliens.

The article reports:

House Republicans voted Thursday to ban the Defense Department from housing illegal immigrants on military bases, which might force President Obama’s team to develop an alternative plan for housing the unaccompanied children arriving on the southern border.

“By proving housing for illegal immigrants on military installations, we are wasting scarce defense dollars that should be used to train and equip our soldiers to fight our nation’s wars,” Rep. John Fleming, R-La. He proposed his solution as an amendment to legislation that funds the Department of Veterans Affairs and other military-related issues, and it passed 219-202.

Our military are overextended and have equipment that they don’t have enough spare parts for and the government is considering using their budget to help people here illegally.

The article further reports:

Fleming’s amendment passed by a narrow margin considering the GOP’s 246-seat majority. Twenty-two Republicans voted against the measure, while six didn’t vote at all. Two Democrats — Rep. Brad Ashford, D-Neb., and Rep. Brendan Boyle, D-Pa. — voted in favor of the bill.

The amendment should have passed unanimously–there is no excuse to take money that is supposed to be for our military and give it to people who are here illegally.

Changing The Rules In The Middle Of The Game

Hot Air posted an article today about a federal jobs program for youth. The program is part of President Obama’s Summer Opportunity Project. This is the description of the program when it was announced:

The Summer Opportunity Project is a multi-agency effort in partnership with the National Summer Learning Association and other collaborators to provide support to communities. The Project aims to significantly increase the percentage of youth in evidence-based summer opportunity programs, decrease the percentage of youth experiencing violence over the summer, and—more broadly—make sure that young Americans have the support they need to get their first job.

Research shows that Black and Hispanic teenage boys lag behind their peers in summer employment and year-round jobs. This employment gap broadens as young men get older, making them the highest percentage of the nearly seven million youth 16-24 disconnected from school and work. That’s why the President’s My Brother’s Keeper Task Force recommended to the President in May of 2014 strengthening the case for summer youth employment and launching a cross-sector campaign to reduce summer learning loss and increase the number of job and internship opportunities for all young people.

I am going to ignore the constitutional problem with the government creating jobs and say that this program looks reasonable. However, what you start with is not necessarily what you finish with.

It turns out that the Summer Opportunity Project funds have been diverted:

Utica is among 11 communities nationwide that will share $21 million in grants for summer jobs programs aimed at helping disadvantaged youth, the White House and U.S. Department of Labor said Monday.

Utica will receive almost $2 million to help 400 students in the city’s refugee population receive summer work experience and part-time jobs the rest of the year, White House officials said.

The Utica students also will receive tutoring in English and math as part of the New Americans Career Pathways Project.

The federal money is part of the Summer Opportunity Project launched by the White House in February.

So rather than help the Black and Hispanic Americans who have grown up here and need jobs, we are taking the money away from them and spending it on refugees. Let’s help our own children first please.

 

The List

Donald Trump has released his list of the judges that he would nominate for the Supreme Court if he is elected President. Paul Mirengoff at Power Line posted the list along with a few comments.

Here is the list:

Steven Colloton (8th Cir.)
Allison Eid (Colorado Sup. Court)

Raymond Gruender (8th Cir.)
Thomas Hardiman (3d. Cir.)
Raymond Kethledge (6th Cir.)
Joan Larsen (Mich. Sup. Court)
Thomas Rex Lee (Utah Sup. Court and brother of Sen. Mike Lee)
William Pryor (11th Cir.)
David Stras (Minnesota Sup. Court)
Diane Sykes (7th Cir.)
Don Willett (Texas Supreme Court)

To be perfectly honest, I know nothing about any of these judges, but the article at Power Line has a few comments:

The fact that state court judges make up nearly half of the list also seems like a good sign. It is, at a minimum, a nod to federalism.

The list confirms what I have heard — that Trump’s is talking to the right conservatives when it comes to the Supreme Court. It doesn’t guarantee a conservative nominee, but it does highlight what is probably the best argument, from a conservative perspective, for voting for Trump — his judicial nominations (and not just to the Supreme Court) are virtually sure to be vastly better than Hillary Clinton’s.

As I have previously stated, Donald Trump was not my first choice, but if he surrounds himself with good people, I may come around. If Americans are paying attention, they will factor the possible Supreme Court selections into their voting decisions in November.

