I Would Really Prefer A Can Of Pepper Spray

Breitbart posted an article today about the actions being taken by Sweden’s police to stem the tide of sexual attacks by Muslim immigrants on Swedish women.

The article reports:

Sweden’s police chief unveiled the force’s latest weapon in the fight against sexual assault: wristbands reading “Don’t touch me”.

A recent Swedish press release warns that groping is a crime. In it, the country’s national police chief Dan Eliasson said: “No one should have to accept sexual molestation. So do not grope. And if you are groped, report it to the police.”

Mr. Eliasson mentioned a variety of actions such as “a hand tucked between the legs”, “a hug from behind in the crush at a club or festival”, and “one person holding somebody while another grabs their breasts”, describing them as “situations many young people recognise too well”.

The press release announced that police intend to equip young women with wristbands with the slogan “don’t touch me”. This will happen over the summer, at festivals and other events for young people. “By wearing these wristbands,” Sweden’s police chief said, “young women will be able to make a stand”.

The article also points out that many of the Muslim immigrants will not be able to read the bracelets (which are in Swedish)!

The article further reports:

A Swedish police report released last month noted that the country had the worst rates of sexual violence against women in Europe. The report acknowledged migrants were responsible for the bulk of the problem but the police were accused of making excuses for the perpetrators.

Although sexual harassment and assault are commonplace in many Muslim countries, the report blamed “Nordic alcohol culture” and “masculinity” for the wave of assaults that have terrorised Swedish women.

The fact that ‘sexual harassment and assault are commonplace in many Muslim countries’ should be a red flag to countries accepting Muslim immigrants. Unless the immigrants are willing to respect the rights of women in the countries they immigrate to, they should be turned away and sent back home. I truly doubt the bracelets will make a difference other than to illustrate the problem.

What Are We Really Teaching Our Children?

Yesterday PJ Media posted a story showing how skewed our education system has become. The story deals with a group of college graduates who were interning at a company. The didn’t like the company’s dress code and drew up a proposal and a  petition to change it.

The story reports:

The next day, all of us who signed the petition were called into a meeting where we thought our proposal would be discussed. Instead, we were informed that due to our “unprofessional” behavior, we were being let go from our internships. We were told to hand in our ID badges and to gather our things and leave the property ASAP.

We were shocked. The proposal was written professionally like examples I have learned about in school, and our arguments were thought out and well-reasoned. We weren’t even given a chance to discuss it. The worst part is that just before the meeting ended, one of the managers told us that the worker who was allowed to disobey the dress code was a former soldier who lost her leg and was therefore given permission to wear whatever kind of shoes she could walk in. You can’t even tell, and if we had known about this we would have factored it into our argument.

They just don’t get it–their argument was not the problem–their actions were.

The article concludes:

The reality is that colleges — the educational institutions that are theoretically supposed to prepare these kids for the real world — did these students a disservice by treating every petition or pet cause as valid, allowing the inmates to run the asylum. When the students hit the real world, WHAM!

The real world doesn’t have ‘safe spaces.’

Why The Second Amendment Matters

WISTV  (Columbia, South Carolina) posted a story on Sunday about a shooting in a nightclub. Four people were wounded by the gunman, but there is more to the story.

The article reports:

Deputies said 32-year-old Jody Ray Thompson pulled out a gun after getting  into an argument with another man and fired several rounds toward a crowd that had gathered out in front of the club.

“His rounds struck 3 victims, and almost struck a fourth victim, who in self-defense, pulled his own weapon and fired, striking Thompson in the leg,” Lt. Kevin Bobo said.

Bobo said the man who shot Thompson has a valid concealed weapons permit, cooperated with investigators, and won’t be facing any charges. 

The man who shot Thompson was exercising his Second Amendment rights and probably save the lives of many people. When everyone is armed, crime (and carnage) goes down.


A Small Step In The Right Direction

Generally speaking, I have my differences with the Republican Party. I changed my party affiliation earlier this year to unaffiliated. However, every now and then, the Republicans do something right. What follows is an example. There is no point in detailing an alternative to ObamaCare while President Obama is in office. However, he has approximately six months left. The House of Representatives has now released an alternative. Note that the alternative is being released just as ObamaCare premiums are about to skyrocket (probably right after the November election) and many health insurance providers are leaving ObamaCare. As ObamaCare collapses under its own weight, the Republicans have introduced an alternative. So what is the alternative?

The Weekly Standard posted a story yesterday about the proposed plan.

The article explains:

The proposal pairs an Obamacare alternative with Medicaid reforms and the crucial Medicare reforms (amounting to a kind of “Medicare Advantage Plus”) that Speaker Paul Ryan and House Republicans have long championed. As Ryan put it after the proposal’s release, “The way I see it, if we don’t like the direction the country is going in—and we do not—then we have an obligation to offer an alternative….And that’s what this is.” He called the plan not merely “a difference is policy” but “a difference in philosophy.”