Propaganda Or Ignorance?

The dream of the political left is to have a successful socialistic state. The idea of everyone having everything they need and everyone being financially secure is wonderful. The only problem is that is doesn’t seem to work in real life. Europe is an example of government spending to provide government benefits, but does not seem to be prospering. A few years ago, the political left thought Venezuela was going to prove that socialism worked.

An article appeared in Salon Magazine with the title, “Hugo Chavez‘s economic miracle” with the subtitle, “The Venezuelan leader was often marginalized as a radical. But his brand of socialism achieved real economic gains.” Chavez’s early years were very successful. He served as President of Venezuela from 1999 to 2013. So what happened?

The article at Salon reports:

For instance, according to data compiled by the UK Guardian, Chavez’s first decade in office saw Venezuelan GDP more than double and both infant mortality and unemployment almost halved. Then there is a remarkable graph from the World Bank that shows that under Chavez’s brand of socialism, poverty in Venezuela plummeted (the Guardian reports that its “extreme poverty” rate fell from 23.4 percent in 1999 to 8.5 percent just a decade later). In all, that left the country with the third lowest poverty rate in Latin America. Additionally, as Weisbrot points out, “college enrollment has more than doubled, millions of people have access to health care for the first time and the number of people eligible for public pensions has quadrupled.”

 Part of Chavez’s success can be attributed to the high cost of oil during that time.

OilPricesHowever, the Venezuelan government began to take over private companies that were keeping the oil flowing. The government did not have the technical skill to continue to operative those companies successfully. (rightwinggranny) As the price of oil began to fall, there was no one to help increase the efficiency of oil production–the companies had been nationalized so there was no incentive. The free market was not allowed to work.

So where are they now. CBN News posted a story yesterday.

CBN News reported:

Venezuela, a country rich in natural resources, is the fifth largest exporter of oil in the world. Despite its assets, however, the economy is disintegrating.

Basic necessities are scarce, and inflation is skyrocketing, with some reports suggesting it could go as high as 700 percent.

“The people of Venezuela are suffering from violence, a world record of daily murders and random kidnappings,” European Union Foreign Policy Chief Federica Mogherini said.

“They are suffering permanent shortages of food, basic goods, most medicines and medical care,” she continued. “Water is scarce and no longer guarantees the former sanitary standards. Even electricity is subject to frequent rationing.”

Socialism doesn’t work–when there is no incentive, people do not innovate. Even though it is not perfect, the free market is the only economic system in the world proven to lift people out of poverty and give everyone the opportunity to achieve. That is the history of socialism and the history of free market economics. I don’t know if the people at Salon knew that history and were hoping that Venezuela would be different, or if they didn’t know that history. Either way, the article misled anyone who does not understand economics.

Does the ignorance of economic policies and their consequences explain the acceptance of Bernie Sanders as a Presidential candidate?

Coming To A Neighborhood Near You

On July 19, 2013, the Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Department of the federal government proposed the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing regulation.

This is a brief summary of the regulation taken from the Federal Register:

This proposed rule would amend HUD regulations in 24 CFR part 5 that contain general HUD program requirements, and specifically 24 CFR part 5, subpart A, which contains generally applicable definitions and federal requirements that are applicable to all or almost all HUD programs. This rule proposes to add new §§ 5.150-5.180 under the undesignated heading of “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing.” These new sections will primarily provide the regulations that will govern the affirmatively furthering fair housing planning process by states, local governments, and PHAs, but reserves additional sections in subpart A for HUD to continue to provide regulations that will assist all HUD program participants in more effectively affirmatively furthering fair housing.

Purpose of Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Regulations (§ 5.150). New § 5.150 states that the purpose of HUD’s new regulations (AFFH regulations) is to provide more effective means of meeting the statutory obligation imposed on HUD program participants to affirmatively further fair housing. The new AFFH regulations are intended to add clarity to the goals that are at the heart of affirmatively furthering fair housing, to provide for guidance and interaction between HUD and program participants and, to the extent appropriate, inform other housing and urban development programs that are subject to AFFH requirements. The new regulations envision a process that is structurally incorporated into the consolidated plan and the PHA planning process, building upon what is already familiar to HUD program participants and thus reducing burden and connecting disparate planning processes.

So what exactly does this mean? Americans for limited government puts it in real terms:

Americans for Limited Government President Rick Manning today urged the Senate to support an amendment by Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), S.3897, to the Transportation and Housing and Urban Development (HUD) appropriations bill that will prohibit implementation of the HUD regulation “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing” (AFFH) that conditions $3 billion of yearly community development block grants on 1,200 recipient cities and counties rezoning neighborhoods along income and racial guidelines:

“There is zero excuse for allowing the federal government to dictate local zoning policy via community development block grants to impose racial and income zoning quotas on cities and counties. Zoning ordinances only determine what can be built where, not who lives there. People can move wherever they want, and rent or buy. Real housing discrimination, that is, denying housing on the basis of race, has been illegal for decades. It is not at all what is at issue in the upcoming vote in the Senate.

“The Lee amendment simply says that community development block grants, which have been around for more than 40 years, can be spent by local communities as they see fit to put affordable housing where they think it makes sense. That’s the way these block grants have always been allocated, but suddenly, the Obama Administration found some new power for HUD to condition the community development block grants based on fulfilling the department’s utopian vision of racial and income equality.

“Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing is not about expanding the poor’s access to housing, it’s about expanding the federal government’s reach into local municipalities. Republican or Democrat, defunding this overreach should be an easy vote for every senator.”

One example of how the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing regulation actually works is cited at a website called Obamazone.org:

In Westchester County, N.Y., a trial run for the rule has already occurred where HUD has attempted to rezone six cities, 19 towns and 20 villages as a condition for receiving $5 million of grants. Rather than submit to federal rule, County Executive Rob Astorino simply rejected the money from 2012, and Westchester lost out on some $7 million of grants from 2011 for the same reason. Watch the video of Astorino explaining how the HUD regulation will affect your neighborhood.

This is just the beginning, and left unchecked, the impact of this regulation will be felt nationwide. In 2012, HUD dispersed about $3.8 billion of these grants to almost 1,200 municipalities. By virtue of accepting the grants, under the rule, each of these 1,200 municipalities will be forced to comply with HUD’s racial zoning edicts.

The House of Representatives has already acted, defunding implementation of the regulation two years in a row. Now, it is the Senate’s turn to act. Senator Mike Lee has introduced an amendment to the Transportation and Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) appropriations bill defunding implementation of the “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing” rule.

Zoning laws are done by local governments who understand the area they are dealing with–the infrastructure, the land, and the resources. The federal government has no business overriding local government laws and decisions.

Irony?

Last Tuesday I wrote an article about the New York Times interview by Ben Rhodes. The Sunday New York Times Magazine featured a rather lengthy interview with Mr. Rhodes. In the interview, Ben Rhodes essentially brags about taking advantage of the ignorance of young White House reporters in spinning the Iran nuclear deal.

The New York Times article quotes Ben Rhodes:

Rhodes singled out a key example to me one day, laced with the brutal contempt that is a hallmark of his private utterances. “All these newspapers used to have foreign bureaus,” he said. “Now they don’t. They call us to explain to them what’s happening in Moscow and Cairo. Most of the outlets are reporting on world events from Washington. The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That’s a sea change. They literally know nothing.”

Well, Congress asked Mr. Rhodes to testify about the Iran nuclear deal and his actions in selling it. Mr. Rhodes (and President Obama) were not interested in talking to an audience that might be less than friendly and that might actually be seeking the truth.

Fox News posted a story today about Mr. Rhodes’ refusal to testify.

The article states:

Chaffetz, R-Utah, chairman of the House Oversight Committee, wanted the deputy national security adviser to testify at a hearing set for Tuesday titled, “White House narratives on the Iran Nuclear Deal.”

“We’re planning as if he is attending, and he’ll have a comfortable seat awaiting his arrival,” Chaffetz said Monday afternoon of Rhodes.

But W. Neil Eggleston, White House counsel, sent a letter to Chaffetz late Monday saying Rhodes would not attend.

He cited what appeared to be an executive privilege-related claim, asserting that such a senior presidential adviser’s appearance “threatens the independence and autonomy of the President, as well as his ability to receive candid advice and counsel.” For those reasons, he said, “we will not make Mr. Rhodes available to testify.”