Here are a few highlights from the plan:

1. It would dramatically lower health-care premiums. Obamacare drives up premiums though its inept and arrogant way of addressing preexisting conditions, and by mandating coverage of things that people don’t want. The GOP plan would drive down premiums by repealing Obamacare, putting people in control of their own health-care dollars, and letting them shop for value.

2. It would restore liberty while stopping Obamacare’s consolidation and centralization of power and money. Private American citizens would no longer be compelled (for the first time in all of United States history) to buy a product or service of the federal government’s choosing. The flow, like a river, of money and power to Washington, D.C., would be reversed.

3. It would lower Americans’ tax burdens. In addition to raising taxes, Obamacare raises spending—by about $2 trillion over a decade, per the CBO—at a time when the U.S. government is already almost $20 trillion in debt. The GOP plan would cut taxes even versus the pre-Obamacare status quo while saving hundreds of billions of dollars (and hopefully a trillion dollars or more) in spending versus Obamacare.

4. It would re-attract needed talent to the medical profession and thus improve the quality of care. Who, other than the truly committed few, would want to become a doctor under Obamacare’s regime of bureaucratic control over “health-care providers”? (Obamacare, which effectively bans the building or expanding of doctor-owned hospitals, doesn’t like to call such individuals “doctors.”)

5. It would stop Obamacare from being a vehicle for executive lawlessness. At practically every turn, the Obama administration has tweaked, altered, and even funded parts of Obamacare without congressional involvement. Three major casualties of Obamacare have been the rule of law, the separation of powers, and the Constitution.

6. It would stop Obamacare’s taxpayer funding of abortion. As the write-up for the GOP plan notes (citing the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office), insurance “plans that cover abortion are receiving federal taxpayer dollars under Obamacare.” Indeed, “California now requires all health insurance plans to cover abortion services.” Under the GOP plan, federal taxpayer dollars wouldn’t be allowed to fund abortions.

7. Even beyond these six ways, it would also lead to most Americans faring much better than under Obamacare. The exact dollar amounts of the GOP’s non-income-tested tax credits aren’t provided, but if they were to be the same as those called for by the 2017 Project, the Hudson Institute, Gillespie, Price, and Walker, most Americans of various incomes, ages, and family sizes would fare much better than under Obamacare. For example, the typical 36-year-old woman who makes $36,000 and buys her own insurance gets $0 under Obamacare, whereas she’d likely get something on the order of a $2,100 tax credit under the GOP plan (See the chart on page 9 of An Alternative to Obamacare for more detail on this point.) This overdue tax cut would be like $2,100 in her pocket.

Please understand–a Democratic President will not approve this plan. The changes made to ObamaCare have been laws not passed by Congress–the rules have been written by President Obama who has no constitutional authority to make those rules. Companies whose owners oppose abortion have been put out of business through executive orders. ObamaCare needs to go. It is expensive, unconstitutional and damaging to our republic. This is another reason the 2016 election is so important.

Holding On To Free Speech By A Thread

The Washington Examiner posted an article today about a recent vote by the Federal Election Commission.

The article reports:

Finally making good on long-harbored anger at conservative media, Democrats on the Federal Election Commission voted in secret to punish Fox News’ sponsorship of a Republican presidential debate, using an obscure law to charge the network with helping those on stage.

It is the first time in history that members of the FEC voted to punish a media outlet’s debate sponsorship, and it follows several years of Democratic threats against conservative media and websites like the Drudge Report.

The punishment, however, was blocked by all three Republicans on the commission, resulting in a 3-3 tie vote and no action.

The article further explains:

One of the candidates left out filed a complaint to the FEC, charging that Fox was essentially making a contribution to the 17 candidates by letting them have a voice in the debate.

CNN did the same thing, but there is no indication that they faced a complaint.

The quote “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty” is attributed to Thomas Jefferson. Regardless of who made the statement, the quote applies to today. There are Americans who want to take away our First and Second Amendment rights. We need to watch the votes in Congress and the Congressional appointments and remove those people from office at the first opportunity to vote.


How To Skew The Results Of A Poll

Yesterday The European Union Times posted an article about the latest Reuters Presidential Poll. The poll claims 47 percent of Americans support Hillary Clinton for President and 33 percent support Donald Trump for President.

The article states:

Reuters interviews 1201 respondents.
626 Democrats (52% of total)
423 Republicans (35% of total)
122 independents
30 other party.

That’s nearly 33 percent more Democrats than Republicans.

In reality Gallup reported in March that 46 percent of Americans are Democrats, and 40 percent are Republicans. Reuters freighted their poll with 20 percent more Democrats than Republicans.

Since the Reuters poll sampled more Democrats than all the others combined, we can safely say that Trump appears to be in much better shape than the poll suggests and could likely be headed to a landslide victory in November.

This is the equivalent of my polling 100 cat owners as to whether of not they like cats and concluding from the results that everyone likes cats. Obviously, that is not true. This sort of polling may explain why the polls showed that the vote on Brexit would be for Britain to stay in the European Union. Polls have become a political tool rather than an indication of how people think. People tend to want to be part of the majority, so all the pollsters have to do is convince the voters that a particular candidate the pollsters support is winning.

The Struggle To Get Your Message Out

The twisting and turning of the Obama Administration to avoid using the word terrorism is rather obvious. At times it borders on comedy. After the Orlando attack, the Department of Justice stated that we may never know the motive of the shooter (the fact that he called 911 and claimed to be doing the shooting for ISIS was somehow seen as irrelevant). According to Stephen Coughlin in his book Catastrophic Failure, “In October 2011, elements of the American Muslim Brotherhood wrote the White House demanding an embargo or discontinuation of information and materials relating to Islamic-based terrorism—even insisting on firings, “re-training,” and “purges” of officers, analysts, special agents, and decision-makers who created or made such materials available.” The White House complied. That purging of the truth when training the people who are supposed to protect us is a serious problem. The media has followed the lead of the White House. This move has not protected us, but it has caused an interesting change of strategy on the part of the terrorist leaders.

Yesterday the following was posted at National Review:

Lone wolf jihadists should target white Americans so no one mistakes their terror attacks for hate crimes unrelated to the cause of radical Islam, Al Qaeda writes in the latest edition of its online magazine.
In an article first reported by The Foreign Desk, Al Qaeda of the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) called for more self-directed Muslim terrorists to kill in America. But the article, titled “Inspire guide: Orlando operation,” tells terrorists to “avoid targeting places and crowds where minorities are generally found” because if gays or Latinos appear to be the targets, “the federal government will be the one taking full responsibility.
The headline of the article at National Review is, “Al Qaeda: Kill White People So the Left Doesn’t Screw Up the Narrative.”

The article states:
By attacking a gay club, Omar Mateen likely thought he’d chose the perfect target for illustrating his jihadist motivations. After all, ISIS and multiple other jihadist organizations are known for executing gays in particularly vile ways. But when the Left’s narrative collides with ISIS’s, the Left’s narrative wins — so a Muslim Democrat’s attack became an expression of Christian Republican hate. It was the most extraordinary perversion of truth that I’ve ever seen.

We will never defeat someone trying to destroy us if we refuse to name them.

What Goes Around Comes Around

The American Spectator posted an article today about the latest chapter in the ObamaCare saga. The article reminds us that the health insurance providers were initially supporters of ObamaCare. The article also reminds us that the insurance companies knew that they would not be able to make a profit under the rules of ObamaCare, but the plan was to have the taxpayers make up the loss.

The article reports:

In Christopher Marlowe’s Doctor Faustus, the sinful sawbones eventually thinks better of his bargain with the devil and does his best to weasel out of the deal. A number of health insurers, having made similarly cynical arrangements with the Obama administration, are now attempting to use the court system to escape the consequences of their cupidity. Knowing full well that they couldn’t make legitimate profits selling coverage through Obamacare’s exchanges, they relied on Democrat guarantees that their losses would be covered by the taxpayers. But a funny thing happened on the way to easy profits. Congress refused to appropriate the funds.

The insurance companies in question were told by the Obama administration that they could expect to have their bottom lines propped up by the “risk corridor” program. The magical thinking behind this boondoggle was that insurers enjoying big profits from Obamacare would pay into a pool from which less fortunate plans would be subsidized. In late 2015, however, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) announced that profitable insurers had paid in a mere $362 million while their unprofitable counterparts had requested $2.87 billion to cover their losses. Thus, the losers would be paid only 12.6 percent of their requests.

In 2012 the Republicans took over the House of Representatives and in 2014 they gained a majority in the Senate. The House of Representatives failed to appropriate the funds.

The article concludes:

…The performance of these Republicans has been disappointing in many ways. Still, by making the risk corridors budget neutral, they exposed the fundamental fiscal instability that defines Obamacare. This requirement was inserted largely due to a quiet effort by Senator Marco Rubio for which he has been savaged by the “news” media. The Washington Post, for example, described the Rubio contribution as follows: “a poison pill that is killing Obamacare from within.”

This is not an exaggeration. The restriction on using general funds to keep Obamacare afloat will drive the few remaining CO-OPs out of business and the remaining insurers out of the exchanges. Neither the Obama administration nor the congressional Democrats with whom they made their cynical deal can save them. In the end, the Devil will have his due.

The obvious answer here is to reintroduce the free market into health insurance. Let competition lower the cost. Create a risk pool for people with pre-existing conditions, much like the auto insurance industry does. Allow competition across state lines, and have the insurance follow the person so changing jobs is not a problem. Provide tax deductions for the cost of health insurance–if you don’t pay taxes, you don’t get the deduction. Also, take twenty-five-year-old adults off of their parents’ policies–it is time for them to take responsibility for themselves!

When Political Operatives Use The Legal System To Attack Their Opponents

When political operatives use the legal system to attack their opponents, we all lose. We have seen numerous examples of this in recent years. In 2002 House Majority Leader Tom Delay was charged with money laundering as part of a plan to redraw the Texas political map in 2002. He was finally cleared in 2014, thousands of dollars later. He also lost his position as House Majority Leader. Recently we saw the indictment of David Daleiden who took undercover videos exposing Planned Parenthood‘s selling of aborted baby body parts (later overturned).