Chaffetz earlier had made a last-ditch attempt to pressure Rhodes into appearing. After White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest initially said he should invite GOP Sen. Tom Cotton, whom he accuses of spreading false information about the deal, Chaffetz did exactly that — inviting Cotton to testify, on condition that Rhodes appeared as well.

“[Earnest] suggested that you should be invited to appear at the hearing as well, because you have some ‘interesting insight’ into the JCPOA [the Iran deal]. Therefore your appearance before the Committee would be contingent on Mr. Rhodes’ appearance at that hearing,” Chaffetz said in a letter Friday.

It seems very ironic to me that Mr. Rhodes is willing to tell all to The New York Times but not willing to talk to Congress.

The article at Fox News explains why Congress requested Mr. Rhodes to appear:

Sources tell Fox News that the committee was keen for Rhodes to appear voluntarily so they avoid the territory of a possible subpoena.

The magazine article that touched off the controversy outlined how Rhodes created a narrative of the deal coming out of the 2013 election of “moderate” Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and Iran’s subsequent “openness” and willingness to negotiate.

In fact, the story stated, the majority of the deal was hammered out in 2012, well before Rouhani’s election. However, the Rhodes narrative was politically useful to the administration as it presented them as reaching out to the moderates who wanted peace.

Congress needs to hold the President (and his ‘truth-spinner’) accountable for the lies that were told to gain acceptance of a treaty that will eventually be a threat to America‘s national security. It is very telling to me that Ben Rhodes was willing to spend as many hours as it took to get his interview in The New York Times but is not willing to talk to Congress.

Religious Freedom Wins A Victory

The Daily Signal today posted a story about the recent Supreme Court case regarding the Little Sisters of the Poor. I am not a lawyer and do not totally understand what I am about to report (other than the fact that it is good news for those of us who treasure the freedom to practice our religion in our daily lives).

The article reports:

In a unanimous opinion, the Supreme Court “vacated,” meaning erased, all of the lower court cases and required them to reconsider the claims brought by the Little Sisters of the Poor and others that the regulations promulgated pursuant to Obamacare violate their religious exercise in light of the government’s admission that it could indeed provide contraceptive coverage without the Little Sisters’ collaboration.

…The Little Sisters of the Poor and other challengers suggested, among other things, that the government could require insurance providers to make separate contraceptive plans available to employees whose employer plans do not include such coverage.

This would require a separate enrollment process along the lines of how some employers have separate dental, vision, or prescription plans, as well as separate “insurance cards, payment sources, and communication streams.”

They maintained that such “truly independent efforts to provide contraceptive coverage to their employees” would allay their religious objections because they would be removed from the process entirely.

According to the Supreme Court, “the government has confirmed” its scheme could be modified in a manner that leaves the Little Sisters of the Poor out of the process, as they requested, while still insuring women employees receive contraceptive coverage.

…The ruling means that all the lower court opinions that went against the religious freedom of the Little Sisters of the Poor and the other religious nonprofits are wiped away and their flawed reasoning cannot be used as precedent in the future.

It illustrates that the government could have accommodated the Little Sisters of the Poor all along without affecting contraceptive coverage, but chose not to. And it guarantees that the government cannot force the Little Sisters of the Poor and the other challengers to choose between violating their consciences as the government demands or face crippling fines and penalties.

In the coming months, the lower courts will reconsider these challenges, but it is hard to see how the administration and the lower courts can find a way to get around the Supreme Court’s unanimous order—making the decision a big victory for the Little Sisters of the Poor.

The underlining in the quote is mine. I wanted to make sure that anyone who reads this article understands that this entire legal dust-up was unnecessary. It was another example of bullying by the Obama Administration. The Administration wanted to bully any Christian who might want to practice their faith in their mission or occupation into accepting terms of ObamaCare that are unacceptable in Christianity.

Notice also that the Supreme Court decision to ‘vacate’ the lower court cases was unanimous–even the liberal justices realized that what was done to the Little Sisters of the Poor was simply not appropriate.

 

 

Free Money Is Rarely Free

Breitbart.com posted an article today illustrating the impact President Obama’s threats regarding the ‘bathroom’ (should be called ‘locker room’) bill. Even homeschoolers are worried.

The article reports:

Tina Hollenbeck, a homeschooling parent in Wisconsin, tells Breitbart News, “If homeschoolers take vouchers or any other form of government funding ‘help’ – even an ‘educational expenses credit’ on their taxes – they are enslaving themselves to government mandates.”