Fred and Virginia Attorney General Bob McDonnell

Fred and Virginia Attorney General Bob McDonnell (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In January 2014, Former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell and his wife were indicted on federal corruption charges. Yesterday the Supreme Court ruled on the case.

Politico reported yesterday:

A unanimous Supreme Court has overturned the corruption convictions of former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, ruling that federal prosecutors relied on a “boundless” definition of the kinds of acts that could lead politicians to face criminal charges.

The decision from the eight-justice court could make it tougher for prosecutors to prove corruption cases against politicians in cases where there is no proof of an explicit agreement linking a campaign donation or gift to a contract, grant or vote.

If you read the details of the case, there was definitely some sleazy behavior there, but the actions of Governor McDonnell were not illegal under Virginia law. Also, note that this was a unanimous decision by the Supreme Court. That is rare.

Our political system has become toxic. It is time for all Americans to do their own research and draw their own conclusions. When you see the media gang up on a candidate or office holder, don’t believe anything you hear. This is an election season, and nothing should be a surprise. When you read in the mainstream media that the Trump campaign is being run by aliens that Donald Trump meets with in Dennis Kucinich‘s back yard, pay close attention–the media has an ulterior motive.

I Am Nonplussed!

The Aspen Times posted an article today that totally amazes me. If someone can email me and tell me this is a hoax, I will actually be happy.

The article reports:

“If taxpayers didn’t pay for my housing, I couldn’t afford to live in Aspen. I’d have to live 20 minutes away and commute to my Aspen office.”

The person who spoke those words gets a $2 million house here in Aspen. Under the city’s “affordable housing” lottery, taxpayers pay 80 percent to 90 percent of the cost for people making as much as $186,000 a year. Some of that subsidy is paid for by people making, oh, about $34,000 a year.

The words quoted above were her defense of that scheme. In short, she says the scheme is good because it’s good for her.

It is one of the great ironies of our time that socialists no longer promote socialism as beneficial to society. Instead, they promote it as beneficial to themselves personally.

As in, “Let’s forgive student loans so that I don’t have to repay mine.” And, “Let’s raise taxes on everyone who makes more than I do.” And, “Let’s use taxpayer money to buy multimillion-dollar houses in resort towns for the upper middle class because I want one.”

Maybe it’s time to officially change the name from “socialism” to “selfish-ism.”

It gets worse:

Speaking of cronyism and conflicts of interest among the “in” crowd, what are the ethical implications of City Council members who are living in taxpayer-subsidized housing making decisions to route additional taxpayer money to those houses?

For their sake, I hope those City Council members have an ironclad legal opinion on the legality and ethics of their conflict of interest. And I hope it’s not an opinion that compounds the conflict. By that, I mean it had better be an opinion from an independent lawyer and not one written at taxpayer expense by their subordinates in the City Attorney’s Office.

Wow. I think they need a new City Council!

Does This Surprise Anyone?

This story is from last year, but in view of recent events, I thought it might be a good idea to post it.

On August 30, 2015, Breitbart.com posted an article about a study conducted by the University of Chicago Crime Lab. Oddly enough, the inmates in the Cook County jail said that they get their guns on the streets from “personal connections” rather than outlets like gun shows and the Internet.

The article reports:

According to the Chicago-Tribune, Crime lab co-director Harold Pollack said the study shows that “some of the pathways [regarding guns] people are concerned about don’t seem so dominant.” He said very few inmates indicated using gun shows or the internet. Rather, they get the guns in undetectable ways on the street. He said the inmates know they run the risk of being caught by police but “were less concerned about getting caught by the cops than being put in the position of not having a gun to defend themselves and then getting shot.”

The vast majority of the inmates used handguns to commit their crimes or protect themselves, very few cited using “military-style assault weapons.” And they said their habit was to get rid of a gun after one year because of the “legal liability” of being caught with a gun that could be linked to crimes they or others committed.”

As for specifics regarding sources for purchasing guns, some of the inmates indicated that gangs have individuals with a Firearm Owners Identification Card who buy guns then sell them to gang members. Others indicated using “corrupt cops” who seize guns then “put them back on the street.”

None of the measures proposed by the Democrats to limit gun sales would have made a difference to these inmates–they would still be able to get guns. The Democratic sit-in was an attempt to manipulate the American voters. We are idiots if we fall for that attempt.

This Is A Rather Incredible Coincidence

What you are about to read is a rather tangled story, but it is relevant to today’s events. In October 2015, The Daily Beast reported that Ng Lap Seng, a mega-rich Chinese national, had been arrested.

The article reports:

Ng Lap Seng is charged with conspiracy to bribe a United Nations official. In the ’90s he funneled $1 million to the DNC and the Clinton-Gore ticket.

…Ng being the mega-rich Chinese national who used a proxy to pour more than $1 million into the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton-Gore campaign back in 1996. Scandal was joined by embarrassment when it turned out that Ng had been favored with 10 visits to the White House, including an elevator ride with Hillary Clinton.

…The complaint charges Ng and an assistant named Jeff Yin with “Conspiracy to Obstruct the Function of and to Make False Statements to United States Customs and Border Protection.” Ng was arrested when he was about to board one of a $30 million fleet of private planes for a flight home. He was sporting a gold and diamond watch said to be worth $200,000. He had three cellphones and 20 credit cards.

…The FBI offered at least a partial answer on Tuesday with a second criminal complaint, this one charging Ng and Yin with “Conspiracy to Bribe a United Nations Official.”

The UN official being John Ashe, one-time president of the General Assembly and still the permanent representative from Antigua and Barbuda.

The complaint alleges that the Chinese billionaire paid Ashe at least $500,000 in bribes to use “his official position to obtain for Ng potentially lucrative investments in Antigua.”

On June 23, 2016, Fox News posted the following:

Former U.N. General Assembly President John Ashe of the twin-island Caribbean nation of Antigua and Barbuda died on Wednesday in the United States as he was facing criminal charges in a bribery case. He was 61.

Ashe died at his home in Dobbs Ferry, New York, according to Sgt. Vincent Ingani, of the Dobbs Ferry Police Department. He gave no other details.

Current U.N. General Assembly President Mogens Lykketoft confirmed his death, saying Ashe died of a heart attack.

…Ashe was a former U.N. ambassador from Antigua and Barbuda who served in the largely ceremonial post of president of the 193-nation assembly from September 2013 to September 2014.

He was accused last year by U.S. federal authorities of turning the position into a “platform for profit” by accepting more than $1 million in bribes.

The alleged conspiracy involves six others including a billionaire Chinese real estate mogul, two diplomats and a humanitarian organization officer.

Ashe pleaded not guilty to the charges and his lawyer had said he would be vindicated. It wasn’t clear how Ashe’s death would affect the bribery case.

It is amazing how many people involved in legal or financial dealings with the Clintons wind up in jail or dead.

Sometimes You Don’t Have To Wait Too Long For The Truth To Come Out

Over the weekend, I  read a couple of news stories about a petition to hold a second vote on Britain’s exit from the European Union (EU). I was somewhat concerned, because I understand that there are some globalists who will do pretty much anything to hold on to their power. I did see a comment on one story from someone who admitted that he had signed the petition illegally, so I wondered. Well, today I have my answer.

Yesterday Townhall posted a story about the petition to hold another Brexit vote. Evidently the person whose comment I read was not the only person who voted illegally.

The story reports:

LONDON, United Kingdom – Pro-European spammers have fooled the British establishment into believing a million people a day have signed a petition to hold a second referendum on Brexit. The petition demands the referendum rules are retrospectively changed forcing a second vote on Britain’s membership of the EU.

But doubts were raised about the authenticity of those signing after evidence that a code was being used emerged.

It shows how the petition website was tricked into registering millions of ‘signatures’ from people who do not exist.

Further questions were raised over the petition after analysis showed that just 353k of the nearly 3 million signatures were from the UK. A total of 3000 were reported to be from Vatican City, a country with a population of just 800.

Most UK national newspapers reported on the petition today, seemingly unaware of the fraud. Both the Sunday Telegraph and Mirror put the story on the frontpage.

The Independent has run multiple stories on the subject, at one stage crowing that the website kept crashing.

Let’s watch and see how long it takes for the British (and American) media to report this.

I Wish The Media Would Get The Facts Right

I just watched Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace. I was a bit disappointed. Chris Wallace is generally a fairly even-handed newsman, but today he was not. He interviewed a Newt Gingrich about Donald Trump’s campaign and then a campaign spokesman for Hillary Clinton’s campaign. The interviews were not at all even-handed. First of all, I like Newt Gingrich, and I respect him, but I have watched the mainstream media tear him down long enough to know that he may not be the best spokesman for Donald Trump–Newt Gingrich is a brilliant man, but his image needs repairing. Just the choice of Newt Gingrich to be interviewed to speak for Donald Trump is questionable. I am sure there were other choices. It was obvious that the Clinton spokesperson had not properly rehearsed his lines. He stumbled quite a few times when answering basic questions about Hillary’s honesty and other issues. Chris Wallace let most of those things slide, but when it came to questioning Newt Gingrich, Chris Wallace claimed that the statement that Hillary Clinton went to bed during the Benghazi attack was false. The record shows otherwise.

The Gateway Pundit posted an article today about Chris Wallace’s interviews on Fox News Sunday.

The article reports:

FOX News Sunday host Chris Wallace defended Hillary Clinton today like the rest of the liberal media from Donald Trump’s attacks this week.

Wallace said Hillary did not go home and sleep during the Benghazi attack – parroting what the rest of the media has been reporting this week.

The fact is Hillary Clinton DID GO HOME AND SLEEP during the Benghazi attacks and there are records to prove it.