“And by choosing to entangle themselves, they jeopardize homeschooling freedom for all,” she adds. “That’s because of the very simple economic principle that ‘he who pays gets the say.’”

Hollenbeck – the developer of the Homeschool Resource Roadmap –explains that if homeschooling families accept any taxpayer funding from government entities at any level, the government then has the right to demand “accountability” from them.

“And it doesn’t matter if it’s merely a credit on their own taxes because the minute money makes its way into government coffers, the bureaucrats consider it to belong to the government and act accordingly with their rules and (unconstitutional) laws,” she asserts.

Karen Braun, an activist homeschooling parent who is the lead content writer for the Stop Common Core in Michigan website, observes the costs of accepting federal funding with an administration that “shreds local and state control.”

According to a website entitled Federal Education Policy History:

The U.S. established a Department of Education first in 1867.  This original department, however, was not a cabinet level agency, and within a few years was replaced with a bureau and then an office.

On October 17, 1979 President James E. Carter signed the Department of Education Organization Act (P.L. 96-88; 93 Stat. 668).  It replaced the Office of Education with a department proper, and installed a secretary at its head.

The Department of Education was made a cabinet position as a reward for the teachers’ union’s support of Jimmy Carter during the 1976 presidential election.

According to the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

We have come a long way from that concept, and our nation is failing because of that.

The article at Breitbart.com concludes:

Hollenbeck, however, asserts that parents’ right to provide that safe place to learn at home is compromised in our current political environment.

“Once bureaucrats get a foothold into controlling some homeschoolers, they’ll find ways to extend that to all,” she warns. “Thus, the only way to maintain all homeschoolers’ independence from government overreach into our homes is by everyone refusing any and all offers of government-sponsored financial ‘help.’ When we pay, we get the say – as it should be.”

Breitbart News reached out to Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) to ask how the organization believes the Obama administration’s gender identity “decree” will affect homeschooling in the United States.

“We expect that this will drive up the numbers in homeschooling the same way that Common Core did,” responded Michael Farris, Jr. of HSLDA Media Relations. “Parents want to have the final say in their children’s education, not have the federal government do it for them.”

Once the camel gets his nose inside the tent, there is no telling where he will end up.

Green Energy Isn’t Really Cutting Carbon Emissions

Yesterday The Daily Caller posted a story about the impact of green energy policies on carbon emissions in various states.

The article reports:

There’s no link between the pro-green energy policies of states and falling carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, but there is a statistically significant link between falling CO2 and natural gas electricity, according to statistical analysis conducted by The Daily Caller News Foundation.

Statistical analysis and regressions run by TheDCNF found no statistically significant link existed between the amount a state’s CO2 emissions fell since 2005 and the number of policies supporting green energy implemented by the state. The analysis showed there is an 81 percent chance there’s no link between CO2 emissions and the number of pro-green energy policies, meaning a link between the two likely doesn’t exist. The very small correlation between CO2 emissions and policies was going in the opposite direction from environmentalist claims.

Think about this a minute. According to data from British Petroleum, America ranks fifth in the world for the largest natural gas reserves. We now have a link between lower CO2 emissions and the use of natural gas. We can easily convert our electric plants to natural gas. This would be a big step toward making America energy independent and providing jobs for Americans instead of sending money overseas.

Please follow the link to the article in The Daily Caller to look at the charts which illustrate that the states with fewer green energy policies were the ones that were more successful in cutting CO2 emissions.

The article notes:

The DCNF’s (Daily Caller News Foundation) analysis found states like New Hampshire, Maryland, Maine, Georgia, Nevada and Alaska cut higher percentages of CO2 since 2005 than any others. These states had a combined average of 39 pro-green energy policies. The national average of all states was 51 pro-green energy policies. This suggests the more pro-green energy policies a state has, the less likely it was to reduce CO2 emissions.

This is another example of how excessive government involvement and interference in the free market makes a problem worse instead of solving it. There is a quote, generally attributed to Milton Friedman, that applies to this situation–“If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in five years there’d be a shortage of sand.” I truly believe that.

I’m Waiting For The Rest Of This Story

Breitbart.com is reporting today that a truck carrying fifteen illegal aliens attempted to enter Texas Naval Air Station (NAS) Kingsville was stopped by a barrier fence.