According to official watch logs on September 11, 2012 during the Benghazi attack on the US consulate the first note of the attacks (not protest, another Hillary lie) was posted after 4 PM on that Tuesday afternoon. And Hillary Clinton was home by 10:30 PM as US forces continued to come under attack at the CIA complex in Benghazi.

…There were no official records of any activity by Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama after 10:30 that night. No calls to the Defense Department, no calls to the State Department, no calls to officials in Libya. Hillary was at home and in bed.

Before she went home though she plotted with Obama to blame the attack on a YouTube video – while the annex was still under attack!

The next morning Hillary and Barack blamed a YouTube video for the attack when she knew it was a terrorist attack.

This is what Donald Trump is up against. If voters are paying attention to facts, he will probably win this election. If voters are depending on the mainstream media for their information, Hillary Clinton will be President. That will not be good for the country.


Another Terrorist Released From Guantanamo

On Thursday The Washington Free Beacon reported that Abdel Malik Ahmed Abdel Wahab Al Rahabi, Osama Bin Laden’s personal bodyguard, has been released from Guantanamo Prison Camp and sent to Montenegro. Montenegro is a southeastern European country on the Adriatic Sea.

The article reports:

The release was condemned by some in Congress who have opposed the administration’s efforts to shutter Gitmo.

“The administration is playing Russian roulette with America’s safety by releasing 9/11-plotter Abdel Malik Ahmed Abdel Wahab Al Rahabi from Gitmo,” Sen. Mark Kirk (R., Ill.) said in a statement. “Rahabi’s transfer abroad is all the more alarming after terrorist Ibrahim al-Qosi resurfaced in December 2015 in the Arabian Peninsula as the top recruiter for al Qaeda after being transferred from Gitmo to Sudan.”

President Obama’s continuing release of terrorists from Guantanamo poses a risk to our soldiers serving in the Middle East and elsewhere. Congress needs to stand up to the President on this and prevent the further release of terrorists.

Arming The Enemies of America

The Daily Signal posted an article yesterday about one of the consequences of the nuclear treaty with Iran. The treaty paved the way for a transaction that was very profitable for Boeing Aircraft. The treaty got through Congress because both the Republicans and Democrats got something out of it. The American people and the American military, however, did not. The Democrats showed solidarity with their President. The Republicans rewarded Boeing, a major campaign donor, with the lucrative contract to sell airplanes to Iran.

The article reports:

With the blessing of the Obama administration, Boeing Co. has negotiated the sale of a fleet of new jets to the world’s foremost state sponsor of terrorism.

The $17.6 billion deal between the aviation giant and the Islamic Republic of Iran was made possible by the lifting of economic sanctions against Tehran in January. It is a reckless piece of business that Congress must address.

Under terms of the memorandum of agreement, Boeing reportedly will supply 80 planes—including intercontinental jumbo jets—to state-owned Iran Air.

The carrier, according to the U.S. Department of Treasury, has been routinely commandeered by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and Iran’s Ministry of Defense and Armed Forces Logistics to transport rockets, missiles, and other military equipment, including materials and technologies with ballistic missile applications.

There is little doubt that the weapons transported by these planes will be used against American soldiers. We are funding our enemy.

The article concludes:

Boeing executives say the proposed sale is necessary to remain competitive against Airbus, the European aviation manufacturer that has struck a $27 billion deal with Iran for 118 planes. But that’s the same lame argument Boeing made in lobbying for reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank—from which Boeing was the top beneficiary of export subsidies.

The fact is, projected demand for commercial planes is forecast to rise for years to come, and both manufacturers are carrying huge backlogs that will take years to fulfill.

Rather than tweak the tax code, Congress should, at the very least, explicitly prohibit financing from the Export-Import Bank for the sale of Boeing planes (or any other product) to Iran.

Additional actions are needed as well. The administration has already increased the risk of yet more death and destruction by the terrorist state. Lawmakers should ensure that Boeing and other U.S. companies don’t become tools of Tehran.

It is time to clean house in Washington.

The Consequences

The Wall Street Journal posted an article today about Britain’s vote to leave the European Union. As many Americans are looking at their losses in the stock market today and wondering what is coming next, we all need to step back and take a deep breath.

The article reports:

The United Kingdom has always had Europe’s most robust democracy, and with Thursday’s vote to leave the European Union it has given its Continental peers a powerful example of the meaning of popular rule. Now we’ll see if the British have the wisdom to make the best use of their historic choice.

The article reminds us that Britain is the second largest and most dynamic economy in the European Union. The exit of Britain will probably cause more problems for the European Union than it does for Britain.

The article reminds us of some of the mistakes made by the European Union:

If the EU wants to prevent other countries from catching the Brexit bug, our advice is to avoid the temptation to punish the U.K. with an arduous renegotiation of terms for its re-entry into the common market. The perception of EU high-handedness is what alienates public opinion across the Continent. Brexit ought to be the wake-up call the EU needs to return to serving as a common market that encourages growth and competition, and not—as it has become since the late 1980s—an innovation-killing superstate obsessed with regulatory harmonization, tax hikes, green-energy dogma and anticompetitive antitrust enforcement.

People don’t vote to leave organizations that are well run and respect their freedom. The Brexit vote is the result of the actions of the European Union. It will be interesting to see if the European Union learns the lessons they need to learn before more countries exit.

It Just Keeps Dripping

Paul Mirengoff posted an article at Power Line today reporting major gaps in Hillary Clinton’s appointment calendar during her tenure as Secretary of State.

The article reports:

AP has identified at least 75 meetings that Hillary Clinton had with longtime political donors, Clinton Foundation contributors, and corporate and other outside interests that were not recorded (or not properly recorded) on her State Department calendar. AP identified the meetings by comparing her calendar with separate planning schedules supplied to Clinton by aides in advance of each day’s events.

In many cases, Clinton’s State Department calendar simply excluded the meeting altogether. On other occasions, the names of those with whom she met were omitted.

It seems clear that the omissions were made to obscure Clinton’s ties to tycoons and big donors. For example, in one omission, Clinton’s State Department calendar dropped the identities of a dozen major Wall Street and business leaders who met with her during a private breakfast discussion at the New York Stock Exchange in September 2009.

The first thing to notice here is that the search for this information was initiated by the Associated Press. Usually the press is supporting Hillary Clinton. Since the press tends to be aligned with the Democratic Party, this is an interesting development.

The article further reports:

AP had to go to court to pry from the State Department the records it needed to expose this latest example of Clinton’s lack of transparency and her ties to the wealthy.

The AP first sought Clinton’s calendar and schedules from the State Department in August 2013, but the agency would not acknowledge even that it had the material. After nearly two years of delay, the AP sued the State Department in March 2015.

The department agreed in a court filing last August to turn over Clinton’s calendar, and provided the documents in November. After noticing discrepancies between Clinton’s calendar and some schedules, the AP pressed in court for all of Clinton’s planning material.

The U.S. has released about one-third of those planners to the AP so far.

Is this a person we want in the White House?


Hypocrisy At Its Worst

In 2013, USA Today posted the results of a survey taken of members of Congress that owned guns. Oddly enough, many of those Democrats (26 or so) were involved in the sit-in protesting the fact that Congress was not willing to pass any laws impacting current gun laws. As I have previously mentioned, the Democrats filibustered two of the gun laws that were introduced, staged the sit-in, and used the sit-in as an opportunity to raise money. A website called Heatstreet has the full story.

We need to be very careful about passing any legislation that limits the Second Amendment rights of Americans. At a time when our borders are not secure and there are many people entering the country with ill intentions, Americans need to be trained in how and when to use firearms to protect themselves.

Keeping The Voters Uninformed

Hillary Clinton will probably be the Democratic nominee for President. If she is indicted, the ticket will probably be Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren. However, I doubt very seriously that Mrs. Clinton will face any serious charges for the corruption and mishandling of classified information that she is guilty of. A recent story at Breitbart illustrates how the news media will minimize the seriousness of some of Mrs. Clinton’s actions.

The story reports:

CNN Money’s “fact-checkers” Cristina Alesci and Laurie Frankel ended up with egg on their faces on Wednesday after they rated as “false” a well-established and proven Clinton Cash fact involving Hillary Clinton’s State Dept. approving the transfer of 20 percent of U.S. uranium to the Russian government, as nine investors in the deal funneled $145 million to the Clinton Foundation.

Under the guise of “fact-checking” Donald Trump’s Wednesday speech, Alesci and Frankel purported to verify whether “Clinton’s State Department approved the transfer of 20% of America’s uranium holdings to Russia while nine investors in the deal funneled $145 million to the Clinton Foundation.”

Well, I guess all fact-checkers are not created equal.

The article further reports:

Why Alesci and Frankel couldn’t confirm the $145 million in Clinton Foundation donations for themselves is curious. Indeed, in a 4,000-word front page story written over a year ago, the New York TimesPulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist Jo Becker and Mike McIntire verified the Clinton Cash uranium revelation in stunning detail, including charts and graphs laying out the flow of millions of dollars from the nine investors in the uranium deal who flowed $145 million to Hillary’s family foundation.

The article goes on to list a number of large donations to the Clinton Foundation from people who increased their wealth dramatically during Mrs. Clinton’s time as Secretary of State. Much of that increased wealth came from international business transactions that the State Department needed to sign off on. Unfortunately, a lot of the information contained in emails related to these transactions was on Mrs. Clinton’s private server and is missing. What an incredible coincidence.

The American voters are either unaware of this or our moral compass has become so enured to political corruption that no one cares. Either way, it is not good for our country.

About That Democratic Sit-In

There are a few background things all of us need to remember about the Democratic sit-in in the House of Representatives.

The Hill posted an article today about the fund raising efforts the Democrats are relating to the sit in.

The article reports:

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) sent a brief email shortly after the sit-in crossed into Thursday, signed by Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.)