The article reports:

On Thursday evening, about 8 p.m., the truck loaded down beyond capacity with suspected illegal aliens drove past the initial gate at the Kingsville NAS. Kingsville is located about 125 miles north of the Texas/Mexico border in Brownsville just off Highway 77.

After they vehicle charged past the initial security point, Navy security guards initiated what is known as a “final defense barrier,” a NAS Kingsville public information officer posted on Facebook. This device is a combination of steel cables and rubberized posts that will stop, nearly instantly, a vehicle attempting to make an illegal entry. It is designed with the capability to stop a semi-trailer truck at high speed, Navy officials report.

…It has not been revealed why the illegal aliens in this newest crash were attempting to enter the Naval Air Station.

It will be interesting to see if the major media outlets report this story at all. It will also be interesting to see if there is any further reporting in the alternative media that explains why the truck was attempting to enter the military base.

Hopefully This Is The Dying Breath Of The Establishment Republicans

Mitt Romney is basically a good man. Lately I think he is a little misguided. True, he does represent the establishment wing of the Republican party, but I think the establishment wing needs to step aside now that their candidates have lost in the primary elections. Unfortunately, it doesn’t look as if that is going to happen.

The Hill posted an article today about some of Governor Romney’s recent activities.

The article states:

Mitt Romney, the GOP’s 2012 nominee, is among those courting prospects for a possible third-party bid to keep Donald Trump from the White House, according to a Washington Post report.

Among those prospects are Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.), one of Trump’s most vocal Republican critics, and Ohio Gov. John Kasich, who suspended his presidential campaign in early May.

Kasich’s chief strategist John Weaver said the governor isn’t interested in running an an independent.

Third-party candidates historically do not do well in elections. In this case, a third-party candidate would insure that the next President would be Hillary Clinton–the candidacy would split the Republican vote. With Donald Trump as the candidate, it is possible that many Republican voters will stay home, giving the presidency to Mrs. Clinton. Some of the pundits have stated that the establishment wing of the Republican party would rather lose this election than allow a non-establishment candidate to win. That is a scary thought. It is time we got the entrenched establishment of both parties out of Washington and replaced them with people who actually represent the American people. This election may well be our last chance to do that. Think carefully before you vote.

Some Consequences Of Legalizing Marijuana

On April 30, the American Academy of Pediatrics posted a story on their website with the following information:

A new study to be presented at the Pediatric Academic Societies 2016 Meeting found that one in six infants and toddlers admitted to a Colorado hospital with coughing, wheezing and other symptoms of bronchiolitis tested positive for marijuana exposure.

The study, “Marijuana Exposure in Children Hospitalized for Bronchiolitis,” recruited parents of previously healthy children between one month of age and two years old who were admitted to Children’s Hospital Colorado (CHC) between January 2013 and April 2014 with bronchiolitis, an inflammation of the smallest air passages in the lung. The parents completed a questionnaire about their child’s health, demographics, exposure to tobacco smoke, and as of October 2014, whether anyone in the home used marijuana. Marijuana became legal in Colorado on January 1, 2014.

Of the children who were identified as having been exposed to marijuana smokers, urine samples showed traces of a metabolite of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the psychoactive component of marijuana, in 16 percent of them. The results also showed that more of the children were THC positive after legalization (21 percent, compared with 10 percent before), and non-white children were more likely to be exposed than white children.

The findings suggest that secondhand marijuana smoke, which contains carcinogenic and psychoactive chemicals, may be a rising child health concern as marijuana increasingly becomes legal for medical and recreational use in the United States, said lead researcher Karen M. Wilson, MD, MPH, FAAP, an associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Colorado School of Medicine and section head at CHC. Most states with legal marijuana do not restrict its combustion around children, she said.

Smoking pot around your children is not any healthier than smoking cigarettes around your children. Back in the days of dinosaurs when I grew up, parents thought nothing of smoking around their children. I grew up in a blue haze and married a smoker. From the time I was little until the time my husband quit smoking, I had chronic sinus problems. Since I now live in a pretty much smoke-free world, I very rarely get sinus infections. Also, the number of colds my children had decreased noticeably after my husband quit smoking. Second-hand smoke, regardless of its source, is simply not healthy.