“This is an historically important moment! John Lewis has been leading a sit-in on the House floor for 11 long hours now. We’re fighting to prevent gun violence,” the email reads. “The Republicans refuse to lift a finger. It’s shameful. I need your help to defeat them once and for all.”
The email asks for 6,000 donations and gives several options to donate amounts between $1 and $250. 
It was at least the sixth such email from the DCCC as the sit-in gained steam. Several were signed by Lewis, a civil rights leader and Georgia representative who has lead many of the demonstrations on the House floor. 

As usual, follow the money. But wait! There’s more!

The Democrats are complaining about the Republican filibuster of the two anti-Second Amendment gun bills the Democrats wanted to pass. What about the Democratic filibuster of the two common-sense gun bills the Republicans wanted to pass? (further details here) This is political theater aimed at the uninformed voter. Don’t be that uninformed voter.


Why Supreme Court Justices Matter

Theoretically the Supreme Court is the third part of the checks and balances in our Representative Republic. They are sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution and make decisions according to that Constitution. Unfortunately there are Americans who either do not understand the Constitution or choose to ignore it. Right now the Supreme Court is balanced four to four in terms of conservative and liberal interpretations of the law. The next President will have the responsibility of choosing the Justice that will decide cases involving gun rights, voting rights, medical care, religious freedom, and other important issues. A recent case illustrates how important the selection of the next Supreme Court Justice will be.

The Wall Street Journal posted an opinion piece on Tuesday about a recent Supreme Court decision. The case illustrates the problems police face when trying to keep us safe when dealing with the drug problem in America.

The piece reports:

The Supreme Court term is ending on a whimper of narrow decisions without Justice Antonin Scalia. But you wouldn’t know it from the overwrought progressive outrage after a 5-3 majority issued a common-sense ruling Monday concerning the so-called exclusionary rule for admitting evidence in criminal cases.

In Utah v. Strieff, police stopped Edward Strieff on his way out of a building after a tip that it was a drug-dealing location. After discovering an outstanding arrest warrant against Mr. Strieff, a police officer searched him and found methamphetamines and drug paraphernalia. Mr. Strieff claims the police lacked reasonable suspicion to stop him under the Fourth Amendment, so the evidence of his law-breaking should be dismissed.

The majority opinion was written by Justice Clarence Thomas and stated that the discovery of the outstanding arrest warrant required the police to arrest and thus search Mr. Strieff.

There was, however, a different opinion.

The article reports;

The outlier was Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who went off the deep end with an extended polemic about police misconduct, events in Ferguson, Mo., and race in America. “Although many Americans have been stopped for speeding or jaywalking, few may realize how degrading a stop can be when the officer is looking for more,” Justice Sotomayor wrote. And although Mr. Strieff is white, “it is no secret that people of color are disproportionate victims of this type of scrutiny.”

The Justice is getting huzzahs on the left, but her opinion is troubling for her insistence on dragging racial politics into a case that had nothing to do with race. This dissent continues her habit of wandering far from the law or precedent to decide cases based on her personal political and policy views. Her colleagues showed more judicial wisdom.

There are a few things to note here. Mr. Strieff was leaving a place where it was suspected drugs were being sold. Didn’t the police have a responsibility to investigate a tip about a location where drugs were being sold? Shouldn’t that investigation include stopping people leaving that location? If there was an outstanding arrest warrant for Mr. Strieff, didn’t the police have an obligation to arrest him? It is very possible that I am naive, but I believe that Mr. Strieff would have been treated the same way regardless of what color he is. Everything is not about race, and in the majority of cases, police are merely attempting to keep our communities safe and free from illegal drugs and the crime that goes with the drug trade. Bringing race into a situation where it is not relevant only divides Americans–it does not help us solve our problems.

Punishing Little Boys For Being Little Boys

Yesterday Breitbart reported on a court case in Anne Arundel County, Maryland, located near Washington, D.C. and Baltimore, Maryland. The case was an appeal of a case involving a second grade boy who was suspended from school in March 2013 after chewing his pastry into the shape of a gun and “[pretending] to fire it.” The boy’s father took the case to court with the hope that the suspension would be reversed and removed from the child’s school record.

The article reports:

But WJZ 13 reports that an Anne Arundel County circuit judge upheld the suspension, ruling that Joshua’s actions were “disruptive.”

Anne Arundel County Schools reacted to the ruling by releasing a statement which said, “We have believed from the outset that the actions of the school staff were not only appropriate and consistent, but in the best interests of all students.”

Welch family attorney Robin Ficker lamented the ruling and pointed out there was “no violence, no real weapon, no ammunition.” But the suspension will now “be on [Joshua’s] record in school… every time he goes into a new grade.”

I believe our educators have lost their collective minds. I wonder if he would have been suspended had he just pointed his index finger and pretended it was a gun. If you combine the fact that this incident will follow the child through school with the data mining that is part of Common Core, you realize that the report of this action will also follow the child into the workplace–with or without the details. So we have a second grader branded for life as a troublemaker because he acted like a little boy. That is child abuse.