On May 10, Today reported:

…A new report by the American Auto Association (AAA) has found that the percentage of drivers who are high on pot during fatal accidents in Washington State more than doubled between 2013 and 2014.

In Washington, only looking at crashes in which at least one driver tested positive for active THC, there were 40 fatalities in 2010, compared to 85 in 2014, according to AAA estimates. However, a large number of drivers were not tested for THC or did not have available blood test results, so THC-related fatalities could be much higher, the report notes.

The AAA report focused only on Washington state, while legalized the sale and possession of marijuana in 2012. It did not track driving while high fatality trends in Colorado, which also legalized pot that in 2012.

But with marijuana on the ballot to become legal in more states, AAA researchers fear that the numbers will rise more sharply.

Is this where we want to go?

Sowing The Seeds Of Your Own Destruction

A website called Taki’s Magazine posted an article today containing an interview of Jesse Hughes,  one of the band members who was on stage during the Paris massacre. I am going to quote heavily from the article, but every word in the article is important, so please follow the link to read the entire piece.

The article reports:

Jesse Hughes: I saw fear fall like a blanket on the whole crowd and they fell like wheat in the wind—the way you would before a god. I was totally alert from the very beginning. The first thing I needed to do was find my girl. Fear took a backseat and “where’s my girl?” took over. I could smell gunpowder in the backstage area and I knew someone fired a round back there. I saw a guy with an FAL and when he turned to face me his eyes looked like marbles. He was stoned out of his mind, and we now know they were on Xanax and cocaine. I recognized him. I’d seen him earlier in the day and noticed him staring at us.

…I got in a lot of trouble for saying that. I know for sure that they were in there early. I remember them staring at my buddy. I just chalked it up to Arab envy. You know what I mean? When a Muslim sees a cocky American dude with tattoos, he stares at him. I realized later it was Abdeslam and he was staring at my buddy because they thought he was a threat. There’s no denying the terrorists were already inside, and they had to get in somehow. During the shooting I went outside and the backstage door was propped open. How did that happen?

…A day after, at the stadium, Muslims booed the moment of silence and we barely heard about it in the press. I saw Muslims celebrating in the street during the attack. I saw it with my own eyes. In real time! How did they know what was going on? There must have been coordination.

…Do you think a percentage of the security staff was Muslim?

I know they were. Look, security guards backstage are notorious for being dicks. They check your ID every few minutes and nobody goes back and forth without being checked, even if you’re in the band. This guy didn’t care what we did. He didn’t even look at me.

The only time he seemed remotely interested in us was when he said to my girlfriend, “Do you speak French?” and “Where are you from?” She said she was from Texas and he was getting frustrated because that’s not what he meant. Then she said, “I’m American” and he lost interest. I honestly think he was trying to determine if she was Arab or not. She’s Mexican and she could easily pass for Lebanese and I think he was going to warn her if she was Muslim.

I kept opening up the back door to smoke and that’s usually a big no-no because of the sound ordinances. I’ve played there before and opening up that door to smoke got you in big trouble. This time, the security guy walks right past me and anxiously looks down the alleyway in either direction.

Please follow the link above to read the entire article. I do not necessarily appreciate some of his language, but under the circumstances, I can understand it. His views on why people didn’t put up a fight or get themselves out of danger are inciteful, and we can learn from his experience. This article underscores the need to know who your security people are and to be alert and proactive when bad things happen.

 

There May Be Another Shoe To Drop

On Wednesday, Fox News reported a recent comment by FBI Director James Comey about the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails. Mrs. Clinton has repeatedly stated while on the campaign trail that the FBI is conducting a mere “security inquiry.”

The article at Fox News reported:

But when asked Wednesday by Fox News about Clinton’s characterization of the bureau’s probe, FBI Director James Comey said he doesn’t know what “security inquiry” means — adding, “We’re conducting an investigation. … That’s what we do.”

The FBI director reiterated that he’s “not familiar with the term security inquiry” when told that is the phrase Clinton has used.

As for the timeline for the investigation, Comey, during a briefing with reporters, said he prefers doing the investigation “well” over promptly and said he’s not “tethered” to a schedule.

The people that I know who have held security clearances and handled classified material have all said that there is no question that Mrs. Clinton broke a number of laws during her time as Secretary of State. It will be very interesting to see if she is ever held accountable for her actions.

Bullies Don’t Stop Until You Stand Up To Them

Yesterday The New York Times reported that the Obama Administration will now direct all public school to allow students to use the bathrooms (and locker rooms) that conform to their sexual identity. I doesn’t matter what parts you have, you use the bathroom (or locker room) that corresponds to the way you feel at that particular time.

The article reports:

A letter to school districts will go out Friday, adding to a highly charged debate over transgender rights in the middle of the administration’s legal fight with North Carolina over the issue. The declaration — signed by Justice and Education department officials — will describe what schools should do to ensure that none of their students are discriminated against.

It does not have the force of law, but it contains an implicit threat: Schools that do not abide by the Obama administration’s interpretation of the law could face lawsuits or a loss of federal aid.

…“A school may not require transgender students to use facilities inconsistent with their gender identity or to use individual-user facilities when other students are not required to do so,” according to the letter, a copy of which was provided to The New York Times.

I don’t want to see anyone discriminated against or bullied, but it seems to me that this directive (aside from being unconstitutional) opens the door for bullying and all sorts of other high-jinks. Can the imagine the ‘dare you’ going around various teenage boys about going into the girls’ locker room? This is just plain silly.

The obvious answer to this is a private bathroom and changing area for anyone who feels that they need extra privacy. No questions asked. It is really sad that we are talking about discrimination in this matter rather than talking about protecting women and children from people claiming to be transgender who are not. There are already a number of criminal cases filed in various states where nefarious people have used transgender-sympathetic laws to gain access to women’s restrooms. What happened next was traumatizing for the women involved and has severe legal consequences for the man involved. Men do not belong in ladies’ rooms or in women’s locker rooms.

The Economy Is Still Limping Along

Bloomberg News posted an article today about last week’s jobless numbers.

The article includes the following chart:

May12JoblessClaims

The article reports:

A jump in filings in New York state may reflect striking workers at Verizon Communications Inc., spring break holiday at schools or a combination of the two. Economists will continue to monitor claims data in the coming weeks before concluding that the labor market is taking a bigger step back.

 “New York accounted for most of the increase,” said Jacob Oubina, a senior U.S. economist at RBC Capital Markets LLC in New York. “It’s not a clean read.”

Color me skeptical.

The article further reports:

A report last week showed that U.S. employers added 160,000 workers to their payrolls in April, the fewest since September and well below economists’ median forecast.

Another report from the Labor Department showed import prices rose 0.3 percent for a second month in April, largely reflecting a pickup in petroleum and food. While industrial supply costs increased, prices declined for consumer and capital goods made overseas.

I think we need a serious change in economic policies.

 

The Cost Of Paying A Higher Minimum Wage

Yesterday Twitchy reported that Wendy’s will be introducing self-service kiosks in their 6000 stores nationwide this year.

Investor’s Business Daily reported yesterday:

Wendy’s Penegor said company-operated stores, only about 10% of the total, are seeing wage inflation of 5% to 6%, driven both by the minimum wage and some by the need to offer a competitive wage “to access good labor.”

It’s not surprising that some franchisees might face more of a labor-cost squeeze than company restaurants. All 258 Wendy’s restaurants in California, where the minimum wage rose to $10 an hour this year and will gradually rise to $15, are franchise-operated. Likewise, about 75% of 200-plus restaurants in New York are run by franchisees. New York’s fast-food industry wage rose to $10.50 in New York City and $9.75 in the rest of the state at the start of 2016, also on the way to $15.

Wendy’s plans to cut company-owned stores to just 5% of the total.

There are some things those asking for significant increases to the minimum wage should keep in mind. Very few people are actually attempting to support families on minimum wage jobs–generally those holding those jobs are people attempting to enter the work force for the first time. These jobs allow them to develop basic workplace skills–showing up on time, being polite to customers, and showing up for work every day. Companies are in business to make a profit. If they do not make a profit, there is no reason for them to stay in business. No government has the right to determine what profit is acceptable–left alone, the free market will do that. Part of our current problem is that the government has interfered so much with the free market, that that normal checks and balances within the free market are not working as they should. The solution would be to get the government out of the marketplace–let businesses complete for workers and pay them what is necessary. It is also telling that because economic growth in America is currently slow, workers who would not normally be working in minimum wage jobs are working there.